Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Archive 4

message: I want to put up a page about a family owned company. I don't want to promote it--the business is operated for family and by family--not for anyone else. Can I do it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DarVad (talk • contribs) 20:17, March 23, 2007 (UTC)
:*  Thanks for asking.  However, this isn't the right place to discuss individual articles. You can try Wikipedia:Help desk.  You should also look at Wikipedia:Notability before creating any new articles. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 15:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Self promotion"?

message: Is there any policy about pictures of anonymous people being used as examples in articles such as blond? In particular these two pictures: 
*Blond profile
*Two blond males
In the second image the persons name is identifiable on a name tag. 
It seems like these images violate Wikipedia:Conflict of interest .." self-promotion, including advertising links, personal website links in articles, personal or semi-personal photos, or any other material that appears to promote the private or commercial interests of the editor adding the material, or of his associates."
In addition the images may be problematic because of personality rights.
Are there any rules or policies on this? The problem is not unique to blond but also brunette and I imagine many other articles where people can go about placing their mug-shots under the guise of an "example".
I'm running it a real problem with one editor who is strongly pushing the above two pictures and seems to have some sort of sexual attraction and is trying to track down who these people are. How to deal with something like this? Do we need more specific guidelines on using photos of living people, similar to WP:BLP? IMO, non-notable people need to give explicit permission for their photo to be used in a Wikipedia article because the context of its usage can be problematic. You know, suddenly finding your Creative Commons licensed Flicker image up on the Wikipedia article "ugly" might not be so cool. -- Stbalbach 05:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal photos of anonymous people 

message: Hi.
I just saw that a reference to WP:AUTO that I removed, namely the one in the beginning section where it was being called a "policy", was added back in. WP:AUTO is more of a clarification of a specific instance of WP:COI, and it also not a policy. I do not see why it needs to be emphasized so much over any other COI or N guideline so much, and why it keeps getting called a "policy" so consistently. Has there been some promotion of WP:AUTO to official policy? If so, should WP:COI become one too? And should we change the guideline tag on WP:AUTO to an official-policy tag to reflect this apparent policy-ness? I would have changed it back again, but I'm not going to start an edit war over it, I'd rather discuss things instead. mike4ty4 00:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops! Just examined the revert. "And guidelines" was added, so I guess it's better. But I'm still curious as to why WP:AUTO is emphasized so much. mike4ty4 00:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because people have a tendency to write articles about themselves, and in general they shouldn't. >Radiant< 09:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is also not advisable to write about any conflict of interest without consensus, period. mike4ty4 07:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AUTO is NOT policy 

message: I'm currently involved in a polite disagreement over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#DermAtlas, and I'd welcome feedback from this community.--Hu12 02:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That discussion is currently located at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Apr#DermAtlas.   — Athænara </font>  ✉  03:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict of interest related additions 

message: I've complained about this before in Wikipedia_talk:Autobiography, but after someone mentioned it on wikien, and I checked, it turns out this page is even worse.
We expect that people *should* be able to edit articles about themselves for BLP considerations.  This guideline states in such strong terms that users are discouraged from doing so, that any newcomer who reads it will conclude that such things are prohibited.  A newcomer isn't going to know the difference between "strongly discouraged", "is considered a standard that all users should follow", "avoid or exercise great caution", etc. and an actual prohibition; the fact that the article literally speaking doesn't prohibit such editing and instead just really really steers users away from it, won't make any practical difference.
This *needs* to be fixed.  This guideline as it is goes completely against BLP. Ken Arromdee 23:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict with [[WP:BLP]] 

message: User Startcom has consideral amount of Edits to StartCom related articles (see users contributions for detail). At what point is is this acceptable? --Hu12 00:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StartCom (I know you know this, Hu12, but other editors who follow this page may not).   — Athænara </font>  ✉  23:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typical problem 

message: Per Jehochman's comments here about the new essay User:Durova/The dark side I'll suggest adding to the list of Further reading links over here.
I specialize in complex investigations and have been concerned not only by the quantity of attempts to manipulate this site but also by mainstream publications outside Wikipedia that advocate site policy violations in pursuit of ideological or profit motive editing.  The current links from this page explain and encourage the right way to participate but don't focus much on the reasons to avoid the other path.  Since I authored the essay I'll propose the link here and leave it for others to evaluate. DurovaCharge! 18:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new essay as a ''Further reading'' link? 

message: Problem: upset people see the guideline and see it as a blanket prohibition on fixing the only thing on the whole project which is right now actively spoiling their lives.
My proposed solution: add a "nutshell" which allows for the correction of unambiguous errors of fact, because that's what they want to do.
Result: Nutshell rewritten to remove that exception and reinforce still further the apparent blanket prohibition on fixing the only thing on the whole project which is right now actively spoiling their lives.
Discuss.
Guy (Help!) 21:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This nutshell is a damn tough assignment!   What you placed there was probably a bit too liberal, so I boldly tried something else.  Feel free to try again.  We need to be careful not to oversimplify this guideline.  Every COI editor will say, "But I can be neutral," or "It was just a factual inaccuracy," when in fact they are crossing the line. As for helping people to participate, I have written an essay for Internet marketing types to explain productive ways to work with Wikipedia.  Idle hands are the devil's tools, so lets provide an outlet for their energies. See Wikipedia:Search engine optimization. I'd appreciate your comments and edits there. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 21:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *Perhaps we could also redirect such editors to the talk page? >Radiant< 10:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nutshell 

message: Anonymity and pseudonymity are common and encouraged on Wikipedia; someone with a conflict of interest and poor integrity can easily exploit this. Suppose the congressional staffers of unhappy memory had created accounts? (Actually, who can say some of them didn't?) They'd have been indistinguishable from average election-year partisan editors. Or what if Adam Curry had done his meddling under a pseudonym? And suppose one of these people had squawked about outing when someone tried to reveal their conflicts of interest.
This sort of thing has happened before and will certainly happen again, but I've stuck to hypothetical situations here since this is about general principles rather than specific cases. Right now it seems that there's no effective way to deal with such a problem, and having a guideline discouraging editing with a COI rewards those who disregard it and hide the fact that they're doing so. Should the page be forthright about this ("Editors with a conflict of interest can choose not to reveal it or to actively conceal it. While this behavior is unethical. . ." and so forth), or would that be spilling the WP:BEANS? —Charles P._(Mirv) 14:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think if someone has a conflict of interest, they should spill their own beans that, at least, they are acquainted with the person whose bio they are creatiubng or editing. I'll do that, too.  Point taken.  Bearian 14:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  be honest or spill the [[WP:BEANS]]? 

message: I run a philosophy club at my school, and I'd like to create a WikiPedia page for it. We have recently been getting a good deal of media attention (including, for instance, Fox News), and I'd like for those interested in the club to be able to look us up up WikiPedia.
Although our stand on various philosophical issues can be expounded upon, I'd stick to the basics and describe more so what the club is about, what it does, etc.
If anything, I'm concerned that because our views on a number of popular topics are rather controversial, the page would get vandalized, but so long as editors remained objective, I'm happy to leave it to the consensus.
Please let me know what you think!
ArthurLZ 23:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Short answer. Don't. WAS 4.250 15:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict of Interest Inquiry 

message: I wonder if the policy could be written so that clear citation farming attempts by academics are prohibited. While many of these individuals have a lot to contribute to the project, I've also run into a great many who seem primarily interested in adding links to their own work to a wide variety of articles. Academics have a clear private interest in doing this because promotions are often distributed on the basis of the number of times one's work has been cited by others. For recent examples see Special:Contributions/162.84.241.54 and Special:Contributions/Davidellerman. --Beaker342 20:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another example: .   — Athænara </font>  ✉  22:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt that anyone's application for tenure is going to be affected by how often their writings are cited on Wikipedia, since it's not a peer-reviewed journal or academic press. If the work is worth reading and relevant to the article, then I don't see any problem with the author adding it—anyone else doing the same would meet with no objection. (If it's crackpottery, or if they spam it where it's not relevant, or actively remove citations to other authors, then we have a problem.) Maybe there are egotistical motives at work, but if the encyclopedia gains thereby. . . —Charles P._(Mirv) 01:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You misunderstand what I was saying. Spamming articles with citations of your own work makes it more likely that others will happen upon the citation and use it in their own peer-reviewed work. COI as it stands seems to prohibit this: "Be careful about excessive citation of your own work, to avoid the appearance of self-promotion." I just wish it were stated more clearly in the guideline. --Beaker342 01:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think our approach to spam amounts to whack-a-mole.  Rather than relying on our large number of users to deter a large number of people who spam, wouldn't it make more sense to automate this?  It shouldn't be very hard to write a bot that would look for user accounts that add lots of external links to the same web site, without adding much content.  These histories could be flagged for review, similar to the way AlexBot identifies probably COI articles and lists them on WP:COI/N. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 11:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: re Beaker342: If people are using Wikipedia in their academic research, then yes, this could be a problem. Why they would be using Wikipedia when they have the far superior resources of the average university library at their disposal, I do not know. —Charles P._(Mirv) 03:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I assure you that academics use Wikipedia, just like everyone else. JSTOR is crap for quick and dirty summaries.--Beaker342 04:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention coverage of very recent topics or subjects outside mainstream academia.  --ElKevbo 04:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: re quick and dirty summaries—fine, but if one is preparing a work that's going to be peer-reviewed, Wikipedia's articles are almost always going to be inferior to library catalogs, various academic databases, etc. re  very recent topics or subjects outside mainstream academia—if a subject fits either of these categories, there won't be much academic literature about it anyway. I still think the  current wording is fine: do it if your work is relevant and reliable; don't do it excessively; when in doubt, ask disinterested parties. I might add "don't list your work as a reference unless it was actually used as such", but that could be excessive instruction creep. —Charles P._(Mirv) 15:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Just saw this. I agree with Mirv that nobody in mainstream science is likely to get additional citations from having their work visible in WP--this is simply not where people who are actually going to write peer-reviewed academic papers look to fine other people's work. The people who come here are the curious, and amateurs. I think any excessive citing--and there is some--  will be motivated by the ordinary desire to display oneself as widely as possible. But there are areas where there seems to be a group of people citing each other and doing this to an irresponsible degree, and those should be watched for --but it's a "group COI", better known here as a Walled garden. The most striking example I know is Knowledge Engineering and related pages--but it is a respectable academic field, so it's a matter of cutting down articles, not deleting them--and this is much harder to accomplish against opposition. DGG 18:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academic Citation Farming 

message: I have added a warning about indefinite block being a possible outcome when single-purpose COI accounts continue to self-promote after being warned.  Here's the argument as to why this isn't a change in policy, just a clarification.
Arguably, this already fits within WP:BLOCK#Indefinite_blocks: Inappropriate usernames, policy-breaching sockpuppets, and single-purpose abusive accounts that have not made significant constructive edits can be indefinitely blocked on sight, and should be noted in the block summary.  Is not single purpose violation of COI, WP:SPAM, WP:ADVERT, and WP:AUTO abusive of Wikipedia, its volunteers, and its readership? DurovaCharge! 16:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We should really talk about this longer before adding it.  Like I said, it could have a serious impact in content disputes.  To continue our discussion on WP:AN, many times partisan or religious editors will be involved in content disputes on articles about their organisation.  Should Catholic Church only be editable by non-Catholics?  Wouldn't this result in systemic bias against Catholics in that article?  Does it make a difference if it is a mainstream organisation like the Catholic Church, or a minority one like the Alliance for Green Socialism?  Do we really want people in content disputes trying to get each other blocked for COI violations rather than working together to try to write a neutral article?  —  Armed Blowfish (mail) 12:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion at Blocking Policy is specifically restricted to the promotion of "a person, company, product, or service" by single purpose accounts, as in spamming, so it would not apply to the generic NPOV issues you raise above. Crum375 13:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  When it comes to "a person", there could be WP:BLP issues involved.  As for companies, products, and services, conflicts of interest might be of the monetary variety, rather than real points of view.  This conversation seems to be rather spread out.  —  Armed Blowfish (mail) 13:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Doc, I don't think the type of user you describe should be covered by this statement.  Clueless newcomers usually respond to comments or warnings.  Certainly we should try to engage and convert them into productive Wikipedians. We are trying to clarify the right way to deal with users who don't respond, delete their warnings and continue adding self-promotional spam for as long as they can get away with it.  These users already qualify under Durova's citation supra as abusive single-purpose accounts that should receive an indefinite blocking under existing policy. We just want to make this clear so admins aren't hesitating to nuke these accounts. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 15:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just be very careful. You say "we should try to engage and convert them into productive Wikipedians" - not so. Some of the people we are speaking about have no desire to be wikipedians, no desire to learn our rules or work through our processes - why should they? All they want is for a biased, or scurrilous article to be removed or fixed. We shouldn't be warning them or blocking them at all. Perhaps the best thing to say is "before assuming a conflict of interest - look at both the article and the user's activities very carefully - make sure that the article is utterly and transparently NPOV, verifiable, balanced and fair - if there's any doubt about that, and I mean any, then the priority is to fix the article and patrol it against any negative pov pushers - not to deal with the angry subject." It is more important that we remove problematic content, than we remove problematic users. I'm afraid I'm quite jumpy about this whole direction; it might just encourage folk to block people for continually replacing an article with a spam ad, without stopping to ask why the 'spammer' so objects to the old article.--Docg 15:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: We should be extremely generous to COI accounts about pointing out WP policies and procedures.  If they then show that they aren't interested we should show them the door. This may mean we deal with "bad" behavior for a little while longer than your average vandal. SchmuckyTheCat 15:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely not. Some COIs have no interest in WP policies - they are simply objecting to biased articles. Sort the article first - double check it - and ask the COI account what they object to. AGF at all times. (see above for my reasons).--Docg 15:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think if you look at some recent cases at the COI noticeboard you'll see AGF in action. The problem this policy clarification would address is those editors who don't respond at all when the COI is pointed out, or engage in Wikilawyer chit-chat while continuing to make flagrant COI postings. The problem of unresponsive COI editors, and the difficulty of getting attention for COI issues at WP:AN/I, is mentioned in a thread at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Refusal to cooperate. EdJohnston 16:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine - but can we place in big bold letters somewhere: "Please check the article is scrupulously NPOV, balanced, and properly verified before throwing the book at someone who is reverting to their spammy version. As much as they may be appearing obnoxious, breaking the house-rules, or replacing the article with blatant advertising, it is possible the subject may have no real interest in wikipedia other than to remove biased or defamatory material. If that is the case, they should not have to turn into good little wikipedians before we apologise to them, and clean up the article to our highest standards."--Docg 16:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Scrupulously" might be a bit much, but mostly I think you are right.  That said, I am more concerned about articles about individual people than ones about companies.  But when it comes to things where living people could be affected, it's better to err on the side of being biased in the positive direction than being biased in the negative direction.  —  Armed Blowfish (mail) 16:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The Wikipedia:Grief essay (denial, anger, bargaining, etc.) applies as well to the rapidly increasing varieties of COI editors and single purpose accounts.   — Athænara </font>  ✉  23:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: That works for me.  Admins already block spam-only accounts all the time, that's not even anything new.  --Minderbinder 12:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Warning about indefinite blocks

message: This has no teeth if users are not allowed to reveal what they know or suspect someone's real-life identity to be. I suggest deletion of the COI policy. --Random832 02:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clarification. I don't think that, while following these other policies, that we can fairly distinguish between self-promotion and promotion by others, nor should we. If material would be acceptable if added by someone known not to be the subject of the article, we MUST accept it even if added by the subject. If it would not be acceptable if added by the subject, it should be unacceptable added by anyone. This is especially true since we are forbidden to speculate that the user adding it is the subject. --Random832 02:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes you have to reveal your own COI. Bearian 14:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Often we see usernames that match the name of the product being promoted.  That's a dead give away.  Sometimes users volunteer their identity.  Sometimes users edit only one single article and behave like they own it.  There are lots of ways people reveal COI.  We don't ever "out" people.  We simply listen to what they tell us and judge them by their edits.  Please consider helping clear the backlog at WP:COIN by investigating some of the cases.  That exercise will help you understand what's going on in the trenches.  Please come back and let us know what you think.Jehochman (talk/contrib) 14:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why it should matter who's editing. The fact that it's possible for someone to exercise "their right to edit anonymously" thus immunizing themselves against any attempt to point out a conflict of interest, means we shouldn't be persecuting those who _do_ choose to be honest about it. If they can contribute constructively, let them, if they can't, block them. Same as anyone who doesn't have a conflict of interest --Random832 00:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right. Actions, not prejudice, are the final arbiter of how good a contributor someone is. mike4ty4 03:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that Random832 is making a very good point. If the content one adds is inappropriate, it doesn't matter who the user is. And if it's appropriate, then who he/she is doesn't matter either. --Shyranoe 08:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think it matters (to pick a hypothetical example) whether Tommy Popstar is edited by Tommy himself, by his publicist, or his "number one fan". The sort of edits done are likely to be the same. Arguably this guideline is nothing but a repackaging of other stuff (NPOV, verifiability, even BLP) in a way which is readily understood by someone who, one suspects, is too close to the subject. As such it shouldn't be making policy, just presenting it. Notinasnaid 13:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: (Further) the great majority of cases where this is applicable are for people who arrive with good faith, but without a detailed knowledge of the aims of the project. (Who does arrive with them?) This means that in many cases they "out" themselves. If they don't, it would be quite inappropriate to expose them or accuse people directly or indirectly, though it is OK to ask, I feel, or to state messages in a neutral "If you should be ... then ...". But in the end, the edits speak for themselves. However, is someone denies COI, then there is no point arguing, or referring these guidelines to them, but there are planty of others. Enthusiasm is often indistinguishable from COI. 13:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict with policies against revealing personal information 

message: See my comment here, please. It's not long and the second part is about this page. --Shyranoe 14:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What way has this page been going? 

message: Hi.
I saw this:
"Anyone who prioritizes outside interests over the interests of the project may be subject to a conflict of interest."
Doe this mean that if one does not prioritize such interest, then they can be very close to the subject and yet still not worry about editing it? If not, then should this be changed? mike4ty4 04:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We want avoid instruction creep.  People are expected to apply common sense. Some ambiguity in this guideline may be intentional. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 12:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ambiguity only serves to create lawyering, confusion, and other detrimental things. Terms need to be defined precisely. This does not mean long, exhaustive lists of bureaucratic criteria, however. mike4ty4 20:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict of interest requires intention? 

message: Hi.
I've noticed a few quirks with this guideline, specifically about what causes conflict of interest. For one, does conflict of interest require intent on the part of the editor to be biased/create vanity/etc., or is it simply something that exists from a "sufficiently close" relationship to the subject of an article? Ther are things in the guideline that suggest one way and then the other. In the opener the term is defined as an incompatibility between WP's policies of NPOV and the "aims" of an editor. This suggests intent right there. But in other parts it simply says about a close relationship is all that is needed to activate the guideline and nothing about intent. What gives? mike4ty4 20:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In straightforward cases I don't see a problem. 'I want to post my CV here to get employment'. Wikipedia is not interested in finding people jobs: this triggers COI, if an editor is thinking that way. Theoretically you can have the discussion 'but I thought encyclopedias printed CVs', but that's not of any consequence. In other words, if people use ignorance about Wikipedia as a defence, and say they didn't intend to infringe the guideline, that's not really an issue with the guideline. The COI guideline can be pointed out, in combination with WP:NOT or something, and that will explain in some cases not only why an article is going to AfD, but should not have been created in the first place. So for example if an editor was aiming to promote a product here, and wasn't intending to break policy, it changes little. Charles Matthews 19:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does conflict of interest actually come from? 

message: Hi.
Could not a "conflict of interest" scenario also arise where the afflicted editor is instead trying to disparage their organization 'cause they hate it, etc. instead of promoting it? For example, adding incredibly undue amounts of weight to even the slightest criticism, bloating criticism sections to massive proportions, and overall casting the thing in a negative light. This would still be a neutrality violation, and if the person comes in with this intention, then I would still say that a conflict of interest would exist. For example, say a disgruntled Microsoft employee were to come in and try editing the Microsoft article to add more criticism than is due, or otherwise put a negative spin on the article. This is not impossible. Why isn't the "other" direction of bias considered in this guideline? mike4ty4 20:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: POV editing is never acceptable, and 'undue weight' falls under that. To some extent all activism can be considered to fall under the 'Campaigning' section. Charles Matthews 19:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright. That makes a lot of sense. mike4ty4 18:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias in the ''other'' direction 

message: I started writing an essay, but then I got an idea and worked out a suggestion for this page. See it here, please. I know it's not perfect, and you are very welcome to edit it. See how I'm defining the wrong type of content without a mention of some particular user's intentions. This way the guideline could be applied without making any personal accusation. --Shyranoe 12:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made two corrections to User:Shyranoe/Conflict of interest material. Perhaps you and Mike# above might care to view them. WAS 4.250 13:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I understand what you mean, and I don't think it's wrong to have talk about a state of mind. But this is a guideline with a noticeboard, and people need to report the incidents. How can you report someone's "wrong state of mind" without making a  personal attack? Sounds quite personal to me... it's very confusing. I had to revert your edits because they were not what I am suggesting. --Shyranoe 13:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not a personal attack to say to someone "I think that you are too close to the subject to fairly evaluate content on this article due to [this] and [this] so please restrict yourself to commenting on the talk page. Thanks." WAS 4.250 14:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: WAS 4.250: When you talk about this: "unconcious biases with regard to a subject (some not even for or against, just too close to the subject to see the issues in a balanced way." I think that this is not a conflict of interest, but POV. Everyone has some POV, if you think you don't have it, that's really POV :). And according to COI guideline POV questions should be handled separately from it. --Shyranoe 13:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: COI is one type of POV. The COI type of POV is a specific problem handled by this guideline. WAS 4.250 14:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes. WAS 4.250 21:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "I am concerned that you may be too close to the subject to write about it from a neutral point of view.  Please check WP:COI and see if this may be the case.  Thank you."  There are endless ways to raise this concern politely.  I do it all the time, and am successfull 99% of the time.  Jehochman (talk/contrib) 15:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have "authority" in the eyes of the users I'm dealing with. If I told someone to read COI, it would be taken personally. I wouldn't do that or report anyone. Even if I believe someone has COI it's too difficult to prove and he/she can always claim otherwise. --Shyranoe 19:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jehochman: Not related to this, but can you look at my new suggestion under the title "about the usage of the word 'we' " please? You can find it in my latest edit. --Shyranoe 19:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I made a mistake. I tried to edit this one and the edit summary was left out. I was trying to say: You are probably going to revert this, but I will try to modify these sentences a little. --Shyranoe 17:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for the page 

message: Hi! You added "or organized groups of editors" in the first line. I have no experience of organized groups like that, but doesn't that make things even more complicated? After all, everyone is here as an individual. --Shyranoe 15:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And Wikipedia is itself an organized group of editors, as are most of its departments and WikiProjects.  The Transhumanist   
Reading the article conflict of interest it sounds like usually being a situation where a single person is in (there might be other meanings as well, though). Unless someone else has an opinion, I'm thinking it could be like this: "A Wikipedia conflict of interest is an incompatibility between the purpose of Wikipedia, to produce a neutral encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor." --Shyranoe 16:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest edit 

message: The Transhumanist   
:Can a policy exist as a mere recommendation?  There are no strict rules in this guideline, only recommendations reinforcing existing policy.  Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is the policy, this is just a special case deserving its own article.  ∴ here…♠ 03:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus, it is not unambiguously defined what constitutes a COI, and it is not a given that someone with a COI automatically may never edit his article. >Radiant< 09:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this a guideline, and not a policy? 

message: There is this one part where I'm trying a small change ("Be guided by the advice of other editors. If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, consider withdrawing from editing the article, and try to identify and minimize your biases"). The reason is this: another editor is not always right. When I first started using Wikipedia I got "advices" from a very unfriendly person. Some of them were good, but many of them were groundless accusations. Would someone be against this: "Be careful and guided by the advice of other editors. If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, try to identify and minimize your biases, or consider withdrawing from editing the article." --Shyranoe 09:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not an improvement. "Be guided by the advice of other editors" does not mean to blindly believe what any random person says. WAS 4.250 13:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, but if the reader is a new user he/she might understand it that way. Am I the only one around here who remembers how difficult it is to be a new user? What about this: "Be guided by the advice of other editors. If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, try to identify and minimize your biases, or consider withdrawing from editing the article." --Shyranoe 13:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no practical difference as the English word "or" does not distinguish between "exclusive or" and "inclusive or". So I would not revert such a change as I see no real difference. WAS 4.250 20:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. --Shyranoe 09:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I have tried to make very subtle changes on this page. I know it is not possible for me to edit any big change here. I have tried to use the talk page, but maybe not enough. Sorry! --Shyranoe 13:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  One part 

message: Shyranoe, sorry to put these questions to you, but I think it's time.  Why have you created a single purpose account to edit this guideline?  Why do you persist in making edits that clearly do not reflect consensus?  I was assuming good faith, but I am not required to do so indefinitely in the face of contrary evidence.  Are you concerned about your closeness to an article that you have been editing?  Is this guideline inconvenient for you, so you are trying to make these changes? Jehochman (talk/contrib) 17:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shyranoe: While the single purpose account question above is a valid one, I would also like to ask you to also stop making changes to this guideline without first seeking consensus to make that change. Your changes are being continually opposed by other editors on this page but you persist in making them. As they have stated, consensus supports the current version of this guidelines. As such, you should first seek consensus before making any other changes. Best, --Alabamaboy 17:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First I would like to say this: I made small changes. Mostly I talked here, and when I didn't, I was definitely ready to do so. I was all the time looking for conversation. Then I would like to say this: It is not wrong to create a single purpose account, if I don't use any other account to edit the same pages (and I'm not doing so). I have been very honest that this is a single purpose account writing it on my user page. And then I would like to say this: The moment Jehochman stopped me and said I was going too fast and not looking for consensus enough, I didn't try more of my changes on the page. And for Jehochman: you said you were assuming good faith, what stopped you of doing so? That I edited too much? Maybe I'm not used to editing guidelines. I really didn't know what's too much here. And then this: The biggest way this guideline is inconvenient to me is, that I feel that directing someone here or reporting someone could create a personal fight or make the person unnecessarily defensive, as I have described above. I don't have a conflict of interest, at least I don't think so. I'm not working for any company to do this. I don't want to tell who I am, because I'm putting in so critical opinions. I have known all the time that the chance of making a change here is almost nothing. But I have a right to be here. --Shyranoe 18:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The guideline might be useful there, but it doesn't mean it's wording couldn't be improved. --Shyranoe 18:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:SPA|Single Purpose Account]] editing important guideline

message: If I understand correctly, User:Shyranoe proposes to modify this guideline so paid editors, or conflicted editors, can have a place to leave their proposed contributions.  Such a place already exists for each and every article.  That's the article talk page.  If a paid editor wants to create a new article, they can go to the talk page for the relevant category or a topic.  There's no need to create additional bureaucracy or noticeboards. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 14:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That one suggestion is not my main issue at all. I made it because you and some others seem to be thinking that the paid editors are a big problem and they need to be send a clear message. I thought maybe it would be clear to give them exact instructions. --Shyranoe 16:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We try to avoid instruction creep.  For what it's worth, I've written an essay on how marketers can interact with Wikipedia.  See Wikipedia:Search engine optimization. I believe this is referenced from the bottom of this guideline. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 16:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any rule that such conflicts must be stated or acknowledged by paid editors?  How would anyone even know if an editor is paid for his or her edits? csloat 16:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's no rule about disclosure, and there is no way to know for sure who's being paid.  By disclosing, people may be more inclined to help if asked nicely.  Those who don't disclose risk being embarrassed if somebody learns about the commercial relationship, or if the edits show an obvious pattern of abuse. You'd be surprised how easy it is to spot a shill.  When confronted, they just hang on and argue against all reason or logic.  That's the problem with being paid -- the client expects a result, and doesn't care about the good of the project. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 16:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with that.  People who love astronomy should write about astronomy; Buddhists should write about Buddha.  Maybe we need to add a section to this guideline that says, "You should feel free to write about subjects that matter to you, or where you have professional expertise.  As long as you aren't trying to promote yourself, or your business organization, that isn't a conflict of interest."  Maybe we need a section and an additional sentence in the lead paragraph.  Jehochman (talk/contrib) 20:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, it's great we have some communication between us. Could we  still look at that sentence which has both we and you in it? Changing that would have nothing to do with marketing or the message of the page. --Shyranoe 11:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Check my last two edits to see if that is to your liking. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 13:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is very good the way you took we and you away. However, could this be discussed: Before your change, it said ”add content” (and later "the content"), and now it says "to edit" (and later "proposed edits"). It conflicts with what it says later under the title Defending interests. I think the earlier version was better in this respect. I don't mean I want to weaken your message, but it was already a strong statement. There is not always someone to talk to on an article talk page, and it can make you feel helpless if you don't know how to communicate with older Wikipedians, but you need to correct something. --Shyranoe 14:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe even change the same thing in the nutshell? To put "editing" into "writing". It doesn't practicly change it much and might not weaken it too much, but it could be an important difference in some situations. It's not only me on this talk page and the page history of the article who have tried to change the nutshell. Maybe this could be a good compromise? I made this suggestion about the nutshell quite fast, if you don't like it, please tell how you see this thing. --Shyranoe 14:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I thought you would probably think that way. However, "controversial edits" do have some problems too. It's not easy for a new user to know what they are, and overall it's not a simple concept to define. It might end up with a fight about what is controversial ;). Could you think about this: If it was written in the form "adding content", could some of the edits be treated with other policies/guidelines? It would have these advantages: To tell a new user to read important parts of core policies again (and again) helps them to familiarize with Wikipedia and it's culture. And it would help them to avoid feeling that they are "hit" hard by just one guideline. --Shyranoe 18:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We want to avoid instruction creep.  If you make an edit, and I object, it's controversial.  That common sense definition is sufficient.  We can add this into the article.  If there is obvious vandalism.  For instance, if somebody replaces the entire content of a page with the word "PENIS!", nobody will object to the subject of the article reverting that.  Jehochman (talk/contrib) 18:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The page seems much better. If there are any problems with it, it is always possible to think about them then. Thank you for communicating! --Shyranoe 09:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Can you please cite one or more examples where paid editors have behaved well?  This whole discussion is a little abstract. EdJohnston 20:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See my first post, #What is wrong with this guideline.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia isn't for Paid Editing

message: Jehochman, you just made a change in a sentence of the first paragraph. If you meant to change its meaning, could it be discussed? --Shyranoe 05:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah a third party came in.  I tried to restore the original meaning as much as possible while taking their concerns onboard.  Jehochman (talk/contrib) 13:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This user has not yet come to the talk page with it. I do hope that it wouldn't be treated as a simple matter that this guideline might be misused to make personal attacks. If "merely..." can count as a conflict of interest, there is a problem who decides that. If "merely..." doesn't count as such, then some other aspect - that is for example being a close person to someone, getting paid for your edits, being involved in a court case, writing an article about yourself etc. - is needed. That was an important difference.    --Shyranoe 13:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I am fine with the words you wrote there. --Shyranoe 09:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll have a look.  By the way, you a free to edit the article, as long as you think there is consensus.  Just making one attempt shouldn't offend anybody.  If somebody disagrees, come here to discuss.  Jehochman  ☎ / ✔ 13:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: This 'you' has to stay for grammar.  One problem is that we have lots of people from different cultures.  The same words can mean different things to different people.  Please excuse us if the guideline isn't perfect.  We try our best to accommodate everybody. Jehochman  ☎ / ✔ 13:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First paragraph 

message: There seems to be a consensus on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion that when a user page is pure vanity, and its user has no good edits (or nearly none), it should be deleted, as per WP:NOT and WP:USER.  Can the User subspace to publish short autobiographies paragraph have the word "Contributing" put at its start, for clarity?  I asked this question before, but unexpectedly became very busy before I could follow it up.  --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 10:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  No objections, so I'm going ahead.  --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 17:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  User subspace to publish short autobiographies 

message: IMO the case of person's theories and research must be covered somewhere. There already are quite a few disgruntled experts who fall into rage or depression after their favorite neologismd get deleted. Right out of my memory I can name Cultural inhibitor, Dancecraft, Dechronification, Omnitopia, Odin Brotherhood, Siberian language, Subsistent worker, Syntax pretentious. I am sure you may add more. Notice, these are not just urban dictionary type neologisms or kookery; these are result of hard work of decent researchers which just didn't happen to gain a sufficiently broad attention yet.
Please someone versed in "policywriting" add a paragraph or two, since it is one of typical cases IMO. 
Since this section is supposed to be addressed to good-faith researchers, only a bit too much preoccupied with self-promotion, a word of hope must be incorporated. `'mikka 20:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promotion of own research 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.
Nominated for deletion since they're functionally redundant to issue specific clean-up tags, and offer no special utility. Tags should be used to identify the problems with the page, not a vague 'there may be problems here we think, but we don't know what'. If there's an issue with an article that was caused by COI, use a relevant template from one of Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes or Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup that identifies the problem with the article. --Barberio 12:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:{{ucfirst:COI2}} 

message: Added a brief section on promotional article production. This isn't intended to represent new policy, but to make existing policy clearer. --Shirahadasha 03:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promotional article production 

message: I made Wikipedia:Self Involvement to redirect to this page. The page had only been edited twice. Anyone who objects can erm, do something about it. Mglovesfun 17:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Self Involvement]]

message: ... have resulted in missing the wording related to exercising great caution, and the reference to content policies of NPOV, NOR and V. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits... 

message: I was looking at some of the pages that have been tagged with COI templates and think that template wording does not match the spirit of Wikipedia. As a person who has been the subject of a COI complaint I would like to make some suggestions. The current template says: 
:The creator of or main contributor to this page may have a conflict of interest with the subject of this article. Due to issues of maintaining neutrality and avoiding promotional articles, Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines strongly advise that editors do not directly edit articles on topics where they have a close personal or business connection. If this applies to your edits, you are advised to collaborate with independent editors via the article's talk page only.
It should be always be reasonable for any editor to add properly sourced material directly to any article. For example, as the CEO of my company, I have access to secondary sources that other editors will have trouble finding. If I have a source about my company in a magazine such as 'Newsweek' then there really should be no need to discuss the addition of the source with other editors first. In another case, where I am a published expert on a disputed conviction, I have had other editors try to use COI to stop me adding extra sources to the article. 
If an editor doesn't like any text that is added they should object using the standard dispute resolution process. The text should meet WP:NOTE, WP:ATT, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:UNDUE etc first. As it stands this template and policy is being used by some editors to say 'You've got a COI so stop editing completely', which I believe is not helpful to Wikipedia's growth and accuracy. Editors should always have a chance to improve articles.
I should also be noted that the COI guideline has several examples where it is acceptable to edit with a COI, but that these are not mentioned on the template. My suggested text is something like:
:Contributors to this page may have a business, financial, or personal relationship to the subject of this article. To maintain neutrality and avoiding promotional articles, Wikipedia policies say that articles added to Wikipedia should meet a minimum standard for notability and attribition. All editors should improve this article by providing reliable secondary sources for claims and facts about the subject. Non-notable articles and unsourced promotional, libelous, defamatory items may be deleted at any time."
Update: Sorry, I didn't realise that there already had been substantial discussion about this topic. However, having had a COI brought against me and having found the implications in the template to be misleading, I hope that other editors will consider my proposed text, or at least the issues involved. Thank you for your time. -- Sparkzilla talk! 06:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem that this gets into, if we open this up just a bit, is people just dumping stuff into WP without anyone having any recourse and then editors having to fight like crazy to get it taken out again.  The approach of WP:COI, as I understand it, is to raise the bar such that any impression of potential COI can be dealt with using a peer-review process (i.e. posting it on the Talk page for the article).  I see too many discussions from people who believe that they are the exception to WP:COI - if they are, then they should be able to point to a discussion somewhere that shows that there is a consensus among editors about this. Without this in place and enforced, I see chaos ensuing. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 21:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Editors who feel there is a COI on the article are free to remove any item that violates WP policy at any time. Those with a COI can then discuss it on the talk page to gain consensus to put it back in. But to give such a harsh warning goes against the assumption of good faith. -- Sparkzilla talk! 01:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict of Interest template suggestion 

message: The guideline formerly said that indef blocks were permitted for single purpose COI accounts.  Another editor wants to change this to "for up to one week, and indefinitely if the problem continues after that."  In my view this creates an unnecessary burden.  Ultimately, we need to change WP:BLOCK so that COI-only accounts can be indef blocked more rapidly.  Until that happens, I agree that this guideline should match the policy wording.  Jehochman  Talk 03:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's inappropriate instruction creep for this guideline to attempt to dictate an incremental block schedule.  If that discussion takes place it ought to be at WP:BLOCK. DurovaCharge! 06:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistency with blocking policy 

message: As it is not typical to instruct admins how long to block for on a first offense (per other examples at WP:BLOCK), I have removed the phrase from Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Blocks. --After Midnight 0001 03:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was another statement near the top that said the same thing.  I completely removed that because it was unnecessary and potentially confusing.  I will also make the same change in . Jehochman  Talk 03:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  initial block length 

message: Currently a FAQ is being written at Wikipedia:Business' FAQ to hopefully answer common COI questions before people go to OTRS and so on. The more input we can get on this, the better. --W.marsh 13:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Business' FAQ]] 

message: Hi.
I think that the phenomnenon of "unconscious bias" should be mentioned. The COI Guideline seems to be designed to discourage _all_ edits from parties with "too close" relationships, even if there isn't any _intent_ to be biased or vanity. The thing is that people tend to unconsciously bias things (otherwise why would we have big long COI debates that say "no I'm keeping it neutral!" "NO you're NOT!" "Yes, I AM!" between some guy with the COI and an independent on the WP community??? Obviously they have no vanity _intent_ but there is still an _unconscious_ bias. These are more likely closed-minded and honestly believe their edit is neutral.). Unconscious biases require awareness and have to be pointed out by the community and the person has to listen and really see it as a bias. That of course requires willpower on the part of the person. This can lead to a conflict-of-interest type scenario even without intent to be biased.
This possibility for unconscious bias should definitely deserve a mention somewhere on the guideline page. mike4ty4 22:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unconscious bias 

message: I've added item 4. to the list to encourage reforming COI editors to help clean up their own messes.   This should be obvious, but during an RFA, one editor used WP:COI as an excuse for not cleaning up past bad edits, so I felt it was necessary to be explicit that self-reverting COI-SPAM is allowed and encouraged.  Jehochman  Talk 13:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-controversial edits