Wikipedia talk:COI+/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

RFC draft comments

I would go with broader strokes here:

• Should a COI+ certification exists, whereby marketing professionals may voluntarily agree to uphold our principles and follow a more stringent set of guidelines as a means to establish a respected position within the community?
• Should we guarantee those that participate civility and AGF?
• Should we offer a timeline, where COI requests that go unanswered on the Talk page, COIN board and OTRS ticket over a 1 month time period are allowed to directly edit?

These aren't very good questions, but you get the drift. By doing a copy/paste from the project space above of very detailed and prescriptive items, it makes it appear as though you are seeking approval, rather than a genuine brainstorm.

I might take you in a different direction entirely. As Wikipedia matures it has established a variety of relationships with real-world entities - corporations are one of those it needs a relationship with. Perhaps what we need is a guideline for corporate participation on Wikipedia, COI being just one aspect of that. Corporate 21:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I am seeking comment on this document specifically. It's not merely another COI RfC which has been done already twice with no clear consensus. So I am asking about this proposed protocol as written, whether people would support it or want to change it. Having people comment on the actual text of the document allows them to draw their own conclusions from it and respond to the text as it would be presented to COI editors and others in the community. This is a targeted approach to dealing with corporate editors; I'm not sure I understand what you are referring to about Corporate editors that is not covered by conflict of interest (for example, WP:PSCOI and WP:COI+). Could you give some examples? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 22:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Some companies have corporate social responsibility programs regarding improving Wikipedia articles in their sector, where their COI is not as significant. Some have huge archives of professionally shot photos they could contribute to Wikipedia under a free license, which offers promotional opportunities for them by making the photos easier to distribute and use (including by Wikipedia) but there is no COI in merely donating them to commons. Analyst firms, media publications and bloggers may want to contribute in a manner that is only a self-citation COI to improve the coverage of their respective sectors. Perhaps you could bucket these all under COI in various shades of grey, but just as you could bucket all editors as having a COI of some sort. There are substantive ways for companies to contribute besides their own articles that we should actually encourage. Corporate 23:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's an example. A large financial institution sells a complex product to consumers we'll call "XYZ financial derivatives." Their biggest business problem is that consumers don't understand the product they're trying to sell. This company is highly motivated to use Wikipedia to educate the market on their product category. They may have a specific angle as a vendor of a product, but the COI is not as significant.

Another one. Just recently I donated a bunch of images from a Fortune 100 company. Some of them are more COI than others, but in some instances we donated images with zero COI. Corporate participation on Wikipedia, no COI. Zippo. Especially when it comes to donating images, these are things we should encourage companies to do, without all the warnings and cautions of COI. Corporate 23:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Even a company with a CSR program would fall under COI if they were editing or submitting content related to their company/product/field/competition. Donation of photos is a good counterexample but images would most likely be donated at Commons not Wikipedia and even then it'd be important that the captions were neutral if they were going to be used on WP. In short, I am curious about what a wholesale Corporate guideline would look like but this page simply has a more specific scope than that. It's for conflict of interest principles and best practices. One thing at a time, I think, starting with the most significant piece of the puzzle. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 00:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Response timeline

I've clarified and streamlined the response timeline a bit. Before it was 2 days for talk pages + 1 week for noticeboards + 1 month for OTRS. I think it's much cleaner if that all runs concurrently and it's just 1 month total from the first post to any forum. There's still the recommended hierarchy of talk pages first, then noticeboards, then OTRS, but it avoids the awkward 1 month and 9 days trigger and instead sets it at just 1 month. I don't see a significant difference between them and it's much more intuitive. You have 3 options that can take up to 1 month to resolve... Ocaasi ^{t | c} 16:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a need for good judgement. COIs should not wait 1 month before correcting revenue numbers, spelling, grammar, adding citations or other janitorial edits. They should wait zero minutes.

On the other hand, there may be scenarios where a PR person is ignored because they have repeatedly offered poor content and volunteers have chosen not to spend their time there or where a lack of consensus resulted in a lack of action. A consensus on a high-profile controversy cannot be put on a month timer, but the current timeline is a good middle-of-the-road for most scenarios. I have an article that has been on the Talk page for about 9 months, reviewed 4 times and it would be acceptable for me to move it into article-space if I chose to.

I like to absorb everyone's POV on COI and sort of mix them together in a mental pot and one thing I feel I've absorbed is the need for reasonable judgement, which is why COI will always be a matter of guidance rather than policy. Corporate 21:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe the response timeline covers the exceptions you raised regarding mere factual updates/errors, spelling/grammar/etc. Please double-check the bullets underneath the timeline table. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 18:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Quick question

Has this proposal been discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)? Keφr (talk) 17:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I posted a link there to it about a week and a half ago. We had an uptick in comments around that time, but it was also promoted elsewhere. Do you think we should actually present the agreements on the page and let people comment on it, or was it enough to just direct them here? Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it was enough. I was just concerned that you might be organising and agreeing on something with a small group of editors, something which might not be actually accepted by the larger editing community. But if you actually try to reach out with your proposal, it's okay. Though I can't find you doing that in your contribution list. Care to find a diff? Keφr (talk) 09:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Since one of the standard arguments against any proposal is that it wasn't advertised well enough (i.e., well enough that the opponent defeated it), it might be a good idea to keep a complete list of such notices. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is the link to the RFC posted in July. There was only one comment, which appears to be somewhat of an oppose, however I tend to think silence is often a nod of agreement. People are more likely to speak up when they disagree. Corporate 00:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

For something of this scope and especially in a controversial area, I believe we need more than silence even if it it was implicit agreement. There's a nice essay on this: Wikipedia:SILENCE, which wisely acknowledges that silence is the weakest form of consensus. I'm aiming for a higher bar of support. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 00:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems Keφr has raised a good issue. Corporate 12:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

RfC design

I would like to have an RfC about COI+. I'd like to hear some feedback about what question would be asked. For example, should this be made into a guideline, a companion to WP:COI, a simple support/oppose vote, changes/suggestions, etc. What would the RfC be gauging exactly. This is very important now because major PR organizations are expressing serious interest in promoting or endorsing this document and we need to make sure the community is comfortable with it. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• I support an RfC. While this has been a fine effort so far, it should not be a forgone conclusion that it will be acceptable to the WP Community. ```Buster Seven Talk 23:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

  What question do you think the RfC should specifically ask? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 18:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Reply to SlimVirgin's changes

Hi Slim. Sorry to undo your changes but I would like major differences in content and tone to be run by other editors on the talk page. In particular, I want to emphasize that despite a 2009 RfC and a 2012 RfC, banning paid editing has never gained consensus and WP:COI only strongly discourages COI editing, it doesn't explicitly prohibit, especially where it is neutral and compatible with our core polices and goals. The response timeline goes out of its way to avoid COI editing and only leaves direct editing for anything substantial as a fallback should the community thoroughly fail to respond to constructive suggestions in a remotely timely fashion. It's important that this document has community support as well as the backing from paid editors, PR groups, and corporations. Please, let's talk about how to make that happen. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, see below. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Objections

Ocaasi, the problem with the proposal is that you haven't allowed others to edit it (others who disagree), and much of it contradicted the policies and guidelines the page said it did not want to contradict. If you want this to become a guideline you have to allow others to edit it, with the aim of producing something that (a) all can agree on; (b) that is consistent with current policies, guidelines and best practice; (c) isn't redundant; and (d) doesn't cause more confusion around the COI issue. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

A second objection is that you are confusing COI, paid editing and paid advocacy, and rolling them all into one. Paid advocacy is a subset of paid editing, which is a subset of COI. There is strong consensus that paid advocates should not edit articles if they are being paid to edit them, or paid in general to be advocates for that topic area. There is less consensus about paid editing in general, and less consensus still over COI. It seems to be that in conflating the three, the proposal is trying to apply the lack of consensus regarding COI and paid editing to paid advocacy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The more I look at this, the more confusing it becomes, because of the conflation of the three issues:

1. COI editing (which could mean having a relative who wrote a book, and now you're editing an article about that book; this is often harmless and depends on how close the relationship is, and how notable the book);
2. paid editing (which could mean being paid by Cambridge University to write a warts-and-all history, which would not be a bad thing); and
3. paid advocacy (being paid directly to promote particular topics or points of view, against which there is a strong consensus).

Which group is this proposal aiming at? It's important to be precise, because the advice will change depending on which group you're addressing. The reality is that much or most paid editing ends up being paid advocacy, but nevertheless there are editors who fall into 1 and 2, but not 3. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

COI editing is a major issue that appears largely unaddressed. Lots of people have nationalistic tendencies that create an inherent conflict of interest when their primary purpose on the project is to promote a nationalistic viewpoint at the expense of neutrality and verifiability. Other people with vested interests that create inherent conflicts also appear to not be included, including religious people who believe they are called to be advocates at all times and in all they day. This sort of thing is conflict of interest editing is not found in here. Rather, the default assumption appears to be that paid editors are the only group with a COI, while failing to address a problem that impacts higher visibility articles and ones that are often the most contentious in trying to resolve. --LauraHale (talk) 01:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• I was asked to comment. I disagree altogether with the approach in "Make no direct changes to my clients' or competitors' articles; and make no direct changes to articles about my employer if I am employed in a PR or similar capacity, or could reasonably be seen to stand in a conflict of interest" As LauraHale says, many editors have some degree of COI in most of what they do, & the amateurs and zealots are ten times the trouble of the paid advocates. When asked to approve, if I review it, I am being asked to certify something I did not write or research: you are asking me to take responsibility for it & the only way I can do that is to redo the research from the start & rewrite completely ; thus the PR editors have in effect gotten me to do for them free the very work they are being paid for. If one accepts pay for writing WP, one must accept the responsibility of writing it according to the guidelines, just as any other editor. Therefore, I have stopped pre-approving articles or edits. I've asked off line the PR people who are my friends to stop requesting my approval, which is why you've seen me acting on no recent requests.

I support direct editing in almost all cases (except suggesting links to own's own pages or published articles, or dealing with negative or controversial information--and that applies to all editors. With direct editing, the people who do it right will have their work kept; the others will either learn or be removed.

If a policy like this were to be followed, any edit I might make in an approved article puts me in a conflict with my colleague who approved it, & the two of us end up arguing over the acceptability of a third person's work. It's much more productive to deal directly with the person who wrote the content, and the wiki was designed for this to be done in main space. (I have made an exception for AfC , but only because I consider the inexperience of the reviewers there to be an immediate hazard to the encyclopedia; what I do is give people the correct response & try to explain to the reviewer why their response was inadequate. And I'm not approving the content, just making an evaluation based on my experience at AfD that it probably is good enough to pass there .) DGG ( talk ) 03:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Ocassi, seeing SV's objections above, I suggest to you that if you do not want your proposal to be edited by the community, move it to your user space as a user essay. If it needs development, work on it there. Your refusal to accept her equal right to edit is just like what you are proposing: if I (or SV) want to modify something, we do not need to ask your approval. That's not WP & not open editing. If you do leave it here, I will do what I do everywhere on WP, which is to make whatever edits I choose to. You of course can revert, but you have no more privilege to dictate content than anywhere else in WP space. I shall start by adding what every proposal needs in it, a section to add opposes, not just a section to indicate support. Otherwise it gives the impression you are canvassing for support, like one does in a petition.

But I do see the problem that brings forth this essay--the fact that SV and I disagree 100% about what is accepted policy. And I see that you have entirely accepted her view on what at least the policy should be. But it is not an argument between just the two of you. My view is that the pillars are still valid, and should remain valid, and that everyone can edit, if they follow NPOV. Her view is that somehow this was reversed into every can edit except those who have a professional or business interest in the subject. As you say in the introduction to this, the community has several times refused to make that policy.So why propose it again in a more elaborate form? This is not a compromise, but ironically enough, a total and complete victory for the worst of the paid editors: they have forced us to destroy the essence of WP, open editing. That PR professionals are willing to sign on to this is a clear warning to us that this represents their interests, in being able to write acceptable advertising. they at least never believed in open editing--what they desire is permission to say what they want to say, and they see the proposed process here just like any of the normal business steps in approving the content of publicity material. They'll put up with us to tell their story. But a NPOV editor will tell it like it ought to be. I see one of the best of the paid editors says he thinks it impossible to do neutral editing with a coi. He's done it, though--not perfectly, but usually well enough. What he is essentially asking for is job security--that he will not run into the possibility of doing something that will get him ejected. But you and I have no such guarantee--what we have is the knowledge we will not be banned, provided we do things as we ought to. DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

From my perspective the Bright Line is a tool. Its mere existence eliminates its need.

I have spent hours fighting tooth and nail to convince a company to include 1 sentence about their layoffs or to balance an otherwise positive Reception section with those few drawbacks that are well-acknowledged in reliable sources - or dozens of hours maintaining a hard-line on neutrality in sensitive areas. The most important tool in my arsenal for convincing companies it's in their best interest to genuinely be neutral is the idea of preparing for approval by an impartial editor.

The Bright Line should not be seen as "regulation" but as a tool for stimulating alignment between Wikipedia's preferences and the company's best interest, as well as helping editors who find themselves in situations. Without it, I do not think I would be able to do COI in a manner I'm comfortable with. However, neither should the Bright Line be seen as a guarantee for safety.

Anyways, I would second the motion for user space. It was moved directly to main space and I won't edit it here, but would like to participate if it was in draft space. Corporate 16:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Laura, I agree that non-paid COI editing has not been addressed here. This proposal seeks to legitimize paid advocacy, but is calling itself COI+. That's the first point of confusion. If people want to draft a proposal and hold an RfC to legitimize paid advocacy (that is, formally welcome paid advocates to edit articles directly), it should be done in an upfront way so there are no misunderstandings about what the community is being asked to endorse.

DGG, there is strong community consensus against paid advocacy. This proposal states at the top that it is not intended to supplant WP:COI and that in the event of a contradition, the guideline holds sway. But WP:NOPAY (part of the COI guideline) says:

If you fit either of these descriptions:

1. you are receiving monetary or other benefits or considerations to edit Wikipedia as a representative of an organization (whether directly as an employee or contractor of that organization, or indirectly as an employee or contractor of a firm hired by that organization for public relations purposes); or
2. you expect to derive monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia; for example, by being an owner, officer, or other stakeholder of a company or other organization about which you are writing;

then you are very strongly discouraged to edit [sic] Wikipedia in areas where there is a conflict of interest that may make your edits non-neutral (biased). ... 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 (using the {{Request edit}} template to request edits) rather than editing articles directly.

If Ocassi (or anyone else) wants to change the COI guideline in such a fundamental way (as COI+ would), the way to do it is by making a proposal for change on that talk page, or writing a new draft of the guideline, then holding an RfC. It shouldn't be done by proposing a declaration for PR people, calling it COI when really it is about paid advocacy, then insisting that it doesn't contradict the COI guideline and is therefore nothing to worry about. That is my main objection: that this is not being done in a transparent manner. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

DGG, I meant to add that this proposal also contradicts Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest, which states (under "Don't edit articles"):

Don't make potentially controversial edits to articles related to your area of conflict. Policy makes exceptions for reverting vandalism and enforcing biography of living persons policy. Similarly, don't add links, citations, or mentions to other articles that highlight a company or group you may be affiliated with. Instead, make suggestions on article talk pages and let others decide whether to implement them. A few exceptions can be made to this rule: making totally uncontroversial updates like removing typos, correcting or updating simple data, and removing blatant vandalism is fine; for anything else, seek input.

This is just an essay, but it has been edited by several experienced Wikipedians, is often cited, and the advice was in the first version in 2009 and was not removed by any of them. Also, the closer of the 2012 Wikipedia:Requests for comment/COI wrote:

Overall conclusion: Nothing in Wikipedia's best practices concerning conflict of interest can be said to have changed as a result of this discussion. The situation therefore remains as it was before: roughly, that conflict of interest editing is "discouraged" (although it remains unclear exactly what it is that is being discouraged and what form the discouragement is supposed to take); that editors with affiliations are encouraged to be open about them, and also to avoid making potentially controversial edits in the relevant area without prior approval; and that we don't post information about the identities of other editors (WP:OUTING).

And the view of Jclemens -- "Thus, any policies or guideline on conflict of interest should treat paid editing neutrally--no better or no worse than any other motivation for editing Wikipedia" -- attracted 18 supports and 28 opposes. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

FYI - one more missing from that related discussion is the FAQ for organizations.[1]. Corporate 21:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Salon article

The latest example of the damage paid advocacy can do to the public's perception of Wikipedia (Maura Ewing, "Is Wikipedia going commercial?", Salon, 23 October 2012):

When it began 11 years ago, Wikipedia represented utopian ideals: power dispersed more evenly than any democracy, participation open to anyone and work done solely for the promotion of knowledge. But utopian ideals often become diluted when put into practice on a large scale and inevitably fail. Today, to the dismay of many die-hard Wikipedians — the tenacious, voluntary editors who are the site’s backbone — the site also attracts profit-seeking writers ... Wikipedians worry that an influx of paid editors could further drive voluntary editors away — doing something for free loses its charm when others are doing the same task for monetary compensation. Without the base of volunteer Wikipedians the site would fall apart.

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

While we're quoting that article:

One such [paid Wikipedia] writer is Soraya Field Fiorio, a 27-year-old entertainment-relations consultant who has a sideline in writing commissioned Wikipedia articles for musicians and writers. “Just like when I write press releases, clients say, ‘I want this. I don’t want that.’ So it’s really part of a promotional package,” she said. She charges $30 an hour to edit an existing article, and will write a page from scratch for around $250. It’s not surprising that musicians, writers, artists or anyone else seeking a spot in the public eye will pay for the service: The website is often the No. 1 hit on Google, and the articles can function as the key component of a publicity strategy.

It took Field Fiorio about six months to hone her Wikipedia skills, which included navigation of the site’s back pages, proper citation methods (which she says her M.A. in history was useful for), writing with encyclopedic neutrality and arguing with Wikipedians who questioned her edits. Arguments over an article’s validity — called “edit wars,” when escalated — take place on the “articles for deletion page,” which new-media researcher and author Andrew Lih describes as Wikipedia’s “virtual town square.” In a sort of cyberform of direct democracy, editors debate the merits of a topic or article, and vote to decide its fate. The most difficult skill to master wasn’t technological, Field Fiorio learned, it was social; if she failed to stand her ground in debates over articles she wrote, her work would be deleted. Other than having valid citations, there is no clear-cut line on what makes a topic Wikipedia-worthy, and decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, often dependent on how well its merits are argued.

She is exactly the kind of editor we want to follow the practices of neutrality, self-education, full disclosure, appropriate escalation, and only direct editing as a last resort... what COI+ proposes. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 12:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Bright line

I'm confused about the status of this and would appreciate clarification. My understanding is that Jimmy Wales posted an FAQ page, and that it didn't go anywhere, in the sense that it didn't formally propose a specific policy and wasn't the subject of an RfC or poll.

Someone has called that Bright line, and is calling it a proposed policy. WP:BRIGHTLINE now redirects to the user space of Corporate Minion. My concern is that it's being used as a straw man to argue that there is no community consensus on paid advocacy (as in: "there was a proposal called Bright line but it was rejected"). Those who support paid advocacy are ignoring the part of the COI guideline that asks paid advocates to disclose and to stick to talk pages, leaving the impression that we have no guidance in this area. Bright line failed, they argue, and the COI guideline doesn't deal with it, therefore we need COI plus.

Or have I misunderstood what Bright line is/was? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo started his FAQ (which petered out), and I started a policy attempt which is at WP:PAID (and also kind of petered out). I think to avoid confusion we should probably steal BRIGHTLINE from corporate and point it at WP:PAID. Would you be OK with that Corporate? Gigs (talk) 19:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem with starting proposals which peter out is that it allows some people to say the proposal failed to gain consensus, when in fact it was never formally proposed.

Gigs, I suggest we copy the wording about paid editors from WP:COI (WP:NOPAY), and add it to a new page, with WP:PAID and WP:BRIGHTLINE redirecting to it. And we call it a guideline, because WP:COI has guideline status. Then we can work on it, and try to get it policy status. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I would prefer you wait until the rewrite is moved back to the main page. I don't want to do propose anything potentially controversial until we can get the rewrite done. It badly needs it. Gigs (talk) 20:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

A rewrite would be a long job (weeks or months). I'm about to copy edit COI, without changing the meaning. One of the main problems is the substance getting lost in the verbiage, so I'm going to try to clear away some undergrowth. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The background is that the original WP:BRIGHTLINE (not written by me) was deleted; this was very irritating to me, because I need something to link to. My mentor suggested I was the best qualified to write it and that I should give it a second life. When posted on Jimbo's Talk page, he did not provide a direct response.

In the past, when an editor copied something from my user-space and put it into article-space, it ended up creating a lot of drama and I was accused of COI, even though I never even asked for it to go into article-space.

So the long and short is that no - I don't mind - but I also predict it will result in some contentious nonsense later on and I'm ok with that I guess ;-) Corporate 20:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

CM, Bright line wasn't deleted, it was moved and userfied (or re-userified, I think) to this location. So it didn't ever have a formal existence that I can see, and we should be really careful not to imply that it is a failed policy proposal. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I was talking about just the shortcut, not the essay. Gigs (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, it might make more sense to just kill the link. I don't think WP:PAID is the same as WP:BRIGHTLINE. User:Cupco setup that link - I never intended for it to be in live-space. Corporate 20:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Userfied

Ocaasi, would you please correct this paragraph in your userfied version (User:Ocaasi/COI+)?

"WP:COI doesn't outright ban anything, it just strongly discourages, it doesn't require disclosure, it doesn't give specific guidance on what channels to see help from, and it does not deal with what happens if other editors don't respond to a corporate/for-profit editor's request for help."

In fact, WP:COI "very strongly" discourages anyone with a financial COI from editing articles directly. It asks them to post suggestions on talk instead, or use the edit request template, and it does request full disclosure. See WP:NOPAY. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I will indeed correct the parts that are mis/overstated. I do think we have some basic disagreement though, so it may not fully reflect your view. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 12:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that you took this into userspace Ocaasi. SV may have made some hasty edits, but I think it was a symptom of the lack of focus regarding what this document is supposed to be. If it's really about best practices for paid editing or marketing professionals, it probably shouldn't be called COI+. One of the things we are trying to do with the COI guideline is make a clearer distinction between people paid or encouraged by someone paying them to edit/market on Wikipedia, and run of the mill conflicts of interest (such as when a person just edits their employer's article on their own accord, or the article of their fraternal society that they are a member of, etc). I encourage you to engage further with SV in order to work out the differences, which I think will be helped greatly by very clearly defining the scope and purpose of this document, and its target audience. Gigs (talk) 13:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Just a misunderstanding... What's in my userspace is a draft of my signpost opinion piece introducing COI+. I will continue to engage with SV. The target audience, I believe is best characterized by corporate/for-profit editors. I will clarify that change once I've spoken more with SV and sorted out the current version. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's a misunderstanding. You intend to present your userfied version to the community in the Signpost, even though there are strong objections to it on this page, and even though it's misleading and in places factually inaccurate. This is a disappointing way to proceed, and I hope you'll reconsider. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

My intent is to present the proposal myself and others worked on. I have attempted to improve the accuracy of the document and address concerns, but some of them will have to wait for the RfC.Ocaasi ^{t | c} 18:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Name

COI+ is short and sweet, but I think coming up with a new name should be a priority if that is the case. Gigs (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

While corporate/for-profit editors is the primary target audience, there'd be nothing to prevent someone with an independent, non-profit, personal, or general COI from following the protocol as originally designed. So while I agree COI+ is somewhat broad, I don't know why we'd want to exclude editors who want to follow those practices even if they're not explicitly corporate or for-profit. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 16:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree about changing the name. This isn't about COI. People with certain forms of COI are allowed to edit, depending entirely on the individual case. What you're proposing here is to allow paid advocacy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• To be more precise, would suggest targeting anyone editing "on behalf of" an "organization or individual." Doesn't have to be a corporation - includes non-profits, politicians, publicists, etc. Corporate 19:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Can you suggest a name that would do that, CM? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Coming up with the right word is difficult. "Financial COI" or "Paid Advocate" would be reasonable from Wikipedia's perspective, but would not resonate with us. Marketing would be more appropriate, but would probably have a contentious response in the community. The gap between our languages is a bridge that needs crossing. I would suggest we find something focused on the idea of editing "on behalf of" or "representing" but I don't have any good ideas. Corporate 21:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm looking at some possible words in a Thesaurus like delegate, representative, agent, ambassador etc. I think ambassador and delegate are both strong - they communicate the reality that a "paid advocate" is merely a mouthpiece for a corporate bureaucracy and not a free agent - that they are here "on behalf of".

Something like: "COI+ Ambassador: This editor has been certified by the Wikipedia community as a delegate that participates on behalf of organizations or individuals with exceptional standards in neutrality, ethics and quality of work based on a review by a board of editors." Corporate 03:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Signpost

Ocaasi, if you were to submit that piece for the Signpost, it would constitute canvassing for the RfC, using a misleading description of the current position and your proposal. One example:

Your table comparing WP:COI to COIplus and Brightline says of the first: "Strongly discourages COI editing." But we are not talking about COI. We are talking about paid advocacy. And COI (in the section WP:NOPAY) "very strongly discourages" paid advocacy, asks those with a financial COI only to make suggestions on talk, and requests full disclosure. In your table only Brightline "[p]rohibits direct editing, allows non-article-space engagement". And COIplus merely "Encourages transparent, regulated, constructive collaboration". No mention of its core purpose.

We should avoid this kind of PR speak. The proposal and any questions about it should be written in a succinct, straightforward way, so that no one reading them misses the point, and the description of existing policy has to be accurate.

It's standard for contentious RfCs/polls with wiki-wide interest to gain consensus in advance for the question and any pre-question publicity. Are you willing to do that? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I've updated the table. I also intend to run the Signpost piece directly along with an opposition. I've gotten approval from the Signpost editor for that. I've also invited you to write that piece, but you haven't responded. If you won't write it, I'll seek out another editor opposed to COI+ such as Herostratus or Orangemike. The offer is still open. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 18:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Incorporating SlimVirgin's suggestions while retaining the original intent of the proposal

I've integrated several of SlimVirgin's changes, such as the 'Purpose of Wikipedia Section' and the more accurate comparison table based on WP:NOPAY. Several changes I did not keep, because they impacted the fundamentals of this proposal. I'm willing to discuss them on the talk page, but to a degree this will just have to wait for the RfC, where all objections will be fully on the table. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 18:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Concerns

Ocaasi, this page as it stood implied that it's okay for paid advocates to edit articles directly. It's never okay to do that in the current climate (not counting emergencies), and to overturn that consensus would require a very clear, wiki-wide RfC that addresses that single point. I've therefore edited it to make clear that paid advocates editing articles directly is not something this page is encouraging. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Ocaasi has reverted me twice, [2] including that WP is an encyclopaedia, an explanation of what "neutrality" means, links to the policies, links to the COI guideline, and a reminder that paid advocates should not edit articles directly. It seems to me that this attempts to slip paid advocacy in via the back door. But there is such a strong consensus against paid advocates editing articles directly that we would be doing the PR community no favours by implying otherwise. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Slim. First of all thank you for bringing this to the talk page. I appreciate it, and I'm willing to discuss each of your suggestions and your justifications for them individually and in detail.

I do want to set the context here. This is a proposal, crafted by several editors over the past weeks (if not months). The local consensus of those who have worked on the document is reflected in its current state. I am not opposed to improving this document; however, if we find we have fundamental disagreements about its tone, content, scope, prescriptions, or relation to current policy, it is not necessary to adjudicate them now. This document currently has no power, and any major objections, or recommendations belong most appropriately in the RfC itself. That RfC, which will likely run in the next 1-2 months will be advertised widely. It will comment specifically on whether each part of COI+ is reasonable, within policy, and likely to be effective.

You have declared the "bright line" prohibition on direct editing is consensus, when in fact a 2009 and 2012 RFC both did not result in any such consensus for an outright prohibition. There are many who want such a position to be policy, but it's simply not yet the case. WP:COI 'strongly discourages' paid editing but does not explicitly prohibit it and actually seems to say it's ok for uncontroversial changes. There is literally nothing in WP:COI that says you can't make a neutral, well-sourced, encyclopedic change to an article where you have a COI. And all COI+ says is that if you've tried for a month at all appropriate venues to get a response from editors, and you still don't receive one, that you are not prohibited from making a direct edit yourself provided you leave a note on the article Talk Page and the COI noticeboard. I personally believe that is within current policy/guidelines. If you think it's not, then that is ultimately a question for the RfC to address.

I will look at your individual changes tonight and comment on each one. I hope we can make improvements to the document and if not mutually agree to let the remaining issues be brought to light during the RfC. Sincerely, and thank you again for discussing this --Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

In short, COI+ is more restrictive than the current guideline. Rklawton (talk) 21:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Addressing SV's proposed changes individually

Comments are by Ocaasi. SV, you might want to indent your 'responses' below my comments, or in a separate section, your call. I apologize for the extremely long response; you made a lot of changes. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 03:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit 1

• added: 'Conflict-of-interest editing and paid advocacy is strongly discouraged. In particular, there is consensus within the community that paid advocates should not edit articles or seek to promote topics in which they are paid to have an interest.'

  comment: Your first sentence is supported by policy or guideline: COI editing is strongly discouraged in WP:COI. Your second sentence is not wholly supported by policy or guideline. There is in fact no consensus that paid advocates should not edit articles directly. If you can point to it, either in the 2009 or 2012 paid editing/COI RfC, or the WP:COI guideline, please do. You are somewhat right about 'should not... seek to promote topics in which they are paid to have an interests', although the phrase 'promote topics' is ambiguous. More to point, promoting interests or editing with the sole intent to promote interests besides Wikipedia's is prohibited. I'd also note that this is true whether an editor is paid or not, as advocacy is prohibited regardless.

  response:

  I know you want SV to respond, but I'd like to respond as well. In the interests of full disclosure, SV left me a talk page message. I agree that it is incorrect that there is consensus they should not edit at all, not in those bold terms. However, if this document purports to document "best practices", it should tell them not to edit directly at all, except to revert obvious vandalism or libel. That would be the best practice. SV's version can be fixed by removing "or seek"

  Thanks for replying, I'm happy to address all of your points. COI+ requires the best practice of full disclosure (not currently required by WP:COI) and seeking other editors to review/make all but uncontroversial changes. The only 'catch' is that if Wikipedia can't get around to responding to a corporate/for-profit editor who sought out appropriate assistance for one month at multiple relevant forums, then that editor can make a change provided 1) it does not involve removing negative information about one's company or client that is well-sourced; 2) a clear notice is left at both the article talk page and the conflict of interest noticeboard. It's worth pointing out again that editors can already do this as WP:COI does not ban any kind of neutral edits, what COI+ adds is full disclosure, a one-month escalation period through appropriate forums, and notice at two places so other editors can double-check any changes. I will leave the question of 'best practice' for the RfC so the community can decide if it is ever tolerable for an editor who does not receive a response after 1 month to make a transparent change to an article. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 04:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• I think there is fairly wide spread consensus that we don't want them to engage in "advocacy" which would usually translate to biased editing (but not necessarily in direct violation of core content policies). Such bias may manifest in challenging every snippet of unsourced negative (or merely not positive) information that may not violate BLP or undue, nominating every competitor article for deletion that they can find that is borderline notable, etc. This sort of behavior is not directly prohibited, but would be definitely frowned upon by the community and a "best practices" document should tell them to completely avoid engaging in anything that looked like that. Gigs (talk) 00:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

  All advocacy is prohibited by WP:NPOV and WP:NOT. One of the COI+ agreements is explicitly: "*Not to introduce positive or negative bias into articles where I have a conflict of interest." Negative unsourced information, or any unsourced information, can be removed at any time, per WP:V, and the burden of sourcing is always on the editor trying to add the material. But, I agree we don't want to encourage editors, especially those with a clear COI, to go around removing rather than attempting to source information if possible (and where not a BLP or other violation). I would consider adding something to COI+ to that effect, but I'm not sure what the best wording would be. Would you propose something in a section below so others can comment? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 04:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• changed: 'Make no direct changes to my client's/employer's or to my competitors' articles, except for correcting uncontroversial factual or grammatical errors, until other editors have reviewed the changes, or until the timeline (below) allows me to' TO 'Make no direct changes to my client's, employer's or competitors' articles'

  comment: This is one of the central questions raised in the RfC, and to change it here would be to effectively create an entirely different proposal. Anticipating the unlikeliness of resolving this issue prior to the RfC, I suggest we table it until the RfC

  response:

  "Factual errors" seems like a can of worms to me. A loophole you could wikilawyer a truck through. Obvious vandalism and clear libel/defamation would be a much more conservative "best practice" Gigs (talk) 00:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

  The word immediately preceding factual errors is "uncontroversial", which links to Wikipedia:COI#Non-controversial_edits. On closer reading, I don't see factual errors in that list, so I will remove it from COI+. Thanks! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 04:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• changed: 'Make an effort not to introduce positive or negative bias into articles where I have a conflict of interest.' TO 'Make no attempt to ask other editors to introduce positive or negative bias into articles where I have a conflict of interest.'

  comment: Those differences are subsumed by direct editing question, as above.

• In a best practices document, I think we can use much stronger wording than "make an effort". Gigs (talk) 00:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

  I've strengthened the wording per your suggestion. Good idea. The reason it was originally soft is because an editor objected on this talk page that the best we could ask for is 'an effort' and that we couldn't fault editors for unintentional mistakes. I'm comfortable taking that risk and going with the more direct language. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 04:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• changed: 'In return for the above efforts, COI editors can expect to' TO Wikipedians are volunteers and may be reluctant to assist editors who are acting on behalf of clients or employers. Nevertheless, COI editors who adhere to this code of conduct can expect to

  comment: I believe your first sentence is not consistent with the general constructive, positive tone of this proposal, which is supposed to entice COI editors to actually follow it, not begrudgingly tolerate their existence. I do like your simple and direct phrase 'COI editors who adhere to this code of conduct can expect to'. That's better than my 'in return for' wording.

• We shouldn't lie to them. SV's version seems more honest to me. Gigs (talk) 00:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

  No, I don't want to lie to them either. I want to appeal to the better angels of their nature to practice full disclosure, appropriate escalation, and direct editing only as a last resort. Remember that this guideline may draw many COI editors out of the darkness. It's not just a question of what we want the obvious, above-board editors to do but how we draw the unsure, or secretive editors into transparent, constructive participation. That's my goal, at least. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 04:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• changed: (updated version) 'Receive responses to requests for assistance in line with the response timeline' AND 'Have incidences of misinformation, falsehood, or obvious bias in articles addressed with some urgency' TO 'Have factual errors in articles corrected, and obvious policy violations addressed.

  comment: I address the Response Timeline below, so I'll skip over the first part. You remove any mention of urgency or timeliness. That is a major centerpiece of COI+. I would argue that while it may be a reasonable preference to prohibit direct editing, that holds only if there is some mechanism to ensure requests don't go infinitely unanswered. In any event, this disagreement is a key question of the proposal and will thus likely need to be resolved in the RfC itself not prior.

• removed: 'If you have tried all previous steps, and 1 month has passed since the start, you can make a change directly to the article yourself. You must, however, post a note saying you made the change, at both the article's talk page and at the COI noticeboard.'

  comment: This is a key component of the proposal as written. The appropriate place to address the issue is during and not prior to the RfC.

• You can take this timeline proposal to RfC, but I think that it's not going go over well. As well, a very few editors like Corporate would follow it, but I don't see the majority jumping through all these hoops, especially since your proposal is all carrot and no stick as it stands right now. Gigs (talk) 00:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• added: 'You should never implement changes by editing the article yourself.'

  comment: That change is neither supported by the actual WP:COI guideline nor in line with the intended purpose of this proposal. If that is your counter-proposal or policy-interpretation, I think it too belongs at the RfC.

• removed: 'Exceptions to the above timeline should only be for uncontroversial edits, specifically including removing outright vandalism, removing blatant lies or glaring misinformation, fixing spelling, or fixing grammatical errors.'

  comment: I believe this part is actually supported by WP:COI at present, specifically Wikipedia:COI#Non-controversial_edits; although 'removing blatant lies or glaring misinformation' may be outside those stipulations. I'm willing to discuss those specific phrases, to clarify or potentially remove them prior to the RfC.

• removed: 'Negative information about your company or client that is well-sourced should never be removed by you.'

  comment: We can probably skip this because it is subsumed by your no-direct-editing-ever change

• removed: 'If other editors have responded to your requests but not implemented them because they disagreed with what you are requesting, you should never implement changes by editing the article yourself. Instead, engage those editors in civil discussion and try to reach consensus about wording that is acceptable to all.'

  comment: Again, this is subsumed by your no-direct-editing-ever change

• changed: Step 1 of the Response timeline from 48 hours to 1 week; and Step 2 of the Response Timeline from 1 week to two weeks

  comment: This is merely a matter of tactics. In practice, the distinction is fairly insignificant, as editors are instructed to check back at prior steps even if they've advanced to the next one. Thus, the only difference is whether editors will seek out assistance at noticeboards after 48 hours or after 1 week, and whether editors will contact OTRS after 1 week or 2 weeks. These are merely tactical questions and we can have a reasoned discussion about which strategy is optimal prior to the RfC.

  I've changed from 48 hours to 1 week for the first step, per your suggestion. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 04:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• changed: 'The following are optional but may be helpful' to 'The following may be helpful'

  comment: Seems minor to me and I'm ok with either phrasing. I meant only that they were external to this set of agreements. Perhaps 'may also be helpful' is a nice compromise.

Edit 2

• changed: wording reflects that this is still a proposal and not an active document or set of agreements

  comment: I have no problem with this change. It's wise.

Edit 3 and edit 4

• added: 'Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that aims to summarize material that has been published by independent, reliable sources. Its articles seek to reflect the majority- and significant-minority positions of those sources in rough proportion to their representation in the source material. That is what is meant on Wikipedia by "neutrality," which is the encyclopedia's most central concept. Wikipedia is not the place to publish the kind of corporate profile normally found on a company's own website.'

  comment: This change hinges on whether the proposal is intended to supplant WP:COI or merely act as a voluntary set of agreements which help COI editors within WP:COI. Those are two quite different cases and you have helped me identify the importance of being very explicit about which one the RfC is addressing, although it may be a matter or interpretation as much as intent. For example, if this document is merely voluntary and supplementary, I would find it appropriate for the page to be hatnoted with In the event of a contradiction between WP:COI+ and other policies or guidelines, the latter take priority, and editors should seek to resolve the discrepancy. I would prefer text such as 'Wikipedia is an encyclopedia...WP:V, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV...' be emphasized in the 'Expectations of COI editors' section, where I'd like participants to focus their attention anyway'. As for 'Wikipedia is not the place to publish the kind of corporate profile normally found on a company's own website' I think that phrasing could be improved. More to the point, 'Wikipedia is not the place to promote one's own interests, or those of their causes, corporations, or clients.' COI editing is not just about corporations. We can discuss that and also whether it is best in the introduction, the expectations section, or neither.

• (miscellaneous) added: Read WP:COI in addition to WP:PSCOI

  comment: In an attempt to make this document practical and streamlined, I wanted to encourage editors not to get bogged down in inward facing policy pages. WP:COI is the guiding document we have, but it is not particularly clear or helpful to a new editor. WP:PSCOI is much more fitting in that regard. Thus, for simplicity and effectiveness I did not include WP:COI. We can discuss that.

  Some of us are working on making WP:COI not suck so much. I really would appreciate your help there. What you are working on here is not mutually exclusive with a clear COI guideline. Gigs (talk) 00:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks for the invitation. My focus has been on COI+ and other unrelated projects, but should this proposal fail I will continue helping other editors like yourself to improve our guidance in this area. If I have time, I will try to work on that sooner, but I may now be seen as having a conflict of interest as the main writer of COI+. In any case, I'm glad to help if I can.Ocaasi ^{t | c} 04:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Inviting editors to discuss COI+

I have invited by email about 20 editors on both sides of the paid editing debate to discuss WP:COI+. I also posted at Village Pump Policy and Village Pump Proposals.

Here is the message I sent:

I was wondering if you would take a look at Wikipedia:COI+

I intend for COI+ to seek a middle ground between the current ambiguity of WP:COI and the severity of Bright Line prohibitions on any direct editing. This is particularly important because the community has identified that there is some problem with WP:COI but also found no consensus to outright ban paid editing.

• The 2009 RfC to ban paid editing closed with no consensus.
• The 2012 RfC on COI closed with no consensus as well.
• For as many people who have supported a prohibition on direct editing there is another editor who calls COI a distraction and cites WP:NPOV as the only relevant policy.

For those reasons, I simply don't believe that Bright Line will ever gain consensus. I also happen to think it's not ideal, as it could drive paid advocates under ground, it has no requirement for disclosure, and it offers no reasonable assurance to paid advocates of a timely response to their suggested changes.

COI+ is designed to address each of those concerns:

• COI+ would appeal to paid advocates by welcoming them to the community, educating them about our mission and policies, and guiding them towards constructive interaction;
• COI+ would require disclosure--in triplicate--on user pages, relevant article talk pages, and with links to COI declarations in comment signatures
• COI+ would set a 1 month time limit on edit requests: if no editor even responded to a paid advocate's suggestions or proposed changes within a month--after going through talk pages, help boards, noticeboards, and OTRS--then a paid advocate could make a change directly, if they left clear notice on the article talk page and at the COI noticeboard.

I am drafting a Signpost op-ed introducing COI+ to run in the next month or two, with an RfC to follow. At first COI+ would merely be an aspirational, voluntary agreement. It could, however, be a bridge forward towards a more comprehensive, instructive, and hopefully effective guideline for COI editors and particularly paid advocates. I'd love to hear any thoughts you have about it.

I hope this is seen as a reasonable step to encourage discussion and not campaigning, but in any case I wanted to post it transparently here to at least enure that it's not perceived as being secretive or nefarious. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 14:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Ocaasi, there is no real ambiguity in the COI guideline on the point of paid editing. It says it is very strongly discouraged and advises people with a financial COI to make suggestions on talk pages. See WP:NOPAY. If you want to change that, the talk page is the place to begin (or the draft page), rather than proposing a rival guideline that contradicts it (but which says it is not contradicting it), which will only cause more confusion.

Would you mind listing here the editors you invited to comment? So far, apart from myself, I can only see editors who are in favor of paid editing. I would like to make sure we invite editors who are opposed to it as well. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I invited members from both Wikiproject Cooperation and Wikiproject Paid Advocacy watch alike. I posted to WP:COI, the COI Noticeboard, Village Pump Proposals, and Village Pump Policy. I emailed (bold indicates they have voiced concerns about paid editing, although I don't I know exactly where they stand and their views are nuanced and varied): SlimVirgin, EthicalWiki, OKeyes, WWB, Jimbo, Orangemike, WhatamIdoing, Silverseren, Risker, Peteforsyth, Max Klein, Carrite, DGG, and Ebikeguy. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 01:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The COI Guideline strongly discourages but does not prohibit COI editing. COI+ prohibits editing for 30 days and requires the use of an article's talk page (etc). Therefore, COI+ is more restrictive than the current guideline. It's not a backdoor to allow editing. Editing is already allowed (that which is not prohibited is allowed regardless of whether or not it makes some people frown). Rklawton (talk) 21:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

This is about paid advocacy, not COI, and COI does more or less prohibit paid advocacy; see WP:NOPAY, which is part of the guideline. This is where the confusion is coming from, and why we need to be very clear here that we're discussing paid advocacy, not COI editing in general. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Terminology is important, but you're expressing the tautology that all corporate/for-profit editors are editing in a biased way. COI+ is for those with a conflict of interest, especially corporate/for-profit editors. It's not for "advocates", because Any advocacy is always banned by WP:NOT and WP:NPOV. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 05:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

You can be an advocate without engaging in advocacy in your editing. This seems to be a recurring theme, however, that a lot of editors are not working from a common set of definitions when it comes to discussing this stuff, which has made productive conversations more difficult. I blame the way our COI guideline had gotten so bloated and confusing. SV's trimming of it has helped, but there's still plenty of work to be done in coming up with definitions that everyone can agree on, and sticking to them. Gigs (talk) 13:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)