Wikipedia talk:Don't cry COI

Essays Low‑impact

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.EssaysWikipedia:WikiProject EssaysTemplate:WikiProject EssaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
Low	This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Don't cry COI page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

(gasp)[edit]

Suggest to replace "(gasp)". – S. Rich (talk) 17:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A comment[edit]

This essay looks a little strange. As long as we have Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, debating any relevant matters there is fine. No one brings people to noticeboards simply because they appear as WP:SPI (as this essay claims), but only because they make problematic edits which contradict other policies (e.g. NPOV) and they look like people with COI problems. On the other hand, I do agree that complaining about COI is a bad idea, but this is simply because we have already a lot of COI contributors around who do not like such complaints (and that should be emphasized in the essay).My very best wishes (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we come up with a better catch-all term than "PR firms?"[edit]

As a PR guy (who discloses his rare COI conflicts when editing Wikipedia), using the blanket term "PR firms" when talking about paid Wikipedia editors lumps the good actors in with the bad. For a real PR firm -- for instance, one that functions under the Public Relations Society of America's Code of Ethics, it's mandatory that you reveal when you're communicating on behalf of a client. What these paid sockpuppets is doing isn't public relations. Jmozena (talk) 18:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate what you are saying here, but public relations is like any other field. Anybody can do public relations, just as anybody can do journalism or anybody can be an actor or a singer. There are good P.R. people and bad ones, but you don't have to join PRSA or be vetted by anybody to do P.R. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flaunting[edit]

"flaunting rules" should be changed to "flouting rules" JimJ80 (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WTF![edit]

Appreciate this essay is the view of a, now-retired, editor but it contains some seriously wrong-headed arguments. KJP1 (talk) 13:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noticing a conflict of interest and assuming good faith work well together[edit]

When an editor sees a single purpose editor, one initial reaction might be to cry "COI!" or "Paid editing!", taking the issue to noticeboards and other venues. It is often done in violation of assuming good faith.

Noticing a conflict of interest and assuming good faith are not mutually exclusive. I do assume good faith when someone edits an article about themselves. I do assume good faith when someone is paid to edit for their client. Neither "conflict of interest editing" nor "paid editing" imply bad faith. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]