Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest

Sources on conflict of interest

• Davis, Michael and Stark, Andrew (eds.). Conflict of Interest in the Professions, University of Oxford Press, 2001.
• Krimsky, Sheldon. "The Ethical and Legal Foundations of Scientific 'Conflict of Interest'", in Trudo Lemmings and Duff R. Waring (eds.), Law and Ethics in Biomedical Research: Regulation, Conflict of Interest, and Liability, University of Toronto Press, 2006.
• Lo, Bernard and Field, Marilyn J. (eds.). Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice, National Academies Press, 2009.
• Stark, Andrew. Conflict of Interest in American Public Life, Harvard University Press, 2003.

Self-promotion

I'm puzzled by the first sentence in this section:

"Conflict of interest often presents itself in the form of self-promotion, including advertising links, personal website links, personal or semi-personal photos."

The puzzlement is with the last item, "personal or semi-personal photos". My strong impression is that we want people to submit photos of themselves, if they are the subject of an article (submitting to Commons, with appropriate copyrights, of course). But the above sentence seems to discourage such submissions. Perhaps someone could either clarify the sentence, or correct my misimpression of the desirability of such photos on Wikipedia.

And while I'm being nit-picky, I'll note that the first and second sentences of the section are quite redundant, which I believe is a undesirable. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

In fact, there is a separate section, "Photographs and media files", with a more mixed message. Perhaps an intra-page link to that section? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The whole section seemed redundant, so I merged it into another one and left out the bit about images. [1] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I've never actually seen it happen but I can imagine that someone could take a picture of themselves at a location (say, Mount Rushmore) and upload that picture to the article as a sneaky form of self-promotion. The fact that I've never actually seen this, though, makes it such an unlikely occurrence that I don't think it's worth mentioning in the guideline (and probably should be excluded per WP:BEANS). I can't imagine how else it is self-promotion to upload an image, though.

We do sometimes identify a COI through a person's candid picture uploads. If someone takes a picture of a celebrity at the dinner table eating fried chicken in someone's personal home, there is the suggestion that the image uploader is a friend or acquaintance of the celebrity and thus may have a COI in regards to them. But while that might be worth mentioning somewhere, it's not a form of self-promotion. -- Atama頭 23:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

There was a recent case (see contribs) of a user who uploaded selfies and used them to replace images in articles. The images have been deleted, but as I recall the lead image at Thumbs signal was replaced by a picture of the user, and similar edits were made at other articles. Johnuniq (talk) 01:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms

WP:Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms everybody here should be aware of this. I'll note that I had nothing to do with this (though I was informed of their meeting beforehand). I think it's a great day for Wikipedia, but of course this is not the end of the Corporate PR COI problem on Wikipedia. Rather it is a great step to build on.

I've suggested on the talk page there, that WP:COI include some sort of statement that we encourage PR firms to sign on to this. Minor problem - the UK based CIPR made a similar statement off-Wiki a couple of years ago and it might be seen as disrespect to our UK fellow editors to favor this US based initiative. So I'll give no concrete suggestions now. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Very strongly discouraged

There is language in WP:COI that I believe works against the purpose of the guideline, though I'm sure that it was meant to increase the strength of it:

"Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question."

I'll suggest instead:

"Paid advocates should not directly edit articles, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question."

The very strongly discouraged language underwent a slow transformation from "discouraged" to "strongly discouraged" to "very strongly discouraged" and then was put in bold. While I'm sure this was meant to increase the discouragement, instead it seems to read "something here is missing, you're allowed to do something but we're not going to say what it is."

My proposed "should not" language is the usual, direct way to get the meaning across. It means "It may not be an absolute prohibition for all cases, but you should not do it."

Very strongly discouraged occurs 3 times in the guideline and this suggested change should be made for all 3 cases. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure this shouldn't be "double extra very strongly discouraged"? And we can underline it and italicize it in addition to bold text.

Seriously, though, I agree. "Should not" is a fundamentally stronger statement, it's simpler, and cleaner. -- Atama頭 17:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Simpler, yes, but whether it is stronger or not is going to depend on the reader's perception of what "should" means. Some readers will see "should not = shall not = must not" and others will see it as "should not = generally discouraged, but allowed in some undefined circumstances." The latter reading is weaker than Very strongly discouraged. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

You have a valid objection here. But what about second issue? Why is "very strongly" is stronger than "strongly"? and why not "extremely strongly discouraged," etc. as someone quipped? If you want to get rid of "some undefined circumstances," then plain forbidden/verboten/prohibido/interdit should work just fine. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm thinking that both of you are joking a bit, but otherwise I'm not sure I understand. But don't worry. I am not very strongly discouraged. I'll assume you mean "simpler is better." Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) @Staszek Lem: WP:Ignore all rules means there will always be at least a few exceptional circumstances in which any rule can and should be ignored, so I don't want to "totally" get rid of the implied "allowed in some undefined circumstances." However, we probably do want to make sure that the implication is that this is a very narrow, don't-try-it-unless-you-know-what-you-are-doing exception. I would prefer "extremely strongly discouraged" over "forbidden" because it's more accurate, but I'd prefer "very strongly discouraged" over "extremely strongly encouraged" because the latter just sounds stilted. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

@Davidwr: If you want some slack left, please keep in mind that "forbidden" does have slack; just as with "discouraged", something has to be "strictly forbidden". I guess all this is today's progressive devaluation of emphasis (alternatively, progresssive ADD); compare: 20th-century "thank you" -> today's "thank you very much" -> "thank you so much" . Staszek Lem (talk) 03:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I think this will depend a lot on the circles you run in; in my experience, "forbidden" has the dictionary meaning of "not allowed", without any slack, and "strictly forbidden" is a redundant intensifier for emphasis. I agree that "should" has the connotation of a recommendation: it specifies something that ought to be done, or that the subject has an obligation to do, but this doesn't mean the subject will do it. In IETF RFC language, "should" denotes a recommendation. Perhaps making the statement more definitive, with a small exception carved out, would be more suitable, such as: Paid advocates must not edit articles related to their area of advocacy, and should instead propose changes on article talk pages, unless the Wikipedia community reaches a consensus agreement to the contrary. isaacl (talk) 08:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The word "forbidden" should not be used, because it's incorrect. When something is forbidden, that means we frankly don't allow it. There are few things on Wikipedia that are forbidden; violating a ban, copyright, or other editor's privacy are examples of behavior that is forbidden because doing any of those actions generally leads to an uncontroversial revert and possible revdelete/oversight, and a warning or block. Paid editing, on the other hand, is not forbidden, not at this time at least. Changing the language in this way would take a dramatic step that would require a publicized RfC because it would change the entire approach to how COI is done. Isaacl has it correctly; the word "forbidden" does not "have slack". Look it up in the dictionary for crying out loud, it means "not allowed" or "banned". It's much stronger language than what we have now, which is saying that paid editing is not something that we disallow but the community doesn't care for it, and if you do act as a paid editor prepare for some resistance.

Unless I missed something somewhere? Was there some super-secret RfC done sometime between the discussion at Meta about possibly requiring paid contributors to disclose their affiliations and now? When did we suddenly start banning this behavior altogether? -- Atama頭 15:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't panic. I suggested the word "forbidden", but I am not a native language speaker. You proved that this word is not good. OK, relax. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Back to initial observation: "very strongly discouraged" was criticized because it borders with ridiculous. Do we need to throw a tantrum and bang with the fist on the table? I vote to get rid of "very": if "strongly discouraged" is not discouraging enough, then extra "very" will not help, because the most probable violators are either those who did not read the policy or those who chose to ignore it. And I am sure that the latter ones will not even be "super extra strongly discouraged or else". Staszek Lem (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Everybody seems to at least agree that very strongly discouraged is bad form - I'll make the changes I indicated above. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Very strongly discouraged ... or else?

Are there any sanctions for ignoring this discouragement? If yes, then what are they? If not, then what is the purpose of all this shouting? Neither boldface nor even large font will help against evil ones. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

There are no sanctions. If you ignore the prohibitions, you are more likely to get an article that looks like what your client wants it to look like, if you are any good at editing Wikipedia. Without empowering our editors and punishing people who ignore the sanctions in the mainspace, this will not be solved, because the cost-benefit of ignoring our meaningless rules is tremendously out of whack. Hipocrite (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

In other words, do you agree that instead of super-extra-boldfacing we must think of the ways of enforcement? Staszek Lem (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Yup. Hipocrite (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

If the changes to the Terms of Service end up going through, we'll be in a position of having teeth that can be used for enforcement. Without it, the odds of getting community consensus on how to proceed are remarkably small. - Bilby (talk) 04:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't see this discussion before I reverted the change in policy. The change should be discussed community wide.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC))

I think everybody agrees that it is just changing confusing wording to clear wording - little more than a grammatical change. Please read this section and the one above and state your objections - if any. Until then I'll change it back. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

First apologies for making the revert while this was in discussion. I missed it for some reason. Second, strongly discourage and should not are very different in meaning not just a grammar change. Should not is a definitive statement and it means you cannot edit. Strongly discouraged means not a good idea but possible. In my view the slow progression from discouraged, to strongly discouraged, to should not is a subtle but meaningful change in COI which should have wide community input. We are saying in effect now that a declared COI cannot edit. This is not what the guidleline used to say In the past; a declared COI could edit with care. This is a guideline for which we are using definitive language and suggesting sanctions? I'm not convinced its a good idea and would welcome wider community input.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC))

As I understand it, both Davidwr and I believe that "should" is a weaker, more advisory statement than "strongly discouraged". Typically, in technical standards, "should" means something is recommended but not necessary. I disagree that this change is solely grammatical; the two phrases have different connotations and associated meanings. Accordingly, I do not believe there is a consensus to alter the wording from "strongly discouraged". isaacl (talk) 00:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see this as a simple grammatical change, either, but a slow tightening of the rules. For me, "should not" is a prohibition, "strongly discouraged" is a recommendation. I'm uncomfortable with a significant change like this without more discussion. - Bilby (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the above. I am for cleaner prose, but changing "discouraged" of any form to "should not" is changing the meaning from a recommendation to a prohibition, which is something that has been discussed before in the past and never found consensus for. Furthermore I feel like we are setting editors up by telling them to request changes on the talk page, because most articles on obscure topics will never yield any replies. I have seen requests to fix a typo on talkpages by an IP address that went unaddressed for years simply because no one visited the page. I believe that if an editor is actually honest enough to try and follow our unenforceable policies then we should assume some good faith and encourage them to try and be neutral and improve their article. In practice I realise this will fail a lot, similar to host most new users fail to edit in a nonbiased manner, but I don't see asking users to make edit requests on the talk page as a realistic option. Perhaps we could recommend that they make their edits and then request on a noticeboard that users look at their page and see if it is neutral?AioftheStorm (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Advertisements Prohibited

<post-fix of mist-threading due to my overlooked edit conflict>

BTW, talking about "prohibited": WP:COI has a phrase: "The writing of "puff pieces" and advertisements is prohibited." I am pretty sure this is a rather generic guideline. Is it covered somewhere? WP:NOT-ish? Staszek Lem (talk) 18:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, at WP:NOT, specifically WP:PROMO which includes "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind" as the first list item, "Self-promotion" as the fourth list item, and "Advertising, marketing or public relations" as the fifth item. All of those would apply ("Opinion pieces" and "Scandal mongering" seem less relevant in this case). Those are all examples of prohibited/forbidden behavior that can lead to uncontroversial reverts, blocks, and other consequences when done by anyone (whether the individual has a verified COI or not). -- Atama頭 18:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:COI has a phrase: "The writing of "puff pieces" and advertisements is prohibited." I am pretty sure this is a rather generic guideline. Is it covered somewhere? WP:NOT-ish? Staszek Lem (talk) 18:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, what's wrong with "advertisements"? Earlier I was advised to look up a dictionary, so I did now], and I see nothing evil with adverts. The real problem is biased language. An advert may be pretty neutral and factual. "The Company Co. makes goodies for 150 years. Its goodies are ranked Extra Cute by Bite Me magazine survey and earned 2013 "Golden Armpit Award" . Concluding, I think this phrase must be fixed. Some ideas may be borrowed from WP:PEACOCK. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I answered you with more depth above, but WP:PROMO which is part of WP:NOT does cover this.

Sorry, it was my duplication due to edit conflict. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

As to the nature of advertisements, by definition an advertisement is never neutral. What you listed above as an example isn't really an advertisement, not as Wikipedia defines it. Wikipedia considers an advertisement to include "puffery" and is written with a subjective and biased style in violation of WP:NPOV. It's fine to include flattering information about an article subject if that information "fairly and proportionately" represents the significant views of published reliable sources. For example, check out our article on Citizen Kane. The lead of the article makes the bold claim that the film is "Considered by many critics, filmmakers, and fans to be the greatest film ever made," but it supports that claim later in the text of the article so that our neutrality policy is satisfied. I hope that helps clear up some of the confusion. -- Atama頭 18:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

re: "I hope that helps clear up some of the confusion". Well, no, it is not. It merely demonstrates that the jargon of wikipedia is not always evident to ordinary people. Since you wrote "not as Wikipedia defines it", this definition must be near at hand near at a mouse-click. You wrote: "What you listed above as an example isn't really an advertisement <deliberate snip>" . On the contrary, I happenned to contest several prods/speedies of articles written like my example, and classified as "adverts" by wikipedians. So I reiterate my request: this phrase must be clarified in the guideline, not in the talk. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea. We try to not duplicate information too much; see here, "When the scope of one advice page overlaps with the scope of another, minimize redundancy." But if a quick definition of advertising (borrowing from WP:NOT) helps clarify matters then I think it's helpful as long as it doesn't get too long.

Articles are going to get marked for deletion inappropriately, it's inevitable. When I do admin dashboard stuff, I usually review a number of G11 speedy deletion requests (it's one of, if not the most common speedy deletion request I see) and I tend to decline most of them, either because the info doesn't seem that promotional or because it's easy to remove the promotion without rewriting the whole article. But I don't know if that's because people don't understand what advertisements are, or if it's because they don't understand the G11 criterion. -- Atama頭 19:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The definition of advertising is very simple (from dictionary.com)

ad·ver·tis·ing noun

• 1. the act or practice of calling public attention to one's product, service, need, etc., especially by paid announcements in newspapers and magazines, over radio or television, on billboards, etc.: to get more customers by advertising.
• 2. paid announcements; advertisements.

if you would like this restated in my own words "Any communication from a business meant to increase sales, attract customers, or otherwise increase the value of the business" but that's slightly narrower than the above definition. No matter - "promotion" is a broader term than advertising, and it is prohibited, "marketing" is broader still, and it is also prohibited. "Public relations" is a sub-set of promotion, and it is also prohibited.

So a very basic example of an ad would be - a farmer places the following notice in a newspaper. "Hay for sale, contact Ole McDonald at 555-1212." An example on Wikipedia would be when a company employee edits an article on the company and writes "The company sells widgets, doodads, zappers and other products."

So if we could find admins to enforce these rules, we'd be doing just fine. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Multiple accounts

Smallbones cited a provision of this policy with which I was not acquainted, WP:PAY. It is a very good policy but it warrants strengthening, to avoid multiple user accounts advocating for particular articles. I suggest wording saying in sum and substance as follows:

"To avoid undue burden on volunteer time and resources, every article subject should employ only one account."

-- Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 03:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Update to reflect new Terms of Use

I've updated the guideline to reflect the new Terms of Use, with this series of edits.

The Terms of Use are automatically policy. Since there were apparent contradictions the ToU automatically over-rides the version in this guideline. I don't think that any of these contradictions were serious, just minor things that became out-of-date with the new ToU. But please check the dif above. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Good job with the update. Just as a procedural point: the statement Terms of Use are automatically policy is a little misleading, because the community has the option of adopting a divergent standard that supersedes the ToU. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 00:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I've added a paragraph to clarify that point: "The terms of use express the default position. Individual projects may create their own policies to strengthen or reduce the default requirements (see Alternative paid contribution disclosure policies)." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I've add a sentence taken from the ToU FAQs [2] Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by how the terms of use relate to the English Wikipedia. The terms of use describe the default position, according to the Foundation, but each project can have its own policy, including that no disclosure is necessary (see Commons, for example, which is supporting a no-disclosure position). A lot of projects may not have any COI policies, so the terms of use express the position for those projects.

But we do have this guideline, so is this guideline our default or the terms of use? If the terms of use is the default, we have a contradiction on our hands, namely between (a) direct article editing is very strongly discouraged (this guideline), and (b) all you have to do is disclose on the talk page or in an edit summary (the terms of use). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

My presumption is that the two merely combine rather than conflict. Actual editing is still very strongly discouraged but now disclosure is mandatory, for a (hopefully) minor edit, or even for just a talk page comment. We may need to 'ratify' that presumption with an RfC. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 16:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

An RfC is probably a good idea, but it will be difficult to find precise wording. We need to ask whether the English Wikipedia requires disclosure, and if so to what extent and in which circumstances (only when engaged in direct article editing or also when engaged on talk, policies and elsewhere?). And how does this relate to asking about the bright line (if at all)?

In the meantime, I wonder whether our default is the terms of use or this guideline. The terms of use don't say that projects must introduce a new policy, simply that they can have a separate one. Before the terms of use, this guideline said of disclosure:

• "When investigating COI editing, be careful not to reveal the identity of editors against their wishes. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over this guideline."
• "Paid advocates are also advised to disclose their conflict of interest."
• Then there was an advisory section, "Declaring an interest," which ended with "Do not publicly declare an interest if this could put you at harm in the real world, e.g., from stalkers."

I'm assuming that, prior to the conclusion of any RfC (which will take several weeks, at least, to prepare and be closed), the above is still our default position. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. We previously had a policy, but we have never reached consensus as a community to "adopt an alternative paid contribution disclosure policy." As such, where our old policy was at odds with the TOU, I would argue the TOU governs until such time as we adopt an alternative paid contribution disclosure policy. Specifically, "Adopting an alternative disclosure policy requires consensus, consistent with the project’s past practice and local understanding of what consensus is." You appear to state, above, that it would take several weeks to reach consensus per past practice - as such, we have no alternative disclosure policy, and the TOU governs where there is disparity. Hipocrite (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• @Smallbones: Please stop making changes to this policy unilaterally. Please propose changes and seek community consensus. Two changes in a row now have received criticism. You need to stop.--v/r - TP 17:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• One of the changes that concerns me is "Paid editors are required to name their employer, client and related affiliations for each paid edit." First, that seems to contradict the "very strongly discouraged" advice about avoiding direct article editing, and leaves the guideline looking less clear than before. Second, it's very intrusive. The previous version said: "Paid advocates are ... advised to disclose their conflict of interest." I don't think it's our business to know who exactly is paying someone. That they declare a COI is arguably enough. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. A user is required to disclose those things with respect to any "contribution," they are strongly discouraged from actually editing articles (if they were to, in fact, edit articles, they would be required to disclose). We are, in fact, per the TOU, allowed to know exactly who is paying for the edits. If you feel the community disagrees, seek consensus for an alternative disclosure policy. Hipocrite (talk) 18:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

m:Terms of use, "A Wikimedia Project community may adopt an alternative paid contribution disclosure policy. If a Project adopts an alternative disclosure policy, you may comply with that policy instead of the requirements in this section when contributing to that Project." We have a COI policy addressing this issue with community consensus. Smallbones changed it unilaterally without consensus.--v/r - TP 18:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

We have not adopted an "alternative disclosure policy." Hipocrite (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we have, it's at WP:COI and it said, prior to Smallbones's no-consensus change, that disclosure was strongly encouraged. "You should provide full disclosure of your connection, when using talkpages, making edit requests, and similar." That is our policy on disclosure which the WMF Terms of Use allow to supercede their own and Smallbones has unilaterally changed without consensus--v/r - TP 18:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

No, we have not. First of all, "An alternative paid contribution policy will only supersede these requirements if it is ... listed in the alternative disclosure policy page." This policy was not listed on the page in question. Of course, since the page in question is free to edit, you could list it there, but there is absolutely no evidence that this guideline was approved as a policy by "the relevant Project community." Hipocrite (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Says who? Three editors a consensus does not make. You, Smallbones, and figureofnine do not make a consensus to demote this policy nor change it.--v/r - TP 18:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

This page was never a "policy," it was always a "guideline." Do you not know the difference between a policy and a guideline? Hipocrite (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

You're conflating English Wikipedia definition of policy with the wider world. The definition of a policy is "A policy is a principle or protocol to guide decisions and achieve rational outcomes." This "guideline" is a policy in the literal sense. This is simple, if you want a change, I'm not opposed to change. Simply start a RFC and gain consensus instead of Smallbone's underhanded insertion when he thought no one was looking. If you three are so confident in you're changes, that should be easy.--v/r - TP 19:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Hipocrite, this is not a disputed guideline just because one or two people don't like bits of it (most of us don't like bits of most policies). As for the policy/guideline distinction, there's no reason to assume that the Foundation is using the word policy in the distinctive way we use it on the English Wikipedia. By policy, they simply mean guidance that has consensus, and the guidance on this page regarding disclosure is the closest thing we have to consensus right now. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't care about one or two bits - it's disputed because you lot are edit warring over it. There's also no reason to assume the Foundation is not clearly aware of the distinction between policy and guideline, given that we are the highest traffic website they host, and the majority of their movers and shakers come from here and all. Who from the foundation told you that "By policy, they simply mean guidance that has consensus," or is that just your personal opinion of what they think? Hipocrite (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

PS: I note that m:Category:Global_policies makes it clear that meta understand the difference between "Policy" and "Guideline." Hipocrite (talk) 19:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Then hold on RFC about whether an English Wikipedia guideline does not meet the threshold of the Foundation's requirement for a 'policy'.--v/r - TP 19:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you believe it needs consensus to be a policy, or consensus to not be a policy? Hipocrite (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I believe it needs consensus to change.--v/r - TP 19:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Then there's no dispute - since it has been a guideline since forever and a day, you submit an RFC to have it upgraded to policy. Hipocrite (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I have nothing to change, I'm satisfied with the status quo.--v/r - TP 19:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad we all agree that this guideline is not a policy, and thus cannot be a policy that overrules the TOU. Hipocrite (talk) 19:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

You must be mistaken, I see we all agree that the current wording of our long standing standard for disclosure is that it is strongly encouraged. You clearly show no interest in starting the community-wide discussion needed to change that.--v/r - TP 19:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Your community standard has been overruled by the TOU. Disclosure is now required. Hipocrite (talk) 19:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Round and around we go then? You can open an RFC or not, I don't care. Wording isn't going to change until you get a consensus.--v/r - TP 19:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I haven't changed any wording in this inapplicable guideline except to switch "edit" to "contribution." It's you who is furiously reverting. Hipocrite (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Furiously? LOL. It was so quiet around Wikipedia while you were on your break. Welcome back.--v/r - TP 19:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Hipocrite, policy is not what is written on the page. It is what is enforced and respected. Any editor on the English Wikipedia trying to enforce "Paid editors are required to name their employer, client and related affiliations for each paid contribution" would run the risk of being blocked under WP:OUTING. So the wording you want to add to this guideline, or want to assume is now policy, is highly problematic and would almost certainly not gain consensus. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

A paid editor who failed to disclose those things also runs the risk of being blocked under the terms of use, true? Hipocrite (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

But blocked by whom? I'd be surprised if any admin on the English Wikipedia would do that. I can see an admin asking an editor to step aside if there's an obvious COI, or blocking a COI editor who had become disruptive, but I can't imagine anyone insisting on full disclosure or else. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Options

We have several options:

1. do nothing and continue to accept this page as our guideline;
2. hold a quick RfC to ask that the advice on this page about disclosure – "that paid editors are advised to disclose" – continue to be our guideline (or "policy" within the meaning of the terms of use), until further notice;
3. in conjunction with (2) or alone, start a discussion about holding a longer RfC asking whether the English WP is willing to ratify that part of the terms of use, and if not what it proposes instead;
4. gain consensus to add a sentence to WP:OUTING, which is already policy, that "Paid editors are advised, but not required, to disclose their conflict of interest."

Of these options, (4) would be the easiest, because it involves adding one sentence to an already established policy. We could then add that section of the policy to the meta page at Alternative paid contribution disclosure policies, which would satisfy the Foundation's requirement that disclosure policies be listed there. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I oppose 4, as there is no consensus to modify our policy in such a way, and certainly just "add a sentence and call it consensus" is not enough to codify as an APCDP. Hipocrite (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm supportive of 2 or 3. A discussion is needed. The lack of one would only continue to embolden both sides of this debate.--v/r - TP 20:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The ToU update applies to Wikipedia until we decide to change it. We should change this page (the COI guideline) for now to reflect the reality of the ToU requirements, and move forward with an RfC to determine if we want an alternative. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 20:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The COI guideline is our local policy regarding the ToU. The rest is just wikilawyering over the local ENWP status of a guideline versus a policy. This wouldn't be in doubt to anyone outside of this project and I certainly couldn't imagine that the WMF had any forethought to ENWP's 'special' treatment of guidelines when they wrote the exemption. Again, I dare anyone who disagrees and seeks change to open an RFC and ask the wider community. I'm not opposed to change, I'm opposed to underhanded sneaking insertion of material into the COI policy.--v/r - TP 20:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

No. The WP:TOU is policy. Obviously the TOU knows the difference between guidelines and policy, since to specifically refers to guidelines and policy in "may further limit paid contributions or require more detailed disclosure" and then goes on to say only a policy (after an RfC and which is properly listed) may adopt an alternative disclosure requirement. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Let's avoid distinctions between "guidelines" and "policy"; they're wikilawyering. In fact, we don't even need to use those words: we can use "rules" instead. As you said, the ToU rules override the COI rules until English Wikipedia adopts a rule specifying the reverse situation. In the meantime, I would like it if the COI rules are consistent with the ToU rules, so that we don't confuse people. Our goal should be to settle this debate over the (temporary) wording of the COI rules, and then to have an RfC on what the rules should be. How can we do that? {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 21:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

We can't, I don't think. The terms of use directly contradict the guideline on two key points: (a) the terms of use allow direct article editing with disclosure, where the COI guideline "very strongly discourages" direct article editing regardless of disclosure; and (b) the terms of use require detailed disclosure, where the COI guideline advises only that the existence of the COI be disclosed, and does not require even that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The TOU allows guidelines to be more restrictive regarding editing, so your a) is a non issue, at present. Your b) is also a non-issue, at present, if this guideline details no specific form of requirement for disclosure because the WP:TOU does state a form (so they don't conflict). Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Alan, my point was that if we accept the that terms of use override this guideline (for now), then we are accepting direct article editing with disclosure, and that the required disclosure be seriously privacy-violating. We can't pick and choose (now, without an RfC) which bits of the terms of use to allow to override the guideline. It's all or nothing (for now). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Seriously privacy violating? How so? No one has to disclose anything, just as no one has to be NPOV, as long as they don't edit the article (The TOU does not force anyone to edit an article). Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

As for your first point paid direct article editing without disclosure is against the TOU, it's also strongly discouraged, by this guideline, for someone with a COI to edit articles directly. There is no conflict there. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Alan, the terms of use require paid editors to disclose their employers, clients and affiliations for all their paid contributions, not only article edits: "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation."

So it would no longer be enough for someone to say on a talk page "I have a COI here, so I won't edit directly. I just want to make a suggestion." According to the terms of use, they would have to tell us exactly who was paying them. But no one would enforce that on enwiki, so I don't see how it can become policy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Only if they are being paid (not other COI). Moreover, it is doubtful that such a disclosure (as you describe) would not be deemed "in the spirit" (its the proposal that will disclose much of the rest) unless it gets much more involved than what you said and seriously pushes the envelope of conduct problems. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Why doesn't someone simply ask the Foundation whether this guideline is the "alternative policy" mentioned in their TOU? I was thinking that it might be, until I saw the "alternative policy" page to which SlimVirgin linked. That says to me that this guideline is not in fact the alternative policy contemplated int he TOU. But if there is any doubt, and there clearly is, just ask the Foundation. Coretheapple (talk) 21:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Some editors here seem confused. The ToU are not negotiable. Reality on enWP is defined by WMF unless we enact policy otherwise (that is explicitly what the ToU says in the relevant section). WP:COI is only a guideline. We have tried several times to enact a COI/paid editing/paid advocacy policy and failed every time. So yes, the ToU overrides this guideline until we make our own COI policy. My suggestion would be to copy the section from the ToU and paste it into the guideline, adding and taking away nothing, but introducing it by saying that "The following is copied from the WMF Terms of Use which govern everything that happens on Wikipedia. This text is presented simply for ease of reference". If anyone tries to revert that, refer them to ANI for vandalism. Which I may do, and start doing... Jytdog (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Question! Is anybody aware of the enWP community, or the WMF, enforcing disclosure or banning someone for violating the "Paid contributions without disclosure" clauses of the ToU? Asking for actual examples, ideally with difs. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog, I completely endorse this line of thinking. I've been trying to say something similar here already. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 22:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Jytdog as well. However, even though the TOU is policy, it is not reflected (so far as I know) in any existing policy, and it appears to be contradicted by this laughable, flabby piece of non-paper that we call a "guideline." I agree that we should cut and paste from the TOU into this guideline. Coretheapple (talk) 22:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Jytdog, along those lines also. I would note, we don't jump to ban or block for most policy vios. As for your question, that type of banning was done at AN last fall for some editing business and at least one owner, as I recall. It was the confessed non-disclosure that concerned people. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Does this version[3] faithfully reflect the TOU? If it does, why was it reverted? Was there a consensus for this reversion? Why do we have a COI guideline that is at variance with Foundation strictures? Coretheapple (talk) 22:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it does, yes, but of course things can always be said better. As for why it was reverted see Jytdog on confusion, probably, and a seeming non acknowledgement or mistake regarding WP:TOU policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, if only one editor did not want that version, then it should go back. Consensus is not unanimity. Coretheapple (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I hope no one will try to restore what was there without first gaining consensus. It's not clear to me at all that the Foundation can tell us what is policy and tell us that something isn't policy unless it's listed on a certain page and developed in a certain way. That's unprecedented, so I think we should take time to look at the other projects and how people are handling things elsewhere before acting here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, what's your opinion of it? I've wavered on this myself, because I feel that if there is ambiguity it is the Foundation's fault. But on your point about what the Foundation can and can't do, I think that it has pretty much unlimited power, as the owner/operator of Wikipedia. Coretheapple (talk) 22:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

That last point ignores all kinds of realities, including who would enforce this. If it's not enforced, it's not policy, no matter what it's called. That's been the problem with this COI guideline throughout its whole existence. It has basically been ignored and paid editing is now ubiquitous. Policies and guidelines have to be respected or they're worse than useless, because they occupy a space where an enforceable guideline might sit.

As for my opinion of it, I'm on the fence. I'm more concerned about the meta issue of the Foundation doing this, and confused as to why they would do it, and why they didn't consult specifically with enwiki to avoid these contradictions (given that this is mostly aimed at enwiki). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The change was made on the back of the PRWiki scandal and with Coretheapple pressuring WMF and Sue Gardner to do it on her way out.--v/r - TP 23:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

SlimVirgin: The consultation was here. I recall notices about it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I guess what annoys me is that the Foundation is saying, "These are our rules! And they are engraved in stone. (Unless you don't like them.)" However, I think that Jytdog, an editor with whom I do not always agree, has raised a valid point. The TOU are policy. In fact, they are a kind of super-policy, and even though they can be overridden locally, this is a guideline and it is not the policy contemplated by the Foundation. If anybody has any doubt about it, then they should ask the Foundation, as I indicated previously. Coretheapple (talk) 23:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to ask the foundation or get community consensus. Until then, do not change ENWP policies and guidelines without a consensus.--v/r - TP 23:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

@Coretheapple: no, this guideline is not an alternative disclosure policy contemplated under the Terms of Use. To adopt this as an alternative policy, there would need to be consensus to change the disclosure requirements in the Terms of Use. More detail is available in this FAQ. Thanks, Stephen LaPorte (WMF) (talk) 23:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

@Slaporte (WMF):, in what way is this not an alternative? Is it because it is listed as a 'guideline', because it does not have 'consensus', because the consensus was established before the change to the terms of use, or because the consensus didn't explicitly reference the terms of use? I ask because I want to know which part needs to be corrected. Because this is an established English Wikipedia rule, it does have community consensus, and it does directly address the issue of disclosure.--v/r - TP 23:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello TParis, the consensus should refer to the Terms of Use to set an alternative. For example, see this proposal pending on commons. Thanks, |Stephen LaPorte (WMF)]] (talk) 00:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Not contradicting, just asking. So what you're saying is that we need a RFC to reaffirm what we already have and explicitly states it is an alternative to the ToU? Is that all it takes?--v/r - TP 00:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

There appears to be nothing in the WMF's new FAQ, which is informative and not part of their ToU, and much less in their new ToU, saying that a community-derived policy (see below for my comment on the meaning that word) is only valid if created or ratified after the introduction of the new WMF's new ToU; or that the new WMFs ToU over-rides existing community consensus. If I've overlooked such a condition, I'm sure User:Slaporte (WMF) will now quote it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Slim Virgin: What do you mean? WP:TOU is policy. Also, the current proposal is just to put the quoted policy on this page not go back to another version. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry but the objections are childish, like asking "why is the sky blue, I want it to be yellow." There is zero question from a legal perspective, that when Wikimedia Foundation says dance, we dance. They almost never do that, because everyone would leave. But this is not ambiguous. If you don't like the Terms of Use, DON'T USE WIKIPEDIA. You agree to them every time you use this website - that is the deal that you make. Every. Time. If you do not understand this, you are a danger to yourself and the community. Every thing you do on the WWW is through websites, and every website has Terms of Use that define what happens there. If you have issues with the ToU please address them to the WMF. Down here, under them, we do what they say, until the ToU change. This is not the place to fight about them. Jytdog (talk) 23:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

True. And those ToU explicitly include a clause allowing this project to over-ride the new rules on disclosure with a local version. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Contradiction

I'm not making myself clear here, so I'll try again. If you add the terms of use to this page as policy, you are allowing direct article editing by paid editors, because the terms of use allow it.

If we want to hold an RfC and adopt some parts, but not others, we can do that if it gains consensus.

But prior to that RfC, if you add the terms of use to this page qua policy, you will be saying that direct article editing is okay, so long as there is disclosure. And that introduces a contradiction – very strongly discouraged on the one hand, and okay on the other. That contradiction will take the guideline even further in the direction of "laughable, flabby piece of non-paper"-dom. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

But direct article editing is permitted by the COI guideline too. It is, however, discouraged. Nothing is prohibited. It can't be, as this is not a policy. Coretheapple (talk) 23:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Off-topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Glad to hear you admit it. I suppose that makes your comment below null and void, then.--v/r - TP 23:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC) Of course I "admit it." This guideline is a joke. And what "comment below" are you talking about? I have made no comments below this one. Coretheapple (talk) 23:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC) Of course it's a joke. You are trying to cram something down ENWP's throat that the project doesn't want. You're confusing vocal support with mainstream support. When we've help actual RFCs, you haven't gained a consensus. You had to go to the WMF to get them to push a new terms of use because you couldn't get a consensus on this project. So when you try to push things quietly when no one is looking, it's going to be a joke. The policy is going to contradict itself. It was a joke before too, but now even more so. Let me ask you a question, why is going to enforce this? You?--v/r - TP 23:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC) "Cramming" What the holy hell are you talking about? I haven't even been involved in this issue for months. What "comment"? WTF in general are you saying? Cool the f... down. Coretheapple (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC) Certainly not. I wouldn't dare enforce a policy that the community didn't consent to. I am a servant to the community, not to you. I enforce existing community policies such as WP:NPOV which should cover the needs of this policy. You're trying to force something on the community because you think you know better than us. You're our savior and you're going to save us from ourselves. The truth is that the rest of the community thinks that your approach to COIs, displayed by your militant attitude toward me, is going to drive COIs underground and make them harder for the rest of us to find. It isn't going to slow it one bit. In essence, in your zeal, you're creating more work for us. That's why you have so much opposition when the wider community opines. I'm plenty cool, thank you. Craming, yes, the adoption through force (you petitioning Sue Gardner and the WMF to change the terms of use) of something the community has rejected (see previous 4 RFCs you were involved in).--v/r - TP 00:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC) Whoa there, buddy. I don't have a militant attitude toward you. I just think that you are too invested in this issue, too emotional, too hopping up-and-down about it, to be an uninvolved administrator in issues involving paid editing. I also think that your own record, as a person who has done what you have described as a "form of paid editing," is such that you really are conflicted and should stay away from this issue. You've been asked to recuse yourself in the future (as an uninvolved administrator) from controversies involving paid editing, you've declined, so we'll just have to see what happens in the future. As far as paid editing is concerned, my interest has waned because I think that it is basically a Foundation issue. I haven't even followed the TOU. If you had asked, rather than tried to put words in my mouth and screamed and yelled about it, you might have learned that Coretheapple (talk) 00:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC) And what's this stuff about "petitioning Sue Gardner" etc. etc. I've never petitioned anyone, including Sue Gardner. Where do you come up with this crap? By the way, this is all side talk, all this personalizing, it really has nothing to do with this discussion. So why not cut it out? I mean, we can continue to go on about this, you can continue to get all this stuff "off your chest," but it is kind of tedious and off-topic. Coretheapple (talk) 00:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC) You first asked her to give an opinion, and then told her that the WMF would need to make the call because Wikipedia couldn't. Don't remember your own edits?--v/r - TP 00:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC) Uh, yeah. I remember that. I posted on her talk page a couple of times. So? That's not "petitioning" and even if it was, it has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. You're being disruptive. I'll ask you again: please stop. Coretheapple (talk) 00:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC) It's funny how you call things disruptive if they undermine your argument. No, it is not disruptive to demonstrate how you couldn't gain consensus at an RFC and instead tried to undermine the community's position by seeking a WMF fiat. That is exactly on topic, on point, and not disruptive at all. I'll ask you to please stop your attempts to chill my speech by calling it disruption. Or, as I continue to say, go to ANI and get a consensus.--v/r - TP 01:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Coretheapple, right, very strongly discouraged. But it's not discouraged by the terms of use, not in the slightest. The terms of use permit it, so long as there's disclosure. So the terms of use, and now this guideline, support what Chevron's PR person did at Chevron Corporation, for example, when he started to rewrite the article, but made clear who he was. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

What did the editing community do about it? He was not editing in a walled garden. Did they strongly discourage him? As this discouragement is allowed by WP:TOU then and now. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense. In high-visibility situations, COI editing is usually deterred one way or the other, despite the lack of a prohibition. But I've seen it happen many times, without repercussions, in less significant articles. That was true before the TOU and it will happen after. There's really no change except disclosure (if the projects don't overrule it, and this one hasn't). Coretheapple (talk) 23:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

SlimVirgin In the edit I just made, I do not cite the WMF position as Wikipedia policy. I described it as Terms of Use for using Wikipedia, which is what it is. It is higher than any policy we make (unless we make policy to contradict it). I was careful to not say that it is Wikipedia policy because I saw the kinds of objections people were raising, which miss the point. You are right, that all that the ToU do, is require disclosure. Our COI guideline goes further and suggests certain restrictions, but those restrictions do not have the power of policy and cannot actually forbid anything. If we ever enact a policy, we can go further and actually ban paid editing, but you and I both know that we are unlikely to ever get consensus for that. The upshot - where WP stands as of today - is that paid editors MUST disclose, and they are strongly discouraged from directly editing articles, etc. The ToU adds exactly one set of teeth - paid editors MUST disclose, and if they do not, they can be banned. I asked above if enWP has ever done that since the ToU went into effect. I remain curious. Jytdog (talk) 23:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Per Stephen's comment above, which I grudgingly accept only insofar as I believe that there is a technicality he has yet to explain that the ENWP community would be happy to meet if an RFC opened, what you've said isn't exactly agreeable. What it should say is something to the effect of "In 2013, the Wikimedia Foundation enacted terms of use for all projects detailing a requirement for paid editors to disclose their conflict of interest on all WMF projects unless that project explicitly lowers the bar. At this time, the English Wikipedia has not made an explicit contradiction with that policy."--v/r - TP 23:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I purposefully refrained from describing what it says, and only described what its authority is. The ToU is well-written in plain English and has an FAQ. I know (and you should too) that embellishment or description of what it says or means will be very controversial; there are a wide range of very strong views on paid editing, and any description will step onto somebody's landmine. Jytdog (talk23:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm a bit unclear regarding your question: are you asking if anyone has ever been banned for a violation of the terms of use? Or are you asking if someone has been banned based on the modifications made yesterday? isaacl (talk) 00:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much for responding! My question was stupid - I (foolishly) thought that these came into effect ages ago. Thank you for pointing out my dumb question (nobody else did, so really thanks). So let me shift it - do you know if enWP has ever taken action based on violation of ToU alone? It would still be interesting to know if there is a precedent since that is the world we are now living in. thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The new ToU states: "Applicable law, or community and Foundation policies and guidelines, such as those addressing conflicts of interest, may further limit paid contributions or require more detailed disclosure." This seems to say that there is nothing stopping us from insisting that paid editors or COI editors are not allowed (or strongly discouraged) from directly editing articles. That doesn't contradict the ToU policy, which only relates to a requirement for disclosure. And that specifically allows for guidelines, rather than policies. I'd read the new requirements as saying that we are can, with no major problems, restrict paid editors as we see fit. But that we have to insist that they meet the ToU disclosure requirements when they do, or we need to have a new policy with community consensus that overrides the ToU on disclosure. - Bilby (talk) 23:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Bilby et al, I hear you, but enWP has tried many many times - most recently last winter when we had about 5 competing proposals, to make a policy on paid editing. All of them failed pretty dramatically to get consensus - there is a huge range of very strong views on the issues involved. You can find the failed proposals in links at the bottom of the Conflict of interest editing on Wikipedia article (not sure they are still there, but I put them there at one point). Be sure to check out their Talk pages. In any case, until we do (if we ever do) come up with a policy, all we have is the WMF ToU and this guideline. Jytdog (talk) 23:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm certainly aware of all the attempts. :) I guess what I'm trying to say is that the ToU takes precedence in regards to disclosure, until we manage to make an alternative disclosure policy. Which would be a challenge for us given our history. However, the ToU doesn't stop us from retaining the existing guideline restricting paid editing, and specifically states that we can do that, because it only relates to disclosure. Thus the current wording of this guideline, stating that paid editing of articles is "very strongly discouraged" is in compliance with the ToU, so long as we also accept that those editing must disclose their affiliation. The new ToU hasn't weakened our stance on paid editing, but it has increased what paid editors are obliged to reveal. There seems to be a belief that the new ToU allows paid editing over our guideline, but my understanding is that it isn't what the ToU is saying, as it leaves that side up to us. - Bilby (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

we seem to be on the same page, which is happy. the COI guideline as it stands right now, reminds readers that disclosure is required under ToU and everything else is exactly as it was. The ToU makes it very clear that projects can make policies or guidelines further restricting paid editing, and that is exactly what ours does. You have to read in a tendentious way to see it otherwise. Jytdog (talk) 00:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Bilby is right about what the WP:TOU covers and it does not contradict WP:TOU to also discourage direct editing, as per this guideline. I have also discussed this above [in the prior section] but since it now has its own section, I thought it best to reiterate, and I think that is what Bliby is responding to --this section header.Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

hm. the ToU explicitly says "Applicable law, or community and Foundation policies and guidelines, such as those addressing conflicts of interest, may further limit paid contributions or require more detailed disclosure." That is exactly what we have with our COI Guideline. We "further limit paid contributions" with our guideline. Where do you a contradiction? Thanks!Jytdog (talk) 00:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

No where does it contradict. That's what I said. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

that is what i thought you meant but wanted to be sure. so we have a little island of shared understanding here. happy :) Jytdog (talk) 01:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

When multiple people object to the editing of a policy or guideline, the usual practice is to restore the consensus version and talk. There are several options ahead, including holding an RfC. No one should be pushing through their preferred version in the meantime. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand your objection to inserting the TOU into the guideline. It's totally relevant and its applicable to Wikipedia (because there is no COI policy, as the WMF rep just reaffirmed). It does not contradict the rest of the guideline. Where's the harm? Coretheapple (talk) 00:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the collegiate approach is to discuss any proposed changes where there is opposition. I also agree, though, that the terms of service do not give a free pass to paid editing, as described in the answer to the corresponding question in the FAQ. A restriction on editing is not an alternate paid contribution disclosure policy (since it does not deal with disclosure) and so listing this guideline on meta:Alternative paid contribution disclosure policies is unnecessary for that purpose. However, should this project wish to specify a different set of information that must be disclosed, then an alternate paid contribution disclosure policy should be added to that page. isaacl (talk) 01:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The WMF rep did not say we don't have a COI policy, he said we haven't explicitly stated with consensus that this is a direct alternative to the ToU. That is an altogether other matter; one I'm not sure the community was aware was necessary.--v/r - TP 02:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Summary of principles

I've assembled some of the points and arguments that I think are good into a list of principles.

1. The Terms of Use (ToU) is a legal document backed by the authority of the Wikimedia Foundation, with the approval of the Board, based on a generally favourable poll of Wikimedians. It is not a "policy" or "guideline".
2. The ToU update only concerns disclosure of paid editing. It does not concern disclosure for other forms of conflict of interest (COI).
3. Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline is a guideline. It discourages (but does not disallow) paid or otherwise COI editing, and recommends (but does not require) disclosure.
4. The ToU, as a Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) legal document, supersedes local Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
5. The ToU update includes an opt-out: if a local Wikipedia project decides to implement an alternative disclosure standard policy, and announces it as such, the local standard policy supersedes the default ToU standard rules.
6. The English Wikipedia has not formally adopted an alternative disclosure standard policy, so the ToU applies on the English Wikipedia.
7. The English Wikipedia has a responsibility for its policies, guidelines, and legal terms (rules) to be reasonably consistent, both in description (i.e. the text of the rules) and in practice.
8. There is some conflict tension between rules. For example, COI rules have tension with rules upholding user privacy. This is normal and acceptable, if unfortunate, though it should be avoided when practical.
9. Rules are not perfectly enforced, and may be unenforceable in practice. This is normal and acceptable, if unfortunate, though it should be avoided when practical.
10. The ToU update neither authorizes nor discourages paid editing. It merely sets standards of disclosure that must be met to engage in paid editing if it's not otherwise disallowed.
11. The ToU update does not preclude greater restrictions on COI and/or paid editing.
12. The paid/COI editing rules are controversial, and so we need a reasonable level of consensus to implement or repeal these rules.

Given points 1–6, the ToU applies. Given points 8–11, it is probably reasonable to say that we can tolerate some "contradictions" in the short term. I suggest that we immediately uphold point 7, by mentioning the new ToU rules in the COI guideline. That being done, we should uphold point 12 and pursue a wider RfC to establish a more permanent consensus on the ToU rules. I prioritize 7 over 12 because 12 may require a long time to be resolved.

How's this as an argument? {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 01:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Your first point is somewhat misstated. WP:TOU is Wikipedia policy. Please click on the link.Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Fair point. My goal in saying that it was not a policy was to emphasize its difference from community policies. I've struck that portion for now; saying it's a legal document is probably sufficient to make the point. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 01:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, WP:TOU is "community policy" - yes it has a different method of adoption, but we are in community with the WMF and even if we were not, it is a Policy of en:Wikipedia, which is this community. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

On points 5 and 6, the only we way can opt-out is to pass a policy - the TOU is clear on that. Based on past experience, I think it is reasonable to say that enWP there is almost no possibility that enWP will be able to achieve consensus on any policy related to paid editing or COI. I think the way it is currently stated, is a bit misleading as to how real the "opt-out" is for enWP. Would you consider replacing "standard" with "policy" in points 5 and 6, and separately consider adding to 6, "And based on past attempts, there is little chance that English Wikipedia will be able to reach consensus on an alternative disclosure policy"? Jytdog (talk) 02:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Done for the "policy" distinction. I don't think it significantly affects the argument, but I suppose it's worth being precise. I don't want to add the second part because it seems too speculative. It's not an unlikely outcome, but it's not a safe assumption, either. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 02:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

On point 8, I don't understand. Nothing in the ToU allows WP:OUTING - and FAQ point 1.3 specifically addresses WP:OUTING and WP:HARASSMENT - this is the same as the warnings at our WP:COIN. I would prefer that Point 8 read: "Some may perceive a tension between the ToU and privacy policies, but there is none. FAQ point 1.3 of the ToU specifically says that the ToU do not override WP:OUTING and WP:HARASSMENT - this is the same as the warnings at our WP:COIN." Would you consider that? And in that light, 9 should be struck. Would you please consider that too? Jytdog (talk) 02:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

On point 8, I don't understand. Nothing in the ToU allows WP:OUTING - and FAQ point 1.3 specifically addresses WP:OUTING and WP:HARASSMENT - this is the same as the warnings at our WP:COIN. I would prefer that Point 8 read: "Some may perceive a tension between the ToU and privacy policies, but there is none. FAQ point 1.3 of the ToU specifically says that the ToU do not override WP:OUTING and WP:HARASSMENT - this is the same as the warnings at our WP:COIN." Would you consider that? And in that light, 9 should be struck. Would you please consider that too? Jytdog (talk) 02:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the idea that there's no tension between outing/harassment is a very weak argument, but you've got a point that they don't actually conflict anywhere. It now uses "tension" over "conflict". I think that 9 is important, because unenforceability is a significant weakness in the ToU update, especially given the lack of conflict with outing/harassment policies. That weakness being acknowledged makes the argument stronger. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 02:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much for being responsive! Glad you moved from outright "conflict" to "tension"- I can live with that. I get accused of COI not infrequently by anti-GMO activists and I am very grateful for our very strong privacy policies. As someone who has been in the fire I can tell you that our policies against outing and harassment are effective; there is no real tension. If somebody tries to out you they are in huge trouble. I wish the harassment policy were stronger with regard to chasing someone around pushing COI accusations, but the policy eventually works. So I really don't see a problem, especially since WMF were careful to include FAQ 1.3 and we say the same at COIN... but the description above is OK for me.Jytdog (talk) 02:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Point 11 should read "does not preclude greater or lesser restrictions". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually it does restrict lesser restrictions. The ToU applies unless it is repealed in a very specific way. but "policies and guidelines, such as those addressing conflicts of interest, may further limit paid contributions or require more detailed disclosure." It strikes me as a kind of ratchet or the old style of car jack. It can be jacked up a bit very easily most of the time, but doesn't go down by little bits. Rather there is an escape mechanism that lowers the ratchet completely and you can start over again from scratch. But that's only a rough metaphor. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not clear what you are quoting, but the WMF's new ToU simply says "A Wikimedia Project community may adopt an alternative paid contribution disclosure policy." - nothing about whether that alternative is more or less restrictive. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the above are OK. The point about superceding is crucial. However, I'm not sure I'd say "legal" document. That implies something a bit more lawyerly than this TOU. I'd say something more like "formal statement of governance principles" or something like that. Coretheapple (talk) 02:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The meaning of the word policy as used in the new WMF ToU (to paraphrase: "you may have a local policy that is different to the WMF ToU") is not necessarily the same as the rather legalistic meaning of the word "policy" on en.WP, where it means something with more weight than a guideline. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I very much doubt that as the terms are used carefully and the amendment was drafted with a dialogue from the community. Would you please explain your basis for saying this? Jytdog (talk) 14:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Prove that they have the same meaning. Don't forget to include reference to the local meaning of the word "policy" on each of the other WMF projects. The "community" to which you refer != the en.WP community. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Andy, don't worry about the difference or not. We could argue all day about it and not get anywhere. I've been making a point here about using the word "rules" instead, because all of our policies, guidelines and legal terms ultimately come down to rules that editors have to follow—and simplifying stuff that way short-circuits some of the more legalistic arguments. If English Wikipedia comes up with an alternative disclosure standard, chances are we'll call it a "policy" anyway… {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 14:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, there is no need for us to be uncertain about any of this, as the WMF legal counsel was kind enough to weigh in here. @Slaporte (WMF):! It would be great if you can clear this up for us. When you say "policy" in the TOU, do you mean "policy" in the Wikipedia sense of the word, or could that be construed as including this COI guideline? Coretheapple (talk) 16:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect to Stephen (Slaporte), it matters not one jot what clarifications he makes here; what matter is what was written in the ruling that was passed by the board; and how that is interpreted by admins, arbcom, or whoever gets to (mis-) apply it. Good lawmakers know this well; the same model applies here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing Your radical skepticism ~may~ be useful for a litigator but even in those cases the intent of the parties matter and Stephen is excellently placed to make representations about that and would probably be taken as an authoritative description. In typical contexts the plain meaning of the terms in the ToU is plenty clear, and for a reasonable doubter someone in Stephen's role is totally appropriate to explain what was meant. Your stance, on the other hand, is not mainstream and would be unlikely to get much weight in determining community consensus. Jytdog (talk) 13:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

"radical skepticism"? You seem to have mis-spelled "realism". I would never claim to carry "much weight" in determining community consensus; not least because such is (contrary to what you appear to believe) often nigh-on impossible to predict. How is Stephen qualified to speak for en.WP administrators, and/ or arbcom? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

What we know, right now, is WP:TOU is a policy, while WP:COI, which claims it is a guideline, is also not listed as a policy on enWP, nor by the WMF list. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing on WP:TOU that says it is an en.WP policy; it's just a soft-redirect to meta. And we don't know what equivalence, if any, exists between our use of the word "policy", and the WMFs — which is the point I made above. 18:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes it does, WP:TOU says it is a "policy", it is on en:WP, and en:WP says it's in the Wikipedia:List of policies:"This page includes a summary of official policies on the English Wikipedia which are set out in detail elsewhere." Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Aside from a see also section, the full content of that page is "The official version of this policy is at Wikimedia:Terms of Use". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, that's what it says, it is a "policy" on English Wikipedia. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Reminder

It's at the top of this page, but I think that editors need to be reminded of this. The COI guideline says "Any editor who discusses proposed changes to WP:COI or to any conflict of interest policy or guideline, should disclose in that discussion if he or she has been paid to edit on Wikipedia." Coretheapple (talk) 22:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. Does the TOU mean that Foundation employees who edit Wikipedia as part of their job (I'm thinking of developers commenting on "improvements") must identify themselves. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure does. But the passage I quoted concerns conduct on this page specifically. Being part of a "guideline" and not the TOU, it is like the rest of it: toothless. Coretheapple (talk) 02:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

COI by Foundation members

Specific proposed addition to this guideline, whether or not required by the ToU.

Foundation employees, editing Wikipedia on behalf of the Foundation, must identify themselves in the manner specified in the ToU for paid editors.

We have had examples of Foundation members (or developers) who have made statements in support of Foundation (or other Foundation members or employees) without identifying themselves as writing for the Foundation. I realize en.Wikipedia cannot enforce this, but it seems important to have it as a statement.

Improvement in wording would be appreciated, as well as reasoned !votes. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Arthur, wouldn't this be achieved already by using their staff accounts which generally have (WMF) in their usernames? Isn't that sufficient disclosure? I mean, I get the point you are trying to make, I'm just not sure it's made well.--v/r - TP 02:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that this is necessary: it's a fair assumption that WMF employees are acting in good faith. TParis makes an excellent point, too. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 02:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, some developers commenting on (say) WP:FLOW don't always identify themselves. I don't doubt their good faith, nor that they are often acting in (what they consider to be) the interests of the Foundation, but against the interests of en.Wikipedia. I have no doubt that some paid editors are acting in good faith, and attempting to ensure that their edits are in keeping with (other) Wikipedia policies and guidelines. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Any staff member who is actually writing for the Foundation should be clear about that (e.g., by stating that it's an WP:OFFICE action and doing it from an official staff account, assuming the staffer has one). However, speaking on behalf of the Foundation is rare, especially if you're not in Legal or Communications. Staff members are also allowed to be regular volunteer editors off the clock. If I comment at Flow (usually in the form of telling the Flow team that it's really not going to work for me unless they put yet another feature on their list), then I'm doing that strictly as a volunteer. I have nothing to do with Flow on the job, and a reasonable expectation that I'll have a lot to do with it as a volunteer: Why shouldn't I post my ideas for Flow exactly like any other volunteer with an idea? What if posting "by the way, I'm on staff" meant that someone who disagreed with me felt that it wasn't okay to oppose my idea?

That said, most staff members' accounts (both volunteer and official) should have a note about their affiliation on their userpages, which is all the TOU requires. If you find one that doesn't (and it's an account that is currently active), then feel free to leave a friendly note on the person's talk page. (BTW, I haven't noticed anyone posting over at WT:Flow whose userpage didn't already include such a statement.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

additional thought on ToU - they add force to our guideline

The ToU say: "Applicable law, or community and Foundation policies and guidelines, such as those addressing conflicts of interest, may further limit paid contributions or require more detailed disclosure." This is interesting. The ToU give force to our guideline - a "guideline" is something that indeed "may further limit paid contributions" under the ToU, which is higher than anything else we have here. That is quite an authorization. I imagine that is an interpretation that may be upsetting. But I didn't catch that before at all. Jytdog (talk) 06:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I just deployed that here. Jytdog (talk) 06:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Since this part of the tos specifically refers to this guideline, I agree with Jytdog. The FAQs also say that policies and guidelines must be followed. The upshot is that the tos must be followed and this guideline "may further limit paid contributions or require more detailed disclosure," i.e. the stronger of the two applies.

There's also been a question raised repeatedly on whether the tos implies that paid editing is somehow accepted. The FAQs address this directly. The answer is "no." In detail:

Does this provision mean that paid contributions are always allowed as long as they are disclosed?

"No. Users must also comply with each Wikimedia project’s additional policies and guidelines, as well as any applicable laws. For example, English Wikipedia’s policy on neutral point of view requires that editing be done fairly, proportionally and (as far as possible) without bias; these requirements must be followed even if the contributor discloses making paid edits."

I suppose there might be an argument that, because this guideline doesn't specifically prohibit paid editing, but only says that it is very strongly discouraged then it must be allowed, i.e. arguing that 2 negatives make a positive. In point of fact this guideline has never said anything about making paid editing acceptable - quite the opposite. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Applicable law

@Slaporte (WMF): The Terms of Use amendment and FAQs refer to "applicable law", but the amendment doesn't say what applicable law is, rather referring generally to the FTC, EU law, and California and New York state law and suggesting that other laws may apply as well.

In Section 13 "Disputes and Jurisdiction" of the ToU (which was not amended) it states: "You agree to submit to the personal jurisdiction of, and agree that venue is proper in, the courts located in San Francisco County, California, in any legal action or proceeding relating to us or these Terms of Use."

Does this mean that California state laws and US federal laws have a special status in a legal dispute over paid editing involving the WMF, but that other laws may apply as well? That's probably too big of a question to be put all in one sentence, but perhaps you can address this in parts.

Also at the very bottom of the ToU is a date when they were last revised. It says 2012 right now. Shouldn't it be June 16, 2014?

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Is editing Wikipedia from an hourly job “paid”?

If I were to edit an article related or unrelated to my field of employment while at work (i.e. “on the clock,”) then a literal reading of the revised terms of service would suggest that I must disclose my identity. After all, while at work people may be paid by the hour regardless of what they are doing. Furthermore, the new guideline mentions paid editing in the context of “deceptive activities” and “fraud.” Actual paid editing may not necessarily constitute fraud; even if somebody were to pay me to express a point of view, the ultimate end-result may be to make an article better in quality, or even to make it more neutral or remove bias. If that is the case, then such editing might neither be deceptive nor be fraudulent. By contrast, receiving compensation for time spent at work when I actually edit Wikipedia instead of doing my job may arguably constitute fraud against my employer and therefore violate the revised terms of service. (In reality my employer cares only that the editing does not interfere with the job being done, but other employers have a blanket policy against personal Internet usage.) 173.79.225.57 (talk) 17:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

No. "As part of these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." You are not expecting compensation for your contributions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd be very careful about Wikilawyering here. If you are really asking about doing work that your employer is encouraging you to do on time that he is paying you for, I'd say disclose. You don't have to disclose your own name, but you do have to disclose your employer's and any other client and affiliation you have. The WMF has reserved the right the take action in this case if you don't disclose, in which case you might be answering in a real courtroom, under real laws, not on a Wiki discussion board. They wouldn't have to prove anything about fraud - just that you were paid for the edit and that you did not disclose.

That said if you are editing in good faith and not influenced by your employer, I wouldn't expect anything so serious. Please just don't try to cut corners on this. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

What he seems to be describing is not paid editing but just ordinary COI editing, which this guideline is designed to discourage. Coretheapple (talk) 19:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Fulfilling this guideline

An innocent Wikipedian echoes words of discouragement to a COI editor while he flatters himself.

Those who take part in COI editing are supposed to be "strongly discouraged." This discouragement will not come from anyone except editors of good conscience. It is our responsibility to use not just milquetoast words when talking about this practice—words just as easily ignored as said—but to discourage it strongly in the face of resistance. And resistance exists.

Resistance to this discouragement is caused by narcissism. Some COI editors perhaps do not care at all about bettering this encyclopedia, but they offer no real resistance, even if they repeat some talking points. Real, honest resistance instead stems from the narcissistic view that one's abilities as an editor are just that much better. Editors with this view believe that the strong discouragement should only apply to others, not them; that they are not affected by their conflict of interest; that they edit neutrally despite any financial incentive not to do so. By their own self-love, they are the exceptional editors: "COI editing should be strongly discouraged, yes, sure, whatever, but I shall still do it, because I am allowed and I am the exception better than the rule of others."

How do we strongly discourage these editors? We tell them, whenever the issue of their COI editing comes up, why it is that the practice is strongly discouraged: because it hurts this encyclopedia. Their behaviour hurts this encyclopedia. No COI editor has ever displayed a relevant body of work that has been free of shortcomings in terms of neutrality. The existence of such shortcomings can always be reasonably suspected as being caused by a relevant conflict of interest where one exists. Such suspicions destroy trust. And we should tell them too of the consensus of our reliable sources concerning conflict of interest authorship: No one is immune, even when one is not consciously aware of being affected by their conflict of interest (Moore & Loewenstein 2004 [4]). If these messages and others are pressed consistently, perhaps we can move from inadequate, merest discouragement to the strong discouragement required by this guideline.

And every time someone tries to apologize for or enable COI editing, ask that person: "How is what you're saying consistent with our goal of strongly discouraging for COI editing?" If they cannot adequately answer this, then rightly tell them that they are failing to live up to the consensus on how a Wikipedian should behave as represented by this guideline. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 08:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

But there are many editors, including some administrators, who believe in facilitating COI editing, not discouraging it. Some have engaged in paid editing themselves. They hate this guideline and despise editors who want to strengthen it. It's an emotional issue for them, as pocketbook issues frequently are. But keep in mind that the victim of this ethical blind spot is the project as a whole, and the reputation of Wikipedia, so ultimately we can't get worked too much into a sweat when the Foundation responds in a half-hearted and equivocal way. As it has. Coretheapple (talk) 14:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

"But there are many editors, including some administrators, who believe in facilitating COI editing, not discouraging it." There are a majority of editors, as demonstrated by the failed attempts to prohibit it altogether, that believe outright bans of COI editing is fruitless and facilitating it offers the best option to ensure a NPOV encyclopedia.--v/r - TP 16:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

No the community does not believe in "facilitating" COI editing. That's your position, and it is contrary to the spirit and text of this guideline, which says in plain language: "COI editing is strongly discouraged." It doesn't say "COI editing is OK if disclosed" or "COI editing needs to be facilitated in order that it doesn't go underground" or other rubbish like that. It says is "discouraged." We need to improve this guideline, not undermine it, and facilitating it would be directly contrary to what the community is saying in this guideline. Coretheapple (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

If it is only my opinion, than why have you needed to change this policy to reflect yours? And why have you not sought community consensus with an RFC? The 4 previous RFCs failed. This isn't my opinion, it is the community's.--v/r - TP 17:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

It is only your opinion because "facilitating COI editing" is contrary to the plain language of the guideline. It's that simple. What this guideline says has nothing whatsoever to do with what RfCs have concluded or whatever else you are referring to, as I can't make any sense of it. Coretheapple (talk) 17:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

This entire policy is about facilitating COIs. It's about how to contribute as a COI editor in good faith and under what conditions we'll find it agreeable. What this policy isn't about is prohibiting COI editing.--v/r - TP 17:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

TParis, my perspective is that COI editing remains an incredible contentious issue on enWP and the community is far from settled on the issue. I don't think its accurate to say "we'll find it agreeable"! There are editors who will be very antagonistic toward COI editors and some who will encourage them. The community cannot agree on any policy on this issue; the best it could do is to issue this guideline, with which the community remains uneasy. The guideline allows the presence of editors with a COI in the community and offers behavioral guidelines for what COI editors should and should not do, with most of the emphasis on restrictions. Because of this unsettledness, COI editors can expect trouble on Talk pages, but if they stay within the guidelines they are very unlikely to meet with any further restrictions or admininistrative actions. Jytdog (talk) 18:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Jytdog, I entirely agree. I hope we do not stray from that in our current discussions.--v/r - TP 18:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

:) Jytdog (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

TParis, if you feel that "this entire policy [sic] is about facilitating COIs" -- when the then you need to reconcile that... I don't what it is... hidden meaning? ... with language in this behavioral guideline (it is not a "policy") that says the direct opposite, that it is to actively discourage such editing. Facilitate means "make (an action or process) easy or easier," so the guideline needs to say "COI editing is strongly discouraged and we want to make it easier for you", adding the italicized text. FYI, whatever you call it, there is no COI guideline or policy or tree stump on earth that is designed to "facilitate" COI editing, so Wikipedia would be a kind of trailblazer in doubletalk. Coretheapple (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Obligations under new ToU

I presume that we are currently operating under the new Terms of Use until such a time as there is community consensus to establish a local policy. My question is what obligations this places editors aware of paid editing under. In the past, although paid editing was "very strongly discouraged", it wasn't specifically banned. So there was no obligation to reveal paid editors, as the paid editing wasn't in-and-of-itself a problem. If the editing went beyond that, into use of socks, vote stacking, writing masses of non-notable articles, or the use of Wikipedia for promotion, we'd act on those grounds and maybe raise the paid editing component. However, now editors who do paid work without disclosure are acting against a policy in the form of the ToU. Are we therefore expected to act on the basis that they are breaking the Terms of Use through their non-disclosure, and reveal their paid editing status accordingly? I should note that this isn't an issue of outing them in terms of any identifying information, so much as outing that they are being paid.

I ask because there has always been a certain stigma in regard to being a paid editor, so some editors tend to try and operate within policy, but underground. (Many others just ignore policy and create multiple throwaway accounts, but they are handled through SPI). Based on the new ToU, those editors are no longer acting within policy, and so they presumably cannot remain underground. - Bilby (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

First they should be politely asked to conform, pointing to the TOU. If they refuse and continue and can't be talked down, it escalates in possibly different ways, which will likely in the situation dictate where and when to press it. (eg, WP:COIN) Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd say that non-disclosed paid editors are committing a banable offense, but should not be considered banned until they are formally banned, e.g. at ANI or by the WMF. I don't think anybody is actually obligated to bring paid editors, or even banned editors to anybody's attention, but it is certainly possible and should be encouraged.

I'll suggest a very gentle series of escalating steps.

• 1st a gentle personal note explaining the ToU and suggesting reasons why somebody might think the editor is being paid
  • If the editor does not disclose and continues problematic editing, then
• 2 explain why the matter should be taken to WP:COIN, just to clear up possible misperceptions
  • if folks at COIN decide there is a problem (without outing, but obviously some investigation is just natural), and the problems continue, then
• 3 post a formal notice on the editor's talk page, explaining that there are perceived problems with paid editing and that the matter may to taken to ANI and possibly lead to a community ban.
  • If ANI refuses to perform their obligations
• 4 bring the matter to WMF legal - who I'm sure can ban by office action or other methods, but would prefer not to over-ride ANI without very good reason. Give the WMF some time on this, but don't let them forget about it.
• 5 that's the end of on-Wiki steps, but it should be clear that Wikipedia editors are free to pursue the matter off-Wiki, e.g. by public shaming through the press.

If anybody can suggest other reasonable steps, I'd be happy to include them. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:OUTING still applies. The terms of use are not a shield against outing. Encouraging COI editors to reveal themselves is one thing, outing them is another. The obligation is on the editor being paid, no such obligation exists for other editors and no immunity exists for other editors. Other options include Arbcom and WMF legal.--v/r - TP 16:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

If that is the case, OUTING needs to be looked at because on the contrary, OUTING should not be a shield against obvious paid ediitng. It has long been used as a cloak for paid editors to hide behind, no matter how visible the off-wiki evidence is. Paid editing is a scourge to the project and this is our best opportunity in a long time to take a proactive stance against it. If a user publicly associates themselves as a paid editor and links to his Wikipedia account anywhere on the internet, we absolutely need to confront that on-wiki. Punishing such behaviour as "harrassment" is foolish. ThemFromSpace 17:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

If outing were changed in this regard, there would be no point in having an outing policy. The most frequent types of outing is discovering someone's employeer and then emailing their employer. This is an issue way more widespread than COI editing, but I COI editing would easily be an excuse. "I was making sure he didnt have a COI" ect.--v/r - TP 17:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

My assumption is, and continues to be, that outing applies like it always has in terms of COIs - if you have to out someone to reveal a COI, then you can't reveal the COI. That said, we don't necessarily need to publicly out someone to say that they are a paid editor. If someone has off-wiki proof that a person is a paid editor, I presume it can go through the same channels this sort of issue has always gone through, via arbcom or a checkuser, without ever being made public. - Bilby (talk) 17:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Exactly on point, Bilby. Arbcom and Checkuser, and even the WMF, remain the avenues for private information.--v/r - TP 17:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Just as one quick comment, I don't feel that publicly shaming editors, paid or otherwise, should ever be an option. From the discussion my reading is that I should raise it with the editor, even if that also raises a suspicion, and take the path COIN => AN/I => WMF, with private information shared only with ArbCom or a CU. I'm also assuming that admins have the usual discretion to block. - Bilby (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Disclaimer - I am not a lawyer, and my comment here reflects only my own (educated) guess, and not an official statement from the legal team - I think this is exactly on point, Bilby and TParis. I don't encourage such a change to WP:OUTING. I think existing enforcement mechanisms are fine here. The Amendment should not become a vehicle of harassment, nor should it become a tool that's used against good editors. It's a tool to be used against those who are not good editors and demonstrate that by undisclosed paid advocacy. It is not, and should not be, used to declare open season on outing. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

"should not become a vehicle of harassment, nor should it become a tool that's used against good editors" But you can bet your house it will.
"a tool to be used against those who are not good editors and demonstrate that by undisclosed paid advocacy" Then it should refer to paid advocacy, not paid editing. This conflation is a major concern, as I have already outlined on meta. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Thoughts about the RfC below

Note - I purposefully put this out of order so as to not clutter the open Rfc below...Jytdog (talk) 21:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, so about the RfC below. I don't agree with its preface but that is not the real problem. The problem is that it is "omnibus". It has three main buckets. 1) Override the ToU or not, and if so how? and 2) Obligations of other editors when they see (what they think may be) paid editing; 3) A philosophical question. Under each of those are various options, which are overlapping in some ways and separate questions in other ways. This is a lot for the community to bite off. Too much I think.

Especially in light of the graveyard of failed proposals and difficult discussions the community has already been through just in the past few years: (copied from the links at the end of the Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia article):

• Wikipedia community discussion on paid editing, 2009.
• Wikipedia community discussion on conflict of interest, 2012.
• No paid advocacy (talk) Failed policy proposal, November 2013
• Paid editing policy proposal(talk) Failed policy proposal, November 2013
• Commercial editing essay(talk) Failed policy proposal turned into an essay, November 2013
• Conflict of interest limit (talk) Failed policy proposal as of December 2013

it seems to me that an omnibus RfC like the one below, with overlapping options, will very likely result in a whole slew of very intense, and very long, conversations and that we will end up with no consensus about anything that we can actually act on. And I shudder to think about the work anyone would have to do, in order to close it! I really, really don't want to do that to the community. If anybody active here is unaware of the 4 failed policies from last winter, please look over the Talk pages associated with each of them, linked above. Not pretty. The editor Dank was the one who stepped up and put each of those 4 proposals out of its misery, and while he was closing them he expressed a willingness to try to facilitate a community-wide conversation about COI/paid editing in a way that could lead to a consensus. If TP would be so kind as to withdraw the RfC, I suggest we invite Dank to see if he is still willing to do that, especially now in light of the new reality that the ToU amendment has created. Would everybody be OK with that? If not, I would be happy to have a conversation here about how to set up an RfC (or a series of them) that has a hope of leading to something actionable and of being close-able. But the one below... respectfully, I see it as a disaster waiting to happen. TParis, would you please please withdraw it? Thanks very much. Jytdog (talk) 21:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

And voila, Dank has appeared below, even as I wrote this! Jytdog (talk) 21:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• I can't argue with you on this, but once the RfC ship has sailed, it's sailed. I know of no way of calling it back. If we can push a button and abort this errant missile (forgive the second metaphor), fine. If not, not. Life goes on. If there is stalemate, or if the paid editing fans get their way, the Foundation will act. Or not. Ultimately it's their problem. The only reason we are having this discussion is because of the past stalemates you reference. My further thoughts on this are under "Objection" below. Coretheapple (talk) 00:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course, the OP can always kill it by taking the tag off. Jytdog (talk) 03:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog, I'm willing to be reasonable if you have legitimate complaints. I disagree with you about the structure of the RFC, I've personally closed dozens in this very format. But let's make this easy, if you acknowledge that I have repeatedly called on an RFC to be formed for days now and you agree that we are in need of one, I am willing to work with you on formulating one that is more agreeable. It serves my 'side' in this discussion as much as your 'side' to have a RFC that could not be called into dispute about its closure. We can even invite Dank, and anyone else who cares, to help develop it.--v/r - TP 03:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for replying, TP! I do acknowledge that you have been calling for an RfC. I am happy to reply to the rest, but first....Three questions: I am sorry but I am a little unclear on how you are defining "sides" (sorry that it is not obvious to me! I just re-read your comments on the page) and what you see as being at stake.

1. Are you drawing the separating line around those who understand that our COI guideline is a "policy" as referenced in the ToU, and those who understand that when the ToU refers to "policy" is means "policy" in the same sense that enWP uses that term (Wikipedia:PAG#Role?
2. If that is accurate, is the stake, whether the ToU overrides our guideline or not?
3. If that is indeed what is at stake, is such a broad RfC really the best way to address that specific question?

Thanks again, very much. btw, I do get a strong sense from your RfC that you would like to try to get the community's consensus on all the paid editing/COI issues, but that does not come through so much in your various comments here, which seem more focused on the questions I list above. On the broader issues, I too would love us to have a policy (as we define that) on paid editing/COI but after the disaster of last winter I really think we need to it carefully - and those broad questions are somewhat separate from the more legal questions above....Jytdog (talk) 12:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Sides I used very loosely, hence the quotes around them. I didn't really have a definition other than to mean, I've been throwing it out there repeatedly. It's obvious from WMF Legal's comments that currently the ToU overrides the COI guideline. However, it's not accurate that the COI guideline is not sufficient to be a local disclosure policy. WMF Legal's comments were only that a local consensus needs to be specific that the COI guideline is an alternative to the ToU disclosure policy. The other two questions have come up in this discussion above. My sole intention is that changes to guidelines and policies happen by consensus and not by editors who have strong opinions and call them 'grammatical fixes' etc. Wikipedia guidelines and policies reflect community practice, community practice does not reflect policies and guidelines. This is very clear in Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, "Because Wikipedia practice exists in the community through consensus, editing a policy/guideline/essay page does not in itself imply an immediate change to accepted practice." I don't oppose change, even change I dislike. I oppose change that the wider community hasn't weighed in on.--v/r - TP 19:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

That was very gracious of you to withdraw the RfC, thank you! I considering your explanation of concern. I agree that the community needs to have the opportunity to weigh in, at least on whether to accept or to override back to our weaker guideline. I could see such a narrow binary RfC as having a chance of being productive. But as you can see I have invited Dank to step in since there are indeed many issues in the air... let's see what he thinks. Thank you again. Jytdog (talk) 20:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• I agree pretty strongly with the people suggesting that this RfC doesn't really work in it's current form. I would be happy to work with anyone interested on drafting a different RfC, but I can't see this one resulting in a productive discussion. Option one is a red herring because there is no clear conflict between WP:COI and the new ToU, option two is not ideal because it is very vague and would require at least one additional RfC if it won in all likelihood, option three is not ideal because it's not worded ideally since presumably it means "WP:COI is our alternate disclosure policy as permitted by the ToU" rather than "WP:COI fulfills the ToU", option four is subideal because... welll.. I can't really see why on earth it's even an option given, and option five is subideal because it both assumes that the June 10th version actually represented a consensus version and doesn't explicitly specify whether restoring that version would entail it coexisting with the ToU requirements or standing as our alternate disclosure policy as allowed by the ToU.

It's probably also worth noting that there's not really a rush about getting this RfC through and it would be ideal to spend a few extra days getting wording that's reasonably likely to result in a clear outcome instead of launching it immediately. The ToU changes are currently already in full effect on ENWP, and will continue to be in full effect unless we approve an alternate disclosure policy. Since an RfC like this is going to run for a minimum of probably 35 days including the time the closers will take, is there any reason to rush the launch of an unclear RfC over waiting a bit to launch a more clear RfC? Even if it takes us a week to formulate a more clear RfC, it'll only be the difference between the new ToU applying to ENWP for 42 days vs 35 days if an alternate disclosure policy is approved.. I would much rather see an RfC launched later on with fewer and more clear options than a confusing RfC launched immediately that reaches no satisfactory outcome. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem with the RfC below, as I read it, is that is assumes this guideline is essentially about paid editing, which is just not true. This guideline is about conflicts of interest, and only tangentially about paid editing. And the WMF foundation resolution is about paid editing, and only tangentially about conflicts of interest (in form, if perhaps not in intent). Even if English Wikipedia wanted a separate policy on paid editing, throwing away our conflict of interest guidelines and replacing with something that only covers a very small corner of conflicts of interest and instead deals with mostly occurrances that have no conflict of interest, doesn't make sense. We're still going to need guidelines for conflicts of interest. WilyD 12:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

WilyD has said more articulately something I was about to point out, and also at present we don't even have a guideline. It was tagged "disputed" after one editor insisted upon removing a reference to the TOU. Coretheapple (talk) 12:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed changes to the Conflict of Interest Policy

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

---

The Wikimedia Foundation has made updates to the m:Terms of Use which conflict with the existing COI guideline requiring either updates or a explicit English Wikipedia consensus that the COI guideline fulfills the policy requirement of the Terms of Use to override it's conditions on COI editing. Several issues have been discussed on this page relating to the Terms of Use. The terms of use are in effect for all projects unless a project develops a local consensus otherwise and that consensus may be more restrictive or less restrictive. Commons is currently discussing this very thing.

A Wikimedia Project community may adopt an alternative paid contribution disclosure policy. If a Project adopts an alternative disclosure policy, you may comply with that policy instead of the requirements in this section when contributing to that Project. An alternative paid contribution policy will only supersede these requirements if it is approved by the relevant Project community and listed in the alternative disclosure policy page.

According to WMF Legal, there is nothing wrong with a guideline being considered a 'policy' according to WMF's terms of use, but that a local project consensus needs to explicitly state its purpose as overriding the m:Terms of Use.--v/r - TP 18:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Disclosure

The terms of use mandate disclosure on any one of three pages: on editors user page, on an article talk page, or in an edit summary. Current English Wikipedia policy is to strongly encourage disclosure. We have these options that range from explicit compliance with the WMF to explicit refusal and a range in the middle:

• Option 1 Do nothing. The WMF Terms of use will supersede the English Wikipedia WP:COI guideline.
• Option 2 Ratify our own policy mandating disclosure
• Option 3 WP:COI fulfills the requirements of the terms of use
• Option 4 Only provide a link to the m:Terms of Use
• Option 5 Restore the WP:COI policy to the last consensus version at [5]

Discussion

• The WMF has made it very clear that our COI policy does not "fulfill the requirements of the terms of use," as an alternate disclosure policy - see [6]. Hipocrite (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  • And when pressed for clarifiation they said it was because the consensus behind it wasn't specifically as an alternative to their terms of use disclosure policy, see [7].--v/r - TP 18:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
    • That's also because WP:TOU is an English WP Policy, and WP:COI has never been adopted as a Policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support Option 2 - Restate the Terms of Use so as to mandate, rather than encourage, disclosure. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
• Option 2 - Paid editing is a subset of COI and WP:COI is a guideline. This should be a separate and specific enwiki policy.- MrX 21:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
• Option 2 -The WMF policy is not forcing us to make paid editing disclosures mandatory; it will allow us to keep disclosures optional if we so choose. However, there is no good reason to make this choice. Undisclosed and unmoderated paid editing goes against neutrality policy, one of the five Wikipedia pillars. Making paid editing disclosures mandatory is within the best interest of Wikipedia, so policy (not just guidelines) should be passed accordingly. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
• Comment as noted above, Option 3 is improper because it suggests that this COI guideline overrule a policy. We need to adopt a policy to do that, and the TOU amendment specifically lets us do that if we want. Until and unless that happens, the TOU remain in force. Of the alternatives presented here, Option 2 makes the most sense. We should have a policy mandating disclosure. But I think that the presence of this false choice, Option 3, and the other issues, invalidates this entire RfC. Coretheapple (talk) 23:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
• Abstain See COI disclosure on user page. CorporateM (Talk) 02:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
• Option 6, we make our own policy as an alternative to the TOU that reflects our handling of paid editors to how it was before the TOU was created. AioftheStorm (talk) 03:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
• Option 3 Let's promote the guideline to a policy if needed. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
• I think it's worth noting the objections in the section above, and think they're significant enough that this cannot run as a legitimate RfC with its current wording (and I hesitate to suggest major rewordings of RfC's already in progress.) For instance, Option 1 is factually incorrect - the ToU doesn't supercede WP:COI since they can exist simultaneously because they have different requirements and address different issues. That said, if this somehow does end up running to completion in its current state, since the ToU changes came about as a direct result of a significant issue on ENWP that we haven't fully addressed the past instances of and don't have adequate tools to address future instances of if we don't keep the ToU in place or have an alternate disclosure policy that is more strict than the language about recommending disclosure/strongly discouraging direct mainspace editing previously found at WP:COI, the only options I see as viable are either letting the ToU stand in addition to the further guidance provided by WP:COI, or adopting an alternate disclosure policy that is stronger than the diff TP linked as 'last consensus version.' Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose RfC as invalid The options are confusing and redundant, encouraging vote splitting. It also seems like those votes for option 2 aren't realizing that by adopting our own policy, it gives editors here a chance to weaken the TOU to not require disclosure at all. Gigs (talk) 17:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Obligations of other editors

Are other editors, not the paid editors themselves, who are aware that paid editing is taking place under any obligations to disclose that information to the wider community?

• Option 1 No obligation
• Option 2 Encouraged to disclose to Arbcom
• Option 3 Obligated to discourage the editor from paid editing and encourage disclosure
• Option 4 Obligated to disclose the paid editing to Arbcom or other private channels
• Option 5 Obligated to disclose publicly that another editor is paid editing, immunity from WP:OUTING

Discussion

• Support Option 2 - Reporting is desirable but not required. No obligation to be an informer. Option 3, including discouraging the paid editor, is an exercise in futility. Paid editors won't go away voluntarily. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
• Option 1 - No obligation, but certainly no prohibition against notifying ARBCOM and/or the community provided that WP:OUTING and privacy rights are respected. I am strongly against any mandated obligation to disclose.- MrX 21:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
• Option 2-I believe that editors with probable cause that another is a paid editor should be encouraged to make a report. However, actually making this mandatory seems like an incredible exercise in pointlessness. If it’s mandatory, some sort of penalty would need to be assigned to users who don’t report. We would then need to go through all of the effort of proving that one editor was aware of the paid editor status of another. This does not address the problem of paid editing and is quite frankly, a waste of everyone’s time. Its best to just make reporting voluntary. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
• Huh? This question is also prejudicial or absurd. No one has a Wikipedia obligation "to do" anything on Wikipedia (or off). It's only when you do something on Wikipedia that Wikipedia obligations arise, and those are entirely dependent on what you are doing, like under WP:RfC when you post an RfC it needs to be neutrally worded. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
• This is a ridiculously worded question that goes against all normal WP:RfC practices. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
• This question is so ridiculous that I wonder if perhaps it should be left in, so that the Foundation can get a true understanding that Wikipedia editors are incapable of thoughtfully dealing with this issue. Coretheapple (talk) 12:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
• We need to distinguish between our obligations under policy, and our obligation to act. No editor is obligated to act as a policeman under any policy, although there are certain things (like removing vandalism from BLPs) that are so important we get close to that. The reason I asked this question above is that I was wondering the ToU expects me to do if I am aware of undisclosed paid editors, but we're not forced to act on that information if we choose not to. So I guess how I'd tackle this question is to ask not what we are obligated to do, but what we are expected to do if we are aware of a paid editor, as "expected" gives room for individual discretion. In regard to the options, I think the privacy policy trumps paid editor disclosure, but there is a difference between saying "this account is used by a paid editor" and "this account belongs to L.J. from ... who is a paid editor". The second is outing, but the first should be acceptable. So I don't see a major problem with 1, 2, 3 or 4, but would oppose 5. - Bilby (talk) 14:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Bilby I didn't understand until very recently how open and profligate is the "paid editing market." There's a freelancers' bulletin board where Wikipedia assistance is openly solicited and offered, often naming specific clients and articles. Much as I dislike paid editing, the idea that I as an editor have an obligation to "rat out" people is abhorrent, and I think it would be to many other editors. It is a total red herring. Coretheapple (talk) 15:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

There isn't one board - I follow five main ones, and there are others with lower rates of Wikipedia jobs that I might check in on from time to time. That said, I don't think I was clear - you are not under an obligation to "rat out" anyone, any more than you are under an obligation to report someone to SPI, or to nominate an article that has insufficient sources to AfD. I would also fight a requirement that I am obligated these things. However, under policy there are things we are expected to do, and my interest when I raised the section prior to this RfC was to understand what the ToU expected of editors who are aware of undisclosed paid editing. This section would be better written in terms of "expectations" rather than "obligations", and should be focused on enforcement procedures. If worded that way, I don't mind being expected to encourage paid editors to disclose or to report it to arbcom. I am opposed to any expectation that I out editors, or any wording that mandates enforcement. - Bilby (talk) 15:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

This is the first time I've heard of such an expectation. Certainly not ordinary editors. Now administrators are another matter entirely. Coretheapple (talk) 15:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Are we facilitating or prohibiting?

What is the community's goal regarding paid editing. Does WP:COI actively describe the conditions on which paid editing, or paid editing to talk pages, would be acceptable, agreeable, or is our goal to stop all paid editing?

• Option 1 Paid editing should be prohibited
• Option 2 Paid editing should be discouraged, but not prohibited.
• Option 3 Paid editing is agreeable under certain conditions listed in WP:COI which include no editing to articles directly
• Option 4 Paid editing is acceptable.

Discussion

• Support modified Option 1. Paid advocacy editing, or paid commercial editing, should be prohibited. Paid editing by professors and similar experts is acceptable. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
• Option 2 - I don't lose sleep over paid editing. There are so many motivations that can cause harm to the encyclopedia, that we all need to all be vigilant to make sure that misinformation and promotion do not stay in the encyclopedia. I am not in favor of giving any class of editors special dispensation, as suggested by my esteemed peer, Robert McClenon.- MrX 21:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
• Comment This is non-neutral, inaccurate, and presents a false choice. The current guideline restricts paid editing and cannot "stop" paid editing because it is just that, a behavioral guideline. Option 3 misstates the purpose of this guideline, which is to discourage COI editing, not to make it "agreeable." If this RfC is to change the fundamental thrust of the guideline, it must do so forthrightly and not by this kind of sleight-of-hand. And since Option 3 would overrule the TOU unless disclosure is mandated, it's improper because this is a guideline, and the TOU is policy. Coretheapple (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
• Options 3 and 2-I do not like paid editing at all and wish we could prohibit it with 100% effectiveness. However, let’s be realistic here: there is always going to be demand for paid editing to Wikipedia and paid editors are not going away just because we prohibit it. If we allow some restricted forms of paid editing, we can monitor it and prevent the worst paid editing abuses from occurring. If we outlaw it entirely, paid editors will just refrain from disclosing their status and conduct their paid editing under the radar, far away from the scrutiny of non-paid users. Neither solution is ideal, but allowing some restricted forms of paid editing is the lesser of two evils. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
• Option 4, is it preferable? No. But it is acceptable. Biased editing is unacceptable, but I am convinced that ideological bias is more potent than financial bias. I believe that if I were paid to edit a Wikipedia article, I would have no problem being neutral. I don't believe someone could believe as I do, that they could be paid to edit an article while remaining neutral, and also believe that paid editing is an indomitable source of bias. Additionally, paid editors work on topics that no one would ever edit if they weren't being paid, and are realistically the only option that a person/business has if they want their page edited. You can make requests, but this is a volunteer site and requests are generally ignored, especially on obscure topics. This is a site based on the mantra that "anybody can edit", even anonymous people with no credentials. Our policies have never seemed realistic, but at the very least they are usually ideologically consistent.AioftheStorm (talk) 02:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
• Option 1. The question is misstated, but I'll assume that by "paid editing" is meant "paid advocacy editing" or "commercial editing" or "paid reputation management editing"... that sort of thing. Well of course it's no good. It should be prohibited because 1) it's no good, and 2) prohibiting something is how you have less of that thing. There may be bad side effects of prohibiting something, but that's a different issue. I don't think any sane person can say "Well, if we allow paid advocacy editing, we'll have less of it, and if we prohibit it, we'll have more." Right? I mean alcohol Prohibition was a disaster in America, but it did depress alcohol consumption. Alcohol consumption did not fall after Prohibition was repealed. Now, two things about that that were 1) there were bad side effects and 2) what's wrong with alcohol consumption anyway? Same deal here re paid advocacy editing. If you think that "driving it underground" is really bad side effect (not clear how that would be, but reasonable (although wrong IMO) arguments can be made to that effect) or if you think that paid advocacy editing is a good thing, then fine, you won't agree with me. But IMO making there be less of it is a really good thing and really important. And prohibiting things is how you do that. Herostratus (talk) 03:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll assume that by "paid editing" is meant "paid advocacy editing"

• The question is stated correctly. Paid advocacy is already banned, this discussion concerns paid editing.AioftheStorm (talk) 03:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• This isn't a question that belongs in this RfC, because any reasonable person familiar with past discussions of this set of issues on ENWP fully understands that there is no possible way community consensus will be reached on this particular issue. All that including this question here does is distract from questions that actually need to be addressed. Also, what Coretheapple said. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually I overlooked one of the problems with this question, which is that it fails to define paid editing. While I throw that phrase around myself, what I mean is usually referred to as "paid advocacy editing," or editing on behalf of a specific client to advance the client's interests. But "paid editing" can also be construed as benign activities like a professor writing about areas of expertise, like Greco-Roman arm-wrestling or whatever, that he is "paid" to follow. The more I look at this RfC, the more I realize that its ignorant phrasing, appeals to emotion and general stupidity is actually a fine representation of the Wikipedia attitude toward COI and paid editing. Coretheapple (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Objection

Not neutrally worded. That is not what the WMF has said, and its characterization in this RfC is clearly meant to prejudice this discussion. There is also no agreement that there is a substantive conflict between WP:TOU disclosure policy and WP:COI, and that statement in the RfC is also clearly meant to prejudice this discussion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Hipocrite (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I've linked explicitly where the WMF legal said what they said.--v/r - TP 18:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

And it's miss-characterized in the RfC, so object. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Where is the link to what WMF Legal said? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

This followed by this are their two comments on the matter.--v/r - TP 18:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Except that the TOU does explicitly distinguish between guidelines and policies. You have to read the whole portion of the TOU in context.[8] "Applicable law, or community and Foundation policies and guidelines, such as those addressing conflicts of interest, may further limit paid contributions or require more detailed disclosure." Then in the next paragraph, "A Wikimedia Project community may adopt an alternative paid contribution disclosure policy. If a Project adopts an alternative disclosure policy, you may comply with that policy instead of the requirements in this section when contributing to that Project." This TOU doesn't come out of nowhere. It was written with this project in mind, and I think the Foundation knows perfectly well that we have guidelines and policies, and that they are different. A behavioral guideline can't overrule a policy, and never has. It seems to me that yes, we can overturn the TOU here, but in so doing we would turn this from a guideline into a policy.

However, if the apologists for/"faciltators" of paid editing want to make a mess out of this, or replace this weak TOU with something weaker, as far as I am concerned they are welcome to do so, as the Foundation is responsible for this ambiguity and richly deserves any reputational hit that will flow from it. Coretheapple (talk) 14:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I reject the premise that there is a clear contradiction between the ToU and our guideline (one could argue that there may be, but that is different from what the RfC says) and I reject the implication that the ToU requires us to take any action. It is malformed and should be withdrawn. I don't object to an RfC but it needs to be better formed.Jytdog (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I've asked your 'side' of this conflict to open an RFC about half a dozen times. None of you did.--v/r - TP 19:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The reason you didn't post this as a draft and ask for comments from people you disagree with, or even attempt to write for the enemy is that when you tried to assign work to other people (and shift the burden of consensus,) the other people didn't fall for it? Check! Hipocrite (talk) 19:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Because there is no requirement to. Feel free to propose an RFC to change the requirements of RFCs to require drafts. Or next time when I suggest that one of you open it, do so.--v/r - TP 20:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

TP I hear you, but it would have been better to draft it and and ask what folks think instead of jumping straight to posting it. Would you please withdraw the RfC so we can discuss it? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to change specific language you disagree with, Jytdog, I won't object.--v/r - TP 20:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The invitation is lovely but the way I am wired, I am really uncomfortable changing an open RfC. I will create a new section (above this to avoid cluttering the section below) with some thoughts... this is a very tough RfC to set up so it has a chance of producing an actionable consensus. Jytdog (talk) 20:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree: There is no such conflict between the new TOU and this guideline. The guideline says that COI editing is strongly discouraged and disclosing a COI is encouraged. The TOU says that COI editing is prohibited without disclosure. Encouraging disclosure for such editing is not contradictory with prohibiting non-disclosure for such editing. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Um, no, the WMF's new ToU do not say anything, per se, about "COI edits", It discuses only paid editing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

That's fine if you interpret it as distinct in this case; that still means there's no contradiction. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, this is going to be a difficult RfC. I get what TP is saying about needing to get some kind of structure, but OTOH, you don't want people voting on whether the questions were the right questions, as often happens in these contentious RfCs. I have to stay neutral and I'm not taking a position, but maybe a little more discussion about how best to word the questions would be helpful. - Dank (push to talk) 20:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Now we need an RfC on how to word an RfC? I think the RfC is fine. Let's not pursue perfection at the expense of the good.- MrX 21:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

MrX please see my comments in the section above. Dank knows what he is talking about... Jytdog (talk) 21:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand that that's how things usually work out, thanks to wikilawyering. I was merely making an appeal to address this at practical level. My guess is that the effort that will go into debating, rewording, and re-posting the RfC, will not be rewarded with any substantive benefit. But since people are already calling foul, might as well scrap it and start over.- MrX 21:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

MrX I fear you are not getting it. The community went through FOUR massive, mostly simultaneous proposals for a policy on paid editing last winter - huge, heated, zillions of bytes discussions -- all four of which ended in no consensus. In other words, huge huge waste of time that produced nothing. Except that Dank got some ideas, when he closed them all, of a way to potentially guide a productive conversation. It is not a matter of wikilawyering -- the issues are complex and there are very strong feelings on many sides of the several issues involved.Jytdog (talk) 00:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm having second thoughts about my opposition to this RfC. Sure it's a disaster. Sure it's poorly drafted. Sure it's one-sided and so on and and so forth. But the only reason we've gotten this far is because the Foundation felt moved to act. If there is more stalemate, which seems likely, or if Wikipedia rejects the TOU, the Foundation will be moved to act again. Jimbo feels very strongly about paid editing, and I think it's fair to say that he has described this TOU change as the beginning of a process. So let the process begin. Let them do it. Everyone needs to keep in mind that our personal reputations aren't at stake here. It's really not our problem and I'm beginning to wonder, seeing this massive discussion begin, whether it's worth the trouble. Maybe it's best for the paid editing apologists to get their way, because if they do, they're begging the Foundation to take further action. And if the Foundation doesn't act, so what? Doesn't hurt me. Win-win. Coretheapple (talk) 00:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Here's a little mini-essay I wrote on the subject some months ago, entitled 'Why paid editing is not our problem". I recently removed it from my user page because it's not our problem. Coretheapple (talk) 00:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• Agree that this RfC is a nonstarter as not neutrally worded and objectionable in various ways, beginning with the header - calling this guideline a "policy" from now to doomsday does not make it so - and including its "all or nothing" mindset and the fact that the proposer does not disclose his status as a former paid editor, as required by this guideline. If this indeed were a guideline, that failure to disclose would be even more acute than it is now, and it is pretty bad. Coretheapple (talk) 21:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
• There are some really tough questions here. I've asked for people to step up as closers over at WP:AN. If they do, I don't want to steal their thunder, I'll confer with them before I say anything here. - Dank (push to talk) 22:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I get it (now). When I posted previously I did not realize that you were referring me to a section above the RfC.- MrX 00:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

:) Jytdog (talk) 03:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

What a complete and utter mess. Burn it with fire and start over. Gigs (talk) 17:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for withdrawing. Hopefully we can move forward with a better RfC. I know it's always hard to draft these things. Gigs (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

On changing the current regulation on paid editing

The current state is that:

• The ToU which is policy or even "super-policy" says that if paid editors edit they must disclose their paid status.
  • It specifically does not either allow or prohibit paid editing.
• The ToU specifically allows WP:Conflict of interest (as well as other policies and guideline) to increase the requirements on disclosure and paid editing.
  • WP:COI "very strongly discourages" paid editing on article pages, but does not specifically either allow or prohibit paid editing.

Making changes to the current state

• The ToU change may be weakened or even repealed by a new policy which specifically mentions the ToU and is officially recorded on a specific page.
• Changes in WP:COI may be made in the usual way
• Changes in any policy or even creating a new policy on paid editing may be done in the usual way, as long as it does not weaken or repeal the ToU changes.

I hope everybody agrees to these basics, but feel that it would be best to affirm that through !votes.

Support as proposer Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - The TOU clearly intimates that paid editing is a permitted activity. To characterize the TOU as above is tendentious. As an illustration, a regulation that seatbelts must be worn by the driver of the car technically does not state that driving a car is a legal activity, but it clearly intimates as much. Carrite (talk) 16:32, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • See the [TOU FAQs]. You really should read the material before you comment on it.

"Does this provision mean that paid contributions are always allowed as long as they are disclosed?"

"No. Users must also comply with each Wikimedia project’s additional policies and guidelines, as well as any applicable laws. For example, English Wikipedia’s policy on neutral point of view requires that editing be done fairly, proportionally and (as far as possible) without bias; these requirements must be followed even if the contributor discloses making paid edits." Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Respecting this guideline

unless I've missed something, it looks like this part of WP:COI is not being followed. More specifically, an editor who declared elsewhere on Wikipedia that he or she was a paid editor is currently editing here. This point was more subtly brought up on this page just a day or so ago. It's time to declare.

Notice that this does not ban anybody from expressing their opinions or prevent anybody from casting an !vote, or anything like that. Nevertheless, it might have a bearing on how other editors evaluate the paid editor's arguments.

More importantly, if someone does not respect the guideline and makes changes to it, how can they expect other people in the future to respect the guideline?

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not much for witch hunts. I generally find myself agreeing with you Small, but this seems like slamming a door on the discussion because you feel someone needs to continuely disclose over and over that they once were paid. I think this is only needed if they are currently being paid. That's my two cents at least.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The supposed guidelines is currently labelled "The designation of this page or section as a policy or guideline is disputed or under discussion" (emphasis in original). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

But that provision of the guideline reflects longstanding community consensus that people who have been paid to edit on Wikipedia have to make a disclosure when proposing changes to this guideline. This is fundamental, Ethics 101 type stuff. Especially in a situation like this, editors coming to this page have a right to know that. That's why it's in the guideline. Coretheapple (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Could you show that in a link please. I personally don't like Scarlet letters being placed on editors and I am not clear that this is actual policy. At least copy paste the actual policy or guideline to confirm your stance please.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

It's in the last sentence in the lead to WP:COI it's also quoted above in the info box. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that WP:COI says they should disclose "in th[is] discussion" if they "ha[ve] been paid to edit on Wikipedia" past and present. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Uh yeah. It... like... says that, if you know what I mean. Mark Miller, you want me to give you a link to the guideline that you're commenting on? Coretheapple (talk) 22:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, like...because you made the claim, you could at least back it up with a link. This guideline has changed so much over the last few months it would indeed speed things up and be a benefit to others reading this.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

You still need a link? The text is at the top of this section. You can click on "project page" to get there, and it is at the bottom of the lead section. Coretheapple (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I know who Smallbones is talking about. It may actually be pretty obvious, but this is NOT a requirement. So again, please link or copy paste the policy that demands that an editor continue to disclose they were once paid. That's is all I ask. If we are talking about a guideline...do you seriously intend to have it enforced. I am on the side of logic and civility and frankly this goes too far in my opinion. A scarlet letter to be placed forever on an editor. No, I would rather allow Wikipedia to be overtaken completely by COI editors than to keep demanding someone disclose over and over. Sorry, but once is enough and if that very fact is an interference with proposing guidelines than I do, very much, object to that.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Once is not enough, because that disclosure is buried on Jimbo's talk page. I only know about it because I was involved in that discussion. The purpose of this provision of the COI guideline is to provide full transparency during precisely this kind of discussion. The time to discuss the validity of that part of the COI guideline was prior to adoption of that provision on Oct. 22, 2013. However, if you want to get rid of that clause, if you think it stinks on ice, then by all means propose such a revision. No one has. Unless you or some other editor wants to do that, then that ought to be respected. Coretheapple (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

It should be respected as much as any other guideline that may be ignored if it improves the project.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

How does it "improve the project" for any editor, but especially an administrator, to ignore a guideline? Doesn't really matter what the guideline says, IMHO. Coretheapple (talk) 23:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

wp:coi is a guideline, not a policy so i guess there is no way to force anybody to declare that obvious conflict of interest, but I think people should be aware of it, and that fairly bold box takes care of that here as far as I'm concerned. It really is ethics 101, if you're going to try to change a conflict-of-interest statement, you should at least disclose your own obvious conflict of interest. Please do note that disclosure is not banning, and I do not want the editor involved to quit giving his or her opinion. This has been a part of WP:COI since Oct. 22, 2013 when I added it after a long discussion ending in consensus. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I actually agree with you in more than spirit Smallbones, but the reality is, there are editors that get away with COI editing to simply advertise and promote themselves and their pet cause, theatre of whatever. So, yes, I believe that editors have a right to know when an editor is in conflict of interest and I have added content and debated the issue on this page before, but what I simply do not agree with is that an editor must disclose that they were once paid at some point just to add content to a guideline. So...to me it is simple, when there is a policy, adhere to it. When there is a guideline, stick as close as you can unless there is little reason to do so. Here...I think there is little reason to do so.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and the editor in question keeps referring to this guideline, over and over again, erroneously, as a "policy." He should treat it as such. Coretheapple (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

No, they should not treat it as policy if it isn't. Period. Sorry.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, don't be sorry. I don't think much of this guideline myself, I think it's a crock, mealy-mouthed, poorly drafted, an ethical disaster area. But still, I abide by it. I think that we all should. Your position seems to be "he doesn't have to respect this guideline because it's not a policy." By the way, I take it you agree that the RfC is bogus as it treats this guideline as tantamount to policy. Some of its choices would overrule an existing policy, the TOU. Coretheapple (talk) 23:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I still am a little sorry. Can't help that. Not just being sarcastic. I have been a part of the discussion on COI editing for some time and it is really hard to say what is the best route to take here, but...yes, I am having a bit of trouble understanding this RFC. My position has always been that when an editor is clearly in conflict of interest that they should be exposed. But this creates a lot of drama. I have come across politicians, musicians and directors who think Wikipedia is a promotional tool for them to drop off every link or reference they, themselves have created, or that speaks well of them, watched as editors use their own Wikipedia page to bash living persons and destroy their lives (not an exaggeration). There are real world consequences and I am fully aware of that. My only issue is that we not stop this discussion because we believe that an editor involved has been paid at one time. I guess I am arguing that we not treat this particular guideline too sternly, and that it not be used to stop a discussion. Thanks for being so reasonable. Dang.....it just confuses me even more to think I have to thank someone when they are being reasonable. ;-) So many unreasonable editors...it is nice to see when people are being so. But I digress.....— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Miller (talk • contribs)

Oh that's OK. I get yelled at a lot, and you're being awfully nice. Just to clarify: no one is asking that someone be banned from the discussion, simply that they disclose. That's all. Coretheapple (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Mark is right, at least technically - we want disclosure from folks who are currently paid editors or in want to be in the future. But how to say that in terms that can't be wikilawyered to death? If anybody wanted to have it "made a paid edit in the last year" I would not object. It might even make the paragraph stronger, as Mark's objection is valid for (probably only) a few people.

Using the boxed statement as I did above has at least 2 effects: 1) says to the editor involved "come clean, we know there is something you're not telling us" or maybe even "cut the BS" and lets newcomers to the discussion know there is something missing; 2) it does distract from the main point - in this case how to change our rules about paid editing (see one section above, please). That said, I think the notice should go at the top of any new rfcs on paid editing.

BTW, on the rfc at Meta there were 1389 !votes, with 1103 (79.4%) supporting required disclosures and only 286 (20.6%) opposing it. Clearly a quicky rfc with 40 contributors revoking the ToU would not reflect consensus or be accepted by the community. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

But do keep in mind that the text you put in the box at the top of this section regards only a specific situation on this page, in which an editor who has accepted money for editing proposes to change this guideline. Seems relatively easy to do. You just say something like "Full disclosure: I have XXX" when proposing something. Coretheapple (talk) 16:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you read it that way. It says proposes changes or discusses proposed changes. If you get paid to edit Wikipedia, nearly any post on this page should have a disclosure with it in some form, and absolutely any RfC participation. Just take a look at Corporate Minion, he's doing it right. Gigs (talk) 17:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

CorporateM? Yes, his disclosure is very good. Coretheapple (talk) 17:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

So my username use to be "Corporate Minion", which is what CorporateM stands for (hence the reference from user:Gigs). We have seen actual cases of a paid editor using socks to sabotage discussions about the Bright Line. However, if COI contributions are not a substantial portion of the user's contributions to Wikipedia, I think there is a point where it becomes a scarlet letter.

Various advocates on the issue of COI are often claiming there is consensus for whatever their viewpoint is. However, when it comes to disclosure of a financial connection, I think the consensus is very strong (and required by law anyway). The primary question is how much disclosure is required - as the amount of information the TOU mandates is extensive and breaches our policies and principles regarding anonymous editing, outing and privacy. I disclose a COI, but without disclosing any personal information. It is not necessarily a trade between the two pulling forces - done right we can have our cake and eat it too. CorporateM (Talk) 01:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

required by law What law? In what jurisdiction? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

See the ToU FAQs,put together by WMF legal (though this is not legal advice as usual), and in Wikipedia:COI#Laws against covert advertising. In short

• US law generally applies on this site (since the servers and HQ are in the US. ToU statement on jurisdiction (not quite the same thing) also suggests this.)
  • FTC rules generally (but not in every case) apply in the US
  • FTC requires "paid endorsements" to be prominently disclosed (likely on the article page), unless it absolutely clear from the context that the statement is an advert.
  • If you can't disclose your paid COI prominently (e.g. on the article page), you can't make the paid endorsement according to the FTC - the ToU FAQs emphasize this as well.
• EU law prohibits undisclosed corporate edits as well, see the German case cited, which said that a disclosure on the talk page was not good enough.
  • The EU law, and UK law, as far as I understand it are very similar to the FTC rules
• Just about every country in the world has prohibitions against undisclosed advertising. Many US states have laws that are stronger than the FTC's. In the Common Law tradition, undisclosed advertising can be considered a type of fraud.
  • Applicability and jurisdiction for the many seemingly overlapping laws would be a matter of debate among lawyers, of course. But (without offering legal advice), I'll go out on a limb and say that if the company you represent has customers or any other business presence in a country or state, that country or state's laws will be applicable - i.e. you better make sure to follow the laws of **every** country or state where business has customers or other business presence (as long as English Wikipedia reaches there). Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

When I ask "what law", saying "EU law" or "UK law" is not an answer. Which laws? And you conflate "paid editing" with "undisclosed advertising" - again, a misleading and unhelpful error. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Please do see the links I put right at the start of my comment immediately above. Perhaps the clearest statement from the EU law is

COMMERCIAL PRACTICES WHICH ARE IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES CONSIDERED UNFAIR

11. Using editorial content in the media to promote a product where a trader has paid for the promotion without making that clear in the content or by images or sounds clearly identifiable by the consumer (advertorial).

at [9]

Now if you are doing paid editing which is not promoting a product or service, I don't think you'll have any trouble with the ToU. But by declaring, you will be helping us identify others who are doing this type of illegal and unethical promotion. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 05:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

To clarify the US situation, the FTC guidelines carry some of the weight of law, but they are technically administrative regulations. Violating them won't land you in jail, but they can sue you civilly for violating them and get a consent agreement or financial settlement. Gigs (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

That's an EU directive, not a law. Once again: which laws? You're also — again — conflating paid advocacy ("promotion") with paid editing, which are not the same (and which are not the "financial connection" to which you originally referred). Indeed, "paid for the promotion... (advertorial)" is not "paid someone to edit", and "the media" is not Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC pathway forward?

Dank, you had offered (or at least considered offering) while closing the policy proposals from last winter, to try to lead the community in a more structured way to try to reach an actionable consensus on the passel of issues under discussion here. Are you still willing? If so, the time would seem to be ripe... please let us know if you would like to or not. If you would, all ears (here at least). If not, I want to honor TParis's kind withdrawing of his RfC to get another one going, promptly. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

If not, User:Obiwankenobi and User:BD2412 both have experience drafting contentious RFCs.--v/r - TP 19:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The RfC should not occur on the COI talk page, but rather at a central location like the village pump.- MrX 20:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer guys. Yes and no. We've had a really hard time getting closers for RfCs involving COI, protection policy (specifically PC2), and hats/permissions (specifically RfA) ... and it's not for lack of begging. I helped close the stalled PC2 RfC just recently. So: since I'm willing, it's likely I'll be one of the closers for this upcoming RfC and for more to come ... so I shouldn't also lead discussions, that's too much influence for one person. But I can help in a couple of ways: I can add a footnote to my last close on the COI stuff in December, updating my advice in light of the new TOU (which changes everything), and I can ask the community for guidelines on structuring these difficult RfCs. (Seven simultaneous RfCs on COI issues in November and December wasn't ideal, nor was the recent PC2 RfCs with 15 proposals to vote on, some of which didn't show up till close to the end.) The key I think is for everyone to lower their expectations ... we're not going to reach a stable point after one RfC that settles everything involving the new TOU, we're going to need a bunch of discussions and a bunch of RfCs and a lot of time. I'll try to find at least a few positive results in RfCs, even if they accomplish less than people were hoping for (and they will, probably). - Dank (push to talk) 20:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

thanks Dank. Perhaps User:Obiwankenobi or User:BD2412 would be willing to build on what you suggest... would you please ping us here when you have left those notes? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

If I can be of assistance in helping with the process, I am interested in helping. isaacl (talk) 23:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure thing Jyt. Obiwan is currently blocked. I'll ping BD and Isaac on their talk pages. - Dank (push to talk) 03:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Would anyone object to a widely advertised 7-day straw poll to get a temporary answer to the question of how to structure COI RfCs? Seven RfCs at once (last November) is too many, but we're also going to get a bad result if the first RfC to launch shuts out any other attempts. Fifteen proposals in one RfC (last RfC at WP:PC#Timeline), including some about a week before the end, is probably too many, but we also can't expect that every reasonable proposal will be thought up on the first day, or by one person. We need some kind of reasonable limits if the end result is going to be meaningful. - Dank (push to talk) 17:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Btw, that's in case a COI RfC happens ... I'm not pushing a quick RfC (though it's probably inevitable), I just want to be ready for it. - Dank (push to talk) 23:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I would not object. Jytdog (talk) 06:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for joint 3-way RfC

The multiple RfCs from last winter were a very big problem, but they did register that people have different ideas on the best way to handle paid editing, so there will almost certainly be different views this time around. I suggest a joint RfC for three proposals.

• 1. A simple statement of the current ToU - as now presented here + a short paragraph or two on how this may be changed as policy (essentially the same rules agreed to on how this RfC will be run, but without the 3 options)
• 2. A policy very similar to 1. but with a very few very short additions strengthening the policy, e.g. "Paid editors working for commercial organizations or businesses may not edit article pages." These changes from 1. should be agreed on in advance by proponents of a stronger policy, which I don't think will be a problem.
• 3. Anything the proponents of a weaker policy can agree on in advance. If they can't agree, we go ahead with just options 1 and 2.

Determining the result:

• If either 2 or 3 have gained consensus, the one with the higher number of !votes will become policy.
• If only 1 has gained consensus, it becomes policy.
• Any other result - ignore the RfC and just start over with other choices if folks want to.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:37, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

How to conduct this RfC and future RfC's on paid editng This is the "paragraph or two" promised under choice 1 above All proposals to change this policy before July 1, 2015 must be highly publicized to the En:Wikipedia community, e.g. by banner notices, with the RfCs running at least 18 days, and be closed by a team of three administrators. Only one RfC on the topic of paid editing may be active at any one time.

That's the same set of rules I'd hope the 3-way RfC will work, except there will be 3 proposals, rather than just one. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• What if folks don't want a stronger or weaker policy, they just want to reaffirm the existing policy, pre changes, as our alternate disclosure non-EnWP-policy policy for the terms of use? I'm not a proponent of weakening the policy, I'm a proponent of leaving it how it was before you started making changes.--v/r - TP 19:16, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The current policy is the ToU change. If you want pre-ToU change then you want to weaken the current policy, which will take a serious policy RfC. BTW, I did not change the policy 1,100 folks at the Meta RfC did. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

My suggestion is to hold off on planning any RfCs and start with the basics: which specific aspect(s) of the problem are we trying to address (for example, which parts of the three areas discussed by Jytdog: volunteer–paid, neutral–advocate, disinterested–benefits-from-coverage), and what are the range of solutions? From there, we can proceed to build a list of advantages and disadvantages of each to more fully evaluate them. isaacl (talk) 21:37, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• Current problems with the current policy (the ToU)
  • Businesses put hidden ads on article pages against US and EU law - solution, no paid commercial edits on article pages
  • Commercial services, e.g. Wiki-PR, writing articles, "monitor" (i.e. assert ownership) articles, and claim they don't edit articles - solution, no text from commercial services on article pages
  • Commercial services, e.g. Wiki-PR, claim that they employ WP admins - solution prohibit admins from working for such commercial services and from making paid edits.
  • Paid editors try to dominate talk pages, wear down volunteers - solution limit paid editor comments to 1,000 words per page per week. They can link to the firm's webpage or to an RS for more if they'd like.
  • Disclosure in ToU is difficult to keep track of - solution, require disclosure for each paid edit in the edit summary, and on User page for each article they've made paid edits on.

With all due respect to Jty, this issue has been talked to death by some of the wordiest people in the world. We know what the issues are, it's time to solve them.

This section is entitled "RfC pathway forward" - let's work on the RfC here.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

for what it's worth, i trust Dank to identify and execute a pathway for the enWP community to make some meaningful headway on expressing some collective thoughts on COI/paid editing issues, that we can act on. I am willing to go with whatever Dank recommends.Jytdog (talk) 04:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

solution limit paid editor comments to 1,000 words per page per week.

require disclosure for each paid edit in the edit summary, and on User page for each article they've made paid edits on.

These suggestions sound punitive and obstructionist. People getting worn down from discussion is a universal problem here, I haven't read 1/3 of the content written on this page in the past week. The solution is not limiting one side's ability to respond, sometimes you need 1,000 words to respond to another editor's 1,000 words. In practice this would lead to debates about word count, awkward redirecting of discussions to editor's talkpages or offsite, editors deleting other editor's comments because they went over their word length, and all manner of petty drama. Disclosure in every edit summary also doesn't solve any problem, editors commonly scope other's talkpages/userpages/contributions/block logs/etc. This is instruction creep.AioftheStorm (talk) 04:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Those kind of proposals don't have a chance in hell and shouldn't be presented to the larger community. Gigs (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

As for the subject of any RfC relative to the consequences of the new TOU re "paid editing", I think the questions are actually relatively simple to construct. The TOU clearly lays out what "paid editing" is and has done so with a very broad brush. Anyone paid or compensated by an organization or individual (any type of organization as the TOU did not single out commercial or business organizations like some encouraged them to do or any individual) is classified as a "paid editor". In my view if you have a paid relationship with an organization and you edit Wikipedia on subjects either directed by the organization or associated with the organization, you are a "Paid Editor". IAW the TOU anyone who is a "paid editor" must declare so when editing Wikimedia projects. So here are the questions the community must answer:

• What are the consequences for a "paid editor" if they fail to disclose IAW the TOU or community policy when they edit Wikipedia?
• What evidence does the community want to see, to identify and deal with undisclosed edits by "Paid Editors"?
• If "Paid Editors" do disclose their "paid editor" status when making edits, what additional scrutiny should the community impose on their edits above and beyond normal content guidelines and policy?

I think that once the community answers these questions (no other questions are relevant) then the community can begin to build the processes necessary to deal with "Paid Editors" (undisclosed or disclosed) in a manner consistent with the norms of the community. --Mike Cline (talk) 21:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the terms of use and this policy, pre unilateral no-consensus changes, only encouraged disclosure. That contradicts with the terms of use. A significant question is whether the community wants to retain a lower disclosure threshold, like Commons is proposing, before we should even begin to discuss how to implement the terms of use. That's a minimum necessary for any RFC.--v/r - TP 01:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Or a higher disclosure threshold, including disclosure to the reader, which is a legal necessity in some countries (the U.S. possibly included; Smallbones and others have done some research into that). Or other improvements in a possible COI policy. The RfC hasn't even started, so let's not stack the deck and make it into a "TOU or something weaker" RfC. If you're so confident that the great silent majority of Wikipedians are chomping at the bit to toss the TOU changes in the round file, I assume you'd not object to making it a fair and well-rounded RfC that will provide alternatives to make strictures on COI stronger than the TOU, as is explicitly contemplated by the TOU amendment. Coretheapple (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Monks and nuns and professional "religious"

First I have not received and have no expectation to receive any sort of compensation financial or otherwise for this question, and I have never received and have no expectation of ever receiving in the future any financial compensation for editing. But I wonder whether COI might apply in cases of what might be called professional "religious" like monks and nuns. I know in Christianity some priests and other ministers are also monks or nuns, but many are not. I would myself think that monks and nuns although technically they may not be paid specifically for their work do receive their "room and board" or whatever for their religious work and so might qualify as being in a sense "paid" for being religious. So, in a hypothetical case of a Dominican monk or nun who is a member of a religious order whose specific purpose is preaching, would editing Christian religious material here in what might be called a vaguely "evangelical" way qualify as COI or not? The same question might I suppose apply to all people in roughly "religious" professions, like priests and some independent ministers. The latter in particular might be effectively promoting their own religious views in perhaps an attempt to promote groups which hold with the beliefs they are writing about. I have been contacted by someone who believes they might be aware of such a case and am asking this both on my own behaf as a theoretical question and on the behalf of the individual who asked me regarding this matter. John Carter (talk) 23:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the difference is if they are paid to edit, "paid advocacy", or not. If they are not paid to edit, they would simply have a conflict of interest like the rest of us. If they are preaching, well then that's a issue of WP:SOAPBOX.--v/r - TP 00:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Three big classes. 1st volunteer editor vs paid editor. 2nd set of big classes: neutral vs advocate. third big set of classes: not-conflicted vs COI Put those on X and Y and Z axes and you see what we are dealing with! you can sort out the boxes! if the monk's superior tells him to go edit WP and take the cricicism out of the pope article and the monk does this with zeal, you have paid, conflicted, advocate. If the monk does that reasonably according to our policies (taking out just the unsupported mudslinging and maybe adding some negative things and maybe some positive things and a whole lotta just plain information, all well sourced), you have a paid, conflicted, neutral editor (!) {Yes (!) advocacy is unreasonably tendentious by definition!!} If the monk is told by his boss, go make Chimay and the monk plays hooky by making the article on the pope look great, with zeal, you have a volunteer, conflicted advocate. If that monk happens to be huge fan of the belgian soccer team and hates the german soccer team, and spends his hooky wikipedia time adding nasty things to the German soccer team's article, you have a volunteer, unconflicted, advocate. (I say "unconflicted" because there is no financial or ownership stake there) and on and on it goes. In your example of the monk here to preach b/c his superior told him to, you have paid, conflicted, advocate. if he does it on his free time, volunteer conflicted advocate. a lot of people in the community focus on the "paid" and "conflicted" parts because money is such a huge driver and money is somewhat verifiable in the RW, but advocacy is probably a more pervasive issue around here - and a huge driver of content creation/deletion since passion drives so much WP editing -- but is more subjective and harder to deal with since there is no obvious flag like a paycheck or job pinned to it and advocates seem to rarely be self-aware. it is really really messy to deal with them (who wants to touch those battles with a ten foot pole?) i would bet that most arbcom cases are driven by advocacy on one side or the other or both. wow that was a long answer. Jytdog (talk) 00:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

but i agree with TP in that most times we just deal with the categories of conflicted or not, and we don't play out the full cube. Jytdog (talk) 00:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

and i want to say that there is SO MUCH PASSION about how to manage the "paid" and "conflicted" and "advocate" rows of the cube, because every advocate sucks to work with, but some conflicted editors and some paid editors are actually very neutral and don't advocate at all and it is actual advocacy that is the destructive to WP, regardless of what other categories you fall into. but there is no "flag" on an advocate like a pay check or some financial/ownership allegiance..... And those who are getting paid or who have a conflict do to tend to advocate in favor of their paymaster or their outside allegiance. So the flags are somewhat useful. and paid advocates are the suckiest of all advocates because they can pound away on WP all day. so by putting a redline around the paid and conflicted rows, the thought is that you at least restrain the suckiest and deal with the tendency to suck. Jytdog (talk) 01:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps a graphic would be helpful?--v/r - TP 01:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

• I think I understand what John Carter is saying, but what I think this is similar to are university professors and their expertise or published works. They are paid by the university but not to edit Wikipedia. They may have a conflict of interest in some cases but their expertise is important. I know that many of our articles on the LDS church and related articles can sometimes be difficult to deal with some passionate believers, but how is that much different then a Justin Bieber fan? Seriously. there are passionate experts of all levels. Religion is certainly personal and varies greatly but just being a priest shouldn't be a paid advocacy issue unless the priest is being paid by the church to do the work or make whatever changes they want.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

• It's a mistake to say that university professors aren't paid to edit Wikipedia. A lot of positions will include a public outreach component, which would usually be generically enough designed that editing Wikipedia (at least within their field) would fall under their job description. Writing a Wikipedia article isn't really different than giving a public lecture, or talking to a group of girl scouts, or whatnot. WilyD 09:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

WilyD what you write is vague to that extent, unhelpful. With respect to how general public outreach by a professor is treated under the ToU obligations to disclose....the FAQ to the ToU about teachers, professors etc (see here specifically says: "you are only required to comply with the disclosure provision when you are compensated by your employer or by a client specifically for edits and uploads to a Wikimedia project." (emphasis added) And my understanding of discussions around enWP's COI guideline, is that it is the same. It is only considered "paid" if work on WP is specifically in the job description or instruction by a boss. It is conflicted, only if the learning professional is writing about his/her own work or institution (or competitors, etc). There can certainly be advocacy, by anyone on anything. Jytdog (talk) 15:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

What you're saying is wrong. The policy on this point is unambiguous, and the FAQ doesn't really contradict it. It does say "if you're a professor paid only for research and teaching, you can write in your free time without having to disclose", which is true, but usually going to be irrelevent, because it presupposes something that's unlikely to be true. It also says "if you're given specific edits to make, you'll have to disclose" which is just as true, and just as irrelevant because that's also not a very realistic case. A far more realistic situation where you're paid to write, but without a specific list of edits, is going to be rather like most PR firms, who'll be paid to manage reputation on social media including Wikipedia and whatnot, but without a specific list of edits. The kind of misrepresentation of the Terms of Services you're engaging in her Jytdog is what sunk all the policy proposals. It's not helpful. WilyD 15:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

wow you remember things I said from last year? i am flattered. i am sorry but i don't recall what stance you took during those discussions. I don't think it is fair to blame anyone idea or heuristic on the failure of the community to reach consensus. There are a lot of hard issues, on several levels. Back to the point...from where i stand, the ToU tries very hard to be clear about what definable activities are problematic, and to do that in a reasonably robust way (not too vague, and not too hard-edgedly clear). There will be people who come along and try to treat it as though it is meant to be hard-edged, and others will want to fuzzify away the meaningful distinctions it is trying to make. The overly hard edged, and the overly fuzzy readings each make this harder to actually implement than it needs to be. Common sense needs to be used. Jytdog (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure, the TOUs are pretty clear, and more or less black and white. The FAQs are much shittier at this. But the TOUs also don't appear to think that paid editing is a problem (one just does this and goes about their business). They think advocacy is a problem (but boringly enough, had already forbidden it a long time ago, by the mechanism of requiring one to obey community policies, plus us having the policy WP:NOT#ADVOCACY), but this recent change doesn't really address it. WilyD 09:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

He did say "evangelical"! so paid + conflicted + advocated, the latter the worst problem. Should be self-aware and should very very much honor the COI guidelines. Jytdog (talk) 04:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I like the break down of concerns into three dimensions. To try to make it a bit more concrete, here are some examples for each that I came up with (think of idealized versions of the examples, rather than real-world instances, which of course may exhibit specific biases); feel free to update the tables. isaacl (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Interesting chart. I've added to it. Too bad we can't use Visual Editor on talk pages. Coretheapple (talk) 16:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your modification to the term "advocacy group", I don't feel it is necessary. All advocacy groups, by their nature, exist to bring attention to the positions they are advocating, and so benefit from specific coverage. For example, advocacy groups related to an industry (e.g. web designer guilds) or an academic line of pursuit (e.g. physicist associations) can fit into this category. isaacl (talk) 17:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

This is true. I've taken it out. Coretheapple (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Categories of volunteer editors

Category		Point of view
		neutral	advocate
Involvement	disinterested	no ties to subject and no personal biases	someone with personal bias related to subject but no financial stake
	benefits from specific coverage of subject	someone in same general category: e.g. works in same industry someone who derives benefits from publishing their opinions: e.g. personal product review site	someone who derives benefits from publishing advocacy: e.g. newspaper columnist

Categories of paid editors

Category		Point of view
		neutral	advocate
Involvement	disinterested	independent watchdog group: e.g. Consumers Union	government regulatory agency
	benefits from specific coverage of subject	commercial product review site professor editing within scope of expertise Wikipedia community liaison for an organization	subject or representative competitor or litigant advocacy group

'Disputed' tag

I wasn't involved in the original discussion that led to someone putting a "disputed" tag on this guideline, but it seems to me that it all boils down to one editor not wanting a reference to the TOU in it. Marking this guideline "disputed" means in effect that we have nothing, not even a weak behavioral guideline, to stand between Wikipedia and the army of paid editors. To warrant the tag, I think that one needs a great deal more dissension over this rule than I see here. Also, to remind all editors of the notice at the top of this page, I think that editors who have accepted payment for editing need to declare it in discussing this, whether or not this guideline is "disputed" or not. Coretheapple (talk) 17:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

What "army of paid editors"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Here's the platoon that descended on one article:Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Notsosoros,User:BDBIsrael, User:BDBJack,User:Okteriel. Coretheapple (talk) 18:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Hipocrite added the tag to stop an edit war. We're going to need an RFC here, as I've repeatedly said. I opened one and you objected to it's wording. Until a new one is opened to resolve the dispute, I suggest you leave this thing alone. Please, for the love of the project, quite unilaterally making changes to guidelines and policies without consensus. User:Jytdog, what do you think? Change was enacted and disputed, a tag was added and we are in the middle of starting an RFC. What do you think should happen with the tag?--v/r - TP 01:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

He was mistaken. One editor - you - was starting to edit war, based upon your personal dislike of a policy that was imposed by the Foundation on all projects and will remain in effect until overturned by the community. That's right, the community, not you or a handful of editors on this page. You and a couple of others don't effectively toss the Wikipedia COI guideline into the round file (as the "disputed" tag does, invalidating it), in effect holding it hostage, doing gawd knows what kind of damage to the project, because you don't like the change in the TOU, which is in effect whether you like it or not. What you describe as a "unilateral change" wasn't a change at all, it was simply an acknowledgment of reality, which is that the Foundation has changed its TOU to directly affect this guideline. It is ridiculous for this guideline not to acknowledge the reality of a Foundation-decreed policy because it raises the ire of a tiny number of editors. You have things backwards. The policy remains in effect until overturned. It does not go into a kind of limbo until an RfC is completed. Coretheapple (talk) 02:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The community have rejected your proposals to strengthen the COI guideline. Editing under the radar is unethical.--v/r - TP 03:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's a shame. Instead, the Foundation enacted this change in the TOU. It's really not very good, but it's policy. I'd rather that it be stronger. You'd rather that it not be done at all. OK, we'll have to disagree on that. But meanwhile, the policy is in effect, and it directly impacts on this guideline. Also, I think that it's inappropriate for you to be changing this guideline by putting a "disputed" tag on it, and now proposing some lengthy and complex "point system" for COI editing, when this guideline says that people who have accepted money for editing need to disclose that, and you have taken money and you haven't disclosed it.[10] Coretheapple (talk) 03:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Use of the disputed "disputed tag" on this guideline

• WP:COI has been a guideline forever. But there is now a tag on this guideline saying that it is disputed whether it is a guideline or a policy. There are means to make a guideline into a policy, but nobody has done that for WP:COI. Are we in agreement here?
• The terms of use are policy and they are quoted here. Guidelines are allowed to quote policy, but if a guideline quotes policy that doesn't mean that the guideline becomes a policy - just that the policy is a policy and the rest of the guideline is still a guideline. Are we in agreement here?

So what is the dispute on whether this is a policy or a guideline? It is a guideline.

Note that the use of that tag anywhere is disputed - as the tag itself says. I'll remove the tag again. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I've already removed it. However, I just wanted to point out that this appears to be a "generic" tag, so I wouldn't read too much into its boilerplate language. (Striking out - Smallbones is correct.) One thing that the disputed tag says is definitely relevant. It says "The use of this tag on policy and guidelines is itself controversial." It's an extreme step, in other words, and was put on this article far too hastily, and as far as I can see, just because one editor was opposed to the TOU reference. One editor's personal dislike of a TOU passed by thousands of editors on Meta, and applicable to this project as policy, is not a valid reason for in effect invalidating this guideline unless it is consistent with his extreme point of view. Coretheapple (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

There are multiple editors who dispute the changes made and unilateral changes without consensus. If my view is 'extreme' then why am I the only suggesting we retain the WP:COI guideline how it is, without your changes? How is the status quo an extreme view? Can you please explain?--v/r - TP 01:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

It's extreme because it does not reflect reality, which is that now there is a policy that directly impacts upon this guideline. That policy remains in effect until it is replaced. Coretheapple (talk) 02:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Also Smallbones has a point in his post at the top of this section. (My earlier comment misunderstood his point.) The tag says "The designation of this page or section as a policy or guideline is disputed or under discussion." In fact, the "designation" of this page is not disputed. It is simply inapplicable in this situation, as this is a well-established guideline and its designation is not in dispute. Coretheapple (talk) 03:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• I think we should all be able to agree that no changes should be allowed to be made to a guideline or policy unless there is a consensus behind making these changes. I contend that:
  • Adding mention of the TOU is making a change to this guideline
  • There is not consensus to change COI to mention the TOU

I don't understand why you believe that WP policies and guidelines can be changed whenever a change to the TOU is made. Adding mention to the TOU is not the norm. Note the following:

• • WP:HARASS: no mention of the TOU banning harassment
  • WP:BLP: no mention of the TOU banning libel and defamation
  • Wikipedia:Bot policy: doesn't state how the TOU requires automated processes to be community approved and not place an undue burden on the site and the serves

It would be easy but tedious to find 20+ policies and guidelines that do not mention the TOU even though the TOU directly concerns them. It has not been our practice to cite the TOU in all our policies and guidelines, and if you want to begin rewriting our policies and guidelines to make mention of similar portions from the TOU then you need to find community consensus for this. This is a very conservative request, please do not make any changes to the wording of any policy or guideline unless you have a consensus on that talkpage beforehand.AioftheStorm (talk) 04:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The difference between is that the TOU change makes very specific requirements that have already gone into effect and directly impact on the COI guideline. Whether it is mentioned in the guideline or not, it is in effect, and it is policy.Coretheapple (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Apart from WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:TOU was referred to on this page even before June 2014, so that's not a change for WP:COI to refer to TOU. Moreover, there is no reason to hide the TOU from anyone. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

(ec) I was going to add that there has been a specific change in COI disclosure rules, imposed by the Foundation. Per WP:CONEXCEPT, Foundation decisions cannot be overruled by the consensus of editors on a page, and in this case there is no such consensus. The Foundation does provide an escape hatch, in case we want to pass a stronger or weaker policy. But that hasn't been done yet, and may never happen. Until or unless that happens, the TOU prevails. Not mentioning it in the COI guideline, when it imposes specific requirements pertaining to COI, is sticking our head in the sand and irresponsible. Coretheapple (talk) 14:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Alternate Proposal / Scoring System

What if we had a scoring system to judge by? The current system doesn't take into account Wikipedians experience, project dedication, other contributions, and featured content into account. It also fails to account for the intentions of the paid editors without Wikipedia editing experience. That is essentially a black and white/zero tolerance policy that leaves little for faith and intentions. I'm not proposing the following as the grading system but what if we had something like this:

Categories of volunteer editors (VE)

Category		Point of view
		neutral	advocate
Involvement	disinterested	0 no ties to subject and no personal biases	+1/ea someone with personal bias related to subject but no financial stake
	benefits from specific coverage of subject	+1/ea someone in same general category: e.g. works in same industry someone who derives benefits from publishing their opinions: e.g. personal product review site	+2/ea someone who derives benefits from publishing advocacy: e.g. newspaper columnist

Categories of paid editors (PE)

Category		Point of view
		neutral	advocate
Involvement	disinterested	0 independent watchdog group: e.g. Consumers Union	+3/ea government regulatory agency
	benefits from specific coverage of subject	+2/ea commercial product review site professor editing within scope of expertise Wikipedia community liaison for an organization	+10/ea subject or representative competitor or litigant advocacy group

Categories of Wikipedians (WP)

Category		Experience
		Novice	Experienced
Topics	Focused	+2/ea Single Purpose Accounts Tendentious Editing NPOV Violations	-1/ea Featured Article Writers Subject Matter Experts
	Generalized	-3 Novice Editors New Page Patrollers Copy editors	-2/ea Administrators Featured Articles Good Articles

Score = (VE || PE) + WP + NPOV_BLOCKS

Score
10	Paid Advocate / No interest in complying with policy
9	Paid Advocate / Only interested in complying with policy to avoid blocks
8	Paid Advocate / Interested in complying with policy
7	Paid Advocate / Complies with policy
6	Paid Editor / Edits more than one topic and complies with NPOV policy
5	Advocate / Interested more in cause, strong advocacy, wants Wikipedia to say a certain thing
4	Advocate / Project focused, strong advocacy, believes Wikipedia could be improved by coverage
3	Wikipedian / Project focused, some advocacy, edits topics outside of interests
2	Wikipedian / Project focused, little advocacy, only marginally interested in some topics of interest
1	Wikipedia / Project focused, no intentional advocacy, well rounded
0	Wikipedian / Project focused, no advocacy, complies with policy, interested in neutral encyclopedia, no advocacy

The numbers could be changed to give us a better scale, so don't get stuck on the numbers themselves. I'm also not making a statement that Administrators are somehow better than copyeditors or new page patrollers. The numbers and the descriptions can get rearranged. This is only a concept. Frankly, we need to make exceptions for editors who contribute much more to this project and whose participation has largely been primarily focused on Wikipedia editing. If we were writing a biography on ourselves, it would be too much weight to focus entirely on the minute paid editing of an experienced editor and ignoring all the rest of their participation. I personally have written two GAs, a soon-to-be FA, a bot, the UTRS system, and maintained a number of tools. Labeling me, making me wear a badge of shame as one editor consistently insists on doing, it not how we want to treat dedicated Wikipedians. And if that is how we treat Wikipedians, then I've got a very new image of many of you. Thoughts?--v/r - TP 02:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Off topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Yeah, I have a suggestion, which is that you read what I posted on your talk page about the disclosure required by this guideline. [11] Coretheapple (talk) 02:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Well I guess you're going to be "collapsing" comments you don't like, but go right ahead and do that as I certainly won't dispute it. I was addressing a comment that you yourself made which was Labeling me, making me wear a badge of shame as one editor consistently insists on doing, it [is] not how we want to treat dedicated Wikipedians. All that is being suggested is that you be treated like every other editor and make the disclosure required by this guideline. If people want to read the forbidden details, I guess they'll have to uncollapse the details you feel aren't fit for the sensitive eyes of Wikipedians. As for the "merits" of this "grading" system, if I can find any I'll let you know. It's just bizarre, that's all. I have no idea why you went to all the trouble of proposing this. It seems to be a kind of elaborate justification for administrators engaging in paid editing. Coretheapple (talk) 03:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Because whatever the merits of the addition of that line that you keep quoting had, the actual practical use of it ([12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]) has been to harass a well established editor who has dedicated and volunteered hundreds of hours to this project the likes of which a few instances of getting paid to advise, and not edit, are not at all a adequate payment. On an article, editors would immediately call that undue weight. The terms of use, as Philippe at Wikimedia said, is not to punish long time editors in good standing. It's to attack undisclosed paid advocacy. You've said your peace to me dozens of times, I've ignored it, now be done with it. Does anyone else feel treating each other like this is appropriate? We need a system that recognizes good editors who are dedicated to this project and produce good content. The current COI guideline, as demonstrated by the application of it by Coretheapple, does not do this. My proposal above does.--v/r - TP 03:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

But none of the diffs that you provide have you complying with this guideline. It is simply diffs of another editor saying things you don't like. What has that got to do with this guideline? Coretheapple (talk) 04:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for demonstrating my point, once again.--v/r - TP 04:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

But the guideline calls for self-disclosure. When another editor asks you why you haven't complied with the self-disclosure guideline, how is that "application of the guideline"? You seem to be saying that noncompliance with the guideline is "application" of the guideline. That's ludicrous. Coretheapple (talk) 04:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

What's ludicrous is your following me around this page hounding and harassing me.--v/r - TP 04:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I just don't understand your point, that's all. Not knowing what in heaven's name another editor is talking about is not "hounding" or "harassing" him or her.Coretheapple (talk) 04:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm a bit lost as to the purpose of this chart. As I understand it, the issue is that editors being paid to edit Wikipedia are now expected to disclose who is paying them and that they are being paid. Is this advocating that they are only required to disclose if they get a certain number of points in the chart? What is the scoring to be used for? - Bilby (talk) 04:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

It's to describe how we categorize editors and in turn treat them. As Philippe said, the terms of use are not meant to be used against editors in good standing. Yet, Coretheapple continues to harass me. Clearly there is a disconnect between this policy and the intent of the WMF. The terms of use are meant to fight paid advocacy. That phrase has two criteria: one that an editor be paid to edit, and two that they be paid to advocate. I've done neither. If the current policy allows the kind of hounding I'm receiving, then the failure of policy needs to be addressed.--v/r - TP 04:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

You're responding to posts I make and I'm responding to you. How is that "following you around this page" or "harassing" you? I still don't understand the point of your multi-diff posting above, but if you have nothing further to say on it, that's OK by me. Similarly if you have no further details to provide on your chart above, even though I don't understand it either and I see that I am not alone. Coretheapple (talk) 04:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

It's simple. The current wording of the policy does not distinguish between a long term editor dedicated to this project and some newb that just came by to push their agenda. It entirely undermines and diminishes an editors contributions to this project over years. The requirement for repeating disclosure over and over is nothing more than a badge of shame. My taste of getting paid in relation to Wikipedia were not paid editing, but it was a good taste to help me understand what it's all about. That information is well known to the community after the discussions on Jimbo's page and ANI. But if anyone is confused, you have sufficiently illuminated it for them nearly a dozen times on this page and elsewhere. Thank you, you've disclosed for me. The only need for disclosure on every thread, as opposed to once on a page per significant time period, can only be described as a badge of shame. There is no other need for it, practical or imaginary. What I am proposing is a way to distinguish editors who have proven dedication to this project from editors who would only use Wikipedia to further their own goals. The only reason to oppose that is if you arn't truly interested in paid advocacy, but you are rather interested in having a tool to continue berating others with.--v/r - TP 04:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

What I am proposing is a way to distinguish editors who have proven dedication to this project from editors who would only use Wikipedia to further their own goals. But distinguish for what purpose? Coretheapple (talk) 04:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

For the purpose of not treating established editors as if they are paid advocates. If an editors edits are exclusively paid advocacy, then whatever, ban the crap out of them. But established editors who have no more violated the rules than any other established editor do not deserve to be treated like second class citizens (ie scum) on this project. Your behavior highlights that the most.--v/r - TP 04:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Sort of like "rank has its privileges," that sort of thing? Coretheapple (talk) 05:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I have no rank, I am a Wikipedian like everybody else. This isn't some imarginary elitism, I have a more practical reason. We have a history to know what the intentions of established editors are to judge them by.--v/r - TP 05:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring, and getting the RfC started

Guys, please stop edit warring on the project page (WP:COI) ... you may get yourself blocked (but not by me) and get the page full-protected and reverted (but not by me). I get that both sides would like for everyone to go into the upcoming RfC thinking that the default position is whatever your own default position is, but that's not going to happen; I'm going to make a comment at the top of the upcoming RfC that the closers (just me, at the moment) think that that question is one of the main questions to be tackled in the RfC. It would be easy to make a case, and I hope the voters will do a good job of making the case, that the default position is 1. the TOU, or 2. the TOU plus m:Terms of use/FAQ on paid contributions without disclosure (which softens the TOU considerably by citing English Wikipedia policy), or 3. long-standing and stable Wikipedia policy pages (WP:CIVILITY, WP:OUTING and WP:BLPEDIT were mentioned in the RfCs last November), or 4. something else. I get that this project page, our WP:COI guideline, isn't a policy and has been considerably less stable, but this page isn't the only page on Wikipedia that is impacted by the TOU. My preference would be that things slow down and no one gets blocked, but if things stay heated, my second preference would be that someone go ahead and start the RfC. In that case, don't worry about getting it perfect. I'd like to see a quick straw poll on how to structure the RfC, but if that doesn't happen, I'll go ahead and encourage people to add any proposals or questions they consider relevant for the first 10 days or so (that would be easier on the voters than the 7 simultaneous RfCs we had in November). So if you don't like the way the RfC is worded, add a proposal to the RfC with your preferred wording. If that creates a mess, I'll help clean it up. - Dank (push to talk) 09:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

My hope is that folks will stop injecting things into the guideline first and then seeking consensus for their removal. That's not how we work on this project.--v/r - TP 17:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Would it help things if we took the TOU requirements, codified them into a separate local policy, marked it as policy, and moved forward from there as a starting point? Gigs (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

We already have, see WP:TOU.--v/r - TP 17:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that an RfC could help straighten everything up here, but the key will be to widely publicize it and have a very large participation. A banner announcing the RfC would be extremely helpful. Since the Meta RfC had 1,300 participants, 1,100 favoring disclosure, nobody is going to consider an RfC with 100 or even 200 participants sufficient to overturn the TOU. We're not likely to have 1,000 participants, but we should aim for at least 500, which would likely drive the format that we choose.

For example, changing the text in the middle of the RfC, would have to be disallowed. We couldn't go back and inform 250 editors that their !votes need to be recast or reviewed. Comments should be included, of course, but we'd have to discourage very lengthy comments. Ultimately, with some exceptions, it will likely be a straight count of !votes that determines the outcome.

Gigs is right that having the current TOU confirmed as a local policy would be the logical starting point. I'd add into it the method needed to change this policy over a limited time - say the next year. 7 simultaneous conflicting RfCs can't be allowed.

The only (more later) Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm all for having the current TOU confirmed/ratified as local policy. That might be the starting point for all of this. The RFC should state that alternate policies are acceptable if passed by the local project. We don't want folks ratifying something under the mistaken belief that they have no other options. Setting a minimum number of participants seems like a 'get out of jail free' card if the RFC doesn't go your way. I'm not aware of any EnWP RFC that had 500 participants. The 1,000+ at Meta were not neccessarily EnWP editors. The TOU only requires a local project consensus, that's what those 1,000+ supported, to have a local policy.--v/r - TP 20:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

No, the 1000+ were supporting the original proposal, which did not contain that provision. It was separately discussed, did not get much support[24] but was adopted anyway. Coretheapple (talk) 20:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Tell you what, you go ahead and defy any consensus that forms as a result of the RFC and see what happens, I don't need to argue the point.--v/r - TP 20:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

??? Coretheapple (talk) 20:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The more the better ... although, these RfCs (on COI, protection policy, hat-wearing, etc.) work better when they "feel" small and less impersonal, when people are willing to talk about their experiences and their goals. That can generate empathy (and really, I've been on both sides of this one and I don't think it's hard to feel some empathy when you know some of the things that people on both sides are fighting for). We may not get anything like a meeting of the minds in this RfC; it might take years, though I hope not.

Anyway ... if I can get some direction from a straw poll on how to run the RfC, I'll do that (I can't file it because I want to close it). If some kind of process before the RfC does a good job of generating a range of proposals that cover what different people are looking for, we'll go with that. Otherwise, I'll structure it as I said, allowing new proposals for the first 10 days ... we won't need to go back and notify everyone of the new proposals, because people will be asked right at the top of the RfC to check back after the first 10 days and vote on any new proposals that have come in. I'm probably going to limit it to 30 days, too, unless a miracle happens and there's strong movement towards consensus at the 30-day point. (I don't think consensus after the 3rd or 4th big RfC would be miraculous at all, I think we'll probably get it right eventually. Just not right away. The trick, for the voters and for me, will be to figure out how to get something useful each time, how to maintain momentum and encourage good stuff to happen between the RfCs.)

Comparing meta numbers with English Wikipedia numbers feels a little apples-and-oranges to me, though I don't fault the Foundation at all for using that discussion as a preliminary to making a change in the TOU; that's a perfectly reasonable way to do it. - Dank (push to talk) 20:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Yep, I agree with you about the feel thing. That's why I shared my personal experience and I've been hounded and harassed ever since. You're not going to get people to be open about it, I sure as hell would retract everything I said, if people see how hostile the couple of active editors on this page are to COIs. So, sorry, but that's idealistic thinking. If I could do it all over again, I'd totally not say a damn word. That's what the behaviors that these folks are cultivating. COI editing is going underground. What we need is someone like User:BD2142 to set up the straw poll being that they are impartial.--v/r - TP 20:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I did ask BD2412, he's tied up for now. - Dank (push to talk) 21:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps User:Dennis Brown could advise then?--v/r - TP 21:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I think Dennis would be great, any objections? I'll ask him. - Dank (push to talk) 21:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

One or two people have gone over the line with respect to your past actions, true. However, at this point, both you and them are just milking it for all it's worth. Your "hounding and harassment" appear to be on this talk page and your user talk page. Oh heavens me! That must be so distressing! If I weren't completely jaded at this point, the hypocrisy would be overwhelming. Hipocrite (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Dank asked for personal experiences. I doubt they will be forthcoming with the hostility that those who are forthcoming receive.--v/r - TP 21:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, all of those moral paid editors, who would only come forward with their personal experiences if only they could be certain of sunshine and rainbows and their glorious ascension to "moral," if only they were to come clean! Sorry if I don't think any exist. Hipocrite (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think you've both put a finger on the problem: people (including me) have gotten jaded over time, after doing a lot of work on, for instance, pages created by new editors who appear right from the start to have some kind of promotional interest. No matter what you do to reach out, they generally aren't listening. OTOH, around three quarters of the voters from last November had reservations about the various suggestions to crack down on paid editing or COI editing. So we've got one big pile of people with strong feelings, and another big pile of people who are inclined to be skeptical about anything the first pile has to say, based on their experiences or thoughts about paid editing in general. It's not a pretty picture. I'm pessimistic in the short run, but optimistic in the long run (at least here ... I don't have much experience with Meta, and I don't know their processes). Here, things usually work out eventually ... sometimes after years, but eventually. - Dank (push to talk) 21:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Had TP not pinged me, I wouldn't have seen this. I'm not even sure of the new TOU, I avoided the discussion. Our COI policies and the way editors treat COI is so messed up, I unwatched all the pages some time ago. I'm not up to speed with what is going on here and perhaps not the best person to help, I have no idea. I am probably more familiar than most with COI tactics and methods (namely, the underground socking) but I'm not sure what is being asked of me. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I just posted on your talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 21:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

To sum up for here, I would truly like to help, but due to other obligations, I have to decline. Thank you for the kindness in considering me, I am really humbled by it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with TP that having an RfC focused on "having the current TOU confirmed/ratified as local policy. " would be tight and productive, and I also agree with his caveats about setting it up (making clear that we can make our own, if we reject). Jytdog (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to take credit, Smallbones suggested it the RFC first. Perhaps a subpage to develop this RFC would be helpful but I'm not sure what a good RFC title would be? "Terms of Use Ratification RFC" seems to suggest a goal rather than a topic.--v/r - TP 22:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I suggest having an initial discussion focused solely on the paid contribution disclosure policy: does the requirement to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation for any paid contribution, as described in the Wikimedia Foundation terms of use have consensus support in the English Wikipedia editing community? Or does the community wish to develop proposals for either stronger or weaker requirements in an alternative paid contribution disclosure policy? (Note based on this edit, the WMF has specified that pre-existing policies are superseded unless a consensus is obtained to replace the policy in the Terms of Use.) This narrows down the choices to three: stay with the default requirements, discuss stronger requirements, or discuss weaker requirements. If one of the latter two options gains consensus, then further discussion can be held to build a proposal for an alternative disclosure policy. isaacl (talk) 23:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

That may get confusing. Let's say those in favor of strong requirements had 40% of the !vote but those favoring the ToU or weaker requirements had 30% each. Does that mean the RFC closes in favor of stronger requirements or do the two lower options add up to 60%? Similarly the other way, 40% for weaker requirements but 30% for the other two, do we then ratify or not? I think what is best here is to go with a binary proposal and then branch out from there. Do we accept the ToU or do we want our own (whether weaker or stronger)?--v/r - TP 00:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

strongly agree with smallbones and TP. Jytdog (talk) 00:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it is important to establish if there is a potential for consensus on an alternative paid disclosure policy. If not, then it may be more productive to discuss other areas. Accordingly, I believe we should determine if there is a consensus agreement on which way the requirements should be modified. If there is none, then I suspect it will be difficult to reach a consensus on an alternative policy. isaacl (talk) 00:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

If desired, we can determine this with (up to) two discussions, held sequentially, each presenting a single question: first, is there a consensus for a stronger paid disclosure policy? If not, then is there a consensus for a weaker paid disclosure policy? isaacl (talk) 00:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

yes if consensus on the simple binary was "reject" then we would very much need to have a followup. one thing at a time.... Jytdog (talk) 00:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

As controversial as previous RFCs have been, I think we need to stay very focused and ask small questions at a time. Increment to the full answer by taking each bite separately. "Do we want to make the ToU disclosure clause policy, or do we want to use the alternate policy option to propose a stronger/weaker policy?"--v/r - TP 01:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I am having some difficulty grasping the problem here. After reading and re-reading the new TOU on paid editing disclosure, the questions re a weaker, stronger or adopting the default policy are relatively simple. The weaker policy--no disclosure-- adopted by the Commons is really the only alternative on the weaker side. Since the default allows a choice of disclosure--user page, talk page or edit summary--I can't imagine any form of disclosure weaker that those three options except the no disclosure option. On the stronger side, one can postulate all kinds of bizarre disclosure requirements, but only two plausible options come to mind. 1) All paid editors must disclose on user pages, article talk page and in edit summaries for all paid edits. 2) The community creates some sort of "disclosure forum" where paid editors openly out themselves--a black list of sorts.

Since the TOU does not address consequences of "failure to disclose" or the scrutiny that "paid editor" content should undergo, those are questions that the community must eventually address. However, the Rfc under consideration should keep the questions simple and clearly within the immediate impact of the new TOU on the community. Right now, the new TOU is policy. Paid editors must disclose on user, talk or in edit summaries. Does the community want a weaker policy--no disclosure? or does the community want a stronger policy (a simple question that if answered in the affirmative would require additional work to define what "stronger" might be)? If we begin to confuse these question with the consequences for "failure to disclose" or the processes to deal with "paid editor content", then any resolution of the simple questions will be doomed. --Mike Cline (talk) 01:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The long standing community consensus has been that disclosure is strongly encouraged. Essentially, we have more patience for those who disclose and those who don't get blocked quicker when they are found out. Whether the community wants to continue this, as I very much doubt that 'no disclosure' is at all an option, or if they want to adopt the ToU, or even something stronger, is what we need to discuss. But we ought to take it one chunk at a time.--v/r - TP 01:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

TP, I completely agree with you that deciding on the exact disclosure requirement--weaker (unlikely), default or stronger is the first question. I don't really want to predict where the community will go with the question. But I do think that there's some underestimating the impact of the new TOU. In the new TOU, who is a "paid editor" and what "paid editing" is is fairly clear. I suspect that the actual number of "paid editors" under the TOU definition is relatively high, especially when any employee of an advocacy organization who edits on subjects related to the advocacy mission of the organization is considered a "paid editor". I also expect that there are relatively few "paid editors" associated with commercial organizations because the community has collectively treated those types of editors as evil, while if not embracing, pretty much giving "paid editors" associated with advocacy organizations a free pass. Regardless of whatever "paid editor" disclosure policy is adopted by the community, I believe it will impact a much larger portion of the editor corps than suspected, especially if it is enforced fairly across all types of paid editing. --Mike Cline (talk) 02:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Probably true, Mike. I'd like to see a well thought out policy that avoids draconian rules though. We need to approach this with our eyes open but our minds focused on the goal and not overreach. The goal is a NPOV encyclopedia.--v/r - TP 02:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

As has been stated above, the current paid contribution disclosure policy specifies that "any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation" must be accompanied with a disclosure, or generally disclosed on your user page. Thus edits by an employee of an advocacy organization editing a topic related to the organization's mission for which the employee is not receiving compensation does not fall under the scope of the policy. However, if the community wanted to emphasize this, then it would be a potential example of the community wanting an explicitly weaker policy than the default policy. isaacl (talk) 07:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

1st I have to repeat that the number of participants in the RfC will be the key. We could theoretically put ourselves in the position that 100 !votes against disclosure might be used to overturn the 1,100 !votes for disclosure on the Meta RfC. I hope nobody would want that to happen. The way to avoid that is to have the RfC run a sufficient time (say 18 days min), and widely publicized. I'm almost sure the WMF would agree to have a limited banner notification to avoid the above scenario. Back to "The only (more later)" ... The only problem I see with having an RfC on making the ToU our local policy (which everybody seems to want), is what would happen if it didn't gain consensus? Obvious we should go back to the current policy ... which is the TOU. So the TOU seems to become policy win or lose. Certainly an odd setup for an RfC. Why don't we skip that step and go straight to the disagreement - which talking about hasn't helped for several years. Let's have 2 competing proposals and ask folks to decide between the two, participating on both RfCs. I'll suggest the following for the 2 proposals.

• Start with the TOU and make identifiable changes to it, so that editors will be able to easily judge the difference between the two.
• put in a section on how RfCs on paid editing will be conducted over the next year to avoid the 7 RfCs at one time problem
• be ready to go on Monday morning or earlier.

I can open up a user page to anybody who wishes to strengthen to policy above the TOU to write the 1st proposal. I will kick off any game players who try to disrupt it, but otherwise it will be totally open. I'll suggest that TP do the same for the 2nd proposal, but won't tell him how to do it. Smallbones_(smalltalk)

I think we've all agreed above that the first question is whether we want to adopt the ToU or have our own. We'll reserve whether it needs to be stronger or weaker once that question is answered. As to the rest, I think we should leave it for the uninvolved and completely disinterested closers to decide.--v/r - TP 02:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem with the two step model - noting that it is probably the best choice anyway - is it can lead to a result which doesn't match what the majority really want. Let's say the community is broken up into 30% who want stronger or to stay the same, 30% want weaker or to stay the same, and 40% who want the ToU as it stands. After the first round, the majority (60%) will have voted for change, so we then ask "weaker or stronger". This forces the 40% to choose one or the other, even though neither option was what they wanted, and even though they were the biggest group. Which creates a problem. This is the sort of situation where preferential voting is the best option, but then we don't talk in terms of voting, so much as in terms of consensus, so I guess that isn't an option. - Bilby (talk) 03:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is exactly the issue with combining together both those who want a weaker policy and those who want a stronger one. We can ask for editors to state their first and second choices, if desired, but I think it is a reasonable to assume that those who want a weaker policy would prefer the default policy to a stronger one, and similarly those who want a stronger policy would prefer the default one to a weaker one.

If, say, 30% want a weaker policy, and 30% want a stronger policy, then under the reasonable assumption that the first group would prefer the default policy over a stronger policy, and the second group would prefer the default policy over a weaker policy, then the actual preferred consensus position is the default policy. So combining the two groups together and starting a discussion on an alternative disclosure policy is not a productive use of time, since a consensus is not achievable with this split. If we think a weaker policy is unlikely to be desired, let's start with the question if the default policy is desired, or a stronger policy? I think is the best approach to "one bite at a time": determine if a stronger policy is desired or not. Combining two groups of dissenters is taking two bites.

In my proposal, the question would be: Do you support the current paid contribution disclosure policy, or would you support creating a proposed alternative that enacts stronger requirements? If the second option is preferred, then we would start a discussion on the details of the proposal. Once an agreement was reached on a proposal, then we would hold an RfC between the current policy, and the proposed one. isaacl (talk) 06:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean weaker than the existing consensus of "disclosure encouraged" or do you mean weaker than the ToU. It is conceivable that the community might want something weaker than the ToU, as several other editors have spoken up for. The proposal you're suggesting is not neutral. If a binary question is not an option, then the proposal should be as Bilby has described.--v/r - TP 07:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Based on the FAQ, the WMF has clarified that a pre-existing policy must receive a new consensus to be put in place as an alternative paid disclosure policy. That being said, we can certainly word the binary question differently if the community prefers, or pose all three possibilities together (as I had originally suggested), asking for editors to state their preferences in order. For example, a binary question could be, do you support the paid contribution disclosure policy as stated in the Terms of Use, or would you support a stronger paid contribution disclosure policy? (On a side note, I would have preferred keeping my reply to Smallbones separate, in order to make it clear my response was targeted at the questions he raised.) isaacl (talk) 07:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I only did it because I felt the way you did it was a bit confusing and hard to respond to. Anyway, the binary proposal you're suggesting predisposes that the community would prefer a stronger policy. Furthermore, it is a bit of a loaded question and is going to result in response bias. Neither option allows for established community practice and consensus and both options force the community away from established practice & consensus. Essentially, you've decided the community needs to change and are only allowing them to pick which change they want. The community needs to decide for itself if it's going to change from established practice. One option needs to be to ratify the preexisting guidelines, one needs to be to ratify the ToU, and the third needs to be to make something else.--v/r - TP 07:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for not clarifying my earlier suggestion; I was just trying to address your concern regarding having a binary question. Because the pre-existing guideline covers more than just a paid contribution disclosure policy, my thought was that we should limit the question to this specifically. However, we can split out the question into four options:

• disclosure is strongly encouraged, but not mandatory (contained within pre-existing guideline)
• disclosure is required following the policy described in the terms of use
• a weaker disclosure policy is desired (details to be established in a further discussion)
• a stronger disclosure policy is desired (details to be established in a further discussion)

Editors can be asked then to rank the choices in their order of preference. Personally I believe having the choices available together makes it easier to interpret the results. isaacl (talk) 07:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Draft FDA guidelines for social media use say pharma companies should feel free to correct misinformation

A piece by Ed Silverman on the Wall Street Journal website Tweet This: FDA Finally Proposes Social Media Guidelines (17 June 2014) contains relevant advice for manufacturers of prescription drugs and medical devices from the US Food and Drug Administration. According to Silverman,

For third-party websites, such as Wikipedia, the draft guidance suggests that companies should feel free to correct misinformation, but that any correction must include balanced information and the source of the revision or update must be noted, Abrams explains. This means a company or company employee or contractor should be credited with any additions.

“The information should not be promotional and should be factually correct. This is not an opportunity for a company to tout its drugs,” he says. “The information [being added or revised] should be consistent with the FDA-approved [product] labeling and for it to be effective, you want it posted right by the misinformation.”

The draft guidance itself is here. Wikipedia is not mentioned by name, but there are references to "an interactive website" and "an Internet-based, interactive, collaboratively edited encyclopedia".

I think this is the first time I have seen a US government authority advise companies to go on interactive websites like Wikipedia to correct user-generated content related to their products. As an alternative to companies editing the information themselves, it mentions the possibility of contacting the author of the user-generated content (cf. examples 7 and 11 in the draft guidance). Andreas JN466 09:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)