Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/draft

Archives

This was the discussion page for the rewrite of the COI guideline. The draft was rendered moot due to regular editing at the main guideline page, and conversation will continue at WT:COI Gigs (talk) 01:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rationale for rewrite

The overall goal of this is to provide a solid starting point for further discussion on any future COI policy changes and problems by defining much more precise language.
The current policy confuses the issue of a "conflict of interest" with improper actions that may result from the conflict of interest. This issue is becoming extremely important as the community deals with more and more conflicts of interest, not all of which are damaging to the encyclopedia, and some which are.
It is self-contradictory as a result of this, saying many things that don't really mean anything.
It sometimes uses "COI, COI editing, COI edits" as jargon term of art, and sometimes to mean what the definition usually means. This is especially confusing to the very people who would most benefit from this guideline, people who aren't familiar with Wikipedia.
It's redundant. Many sections largely overlap and repeat in slightly different ways, that sometimes seem to contradict earlier sections.
It's huge. For a guideline that should be saying something relatively simple, it's extremely long. The development of the "plain and simple" guide is a sign that this guide has become so bloated and confused as to be useless. The "plain and simple" guide is kind of a joke itself, since it is now nearly as long as this guideline page.
The result (if you can call it that) of the big RfC were mostly in favor of the status quo, but many expressed concerns about this guideline being confused and contradictory.

What the goal is not

This isn't about changing the actual policy and practice in any significant way. This is about developing more precise language for dealing with COI issues, and streamlining a guideline that has grown organically into something that is very difficult to read and interpret. Significant changes in policy should be attempted after this rewrite is in place, not as part of it.

Definition Guide (provisional)

Feel free to tweak these until we get them refined.

conflict of interest - exists when an editor has an outside vested interest (an external relationship) that is likely to lead to edits that violate our core policies, or bias our coverage
paid editing - the practice of accepting money in exchange for editing Wikipedia, or writing material for Wikipedia, a subset of COI editing
paid advocacy - receiving payment to promote the interests of a client or employer on Wikipedia, a subset of paid editing
problematic editing that results from a conflict of interest - (currently "COI editing") the primary thing we are concerned about preventing. Someone think of a shorter phrase or word that makes sense for this.

Guidelines/essays/etc

Comments

Feedback on what I have so far would be appreciated. Let me know if you think I lost something important. Also anyone is free to dive in and edit the draft, I want this to be a collaborative thing. This isn't just "my proposal" for a COI rewrite. Gigs (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea to start this, Gigs, as people are getting very confused. Just noting here the different pages we have at the moment:

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for compiling that list. After we get the terminology worked out here we can make sure those other documents reflect it. We may be able to bring the size of this guideline down with links to some of those other documents. The extensive examples here are probably best treated in the "best practices" or somewhere other than our core guideline. Gigs (talk) 20:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gigs's first two bullet points use the word "policy" but WP:COI is a "behavioral guideline" and I think the major problem is that this guideline is not enforceable (or enforced). As I understand it many guidelines are enforced by blocking, etc., perhaps with a brief excursion into a "no disruptive editing" line of thinking, but many are not enforced until there is are clear signs of disruption. It seems like admins do not enforce this guideline since they believe that the person who brings up the possibility of COI is being disruptive.

Therfore, I propose that at least part of this be changed to policy - which the admins are expected to enforce. In particular, most of our current problems would be reduced if we included the following change of about two words:

"If you have a financial interest in a topic (either as an employee, owner or other stakeholder) you must provide full disclosure of your connection, and to use the "discussion" pages to suggest changes (using the {{Request edit}} template to request edits) rather than editing articles directly. Requested edits will be subject to the same editorial standards by neutral editors (which means they are not guaranteed to be carried out) and will help avoid situations of advocacy and related problems."

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would mostly agree with such a proposal, but I don't think this is the right time to do it. My goal with this is to get rid of the jumble we currently have in the guideline so that we can have future productive conversations on changes to our policies and guidelines. When I say "policy" I mean it in the general sense, i.e. "Our current practices". Gigs (talk) 21:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a better middle-ground to be struck here by setting "expectations." Good-faith COIs don't need firm rules, because they will follow clearly-established expectations voluntarily - bad-faith editors will break any rules we set anyway. This language is slightly firmer than "advice" but not so firm as setting a "rule." As with any guideline, it has language at the top for common sense and IAR, which covers exceptions like fixing citations or grammar. Corporate 14:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC) (A COI contributor)[reply]

Ooof... a mess... Question on "areas"

This guideline was like a bunch of essays pasted together. Different areas of it use different terms and there's a lot of untangling that still needs to happen. One question that I keep asking myself is whether we should use the term "areas", such as "areas where a conflict of interest exists". Is a conflict of interest necessarily topical? Gigs (talk) 21:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the guideline is a mess and needs to be rewritten. It is so complicated because there is no real core, and people keep on adding things and splitting hairs, trying to make it clearer but only succeeding in making it more of a mess. The core idea I'll suggest is "disclosure" and I do believe this must be made enforceable as part of a policy. I wish you well here, and will likely make minor contributions, but think the effort won't succeed until the core is made very, very clear and enforceable.

"Areas of conflicts of interest" is a necessary concept. Everybody who is employed, and most people who aren't, has some conflict of interest. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was the way I was leaning with the areas question as well. I think we are going to need that terminology. I looked at your recent edit and most of it was good. The only thing I see as a problem is your change of "inappropriate COI editing" into "COI editing". One of the things I think we should get rid of is "COI editing" as a jargon term. To an outsider it's nonsensical. It only sounds reasonable to us because we've seen it written so many times. I'm open to suggestions other than "inappropriate COI editing", but I couldn't think of anything that wasn't verbose. In my head I considered "editing motivated by a conflict of interest", and things like that. Leaving it as "COI editing" reinforces the idea that the conflict of interest is, in itself, the problem. I think it's important to use terms and phrases that reflect that the problematic editing that can result from a conflict of interest is really what we are concerned about. Gigs (talk) 18:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gigs asked me to comment here. I think we should avoid the term COI all-together wherever possible, when referring to the COI of public relations professionals. For most of us, our understanding of COI is from a business perspective where we might avoid representing two competing businesses under the same PR team. Terms like "paid editing," "financial COI," or even "COI editing" need to be replaced by business and professional language. Even the acronym "COI" is often met with blank stares and confused looks.

Here's an example of how we can avoid using the word COI: "Marketing professionals who are editing on behalf of an organization are often motivated to make bias or promotional edits that violate our content policies or may create the appearance of impropriety even when none is intended. Wikipedia has a general expectation that public relations, search engine marketing, publicists and reputation management professionals that are participating as a function of their work use Talk pages to collaborate with Wikipedia's editorial community."

However, COI is a complex and nuance topic not exclusive to companies editing their own articles and I think the COI terminology is more appropriate in other areas of the guideline. Corporate 00:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC) (Disclaimer: I have a potential COI with this discussion)[reply]

"Conflict of interest" is a term that professionals use, so I don't see a problem with it. Our problem is that we haven't been precise in defining it. Also, editors are conflating COI with paid editing and paid advocacy. Paid advocacy is a subset of paid editing, which in turn is a subset of COI. We ought to be careful not to confuse them, because there are editors who may support certain forms of COI editing, and even paid editing, but who oppose paid advocacy.

By allowing conflation, we risk paid advocates exploiting the confusion to claim that there is no consensus regarding paid advocacy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent point. I'm going to note that to the goals section above. Gigs (talk) 00:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took a stab at it, but I'm not entirely happy with the definitions I came up with. Gigs (talk) 00:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The real-world comparison to be made with Wikipedia COI is how journalists often disclose their financial investments in companies they cover as a potential conflict of interest. This makes sense for Wikipedia if you subscribe to the conceptual framework that the COI editor is just another member of Wikipedia's editorial team that happens to have a COI - which is often a fair portrayal.

Where COI is done on an official basis, the editor is merely a mouthpiece/representative of a corporate bureaucracy and it has more to do with Wikipedia's relationship with companies than with individual editors. PR, sales, lobbyists, lawyers and others could all be considered to have a COI, because they are not neutral and serve their clients, but this isn't the language we use.

Anyways, I'm dialing off now. Let me know if you would like my comment on something else Gig. I'll be mostly on an invite-only basis here. Corporate 01:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relationships and interests

I've made some edits to the lead to stress the importance of external relationships when judging a COI. I'm not entirely happy with this; there might be situations where a COI exists without a relationship, but I'm struggling to think of one. The usual thing is that an external relationship (to a person, company, professional body) has undermined an editor's primary role in being a Wikipedian. I made the edit because I wanted to move us away from the implication (a common misreading) that just because a person is interested in something, s/he might have a COI.

I think we should also say something about primary and secondary roles (per the OUP book I referenced), but I have to go offline shortly, so I can't do more this evening. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits. I think we need to be careful with the term "promote"... I've seen likely COI at work almost as often to damage the reputation of or reduce our coverage of competitors or enemies. This can manifest as widespread removal of links, AfD delete stacking, targeted PRODs and AfD nominations, etc. As for the relationship question, it's a little sticky. Does an SPA that exists to badmouth the company that made their faulty computer monitor have a relationship? I'd argue they do have a COI problem. Gigs (talk) 01:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they arguably have a negative relationship with that company, but I wouldn't call that a COI. I'd call that the normal consequence of crowdsourcing. But if there was a lawsuit, where the relationship became closer, then yes it becomes a COI.

Re: using "promote" or "advance," the SPA in your example would be promoting his own interests against those of the company. Again, it's the relationship that matters. But I think we need to word it better. I'd like to read more of that book to get a better idea of the distinctions we should be making. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The current definition of COI is focused on outside "interests" as oppose to relationships. Roughly speaking outside interests = COI, a direct relationship = paid advocate specifically (in Wiki-speak terms). Corporate 01:44, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the real world, COI is always about relationships. How are you using the word "interests"? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of improvements so far

Guideline has been reorganized to group similar parts together:
- Advice for editors with COIs
- Guidance for people who suspect a COI or are dealing with the aftermath of COI-caused problems
- List of common COIs, almost as an appendix style resource
"COI" has been expanded and written out in nearly all cases, to make the guideline less intimidating to the reader
Size has been reduced by around 2 kilobytes. The expansion of some acronyms has kept the size up, more than 2 kilobytes of redundant material was removed.
Most of the shortcuts have been preserved and still point to things that make sense, except for WP:INSIDE, which has only been used about twice ever, and pointed to a section that no longer exists in the original guideline (it referred to "insider information"). WP:COIU is another shortcut that could probably be removed, as its meaning has been lost over the years, and it was almost never used.
Many grammatical errors were fixed.

Gigs (talk) 18:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gigs, I think this is too long for a rewrite, and not ready. It changes the paid advocacy issue, and has the same problems as the guideline - so many words that people can't easily work out what it says. Should we not focus on first of all streamlining COI, then working longer-term on this rewrite? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a much better starting point for further refinement than the current guideline is, which is all this was ever was intended to be. I'd rather revert out anything specific that is controversial, move the rest into place, and go forward from there. Gigs (talk) 21:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. My worry is this. I have just done something non-controversial - copied NOPAY to its own page and given it guideline status because NOPAY has it. So we now have a clear guideline on paid advocacy. The second non-controversial thing I was about to start was a copy edit of COI to make it clearer.

What you are doing changes that. It makes the non-controversial controversial, because you are actually changing, rather than copy editing and copying. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What has changed that you think is controversial? This has basically been a copy edit all along. The intention was not to propose any changes to our practices through this, only to document them more clearly. Gigs (talk) 22:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be much shorter, and it mustn't change NOPAY without consensus. That is the key issue at the moment, and we have to be very transparent about any changes to it, otherwise it won't have guideline status. I would like to continue with the copy edit of COI (just a tightening, nothing major). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's still 3455 words. COI is 3552 words (not counting blockquotes, which the script misses). We need to get under 2,000 and preferably even shorter. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)I think I have to agree with Slim - cutting it down to an understandable length first is needed. I just reviewed the whole thing. With one exception, I think each section was well written and understandable, but the whole thing can not be grasped in one reading. Having something where the outline can be understood in a single reading is quite important, otherwise we can't discuss how it works as a whole. So I'll suggest a goal of reducing the length to 30k - easily done if we're not interested in preserving very fine distinctions and split hairs. BTW, the section that was most unclear is the intro - the most important and the one I worked on the most! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My rational for not cutting more extremely was that making it too short all at once will lead people to reject it, which is why I limited the cuts to the obviously redundant material. Keep in mind I expanded "COI" into its written out form which added some words back into the word count. This draft does eliminate quite a bit already. If NOPAY is the key issue, then we can preserve that section the way it is right now in the original guideline. Things in the original lede like "...stands in a conflict of interest" are meaningless and excessively confusing. A copy edit that doesn't address the fundamental confusion between a conflict of interest and the potential actions resulting from the conflict of interest in the guideline right now isn't much of a copy edit IMO. Gigs (talk) 22:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Smallbones, this draft is already under 30K. Gigs (talk) 22:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)~~ Sorry, no it's not, I was thinking of 40K. Gigs (talk) 22:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC) BTW, you all can feel free to go at it in terms of reducing the length. Gigs (talk) 22:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.