Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest
 | To discuss conflict of interest problems with specific editors and articles, please go to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. |
 | Users who have been paid to edit Wikipedia must disclose this fact when discussing proposed changes to WP:COI or related pages. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Conflict of interest page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36Auto-archiving period: 18 days  |
 | This page has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
COI
[edit]How do I get my name added to a description? It's incomplete without my name. LCSWV (talk) 19:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- @LCSWV your question doesn't make a lot of sense. Please elaborate. Graywalls (talk) 18:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- I think they were trying to make a joke. "The article on Conflict of Interest is incomplete without my username in it" being a self-depreciative way of saying "I have conflict of interest"
- It shouldn't be here, though, since it is irrelevant to the content of the article. CleoMeter (talk) 17:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Threshold that should be met in order to tag an article
[edit]Talk:Tooth_&_Nail_Records_discography I tagged that article, because of substantial addition of contents by an account that was created, seemingly just for this purpose and promptly disappeared. It's a tactic commonly employed by company's marketing personnel, or external public relations editors, because they do not wish to have the account linked to their other editing activities. As long as I explain it, I feel this meets the threshold to mark it as "appears to have COI". I welcome comments. Graywalls (talk) 18:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe a moot point because the creator in question has been gone for 14 years. I think that almost every use of this tag is basically an educated guess and this educated guess seems as good as any and so I would say that it is not improper to place the tag. But this tag is really to help bring this to some sort of a resolution (regarding the creator or the article content) and I don't see what that would be at this point. And some would argue an undue influence on the AFD. So, IMHO OK to place the tag but probably a better idea to not do so. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delayed discovery doesn't negate the issue of article contamination with undue contents that causes over-representation of the advocate's interest. @North8000:, that White Stag article is a great example of this. PR editing effort often creates new account as needed. The most recent suspected PR activity took place in March 2024 on the article in question. The pattern shown by account creation date, brief period of making substantial edits exclusively on this article and disappearing is indicative of brand involved page maintenance/public relations editing based on my experience observing COI edits. I would say it rises to the level of "reasonable suspicion". Graywalls (talk) 20:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- I see absolutely no reason for a tag. There is no way to resolve the "issue" as the user did not add any POV information. There is also no evidence that the user was paid, and I see no reason to assume they were. Tags are placed so articles can be fixed, where is the issue to fix here? glman (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Glman:, the UPE tang and COI tag are not the same. This one is a COI tag. "appears to have a COI" is not a high standard and as I said, I put this at the same level as "reasonable suspicion", so beyond a hunch, and can be articulated with a reason, such as editing pattern. Graywalls (talk) 01:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- I still fail to be convinced. It is entirely plausible that the editor is a fan of the label or certain releases. Nothing added to the page is POV, so again, how would one adjust the article to have the tag removed? glman (talk) 17:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Glman:, the UPE tang and COI tag are not the same. This one is a COI tag. "appears to have a COI" is not a high standard and as I said, I put this at the same level as "reasonable suspicion", so beyond a hunch, and can be articulated with a reason, such as editing pattern. Graywalls (talk) 01:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- I see absolutely no reason for a tag. There is no way to resolve the "issue" as the user did not add any POV information. There is also no evidence that the user was paid, and I see no reason to assume they were. Tags are placed so articles can be fixed, where is the issue to fix here? glman (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delayed discovery doesn't negate the issue of article contamination with undue contents that causes over-representation of the advocate's interest. @North8000:, that White Stag article is a great example of this. PR editing effort often creates new account as needed. The most recent suspected PR activity took place in March 2024 on the article in question. The pattern shown by account creation date, brief period of making substantial edits exclusively on this article and disappearing is indicative of brand involved page maintenance/public relations editing based on my experience observing COI edits. I would say it rises to the level of "reasonable suspicion". Graywalls (talk) 20:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Is contact via email and LinkedIn considered as COI?
[edit]I'm involved in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Corm II and one of the advocates for keeping the article has written I do not know Corm II personally. In the real world and among real people who don't spend their time online, that means that we have never met. I obviously got in touch with him through email (we are connected on LinkedIn) for this article. He gave me personal info as well as some personal media he had in his possession. That's it. Full stop. Is this type of online-only contact considered as COI or would it be acceptable not to disclose it on your user page? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- If they're contacting them for the purpose of improving a Wikipedia article (by whatever means), then I don't see a conflict of interest. It's a longstanding if relatively uncommon practice to for example contact the subject of an article to ask for a freely-licensed image. Obviously asking them for "personal info" is not a good idea because it cannot actually be used in articles, but that's a question of WP:V and WP:BLP rather than WP:COI. – Joe (talk) 07:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Many thanks. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Proposal for New Article: Robinson Tesla-network
[edit]Hello, I would like to propose the creation of a new Wikipedia article titled Robinson Tesla-network. This network, established on June 30, 1997, focuses on affiliate marketing by promoting Tesla Inc.'s products and services. Its primary objective is to generate revenue through strategic online advertising campaigns.
The draft includes the following sections:
1. History – Overview of the network’s founding and development.
2. Purpose and Objectives – Details on its affiliate marketing focus.
3. Products and Services – A description of Tesla products it promotes.
4. Key Milestones – Notable achievements in affiliate marketing.
I have included independent references to support the draft's content, such as industry reports and marketing insights. I acknowledge my conflict of interest, as I am affiliated with the network, and welcome feedback to ensure neutrality and adherence to Wikipedia's guidelines. Robinson-teslanetwork (talk) 00:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- The username for your account violates our username policy, so you will have to change it. It is important that you carefully review and follow WP:COI and WP:PAID. It would probably be a good idea for you to submit your proposed draft via Articles for Creation. And please make sure that the draft article satisfies the requirements at WP:Notability (organizations and companies). --Tryptofish (talk) 00:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)