Wikipedia:Sources first
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | This page in a nutshell: The best way to edit with a COI is to start the process by looking for reliable sources, not by immediately writing a draft text. |
Content on Wikipedia is entirely based on reliable sources; there should be no original research or unsourced content. The vast majority of volunteer editors write by looking for reliable sources and then distilling their content into the encyclopedic format of Wikipedia. Most editors are not experts on every subject they write about, and that is a good thing. It ensures that the text that ends up in the article is actually based on external sources, not preconceived notions.
COI editors in particular frequently seem to struggle with this; this essay is intended to help both paid editors in general and new editors who have created autobiographies or articles about subjects they are closely associated with.
The apparent COI workflow
[edit]Editors with a conflict of interest (COI) and those being paid to edit have to follow the additional guidelines at WP:COI and WP:PAID. Usually, that means requesting edits on article talk pages and article creations through WP:AFC. Many of these editors appear to start this process by drafting text they'd like to see included before looking at the available sources. That means they will create a paragraph, subsection, or even entire sections, and then make it their goal to have this specific text implemented. Following that, they look for sources and pieces of policy to support their draft. This creates the biased or entirely promotional proposals that are frequently found in the list of COI edit request. Such requests are almost always denied or changed substantially before being implemented. This is frustrating for the editors making the requests, and often tedious for the editors answering them. The same goes for autobiographical AfC submissions.
It is not unusual for a COI editor to make a proposal, and then attempt to bend the sourcing, policies, and guidelines to ensure that this exact proposal or some specific parts will be implemented. This is most evident when there are small sections of text, usually something like "market leader" or "revolutionary thinker/writer/musician/etc." that are inadequately sourced. Upon the request being denied, these pieces might be moved around or attributed to different sources, but they remain inappropriate.[a] This never works.
In this kind of situation, the editing workflow presumably[b] looks something like this:
- Draft proposal, for example an autobiography or an article that follows the demands of an employer.
- Look for sources for the most contentious claims, ignoring anything making claims to the contrary.
- Cite supportive source(s).
- Make your request.
Proposals that are written like this are quite easy to identify after spending some time reading COI requests. They almost universally violate WP:NPOV, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:V, or a related editing policy or guideline, and it is very rare for them to be implemented.
How to write better proposals
[edit]A much better workflow, especially for COI editors, is something like this:
- Look for reliable sources on the subject matter.
- Take information only from those sources. Do not base your writing on your own knowledge or opinions.
- Write a draft based on that information. Attribute every contentious claim to the source where you found the information.
- Make your request.
This also happens to be the workflow that most volunteer editors use on Wikipedia.
If you are being paid to edit, and you find that this workflow does not allow you to include your client's requirements, then you will most likely not succeed in having the required changes implemented. That is not a problem of Wikipedia, nor is it something that other editors really care about. "They said I have to make sure this is included" is not a convincing argument, because it is not a valid argument at all. The needs of private businesses or individuals are not relevant to Wikipedia or its volunteer editors, the primary purpose of article content is to contribute encyclopedic value.
Thinking about Wikipedia and your editing here in terms of specific desired results ("I want XYZ to be included here") is counterproductive and misunderstands both the purpose and the mechanisms of this encyclopedia.
The weight of your word
[edit]Some COI editors, particularly those editing articles about themselves, their family, or their friends, will claim that "I know this to be true, I just need to find a source to support it." That is also not a valid argument. Article content needs to be verifiable, and the claims of anonymous[c] internet users are hardly trustworthy. If Wikipedia trusted every editor who comes along to be telling the truth 100% of the time, the platform would quickly become the next unmoderated internet blog.
Content on Wikipedia needs to have reliable sources. Your word on a talk page, no matter how renowned, famous, well-paid, or highly-educated you might be, is not a reliable source.