Wikipedia talk:No paid advocacy

RfC: Should WP:BRIGHTLINE become policy?

Should we promote this proposal (Wikipedia:No paid advocacy), that paid advocacy is not allowed, to policy? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Survey

• Support as nominator. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose The methods that allow someone with a COI to request an edit are broken and backlogged 6+ months, and AFC is a mess too. In the absence of effective ways to work within the proposed rule, making it a policy will just lead COI to violate it, and once they do, why abide by all our other policies if we are going to block them anyway. If anything is to be done, we need to deal with the issue in a comprehensive fashion, dealing both with reducing Bias and other problems that COI editors can introduce, while simultaneously making it more attractive for those COI editors to work with us, not against us. Monty₈₄₅ 17:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support This is a very minimalist policy, and I understand why that is. But I think that it may be too minimalist, especially in that it does not address AfCs, fails to take into consideration COI editors on talk pages sometimes functioning as de facto "managing editors" or straw bosses, cracking the whip in their articles. It contains no method of disclosing to readers when articles contain content that originated from the subject of the article. Given the gravity of the situation, and the resistance to even cosmetic change from the "community," I wonder if this really is a situation in which Jimbo Wales or the WMF needs to take the lead. After all, it is their brand whose value that has been harmed by COI editors. Given the utter absence of understanding of this issue by Wikipedia volunteers, I fear that there is really no other recourse as a practical matter. They need to step up to the plate and come out from under their desks. If they don't, then they are the ones harmed, their reputations are hurt, the reputation of their product put in harm's way. As a person who is not paid, as just a hobbyist, I can't see myself getting worked up into a lather when the proprietor of a business, even a nonprofit one, allows his property to be degraded as has happened with Wikipedia and its persistent COI problem. Coretheapple (talk) 17:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support many people claim that our policy regarding public relations on Wikipedia is confusing. This should solve that problem. In reality the Bright Line rule has been accepted for a long time now - practice sometimes outruns actual written policy here - but we just need to officially confirm that this is policy. The content shouldn't be contentious - advocacy is prohibited, so paid advocacy should obviously also be prohibited. This just gives a method that PR firms can use to avoid the problems posed by the already prohibited paid advocacy. I would just like to see a clean up-or-down decision on the Bright Line rule, there should not be anything difficult about it.

(EC) with the comment immediately above. Let's please keep this to one issue at a time. If I read your opinion correctly, I'll suggest you put in "Support" for this and take up other issues later. Let's make this clean and simple. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, I'm leaning to oppose, as this rule, if adopted, would implicitly "legalize" practices that are just as bad as the ones prohibited here. Coretheapple (talk) 19:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Core, I know that the kind of obeying-the-COI-guideline editing that goes on (for example at BP) deeply disturbs you, and that you would like to see it banned. I respect that. But I cannot imagine that you actually oppose Brightline, per se! If you oppose this, it would be a tragic example of an effort "eating itself" (of "the left will eat itself" fame). Getting a core financial COI policy into place is essential for Wikipedia. It would also provide a base camp for your Everest-sized goals. Jytdog (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

They really aren't , compared to the real world. Wikipedia is way behind on COI and, especially, in disclosure to readers that articles contain content suggested or written by the subjects of articles. The second sentence of this proposal is what worries me. If if were removed I wouldn't object to it, but it specifically sanctions practices that can be and are abused. Coretheapple (talk) 19:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Despite my misgivings I've changed this to "support," as plainly the culture here is so welcoming to COI that this very modest proposal hasn't a chance anyway. Coretheapple (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support I think that minimal is probably sufficient, because paid editing per se is not against policy, only subversive paid editing. Accordingly, what seems to be needed immediately is a basic framework, which can be built upon later, as appropriate. As it stands, this joker at Wikiexperts is just acting like he can ride in on a moral high horse and try to misappropriate "the project" for his (and his benefactors) private ends.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Wikipedia needs a clear, written policy on financial COI, like every other major non-profit. We owe it to to ourselves, and to the public that trusts us, to get this done. The proposed policy is concise and focused on the key issue, and is our practice anyway, and should be accepted as is. Jytdog (talk) 18:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• This is an enormous change, but I think it is one we need to make if Wikipedia is to adjust to the realities of being a Top 10 website. Support. AGK [•] 19:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Very strong support. I actually had a little bit of a difficult time with this at first. But I have to admit that Wikipedia has a number of articles with paid promotional advocacy in very unusual places that, to me, seem rather blatant in their promotional tone and content. We all seem to focus on the major corporations and their marketing firms and departments, but forget that even individuals with smaller monetary gain are at work on Wikipedia. One city article I work on has a major contributor that has managed to stick content about their local theater in almost every single section of the page. Why a city article would need a promotional image of a theatrical production uploaded by the director/writer of the production and executive director of the theatre (as well as it's founder) seems to me to be a valid example of paid advocacy. Attempting to do anything about it becomes nothing but accusations against those that bring up their COI and battleground behavior to keep their promotional content in. As Wikipedians, many of us can recognize in the history of many articles where actors, politicians and even just everyday people, attempt to add content that they have either gained financially from or are attempting to. We have debated the issue of having been an employee verses being currently employed by a company and whether that constitutes paid advocacy and I believe the consensus is that, being paid by a company to work in unrelated areas that are not related to publicity, promotion or PR do not constitute paid advocacy or paid editing. University professors are paid by their college for their expertise, but are not paid to promote the university or themselves by editing on ancient history (using your own reference is a different subject) or other academic subjects and does not constitute paid or advocacy editing. However, being on a politician's campaign staff and editing that persons Wikipedia article does. Aside from the BP controversy, I think this "Brightline" policy is something that would indeed help just by the community putting their foot down and just doing what we know is best for the overall project. I strongly believe this is one very good step forward.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: For the record, this would also remove all professional scholars from editing in their field of expertise. Lawyers who cannot write about laws. Doctors who cannot write about diseases (most of our mental health articles are curated in part by psychiatrists and psychologists). Economists who cannot write about economics. Mathematicians who cannot write about math. As importantly, I do not see any significant difference between paid advocacy and unpaid advocacy: That is, advocacy is advocacy, whether or not there is a dollar value attached. This proposal ignores the advocacy that is much, much more common, and has in fact been the subject of innumerable disputes on this project, far more so than paid advocacy has been. This essentially says "we're gonna write whatever you want about you, Big Company/Major Institution/Famous Person, and there's not a darn thing you can do about it, because we also control the mechanisms through which you could complain." Meanwhile, we fail to actually curate the existing articles and ensure that they are factually accurate and balanced; in fact, when people try to balance them, they are often driven off by those who advocate for their personal position to take primacy. Advocacy is advocacy, and the failure of this policy to address the very entrenched biases that we already know have caused disruption in this project practically since its inception, while worrying about a small number of areas where a better solution would be more stringent notability policies and improved editing overall, guarantees that we've failed to address the issue. Risker (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see how this would "remove all professional scholars from editing in their field of expertise". I myself am a scientist, please explain what in the proposed policy would prevent me from editing physics or astronomy related articles? Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 20:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Risker, the proposal wouldn't prohibit a professional from editing in the area of his/her expertise. It would prohibit a scientist working for Merck from inserting promotional material about Merck's products (for example), but that's a much narrower restriction. Also, let's keep in mind that this proposal isn't intended to be a complete one-stop solution to the problem of inappropriate advocacy. It addresses one very specific and pernicious type of advocacy (paid editing). We still have a lot of work to do on tendentious and agenda-driven editing across the board. But it seems unrealistic to discard this proposal for failing to address all forms of biased editing. MastCell ^Talk 20:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

This proposal assumes that there is a bright line, but there isn't. The line is blury, and many editors will have a hard time understanding where it lies. Moreover, it is very, very unethical to ban somebody from using talk pages to request help for a client. If Wikipedia has diddled a person or a company, the employees of agents of that company have every right to point out errors and request help, and even to make corrections themselves if there is an egregious policy violation (such as vandalism of an article). Jehochman ^Talk 20:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

What is the difference between "promotional material about Merck's products" and "a more recent review article, that happens to be more favorable towards Merck's products than the current sources in the article"? Actually, pharma companies are massively regulated, and many of their legal departments simply forbid directly editing the articles, so let's take a more plausible question: What's the difference between "promotional material about Nike's products" and "a scholarly article about Nike's products, that happens to be more favorable than the current sources in the article"? Or "promotional material about 'my' field of psychology" and "scholarly articles about 'my' field of psychology"?

On the one hand, I admire the concision of this page. On the other hand, a somewhat longer "does not include..." list might be useful. For example, it's not clear whether "representative" means (more or less) official representatives, or if even student interns, editing without permission or even knowledge of their employers, are included. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I actually disagree with you, MastCell. It is very, very difficult to draw the line here. For example: Psychologists charge their clients directly here in Canada (i.e., they are not covered by our government health insurance). It is very easy to make the case that they are writing for their own personal financial benefit if they write about certain theories or treatments in which they are expert. We ourselves use Google Scholar to measure the impact of scholarly works, so working to get one's own studies mentioned on-wiki, whether by modifying or writing the article and adding it directly, or alternately by making it incredibly easy for someone else to add it once the article is up....well, there's at least a reputational benefit, and possibly a financial one if it leads to more grants for further studies. The scholar whose graduate degree depends upon the articles created for Wikipedia, and the students whose Psychology 101 marks are dependent on making xxx edits and adding yyy characters of content have a genuine, financially-based conflict of interest; failing means taking a hit in their longterm career trajectory. Meanwhile, people advocating that company xxx is [insert grossly negative consumer position here, linked to news article, and given same weight as latest financial data] are treated with more respect than people who try to provide balancing factual information because the latter are presumed to be paid advocates.

One of the issues here is our incredibly low notability standards. Much of this would not be an issue if we were to look to ourselves and stop acting as if almost everything is notable simply because it got a mention somewhere online. We wouldn't even need to worry about a huge number of these articles if we had reasonable notability standards and if we didn't have to send those articles through a rigorous and lengthy deletion process. We refuse to deal with non-financial COI and advocacy amongst our own editorship while whining endlessly that Company XX has come here and had the nerve to suggest we've got something wrong. Sorry, but I think we need to clean up our own act before we create policies that will be used primarily to gain advantage against opponents in ideologically-based editing. It looks good on paper, but the actual words don't say what you think they say. Risker (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm new to this issue, but so far I've been unpersuaded that the ill (COI editing) is worse than any supposed cure in place or proposed, including this one. WP editing is inherently a collaboration of people with broad variety of interests and biases. Some percentage of those are paid. So what? Yes, it's not ideal, but I believe our policies and guidelines regarding content mitigate any potential significant harm to WP. With proper attention to proper sourcing and notability, it shouldn't matter whether the editors are paid or not, or what their biases may be. As long as the "voice" is the NPOV, we're good. --B2C 19:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support, and I also support elaborating briefly about disclosure by adding "on their user page, and on the talk pages of each article edited" to the end of the lead paragraph. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, largely per Risker above. The quality of Wikipedia is till very poor in so many (especially scientific) areas, that we should welcome scholars and scientists to write about their work, rather than prohibit it. I understand where this proposal is coming from, but ignoring the fact that academics might be the most valuable contributors Wikipedia can have, is not helpful. --Reinoutr (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't follow this reasoning. Paid advocacy is not going to improve the quality of our scientific coverage. This proposal is not going to prohibit scientists in general from contributing. MastCell ^Talk 20:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• modified support Support complete policy ban of undisclosed COIs. Explicitly disclosed COIs should be allowed to continue as per current policy. (Disclosed at the user level, and PER ARTICLE where the COI exists) Gaijin42 (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. I also largely agree with Risker on this. Besides, if such a rule were adopted, you'd just drive underground the few who are willing to disclose a COI, unless the WP:OUTING policy were also changed dramatically (abolished and witch hunts encouraged to root out the undeclared COIs). The editors most affected by this proposed ban are the ethical professionals editing in their own filed, who would indeed cease to contribute any content here. Since this bright line idea came from Jimbo's page where the current topic is now certain brand of nationalism, I really don't see you could draw bright line rule for that, even though it's just damaging to Wikipedia's credibility... No editing for anyone getting a good feeling from their edits? No edits allowed if they improve your country/ethnicity image? I think this site would be turning into Wikipediocracy really fast if this rule were adopted. Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. We can require disclosure of paid editing, but we should not ban it completely. If Wikipedia writes about somebody or some organization, that person or organization has an absolute right to respond, to correct the record, to point out errors, to request help. If Wikipedia has an article about me, but I am handicapped, or don't write well in English, and I need to pay somebody to edit on my behalf to keep my bio free of slander or vandalism that could damage my reputation, would you ban that person? This proposed policy is overly simplistic because it fails to take into account the many possible different situation that could occur. If a company wants to copy edit and format their article (without introducing POV), revert vandalism, report attempts at POV pushing by "haters", why should we prohibit that? Jehochman ^Talk 20:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as written. Although the problem is no doubt real, the proposed phrasing is too broad and runs the risk of driving good faith editors away or underground. Being paid to write an article is one thing. Writing about things you have a financial or other stake in is quite another. We're a community of volunteers and amateurs, not a community of people ignorant of the subject. If I own a comic book I should be entitled to edit the article about the book. If I own a few shares of Apple stock, or used to work for the company (in a non-executive role, and not in PR) I should be able to edit articles about Apple products. If I am a veterinarian I should be able to write about horses. If I went to a college I should be able to edit articles pertaining to the college, even though I have a financial and personal stake in improving the reputation and awareness of that school. The anti-business sentiment that money and career make an editor suspect and corrupt the process, whereas religion, opinion, hobby, belief, or any of the myriad things that draw people to a subject do not (atheists writing articles on atheism, communists writing articles about politics, vegetarians writing about factory farming) is misguided. When a business owner, corporate shill, or other single purpose advocate writes an article out of whole cloth, it's usually obvious and we already have ways to deal with it. The more interesting question regarding what to do about paid writers and company PR departments who actually know how Wikipedia works and game it with otherwise reliably sourced, well written articles does not seem to be a huge problem (yet), but it suggests a narrower, more targeted response. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose for many of the reasons given above. The definitions in the proposed policy are too vague, and even were they not it will often be impossible to determine that advocacy is at play or to enforce the policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. We can require disclosure of paid editing, but we should not ban it completely. It won't work, and trying will make things worse. Oppose the shortcut BRIGHTLINE. The proposal is not about bright lines. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose We can strongly discourage paid editing but not ban it. We should try to work with the COI editors to develop a lasting relationship, not declare all out war. KonveyorBelt 22:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose to "Editors with a financial conflict of interest ... must not edit affected articles directly." I saw a number of scientists who edited pages related to their work, and I am one of them (I did not receive any payment; to the contrary, editing on-wiki damaged my work because I spent too much time here). In most cases, these scientific researchers made reasonable effort to follow all policies. Sometimes, they did not, but it was very easy to fix (here is one of many examples: [1]). My very best wishes (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• I'm not sure I could support the starting line "Paid advocacy is not allowed...". The objective here isn't to categorically forbid a class of editors from participating here at all. However, I think we should focus on the fact that, while no editor is perfectly neutral, paid advocates have an especially strong incentive not to edit neutrally, and may in fact be forbidden to by their clients if they want to be paid. That's why we call it as we do—it's not just a WP:COI, it's a true conflict of interest. I think we should require, rather than suggest, disclosure, but if those principles are followed, it is not forbidden for the paid advocate to edit. Whether they should be forbidden to edit articles where they have a COI, or just strongly discouraged, is an open question, but in either case transparency should be mandatory. That will allow other editors to check up on it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose mostly per SmokeyJoe. I also echo his sentiments about the shortcut, though I think it may be appropriate if this page were to become policy. --BDD (talk) 22:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - As Wikidemon notes, "financial stake" is far too vague. There's also the question of enforcement. If an editor is making positive contributions to an article, then we find out he is a "stakeholder", then what? Policies should generally only prohibit things that are actually damaging. NPOV and other content policies already cover the potential damage. Or on the other hand, how is someone supposed to figure this out? Unless a user admits it, or edits from their work computer with an IP address clearly tied to the company, it's practically unprovable. So in most cases it will be unenforceable and in others we may not want to enforce it. Worse, editors who may have otherwise chosen to declare their COI may choose not to to avoid getting blocked. Mr.Z-man 23:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Moral support - There needs to be a no paid editing policy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first and foremost, not a PR platform. I don't care if they submit a perfect article, we do not need to be seen as allowing people to PR here. However, this is not the policy. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 23:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support and Broaden This isn't broad enough. All people whether paid or unpaid should avoid editing articles where they have a conflict of interest. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Adding that discussion about trying to add this at WP:NOT has been redirected here. The previous discussion, should it matter, is at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Bright_line_rule. --MASEM (t) 17:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Past practice is that factual, non-controversial, edits to articles may be made directly by editors with a COI, especially if a source is provided. For example, if an article about a company lists its officers (or some of them), and one of them retires and a successor is appointed, A business owner, company employee, or paid editor could directly edit to make that change without going through the {{edit request}} mechanism. Also, obvious blatant vandalism may be reverted by such editors. I would like these included in the proposal. Any objections? DES ^(talk) 17:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Would it be reasonable for someone that may be doing paid advocacy to submit an article to AFC as long as they have full disclosure in that submittal? --MASEM (t) 18:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

  That is the current practice. Coretheapple (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

  Then that should be added here, as another route for how such editors can still contribute (assuming, of course, we don't completely shut off paid advocacy per above discussion) --MASEM (t) 18:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

  On the contrary, it's a form of gaming the system that needs to be stopped. It skews the content of the encyclopedia toward articles planted by the subjects of articles and their reps, especially small companies of limited interest, and implicitly exaggerates the importance of subjects that receive such advocacy vs subjects in the same industry and business category that don't pay to have their interests pushed on Wikipedia. Coretheapple (talk) 19:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

  Okay, I see what you meant by "it's current practice" above; however, I postulate that if AFC is doing the right job - not only reviewing the article but doing a cursory check of other mentions of the topic to make sure that there isn't any obvious aspects that are being missed in the candidate, it doesn't make sense to not allow that to go through. Or if anything, have a COI AFC board so that multiple editors can check. --MASEM (t) 19:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

  Diverting volunteers to vetting what paid editors are doing isn't the answer, and would not address the problem of giving excessive attention to companies and persons who pay to plant articles in Wikipedia. Coretheapple (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

  We're talking about an activity that should be happening irregardless of who submits an article to AFC; check to make sure the topic isn't a hoax, that there is balance to the coverage, etc. The only additional aspect here is that if there's an AFC that's attached to an editor that has asserted their COI, the article should be doubled checked for tone in additional to all the other steps a AFC entry should review, which takes at most a few extra minutes. --MASEM (t) 21:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I think it's important to note that much of paid editing is done by experienced Wikipedia Editors, not outside PR firms. And because these Editor are fully aware of WP policies and guidelines, I think their participation is much preferred to newly created accounts and IPs who show up to put out fires.

I have actually seen instances where I know an Editor was paid to be a liaison between a company and those Editors who were actively editing an article and his/her participation led to a better article. In one particular instance, the paid Editor posted suggested edits on the Talk Page that uninvolved Editors were free to accept, reject or ignore (and all of their statements were sourced). I just think it's important to realize that paid editing takes a variety of forms and not all of it is ham-fisted PR companies asserting ownership over articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

P.S. The Editors in question were transparent about their role and COI. They didn't hide what they were doing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Disclosure is sort of a litmus test that separates those paid editors editing in a policy compliant manner and those with an ulterior, advocacy-type motive they seek to conceal in order to circumvent, er, 'guidelines'.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Question: As worded, would the section entitled Financial Conflicts of Interest apply to academics or researchers who are receiving Grant $$$ on projects related to topics they might be editing, to students who are receiving scholarship $$$ and grades for editing Wikipedia as part of the Wikipedia:Education Program, to individuals that have supported non-profit organizations financially, etc., etc.?? --Mike Cline (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• I would say probably yes, probably not, and no. Grant money is the tricky one, and is a widely recognized source of conflicts of interest. Absent specific facts, its hard to say with certainty, but it would be easy for academic or researcher to allow the grant money to could their neutrality when editing. The education program, afaik, doesn't have them edit anything about the program itself, so as long as they are editing about things unrelated to the source of the funds, and their only incentive is to produce quality work, its not an issue. As for groups you contribute to, we usually ignore non-financial COI, and are only interested in financial COIs to the extent that the person with the conflict would benefit financially. Monty₈₄₅ 20:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi B2C I am responding to your !vote above down here, so as to avoid cluttering the survey. I am new to the issue of COI policy at Wikipedia too, but not to COI policies in general. I work at a university, where knowledge production is our game, and our name and reputation are our most valuable asset. As industry and universities have come to collaborate more and more, and the isolation of the "ivory tower" has become a thing of the past, a lot of universities have put in hours of thought (much of it based on very difficult lived experience) on crafting COI policies. And pretty much all universities have them now - the core ideas are a) disclosure (daylight as disinfectant) and management of COI, which includes at minimum requiring disclosure, and forbidding some activities. BrightLine has both, as simply as it can be stated. (there are many many elaborations that are possible) I looked at your userpage and see that you are a "bottom up" guy and that you value the products of thoughtful experience. I hope you can hear me, that having things happen like the big sockpuppet network (which we are still living through), and other recent events, damage our good name and dishearten a lot of editors and admins. And it is that much worse, that we don't actually have a COI policy that clearly forbids what happened. We owe it to ourselves and our public to have a core COI policy. It is basic governance. I agree with you, very much, that bad faith editing will out - it was actually a single editor checking the reliability of sources who tugged on the thread that unraveled the sockpuppet network. But that doesn't mean that we have any excuse for not having a core COI policy. I hope that makes sense to you and that you might consider supporting this. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 20:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Hello Jytdog (talk · contribs)! Convincing me (and others, presumably) that COI is a problem on WP is pointless; I'm already convinced about that. What you need to convince me is that policies, guidelines and rules attempting to address the problem of COI on WP are going to have a significant effect on the problem, and that that positive effective will not be outweighed by the negative effect of the accusations, investigations and untold other unintended consequences of such policies, guidelines and rules.

  As to comparing us to other organizations, like universities (or even publishers), that's not very convincing either. Nobody else produces work that is a collaboration of numerous mostly anonymous contributors. Also, our work is also unique in that it is strictly limited to non-original notable content that is supported in reliable sources. That really limits the influence the COI or any bias any one editor has as compared to what that influence could be at universities, newspapers, magazines, etc. --B2C 21:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Disclosing financial COI in signature

I think it would be good to require an editor with a financial conflict of interest, as defined in this proposal, to disclose that fact in their signature with text that says "(paid)" or "(PAID)", linking to a subpage in their userspace (or a section on their main userpage) that identifies their sponsor(s). This would maximize transparency, so that someone reading a discussion in which that editor participated would be able to weigh that editor's statements and their sponsors' interests accordingly. Thoughts? alanyst 17:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

People may not have a COI about every issue they edit about, so unless it's an SPA we can't ask people to add it to their sigs. I think we need to focus like a laser on producing a very simple policy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Editors can create alternate accounts, which can be used when they have a conflict of interest (or when they don't). This isn't a bad idea. Coretheapple (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Running with that idea (probably way out of scope), what about a special class of account—which might be an alternate, for those who also edit as volunteers—in which names have a distinctive prefix or suffix (say, “$$$”), and that doesn’t get auto-confirmed? One advantage to the paid editor from using such an account: page-histories would be easier to scan for billing purposes. ;) —Odysseus1479 18:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Another better (imo) option would be to incorporate it into MediaWiki - with a usergroup PR personnel with the userrights no-review This person is unable to automatically review edits to pages protected with Pending Changes PR personnel Edits made by this person are listed in [[Special:PR edits]], maybe others if anyone thinks of them. That way it'd be like PC, have a central place to review edits. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 23:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I have made this proposed change, which prescribes how a financial conflict of interest must be disclosed. (It also makes a small clarification to exclude intangible benefits, such as an expectation of glory in the afterlife or a feeling of gratification for having informed the world of the plight of the lesser bottle-nosed fruit fly, from those that would trigger the FCOI. That sort of advocacy is also generally undesirable but not the problem this proposed policy aims to address.) I immediately reverted it so we could discuss it without giving the appearance of an edit war.

I appreciate SlimVirgin's desire to keep the proposal minimalist and laser-focused, and I've tried to keep my changes in that vein, but I believe it's important to provide a clear way for an editor to conform to the requirements if they have such a conflict of interest. Simply stating that the editor must disclose their COI does not sufficiently set the expectation for how frequently and prominently it should be made.

Regarding SlimVirgin's other point about people not having a COI about every issue they edit about: I agree, but if an editor does have a financial COI then it's better for their signature to disclose that every place they leave a comment, and let the other readers and participants of those discussions determine for themselves whether the COI is relevant to those particular remarks. That way there's no chance of arguing over whether COI should have been disclosed at a particular discussion when it wasn't. alanyst 18:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot that my proposed change also added proposing new articles at AfC alongside making edit requests. I understand this is opposed by some and didn't mean to slide that in without notice. alanyst 19:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• I do not think this should be built into policy, if for no other reason than that the proposed changes in talk pages will not permit personalized signatures. Risker (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

  I didn't realize that that was one of the ramifications of Flow. Good to know, but that's kind of a shame. alanyst 19:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

  Another reason not to implemety flow, but that is for another page. DES ^(talk) 20:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

  Flow isn't going to support blinking rainbow sigs, but, last I heard, it would still be possible to add plain text sigs that do not match the account name ("Alice Expert" instead of "Aexpert"), so presumably the plain text "Alice Expert (paid)" would be possible, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• I object to these changes. I think blocking AfC and attempting to mandate signature use are booh mistakes. DES ^(talk) 20:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

No COI witch-hunts please. KonveyorBelt 22:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• We could also force them to change their usernames to include a (P) that would always display in red. That'll show 'em! --BDD (talk) 22:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Why stop there? Why not have a bright red (Paid Encyclopedia Fornicator) after their name? Jehochman ^Talk 23:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• The problem with requiring disclosure in a signature is that the most important disclosure is linked to mainspace edits. There is no requirement for any editor to ever sign. If we look for disclosures in signatures, we may not look close enough at mainspace edits. The problem with requiring a alternate account with disclosure in the username, well it might work, but be careful that we might be teaching sock puppetry. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

No paid advocacy vs. No Personal Attacks

I find it ironic that this proposal shares its initialism with WP:NPA, which states:

Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia.

The entire focus of this proposal, and indeed all efforts to directly address the problem of edits made by editors with a COI, is of the on the contributor variety rather than on content. This entire approach is arguably a violation of at least the spirit of WP:NPA, if not the actual explicit intent.

I'm serious. The whole idea underlying WP:NPA is to put aside WHO is editing and WHY they are editing, and instead focus on the WHAT of the edit itself as objectively as reasonably possible, and comment on that without regard to WHO made the edit, or WHY they made the edit. Trying to ban or even monitor COI editing ignores WP:NPA and instead encourages a Witch-hunt based on the absurd precepts of Thoughtcrime. It's an initiative that moves WP towards pointless bickering, infighting, and, ultimately, implosion.

The problem of COI editing can never be eliminated. But it can be mitigated to a reasonable level along with all biased editing, by focusing on our content-governing policies and guidelines (notability, sourcing, NPOV, etc.) and enforcing those. Let's keep the eye on the ball folks, building and maintaining an outstanding encyclopedia, rather than get distracted by nonsense like trying to address the problem of COI editing directly. It's never going to work, and, if we try, WP will only suffer.

There is only one WP:NPA, and it's a good one. Let's keep it, and ditch this one. The intent is good, but it's wrong-headed. --B2C 22:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

+1 Very well said. Egregious cases of corporate shills are easily detected and easily dealt with. Anyone who's actually going to edit in a partisan, bad-faith manner isn't going to play by the rules being discussed here, whether we call it an essay, policy, or divine law. I've edited articles on organizations that have employed me. Would it have been better if someone with no connection to one of those organizations made the same edits? I guess, maybe, in some abstract way. I'd like to assume most of us are grownups who are aware of our potential conflicts and behave accordingly. When that doesn't happen, we deal with it. If WP:N, WP:REF, and WP:NPOV are being observed, I don't care who's doing the editing. --BDD (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

CONTEST: worst example of COI editing ever!

So, I wonder. If COI editing is such a serious problem, I wonder if we couldn't have a contest to identify the worst problems ever caused by COI editing. All entries should include:

1. A summary of what happened, including what the problematic edit/s was/were, how long they were in the article before they were identified, how they were identified as problematic, how they were identified as being the product of COI editing, etc.
2. Relevant diffs

On your marks, get set, go! --B2C 22:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The very worst would be in articles now deleted. I know of one in particular, an article created by the subject. Being about a living person, I don't think it's wise or necessary to get into this kind of thing. Coretheapple (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, here's one that doesn't involve BLPs. I posted it on Jimbo's talk page and am copying it below:

This PR Newswire release re "Obamacare" & Wikipedia just came to my attention. It reads in relevant part:

"The Obamacare debate resulted in a legislative impasse and a government shutdown as both parties pour millions into promoting and defending their position. This time, however, the war of words is not limited to Congress and the news media. One of the new battlegrounds is Wikipedia, where every word in the 13,000-word Obamacare article is bitterly fought over." . . . 'This editorial war on Wikipedia is pretty representative of the high impact Wikipedia profiles now play in forming public opinion about political issues, brands, products, corporations. The stakes are often in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and so we find ourselves quite busy helping our clients achieve their objective on Wikipedia, while adhering to Wikipedia's notoriously complex rules and practices,' said Alex Konanykhin, CEO of www.WikiExperts.us, the leading Wikipedia visibility agency."

--Coretheapple (talk) 23:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

If they really are "adhering to Wikipedia's notoriously complex rules and practices," why is it a problem? If they aren't, isn't that the problem, rather than some money changing hands? --BDD (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Tautology, and a better proposal

Wikipedia:Advocacy is already forbidden, so paid advocacy is by default forbidden. Instead, we need to talk about Wikipedia:Paid editing policy proposal, which would require disclosure of all paid editing, regardless of whether the editing is neutral or not. Jehochman ^Talk 23:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Disclosure wording

Multiple User's above have said we can/should "require disclosure." I have therefore cribbed this from Protecting our Neutrality and modified it for Wikipedia.

On their User page, on subject article talk pages, and when commenting on any conflict of interest related policy/guideline discussion page:

• Users must disclose the fact that they have recieved or will receive anything that could be construed as a payment to the User for favorable coverage or for avoiding unfavorable coverage of article subjects the User is working on. This includes money, gifts, tickets, discounts, reimbursements or other benefits from individuals or organizations covered (or likely to be covered) by the User in a Wikipedia article.

• Users must disclose the fact of payment or compensation (not the amount) of any sort from individuals or organizations who are the subject of coverage the User is to provide, edit, prepare or supervise on Wikipedia.

Discuss

• I would also like to ask you to review and reflect on this recent comment by @CorporateM: a PR professional and Wikipedian in a similar discussion:[2] -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

  Alan, I'm getting a dead link at the Times website that you cite above. Coretheapple (talk) 23:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Strange it works for me. (paste it in your browser?) Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)