Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest

COI in translations

Does anyone know if there's any consensus about COI individuals translating (or funding translations of) articles onto other language wikipedias? - Mgcsinc (talk) 04:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Consensus regarding this would depend on the Wikipedia that content is being added to. If a COI editor is adding articles to the English Wikipedia that are translated from other Wikipedias, the conflict of interest noticeboard would be a great place to talk it over. If a COI editor is translating an english article into a foreign language article you would need to see what the consensus is about this at the foreign language Wikipedia. ThemFromSpace 04:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Citing oneself - section removed from WP:NOR

Following an RfC, I just removed the "citing oneself" section from the WP:NOR policy page, since it was decided that the topic should be addressed just on this page (as it is) and not there. The policy text read:

If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our neutrality and conflict of interest policies. If you are able to discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a discovery. This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia. In fact, expert input is encouraged and experts often have specific knowledge of the relevant literature. However, as with all editors, this policy does prohibit experts from drawing on their personal knowledge without being able to cite reliable sources.

We may wish to incorporate some of that text into the guideline here.--Kotniski (talk) 09:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Student - college, conflict of interest

Is a student studying in a college, who keeps adding promotional material about that college, considered in conflict of interest? The material in question is a typical Indian college promotion - a list of major recruiters (placements). --Muhandes (talk) 12:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest (medicine)

I was hoping to ask for some broader input into Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest (medicine). Specifically, it has a tabular format that I'm concerned implies that Wikipedia policies apply unequally, that a caste system is present. For example, that pharmaceutical company employees don't need to cite sources while patients should focus on busying themselves reverting vandalism. Using three lists would eliminate the risk of this misinterpretation and make the content more readable on small screens. The change to a list format was quickly reverted along with other changes, with a change description suggesting that the caste implication was intentional. Sorry if this isn't the best forum for this note. BitterGrey (talk) 15:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

COI and Representation of Academic Research on Wikipedia

I have been thinking about the issues of COI in relation to the academic research. This started because I have unwittingly got involved in a COI issue. My questions and curiosities regarding the COI issues are as follows:

• Is the bias in the current content of page important or does what happened historically on a page matter even if it has no impact on the current content?

• Related to this is the question of how important is the Wikipedia user's interests in evaluating the page's content. If the information on the page is considered forever "tainted" just because of its history, should the page not be deleted. No amount of editing would rid it of its history and the page is doomed. Conversely, if that is not the case, shouldn't the current content of the page evaluated according to the principles of NPOV, V and NOR and any traces of bias be removed.

• There is widespread conflict of interest on pages related to Academic Research or the profiles of the Academics on Wikipedia. Yet, in the hundreds of pages that I have gone through, the information added by people with conflict of interest seemed entirely accurate with almost no bias. It may have something to do with the fact that academics have to struggle with conflict of interest all the time in conducting research and consequences of being biased could be disastrous in the long run. Or may be not.

• My curiosity is whether the issues governing the content and related COI issues are different for obvious public knowledge/celebrities and may not lead to the optimal outcome (from the perspective of Wikipedia users) if applied to academics and academic research. The issue that complicates the matter is that specialised knowledge of a body of research or deep insights associated with such knowledge is often held by a person who has a conflict of interest. Consequently, Wikipedia seems to have basic textbook knowledge on its pages but at least in Economics and other Social Sciences, articles on deep issues with deep and complicated insights are missing. One of many examples is the Wikipedia page on Susan Athey, the John Bates Clark Medal winner in 2007. Her contributions are phenomenal, yet complicated to understand. Yet, they are not mentioned on the page because the 100 odd people in the world who understand her research in its entirety and could explain it to the world would be connected to her through the wider Economics Network and would have a conflict of interest. Whenever you come across the an article that goes beyond the obvious, there is often a hidden conflict of interest somewhere in that page without fail that may not be obvious to someone from outside. I think this deserves a thought and discussion and I hope I am not wrong in thinking that. 128.232.132.146 (talk) 22:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)kaniket

Short answer, it's all about current content. I've often removed COI tags after a major edit by someone without COI. --Muhandes (talk) 06:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Quote

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair

I don't usually stuff quotes into policy, but this one always makes me think of WP:COI. Maybe it has a place. I also like the fact that it implies COI editors may not be able to see the errors in their reasoning, as opposed to intentionally violating neutrality. Ocaasi ^c 14:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

why shouldn't a company help find sources in a deletion discussion?

It currently states you should avoid or exercise great caution when Participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors. What does "exercise great caution" mean specifically? As long as the person identifies themselves, why would they not be in the AFD helping to list reliable sources they have been reviewed in? This came up at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MyBB. Consensus is that there is no problem with this. AFD shouldn't be on that list. Perhaps rewording it saying that participating in AFDs is fine as long as you don't vote and you identify yourself straight away. Dream Focus 01:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense.   Will Beback  talk  01:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that clarification is needed. There is plenty of information as to how an editor should conduct themselves in editing an article where they have a COI, and we encourage talk page participation and don't recommend any restrictions there (aside from the same guidelines any other editor should follow) but there's little to nothing about how to act in a deletion discussion where you have a COI. Frankly, I don't remember that information being there before (I've been gone for 6 months so it might have been added in the interim). I'm not sure if we should discourage "voting" in an AfD, in fact I'd encourage someone to argue the case to keep or delete an article if they have a sound reason for doing so, regardless of who they are. -- Atama頭 19:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Dream Focus deleted the line entirely, which I don't think is what's been agreed to. They shouldn't participate in AFDs without explicitly divulging their COI. The general admonition to "avoid, or exercise great caution" is often translated to mean "go ahead so long as you don't think you're doing anything wrong".   Will Beback  talk  00:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a very good guideline, that any AfD participation should include divulging their COI, and not divulging the COI will only weaken their argument. -- Atama頭 00:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with COI in this instance as long as it is divulged - that evens the playing field (so to speak). After that I don't have a problem with full participation. The COI participant can present arguments that appear to have merit, or not, just like any other editor. As stated above, it might be a good idea to have someone strongly advocating for keep or delete (as an interested party). ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 01:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course if six people show up from the same company or organization then the closing admin may legitimately discount their votes. With full disclosure that becomes possible, making their participation less of a problem.   Will Beback  talk  02:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Will, very good point. I agree. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

We don't require disclosure because there is absolutely no way to enforce it. Furthermore, when one person with a connection to the subject—say, the owner of a business—plays it straight and discloses the connection, and the next—say, his competitor—doesn't, then we've tilted the playing field in favor of the secretive and dishonest. With zero plausible mechanism for enforcement, it is unreasonable of us to assume that everyone is equally honest.

Also: Who cares who names the independent sources at AFD? Either the editor is coughing up independent sources that demonstrate notability, or they're not, and nothing else really matters for notability. The production of sources by your bitterest competitor is just as good as the production of sources by yourself—and the failure to supply such sources, whether by yourself or your competitor, is just as bad.

It's also important to remember the complexity of the project. It's all very well and good to say that business owners should announce that they own the business (but see "Who cares?" above), but AFD isn't all about businesses. Should Casliber (talk · contribs) have to announce his profession every time he !votes at AFD on a medicine-related subject? We've encountered folks with serious mental conditions who say that they should be perfectly free to work on articles about their personal mental health problems, but that board-certified psychiatrists should never be allowed to touch the pages, because all physicians "have a conflict of interest" because they're in the pay of the nasty pharmaceutical companies. Are you ready to tell SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) to be sure to disclose her conflict of interest every time she !votes at an AfD related to animal rights? Do you think the quality of sources she provides is somehow worse because of her connection to that subject? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Based on this discussion, I have softened the recommendation from "don't participate in any AFD" to "don't try to delete your articles about your competitors". I also added explanations behind the reasoning, largely inspired by Qwyrxian's comment on 13 June (currently at the very bottom of the page). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Disclosure dangers

Sometimes, it might be unsafe for an editor to disclose COI because disclosing his or her identity is unsafe. I'm thinking here of the footnote at WP:How not to get outed that says "Note that if there is a chance that someone else knowing your real name can expose you to situations you're not comfortable with, don't use this method." Wikipedia has a lot of editors, and that means that we've got a lot of editors who have been real-world victims of stalking. Sometimes disclosing a possible COI means disclosing your real name, e.g., "I'm the author of that book".

Should we add something like "Do not disclose personal information that could put you at risk in the real world" to the existing "how to disclose" section, or add text from WP:REALNAME? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, though we should also make it clear an undisclosable conflict of interest is a good reason to avoid editing the topic.  Will Beback  talk  07:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

With no objections, I've Y Done this partly. I wasn't sure where or how to say "don't edit if it's unsafe to disclose". I'm not sure that's exactly the right balance, either. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Political affiliation and COI

Perhaps WP:COI should address the question of whether an editor's affiliation to a political party — or the fact of his/her having donated money to a political campaign — does or does not place that editor in a potential conflict of interest with respect to articles about that party, its candidates, or its elected officials. Comments? Richwales (talk · contribs) 04:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I know the case that gave rise to this question, but it's not really relevant. As with many of these issues, I think it all depends (and that's why procedures rarely attempt to precisely define exactly when they apply). If an editor were a staffer for a political party, and most of their edits were concerned with boosting their party and highlighting problems with the opposition, then they would have a clear COI. I would draw the same conclusion if the editor were a very enthusiastic supporter and if the boosting and problem-highlighting were over the top, although the principle is that a believer does not have a COI. If an editor were known to have donated to a political party, their edits might be subjected to scrutiny to ensure that WP:NPOV was being followed, but making donations or generally supporting something is not a COI. Someone repeatedly violating NPOV to support their favored party (or to denigrate the opposition) would have an NPOV problem, and would be regarded as disruptive if they were incapable of fixing their edits, however, it would not be a COI issue. I don't think the guideline needs to mention this issue. Johnuniq (talk) 06:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

We already have a section on "campaigning", yet it doesn't mention politics. It's be logical and fitting to add a few words or a sentence on political supporters and workers. I know of two congressional articles where the staffers keep adding all their bosses' little achievements. When I complain they just reply that everyone does it.

The section on "close relationship" could be a bit clearer too, as it's kind of the catchall for other non-monetary interests.   Will Beback  talk  07:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

And what about "corporate" financial interests? If I'm a shareholder in Amazon stock, should I disclose that before editing the Amazon article? What about if I have a mutual fund that invests in Amazon? In that situation I may not know my interests, so that's probably in the clear (or is it?), but what if I invest in a fund that explicitly states it invests in green technologies? Is that a COI for all related articles? --Icerat (talk) 10:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It would certainly be a conflict of interest if an editor had a lot of money in a small-cap stock and then came to Wikipedia to promote that stock. OTOH, it probably isn't a conflict if an editor has a retirement account that includes a mutual fund which owns shares of ExxonMobil and then comes to write about that company. Like many situations in life, the answer depends on the specifics.   Will Beback  talk  21:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

To be honest our COI guideline only really works in obvious situations. Someone editing his dad's article, or a PR rep editing on behalf of their employer. For more subtle situations where it's not obvious that there's a COI, we can't deal with what we can't see. Maybe my girlfriend left me for a Dallas Cowboys quarterback and I've been trashing their articles ever since. How would anyone know? They wouldn't. So we have to go by what policies like WP:NPOV or WP:BLP suggest. Unless someone decides to mention that they have shares in Amazon, which is unlikely, how would we know what's motivating their efforts to remove negative material from the Amazon article? -- Atama頭 21:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The guideline has to be self-enforced in most cases. That doesn't mean it's non-existent. If an editor is planning to alter a company article in which they have shares with the thought of increasing their wealth, then that's a clear conflict of interest. This guideline should make it clear that such behavior is wrong even if no one else knows the reason for their editing.   Will Beback  talk  21:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. My employer has an article on Wikipedia and I've never edited it. If I did, I doubt anyone would know there was a COI, but it still wouldn't feel right to me. You have a good point. -- Atama頭 22:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

A very large number of wikipedians have this kind of "COI"; because we have articles about most big employers in the anglosphere, and creation of articles in particular areas tends to reflect the demographics of wikipedians. Similarly, those wikipedians who are students (or postgrads or whatever) are very likely to find that there's an article about their institution. However, business articles in particular seem more prone to draw accusations of COI on the talkpage (in my very limited experience) - if one editor wants a negative statement in the article and finds it's been removed by another person, words like "shill" often follow... bobrayner (talk) 23:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I would like to suggest a proposal for an essay relating to the above conversation. In a conversation I had relating to an RFAR, I stated the following:

When involved or politically invested in a candidate or race, I find it best, for WP:COI issues to avoid editing article spaces during that period related to that aforementioned. One can always suggest edits in the talk page, during that period, but anything else IMHO brings up COI and NPOV issues.

—Myself

Such an editing practice suggestion I think would go along way in removing any COI or NPOV issue that may arise. Providing an essay for guidance of actions of fellow editors, IMHO would be very helpful.

That being said, rather than a personal user essay, I was thinking that perhaps such an essay could be under the auspice of a larger community body, as to give it more weight, but without going into guideline or policy level. More of a friendly suggestion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:CANVASS#Appropriate I have placed a pls see template at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). If there are other places where the community suggest I invite other potential interested editors, please let me know. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

As a result of the discussion above, the guideline was amended to include political campaigns. [1] It's not clear to me what else is being proposed here.   Will Beback  talk  07:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Being biased to an article isn't the same as having a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest only occurs when that "interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia". You can prefer one political party over another while being sure that you are fairly handling the topic in order to improve Wikipedia. You cannot be so certain you are acting fairly if it is an article directly about you or family, or if you are financially tied to said article. Considering that editing with a COI is strongly discouraged, and that most editors of political articles have political affiliations it seems it would be inappropriate to add a mention in WP:COI. Editors already know to follow WP:NPOV, and the potential abuse of such an addition to WP:COI to suggest that other editors shouldn't edit articles they have a political affiliation with or an interest in appears to outweigh what would amount to reminding people to be neutral.AerobicFox (talk) 07:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Granted those who edit articles about political individuals or elections tend to be politically minded, and those individuals tend to be politically affiliated in some way shape or form. That being said, editing articles where someone is directly (as in involved in campaigning), or indirectly (as in contributing time, effort (like possibly editing Wikipedia), funds towards), makes it more difficult for an editor to remain neutral in POV, or not to have some form of COI. Although, all editors should AGF that other editors are editing in a neutral manor, or have no conflict of interest in editing a political individual's article and/or related election article, as an essay of guidance, perhaps it could be suggested that those who maybe directly or indirectly involved in a campaign should not edit the article space, and take edit proposals to those articles talk page, as to avoid the possibility of violating NPOV or COI. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that what the guideline already says?   Will Beback  talk  21:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

In a way it does, but perhaps further articulation regarding political individuals and their related races maybe helpful for those who might otherwise violate both COIN & NPOV unknowingly. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Could you explain the concept you wrote about above? "editing articles where someone is ... indirectly (as in contributing ... effort (like possibly editing Wikipedia)...), makes it more difficult for an editor to remain neutral in POV, or not to have some form of COI." It sounds like you're saying that the act of editing an article related to a campaign makes an editor biased about that campaign. While I understand the general idea that being involved in a campaign naturally indicates a bias, just editing an article probably does not. Otherwise it'll be hard to maintain those articles.   Will Beback  talk  05:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe that someone who is involved in a political campaign directly, as in being a part of a campaign, whether staff, or volunteer towards, have a definite COI issue.

Furthermore, those editors who are indirectly involved in a political campaign, as in contributing funds, acting to advance a candidate or a position in referendum, or some form of time that does any of the former, would possibly mean that the editor may have a COI issue.

Therefore, it is best for the editor to not directly edit the article space, but to propose edits in the talk space of the article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

You just have to be sure that your first edit is perfect, and that the subject never changes. In seriousness, I would reject the idea that contributing (economically) to a campaign necessarily makes one COI, or even that it makes one any more or less likely to edit non-neutrally, compared to a person who doesn't contribute but holds equally as strong views on the subject. If there is a line to be drawn here, it should be somewhere closer to volunteering. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

No editor can be perfect, we are fallible after all. That being said, if someone contributes (economically) towards a campaign, someone has invested a monetary interest in a side in an election and/or referendum. In doing so some has created the interest, and therefore is a not a non-involved party, and thus may have a COI when editing articles that relate to the aforementioned campaign.

Those who do not contribute financially, and not directly involved in the campaign, may be partisan, and may violate WP:NPOV, but there is no vested interest that comes along with volunteering, being part of campaign staff, and/or contributing. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree completely. Contribution to a campaign financially is essentially "voting with your wallet". I don't see it as being any more of a COI than someone who voted for or plans to vote for a candidate. If spending money on something is a COI, then anyone who buys a product has a COI at that product's page. I just don't see that being a reasonable assumption. On the other hand, I'd say a person who volunteers their time to a campaign may have a COI, because it is far too easy to see Wikipedia as an extension of the campaign you're working for (whether for pay or otherwise). -- Atama頭 19:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Would the above user agree that funding a campaign is contributing in a meaningful way towards it, and provide some connection to it?

At what point does an editors contribution to a campaign alter the individual from being one of hundreds, if not hundreds of thousands of possibly effected population, to being a significant financial supporter of a campaign? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

If someone was a major donor who donated millions then sure, but something like a $5 donation is not a conflict of interest unless you put $5 above the quality of Wikipedia. There is already a "financial motivation" of that sort for most articles. I have invested money on Nintendo consoles and Nintendo games then do I have a conflict of interest on Nintendo related articles? I think I have potential bias, which this is not the article to discuss that on.AerobicFox (talk) 00:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Would the above editor not agree that there is a difference between owning a product, and investing in a company that produces said product? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't agree that the analogies are relevant at all. Donating money to a political campaign entails that you want said person to win the campaign. It does not entail that you gain a personal, direct benefit from that person winning. In fact, if it did, that wouldn't be donating, it would be bribery. So, I would say that someone who has bribed a politician has a COI. Someone who has donated money does not. Again, it's not so much that donating money cause or doesn't cause a COI--it's that it causes no more of a COI than simply being a vocal/staunch believer in a particular campaigners. In fact, I would argue that donating to a political campaign is not fundamentally different than paying money to join a celebrity's fan club. Such a person may well be unable to edit neutrally ("True Fans" are some of the worst offenders in POV editing), but they certainly have no "interest" which causes them "conflict". Qwyrxian (talk) 01:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Cannot an individual, group of individuals, or organization not donate towards a campaign, thus supporting it, with the goal of gaining influence/interest within said campaign without bribing a campaign?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is interest seen as donation in millions? Why not hundreds or thousands? Not all races are million or billion dollar races. Most are in the tens or hundreds of thousands, for more local or small regional races. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I don't think that you can make a set rule. One person might see a $100 campaign donation as a routine, even forgettable action, that's merely part of doing business. Another might see a $100 donation as an incredibly significant connection. Similarly, volunteering for a campaign could mean that you're a wholly dedicated, completely biased person looking for any opportunity to exploit the slightest advantage for your candidate—but it could also mean that you're a student looking for "community service volunteer hours" to burnish your college application or meet a school-imposed graduation requirement, or a teen tagging along with his partisan parents, but who personally couldn't care less about it either way. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

My initial proposal was not for a rule, in the form of Policy or Guideline, more of an essay, a suggestion, but not a personal essay, but one with some community backing/input/weight. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I've given money to campaigns I knew or cared little about because a friend asked or because I wanted to get rid of a solicitor at the door, and other trivial reasons. I was once involved in an organization that endorsed a politician and we were asked to phone bank on his behalf. I gave him a little time for the sake of the organization, though I wasn't a very good proselytizer because I didn't know much about him and didn't I particularly support him either. On the other hand, I've done nothing to help some candidates or causes that I've felt more strongly about because they were in another state or district. So it's hard to correlate degree of interest with small contributions of time or money.

We've had people come here saying that they have no conflicts of interest when writing about their employers, their friends and colleagues, or their spiritual leaders. I think they were probably wrong in most of those cases. (Atama may disagree). But it's hard to say that those are very different from supporting a political candidate. I think we should take a stricter line on COI, but it's essentially impossible to do given anonymous editing. Instead we have to appeal to the individual editors sense of fairness and judge them by their edits, not their motivations.   Will Beback  talk  00:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the first line of defense against COI or NPOV edits are on the editors themselves; that being said, perhaps such an essay as I am proposing, possibly linked on the top of the talk page with links to other relevant essays and guidelines that might be of concern/interest to those articles that are related to a political candidate or political campaign, might be helpful towards stopping such possible negative edits in the first place.

More or less, it's like any other signage, it's meant to deter, or possibly delay such actions. It cannot detect or deny such actions if the editors decide to carry out the actions regardless of the notice. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree that someone writing about an employer, friend or colleague, or spiritual leader has a COI, I think those are very clear cases of a COI. I wouldn't want to ban or revert people solely due to that COI, but any of those situations are definitely a COI. But donating to a campaign? That's a fairly routine thing, at least in the United States (I have no idea about other countries). I'd definitely disagree with an essay suggesting that a campaign donation constitutes a COI. -- Atama頭 18:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Even figuring out exactly what constitutes a "campaign" might be complicated. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

May I suggest that a campaign would be any group or candidate that would have to file with the Federal Election Commission, State Election Division (Like the Sec of State here in California), or its other global equivalents.

I was not thinking of banning individuals from editing articles based on COI; however as I suggest above, perhaps we should suggest that individuals who have a COI in a campaign, be given notice within the talk page through a template with linked relevant guidelines and essays (such as the one I am proposing), that editing articles that they may have a COI in or where POV editing may occur, is not suggested, and that suggesting edits via the talk page maybe a better alternative.

Also, perhaps donating at a sufficient level which requires a campaign to publicly disclose the donation, such as in the United States, would be large enough that it is not "routine". --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

At a federal level, that's $200. I know that some states and municipalities have lower thresholds. I'm not sure if lots of millionaires edit Wikipedia, but for many people even $200 is not a significant expense.

What would be the point of setting a definite level of involvement? We don't have an effective enforcement mechanism and this is just a guideline anyway. Better to address editor's motives, which only they can know. An essay that says, "if you came to Wikipedia primarily to promote or attack a candidate or campaign then you probably have a COI" might make more sense than one that says, "You have a COI if you gave $200 or more to a federal candidate, $50 to a state candidate, or if you contributed more than two hours to a campaign." Also, rather than focusing on COI alone, an essay on best practices regarding political candidates and campaigns might do well to address issues of NPOV, sourcing, and other relevant guidelines and policies as they apply to that type of article. In the next 18 months there will be a crop of new editors who come to Wikipedia in part due to their interest in campaigns. How best can we help them while protecting the project?   Will Beback  talk  22:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with what Will Beback has stated regarding the NPOV issues of editors who are primarily here to edit in a positive way for a candidate/campaign, and negatively towards anything related to the opposing candidate(s)/campaign; which as mentioned will become an increasing concern. Perhaps a Task Force under WikiProject Politics or elsewhere should be formed for major races, in order to watch articles related to those races for POV editing. If drawn from a wide range (left, center, right) of editors, it should be able to develop a fair and NPOV team of editors to ensure the issue is squashed before it becomes a major concern.

However, at what point does editing in such a manor not only involve POV issues, but COI as well?

I had mentioned the FEC threshold only because it is an established bar of financial commitment. Staff (voluntary or paid) of a campaign brings obvious COI issues; but most campaigns are largely made up of those not listed in such directories, and often some of the most zealous supporters are not connected to the campaigns at all in an official connection. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest within Wiki's rules itself

I would like to address the conflict of interest within Wiki's rules in and of itself. I propose the rules favour status quo. The rules are framed as to omit self serving interest but that is really just a summery that special interest groups historical information is not welcome, and that the only welcome information is that which supports the current establishment. this is in and of itself a special interest and self serving. Of course you could easily dismiss this as a circular argument but it is worth addressing as a completely non-nuetral point of view. For instance it may be accepted that the US won the war of 1812. Now as a Canadian it serves my interest to say that the war of 1812 was won by the Canadian's thus excluding me from the argument. A simple example but shows favour to the US and status quo perspective and excludes all argument. Deathmolor (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I also want to propose the obvious, that COI section is a cautionary note to conceal your interest. I propose it is impossible to have no interest at all. If your editing then you have interest. The shear act of editing is an act of interest. Deathmolor (talk) 15:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Not really.

Yes: The English Wikipedia's rules are set up to enforce the status quo in articles. "No consensus = no change" is the order of the day. We do this to stop edit warring, not to promote some sort of global hegemony. The rule is the same no matter what the content of the page is. If the page says that Canada was the sole victor of the War of 1812, then the page will keep saying that unless and until there is a consensus to say something else.

On the second point, this is often true with occasional editors, but not always. Very few people fix spelling and punctuation errors because they are deeply committed to the subject. I fairly often edit pages despite having zero interest in or prior knowledge of the subject. I've edited more than twenty thousand different pages on Wikipedia. It would be difficult to support a case that I'm significantly interested in one thousand subjects, much less every page that I've ever edited. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

GOYES - Green Organization of Youth for Environment and Society

Good day,

I'm Jerome Batasin-in, founder of GOYES, and I would like to make a page in Wikipedia for my organization, but i don't know how...would anyone here guide me? th

Thank you for the time, and God bless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctisoyz (talk • contribs) 03:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

So basically, "do nothing"?

Resolved: – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 08:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I read through the page and didn't really find anything regarding my situation. I believe I have found a Hollywood personage (not necessarily a celebrity) editing their own article. None of the additions are sourced, some of the edits are allowed, and some are neutral, in a sense, but still possibly puff up the article a little bit. I could tag the article with a template at the top, but out of privacy of the person, I wouldn't be able to add the user warning on their talk page, because suddenly their privacy no longer exists (anyone could make the connection through my edit history). Their edits are very few and far between, I suppose, in comparison to other potential COI editors. However, the edits are 90% on their article. Finally, what little proof I may have of the COI is from a minor edit made on an image description located in Commons. I'm not sure how to proceed, or if I should simply do nothing. It would be so much easier to just spill the beans, I guess, but WP:COI asks us not to. :D – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 06:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It's easy to skip over the boxes at the top, but the last of those is what to do: visit WP:COIN to discuss issues (and such a discussion should be as vague as you suggest above). Create a new section where the article title is the new section name, and include a link to the article, and a brief description much as what you have done above. Johnuniq (talk) 07:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Wonderful, thank you. And that info is mentioned in one of the paragraphs below. It's a long page, I didn't read it word for word, and apparently I missed the two times I was told what to do! I appreciate your help. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 08:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: Prohibit telling editors that COI is prohibited

I frequently see occasions in which editors, especially newcomers, are told that COI editing is prohibited. This policy and its attendant discussion make it very clear that while COI editing may be discouraged, it is not prohibited. While I'm no friend to COI editing, I'm also no friend to deception, even if it is for a good purpose. I'd like to propose changing the last sentence of the opening paragraph of the "Editors who may have a conflict of interest" section to read as follows:

While significantly Significantly biased edits in mainspace are forbidden, telling an editor that they are prohibited from creating an article or making a particular edit because of a conflict of interest is also forbidden.

Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I think your proposal is going a bit too far. It almost sounds as if intended to outlaw topic bans for problematic COI editors. But I like the general direction, as I am seeing this problem all the time. Hans Adler 15:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

No, if anything we should do more to discourage COI editing, as its one of the greatest threats to our integrity. We should crack down harder on this with topic bans, etc, where appropriate. Note that having an interest in a subject is not the same as having a conflict of interest (where one's interest comes into conflict with ones ability to write a neutral, factual article on the subject). ThemFromSpace 15:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I, frankly, concur with your first sentence, Them, but until we do that, it is dishonest and bitey to discourage COI editors by lying to them. As for it interfering with topic bans, Hans, it must be remembered that those bans do not result from the COI or the POV, per se, but from those editors' persistent use of WP for promotion. It's not at all improper to tell an editor that using WP for promotion is forbidden, but to tell them that they can't make a COI edit is a lie and to allow them to say the second to mean the first merely confuses the issue. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a fine line really. I concur with both TransporterMan and Hans, to a degree. I've actually seen administrators block editors citing COI, that's how far it has gotten at times. But we need to also make it clear that we don't ignore COIs either. What should be clear is this... A COI on its own is okay. Disruption is not good. A COI + disruption is really not good.

We have a COI noticeboard for two reasons. First, for editors who have problems with someone who has or may have a COI, they can come there for advice and possibly action (a block, a ban, at least a stern warning). Secondly, editors who have a COI and want to edit without causing trouble come there for advice too. We don't want to drive away those kinds of people. I remember a case where a person who worked for a railroad museum actually took his museum's article from a stub to Good Article status, and then went to the noticeboard to ask if they should continue to edit the article, because they had just found the COI guideline. Of course I told him he should, and if anyone gave him grief to personally let me know. -- Atama頭 16:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

What kills Wikipedia's credibility is biased editing (whether "pro" or "con"), not having the "wrong" person editing. IMO we—meaning the community, and also meaning as written on this page—aren't doing a very good job of communicating what we want. This might be because we want several different things:

• We have small number of people who really shouldn't make any changes to pages at all (simple example: if someone actually tried to murder you, then you should never edit the perpetrator's bio, full stop). In these "massive COI" cases, we're not necessarily willing to wait for proof that the individual isn't unusually high-minded—so high-minded that he can spend his real life trying to put someone in jail, and his wikilife laying out nothing but purely unbiased facts.
• We have many more people who have a conflict of interest, but aren't abusing the conflict of interest. We actually want the sales guy at some company to read the article, realize that there are serious factual errors (e.g., we say that it runs on batteries, and it doesn't), and to fix those errors. This is obviously helpful, and should be encouraged.
• We have an unfortunate number of people who abuse their conflict of interest. This takes many forms, from adding never-published information to "accidentally-on-purpose forgetting" to mention the sources that they disagree with, to seriously promotional (or borderline libelous) editing. Some of them are aware of what they're doing, and others honestly, in good faith, thought that Wikipedia was a great place to promote their business (or trash the politician they hate, or whatever). These people have earned their topic bans and should live with the consequences. NB, though, that it's the bias editing motivated by the COI, not the COI by itself, that earned that topic ban.

I'm not sure how we could explain this easily. We don't want to empower the COI-abusers, any more than we want to discourage the helpful COI-holders. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the honourable Hans Adler; I like the direction this proposal is going in, but I think the initial wording is slightly too unwieldy & strict.

The best kind of new editor - the editor who actually wants to improve articles rather than vandalising, or spamming, or correcting a hundred articles to fit some national/ethnic/religious Truth - is quite likely to start working on subjects with which they're very closely familiar. These above all are the editors whom we should avoid biting, so overly assertive messages about COI being prohibited are quite harmful. Apart from the effect on newbies, there are sometimes editors who don't work well with others, and feel that the best way to get their way with article content is to say "You are obviously close to this subject because you undo my edits. Too close. You should therefore be disqualified from editing..." bobrayner (talk) 00:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

As I am not sure that everybody in this discussion is aware of it: If you are the subject of a (BLP) article, there are situations in which it is perfectly fine to edit the article, and they arise quite often. This is policy. See WP:BLPEDIT. To quote:

[...] Although Wikipedia discourages people from writing about themselves, removal of unsourced or poorly sourced material is acceptable. When an anonymous editor blanks all or part of a BLP, this might be the subject attempting to remove problematic material. Edits like this by subjects should not be treated as vandalism; instead, the subject should be invited to explain their concerns. [Later on in advice to subjects:] Very obvious errors can be fixed quickly, including by yourself.

It is extremely unlikely that these rules will be changed in favour of completely outlawing editing of BLP articles by the subjects themselves. The reason is that avoiding BLP violations is more important than uniformity of our internal processes, and since we don't ask subjects whether we may write about them, we cannot expect that they are familiar with our culture. They see a problem, they try to fix it in whatever way seems to make sense to them, and while correcting them and helping them understand our policies if they make a mistake, they should never be met with hostility for this. And we can't require them to go through OTRS for every little removal of undue or improperly sourced incorrect information. OTRS has enough to do as it is.

And even for things that are not related to BLP: Doing minor or common sense changes to an article to which you are very close only becomes a problem for one of these two reasons:

• You misjudge the situation. It's actually not a minor or common sense change.
• Someone else believes that all COI editing is evil and must be rooted out, and overreacts. Hans Adler 06:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I also think that some people over-represent our COI policies, trying to push out people with COI. In fact, I've even seen a number of times where one editor tells another "You have a COI, you shouldn't even be discussing this on the article's talk page" despite the fact that this policy specifically tells them to do just that. I do agree with Hans and others that the proposed wording is too strong, but that something should be said to clarify that the policy does not prohibit people from editing things they have a COI with; rather, it's more of a warning that, if you have a COI, you're more likely to fall victim to POV or OR editing, even when you don't intend to. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggested path forward:

Why don't we figure out how to update {{Uw-coi}}? I suspect that more people will read that than will read this whole page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I've updated {{Uw-coi}}. The change is here. I tried to avoid wikijargon. Also, I found what may be part of our ongoing educational problem: in the username-switched text, it actually claimed a complete "proscription" against editors with a COI editing articles on subjects connected to them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

 Like That's a great change. -- Atama頭 22:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Any exception for BLPs?

Inspired by this situation [2]

Here's a situation where an editor with a conflict of interest was removing some dubious material from the standpoint of WP:BLPNAME - our article on a living economist was giving the real names of his ex-wife and children, who are not notable for any reason other than their relation to the subject. A user claiming to be the ex-wife was removing the real names, and another user who happened upon it was reverting the changes, citing WP:COI. Ultimately, it was decided that the content should be removed.

Since we tend to assign BLP a heavy weight when there is an appearance of a contradiction between it and another policy, is it worth it to mention that we're going to be lenient when the subject of an article (or someone close to them) is removing defamatory or private information per WP:BLP? --causa sui (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

No exceptions for BLPs, but no, COI doesn't "prohibit" anything. It's just a guideline with advice for people who have conflicts of interest and others who come across people who have a COI. I don't think it's ever appropriate to revert someone solely citing COI. -- Atama頭 20:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the problems stemmed from two issues: (1) the reverting editor was reverting just because it was a COI and (2) the reverting editor didn't think it was a clear BLP violation. So to make it slightly less sympathetic for this policy, suppose the contested content is unambiguously defamatory and poorly cited, and someone is reverting for no better reason than that the person removing it has a conflict of interest. Is your answer still "no"? --causa sui (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd still say no. Policies like WP:BLP, WP:HARASS, WP:COPYVIO, WP:NLT, WP:3RR, and so on, clearly trump a guideline like COI. BLP isn't special in that regard. WP:OUTING is a probably the policy (well, portion of a policy) that comes into conflict with our COI guideline the most, to the extent that we have to remind editors at every turn (in this guideline, at WP:COIN, etc.). BLP violations are serious and should be given priority over COI concerns, but again so do many other things. -- Atama頭 22:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, what I'm saying is that I wouldn't be in favor of altering the text of our guideline to be specific about BLPs. That's all that I'm objecting to. I'm not saying that your concerns are unfounded, obviously the situation you describe was just wrong, and for both reasons that you cited. Just look at the section right above this, where we discussed how some people are overzealous in their attempts to "enforce" our COI guideline. Recently I saw another administrator block someone simply for having a COI, and no other reason; of course, that block was controversial, and was later overturned, but it shows how far this problem can get. -- Atama頭 22:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough - we wouldn't want to introduce instruction creep, and in the original situation, everyone seemed to grok intuitively that the BLP problems were more important than COI. So I may have a solution looking for a problem here. Thanks. --causa sui (talk) 23:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Case study/example

I submit User:Mdrozdowski and Talk:Overture Networks as a case-example of the ideal way to handle editing when in a conflict of interest. This case could be used to further improve improve WP:COI or other related pages by linking readers to it as a real-world example. It would be wise to ask the user first though, if they mind being used as an example. -- œ^™ 15:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

See also:

• User:CanalPark - Monitor Group
• User:Eclipsed - Alex Konanykhin

Perhaps we should create a page where editors who follow best practices can 'sign-up'. Ocaasi (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I just read through Overture Networks, and it really is a model of well-behaved people trying to do the write thing. I'd name not only the PR person but also the Wikipedians as model examples. Too often, when I see someone like her trying to play it straight, the Wikipedians react terribly. (Of course, I usually see them because they've ended up at COIN for the third or fourth time, so my sample set is clearly biased, but it is discouraging to me anyway.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Behavioral guideline or Content guideline?

This page says Conflict of Interest is a "behavioral guideline" but the Template:Wikipedia_policies_and_guidelines lists it as a "content guideline." Which should change? I've actually been considering this a problem for around a month, so I think I'll follow WP:SOFIXIT. Feel free to discuss/revert. Pdebonte (talk) 13:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a behavioral guideline. It defines what a conflict of interest is (or does its best to), gives advice on how to avoid difficulty editing with a COI, and how to handle an editor with a COI. That's all behavioral. Nowhere in the guideline does it discuss what sort of content should and should not go into an article, or what kind of articles should or should not be included in Wikipedia, only suggestions on who should and shouldn't be editing the content. -- Atama頭 16:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Endorsement from WMF

Wikimedia Foundation head Sue Gardner recently addressed the American Library Association. Afterwards she took questions:

• Asked by an audience member if Wikipedia had problems with people contributing self-serving material, Gardner said, “They are vigilant in their defense of editorial integrity,” so they are the look-out for self-promotion, bias, and puffery. There are lots of safeguards, she noted.[3]

I take that as an endorsement from the top official of the governing body for the strong enforcement of this guideline.   Will Beback  talk  20:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

It would perhaps be more appropriate to read it as an endorsement of current practice, which many people do not believe is accurately described with the words "strong enforcement". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't equate "vigilant" with a lack of strong enforcement. However, it's possible that Gardner is not familiar with the details of the issue. Perhaps we should inquire directly?   Will Beback  talk  22:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe. She might also have been referring to our enforcement of things like WP:SPAM, WP:BLP, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. COI problems usually involve one or more of those other issues anyway, and I think we are vigilant about them. But either way, I'm a bit concerned here, I wonder if the WMF has a stronger stance against COI than the community does? -- Atama頭 23:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I've posted a note to the foundation-l mailing list asking if the WMF has any position on the issue.   Will Beback  talk  23:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

No response (it might have never been posted), and no reply when I wrote directly to her.   Will Beback  talk  00:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

This guideline is misquoted about 80% of the time, so it needs tweaking to reduce that

About 80% of the time I see this guideline referred to, is misquoted. Specifically, they refer to all situaitons where there is an interest which is a potential wp:coi as a "conflict of interest". I see this most frequently in the context of biting newcomers. The bolded definition in the lead of this guideline says it well: "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.", but other parts of the guideline sort of conflict with that and IMHO should be tweaked. North8000 (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

What parts of the guideline conflict with the definition, and how could the guideline be changed to make the definition clearer to readers? -- Atama頭 00:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd recommend:

• adding one sentence after the main one. "So, a relationship with the subject becomes a conflict of interest if it causes this to occur.
• Each place the wording refers to such a relationship as a conflict of interest I'd change it to refer to it as a potential conflict of interest.

The latter might be easier if I just put them in with an invite to not hesitate to revert me if someone does not agree, I.E. semi-BRD. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree at all. Your first suggestion is redundant, and your second suggestion is incorrect. This guideline doesn't apply to "potential" conflicts of interest, it applies to confirmed conflicts of interest. It sounds to me like you've run into people who aren't following this guideline properly, and that's always going to happen. I deal with it constantly at WP:COIN and elsewhere. Changing this guideline won't help, no more than changing WP:BLP is going to prevent people from violating it. -- Atama頭 02:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

You are correct on all counts, which means you are in the 10% of people who will properly understand and quote this policy as it is currently writen. North8000 (talk) 02:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you seen "Proposal: Prohibit telling editors that COI is prohibited" above, by chance? There was a discussion here very similar to what you are talking about now. There were changes made then that tried to make it clearer that this guideline isn't a bludgeon to use against people. Maybe you can extrapolate something from that discussion. -- Atama頭 03:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. That deals with more complex issues. I'm thinking about a more basic misreading, which usually goes like this:

• Newbie: talking about the XYZ Museum article: I work at the the XYZ Musuem, and was thinking about editing the article......,
  
• Mis-Quoter: Thanks for disclosing that you have a Conflict of interest, please follow wp:coi accordingly

Sincerely North8000 (talk) 14:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Eh, well, that's not really a misquote. It's not very helpful, but if someone is an employee at a museum, then they would have a COI at the museum's article. My employer has an article on Wikipedia, and I believe I could edit the article neutrally, however I stay away just in case. I certainly consider myself to have a COI at the article. Even under our guideline, I could edit the article if I wanted (with caution) but I'd rather just avoid the issue, there are millions of other articles I could work on. But really, what is the mis-quote, and aside from not being very encouraging, what is the problem with the exchange you showed above? -- Atama頭 18:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Because, under the excellent definition given in this article ("Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.") being an employee is not per se a COI, it's a COI ONLY IF if advancing that museum's interests is more important to them than advancing the aims of Wikipedia. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

That's the basis for the COI guideline. It's not a "test" we use to determine whether or not a person has a COI. We don't ask people if they care more about their employer, or relative, or friend, or themselves, than Wikipedia. That would be pointless to ask. We assume it, because any reasonable person is going to care more about a subject they are close to than Wikipedia. So yes, being employed by a subject is considered a conflict of interest. Your strict interpretation, if accepted by the community, would render this guideline useless. How could we enforce it? I see now, though, why you think there are contradictions, if you are using that interpretation.

So to clarify, we assume a conflict of interest when an editor is closely related to the subject. Our reaction to that conflict of interest depends entirely on the editor's actions. If an editor changes their employer's article to remove all negative material, then that editor would likely be warned and could face either a block or topic ban. If, instead, that editor adds useful information to the article, and uses sources for anything that might be challenged, then that editor's contributions are welcome despite the COI. A COI isn't intended to be a red letter, we don't block or ban solely based on a COI, and we don't forbid editors from editing where they have a COI. All that a determination of a COI does is alert people to a potential problem, and help explain an editor's motives when they are editing disruptively. -- Atama頭 20:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it's complicated to explain.

Most of the people who misunderstand this are operating from a notion of the "statutory" conflict of interest: for example, Atama absolutely, unavoidably, by definition, has a "conflict of interest" with respect to his employer's article—even if there is no actual "conflict" between Wikipedia's best interest and the employer's best interest.

In practice, Wikipedia doesn't care if someone has a conflict of interest of this sort—if, for example, Atama decides to improve something at the article about his employer. Wikipedia cares very much if someone abuses a conflict of interest—if, for example, Atama decides to turn the article into a paean about his wonderful boss. We care about conflicts of interest only when there is an actual conflict in the interests—when what is in Wikipedia's best interest is not what is in Atama's best interest.

I have found it useful to differentiate between "close connection to the subject" and a "conflict of interest". This captures some of the "potential COI" nuance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I generally differentiate between having a COI, and having a COI problem. But it's all semantics. -- Atama頭 21:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess there are situations which present a high likelihood of a COI. I think that #2 - #8 of the examples given cover the ones where there is a high likelihood of a COI. (#1 is a whole 'nother discussion). (incidentally I don't think that my museum employee example is one of those) This is getting complicated, maybe I should withdraw my suggestion. But keep in mind that in the real world, COI is a very negative, accusatory term, often applying to misconduct rather than than the situation. So, in the real world, COI IS usually a scarlet letter, (same for a COI per the main sentence here, which is allowing those interests to override proper editing) but the above says that people can be branded with that term merely for a relationship that exists. North8000 (talk) 21:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the problem is just the term "conflict of interest" altogether. In the real world, a conflict of interest goes hand-in-hand with such things as corruption, cronyism, etc. Maybe a better term would be "editing with a close connection" or "ECC". It means the same thing (as Wikipedia defines it) but it's less pejorative in a real-world sense. Unfortunately COI is such a common term on Wikipedia, I think a new one would be hard for people to accept or get used to. -- Atama頭 22:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe the terminology could be refined, implementing that main sentence. Using that as a definition, the 7 example situations (#2-#8) are probable conflicts of interest, and other milder situations (like #1) are possible COI's. North8000 (talk) 00:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

On #1, I often thought what if Einstein edited Wikipedia on Relativity. If he didn't cite his books (or books of his lesser competitors) he'd be violating wp:v, if he did, he'd get the COI moniker. We'd have to kick him out!  :-) North8000 (talk) 00:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I wish that was more joke than truth, see WP:EXPERT which never got past the essay stage. It's a constant complaint that Wikipedia isn't friendly to subject matter experts, and it has a lot to do with our policy of letting people edit anonymously either as an IP or online handle (anyone can claim to be an expert in this or that regardless of actual qualifications) and the attempt to be egalitarian (imagine how far Einstein would get if he needed to gain consensus with skeptical physicist colleagues before being able to publish his theories). Citizendium was set up specifically to address this problem, but it would be difficult to call it successful. -- Atama頭 00:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Einstein should cite his papers under WP:CITESELF.

But it is unfortunately common for published experts to get blocked or harassed by people who don't know (or care) what the actual guideline says. I've certainly seen people try to run off bona fide experts, in some cases apparently because they find the presence of an expert to be terribly inconvenient for their POV pushing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I wish that editing by Einsteins was the problem. From my experience, almost no one on Wikipedia has an actual conflict of interest. No matter how close editors are to the subject's they're writing about, they still tend to deny having any conflict. In the rare case that they acknowledge a COI, they will probably say they are following the guideline closely and editing neutrally (and if looks any different that's just because the article was non-neutral before so the apparent bias in their editing is just part of bringing the article back to NPOV).   Will Beback  talk  07:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Well then I would think that giving shabby treatment to people who are up-front and declare a relationship that is a potential COI would tend to make that problem worse. North8000 (talk) 10:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

And unfortunately, many of them do get shabby treatment. But many still disclose a COI; there's someone at COIN right now who is declaring a professional connection to Bloomberg. As he's clearly trying to do the right thing, I hope that we respond with fairness and friendliness. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

We should treat those who voluntarily disclose and follow the guideline with all due respect. They are a rare breed.   Will Beback  talk  19:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I try to go out of my way to thank people who disclose their conflict of interest, even when they are otherwise being disruptive. We definitely should encourage it. -- Atama頭 20:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure which is quoting vs. misquoting the policy, but I usually say that it's a potential COI, rather than a COI, and recommend following the guidelines applicable to a COI just to be safe and avoid concerns etc. I usually say the same where it appears that such a relationship exists but the editor has not admitted it. North8000 (talk) 21:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Delicate issue

Imagine I was the PhD student of a professor. A colleague had told me about our boss having our student assistants making edits at wikipedia. As I had been an editor here for many years I found this information alarming, told my colleague, but he didn't know much about wikipedia rules and we both didn't exactly know what the edits were about. Some days later I checked and found my boss, using his own IP address, had entered information here regarding his own research, adding a reference to an article that was only published in a working paper series managed by himself, so no peer-review, no real scientific source that should be mentioned here, especially not by the author himself. The student assistants had added significant amounts of text to articles related to one of his research topics. All with single purpose IP accounts. All but one: An account that was also used to alter an article of one of his colleagues. That article looked like his own website: written like by a PR agency, including a long list of co-authors "from all continents", including amazon links in the main text to his books (thus in a wikipedia list of articles that include spam), even including his linkedin page. As my boss was away and I was on vacation I couldn't talk to him, which obviously would have been the best way to deal with such things. I wanted to set up wikis for my research and felt very alarmed by all this and really didn't want to be related to anything like this. So I wrote to my boss about wikipedia rules regarding conflict of interest, showed him where to find them, listed the edits that were inappropriate and why and showed him how easily it could be found out that it was him and our student assistants who did the changes. I also wrote to him that I found this entirely unnecessary and that I did not want to work for someone who did things like that. And I wrote to that colleague, stressing I did not want to harrass him but to stop him from bringing harm on himself. Reply from my boss was nothing he had done was wrong, and I didn't have to work for him because under such circumstances he wouldn't renew my contract. When I asked another professor to be my new supervisor and I told him about all this he told me I had shown backbone. But when we arranged a meeting with both of them to sort out how to arrange the transition my first supervisor said he had just changed his own address in an article, obviously nothing he had done was wrong and the new supervisor to be seemed to have forgotten about backbone and stuff. I then found another supervisor, only finance was still unclear. As I had my own conflict of interest now I did not alter any text related to my former boss, just welcomed the single purpose accounts and pointed them to the conflict of interest policy. The article of the colleague I altered several weeks later according to the policies and it remained like that until now. What else should I do? COI-issue (talk) 22:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little confused from the last few sentences regarding the state of the article. From a Wikipedia standpoint, the end goal is that the article quality get to the point where it has not been degraded by a COI. North8000 (talk) 15:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The one professor's article is now clear of obvious violations of policy but would probably benefit from neutrailty check by someone else. With the other professor it's not his own article but ones related to his research. I don't want to delete the inappropriate source myself and others will not note that the author and the publisher are identical and it's thus not a peer-reviewed notable scientific source but just self-praise. And if you don't check who wrote the article paragraphs you might think the edits are neutral instead of self-praise. On the other hand, I don't particularly like the idea of exposing the conflict of interest. COI-issue (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I want to be totally honest and straight with you here. There's Wikipedia and then there's real life. I have spent years trying to help with the site, trying to help people and make things better overall. But I would never prioritize Wikipedia over the real world. If I had to risk my academic or financial career over concerns that a Wikipedia page might be too promotional, I wouldn't bother. I believe in this site but there are things far more important in life. That's one reason why we have the COI guideline in the first place. The line that says, "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest" should not be interpreted as an implication that advancing the aims of Wikipedia is always more important than your own interests. It simply means that if outside interests are more important, that you might be in conflict with other editors here at Wikipedia. That conflict could lead to you getting blocked or banned, in extreme circumstances. But really, while I admire the conviction you have to stand up for your ethics, don't antagonize your professors over it. I love Wikipedia but it's not worth that. If you think you could get away with anonymously warning people that COI violations are occurring, go for it, but I would advise against confronting people in the real world about it. -- Atama頭 16:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. As you may imagine, other stuff had happened before about which I had not been happy, so I was not entirely unhappy about the break. Plus, as I wrote that I plan to set up wikis for my research, I saw absolutely no way to continue with an supervisor who everyone could easily find out to abuse the one wiki that everyone knows for self-praise. What would people think about me then?

But this is not the issue here anyway. My question is how should I proceed with the remaining inappropriate edits? COI-issue (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You can report the info to the COI noticeboard for assistance, that's what it's there for. A number of people watch that page and love to help out with COI problems. You can link back to this page to save the trouble of retyping all of that stuff again. -- Atama頭 18:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Problem is, if I reveal the edits, I also reveal the identity of the editor, which should usually not be done. COI-issue (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:OUTING certainly trumps WP:COI, yes. In which case it's too late to really do anything. If other policies or guidelines like WP:SPAM or WP:NPOV or WP:BLP were being broken, those could have been reported without risking an outing of the editor, but now you're kind of stuck. If you report it now, it would easy to put 2 and 2 together by looking at your request here. If I were to (hypothetically) say in one venue that I know that an editor is editing their own biographical article by whitewashing it, then in another venue I complain that a specific editor was whitewashing a specific biographical article, and those were my only contributions to Wikipedia, then people would quickly see that I've revealed that the editor is the subject of the biography. You could possibly skirt the issue by emailing the info instead, keeping it off-wiki, which is often done to address sensitive issues, but in doing so you have to rely on the assistance of that particular person rather than the community at large. -- Atama頭 20:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The mere fact that he cited his own paper isn't hugely important: WP:CITESELF actually permits people to cite their own paper (within limits). What matters is that the working paper probably oughtn't have been cited in the first place, by anyone. I'd suggest that it be tagged ({{Better source}}, maybe?) or a note left for a relevant WikiProject or at a content WP:noticeboard (WP:NPOVN, for example, if the tendency is to overemphasize his work). Such a note need only identify the content that concerns you. The story about how the edits apparently came to be made is not critical: either the changes made Wikipedia worse, in which case they need fixing (no matter who made them or why), or they didn't, in which case they don't need fixing (again, no matter who made them or why). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. @Atama: I set up this second account only in order to clarify this issue here and won't use it any further. As I think you can guess from what I wrote the two professors are entirely uncooperative and unwilling to admit any wrongdoing. @WhatamIdoing: a tag like "better source" is a good idea, even though I think as long as it's not properly published and no one else has properly published the information it should not be part of an encyclopedia at all.

Making one's student assistants edit wikipedia is a sneaky kind of sock-puppeteering but that again cannot be revealed without revealing identities. NPOV in my eyes has been broken by overemphasizing their work, I guess I can point this out and point to the inappropriate working paper at a content noticeboard. I don't think I should do any content changes myself with my normal account. COI-issue (talk) 22:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

If you felt like emailing me the article name I could take a look at it. Or, if that is still too direct, somebody else who is willing to take a look at it email me and I'll pass the article name along to them. North8000 (talk) 00:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Just a bit of wikijargon semantic nitpicking (or possibly a bit of FYI) but when one person asks another person to come to Wikipedia on their behalf, that's called meatpuppetry, and in many cases is treated the same as sockpuppetry. I'm just pointing this out, so you know that this "sneaky kind of sock-puppeteering" is well-known to the extent that it has its own term. -- Atama頭 00:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I would consider it to be clearly on behalf of the article/Wikipedia, not on behalf of the person. I think that it's a simple case of "we need more eyes on that article" except where the request is confidential. I was just offering; if folks think that it is improper, I'll withdraw the offer. North8000 (talk) 01:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I meant that for COI-issue, sorry, I should have been clear about that. There's nothing wrong with what you said, I was just referring to COI-issue talking about the "sneaky kind of sock-puppeteering" from the student assistants. -- Atama頭 02:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The indentation under mine threw me. I un-indented it by one click for clarity, if that's OK. North8000 (talk) 02:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

When profession trumps wikipolicies

I'm having a problem with an editor now who keeps yapping about being a legal aide and therefore he can define what is and is not defamation and what Wikipolicies say are not important. I've got it at BLP board now, hoping his usual avalanche of commentary won't confuse the issue. But it would be nice if I also could leave him a COI notice, but not sure how to categorize it. I guess I'll just quote: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vanity press or a forum for advertising and promoting yourself or your ideas. As such it should contain only material that complies with its content policies, and Wikipedians must place the interests of the encyclopedia first. Any editor who gives priority to outside interests may be subject to a conflict of interest. But a category called "professional interest/reputation" or something would help. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

LOL, that's really out of scope of the guideline, but it'd be nice if it wasn't. :) Basically what you're saying is, stop being so full of yourself. Which is perfectly valid. We don't really need something in the guideline that says you can't try to bully people with RL credentials, that should be a given. Also be sure that they are aware of WP:NLT, Wikipedia is really sensitive about legal matters so a person claiming to have some legal clout in the real world should have a bit of caution about how assertive they are. It's too easy to interpret a statement like "this is defamation" to mean "I'm going to see that Wikipedia is sued". -- Atama頭 19:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Will remember that! :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

First paragraph

I'm thinking that our first paragraph is probably more confusing than necessary. It says:

“

A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.

”

Does anyone else think it's worth trying to improve it? I'm thinking that a simpler formulation would say something like:

“

On Wikipedia, an editor has a conflict of interest (COI) when what is best for the editor is different from, or in conflict with, what is best for Wikipedia.

”

What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I think at least the wording in bold should definitely stay. -- œ^™ 06:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually I don't know about the new proposed statement. It might technically be true, but still I prefer the existing statement because it's talking about a person's motivations causing the conflict rather than the person's self-interests ("advancing outside interests" versus "what is best for the editor"). It's a fine line but I think an important one. -- Atama頭 19:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I also prefer the existing wording. The distinction Atama mentioned is important to maintain and the previous wording is more precise. ThemFromSpace 15:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

COI = POV pushing + close connection?

I frequent WP:COIN and notice that there are reports often made regarding another editor who has an obvious or alleged close connection and they think that this warrants action (blocks, warnings, etc.). I feel that WP:COI is clear that this is not a problem but grounds for caution from the editor with a close connection and other involved editors (which is what WP:COIN generally provides) but the problem still presents itself.

I don't think that the reports at WP:COIN requesting action solely because of a close connection are a problem (we just make the guideline clear to them or tell them to go to WP:NPOVN and/or WP:BLPN) but I think it underlines a larger problem; that many editors think that simply having a close connection is cause for action. The WP:COIN reports are just a symptom of the problem.

I'm not sure if this is a problem with the way the guideline is written or if its more of an issue with the assumptions that editors make based on their own feelings (that you can't be unbiased when editing an article whose subject you're close to). Perhaps defining the difference between a close connection and a problematic conflict of interest would help (defining the two separately in two guidelines).

Perhaps a new guidelines such as WP:CC (Close connection) could outline that having a close connection can be problematic and outline the steps currently found in WP:COI. It could also define the difference between a close connection and having a strong off-wiki opinion. We've seen people show strong support for a cause and the definition of a "close connection" is very muddy although the base of the problem is POV editing. WP:COI would then be the guideline that defines the actions around having a "Close connection" and making POV edits.

I don't know the best answer. Just looking to start a discussion. OlYeller21^Talktome 14:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I see that WP:CC is taken. I think you get the point, though. OlYeller21^Talktome 14:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the fundamental problem is poor education of our userbase. I think we've made good progress on clarifying the issues in this guideline during the last year or two, but we've got a ways to go—and WP:Nobody reads the directions, so most users are basing their complaints on what they remember hearing once upon a time. I think the ultimate solution is for people like us to keep repeating the mantra: Merely having a close connection is not a blockable offense. You have to be actually harming Wikipedia because of that connection to have an actionable COI. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you think an essay might help? Maybe an essay that says that (close connection isn't bad) and includes some common scenarios where users who don't understand WP:COI run into problems. I'm not sure if pointing at it would make things more confusion or not. Ultimately, I think that users who, for whatever reason, don't understand WP:COI can at least have an easy jumping off point with WP:COI and WP:CloseConnection. With that, it's visually obvious that the two are different. It may just make things more confusing though. OlYeller21^Talktome 21:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

There's always some new permutation on this topic. Now it's an editor who constantly puts in negative information about a BLP; in researching for the article I discovered someone with the same user name actively posts negative info about the person on a list populated by people who organize protests against this person, as well as a number of other web sites, some highly partisan and high profile. So is this a case where POV crosses over into COI?? If not, is it just something to bring up on the BLP talk page - or edit war discussions? The mind boggles. CarolMooreDC 18:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

That could be any or all of the above. For COI, the question is how this promotes the editor's own interests. Merely dedicating your life to letting the world know that ___ is a bad person isn't necessarily something that is in your own interest. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

To clarify: Should this person's persistent efforts to disparage a living person be stopped? Probably yes. Should the label "COI" be used as our official reason when we stop him? I don't know. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The core statement of the policy is excellent: " Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.". Someday we'll need to bring the actual use of the policy in line with that. IMO somebody whose interest (for any reason) to attack the subject of the article is more important to them than the aims of wikipedia has a wp:COI. Conversely somebody who works for a company which is the subject of the article but puts the aims of Wikipedia first when editing the article IMHO does not have a wp:coi. North8000 (talk) 13:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Good point! In one article I can think of a couple editors who don't like the subject and protest only a small number of violations, but overall their edits on all articles are in the interest of Wikipedia and they are civil. Others are clearly just pushing their agenda in all the articles they edit in a way that's uncivil, against policy and harms wikipedia. It should not be as difficult as it seems to be to have them removed from articles where they cause trouble. CarolMooreDC 13:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Resume?

I'm not certain what the best way is to handle what looks in part like a resume, but thought some denizen of this page may have a better idea ... see T. V. S. R. Appa Rao.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Tagging the issues seems like the good start. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 04:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. But I say it has been tagged for the problem since June 2008.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Eyes

I'm not keeping up with my watchlist. Remember those long discussions we had months ago about how {{Uw-coi}} was spreading errors (e.g., if you have a close connection to a subject, you shouldn't provide useful information about sources at AFDs, because providing a list of independent sources clearly damages the encyclopedia)?

We fixed it when we fixed the guideline, but then the template got reverted because an editor didn't think to look here (i.e., in the obvious place) for discussions about what to say about this guideline. So I've fixed it again, but it would be good if several other people put it on their watchlists so that if we see another round of this, it will get noticed sooner. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I was that editor, and I've just found this thread for the first time, after noticing that the COI template had changed again. Sorry that neither I nor the second-opinion editor thought to check this page for a rationale in September, although I'd note that your edit summary at the time was simply "Update and correct".

To clarify the concerns I raised about the new wording (and it's mostly just grammar and tone):-

• The second sentence contains the circular assertion that "if you are affiliated with [the subject] you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a [...] close connection to the subject".
• The new template loses "where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred", which seemed useful (that even if the warned editor could give a big spiel about how he isn't actually connected to the particular product he's promoting and it just looks like it to everyone else, he should save his energy and still exercise caution).
• Telling the editor that they were probably expressing "a distorted view" in their recent edits seems unnecessarily aggressive.
• Describing the COI problem as an editor "inadvertently edit[ing] in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging" plays down the other COI problem of adding unsourceable insider information. I don't think the editor should walk away thinking "right, got it, all I need to do is avoid flattering my employer".
• "following the reliable sources" should maybe be "following reliable sources" or "quoting reliable sources"?
• "Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies." is an odd standalone request, with no inline links for guidance - was it meant to join onto the sentence below the bulleted list?
• The link to "our frequently asked questions for organizations" might be better without "for organizations", since the page it links to also covers personal biography pages, and we wouldn't want a non-organization COI editor to skip over it as irrelevant.

That's all. --McGeddon (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

COI-related proposal at BLP

FYI, there is a proposal to make a binding policy concerning the editing of biographies of living people by people with conflicts of interest. See Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Editing the biography of someone you have been in a real-life dispute with.   Will Beback  talk  00:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

People should look at it because first there was a proposal to explicitly ban people from talk pages on defacto COI grounds; now it's being worded so that they are only advised to go elsewhere if they have issues. See particularly the end of "Adapting the proposal" section. CarolMooreDC 00:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Policy

As presently listed, COI is a "behavioral guideline" and not a "policy" - yet it's enforced as if it were a policy. Should we take steps to elevate this to policy level? Rklawton (talk) 02:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

How about adding a COI-related clause to Wikipedia:Banning policy. It is surprisingly difficult to get any kind of a topic ban approved at WP:ANI. This has the paradoxical effect that admins are on safer ground when issuing a block than a ban. With careful wording, there might be conditions under which individual admins might be allowed to *ban* a user who has an obvious COI from editing the related article. Such bans would be reviewable at noticeboards. Banning a user from a single article would be a less drastic remedy than a block. In actual practice, when a user's actions have been reviewed at WP:COIN and they have continued to make inappropriate edits to a specific article, the only option that an admin can consider is a block for disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 02:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

People who enforce COI as a policy are in the wrong. I have seen editors blocked solely for violating COI, and each time the block was overturned and the admin was reprimanded for it. Now, we do ban people from pages and topics due to COI, that's not unusual, but the community can technically ban anyone for anything they want to. To my knowledge there is no blanket discretionary sanction to allow administrators to unilaterally ban any editor due to a perceived COI.

The reason why COI isn't a policy is pretty simple. It's not always a problem. We have policies that say not to write controversial unsourced BLP information, policies that say not to harass people, policies that say not to vandalize. Those policies work because that is behavior that the community does not ever want to see. But many times we have editors with conflicts of interest who never cause a problem, and sometimes that conflict of interest is applied to a subject matter expert who has a lot to offer Wikipedia and restricting that person ends up hurting Wikipedia. So we write up COI as a guideline, and it should probably never be anything stronger than a guideline. It gives advice, both to editors who have a COI, and to other editors who encounter a person with a COI. When an editor with a COI is disruptive, we have policies that already govern whatever disruption is being caused by the editor, and sanctions can be given based on those policies. When an editor with a COI is not being disruptive, and not violating anything outside of the COI guideline, then there shouldn't be a concern anyway. -- Atama頭 18:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

IMHO the wp:coi situation is so often mixed up and so often jumps the tracks that it would be inconceivable to make it a policy. It starts with an EXCELLENT definition: "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." And then in practice, everybody violates that definition and brands any type of a interest that is a potential COI as an actual coi. So, in order to disclose an interest that is a potential COI an editor has to partially out themselves and then gets a "COI" scarlet letter immediately MIS-placed on them. The whole process is counterproductive, encouraging people to not disclose. North8000 (talk) 11:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)