Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Archive 22

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25

WP:COI vs. CC BY-SA 3.0 attribution

IMO our guidelines about COI editing fly in the face of out copyright policy. Specifically, in the part where it is advised that COI editors have to suggest edits in article talk page, and then a wikipedian of goodwill will put these suggestions into the article. When I copy a part of article into another one I am advised to use the template {{copied}} to keep track of copyright thru article history. IMO a similar mechanism must be envisioned here, especially when bona fide COI-disclosed editors write thoroughly good chunks of text, if only out of respect. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I believe WP:COPYWITHIN is not limited to cases of copying a part of article into another. The advice given in that guideline concerning proper attribution can, and should, be followed when copying texts from edit requests (for whatever reason and within whatever namespace) too. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 23:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Can you name a single case when "COI-assisted editing" follows this guideline?
And why do unpaid wikipedians have to jump through extra hoops to help a money-maker out? What's wrong with simply giving him a go-ahead once vetted? Staszek Lem (talk) 00:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  • A related question; does not the employer own the copyright to a paid editor's work since it is a work for hire? If that is the case the paid editor can not license their article text without a release from their employer. Correct? JbhTalk 03:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
In transferring material rom the talk p to the article, i think we consider the talk p. history is part of the complete edit history. DGG ( talk ) 06:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I think we should require that editors transferring paid/COI material say so in the edit summary. Often we see "per talk," which doesn't alert future editors and readers that a paid, and often a corporate, version has been installed. We should require that editors doing this link to the draft or edit request, and say "on behalf of" the COI/paid editor. SarahSV (talk) 17:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
How about "on behalf of User:Paid (paid)" and "on behalf of User:COI (COI)" Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that would work, plus a link to the draft or edit request so that future editors don't have to hunt for it. SarahSV (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Where there is a single author of the material in question, attribution in the edit summary is sufficient and, fortunately, simple enough. isaacl (talk) 17:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: above raises the interesting question of the ability to freely license contributions from paid editors on behalf of others. Presumably, when the business (or other) makes a contract with the paid editor, they give the paid editor the right to write on their behalf and freely license that material. The problem that I see is that the editor could be doing a Joe Job, seeming to insert the material on behalf of the business but actually trying to embarrass them. Perhaps this is a question to address at WP:Copyright questions or similar, but this might be the a reasonable place as well. I'd think that the only real solution to article edits (do we really need anything for talk page edits?) would be to to have the business make a release at OTRS. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:42, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict) Jbhunley, in cases of a work for hire, the employer should release the text. This doesn't happen so far as I know. We could require it, either on a talk page or via OTRS, as we do for images. That is, we could require employers to make their authorship and ownership of the text clear.
Currently, companies are in some cases writing some or all of their own texts. Paid editors present the texts to the community, and uninvolved editors offer (for reasons I have never understood) to install those texts into article space, often with little or no attribution. So it's a mess, ethically and in terms of copyright. SarahSV (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
@Smallbones and SlimVirgin: considering the entire project is based on creating a freely redistributable encyclopedia I think this needs to be addressed in an affirmative manner by the community and WMF Legal. As it stands it is a pretty big hole in our legal obligation to give credit to the owners of the IP represented by contributions and can bite us in the ass in the future. It also makes it doubly important paid editors disclose since they can be violating copyright as well as the ToU.

Per the initial question as far as I know only editors who have contributed to the article page get listed in the copyright credits when the page is made into a PDF or book so there should at least be a dummy edit by the actual contributor/copyright holder. JbhTalk 19:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The paid editor needn't make a dummy edit. It's enough for another editor to state in the edit summary that they are copying the work of editor X, and link to the draft or edit request – just as we do when copying or moving text from one article to another.
But that's a separate issue from whether the text has been released. The paid editor might be the writer, but might be a work-for-hire and not the copyright holder. S/he is therefore not in a position to release it. Or the paid editor might not be the writer, but merely the vehicle. I've seen several paid-editing texts that seem to have been written by the company in question (the employer/client).
Not having these texts formally released means we don't know who the author is, and that the articles could be withdrawn in future. We should be treating them as we do images and insisting on formal releases. SarahSV (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
We could include something here like "Text contributed by paid editors may be considered a work-for-hire with the copyright owned by the employers. The paid editors should obtain a release from the employer and forward it to OTRS." Perhaps better would be to include similar text, with "will be considered" and "must" at WP:COPYOTHERS which is part of the copyright policy. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:05, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Text added

I've made a start by expanding the copyright section; see WP:COICOPYRIGHT. I think we should contact the legal department to ask for their help in wording this. SarahSV (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think that requiring a release is a good idea, while we probably should not be dictating the contractual relationship between paid editors and their clients we do need to insure proper attribution and release of the material. Adding the text to the copyright policy and referencing it here is, in my mind, the way to go. The people over at Copyright policy page may have some input on how it should be done. I also believe that addressing it there will help minimize the shot-storm that comes with modification of PAID. Also it is primarily a copyright issue that related to paid editors not a strict paid editing issue. JbhTalk 20:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I've asked for comments at Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#Works_for_hire about that policy. Who should we ping @Slaporte (WMF):? Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
SarahSV, I do not think, as it says in the copyright section, that we can assume paid editors own the copyright. We should assume that they do not own the copyright. The base assumption should place the onus on the paid editor to show they own the copyright not on Wikipedia to show they do not. That would be an impossible situation and opens Wikipedia up to possible problems like the employer requesting material be removed as a copyright violation. Off the top of my head, suppose a paid editor, while working woth others on the talk page, proposed compromise text that allows some negative/unflattering information into the article and the employer decides they want the passage removed and asserts copyright based on work for hire/work product. I know it is an edge case but someone, someday will likely try it or something similar. JbhTalk 21:57, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Jbhunley, I agree. I think this could become a problem, where employers regret that they provided a text, because it has been changed in ways they dislike, and therefore the copyright holder requests removal. SarahSV (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Once it's in article space, it's too late; ownership behavior is forbidden. Allowing an editor, and especially an outside source (like a company), to own article content, would be a horrible situation. We can never allow that. While the content is in personal user space it's a different matter because it has not become part of the encyclopedia. Once it's submitted as article content, the editor loses control over it. If they exhibit ownership behavior, they risk getting blocked, and that can happen to anyone, including Nobel Prize winners, politicians, and billionaires. We don't give a flying f##k about who they are or their "ownership" claims. We really must stand firm on this. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

BullRangifer, that misses the point that we can't know whether the material has been released. For example, paid editors have added press releases to Wikipedia articles. Those press releases were not released under a free licence, so the company retained the copyright. SarahSV (talk) 00:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I understand the problem, and that's why we can't allow inclusion of the content without proven release of copyright. Are you working towards ensuring such release of copyright? -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I've just started working on it by adding WP:COICOPYRIGHT, but I'm not sure what else to do. I think it would be worth writing to the Foundation to ask for help. SarahSV (talk) 01:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Summary of the problem

Just to be clear, these are the problems we're trying to solve with WP:COICOPYRIGHT. I'm using the term employer to refer to whoever is paying for the contributions. Sometimes the paid editor is a salaried employee and sometimes a freelancer paid only to edit Wikipedia.

  1. Paid editors insert copyrighted press releases written by their employers and hosted on their employers' websites.
  2. Paid editors insert text, including whole articles, that has been written by the employer, where the employer can't be assumed to have released it.
  3. Paid editors insert text they have written themselves, but we're unsure of the copyright status. If the material is a "work for hire," they don't own the copyright and can't release it.
  4. Once a paid draft text is installed in article space, paid editors request deletion of the draft, so that the text's provenance is lost.
  5. Volunteers may install paid text into articles, on behalf of paid editors, without attribution, so that future editors and readers can't see that a paid text was added. (Copyright problems apart, volunteers rarely, if ever, check the paid texts they install. If the paid text is longer than the article it replaces, volunteers assume it is better. Paid editors have therefore learned to provide lots of detail to help their texts be accepted.)
  6. Volunteers may note in the edit summary that they're inserting a paid text, but they don't link to where they found it, thereby violating copyright.

The result is that we have an increasing number of articles that have been written by the article subjects (actually written by them, or written by them in effect), without alerting readers. In addition, the authors may not have released the texts, and could therefore request removal in future – for example, if a text is edited in a way they dislike. SarahSV (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

This really threatens the basic concept that all article content should be the product of collaborative editing. The following is such a bad situation:
New Media Strategies, a conservative PR firm which specializes in whitewashing the internet for their customers, had a team of paid sock puppets working, by contract, for the Koch brothers. Their shared IP busted them. They were caught and exposed in the press, an SPI followed here, yet they were unblocked and some are still here, with other editors, and at least one admin, carrying their torch very aggressively. Here are some links:
SarahSV, above you wrote a really insightful (and alarming) comment: "volunteers rarely, if ever, check the paid texts they install." Indeed! Even after a paid editor, like "Bedford" above, installs a total replacement for collaboratively-created content, it's nearly impossible to figure out what changes they really made, and we know that this is a commonly used method to sneak whitewashing past other editors. Such wholesale replacements should not normally be allowed without some strict controls. It also violates WP:PRESERVE. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the evidence appears to be a full 180 degrees from the inference you wish to draw - it is rather obvious that a person with a POV in 2015 tried assiduously to add edits about living persons inconsistent with Wikipedia policies, and is now blocked as a result. The fact that VVUSA appeared to consider Arthur Rubin, inter alia, to be in any way a "sock" for the Koch family is so off-the-wall, that using this as an example of COI problems is actually an indication of the DailyKos itself being the source of the COI for VVUSA. Collect (talk) 00:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Collect, I agree that the experiment was poorly performed, and the resistance they met was justified, but the named editors, including Arthur, really are a problem, not as socks, but as meatpuppets. What I describe is really the case. The right wing articles are effectively controlled by them. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:12, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Bullrangifer, I watch volunteer editors do this all the time, and it puzzles me. They're not being paid; they often have no interest in or knowledge of the topic; and they don't check the text or sources. Most importantly they don't check what is missing, which is often the really time-consuming part, so they have no idea whether WP:DUE has been violated or something important has been whitewashed away.
I have to wonder why they do it. I suppose they want to be helpful, but being helpful to a few individuals (the paid editor and client) may mean not being helpful to hundreds or thousands of readers. SarahSV (talk) 01:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Exactly! You understand the problem. I've even seen OTRS volunteers do this, using misguided claims of "BLP". -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
One explanation is that these are allied tag teaming POV editors. They are interested in getting this content accepted. That's what happens on the right wing articles in the situation I mention above. It's pretty much standard practice. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I've seen COI/political tag-teaming, but I've also seen very decent, uninvolved editors be persuaded to add something that it's obvious they didn't check. I've added a paragraph reminding people to check to Wikipedia:COIATTRIBUTION. SarahSV (talk) 01:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

(EC) Yes it is currently a mess with copyrights. Cleaning up the mess would protect everybody.

  • If "paid editors" claim that they are inserting text on behalf of a business, the business needs to know about it, and we need to know that the business knows
    • Solution - on OTRS release by the business stating that they release the text - it is being done on their behalf. Don't insert the text until the release is received (or a prior blanket release)
  • If a paid editor is inserting text given to them (or written in collaboration with) an employer, we need a copyright release from the employer.
  • If a paid editor is cleared to write anything he wants about the business and owns the copyright himself, we need to know this.

In short, we need a release filed at OTRS for any conceivable relation between the paid editor and the employer, and this should be cleared *before* an article edit is made. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. There have been a few occasions where I've seen paid editors (salaried employees, interns and freelancers) add such poor material that I've wondered how much the employer knew about what they were doing. There have also been a couple of occasions where I've wondered whether the paid editor was working for an opponent. So yes, in the interests of avoiding copyright violations and knowing in whose interests the edits are made, it's important to get this cleared up. SarahSV (talk) 01:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Probably the best way to deal with this is to require the OTRS ticket number be posted on the talk page before the edit can be made. While the ticket is pending a {{OTRS pending}} should be used. Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

This seems to be a legal and policy issue. Is there a WMF editor that can be notified, or should we just ping Jimbo Wales and get him over here? For the policy change, I reckon there's enough grounds and local consensus to get a policy-based RfC going to gain Wiki-Consensus on this issue and update the related areas of both WP:COI and WP:OTRS to include this. What do others reckon? Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 06:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC) P.S. I've been following the discussion for a while, just couldn't be bothered commenting until now.

Thank you SarahSV for such a helpful summary. I agree with Drcrazy102: COI oughta go to RfC. And I do think WMF should be given the opportunity to comment on what alyawl have said so far. Pinging supergeniusitsjustunfair @Slaporte (WMF) and Jimbo wales: esp since Jimmy has repeatedly expressed very strong feelings about Conflict of Interest edits - Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 22:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll suggest that we suggest this at the Wikipedia:Copyrights policy page - since policies have a bit more weight than guidelines and since it is really a copyright problem. There may be folks who know more about copyrights over there. Not that I've had any responses over there yet. Maybe I'll ping a few folks there tomorrow. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Smallbones. WP:COICOPYRIGHT is the current relevant section of this guideline. SarahSV (talk) 04:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#Works_for_hire. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi guys - Below, my attempt to update Sarah's summary to include subsequent talk. Please improve? - Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Summary, updated

  1. Definition of terms
    1. Relevant Community rules: WP:COICOPYRIGHT, WP:COIATTRIBUTION, WP:COI, WP:OTRS, WP:PRESERVE, WP:DUE, WP:COPYRIGHTS, WP:COPYWITHIN , WP:COPYOTHERS
    2. Ad - an edit on Wikipedia paid for by Buyer
    3. Buyer - person (inc coprporations) paying for said edits
    4. Car - a Charity; a Wikipedia-Wikipedian who does Pro work for free
    5. Cash - currency Buyer normally uses to pay Pro for Ad
    6. Foul - illegal move by Buyer/Car/Pro: breaks rules of Community/CC-BY-SA/Copyright; harmful to Reader and Wikipedians
    7. Prick - someone who pokes holes through Wikipedia's Well of Knowledge
    8. Pro - a Paid editor; a Wikipedian who receives cash to edit Wikipedia
    9. Reader - person who reads a Wikipedia article; has little or no clue of inside-games which produced said article; usually a Free Rider; the most important player in the game
    10. Wikipedian - someone who writes and edits Wikipedia articles
    11. Wikipedia Community - "more than just an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is a community. A community likes to have fun at times, and, at other times, it's 100% serious."
  2. Problems
    1. Fouls: Copyright, CC-BY-SA, and Community-Rule violations by Pro and Car
      1. Pro inserts press releases written and owned by Buyer, and hosted on Buyer's website/s
      2. Pro inserts text, including whole articles, written and owned by Buyer (if the material is a "work for hire" Pro does not own any of the material)
      3. Car inserts paid text, but does not link to source (f.e draft written by Pro)
    2. Complicating problems
      1. Pro requests deletion of the draft; text provenance is lost
      2. Car inserts paid text into articles, on behalf of Pro, without attribution: Reader (and other Cars) cannot see that paid text was added (N!: Cars rarely check the paid texts they insert; if paid text is longer than the article it replaces, some Cars assume it's better. So Pros know to provide lots of detail and citations to present a semblance of a well-sourced article)
      3. When other Cars/Pros edit the Ad in ways displeasing to Buyer, Buyer claims copyright violation, requests and gets Ad removal; text provenance is lost
      4. Pricks gang up to poke holes through Wikipedia Well of Knowledge; improbable, if not impossible, to stop
    3. Consequence and biggest problem: increasing number of Ads and other bad articles, unknown to Reader.
  3. Proposed solutions
    1. Post WP:OTRS ticket number on Talk page of article before any Pro edit that may be a Foul. While ticket is pending, insert {{OTRS pending}}
    2. Get consensus: draft proposed Rule/s to improve Relevant Community rules (WP:COICOPYRIGHT, WP:COI, WP:OTRS a.s.o); submit Request for Comment
    3. Alert Wikimedia Foundation, @Slaporte (WMF) and Jimbo wales: Involve WMF from the start
    4. Bring in experts from WP:COPYRIGHTS: Wikipedia talk:Copyrights#Works_for_hire
  • An absurdly convoluted discussion that tries to create a policy where none is required. Original content added to Wikipedia is subjected to the terms of use - below the edit window there's this explicit reminder "By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL with the understanding that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient for CC BY-SA 3.0 attribution." It doesn't matter what the nature of the relationship between employee and employer is. If they're acting on behalf of the employer, from the moment someone gets hired to edit any third-party medium on behalf of another third party, it is very clear that those edits are bound to the ToU of said third party. You don't get to enter someone's house and make up your own rules. MLauba (Talk) 11:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Conduct by administrators

I'd suggest adding the following subsection under "Miscellaneous":

(begin add)

===Conduct by Administrators===

Wikipedia administrators are required by policy to lead by example, and should behave with extra care in articles in which they have a close association with the subject of the article as described in this guideline ("What is a Conflict of Interest?") above.

Administrators should never edit such articles directly, and not participate in talk page discussions except to call attention to uncontroversial factual errors. They should always disclose their association with the subject of the article in any talk page discussion.

(end add)

COI situations by admins can bring the project into disrepute. Admin conduct is not specifically addressed in the guideline and I think that this is a deficiency that needs to be addressed. Coretheapple (talk) 14:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I think this would be a net positive to English Wikipedia. Losing the ability to discuss potential article changes in areas of interest to a potential candidate for adminship is a significant drawback, and this may cause a further decrease in the number of candidacies put forth.
If consensus is reached to introduce this new requirement, though, I suggest having a subsection underneath "Wikipedia's position", under "COI editing strongly discouraged", with a heading like "Guidance for administrators". isaacl– (talk) 17:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
My sense is that such situations are uncommon. However, where they do exist, if their loyalty to outside interests takes precedence over their obligations to Wikipedia, such that they do not wish to recuse themselves in such situations, I don't think it would be much of a loss. I know of two situations in which admins have shrugged off or evaded our totally weak and toothless COI guideline, and I think that both of those editors richly deserve to be desysopped and their departure would be of no loss to the project whatsoever. Also I believe that such a clause would be helpful in the rare but conceivable possibility of a paid commercial editor slipping through and becoming an admin. Your suggestion for placement has merit.Coretheapple (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
What a spiteful little missive. Clearly, you're not beyond bending and shaping policy to remove people you find unpalatable. Yet you don't have the fortitude to actually name those two admins you've come to despise, one of whom happens to be me. What a craven stunt indeed - Alison ❤ 11:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
It would not have been appropriate to name editors under such circumstances and you'd have had a justified complaint if he had. Instead of a personal ad hominem comment, why not comment on the merits of the proposal? I notice your comments re COI are almost always personal, inflammatory or snarky and not substantive. Administrators should set an example on NPA as well as COI, don't you agree? Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
No Alison, I did not have your rather tawdry COI situation in mind when I wrote this. You are fuming up the wrong tree. The world does not revolve around you. I was referring to two administrators, neither active, and no, I am not going to be baited by you into identifying them; their names are utterly superfluous to this discussion. Coretheapple (talk) 15:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that we have to single out admins in that way. By this logic, we have to add similar texts in each and every policy and guideline "ye admins, thou shalt not triple-revert, thou shalt not badmouth, thou shalt not copyviolate, for you are our Lantern and a Role Model". Suffice to say this just once in the WP:ADMIN page. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I think this is a commonsensical idea. Administrators need to set an example in this area. If indeed there are only two administrators with COI that's two too many. But I am confident there are many many more. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
  • If we are discussing common sense the solution is very simple and direct. Any administrator who uses their admin tools or perceived authority to advance a COI should be subject to de-sysop. The best case would be if we had a community de-sysop procedure. At the minimum the community should instruct ArbCom that administrators advancing a COI or, worse yet, being paid to edit and using their admin bit as a 'selling point', is a reason to accept a case and cause for de-sysop. JbhTalk 14:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
The only real solution is to make this guideline a policy, so that it can be enforced. This guideline requires voluntary consent, and editors who do not consent are not subject to penalties unless simultaneously violating policies. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

COI unchecked

As long as folks advertise their services as this man here promising "For your protection – WILL NEVER DISCLOSE MY CLIENTS – I never disclose my clients in order to protect their anonymity" here, these rules do remain toothless.--Wuerzele (talk) 06:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

a question

"Any external relationship – personal, religious, political, academic, financial or legal – can trigger a COI." Does this mean one should not edit about the topic of their expertise? Or theories they lecture on universities? 212.200.65.127 (talk) 14:45, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

@212.200.65.127: No it does not. Expert editors are welcome, but self-promotion is not. Citing your own work for instance is permitted as long as it is relevant, balanced, and in line with other policies. See advice for Expert editors and Wikipedia editing for research scientists. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Discrepancy?

It seems there is a discrepancy between how this page is presented and what is talked about on the template:coi page. I feel it is unclear because of this discrepancy when an editor should and should not use the coi tag.

L1R5M1 (talk) 12:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

What to do, if you suspect a COI?

I added content in this dif to answer that - the guideline provided no guidance as to what users should do in that situation. Jytdog (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Jdog drafting "If concerns about COI remain..."

(edit conflict)Jdog added this to the COI rules "If concerns about COI remain after considering these other options, raise the issue in a civil manner on the editor's talk page, citing this guideline, or open a thread on WP:COIN." I asked him to discuss on talk. at a minimum he should open the thread. furthermore, he ignored the flag which states "Editors discussing proposed changes to WP:COI or related pages should disclose during those discussions whether they have been paid to edit Wikipedia."

of course buddy Roxythedog re-reverts me (minutes later, nothing else to do) in the well known tag team -edit warring manner, that brought jdog to ARbcom in the first place. I CLEARLY wrote to discuss. Rdog you are wrong. your tactic to push and WP:BAIT with your aggressive behavior is a shame and known to everyone. --Wuerzele (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Still waiting for you to explain Jytdogs alleged COI per your, and my, edsum. -Roxy the dog™ woof 20:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was busy replying the WP:hounding Jdog on my talk page (where he posts though not allowed) so he beat me with his above post facto entry! And he is not discussing here!

Jdog knows the rules and how to manipulate them, and here is an immediate example: discussing a controversial issue POST facto, after someone tells him to.--Wuerzele (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Still waiting for you to explain Jytdogs alleged COI per your, and my, edsum. -Roxy the dog™ woof 11:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
rdog you and wait ? you reverted me. I owe you nada. dont play games, ask your friend.--Wuerzele (talk) 05:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Several editors accused Jytdog of COI a few months ago, he identified to a neutral admin who confirmed that he had no COI. I can not remember where the thread is but Jytdog can likely point you to it. Wuerzele should really retract their accusation unless they have evidence else they are simply making a personal attack. JbhTalk 13:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
really? and you jhunley should really retract if you "cannot remember where the thread" is. have jdog produce it. you assume bad faith fabricating a WP:PA. --Wuerzele (talk) 05:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
It is in plain sight on my user page. User:Jytdog#Self-initiated_COI_Investigation. You have still have not supported your allegation, and you have been asked now by three people. Jytdog (talk) 05:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
@Wuerzele:, it is a personal attack to allege that someone has a paid-editing COI without providing any reason, evidence or other proof of COI. I may take this to the dramaboards since you are persisting in tendentious and disruptive discussion. Jbhunley said "I can not remember where the thread is but Jytdog can likely point you to it." preempting your comment of "you jhunley (sic) should really retract if you "cannot remember where the thread" is. have jdog (sic) produce it. At any rate, Jytdog has provided the link and a direct link to the self-investigation can be seen here, at the COI/N archives, which found Jytdog to be COI-free. Unless you have proof Wuerzele, you are essentially continuing with your ArbCom-found battleground mentality and incivility, which may require Admin intervention at the dramaboard. Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 05:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
oh you too waiting ? drcrazy! have you had any dealings with jdog ? no ? how about checking him out before writing, while waiting ? he used to run COIN, shouldnt he know better to disclose? but then he wrote half the rules here. read teh arbcomGMOcase evidence page about him.--Wuerzele (talk) 05:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Still waiting for actual evidence stating Jytdog to have a COI to be provided per WP:Casting aspersions, WP:No personal attacks and WP:HARASS. If you, @Wuerzele:, can't find/link any ruling that Jytdog has a COI then you need to stop accusing him of COI or you are only casting aspersions that can and will result in blocks. All you are providing for your "evidence" is something regarded as speculative and rumour-mongering in an ArbCom case that made no ruling to the effect of "Jytdog has a COI, don't edit this area". If you really want to, go start a discussion about Jytdog's alleged COI and provide some evidence. As it stands, you are not proving that Jytdog has a COI, you are proving that you have a COI when dealing with any area related to Jytdog and should likely receive an interaction ban to stop your currently baseless arguments. You can try this one voluntarily or have it imposed, that simple and it avoids all this drama.
You have been warned by Jytdog to stop attacking them, and I am backing the warning since you apparently disregarded it since it came from Jytdog. If you do not cease and desist in your attempts to allege their COI exists without evidence, I will take the matter to ANI for community discussion.
Also, for the sake of whatever deity or entity you pray to or believe in, use some form of a text-editor to clean up and copyedit your comments so that I don't feel like I'm reading some teenager's graffiti tags! There is currently an issue of competency, in writing and evidence-based arguments, on this talkpage that is readily apparent in each and every one of your comments so far.
Finally, I have had previous experience in editing with Jytdog and found them to be reasonable at the time (round about when the ArbCom case was happening, IIRC). And at any rate, I don't give a Vandal's edit about the history of the user when they are being blatantly attacked in the manner you have conducted yourself in. You had your go during the ArbCom, now drop the bone. Sincerely, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 05:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

discussing the edit Jdog made

so, since everyone has had it all out on me, all the accusations of malice out of the way , i invite the esteemed editors (except rdog) to discuss jdog's edit. content, yes! the content that s still in , men!

I reverted it because

  1. jdog has a COI since AT LEAST October 2015, not declared it formally,. he wasnt sure what to do as he admits. he added the sentence to the COI guidelines which is crazy. you dont edit guidelines that pertain to you r situation. How does this look, gentlemen? You should ask jdog to retract his edit! instead you let rdog bully me and chime in without thinking.
  2. jdog has QUIETLY started a disclosure on his talkpage, today. NOT HERE as the guidelines, I cited "Editors discussing proposed changes to WP:COI or related pages should disclose during those discussions whether they have been paid to edit Wikipedia."
  3. jdog SHOULD have discussed on talk BEFORE making a controversial edit like that. Its a standard rule. and he should discuss here ! why are none of you asking him? pretty obvious to me....

the problem I have with his sentence is that it puts the burden on other editors to "raise the issue/prosecute", not on the editor that knows they may be in conflict brushing the law.

I am asking for input by people that edit this page like slimvirgin, Jusdafax, smallbones and I forget who else is usually here, oh Viriditas.--Wuerzele (talk) 05:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not a paid editor and never have been. You continue to make random attacks against me. Crazy. Jytdog (talk) 06:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
and for what it's worth, the section in which I made the edit, is about what to do if you encounter what you believe to be, or what is declared as, conflicted editing by another editor. your objection makes no sense. and in any case slimvirgin already made an edit here about an hour before you wrote your comment above, and better incorporated what i did. Jytdog (talk) 06:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
That being said, it is not wise for an editor with a COI to edit this guideline directly. AlbinoFerret 15:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
There is no one on the planet who has no potential COI in Wikipedia. The question is whether a person edit articles where they have one. I don't. Jytdog (talk) 03:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Happy to discuss content, not contributors, which is what this should have been in the first place, i.e. not an attack on Jytdog but calm and civil discussion about their edit, and their edit alone. The addition of "If concerns about COI remain after considering these other options, raise the issue in a civil manner on the editor's talk page, citing this guideline, or open a thread on WP:COIN." seems blatantly obvious, regardless of conduct/COI concerns, however it was merely a repetition of the opening line of the section and was ultimately removed because of that sole reason. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 05:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
to be very clear, slimvirgin's edit kept the idea i wanted expressed and said it more elegantly. there is now advice about what to do if you are concerned someone has a COI, which is what i wanted. Jytdog (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Requesting diffs for proposals

How do others feel about WP:Diff editing for COI proposals? The situation might be that someone wants an edit. A Wikipedian responds by telling them to edit the page, self-revert, and share the diff.

The situation that I want to address is that COI editors making requests often make ambiguous requests. Personally, I would prefer for them to make particular edits, immediately undo their action, then ask "Is this okay?" In this method, there is no uncertainty about their request and also there is no request made for a Wikipedian to do editorial labor. The Wikipedian's time can be used only for a critique.

The problem with this is that the rules suggest "no COI editing". I would argue that if there are two "edits" done, one to change and one immediately after to revert, then this does not count as editing.

I was looking at Template:Request_edit/Instructions#Current_requested_edits. From my perspective, one of the major problems here is that in most cases the COI editor does not make a clear request, so their proposal is difficult to evaluate. I was wondering what would happen if the burden of making a diff were directed to them, rather than to the volunteer labor pool. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

In my view the big thing we want to teach editors considering an article where they have a COI, is that you don't touch the article directly. Of course the COI guideline is clear that it is totally OK to revert outright vandalism, and OK to update uncontroversial facts... but the simple, high-level the thing we want to teach them - especially new editors who are here only b/c of their COI and don't much care about WP per se, is that directly editing the article has the aura of haram and they should just avoid it. This notion of editing and then reverting is technically OK but that is pretty sophisticated and also confusing with regard to the high level message. Also there are a class of COI editors who do something that looks like an edit-then-revert but actually leave changes behind (often changing the link in a ref to some spammy site), and including this instruction would only make it harder to detect those slimey editors. Finally, the work that you have to do, to create a dif, is the same work that you have to do to create a concrete edit request. Type, format refs, etc. But this proposal has the extra step of presenting a diff, which new editors often understand even less. I do get it that the in-context diff is much more clear. Overall I don't much care for this idea. I do appreciate the desire to help people comply with the guideline better and more efficiently. Jytdog (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Abuse of Wikidata for SEO purposes

There is a discussion at ANI of editor who works for an SEO business who has been violating the ToU, WP:PROMO, and the COI guideline here in WP, and who also (ab)uses Wikidata to benefit his clients. The thread to deal with his en-wiki activities is here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#SEO_editor_-_requesting_site_ban. Here is an article in an SEO trade rag written by our editor about how to use WIkidata to benefit clients; the editor formerly had this posted on their User page (see here).

I wanted to open a discussion here, about his abuse of Wikidata. It seems to me that we in en-wiki have no reach into our sister project, Wikidata, and that our guideline cannot address activities in sister projects. But it seems like we should make sure the community there is aware.... I have no idea how Wikidata works or is structured, but wanted to open the discussion about what if anything we should do, per Brianhe's remarks at the ANI thread. Jytdog (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Village Pump

The following are some comments by other editors from my post about COI on the village pump. That post has been archived, so no further discussion is expected Travelmite (talk) 17:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The first problem is to identify conflict of interest edits. This is not easy, unless the cases are very blatant. This is the more tricky since we allow anonymous editors on Wikipedia and allow (and even encourage) editors to use pseudonyms we cannot take action before the behaviour gives prove of conflict of interest. Persistent Conflict of Interest editing can be, and are considered as disruptive editing and can (and has led) to blocking the involved editor (and evidence from outside Wikipedia is often used to make the case); and the included material is usually removed, regardless whether stuff was written under contract, under personal interest or otherwise. Wikipedia just does not allow sentences to be removed permanently and changing that would touch the fabric of the encyclopedia. These procedures are not perfect, but the statements above give little practical advice how to get to better procedures. E.g. how can we find authorities and training? Whose best practices (and where do we find those)? Your other suggesitons tend to be followed already (e.g. while a declared CoI may lead to removal of material, blocking editors entirely is rare - because the editor was open; while this happens frequently for hidden CoI's.). So before we continue this. Could you provide a practical way in which a community that prides itself with the slogan that everyone can edit; and which is based on anonymous volunteers; to make your suggestions work, without changing these core values? Arnoutf (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The first problem is to identify conflict of interest edits. Actually this is really easy because no one is free of COI. So every editor here has a COI. Not one individual editor here is bias free including myself. Which is why I find all this stone throwing pointless bullying a complete waste of time.
Or . . . more accurately, it has become a Wikipedia sanctioned witch hunt! --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 20:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
      • So far I've seen just about every editor who gets stuck with that COI tag on them banned. It really is a death sentence here on Wikipedia.
So . . . can someone show me a COI editor that hasn't been harassed or bullied? One will do, however, more would be preferred, especially if they can speak for themselves. Or . . . do they in fact not exist??? Because, if so, then this is a huge, problem. --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 06:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
People being paid to ruin Wikipedia articles for the financial gain of other entities have more resources to continue to do so against the purely volunteer editors who do so solely for the benefit of having a quality, neutrally written source for the world to use. That is, as long as people are being paid to push a particular, and decidedly non-neutral, point of view in support of the entities paying them will always win against people who are just here for the love of it, unless we have specific policies in place empowering the unpaid volunteers to refuse to admit the paid liars to the club merely for being paid liars. Unless we do so, the paid liars have the resources to simply overtake Wikipedia by brute force, so long as we take the false notion that anything anyone cares to write is equally valuable, without regard for principles such as adherence to neutrality and verifiability. --Jayron32 07:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • People being paid to ruin Wikipedia Wait? What? First off, I do not believe any COI editor comes to Wikipedia hoping to ruin it. That would also effectively ruin their source of income. Second, I believe most paid Wikipedia editors are only doing it to put food on the table. I have a huge luxury here, I can walk away from all this and still maintain a roof over my head. I would never call the level of harassment I see inflicted upon COI editors as winning. In fact, what I do ascertain from your description is a power hungry, narcissistic, sense of entitlement. My point is that any editor, paid or not, are of equal value to Wikipedia as long as they both ascribe to the terms of neutrality and verifiability. But Wikipedia seems determined to put some proverbial star on certain editors.
Perhaps, slow down? The COIN board is by its nature a place with those with COI (and others) are going to post, it seems that is the context of the 'running the board' comment. But what that comment does not take into account is basically no one runs anything around here, and that seems to be the realization of the other comments, ie., we only have limited ability to deal with COI, as we have limited ability to deal with most things, and our only fall back is the good faith of those involved. I have noticed, over and over again, that this situation of uncertainty is often quite stressful to new users, and even experienced users. If there is any solace to be had, here, philosophically, I might recommend reading one of the first things I read on Wikipedia, negative capability. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • All of the sources that Wikipedia believes are reliable are created by individuals who are paid. Wikipedia won't use a single source that was written by an unpaid editor. That's what's called an oxymoron. Also, Wikipedia has nothing to do with "The Truth," only about verifiability! --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 06:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia doesn't delve into the employment status of the people who write reliable sources. Wikipedia does not want people to edit whereby they have a financial motivation to violate Wikipedia policies in order to use Wikipedia's popularity to promote untrue or inaccurate, but flattering, writing about the people or organizations paying them. I'm not sure why you refuse to acknowledge that people have motivations other than "to build Wikipedia", and that we don't want those people using the established popularity of Wikipedia has a means of promoting themselves through writing that is in direct contravention of the very principles that made Wikipedia itself popular as a source of information, like NPOV. That's the issue. --Jayron32 11:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia instead delves into the employment status of their own editors. See how this isn't any better?!
Editors are motivated by all kinds of things, having a financial motivation does not mean that an editor will violate Wikipedia's policies. Or, are you implying that all financial motivations are suspect? That editors should mistrust everything, ever done, that anyone got any financial reimbursement? Because then Wikipedia should distrust the sources it uses.
Also, why isn't Wikipedia more suspect about Google? They have the biggest financial motivation here. Or, is it because Google is the only reason Wikipedia remains a top web site? I've got to wonder, "Would Wikipedia be as popular as it is now without the of Google?" --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 00:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Recommendations for COI page

The following are my recommendations for improving the instructions on this page:

  1. Difference between COI on Wikipedia and as practiced elsewhere, in that it's a voluntary self-disclosure regime, and not enforcement system.
  2. Optional declaration COI, explain the purpose and advantages of COI disclosure. Also, it should be possible to disclose a general COI on a editors talk page, rather than an article.
  3. More information about encouraging compliance politely.
  4. Explain how privacy can be maintained, by making a broader declaration, rather than a specific company/organisation?
  5. How to check if an editor has disclosed COI?
  6. People quit jobs, so how do they return to being COI free?
  7. Treatment of editors with declared COI will be different from non-disclosed COI, or suspected COI issues. These should be separate sections or maybe clear process to follow.
  8. The best way to get help on COI
  9. Options to repair an article written commercially

Travelmite (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Travelmite, I think your points 4-8 are very good questions, pointing to very good suggestions. fresh eyes on a stubborn WP problem.
Have you considered opening an email account for wikipedia, so people can email you? --Wuerzele (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Just imagine all the extra spam I would get! Travelmite (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • The first two questions are based on incorrect assumptions/understandings about Wikipedia and the RW. There is a big tension here between the absolute value placed on privacy/anonymity and protected by strict enforcement of WP:OUTING and the desire to protect the integrity of WP via a) the mandatory disclosure of paid editing and b) the strong encouragement to disclose other kinds of COI. The present COI guideline discusses that tension somewhat, but it doesn't go into huge detail on it. One reason for that, is that we want the COI guideline to be clear and persuasive. We want editors with a COI to grasp what the concept means here in WP, and to follow what the guideline says. SlimVirgin is the dominant editor of the guideline and she has done a great job making and keeping it clear and persuasive. I just pinged her so she is more aware of this conversation. Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I am sad to say, my main impression reading the whole is a "toothless-tiger". Yes, get her thinking about it too. Good idea. Travelmite (talk) 07:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I have read it. On the policy idea page, people have written that declaring COI is the "kiss of death" Travelmite (talk) 07:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Question 4 is interesting. It is what I did in my disclosure but I think working in a startup is not common. Not sure it is worth going into, in the guideline. Others may have other opinions. Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
A specific COI declaration will reveal privacy details, eg "I am the manager of XX company". Two clicks later, and everyone will know all your other interests. Travelmite (talk) 07:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Question 6 - yes external relationships change, so it is just a matter of updating the disclosure. This is not a big deal - not sure why you are bringing it up. Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Here is a scenario: A person declares and follows this advice. They quit and then they want nothing to do with the company. Can they delete it, or should they say they have quit? Also, what is the intersection of a persons ongoing CV and the main achievements of an company? There's a lot of time-related stuff at least to consider. Travelmite (talk) 07:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Question 9 is really important and I am glad you are bringing it up. It is about content, and the way you deal with content is on a sentence-by-sentence and source-by-source basis, without considering who contributed it. The content and sourcing either complies with content and sourcing policy and guidelines, or they don't (or they could be improved) There is all kinds of bad and mediocre content/sources that get into WP for all kinds of reasons, and you can fix them without discussing where they came from at all. In the work I do on COI, I try to not touch the content at all while I am discussing COI matters with the editor in question, to avoid even the appearance that I am using an accusation of COI to "win" a content dispute, and also to avoid complicating what is already a delicate discussion with the editor. COI matters and fixing bad content should be kept really separate while the discussion about whether a COI exists, and how to manage it, is "live". Once it is settled things are different - but even then, the sourcing and content PAG are what govern content and sourcing. Period. It may be good to discuss this in the Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#How_to_handle_conflicts_of_interest section. Jytdog (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I just want to emphasize that again - with a very few exceptions, you cannot make a change to any bit of content or sourcing because you think the editor who made them is conflicted (or you don't like them, or whatever) §. Content and sourcing are governed by NOT, OR, NPOV, and V, and sourcing is governed by V, RS, and MEDRS. That's it. It is really important you get this, Travelmite. Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for you answer. In writing these guidelines, it's not a matter of what I think per se. Anyone in govt plus whole professions (accounting, legal, procurement) are trained up in a certain way about COI. Anyone in management is ordered to spot and weed out COI. In other countries, it's part of doing business - what a nightmare! To take your excellent analogy about "barkstaff" - at one point I saw three managers lose their job, and four managers grilled at state-level integrity commissions about how they overlooked "barkstaff". One of them had a heart-attack over it. Can you imagine how ingrained that system is? As Wikipedia is working to an alternative set of rules, it's not adequately explained here. As they say, there are no stupid questions. Travelmite (talk) 06:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Wow you completely missed the point I was emphasizing to you. Hm. How you are thinking about these things matters, as you are the one campaigning to change things. It is important that you are grounded in how WP actually works, and you are not yet. Jytdog (talk) 13:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Comment on § above: Please, let's just move away from such theorising. Privacy is prioritised. I won't even hint about it here. Let's not use it as a case study. Travelmite (talk) 07:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Travelmite, you're correct that Wikipedia seems to be decades behind the rest of the world when it comes to handling COI. There are lots of reasons for that. It's partly that we have no staff dealing with it, partly that we often don't know which organizations accounts represent, and partly that there are editors who don't oppose COI editing, or don't strongly oppose it. So we don't have a policy on COI editing; this is just a guideline. We do have a policy on paid-editing disclosure; see WP:PAID. SarahSV (talk) 06:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
The universe provides ample time to catch up. I have several ideas on how to proceed. SYSTEM A: Step 1: Identify potential issues without criticism. Step 2: Identify in a simple way where the common ground lies (the issues everyone agrees are worth solving). Step 3: Just focus on that to build up good will. SYSTEM B: Step 1: Pose question Step 2: Another person makes just the minimal change to the text to clarify that question in the text. ALSO: It is necessary for the COI team to be reasonably united for it. The critics will make their case known in due course. Otherwise even the wheel couldn't be invented. Travelmite (talk) 08:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
In general you continue to ignore the reality that privacy is an absolute value in Wikipedia and that changes to content need to be based on content policies and guidelines, not contribiutors. Both are essential things that anybody trying to be serious about COI in WP must have solidly in hand. To the extent that you continue to campaign about changing how we deal with COI and you continue to ignore those things, you will be wasting your time and everyone else's, and worse, you will harm the overall effort to strengthen the guideline. There is a significant chunk of the community who are strong advocates for privacy and push back on any effort to strengthen this guideline and you will just give them fodder to resist and perhaps erode this guideline and even efforts to enforce it. And as for your citation above from an alarmist (a subset of the privacy advocates) - about "kiss of death" - your own behavior with regard to Miesianical is exactly the kind of thing they are talking about. You were told over and over that your behavior was out of line yet you persisted until you were blocked. You are not thinking straight yet, with the whole picture in mind. Jytdog (talk) 11:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
To see what I mean about community opinions on privacy and managing COI, and about "content not contributor", please have a look at this RFA, especially the concerns raised in the questions and in the oppose !votes. Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Brianhe Jytdog (talk) 12:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
These are all symptoms of a broken system. All the reaction to what I did, was the FEAR I was about to reveal someone's name, and it still has not happened. I could theoretically argue that your behavior was out of line, or anyone's behaviour was out of line. No, let's not. People get tired of personal stuff. It's wearisome and causes endless bitterness. They stop volunteering their precious time. Whether an alarmist or not, the "kiss of death" comment still makes a point - you cannot have a good COI system if people think their privacy is gone. Travelmite (talk) 14:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I am trying to analise the different positions of editors about adminship. The opposition is not policy based, but about relationship politics. Some of the "oppose" support his COI work, but different levels of reaction to his bedside manner. Travelmite (talk) 15:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Travelmite my bringing up your behavior was not to criticize you, it was to try to make you aware that you don't seem to be grasping the strong concern in the community to protect privacy and focus on content, not contributor - the same concerns that are being raised at Brian's RFA. Those concerns are 100% policy/guideline based -- "content not contributor" is based on the AGF policy and the harassment policy and the talk page guideline. Folks at the RFA are raising concerns that Brian will be too focused on contributor, not content. Please review the questions raised and the Oppose !votes with that in mind. If you want to work on improving how we manage COI you have to be dealing with that. And you are kind of getting to the heart of the issue when you write "you cannot have a good COI system if people think their privacy is gone" but that is kind of off -- the issue is that our ability to manage COI in Wikipedia is intrinsically limited by the privacy policy. This is as real a force as gravity here in WP; we cannot work around it or pretend it doesn't exist. Some of the people opposing Brian at the RFA are concerned he doesn't take that reality seriously enough. Anyway, I am going to stop engaging here... I don't think my communication is effective. Jytdog (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

It's very difficult to prove an editor is breaching COI, without outing that editor. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

This is true. Another reason for developing improvements on this page. This information shouldn't be vague. How do you get help before putting your foot in it? Travelmite (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
IMHO, if you suspect any editor of pushing a PoV on any articles? then you should be questioning their edits (not the editor) on WP:ADVOCATE and/or WP:NPOV. That way, you will avoid outing. GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I've got to agree with you. POV pushing is way more problematic and difficult to sort out. Editors who may be "paid" are often much more cooperative about reaching a solution to the issues. They are just not interested in wasting their time over some bitter tirade! --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 19:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I've seen a lot of that, which is why always check the talk page for bullying and complaints. You guys have more experience with what is going on here, but the business world is shifting it's model. Most businesses are ethical, but traditional media is beginning to fail them. Distinctions between advertising and editorial are blurring. Every PR/marketing manager is shifting to a social media model. Has it occurred, that we all could be correct. If you guys support a self-disclosure system that maintains privacy, at least make it work properly. Travelmite (talk) 06:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
After a business trip, I've had a chance to reflect on this issue. I am thoroughly disappointed with the way this issue has been handled at every step. I can see why editors leave and new editors quickly go away. My issue is a repetition of what I originally discovered, a new female editor (based on their username) with a few months of experience in early 2015, and then leaving Wikipedia a few days later. Apparently it is wrong to examine the process by which that happened. Everyone knows that it's right to report it. Mostly importantly, the fundamental values expressed in many of jydog's replies about COI, however genuinely held, are worth examining for their consistency with the values of the wider community. For example, COI in wikipedia works exactly the same way as COI in the rest of the world. It is expected that information on this page be comprehensive - but logic based in distrust, avoids that discussion. Are Wikipedia editors entitled to mislead (via COI), and use privacy as a shield? The wider community would say they are not, and the editors toiling on non-political, non-commercial articles would agree. The bottom line is that even Wikipedia is not a law unto itself. Anyway, while waiting for my flights, several alternative options to get progress occurred to me. The preferred is to get co-operation here based on fundamental values about propriety. An alternative is to just shine a big spotlight on the problem, so all can see it. Travelmite (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I've inserted archived comments from other users into a section above this one Travelmite (talk) 17:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

There is a comment above about 'witch hunting' and the thing about witches is they don't exist. Sometimes it means to find a scapegoat, and this is not relevant either. COI is where an editor has conflicting objectives: building a encyclopedia and fulfilling a role in another organisation. As both are normal, positive things in a persons life, managing COI properly is the opposite of a witch hunt. Travelmite (talk) 17:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
While Jytdog continues with incorrect assumptions that I am motivated by a content dispute, I've see that there are several editors with different viewpoints on how COI should be handled in Wikipedia. One has gone to the trouble of writing their own COI guideline, and in many ways it has an advantages, but it must be an agreed effort. If the different editors are arguing between themselves about what COI is, and how the policy should be handled and explained then nobody will succeed. A divided house always falls, and the people profiting and benefiting from Wikipedia's reputation will succeed. To those other editors, Jytdog's first reaction upon discussing with me, was to request to have me blocked for 24 hours. Just because he took such action, and continued to make disparaging remarks, does not mean he is beyond redemption. I urge you to look to your better nature. It's a complex system. Find the common ground. Look at what is possible to achieve. Travelmite (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

How can I unblock my accout, it has message that account is globally locked — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CCE3:F100:F8B9:E9C6:EBCA:9ACF (talk) 09:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

COI management, and peer review

Talking about bringing in various angles to open people's eyes and get them to cooperate... When I talk to editors with a COI, my opening message goes like this

Hi xxxx I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia. Your edits to date are on a bit of a run about XXXX I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some comments and requests for you below.

{{subst:uw-coi (NB - bracket removed to not clutter this with the template)

Comments and requests

Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. While I am not asking you to disclose your identity (anonymity is strictly protecting by our WP:OUTING policy) would you please disclose if you have some connection with XXXX? You can answer how ever you wish (giving personally identifying information or not), but if there is a connection, please disclose it. After you respond (and you can just reply below), perhaps we can talk a bit about editing Wikipedia, to give you some more orientation to how this place works. Please reply here - I am watching this page. Thanks!

And after they reply and disclose (which they often do), I follow that with this:

To finish the disclosure piece, would you please add the disclosure to your user page which is User:USER (a redlink, because you haven't written anything there yet). Just something simple like: "I work for X and have a conflict of interest with regard to that topic" would be fine. If you want to add anything else there that is relevant to what you want to do in WP feel free to add it. (see WP:USERPAGE for guidance if you like).
I added a tag to the X article's talk page, so the disclosure is done there. Once you disclose on your user page, the disclosure piece of this will be done.
As I noted above, there are two pieces to COI management in WP. The first is disclosure. The second is what I call "peer review". This piece may seem a bit strange to you at first, but if you think about it, it will make sense. In Wikipedia, editors can immediately publish their work, with no intervening publisher or standard peer review -- you can just create an article, click save, and viola there is a new article, and you can go into any article, make changes, click save, and done. No intermediary - no publisher, no "editors" as that term is used in the real world.
What we ask editors to do who have a COI and want to work on articles where their COI is relevant, is a) if you want to create an article relevant to a COI you have, create the article as a draft, disclose your COI on the Talk page using the appropriate template, and then submit the draft article through the WP:AFC process so it can be reviewed before it publishes; and b) And if you want to change content in any existing article on a topic where you have a COI, we ask you to propose content on the Talk page for others to review and implement before it goes live, instead of doing it directly yourself. You can make the edit request easily - and provide notice to the community of your request - by using the "edit request" function as described in the conflict of interest guideline. I made that easy for you by adding a section to the beige box at the top of the Talk page at Talk:X - there is a link at "click here" in that section -- if you click that, the Wikipedia software will automatically format a section in which you can make your request.
By following those "peer review" processes, editors with a COI can contribute where they have a COI, and the integrity of WP can be protected. We get some great contributions that way, when conflicted editors take the time to understand what kinds of proposals are OK under the content policies. (which I will say more about, if you want).
I hope that makes sense to you.
I want to add here that per the WP:COI guideline, if you want to directly update simple, uncontroversial facts (for example, correcting the facts about where the company has offices) you can do that directly in the article, without making an edit request on the Talk page. Just be sure to always cite a reliable source for the information you change, and make sure it is simple, factual, uncontroversial content.
Will you please agree to follow the peer review processes going forward, when you want to work on the x article or any article where your COI is relevant? Do let me know, and if anything above doesn't make sense I would be happy to discuss. And if you want me to quickly go over the content policies, I can do that. Just let me know. Thanks!

i am trying to do several things there:

  • put a frame on what we do here that it is "scholarly" (which I think it is)
  • establish the frame the integrity of Wikipedia matters
  • make it clear that what we try to do is "manage" COI (in my view, it is impossible for us to eliminate it, Wikipedia being what it is)
  • that it is not scary or some huge bar, but rather that conflicted editors have a place if they follow our policies and guidelines (want to bring them into the process, not drive them away or underground)
  • that our COI management makes sense in light of standard academic practices (albeit with a twist, since publishing in Wikipedia is not like publishing other places)
  • if the person works in this framework, they will help preserve the integrity of Wikipedia. People often want to help if you ask them to.. people want to be seen as helpful and cooperative.

I've been doing this for... (a couple of years now? not sure) and in my view, conflicted editors find that framing to persuasive... they "get it" and are OK complying. It is more carrot/persuading, then stick-wielding.

I have wondered a while about how to incorporate any of this - especially the "peer review" parts of it, into the guideline. I would not be so bold as to that myself, but wanted to open the discussion. Sarah you are the main editor of this guideline, what do you think about incorporating some of this? Jytdog (talk) 01:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be fine with this. A criticism has been made of this guideline that it says what not to do, but not so much about how to proceed instead. So if you want to expand it in that direction, or whatever you have in mind, please do. SarahSV (talk) 01:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

trust test

I see the very good faith intention behind the content below, but I just recently had a blatantly self-promoting editor, who thinks the Wikipedia article about him is "his" and treats it like his own faculty web page, cite this to me. I hadn't noticed when this got added, and I don't think it is helpful. One of the most difficult things about conflicted editors is that they cannot see how biased they are and in their view, of course other people would agree that what they are doing is fine.

The subjectiveness of this just became another thing that he could use to buttress his position that what he has been doing was OK - it fuzzifies the clear lines we want to draw. I find this kind of self-justification-projected-onto-what-others-would-think (and the "everybody does it" thing as well) cropping up pretty often. So in my view this is not helpful.

"Trust test"
See also: #What is conflict of interest?

How can you tell whether you have a COI? Having a COI is not about having an opinion, but about being in a certain situation. When an external role or relationship could reasonably be said to undermine your independent judgment on Wikipedia, you have a conflict of interest. Ethicist Michael McDonald suggests a "trust test" to determine whether a situation is "likely to interfere or appear to interfere" with your judgment:

"[W]ould relevant others ... [readers, editors, admins, arbitration committee, Wikimedia Foundation] ... trust my judgment if they knew I was in this situation?"[1]

References

  1. ^ Michael McDonald, "Ethics and Conflict of Interest", The W. Maurice Young Center for Applied Ethics, University of British Columbia, 23 April 2006.

Happy to discuss. - Jytdog (talk) 00:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Yes, I see what you mean. On the one hand we stress that individual judgment may be impaired, but on the other we ask the individual to rely on his own sense of who would trust him. When I added it, I was thinking "here's another tool," but perhaps it's better without. SarahSV (talk) 00:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I hear that the intention and see it too... the more angles we work to open people's eyes, the better, generally speaking. Jytdog (talk) 01:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
The difficulty with this guideline (and arguably with all policies and guidelines) is that the writers are forced to hope, at each point, that some other parts of the page have been read, and that everything is understood in context. But in fact readers will only glance at one or two bits, occasionally, if we're lucky, so things are plucked out and become the only points the guideline is remembered for. And there is only so much "but see below!" the page can stand. SarahSV (talk) 01:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know who the heck Michael McDonald is, but I don't think this quote is very smart. Basically, it is Catch-22: the very essence of the vice of COI POV pushing is the "mote in the eye". Second, the concept of "trust my judgement" is inapplicable in situations of collaboration of complete strangers, WP:AGF notwithstanding. Wikipedia is not based on "trust"; it is based on reliable sources. We have plenty of objective criteria well-established by experts when one can expect COI (and I believe this policy is based on thorough research of external refs). The "trust test" will not work for the very people which we want to weed out: the abusive POV-pushers, therefore it is bordering on being unfalsifiable. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

"Must >>"should"?

What do folks think of this change, offered by a Wikipedian in residence (WIR)?

I'd be interested to hear what the motivation is, as well. Perhaps this came from some specific situation... Jytdog (talk) 06:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

  • I think must is fine there. I'm not sure what sort of wiggle room would be given by the change to "should" and why that wiggle room would be needed. But it probably should have been discussed first. The 'must' language has existed for at least 6 months.--v/r - TP 06:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd be interested to hear where this supposed requirement was discussed, and how anyone could be expected to be obliged to follow an off-Wikipedia guideline which itself is only written as a series of examples, not "defined boundaries". What will happen to a WiR, for example, if they fail to comply with the apparent requirement to "Coordinate events, such as Hack-a-Thons, Edit-a-Thons, or Backstage Passes, that bring Wikipedians on-site..."? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Tempest in a Teapot - a change that is only marginally different on the Wikipedia page and not at all in policing actual action off-Wikipedia. What we post on Wikipedia in this instance must be relatable to the real world where the Wikipedian-in-Residence operates. I see no reason to not have made this change given its marginal nature.

These are only guidelines to behaviours which means core guides to behaviours but could mean less or more than the points listed.

The definitive must cannot refer to situations where more or less are both possible extensions of the core guidelines. Should is more accurate.

There is no way of enforcing a guide even if we wanted to which occurs off-Wikipedia and per the Wikimedia Foundation. We don't have that kind of control and shouldn't have. We can ask emphatically that Wikipedia not be used to advertise a gallery, for example, because that will show up in out articles. Beyond our articles we do not have control. Further, there is the sense that a change from must to should implies someone will behave with less decorum than the core characteristics suggest. If a Wikipedian-in-Residence holds themselves to some standard beyond the points listed in our characteristics are we going to police that behaviour too? Let's not think we have more power than we do or should have.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC))

Not all WIRs are paid

Re the phrase "Wikipedians who are paid to" in the Wikipedians in Residence section. Not all WIRs are paid, and I suggest that the section on WIRs be amended to reflect that. But I'm a little too involved in GLAM to edit that myself. ϢereSpielChequers 18:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

"When advancing outside interests..."

COI was previously explained as "when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." That sounds logical and sufficient to me. However, COI is treated much wider in the present version. For example, anyone who uses his own publication(s) for referencing would automatically have a COI, even if he did it only once ("contributing to Wikipedia about yourself"). Would that be a COI? If so, is it recommended that such user must disclose that this is "his publication" meaning disclosing who he is in real life? I think this is going too far. Would it be possible to return to the older wording? When it was changed? Did we have a discussion and consensus about it? My very best wishes (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

No. The situation where you just intervened is a perfect example of this, and you cannot seem to see that the editor we were discussing is driven to push content from that database into Wikipedia exactly because of his "external interest" in it. We would not be having the problems we are having, if he just randomly came across that source and thought "hey, this could be useful." Instead, he is attached to it, believes in it, and keeps trying to force the content from it into Wikipedia even though there are serious copyright concerns and he isn't integrating the new content with existing content, but instead is actually deleting existing content and overwriting it, or creating parallel articles. He cares more about that database than he does Wikipedia. He has a classic conflict of interest and it is blinding him to the concerns that are being raised. it is baffling to me that you cannot see this. We would not be having this disruption, but for his particular interest in that particular database. Jytdog (talk) 21:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, my question was triggered by this case, however, this is a more general question: Would someone who simply made a few references on his own publications automatically qualify as someone with a COI? Could you answer this, please? My very best wishes (talk) 21:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
It's covered by the COI guideline in WP:SELFCITE so, yes, it's covered by COI. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! It tells Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. OK. Probably the same applies to something published by your employer, etc. Here is my next question: must someone who "acts within reason" and "conforms to the content policies" declare his COI anywhere? My very best wishes (talk) 22:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
if somebody is really here to build the encyclopedia, and their publication is really the killer one, of course it is fine to self-cite. The problem is that we have plenty of academics who come here with the sole purpose of adding content about themselves and their own work. They almost always honestly believe that their RW work is important and that they are doing a Very Good Thing by adding stuff about it to WP. The problems arise when independent editors (who are not biased!) don't agree. This is why the key part of SELFCITE is there - "When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion." That is the key part!!
Examples of the need for this abound, but here are a few: this COIN and these contribs: Special:Contributions/Research83, or Special:Contributions/BAyyub, or Special:Contributions/Optimering. And probably the star bad example: Special:Contributions/Arifer and see the associated SPI - the guy resorted to sockpuppetting after he was blocked for completely unrestrained self-promotion and the resulting disruption he caused. SELFCITE is really about those folks. I think what is going on with the database is what SELFCITE is all about; an academic with a strong belief in the importance of what they created in the RW and must get that into WP, to the extent that they just ignore the community. Jytdog (talk) 23:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Jydog, the policy says "excessive" and "within reason". Can you tell us how many is "within reason" to you and how many is "excessive"?--v/r - TP 02:41, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi TParis. No, I cannot. And as with most policy/guideline things, i don't know that trying to legislate WP:CLUE makes much sense. These things arise in the context of editing. It starts with the self-citer adding a bunch of content or refs and someone objects (usually on pure content grounds). If somebody is here to build an encyclopedia they won't freak out or ignore other editors; they'll talk about it and something will get figured out and it won't get further than that. It only becomes drama when the self-citer won't work with others and the issue is escalated. Does that answer you? Jytdog (talk) 03:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
btw, My very best wishes wonderfully started a discussion about the specific issue here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Molecular_and_Cell_Biology#Transporter_classification_database Jytdog (talk) 03:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I would only suggest to restore this: "when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." I think that was good. When and why this has been removed? My very best wishes (talk) 16:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
It looks as a good line. However the policy already says "While editing Wikipedia, an editor's primary role is to further the interests of the encyclopaedia. When an external role or relationship could reasonably be said to undermine that primary role, the editor has a conflict of interest." - clumsy as it is (IMO), it looks like saying essentially the same. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, this does make sense, but I am looking for something very simple and obvious. OK, it tells: This page in a nutshell: Do not edit Wikipedia in your own interests or in the interests of your external relationships. That sounds good. I am editing WP against my own interests for a long time. My very best wishes (talk) 18:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

So called "celeb" pages

These are obviously full of COI.

One of the most glaringly prominent is Cheryl Cole's.

It reads like a fan page presented by her agents. Nothing negative is allowed; the section on her conviction for drunken assault is called "legal issues". 78.149.214.235 (talk) 10:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Of course you're right that there are lots of fan-cruft or PR-cruft celeb articles and we should do something about it. At 104,698 bytes this article seems to be about 5 times too long IMHO. After skimming the article I don't see anything obviously wrong other than the length and to some degree the tone. Please post this type of complaint at WP:COIN where people go to try to deal with these problems. I'll copy this one over there. Smallbones(smalltalk) 11:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Applicability of this policy to articles about technical products

The applicability of this policy is not completely clear. Is it intended to apply to articles describing technical products (e.g. a static analysis tool)? It seems almost inevitable that someone who has enough knowledge about a given technical product also has at least some implicit bias, given the investment in money and/or time in acquiring and becoming proficient in use of the product. I would think the "neutral point of view" and the requirement to connect all descriptions of details to some more official documentation provided elsewhere are more relevant for such articles. Sttaft (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

We love experts very much! We have many experts who contribute to articles in the space of their expertise, who do great work and are really focused on building the encyclopedia. People who know internet protocols, software, or medicine, or whatever, and write broadly and neutrally about them, citing the relevant papers (who ever they may be), using neutral language, and writing about the good things and the bad things as is appropriate. But we also have experts who come to Wikipedia mostly to promote their own work, giving it WP:UNDUE weight and writing non-neutrally about it.
In your case, you created the article on ParaSail (programming language) which, based on your username, you appear to have created and you were the founder of a company bringing that software to market. There are two kinds of COI there - a standard financial one, as well as the kind of academic "ownership" of an idea that leads some people to come to Wikipedia and promote their own work. You would appear to be running afoul of both types of COI.
Does that make sense? Jytdog (talk) 02:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I want to add, that if you like, we can move this discussion to your Talk page and I can walk you through the conflict of interest management process in Wikipedia - let me know. Jytdog (talk) 02:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. This policy seems to have evolved over the past decade, and it would seem that a lot of Wikipedia content (and authors) predate the current state of the policy. I'll try to keep it more in mind in the future, although I am still not convinced that the policy is practical given the scale of Wikipedia relative to the number of authors capable of contributing without any conflict of interest. Sttaft (talk) 15:21, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Jobs and Farrow

On the guidelinepage are two yellow boxes with links to examples of COI-declarations, but the links just take you to the talkpages, not that helpful. Some sort of permalink would be good, if anyone knows what examples were intended. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:45, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

NPP / AfC

Just a reminder that in just over a week at Wikimania there's going to be a cross-Wiki discussion about the systems of control of new pages. This is a round-table rather than a presentation or a lecture. On the agenda are reforms to the new article reviewing systems and ways to help new users better understand our content policies. If you are going to Italy and would like to take part, please check out the conference schedule, and I look forward to seeing you there. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

removed usage of "ghostwriting" term

When I read it first time it thew me off and I spent some time to figure it out.

The way a Wikipedian uses this term is upside down w.r.t. to common parlance. I real world a ghostwriter is a slave toiling for the glory of the author name on the book cover. If a PR person wrote a PR piece and a wikipedian submitted it under their name, then formally the 'ghostwriter' is the PR guy, right? But the abused side is the wikipedian and Wikipedia as a whole. Wikipedia has long been criticized for its argot incomprehensible to the outsiders (WP:CONSENSUS is not really, NPOV is is fact CLUMSYMELDOFALLPOVS, etc.). The guidelines are for fresh meat. Let's not confuse them. I understand the attractiveness of the term "ghostwriter". But I would suggest to coin a neologism for "devil's ghostwriters" in wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

P.S. How about "devilwriter" or "daemonwriter"? A 'satanwriter' moving a wikipedian's arm, isn't it the correct imagery for the issue at hand ? Staszek Lem (talk) 03:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
"Ghostwriter" means that the author is not who it seems to be. In this case, not Wikipedia, but the subject. It is actually a mild term. "Fraudulent editing" or "Misleading readers" describes the same concept. In any event, I think that we need to form a consensus before changing the guideline. We don't take it out because you don't like the term. Coretheapple (talk) 03:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I'd go with "fraudulent editing" though, if you want a different term. But "ghostwriting" is accurate. Coretheapple (talk) 03:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
No it is not. Wikipedia say: "A ghostwriter is a person who is hired to author books <...> or other texts that are officially credited to another person". Even if you are right, the term does not correctly describe the situation we are dealing with and does not add extra understanding. Also, please address my other criticism of the text, if you want consensus. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't much care what Wikipedia says. What do you think of my alternative proposal "fraudulent editing"? Coretheapple (talk) 03:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, if you don't care what wikipedia says, what are you doing here?[1] As for "fraudulent editing", this is too general. As I see it from your essay, there are two guilty parties: the COI guy and the "useful idiot" wikipedian. My tongue-in-cheek suggestion addresses this. How about a more neutral-language imagery: "rubberstamping editing"? Staszek Lem (talk) 03:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but anyway you're disregarding that there is another article that addresses your concern about the "ghostwriting" term, as noted below. Coretheapple (talk) 03:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is not a reliable source" is really bad mantra when taken out of context. We know that and that's why we are here: to strive for an inachievable perfection. And I have already answered below that "another article" is not really. Staszek Lem (talk) 04:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
The "medical ghostwriting" term all comes down under the general category of astroturfing, in the sense of giving the reader an incorrect impression. I don't much care what it is called as long as it is explicitly and unambiguously discouraged. The idea should not be to discourage such conduct only if it violates policy, but to discourage that conduct as undesirable in its own right for several reasons, not the least of which is the burden it places on volunteer editors and the inherent undesirability of subjects writing their own articles. Coretheapple (talk) 04:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
And it's not my essay. "Rubberstamping"? That's a possibility. Coretheapple (talk) 03:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Staszek, that section addresses the problem of a reader expecting to find a Wikipedia article, but instead finding an article written by or for the subject of the article, as though this is the subject's website. The subject may have achieved this by editing the article himself, or by proposing a draft and having another editor carry it over for him, or by hiring a PR firm. That is ghostwriting. If you look at medical ghostwriter, it's explained there:

Medical ghostwriters are employed by pharmaceutical companies and medical-device manufacturers to produce apparently independent manuscripts for peer-reviewed journals, conference presentations and other communications. Physicians and other scientists are paid to attach their names to the manuscripts as though they had authored them. The named authors may have had little or no involvement in the research or writing process.

With certain types of paid or COI editing, Wikipedia publishes articles that are only "apparently independent," because they have actually been written by or for the article subject. SarahSV (talk) 03:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
This is not what we are discussing here . Pharmas hire "real" ghostwriters, in common meaning of the term. In our case who wrote the text is not essential; the issue remains the same even if the Big Boss himself scribed it. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Putting aside the name of the activity at issue here for a moment, my concern is that this section not be watered down so as to in any way sanction the practice. The guideline strongly discourages direct article editing. Ghostwriting (or rubberstamping) is a form of gaming the system. It is functionally identical to direct article editing. It just means that the editors have to know how to work the system better, how to kiss butt, etc. The goal is the same. The method is functionally identical. Smart COI editors know that. The current wording strongly discourages that practice without saying so. Perhaps it should be made more explicit. If it was explicitly said "rubberstamping (or ghostwriting or whatever) is strongly discouraged," it would assuage my general concern. Coretheapple (talk) 04:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I am with you here. However simply saying "Rubberstamping is Verboten" is not enough. I was suggesting above to expand this section with a checklist of actions which, when missing, are indicatve of rubberstamping. Staszek Lem (talk) 04:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I have added a few words to the text that I think might clarify things. If they don't, feel free to remove (or I can self-rev if requested). What checklist did you have in mind? Coretheapple (talk) 04:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
See, rubberstamping/ghostwriting is either taking place or it isn't. I don't understand what a checklist would say. Also all this guideline can do is "strongly discourage" conduct. As a guideline that's all it can do. Coretheapple (talk) 04:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • User:Staszek Lem the "ghost writing" term is actually useful here in my view; the criticism is that the company is the "hidden hand" behind the content that appears in the WP article. In my experience this does not happen a lot when editors follow the COI guideline (it does happen when reps directly edit articles) but the key thing here is that we acknowledge the criticism and have a guideline that clearly teaches against the rubberstamping that leads to a ghostwritten article. Jytdog (talk) 04:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it matters too much whether it is called "rubber-stamping" or "ghostwriting" as long as the concept is discouraged. That was my point this edit doesn't address them, and your series of edits is contrary to consensus. In this edit you direct the language solely at commercial editing when other types of COI editors engage in this practice. There is no consensus for your changes; only you want all this. You should not be inserting them in the guideline until there is consensus here for them. Also I find your practice of saying you are making a change to reflect an editor's concerns, and then adding material that does nothing of the kind, to be troublesome and disruptive. If you were serious about reflecting my concern you'd have added that adding blocks of text proposed by COI editors is discouraged, to make it consistent with the rest of the guideline, which appears to have a consensus in this discussion. There is no consensus for an enumeration of site policies that need to be checked, or for removal of the fact that some paid editors work by the hour. Coretheapple (talk) 11:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I made edits to restore Jytdog's edits that were not supported by consensus, but self-reverted. We should not be going back and forth and making changes in this guideline without consensus. Coretheapple (talk) 12:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ This is not the first time our policies are discussed in terms which are in disagreement not only with wikipedia itself, but even with disregard of major dictionaries. The last such case was when the guideline about fringe theories introduced its own definition without paying attention that the wikipedia article "Fringe science" sucks. This is a mockery of the spirit of wikipedia: instead of improving the encyclopedia itself people are effectively engaging in original research when writing policies for wikipedia.

"Responding to requests" : "Editors should exercise caution"

I suggest to replace a vague term 'caution' with a more instructive one: "Editors should exercise due diligence". Staszek Lem (talk) 17:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

ghostwritten

"been ghostwritten by them, without the readers' knowledge."

IMO this statement does explain the true trouble: the real problem is not who wrote it, but whose POV is being pushed. Of course, a smart one may infer this, but IMO better spell it in plain view: "been ghostwritten by them to reflect their point of view, without the readers' knowledge." Staszek Lem (talk) 17:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Attribution record: Keeping article drafts created by conflicted editors

So if a conflicted editor (heck any editor) makes a draft of an article or section elsewhere that ultimately gets incorporated into the article, where should that ultimately reside so that WP retains the record of the work done on it? I think it should maybe become a subpage of the article's talk page, rather than residing in userspace, where it is really under that user's control.

here is an example - I worked with a paid editor in their sandbox here and ultimately incorporated that collaboratively created draft into an article in this dif. So should this be moved to Talk:Memorial_Sloan_Kettering_Cancer_Center/sandbox/Memorial_Sloan_Kettering_Cancer_Center, and should this guideline advise that this happen generally so we keep that record? Jytdog (talk) 00:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Well here's one idea: don't work with paid editors on drafts and you won't have to put them anywhere. Coretheapple (talk) 01:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't think this kind of reply was called for. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I think this topic is uncalled-for. The guideline should not be providing mechanisms or procedures related to ghostwriting by paid editors. Coretheapple (talk) 02:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
@Jytdog: please explain what problems you see with user's control. I see only one, and it is rather admin's control: an admin can delete user subpages upon users' request and this may lead to hiding the history of the actual article. Therefore your suggestion makes sense. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
You nailed it; the risk of it the user tagging it for deletion (e.g WP:U1) has been raised elsewhere and this would prevent that... Jytdog (talk) 02:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any problem that isn't overcome by Jtydog's edit summary "(import article from User_talk:FacultiesIntact/sandbox/Memorial_Sloan_Kettering_Cancer_Center - see Talk)"

In any case changing the guideline should be done collaboratively. Please don't just put in new text without cheching it out here first. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

That is why I posted here. To the point, if that user sandbox gets deleted then the edit note is useless. You have missed the point completely Jytdog (talk) 02:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
It's better not to move drafts to a subpage of the article or talk page, in part because we often have several of them from different paid editors. But anyone worried about a user draft being deleted can move it to draft space (with permission) or copy it with attribution in the edit summary. SarahSV (talk) 02:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
There can be several subpages; there is no limit to that as far as I know. this will not fit in an edit note. You are the one who wrote this, and this proposal actually addresses that concern. So is it a valid concern that should be addressed as a part of regular process or not? Jytdog (talk) 02:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The way I've handled the draft issue when dealing with paid editors is by using the {{connected contributor (paid)}} template on the talk page, and adding a link to the draft under |otherlinks=. If that link goes red, any editor can ask an admin for a copy, which can be copied to draft space or that editor's userspace. In my experience paid editors usually don't ask that their drafts be deleted, because they want them to be preserved; offhand I can think of only one who has routinely requested deletion. SarahSV (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Would love to see a couple examples where you did that. Jytdog (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

'Careful review'

There is no consensus to weaken the guideline so as to give its blessing to addition of large amounts of text if there is "careful review," whatever that means. Lets not make this already weak guideline totally meaningless, please. Ghostwriting is ghostwriting. Coretheapple (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

see below. Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Section on working with conflicted editors

The following was added at some point

Responding to requests

Further information: Wikipedia:Ghostwriting
Shortcut

Editors should exercise caution when responding to edit requests from COI and paid editors, particularly when commercial interests are involved. When large amounts of text are added on behalf of the article subject, it means that the article has, in effect, been ghostwritten by them, without the readers' knowledge.

Editors responding to edit requests should carefully check the proposed text and sources. That an article has been expanded does not necessarily mean that it is better. Be on the lookout for unnecessary detail that may have been added to overwhelm something negative. In particular, editors should determine whether anything important is missing and whether the text complies with WP:DUE. If the proposed new text is added to the article, the edit summary should include full attribution; see WP:COIATTRIBUTE below.

This is problematic on a bunch of levels including redundancy. I have proposed the following, which is tighter and more clear:

Responding to requests

Further information: Wikipedia:Ghostwriting

Shortcut

Wikipedia has been criticized for allowing articles to become ghostwritten by company representatives complying with this guideline.

Editors should carefully review content proposed by conflicted and paid editors to ensure that the proposed content complies with the content policies, particularly with regard to whether negative information has been omitted in the proposal and whether aspects of the proposal would be WP:UNDUE if implemented.

If proposed content is added to the article, the edit summary should include full attribution including any changes made by the implementing editor; see WP:COIATTRIBUTE below.

That was reverted, so I'm bringing all this to Talk for discussion. Jytdog (talk) 00:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC) (redacted per new proposal below Jytdog (talk) 03:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC))

When someone reverts a change, it doesn't mean you can remove the whole section. The writing in your version is not so good; there are several grammatical issues. It omits that more doesn't necessarily mean better, which is a common mistake editors make when they carry over paid editors' work. It omits the PR tendency to add words to hide negative material. It omits the need to check sources. It implies that only company articles suffer from this problem. It tells edtors to add their own changes to the edit summary, which is not possible when dealing with entire drafts. If you believe the current text is problematic "on a bunch of levels," please list them. SarahSV (talk) 00:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
When you boldly make changes to this guideline, it doesn't mean that they stick either. Please point out the grammatical issues with my version that were so horrible that they all had to be deleted. My content is very clear - more clear than the original - the negative material may be omitted. More is not better is a general problem in WP and not at all specific to paid editing. You are correct that my version doesn't mention sources in particular but it does mention all content policies which brings in ... all content policies. That of course includes V/RS and also OR (which the original leaves out all together) as well as all aspects of NPOV (which includes non-neutral language as well as omissions/UNDUE). I would have been happy to collaborate but since you made it all or nothing, here we are. My changes fixed those issues in the version you added. Jytdog (talk) 00:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Your version is a significant weakening of the guideline. I couldn't help but notice that you yanked it out at the same time as this discussion in Talk:The Hollywood Reporter, in which a paid editor is seeking to sub an entire section with text of his own. That discussion indicates to me that some editors can't seem to grasp the undesirability of ghostwriting by paid editors even under the stronger (and in my view fairly unanmbiguous) language. If anything, it needs to be strengthened, not watered down. Coretheapple (talk) 00:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
How is it weaker? You pointed to what you are doing at that Talk page - I just looked in on what you are doing on there and wow are you pushing it; you are going to get TBANed from discussing COI if you keep behaving disruptively on article Talk pages like that. Jytdog (talk) 00:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Can you please explain this edit summary: moving this to talk. I didn't notice this when it was added and it is not OK? That section has been there for a very long time. You take out sections of the COI guideline that you think are "not OK" no matter how long they have been there? Coretheapple (talk) 00:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
it was added somewhere in this huge slew of edits made by SV. Jytdog (talk) 01:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
So you "didn't notice it" last fall so out it goes on the first day of summer. Gotcha. Coretheapple (talk) 01:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't know exactly when it was added and neither apparently do you. It was never discussed and is flawed; I tried to improve it but was straight up reverted. So we can discuss it and decide what this should say, which was never done. Jytdog (talk) 01:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
No, how long it has been there is immaterial. What matters is that it has been there for months and months, and you just took it out. Whether the number of months is six or seven doesn't really matter but if it does to you I'll go back and take a look. Coretheapple (talk) 01:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
As for how it has been weakened, that was explained to you already by SV. Why did you weaken it? Coretheapple (talk) 01:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
The lack of discussion is the problem that is now being addressed. I did not weaken it; I made it more clear and stronger as it brings in all content policies, which the original didn't. Jytdog (talk) 01:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
You weakened it to make it stronger? Why not deal with SlimVirgin's objections waaaaaaaay up top. Specifically. You want to discuss, so discuss, point by point. Coretheapple (talk) 01:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh just to be clear, I am referring to the reply at 00:24, 21 June 2016. Coretheapple (talk) 01:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes I addressed that, right below there.Jytdog (talk) 01:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
No, you didn't. You wrote that the current version is "problematic on a bunch of levels," so please list them, so we can discuss them. SarahSV (talk) 01:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I was just about to say that there was no response whatsoever to the points raised in that post. Yes, pleasd do enumerate your problems with that section of the guideline. I'm still not clear on why you weakened it. Coretheapple (talk) 01:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC) And by the way, just an aside: your weakening and removal of that section right after I cited it at the Hollywood Reporter talk page has got to be one of the most fascinating coincidences I've ever encountered here on Wikipedia! Coretheapple (talk) 01:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

See here; Here I will copy/paste it for you: "My content is very clear - more clear than the original - the negative material may be omitted. More is not better is a general problem in WP and not at all specific to paid editing. You are correct that my version doesn't mention sources in particular but it does mention all content policies which brings in ... all content policies. That of course includes V/RS and also OR (which the original leaves out all together) as well as all aspects of NPOV (which includes non-neutral language as well as omissions/UNDUE). I would have been happy to collaborate but since you made it all or nothing, here we are. My changes fixed those issues in the version you added." To be even more painfully clear:

  • Omits reviewing for OR
  • Omits reviewing for neutral language
  • Repeats itself.

I'll add now:

  • Bias comes into articles through advocacy. COI is the kind of advocacy that this article deals with. Whether someone's COI is driven by them getting paid, or because the article is about their dad, or about themselves their editing can be terribly biased and their behavior disruptive; there is no need to be more particularly cautious when dealing with a paid editor.
  • I moved the criticisms about ghostwriting to the top of the section to show why being careful when reviewing and implementing proposed content matters; we manage COI to protect the integrity of WP and its reputation.

In any case both of you have made it clear that you are not open to improvements. Let's see what others have to say. Jytdog (talk) 02:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

You're just repeating your previous non-response, but at greater length. Also you misstate the nature of COI, but that is neither here nor there. I guess you just don't want to explain why you are intent on weakening the guideline. Coretheapple (talk) 02:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

IMO opinion both versions are bad. First of all, I dislike the idea that the very fist line of the section redirects to an essay. IMO the proper place of essays is in "See also". If the essay is of generic importance, suggest the expansion of the guideline.

Second, "Responding to requests" is a serious item here. I've seen cases when not very seasoned editors are all too helpful (which is probably OK) to address such requests without really having experience with all sneaky ways of COI editors. Therefore IMO this section must be of two parts: (a) a general word of caution and (b) a checklist of most common tricks to watch for.

Third, what the heck is is supposed to mean: "<been ghostwritten> without the readers' knowledge"? What kind of crime is this? And why 'ghostwritten'? A PR lady can write PR babble all by herself, but this doesn't become any more suspicious. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

ack, yes I meant to remove the ghostwriting essay from my version. It is badly written and violates policy in a few ways, and I don't see it cited except by the people who authored it. It should not be cited in this guideline. The criticism about ghostwriting got really hot around the BP article, which was controversial here in WP when two groups of editors clashed over the way content proposed by a disclosed BP employee was handled; the controversy made press as in here. We do want to protect WP from that kind of criticism, so it is important that this section be clear and useful. I agree with that. Coretheapple was hot in that controversy as was SV; I was for a while but bailed when it got too... unpleasant. That is some of the background here. Jytdog (talk) 02:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
<edit conflict>P.S. Oh, I got it. The linked essay effectively introduced a yet another newspeak word wikipedia-specific interpretation of a common word. Bad idea. I have read thru the essay and I thoroughly disagree the way it was written. I understand the intentions, but the way it written it makes the COI submission as something illegitimate. If the process has holes, fix them in the guideline, not in some snarky essays on how volunteer editors copy something either brainlessly or being ass-kissed. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Yep. Jytdog (talk) 03:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Revised proposal

Based on Staszek Lem's suggestion above

Responding to requests

Shortcut

Wikipedia has been criticized for allowing articles to become ghostwritten by company representatives who are complying with this guideline.[1]

Editors should carefully review content proposed by conflicted and paid editors to ensure that the proposed content complies with the content policies before implementing it. When implementing, the edit summary should include full attribution including any changes made by the implementing editor; see WP:COIATTRIBUTE below.

In particular, please make sure that that content and sources:

  • Complies with WP:NPOV both in the language that is used and the WP:WEIGHT given to positive and negative information. Please be aware that a conflicted editor will tend to leave negative information out altogether, or may downplay it in various ways. You should do your own search to see what topics independent, reliable sources raise with regard to the subject
  • Complies with WP:OR and WP:VERIFY - there should be no unsourced content.
  • Complies with WP:RS and WP:MEDRS as is relevant; be especially cautious about accepting content based on self published sources like personal or company websites and press releases.

References

  1. ^ Natasha Lennard for Salon. March 21, 2013 BP edited its own environmental record on Wikipedia

-- Jytdog (talk) 03:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh I get it. What you're doing is ignoring the points that SlimVirgin made rather than addressing or responding to them. It just dawned on me. Coretheapple (talk) 03:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
One of the issues Jytdog keeps removing is:
"That an article has been expanded does not necessarily mean that it is better. Be on the lookout for unnecessary detail that may have been added to overwhelm something negative."
This is important because it's commonly done by PR editors. Wikipedians often glance at the old and new versions, see the new one is longer and seems well-sourced, and swap it without realizing that the rewrite is a kind of Trojan horse designed to remove or overwhelm certain items, and perhaps just one item. SarahSV (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't mind keeping that bit. Jytdog (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
In that case it's unclear why you keep removing it. SarahSV (talk) 18:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
My apologies. It is still unclear to me why you wholesale reverted my changes. Jytdog (talk) 18:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I explained above at 00:24, 21 June 2016. The way BRD normally works is that someone makes an edit and is reverted. That person goes to talk with "I would like to make this edit because A and B are good in the proposed text and C and D are bad in the current one." Other people respond: "But the proposal omits X, Y and Z." First person responds to those points, perhaps modifying the proposal, and so on. SarahSV (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
You don't have to explain BRD to me. You BOLDLY made extensive' changes to this guideline without discussion. This passage was never discussed and then you reverted the changes I made wholesale with handwavy "grammar" answers. There is nothing special or better about your version. Your behavior here demonstrates WP:OWN and I suggest you tread more lightly. Jytdog (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I believe you've now violated 3RR. Please revert yourself. SarahSV (talk) 20:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Per WP:BRD we are actively trying to work toward consensus via editing. In any case I have now removed this entirely per WP:PGCHANGE. You were bold when you added this but it was not discussed then and now that it is being discussed, there is no consensus on what to say. I have opened a section below for discussion of it. Jytdog (talk) 20:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

To justify their salaries or fees, paid editors may submit billable hours, along with evidence of their talk-page posts.

What is the basis for the claim above? This seems made up to me and goes against my experience of dealing with paid editors, who are generally paid by the job or are company employees that have actual company duties. I am not aware of any paid-by-the-hour paid editors. In my view this makes the guideline look frankly ignorant and degrades the credibility of the guideline. Jytdog (talk) 20:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

What is the basis for your removing it other than that you're "not aware" of it? There is no consensus to remove this text. You're being disruptive. Coretheapple (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
It is a claim about reality that as far as I can see has no basis and degrades the credibility of the guideline. A guideline should not have assertions about reality that are not supportable, which is an argument that SV makes regularly. Jytdog (talk) 20:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Again, it is the consensus version per WP:EDITCONSENSUS. As with the other parts of this guideline that you've yanked out, it was there since Dec. 8. [1] Please self-revert. Or not, as you please. Coretheapple (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, added boldly without prior discussion. What is the source for this claim about reality? (see the argument made by SV here for example. It is a valid argument) Jytdog (talk) 21:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
You know perfectly well what the policy is on consensus through editing, even if it hadn't been pointed out to you multiple times. You haven't just fallen off the turnip truck, and you've been through the mill more than most for just this kind of behavior. I'm done repeating myself with an editor as intent on disruption as you are. There needs to be a new consensus before it is changed, and you don't get to take it out in the interim. But like I said, go ahead, make yourself happy. I won't revert you. Coretheapple (talk) 21:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
No, this is more serious. Jytdog (talk) 21:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Very. Coretheapple (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Jtydog, your position here seems to be that everything in the guideline must have your permission. If something was added two years ago, was discussed, and the guideline has since been edited many times, including by you, it must nevertheless be removed immediately if you notice it and don't like it. If anyone objects and restores it, you revert and accuse them of OWN. SarahSV (talk) 22:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
That is not a reasonable statement; the same could go for you. So you should strike that. Please be consistent in your arguments per here. This sort of thing needs a source. Again, in my view it is so out of touch with reality that it discredits this guideline for the very people we want most to accept and follow it. Jytdog (talk) 22:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
That link refers to something a person had just added. You're removing material that has been in the guideline for six months in the case of the "ghostwriting" section, and I believe (without having looked) around two years in the case of the WP:COITALK words. But the broader point is this: wherever you turn up, articles or guidelines, editors always end up having to deal with these kinds of exchanges involving red herrings and straw men. Being straightforward and less aggressive, at least to start with, would make a most welcome change. SarahSV (talk) 22:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
This is a complete red herring; Jytdog could have spent five minutes going through Upworthy Upwork, which has loads of paid editors out there in the marketplace charging by the hour. This is not acceptable behavior. Coretheapple (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
SV, yes and this refers to something you added without discussion and the substantial objection is exactly the same. Would you please address the objection? It is a very explicit claim about what generally goes on between paid editors and their clients to the extent that it is worth discussing - what is the basis for this claim? thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Core, there is no such thing as "Upworthy". Yes paid editors list a by-hour rate (the site makes you do that) but if you look at actual jobs there they are all at a set fee. Please do your homework carefully. If you think it through a buyer there would be an idiot to agree to pay some random freelancer by the hour; people are loathe to do that with the attorneys who they meet with face to face. Freelancing is mostly commodity work, done on a piecework basis. Jytdog (talk) 23:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest/Archive_22&oldid=1044446088"