Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Archive 31

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Paid to delete

Hi, is it acceptable for a declared paid editor to be paid to delete an article?.Have come across this where the editor declares this and states that they were successful. I wonder how common this is as it could be for rival companies, political opponents, divorcees, jilted lovers etc.

Also is there a list of declared paid editors? , thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Being paid to make a deletion is the same as any other kind of paid editing, and should be treated as such. That sounds like something that you might want to report at WP:COIN. I don't know of a list, but I think there might be a user category. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

There's WP:PAIDLIST and this dataset but they are by no means complete. You can find users who've added {{UserboxCOI}} to their userpage here. SmartSE (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Good to know, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I consider it to be the most sinister form of paid editing, actually, declared or otherwise. If it is UPE and they are engaging in this, I'm much more likely to take the "lock up and throw away the key" approach. Re: declared, if they are doing it for a BLP who wants to be deleted per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, it's fine. If it is a company that is trying to whitewash it's actions or delete the competition, even if it is allowed by the terms of use, I think it is excluded by local policy as a form of advocacy/NPOV violation, and I think a block would in most circumstances be justified. As I keep repeating: declared is the minimum prerequisite to hit the publish changes button. Asking if someone who is declared is allowed to do this is the wrong question. The question is "Is this person violating the policies and guidelines of the English Wikipedia." TonyBallioni (talk) 22:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, for your help, am going to look into it to try and find out how common it is, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

"including holding a cryptocurrency"

Why are cryptocurrencies being singled out here? Shouldn't the explanatory text then include those holding currencies and commodies (apart from financial instruments and securities)? — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 09:24, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I'm also interested, having read some articles on the internet that criticize this. Can we find out more about @Jytdog: ? It was you who added that sentence (see this diff). Lofhi (talk) 18:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Please review the archives, where you will find this discussed twice. Given the recent disruption (there are current two open threads at admin boards) there is very little chance that either of you will get consensus to remove this.Jytdog (talk) 19:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: can you give me a link to the admin board? There seem to be several. I am not an English contributor. Lofhi (talk) 20:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

There is one at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Indef_request_for_Comefrombeyond, another at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#TBAN_for_Shiftchange.

You will find several others in this search of the admin boards and their archives, and yet more in the archives of the conflict of interest notice board, here.

by its nature of being open and on the internet, Wikipedia is vulnerable to any online group of advocates. Most cryptocurrencies have such groups around them, and on top of the regular advocacy (say vegans, or people who like some video game), we have very clear financial COI on top of fandom. Terrible. Jytdog (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

While its true that some hodlers of cryptocurrencies are prone to editing Wikipedia in a manner that is not in conformity with our policies and guidelines, the same principle is applicable to others dealing in currencies, commodities and securities. Singling out cryptocurrencies in this manner does not seem consistent. I sense an RfC in the making. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 06:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

This is hand-wavy theoretical stuff and is not kind of argument that is going to persuade anybody in Wikipedia. Crypto people actually disrupting the hell out of WP. Jytdog (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: One of the threads above - the one TBANing Shiftchange, has closed and the permalink is here. Jytdog (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Note - Bitcoin.com has published If You’re a Wikipedia Contributor, Owning Cryptocurrency May Be a Conflict of Interest though they get the facts wrong. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC on "cryptocurrencies"

Not even sure if there's really a point of formally closing this, but there's very clearly a consensus to keep in the sentence about cryptocurrencies. That said some users seem not have understood what the sentence was actually meant to be getting at until it was explained (see also User:WhatamIdoing's comments), so perhaps it could do with some rephrasing for clarity. --Brustopher (talk) 13:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the COI policy page make a specific reference to cryptocurrencies? (see WP:EXTERNALREL). — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 07:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes. There is nothing wrong with including it as an example. There has been a problem with users attempting to misuse WP to raise the value of their cryptocurrency holdings. Including it helps avoid misunderstandings about whether or not it is covered by this guideline. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes I would prefer “no”, as I don’t like listing specifics on stuff like COI out of fear it is impossible to list everything, but the current flavor of the day is crypto to the point where I know many people who would support a CSD criteria for it (likely wouldn’t pass, but it’s gotten to that level). When we’re being flooded with these articles making it clear when COI applies is important. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes - it certainly is a flood. Cryptocurrency in general and initial coin offerings in particular are massive problems, along the line of our worst historical problems with financial products, binary options and retail forex. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes per the above. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes per Tryptofish. Thryduulf (talk) 11:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes - It might be unclear to new users that the policy includes cryptocurrencies, since many cryptocurrency holders don't technically have any personal or professional relation to their coins. Adding an explicit reference, then, will clarify to holders that any edits they make about their coin WILL be considered COI. Nanophosis (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments on RfC

@Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington: should we just consider this closed? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your inputs above. We should let this run for a few weeks so we can potentially get wider community input. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 22:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Have you posted it anywhere? If you haven't, theere won't be any further input from Wikipedians. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

As long as the RfC tag remains as it is now, it will be listed as an RfC until a month from the initial post has passed. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Smallbones: A bot invited me here about 7 hours ago (message on my talk page) so it's not impossible more people will show up. Thryduulf (talk) 11:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@Smallbones: I found this at random browsing the list of open RfCs, and just happen to be incredibly sick of seeing edits about crypto that are clearly motivated by an investment in the coin. Anyway, I'd say it's almost done, but give it a few more days before closing. Nanophosis (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment: I am still trying to understand why this is different from holding (or shorting!) a stock. Is it just that we have had a particular problem with this lately? Conversely, if there is a COI from holding a cryptocurrency, there is presumably equally a COI from holding a cryptocurrency-based derivative, such as a put: betting against a cryptocurrency would lead to an equivalent COI to holding the cryptocurrency, no? - Jmabel | Talk 18:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it's a combination of it being a particular problem lately and it being potentially not as obvious as some other things. Obviously, we cannot and should not list everything, but it can be helpful to specify something when experience has shown that it is not often understood. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I think that the confusion might be due to the first bit of the sentence, rather than the example of cryptocurrency. "Any external relationship...can trigger a COI" isn't exactly true. Most "external relationships" have no potential for triggering COI. My best friend at age 4? Nope, no chance of triggering a COI for anything. My local grocery store? Hey, they've got an article. I had no idea, and no interest in even reading it, much less editing it, but the fact that I shop there is irrelevant. This phrasing makes it sound like your relationship with your Kindergarten teacher can somehow magically trigger a COI if you edit an article on your favorite sports team. What we mean is that any external relationship that actually has some connection to what you're editing can trigger a COI. So, yes, if your editing relates to cryptocurrency, and you own more than a trivial bit, then you might have a COI for those articles, just like someone who owns stock in a publicly traded corporation might have a COI for those articles. But owning cryptocurrencies and editing articles about sports teams or antique violins? Nope, no COI there. It's not the mere ownership of a cryptocurrency that matters. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What is a UPE?

This page is a redirect for WP:UPE. What is a UPE? Should be defined. NumberC35 (talk) 22:11, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

NumberC35: undeclared paid editing. If you click the link it goes to the paid editing section. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

"Unpaid" fringe benefit for paid article

This is at Kudpung's talkpage: "I'm not being paid to create their wikipedia page but did say I would try to set one up for them as part of the other [paid] work I am doing." How do we eliminate "confusion" over this in the future? By the way the paid work is almost certainly for an org I recently added to WP:PAIDLIST. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:53, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I would think that the existing wording unambiguously calls that paid editing, although I could be missing something. It sounds to me less like genuine confusion than either willful misunderstanding or simply failure to have read the rules. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

"How do we eliminate "confusion"". Insert a crowbar of understanding. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 17:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Can we lighten up the COI limitation?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Waymo#Proposing_update_to_Technology_section

Here is a waymo employee that would like to improve a poorly written article. In the past I've seen many companies edit their own articles, often poorly but editors do improve them over time. I think that process works better then raising hurdles for companies which are subject matter experts wanting to improve on poorly written or non existent articles. Wondering what you think about saying something, that if editor(s) agree, to allow company to edit article then they are good to do so, until there is a conflict? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

You want to give free rein for Google employees to edit their own article? Gosh. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 17:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Advice about COI editing shouldn't directly contradict our current guidelines, like your suggestion at Talk:Waymo: "Recommend you go ahead and make the updates." ?? Editors, especially with a financial conflict of interest, are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles themselves for a reason (as described in WP:COI). COI-editors should use Template:request edit to request a review and editing by uninvolved editors - the COI-editor got misleading advice in this case. Regarding your question, I strongly disagree with any lightening of these limitations for the time being. Our current COI processes are barely functional to keep promotional editing somewhat under control, and any additional leeway would produce just more advertising and intransparent editing, and taint the credibility of business-related articles even more. GermanJoe (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Coi-stern

Template:Coi-stern has been nominated for merging with Template:Uw-coi. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. — Newslinger talk 16:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Prison sentence for paid review fraud

Some of you may be interested in this report: https://www.tripadvisor.com/TripAdvisorInsights/w4237 WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:57, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

When to remove old COI documentation at talk pages

At what point should old documentation of a conflict of interest (COI) in a template like {{Connected contributor}} be removed? Naturally, one point would be if the documentation was in error, but what about if the COI was due to employment that is no longer the case? Or the user otherwise no longer maintains the pertinent relationship(s) any longer? Does COI, as least on Wikipedia, persist past the termination of the relationship which defined the COI? Or are COI policies and guidelines only applicable to extant relationships as of their last known status?

I ask this because Tinynull informed me on my user talk page that one of the users whose COI I was documenting is no longer employed at the organization from which their COI was derived. Consequently, should that documentation be removed? Or preserved anyway?

As far as I am aware, these situations are not addressed by any documentation, though I would love to be proven wrong. Any input on this matter is appreciated. Thank you for your time. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 07:13, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd say that documentation on an article talk page about edits to the article should stay there permanently, or at least as long as the edits remain in any form on the page. Editors who have changed their life circumstances such that they no longer have a COI should be able to remove disclosures from their own user pages or user talk pages, but other editors should make sure that they are acting on accurate information if they remove it for someone else. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd say a minimum of a year, in any case. There was a discussion at WP:COIN about a user who declared a COI and then removed it a few minutes later. That obviously won't do, but where do we draw the arbitrary line? A year was my suggestion. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

It should never come off. It is relevant to the history of the page. If at some point they stop having a COI and disclose that, that can be put in the "otherlinks" parameter in the "connected contributor" template. Jytdog (talk) 22:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Small business owners, sole proprietors, and paid editing

Is it considered paid editing when the owner/manager of a small business edits an article about their business? Let's assume it meets notability requirements.

It's my understanding that a company owner or employee always has a financial conflict of interest. If their job is in the PR/marketing department and they edit on company time, it's paid editing, but if their job is in an unrelated area, and they edit on their own time, it's a general COI, but not paid editing. Is that correct?

What about the case of an entrepreneur, sole proprietor, or manager of a small limited company (often also the major shareholder), who doesn't have dedicated marketing staff? These people generally take on tasks of public relations, advertising, social media promotion, etc., in addition to their other management duties (plus writing software, giving haircuts, or whatever else it is they might do). Do they need to disclose themselves as a paid contributor, as described in the WP:PAID policy? --IamNotU (talk) 12:26, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes: meets the definition of the edits being paid. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:25, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
~~Yes~~ Legal Question should be answered by WMF: See my comments below. They must disclose their COI. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC) [revised 21:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC) based on further discussion.]
Yes. It is not only a COI, but also paid editing. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes - the sole proprietor, CEO, majority shareholder, etc. is always involved in selling, marketing, PR, and promotion. He/she always gets more money when the firm does better ==> he/she always expects to be paid for their edits. But how about the secretary or personal assistant to the sole proprietor, CEO, or majority shareholder? Is he/she a paid editor or just a COI editor? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- In my view, they would be intermediaries for the owner, and so their edits would be deemed paid editing. isaacl (talk) 01:41, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  - @K.e.coffman, David Tornheim, and Tryptofish: Do you agree with Isaacl? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 10:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
    - Yes, I agree. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
    - Yes, agree. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:38, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
    - I'm not them, but I agree anyway. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:59, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
    - The original question about whether this meets the legal definition of a paid contribution under the Terms of Use should be answered by the attorneys for Wikimedia. If you can give me a good reason why editors have any say in what appears to be a legal question, then please explain. They wrote the terms of use where these terms are defined, did they not? They should have the answer and be prepared to defend the contract based on what they intended those terms to mean. Perhaps, this question should be placed on the Terms of Use page as feedback. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

The terms of use themselves answer this question directly:

"Applicable law, or community and Foundation policies and guidelines, such as those addressing conflicts of interest, may further limit paid contributions or require more detailed disclosure" ToU. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:28, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, obviously. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:59, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree entirely. But I am a bit confused. I don't think that a lot of admins would agree that the "main exec's" secretary is a paid editor - or at least I've seen some decisions that raise doubt about it. Over at Wikipedia talk:Paid-contribution disclosure I proposed some ideas (perhaps I was flailing about on it) that I thought would be as obvious as my question above. Folks seem to think that this guideline can just be ignored, so I'd like the change to be in our policy WP:Paid. I only suggested that the employees would be required to declare a COI. "Employees" is broader than I really think is needed, but it does make is simpler, avoiding the question of "where do we draw the line?" The minimum that I'd like to see, though, is something like "the main exec and all folks who report directly to him/her are required to declare a COI." But if you want to make that "declare their paid editing status" that's fine too. So it seems like I need some help here. How do we tighten up what folks are required to declare? I'll be away for most of the weekend, but I'd love to move this forward. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:03, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

As we've discussed previously, adding text to a page labelled "policy" isn't what makes it policy. A consensus agreement to make something policy is what counts, then that something can be labelled policy, wherever it is. Since you're proposing a policy for reporting a conflict of interest, it makes more sense to put the policy on this page, and label it as such, so it'll be easier to find.

Regarding management having a conflict of interest, how about renaming the "Paid editing" section to "Financial conflict of interest" and changing the sentence This includes being an owner, employee, contractor, investor or other stakeholder. to something like this includes being an owner, executive, executive assistant, employee, contractor, investor, or other stakeholder.

As for making a disclosure mandatory, that's the hard part: consensus needs to be reached to change the "COI editing" section to say you must disclose your COI when involved with affected articles, and to make this section policy. isaacl (talk) 04:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Regarding whether or not an executive assistant should be considered a paid editor: perhaps I should have been more nuanced in my response. Promotional edits can, in my view, be deemed as paid edits being made by an intermediary. Non-promotional edits aren't as clear cut; it depends on the context. isaacl (talk) 04:40, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment as stated above, I think this is a legal question. I am pinging Slaporte (WMF) (legal counsel for WMF) who answered a similar question here. Unfortunately, he has not made an edit with that account in two months. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:01, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your comments! It seems like it's unanimously believed that the owner/operator of a business must disclose themselves as a paid contributor. In the case of employees, I think it would be determined in each case by the terms of their employment contract and specified job duties. My question was about people who don't have that because they aren't employees, for example the owner of a small but notable software company, a well-known author, or an independent filmmaker. I wasn't asking about making changes to policy, or introducing new rules, but about clarifying, maybe with examples, what the policy and rules actually are. It was mainly in connection with the requirement in the Terms of Use and how that's described here and in WP:PAID, and maybe a legal question.

The Terms of Use page talks about edits for compensation, and the FAQ says: '"compensation" means an exchange of money, goods, or services', so it would seem quid pro quo, dollars (or donuts) for edits. An employee with "marketing" in their job description gets dollars for edits. But a sole proprietor can argue "nobody gives me dollars for edits, they give me dollars for my goods or services". Nevertheless that person regularly writes press releases, promotes their business on social media, writes the copy for their website, and so on. For them to anonymously edit Wikipedia, even outside of office hours, even if they say they're following the NPOV guidelines, I'd think would be a violation of covert advertising laws, which is the main concern related to the requirement for disclosure of paid editing in the Terms of Use.

Similarly, WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE on this page only talks about disclosing your employer, "whoever is paying you to be involved in the article (such as a PR company)" so would seem only to apply to employees, not business owners. The WP:NOPAY section says "Being paid to contribute to Wikipedia is one form of financial COI; it places the paid editor in a conflict between their employer's goals and Wikipedia's goals." But what if the promotional editor and "employer" are the same person? There's no exchange. It's certainly "using Wikipedia for public relations and marketing purposes" but can it be called "paid advocacy" if there's no payer? All the language in the various pages regarding paid contributions seems to assume someone editing for someone else's benefit in exchange for money. But this would be a situation where a person is putting their own labor into increasing the value of their equity. So although it seems obvious that it is "paid editing", I'm still not 100% certain if it's "paid editing" as Wikipedia defines and describes it. Is there an intention to limit the definition to people who are hired to promote a business? --IamNotU (talk) 23:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Not unanimous. I never said they are a "paid editor" under the definition. I said they have a COI they must disclose. I read the TOU and I agree with you, paid-editing seems to be described as "edits for compensation, and the FAQ says: '"compensation" means an exchange of money, goods, or services', so it would seem quid pro quo, dollars (or donuts) for edits." I also agree with your analysis that "But what if the promotional editor and "employer" are the same person? There's no exchange." So it's just not that straight-forward for someone self-employed. I'm actually inclined to say that the self-employed person is not paid under the definition. It seems to me legal counsel should answer the question.

As a practical matter, what difference does this make for a typical situation with a sole proprietor, author, artist, etc.: The sole proprietor having no knowledge comes on here having heard "anyone can edit", changes the entry on their business, and doesn't realize they need to disclose their COI, until someone confronts them. How does classifying this person who is ignorant of the rules as a "paid editor" helping the situation? These are just small fish doing small harm. They should be treated gently, not the harsh way I have seen.

The situation I just described is quite different than the WifiOne incident [1][2]. That kind of paid editor does much harm to Wikipedia, and I could see the person behind that being taken to court. I believe the "paid editing" in the ToU is primarily to address these kinds of editors who stay on Wikipedia for the sole purpose of manipulating our entries for payment--if it is over a long period of time or considerable hours are spent. I think the ToU is written somewhat vaguely to make sure that any and all paid editing by the long term "paid editor" like WifiOne is disclosed in full. I think it is also designed to include employees and contractors who as part of their job duties are expected to manipulate Wikipedia for corporate profits. These are the big fish we need to catch.

A sole proprietor who spends less than 1% of the time messing with Wikipedia doesn't seem to me to meet that definition. But if that sole proprietor is getting significant revenue from manipulation of wikipedia entries, then I think it might. Again, I think legal counsel should answer the question. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:06, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I misunderstood, the question was "Is it considered paid editing..." and the answer was "yes", so I thought that's what you meant. The kind of situation I'm talking about is one I've seen many times, where someone creates an article about a small business or an entrepreneur, which no independent editor would have created because of borderline notability, writes a promotional or LinkedIn style of article extolling their virtues, and inserts material and wikilinks into a dozen barely-related articles. They're the only significant contributor to the article, sometimes maintaining it over many years. If the owner/entrepreneur told their assistant to do it, it would be paid advocacy editing and require disclosure. But if they do it themselves... is it or isn't it?

I'm asking because I want to know what I should tell someone if I discover an article/editor like that. In the past, like the others who've commented, I've told people that yes, they must disclose as a paid editor, since their job description (entrepreneur, owner-manager, author, etc.) includes carrying out promotional activities, and the compensation they receive from their customers in part pays them for those activities. But the language in the ToU etc. doesn't directly address the situation.

Whether the rule makes any practical difference, or any sense at all, is a separate question - I just want to know what the rule actually is... Having said that, one editor doing this isn't as egregious as the WifiOne case, but put tens of thousands together and it's significantly harmful to Wikipedia. I'm not inclined to let it go as "small fish" and look the other way; when I come across it, I try not to be harsh, but to ensure that the COI rules are fairly and consistenly applied - so I ought to have a good understanding of them. --IamNotU (talk) 16:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, and I think it's a good question. I think it's pretty clear that a sole proprietor etc. has a conflict of interest when they edit about their own business. For the more specific question of whether that falls under the paid editing terms of use, that becomes an interesting question. Looking at WP:PAID, "payment or compensation" are defined as: money, goods or services. Users who are compensated for any publicity efforts related to the subject of their Wikipedia contributions are deemed to be paid editors, regardless of whether they were compensated specifically to edit Wikipedia. I don't see anything that is explicitly about whether being "compensated" means only being compensated by someone else, or whether one can compensate oneself. In my opinion, it should indeed be understood as including self-compensation in addition to compensation by an employer. If there is any question about that, however, I could see a case for asking about it at WT:PAID. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Compensated is defined here as: "an exchange of money, goods, or services." (Neither this nor the immediately above quote appear to have been written by WMF attorneys.) Do self-employed people "exchange...money, goods, or services" with themselves for work done on Wikipedia?--that sounds like a legal question, which should be answered by WMF counsel. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

compensation they receive from their customers in part pays them for those activities [of editing]. It seems a stretch to say that Wikipedia readers who purchase products (because of content created (or deleted) by sole-proprietor's edits) are "compensating" the sole proprietor for their edits. I can't imagine us demanding that the sole proprietor reveal the names of all their customers (effectively "outing" Wikipedia readers) under the claim that our readers are "compensating" the sole-proprietor for their edits.

I'm not inclined to let it go as "small fish" and look the other way; I agree. We need to be diligent of getting rid of such self-promo, which is one reason I work at WP:AfD to get rid of non-notable articles such as theirs. [T]ens of thousands together [are] significantly harmful to Wikipedia. I agree.

The question is whether the ToU was written to include small proprietors who are not paying anyone to edit for them. I don't think that was the intention, but only WMF attorneys who wrote it know the answer. I don't think the community decides such a legal interpretation, but I could be wrong about that. The reason WMF wrote it might have been to address concerns of the community. Again, I think WMF counsel needs to be asked, and this conversation does not make much sense without their input. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I imagined that a self-employed person would simply list the employer as themselves, in the templates. Such a person decides how much to compensate themselves personally, and the rest of their profits go back into the business. The compensation pays for all the time they spent running the business, including marketing and promotion. Actually I'm starting to change my mind about saying "There's no exchange". At some point there's a transfer of funds from business use to personal use, and that's in exchange for the work done. It would be nice to get a comment from WMF counsel, not sure how to do that - I posted a link back here on the Terms of Use discussion page. --IamNotU (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

At some point there's a transfer of funds from business use to personal use, and that's in exchange for the work done. I do not believe that is the case for Sole proprietorship (but might be for some of the other myriad business forms, such as LLC, Partnership, or Corporation. See Business#Forms). According to our article for Sole proprietorship, "there is no legal distinction between the owner and the business entity." Hence, I do not believe there is any legal sense of a "transfer" such as a "salary", and I do not believe it is reported on the tax form as salary, there is no W-2 in the U.S., etc. (See IRS on Sole Proprietorships, "you don't pay yourself a salary", "If You’re a Sole Proprietor, There’s No Such Thing as a “Salary” for Tax Purposes"). Do you see why this is really a legal question? --David Tornheim (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I see that it's a legal question... and I'm probably using the wrong terminology. But I still think that a sole proprietor gets compensation for the work they do in the course of carrying on their business, including PR and marketing work. It's not called "salary" or "wages", but "drawings". This IRS page "Paying Yourself" talks about "The procedures for compensating yourself for your efforts in carrying on a trade or business" and says drawings are the "amount of benefits you have taken from the business during the year". It even refers to it as "the sole proprietor's own salary". Even if it's you paying yourself, you're still getting paid. An employee whose job description includes PR is a paid contributor, the founding CEO or managing director of a corporation or some LLCs is considered an employee of the corporation so the same would be true. I can't see why a self-employed person should be treated any differently. --IamNotU (talk) 01:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

About whether readers are acting as the parties who compensate business owners, I don't think that we need to deal with that. The concept would be that business owners/sole proprietors would be compensating themselves from company revenues, and if those revenues might be increased as a result of edits here, that would make them paid edits. About the legal aspects, I too would welcome input from WMF Legal. But that said, I remember WMF Legal having previously said (I'm not bothering to look it up, but I would guess it's either in the archived talk here, or the archived talk at WT:PAID) that editors at individual wikis are free to make paid editing policies that are more stringent than the WMF Terms of Use, but may not make policies that are more lenient. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 21 October 2018 (UTC) Struck part that was inaccurate, as was pointed out at my talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

If this is a question of making the definition more stringent to include Sole proprietorships, I definitely oppose that. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The question is whether the definition already includes sole proprietorships; whether compensation through employment is any different than compensation through self-employment, for the purposes of the Terms of Use and related policies and guidelines. The concept of self-employment and "paying yourself" is somewhat paradoxical, yet generally accepted. At this point it seems to me that it does meet the definition of compensation - receiving money that you can spend on groceries, in exchange for the time you spent editing the Wikipedia article about your business - and that it's paid editing even if it's you "paying yourself". In any case, I don't think we should be talking about changing policy or definitions before there's a good answer about how to understand the existing ones. After that we could talk about how to improve the wording so it's easier to understand, and after that if people want to talk about changing policy they can. --IamNotU (talk) 01:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree that this discussion really began simply as a request for some feedback, and not as a proposal to change policies and guidelines. Somehow, it gradually turned into editors semi-voting on things that haven't, strictly speaking, been proposed. I agree very much with other editors that this local discussion would be insufficient to make any policy change, and that some clarification from Legal would be helpful and welcome. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:51, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

No Paid editing is paid editing. If we start going down the slippery slope of "obtaining some possible benefit or value" for the stringent wp provisions for paid editing, there would be no end to it. North8000 (talk) 13:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
The OP is a bit confused. First of all, the person undoubtedly has a conflict of interest -- they should disclose, and they should offer suggestions instead of editing directly. The only difference with WP:PAID, is that they must disclose, and that only becomes relevant in an enforcement context (if they don't disclose, we can indef them). But if we are in dialogue with someone, and that person wants to be a good citizen, then the exact classification doesn't really matter -- they will disclose and not edit directly and will try to frame policy-compliant suggestions.

To answer the question - the whole thing about "paid" is the following question - are you editing as part of your job - as part of how you put bread on the table? Answering that -- yes, a freelancer is paid. Yes, a person working for a PR agency, here on behalf of a client, is paid. A PR person for a company is paid (you would be amazed at how many say they are not) A secretary (or admin, or even a post doc) whose boss told them "hey edit this WP page for me" is a paid editor. All those people are editing "on the clock". Interns are paid editors. And yes - a sole proprietor who does everything for the business from sweeping the floor to making the product to selling it - is also a paid editor if they are here editing about their business.

But the question is really angels dancing on the head of a pin, outside of an enforcement context. Jytdog (talk) 22:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I'll admit to being confused, but I think I'm in good company :) I was recently in dialogue with somone and at first they were reluctant to disclose, and didn't seem to think it was a big deal or take it seriously. They argued that there was no real conflict of interest because nobody was paying them to edit and they were just putting factual material into the article. People aren't always black hat or white hat, lots of them would prefer to bend the rules and get away with what they can, until someone calls them on it. It wasn't until I showed them the Terms of Use and WP:PAID, and the consequences of being blocked, and explained how seriously Wikipedia does take it, that they saw the light. So I think it did make a real difference in convincing someone that what they were doing was seriously not cool. Also, for a business owner who really does want to be a white hat, we should be able to tell them plainly which template to use, not say "it doesn't really matter". --IamNotU (talk) 00:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Editors with a conflict of interest could make perfectly neutral edits such as updating facts. However it doesn't change that their relationship with the article's subject gives them an interest in the subject, which can conflict with the goals of Wikipedia. isaacl (talk) 02:00, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I found the question and the discussion quite helpful, and I think that calling an editor "confused" was a poor choice of words. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

User:IamNotU the problem with conflicted editors (including paid editors) is their external commitment - namely that it generally, usually a) leads them to want to add promotional, POV content and remove negative content, and b) leads them to ignore what we actually do here - both the content and behavioral policies and guidelines. The first thing I do when interacting with someone who has an WP:APPARENTCOI, is ask them to disclose, and once they do, try to educate them about COI here in WP and why it matters, and what they should and should not do. Lots of people come here with no idea of what WP is actually for - they view it as a vital PR platform. So dealing with fundamentals first, is important. If they don't see the conflict (why they are here vs why WP is here - and between what they almost always want to do, and what is OK to do) it will just be endlessly frustrating for them and people trying to work with them. Jytdog (talk) 22:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog, I completely agree with everything you just said... I was doing exactly that, trying to help educate someone in the way you describe. I think it's very common that people in a position of COI honestly feel they can still be neutral, even those who create and maintain an article about their own business. This person had been doing it for ten years. They can convince themselves that it's ok, because "nobody is paying" for edits, or because they did it on the weekend. After someone finally called them on it, at first the editor disclosed a general COI stating "I'm not being paid" and planned to continue editing the article, promising to keep it neutral and verifiable... I do think people whose job includes creating promotional content are more of a concern. They're more motivated to push their own interests - and to delude themselves that it's ok. It wasn't until I was able to convince them that the paid editing definition applied to them, and that what they were doing was not only bad but extra bad, that they admitted to themselves that they wouldn't be editing the article anymore. We should be able to tell people in no uncertain terms, in some prominent place, "if you're writing an article about a business that you own and manage, that's paid editing" - doing so without disclosing is not only against the COI guideline, but the paid editing policy, and the Terms of Use, a legal contract you've agreed to, and most likely against the covert advertising laws of your country. I think there's a significantly large class of people who would respond to that and refrain from doing it, who would otherwise have done it if there was a more vague and wishy-washy message and it looked like lots of other people were getting away with it... --IamNotU (talk) 23:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Yep, same page for the most part. But in my experience there is not a lot of difference between the subset of conflicted editors who are not paid, and the subset that is paid. If somebody with any sort of declared COI insists on editing directly, and edit wars bad content into Wikipedia, you will be able to get them indeffed regardless of whether they agree they fall under "paid" or not. The main thing is that they agree to the 2 step management process -- disclosure and putting things through prior review. If you like I have an initial, and then a follow-up, set of "boilerplates" in my sandbox - the first step one is here, and the 2nd step is right below it. Jytdog (talk) 00:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

project

what is the hypothesis of the relationship between effective marketing strategies and organizational growth (Glorygold22 (talk) 08:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC))

You're asking in the wrong place. Try Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous. -- Hoary (talk) 09:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Steve Jobs example lacking

The talk page for Steve Jobs is listed as the example for an editor declaring a conflict of interest, but the link just goes to the page, not to the declaration, which has long been buried. I'd suggest replacing the example with a more direct link to a disclosure. - Sdkb (talk) 01:26, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

When do FORMER employees, pupils, customers, or suppliers of an organisation still suffer from COI?

There has been some heated discussion on this topic in relation to who can edit schools articles, and outside a statement about "common sense" I have been unable to find any even vaguely authoritative guidance. For example, is someone who attended, or was employed by, a school 20 years ago still prohibited from editing the article on that school? Some editors certainly believe so, but the danger is that being too strict about it removes almost anyone who would have any knowledge or interest in editing the article from the pool of potential editors. I bet most school articles are actually largely edited by alumni. The official process of suggesting edits on the talk page for someone else to transfer into the article is so cumbersome and unreliable that it is not a practical substitute.

My personal opinion is that editors with a CURRENT direct relationship to an organisation should not edit, but those with FORMER relationships can edit, provided that they declare the COI on the talk page if they are making material edits, and possibly the same would apply to those with indirect relationships (e.g. spouses of employees). I'm not sure where parents of current pupils should sit, but on balance I'm inclined to think that counts as a direct relationship. Employees of customers and suppliers I would view as an indirect relationship unless the relationship forms a material part of their business, or represents a material part of the counterparty's business (e.g. an individual contractor to a business, or their biggest customer). Simply buying or supplying a small number of a mass produced product would not count as any relationship from a COI perspective.

More than anything, though, I would love some written guidance, here or at WP:PSCOI, to reduce the arguments! Rhanbury (talk) 19:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

To some extent, there are two separable issues here: that of persons affiliated specifically with an educational institution, and that of former employees etc. regardless of the field they were in. I think that a COI occurs when the editor stands to benefit from the edit in some way, as opposed to having a "rooting interest" in the subject matter. We don't consider editors who vote with a particular political party to have a COI with respect to related pages about politics, but rather we treat that as a matter of WP:NPOV. So a former student does not stand to benefit in any meaningful way if they correct a fact in the page about their school, but if they write something about how superior that school is in relation to its competitors, they better have independent sourcing or there will be a POV issue. A paid employee of the school may have a COI, and an employee paid to do public relations for the school definitely has one, and furthermore those are cases where WP:PAID applies, but students and their families should not be regarded as having COIs unless they are making edits that subjectively reflect well or badly on the school. Similarly for ex-employees of any kind of workplace. They might stand to benefit (perhaps through a pension) from promoting their former employer, or they might be inclined to write negatively about the employer if they left on bad terms. I would consider each of those to be COIs, and would want to see disclosure. But in all these cases, the critical issue as I see it is the nature of the edits: purely factual information tends not to raise COI issues, but content with a POV does. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Who needs this?

This is a POV guideline that is only good as a thought-terminating cliché. It seems to proscribe impartiality, which is superfluous, as it is already covered by NPOV. The idea seems to be that you can recuse an editor who meets certain formal criteria, just like you would recuse a partial judge. The "paid editing" subrule codifies an anti-consumerist POV that considers money the source of all evils. It criminalizes a state of things (being related or paid) and not behaviour (tendentious editing).

If tendentious editing is the problem, a paid POV warrior is no worse than a voluntary one, of which there are many in political, ideological and religious topics. In fact, everybody has convictions that he cannot simply put off like socks. Even with the best of so-called reputable sources, POV lies in the choice and arrangement of facts. So in fact, everybody has a COI. Not all paid editors are necessarily corrupt or bad, and if they are annoying, the fact that they are being paid (or that they are related) is of least relevance.

I have seen this guideline invoked mainly in two contexts: "alternative vs. scientistic medicine" and "public health vs. freedom of choice", and its purpose seems to be to forbid either point of view, without considering the individual merits of an edit. --212.186.133.83 (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

All reputable publications have COI rules, there's no reason for Wikipedia to be different. Regarding your point that we should only look at the edit, not the editor: we do all first look at the edit and when we see problems sometimes it looks pretty obvious that there is a COI. If there were no problems with their edits, we would never catch COI editors. But most (all?) COI editors cannot write very well while trying to promote their products. It (almost) always reads like an advert.

WP:PAID does not prohibit paid editing, it only says that it must be disclosed so that we can monitor it more closely. But the folks who want to advertise in Wikipedia, despite our clear rules against advertising, rarely disclose their paid status. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:42, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

As a guideline, its purpose is to help well-meaning PoV/COI editors work constructively, which is common enough among WP:EXPERT editors. Part of that is explaining what constitutes disruptive editing and how to avoid it. As a secondary purpose, it helps the rest of us deal with such disruptions. An editor should never be sanctioned for breaching the guideline as such, only for the disruption such breaches cause. But I agree that too many of us forget that. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Competitors

The section on What is conflict of interest? makes it clear that if someone has a constructive relationship with a given subject then they have an editorial COI. I have just come across a direct competitor to a certain subject in question. In any other walk of life, this is clearly a COI issue. But, because the competitor's position is set against the subject of the article, our guideline does not recognize it as such. The guideline appeals to common sense, but only in the context of closeness, not of positive vs negative relationships. I would suggest that the guideline be edited to explicitly define a competitive position as a potential COI. Is that a good idea? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

That's a very good point, and I strongly support such a change. I think that it is definitely the case that it can be a COI to want to edit Wikipedia in order to make a competitor look bad. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I think and have thought it is WP:COI, see eg., 'keep your enemies close'. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Rivalry is a relationship too. Cabayi (talk) 09:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks all. Based on the initial unanimity shown here, I propose modifying the subsection on External roles and relationships (WP:EXTERNALREL) by adding a new paragraph. The draft below uses the same two examples as the current text:

External relationships can be negative as well as positive, for example a rival band's manager or an ex-spouse will also have a conflict of interest.

Any more comments? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

A parallel is the coi Alt-Med ists have with actual medicine. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 10:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

"estranged" spouse, not all ex-spouses are negative. Alanscottwalker (talk)

But this is what I suggest, inserting in the sentences already in the guideline:"Any external positive, negative, or neutral relationship — personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial (including holding a cryptocurrency) — can trigger a COI. How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense. For example, an article about a band should not be written by the band's manager nor a rival band's manager, nor should a biography be an autobiography or written by the subject's spouse nor estranged spouse." Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

How about this:

Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial (including holding a cryptocurrency)—can trigger a COI. There can be a COI when writing on behalf of a competitor or opponent of the page subject, just as there is when writing on behalf of the page subject. How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense. For example, an article about a band should not be written by the band's manager, and a biography should not be an autobiography or written by the subject's spouse (or estranged spouse).

--Tryptofish (talk) 15:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Rather than "estranged", could we use "former"? I believe whether or not the two remain friends or are opponents, there can still be a potential conflict of interest. I also suggest not making it a parenthetical, so something like a biography should not be written by its subject, or the subject's current or former spouse.isaacl (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the term "estranged" is not helpful here. In this context it means living separate lives but not actually divorced, i.e. still technically spouses as under the current wording. Adding it adds nothing to the meaning. "Ex-" or "former" do convey additional negative meaning. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think "former" conveys negative meaning, but I also think it's not important to convey this. Just the relationship alone is enough to signal a potential conflict of interest. isaacl (talk) 16:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I like isaacl's revision, and I agree with the comments above. And actually, why limit it to spouses? We don't want to imply that the subject's mother can write it without a COI, for example. I'm trying to think of a broader way to say it, and not coming up with anything that I like. Perhaps we should just omit all of the current content about the spouse? For example, an article about a band should not be written by the band's manager nor by a rival band's manager, and a biography should not be written by its subject. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

(re:Tryptofish)That looks good to me.

I'm thinking that the word "Competitors" (in this section heading) may imply paid editing in some cases and would like to put something at WP:PAID that would include some of what's here (and go a bit beyond). Something like "Paid editing includes editing about an employer's or client's competitors, as well as inserting or deleting negative or positive information about an employer's or client's company, competitors, or their executives or products." Well, that's a discussion to continue at the PAID talk page but it is related to what we do here. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the proposal seems to mix up things a bit much. The purpose of the section and examples are primarily about writing for yourself (your relationship) not for another, thus a spouse in writing about their spouse is writing for their own interest (good or bad). (Also, the reason "negative" has not been highlighted before is because COI is not bias, it is about relationship, multiple different kinds of relationship, good and bad) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

If you're referring to the "External roles and relationships" section that Tryptofish suggested modifying, I don't see the purpose the same way as you. I see it as discussing various types of relationships between the editor and the subject. A spousal relationship is another type of relationship that can be a potential conflict of interest. I don't think we necessarily need to characterize these relationships as positive or negative. isaacl (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

What? The reason this section was opened was to discuss negative relationships. And, the reason in part the section exists is to discuss the fact that any relationship can create a COI. It goes on to explain the issue of degrees of relational closeness is a matter of common sense, at some point the degree of closeness becomes COI. You certainly have a COI writing about your brother but may not have a COI writing about some distant relation you never met. You certainly have a COI writing about the band you manage, but may not a COI about that band that lives down the hall from you, etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, when you said the proposal seems to mix up things a bit much. The purpose of the section and examples I thought you were referring to the section that the proposal by Tryptofish would modify. I think when you say a spouse in writing about their spouse is writing for their own interest (good or bad) that this is someone writing for their own personal gain, rather than for the gain of whom they're writing about. And then I think you are saying that the proposal mixes things up, because it is talking about someone writing to someone else's detriment, rather than their own personal gain? isaacl (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

No. It's not a matter of personal gain, it is only a matter of writing where you have a relationship that has the degree of closeness to create a COI. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I understand this. I'm trying to figure out what part of Tryptofish's proposal is, in your view, mixing up things a bit much. Perhaps you can propose something that you feel doesn't mix things up? isaacl (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

What? The proposed addition does not seem that long (its like one sentence, so, what don't you understand), and I already put forward a proposal. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I overlooked your signature on the proposal. So if I understand correctly, you feel Tryptofish's proposed sentence doesn't adequately represent the clarification that is being sought by the original post. For some reason I didn't read your "mix up" comment that way initially. Thanks! isaacl (talk) 17:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I think @Isaacl: and I agree at Wikipedia_talk:Paid-contribution_disclosure#Related_to_a_discussion_at_WT:COI. It's pretty straightforward, but comments from others would be appreciated. In particular, I think it would solve Steelpillow (talk · contribs)'s problem, if as I assumed, it is about paid editing of a competitor's article. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

No, there was no paid editing in the example that spurred this thread. Payment is just a red herring here, it is about all kinds of external relationship with someone or something whose interests are opposed to, compete with, rival, conflict with, etc. etc., the editor's. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm unclear on what, if anything, does not "adequately represent the clarification that is being sought by the original post." --Tryptofish (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

At some point we should all say "the proposals are already close enough together that any of them will do." IF (and it's a big if) anybody wants another suggestion, I'll put forward a replacement for the spouse phrase "a biography should not be written by its subject, or by the subject's worst enemy." Not that I'm married to the phrase. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Maybe a better way to say it is that there was disagreement with the wording proposed by Tryptofish, and leave it at that. (Upon further reflection, I think I understand the point being made, but I'd rather not hazard any more explanations.) Personally I prefer not introducing the adjectives positive, negative, or neutral to describe relationships; as expressed above, the important aspect is the closeness of the relationship. To put it another way, the partiality that results from the relationship is what has to be judged, regardless of the type of relationship. isaacl (talk) 05:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment I don't see a need to make any change. The COI language does already cover the issue:

"When an external role or relationship could reasonably be said to undermine that primary role, the editor has a conflict of interest. (Similarly, a judge's primary role as an impartial adjudicator is undermined if she is married to the defendant.)" Ex-spouse is implied to have a similar problem.
"Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial (including holding a cryptocurrency)—can trigger a COI." Being a competitor is a financial relationship, possibly adversarial in nature.
"[A]n editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual – whether on- or off-wiki – or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest."
"Similarly, editors should not write about court cases in which they or those close to them have been involved, nor about parties or law firms associated with the cases."

I might support adding simply the word "competitor" to the list "personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial". But it is not really necessary. I do not see any need to characterize relationships like rays on a number line with positive, negative or neutral polarity. Relationships are more complex than that.

The most serious example I know of an editor adding negative information about competitors was the WifiOne ArbCom case. The case did not stumble because of some inadequacy in our COI rules regarding competitors. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree a little bit with David Tornheim on the point that we don't need to go too far down the road of giving a lot of examples and characterizing degrees of positivity or negativity. I guess the one thing that I do definitely want to see added is the sentence "There can be a COI when writing on behalf of a competitor or opponent of the page subject, just as there is when writing on behalf of the page subject." I don't think that that would be adding something unnecessary, and I think that it makes clear something that was unclear in the opening example of this talk section. Whatever more we might add isn't particularly important to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I would have no problem with that. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Now added. I hope folks can regard it as an improvement. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:31, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I was going to suggest something else but hadn't quite finished refining it. Here is my initial draft:

While editing Wikipedia, an editor's primary role is to further the interests of the encyclopedia. When an editor has an external role or relationship which reasonably places this primary role at risk of making non-neutral edits either in support of or in opposition to a subject, the editor has a conflict of interest. When an external role or relationship could reasonably be said to undermine that primary role, the editor has a conflict of interest. (Similarly, a judge's primary role as an impartial adjudicator is undermined if she is married to the defendant.)

I wanted to extend the sentence defining a conflict of interest to cover all types of non-neutral edits, rather than just talking about editing on behalf of a competitor/opponent. I also thought the analogous example of a judge was somewhat extraneous and could be omitted for concision. What does anyone think? isaacl (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Again I have no problem with that, it is certainly shorter and more succinct. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:09, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing the judge example, don't feel strongly either way about it. I'm not convinced, though, that we need to word it in terms of "non-neutral edits", because any edit in support of or in opposition to something is, by definition, not neutral. If we make a change like that, I would make it shorter, along the lines of "While editing Wikipedia, an editor's primary role is to further the interests of the encyclopedia. When an editor has an external role or relationship that leads to edits furthering any other interest, that editor has a conflict of interest." --Tryptofish (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Perfectly neutral edits, though, will often further other interests (good news about a subject is good, even when written neutrally). I also disagree that an edit that supports (or opposes) a subject is necessarily non-neutral; I can neutrally write about the good (or bad) qualities of a subject. The problem is when the close relationship causes a risk of the editor being unable to write neutrally. How about something like this: "When an editor has an external role or relationship that compromises the editor's neutrality, either in favour of or against a subject, the editor has a conflict of interest." isaacl (talk) 03:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

To recap: I propose the following changes to the existing text:

While editing Wikipedia, an editor's primary role is to further the interests of the encyclopedia. When an editor has an external role or relationship that compromises the editor's neutrality, either in favour of or against a subject, the editor has a conflict of interest. ~~When an external role or relationship could reasonably be said to undermine that primary role, the editor has a conflict of interest.~~ ~~(Similarly, a judge's primary role as an impartial adjudicator is undermined if she is married to the defendant.)~~

Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial (including holding a cryptocurrency)—can trigger a COI. How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense. For example, an article about a band should not be written by the band's manager, and a biography should not be an autobiography or written by the subject's spouse. ~~There can be a COI when writing on behalf of a competitor or opponent of the page subject, just as there is when writing on behalf of the page subject.~~

Any additional feedback is welcome. isaacl (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

The section has already been revised [3], and you are proposing here to undo that revision. I don't think that would be an improvement, and I'm inclined to oppose it, except that I'm neutral about removing the parenthetical sentence about the judge. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Must COI authors out their new page through AfC?

Refer diff, compare with Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:EverlyWell and others currently at MfD, and WP:DRAFTIFY.

This page says “you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly”. A good idea. Note that COI editors are not even supposed to edit their COI topics directly. So it that a “should” or a “must”? Is it toothless wishful thinking, or a must meaning that the new page reviewers may summarily draftify the article?

—SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I've interpreted it as "If you're a COI edit you should, and if some other editor says you should then you must." It is possible for an AUTOBIO of someone notable to be made in mainspace and be close enough that it's not worth making them jump through hoops. It's much less likely, in my experience, for a notable company written by a COI, to be in a state where they don't need AfC. Of course the issue is that a COI editor is less likely, I feel, to have a notable topic to begin with than an editor of equivalent experience writing about a topic for which they do not have a COI. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

User:SmokeyJoe, User:Barkeep49 - The draftifications that I have seen of articles by paid editors needed draftifying or deleting not only because they were the work of paid editors but also because they were poorly sourced and contained blatantly promotional language. If we agree that sometimes new page reviewers should draftify articles, then we agree that sometimes new page reviewers should draftify articles, and sometimes those articles are written by paid editors. If anyone thinks that draftification should never be allowed, then we can discuss that, and, then, the articles in question should be tagged for deletion. However, since Draftify is an Alternative to Deletion, that establishes that sometimes articles should be draftified. It doesn't matter whether it is "must" or "should" as long as we agree that reviewers can use the judgment to draftify articles. Now: Was or is there a remaining question? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

To begin by answering your question, yes there is a remaining issue. That issue is whether we want pages created by COI (and not just paid editors) to go through the Articles for Creation process before going into mainspace, or whether we want them to go directly to mainspace and then be evaluated by New Page Patrol. Those two pathways are not equivalent. NPP reviewers are initially looking for WP:CSD issues, and it can take a significant amount of scrutiny before determining that there is a COI problem (although of course the NPOV and PROMO aspects are sometimes blatantly obvious). And I think the community does not want new pages with serious COI issues to sit in mainspace until someone figures out the COI. So I support the change to must. I will also point out that this page is a guideline rather than a policy, so by saying "must", we aren't really saying that an editor who fails to do it correctly goes straight to WP:ANI. It's more like we have something unambiguous to point to when the editor asks why we draftified their page when they do it the wrong way. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

COI comes in many shades. It's important to remember a COI can exist in the absence of bias, and bias regularly exists in the absence of a COI. If someone doesn't follow the current suggestion and they make an acceptable article, well the world's knowledge has been enhanced. If someone doesn't follow that suggestion now and they make a bad article, well this change doesn't affect them - they are probably going to also disregard the rule then (or not know about it). If someone doesn't follow the proposed rule and they make an acceptable article, then we penalize them, to uphold rules, at the expense of our readers. This propose change seems to penalize the wrong people. I feel very differently about paid editing, as opposed to "just" a COI. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

The way that I see it, the issues that you raise are matters of degree. Yes, AfC adds some time before the article is in mainspace, but a good article will still get into mainspace, so the detriment to the world's knowledge will be only temporary, and that doesn't really strike me as a penalty. Conversely, promotional pages are all too common, and do considerable harm to Wikipedia's reliability. I agree that users who ignore the rules don't read the rules, but that is true of every policy and guideline. And as I said above, this is a guideline rather than a policy, so it's "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." --Tryptofish (talk) 01:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Tryptofish, not necessarily. Draftification does not automatically submit the article for review at AfC. Meaning that if the author leaves and never clicks the submit button, the 'COI but acceptable article' may be later deleted by a bot in 6 months without ever seeing another human's eyes. IMO Draftification should not be used on COI articles that are otherwise acceptably written articles. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 08:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I guess I didn't make myself sufficiently clear, because I agree with what you said. What I am advocating is that COI articles should go through AfC from the start. That way, they never start out by being draftified out of mainspace. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49, another way to put the question: May a New Page Reviewer unilaterally draftify a new article due to their allegation that the author has a COI. Assume the article is not speediable, and would face a fair chance of not being deleted at AfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
User:Robert_McClenon, are the draftifications that you’ve seen and you support in line with the documentation at WP:DRAFTIFY? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- - User:SmokeyJoe - Yes. The draftifications that I have seen and that I support are in line with the rules at WP:DRAFTIFY. I have seen a very few draftifications that I disagreed with, but mostly I have agreed. I have also seen a few draftifications where rule 2 in WP:DRAFTIFY was not satisfied, in that the page being draftified was irredeemable junk, and it says that we do not draftify junk. However, I won't make a fuss about that distinction.
    - I strongly concur with that. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Two ways of wording this documentation are: (1) The COI editor must use AfC. (And if they don’t any editor may draftify and repeated mainspacing by the COI editor will be considered a behavioural fault); or (2) The NPP Reviewer May draftify any new article that they believe was created by a COI editor. (No fault ascribed to the COI editior, they got caught this time but can freely try it again in future)

I much prefer (1) because it creates a greater burden on the COI editor than on the NPP reviewer.

—SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I much prefer (1), although the first part of (2) is also valid. The COI editor should be required to use AFC. The NPP reviewer may draftify a new article that they believe was created by a COI editor. (No fault ascribed to the reviewer if the editor was not COI.) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I strongly support the change to must. If a new page reviewer chooses to draftify an article on COI or PAID grounds, the move should be respected as an attempt to find an alternative to directly deleting the article. The change to must is (from my personal experience) de facto policy as is, as my moves are almost always repeated by other editors if they are countered. Assuming we make this change in policy official, I will note that move warring must be avoided at all costs, as has long been the case with DRAFTIFY.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree that move-warring must be avoided at all costs, but some reviewers have engaged in move-warring by draftifying pages two or three times. Does User:SamHolt6 mean that it has always been avoided (which it has not), or that it should have always been avoided? I think that a reviewer who draftifies a page two or three times is almost as disruptive as the author who moves it into article space two or three times. If it has already been draftified once, and moved back into article space, and isn't ready for article space, that is what AFD is for. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I will clarify a bit. DRAFTIFY is clear that moving an article to the draftspace is an alternative to deletion but not a replacement for a proper AfD. The current loose state of the COI/UDP policy suggestion to send articles through AfC leads to issues as, in the oft-occurring instance in which a NPR or Page Mover moves an article to the draftspace citing DRAFTIFY, a COI editor is within their rights to move the article back to the mainspace, also per DRAFTIFY. This then results in either an AFD, PROD, or speedy to delete the article or (more commonly in my experience) the NPR or another experienced editor moving the article to the draftspace (sometimes multiple times if the COI editor is persistent), thus creating a disruptive move war. I think these wars are best avoided, and we can decrease their frequency giving more teeth to COI policy and requiring COI editors to submit articles to AFC; the current policy is too vague, this vagueness (as it only offers suggestions) gives COI editors the confidence to push articles directly on the mainspace, in turn generating a backlash from more experienced New Page Reviewers. If we were to change to COI policy to must, experienced editors could—with confidence—report violators of COI policy and thus would have less cause (in fact, no cause) to move war with COI editors.--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

To surmise my points above, we should mandate COI/UDP editors submit articles through AfC to give New Page Reviewers a policy-based reason to move relevant articles to the draftspace. This will render the de-facto strategy of moving COI/UDP articles to the draftspace via WP:DRAFTIFY obsolete, which will in turn strengthen DRAFTIFY as experienced editors will no longer have to infringe upon it in order to curtail paid editing, as these editors will have a mandate to send articles to the draft per the new COI rules.--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

User:SamHolt6 - Well, I mostly agree, but I think that a New Page Reviewer who draftifies a page twice, either under the current rules or the improved rules, is being disruptive in a misguided effort to assume good faith by a bad-faith editor. Regardless of whether the author has a COI, move-warring is disruptive, and should be resolved either by AFD or some other means, such as a block. On a second move to article space, some alternate action is needed. (This is also true on edit-warring. A Third Opinion, DRN, a Request for Comments, or a report to the edit-warring noticeboard are better than continuing the edit-war.) The alternate action may be AFD, or the COI noticeboard, or WP:ANI. I think that PROD is silly after a move-war; the author will almost certainly de-PROD it. Requesting speedy deletion is also silly after a move-war, because if the page calls for speedy deletion, that should have been requested on the first shot. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Support: if a new page reviewer reasonably judges there to be a conflict of interest that affects the quality of an article it should not be in the mainspace. Simply put, we should amend the policy so any COI creators, paid or unpaid, must use AFC. SITH (talk) 15:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
I support the change to must with all respect to move-warring and WP:DRAFTIFYING but any disruptive behaviour should not be tolerated at any cost e.g. sockpuppetry or block evasion also, IMO a move performed by a paid/undisclosed paid editor or a sockpuppet should be reverted back for a natural uninvolved editor to review. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I'd also support a change to must. The weak wording of this guideline significantly undermines it. COI editors consistently ignore any direction that includes words like "should", "may" or "discourage". I've never heard any good explanation for why we make following this guideline—uniquely—optional (except in the usual sense implied by IAR). – Joe (talk) 08:04, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I'd support 'must' so long as it specifies that action by reviewers is only required on inappropriate pages. This shouldn't be used as justification for soft-deleteing good pages just on the suspicion of COI. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 08:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:AGF; WP:BURO; WP:CREEP. The focus should be on the content not the contributor. If the page needs work then actually do the work or stick a cleanup tag on it. If the topic is hopeless then send it to AfD. Moving the article into the AfC process is just sweeping the issue under the carpet rather than actually addressing it. The AfC reviewers are much the same as the NPP reviewers and so no value is added by pushing the page around. Andrew D. (talk) 10:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose per Andrew Davidson. Also, I think it might help if "should" were enriched with overt explanation this it is dangerously foolish (i.e. likely to end in tears) to disregard such advice. But that probably applies to a great many guidelines. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Also, I don't see "forbidding" as meaning a damn thing to the bad guys, they will just carry right on the way they are and we will be no better off than before. In fact worse, because borderline cases will then get stigmatized and turned sour. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Support - considering there are still thousands or ten-thousands of articles with substantial COI-related issues lingering in mainspace, and hundreds more being written every month, AfC-reviewing is an essential tool to limit this flood of low-quality promotional content. The proposed change has nothing to do with bad faith, but strengthens a reasonable quality check based on years of (mostly) negative experience with COI-editing. Contrary to popular belief, low-quality articles do not improve themselves once they are in mainspace. And hosting promotional content - possibly for years - is a direct violation of Wikipedia's basic principles as encyclopedic project. GermanJoe (talk) 12:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Strong oppose. Draftifying without consent results in removal of content from the mainspace akin to deletion. As long as the deletion policy does not allow deletion of such content just because the creator had a COI, other ways of removal should equally be forbidden. In fact, none of the actual policies and guidelines (especially WP:IMPERFECT, WP:DEL and WP:COI) support forced removal of content from mainspace without discussion. Also, as noted above, the COI guideline does not require editors to use AFC because the focus should be on the content, not the contributor. Why should a COI editor be forced to submit a perfectly neutrally written draft to AFC while a fanboy not related to a subject can place his POV article in mainspace? Last but not least, I cannot think of any articles where editing, including WP:STUBIFYing(!), cannot fix the problem with non neutral text better than a move to draftspace. Regards So Why 15:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Since we're doing the whole support/oppose thing I'll make clear that per my comments above I oppose a change requiring AfC for unpaid COI. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- Re: then send it to AfD and Draftifying without consent. Editors who oppose should at least oppose what is actually being proposed, rather than opposing something that has not been proposed. This is not a proposal to take pages in mainspace and draftify them. It is a guideline (not a policy) that tells editors with a COI that they are expected to submit their pages through AfC instead of going directly to mainspace. When such an editor ignores the guideline and bypasses AfC, there is nothing that requires someone else to draftify it: one is entirely at liberty to go to AfD. Of course guidelines are often ignored by the bad guys, but that doesn't mean we should do away with guidelines entirely. And using AfC does not stigmatize anyone, unless it stigmatizes everyone who uses it, in which case we should have done away with AfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  Point taken. My comment probably should have been written the other way around. I oppose mandatory AFC for COI editors because COI editors can create neutral articles just as non-COI editors can create non neutral articles. I'm okay with the guideline encouraging the use of AFC, potentially even making it easier to use the Article Wizard. The other part was because some people in support of changing to "must" also advocated draftifying anything that was created outside AFC for these editors. Regards So Why 16:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, it's true that some editors said that, and it's been a source of confusion throughout the discussion. But the actual wording would not say that. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:04, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

- - Not entirely sure why this comment was appended to my comment but since it was I'll reply: I think current policy says they are expected to submit their pages through AfC. This change would make that expectation a stronger expectation. I think the practical effect of that stronger expectation would be some overzealous editors drafitifying stuff per the guideline in a way that harms the overall encyclopedia. I think this negative outweighs any positives by those who would follow the stronger expectation but not our current expectation. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I just put it there to follow chronological order, but I wasn't directing it at you. Maybe we should clarify that draftification is not the required response to failing to use AfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:04, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Revised

The proposal above is to make this change:

you ~~should~~ must put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly;

Based on comments above, I'd suggest adding:

you ~~should~~ must put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly;^[a]

^ New articles that were not submitted through AfC need not necessarily be moved to draft space. They may also be edited or deleted as appropriate.

--Tryptofish (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

- Agree. My origianl edit towards that was reverted by User:Smartse [4]. If the edit is not made, it follows that it is not OK to WP:draftify per WP:COIEDIT. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- User:Natureium, do you agree with this here or not? RE your revert at WP:DRAFTS, this disharmony needs harmonization. COI editors must use AfC for new articles, and NPReviewers may draftify COI author product. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Move-Warring

By the way, I will state a two-part opinion about move-warring. Move-warring is in my view even worse than regular edit-warring. First, anyone who moves the same page twice is move-warring, and the move-warring is a conduct issue. Don't move anything twice. If a COI editor, for instance, moves a page into article space a second time, do not move it back to draft space. Tag it for deletion, and let the AFD discussion decide. Second, a stronger statement, I do not think that a page should be draftified twice, whether by the same editor or someone else. If it is moved to article space a second time and is not ready for article space, the COI (or other) editor has chosen to accept the risk of AFD, and the reviewer should let the AFD run its course. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, This goes back to my point above. If you are draftifying acceptable articles that were written by a COI editor (the 'must' opinion given by several editors above), they can get around this by just re-creating it in main space. As a NPR, you can't take it to deletion if there isn't anything wrong with it. So I deffinitely think we should not be unilaterally draftifying all COI articles, only the unacceptable ones. UPE articles are of course a different story. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 08:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

New OTRS queue

Please see: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#New OTRS queues. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Mary Kay Letourneau

Hi, all. Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Mary Kay Letourneau. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Curators and Wikimedians in Residence

The article currently says, of paid editing "you are very strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly". I recently came across a discussion among museum curators who thought that this meant that they chouldn't write about their topics of expertise (such as an artist whose work is in their collection). We need to include something that reflects the consensus that curators and Wikimedians in Residence (and similar) may edit about the topics covered by their institutions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Is WP:CURATOR sufficient? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

The guideline for cultural professionals on the Wikipedia Library's page is usually what I show to librarians and curators. It states "Disclosure is only necessary where compensation has been promised or received in exchange for a particular contribution." You may want to discuss if you agree with that guideline. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I think that it is consistent with what we say here, and expands on it. I've added a link to it within the "further information" section hatnote. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Anything that would offer more clarity around this issue would be warmly welcomed; I often work with people covered by this guideline and it's a point that often causes confusion, and even fear, about contributing. Sara Thomas (WMUK) (talk) 10:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I think everyone here is in agreement. Conflict of interest applies to promotion and marketing, and not to the field of expertise for a subject matter specialist or knowledge based organization. If we need some nuance, then we can clarify that we exclude "knowing one's self" and "knowing one's own institution" as expertise that we accept. No one should hesitate to contribute unbranded general reference information in their field of expertise. Probably we should develop documentation talking through when and how individuals and organizations can cite their own publications, which is often good to do if only the organization is clear on sharing information for user benefit rather than marketing. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Poor On-boarding Experience

With fresh eyes, in attempting to create an article where I have a COI, my experience in interpreting this page and the resulting interaction with editors was very poor. I probably have a COI with this page {{connected contributor}} given this recent experience, so I will refrain from suggesting particular edits to this and related pages and instead just point out a few general issues with Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Template:Connected contributor (paid) and related pages. I see three big issues with these pages that will trip up new editors and likely result in poor experiences, similar to mine: (1) Semantics: The meaning of paid editor, its template and detailed fields are severely overloaded and difficult to interpret for the general public. I would recommend rethinking this from the lens of a non-expert Wikipedia contributor if you want to support a pleasant on-boarding experience for new contributors. I believe clarity here will require narrowing the definition of paid editor and defining additional terms to capture a broader scope. (2) Disclosure requirements and requests: There are inconsistent disclosure requests and requirements across these pages. Pay careful attention to OR/AND logic and requests like "should", "can" and requirements like "must", "will". (3) Placement of disclosures: Similiar to (2), there are nebulous requirements and requests for placement of disclosures on talk pages, user pages, and article pages or some combination of the three. I believe the goal should be to ask a contributor to manually put a disclosure in only one place and the rest should be a structural "feature" of the Wikipedia system. Dliccardo (talk) 18:02, 9 March 2019 (UTC)Dliccardo

Is UPE a reason for deletion?

See Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Undeclared Paid Editor (UPE) product. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Could a culture of creating verifiable identities reduce conflict of interest editing?

I understand the value of anonymity and agree with the 'Avoid Outing' policy. I also believe that there is little value in most Wikipedia editors choosing to be anonymous.

If most editors on Wikipedia created a user page for themselves, and included on this page their real-world identity as well as links to other websites that corroborate that identity, this may reduce editing that is biased due to a conflict of interest.

This might work because the editor might feel like a conflict of interest is more likely to be identified, so might take more care to avoid bias.

This might work because an intentionally biased edit due to conflict of interest might be more recognisable when the editor has not identified themselves on their user page.

I feel like much of the deliberate misinformation that exists on the Internet would not exist if publishing was more easily linked to real world identities.

If the Wikipedia community agrees with this concept and has a solution, then I suggest an addition to this page that recommends creating user pages with real-world identities as a potential response to COI accusations.

I have included my real-world identity on my user page as an example.

Eltimbalino (talk) 08:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

defining 'paid' to include edits made during volunteer shifts by volunteers of NGO and 501(c)(3) organizations

Please see COI/N about Outside_In_(organization). The edit history shows an interesting pattern. The article was started on the organization very shortly after a medical student added to his user page that he's started a clinic shift at the organization (either as volunteer or paid, I don't know). Since community volunteer is a requirement in many fields and counts in the fulfillment of academic degree requirements, it is treated as if it was a real job in reality. Although the edit was very minimal, I did see one account that was named OIVolunteer. There is a handful of edits made involving considerable change to the contents from IPs associated with the organization. This gives me a hint that volunteers are perhaps editing with the organization's consent or knowledge (even without specifically instructed to do so or not) on their documented shift. We should define "paid" to include work done during volunteer shifts as accumulation of volunteer hours and experience is in essence "consideration" in a way, if it isn't already defined as paid. The most recent edit involved an account that is suspected to be an employee. If he is salaried, then he isn't getting an itemized pay for editing, but if he's being allowed to edit the page while working then it would still be a work related task, therefore paid. This should really be clarified. Graywalls (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Graywalls: in case it helps, WP:PAID#Meaning of "employer, client, and affiliation" says: "Users who are compensated for any publicity efforts related to the subject of their Wikipedia contributions are deemed to be paid editors, regardless of whether they were compensated specifically to edit Wikipedia." And "Interns are considered employees for this purpose. If they are directed or expected to edit Wikipedia as part of an internship, they must disclose." SarahSV ^(talk) 18:00, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

What if they're volunteers required to complete hours for whatever purpose and was given among many things "editing wikipedia" as something to consider even if not directed, or expected? Graywalls (talk) 18:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure § Meaning of "employer, client, and affiliation" explicitly lists interns as a position that is deemed equivalent to employment due to the benefits garnered. I think even now the intent of the text covers required volunteer work, but it wouldn't hurt to expand the text to be more general. Paid employees who are paid to publicize their organization are covered by the current text, regardless if they are specifically paid to edit Wikipedia. isaacl (talk) 18:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Graywalls: as Isaacl says, whether they're staff, interns or volunteers, if someone has said "one of the things you can do during your shift is edit our article on Wikipedia" or "we wouldn't mind at all if you were to do that", or if it gains them credit of any kind, then we count them as paid editors, and they must disclose their "employer, client and affiliation". SarahSV ^(talk) 18:24, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Isaacl, I support the slight rewording. I think it would help make it clearer to non-profits. I've come across two local non-profits substantially editing their own pages. perhaps the wording wasn't quite clear to those who only glance through the policy. A sentence or two that emphasizes non-profit volunteers are considered employees for the purpose of "paid editor" or "COI" determination would help avoid unintentional and intentional ignorance about it. Graywalls (talk) 19:00, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Recent removal

I've removed the following from the lead. It was added in January: "When an external role or relationship could reasonably be said to undermine the interests of improving this encyclopedia, the editor has a conflict of interest."

That is not correct. Whether someone has a COI has nothing to do with whether they're improving the encyclopaedia. It has to do with their real-life roles and relationships, and the connections between those relationships and their role as an editor. The sentence gave the impression that, if there's any sense in which you're improving the encyclopaedia, COI doesn't exist or doesn't matter. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I think there's a significant difference between "when a relationship could undermine the interests of improving this encyclopedia" and "when a relationship doesn't result in encyclopedia improvements." Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Rachel, whether someone has a COI is unrelated to "the interests of improving this encyclopedia". First, it's not clear what that means. Second, a band manager may believe she is improving Wikipedia when she creates an article about her band, and she may be right. But she has a COI nevertheless, and ought not to do it. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

That exact text has been elsewhere in the guideline since around 2015 when you edited it with other iterations beforehand, so reflecting that in the lead isn't really a problem. That language you introduced did a pretty good job of describing the problem.

Either way, it's simply stating that COIs are a problem when they interfere with the encyclopedia's goals. It's a good litmus test for determining if an external relationship is really a COI or an external relationship that does not have a true conflict. If I'm a farmer writing generally about feed types used for livestock, I wouldn't have a COI because that external relationship isn't changing the quality of content (aside from the question of WP:EXPERT). Even if I just worked on an article for a breed of cattle that I happen to own, there isn't a conflict either. However, if that breed happened to be one I would gain something by duly or unduly promoting it, (similar to your band manager example above), then there is a conflict rather than a non-conflicting interest. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I have not written anything like that. The sentence you link to is: "When an external role or relationship could reasonably be said to undermine [an editor's] primary role, the editor has a conflict of interest." COI is about conflicting roles and relationships, not edits that do or don't improve the encyclopaedia. COI editors often believe they're improving Wikipedia, and as I said above, they may be right. But that misses the point.

I don't know what "a conflict rather than a non-conflicting interest" is. I also don't know what this means: "If I'm a farmer writing generally about feed types used for livestock, I wouldn't have a COI because that external relationship isn't changing the quality of content."

Whether there is a COI is answered by examining real-life roles versus the responsibility of an editor to put Wikipedia first. Does the farmer want to promote the way he feeds his animals; is the way he does it controversial; has he invested money or reputation in any of the products; does he have relationships with the producers? If he is fixing typos on those articles, none of this matters. But if he's editing text about growth hormones and antibiotics, then he probably does have a COI if these are practices he engages in or promotes in real life, and perhaps also if he's taken a real-life stance against them. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Uh, here's what you removed, and here's what you edited back in 2015. You can't deny you wrote the bit about undermining the primary role of an editor. That's where the conflicting vs non-conflicting interests come in too. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

As I wrote above, you've misunderstood the sentences. Perhaps there's also a misunderstanding what about an "interest" is. There used to be a footnote explaining this, but someone has removed it. I'll restore it in case it helps. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

This is one of the definitions of COI we listed in a footnote. You see that it has to do with roles, relationships, judgment, and the risk (just the risk) of undue influence. It's not about improving articles or otherwise:

A conflict of interest is a set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgment or actions regarding a primary interest [in this case one's position as an editor of Wikipedia] will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest. ... Secondary interests may include not only financial gain but also the desire for professional advancement, recognition for personal achievement, and favors to friends and family or to students and colleagues ... [Conflict of interest] policies do not ... imply that the individual researcher ... is an unethical person. They assume only that under some conditions a risk exists that the decisions may be unduly influenced by considerations that should be irrelevant. ... the determination that an individual or institution has a conflict of interest is a judgment about the situation and not about the ... [person] who happens to be in that situation (Bernard Lo and Marilyn J. Field (2009). Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice. Institute of Medicine (US), Committee on Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, p. 49).

SarahSV ^(talk) 20:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

accepted protocols for tagging articles with undisclosed connected or paid contributors

I have come across a handful of listings that had been created or directly edited by the business or organization representatives (owners, agents, executives, salaried, volunteers, interns or whatever). Some of them were a delayed discovery that hadn't been called out. In some articles, I have had editor(s) itching to want to remove the paid editor tag from the article. When an article had been, more likely than not (or do we go clear and convincing?) edited by a connected contributor, what are our protocols for tagging and removing? If we adopt/adopted immediate removal upon neutralization, I'd think that it'd encourage the COI editors to take more risks. They'd think like graffiti vandals. They're much more willing to get up a highly promotional article if they're at no risk of deletion for notability failure if the only consequence for getting caught is neutralization or remaining tagged until neutralization. On the other hand, if the paid editing banner was to remain (for however long, but not an insignificant time) after the abatement of promotional peacock, they're going to be much more conservative about trying it. So, if undisclosed paid editing/connected editing is discovered, how long should the main space tag stay up? what about the talk page? Do we have guidelines over this? If the current policy would allow for immediate removal upon neutralization, I think this needs to change. Graywalls (talk) 23:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@Graywalls: I'm not aware of any advice about removing {{Connected contributor}} or {{Connected contributor (paid)}} from talk. The point is to inform editors and readers that a connected contributor/paid editor was active on talk and may have edited the article. That remains true even if the edits are removed. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin:, thanks for your guidance. Any idea about for the article page? Should it be removed immediately upon neutralization? Graywalls (talk) 00:33, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@Graywalls: if the article has been tagged but all the COI edits have been removed, then I'd be inclined to remove the tag. But I'm saying that without having seen the example, assuming you have one in mind. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin:, ok thanks. I guess that means if COIs are caught, they can basically suppress the tag immediately as soon as the COI stuff is removed. Also, any input on deciding between connected vs connected paid? HERE, I opted for the paid, because, the account named after the company itself assumes it is used for the company, and the other account matches the executive director; which is usually a salaried position. So, the reasoning for applying the "paid" tag was that the edits were more likely than not, without contradicting evidence, was within the scope of work/volunteer/intern related activity done for consideration (volunteer hours... or the time spent working on it being categorized as "work related" use of time. The "paid" one doesn't say "paid for editing wikipedia" must be itemized contract payment and I think the "connected contributor" would be fitting for something like adding contents on friends/family members/autobiography and like. The definition of paid follows the principle mentioned in the section immediately above this discussion...Graywalls (talk) 01:03, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

The talk-page tags seem fine; I agree with using the paid one. (See WP:PAID for a definition of "paid editor".) Regarding tagging articles, I'm not keen on that practice, whether for COI or anything else, and I don't do it often. In this case, I'd remove that tag, but I see you've done it already. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:13, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Professional Expertise or COI?

There are some specialist subjects where expertise is welcome & necessary. If one is a professional working in an area or a person with considerable experience of a subject, that seems to be quite a good place to begin working on a useful article. Sometimes what is said is not at all controversial or views might differ in detail but not be so far apart that sensible discussion becomes difficult. But what happens when there are opposing views on a subject? What happens when a 'professional' writes with apparent authority on a subject they appear to have little direct experience of? What happens when the presentation of apparently academic arguments appear to be driven by pressures against a professional position? Can experts always be really free of POV? Can anybody help me clarify what COI really means? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.51.220.92 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

This is a perennial problem. I'll post a fuller version of a quotation from higher on this page. It is from Bernard Lo and Marilyn J. Field (2009). Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice. Institute of Medicine (US), Committee on Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice. Washington, DC: National Academies Press:

A conflict of interest is a set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgment or actions regarding a primary interest [in this case one's position as an editor of Wikipedia] will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest. ...
Secondary interests may include not only financial gain but also the desire for professional advancement, recognition for personal achievement, and favors to friends and family or to students and colleagues ...
[Conflict of interest] is not an occurrence in which primary interests are necessarily compromised but, rather, a set of circumstances or relationships that create or increase the risk that the primary interests will be neglected as a result of the pursuit of secondary interests. A conflict of interest exists whether or not a particular individual or institution is actually influenced by the secondary interest. ...
[Conflict of interest] policies do not assume that any particular professional will necessarily let financial gain influence his or her judgment, nor do they imply that the individual researcher ... is an unethical person. They assume only that under some conditions a risk exists that the decisions may be unduly influenced by considerations that should be irrelevant.

Wikipedia welcomes subject-matter experts. What they must ask themselves, when considering whether to edit an article or talk page, is whether they have any real-life positions or professional relationships—current, former or anticipated—that may "unduly influence" their judgment as an editor of Wikipedia. Bear in mind that having a COI is not the same as having a POV. The latter may result in advocacy, but there can be advocacy without COI, and there can be COI without advocacy. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much, great to have a response like this so quickly. Sorry my signature got left out above 31.51.220.92 (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

"Wikipedia welcomes subject-matter experts"... hah. I do appreciate your sense of humor. :P But otherwise, yes, I agree that this is a decent summary. We have not had much success in applying it, though. The classic case, in my mind, is the editing of articles on Transcendental Meditation by a set of editors employed by or directly affiliated with the TM movement. That conflict of interest clearly fits the IOM definition—and beyond that, there was clear evidence of inappropriate advocacy—but the COI concern was dismissed out of hand and, worse, this COI was conflated with the idea that any physician writing about any medical topic has a "conflict of interest". So I agree with SV's summary, but there is a lot of work to do to educate the Wikipedia community if that is truly our standard, and the community is quite resistant to being educated. MastCell ^Talk 18:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

We're heading in the right direction. More people do see the need to avoid COI now and have a better understanding of it. The TM case remains a blight, not least because it lost us an excellent editor, and it had a chilling effect on anyone wanting to report a COI. But we do have COIN, and it's possible to make careful reports there. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Re: "...the idea that any physician writing about any medical topic has a "conflict of interest". I'm relatively new here & possibly naive! Where there are opposing camps it seems to me it would be helpful for the backgrounds of editors to be to some extent explicit. An 'arbitrator' might then be in a better decision to decide which aspects of an issue each might be best qualified to comment upon?

If a Dr treating the injuries of a drunken football supporter were to be thumped by his patient we should probably feel sorry for that Dr. However, if the same Dr were to write in a medical journal 'here are the results of our clinical trials - and by the way Bristol Rovers supporters hate Doctors" would wikipedia be correct in allowing a re-statement of that opinion in an article about (say) sports injuries on the grounds that it was sourced from a medical journal? To get such a statement retracted do we then have to find further citations from medical journals pointing out the fallacy of that view on the grounds that no other sources can be trusted?

(Sorry to be absurd but I am struggling a bit to understand some things here). Would you agree that scientific method is practiced by imperfect human beings? - indeed isn't it to some extent a methodology which aims to address our imperfections? 31.51.220.92 (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Need for clarification on paid editors making "non-text" changes to articles

At Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#HuffPost_article_on_WP_COI_editing a paid editor is telling me that this edit is OK, because "As to adding citations, which is not part of the HuffPo article, you probably don't deal with the "Request Edit" queue (which is where most COI requests go) on a frequent basis, and I do. The editors who respond there have repeatedly instructed me over the years not to bother them with very small, uncontroversial edits, such as the addition of supporting citations. They get mad when I make such requests and tell me to do the work myself. I have to respect the wishes of the very, very small number of volunteers who actually do the Request Edit work on a day-to-day basis. To the extent their wishes and policies evolve, I will change what I do." To me this policy doesn't seem unclear -- especially by Wikipedia policy standards -- nonetheless it appears that it is getting redefined unless we do something. Can we get consensus that this policy is unequivocal in "very strongly discouraging" paid/COI edits to articles of any kind -- anything that shows up as an edit in the history, regardless of what it is? Otherwise, please enlighten us on whether it is OK for paid editors, on their own, to:

Add citations to a statement, with a request that someone else change the text to match (the case above)
Remove citations from a statement, claiming they are unnecessary/biased/fringe/etc. (after all it's the same thing only backwards)
Add external links to company sites and press releases (just another kind of link, really)
Add infoboxes and navboxes to help readers move among their family of products and company divisions (not the text per se, after all)

...??? Wnt (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I need help

hello i want to write a biography article about my friend she is a blogger her name is Jayne Cobain please how can i post this through on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilijmae (talk • contribs) 07:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Please the messages on your talk page at User talk:Ilijmae. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Please help

An admin remove coinmarketcap article and said i am banned becos I choose to write about crypto and blockchain my interest. I dont understand him. coinmarketcap is where everyone finds info on crypto. I add references too. please help and resolve this. thank you for your kind help. Animunie marie (talk) 04:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

"Opening a COIN"

I have concerns about this edit: [5], and specifically, about the phrase "Opening a COIN". I understand, of course, that this is referring to opening a discussion at WP:COIN. But the phrase, when worded that way, sounds like opening a coin. As such, it seems to me to be needlessly awkward and jargony. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I made the original edit that changed the heading from the "Posting at WP:COIN" to "Posting at the conflict of interest noticeboard". I agree the current heading is unfriendly to newcomers as unnecessary jargon, and also due to its use of an abbreviation before its definition. Consider, in particular, someone looking through the table of contents: it would be easier for them to find a section on posting to the conflict of interest noticeboard with a more descriptive heading. isaacl (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

This is widely known as "opening a COIN", and that section isn't for newcomers. It's for more experienced editors wondering how to handle suspected COI. It also isn't about posting to COIN but opening one. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Isaac, it wasn't you who made the original change; it was Tryptofish. [6] SarahSV ^(talk) 19:16, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Everyone has to learn for the first time how to raise an issue at the conflict of interest noticeboard, or in fact that one exists, and it is best practice to define an abbreviation before using it. Since the purpose of posting at the conflict of interest noticeboard is to start a discussion about a given conflict of interest situation, "opening a COIN" is just a jargony way of saying "starting a discussion at the conflict-of-interest noticeboard", so how about using that as a heading? isaacl (talk) 19:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

It's unnecessary, but okay. It should be "opening a discussion" etc. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I was waiting for Tryptofish and anyone else to weigh in before making any changes, but okay, we'll see what further comments arise. isaacl (talk) 22:25, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks both of you, and thanks SV for the change back, much appreciated. Honestly though, I have never heard editors use that phrase except for in these edits. Can anyone point me to where it has been used? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

And to make my question clearer, I'm not asking about "COIN" as a shortcut, but rather about "a COIN" as a thing that can be opened. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Tryptofish has a point, here. COIN is a location, not an object. So, it's sort of weird to describe it as an object. A thread would be the object and COIN would be the location.--v/r - T P 01:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Vanity listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Vanity. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Abote2 (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Clearer on religious background

Can this article be more clear on whether a person with a religious faith or profession. Such as an ordinary adherent has to claim a conflict of interest.Manabimasu (talk) 00:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

No, that would not be a COI by itself. The concern would be more with WP:NPOV. (One can think of COI as potential POV-pushing with a motivation that goes beyond believing something.) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Merger of COI guides

I am proposing to merge all essays/information pages for editors with a conflict of interest, a problem discussed in the signpost. This will make it easier for editors with a COI to follow the rules without any confusion due to discrepensies between the pages, help users working with COI editors by giving them a better resource to link and maing it easier to maintain our coverage in this area and keeping all information up to date.

I am not very familiar with these pages and have only come across the three mentioned in the signpost and on WP:COI, but I'm sure there's more that should be added. If you know any others please add it bellow.

I've notified WikiProject Integrity and will tag @WWB:, @Widefox:, @Headbomb: and @DGG: about this discussion because they discussed this issue on the signpost article's talk page. Trialpears (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I totally agree with you Trialpears. The main tasks that I see that needs to be under taken, besides the obvious need to manually combine all of the contents of the three pages, to be to first decide whether or not the combined page should be an essay, which two of the above pages are marked as, or if it should be an explanatory supplement, which one of them is marked as. The difference is explained at Wikipedia:Project namespace#How-to and information pages. Secondly, a decision needs to made about what the appropriate name for the combined page would be. Lastly, it would make sense to consider if writing the guide as a list of prose would make more sense. The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 23:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

As the one who raised this issue in the Signpost, I certainly agree! And thank you for taking the initiative, Trialpears. I would strongly suggest that the resulting merged document be an explanatory supplement, rather than a mere essay. As for the name, I always thought the one for WP:PSCOI was good, though a compromise like "Best practices for editors with a conflict of interest" might be even better. WWB (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@WWB and Trialpears: Sounds good. I agree that "Best practices for editors with a conflict of interest" would be a good title. I'm going to start doing some work just breaking down each of the pages into their basic components in my third sandbox, starting with Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide since it is the one which is an explanatory supplement, like the combined page is set to be. I'm not sure if there would be a better place to do the work, but its a start. If you want to you could also make edits there to help in the process. The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I found some more related pages, though disimilar in some ways:

Wikipedia:Help available for editors with conflicts of interest

Wikipedia:Paid editing (essay)

Wikipedia:Notable person survival kit

Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations

Wikipedia:About you

Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest (medicine)

Wikipedia:Deceptive advertising

Wikipedia:For publicists publicizing a client's work

Wikipedia:Search engine optimization

Wikipedia:Public relations (essay)

Wikipedia:Ghostwriting

The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I've gone through all the articles listed above and will suggest some course of action for each article.

Wikipedia:Help available for editors with conflicts of interest can probably be used to build the see also section of the merged page and then be redirected.

Wikipedia:Paid editing (essay) Should be part of the main merger as it has significant amount of relevant information, but we should remember not to use shortcuts in prose like this page does since the intended audience won't have any idea what WP:EAR, WP:ANI or WP:COI are.

Wikipedia:Notable person survival kit feels quite distinct from the main merger and should probably be left as is since it deals with other issues not related to conflict of interests; they should definitely link to each other though

Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations Once again I believe this should be left outside the main merger, but there may still be some useful things here

Wikipedia:About you Same as with Notable person survival kit, but maybe these pages should be merged as well

Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest (medicine) Brings up important points about giving undue weight to your believes, but I don't think that it should be redirected here since it has a more specific audience and discuss problems mostly relevant for medicine.

Wikipedia:Deceptive advertising another page that should be mentioned but not merged

Wikipedia:For publicists publicizing a client's work also has a distinct audience but possibly with content that could be used here

Wikipedia:Search engine optimization should be seperate, but warants a mention

Wikipedia:Public relations (essay) same as For publicists publicizing a client's work

Wikipedia:Ghostwriting could be merged as a section, with added information about WP:AfC

Thanks again for finding all these articles and please tell me if you disagree with any of my assesments. Next step would probably be making a list of all subheadings we want in the combined article so we can start working on it. Trialpears (talk) 20:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with your assessments overall, I'm going to go ahead and add a section for Wikipedia:Paid editing (essay) at my third sandbox. I agree very deeply with you about shortcuts and honestly think there overuse in oft to the detriment of clarity. If the decision is made to combine Wikipedia:Notable person survival kit and Wikipedia:About you it would probably be best to do after the main merger of COI pages just for efficiency. I think Wikipedia:Public relations (essay) might also be mergeable with Wikipedia:For publicists publicizing a client's work in a similar way. I start a subheading list in my sandbox per your suggestion. The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 22:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

For anyone who might be watching this page, but not this discussion to closely, I think the idea of merging the pages together is not something of insignificance considering how important policies regarding COI editing are to English Wikipedia how much controversy they can produce. Because of that I would like to get broader input from the community, including you yes you!, so if you have the time your response to the following questions would be appreciated:

Should there be a section advising editor's who do not have a COI on interacting with editor's who do?

How much should the page also function a complete introduction to Wikipedia as a site and editing it?

How much should it be formal and legalistic as well as personable and informal?

Since Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide is already of good quality and well written would it make more sense to work on revisions to that it that incorporate details from the other pages into it rather than make an entirely new page?

The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 16:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I've been quietly watching this discussion, and I appreciate very much the work that editors have been putting into this effort. I like the idea of revising the other stuff into the P&S guide, instead of creating a separate page. As an essay/information page, I think the style should be personal and informal, just so long as it doesn't leave too much ambiguity, and I would minimize the amount of Wikipedia-in-general stuff, linking elsewhere instead. And I do think that advice about dealing with COI editors is important to include. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Feedback requested at Talk:Gay pride

Hello. Your feedback would be appreciated at this discussion concerning a possible COI issue at Talk:Gay pride. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

User page self-promotion

If a user page is created for the purpose of self-promotion or promoting a business connected with or owned by the user, that situation seems to me to be a conflict of interest, and also improper advertising. My question is where should that situation be reported?--Dthomsen8 (talk) 01:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Dthomsen8, if WP:CSD#G11 applies tag it with {{db-spamuser}} and an admin should delete it shortly. If it does not qualify since it is non obvious advertising list it at MfD. --Trialpears (talk) 02:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, the underlying policy basis for not using userspace as advertising is at WP:PROMO. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

How to disclose a COI

I have never been paid to edit Wikipedia, but I deal with COI editors a lot. The section "Paid editors" should probably be improved.

WP:PAID requires a disclosure to be made...

...in at least one of the following ways:
a statement on your user page,

a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or

a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions.

When a paid editor asks for help on other users' talk pages, or even their own user talk page, the request for help and the resulting discussion may well be paid editing itself. Following the instructions at "How to disclose a COI" currently neither creates a statement on the user page, nor the talk page accompanying such paid help requests, nor statements in the edit summary accompanying such paid help requests. The instructions are focused on the "Connected contributor (paid)" template for article talk pages; alternatives are only briefly mentioned. The sentence "You are expected to maintain a clearly visible list on your user page of your paid contributions." sounds as if it were about a log book that can be created in hindsight, when everything is done.

The sentence
"You may do this on your user page, on the talk page of affected articles, or in your edit summaries."
does not seem to match the strictness of the Terms of Use. Its actual meaning to a paid single-purpose account editor, currently not conveyed clearly enough, is:
"You must do this either on your user page, or on the talk page of all affected pages, or in all your edit summaries."

The current instructions may be useful when discussions mainly happen on the article talk page, but they often seem to fail when dealing with:

Draft articles
Sandbox articles
Help requests on other pages, like the Teahouse.

The only way to safely disclose payment for all contributions to Wikipedia, for a single-purpose account, seems to be the user page statement to me. The instructions focus on talk page disclosure too much, and should at least mention templates like {{Paid}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

[1] New articles that were not submitted through AfC need not necessarily be moved to draft space. They may also be edited or deleted as appropriate.

[a]