Template talk:COI editnotice

This page was nominated for deletion on 27 Jan 2013. The result of the discussion was keep.

Archives

Blissful ignorance

I've been using this template for a while now in total and blissful ignorance of any of this discussion. I edited the template itself here to make it look less incongruous when placed on the talkpage of a biography. If any of that was premature or inappropriate I'll take this opportunity to apologise.

I've been asked to comment on the pre-loaded Edit request. I believe it should be made much less specific. As a possible starting point, I tentatively suggest something like this:

 {{edit COI}} I would like to request the addition/correction/deletion of 

I'm sure others will be able to improve on that wording.

However, I think that what this template most needs right away is some documentation. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've been trying to make it more and more specific in order to force editors into making a coherent request, but perhaps I am heading in the wrong direction. For documentation, there is stuff here and maybe we can link to it? CorporateM (Talk) 15:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you may be right on that. My own take would be that the easier it is to use something, the more likely it is to be used; which is not to say that the text I suggested is particularly good in that respect. Perhaps others have an opinion?

I was not clear about documentation. What I meant was that there should I think be documentation of {{COI editnotice}} itself at Template:COI editnotice/doc, which would then be transcluded onto the template page, as is done at, to take one example, {{COI}}. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done I got it started and modified the preload based on your suggestions. I think as the template gets deployed on a test basis, and possibly later on an even broader basis, it will attract additional editors to debate the finer points. CorporateM (Talk) 22:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That looks to me like a very good start, on which, as you say, others may later build. Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Strongly" advised

User:Doncram said here that this was a "negative-type tag" and that WP:COI does not prohibit neutral editing. Reading through it again, "strongly" advised does come off a bit negative, but this was added after user:OrangeMike and a couple others all supported it in the original discussion

I'd be curious to get more opinions on whether the tag is "negative" and if it should be. CorporateM (Talk) 22:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find it unduly negative in itself. I believe it should offer more in the way of positive alternatives. What about something like "Individuals acting on behalf of this person or organization are strongly advised not to edit the article directly, and instead to consider making suggestions on the [link this|talkpage] of the article. If you prefer, you can click here to request corrections or suggest content, or contact us if the issue is urgent." As before, I expect that other editors will improve on this. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, "should" is a nice strong, but polite and unthreatening word. "should not edit this article," however, WP:COI says "very strongly discouraged" and we cannot create new policies through a template, so we should just duplicate WP:COI exactly. If editors think the template is hostile, then their issue is actually with WP:COI, not this template. CorporateM (Talk) 06:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where to apply this template

Over here a bot has been tagging articles about extant organizations with this template on a trial basis based on consensus at Wikipedia:Proposals a while back.

A couple editors have expressed concern about adding this template to the Talk page of articles where there are no signs of COI editing. It would be worthwhile to have a discussion on whether the template should be applied so broadly.

In my view, it may not be as useful to provide straightforward instructions only after there is a problem with COI editing. Then it is too little too late. However, any editor should feel free to remove the template on pages that may not need it. In the original discussion the comments were along the lines that COI effects the majority of these articles, so we might as well apply the tag to all of them.

Part of the reason for this concern may be because editors feel it has a hostile tone. CorporateM (Talk) 14:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed a bot trial adding this template to articles that clearly does not have any COI issues, nearly every article could have an issue but I dont see that as a reason to add the warning template to every article. I have not read any of the discussion, it is all a bit fragmented and hard to find but I would have though at least some mention should have been made here before the bot was allowed to run. I will see if I can find out what the original arguments for this was but I cant see that tagging every wikipedia article is a way forward. Other disruptive stuff goes on but we dont have a wall of text on the talk page warning not to do this or that so it is not clear why this is different. MilborneOne (talk) 16:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ironholds and others used a similar argument regarding the topic of whether it should be an edit-notice - that if we have an edit-notice about everything that could be disruptive, soon the actual edit-screen moves off the page. It then becomes a debate about how prolific and/or severe the problem is for what corresponding level of prominence such instructions should have. We have similar BLP tags, because the community feels the issue is important enough to carry a special warning. Of course it wouldn't be applied to every article, just those on extant organizations - at least that's what the trial covers. Many editors, myself included, apply it manually to articles with COI problems and it could probably be automatically applied by a bot to articles with COI or advert tags. CorporateM (Talk) 17:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When the "bot trial" is complete can somebody let us know if and when the location of any discussion related to this template, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion

I have started a discussion at Idea Lab on this template here for further discussion. CorporateM (Talk) 20:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request edit on 11 January 2014

I'm sorry, but I can't help unless you let us know what edits you are requesting. --j⚛e decker ^talk 02:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

prototype button

Made a prototype button: User:Mattsenate/request_edit/contest -- Mattsenate (talk) 23:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattsenate That looks neat! I pasted your template in over here, which I think is where it was intended. I did notice that it goes to the article itself, rather than the Talk page, and doesn't generate a section title. But I think something like that would basically work well-enough. CorporateM (Talk) 23:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

rewording

This is a very, very helpful template that I use all the time in my work at WP:COIN. Thanks to folks who built it! Especially the automated edit request formatting. So great.

I reworded this today. Formerly the COI notice said:

Individuals acting on behalf of this person or organization are strongly advised not to edit the article. Click here to request corrections or suggest content, or contact us if the issue is urgent. }}

I changed it to read:

Individuals with a conflict of interest on the subject of this article are strongly advised not to edit the article directly. Click here to request corrections or suggest content. If you are an individual and have concerns about content concerning you, contact us if the issue is urgent. }}

The reasons are:

COI can be towards or against something. As an example, X could be suing Y and wants to add negative content about Y. (or the recent case of Sugar Mountain Farm where it turned out that two editors who were battling over content for years turned out to be the owner of the farm and another farmer who have had a long-running RW dispute - neither of those people should be directly editing) So the "on behalf of" is too limiting.
COI is not just about people or organizations. People with a COI add content to articles about products or technologies or all kinds of things, not just articles about people or organizations, so the "about this person or organization" is inapt on the talk page of an article about, say Teledermatology or Strippers.
The link was formerly to WP:NOPAY which is narrowly focused on paid editors. but we want anybody with a COI to avoid editing directly and instead make suggestions on the Talk page. (see again the Sugar Mountain Farm example)

Hopefully that makes sense to everybody. Jytdog (talk) 11:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know the template is being used! @BigNate37: and myself created it a while back. I disagree with your changes for the following reasons:

Most forms of COI do not warrant an observation of the Bright Line (former employers, distant affiliations, etc.)
Many PR people and others that are not submerged in Wikipedia jargon do not understand that they have a "conflict of interest" or know what we mean by that. "Close connection" might be better, as it is slightly broader than "on behalf of"
Eeek! Why would we make it sound like only BLPs can use OTRS for urgent items?
It is longer now, whereas shorter would have been better

CorporateM (Talk) 15:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One thing at a time. CorporateM you have been editing at Sugar Mountain Farm article. Do you really think that it would be fine for both editors to be editing the article directly? If you agree that they should not, how can you say that only paid editors should not edit directly? (i see this kind of thing all the time at COIN) Jytdog (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be handled on a case by case basis, not templated. Modifying the template is bombarding a large number of editors with a "do not edit" type message that only actually applies to a small number of special cases, like the example you mentioned. CorporateM (Talk) 16:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the template is only placed on article Talk pages where there is a problem. it is selective, right? Jytdog (talk) 16:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The template was originally intended as a preventative measure to avoid problematic COI editing by providing straightforward instructions up-front. However in practice I think it has been mostly used in cases where problematic editing has already occurred. It comes to mind that if the template instructions were updated appropriately, that could be the use case for it. CorporateM (Talk) 01:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you have seen how i talk with folks who pretty clearly have a COI, right? this template is so, so useful in those discussions on editor Talk pages - after editors disclose (which they almost always do if you talk nicely) i explain how COI is managed by disclosure and by a form of "peer review". i put this template on the article Talk page, and then explain to the editor how to use it. it is so helpful. here is an example. wiki/User_talk:Ahelsinger#Question i do this all the time, for "pro" and "con" editors with a COI on all kinds of things, not just companies or articles about people... it is so great. Jytdog (talk) 04:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll suggest the following:

"Individuals with a close connection to the subject of this article are strongly advised not to edit the article directly. Click here to request corrections or suggest content."

This would keep the length under wraps and prevent the introduction of Wikipedia jargon. Then we can update the "When to use" content in the template instruction with something like:

Use this template on the Talk page of articles where there has been problematic COI editing. Do not apply this template to articles where the COI is not confirmed.

Currently the template instructions explicitly state that it's only for "on behalf of" editors, where the Bright Line applies. Ideally a wording would be found to differentiate between editors that have such a significant COI and problematic editing that the Bright Line would be relevant. If only we could find a way to get all POV pushers to just stop editing ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 16:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

amen brother. i can live with all that. thanks for talking. Jytdog (talk) 16:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How's that? CorporateM (Talk) 22:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"have been asked". watered down twice - unbolded and made almost obsequious. c'mon. if we were in a negotiation, i would get up and walk away from the table. which i just did. Jytdog (talk) 23:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wouldn't walk away, but I would express surprise. I thought it had been agreed higher up this page that "strongly advised" was the right wording? I suggest sticking to that. I'm in favour of keeping the template short and to the point. When deploying this, I've taken to posting a boilerplate talk page message as well, with much more explanation and reference to the Terms of Use. If people are interested, I'll post a copy here for comment. Anyway, at least we all agree that the template is extremely useful! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was consensus for "strongly advised" based on WP:COI, which says "Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing." However, the revised template would refer to a much broader set of people than paid advocates. For example, this template is currently used on Edelman (firm), where one could argue I have a "close connection" since I worked there about 7 years ago. I would hope that we would in fact want me editing the article and I would take the suggestion that I should withdraw editing privileges with indignation. A substantial portion of all our article content comes from someone with some kind of connection to the topic. CorporateM (Talk) 09:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The second paragraph of WP:COI starts off "COI editing is strongly discouraged". That is the message this template should clearly and unequivocally convey. As for your COI at that article, however tenuous, I imagine you declared and discussed it on the talk page before making any edits there? (I haven't looked to check) My only objection to your suggestion time-stamped 16:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC) above concerns the instruction not to use the template where COI is not confirmed. Since it can be very useful in just that situation, I suggest leaving that out. I thought the wording you proposed was good. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... encouraging Bright Line for "conflict of interest" seems appropriate to me, whereas "close connection" is a much broader category of users. However most new COI editors don't understand that they have one or what we mean by that. Perhaps the right approach to the problem is to find the right wording for that, such that "strongly advised" would apply to the entire category of editors the template is referring to. It's possible COI is the best wording available, despite its flaws.

No, I think you're way off regarding Edelman (firm). We need to preserve our principles of anonymous editing and focusing on the content. Editors do not need to disclose their background and other personal information, which just creates targets for POV pushers and editors in an editing dispute to slap this tag on the Talk page in order to win their arguments. In a very large number of cases, COI accusations are a weapon in editing disputes and disclosures are targets. I can't tell you how many times some extreme POV pusher used COI accusations in an editing dispute against me, where I didn't have one, or where one was actually disclosed, but it was clear as day they were the ones engaging in agenda-based editing. CorporateM (Talk) 16:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No longer incorporates "request edit" template

Clicking on the link at what currently says "request corrections or suggest content" used to a) open a new section and b) place the Template:Request edit template, which automatically lists the request at WP:COIN.

I am not sure when that was removed or why but can this be restored? I don't know how to do that... Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 05:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: I think you blanked Template:COI editnotice/preload which used to contain that template, here. Maybe this has something to do with it? I don't know though, maybe someone else knows? Seagull123 Φ 23:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He reverted that edit with the cryptic "nothing there" edit summary at 23:38, 10 August 2017 (8 mins after being pinged by the above message). – wbm1058 (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request edit on 3 October 2018

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

I clicked on the request corrections on or suggest content link on the template itself. That generated this request. This is how it's supposed to work, but something is munged about how it works on other pages. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm here because of THIS edit, which I fixed with THIS edit. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:31, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So when I click the request corrections on or suggest content link on Template:COI editnotice, that preloads Template:COI editnotice/preload; when I click the request corrections on or suggest content link on Talk:Morgan Creek Entertainment Group, that preloads Template:COI editnotice/preloadtracker. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:23, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- {{COI editnotice|track=yes}} – the default is Template:COI editnotice/preload; when |track=yes then Template:COI editnotice/preloadtracker is used.
  ... of course nobody bothered to document this at Template:COI editnotice/doc. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There was a discussion around the issue that THIS reverted edit attempted to address, which is archived HERE. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:52, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So THIS 05:28, 4 January 2018 edit, which wrapped {{request edit}} inside <includeonly> tags, seems to have addressed the issue with a "nothing there" edit request for this COI editnotice bogusly appearing in Category:Requested edits. The request-edit {{Tmbox}} (talk-page message box) is actually in Template:Request edit/request. And THIS 05:25, 4 January 2018 edit to "only cat talk pages" also addressed the issue. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The |track=yes Template:COI editnotice/preloadtracker fork was created with THIS edit, per THIS discussion. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:31, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So the purpose of the "tracker fork" is to track how many COI editors click on the link in the bot-added template at the top of talk pages to request edits.
- Pages that link to "User:Theo's Little Bot/coi tracker/bot" Answer: just two dozen to date, with Talk:Morgan Creek Entertainment Group being the twenty-fourth in the 5 years, 1 month since this was implemented.
- A secondary purpose was to make me waste half a day on analysis of this sloppily-implemented and poorly-documented thing :( – wbm1058 (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of minutes after this 02:06, 12 September 2014 request to ~~post~~substitute the template code, less categorization, on the subpages instead of the actual template ~~link~~transclusion, the suggested change was boldly made on the original, and the fork. The original author reverted this six weeks later, but, as they likely were unaware of the fork, it wasn't similarly reverted (diff between then and now). So here we are. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pages in category

{{PAGESINCATEGORY:Requested edits}} : 0
{{PAGESINCATEGORY:Requested edits|all}} : 0
{{PAGESINCATEGORY:Requested edits|pages}} : 0
{{PAGESINCATEGORY:Requested edits|subcats}} : 0
{{PAGESINCATEGORY:Requested edits|files}} : 0

Fixed – I believe THIS 05:25, 4 January 2018 edit actually fixed the problem that others were trying to fix, but broke things in the process. So now I've reverted back to the way this was originally configured before the fix attempts were made. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changes made to preload

Hello, I made some pretty bold changes to the preload for this template. Let me know if you don't agree with these changes, but I wanted to make the template more in line with WP:ERW and Template:Request Edit. Also, I used so the template doesn't generate on the preload page, as it was doing previously. Sam-2727 (talk) 03:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I suggest that an edit notice is added to the template with some helpful links. Something like Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard/COI/Editnotice. Sam-2727 (talk) 03:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request: This template's wording contains a mistake

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"You may request corrections on" should be changed to "You may request corrections". Thanks, DesertPipeline (talk) 06:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively the wording could be simplified to "You may request changes to this article on the Talk page for independent editors to review ... " ~~(although if this template is for use on talk pages, I'm a bit confused as to why it says "on the Talk page" in the message text).~~ DesertPipeline (talk) 06:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just discovered that the "talk" part of the message only appears if it isn't on a talk page, so I struck out the last part of that comment. DesertPipeline (talk) 12:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To editor DesertPipeline:

done, and thank you very much! P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 15:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, thank you :) Although I'm wondering if we could discuss a possible simpler wording change to what I suggested after my initial message – not changing it immediately, obviously, because I've heard that templates shouldn't be edited multiple times in a short timespan; do you think that the wording change might be a good idea? DesertPipeline (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You want to change...

You may request corrections or suggest content on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

to

You may request changes to this article on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

If that is correct, then I myself have no problem with this, and yet I can see where some editors might want to keep it more specific. So more opinions may be needed. P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 15:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe "You may request changes or additions ..."? Partly I want to simplify it, but another goal is to remove the word "content", which is a very vague term, and has problems – it's possible that I'm overreacting to all instances of the word (although I maintain that it's vague), but my opinion on it was formed by this GNU.org page. Maybe the problems described there don't really apply here, but... the word just makes me feel uneasy nowadays after having read that page :) I admit that may sound silly or strange, of course, which is why I also mention the "vagueness" part as well. DesertPipeline (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting page. Wouldn't feel too uncomfortable though, because from that page, "The moment you start labelling every single piece of writing in the world 'content', you have conceded its interchangeability: its primary purpose as mere grist to the metrical mill." So the word is nigh perfectly used as such here on Wikipedia, where "content" is allowed to be edited, changed, and much of the time actually is edited and changed on a daily basis. To me, that means "content" is used well here on Wikipedia to describe the "contents" of all our pages here. We also use the word to discern the title of an article vs. the article's content, categories vs. content, references/notes vs. content and so on. Hopefully, this raises your comfort level a bit. P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 16:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, although my concern is more about this part: "it treats them as a commodity whose purpose is to fill a box and make money. In effect, it disparages the works themselves.". I certainly think we shouldn't disparage the works on Wikipedia (even unintentionally so), because while they may be edited by a large number of people, that in itself can, in many cases, be why they become such good works. I understand if you wouldn't want to concede a change on this point though, so how do you feel about the change in the interest of non-vagueness? Also, does my most recent wording suggestion sound better? DesertPipeline (talk) 17:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guess the words don't make me feel uncomfortable because I give them little credence, as I don't believe they are widely accepted nor acceptable. "Content" on Wikipedia has nothing to do with making money (or shouldn't), and has everything to do with improvement, by unpaid volunteers, of this encyclopedia. As for your proposed change, I remain neutral and can see the good in both the status quo and in your proposal. P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 17:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are definitely right, the "money" aspect doesn't apply here – I guess my personality just makes me overreact to things like this sometimes? Anyway though, I'll have to be off for now; thank you again for implementing the correction I requested :) DesertPipeline (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Template:Extant" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Template:Extant and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 6#Template:Extant until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 12:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]