Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Archive 34

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Recent edits

@Pigsonthewing and Bilby: I don't feel strongly about this, and I don't feel sufficiently strongly to want an RfC, but I do have a question about the recent series of edits. The initial change from the status quo language was this: [1]. I then made this change: [2], which Bilby changed further: [3], effectively reverting all of the changes that had been made: [4]. Pigsonthewing objected, and reinstated the initial changes: [5].

My question is this: would it be acceptable to both of you to go back to the intermediate change that I had made ([6])? I agree with Pigsonthewing that removing "generally" takes the language farther than it should, by making it sound absolute. My thinking had been that "generally" needs to be there, to allow for exceptions, but that "should" is better than "are advised", because the latter makes it sound very optional, whereas we really strongly advise it, and it's broadly discouraged. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm happy with that suggestion, but would rather return to the status quo that existed before. There's been no discussion on this, and "should not" rather than "generally should not" or "generally advised not" has been the existing consensus for more than two years - I think watering it down should be something we find consensus on, rather than just making a change without asking the community. It also creates a contradiction, in that the lead now says "COI editors are generally advised not to edit affected articles directly", but in the body we have the much stronger "you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly". I think if we provide contradictory advice in the lead from what we have in the body we create a serious problem for well-intentioned COI editors. - Bilby (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

There has been discussion, The community was asked to consider banning all CoI edits, and decided not to. Policy reflects this, and the "status quo" to which your refer did not. The change does not "water down" anything; it brings this guideline into line with policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

The previous wording did not ban COI edits - it simply said that you "should not" edit where you have a COI, and that has been interpreted as less than "must not" - especially given that this is not a policy. However, I'm not sure what policy you are referring to - can you point to the policy that this needs to be brought in line with? - Bilby (talk) 11:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:PAID; WP:BLP (in particular, its WP:BLPSELF subsection); WP:IAR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:PAID says "those with a conflict of interest, including paid editors, are very strongly discouraged from directly editing affected articles, but should post content proposals on the talk pages of existing articles", which seems a lot stronger than your change to "COI editors are generally advised not to edit affected articles directly". BLPSELF is more forgiving, but it only has one exception - very obvious errors - and again recommends posting suggestions to talk. Neither seem to clearly contradict the prior wording. Perhaps what is needed is an RFC to confirm what wording we should use here. Would that be agreeable? - Bilby (talk) 15:51, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I doubt that an RfC will solve the issue of presenting, for example, "[You] should not edit affected articles, but should propose changes on article talk pages instead" as a summary of "Very obvious errors can be fixed quickly, including by yourself", and I think latter, which is policy, is clear and unambiguous. If an RfC agrees that the former should be used, then the RfC is contradicting policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:59, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't see it as a contradiction. Even when correcting obvious errors using this single execption - which only applies to one very specific type of COI - it could still be said that you should request changes instead. I think an RFC would help work out what the community consensus is. It would clarify the issue, and perhaps we'd need to look at an update to BLP to match whatever the consensus is, or perhaps we will simply find that the consensus view is compatible. - Bilby (talk) 17:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

The policy portion of the paid-contribution disclosure page only covers the terms-of-use requirement to disclose. The section you are quoting is from the section on conflict of interest, which points to this guidance page and provides a brief summary. So changes made on this page should be reflected on the paid-contribution disclosure page, and not the other way around. isaacl (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I think we have a situation where the community has not outright prohibited COI edits to articles, but views such edits as ones to be strongly discouraged. And COI edits are not necessarily PAID edits (all PAID edits have a de facto COI, but not all COI edits fit the definition of paid editing). I don't much see a need to have an RfC to establish that much. I continue to think that our choices are not limited to only "should not edit affected articles directly" versus "are generally advised not to edit affected articles directly". And I still think that "generally should not edit affected articles directly" gets the balance better than either of those, and I haven't really heard a reason why not. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

After writing that comment, I see that Calton made this edit: [7]. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't really disagree with what you are saying, but we have a situation where the wording of the lead "COI editors generally should not edit affected articles directly" seems weaker than that of the body "you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly". Given that the prior stronger wording was in place for over two years, and thus seems to have had defacto communitiy consensus, I'm interested in hearing a case for why it is to be changed, rather than why it shoudl stay the same. - Bilby (talk) 03:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Setting aside the broader issues, below, for the moment, I think maybe the right way to go is simply to make the language identical in both places. In other words, change the lead from "generally should not edit affected articles directly" to "are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly", and leave it at that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense. Removes any issues of interpretation. - Bilby (talk) 22:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done: [8]. If editors still have concerns that the language is too strong, it might be reasonable to change, in the last part of the same sentence, "should propose changes on article talk pages instead" to "can propose changes on article talk pages instead". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

My view of the English language is that the hierarchy of prohibition is should not → is strongly discouraged → shall not/must not/do not. We are not lawyers but still strive for clarity: this behavioral guideline has lacunae, weasel words, and omissions. Is This page in a nutshell: Do not edit Wikipedia in your own interests, nor in the interests of your external relationships. a proper summary? If so, I propose shall not replace all occurrences of should not in the guideline. Unless ambiguity is desirable, shall not is.

The Policy is summarized by

If you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for your contributions to Wikipedia, you must disclose...must comply with both the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use and the local policies and guidelines of the English Wikipedia.

and includes the statement

Paid editing is further regulated by a community guideline, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. This advises that those with a conflict of interest, including paid editors, are very strongly discouraged from directly editing affected articles, but should post content proposals on the talk pages of existing articles, and should put new articles through the articles for creation process, so they can be reviewed prior to being published.

Policies and guidelines are not exercises in persuasion. Are they not requirements? Especially in that the policy contains a summary of the guideline. — Neonorange (Phil) 06:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

"Are they not requirements?" Indeed so. Perhaps some colleagues missed the point above, where I quoted the policy, which says (my emphasis) "Very obvious errors can be fixed quickly, including by yourself". I'll add that to the lede. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Question about template use

• I have been told (by @Possibly) that people that have COI issues use the {{{requestedit}} template. I will start using this method. I do ask that some changes be made to this page about the referenced way that some people process COI edits; that is covered in WP:COI, I don't see any mention here, and don't know if I wasn't looking for the information in the right place or what may be applicable. Anyway, since there appears to be an issue with COI and myself, I don't want to edit this page, but it would be useful to find out where the process is discussed. DaveJWhitten (talk) 16:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:VPP

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Limiting the scope of COI edit requests. JBchrch talk 17:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

A proposal to amend § Dealing with edit requests from COI or paid editors is now being discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Alternate proposal #3 (edit requests). JBchrch talk 19:06, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Alternative paid contribution disclosure policy for English Wikipedia

I have started a discussion on the paid-contribution disclosure talk page regarding whether or not it has been approved by the community as an alternative paid contribution disclosure policy, in the manner described in the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use. Feedback is welcome. isaacl (talk) 14:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

IP reporting?

Is this the place to report IP's too? Greatder (talk) 03:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Political section clarification

"Political candidates and their staff should not edit articles about themselves, their supporters, or their opponents."

1. Should language be more explicit and cover volunteers to the campaign as many workers on a campaign may not consider themselves staff given lack of payment for their time?

2. Potentially more controversial, should this be an outright ban rather than "should not"? Slywriter (talk) 12:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Beginner version

@Joe Roe just reverted the edit I made a little more than a month ago, replacing the not-very-prominent hatnote to WP:PSCOI with the beginner version banner template. The concern from the edit summary is the extra emphasis implies that the beginner's guide takes precedence over this page, the actual policy. I agree that's something we should be wary about, but I also think it's pretty essential that we have a clear link to a beginner resource, as new editors are not going to want to wade through the very comprehensive ruleset here, and we'd rather they read something than give up and read nothing. Therefore, my suggestion would be to add some language to PSCOI emphasizing the message from the explanatory supplement hatnote that COI takes precedence, and then restore the banner. Would that be acceptable? Part of what I hope to accomplish by having the banner is also to encourage improvements to PSCOI, which currently has myriad issues (it's far too long, has a ton of forks, etc.). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Despite the name, WP:PSCOI is a really, really bad guide to this guideline. Where WP:COI first explains that we don't want people to edit with a COI, then outlines the minimum expectations for COI editors who choose to ignore that advice, PSCOI presents these minimum expectations as positive recommendations. It buries the headline of our entire COI policy (we strongly discourage COI editing) in the fourth item of a list in the fifth section of the page, then immediately contradicts it with that doesn't mean your contributions are unwelcome – quite the opposite of how the community actually react to COI editing, in my experience. We have seen time and time again that COI editors—who already have a material incentive to read these guidelines selectively—interpret this as meaning that their advocacy is fine as long as they follow some procedural rules. This isn't the consensus and that isn't what this guideline says.

If that could be fixed, maybe a more prominent notice would be appropriate. As it is, I'd be in favour of removing the normal hatnote we have, because a "plain and simple guide to X" that doesn't actually match X is no use to anyone. But in general, it seems like a bad idea to fork this page into beginner and expert versions. The COI guideline is, by definition, already aimed at beginners. If it's too complicated let's try and clarify it, but also let's remember that if someone is determined to make money off our project, the least they can do is invest some time into learning our basic norms. – Joe (talk) 10:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Joe Roe, I fully agree that PSCOI needs some major improvements—my personal peeve with it is that it's far too long. I don't think it's received nearly enough attention, so I'd be fine with you tweaking it  welcome you to make major edits to it  desperately plead that you or someone completely overhaul it.

Regarding your second paragraph, though, the reason that I think it's important to have beginner versions of major guidance pages is that currently they're trying to do two contradictory things: (1) be welcoming to newcomers, and (2) be comprehensive enough to offer at least general advice on any COI situation that might arise. It's impossible to do both simultaneously, as the latter requires a level of detail that make the former unattainable. Some might say we shouldn't be trying to do (2) anywhere per WP:CREEP, but the reality is that efforts to significantly cut down the length of guidance pages (to the extent they've existed) have not found consensus, and the community sees an understandable need for pages that offer authoritative, experienced editor-focused guidance. Currently, COI is actually forked into a lot more than just two pages, which leads to the phenomenon I wrote about here. Adding a beginner notice will drive editor traffic toward a single main beginner help page, hopefully helping to improve it and consolidate others around it. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 14:11, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Does anyone else have comments here? Given that the edit stood for a month at a page this watched, I'm inclined to think others thought it was helpful and would like to restore it if there are no further objections. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Restored. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:12, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Should be a see also link...at most a normal hatnote.....not an off the bat redirect that is more dominant then any other item....should not redirect readers to an essay before the protocols have been seen.....essay spam.Moxy- 12:46, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah; the current design of the green "Beginner version" banner distracts from the guideline and links to an essay – a bad substitution attempt for the guideline. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:53, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

The Article I created

Hi, Can you disclose the notication that's been popped up to the subject i created, The team of the article i created fully paid me off so there nothing to worry about. Thank You Sassamiss (talk) 18:56, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Some queries

From re-reading COI, I have some questions I'm a little confused about.

• If I am not referencing work published by myself (eg personal website), but instead use the books, documents and other internet sites I am gathering information from (eg obscure source that it may take some other user 10+ years to stumble across), does this fall under a COI? Do I need to disclose it?
• {{UserboxCOI}}, if I list a general topic that is a COI under the text parameter, do I still need to put {{Connected contributor}} on every page I edit? and what about COI in the edit summary or are they a given?
• Do I need to declare a COI for a topic I am knowledgeable about (eg If I was a hobby fisherman, would I need list it if I edited a page to do with fishing)? What about every other edit on Wikipedia done by someone who is knowledgeable about something, should we be only editing articles we personally know nothing about to avoid COI?
• Re citing myself, adding a reference to work published by myself (eg a link to my website) and none by other researchers, as these other sources don't conform to Wikipedia's approved sources (eg closed Facebook group) is this allowed? (Especially if there is photographic evidence in the group) -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 10:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Going over these one by one:

• For the first one, almost always no, it's not a COI. In rare situations it might become a COI if your work is so closely affiliated with particular sources that talking them up here on Wikipedia could reasonably be seen as a form of self-promotion. For example, if you wrote a huge book on the Bible and cited a bunch of sources, using those sources on Wikipedia wouldn't be a COI; but if you wrote a book that is basically about, and is marketed as being about, how some particular obscure source is central to understanding the Bible, and start implicitly hyping that source by using it everywhere, that could be a potential COI because hyping that source is effectively promoting your book via promoting its central thesis. That would be an unusual case, though.
• Only ones that fall under the COI. For those, yes.
• Simply being knowledgeable about a topic (or even having strong opinions about it) is never a COI, no. The crux of a COI is generally about whether you benefit somehow from your edits in some way that potentially conflicts with writing an accurate encyclopedia - for a loose definition of "benefit", but simply having an interest isn't sufficient.
• Citing yourself is covered by WP:SELFCITE. It is a COI in most cases, but keep in mind that especially in this particular case, there are situations where COI editing is allowed (when it is uncontroversial, or via talk), and this is especially important when it comes to images, because we do want people to upload images they created. In those cases it is important to consider whether the image is promotional in nature, potentially controversial, etc. Generally if you're a published author on a subject who feels your work might be useful, it's best to start on talk and bring it up there.

Hopefully that helps. --Aquillion (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you @Aquillion,

• Very clear definition of what is COI and what is not.
• This probably should be stated that you need to do all and not just one of them.
• I'm intrigued by COI being about "whether I benefit somehow". I never cited my own website to promote it, just to promote the correct information on a topic (eg correct dates). I don't need to seek out more traffic to it, and it was intended to be an encyclopedia of factual information. I only created it for the small number of people that are interested in that topic, and didn't really care if anybody else even saw it. Just a way to document information. I have seen incorrect info on Wikipedia that is then used on other site, resulting in more sites with the incorrect info than with correct. That's why I was citing myself to increase the count of correct info.
• I was more thinking along the lines of something rare like this hypothetical... a carriage was painted hot pink in 1940 for some reason but not officially documented. It is mentioned in a closed Facebook group that it was painted (posted by a trusted expert, and later backed up with a black and white photo showing a drastically different shade of grey on that carriage to the ones next to it). Going by Wikipedia guidelines, it can't be cited as it is a closed group, but if I was to post it on my site that it was painted hot pink, would I then be allowed to cite myself? - eg A totally rare and extreme situation of this happening.

-- ThylacineHunter (talk) 08:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Note this, about racialists

It should be said clearly whether racialism creates a conflict of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:7996:B900:287D:CE3A:A1C3:6B35 (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Family members

How far back does COI go when editing articles about people to whom one is related? I came across a discussion (WP:HD#Robert Hugh Miller) when an editor had edited an article about their great-grandfather (i.e. 3 generations back) and had been told that they should't be editing the article due to a COI. Now, I'm not saying the advice her was either right or wrong, but it does seem that we need a bit of clarification here.

For the record, I have edited the articles about Jane Austen (my 6th cousin 7 times removed) and Flora Twort (my 3rd cousin 3 times removed). I do not consider that there is any conflict of interest in doing so.

So, can we say that if we got back a number of generations (say four), it can be assumed that no COI exists, or is this something that needs to be taken on a case-by-case basis? Courtesy pings @William J. Pease, GoingBatty, CodeTalker, and AzseicsoK:, who all participated in the discussion mentioned. Mjroots (talk) 11:18, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mjroots: WP:COI and WP:PSCOI don't seem to state hoe far back COI goes. When an editor is transparent and submits edit requests, one possible result is that others give approval for the editor to make the changes themselves. GoingBatty (talk) 16:08, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Why is conflict of interest a problem?

Text states "They (editors with COI) may edit war to retain content that serves their external interest." To be conclusive, this should be "to retain or omit content ...". A conflict can be for the positive or the negative where information is concerned, depending on the situational mode of conflict. Conflicts that lead to edit wars are not always for the inclusion of information. Editors may elect to delete information that they are in personal or professional conflict with, neglecting WP rules and guidelines in the process. There is no difference between offering readers COI material or omitting material an individual is in conflict with. Either way, the conflict dictates what the reader is offered. May I make this change without objections? BRealAlways (talk) 11:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Undeclared CoI participation in AfDs, to take one example, does seem to be very much a thing. I support your proposed change. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

When articles are deleted it's usually due to policy-based consensus by uninvolved editors, although AfD has sometimes been abused by paid editors (in some cases even by people trying to extort a ransom and threatening to nominate an article). When content is omitted, it is usually a problem with WP:WEIGHT or WP:RS. COI can still be a motivation for the whitewashing of criticism (as part of promotional and public relations work). When talk page posts are deleted it is for violating WP:TPG/WP:NOTFORUM. I'm not convinced that the new changes are necessary. Considering the previous activism, it seems to be part of a WP:POINTy suggestion that other editors may have some conflict of interest (i.e. see the strange accusations made here). —PaleoNeonate – 12:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: thanks, I agree with you. I see no COI there, but then I'm part of that discussion. If being against pseudoarcheology is a conflict of interest, that would probably rule out all archaeologists from commenting on related articles. Not that I'm an archaeologist, but I have researched and edited about the subject for decades. Doug Weller talk 13:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Exactly, acknowledging the distinction between pseudoarchaeology and sound archaeology is generally important to be able to edit about it on Wikipedia (WP:PSCI, WP:FRINGE, WP:CIR). For clarity, here is the original change by BRealAlways, here is the extant diff after cleanup by other editors. Since there's no clear consensus to add this at current time (and I explained the false equivalence above) I'll revert it for now as unnecessary and pointy. The OP's inclusion of "that they are in personal conflict" is the obvious continuation of these unsubstantiated claims. —PaleoNeonate – 01:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate. When I spoke of deletion, I didn't mean deletion of an entire article, you said "Considering the previous activism ...)" I can only assume you a referring to my edits directly. You also said "I'm not convinced that the new changes are necessary." What you didn't say is "There is an overwhelming consensus that the changes are not necessary". If you are to follow the guidelines for editing (specifically that 'there is to be a civil overall tone to edits on talk pages'), wouldn't it be much better to get more input on such an important issue as COI before reverting a change that completes the COI picture? Editors can promote their interest by omission as well as inclusion. Editors who include information that another editor has a conflict with content that is innocent of violating WP:RULES should be allowed leeway. It is a heavyhanded tactic to dismiss such an important point out of hand without a consensus of persons > one. Please explain how it is irrelevant that a person may delete material (for example, a fundamentalist Christian deleting material that disagrees with their beliefs) in order to forward a personal agenda. BRealAlways (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Scope of WP:SELFCITE

The guidelines currently don't say anything about citing the work of people with whom you have a close relationship. If you're citing the work of your supervisor, your student, your colleague, your close friend, or family member, are any of these a COI that should be declared? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Another editor asked me this question because they have cited the work of others with whom they have these relationships. It's kind of odd that the question hasn't come up before. I'm not sure if it's always necessary to disclose that the person you're citing is someone you know in real life. But depending on the type of relationship an editor has with the person, I can see the potential for it to cloud their editorial judgement around sources.

Thoughts? And if nobody wants to opine here, would a WP:Village Pump discussion be a next step to get more views? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

i need help putting and approving an article.

please i need help getting one of my article approved Pepperlyl (talk) 13:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2022

It would seem that a volunteer wikipedia fact checker would be interested in knowing the facts. I was willing to enlighten you, but you seem awfully emotionally invested in a matter and a business you know nothing about. But to be clear, if anyone has a conflict of interest, it's you. I recognize, at the end of the day, about 26 people in the entire world care and I was trying to clear it up for them, for me and to make your site more accurate. Irvingredman (talk) 20:48, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

•  Not done. This is a personal complaint, not a concrete suggestion for improvement. I answered your concerns at User talk:Irvingredman regarding your conflict of interest pertaining to Charles Fox (composer). If you would like to pursue your case on Wikipedia, you can start a new topic at WP:COIN where ininvolved people will look at the situation and comment. Binksternet (talk) 22:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Academic journals

Suppose a Wikipedia editor is the author of a acadmic paper, published in a reputable journal that follows a rigorous peer review process. Is there a conflict of interest if that editor uses that paper as a reference? It seems to me that there is not. I could imagine a situation where that editor favoured their own paper of a rival's, and that could be, so an editor should try to choose a rival's paper if in any doubt about which is better. But I don't think a conflict is automatic. What do others think?Dan88888 (talk) 11:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

They should disclose the conflict. The issue isn't having a conflict, it's failing to be upfront about it in the first place. Slywriter (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Q-bit array

Призываем снять с Q-bit array права, за вандализм и вредительство Сообществу. Последнее событие за сегодня, статья Рыжий лес где Участники Википедии откатывают вандальные правки с политотой (более того жёлтыми новостями/ссылками без какого либо АИ), а ангажированные администраторы их возвращают (в ч. уч. Q-bit array). Также, лучшее решение это судебно оградить пользователей Рунета от компании Википедия (Ин.Аг.), создать свободный форк без диктатуры тех, кто ровнее, и также лично подать иски к участникам администрации (вроде случая с выставлением фотографий немецких националистов и последующих судебных дел за поддержу национализма). Сообщите пожалуйста открытые данные для подачи в суд, доля ускорения дела. -- Участники Википедии (коллективное) 15:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.221.12.237 (talk)

En-Wiki has no control over ru-Wiki and can not assist with this.Slywriter (talk) 16:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

How can we refine the process without creating unnecessarily burdensome or tedious standards. burde

When it comes to public safety I believe everyone agrees that's important. But what about conflicts of interest? For example let's say I'm an individual that's developing an algorithm based on my personal use, is it a conflict of interest in itself no,but what about if the public engages with the algorithm, even though they're possibly utilizing a similar service to personalize their user experience, at what point does one have grounds to site a conflict of interest ( if any).? 73.87.10.176 (talk) 23:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

If you are involving yourself in wiki-related conversations or edits about the algorithm then you need to disclose. Having a conflict isn't a problem, trying to hide it is. Slywriter (talk) 17:01, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

History of this page's lead

I was talking to another editor about how the lead for this page changed in 2015 (here's the diff). The first sentence changed from "A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor" to "Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial or other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. (The word interest refers here to something that a person has a stake in or stands to benefit from, not something he is merely curious about.)". It looks like there were a lot of changes in 2015 and I'm not sure if they were a product of consensus (you can see the discussion from then here). Do most people prefer the current wording? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Conflicts of interest resolution

I want to create an International Human Right NGO page in Wikipedia but I am facing the Conflict of Interest every time while creating, how can I resolve this need some detailed guidance. SarimBurney12 (talk) 11:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@SarimBurney12: The best would be to create the article in draft space. But first you need to collect together reliable sources that are sufficiently independent from the Sarim Burney Foundation. Information that the foundation says about itself can be a minor component of information in the article, for information likely to be uncontroversial, but most sources should be independent. For example, I saw these:

• https://tribune.com.pk/story/2272600/fia-takes-into-custody-welfare-organisations-records in The Express Tribune
• https://tribune.com.pk/story/2272746/bilquis-edhi-objects-to-fia-investigations , with Bilquis told the media that the foundation collected information about grooms and their families before marrying the girls off, explaining that they were permitted to meet the men once and were married if they consented that doesn't sound very much like respecting women's rights: it's not consistent with women's rights to "permit" a woman to meet a man once and suggest that she marry him after a single meeting, and the expression "marrying the girls off" doesn't sound like it's a women's rights organisation; it would be good to find a URL with the result of the Federal Investigation Agency's investigation about concerns that the Sarim Burney Foundation is involved in human trafficking, and whatever the result of the legal case is, if there is one;
• https://pakizine.com/pol-n-govt/measures-females-can-take-to-protect-themselves - the source Pakizine is not currently Wikipedia-notable, and says very little, so it's a weak source, but it does claim that Sarim Burney Foundation is a major women's rights organisation in Pakistan, so other editors might accept it, especially if it is attributed (e.g. "Pakizine describes Sarim Burney Foundation as ...");
• https://hands.org.pk/the-endless-efforts-of-top-10-ngos-of-pakistan - this HANDS source seems to be a similar situation to the Pakizine one, so again, it might be accepted
• Dawn is a well-respected source (WP:RS); https://www.dawn.com/news/1352104 and https://www.dawn.com/news/251314/karachi-women-smuggled-to-gulf-via-iran-border talk only about Sarim Burney, not about the foundation; however, since these are solid sources, you could probably include a sentence or two about Sarim Burney based on these two articles, since together with sourced evidence that he supports the foundation named after him, that would give the reader some indirect information about the foundation;

In any case, you can propose a draft based on the best sources you can find and others will give you suggestions on the talk page there. Boud (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Non-Governmental Organisations

Good Afternoon, How are small NGO's supposed to gain influence if they cannot create a wikipedia page to provide information on what they do. No one outside these organisations will create a page that has correct, factual information that will be a reliable source for those simply wishing for quick information. However, whenever someone within the organisation creates one it is denied due to conflict of interest. As a small organisation, no one will create an effective page for us. Please give information on what can we do to create a wikipedia page for a NGO, charity with no paid editing involved. Peace2022 (talk) 11:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Peace2022. The 'paid' part of "paid editing" can sometimes cause confusion. We're not really concerned by financial remuneration per se, but by the inherent tendency to bias an editor has when they're editing on behalf of their employer or some other entity in which they have an 'interest'. In that sense, it doesn't matter whether that employer is a for-profit or non-profit organisation. The editor is not editing purely in Wikipedia's interest any more.

Small NGOs are not supposed to gain influence by creating a Wikipedia page. That is not what Wikipedia is for. We're a volunteer-written encyclopaedia and we only cover topics that have already been written about by independent sources. If the NGO you work for meets that criterion, then you may have luck with the draft you are working on, or you can request a volunteer write an article about it. But many very worthy organisations do not and will not have articles written about them. And in general, as this page makes clear, we do not want you to write an article about your employer. We can wish you the best of luck in your efforts to increase their profile, but this is not the right place to do it. – Joe (talk) 11:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Joe, Thank you for your kind words. I will look into requesting a volunteer to write it for us. I appreciate your quick response, Thank you, Peace2022 (talk) 12:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

It is worth baring in mind that Wikipedia pages do not help with SEO or PPC. Furthermore, it needs to be covered by reliable sources. Strongly suggest drafting something first. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 12:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Although I know this isn't the answer you want to hear, you are better off not asking someone to create an article about your organization. The author will still be considered to have an interest in promoting the entity. isaacl (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@Peace2022: The case of small NGOs is a genuine problem for Wikipedia, and if you have a solution that we haven't thought about before, then you're welcome to propose that. Currently, you would need to convince several different online mainstream media, which are currently accepted as reliable sources in Wikipedia, or which are at least tentatively accepted by editors interested in the article as reliable, to do in-depth investigations and reports about your organisation. Obviously, you cannot pay the media to do the report, and the report may show you in a bad light - that's the risk you have to take. If you choose responsible media that are unlikely to have a special bias in your NGO's favour, then most likely you'll get a nuanced report, commenting on what's going right and what's going wrong in your NGO. After the reports are public, then those should be usable to establish that the which/what/when/where/how/why/who of your organisation, based on those and any other reliable sources. You might also find academic (university researchers') reports on your NGO. Peer reviewed academic articles are generally considered stronger sources than mainstream media articles. Some other sources may be accepted - you can try them and find consensus with other editors about how independent and solid those sources are. There's no problem creating a WP:DRAFT, especially if you already have some good sources and clearly declare your COI.

There is effectively a trust network of online sourcing, which at times has been abused, for example by Avisa Partners, whose clients are rich oligarchs rather than grassroots NGOs; I suspect that we quite likely have a statistical bias in favour of rich clients and against grassroots NGOs (see WP:BIAS), though I'm just guessing. In the long term, we hope that fake information will be weeded out and that the trust network of reliable sources of information will be strengthened.

I agree with Isaacl that asking a volunteer to write the article instead of someone working for your NGO won't make any difference. If you can write a good draft at WP:DRAFT based on good sources, according to Wikipedia principles and guidelines, and declaring your COI on the talk page, then chances are that someone will approve it and shift it to WP:ARTICLESPACE, where regular articles are. Boud (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I apologize for missing that "requesting a volunteer" came from the advice of Joe Roe, who linked to Wikipedia:Requested articles. (I had mistakenly thought that the editor was considering asking one of the NGO volunteers to write an article.) Posting a request through that venue is a reasonable way to look for a Wikipedia editor interested in writing an article, though as can be seen from the lengthy list of requests, it might not be very fruitful. isaacl (talk) 21:32, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Avisa Partners

Just an alert that might help people tracking COI situations. On fr.Wikipedia, there's fr:Avisa Partners#Controverse sur la manipulation de l'information et de sites internet. Per the article and its WP:RS, Avisa Partners is a consulting firm with very strong political connections in France that has been heavily involved in COI editing of blogs and the fr.Wikipedia. Enquiries by nine different news sources have documented Avisa Partners' false news campaigns since 2013. During 2013 to 2014, according to the current state of the fr Wikipedia article (I haven't checked the sources myself), the directors of the firm directly supervised writing false news articles and this type of activity constituted over 90% of the firm's activities. This would clearly be notable if somebody wanted to create Avisa Partners here at en.Wikipedia, for those interested in knowledge about disinformation. The fr article was only created on 18 Feb 2022 - and the talk page has a section dated today (21 July) commenting that the Wikipedia page itself was COI-edited by Avisa Partners. Seems like the firm wants to get more and more bad publicity and doesn't know about the Streisand effect. Boud (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

It looks like fr.Wikipedia admins and other editors are proposing a major list of pages needing investigation - within fr, at least - for COI-damaged pages: see fr:Wikipédia:Bulletin des administrateurs/2022/Semaine 29#Enquête avec Mediapart : activités wikipédiennes d'Avisa Partners. Pages concerned include the fr equivalents of

• Bayer/Monsanto
• Électricité de France
• Denis Sassou Nguesso
• Idriss Déby
• János Áder

Boud (talk) 18:46, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

@Yug and Elinruby: You may want to keep an eye on the en version of the article Avisa Partners. If you look at the topic of this talk page and the article itself, and if you look at the French version, especially if you skip straight to the talk page and read this admin work page, then it should be obvious why this is an article that needs plenty of watchers, especially French-speaking watchers.

As for investigations into damage already done on en.Wikipedia by Avisa Partners (if any has been done), I think that's up to whoever is motivated to try to investigate. Boud (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

thank you for bringing this to my attention. Elinruby (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

@Mathglot: as another French speaker who has shown an interest in disinformation topics Elinruby (talk) 21:32, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

And me, too. Mathglot (talk) 22:11, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Seems like some tidying has already been done on en.Wikipedia with indefinite blocks of Jaffredo and Sedentaire, but it's possible that those who have dramatically violated online community principles for cash might not yet understand the Streisand effect, so staying alert will still be wise. Boud (talk) 03:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

In regard to that, I filed an ANI report about this, here, linking the French ANI report and summarizing it. Mathglot (talk) 08:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Documenting UPE/spam blocks based on off-wiki evidence

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#Documenting UPE/spam blocks based on off-wiki evidence. – Joe (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Clarification About Deceased Relatives

I don't think that this is a question so much as a comment currently at WP:ANI and at a user talk page. An editor who has been blocked is saying that their edits cannot be promotional because the person (the subject of the biography) is deceased. I think that the language of what is a conflict of interest needs to be clarified to establish beyond doubt that relationship to deceased persons is a conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

UPE

I have written a new question for the top of BFAQ: Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations#Can I pay someone to write an article about me or my organization?

That FAQ hasn't been overhauled in approximately forever, and I suspect that this is the question orgs are most likely to have these days. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I do not have a conflict of interest

Professional musician Josh Hager asked me to make a page on his behalf. I need this published. I have no connection to Hager. The information was given to me in an interview format from him to be entered on this page. SadieClements (talk) 17:04, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@SadieClements: Please see WP:Paid editing. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 17:45, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Why not create a new niche for contemporaries to give information about a subject or person?

Why not create a niche or department for contemporaries and relatives of notable people who are deceased, to provide information? How bad can that be? Other Wikipedia editors are like hawks, and will quickly notice whether the purpose of the edits made by family and friends, for instance are simply promotional. I think there is or should be a place for commentary by Contemporaries, including family and friends. . (I am the daughter of Irving, Fiske, writer, and Barbara Hall, Fiske, Calhoun, artist, both of whom have pages on Wikipedia, and I live at Quarry Hill Creative Center, the artist's colony and entity of many changes founded by my parents.) I have a large collection of family papers for both sides of the family which could be useful commentary and I am sure other people do too. I can't even begin to imagine how you deal with this matter. I have actually stayed away from Wikipedia for a very long time with occasional glances to make sure nothing completely untrue is being written about my family. I would like to say the family does not consider Quarry Hill to be a "hippie commune." The property has always been owned by my family, not communally owned. It was intended to be an artist's retreat and it seems to be going back in that direction (At the moment (2023) a new fellowship program for artists is occurring at Quarry Hill... I'm not going to talk about it because that would be promotional--this is just meant to be a "for instance." I am sure that other relatives and contemporaries of notable people , or people who went through a certain disaster for have information that would be germane to the person or place or thing that the page is about. In GENEALOGY, in Wikitree, for instance, there is room for personal recollections and photographs, and so on. I think that Wikipedia could benefit from a more open approach to this kind of thing. Isabella Fiske McFarlin (ladybellefiske)70.16.68.140 (talk) 04:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Do we need a disclaimer/warning?

There is currently a drama going on, including a request for an ArbCom case, about Jimmy Wales making an accusation that someone was an undisclosed paid editor, based on what was actually a common online scam. For those not familiar, there are dubious companies that scam people to pay them money in order to, supposedly, have "high ranking" people here (often impersonating actual editors) get them favorable coverage in articles about them. In this instance, it was an outfit called WikiExperts. I just did a fast web search, and quickly found WikiExperts and WikiExpertsInc, both of which look to me like obvious scams. And I'm sure there are others. And if Jimbo, of all people, didn't recognize the scam for what it was, surely there are other people who could be taken in.

I went looking for an information page or guideline page that lists such companies, and identifies them as places to stay away from, or somewhere in policy or guidelines that says, outright, that if you are thinking about wanting a page about you or your organization, be wary of hiring anyone for pay to create or maintain the article for you. Did I simply miss it? if so, please point me to it.

Or is there a need to have something that warns people about these things? I realize that we don't want to create advertising, but something more like a disclaimer or warning. Any ideas? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

There's Wikipedia:List of paid editing companies. I'm not sure what kind of disclaimer you are thinking of? Smallbones has long had a warning on their talk page that links to Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Scam warning. isaacl (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Those two things, a list and a warning about not getting fooled by them, are exactly the kinds of things I had in mind. What I'm thinking now is that we might want to link more widely to those two pages, to make them easier to find. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

The list of companies is one of the many links in the "See also" section. However I didn't find it that way; I found it through WikiProject Integrity page.

I don't really know the best way to reach the target audience, which is likely smaller, non-techsavvy business owners who don't employ reputable PR firms. Lots of mom-and-pop businesses (such as restaurants) can easily be taken in by someone promising to promote them in venues X, Y, and Z. I think the only way to possibly (not certainly) reach them would be to put a big disclaimer on articles, and I can't see that gaining community consensus. isaacl (talk) 21:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I just went on a binge of adding see also's to various pages, and I'm satisfied with that for now. For that target audience, I agree, but I suppose an option would be to add it to some of the basic how-to pages for beginners learning to edit WP, and I'm not quite ready to do that yet. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the prime market for these types of scammers aren't ever going to read any help or project pages on Wikipedia of their own volition. Having links for the convenience of editors who are looking for some info can, of course, be helpful with respect to investigating scams. For better or worse, the aforementioned wikiproject that was set up to investigate paid editing isn't actively updating its project pages, so there no obvious hub to look to for this type of info (I imagine in part due to people wanting to keep some of this info offline). isaacl (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree, but I think it's beneficial to point to these pages for editors (like me) who are looking for the info. After all, if Jimbo didn't know about it, there are others of us who might want to learn more about it, too. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

It may not be ideal for multiple reasons, but I think this page is likely the first place to look for info. (Making Wikipedia:Paid editing into an actual page instead of a redirect would probably be helpful, but it would mean fixing up all existing uses.) Perhaps some more info can be added to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Solicitations by paid editors. isaacl (talk) 22:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

You are right that no one is going to come to Wikipedia itself and follow notices to find out they are dealing with a scammer. The best awareness would be legal action and then media coverage of that action. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Is there any appetite from anyone to relaunch this? I'd be happy to work it with someone. I spend a lot of time at WikiProject Companies where I think much of the paid editing is focused (company pages). --CNMall41 (talk) 23:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Do you have plans on how to provide education and outreach to public relations and marketing professionals, freelance editors, and employees working on assignments from their employers? Or do you have a different purpose in mind? isaacl (talk) 23:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it is our job to do outreach. We can certainly have it to document incidents such as the one currently at arbcomm, create essays to people who are looking into paid editing so they know what to stay away from, more education for those putting up spam at AfC in hopes they get it accepted and paid by their employer, etc. I believe one of the things about documenting certain incidents as they come up as it make a great way for SIGNPOST editors who can write stories about it and then get picked up by the media (as often happens). But, doing our own outreach I think is a stretch. That would be something for the WMF. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

You'll probably get a bigger audience for brainstorming at one of the village pumps than on one of the two related WikiProject talk pages, or perhaps on the talk page of an active group that deals with promotional edits, such as new page patrol. isaacl (talk) 00:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I think there is real value, separate from the somewhat difficult task of warning potential scam victims, in better equipping editors who work against the scams with useful information. Although both pages listed above are now in the See also section here, I'm thinking about creating, and moving them into, a new subsection of the Miscellaneous section of this guideline page, with a title like "Beware of scams", and giving some brief text about what these scams are. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I suggested the "Solicitations by paid editors" subsection within the Miscellaneous section as it already provides advice on what to do when you receive a solicitation. However some restructuring may be helpful. isaacl (talk) 00:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that you did. But I would like to highlight it with its own header. But putting it directly after that subsection would make good sense. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I think it may be good to combined the existing advice with any new advice; it could go in a new subsection. isaacl (talk) 03:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I've done this: [9]. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the section should recommend forwarding information to the arbitration committee. I don't feel it's within their remit to investigate paid editing, and perhaps more to the point, I don't think they have the available time to do so. Regarding disclosure, it would simplify matters if the terms of use are modified as suggested by some on its talk page to require disclosure on the user page (rather than it just being one of three options right now). Right now it is only mandatory for a freelancer directly obtaining work through another site, as they must disclose their accounts on that site, but that wouldn't apply to an employee of someone who handled clients.

Regarding the list of companies, I think we need to be careful that the list not appear to be exhaustive, nor an endorsement of any particular editor or organization. isaacl (talk) 14:58, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

The link to ArbCom was there before the recent edits were made. We're just coming out of a drama where Jimbo was chastised because he should have contacted ArbCom privately, and nobody said then that it was outside ArbCom's remit. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Accusing an editor directly based on private evidence wasn't considered appropriate, which isn't the same thing as forwarding any scam-related info to the arbitraiton committee. The paid-contribution disclosure page and scam warning page says to send emails to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org and not the arbcom email address, though I'm guessing based on GeneralNotability's comment that an arbitrator is assigned the responsibility for this email address? I was thinking of that comment, though, which didn't seem too encouraging about sending info to the email address. isaacl (talk) 03:04, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Now I understand better what you meant, and I agree. I just changed it to the "paid" e-mail address. I thought mistakenly that you meant we should not say anything about where to report it, but I agree with you entirely that it's better to use the same e-mail address as those other pages use. I don't know why the ArbCom address was originally put here. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Legal action against fraud is particularly hard, and not too effective, for the same reasons that other online fraud like bank phishing still happens: the identity of the scammers is hard to discover, and when it is discovered, they are often located in jurisdictions where it's harder to sue them. That being said, many scammy UPE companies use US-based services (Zendesk, Tawk, Zoho, Cloudflare) and if WMF started a criminal complaint in the US, they could possibly terminate these services. This would not make the problem go away, but it could be a significant disruption to their daily operations. MarioGom (talk) 07:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

There's a related discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Why don't we have warning banners about scams?. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: I've been following this and saw that you wanted to get a link to WP:PAIDLIST in somewhere, but I don't think it is fair to infer that they are all scamming people. The majority of them don't disclose but that doesn't make them a scam. If you still want to include a link to the list, can you think of another way? SmartSE (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

That's a valid point. I've made this edit: [10], changing it to say that "some of these" companies do that. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I think we need to be absolutely careful with our wording. Even saying "some of these" yet still putting everyone on the same list could be a problem. Maybe separate those out who we have reliable sources showing they are scams or fraud such as this.--CNMall41 (talk) 07:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

The list page, like all pages, is always a work in progress, and some of these concerns can potentially be better addressed by edits there, without being a reason for us not to link to it. In fact, if you go through the list page, it is organized into sections based on whether the organizations are good-faith or have been sanctioned here, with links to the sanctions, so it's pretty clear about these distinctions. And the number of verified and blocked scams is really breathtaking. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on creating redirects from those company names to the list? That way if someone searches in Wikipedia it will take them to the list.--CNMall41 (talk) 04:01, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Redirecting an article in mainspace to a project space page isn't generally done (see Wikipedia:Redirect for some discussion). I think it would run counter to the principle of providing a neutral point of view without including original analysis. isaacl (talk) 04:22, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

On the need to disclose one's identity per WP:SELFCITE

Hello, following this brief exchange at the Teahouse I thought that maybe we should add a line of text to WP:SELFCITE to better clarify the issue - or am I wrong? To me the guideline was not clear at all, and perhaps we could avoid some misunderstanding by writing something like the following: Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if the conflict of interest has been disclosed and the material is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:33, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't see a need to change the wording. Most editors within Wikipedia use a pseudonym and if they had to declare a COI every time they added a source reference to their own work this would be a form of WP:OUTING that might discourage them from doing so. We want experts in their field to contribute from reliable sources, whether their own or by others. The guideline points out that edit histories show which (anonymous) editor has added which citation and it would thus be clear if any editor was exclusively adding material from a particular named author to the exclusion of others. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:44, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

This is a good point. Perhaps there are different views on the meaning of this policy? I was told at the Teahouse that you must declare a COI, and thus disclose your identity, when you add a source reference to your work. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

That's why I think that what you were told at the Teahouse is wrong. The current guidance at WP:SELFCITE specifically allows additions like that without declaring a COI. Of course, the guidance may change as a result of this discussion. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Adding a source that is your own work is a COI and should not be done. You may be gratuitously advertising your work. Like all COI edits, you should use the talk page to suggest that another might do it. If you want to remain anonymous, don’t contribute so close to your own work. SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree that we don't want to ask editors to self-out. So this really comes down to enforcement, because any anonymous editor can potentially self-cite without revealing that they have done so. If someone does this repeatedly, then it becomes self-revealing because of the multiple similar edits, and it can be dealt with without needing to ask for any personal information. Otherwise, there isn't a significant problem. Consequently, I agree that we don't need to revise the wording. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:44, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

A small amount of self citing is no great problem. If it becomes systematic, then they will be caught, and having broken the rules, they can’t complain about being publicly outed and embarrassed. Natural consequences are quite an effective enforcement. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:47, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree that we should not revise the wording. And that the outing harm would be far worse that any benefit. North8000 (talk) 17:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

My initial take is that citing one's own work is a clear COI and must be disclosed. Why wouldn't it be a COI? —DIYeditor (talk) 17:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

It is a COI. The strict requirement for disclosure, however, comes from WP:PAID. COI is a guideline, whereas WP:OUTING is a policy, and so takes precedence. One should avoid any kind of COI editing, to begin with. But if disclosure means saying "in real life, the author of this citation is me", that's where the question in the opening post of this section comes into play. If you look at the Additional Notes near the top of WP:COIN, there is a good summary of how the community has decided to deal with these situations. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

It wouldn't be someone else disclosing the self-citing editors' identities though, they'd be disclosing it themselves. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

That's clearly true, so no one would be sanctioned for violating the outing policy for having voluntarily posted personal information about themselves. But the whole concept of the outing policy is that editors have the right to edit anonymously, so we have to be very careful about asking editors to reveal their identity if they haven't already chosen to do so. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I think no academic would renounce their right to edit anonumously in order to be able to cite their own work as a source of a Wikipedia article, and if someone were willing to do so, it would probably be the kind of work that we don't want cited as a source here - the only available source on the topic, the source that one must cite, sounds quite suspicious to me. Asking editors not to cite their own work is not unreasonable. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:13, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's a problem for a policy or guideline to be merely a statement of principle. It will likely never come up, but if it does come up, it was already published as policy. It will let anyone who is not sure about it read and decide for themselves. A legitimate academic might take heed of something they had not considered and do the right thing here. There is not a right-to-COI; I don't think there is a right to edit anonymously under a COI. —DIYeditor (talk) 10:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: I don't see the conflict - if you want to cite your own work, you must disclose it, but if you don't want to disclose who you are, then don't cite your own work. SmartSE (talk) 09:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I guess I didn't express myself too well, because I agree with you. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

OK, I've thought about this, and I think the following is what I should explain more clearly. If you don't want to disclose who you are, then don't cite your own work. Yes, I agree with that entirely. (In fact, that's what I've done when walking away from some pages where I could see the discussion starting to go in a direction that would give me a COI.) If you cite your own work repeatedly, without disclosing your COI, experienced editors are going to easily see the tells, and the situation will wind up at WP:COIN. There, it will be dealt with by uninvolved editors deciding that, yes, there is a COI problem with these edits and they should be stopped and reverted, but those editors will identify a COI without violating the outing policy. If you cite your own work once, without disclosing your COI, there's a pretty good chance that no one will notice. If the added content strikes someone else as WP:UNDUE or WP:PEACOCK, it will get reverted, with no lasting harm. But if that isolated citation stands, it's the end of the world and the sky will fall. Oh wait, no it isn't. It's actually no big deal. We have to weigh the desire for bright-line rules against the facts that a single COI edit that otherwise looks good to other editors is not particularly disruptive, and that we want to encourage editing by subject matter experts. The community, as well as ArbCom, have repeatedly sanctioned editors for being overly zealous in enforcing COI, so the community consensus is very clearly that editor privacy trumps COI. Therefore, there's no need for additional language here, and a decision to change the guideline to imply that a single undisclosed COI violation is inherently a blockable violation is something that would require a new RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Given that everyone is I think in agreement that citing your own work is a COI, I don't see why we shouldn't note that explicitly here, as proposed above. The question of whether it's enforceable given the outing policy is a separate one, but at least establish it in principle...  — Amakuru (talk) 07:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that making this clearer and less ambiguous would be helpful. If the work is important enough, other editors will cite it and the author should not need to cite it themselves. The only difficulty with this, is that it really depends on the other edits that someone is making - if someone is almost exclusively adding citations to their own work, it is clearly problematic, but if someone is adding hundreds of citations to other works and 1% to their own, that is unlikely to be a problem. Ultimately it comes down to whether they are here to write an encyclopedia and incidentally citing their own work in the process, or only here to promote their own work (whether they think that or not!). SmartSE (talk) 09:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree that if "they are here to write an encyclopedia and incidentally citing their own work in the process" we should not even consider anonymous editing to be an offense. COI is such a broadly fluid term that it could cover the entire Wikipedia. And for many types of articles we need experts to write them. For example, I was mentoring a newbie who was a long-retired notable expert in their field wanted to remain anonymous and also needed to cite themselves. or, what if Einstein wanted to write on relativity anonymously? He would be forbidden to to write without citing.

Keep in mind that without anonymity Wikipedia is the probably most intrusive privacy destroying major website on the internet. It is an easily publicly searchable database of every edit that the editor ever made, including the exact date, hour , minute and second that they made each edit.

On the flip side I have deleted hundreds of reference spammings. To someone familiar with the topic it's pretty obvious to tell the difference between someone trying to build and article and someone looking to spam in the reference. North8000 (talk) 14:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a problem of assuming that COI editing is the same as non-neutral editing. Having a conflict of interest should not mean that you are forbidden from editing. Everyone has conflicts of interest. With the way Wikipedia can influence future citations, I think it is a definite conflict of interest for anyone to cite themselves. In the business world, a COI does not prevent someone contributing to the board of a nonprofit or otherwise giving advice or contributing to discussion; it is declared so others can check that conflict. I believe we should judge edits by their quality. We shouldn't put a blanket ban on COI editing until the edits themselves (or a pattern of edits) demonstrate that the editor is violating Wikipedia's neutrality policy. The problem though, is that people who declare a COI are sometimes treated with a lot of distrust and hostility based solely on that COI. This discourages disclosure. We want to encourage disclosure. Therefore, we should be reasonable in our expectations. We should expect academics to cite themselves as well as others. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Editing with an undeclared conflict of interest needs to be plainly against the rules. Anything but a simple rule opens loopholes and wikilawyering. In the end, it would be the undisclosed COI editor who gets burned. The rule and the advice here exactly coincide.

We should not create self-decided NPOV editing as an excuse for undisclosed COI editing. That will be confusing, especially for the newcomer semi-expert. Real experts do not need to promote themselves in Wikipedia articles.

I disagree that we want to encourage disclosure. Disclosure is great, but if someone is hesitant we should never pressure them to disclose. Better to simply warn: Do not edit mainspace where you have an undisclosed conflict of interest, and this definitely includes adding content cited to your own publication. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:45, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

It seems important to keep in mind that "I have a conflict of interest with respect to this source" does not necessarily mean "I am an author of this source." Asking editors to acknowledge a conflict of interest doesn't mean that we're asking or that they need to declare the exact nature of such a conflict. ElKevbo (talk) 17:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Maybe. Ideally, if you have any possibly perceivable conflict of interest, you will add the suggested edit to the talk page for another to consider. You do not have to disclose that you have a possibly perceivable conflict of interest, you can just post a suggestion. Maybe pretend you’re not sure it’s needed.

Only “maybe”, because I am not sure that it is a good idea to raise the notion of partially declaring. I think it is better for the questions to be binary. Do have have a conflict of interest? If yes, do not edit the article directly, use the talk page. Do you wish to declare your conflict of interest? If yes, do so fully. In the past, we’ve seen bigger trouble come from editors making unverified claims of expertise. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I can see problems with a requirement of "fully" declaring a COI. "I have a conflict of interest, so I'm using the talk page" should be fine, without requiring "I have a conflict of interest because I am the author of the source, so I'm using the talk page" in order to "fully" explain where the COI comes from. In fact, I like your idea of raising it on the talk page while pretending lack of certainty that it's needed. The issue here is making an edit to the article directly, and WP:SELFCITE already says: When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion: propose the edit on the article's talk page and allow others to review it. In a sense, what we are discussing here is a major rewrite of SELFCITE, that would replace "when in doubt" with "there are no exceptions to this requirement". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree, there should be no need to describe the COI. Disclosing it and avoiding directly editing under COI is more than enough, to my mind. —DIYeditor (talk) 07:44, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

For many pages, a talk page comment will not be noticed or replied to, especially in areas Wikipedia needs academic experts to edit. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

You can go as far as posting an edit request. These draw attention. If the edit requires an academic expert to understand why it is justified, maybe it is not. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I see that there is a template for an "edit request." I've been on Wikipedia for years and I didn't know it was a Thing. Why do we think some academic newcomer is going to know about it? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:13, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Good point.

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Dealing with edit requests from COI or paid editors Mentions them as standard, but nothing at the top told a COI editor about them.

Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide#Steps for engagement Is fairly simple and direct, but it is very buried.

WP:COI should be edited to fix this problem. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Request edit template type

Should we be having COI/U that's also P-blocked for COI related conduct submit their request as COI edit request, or P-block edit request? Context: Talk:Zearn#Request_Edit_B @Melcous: Graywalls (talk) 23:08, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Question

Does en:WP:COI still apply if someone is a heir to a subject who died several decades ago? Where do we draw the limit? Trade (talk) 21:58, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Probably not. The deciding factor would be whether the editor stands to gain something tangible (more than just feeling good) from the edits. But an exception would be if the long-deceased page subject continues to be associated with something that might still be money-making, or otherwise beneficial, for the page subject's heirs. So if an editor stands to benefit from how Wikipedia covers something like that, then it would be best to follow the guideline. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Actually, it depends... like a lot of things. It's a massive COI if one is creating pages on their ancestors, their heritage, businesses they established, their philanthropy, assets they owned and general posting of fluff. Graywalls (talk) 02:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Open air disclosed public relations editing

For example Jon Bon Jovi, and Ono Academic College. These are examples from two users with multiple disclosed paid direct editing that goes far beyond factual corrections. While _Undisclosed_ paid editing is prohibited by policy, it seems like some disclosed paid editors are doing major public relations editing openly. Are we trending towards tolerating this? Whatever happened to not directly editing on articles where you have a COI? Graywalls (talk) 05:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I haven't really looked into those two pages, but the basic answer to your question is that no, it remains not OK. They should use the talk page, and not edit the page directly. The first step would be to raise discussions about the editors at WP:COIN. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

It went absolutely nowhere with one of the shameless paid direct editing editor last year. You can see it here. He was notified, he never participated in discussion and it continued as if the discussion didn't happen. Graywalls (talk) 10:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I can see that other editors confirmed the problems that you raised, but it got archived without anyone taking action. That's regrettable. I described COIN as "the first step", so in cases where there is no resolution there, I think the appropriate second step is WP:ANI, with a link to the previous COIN discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Here's another one Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Edward_Forman The COI has been making disclosed paid edits within the article space and others haven't really said much about it. Although it isn't prohibited inn absolute language despite "strongly discouraged". I am wondering if there's been a cultural shift about paid editors making direct edits over the years. Graywalls (talk) 23:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:COICOIN, If you believe an editor has an undisclosed COI and is editing in violation of this guideline, raise the issue [...] on the editor's talk page, [...] the next step is to open a discussion at the conflict of interest noticeboard (COIN). COIN is also the place to discuss disclosed COI that is causing a problem.

Key words, "undisclosed", "causing problems". Although COI editing is strongly discouraged, it is not prohibited. Therefore, unless they are violating a guideline or policy, probably they have some leeway in editing. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I think a lot of this comes down to the difference between correcting unambiguous errors of fact, versus pushing a POV about whatever the page is about. If an editor with a declared COI just goes ahead and corrects spelling errors or clear misstatements of fact, it's really OK. (Just as with BLPs, where we give a lot of leeway for edits that fix something that would have been defamatory.) On the other hand, edits that push a puff piece about the page subject are a problem. Based on what Graywalls says in the opening post, however, those edits go "far beyond factual corrections". In such cases, I don't think that there has been a cultural shift towards anything goes (although there are periodic backlashes when some editor trying to stop COI editing goes too far and harasses someone). Sometimes, a volunteer project just doesn't take action if no one steps up to do it. I do think that ANI is the place to go when that happens, because action is more likely there, than at COIN. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

@Graywalls:, I was going to file a ANI report to ban the user but see that the discussion was archived and I never got around to it. I think sometimes I am going down so many rabbit holes that some slip through the cracks. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@CNMall41 Are you referring to Ovedc ? Graywalls (talk) 04:18, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I was referring to Edward Forman--CNMall41 (talk) 04:22, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Aside from the special rules around UPE, we shouldn't forget that we have the same tools for dealing with disruptive paid editors as we do any other editor: partial blocks from pages or namespaces where they are being disruptive, escalating to sitewide blocks for advertising, spam or just not being here to build an encyclopaedia. – Joe (talk) 10:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

What seems to be happening with moderate to large companies is that they apparently use a different editor when that happens. We don't have a rule to address how corporations are getting away with getting a new start by engaging another editor if the first one is blocked. Perhaps for the purpose of editing policy enforcement, a corporation should be considered the "same person" and switching an editor they engage ought to be treated like a natural person switching user names. Graywalls (talk) 18:17, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Any thoughts of possible (or likely) undisclosed conflict of interest editing by topic who are of crucial interest? For example, Trump, Biden, the COVID-19 lab leak theory. Some editors adopt an incredibly hostile attitude and insult the position of editors who don't think like them. Not saying they have conflict of interest but I wonder why such hostility that even can violate the civility policy. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

That's a good point. I can see a case for extending sanctions on one user to users acting on behalf of the same employer per WP:MEAT. – Joe (talk) 13:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Required disclosure for admin paid advising

There is a proposal at the village pump to add a new COI disclosure requirement. Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Required disclosure for admin paid advising. – Joe (talk) 11:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

COI Article Talk disclosure

In general, I see no reason why it would not be beneficial for an editor with a COI to disclose the fact on the talk page of the article they are working on; it would support their edits to be properly and appropriately scrutinized.

In line with this, I am considering proposing that we require the use of {{connected contributor (paid)}} and {{connected contributor}} on the articles talk pages.

However, before actually proposing this I wanted to float the idea here and get input on whether or not this would be a good idea. BilledMammal (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

That is listed as one of the three ways that Wikipedia as a community accepts as disclosure of COI and being a paid editor. Per the project page, There are three venues to do this: adding a template to a page, making a statement in an edit summary, or disclosing it on a user page. Is there a particular reason you find insufficient the other two options that Wikipedia has been considering acceptable and equivalent to talk page templates? Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 04:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

For a disclosure to be functional it needs to be evident to editors reviewing the article, both now and in the future.

A disclosure on the user page is not sufficient for this, as it is uncommon to check the user page of editors involved in creating an article when reviewing this.

A disclosure in the edit summary is sufficient for the short term, but less so in the long term - I wouldn't object to requiring both, though.

And in general, what is the harm of requiring this disclosure? BilledMammal (talk) 04:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, in all the mess of edits how is one to know that they'd to look each and every editors talk page to check if they have a COI on an off chance? TarnishedPath^talk 04:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

A disclosure in the edit summary is sufficient for the short term, but less so in the long term

I feel almost the opposite is the case. As Wikipedia pages are not static, being subject to edits by other editors as well, a COI disclosure template on the talk page could become obsolete inaccurate as the page text shifts. Contributions from the editor who had a COI could eventually be completely gone. But while that's my feeling about it, I want to respect that some editors with COI may find a talk page template more useful than an edit summary disclosure, or user page disclosure—and vice versa. I think it's best to leave the options open and to maintain the policy as it has been. 05:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC) Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits)) 05:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think we should be focusing on what editors with a COI find most useful, but what the broader community finds most useful - after all, the disclosure is for the benefit of the latter, not the former.

As for your specific concern, I struggle to see what harm the presence of an obsolete tag would have. Could you elaborate? BilledMammal (talk) 05:23, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Obsolete tags take time and energy to clean up, and they would need to be cleaned up because of providing inaccurate information. I don't think obsolete tags are useful to the project. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

What harm would come of an editor thinking that an article was still influenced by an editor with a COI?

And in general, I think it is very rare that an article is rewritten so completely that all vestiges of influence are gone. BilledMammal (talk) 06:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

The editor might end up losing time to searching for the COI contributions to review them, only to discover that those contributions are no longer there anyway. Editors on the talk page might refer to the template to characterize the page as compromised, presuming that content currently live was placed by a COI editor and not realizing those contributions came later. These are just two possible situations.

What harm would come of an editor being able to see COI disclosures in the edit history? Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

None. Being only able to see them in the edit history, however, would be problematic as once the edit drops off the watch list it can only be seen when reviewing the history, and on active pages can easily be overlooked - or never seen, as it is buried too deeply in the history.

As for your specified problems, they all seem to be of the variety "we can't trust editors to use information intelligently". I have more faith in our editors than that. BilledMammal (talk) 07:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Draft RfC

This RfC relates to how editors with a COI should disclose it:

Question A: Should editors with a conflict of interest, when making edits related to it, be required to disclose it in edit summaries?
Question B: Should editors with a conflict of interest, when editing articles related to it, be required to disclose that on the article's talk page?

Editors should respond with "Yes" or "No" to each of these questions.

Thoughts on this proposed question? Are there any ambiguities? BilledMammal (talk) 05:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Something that this draft leaves ambiguous is how and that editors with COI make disclosures in the present. Without context, an editor unfamiliar with COI might think that answering no to the questions means editors do nothing to disclose COI. I would expand the introduction:

This RfC relates to how editors with a COI should disclose it. Currently, an editor may disclose a COI by any one or more of three venues: placing a connected contributor template at the top of the affected page's talk page, making a statement in the edit summary of any COI contribution, or noting the COI on their user page.

Then the questions as you have them. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary. It's best to keep the question brief, and that context isn't useful in my opinion - we're asking about implementing a requirement, so the optional aspects aren't relevant. BilledMammal (talk) 06:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

There already is a requirement. COI is required to be disclosed by at least one of the three venues. The only option is which, not whether. It's good for questions to be brief, but I still think as written it risks giving off a mis-impression of existing COI policy.

Perhaps my suggesting phrasing could be improved:

This RfC relates to how editors with a COI should disclose it. Current policy is that an editor who must disclose a COI has the option of three venues: placing a connected contributor template at the top of the affected page's talk page, making a statement in the edit summary of any COI contribution, or noting the COI on their user page. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

That statement looks good as part of the explanation to the RfC. My only statement To Question A and B above is that there is nothing that states that either would be in addition to anything. So should each of them state that the disclosures would be in addition to noting COI on the user page? TarnishedPath^talk 07:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@BilledMammal, Question C: Both All methods as shown in the statement above posted by Hydrangeans on all occasions without exception?? TarnishedPath^talk 06:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Question D: Should the policy on COI disclosure be left as it is? Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I've added a new line that I think should address your concern, by providing instructions that this isn't an A or B choice? BilledMammal (talk) 06:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I have low enthusiasm for doing this. As commented on above this subsection, our existing guideline allows disclosure in any of three ways. Some editors may feel that disclosure on a user page is insufficient because other editors might not look there, but I'm not convinced that this is a big enough problem to require changing what we currently have. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

My comments above the RfC draft imply such, but just to be fully clear, I do agree with Tryptofish. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Exactly which court case?

In the section US: Federal Trade Commission, state law, and native advertising I have marked the following

State law may have similar prohibitions. While the FTC law may apply only to interstate and foreign commerce, state law applies to intrastate commerce and must be obeyed. At least one state court case found liability for an ad disguised as editorial content.

With because the person did not provide the case citation. In referring to legal issues, it is critical to state the name of the case and the case citation in order to allow others to find it. While I can presume that this case did in fact happen, we don't know what state, what organization was sued, or any way to actually read the court decision.

"Understanding of things by me is only made possible by viewers (of my comments) like you."

Thank you.
Paul Robinson Rfc1394 (talk) 13:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Nick Levinson: as the original contributor: [11] SmartSE (talk) 17:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it would be helpful to clarify that. We probably don't need a citation, however, because if we have a page about the case, then a blue-link to that would be more helpful. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Religious COI

The article mentions COI's of a religious nature. Does this mean someone ay have a COI when editing an article related to there faith? GrayStorm^{(Talk|Contributions)} 23:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

There is the caveat that How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense. I think there is very little to be concerned about if a Muslim edits the Quran article and is following Wikipedia rules and policies. Other examples in the policy focus on business, financial, and personal relationships, like writing about one's spouse or about one's business, and those are the COIs that I think genuinely are of interest to us as a community.

Frankly, I would support trimming religious, political from the policy text, as those affiliations simply don't rise to the level of issue that we are concerned with as Wikipedians. The community doesn't have a problem with U. S. Americans who aren't expatriates writing about Andrew Jackson or Living constitutionalism (political "relationship"), or with atheists who haven't been "born again" writing about Richard Dawkins or Hitchen's razor (religious "relationship"), etc. The community has a problem with editors who violate Wikipedia's policies or pillars, and that can and does happen irrespective of religious or political "relationship". Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 00:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree with trimming them, but they might require some clarification somewhere. Simply being a member of a religion or political party or holding beliefs and views aligned with one of them is clearly not a WP:COI, in the same way that simply being an inhabitant of a nation isn't a COI with respect to that nation. But being part of a religious or political institution would 100% be a COI, especially if you hold a formal role - a sitting senator (or a member of their staff) has a clear COI on things directly related to their political party or the body and government they're elected to; a Catholic priest has a clear COI when it comes to Catholicism. These are "external roles" as described in WP:EXTERNALREL. --Aquillion (talk) 03:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I do agree that COI nature should be more specified. Somebody with a close relationship with a subject is not necessarily going to influence the article in inappropriate ways. For instance, a resident of a small city editing a page about their city. As long as the follow policy, the COI has no role in their editing. I think a COI should only be noted if it is obvious and apparent that the editor is using their COI to wrongly influence the article, or has something tangible to gain from their COI editing. XZealous (talk) 12:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree. The thread a couple threads above also relates to this. North8000 (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Confirming a COI

Clarification on the rules of confirming a COI. As far as I can tell, a potential COI should be put on the WP:COIN. Then there are three possible outcomes. 1) Consensus on the Notice Board confirms COI. 2) Consensus on the Notice Board denies COI. 3) "Silent Consensus" (by virtue of no comments, or not enough comments after 14 days. This means the potential COI is denied.

Is this the only way of confirming and denying potential COI? XZealous (talk) 13:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

One note: the discussion would need to go to WP:COIN, the conflict of interest noticeboard, not WP:RSP, the list of perennial sources. Your link is pointing to RSP. —C.Fred (talk) 13:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

As for the content of your question, there's no way to confirm a conflict of interest by consensus. Consensus can be reached that edits appear to be driven by a COI, and the noticeboard discussion can lead to how to handle said (apparent) COI, but the closest to a confirmation would be an admission or denial of COI by the editor themself, and that's not going to be 100%. —C.Fred (talk) 14:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, and sorry about the incorrect link, not sure how that happened. I am asking because I want to know when to remove COI tags on articles that claim COI.

If there is no consensus or a "silent consensus" on the COIN, can I - within policy - remove the COI tag on the article? XZealous (talk) 05:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Should PAID editors fix inaccuracies in their employer's articles before attempting to fix their competitor's?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Should PAID editors fix inaccuracies in their employer's articles before attempting to fix their competitor's?. Mokadoshi (talk) 18:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Where to draw the line

I was thinking of writing something about humans, but I am a member of that group, so do COI restrictions apply? How about about an organization or group which has millions (or thousands) of members which the editor is one of? I picked a whimsical example, but we really should give guidance on where to draw the line. I think that Tryptofish's "whether the editor stands to gain something tangible (more than just feeling good) from the edits." (above) would be a good place to draw it. Probably excluding extremely tiny or dispersed benefits. For example, if I'm an Italian American, making them look good might tangibly benefit me a bit but that is a very tiny/dispersed benefit. Also, if (as basically required by Wikipedia) an editor contacts the subject of an article to obtain a usable image, and potentially or actually gains a distant friendship as a result, is that now a COI? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I think that what you quoted from me actually answers your question, as long as you note that I said "something tangible (more than just feeling good)". The example of getting an image from a page subject is a tangible benefit to Wikipedia, but not a tangible benefit to the editor who obtained the image (unless the editor was paid for it, which moves it solidly into a COI). --Tryptofish (talk) 18:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@North8000This is a question I have been pondering recently. I actually think @TryptofishTryptofish "whether the editor stands to gain something tangible (more than just feeling good) from the edits" suggestion is very reasonable. Is there a way we can get consensus on this and add it to the COI page? XZealous (talk) 12:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Excellent idea. This brings it more in line with the real world meaning of COI (which is narrow and severe) which the broadness and vagueness here misses by a mile. Without "something tangible" all that you have is a situation that might induce bias due to any of zillions of things that one might be a subset of or acquaintance with. Which my OP brought up. North8000 (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm not sure what exactly we might change on the guideline page. It might be best to consider this in the near future, after ArbCom completes the case that is wrapping up now, where they may be making some decisions that would impact how we approach this. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks!I just read through the case. Looking forward to seeing some better implementations of COI labeling. XZealous (talk) 05:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Some examples:

A Walmart cashier editing Walmart, a BiMart member editing BiMart. - Probably not

The board chair, external relations director, or external public relations or digital strategist for Walmart editing on Walmart - most defenitely.

A lion enthusiast editing on lions/zoos: probably not

A public relations representative or paid agent for Ford Motors whitewashing things from Henry Ford such as nazi connections. The subject to be edited is deceased, but this kind of edit to improve corporate reputation is considered reputation management. So this would be Definitely yes.

Executive director of 501c3 putting puffery and fluff about their organization: yes

Board member for a 501c3 doing similar fluffery or injecting things about the org they're a board member for into related topical articles: yes

Some editors try to make a distinction based on the tax classification of the organization/company being edited; however profit vs non-profit corporate structure is not of relevance. Some of the most egregious public relations editing I have cleaned up have been about non-profits.

Graywalls (talk) 10:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

COI label vs Good Faith editing

"Someone having a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgment about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith."

I find this sentence on the WP:COI page to be almost against what the rest of the article is about. The WP:COI rules are there to prevent editing that is promotional, not neutral ect.. As stated by "While editing Wikipedia, an editor's primary role is to further the interests of the encyclopedia. When an external role or relationship could reasonably be said to undermine that primary role."

However, it is possible with someone with a "close connection" to a subject to also edit with good faith and also within policy. It seems like the article would still label this a COI. However, if the editor is still editing within polciy and good faith, wouldn't a COI tag at the front of the article be more detrimental than necessary? The reader would be exercising some level of caution as if the COI had actually effected the editing - when, in this example, it has not. It is possible for an editor with close connection (albeit, we have yet to determine how "close" of a connection would have to apply before a COI label is used) to NOT undermine "that primary role."

As to "where to draw the line" comments have not been specified, I propose to delete or appropriately change the rule (as stated in the start if this topic) to better represent a COI as an editor that is engaging in COI editing that goes against Wikipedia Policy.

I will wait for further comments. Thanks! XZealous (talk) 14:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it's important to distinguish between:

• Having a COI – pretty much everybody has COIs, for example with their friends & family and it's not a problem;
• Having a COI with a topic covered on Wikipedia – also not a problem, except when one is ...
• Editing on a topic on Wikipedia with which one has a COI. In this case participation is tainted by a COI and WP:COI is relevant.

Bon courage (talk) 14:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. My proposition comes from your third point. Should a COI be labeled when a person is editing on a Wikipedia article but still abides in good faith and follows polciy? I have issue with the quoted sentence above, and am proposing that it should be either changed or removed. It seems pointless, and maybe even harmful, to label an article with a COI editor when that editor is in good faith and following policy. XZealous (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Any COI-tainted editing is a problem, and can never be good or excusable. The existence of a COI-tainted editor damages the consensus-forming process because it bring outside interests into play. Bon courage (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I am not being clear enough. I am asking about if the "outside interests" don't come into play. This also relates to how we classify a COI.

This: "Someone having a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgment about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith." If someone with a close relation to an article they are editing is still editing within polciy and good faith, then the COI maintenance tag on the top of the article does damage to the articles perception, even though the article itself is not affected by any conflict of interest. This is why I would like to clarify that sentence on the page. XZealous (talk) 15:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

"If someone with a close relation to an article they are editing is still editing within polciy and good faith" ← anybody editing with a COI, particularly an undisclosed one, is running agains the grain of the WP:PAGs and is ethically compromised and/or not here in good faith. Bon courage (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

@XZealous I see from your contribution history you are arguing with singular zeal at the International Churches of Christ article. Is this what this is about? For anybody tempted to want to smudge definitions in this space I recommend:

• Friedman, Paul J. (1992). "The Troublesome Semantics of Conflict of Interest". Ethics & Behavior. 2 (4): 245–251. doi:10.1207/s15327019eb0204_2. ISSN 1050-8422.

For an understanding of what a COI is, and how proper management requires declaration. Bon courage (talk) 16:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your book recommendation. I still don't think you fully understand my question. I am not trying to "smudge definitions", or allow COI editors to negatively or improperly affect an article. XZealous (talk) 18:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

The sole purpose of a COI tag on an article is to alert readers that it might be non-neutral because someone with a COI has edited it. If other editors have reviewed the article then since the last COI edit then the tag should not remain:

• If the review has found the article to be neutral, DUE, etc. then all COI tags should be removed.
• If the review has found the article to be biased in some way:
  • If the reviewer can fix the problems, they should do that and then remove all COI tags.
  • If the reviewer cannot fix (all) the problems, they should replace the COI tag with a neutrality or other more specific tag so that readers (and other editors) know with as much specificity as possible what part(s) of the article have issues. Ideally this should be accompanied by a talk page message giving more detail.
• If the reviewer cannot determine whether the article has problems, they should replace the COI tag with a pov-check or other more specific tag, again ideally giving more detail on the talk page.

Tags, including COI tags, must absolutely not be used as a badge of shame. Thryduulf (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

If it's suspicious, but nothing else, should anything be done?

Here's an example of what I see often at NPP and I assume that others see elsewhere. So the "I" is just an example. An editor has a small number of lifetime edits (let's say 50) Lifetime edit #1 was creating a fully formed article (including references, footnotes etc.) about a living person who is "in the business" (academic, musician, actor, actress etc.) and their lifetime edits consist of creating 2-3 other articles on other people who are "in the business". Of course this raises concerns about UPE and multiple account abuse. But other than this I have nothing else that raises suspicion. Should I do anything with one of those (report etc.). And IMO this guideline should give guidance on that. North8000 (talk) 13:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

My take on this rests on the fact that you framed this in terms of whether or not to look into it further, as opposed to whether or not there are sufficient grounds to sanction the user (which of course there are not). So I think the most basic way to answer your question is to say that, if you feel like it, you can report it, understanding that the end result might be no action taken – and if you don't feel like it, there's no harm in just waiting and seeing what happens. Given the limited evidence, you would need to approach it in an AGF manner. Probably the best thing is just to ask the user on their talk page in a non-accusatory way, more like you happened to notice their edits and you want to make sure they know about some policies and guidelines. Alternatively, you could open a thread at COIN, but frame it in a tentative way. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

It's a pattern consisent with UPE but 'the process' has to be followed, and Tryptofish's advice is sound here. If you're feeling ballsy you could tag the offending articles with {{UPE}} to help accelerate matters, and if (as is often the case) there are notability concerns you could tag for that and/or PROD or AfD them. Bon courage (talk) 03:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

It is difficult to get further with such cases without falling afoul of WP:AGF. However, I've had a surprising amount of success with warnings and questions. Perhaps 50% of the time, if you leave {{uw-coi}}/{{uw-paid}} on their talk page, they never edit again. I interpret that as a sign that they either didn't know about the COI guidelines, or did know and now consider the account 'blown'. Maybe 10% of the time they'll actually make a disclosure. Either way, you can then deal with the articles accordingly. The rest of the time—if they deny a COI and it doesn't seem plausible—as Tryptofish says, ask non-accusatory questions. "What motivated you to create these articles?" or "where did you find these sources/photos?" have worked well for me. If the answers aren't convincing, escalate to WP:COIN or send an email to paid-en-wp@wikimedia.org with any off-wiki evidence. But sometimes you just have to give up and keep an eye out for slip-ups in the future.

Also bear in mind that dealing with the articles can be separated from dealing with the creator: WP:CSD#G13, or a PROD/AFD for WP:NOTPROMO are there regardless of whether the creator has a provable COI. In my experience, non-admins are way too conservative in using them. And if all an editor's creations fall in that category, we can block with {{uw-soablock}} or {{uw-nothereblock}}, again without a provable COI motivation.

A word of warning, though: the pattern you describe is also consistent with editathon participants, especially if the subject(s) are from an under-represented group. They will typically be helped by an instructor to draft an article offline and then publish it fully-formed. They may then attend subsequent events on a similar theme, doing the same thing, without much if any 'solo' editing in between. – Joe (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ideas. Regarding reporting it to paid-en-wp@wikimedia.org I did just that for a situation which matches my OP. And they wrote back: "Thank you for contacting us. It does not appear that there is any private information here, so we ask that you raise your concerns on-wiki through appropriate channels (such as the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard at <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard>)" which sounds like shouldn't write them unless I have non-public info. Which led to my post here.North8000 (talk) 20:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

The UPE template says "may have been" so my take on this that you can tag things with it if you have a reasonable suspicion. Although, some seem to think it has to be shown beyond a reasonable doubt before it can be tagged with it. Graywalls (talk) 22:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)