User:Durova/COI proposed revision

'''The following material is a user space draft and not official. Please see Conflict of interest for the actual consensus guideline'''

A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is a competing interest that could lead a person to participate at Wikipedia in ways that detract from the purpose of building a neutral and verifiable encyclopedia. Conflicts of interest can result in policy violations. Although the editing community generally extends good faith toward new participants, extreme or persistent problems can exhaust the community's goodwill and enhance whatever the negative reaction to other guideline and policy violations.

The appearance of impropriety entails real world public relations risks. As the world's most popular reference website, the press pays attention to what happens here. The headline Mayor Schmoe Edits Wikipedia Article about Himself creates a negative impression even when the actual contributions comply with other guidelines and policies. Editors who have a conflict of interest can avoid negative PR by posting suggested edits to talk pages and seeking assistance from relevant WikiProjects.

Editors who may have a conflict of interest are not barred from participating in articles and discussion of articles where they have a conflict of interest, but must be careful when editing in mainspace. Compliance with this guideline requires discussion of proposed edits on talk pages and avoiding controversial edits in mainspace. A noticeboard for reporting and discussing incidents that require intervention related to the application of this guideline is available at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. The noticeboard is for reporting and discussing the application of the conflict of interest guideline to incidents and situations where editors may have close personal or business connections with article topics. The noticeboard is not for reporting the mere existence of conflicts of interest nor for the fact of compliance with the COI guideline through talk-page discussion.

What is a conflict of interest?
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for advertising or self-promotion, or a vanity press. As such, it should contain only material that complies with its content policies, and Wikipedians must place the interests of the encyclopedia first. Any editor who gives priority to outside interests may be subject to a conflict of interest.

There are no firm criteria to determine whether a conflict of interest exists, but there are warning signs. Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, his family members, employer, associates, or his business or personal interests, places the author in a conflict of interest. When editors write to promote their own interests, their contributions often show a characteristic lack of connection to anything the general reader might want to consult as a reference. If you do write an article on area in which you are personally involved, be sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, third-party published sources.

If other editors advise that you appear to stand in a conflict of interest, take that advice seriously and consider stepping back, reassessing your edits, and discuss the problem with the community. In particular, consider whether you are editing tendentiously.

Examples

 * Citing oneself

Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies. Excessive self-citation is strongly discouraged. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion.

If you fit either of these descriptions:
 * Financial


 * 1) you are receiving monetary or other benefits or considerations to edit Wikipedia as a representative of an organization (whether directly as an employee or contractor of that organization, or indirectly as an employee or contractor of a firm hired by that organization for public relations purposes); or,
 * 2) you expect to derive monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia; for example, by being the owner, officer or other stakeholder of a company or other organisation about which you are writing;

then we very strongly encourage you to avoid editing Wikipedia in areas where there is a conflict of interest that would make your edits non-neutral (biased). Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy states that all articles must represent views fairly and without bias, and conflicts of interest do significantly and negatively affect Wikipedia's ability to fulfill this requirement. If your financially-motivated edits would be non-neutral, do not post them.

If you are involved in a court case, or close to one of the litigants, you would find it very hard to demonstrate that what you wrote about a party or a law firm associated with the case, or a related area of law, was entirely objective. Even a minor slip up in neutrality in a court-case article on Wikipedia for an active case-in-progress could potentially be noticed by the courts and/or their parties, and this could potentially cause real-world harm, not just harm to Wikipedia. Because of this, we strongly discourage editing when this type of conflict exists.
 * Legal antagonists

Conflict of interest often presents itself in the form of self-promotion, including advertising links, personal website links, personal or semi-personal photos, or other material that appears to promote the private or commercial interests of the editor, or their associates.
 * Self-promotion

Examples of these types of material include:
 * 1) Links that appear to promote products by pointing to obscure or not particularly relevant commercial sites (commercial links).
 * 2) Links that appear to promote otherwise obscure individuals by pointing to their personal pages.
 * 3) Biographical material that does not significantly add to the clarity or quality of the article.


 * Autobiography

It is not recommended to write an article about yourself. If you are notable, someone else will notice you and write the article. In some cases, Wikipedia users write articles about themselves when the more appropriate action would be to create a user page. In these cases, the article is normally moved into the user namespace rather than deleted. If you believe you may be notable enough, make your case on the appropriate talk pages, and seek consensus first, both with the notability and any proposed autobiography.

Friedrich Engels would have had difficulty editing the Karl Marx article, because he was a close friend, follower and collaborator of Marx. Any situation where strong relationships can develop may trigger a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal. It is not determined by area, but is created by relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon, a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization.
 * Close relationships

Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you towards some bias. Be guided by the advice of other editors. If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, try to identify and minimize your biases, and consider withdrawing from editing the article. As a rule of thumb, the more involvement you have with a topic in real life, the more careful you should be with our core content policies &mdash; Neutral point of view and Attribution &mdash; when editing in that area. The definition of "too close" in this context is governed by common sense. An article about a little-known band should preferably not be written by a band member or the manager. However, an expert on climate change is welcome to contribute to articles on that subject, even if that editor is deeply committed to the subject.

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 organizations that engage in advocacy in that area, you may have a conflict of interest.
 * Campaigning

Producing promotional articles for Wikipedia on behalf of clients is strictly prohibited.
 * Promotional article production on behalf of clients

How to avoid COI edits
Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit," but if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) Editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
 * 2) Participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
 * 3) Linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam);
 * and you must always:
 * 1) Avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

User subspace to publish short autobiographies
Contributing signed-in users may use their user subspace to publish short autobiographies within the bounds of good taste and compatible with the purpose of working on the encyclopedia. If you wish to write about yourself without working on the encyclopedia, consider starting a website or a blog instead. Wikipedia is not a free webhost.

How to handle conflicts of interest
Conflict of interest often raises questions as to whether material should be included in the encyclopedia or not. It also can be a cause, or contributing factor, in disputes over whether editors have an agenda that undermines the mission of Wikipedia. Suspected conflict of interest incidents may be reported on the conflict of interest noticeboard, and users may be warned with the uw-coi user warning template. Conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article, but lack of notability is.

The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor, referring to this guideline. If persuasion fails, consider whether you are involved in a content dispute. If so, an early recourse to dispute resolution may help. Editors and admins may act in conflict of interest situations as in any case of point of view pushing. However, using COI allegations to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is frowned upon. If you are not involved in a content dispute, you can file a case at WP:COIN. Remember, conflicted editors do not lose their privileges to edit Wikipedia pseudonymously. Revealing the names of pseudonymous editors is in all cases against basic policy.
 * Dealing with suspected conflicted editors

All text created in the Wikipedia main namespace is subject to rules covering criteria for articles (what Wikipedia is not); encyclopedic quality (verifiability and original research); editorial approach (neutral point of view); as well as the Wikipedia copyright policy. All editors are expected to stick closely to these policies when creating and evaluating material, and to respect the good faith actions of others who edit content to ensure it complies with these policies.
 * Primacy of basic content policies

Who has written the material should be irrelevant so long as these policies are closely adhered to. The imputation of conflict of interest is not by itself a good reason to remove sound material from articles. However, an apparent conflict of interest is a good reason for close review by the community to identify any subtle bias.


 * Notability and saliency

The criterion most often relevant to handling conflict of interest via policy and guidelines on content is notability. It is also helpful to bear in mind saliency.

There is some basic understanding on the degree of notability required to justify an article. For example, consensus does exist regarding particular kinds of articles, (see Template:IncGuide.) Borderline cases are frequently nominated for deletion and discussed on Articles for deletion.

Submitted material often needs to be filtered, especially if it is peripheral to an article rather than salient. Even in the case of people who are demonstrably well-known, their unrealized aspirations, thoughts, and hobbies are seldom included in Wikipedia. Wikipedia's policy on verifiability prohibits the inclusion of material not already published by a reliable source. But even if we could verify Tom Cruise's favorite breakfast cereal, that is something that is typically not included in an encyclopedia.

Citations of "Who's Who" directories should not be used alone as evidence of notability. These registries' criteria for listing are, as a rule, over-inclusive and may be nonexistent; some are vanity publishers and offer listing for a fee. The inclusion of a name in such a publication is therefore not sufficient to guarantee notability.

Articles that make no plausible claim of notability are usually found and deleted shortly after creation under the relevant criteria for quick removals. There are two other main routes:
 * Deleting non-notable articles


 * Those that offer some claim of notability, however remote, are usually sent to Articles for deletion. Deletion of the article normally ensues. Sometimes it may be moved to the author's user-page.
 * Where article creators are not active editors, it is usually sufficient to remove content via proposed deletion, reserving AfD for the more contentious cases. Users who lightly create articles of obvious minor interest are most likely inexperienced. If there is nothing particularly offensive about the page, please be kind to them. Before nominating such an article for deletion, try politely informing the author. Pointing to this guideline may gain consent to the deletion. In practice these PROD deletions serve well to clear frivolous articles whose authors abandon them.
 * The alternatives to deletion should be kept in mind--particularly reducing to a stub. For an article about something obviously important, but which was written with too much COI to easily edit, it is often possible to reduce an article to the basic identifying information.

During debates in articles' talk pages and at articles for deletion, disparaging comments may fly about the subject of the article/author and the author's motives. These may border on personal attacks, and may discourage the article's creator from making future valuable contributions.
 * Importance of civility

Avoid using the word "vanity" or similar judgmental terms &mdash; this is accusatory and discouraging. It is not helpful, nor reason to delete an article. Assuming good faith, start from the idea that the contributor was genuinely trying to help increase Wikipedia's coverage.

Another case is within disputes relating to non-neutral points of view, where underlying conflicts of interest may aggravate editorial disagreements. In this scenario, it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Do not use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. When conflicts exist, invite the conflicted editor to contribute to the article talk page, and give their views fair consideration.
 * Conflict of interest in point of view disputes

Editors who may have a conflict of interest
This section of the guideline is aimed at editors who may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits in mainspace where there is a clear conflict of interest, or where such a conflict can be reasonably assumed, are strongly discouraged. Significantly biased edits in mainspace are forbidden.

Declaring an interest
Some editors declare an interest in a particular topic area. They do this in various ways. Many Wikipedians show their allegiances and affiliations on their user pages. You may choose to reveal something about yourself in a talk page discussion. Disclaimer: Wikipedia gives no advice about whether or how to use its pages to post personal details. This guideline only raises some pros and cons.

Advantages:
 * By declaring an interest, you pre-empt anyone outing you or questioning your good faith.
 * Most editors will appreciate your honesty.
 * You lay the basis for requesting help from others to post material for you, or to review material you wish to post yourself.

Disadvantages:
 * Your declaration may be invoked against you at some point.
 * Your edits to the area in question may attract extra attention.
 * Your declaration will give you no special rights as an advocate. You may even be cautioned or, in extreme cases, told to stay away from certain topics.

In the case of commercial editing (editing on behalf of a company):


 * 1) a disclosure enables you to ask openly for help in getting material posted and edited, but
 * 2) once your position is known, you will have to adhere stringently to neutral edits of affected articles, or no edits at all. Note that if you only correct bias against your company and its interests, and not bias in its favour, your editing will be different from that of a regular Wikipedian, who would be expected to do both.

Defending interests
In a few cases, outside interests coincide with Wikipedia’s interests. An important example is that unsupported defamatory material appearing in articles may be removed at once. Anyone may do this, and should do this, and this guideline applies widely to any unsourced or poorly sourced, potentially libelous postings. In this case it is unproblematic to defend the interest of the person or institution involved. An entire article that presents as an attack piece or hostile journalism can be nominated for speedy deletion and will be removed promptly from the site. Those who post here in this fashion will also be subject to administrative sanction. Biographies of living persons gives details on how biographical articles on living persons should be written.

On the other hand, the removal of reliably sourced critical material is not permitted. Accounts of public controversies, if backed by reliable sources, form an integral part of Wikipedia's coverage. Slanting the balance of articles as a form of defence of some figure, group, institution, or product is bad for the encyclopedia. This is also the case if you find an article overwhelmed with correctly referenced, but exclusively negative information. This may present a case of undue weight, for example when an article about a company consist to 90% of a lawsuit one client once brought against it. In such a case, such material should be condensed by a neutral editor, and the other sections expanded. One of the best ways to go about this is to request this on the talk page.

The intermediate territory will naturally contain some grey areas. In many articles, criticism tends to collect in a separate section. There you may find properly referenced reports of well-publicised debates next to vague assertions that "Some people say X, while others think Y." Treat everything on its merits. Ask for reliable sources. Before removing a whole criticism section or article and distributing its parts over other sections of the article, which may be the best way ahead, consult other editors on the Talk page. Use crisp, informative edit summaries to detail what you have done, an excellent way to establish your reputation as a diligent editor. Raise any less obvious reasoning as a note on the talk page, with any additional links that support your edits.

Suggesting changes to articles, or requesting a new article
An editor with a conflict of interest who wishes to suggest substantive changes to an article should use that article's talk page. When making a request please consider disclosing your conflict of interest to avoid misunderstanding.

To request a new article, you can present your idea on the talk page of a relevant article or WikiProject.

Non-controversial edits
Editors who may have a conflict of interest are allowed to make certain kinds of non-controversial edits, such as:


 * 1)  Removing spam and reverting vandalism.
 * 2)  Deleting content that violates Wikipedia's biography of living persons policy.
 * 3)  Fixing spelling and grammar errors.
 * 4)  Reverting or removing their own COI edits.  Cleaning up your own mess is allowed and encouraged.
 * 5)  Making edits that have been agreed to on the talk page.

To determine what is controversial, use common sense. If another good faith editor objects, then it's controversial.

Consequences of ignoring this guideline
If you write in Wikipedia about yourself, your group, your company, or your pet idea, once the article is created, you have no right to control its content, and no right to delete it outside our normal channels. Content is not deleted just because somebody doesn't like it. Any editor may add material to the article within the terms of our content policies. If there is anything publicly available on a topic that you would not want included in an article, it will probably find its way there eventually. More than one user has created an article only to find himself presented in a poor light long-term by other editors. Therefore, don't create promotional or other articles lightly, especially on subjects you care about. Either edit neutrally or don't edit at all. NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable.

Blocks
Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization in apparent violation of this guideline should be warned and made aware of this guideline. If the same pattern of editing continues after the warning, the account may be blocked.