Template talk:COI editnotice/Archive 1

Request for Comment

This template originally emerged from an Idea Lab post, where several ideas related to COI were brought up and this one appeared to gain the most traction. It has since evolved as a result of thorough discussion and editing. The recent AfD results seem to suggest people feel it is a helpful template. The idea is to boil down WP:COI into just a few sentences and beam some straightforward instructions/advice directly to the article, where PR people are looking.

There are two issues that appear to need more discussion:

1. Should this be an edit-notice for company articles or a Talk page template?
2. Should it be added to all company articles or just those that show problematic COI behavior?
3. Also, any other thoughts/suggestions/discussion

Amendment: Should it be added to the Talk page AND as an editnotice? CorporateM (Talk) 16:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC) (PR guy and frequent COI contributor)

Discussion

As RfC initiator:

1. Edit-notice as I find that many of my PR colleagues are not aware that there is a Talk page

2. All articles because almost any company article has a PR person at the very least looking at it and most have some indications of COI that could have been done more cautiously.

3. none

CorporateM (Talk) 16:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment (I may vote later—feel free to remind me) Why just company articles? The visible part of the template seems generic enough for other article types such as biographies (aimed at BLP subjects and families of deceased subjects), academic institutions (including schools) and indeed anywhere there might be a COI issue --Senra (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• I like this idea, I agree with Senra that it could be added to more articles, but for a starter having it added to all articles in Category:Companies or a subcat would be useful. Semi-protected pages have an area you can click to a basically pre-filled form for requesting an edit. I'd like to see that added to this. Ryan Vesey 17:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• • BLPs have a BLP template that says "If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page." This template was originally thought of as a way to mirror the success of the BLP template for companies, but the feedback we got drove it to focus on the COI side of things, rather than on fair representation. Ryan - that's brilliant. I'll have to look into how they do that. I would love to have a wizard like AfC does, but it is beyond my abilities to make one. CorporateM (Talk) 18:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
    • BLP's have a template, yes. In fact when you open an edit window on a BLP you get:

      This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.

    • which frankly is a bit wikilawyerie (is that a word?). Normal biographies do not get this message. The COI issue is far more widespread than BLP's and the proposed wording here is perfect --Senra (talk) 21:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• I think edit notices are more effective than talk page banners and have the additional effect of ensuring that potentially conflicted editors have definitely seen the message. I would limit it to organisations rather than just companies as charities, etc., have similar issues. QuiteUnusual ^TalkQu 18:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Support for edit notice on all company articles as proposed. I love the idea that this could be used on many more types of articles as per my comment above. To over-use a cliché, let's take baby steps first --Senra (talk) 22:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

(Reminder to myself mainly): I voted on this version of the template at this version of the RfC --Senra (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• It could be both an edit notice and a talk-page notice. Minor point: I'd change the title to something like "COI notice". "Extant organization" doesn't mean much, and if the organization weren't extant, it wouldn't have anyone representing it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The template is now moved and has a "click here" button, which preloads a {{request edit}} string with instructions per Ryan's idea. It now needs word-smithing again. But I'll keep tweaking it and others are welcome to as well. A wizard for the request edit would be better, but not sure I would be able to pull that off. CorporateM (Talk) 04:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• !Vote

1. Both. Make it easy for involved editors to make a request.
2. Apply selectively wherever organization COI appears.

Jojalozzo 02:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• support option 1. It's worth remembering that at the moment we display BLP edit notices, 'you're logged out' edit notices, semi- and full-protect editnotices and localised editnotices. Adding another one, universally, is going to get us to the point where the actual edit window is pushed off the page. :/ Ironholds (talk) 05:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

It was actually three questions, as oppose to three options. CorporateM (Talk) 14:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

In that case, let me be more clear; I oppose any option which sees this as a standardised edit notice. I also think this RfC should be advertised a lot more widely than it is - it isn't a question of economics it's a question of policy, ultimately. Ironholds (talk) 18:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Based on the discussion, I'm thinking edit-notice + Talk page template, as it's done with BLPs, for all articles on "organizations." Afterwards I might start a second RfC on the contents of the notice itself and of the pre-filled "click here" button. CorporateM (Talk) 16:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• As a template, I see it handy enough. I see what Ironholds is saying, I often go to article talk pages that have so many notices, they don't get noticed, so you end up diluting them. But if used in conjunction with a talk page notice, and only used on articles where there is a problem, I see it as second reminder to persuade COI to use more caution or just use the talk page. To me, the real problem is that if every COI editor used the talk page, we couldn't handle responding to the load. Eventually, enwp is going to need a board to filter and add requested additions by COI editors if something like this is going to work. Obviously, a sizable minority want to ban COI editing outright and there is no consensus on how to handle them. I don't see this band-aid hurting anything, but not sure how effective it will be either. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

  Note that my objection is not to this as a talkpage notice - it's to having it as an editnotice. Ironholds (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

  Ah, that is a different thing, and I understand your reasoning. editnotices can be annoyingly space consuming as you point out, so pithy is best. I really don't know how effective they are either. Honestly, I am more likely to see the talk page notice than edit page notice, but I don't claim to be typical in this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

  It would be interesting to conduct some tests on this; perhaps you could ask me in my official capacity? :). Ironholds (talk) 22:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

   Done I really have no idea how this can be tested objectively, but then again, that is your specialty and not mine. Do keep me in the loop please, I really think that if you found some definitive info, it would benefit everyone here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure proxy-editing is scalable. I would see Request Edit done at-scale as more of an approval cycle. The volunteer only needs to validate whether the request is "an improvement" than give the "go-ahead" by adding a G to the template ({{Request Edit|G}}), except on high-profile controversies that may warrant more attention. I processed about 20 Request Edits and I would gander about 75% were obvious declines. If we had 100 Request Edits a day, I think that would be excellent, both because we could accept good content and prevent bad content from ever being posted.

But honestly, it's not an enjoyable job and I may see why folks have not been managing the queue. Many COIs are argumentative and bitter and not pleasant to work with. CorporateM (Talk) 19:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

That is an understatement. I've found a large minority to be pleasant and genuinely trying to conform to standards. We've both found others who are simply hired guns and could give a shit less, using a throwaway acccount. For those, notices aren't going to be effective no matter what they say. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Yup. I would say good-faith is a matter of process, instructions and education - bad-faith is a matter of detection, which this won't do much for. There's a bigger grey area between good and bad-faith than most editors think as well. But I would also bet we would see more good-faith participation if companies didn't feel like it was something that had to be hidden - that a dubious path is the only one available. CorporateM (Talk) 22:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

On that point, you and I agree. Again, that doesn't address paid editors, but it does cover employees of companies. Providing a clear path to contribute both ethically and successfully is the key. Right now, it is too complicated and without a clear policy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I hope i'm not too late to contribute, RFC Bot left me the notification of this overnight last night. Anyway, for 1. I would say that it should definitely be fit for an article page, for 2. I would personally say that it should go on the pages of smaller companies because they are more likely to have staff trying to use WP to advertise, however out of the two options I would say those that show COI Behaviour would definitely prove more beneficial, after all that's why we have the 'user so and so has a COI' template right? Nothing for 3. MIVP - (Can I Help?) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 09:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• I was asked about this a little while ago, and my view at the time was that its use as an edit notice had the effect of marginalizing what remains acceptable behavior: neutral editing directly on the article. I still support the principle that anyone may edit directly if they edit properly. Unfortunately, experience has shown that a high percentage -- perhaps even the majority -- of COI editors do not edit properly, and the only general advice that we could in fairness give an editor is that the only safe method is to use the talk page. This is therefore useful as an edit notice.

I would prefer to use it for all organizations, not just companies. I find the company pr less difficult to deal with than that of other organizations. But I think its application to such a large number of articles at once would cause too great a problem in monitoring it; we should either pick a set of known problems, or start with an arbitrary but smaller group, such as companies in a particular state.

As for the wording, it should be exactly like the semi-protected notice -- pure routine, whose purpose is to make a list to follow up . Then we can see if we do in fact follow up, because if not, it's worse than useless--users not being satisfied with the procedure will ignore it. DGG ( talk ) 02:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

And your thoughts on the problem that users are going to be presented with 3 or potentially 4 edit-notices, and may simply switch off? Ironholds (talk) 06:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if it would be possible to add it only to org pages that are not semi-protected/protected. A lot of the worst PR editing is from aloof IPs and semi-protected pages have a much better chance of being closely watched. If it's not semi-protected, it would only be the second edit-notice after copyrights for most of the articles. CorporateM (Talk) 12:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you think of an automatic way to identify protection status? Ironholds (talk) 14:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It would need to be applied to Category:Organizations, except where it is also in Category:Wikipedia semi-protected pages or Category:Wikipedia protected pages. For the trial, we could use something like Category:Advocacy groups being that I would suspect they would be some of the worst offenders. I'm not sure how complicated our bots can get on applying to a category except where another category also exists. Seems simple enough though. CorporateM (Talk) 15:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure, if you can find someone to write the bot ;p. Ironholds (talk) 13:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Yah, ok, if someone would have to write a bot, lets just throw that one out and take the path of least resistance - I changed it to a Talk template. I totally see your point. Right now if you go to edit Barack Obama, the edit-notices take up half the browser. CorporateM (Talk) 13:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• At this time, I support option #1 to utilize an edit notice. Some company articles are very well developed, and mass-placement of the bright-orange Template:COI editnotice template on all company articles in main namespace may give the impression of article inferiority. However, perhaps it should be utilized for a limited amount of time for articles that receive obvious COI editing. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Content of template

The current template says:

"are expected not to edit this article without permission."

Other options may be "required," "encouraged," "may," "should consider," "exercise caution," and possible qualifiers like "generally." Any thoughts? CorporateM (Talk) 17:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi CM, if this is to be used anywhere, it can't contradict the guideline, which is at WP:NOPAY (part of COI). I've therefore removed that they can edit with permission (not least because no one's in a position to give that permission) and I've linked to the relevant guideline section. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a broader topic that must be resolved generally before this template can be used specifically, but in all likelihood the issue will never be resolved. Plenty of editors I talk to don't support the BrightLine at all and WP:COI was changed despite a lack of consensus in the RfC and a lot of comments opposing it. The same could be said for COI+, which is pointed to as if it's policy, though there is no consensus, however there is no consensus anywhere for anything - so what are we suppose to do?

If the BrightLine is policy, we need to start blocking thousands of editors, including myself. I made this edit where I have a COI. Now that I've pointed it out, will you try to get me blocked or report me to COIN?

However, I think the BrightLine can be enforced in a selective way. If someone violates NPOV, they should be asked to follow it and not following it after being instructed should be a blockable offense. Since the PR industry as a whole has violated NPOV often enough, we are justified in asking the industry as a whole to follow it, but in practice, at the individual level, the principle that it's the edit that counts will always hold water, as well as the diversity of how each volunteer prefers to work with COIs and the range of circumstances on the articles they edit, etc. CorporateM (Talk) 15:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi CM, you wrote above: "WP:COI was changed despite a lack of consensus in the RfC and a lot of comments opposing it." I don't know which change you mean. The "very strongly discouraged" language has been there for a long time. The "you are advised to avoid editing" language not so long, but it's still not that recent:

March 2013: "If you have a financial connection to a topic (as an employee, owner or other stakeholder), you are advised to refrain from editing articles directly ..."

December 2012: "If you have a financial interest in a topic (either as an employee, owner or other stakeholder) it is advised to provide full disclosure of your connection, and to use the "discussion" pages to suggest changes ... rather than editing articles directly."

December 2011: "If you have a financial interest in a topic (either as an employee, owner or other stakeholder) it is advised to provide full disclosure of your connection, and to use the "discussion" pages to suggest changes ... rather than editing articles directly."

To the best of my knowledge, there is strong consensus on Wikipedia against paid advocacy. There are Wikipedians who don't mind some forms of paid editing (e.g. Wikipedians being paid by museums) and other forms of COI (people close to a subject sharing their expertise), but neither of those constitute paid advocacy. The whole discussion of this has (at times deliberately) clouded those issues to make it appear that there is no consensus against paid advocacy. But there is and always has been. If our readers start to believe that multinational X is editing its own content, then we'll lose whatever trust they have in us. In addition, it might be illegal in Europe, according to the recent German ruling. So for both those reasons, it's a violation of the COI guideline.

It has never made any sense to say "the edits count, not the editor," because in a lot of cases, we're not in a position to judge whether the edits are neutral without doing a lot of research. Therefore, we rely on the idea that volunteers (with and without POVs on the subject) will do their best to follow NPOV. Paid advocates can't follow NPOV. If the PR person for a contentious company were to follow NPOV, they'd be sacked. So, because they have that external relationship that interferes with (and in fact overrules) their responsibilities to Wikipedia, they're asked not to edit affected articles. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

CM, don't you think you have a COI in trying to change the wording of this? If you disagree with the current wording, then use the wording from NOPAY. But whatever this says, it can't be weaker than NOPAY because that's the guideline. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It looks like WP:COI currently says "very strongly discouraged from direct article editing." Ugh, I don't like "discouraged" but if that is what WP:COI uses, we should follow suite. In another spot it says "advised." "Expected" was my preferred language there. CorporateM (Talk) 04:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

NOPAY is the part of COI that deals with this, and it says: "If you have a financial connection to a topic (as an employee, owner or other stakeholder), you are advised to refrain from editing articles directly ..."

"Expected not to" is fine with me. That's the wording I went back to. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like it should be "advised," unless/until firmer language is added to WP:COI. When this template is contested, we should be able to say it mirrors WP:COI exactly, and any criticisms should be taken up there. CorporateM (Talk) 04:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Tweaked according to your note on my talk page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Trials

First person I've seen that clearly used the template.[1] CorporateM (Talk) 14:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Name of template?

Any thoughts on changing the name (again)? Seeing as it will most likely be a Talk template rather than an edit-notice. Maybe Template:COIAdvice? CorporateM (Talk) 05:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)