User:Chlod/Conflicts of interest
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | This essay presents the opinion of a Wikipedia editor. Although this essay can give some insight on a topic, note that the information here is from the viewpoint of the editor only. Whether you agree or not is for you to decide. |
 | Since this essay is written in a laid-back format (perhaps you might call it a rant, although it is level-headed), you can expect small passing remarks that are meant to be humorous. You can take the entire essay seriously, but the links... probably not. |
Users with a conflict of interest are permitted to edit on Wikipedia provided that they disclose that conflict. Although these users are permitted to edit Wikipedia, it is highly discouraged since their edits can contain an inherent bias along with issues with citations and notability. With the advent of new technologies, emerging companies, and egotistical self-declared "personalities", COI editing is now a developing problem on Wikipedia.
The Good
[edit]Although COI editing is generally bad, we can't make the assumption that all COI edits are bad. An employee of a company might want to correct their office location and a university student might want to update their university's chancellor. These edits, as long as they are reliably sourced and neutral, should be allowed. Just because you have a connection to something doesn't mean you're inherently biased to promote it.
This type of editing is common amongst IP editors, wherein you'll find a key employee update as an edit. We can't assume that this IP has a conflict of interest (unless they provide that in their edit summary), therefore we just check if the given citation is valid (or if a quick search shows that the changes was true), and we'll be on our merry way. For registered users however, we can assume a conflict of interest based on their edits. In this case, they may have disclosed it or not.
Dealing with the good COI editors
[edit]In the event that a user did not disclose their COI, just ask them to disclose it and wait for them to comply. If they comply, then there is absolutely nothing else to be mad about. Just because a user has a conflict of interest does not mean you get to gatekeep their edits on whatever they have a conflict of interest on. Given the proper sources, there is no reason to revert a user just because they edit a page they have a COI with. Gatekeeping their edits shows that you are not assuming good faith, and that you believe that their edits are inherently biased just because of the COI, which may not be the case (though it could be most of the time).
The Bad
[edit]The type of COI edits that shouldn't be allowed on Wikipedia are the edits that show a clear intention to promote themselves. These include small run-of-the-mill business and startups or self-declared "famous personalities" who want their own Wikipedia pages to show to their fans. Although these editors could make good contributions to Wikipedia, the general outcome is that they don't. In a lot of cases, they're just some single-purpose account with the intention of making themselves look more famous than they actually are without doxing themselves. These are the "rotten eggs of the dozen" since, in most cases, they're just doing the edits for business, promotion, the clicks, or for their own self interest. This type of editing should not only be highly frowned upon, but should also be prohibited, since it can devolve Wikipedia into nothing more than a shilling zone for businesses and people with just barely any notability to be considered notable.
Dealing with the bad COI editors
[edit]The solution to articles like this where they are made by the company employee for clicks[Warning: Gross article encouraging COI editing] or are significantly edited by the person themselves should be to blow it up and start over. There is no incentive from keeping a COI article up, and it will be more worthwhile to delete the article than to fix it. There is nothing more to it.
The Ugly
[edit]To finish it all off, we have the ones who live in the boiler room of COI hell — paid COI editors who work on Wikipedia to make cash. Those unfortunately do exist, and they should be met with nothing more than a quick block. These editors, albeit they may make constructive edits, only do so for money. Wikipedia itself is run by you, volunteers, who build Wikipedia for the benefit of all. But much like every system, there is a way to exploit it, and what better way to exploit Wikipedia than to do paid editing. Although, it does seem funny when simple-minded individuals with nothing more than advertising on their minds make detailed guides on how to break WP:COI, WP:PAID, WP:MEATPUPPET, and WP:OR in one article.
It doesn't matter if they offered it, or if you offered the service yourself. Seek help or get blocked. If your only purpose on being on Wikipedia is to shill yourself or your company, whether you're shilling yourself or on behalf of someone (and God forbid, you were paid to do so), then you should not be here in the first place. Wikipedia is not a tool to promote your company, school, or person. It's a web encyclopedia, not Yelp. If you really want an article, get picked up by an independent and well-established news website or something. Prove your worth. Since if your article wasn't notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia page, then newsflash: it's just not notable, period.