Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:PE)
Jump to: navigation, search
If you want advice about a conflict of interest, see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial or other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. (The word interest refers here to something in which a person has a stake.)[n 1]

Conflict of interest is not about actual bias. It is about a person's roles and relationships, and the tendency to bias that we assume exists when roles conflict.[4] That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation. It is not a judgment about that person's state of mind or integrity.[n 2] (See #What is conflict of interest?)

COI editing is strongly discouraged. It undermines public confidence in Wikipedia, and risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals being promoted. If it causes disruption, accounts may be blocked. Editors with a financial conflict of interest, including paid editors, are advised not to edit affected articles. They may suggest changes on the talk page and must disclose their COI. Paid editors are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose who is paying them, on whose behalf the edits are made, and any other relevant affiliation. (See #Paid editing and Paid-contribution disclosure.)[7]

When investigating COI editing, do not reveal the identity of editors against their wishes. Wikipedia's policy against harassment, in particular the prohibition of disclosing personal information, takes precedence over this guideline. Editors discussing changes to this guideline should disclose whether they have been paid to edit Wikipedia.

Wikipedia's position[edit]

Purpose of Wikipedia[edit]

Peacock terms.png
Further information: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not

As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia's mission is to provide the public with articles that summarize accepted knowledge, written neutrally and sourced reliably. Readers expect to find neutral articles written independently of their subject, not corporate or personal webpages, or platforms for advertising and self-promotion. Articles should contain only material that complies with Wikipedia's content policies and best practices, and Wikipedians must place the interests of the encyclopedia and its readers first.

COI editing strongly discouraged[edit]

COI editing is strongly discouraged. Editors with a COI should follow Wikipedia policies and best practices scrupulously, and may be blocked if they cause disruption.

If you have a conflict of interest:

you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles;
you may propose changes on talk pages (see the {{request edit}} template) or on the conflict-of-interest noticeboard;
your proposals may or may not be acted upon;
you should respect other editors by keeping discussions concise.

Note that you do not control articles. Others may add information that would otherwise have remained little known, decide to delete the article, or decide to keep it should you later request deletion. While Wikipedians generally avoid naming editors and their paymasters, other media routinely do. This has led at times to embarrassment for the organization concerned; see Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia.

Wikimedia Foundation terms of use[edit]

The Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use require that editors who are being paid for their contributions disclose their employer (the person or organization who is paying for the edits); the client (the person or organization on whose behalf the edits are made); and any other relevant affiliation. This is the policy of the English Wikipedia.

[edit]

Being paid to contribute to Wikipedia is one form of financial conflict of interest. Being paid to promote external interests on Wikipedia (known as "paid advocacy") includes public relations, marketing and advertising. This is the type of paid editing of most concern to the Wikipedia community, because edits by paid advocates invariably reflect the interests of the client or employer.[n 3]

If you receive, or expect to receive compensation (whether money, goods or services) for your contributions to Wikipedia:

you are very strongly discouraged from editing affected articles;
you may propose changes on talk pages (see the {{request edit}} template) or on the conflict-of-interest noticeboard;
your proposals may or may not be acted upon;
you must disclose who is paying you (the "employer"); on whose behalf the edits are made (the "client"); and any other relevant affiliation;
you should make the disclosure on your user page, on affected talk pages using the {{connected contributor (paid)}} template, and whenever you discuss the topic;
you should respect volunteers by keeping discussions concise (see PAYTALK).

Requested edits are subject to the same standards as any other, and editors may decline to act on them. To find an article's talk page, click the "talk" button at the top of the article. See WP:TEAHOUSE if you have questions about these things.

Declaring an interest[edit]

General COI[edit]

  • Example of a general COI: suggesting an edit about your family member.
  • Example of a financial COI: suggesting an edit about your own company.

If you become involved in an article where you have a general COI (including a financial COI) that does not involve being paid to edit Wikipedia, place the {{connected contributor}} template at the top of affected talk pages. Fill it in as follows, and save:

Example

For a COI editor's talk-page declaration, see:
Talk:Steve Jobs.

{{Connected contributor|User1=Your username |U1-declared=yes| |U1-otherlinks=Insert relevant affiliations, disclosures, article drafts or diffs showing COI contributions.}}

You can also make a statement in the edit summary of any COI contribution. In addition, disclose the COI during any discussion about the topic, and consider disclosing it on your user page. If you do disclose it on your user page, you can:

  • make a simple personal statement ("I have a conflict of interest with regard to the following Wikipedia articles...") or
  • use the COI "userbox" template, {{UserboxCOI}}, by editing your user page and typing {{UserboxCOI|1=Wikipedia article name}}, then clicking "save." You can create a separate userbox for each article at which you have a COI, changing the text "Wikipedia article name" to that of the affected article.

If you propose changes to an article at which you have a COI, post the {{request edit}} template on the talk page and make your suggestion underneath it. The Wikipedia software will create text that discloses that an editor with a COI is proposing a change.

[edit]

  • Example of a paid COI: the subject of an article has paid you to influence its content.

If you are being paid for your contributions to Wikipedia, you must declare who is paying you, who the client is, and any other relevant role or relationship.

  • The employer is whoever is paying you to be involved in the article (such as a PR company or the subject of the article).
  • The client is on whose behalf the payment is made (usually the subject of the article).

First, on your user page, please disclose that you are a paid editor, and list each article on which you have worked or intend to work for pay (even if you confine yourself to the talk page), naming the employer and client for each article. Please do this in a clearly visible way.

Second, please place the {{connected contributor (paid)}} template at the top of talk pages of affected articles. Fill it in as follows, and save:

Example

For a paid editor's talk-page declaration, see:
Talk:Mia Farrow.

{{Connected contributor (paid)|User1=Username of the paid editor|U1-employer=Name of person/organization that is paying for the edits|U1-client= Name of client|U1-otherlinks=Insert diff to disclosure on your User page.}}

If the employer and client are the same entity—if Acme Corporation is paying you to make contributions about Acme Corporation—the client parameter can be left empty. See {{connected contributor (paid)}} for more information.

Third, when you propose content changes on the relevant article talk page, use the {{request edit}} template. When discussing your content proposals, or changes made by other editors, please respect the volunteer nature of the project and keep discussions concise; see WP:PAYTALK.

What is conflict of interest?[edit]

External roles and relationships[edit]

"Standard view" of COI

"P has a conflict of interest if, and only if, (1) P is in a relationship with another requiring P to exercise judgment in the other's behalf, and (2) P has a (special) interest tending to interfere with the proper exercise of judgment in that relationship."

Michael Davis, 2001[n 4]

While editing Wikipedia, an editor's primary role is to further the interests of the encyclopedia. When an external role or relationship could reasonably be said to undermine that primary role, the editor has a conflict of interest. (Similarly, a judge's primary role as an impartial adjudicator is undermined if she is married to the defendant.)

Any external relationship – personal, religious, political, academic, financial, or legal – can trigger a COI. How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense. For example, an article about a band should not be written by the band's manager, and a biography should not be an autobiography, or written by the subject's spouse.

Subject-matter experts are welcome to contribute within their areas of expertise, subject to the guidance on financial conflict of interest, while making sure that their external roles and relationships in that field do not interfere with their primary role on Wikipedia.

COI is not simply bias[edit]

Further information: WP:ADVOCACY

Determining that someone has a COI is a description of a situation. It is not a judgment about that person's state of mind or integrity.[6] A COI can exist in the absence of bias, and bias regularly exists in the absence of a COI. Beliefs and desires may lead to biased editing, but they do not constitute a COI. COI emerges from an editor's roles and relationships, and the tendency to bias that we assume exists when those roles and relationships conflict.[4] COI is like "dirt in a sensitive gauge."[10]

Why is conflict of interest a problem?[edit]

"A person is judged to have a conflict of interest on the basis of being in a conflicted situation, whether or not that person thinks he or she is capable of resisting the temptation or corrupting influence of the interest that could interfere with her judgment."

Wayne Norman , Chris McDonald, 2012.[n 5]

Until the latter half of the 20th century, the professions relied on the "virtue-centric approach," in which those with a COI were simply expected to act honourably and objectively.[n 6]

This is now known to have been naive.[5]:447 The virtue-centric approach underestimates the extent to which the judgment of individuals with a COI may be impaired. Conflicted individuals cannot know the extent to which they have been influenced; philosopher Michael Davis writes that they often "esteem too highly their own reliability."[12][13] For example, a conflicted person might overcompensate in an effort to be fair, leading to decisions he would otherwise not have made.[12]

The virtue-centric approach ignores the damage COI inflicts on public confidence, and the unease it causes within the affected community. If a judge is involved with a defendant, her role as an impartial adjudicator is undermined in the view of her colleagues and the public no matter how convinced she is that she can remain impartial.

Actual, potential and apparent conflict of interest[edit]

An actual conflict of interest exists when an editor has a COI with respect to a certain judgment, and he is in a position where the judgment must be exercised.[14]

Example: A company owner has an actual COI if he edits articles and engages in discussions about that company.

A potential conflict of interest exists when an editor has a COI with respect to a certain judgment, but she is not in a position where the judgment must be exercised.[n 7]

Example: A company owner has a potential COI with respect to articles and discussions about her company, but she has no actual COI if she stays away from those pages.

An apparent conflict of interest exists when there is reason to believe that an editor has a COI.[n 8]

Example: An editor has an apparent COI if he edits an article about a company and for some reason appears to be the company owner. In fact he may have no such connection. Apparent COI causes bad feeling within the community and should be resolved through discussion whenever possible.[n 9]

Other financial conflicts of interest[edit]

Financial relationships[edit]

If you have a close financial relationship with a topic you wish to write about – including as an owner, employee, contractor or other stakeholder – you are advised to refrain from editing affected articles. You may suggest changes on the talk page of those articles, where you should disclose your COI. You can use the {{request edit}} template to suggest changes.

Wikipedians in residence[edit]

This page is about Wikipedians and paid editing. For Women in Red, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red.

There are forms of paid editing that the Wikimedia community regards as benign. These include Wikipedians in residence (WiRs) – Wikipedians who are paid to collaborate with mission-aligned organizations, such as galleries, libraries, archives, and museums. WiRs must not engage in on-Wikipedia public relations or marketing for their organization, and they should operate within the bounds defined by Core characteristics of a Wikipedian in Residence at Wikimedia Outreach. They must work closely with a Wikipedia project or the general Wikipedia community, and are expected to identify their WiR status on their user page and on talk pages related to their organization when they post there.

Reward board[edit]

Another benign example of paid editing is the reward board, where editors can post incentives, usually to raise articles to featured-article or good-article status. If you participate in this kind of paid editing, transparency and neutrality are key.

Edit requests from COI or paid editors[edit]

Further information: Wikipedia:Edit requests

Responding to requests[edit]

Exercise caution when responding to edit requests from COI and paid editors, particularly when commercial interests are involved. When large amounts of text are added by or on behalf of the article subject, the article has, in effect, been ghostwritten by the subject without the readers' knowledge. Responding volunteers should therefore carefully check the proposed text and sources. That an article has been expanded does not necessarily mean that it is better.

Make sure the proposed version of the article complies with WP:WEIGHT. Be on the lookout for unnecessary detail that may have been added to overwhelm something negative, and check whether anything important is missing. Look for non-neutral language and unsourced or poorly sourced content. Be cautious about accepting content based on WP:SPS, such as a personal website, or primary sources such as a company website or press release. Responding editors should do their own search for independent sources. If the proposed new text is added to the article, the edit summary should include full attribution; see WP:COIATTRIBUTE below.

[edit]

Paid editors must respect the volunteer nature of the project and keep discussions concise. When proposing changes to an article, they should describe the suggested modifications and explain why the changes should be made. Any changes that may be contentious, such as removal of negative text, should be highlighted.

Before being drawn into long exchanges with paid editors, volunteers should be aware that paid editors may be submitting evidence of their talk-page posts to justify their salaries or fees. No editor should be expected to engage in long or repetitive discussions with someone who is being paid to argue with them. Editors who refuse to accept a consensus by arguing ad nauseam may find themselves in violation of the disruptive-editing guideline.

Copyright[edit]

Copyright of paid contributions[edit]

See also: Work for hire

Editors are reminded that any text they contribute to Wikipedia, assuming they own the copyright, is irrevocably licensed under a Creative Commons-Attribution-Sharealike license and the GNU Free Documentation License. Content on Wikipedia, including article drafts and talk-page comments, can be freely copied and modified by third parties for commercial and non-commercial use, with the sole requirement that it be attributed to Wikipedia contributors.

Paid editors must ensure that they own the copyright of text they have been paid to add to Wikipedia. If the text is a work for hire, the copyright resides with the person or organization that paid for it ("the employer"). Otherwise the text's author is assumed to be the copyright holder. It is important not to assume that the paid editor is the author, because companies may provide paid editors with approved texts.

Paid editors, the employer, or the author should forward a release to the Wikimedia Foundation (permissions@wikimedia.org). The release must include the name(s) of the author and copyright holder, and that the copyright holder has released the text under a free licence. See WP:PERMISSION for how to do this.

Attribution in edit summaries[edit]

If editors choose to add material to an article on behalf of a COI or paid editor, they must provide attribution for the text in the edit summary. The edit summary should include the name of the COI or paid editor, a link to the draft or edit request, and that the edit contains a COI or paid contribution. For example: "Text inserted on behalf of paid editor User:X; copied from Draft:Paid draft."

In addition to complying with copyright requirements, this transparency allows editors and readers to determine the extent of COI input into the article.

Covert advertising, consumer protection[edit]

United States Federal Trade Commission[edit]

All editors are expected to follow United States law on undisclosed advertising, which is described by the Federal Trade Commission at Endorsement Guidelines and Dot Com Disclosures.

European fair-trading law[edit]

No ads.svg

In 2012 the Munich Oberlandesgericht court ruled that if a company or its agents edit Wikipedia with the aim of influencing customers, the edits constitute covert advertising, and as such are a violation of European fair-trading law. The ruling stated that readers cannot be expected to seek out user and talk pages to find editors' disclosures about their corporate affiliation.[17]

UK Advertising Standards Authority[edit]

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) in the UK found in 2012 that the content of tweets from two footballers had been "agreed with the help of a member of the Nike marketing team." The tweets were not clearly identified as Nike marketing communications and were therefore in breach of the ASA's code.[18]

Other categories of COI[edit]

Legal and other disputes[edit]

Further information: WP:BLPCOI

The biographies of living persons policy says: "[A]n editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual – whether on- or off-wiki – or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest."

Similarly, editors should not write about court cases in which they or those close to them have been involved, nor about parties or law firms associated with the cases.

Campaigning, political[edit]

Activities regarded by insiders as simply "getting the word out" may appear promotional or propagandistic to the outside world. If you edit articles while involved with campaigns in the same area, you may have a conflict of interest. Political candidates and their staff should not edit articles about themselves, their supporters, or their opponents. Government employees should not edit articles about their agencies, government, political party, political opponents, or controversial political topics.

Writing about yourself, family, friends[edit]

Further information: Wikipedia:Autobiography and WP:BLPCOI

You should not create or edit articles about yourself, your family, friends, or foes. If you have a personal connection to a topic or person, you are advised to refrain from editing those articles directly and to provide full disclosure of the connection if you comment about the article on talk pages or in other discussions.

An exception to editing an article about yourself or someone you know is made if the article contains defamation or a serious error that needs to be corrected quickly. If you do make such an edit, follow it up with an email to WP:OTRS, Wikipedia's volunteer response team, or ask for help on WP:BLPN, our noticeboard for articles about living persons.

Citing yourself[edit]

Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion.

Cultural sector[edit]

Museum curators, librarians, archivists, and similar are encouraged to help improve Wikipedia, or to share their information in the form of links to their resources. If a link cannot be used as a reliable source, it may be placed under further reading or external links if it complies with the external links guideline. Bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files.

Miscellaneous[edit]

Law of unintended consequences[edit]

Wikipedia's law of unintended consequences

Once an article is created about yourself, your group, or your company, you have no right to control its content, or to delete it outside the normal channels. Content is irrevocably added with every edit. If there is anything publicly available on a topic that you would not want to have included in an article, it will probably find its way there eventually.

No shared accounts, no company accounts[edit]

Further information: WP:NOSHARE and WP:ORGNAME

Do not create a shared organizational account, or use the name of an organization as the account name. The account is yours, not your employer's.

Making uncontroversial edits[edit]

Editors who have a general conflict of interest may make unambiguously uncontroversial edits (but see WP:FINANCIALCOI). They may:

  1. remove spam and unambiguous vandalism,
  2. remove unambiguous violations of the biography of living persons policy,
  3. fix spelling and grammatical errors,
  4. repair broken links,
  5. remove their own COI edits, and
  6. add independent reliable sources when another editor has requested them, although it is better to supply them on the talk page for others to add.

If another editor objects for any reason, it is not an uncontroversial edit. Edits not covered by the above should be discussed on the article's talk page. If an article has few involved editors, ask at the talk page of a related Wikiproject or at WP:COIN. Also see WP:COITALK.

Supplying photographs and media files[edit]

Editors with a COI are encouraged to upload high-quality media files that are appropriately licensed for Wikipedia and that improve our coverage of a subject. For more information, follow the instructions at Commons. In some cases, the addition of media files to an article may be an uncontroversial edit that editors with a COI can make directly, but editors should exercise discretion and rely on talk pages when images may be controversial or promotional. If the addition of an image is challenged by another editor, it is not uncontroversial.

How to handle conflicts of interest[edit]

If an editor has disclosed that s/he is editing with a COI, or edits in a way that leads you to believe they might have a COI, raise the issue in a civil manner on the editor's talk page, citing this guideline, or open a thread on WP:COIN. Avoid making disparaging comments about the subject of the article, its author, or the author's motives.

If there has been no COI disclosure, consider first whether the issue may be simple advocacy. The appropriate forum for concerns about advocacy is WP:NPOVN. The appropriate forum for concerns about sources is WP:RSN. If there are concerns about sockpuppets or meatpuppets, please bring that concern to WP:SPI.

Avoid outing[edit]

When investigating COI editing, the policy against harassment takes precedence. It requires that Wikipedians not reveal the identity of editors against their wishes. Instead, examine editors' behavior and refer if necessary to Wikipedia:Checkuser. If revealing private information is needed to resolve COI editing, and if the issue is serious enough to warrant it, editors can seek the advice of functionaries or the arbitration committee by email.

Dealing with single-purpose accounts[edit]

Accounts that appear to be single-purpose, existing for the sole or primary purpose of promotion or denigration of a person, company, product, service, website, organization, etc., and whose postings are in apparent violation of this guideline, should be made aware of this guideline and warned not to continue their problematic editing. If the same pattern of editing continues after the warning, the account may be blocked.

Templates[edit]

Relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{connected contributor}} or {{connected contributor (paid)}}. The article itself may be tagged with {{COI}}. A section of an article can be tagged with {{COI|section}}

Other templates include:

  • {{uw-coi}} (to be placed on user Talk pages to warn editors that they may have a conflict of interest)
  • {{uw-coi-username}} (another Talk page warning, this one for editors whose username appears to violate the WP:Usernames policy)
  • {{COI editnotice}} (this template goes on article talk pages and gives instructions to COI editors on how to submit edit requests to the article)
  • {{UserboxCOI}} (for users to self-declare on their own Userpages those articles with which they have a conflict of interest, one such template per article)

See also[edit]

Wikimedia Foundation

Contact us

Article

Policies

Wikiprojects

Miscellaneous

Essays

Historical

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ Interest (from Middle English, interess) originally meant "the possession of a share in or a right to something."[1][2]

    Neil R. Luebke, 1987: "[T]he term 'interest' [in 'conflict of interest'] means some actual share or right on the basis of which one can materially gain or lose. It does nor mean an affection for some person, a feeling of sympathy for some cause, or a desire for some area of activity. In this sense I could have an interest in the Bad-News-Corporation, through a generous bequest by my rich uncle, even though I detest its corporate practices and conscientiously refuse to buy its products."[3]

  2. ^ Wayne Norman, Chris McDonald, 2012: "A person has a conflict of interest because of the kind of situation she finds herself in, not simply because of the actual state of her own desires, interests, motives, and so on."[5]:447
    Bernard Lo and Marilyn J. Field, Institute of Medicine, 2009: "A conflict of interest is a set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgment or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest. ...
    "Secondary interests may include not only financial gain but also the desire for professional advancement, recognition for personal achievement, and favors to friends and family or to students and colleagues ...

    "[Conflict of interest] policies do not ... imply that the individual researcher ... is an unethical person. They assume only that under some conditions a risk exists that the decisions may be unduly influenced by considerations that should be irrelevant. ... the determination that an individual or institution has a conflict of interest is a judgment about the situation and not about the ... [person] who happens to be in that situation."[6]

  3. ^ Advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not. Paid advocacy is an especially egregious form; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice. Sue Gardner, then executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation, wrote in 2013: "Editing-for-pay has been a divisive topic inside Wikipedia for many years, particularly when the edits to articles are promotional in nature. Unlike a university professor editing Wikipedia articles in their area of expertise, paid editing for promotional purposes, or paid advocacy editing as we call it, is extremely problematic. We consider it a "black hat" practice. Paid advocacy editing violates the core principles that have made Wikipedia so valuable for so many people."[8]
  4. ^ Davies writes: "A conflict of interest is a situation in which some person P (whether an individual or corporate body) stands in a certain relation to one or more decisions. On the standard view, P has a conflict of interest if, and only if, (1) P is in a relationship with another requiring P to exercise judgment in the other's behalf and (2) P has a (special) interest tending to interfere with the proper exercise of judgment in that relationship. The crucial terms in the standard view are 'relationship,' 'judgment,' 'interest,' and 'proper exercise.'"[9][5]:445
  5. ^ Norman and McDonald quote legal scholar Bayless Manning, 1964: "[S]ubjective intent is not important [in conflict of interest law] ... If the wrong kind of outside interest is held, no amount of leaning over backward or purity of soul will satisfy [a confirmation] Committee or the statutes."[5]:447
  6. ^ The first court case to use the term conflict of interest as currently understood was in 1949 in New York.[11] Until the 1950s COI in the professions was addressed by expecting the conflicted individual to act objectively. Norman and McDonald write that this was naive.[12]
  7. ^ Columbia University, Responsible Conduct of Research: "A potential conflict of interest involves a situation that may develop into an actual conflict of interest."[15][14]
  8. ^ "An apparent conflict of interest is one in which a reasonable person would think that the professional's judgment is likely to be compromised."[15][16]
  9. ^ One approach is to disclose personal information, either on Wikipedia or privately to a trusted editor, although editors should not feel obligated to do this.

References[edit]

  1. ^ Jay M. Feinman (ed.), One Thousand and One Legal Words You Need to Know, Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 100.
  2. ^ Angus Stevenson, Maurice Waite (eds.), Concise Oxford English Dictionary (luxury edition), Oxford University Press, 2011, p. 740.
  3. ^ Neil R. Luebke, "Conflict of Interest as a Moral Category," Business & Professional Ethics Journal, 6, 1987 (pp. 66–81), p. 68. JSTOR 27799930
  4. ^ a b Michael Davis, "Introduction," in Michael Davis and Andrew Stark (eds.), Conflict of Interest in the Professions, University of Oxford Press, 2001, p. 12.
  5. ^ a b c d Wayne Norman, Chris McDonald, "Conflicts of Interest," in George G. Brenkert, Tom L. Beauchamp (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Business Ethics, Oxford University Press, 2012, pp. 441–470.
  6. ^ a b Bernard Lo and Marilyn J. Field (eds.), Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice, Institute of Medicine, National Academies Press, 2009, p. 49.
  7. ^ "Paid contributions without disclosure", Terms of Use, Wikimedia Foundation.
  8. ^ Sue Gardner, "Press releases/Sue Gardner statement paid advocacy editing", Wikimedia Foundation, 21 October 2013.
  9. ^ Davis 2001, p. 8.
  10. ^ Davis 2001, p. 11.
  11. ^ Davis 2001, p. 303, citing In Re Equitable Office Bldg. Corporation, 83 F. Supp. 531 (S.D.N.Y 1949).
  12. ^ a b c Norman and McDonald, 2012, p. 461.
  13. ^ Davis 2001, pp. 11–12.
  14. ^ a b Davis 2001, p. 15.
  15. ^ a b "Conflicts of interest", Responsible Conduct of Research, Columbia University.
  16. ^ Davis 2001, p. 18.
  17. ^ The case arose out of a claim against a company by a competitor over edits made to the article Weihrauchpräparat on the German Wikipedia. The judgment can be read here.
  18. ^ Mike Sweney, "Nike becomes first UK company to have Twitter campaign banned", The Guardian, 20 June 2012.

Further reading[edit]

(chronological order)