Talk:Conflict of interest

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

No money[edit]

I'm considering adding something like conflicts of interest can occur even when no money is involved, for example sysops on Wikipedia are expected to avoid using some of their privileges in disputes in which they are involved. I can't think of a better example, but I wonder if this is an inappropriate self-reference. Pakaran (ark a pan) 16:22, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

An example that was not self-referential would probably be better, but until one is provided, my vote is that it's OK to use the sysop example.

Off subject[edit]

What does this have to do with the subject of the article? Either it needs substantial introduction, or it shouldn't be here: "Forum shopping is the informal name given to the practice adopted by some litigants to get their legal case heard in the court thought most likely to provide a favorable judgment. Some states have, for example, become notorious as plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions and so have become litigation magnets even though there is little or no connection between the legal issues and the jurisdiction in which they are to be litigated." Eunsung (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Conflicts of Interest may arise in contexts much larger than individuals.[edit]

Quoting from the article: More generally, conflict of interest can be defined as any situation in which an individual is in "a position to exploit a professional or official capacity in some way for his/her personal benefit."

It is possible that a conflict of interest arise in relation to entire entities, such as corporations and governmental agencies, not just individuals.

For example, consider the American Food and Drug Administration, (FDA)

FDA's Mission Statement (from their web site) :

"The FDA is responsible for protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation. The FDA is also responsible for advancing the public health by helping to speed innovations that make medicines and foods more effective, safer, and more affordable; and helping the public get the accurate, science-based information they need to use medicines and foods to improve their health. "

Nevertheless, in recent times, it has come to light that because the pharmaceutical industry, at least in part, now funds the FDA, medications may have been approved by FDA whose safety is questionable. [How independent is the FDA?]

Thus, a conflict of interest may exist at an entire corporation or governmental body- as an entity, the FDA should assure the safety of drugs, but this entity has a vested financial interest in satisfying the pharmaceutical industrie's pressure for speedy approval of new medications, which calls into question how thorough and careful FDA might me in the approval process.

I propose the following wording: More generally, conflict of interest can be defined as any situation in which an individual or corporation (either private or governmental) is in "a position to exploit a professional or official capacity in some way for his/her/their personal benefit." 12:33, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A FURTHER EXAMPLE OF DEFINITIVE CONFLICT OF INTEREST- GFDL - South Africa The Life Offices Association - an association designed for self interest and self regulation on industry matters that involves it distribution of products and services – They meet to confer and agree on industry matters and then engage the regulator as one voice that in itself promotes self interest. -

Wikipedia proposed guideline about C of I[edit]

I just proposed a guideline for how Wikipedia editors should approach conflicts of interest. I figured I should invite the local experts to review it. Please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Thanks. --Yannick 03:16, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


How about some real-life examples of conflict of interest, and what those indivduals/groups did about it. eg. a Supreme Court justice recusing themselves from a case.

I deleted "taxation without representation" because there is no conflict of interest described. TWR is a bad thing, but what interests are in conflict? Those imposing the taxes presumably owe loyalty to those they represent. Some form of TWR is inevitable, if non-citizens/non-voters/visitors are subject to taxation in places they live or visit. Bassomatic (talk) 01:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest related to the Auditing practice[edit]

I just removed this section because it contained only one brief sentence fragment and one definition. I lack the legal know-how to flesh it out; I'd love for a knowledgeable editor to return it in more fullness. Chalkdusted 02:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting Point on the `Codes of ethics' Section[edit]

In the part of the article with the following quote : “Thus, professionals cannot claim that they were unaware that their improper behavior was unethical.”

What happens if the Code of Practice is open to interpretation as to the possible causes/instances of the `Conflict of Interest' or if it even completely omits any mention of the topic over which there might be a conflict of interest for professionals?

I can imagine that there can sometimes be problems with the phrasing of some `Codes of ethics' and that, if Codes of Ethics are to be referred to within the article, then a link to an article citing the usual contents of `Codes of ethics' should be included in relation to the above.

Of course, the example is a suitable one for the article. Perhaps it would be possible to phrase it to something more like the following : “Thus, professionals cannot USUALLY claim that they were unaware that their improper behavior was unethical.”

ConcernedScientist 20:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Missing categories[edit]

I was startled to check this page and discover how limited are the categories for CoI. In particular, we have "professional" or "personal" interest - but only for "persons in positions of trust". Nothing to stop simple employees from cheating in articles.

And - there is another category that is bound to become increasingly important, fugitives from International justice. Surely, if you're linked to (alleged/suspected) criminal offences in one country, you should not be editing articles concerning those very same incidents. Not that it will be easy to pin down such suspects - but is there anything that means that identified suspect must respond to challenges? Statement of interest - I'm thinking of specific editors now. Surely they should answer a direct question as to whether they were in the proximity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is a mess![edit]

It looks like a lot of amateur idiots with no formal training in philosophy have made a massive mess in this article. I am beginning to understand one of the advantages of mandatory professional responsibility courses; the result is that most American lawyers (at least the ones from decent law schools) are able to discuss conflicts of interest and the underlying philosophical issues in a clear and precise manner. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind remark and encouragement. Xavxav (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

SIrubinstein: some comments[edit]

The Diff page is this page. I like your deletion of some of the old text that preceded my edits; i had tried to go light on deleting. Some comments:

  • definition language: It would be nice to try to find a way to use the definition-al phrase "a COI is" rather than "a COI occurs when". But that's a small point.
  • "som", in your Edit Summary (relating to the article, not this Discuss page): what's som?
  • source cited in a text can't have a conflicting interest? Bo99 (talk) 03:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't know what happened to the edit summary, sorry. In geeral I agree with "is" but there is no rule; a conflict of interest is an occurence, and I just wanted to avoid unnecessary wordiness. A source is a book or an article (especially at Wikipedia!). Only a person can have a conflict of interest. If you mean a human being who is a source for a journalist ... I would agree with you but you need to spell that out. If yo9u want to put source back in but make i clear that it is a person I have no problem. Slrubenstein | Talk 03:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Why I edited the blurb about divorce representation[edit]

If husband and wife have no children, no property, no grounds for an injunction against each other, and they just want the divorce to get done as cheaply as possible, then yes, in many states it would be okay for attorney to represent them. But he better make sure that he discloses the conflict and puts a provision into the representation agreement that lets him drop the representation should an actual conflict arise. He should also severely restrict the scope of the representation to the specific issues that H & W agreed upon at the outset, so that if a new issue arises later that raises an actual conflict, it's outside of the attorney-client relationship. And even then, it's a bad idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Cite episode[edit]

Hello, some users on Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Style guide wants to prevent the wikipedians to use the cite episode template on the project. Can a moderator or others see what to do? (talk) 16:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

First, there are no moderators. Second, stop forum shopping. Third, this is not the place. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Merging from Prejudicial interest[edit]

Prejudicial interest seems to be the same as Conflict of interest, except being more specific to government officials in the UK. Its seems to me like there is some overlap here and these two articles would be good candidates to be combined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Killian441 (talkcontribs) 21:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Prejudicial interest is an inherently British term, and the article over there makes it clear. Leave both alone. Just my opinion. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Weak oppose. I can actually see either argument. It would be fine to merge into COI, and even preferable (because the two terms are denotatively synonymous), except that (1) there's a connotative boundary around the choice of which term people use in which context (kind of like register (sociolinguistics) but not quite—can't put my finger on it—also kind of like "lift/elevator" or "rubber/eraser" but not exactly), and (2) there may be just enough UK-local-govt-specific info in the prejudicial interest article (such as the discussion of Standards for England) that you wouldn't want to merge it into COI, simply to keep COI from getting too long. In other words, it may already comply with the direction that it would eventually have to move toward anyway, in the spirit of WP:Summary style, WP:SPINOFF, and even m:structurism. Just my opinion. — ¾-10 22:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The Light The World Parade description: Elaboration on content.[edit]

Making people aware of generally known information is not conflict of interest. Having a accurate description of factual information without any plagiarism is the way this article was constructed. Your automated response system does not really address this. The Light The World Parade information is not for profit or gain, it is simply information with a description for education and understanding only. If you have a problem with phrasing I suggest you inform us how you would like the information re-worded. With specific location in the content that is causing you problems. The entire premise of an encyclopedia should be based on truthful facts. Wikipedia has been given facts to share with its reading audience. We do not wish to make a commercial out of the information shared.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2012EagleTalon (talkcontribs) 12:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

interest or interests?[edit]

I had the impression that the correct expression is "conflict of interests" rather than "conflict of interest". A moment's thought should convince anybody that the former is more correct logically. Any thought(s)? Tkuvho (talk) 09:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

By any descriptive standard, they are both acceptable, and are interchangeable synonyms, simply because that's how actual usage in the linguistic wild is found. Prescriptively, one might reasonably argue for "interests" (plural) as the "better" choice (to the extent that one subscribes to the value of prescription—it sometimes has its place for clarity and style, although it's often abused by pedants); but "conflict of interest" (singular) is so well established as a set phrase in English that it would be difficult to dissuade its use. And if one argues that "interest" here is serving in its mass sense rather than its count sense—or that in a particular case a particular person has just one (countable) interest that is conflicting—then one can make a case for the singular. Which is why in the final analysis I, for one, would side with the descriptivists and say that whichever one somebody uses, it's a perfectly acceptable variant. — ¾-10 01:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of interests in media organisation[edit]

In my humble and limited opinion, there seems to me that there is a confusion between "conflict on interests" and "lobbying". If we get back to the definition, "a conflict of interest occurs when an individual or organization is involved in multiple interests, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation for an act in the other." I understand this as the risk for any individual or organisation to be in the situation of being a "judge" and a "jury" at the same time (in French the expression "être juge et partie" may be more explicit).

Lobbying is an activity; a conflict of interest is a condition of attribute of a person or organization, which may or may not be converted into action such as lobbying. DavidMCEddy (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I assume you mean being simultaneously a judge or juror while also a litigant or having a strong connection or history (positive or negative) with a litigant. "Partie" in this context seems to be equivalent to "party" or "litigant" in English. (Caveat: I read French with reasonable fluency, though French language Wikinews articles on judicial decisions often baffle me.) DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

1. "The Wikimedia Foundation has a conflict of interest in discussing the Stop Online Piracy Act or any other legislation or governmental action that could impact its ability to deliver content it feels appropriate to its intended audience."

I am not sure I am getting it. As long as the Wikimedia Foundation clearly states "we the Wikimedia Foundation will explain to you why SOPA is bad because it is bad for us and so it will be bad for you the readers", this seems to me an expression of its view or some sort of lobbying, but I cannot figure that it would involve some sort of conflict of interest. In the same way, an industry fighting a legislative proposal by airing views such as "we the industry reject this legislative proposal as it will be bad for our business" seems to me pure lobbying.

An industry lobbying against a legislative proposal that would be bad for business has a conflict of interest, as defined in this article, especially to the extent that it may be perceived by some as presenting "facts". Disclosure is identified in this article as a way to mitigate a conflict of interest; however, disclosure does not eliminate that conflict. DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

2. "Murdoch had a conflict of interest between the reality of his market and his finances."

There again I am not too sure. Nielsen Ratings implemented a new methodology to calculate market shares. This disminished Fox market share, so its owner (Murdoch) lobbied to discredit the new methodology and Nielsen: where is the conflict of interest ?

Murdoch portrayed himself as an unbiased source allegedly reporting on attempts by Nielsen to under report the viewing patterns of African-Americans. He was, in essence, trying to portray himself as a judge while hiding the fact that he was a party injured by the changes Nielsen adopted. Murdoch not only had a conflict of interest in this issue, his actions betrayed that conflict. DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The situation would have been very different if Nielsen was the owner of Fox (or vice-versa) because in that case Nielsen would have a strong incentive to calculate strong market shares for Fox.

Exactly. The passage does not say that Nielsen has a conflict of interest but that Murdoch and Fox do. DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

3. "Increasingly, these media organizations have recognized a conflict of interest between their business objectives and investigative journalism, and they substantially reduced their budgets for investigative journalism."

A commercial media organisation is on a double-sided market : it has to attract as many viewers/readers/listeners as possible to generate as much revenues as possible from advertisers. We can regret this situation, and analyse the consequence for a TV channel that will cut costs in investigation because it does not appeal as much to its viewers than for instance reality shows. But does that mean that there is a conflict of interest in itself?

This seems fairly clear to me: Few advertisers like to feed the mouth that bites them. They often have alternatives, and they have often used alternatives. Commercial media organizations more subservient to the concerns of advertisers have tended to be more profitable and in many cases have bought up their less successful competitors; this is part of the trend in media consolidation that has taken place over the past quarter century. Investigative journalism is a big loser for the commercial media: Many stories uncovered by investigative journalists will offend some advertiser. Because of the threat of the loss of advertising, the commercial media executives would prefer not to have ever encountered that story unless it substantially builds audience share. DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You refer to Noam Chomsky and its "manufacturing consent" analysis, but if I recall correctly he does not use the concept of "conflict of interests" in its reasoning.

You are correct that the term "conflict of interest" is not featured prominently in Manufacturing Consent. However, their "Five Filters" are each driven by a conflict of interest between their profit motive and the implied claim to impartiality, which is contributes to their attraction for much of their audience. (By the way, Chomsky is the world's most frequently cited living author but is not well known in the US largely because of the conflict of interest that the US commercial media has with his work.) DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

4. "If the media provide too much information on how congress spends its time, a major advertiser could be offended and could reduce their advertising expenditures with the offending media company."

Yes I agree with you (I do not want to sound too French by only criticising...), and I believe that the example would be even clearer with a media organisation (Fox) reporting on its owner (Murdoch...)

Well anyway just my thoughts... Xavxav (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

And mine. Thank you for the questions. I'm sorry I don't see how to modify the article to make it more clear, though perhaps my comments above will help you see a way. DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
If I don't hear more on this in 24 hours, I plan to remove the question about "clarity". Please feel free to restore it or modify the article in a way you think would make it clearer -- or add further replies to my comments here. DavidMCEddy (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

There has to be a modicum of trust or obligation—yes, but there almost always is[edit]

I removed a problematic sentence from the lede because it sets up a sophistic and implicit argument that can't be properly addressed within the lede of this article. The sentence was: "A conflict of interest can only exist if a person or testimony is entrusted with some impartiality; a modicum of trust is necessary to create it." Spoken like a true lawyer, no doubt. But there's little reality-based point being made in this sentence. It could be used to support an argument that, for example, a mafia businessman has no conflict of interest when he runs an extortion ring to enforce a monopoly, because, well, no one trusted him to do anything other than criminally interested actions, nor to serve any other interest than his own pocket (or the collective pocket of his crime family). But the problem with this argument is that laws against things like murder, assault and battery, monopoly, and extortion impose an obligation on him, even if no trust. He does in fact have a conflict of interest, whether he wants one or not, because he is putting violent profit ahead of other people's rights under the law. He himself doesn't care about the latter, but the rest of society does. Thus the sentence about trust has little point in reality. — ¾-10 01:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


When I started contributing to this article, it began with a standard concern that, "This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (April 2009)" This standard concern is now over 3 years old. In the past 9 months, several examples were added with careful, appropriate inline citations, increasing the number of references to 30 from roughly 4. I propose to remove this standard concern, as I believe it has been adequately addressed. If anyone feels otherwise, they should restore it ("

), while being more clear about what they think is needed. DavidMCEddy (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of Savings and loan crisis out of place in intro, and includes childish language[edit]

The third paragraph of the intro, which begins with "William K. Black insists that 'Conflicts of interest matter'", seems out of place. It doesn't add to the definition given in the first two paragraphs, but instead gives an example. If it belongs in this article, it should be moved to the examples section.

Moreover, that paragraph is written like an opinionated editorial, in childish language. In particular, the phrase "with zero criminal referrals and zero prosecutions" gives a childish tone. A more appropriate phrase would be "with no criminal referrals or prosecutions".

And, while not childish, the phrase "the current situation" is unspecific. WHAT current situation is being referred to? Whatever it is, this phrase will be meaningless in a few years' time (if it isn't already). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


This page could probably make use of an illustration just to be a bit more intuitive.. Gryllida 02:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Someone added a video to illustrate this abstract concept. Just recently, someone deleted it saying "Removed pointless and confusing animation. Would recommend including a picture of an actual historical/news example." It is difficult to find appropriate illustrations that are internationally relevant of some concepts. This illustration is artistic and I think it is provocative. If it is to be removed, say more about why. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
This image is also used in the article on bias, where someone asked for clarification on the caption "Animation illustrating the relationship between bias, conflicts of interest, and money" saying "How is bias related to conflicts of interest and money?" I changed the caption to read , "Artistic animation which suggests some relationship between bias, conflicts of interest, and money" because the art suggests the relationship and leaves the audience to think about it beyond this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Hey, that was me, I'd lost my previous account details so starting anew. On a poor internet connection, I took a look at the animation out of curiosity, and after the full minute it took to load I watched and gained absolutely nothing from it. I didn't learn anything new, nor was it an accurate illustration of the article's content. I removed it not wanting others to similarly disappointed. The page shouldn't be just a platform for anyone's afternoon animation projects. Tpixel (talk) 04:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I am not sure. Wikipedia articles have not hosted such art projects previously, but also, I know of no discussion anywhere about doing this. There is a precedent on Wikimedia Commons for hosting all kinds of art. I understand that some people derive no benefit from viewing abstract art, and I would not want to waste anyone's time by presenting abstract art to them if they did not want to see it, but my personal opinion is that this piece balances abstraction with depictions of concepts in a way that is appropriate for inclusion into this article. I especially like this being used when there is no other candidate proposed for an illustration here, but even if there were other candidates, I think that this one is a legitimate contender for inclusion. I would be willing to help solicit for other opinions about this because I am curious about how others feel about sharing artistic illustrations without a conclusive interpretation. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I do not see any information whatsoever conveyed by this animation. What is it supposed to show? An artistic rendering of a conflict of interest? While I wouldn't mind something like that in principle (accompanied by, mind you, some sourced text that provides background information), I somehow doubt Kiwiwiki is a recognized artist. If we want to claim that a Wikipedian's work, made for Wikipedia, is the best available artistic depiction of a conflict of interest, we should take a good look at WP:SELFCITE first. Even without another illustration, I see no reason whatsoever to use this one, nor do I think Blue Rasberry has provided one. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an art gallery. Huon (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Huon It seems to me that the basis of your opposition is art criticism. Wikipedia may or may not be an art gallery; it certainly presents as much art as any other gallery or repository in the world. You are right that the creator of this piece is not a recognized artist. It is also true that there is no explanation inherent in this piece; it just says "bias", then "CoI" (standing for conflict of interest), then shows money symbols. The viewer can apply their own meaning, just as they do to any other picture on Wikipedia. I do not think SELFCITE applies in this case because this illustration conveys no information other than its relevance to the concept of conflict of interest.
Aside from this case, I have never heard of any Wikipedia article being illustrated with abstract art, and I acknowledge that my putting an abstract art video here is without any precedent I know. I am not aware of any policy against it. If you would like to talk generally about the Manual of Style and Images, perhaps using this video as a case to discuss WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE, then if you started a conversation anywhere then I would join. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry: The lack of information conveyed by the image is precisely why we should not use it. Quoth Wikipedia:Image use policy#Requirements: "Images on Wikipedia should be used in an encyclopedic manner. They should be relevant and increase readers' understanding of the subject matter." This image does not do so and apparently is not even meant to do so. Thus it should be removed. Huon (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Huon The video is relevant because its subject matter is also the subject of the article. It suggests "some ambiguous relationship between bias, conflicts of interest, and money", which I feel is an informative interpretation as the concept of conflict of interest is itself ambiguous. The video is aptly open to interpretation and the article, for lack of more fitting media, is improved by the inclusion of it. What next? Could you propose alternative media so that blank space is not left? How would you feel about having another depiction of conflict of interest in the lede and moving this video lower in the article? Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
There is nothing apt about the animation's ambiguity. We're not here to suggest and to leave to the reader's interpretation, but to provide reliably sourced information. As I said, the image does not improve the readers' understanding of the subject and is not meant to do so; thus it's a violation of the image use policy and should be removed. This cannot be resolved by moving it down to another part of the article. The mere fact that we don't have a better illustration is no reason to use this one. Huon (talk) 21:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Huon I have nothing more to say except to ask you what you wish to do next. I feel like I understand your position and I think you understand mine. I feel that the image is useful and that Wikipedia is harmed with its removal. I proposed alternatives and suggested going to other forums for other discussion, and those are standing offers. I think the illustration is useful and you feel it is harmful, and neither of us is persuaded by the other. What now? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I have already asked for additional input at WT:WikiProject Sociology - no feedback. WP:3O also seems an appropriate way to get more input by other editors. Huon (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Huon Okay, I listed it at 3O. Thanks for suggesting it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.png 3O Response: I feel that "File:Bias_v2.ogg" is not relevant to the article, and worse, distracts from the article, and worse yet, because it is a vid and thus may consume significant bandwidth, potentially a significant annoyance to readers whose primary interest is to find fact and information on the topic in question. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and I feel that artsy entries should either be limited to artsy topics, and/or, at the very least, increase understanding or perspective of the topic at hand. This is not an artsy topic, and unless the art actually demonstrates a conflict of interest (such as a picture or painting of someone that has to make a choice between two competing outcomes), I would rather art be left out of it. T.Randall.Scales (talk) 21:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

T.Randall.Scales This seems like the best perspective to me. I removed the illustration and adapted what you said into a modification of Wikipedia:Image use policy. Thanks for the opinion, and thanks Huon for talking this through with me. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Wrong hyperlink[edit]

In the opening sentence "interest" is erroneously linked to an article about "interest" as an an emotion or feeling, etc. In this case, the meaning of "interest" is "a right, title, or legal share in something" or " participation in advantage and responsibility". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bnulat (talkcontribs) 05:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Bnulat, I think you are right. I agree and I will remove the term. It serves to water down the real problem. you could have removed it too.--Wuerzele (talk) 02:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Adding Wikipedia[edit]

I really want to add in a section of Wikipedia as a victim host of conflict of interest, because it just seems correct. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 09:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

state monopoly capitalism, Chinese wall, moral hazard, social accountability[edit]

I'm confused by User:Shiftchange's edits on 2017-03-23T01:56:27, with a comment, "(add 1 sidebar and 1 navbox)".

  • Sidebar {{state monopoly capitalism}} was added: I don't see how that is relevant.
  • I don't understand what {{social accountability}} does, let alone how it's relevant.

Also, I don't wee why Chinese wall and moral hazard should be deleted from "See also": They both seem relevant.

I hope that someone, e.g., User:Shiftchange, will explain why "state monopoly capitalism" is relevant and "Chinese wall" and "moral hazard" are not. DavidMCEddy (talk) 13:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

No problem. We commonly add sidebars and navboxes to articles, especially those that are linked from the templates, as was the case here. Because we don't list duplicated list items in the see also section I removed the ones that I noticed were in the navboxes below. There are probably more that should be removed from the see also list. See WP:NAVBOX for more information.
But is the sidebar you've chosen even relevant to this article?
I could believe that a sidebar on Philosophy could be relevant or sidebars on any of the topics listed in the "categories" at the bottom of the page. "Conflict of interest" clearly involves ethics, and the article on ethics includes a sidebar on Philosophy. That sidebar would make sense to me.
If you claim this is relevant to "State monopoly capitalism", the article should clearly explain why that's relevant. In addition, categories relating to "State monopoly capitalism" should be included; if there are any currently, I don't see them. DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I didn't create or edit the template, just added it to this article. You are more than welcome to expand a philosophy template and add it here instead, or as well. If you don't believe that conflict of interest is a theory related to state monopoly capitalism then you should discuss it at Template:State monopoly capitalism. State monopoly capitalism is in a poor state so I can't be certain if its related or not. COI is not mentioned on that page. If you provide a concise reason as to why it should be excluded it shouldn't be a problem if it goes. My editing experience (of adding many similar templates across a range of articles) is that more than 90% of them stay. - Shiftchange (talk) 04:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)