Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

here to post a question to the Conflict of interest noticeboard

We're outnumbered and ill equipped

Wikipedia's current policies on conflict of interest editing, which often involves promotional content, are really ill suited for the current reality. It may have worked a decade ago, but today's Wikipedia is very different and companies continue to view it as a promotional platform. COI editing is everywhere you look now, and is especially noticeable on pages about companies. The number of COI users editing also outnumbers editors capable and interested in spotting and removing the inappropriate content. The editors interested in removing inappropriate COI content are also ill equipped to detect inappropriate edits on over 5 million articles. I don't mean to be doomsayer, but it honestly seems inappropriate COI editing has become out of hand and judging by the COIN archives, it's only gotten worse.

If current trends continue, and there's no reason to believe otherwise, it's likely to become an unmanageable mess primarily used for promoting companies.

Can this noticeboard be improved? A few months after a thread is archived a lot of people forget the COI incident brought up. A few years later (once the editors involved in a particular incident are inactive or forget the details) the institutional knowledge of a specific COI incident is pretty much forgotten. The problem is, marketing and PR agencies never stop trying to use Wikipedia as a platform - they may be using new accounts or existing accounts on other articles. Elaenia (talk) 02:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

You have been around less than a month. Is that correct? Jytdog (talk) 03:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

As a registered account, yes. Much longer on multiple dynamic IPs over the years. Elaenia (talk) 03:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I keep trying to think of how to reply to you, and I can't. maybe others will have something useful to say to you. Jytdog (talk) 04:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. The issue surrounding COIN which I wanted to discuss was the lack of an institutional memory so once someone's COIN thread has been archived, the majority of people forget the issue. I visited a random archived thread, checked to see if there were any ongoing COI issues - and there were. Page now fully protected till April and talk page edit request from COI user. I'm guessing the user would have made the edits directly if the page hadn't been protected due to previous issues. The sourced criticism section is also gone now, although I haven't looked in detail on why. The page history shows a long history of edit warring and disputes on COI/advert/other related issues.

Another example for Neptune Orient Lines. The issue in 2012 was spammy promotional language. In 2015 a SPA inserted additional promotional language. It remained until today, when I removed it...

Another example for ACN Inc. from June 2009. Promotional (likely COI one-edit account) edit here just last month

So I guess the problem I'm trying to bring up is that just because a thread has been archived here, it doesn't mean the COI has ended. It'll likely come back, because those companies have a vested interest in promoting themselves on Wikipedia. And indeed, for some articles, even 5 years later COI issues remain - long after the involved editors have forgotten about it or have gone inactive. The reporting user for the ACN Inc. COI issues was Special:Contributions/Thatcher, who last edited in May 2015. Thatcher likely had the page on his/her watchlist, but that's of no use since they're gone. I clicked on 3 random threads. All 3 had COI issues years later. Elaenia (talk) 04:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I guess what I am struggling with is your Oh Shit We Are In Crisis postings. Shitloads of bad content gets added to WP everyday - some of it people with a COI, but the broader class of advocates of all kinds ("Trump is an ass." "Only assholes eat meat." "I hate gay people") as well as outright vandalism like blanking pages, as well as sneaky vandals who add plausible but fake content for kicks, as well as well-intentioned but ignorant people just writing things that are wrong. The Neuman University article is a crappy example for you, as it is well watched and the COI content has been rejected consistently.

Unless you want to make this "the encyclopedia that only identified and verified users can edit", this is the world we live in. Any article is only as good as the last person who worked on it. The fact that we have any good content in WP is due to the miracle of conscientious people paying attention, and there is no way to scale that. (that said, I did just propose that WMF build a bot to detect and flag 'advocacy editing' broadly speaking, and there is already COIbot that detects obviously conficted editing. There are some technology solutions. Brianhe already pointed you to DocJames idea page where lots of people have expressed their thoughts. Jytdog (talk) 05:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

The posts on another user's talk page are about COI editing in general. However, judging by the passionate discussion every time paid editing is brought up, there appears to be a general consensus COI editing is a serious problem and needs to be addressed sooner rather than later. Outright vandalism is easier for bots to spot, whereas sneaky vandalism and COI editing to insert promotional language often goes undetected for months or even years. The Neuman article was the first one I randomly clicked and does demonstrate COI remains an issue, even after it was archived years ago. I'm certain dozens or hundreds of additional "archived" COIN threads can also demonstrate continued COI activity years later. Anyway, that's all beside the point - the issue of a case being closed and archived at COIN, only to have continued COI editing years down the road is the issue. People forget problem articles over time. I guess there's no solution aside from having more people watch (maybe a public list of articles which have a history of COI issues? shared community watch lists built into MediaWiki?). I read over the entire thread, but it's quite disappointing to see that, as far as I know, no concrete changes have resulted from the discussions held there. But alas, change takes time, so we can only wait I guess. Elaenia (talk) 05:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Again, unless you are proposing to change the nature of this place as an "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" there is no way we can prevent - beforehand - the same or different people from the same institution from coming back and trying to add promotional material to the article about their institution. (replace "institution" with anything you like). The only other global solution is bots that detect certain kinds of edits. Other than that, it is just the vigilance of individual editors. Just like it is any for any bad content. Part of why i have struggled to respond to you is that you don't seem be dealing with the nature of this place. Jytdog (talk) 07:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with the issues I brought up. Nobody is talking about preventing COI edits or spam beforehand, that would be impossible. Once again, the issue is there is virtually no institutional memory of previous COI incidents, so pages which were vigilantly being watched gradually lose watchers. I've already suggested a few ways to address the issue and was asking others to see if there was a way to address it. Elaenia (talk) 07:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

OK.... (archives are the institutional memory; it is great that you walked back through them). i've said my piece, maybe others will have ideas you like. Jytdog (talk) 07:20, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry if I came off as a tad aggressive. Reading over your userpage, I think it's fair to say we both understand the situation and actually agree on many points regarding the COI issue. I've been working on a JavaScript gadget which tries to see if there are matching entries in the COIN archives when browsing articles/the current noticeboard. Right now it doesn't work too well due to the sheer number of archives it needs to search through. I was also thinking of maybe a list of all articles ever brought up at COIN could be maintained, and a new bot can regularly query those articles' histories to see if there are edits reverted with edit summaries of "spam" or similar keywords (or maybe just check for new SPAs adding common promotional words). Elaenia (talk) 07:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we understand the situation the same way at all. Jytdog (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Elaenia: To address your question "Can this noticeboard be improved?" Yes, a good start would be for thoroughly researched reports to be dignified with a response. I spent significant time reading the instructions, attempting to follow them, and asking how I could do better when I received no response. The user in question appears to have taken the archival of the matter as a green light to continue with their paid COI editing, albeit using another account. I will not be wasting my time here again. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikimania discussion about paid promotional editing

Wondering who is coming to Wikimania and if people would be interested in getting together to discuss matters? WMF legal has said they would join. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I wish I could go, I hope there is great participation around this topic. - Brianhe (talk) 22:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Best of luck - I hope something concrete can come out of it. I think the above discussions - and bigger problem - is nicely summed up by Seraphimblade: I think we do have to have a better system for watching articles targeted for spamming and marketing long-term; since the people doing that are often getting paid to do it, they can afford to be patient and extremely tenacious. They're not like vandals, who will get bored and move on after getting reverted and blocked a few times. Elaenia (talk) 07:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed OUTING revision

There is an active discussion at WT:Harassment#Proposed OUTING revision (permlink) that will be of interest to COIN volunteers. Some of the proposed revisions (there are variants) could change the WP:OUTING policy in ways that would significantly affect COIN discussions. - Brianhe (talk) 02:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Current RfC wrt the template {{request edit}}

There is currently an RfC about Template:Request Edit on whether a somewhat substantial change should be made to the template, adding a counter and basic status indicator. That template is used to request COI edits, so I thought it would be relevant to this noticeboard. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 15:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

RfC is now over —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 20:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Just to Be Sure

As a reviewer at Articles for Creation, I often encounter single-purpose accounts whose whole objective seems to be to get an article published about a company. (There are also ones whose sole concern is themselves or their band, but the ones who want to publish about a company are the stubborn ones.) Sometimes, either after they ask me what language needs to be trimmed out in order not to be promotional or after they just submit again with minor changes, I ask them whether they are affiliated with the company. I am assuming that this board (or rather, the board for which this is the talk page) is where to report them if they don't answer. Is that correct? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I run into these as well. It's usually a name plus numbers (john1234) and they never use that account to edit anything else. Do you post a COI notice to their talk pages? That's a good way to let them know they've been scoped. Then if they don't reply, take them to COIN. However, since they almost never reply, and only post long enough to get the article to a point where they get paid for it, there's not much that can be done. These are really hit-n-run accounts. What I think we need more than anything is a better way to keep all of these promotional commercial articles out of WP. I'm sick of dealing with them at AfC, AfD, and elsewhere. LaMona (talk) 15:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this noticeboard is the place to report users you think have COI and who are unresponsive to interactions on their talk page. As for articles which have been created, shorn and accepted, but which have COI input, placing {{Connected contributor}} with appropriate parameters on the article talk page is recommended; the template notes the identity of the COI user, and provides a date-stamp up to which the article has been checked by a neutral editor for NPOV. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this is the noticeboard. If the article creator doesn't reply to the COI notice on their talk page, it is a good to additionally add the COI tag to the article itself. It helps to warn other editors that the article may be promotional or may not comply with NPOV. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Though worth noting that {{COI}} should be applied to the article only when it is affected by COI ("It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view.") If no cleanup is required, then the article tag is not appropriate. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

A related problem is AfD'ing a spammy article, a s lot of guys claim that spam can be dealt with "by normal editing". Unfortunately, nothing happens after such a statement "as AfD is not for clean up". Very frustrating as it lets clear COI-editors of the hook and stimulates advertising/spamming. The Banner talk 19:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

This is great. We had a discussion about COI in draft space here and my sense of the consensus there was that it is absolutely OK for conflicted editors to create drafts and submit them through AfC.... in fact that is what we want them to do, if they want to be here.

You are raising the next step in the process - namely how a reviewer at AfC should handle concerns about WP:PAID and WP:COI in a context where they are nonresponsive. I am going to answer this in a broader context, if I may...

In my view the decisions should be based on content policies first, and behavioral policy/guidelines secondly. The PAID/COI thing is tricky when it is only likely but not actually disclosed by something someone writes or by their username. So I would say that what you do, depends on the content and context - all of this assumes that you already think there is a COI and have already asked, as stated in the OP.

• If the content of the draft is not good to go content/sourcing wise, and they are nonresponsive on the COI/PAID issue, I would decline the draft and include a message about your concerns about COI/PAID and their obligation to disclose in your notes about why you are declining, and ideally with a copy on the article Talk page. I don't think anyone would find this controversial. If this is the first go-round, it is not worth posting at COIN as I imagine there are loads of people who post and run. If they come back and try again

• If the content of the draft is good enough (it passes N, no real issues with NPOV/PROMO, fine per V, and RS/MEDRS) and you would otherwise move the article to mainspace' (which I imagine is rare), what to do then? Options:
  • Decline as there is a likelihood of a violation of WP:PAID and articles that appear to violate policy should not enter mainspace. In this case you would decline with a note to the editor about that making it clear that you would like a response on the PAID/COI issue, and yes, post at COIN, with notification to the creator.
  • You must accept the article based on the content; you can also tag it and post at COIN, and notify the editor.

Of those two, I imagine that the first would be very controversial, and would advise #2. But #1 is supportable, in my view. It would just likely cause a lot of drama.

• If the content of the draft is marginal (some questions about N, clear issues with NPOV/PROMO, V, and/or RS/MEDRS) and you are debating' (which I imagine is more common), what to do then? Options:
  • Decline always, with the reasoning starting with and emphasizing content issues, and also noting that COI/PAID editing seems likely, and noting the obligation to disclose. The reasoning for this is along the lines of what User:DGG says sometimes at AfD namely: "Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason (to delete). Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encyclopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia". And yes, post at COIN
  • Judge based on purely on the content alone with out taking the PAID policy into account, and either way, post here at COIN and notify.

Of those two, I imagine that the first would be somewhat controversial, but supportable.

Something like that. The point of all this is that a) most things are best managed interpersonally rather than on drama boards and trying more than once is good; b) post at COIN only if the article is ready or close to being ready , otherwise we will be overwhelmed. Jytdog (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

What template do I use? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

For the article talk page, i would go with {{connected contributor}} (not {{connected contributor (paid)}} as my sense is we want to be cautious with that) and for the user's talk page the standard template is {{uw-coi}}. I usually put context around the uw-coi template like this in order to create a dialog, which the template doesn't do. Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I also want to say thanks, madly and deeply - AfC is hard work. Jytdog (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree about not use cc-paid unless one is prepared to actually defend this. I have rarely used it. DGG ( talk ) 00:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The real problem is about marginal articles.I've done different things over the years. Lately, I've been not accepting unless this point the only ones I am comfortably prepared to accept is the article would be so important to WP that I'm willing personally to rewrite it, or when there that are in a field where I know people look at the articles and that it will be rewritten. In cases where I think it would be important, but it's in a field that I cannot rewrite competently, I avoid deciding on it at all and leave it for someone else--which is one of the reasons we really need to have some subject classification for AfCs. DGG ( talk ) 00:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC)