Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk | contribs) at 17:18, 18 February 2019 (→What to do?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcuts

here to post a question to the Conflict of interest noticeboard

Assistance required!

Hello There I have created a draft for the company I am currently working with and I have followed the guidelines as per wikipedia policies however I am unsure as this is my first time. I would appreciate If any one can take a look and assist me regarding this. The Company name is NV Gallery and here is the link to the draft. I have already mentioned conflict of interest. Any help will be appreciated.

We are not trying to promote or sell anything on wikipedia. The company is just trying to have the neutral outlook on wikipedia and for the public interest as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArpitDubey09 (talk • contribs) 09:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While there are two references that I could not read (a French Television video that will not play in the US, and an offline article in an edition of Elle), those that are readable do not have the depth of coverage that would support giving this business an article.... which looks to be much the response that this article got when it was submitted. Two to eight sentence mentions are not likely to cut it. See WP:NCORP for guidelines on corporate notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If a paid editor votes "keep" at an AfD...

...should they be encouraged to strike their vote? I've seen paid editors offer comments and sources, but have not generally seen them vote "keep" at AfDs of articles where they have a financial stake. I would appreciate hearing feedback on this. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. A Keep !vote that's grounded in Wikipedia policy should not be disregarded, and a Keep !vote with no policy-based argument is generally ignored by the closer. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 00:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, a paid editor should disclose his financial connection and be sure to give good reasons to keep the article. A valid reason is a valid reason no matter who posts it. I see no reason why they should not comment. We let the person who created the article weigh in on whether it should be deleted, despite the obvious bias. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:26, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course a paid editor is required to declare his paid editing status for every edit. If he or she confine themselves to one or two articles then a simple listing of those articles on their user page is usually acceptable, but with AfD's everybody participating in the AfD should be made aware of the paid editor's status. Once everybody on the AfD page, including the closer, is aware of the paid status then the closer may better ignore any non-policy-based !votes. I'd say it's bad form, in general, for a paid editor to !vote on their paid-for articles. It looks a lot like a paid-for !vote. Do we really need a new rule to properly discount paid-for !votes? (If so, I'll go propose one - but it is simple common sense). In any case the closer and others need to know upfront. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flippin, Kentucky

I will address my content contributions and edits to this article. It’s true that I am the author of a “book” that I have used as a source/authority for some of the content. I have attempted diligently to include primary source citations from my book for this content, as well, in addition to other cited content not in my book. My “book” was not published for sale or pecuniary interest. It is a work purely of historical interest, published for libraries and the public interest. The entire content is freely available online (Family Search Library). I do retain copyright for the purpose of preserving the integrity of the research and source accuracy. This entire project for me is a labor of love, guided by a sincere interest in historical scholarship. (I am not a professional scholar.)

I grew up in this community, and know it personally in that way, as well. The story of Pikesville/Flippin presents an interesting example of how eatly American places and place names were established and grew, evolved and then devolved as places. I have attempted to severely curtail statements of value judgment, except to illustrate this fact of the dramatic growth and change in the case of this community. I have also retrenched greatly on the extent and stylistic expression of the article, since previous content appears to have resulted in stylistic edits. I have omitted much, but I am finished. If in the judgment of Wikipedia editors this content is prejudiced or inappropriate, then I will remove it all and revert the article to the previous stub. Thank you. 

BlueLevelBoy (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You most certainly can add material to the article that you have written about in your book. However, understand that anything you add to Wikipedia, while still under your copyright, is by default freely licensed, so that anyone can copy or otherwise use that material for any purpose. Do not cite your book for any material you add to Wikipedia. Instead, cite reliable sources that support that material. While not every statement needs a citation, every statement must be verifiable from a reliable source. As you are now aware, material in Wikipedia must be written in an encyclopedic style, and from a neutral point of view. You are in a position provide sufficient detail to produce an informative article about your community. The problem, as I well know from working on such articles, is finding sources that support what you want to add, and that will pass scrutiny as reliable sources. Anyway, good luck in your endeavors. - Donald Albury 18:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have appropriately and adequately cited this information. I suspect Wikipedia’s claim to neutral language is at best a continuum, at worst merely vacuous language. I have been to graduate school, and my experience has been that authors do cite their own research. I agree that supporting or confirming documentation is always preferable; my research does include reference citations, as well.

I have one goal: To publish sound historical research. Please tell me what is necessary to satisfy Wikipedia’s standards—more specifically, to remove “page issues.” If removing “Further Reading” links will do it, fine. BlueLevelBoy (talk) 19:51, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware that scholarly authors cite their own works, including "works in preparation", as well as things like "private communications" (I may have done so, myself, but it has been many years since I published anything scholarly). We do not do that in Wikipedia. One of the pillars of Wikipedia is the policy prohibiting original research. Before you cite your own book, I suggest that you read through the guideline at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, and, if you still want to cite it, that you submit it for an opinion at the reliable sources noticeboard. - Donald Albury 21:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia @BlueLevelBoy: It's great to see someone with a passion for research joining Wikipedia. I highly recommend you take some time familiarising yourself with what can seem like a bewildering array of policies and guidelines. If in doubt ask at the Teahouse or on the article's talk page.
Actually it is not quite true to say one can't cite one's own work. One can certainly do this, unless it is self published. If one's own work is published by a reliable press with editorial oversight then it can be cited, see Citing yourself. You should carefully read the reliable sources pages, paying special attention to Self Published Sources to determine if your book is self published. Wikipedia generally encourages the use of secondary sources rather than primary ones. This is not to say that primary sources are prohibited but you should read Primary sources to see how they may be used. Morgan Leigh | Talk 22:36, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic RfC

Around two thirds of this noticeboard is currently taken up by an off-topic RfC. It's off-topic because, as the top of the noticeboard says:

"This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor does not meet a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline.".

It means that those of us who watch this noticeboard for notices about CoI issues are having our attention constantly distracted by off-topic posts responding to or discussing the RFC.

I moved the RfC to this talk page, laving a pointer to it on the noticeboard, but have been reverted, with the charming edit summary "What utter horseshit is this?".

The off-topic RfC should again be removed from the noticeboard; if not to this talk page, then to some other suitable venue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation Andy. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If any section get too big and thus makes a noticeboard harder to use, it should be moved to a dedicated subpage with a pointer. Moving it for that reason is fine. Moving it because you personally think it is off topic is indeed utter horseshit. If it was off-topic the participation wouldn't be so high. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Andy, the RFC is indeed "off topic" for this "noticeboard" which is clearly for "determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor does not meet a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline". Your "logic" is flawed and your abusive language uncalled for. The Original RFC was on this talk page. We discuss changes to policy and guidelines on talk pages or general forums. Participation is in fact not particularly high, as these things go, and certainly not in any way related to its location on the COI noticeboard (anyone watchlisting one gets the talk page too). You advertised this on the VP, Jimbos's page, the Fringe Theories noticeboard and the RFC for Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I fully support moving it to the talk page, where it belonged all along. In fact it it should be closed already as it clearly hasn't got a chance. It was never a wisely constructed RFC to begin with, repeating the same request and getting similar response, and all that has occurred is both sides telling stories about AltMed. Guy, you made a newbie mistake plonking this in the wrong place, just accept that rather than warring and cursing about it. -- Colin°Talk 09:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Guy, you made a newbie mistake plonking this in the wrong place, just accept that rather than warring and cursing about it.
As Jimbo Wales has not yet died and left you In Charge of Everything Right and Proper at Wikipedia, you don't get to make pronouncements like that.
Pro-tip: noticeboards are used for whatever people use them for, and there's no Higher Authority to appeal to. Pigsonthewing moving a running RFC to this page was, indeed, utter horseshit, as I stated in my edit summary reverting the move and both of -- edit and summary -- which I stand by, your pearl-clutching notwithstanding. --Calton | Talk 11:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Calton - You did indeed use a profane and uncivil edit summary and are continuing to be uncivil. The statement that noticeboards are used for whatever people use them for is the nonsense. Placing an RFC at this noticeboard is off-topic, as several editors have said, and dismissing them with a profanity is inappropriate. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Calton of the "horeshit" edit summary. I expressed my opinion, and concur with Andy. Unlike you guys, I'm not warring or cursing. You seem very upset about something. Perhaps you should you lie down somewhere. The intellectual level of correspondence by those who claim to be on the side of rationality is most disappointing. -- Colin°Talk 14:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Colin - Please do not sink to the level of User:Calton in telling them to lie down. I agree with you that they are acting childishly upset. Please do not sink to their level. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
childishly upset and Please do not sink to their level.
Ah, so the "comment on content, not contributors" line you use has a personal exemption for yourself, I see. It makes your pearl-clutching even more amusing. Have you considered growing up? --Calton | Talk 02:34, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Calton your comment is hypocritical, you criticize someone for making personal comments in the process of calling out PAs, but you do the same thing by saying It makes your pearl-clutching even more amusing. Have you considered growing up? Tornado chaser (talk) 02:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on The Noticeboard

User:Guy Macon - Colin is right that you made a newbie mistake in putting the RFC on an inappropriate place, and you are not a newbie and should have known better. There are several reasonable places for the RFC, and COIN is not one of them. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And the RFC is interfering with the primary function of the noticeboard, which is to discuss specific conflict of interest issues, not conflict of interest policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo Wales: still not dead, still didn't leave YOU in charge, either. --Calton | Talk 02:34, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the discussion didn't really belong on COIN, but moving it so long after is started was disruptive. Also hasn't it been over 15 years since Jimbo got a supervote on where things belong? If Jimbo did die, I think most of us would be fairly sad, but also say "um you're welcome to partake in any discussion, but sorry you don't get to decide anymore then Jimbo did" to anyone they 'leave in charge'. Incidentally, I still wonder whether our handling of COI problems is completely broken. I haven't look that well but a quick look makes me feel despite the massive amounts of energy spent on that RfC suggesting people care about COI, very few actually do much about the cases raised even where it's evidence of a COI. Of course wider policy related issues are always going to let more attention then individual cases, but I think there's something wrong when little is actually done about any of them (perhaps unless it happens to fit in one editor's pet peeve or people get lucky/unlucky). Maybe it's just because of that massive recently closed RfC taking up 7/8s of the page but my gut feeling is no. Probably because I'm also very often guilty of that even if not so much here. (I barely said anything in that RfC.) Nil Einne (talk) 08:15, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK to revert user's edits if no consensus on COI?

If there's no consensus an editor has a COI -- both at COIN (here, 5 June 2010; and here, 14 February 2014) and via a pertinent RfC (here, 10 May 2015) -- is it OK for other editors to act like he must follow COIADVICE anyway and revert his mainspace edits using COI as a (and even the) reason?

"Asking for a friend" (i.e, this is about me). --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 15:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC); ironic understatement clarified, 16:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC); added COIN link & minor ce, no change in content 17:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC); add dates of COIN and first RfC 17:40, 6 January 2019 (UTC). Added 2nd COIN, self-brought, 20:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]

did you mean a user who claims to be a scientist who thinks acupuncture is real medicine, who charges real money to his victims for therapy that all the science shows him he is a fraud, quack, con man and shyster, and clearly thinks that getting Wikipedia to break its own policy on reliability is a good idea? Are you familiar with what jimbo said about lunatic charlatans? Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Middle 8 never mind the abstract question of the RfC. Isn't this a question specifically about you? Did you not have your own specific case here? Alexbrn (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course (I assumed the links made it obvious, but I'll make it explicit). For my COIN request there was no consensus; the thread was simply auto-archived, as usual in such instances. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 16:50, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) A majority(~60-70%?) of the editors(me included) on the RfC are saying that an alt med practitioner does not necessarily have a COI when editing articles about their field. The first diff given here does cite lack of consensus for the change, but the other two are essentially unjustified reverts(unjustified as in no proper justification given in the edit summary, I have not looked into the validity of the edits themselves) the fact that someone is an acupuncturist is not justification for reverting their edits on acupuncture related articles. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tornado chaser: I support the second revert on the merits, but I agree the third was a bad one. Well-sourced material like that (Harrison's ffs) should be improved (note the ES), not removed, per WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, which is policy. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 17:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please link the COIN request. --Ronz (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thank you. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 17:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall exactly when it was that we finally started taking COI problems far more seriously, but I believe it was after that 2010 COIN discussion. I'd say that any perception that there was a lack of consensus at the time is irrelevant, and the problems that were brought up then that are still occurring now are disturbing. --Ronz (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even think it was "no consensus" - looks to me like there was consensus Middle8 had a COI. Alexbrn (talk) 17:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When there is consensus "Yes" or "No" then it is closed by this board's admins with a "Resolved" tag or the like. Most of the cases in that archive did not close. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 17:44, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because obvious cases don't need a formal close, I suggest. Many cases are like that. Alexbrn (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not how the board works (read the header). I trust you've noticed how "obvious" both RfC's (which match my situation exactly) have turned out. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 17:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ronz: And that is the question, whether it is OK to treat an editor as if they have a COI when they have not been found, via standard procedures, to have one. (As for the disturbing problems, see here.) --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 17:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is IDHT. Please just use edit requests, and listen to others rather than arguing. If you honestly don't understand something, ask questions and demonstrate interest in perspectives other than your own.[4] --Ronz (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, I heard you Ronz, I just don't believe you're the arbiter of such things. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 19:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You asked for my opinion. You don't like it, so you look for a reason to ignore it. That seems to be a pattern, and typical of COI situations. --Ronz (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I did not. You showed up at my talk page out of the blue and started telling me what's what,[5] making broad accusations[6] backed by no evidence.[7] Which fits the pattern I've seen from self-appointed COI arbiters. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 20:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry you don't like the opinion of an editor who is very experienced and very conservative with handling potential COI situations. Don't ping someone whose opinion you don't want. --Ronz (talk) 04:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note, there were actually two COIN requests, 2010 and 2014 (sorry, I remembered there being only one, and didn't search further after finding the 2010.). Neither of them closed (i.e. both = no consensus). Now both are linked in thread-starter.--Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 21:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see one edit that was against talk page consensus and two that had significant source misrepresentation. Perhaps they should have had a different summary but each one was properly reverted. If you desist from pov pushing and misrepresenting sources people will probably stop thinking you have a COI.AlmostFrancis (talk) 07:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that [1] The specific reason for the RfC being posted was that Middle 8 claims that it is OK for him to edit pages where he has a financial interest in what the page says (see the "acupuncture COI?" link in his sig) and quotes an old RfC with a No Consensus result to support that assertion, and [2] It could very well turn out to be be the consensus of the community that practitioners of alternative medicine don't necessarily have a conflict of interest with regard to content describing their field of practice but that Middle 8 specifically does. Right now we are deciding the first question by RfC, and nobody should act as if the RfC is closed and the question is settled just because they think it is going one way or the other. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The financial interest that goes with having a profession, yes. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 01:34, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The financial interest that goes with selling snake oil to vulnerable people yes. Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Or not, but that's for the RfC. I just don't want my own comments misconstrued. -Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 03:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Bostrom

This is not a clear COI, but the article entry Nick Bostrom, according to that talk page has (or still has, did not looked into that yet) some issues with sourcing, and this author is cited about two dozen times in this article Global catastrophic risk. His book with the same title was until today also redirected in the article lede as a redirect, even though it is just a stub. Additional his writings cited at Global catastrophic risk attribute him to many ideas, which he clearly just picked up, for example colonizing space, or his cite in the first lede sentence for the definition of Global catastrophic risk, that it is a future risk, see also my today's talk page entry in this regard, here. So my point here is basically that his publications are used to define a major topic, which hints at a potential COI. Summary: The article Global catastrophic risk relays too much on a single author opinion, and opinions which originate in many cases from someone else. prokaryotes (talk) 19:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with Bostrom is not a clear COI as such, but a subculture of enthusiasts - the LessWrong cluster of transhumanists and singularitarians. The best first action is absolutely robust sourcing. Bostrom is very good at self-promotion, so he gets a lot of play in actually-mainstream sources - but ruthless culling of transhumanist pseudojournals and bad sourcing should help a lot - David Gerard (talk) 08:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What to do?

I found a user that has a username that is a surname (last name). This user has created only two articles and edited nothing else in 1 1/2 years. One article is a person with the same surname. Another is the professor that the person in the first article studied under.

It would be like if there were a user named Andersson who created an article on a not very famous person, Olie Andersson, then created an article on a professor that Olie Andersson got his Ph.D. under.

At this point, I am not notifying the user nor identifying the user.

What should we do? Nothing? Something? Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk) 17:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=883951771"