Wikipedia talk:COI+

RfC (not live yet!)

this is not live, please don't comment until this message is removed. it will be moved to a subpage anyway, it's just here for reference and draft review

This is a proposal for a voluntary set of agreements that COI editors, especially corporate/for-profit editors, could follow. The COI+ agreements Expectations of COI editors In fulfilling the COI+ program, COI editors on Wikipedia agree to: Commit to Wikipedia's goals of neutrality, verifiability, no original research, and civility Read the Conflict of interest guideline and thhe Plain and simple conflict of interest guide for editors Make a userpage COI declaration, explaining who my employer is, and stating my intent to follow best practices On articles I work on, post an article Talk page COI declaration for any topic I work on which is related to my employment Modify my signature to include a COI declaration link , as, for example, this: Ocaasi(talk)(COI declaration) Agree to get feedback from other Wikipedia editors before making changes to articles, by posting my proposed changes at Articles for Creation (for new articles), the Paid Editor Help board, and/or the help desk, or by posting an edit request, or by posting a message on the relevant article talk page Pursue further resolution if necessary at the COI or other noticeboards, via online chat help, and/or the Open Ticket Request System (OTRS) email address (info@wikipedia.org) Observe the Response timeline as detailed below Make no direct changes to my client's/employer's or to my competitors' articles, except for correcting uncontroversial factual or grammatical errors, until other editors have reviewed the changes, or unless no editor has responded to your requests for one month (see Response Timeline below) Not to introduce positive or negative bias into articles where I have a conflict of interest. COI editors who adhere to this code of conduct can expect to: Be treated with civility, respect, or even kindness Have policies and guidelines explained to where they may be uninformed or misinformed Receive responses to requests for assistance Have incidences of misinformation, falsehood, or obvious bias in articles addressed with some urgency Not be judged by the worst behavior of other editors Have the opportunity to help improve Wikipedia Responses Are the expectations of COI editors reasonable, within policy, and likely to be effective; or unreasonable, in conflict with policy, and/or likely to be ineffective? Discussion Response timeline Wikipedia is a very busy, free-form place and officially has no deadline. COI editors should use the following timeline to minimize the likelihood of being accused of premature action. If one of these steps does not lead to resolution by the given timeline, go to the next step: Step Communication Wait for resolution Step 1 Talk page messages with edit requests, help desk, and/or help chat 48 hours Step 2 Paid Editor Help board, COI noticeboard, Administrator noticeboard, and/or other noticeboards (check back at step 1 as well) 1 week Step 3 Contact Wikipedia's volunteer response team via info@wikipedia.org (check back at steps 1 and 2 as well) 1 month If you have tried all previous steps, and 1 month has passed since the start, you can make a change directly to the article yourself. You must, however, post a note saying you made the change, at both the article's talk page and at the COI noticeboard. Move through the steps in sequence, but continue to check the forums where you previously posted even as you advance to a new step. OTRS can often only direct you back to the forums in steps 1 and 2, so it's best to invest your energies in those options as much as possible. Exceptions to the above timeline should only be for uncontroversial edits, specifically including removing outright vandalism, removing blatant lies or glaring misinformation, fixing spelling, or fixing grammatical errors. Negative information about your company or client that is well-sourced should never be removed by you. If other editors have responded to your requests but not implemented them because they disagreed with what you are requesting, you should never implement changes by editing the article yourself. Instead, engage those editors in civil discussion and try to reach consensus about wording that is acceptable to all. Responses Is the response timeline reasonable, within policy, and likely to be effective; or unreasonable, in conflict with policy, and/or likely to be ineffective? Discussion Conclusion Responses Overall, do you support or oppose this document as a voluntary protocol for ethical principles and practices for corporate/for-profit editors or others with a conflict of interest? Discussion

Status

Hi, I've restored the essay tag that Kephir recently added, or you can restore the historical tag that he added in December, but it can't be presented for now as though it gained consensus. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the way this is written, it's problematic even calling it an essay, because it's discussed throughout as a project and proposal. Would it not be better to mark it as an historical/failed proposal until someone is ready to propose it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is still worded somewhat like as a proposal, and still contains some new ideas — the response timeline being the most disagreeable, I think — that I claim have not been discussed widely enough to be called "accepted by the community". The main proposal page has been edited by 19 people, while the talk page by 31 people. A handful of passer-by editors, if you ask me. The long-awaited RFC did not happen. I basically agree with the above. I really do not want this thing to be presented as something that has been communicated (never mind accepted) more widely than it really has. Keφr 07:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I've added the "failed proposal" tag. If someone wants to propose it at a later date, it can be revived/rewritten, though instead of doing that, I'd advise that they first argue for change on WT:COI, so that we don't end up with a guideline fork. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I've restored the essay tag. The COI+ page recently went through a very significant change by removing the response timeline direct editing exception (as well as some helpful copyedits). It's not even failed as it's still being constructed and addressing community concerns, including some of those by its harshest critics. Please point out where in this proposal now is anything not already consistent with WP:COI. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 02:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

You didn't propose this, Ocaasi, and it failed to gain consensus. If you want to propose it in future, you can revive it. Or if you want to rewrite it as an essay, you can do that too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I brought it up for community discussion and have engaged with supporters, commenters, and critics. Among the critics, you were the most adamant in objecting to a response timeline with a deadline, and one that allowed for direct editing if that deadline was up. I subsequently removed the direct editing exception. That was a significant change to the proposal. You seem to be treating the situation as if I did not make that change and accordingly marking the page as failed, when it is very much current and evolving in response to suggestions like yours. I am going to continue refining the document, including changing the name of 'response timeline' to not imply a deadline. I would also appreciate a clear answer to the question, "what should a paid editor do if they propose a suggestion and no one responds to them, even after all following reasonable steps to receive a response. That is a practical question that I want to provide guidance on. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 03:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

You created it in July 2012, and it contradicted the guideline by appearing to encourage paid advocacy. When people tried to fix that, you reverted. You then didn't propose it anywhere. After it had languished for months without edits to the project page or talk page, Kephir added the dormant tag in December. [1] You removed that in February and turned it into an information page, without noting you were removing the dormant tag in the edit summary ("update from proposal to information page," rather than update from dormant, as though it had in the meantime gained consensus). [2] Kephir then added the essay tag, [3] which you removed without noting the removal in the edit summary. [4]

We already have a proliferation of pages about COI. If you believe that some part of this page might benefit one of the other pages, please propose the text on the relevant talk page, and we can discuss it there. Or revive this and propose it; or rewrite it as an essay. Those are the options. But implying that this page has gained consensus isn't an option, because it hasn't. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I removed the dormant tag because I made a major update that based on your suggestion. I marked the page without the essay tag because I believed that as an information page it was consistent with WP:COI because of the changes I made in response to your suggestion. Since I was not aware that information pages had to either be exclusively either proposed, dormant, failed, or essay, I went with none of the above. Interestingly, you changed it from dormant to failed once I returned to the document. That doesn't seem wholly in good faith. Regardless, I am continuing to improve the document.

The document never encouraged advocacy of any kind. It only and always proposed full disclosure, seeking community review, and (the Old version only) direct editing as a last resort, which it no longer does. If a public relations professional or corporate representative comes to Wikipedia with a suggestion, correct me if I'm wrong, but best practices is for them to make suggestions on the talk page. Given the update to this document, in what way is this proposal not consistent with that consensus? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 03:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Failed proposal seems like the appropriate tag, but I wouldn't mind seeing a second-go at it. I think WP:COI still needs a lot of work and should be set in order as well. We are creating even more WikiProjects, essays, etc. and I would favor improving WP:COI and nominating all the others for deletion. The issue is that WP:COI is a single shared document, so consensus is the most difficult to reach, leading to all sorts of mini-projects for people to do their own thing. We have to do the hard work and compromise to improve WP:COI even among competing opinions, rather than creating even more splinters. I'm guilty of this as well; I wrote: User:CorporateM/How WP:COI would read if I wrote it, which is pretty dumb really - to write my own version of COI and my own user notifications, etc. instead of improving the ones everyone uses. CorporateM (Talk) 14:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)