Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Archive 6

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

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Paid Editing

Hi.

What would happen if someone was getting paid to edit Wikipedia in such a way as to produce encyclopedic content, not paid to distribute propaganda, and even encyclopedic content in subjects to which the paid editor has no involvement at all? I just saw a suggestion floated here suggesting immediate banning of anyone doing any paid editing! What about that type of editing, anyway? It does not seem damaging to Wikipedia -- how does the editor getting paid cause any harm in that case? mike4ty4 21:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is officially an amateurocracy, so I believe they would be summarily banned from Wikipedia. In fact, I believe someone was banned for life just for arguing with Jimbo Wales on the subject. I'll see if I can find a reference. Wikidemo 21:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Here you go. Enjoy - washington post article. Wikidemo 21:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

That's hardly a balanced reply. Should be read in conjunction with this ban discussion, if at all. Durova^Charge! 18:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

However this suggests though that the edits made may not have been neutral or encyclopedic. That's the type of editing I'm talking about -- getting paid to write neutral and encyclopedic, including verifiable unoriginal research, for Wikipedia, not to simply promote something. mike4ty4 08:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an amateurocracy? Well then how can you get an accurate, good encyclopedia anyway? mike4ty4 08:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the thought is that paid editing would raise to many red flags. For example, many topics are not covered evenly on the project. If an editor was paid to write detailed articles on every model of Cannon camera, for example, it might seem totally innocuous and non-controversial, but the unbalance in coverage would effectively give the company free advertising by virtue of Wikipedia's high page rank. Likewise, I think Microsoft's efforts to rebut criticism with encyclopedic contributions undermines our perceived credibility as an encyclopedia, even if the edits are in perfect accord with our policies. Cool Hand Luke 21:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a good summary. And that's assuming that the articles written by paid editors are actually neutral, fair, non-POV, etc. You've seen how bad paid PR writing is, and how spammy people and businesses are when they write about themselves. The last thing we need is a bunch of PR prose to wade through. Or worse, people who get really good at encyclo-mercials, who can find and cite sources beautifully and master all the tactics and writing styles needed to avoid speedy deletion, POV, so you would never know it's a PR piece until you realize that it's painting an unduly remunerative picture of its subject or a bad one of the competition. Even something hard to detect, like simply failing to mention the main competitor in a list of comparable products.

If we could control all these dangers, I'm not sure I agree that coverage bias by itself is a bad thing. But the people who believe it is make a strong case. Wikidemo 22:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a page here at Wikipedia where people can sign up to accept offers to ~~write~~ improve articles for pay or trade of services. The names of those offering and those accepting and the terms are there. Here it is: Wikipedia:Reward board. This may not be a COI issue, but it does refer to the COI policy. -- Fyslee/talk 05:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

There have been repeated moves to delete this page. I'd be glad to help anyone wanting to try again. Personally, I think it a mistake from the first, but now with the renewed discussions of these problems, I think it sends an altogether wrong message. I'd accept the part about offering barnstars and the like as awards. But money?!! DGG (talk) 04:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

This raises that question. Namely, does this spamminess of autobiographies come from an unconscious source or is it deliberate on the part of the autobiographer? As if it's the latter than there should be no problems whatsoever with writing an autobiography if you decide to keep it neutral. Yet it seems that all autobiography creation runs afoul of Wikipedia's system... That does not seem to make sense unless there is an unavoidable, unconscious component to the bias. Also, I was not asking about deliberate PR writing, by the way, I was asking about encyclopedic content. PR writing is an open-and-shut case -- it's often more interesting and potentially more useful to discuss grey areas, like non-PR paid writing. mike4ty4 08:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I was reading up on these issues as related to the User:MyWikiBiz case, the The Washington Post article about the Microsoft issue, and other issues related to WP:COI on the project such as edits exposed from WikiScanner, and this brings up some interesting points for discussion. Here is my question: If someone is being paid or reimbursed to edit Wikipedia, does it matter what agency they are working for? For example, if they are being paid to edit Wikipedia, but work for another non-profit organization, instead of a for-profit organization, wouldn't this still be an obvious problem and conflict of interest issue? What if that non-profit was, for example, a religious based organization, if there were financial incentives involved, for instance reimbursement for time and costs and even free use of corporate computers while editing Wikipedia - wouldn't it not make a difference whether it was a for-profit corporation reimbursing the editor's time and money/costs, or a non-profit organization? Wouldn't a non-profit be just as bad? And what if that non-profit were a spiritual or religious-based non-profit organization? If an editor's time and costs are reimbursed, or even if they are editing the majority of the time from a corporate computer where they themselves do not have to pay for any of their internet time or computer usage, wouldn't this also be a serious conflict of interest issue, regardless of whether it was a conflict of interest related to a for-profit company, a non-profit company, or fees and time and computer resources being reimbursed by a religious-based organization? Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 23:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC).
- Here is a more specific version of the points above: If the Vatican were allowing a Vatican public relations employee to edit Wikipedia articles very closely related and of high interest to the Vatican, and is reimbursing that employee for their time, and/or the computers they use to edit Wikipedia - is the same level of conflict of interest scrutiny given to that employee as would be given to a User:MyWikiBiz type person or a Microsoft employee editing Microsoft articles? Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 23:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC).
  - If an Admin knowledgeable on Conflict of Interest issues responds saying that the same standard is applied to financial conflicts of interest on Wikipedia, regardless of whether that editor/admin in question is from a for-profit, non-profit, or religious-based organization, that would provide some clarity. If there is some sort of different standard given to employees of religious-based organizations, I would like to hear that too, that would be interesting to note the various standards applied for financial conflicts of interests to different types of organizations and companies. Disclosure: - I myself am not affiliated with any organization, my computer and internet access is paid on my own time and as a volunteer contributor of information and articles. I am also only posing these questions to clarify the existing policies and procedures, and not addressing the financial conflicts of interest or lack thereof related to any existing editor/admin or editors/admins. Thanks. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 23:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC).
  - In case you are thinking about the Scientologists who edit on this site, I think you should put your efforts in other directions. I think it would be very unwise for you to sir up that controversy.
  - In general, paid editors should use article talk pages to propose changes, be above board about what they are doing. That way the community can evaluate their suggestions and maintain neutral point of view. Whether the organization paying is for-profit or non-profit makes no difference. - Jehochman ^Talk 23:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    - Actually, I was not referring in particular to any specific editor or group of editors, but thank you for your response. Perhaps could you address the question through the "Vatican" example I gave, above? Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 23:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC).
      - Nevermind, perhaps you are right, and this environment at the present time is still too touchy on religious-based organizations funding financial conflicts of interest on Wikipedia, while it's for some reason less controversial to discuss the exact same activities if they originate from a for-profit corporation. I withdraw these questions and this thread of discussion, and I'll try to get these questions answered and clarified in another manner so as not to potentially "stir up controversy." Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 00:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC).

Conflict of interest and intention

Hi.

There seems to be a discord here. In the beginning it defines "conflict of interest" as involving a specific intention that is incompatible with Wikipedia's policies. However if that were so, then why invoke the guideline against people who do not have such intentions, as seems to occur with some degree of frequency (since the involved party may honestly seem to believe they are being neutral). If the party honestly believes they are being neutral and thus has no intent to violate policy, the guideline may still be invoked due to their close relationship with the article subject alone, instead of handling it like most other types of bias. This suggests the way this is implemented, that it is merely the close proximity that is sufficient to trigger conflict of interest, no intentions required, and thus with the implication that the bias is unconscious or has an unconscious component. The rest of the guideline seems to reflect this in the way it treats "conflict of interest" as simply being due to a "too close" relationship. Hence the discord. However I could be wrong, and so I'd like some discussion on this matter. I'm not just going to make a vast, sweeping change to accepted guidelines without community consensus. mike4ty4 08:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you can put your fears at rest. The guideline simply does not ban articles with COI, just advises against it in the strongest terms, on the basis of much unfortunate experience. In those rare instances where someone writes a good article nonetheless, it will stand. It isn't always excess puffery--it's sometimes a failure to talk about the things that make for public notability, or even on occasion excessive modesty that gives no indication of notability. COI alone is not reason to delete, just to look carefully and edit critically. DGG (talk) 11:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't even really advise against it that strongly, it just gives advice on how to edit when you have a COI to avoid violating reasonable behaviour and policies. The strange thing is that WP:COIN, or at least reports to it, seem to base a lot of stuff not on the policy as written. SamBC(talk) 12:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what policy Sambc refers to. WP:COI is a guideline. I wish even ten percent of the people who offer opinions about how WP:COIN ought to run actually helped man the board. Durova^Charge! 04:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all the answers. mike4ty4 06:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Famous experts who are discouraged to contribute because of being accused of COI

Kyle Ganns explanation why he left wikipedia. [1]

This was removed by Durova^Charge! , but I think Kyle's example needs some attention in the COI-project page, because it illustrates very clear why famous experts do not have an equal position towards other contributors. Can you place this back in the article? I consider tagging contributions from famous experts as COI a poor job, which is unequal and unfair. Houtlijm 05:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a guideline about how people should edit, not an article about experts participating (or not) in Wikipedia. I am going to clarify something in the guideline in just a moment to see if we can help this objection. - Jehochman ^Talk 06:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah,all right. Then it's okay.Houtlijm 07:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

An essay on that subject would be more appropriate. Also see Wikipedia:Expert rebellion. Probably the most useful thing to come out of that movement was the Wikipedia:Disruptive editing guideline. Durova^Charge! 14:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Check today's WP:ANI. I just dealt with a situation like this. Somebody trying to insert a spam link wasted a lot of my time arguing that their favorite blog was a reliable source, when clearly it wasn't. I can understand how somebody less patient or less familiar with Wikipedia could get very frustrated and leave under those circumstances. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about linkspamming with attention as the main motive, but about a famous expert (Kyle Gann is a leading person involved with microtonality) who's edits were falsely tagged as COI. When you're famous outside wiki, your position as a contributor is not equal on wikipedia. You become more easily a target for COI-tagging, which I consider a bit unfair and not very good for the content of Wiki, because a famous expert knows more about the topic then the person COI-tagging him. It's a difficult problem.Houtlijm 15:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really qualified to judge what happened in this particular case. But in general famous experts are human. Sometimes they're arrogant, and don't give a necessary explanation; no matter how well people knows a subject, it is not unreasonable to expect them to demonstrate why they are right. And some experts have a tendency to overvalue their expertise, or extend it into neighboring fields. Sometimes they are even wrong. (For some editions of the Brittanica, the guy who wrote on printing thought it was not Gutenberg but one of his competitors who made the invention, and the principal author who did Shakespeare thought someone else wrote his works. The overall editors there managed to have the mainstream opinion expressed also, but it illustrates the difficulty.) More important, sometimes someone comes along and pretends to be an expert. DGG (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The People

there have been many different times while editing, i have seen someone edit an article, and it looks like vandalism, with no sources cited. If someone says they are an expert, and i mean a REAL expert (for instance, if a user said they were actually J.K Rowling) do you let them edit? this has always confused me as you can never tell, especialy if the IP or user says they are the person they are editing the article about. If this doesnt make any sense, and i hope it will, please tell me and i will explain. So, for instance, if an IP or user said they were Drew Carey, and wanted to edit the article with anything, what do we do, still make them cite? --Gen. S.T. Shrink *^{Get to the bunker}* 03:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep, they cite. One would think that J.K. Rowling and Drew Carey have staffs of assistants whose job is to keep newspaper clippings and such. Durova^Charge! 03:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Discrepancy between guideline language and common sense understanding of COI

This guideline needs cleanup to express some points that ought to be in it but aren't.

A conflict of interest is essentially a temptation. Or to be more specific, it's the discernable appearance of a temptation to participate toward some other purpose than advancement of Wikipedia's five pillars.
The current language presumes that conflict of interest exists only when an editor yields to such a temptation. This is misleading: some editors abide by site standards in spite of a conflict of interest. Yet it is advisable for such people to take special precautions that avoid the appearance of impropriety.
Those special precautions are a wise idea even when an editor abides by site policies because of Wikipedia's exceptional transparency. The press is interested in what happens at Wikipedia and the public usually presumes from a headline that reads "Joe Schmoe Edited Article about Himself" that Joe Schmoe's edits were inappropriate.

Durova^Charge! 14:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that a clearer distinction needs to be made between a "conflict of interest" (which is as you describe) and a "conflict of interest violation", which is when there's actually a problem. I think that's the language as it's generally used here and across en.wiki, but I'm not certain. I hope it's clear here what I mean. Basically, the policy needs to be clear that there is nothing wrong with an editor having a conflict of interest if they conduct themselves properly, and the suggested steps (such as use of talk pages) is a good way to ensure that they conduct themselves properly. We don't need every instance of conflict being reported at the noticeboard, only when someone actually does something wrong. SamBC(talk) 16:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Sam, can we chop this off the end of the nutshell: "or in consultation with other editors"? It's a bit of instruction creep. We say "non-controversial" and later we spell out what that means. I really want the nutshell to be short, and don't want to give even a toehold to those who look for any silly reason to ignore this guideline. If the nutshell says too much, it may contradict or water down what's said later. - Jehochman ^Talk 02:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I feel that the wording is misleading without it. The policy spells out that COIed editors can make absolutely non-controversial edits (reverting vandalism, copyediting, etc) freely, and may make bigger edits by consulting with other editors on the talk page. Including one of those cases specifically would seem to detract from the other, and users not understanding that suggestions can be made on talk pages by COIed editors is a cause of a lot of spurious reports and bad feeling. SamBC(talk) 02:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, the nutshell as it stands is shorter than that of WP:NOR, and only marginally longer than those of WP:V and WP:NPOV. SamBC(talk) 02:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I am testing another formulation that might be workable. Feel free to adjust. - Jehochman ^Talk 02:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Feels like it should be possible to make it shorter, but I can't see how. Says what needs to be said, and doesn't say anything else as far as I can tell. Good. SamBC(talk) 05:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree somewhat with the premise. Not every motivation that isn't in alignment with our encyclopedia's purpose is a cognizable conflict of interest. In fact, only a small number of outside motivations are considered improper, and they relate mostly to personal and financial interests - there is a potential conflict when covering a company the editor owns or works for, a competitor, a project of the editor's, etc. There are actually three levels - a potential (or the appearance of) a conflict of interest, an actual conflict of interest, and an improper edit based on a conflict of interest. We want to avoid the appearance of improper editing, whether or not it results in improper editing. We also want to avoid improper editing in fact, whether or not it gives off a bad appearance. I think the body of the guideline already makes that distinction, even if implicitly. Having said that, I think the nutshell is fine. Wikidemo 05:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm less concerned with the nutshell itself than with the guideline wording, which pretty much presumes that conflict of interest = resulting policy violation. The appearance of impropriety is functionally indistinguishable from actual conflict of interest. Examples follow.

Joe Schmoe, the mayor of Anywhere, registers as JSchmoeAnywhere and corrects minor errors in his birthdate and educational history, citing his personal website as a reference.

Is there a policy violation in that? Not at all.
Could that have real world consequences? Of course. Two weeks before reelection the opposing campaign plants a news story "Mayor Schmoe Edits Wikipedia Article about Himself". Shills for the opposing campaign post complaints at the newspaper's website that mayor Schmoe was trying to increase traffic to his personal website and partisan bloggers insinuate that he made the edits from a city computer. This whittles away some votes and forces him into a runoff election.

Mary Schmoe (Joe's wife) is a PR manager for Anywhere Pharmaceuticals. In order to "avoid" COI she edits about her employer from home, describing in the article's second paragraph how the company's stock price has risen since the recent government approval of a new heart medication.

Is there a policy violation? Possibly WP:NPOV. This might earn a warning if she's persistent, but she's just an IP editor and keeps a low profile.
Could this have real world consequences? Of course. A hacker for her husband's opponent traces the edits to their home. The local paper runs a follow-up and the other campaign goes on the warpath, claiming that Mary was trying to bury information about a class action lawsuit against Anywhere Pharmaceuticals. Former mayor Schmoe loses by 312 votes and his wife Mary resigns from her embarrassed company in order to "spend more time with her family".

The real world is not kind. Yes, these are conflicts of interest. And yes, professional adults who ought to know better do make these kinds of mistakes (and worse) all the time. Durova^Charge! 06:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, so what are you suggesting should be changed about the guideline? SamBC(talk) 06:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to wrap my head around the exact wording. Basically the guideline ought to communicate how policy-compliant edits can still create problems for an editor who has a conflict of interest, and how off-wiki consequences can be far more serious than on-wiki consequences. This is one of the world's ten most popular websites and a growing collection of PR debacles have hinged on this issue. Durova^Charge! 06:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I suspect the ideal would be a new section dealing exclusively with warning users of off-wiki consequences, without actually being too scaremongering. Along the lines of "while editors with a potential COI may edit aritcles related to their COI without breaching any wikipedia policies or conventions, users should be aware that their contribution history will normally be recorded publicly and permanently. Editors should consider any impact this might have in their life and activities off-wiki." SamBC(talk) 06:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Other wording needs to be adjusted to accommodate that. I wonder if it's possible to convey how the COI guideline actually serves the COI editor's interests at least as much as Wikipedia's. Durova^Charge! 13:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

How about this? Create sections on Apparent COI and Hidden COI to explain how even if an edit complies with our guidelines, it could still have adverse real world consequences, and how anonymity isn't a shield. Dear editor, please know what risks you are taking. Use the above two examples. This is a guideline, so it can contain hypothetical examples. While you are at it, thwap the rest of the article with Strunk and White so total length remains about the same. Shorter is often more effective. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't go over the top with the Strunk, it's not like it's a non-controversial set of principles for prose. Yes, there's probably some unnecessary verbiage, but not everything that seems unnecessary by strict logic really is; the subtle changes in meaning can be important. SamBC(talk) 18:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Prospective from legal profession

In the law COI is huge, particularly for judges. Very different context, I know, but the parallel is interesting. For judges the appearance of a conflict is a problem just as bad as an actual conflict because it degrades the credibility of the outcome of the case, of the judge as a professional, and of the entire legal system. On Wikipedia, an apparent conflict brings disrepute on the project and people won't trust what they read. At the very start, disclosure is crucial because that proves honesty. Judges also avoid actual conflicts whether or not anybody is likely to know. If they were allowed to hide conflicts they considered harmless, some would abuse the privilege and game the system. Moreover, it's often impossible to be fair because in judging, like editing Wikipedia articles, there's no single objective right answer, just judgment. How much attention to you devote to derogatory information, and just how should you word a mention of a company? You can't avoid your own self-interest when choosing between two equally correct answers. The way the outcome will affect you is the elephant in the room.

We don't need to hold people's hands too much, I think. We're (mostly) adults here. Sure, you can warn people that a misguided COI edit could haunt them in real life. But why save people from themselves? If they want to spam the site they'll learn the consequences one way or another. Maybe it's worth a link to a strongly worded essay with examples, but adding essay-like material to the project page about what might happen off Wikipedia would lose focus. Wikidemo 06:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It's wise to set this out at the guideline level for several reasons. A lot of the advice and analysis Wikipedia in the mainstream press is written by people who have a flawed understanding of this site, so newcomers often arrive in good faith and follow bad advice. Volunteers need a project page we can point them to that affirms what we're saying. It's also useful for us to take proactive steps to reduce these problems so they don't degenerate into tit-for-tat wars between two editors who have opposing conflicts of interest. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Midnight Syndicate for an example. We also don't want the limited number of volunteers to get swamped or for "everybody does it" to become a defense for manipulative behavior. A good portion of the public who are aware of the WikiScanner mistakenly think that's the only way to detect COI... Durova^Charge! 06:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed new introduction

A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is a competing interest that could lead a person to participate at Wikipedia in ways that detract from the purpose of building a neutral and verifiable encyclopedia. Conflicts of interest can result in policy violations. Although the editing community generally extends good faith toward new participants, extreme or persistent problems can exhaust the community's goodwill and enhance negative reactions to other guideline and policy violations.

The appearance of impropriety entails real world public relations risks. As the world's most popular reference website, the press pays attention to what happens here. The headline Mayor Schmoe Edits Wikipedia Article about Himself creates a negative impression even when the actual contributions comply with other guidelines and policies. Editors who have a conflict of interest can avoid adverse PR by posting suggested edits to talk pages and seeking assistance from relevant Wikipedia:WikiProjects.

From User:Durova/COI proposed revision. Durova^Charge! 03:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Conlict of Interest Question

Hello,

I had signed up to give our non-profit agency's history and mission statement. I don't want to breach any COI policies but also feel this is a good resource for people wanting to learn more about our agency. Since I'm new to the Wiki community, I need advice and opinions regarding this matter.

Thank you,

VanishedChildren'sAlliance 17:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)VanishedChildren'sAlliance 10/03/07

Firstly, that information would need to be available in some sort of published source. If this is the case, then the best way to avoid breaching the guidelines and policies, if the article already exists, is to post to the article's talk page, explaining your situation and potential COI, and presenting the material you'd like added to the page, or the edits you'd like to have made. Discussion should ensue and consensus will emerge as to what to do, and one of the other editors will do it. If there isn't already an article on your non-profit at wikipedia, then it's rather more difficult and potentially fraught. SamBC(talk) 18:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

What happens if none of the "other" editors have gotten around to doing it yet, but the consensus seems good for the change (even if perhaps the change had to be modified)? Would it be acceptable for the proposer to attempt the change, provided he does not deviate significantly from what was agreed with in the discussions? mike4ty4 06:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead if it seems reasonable--if anyone is following, they will object if it isn't. DGG (talk) 00:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible new TfD nomination for Template:COI

Can I re-nominate this template for a deletion discussion? This template seems to contradict the COI policy, since it is applied directly to pages, and not to users. Pages cannot violate the COI policy, only users can. Pages can have problems with NPOV, can be written as advertising, and can have countless other problems, but pages, at least according to the COI policy aren't the ones with the Conflict of Interest. It's the users that have the COI. Fredsmith2 00:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. Pages can be tainted by COI editing. The template serves as a warning to users who may view a page that has been spun or whitewashed by a COI editor. We use these templates to mark damaged articles until somebody has a chance to clean them up. - Jehochman ^Talk 01:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I was actually hoping for objective input from the people who wrote the conflict of interest behavioral guideline, not necessarily from the group of people you're referring to, who are using the tag. It seems that the people who wrote the COI guideline are different people, with a different philosophy, than the ones who use the COI tags to tag pages. That's why I want to re-nominate this for deletion. Fredsmith2 18:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

As a courtesy to those who have been following the {{COI}} issues for some time, it would be helpful if you would read the previous deletion debate, if you have not already done so. Then you might share with us here what your reflections are on the previous discussion. EdJohnston 18:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for posting the link. I didn't know where to find this. I'll review this and share my reflections on the previous discussion. Fredsmith2 19:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

After reading this discussion, here is my opinion: we really need some people who are very familiar with all of the Wikipedia policies to do the voting on this. Also, and this seems ironic, it seems there are lots of people who are really emotionally invested in Template:COI and Template:COI2. I think if we continue to have newbies, and the group of folks who seem to be guarding those two templates, be the ones who are the majority voters on the deletion discussion, we'll continue the arrive at "No consensus." Is there any way to request this to be reviewed by the editors at the wikipedia headquarters, instead of just opening it up to a general discussion board? Fredsmith2 02:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

No. - Jehochman ^Talk 02:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

There is one more problem with proposing COI and COI2 for deletion. See this language from WP:TFD:

If a template is part of (the functioning of) a Wikipedia policy or guideline, the template cannot be listed for deletion on TfD separately, the template should be discussed where the discussion for that guideline is taking place.

That implies that the discussion would have to take place here, at WT:COI. Any decision to get rid of these templates would have to be approved by consensus, as a change in Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest guideline. EdJohnston 03:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Are these tempates really attached to WP:COI? As far as I can tell, they just sprung up recently (last November and April), and the Wikipedia behavioral guideline has been in place for a long time. Fredsmith2 05:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

They are part of the functioning of WP:COI, because they are part of how WP:COIN does its work. The activity and usefulness of COIN are widely accepted in Wikipedia. EdJohnston 05:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

They weren't commissioned by a discussion and consensus on this page. Either that, or I've never seen where they were. Please post where if I'm mistaken on this. It seems that these were created, developed, and promoted by a fringe group of wikipedians who don't really understand WP:COI. Where does it say that just because you have a behavioral guideline, then you should also have a corresponding template to tag pages with? Fredsmith2 05:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"It seems that these were created, developed, and promoted by a fringe group of wikipedians who don't really understand WP:COI." It doesn't seem that way to me. Nor am I aware of any evidence whatsoever that such a fringe group has done such a thing. --Ronz 21:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yours seems to be the popular opinion, or "consensus," I guess. It looks like I better silence my opinions about the COI templates before I get in trouble. I'll write one more comment and then take a break from expressing my opinion about this. Fredsmith2 22:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Fredsmith2, if you have concerns about the policy, feel free to open a policy requests for comments to get additional opinions and see whether people think changes are needed. I think that the templates cannot be deleted so long as the policy encourages their use. That said, you are free to suggest improvements to the policy via community consensus, though I think the odds of that specific change gaining support are rather low. - Jehochman ^Talk 23:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Unconscious bias again

Hi.

I notice I never got any comment on my last post here about unconscious biases, and am wondering if the issue played a part in the development of this guideline. mike4ty4 06:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you please remind us what your post was about unconscious biases? Fredsmith2 02:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Look at the "contents menu". It's #16 as of this posting. mike4ty4 19:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Way too much emotion in the 'Consequences of ignoring this guideline' section

I propose we reword "Either edit neutrally or don't edit at all. NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable." to simply a reference to the WP:NPOV article. This is a page about COI, not NPOV, and quoting Jimmy Wales without referencing him or discussing his quote at all, and bolding the quote just makes it seem really emotional. It's discussed in the NPOV page in a much more professional way, and I think this suggestion would really help this page. Fredsmith2 02:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

How about to: "Either edit neutrally or don't edit at all. The neutral point of view is a strict policy of Wikipedia." (with link)? mike4ty4 06:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I've attempted to include your ideas. Because "unconscious" could be read as "asleep", I used "unintenional" instead. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is one of the examples of Jimbo's quotes that are intended as rhetoric, not as literal statement of policy. They are confusing on a page like this. for one thing, its a guideline page, not a policy page, and guidelines are flexible--so it can give the wrong impression. DGG (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Nutshell

COI is targetted at self promotion. However as it stands the nutshell is quite "bitey" towards others we want to encourage, and could be read to suggest they have a "close connection" etc. It mis-sets the stage for the rest of the page and as worded might incorrectly deter people who should be welcomed to contribute but be aware of neutrality.

The current wording a newcomer reads:

Nutshell: Editors are strongly advised not to edit articles where they have a close personal or business connection, except for certain non-controversial edits. For more substantial edits, COI affected editors may use the talk page to request help from neutral editors.

I'd like to reword this nutshell roughly as follows:

Nutshell: Editors are expected to write neutrally when editing on Wikipedia. Neutral point of view is incompatible with editing to a personal agenda.

Editors who may have (or be perceived as having) a close personal or business connection with a subject are recommended to disclose this, and should in any event take great care to avoid edits that may be perceived as controversial, promotional or agenda-driven.
Editors writing about themselves, their own organizations, or matters that they have very close ties to, are strongly advised not to edit or create such articles at all (except for certain non-controversial edits) but to instead use the talk page to request help from neutral editors.

The aim is to distinguish between:

Those who have a personal interest (people editing on their professional field, for example or on subjects they have an interest in), whom we want to encourage but warn about COI and avoiding controversial edits, vs.
Those writing about themselves, their businesses and products, their band or website, whom we mostly want to tell up front, "don't create an article on yourself, your band, your business, etc. Let someone else do it".

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This looks like a sensible change. It seems to me that the important thing is not to outright prohibit WP:COI editing - this just risks it happening covertly without anyone noticing. We should encourage people to feel that they can declare a COI and have the material fairly reviewed. Some people's friends/employes are notable and we'd like to have articles on them. Ideally the COI noticeboard should be more welcoming for someone to say "I have written article X but have conflict of interest Y, could someone impartial verify it for notability/neutrality". We should be able to come up with a phrasing that discourages COI editing (and warns of the pittfalls) without necessarily demonizing it. WjBscribe 15:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a good improvement to me. It better meets the purpose that is to dissuade the majority of COI editors (i.e. NN bios, bands etc) without appearing to strong-arm users into saying they can nerver write about things related to them. ELIMINATORJR 15:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I really like the new version. Cbrown1023 talk 18:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Previous edits to the nutshell have often been to cutdown the length. I predict that such a change will lead to people complaining of instruction creep and unnecessary verbosity. I like it, though. SamBC(talk) 20:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Too wordy. It's supposed to be a nutshell, not a watermelon shell. WJBscribe, we added a comment at the top of WP:COIN inviting COI editors to ask for help if they need somebody to review their talk page suggestions. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The first bullet point is too easily misused by a bad faith editor to attack an expert. It can be construed to exclude an expert from working on an article in their field of expertise. We do not want to do that. POV pushing is something else. It's not covered by this guideline. ~~Please avoid instruction creep and muddling the guideline with other concepts.~~ - Jehochman ^Talk 20:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec)That last sentence comes across as a little overbearing. This is a proposal for change inviting discussion - and the point is that there is a growing view that divorcing COI from POV has missed the point. NPOV COI editing would not be a problem. I don't see how the phrasing excludes an expert (it certainly isn't intended to) - I wouldn't describe them as having "a close personal or business connection". Perhaps you could explain? WjBscribe 20:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

My friend, NPOV COI editing is a problem. Believe me, I've experimented with it myself, and it's a problem. I say this from experience on both sides of the fence. People who are closely connected to a topic need to avoid editing that topic, for several reasons. Besides unintentional bias, COI editing creates a bad appearance, spawns drama, and exposes the editor to off-wiki embarrassment. It's a bad idea. We should give people good advice, not mislead them into thinking it's OK. The other problem is that every COI promoter or POV pusher will say they are maintaining perfect neutrality. If you write this into the guideline, you will give them endless room for lawyering and gaming. Please consider that. The guideline currently says that editors are NOT excluded from editing in their own field. We need to keep, and possibly highlight that, because it's often misunderstood. We also need to avoid people screaming COI when really their problem is NPOV. The method of solving each type of problem differs. - Jehochman ^Talk 22:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

How about this? - Jehochman ^Talk 22:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Nutshell: Editors are expected to write neutrally when editing on Wikipedia.

Editors who have an outside duty that conflicts with their neutrality on a topic need to be careful, and may need to refrain from editing in topics where they have a close personal or financial connection.
Editors with a conflict of interest may use the article talk pages to suggest edits by neutral editors. They may also use the conflict of interest noticeboard to request help.

A nutshell is not always one sentence. For example, see WP:OR. It's brief, but if multiple key points have to be made, it makes them.

Most of your comment is common ground or doesn't strengthen the nutshell. We know COI editing is a "problem" if it happens; this doesn't add anything to the debate. It's far from clear that "We should give people good advice, not mislead them into thinking it's OK" is a good description of anything anyone's saying. Your point about what the guideline currently says is also not useful - the nutshell needs to sum up the guideline, and this one misrepresents it by being too hardline and not noting that is the case, which is exactly why it's the nutshell and not the guideline being proposed to be edited.

The problem with your wording is, it is much less helpful. An "outside duty" means what exactly? Does a person have some "outside duty" if they want to write about themselves, or even their book or band? No. Does "...and may need to refrain..." make COI stronger? No, it weakens it in exactly those cases we want to present a strong COI. The second bullet is also weak: what editors "may" do, doesn't actually direct action, it presents just one option for action.

What we actually want to do is say, "If you have a strong (personal) interest in something (of any kind), always do these things: seriously consider disclosing it, but whether you do or don't, just be very careful to be neutral and don't say anything that would look like promotion. But if its actually something which is a known self-promotion concern - writing about yourself, your business, your band, your book, your organization, etc - then just plain don't do it yourself. Ask instead on a talk page."

That is a strong COI description. It says what we actually want them to know and do, in a nutshell. I still think the original's stronger and more useful. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I like the original 'nutshell' proposal. It's far more concise, the terms are a lot clearer. Unfortunately, there's too much to debate around the concept of "outside duty", as FT2 points out, as well as "need to be careful" and "may need to refrain" are not nearly directive enough. These will be a source of debate and discussion from the get-go. The two "Aims" that are posted above are a good focal point as to what we want to achieve here. The statement needs to be clear and concise without any ambiguity - Alison ^❤ 00:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

An expert physicist, may have a close personal connection to the subject, but that's not a COI. People need to read the whole guideline. The nutshell is just an introduction. It cannot define everything perfectly. Most importantly, the nutshell should not contradict what the guideline says. - Jehochman ^Talk 00:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

An expert physicist may well have his own book to promote, his own research center to link, his own theory to push. So COI can potentially apply to anyone, including an expert physicist. What I'd expect the page to require of a physics expert is that 1/ they write neutrally, 2/ they consider disclosing if they might have a conflict, 3/ they take great care not to seem to be promoting their own agenda, and 4/ They do not write an article on themselves, their book, their own research establishment as these kinds of articles often are pure self-promotion and if notable should be left to others. That is exactly what the original proposal suggests, very clearly, and very specifically. As you say, the nutshell is a summary and will not say everything. But the original one does say the absolute core points of what is requiired and recommended and important to know. As you say, the "In a nutshell..." cannot define everything. Its aim is to summarize the core of it, what people need to know and do, and it does that very effectively. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

From what I can see, FT2's proposal seems reasonable. It's more informative than the original and although rather long, gives exactly the information a new reader should take out of the page. Whilst I empathise with Jehochman and can understand his points, his proposal looks a little more bitey to me. New users need friendly, consise instruction from a nutshell and I believe the change will do that. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll agree to any of these. No matter what we say, people will misunderstand or misrepresent the guideline, and we'll need to help them understand the nuances. - Jehochman ^Talk 02:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

With some 6 views supportive (despite proposed length) and 1 medium support, and ultimately no hard opposes, I've gone ahead and updated the nutshell. Slight changes - bold on one part, and trimmed wording to try and keep it a fraction shorter in another. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This looks just fine now - Alison ^❤ 14:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The article Internet COI?

Becasue of this policy the article Internet is very possibly well in violation of this. It is due to face 100% of the Users here on Wikipedia is obviously using the Internet and therefore ther Intrest is in the Internet. Does this page on it needs to be deleted or what should be done about it. Do you guys have any comments about this. Sawblade05 ⁽^{talk to me} ^| ^{my wiki life}⁾ 10:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you joking? Because whether you are or not, this shit ain't funny. Pardon my French. JuJube 05:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we shouldn't let people who speak English edit on en: at all, either. —Cryptic 06:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Less US Americans would be a nice start, anyway. — Dorftrottel⁠ 11:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I had this discussion going on at two places and it seems to have more cooler heads over at the discussions at Talk:Internet#This_Page_is_Very_Possibly_Conflict_of_Interest. A recent edit to WP:COI clearified the problem at http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest&diff=next&oldid=167501188. To me I felt the old way of it being written kinda made stuff like the Article Internet, or anything that most everyone here is accustomed to seem like a COI violation. I hope that edit cools heads down as it did mine. Sawblade05 ⁽^{talk to me} ^| ^{my wiki life}⁾ 09:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocks

I have to say that the "blocks" addition to the guideline looks like a slippery slope to me. The original intention was only to advise people to stay out of COI. That remains a good idea for a guideline. The addition of blocking justification, and the use of WP:COIN to get round the lack of an actual enabling policy, strikes me as fairly dangerous. Charles Matthews 08:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain that more fully, Charles? WP:COIN has traditionally been a venue for applying blocks as well as advice, although we prefer persuasion of course. I wouldn't call COI in itself a reason to block, but it certainly seems reasonable to accept it as one factor when applying blocks. Persuasion alone isn't very successful with an editor who violates policies in search of personal gain, or under orders from work. That's the angle I approach this from down in the trenches. I'd like to learn more of your perspective. Durova^Charge! 14:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, well, I think "noticeboards" have a case to answer when they imply executive action. That's what we have processes for. Exactly why I think the blocking clause should come out of this guideline. Blocks for disruption should be based on garden-variety reasons. Charles Matthews 17:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Scientists and Experts

I have seen several cases where scientists or other experts have difficulty writing about the own areas of expertise without referencing their own work. If Alan Turing were alive today, we'd be happy for him to work on our computer science article, but he'd have a problem doing so without talking about his own discoveries. We already allow reasonable self-citations.

To encourage more experts to contribute, I propose adding to the COI guideline:

If an expert wishes to write about and cite their own work, they should contact the relevant wikiproject to arrange for peer review. The arrangement should be recorded on the article talk page by providing a link to the relevant discussion.

Let's discuss this. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I am in favor of this change. It will probably help with expert retention. With a project behind them the experts won't be driven off by a single cantankerous editor, and they would receive immediate help with the basics of wikipedia editing. One thing though, how are experts new to the project supposed to find out about this specialized guideline? Mayhap if this is changed, we should add an "if you're an expert" to the welcome template. Just my two cents. Cheers—Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 14:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

How about an expert section in Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia? (SEWilco 15:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC))

In my opinion, WP:COI is a child of WP:NPOV (and in lesser extend, a sister of WP:SPAM and a stephchild of WP:NOT). So, an expert is perfectly capable of writing about their own subject, as long as their contributions are neutral! If an editor does many good edits, and then adds one own reference to one article of their own, then that is not a problem (that is, the coi-editor meets WP:NPOV). For that one edit they does not have to contact a wikiproject, or whatever (though they probably has done that already).

This is actually the main problem in many fields, not only in science! E.g. a librarian is very well allowed to add a link to their own library, as long as their contributions meet WP:NPOV. If their library contains the best or only link to that subject .. so be it, but it should be recognised that if there are obvious better/more neutral links, that these should be used (and the editor should not ignore such edits; (bad faith warning) 'oh, I know more here, but the link I add would not link to my library, so I will leave it'!) And that is where the problem starts, the editor should only be notified of their conflict of interest if they do not meet that criterium.

In a way, I do agree with the above solution, though it might be expanded. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

What if we include a word such as "extensively", as in "If an expert wishes to write about and cite their own work extensively", to eliminate the de minimus cases that aren't an issue. I agree with your analysis. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and I agree, so:

If an expert wishes to extensively write about and cite their own work, they should contact the relevant wikiproject to arrange for peer review. The arrangement should be recorded on the article talk page by providing a link to the relevant discussion.

and maybe add:

Similarly, if an expert editor wants to add external links to documents from the website of an organisation with which one is affiliated, one should contact a relevant wikiproject and arrange for the creation of a suitable template. The assessment of the wikiproject should be recorded in the documentation of the template. Note should be taken that the addition of references is preferred over the addition of external links only.

Any comments? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It is a sensible proposal and one which should not hinder the application of this guideline in any way. In any case, any biased additions that may occasionally arise despite the review process are easily dealt with. Adrian M. H. 16:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good middle ground between self-promotion/business promotion and technical expertise. Durova^Charge! 17:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This seems like it adds a layer of bureaucracy, so we should be very careful about it. There are experts in every field. Do we have active, responsive, fair-acting wikiprojects in every field of endeavor that can handle this (all the sciences, math, literature culture, anthroopology georgaphy, music, busines, finance, religion, history, politics, popular culture, film, etc) and are willing to take on the assignments? Does "affiliated" include consulting arrangements, membership on standards organizations, one's university, governments, commissions, professional or licensing organizations (e.g. the American Medical Association, American Bar Association)? I can imagine a system like this working but we shouldn't rush into it without thinking through all the implications, and then we have to consider whether the effort required to put it in place and operate is worth the payoff in terms of increased reliability. This, then, would affect reliable sources, verifiability, and perhaps original research. To make it worthwhile, peer reviewed expert contributions would have to carry some weight beyond that of a non-expert contributor. A statement about music, or history, or science, that has been peer reviewed would have to be on more than equal footing with the random addition or deletion, so that changes the consensus process too.Wikidemo 18:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the direction this discussion is heading. I don't think making new formal or mandatory rules is a good idea or necessarily what is being suggested. There should be few formal limits on experts citing their own work outside of NPOV. I think avoiding COI comes naturally from NPOV. What we are discussing here should be viewed as a guideline as to how to avoid POV and COI and to clarify where there may be problems and formalize a means of avoiding such problems through voluntary peer review. It should be clarified further that citing ones own work does not necessarily mean COI or POV. Those who's interest is in self promotion etc. will avoid peer review, whereas those who are just trying to contribute will ask for peer review. This peer review should give the expert editor a firewall against accusations of COI and NPOV. This should be an ongoing review of self-citations such that the reviewers can jump to the defense of the expert when assaulted by a cantankerous editor. We should sell this as a means of support and encouragement. Most experts are very comfortable with peer review but may also perceive it as potentially combative. This type of ongoing peer review needs to be critical but not combative and we may need to clarify that to the reviewers. This after all not a grand peer review, simply supervision for reasonable actions. Perhaps we should not call it peer review but something like "peer supervision to support expert editors".--Nick Y. 18:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a more comfortable name would be "peer support for expert editors." No matter what the name is, they are going to slap down someone who gets out of line. Keith Henson 00:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Many Wikiprojects have few active participants, and those who approve of a request might not bother answering. Is notification of the project sufficient or is positive approval required? Is the expert inviting review or is review required? (SEWilco 15:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC))

Somebody has to take responsibility for the review. If the expert needs help getting a review, they can post to the conflict of interest noticeboard. This process would be voluntary and would serve to protect the expert from allegations of COI. Many experts are scared off because people accuse them of COI. Peer review would protect them. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

If response is low or absent the editor could try to contact some editors directly (e.g. by looking at the edit histories of some relevant pages). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a bad idea, basically. We have people writing who don't have "peers" in a sensible definition. These are very valuable individuals, and we should leave them to it. Charles Matthews 17:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a very good idea to me. As for people without peers, let's say we have a case like an expert writing on Resonance_enhanced_multiphoton_ionization, which is a technique probably most WP:Chemistry people know little about - let's assume no one does. Despite our lack of specialist knowledge, we can probably at least tell if the person is (a) simply trying to boost their own Google rank or (b) trying to push some sort of pseudoscience or maverick viewpoint. Even if there isn't a specialist WikiProject (in this example there is no project for spectroscopy or even for analytical chemistry), I doubt if there is any general subject area (such as chemistry) where there is not a WikiProject, and that is where the expert should post. Walkerma 20:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the concept of keeping tighter leash on experts who find it hard to keep from citing their own opinions in place of verifiable information. However I don't think this is a workable solution. There are many topics that don't have relevant, active wikiprojects. It'd be simpler to make a change in WP:V or other policy tightening up the loophole allowing authorities to use their self-published material for sources, and to make sure that WP:NOR's language is clear enough. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Supporting topic qualified editors (Scientists and Experts) continued

One point that might be considered is to give more weight to people who edit under their own name (or make it clear who they are in real life). There certainly is a place for being anon, I would have avoided several months in jail had I done that some years ago. But being able to identify people out in the real world is important if you are going to rely on them as people qualified to speak on some issue.

One of the events that caused Jehochman to bring up this topic was Sadi Carnot. Last spring he was up to his usual pattern of stuffing an article, capture-bonding, with a lot of nonsense and unrelated (but referenced) material. His long term goal seems to have been pushing his personal pseudoscience. He moved on to other articles after fighting with me for a considerable time over loading an article about a simple concept with a ton of confusing, unrelated material. You can follow this in the article history and the talk page.

Before Sadi left (that's a saga in itself) on Oct 2 I put a notice on the talk page that I was going to split out the stuff Sadi had stuffed in. I waited ten days. There were no comments. I then split the article and dumped the material unrelated to EP capture-bonding in a new article "capture bond" and did a minimal clean up of verbiage that was just wrong such as a cite with an incorrect article name. Trying to be careful on Jehochman's advice, I put up a request on the talk page to fix a cite. Publicola who says on the talk page "I am no expert in these fields" came over from the Sadi ban/unban ping pong discussion, chided me over a POV split "My heart sank when I saw that both of these "unrelated" articles immediarely mentioned Stockholm syndrome. This is what is technically known as a mess, and it will take time and experienced, uninvolved editors to sort out." [2]. He proceeded to merge the articles, stuffing Sadi's material back in and leaving out such hugely important matters (to me) as giving proper credit to Dr. John Tooby. At that point I decided it's not worth fighting with people who don't know the first thing about EP and feel they can edit an article that requires an understanding of EP.

Now, as to my being a qualified person in this area.

Others have made a big deal in other articles that I am an electrical engineer, holding it against me that I write about points related to evolutionary psychology. I have never bothered to explain that as an undergraduate I took more units of psychology than you need to get a minor in the subject as a liberal arts candidate. (Engineers at that time and place were not permitted to have minors.) I was offered a place as a graduate student in the U of Arizona's psychology department by Dr. C. L. Trafton, himself a EE who went into psychology.

There are about 2800 Google hits with my name and "evolutionary psychology." I have cited most of the major names in the field, read most of the major books and a lot of the important papers. To the extent one can educate and contribute from outside academia, I have done so.

There are a number of other areas where I could be considered knowledgeable enough to be either blocked or encouraged to edit depending on how this falls out. Memetics (5300 hits), cryonics (2100 hits), nanotechnology (1700 hits), some aspects of space engineering, most areas of electronics and some areas of power engineering. I know enough to pick up BS in a lot of other fields such as AI and chemistry. Of course there is an area I am an expert on that I am legally bound for the next few years not to even mention.

If it is decided that people who know something about a topic are desirable as editors on those topics there might be WP:Qualified? A lot of people are qualified to pick up on spelling and grammar errors. But perhaps people should be discouraged from making substantial edits on an article about a subject where they are not knowledgeable. That kind of bias might have helped with the Sadi problems. Keith Henson 00:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

We definitely need to do a better job retaining experts. Have you joined any WikiProjects? Could you help review good article candidates or featured article candididates? There's no need to wait for this proposal to pass. In some ways, your assistance in reviewing articles may be more valuable (more scalable) than in writing articles. For instance, I have a pet article that needs help: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gamma ray burst. - Jehochman ^Boo! 08:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

But perhaps people should be discouraged from making substantial edits on an article about a subject where they are not knowledgeable. If in fact we had dozens of experts volunteering to help with every article that involved science or other matters of deep knowledge, then, yes, we might want to discourage editors who lacked such knowledge from doing substantial edits. But we don't have a plethora of experts. We do have a lot of editors who (a) can research a topic they're interested in; (b) can understand information printed in secondary sources like newspapers and magazines. (Note that synthesizing very technical journals, something only a true expert can do, gets perilously close to original writing.) Nor do we have a structure to vet editors (or to somehow, otherwise "discourage" inappropriate ones), and to the extent that we implemented (somehow) a voluntary system, that would only leave the field open for problem editors to jump in and change things, with the covering protection of "do not edit" available to attack just about anyone else. In short, we're not Citizendium. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with "editors who (a) can research a topic they're interested in; (b) can understand information printed in secondary sources . . ." If an editor can do this, then he/she is knowledgeable.

I do have a problem with editors such as Sadi Carnot and his alternate identities, not to mention admins who blindly back up such editors based only on their following form rather than considering content or qualification. Sadi claimed COI against me and was backed up by Physchim62 who reverted the article to Sadi's stuffed version and locked the page. (Physchim62 also unbanned Sadi after he was discovered to have screwed up a large number of articles to push his fringe views). Here is how Physchim62 put it on the talk page:

Keith, let's get a couple of things straight right now.

Capture-bonding is not "the cause" of Stockholm Syndrome. It is your proposition of a cause. It is not the only description of evolutionary events which could lead to the survival of Stockholm Syndrome as an adapted trait, nor even the simplest. Your edits have not given any indication of the acceptance of your theory among other practitioners: it is only Sadi's efforts which have given any indication that others may share your views. In effect, you have simply posed an unfalsifiable hypothesis which you then present as accepted science, both here and in other places on Wikipedia.

If you cannot stand other people writing about your views, you should not even be reading this article, let alone editing it. Please note that Wikipedia has evolved a number of different methods for bringing about debonding of editors towards certain articles. Relevant policies and guidelines include: WP:OWN, WP:POINT, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:UNDUE, WP:COI, WP:EW. If you continue to prevent other editors from improving this article, I shall not hesitate you apply one or more of these debonding methods to you. Physchim62 (talk) 09:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This shows such a level of misunderstanding the topic that I am not going to go into it.

The same article capture bonding has been turned into junk *twice,* first by Sadi who finally was banned after pushing his fringe ideas into hundreds of articles and once by a editor who stated "I am no expert in these fields" and clearly does not understand the basics of evolutionary psychology. The latest editor has made no claim of reading any of the EP background material and seems (like Sadi was) impervious to explanations I have tried to give on the talk page about how capture-bonding is neither abnormal nor animal psychology. As I mentioned above, I am particularly upset that the latest editor has removed the credit for the EP capture-bonding concept, with the implication it belongs to me. It actually belongs to John Tooby. In my professional writing I have been meticulous in giving proper credit--even in this case where the originator of the concept didn't publish. The current version damages my reputation in this respect.

The whole experience has been so unpleasant that (if typical) it's no wonder that Wikipedia doesn't have "a plethora of experts." Keith Henson 17:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking at what takes place at the other fork, they seems to have the same problems we do; formally qualified academic experts are just as apt to try to one-up each others qualifications as those with less formal qualifications. People qualified in one field try to pass expert judgement in another. Different workgroups contest bitterly on the acceptability of articles on topics bridging the two. My own view is that people who are truly qualified as experts will be able to give the best arguments, and marshal the best evidence, and should rely upon that. If an editor doesnt understand the basics, teach him. If he persists in not understanding, you will still be able to convince the uninvolved bystanders and carry the point. DGG (talk) 04:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I am always willing to learn how to do something better. Please take a look at the capture-bonding talk page and let advise me on what I should have done to either educate Sadi/Physchim62 on this subject or convince uninvolved bystanders.

And while you are at it, go to the bottom of that talk page and let me know what I should do to convince Publicola that I know what I am talking about. If that doesn't work, how do I get the article corrected so it does not damage my reputation by failing to properly credit John Tooby? Keith Henson 05:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

For those who have been following the debate, 7 hours after this [[3]] was posted an admin deleted capture-bonding. In the state just before being deleted the article had been reduced to the point the contents had no value, but deleting it eliminated the history and talk pages where a lot of information was relevant to current discussions about the mess Sadi Carnot created. (The content battle over capture-bonding was an early event in the path to him being exposed.) Is there a way to restore the article in some non public place where these records can be made available to concerned arbitrators? Keith Henson 18:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the only Wiki. I think it might be possible to have a parallel linked wiki where people could get vetted expert articles.

If anyone cares, capture-bonding was put into my user space. I am not sure I want to put it back up in wikipedia even if the request to undelete it is accepted. Keith Henson (talk) 03:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

But what do we do with the "pseudo-experts"?

I'm going to present this as a generic case, but I have already seen it happen twice in Wikipedia. Let's say we have an "expert" on a minor but perfectly mainstream topic, who has a relevant PhD and maybe even is a professor at a small institution. Let's call him Professor Smith. Smith claims that the standard textbook explanation about a well-known phenomenon is wrong. Basically, everyone else is wrong. He has published several papers about it in peer-reviewed journals. He rewrites the Wikipedia article on the topic to promote his view as the "correct" one, and cites his own papers. Now, the problem after looking at the sources in detail is that they were all published in journals with low impact factors (some of them even having an unwritten reputation for accepting anything that gets submitted), and basically no one has ever cited the papers except Smith himself. Therefore, there is no reliable source that says explicitly that Smith is wrong and replies to his arguments. That is, of course, because Smith is being ignored by the scientific community. Textbooks and the mainstream opinion on very specialized topics are often wrong, and subject to change. But, given the extraordinary claims by Smith that everyone else is wrong, one would expect that if he were right he could at least publish in major journals, get people's attention and be cited.

How can we deal with such a situation? Having an "expert-level" discussion on the scientific problem itself is not going to help for two reasons. First, because Smith will have more ammunition than any other Wikipedia editor, having researched the topic in such detail, even if he is wrong. Second, because that is not the purpose of the talk pages. An original conclusion reached in a scientific debate on the talk page might be regarded as a form of original research at worst. Should we say that we can only accept papers that have been cited a certain number of times by uninvolved parties? That might help, but one could take that too far. We often cite recent mainstream papers, where relevant, without looking at how many times they have been cited. These fights are very tiring and time consuming. I gave up on the first one, and haven't even started the second one.

I think we actually need to be more strict regarding COI and self-citations, regardless of expertise. If a real bona fide expert such as Alan Turing shows up, his work will have such impact that he will be able to cite other people instead of citing himself. Of course, it depends on the nature of the claim that's being backed up by the citation. If you are just citing to back up a trivial factual statement such as "the melting point of compound X is 123 °C.[ref]", a self-citation wouldn't matter much. But if you are citing for "the best theory for explaining phenomenon X is the one by Prof. Smith.[ref]", you have a problem. --Itub 10:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

If an expert who holds a minority view changes an article to reflect his view exclusively, that's improper because of undue weight. Neutral point of view requires that all prevalent views receive coverage according to their relative prevalence. Fringe theories are not represented at all, because Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research and we require citation to reliable sources. I hope this quick explanation of the relevant policies is useful. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Believe me, I've tried that. ;-) The problem is that it is not OR, as it has been published in "reliable" sources. There are two sub-problems: 1) WP:RS and related policy pages seem be under the delusion that all peer-reviewed journals are equally reliable. 2) Pages such as this one and WP:OR are too lax with respect to self-citation. These people are smart and point at these loopholes. I would propose a stronger wording, something along the lines of "self-citations are only allowed for non-controversial claims that no are not challenged or likely to be challenged" (to use the phrase from WP:V). Basically, what I suggest is that a self-cite should not count for satisfying WP:V. If the material is not likely to be challenged, fine. But if it is likely to be challenged, then a reliable third-party reference must be added. I'm also not talking about what we normally call fringe theories. That is I'm not talking about the face on Mars, but about debates like whether the proton transfer happens before or after the electron transfer in a specific chemical reaction. ;-) The most relevant of the guidelines you quote is WP:UNDUE, but debates based on it are often difficult. How does one decide exactly how much weight should be given to each theory? --Itub 14:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I wish you would provide pointers to these cases (at least privately) because I would like to see how they come out.

You are talking about a real problem, but how is supporting knowledgeable people against topic clueless editors and admins related to this problem? The current situation is such people can use wiki rules like COI as clubs to beat down people who do know the subject.

In the mean time as someone with knowledge about the subject, can I clean the junk out of capture-bonding? Or are knowledgeable people locked out of editing an article if they have written about the subject? Keith Henson 16:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Responding to Itub's original post here. I think there is a misunderstanding of the point of limiting self-citation on Wikipedia. As I understand it, the intent was/is to block one loophole in how a crank might slip his own crank theories into WP: either self-publish or put the information up on a website & use that as one's source. Obviously this is not perfect, & still allows a lot of bad material into Wikipedia, yet I don't think it's possible to raise the standard much higher without keeping editors from citing good sources. (Right now, I'm regretting the fact that we don't permit MySpace to be cited as a source: I understand an important amount of eye-witness information on the recent unrest in Myanmar is only documented in posts on MySpace.) The solution in this case is to trust to the Wiki process: if Itub's fictional Professor Smith has rewritten the article to reflect his opinion of the subject, then its up to the rest of us to point out that the article violates principles like WP:NPOV & push back. Of course this does not always happen for the reasons Itub points out (e.g. not enough eyes watching some subject areas), but I think any cure so far proposed is worse than the affliction. -- llywrch 19:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Non-controversial edits section

The Non-controversial edits section doesn't seem consistent with everything above it. The top section of this page seems to indicate that editors with a conflict of interest are allowed to make any encyclopedic edits they want. The top part of the page "expects," "strongly discourages," and says editors "are not barred." This section of the page uses the overly strong word "allowed," which seems to imply that the reverse is "not allowed," or editors "are barred."

I think we should change from:

Non-controversial edits:
Editors who may have a conflict of interest are 
allowed to make certain kinds of non-controversial 
edits, such as:

to something like:

Non-controversial edits:
Editors who may have a conflict of interest may make 
non-controversial edits without fear of being accused 
of editing contrary to the spirit of the Conflict of 
Interest behavioral guideline.  Non-controversial 
edits include:

Or, just get rid of the section. If someone can't think of a good way to reword it and replace the word "allowed," maybe we should get rid of it. As is, it really seems to clash with the rest of the page, and as far as I can tell, it's a recent addition within the last few months. And, is non-controversial edits an official wikipedia term, and does this concept exist outside of the COI page? Does saying non-controversial edits are allowed imply that a conflict of interest is the same as controversy? And isn't everyone allowed to make non-controversial edits, including editors with a conflict of interest?

Fredsmith2 19:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

After reading over the section on non-controversial edits, I believe it's OK as is. The fact that a series of examples are listed (including vandalism removal) gives a reader the sense of what these edits are. You're right that the phrase 'non-controversial edits' is not an official Wikipedia term. The proposed revision, above, seems rather verbose and just amounts to saying (in more words) that non-controversial edits are *allowed*. If you don't like the word 'allowed', would you prefer 'unlikely to be criticized?' EdJohnston 14:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Need section on photographs

I think there should be a section on photographs and illustrations. For the most part, we should encourage even parties with potential conflicts of interest to submit photographs and illustrations to Commons, so long as they are willing to do so under one of the free licenses we accept. We can point out that reduced resolution images are acceptable, in case they are unwilling to relinquish control over a full quality image. They can then mention the availability of the image on the talk page, or perhaps it would be ok to let them add one or two images that illustrate the existing article content, as long as they are not overly propagandistic or offensive. --agr (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is suggested language:

Wikimedia Commons encourages even parties with potential conflicts of interest to upload digital media files, such as photographs, illustrations, audio files and video clips, so long as the media is of good quality, is in a format we use and the copyright holder is willing do so under one of the free licenses we accept.

While Commons prefers full resolution media, reduced resolution images are acceptable when the copyright owner is unwilling to freely license a full quality image. See Commons:Welcome for detailed requirements.

Once media files are uploaded to Commons, they can then be incorporated into Wikipedia articles where appropriate. The best approach is to mention the availability of the image or media files on the article's talk page. But it is usually acceptable to edit the article directly to add one or two images that illustrate the existing article content, e.g. adding a publicity mug shot to the biography of a performing artist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArnoldReinhold (talk • contribs) 18:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no current restriction on editors with a COI from submitting photographs. So I think the above suggestion is trying to solve a non-problem. EdJohnston (talk) 18:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem I'm trying to address is our lack of free images that we can use to illustrate articles about people born in the last hundred years or so. We are at a real disadvantage here compared to other encyclopedias, who can routinely get permission for limited use of such images. This policy is a place where publicists go to see what they can and can't do and therefore it seems like a good place to let them know how they can add images and other media to articles of interest and that, in general, this is encouraged. Policies do not have to only contain negative material. I believe that we would get a lot more such images if the PR community knew they were welcome. --agr (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

this needs to be removed.

Okay, first of all let me just say that I'm part of a team working hard to get advertising on Wikipedia. This is better of wikipedia, and better for the users. Until that happens, however, we have no CHOICE but to insert facts into articles, and the fact that we know these facts for a reason (a connection with the company) is no reason to share this information.

After all, EVERYONE in that case has a conflict of interest, since obviously they have an interest in a company, since there's a REASON they've heard of it (either as a customer, from a friend, through being a recipient of advertising, meaning for example their favorite programs are PRODUCED [indirectly, through money] by that company etc etc etc).

So, from a completely neutral viewpoint, this policy should be removed, in the interests of a balanced and fair wikipedia. As a long-time wikipedia user, I can't think of ONE SINGLE REASON to divulge a conflict of interest. Facts don't become less true because someone says them who wouldn't have if they hadn't been hired, etc.

Wikipedia is about VERIFIABLE FACTS. NOT OPINIONS.

It would be an appropriate policy if Wikipedia were about Opinions like "you know, the Arch Deluxe is pretty fucking awesome." Then we need to know if it's a McDonald's ad executive who says that, or someone over 250 pounds who spends upwards of a quarter of their income on fast food. It matttters. For cited articles, it DOES NOT

incoherent rambling

i defy anyone ANYONE reading this to

and in cas e it turns out

ISN"T THAT THE REASON IN THE FIRST PLACE

?????????????????????????????????????/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.196.141 (talk) 21:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

List of articles X user has a conflict of interest in

I have a page in my userspace called User:Solumeiras/List of articles I have a conflict of interest in. Are such pages a good idea? The reason I ask, is that, if people openly disclose their COI's, will it make for a more collaborative editing environment??

Feedback is needed, and this could be useful. Thanks, --Solumeiras ^talk 11:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Recommended to disclose?

When did this get in here as a summary?

Editors who may have (or be perceived as having) 
a close connection with a subject are recommended 
to disclose this...

If this is really true, shouldn't it also be in the body of the guideline, also? My two cents is that because this guideline page recommends this disclosure, it poses a barrier to Wikipedia being "the encyclopedia everyone can edit." Do we really want to steps to be:

Create an account
Declare all conflicts of interest
Start editing

Wikipedia has always seemed to me to encourage people to try to start editing immediately, if they see something they can edit. Do people really need to reveal personal information about themselves to edit Wikipedia? Fredsmith2 17:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The recent edit by SlimVirgin seems to bring the header back into synch with the page. Thanks. This seems resolved. Fredsmith2 16:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Too little guidance on new articles

The guideline says To request a new article, you can present your idea on the talk page of a relevant article or WikiProject. What it doesn't discuss is whether it's okay for a registered editor to write a potentially COI article in userspace and then ask for review, the way that unregistered editors do (in essence) at WP:AFC, and, if so, exactly how they would do it. Or, as another example, if an editor userfys a mainspace article because of COI, how would an editor (after trying to make it neutral) get it back into mainspace?

It seems to me that it would be good if the COI noticeboard or some other place were definitively established as a review point, to review proposed moves of articles out of userspace to mainspace. Or, if in fact under no circumstances does Wikipedia want COI-impacted editors to ever write a new article in which they have a personal interest, to bluntly state so in the guideline.

Wikipedia:Autobiography#Creating an article about yourself is similarly silent about any alternative other than to simply put an article about oneself in mainspace and hope for the best. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The language you cited above, about requesting a new article, is very terse but is in keeping with the brevity of this guideline. You should consider how to attract interested editors to help out at whatever place you nominate to receive the submissions. Articles for creation seems to get 30 requests per day. The COI noticeboard goes through periods of neglect, and even now could use more volunteer attention. So it's not clear where the additional enthusiasm might come from. Curiously, new page patrol does get a lot of attention, and COI articles are briskly dealt with there, not always in the most diplomatic way, though editors are strongly encouraged to place speedy deletion notices on the article submitters' Talk pages. EdJohnston (talk) 02:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought I'd just test the water. Perhaps there is less of a problem than I think, or perhaps the best place to discuss a change would be at NPP. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:TE and COI

Imo, the policy should include more on Tendentious editing. Somewhat similar to NPOV, which places too much focus on political disputes and too less on other (maybe less obvious) aspects of accuracy (e.g. stylistic issues), this page focuses too much on real life connections, and too little on TE, which comprises much more than e.g. writing for your company etc. A COI can (often enough does) arise simply when people are writing about their favourite topic. I'd like to hear others' opinion on this. I dorftrottel I talk I 13:14, December 9, 2007

The essay WP:TE is interesting, but I think it takes us too far afield from what most people understand as conflict of interest. Some editors already interpret WP:COI in a broad sense when assessing the cases posted on the noticeboard, and I think that is correct. This seems to be permitted by the phrase (in this guideline): relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon, a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization. This allows great enthusiasm for some viewpoint, even in someone who does not personally know the article subject, to be considered a COI for purposes of Wikipedia editing. EdJohnston (talk) 01:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree, I only wish it would be made clear by dedicating a seperate section to such issues as "fan writing" etc. I dorftrottel I talk I 08:33, December 11, 2007

E.g., Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic provides some clues as to what I would appreciate in an extension of this page. I dorftrottel I talk I 08:13, December 12, 2007

Photographs and media files--move non-relevent stuff to commons page?

It would seem that we could reduce this section:

Photographs and media files

Wikimedia Commons encourages even parties with potential conflicts of interest to upload digital media files, such as photographs, illustrations, audio files and video clips, so long as the media is of good quality, is in a format we use and the copyright holder is willing do so under one of the free licenses we accept.

While Commons prefers full resolution media, reduced resolution images are acceptable when the copyright owner is unwilling to freely license a full quality image. See Commons:Welcome for detailed requirements.

Once media files are uploaded to Commons, they can then be incorporated into Wikipedia articles where appropriate. The best approach is to mention the availability of the image or media files on the article's talk page. But it is usually acceptable to edit the article directly to add one or two images that illustrate the existing article content, e.g. adding a publicity mug shot to the biography of a performing artist.

To something like this:

People with a conflict of interest are in no way restricted from uploading media to Wikipedia Commons.

Isn't all of that other stuff in this new section already somewhere else? And isn't that somewhere else a lot more appropriate for a description of Commons media than the conflict of interest policy page? Fredsmith2 (talk) 08:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It certainly could be reduced to what you propose, and, yes the information is available elsewhere. But this policy is one people and organizations who are the subjects of articles are most likely to read and uploading photos and media files is something we should strongly encourage. Subjects of articles and their representatives almost always own images we would like to have available and this is one aspect of COI where our needs and theirs largely coincide. So why not use the space to make that case here rather than assume they will weed through our policies and figure it out on their own?--agr (talk) 11:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Carolyn Doran and COI

Could someone explain how many editors actions (deletion, protection, etc.) concerning the Carolyn Doran article are not classic examples of COI? --Fandyllic (talk) 12:40 AM PST 23 Dec 2007

I think this might be trolling, but assuming it's not—do you really think that volunteers for an organization have a conflict of interest that prevents them from removing BLP(1E) violations from an otherwise un-notable former executive? The implications of imputing such conflicts of interests would be dramatic. See also User_talk:Jimbo Wales#Carolyn Bothwell Doran, User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 30#New Cade Metz article in The Register, snarky comment at Talk:Carolyn_Doran and finally Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_December_22#Carolyn_Doran. Cool Hand Luke 08:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Well someone at Wikipedia has to qualify for COI. Also the invocation of notability or not is the most abused part of Wikipedia, try something else. Also, no one has answered my question above about how COI can even be established when so many people on Wikipedia can hide behind the cloak of semi-anonymity or complete anonymity. Whether the implications of COI are dramatic or not is irrelevant. I won't accept a question as an answer to my question, try actually answering the question. --Fandyllic (talk) 8:38 PM PST 30 Dec 2007

There is no way to establish COI, unless an editor chooses to declare one. That is explained at Wikipedia:COI#Declaring_an_interest. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Book Publishers and Conflict of Interest

I'm curious about how to deal with what appears to be the use of an article page that while describing the ideas presented in a set of (probably self-published) books, seems to be an advertisement for those books. There is a real tension here between Wikipedia's encyclopedic commitment to the dissemination of ideas and its refusal to be used for commercial purposes. Before deciding whether to go forward to the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, I'm deliberately being general and not naming specific articles or editors.

In the case I have in mind I have been informed by a reliable source on an academic discussion list that the author of the books in question has moved from scholarly research to commercial publication.

Just as an example - he with his coauthor has published ... more than 60(!) books for wide audience.... Today it is even not pseudoscience but commercial enterprise. It looks he decided now to earn in wider American market.

The publisher of the books in question only publishes books by this author and they are widely advertised on the web. Advocates for them have posted PR materials on various open sites including videos on Youtube and suspicious looking rave notices on Amazon.com. I suspect that the original editors of the article may be engaging in similar PR activity on Wikipedia. These editors take a strong proprietary attitude towards "their" article and strongly challenge on the talk page anyone who disputes the ideas presented in the article.

The article is a reasonable encyclopedic description of an example of pseudoscientific activity; I'm only concerned about the proprietary attitudes of some editors trying to suppress meaningful criticism. Do any members of the community have any ideas as to how to deal with this? --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

To start with, books in Wikipedia have to be notable to be have an article. Assessing notability should be a simpler matter: Are there any secondary sources that describe the book? Any reviews? Any commentary about the book and/or the author? I am certain that answering these questions would be a better recourse than than pursuing a limitation based on WP:COI. See WP:BK ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jossi, but notability doesn't seem to be an issue here. The books involved have been subject to extensive scholarly criticism — in fact a whole literature has grown up around them. I think Wikipedia should have an article about their topic, but the proprietary and protective editors of the article should be cautioned in some way. WP:COI seems the only tool available; the situation doesn't seem to rise to the level of Disruptive Editing. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Then seek community input by means of dispute resolution. Can you provide the name of the article(s) in question so that uninvolved editors can take a look? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your sensible advice. The first thing I saw when I looked at the Dispute resolution article was the question: "Is it urgent?" In the case of this article, which I think you've already correctly identified as New Chronology (Fomenko), I'll wait to see how the other editors react to my latest edits. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I am willing to lend a hand, if needed. I read the article and could not find any specific issues. Please give me a summary of the dispute in my talk, if you would like my assistance. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Publishers frequently use Wikipedia for promotion;

These are but a few, hopefuly your situation is not on the scale of the above--Hu12 (talk) 14:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Your examples show that one of the problems is the links that are clearly to marketing sites. There are a few of these in New Chronology (Fomenko), as well as an oversize image of Fomenko's book. I'll consider removing the links or replacing them with less commercial ones and reducing the size of the book's image.--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 17:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)