User:Helenalex/coirewrite

Conflicts of interest arise in Wikipedia when an editor's financial interests, personal life, or opinions have the potential to conflict with the aims and spirit of Wikipedia. Examples include people who are paid to edit Wikipedia, people editing pages which relate to them or something close to them, and those with strong political, religious or other views. Having a conflict of interest need not be a problem in itself, and it need not prevent anyone from editing any page. But if such editors are not especially careful they may breach Wikipedia policy, particularly notability, neutral point of view and verifiability.

There is no rule or policy against conflict of interest editing, but editors with a conflict of interest must take special care to abide by the spirit and letter of all Wikipedia policies. In particular:
 * Editors who have joined Wikipedia solely to write about themselves or something they are involved in should (like other new editors) familiarise themselves with Wikipedia policy, particularly the five pillars of Wikipedia and the notability guidelines.
 * All editors must remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a promotional tool. If your edits lower the quality of Wikipedia or serve no other purpose other than to promote their subject, they will be reverted and you may be blocked from further editing.
 * Editors should not create articles which serve solely to promote their subject. All Wikipedia articles should contain useful information written as if from a neutral point of view. The writing of 'puff pieces' and advertisements on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited.

Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it is difficult to avoid all 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, No original research, and Verifiability &mdash; when editing in that area.

This page tends to focus on instances in which an editor has a close real world relationship with the subject of an article. However, conflicts of interest can also arise in other cases, for example if an editor is a particularly enthusiastic fan of a sports team, band, actor or similar, or if they have strong opinions about a particular political, religious or other issue. If your edits are motivated more by promoting an organization or cause than improving Wikipedia, you have a conflict of interest.

When investigating possible cases of COI editing, Wikipedians must be careful not to out other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over this guideline. COI situations are usually revealed when the editor themselves discloses a relationship to the subject that they are editing. In case the editor does not identify themselves or their affiliation, reference to the neutral point of view policy may help counteract biased editing.

Problems with conflict of interest editing
Conflicts of interest are not a problem in themselves; they only become a problem when they adversely affect the quality of Wikipedia. Unfortunately this is fairly common, particularly with editors who are new to Wikipedia. An editor whose motives for editing steer them away from the goal of creating a neutral encyclopedia can make a number of mistakes, many of which can lead to being barred from editing. Some common problems include:
 * Creating pages on subjects which are not adequately notable.
 * Removing information which is unflattering to the editor or their organisation.
 * Adding text in a tone inappropriate for an encyclopaedia, in particular 'PR speak'.
 * Adding trivial or irrelevant information for the purpose of promoting the subject.
 * Adding irrelevant or promotional links (linkspamming).

Consequences
Bad editing such as described above will generally be reverted, regardless of the motivation behind it. In serious or persistant cases, particularly if the account appears to exist solely for promotional purposes, accounts will be blocked. Accounts may also be blocked for disruption, including edit warring and revert warring. Editors are also reminded that creating a new account in order to get around a block (sockpuppetry) is banned, and new accounts of this type will also be blocked.

Balance is an important quality of Wikipedia, and many editors who come across an article skewed a particular way will try to balance it out. If you create an article on your organisation, or add large amounts of positive information to an existing article, there is a very real possibility that another editor will then trawl the internet for negative information and add it to the article. Unless this information is demonstrably false, or creates a strong bias, there is nothing you can do about this. Editors who wish to use Wikipedia to promote themselves or their organisation should think carefully about whether this is a sensible move, particularly if a page has not already been created.

Another likely consequence is the public exposure of such editing. There have been many cases of companies and politicians caught editing their own pages; this is often seen by the public as underhanded and improper behaviour, regardless of the actual quality of the edits. To avoid any suggestion of impropriety, editors with obvious conflicts of interest are strongly encouraged to declare their conflict of interest on their user page and ideally also on the talk pages of pages that they edit. Editors should always remember that Wikipedia is in the real world and anything you do in it may end up on the front page of your local newspaper.

Best practice
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. 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 an area in which you are personally involved, be sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, third-party published sources, and beware of unintentional bias. Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's five pillars.

If other editors suggest that your editing violates Wikipedia's standards, take that advice seriously and consider stepping back, reassessing your edits, and discussing your intentions with the community. In particular, consider whether you are editing tendentiously.

Editors with clear conflicts of interest should be open about them, ideally both on their user page and on the talk page of relevant Wikipedia pages. Although this may lead to increased scrunity of such users' edits, they will also benefit from the assumption of good faith and most other editors will appreciate their honesty. Especially when they are not experienced Wikipedia editors, they may want to limit their editing to talk pages, and suggest that other editors make changes. This disclosure note is an example of an editor taking this path.

I want to create a page on my business/band/self
The first step is to ask yourself whether your topic genuinely meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. To check this, see the general notability guideline as well as the subject-specific guidelines, such as bands and other music-related topics, organizations and companies, people and webpages. Be aware that if your topic does not clearly meet these guidelines, it is likely to be deleted.

If your topic is notable and you are not an experienced editor, read Your first article, and familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policy, particularly that on neutral point of view. When you create the page, it is a good idea to make a note on the associated talk page declaring your relationship to the subject. Do not imply that you will revert edits you do not approve of.

If you monitor the page, you will usually see other people make edits. Do not undo these unless they are clearly vandalism or demonstrably untrue. When undoing other people's edits you should always explain why in the edit summary. Remember that you have no special rights over the page; you do not own it, even if you are its creator and its subject. Try to avoid edit warring.

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 wish to write about yourself without working on the encyclopedia, consider starting a website or a blog instead. Wikipedia is not a free webhost.

If you are being paid to edit Wikipedia on behalf of someone else, it is important that you and your boss/client realise you cannot control anyone's image on Wikipedia. Do not guarantee, promise or imply that you can exercise any kind of control over Wikipedia's content or tone. Trying to fulfill this is likely to lead to disruptive or otherwise inappropriate editing, and will probably get you blocked.

The page on my company/band/self is inaccurate, biased, defamatory or out of date
If there is inaccurate, unflattering and unsourced information about you or any other living person on any page you may remove it immediately, as per Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons policy. In particularly serious cases, such as libel, the inclusion of private information such as telephone numbers, and copyright violation, see WP:Oversight for information on getting this removed from the page history as well as the page itself.

In other cases, if you can demonstrate by reference to a reputable, third party source that the information is false or misleading, you have two options. One is to simply change it yourself, making sure to add a reference indicating your reputable source. Remember to write as if from a neutral point of view - if your edit comes across like a publicity statement it will probably be reversed. If you don't want to edit the page yourself, leave a note on the page's talk page explaining the situation and referring to your reputable source. If you can't find a reputable source you can publish a statement on your official website and refer to this, but be aware that the Wikipedia page might end up reading 'X denied that...'

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.

Any editor can and should correct spelling or grammar, or revert obvious vandalism, without consultation.

If the page is biased rather than inaccurate, it is a good idea to get feedback from other editors. What seems biased to you might be reasonable to people who aren't so close to the subject. Make your case on the talk page, and be honest about your relationship to the article's subject. If there are reputable third party sources which can counter the bias, mention them. If other editors agree that there is bias, they will make the changes themselves or encourage you to do so. If there is no agreement and you still feel that the page is biased, your options are set out at Dispute resolution. Bear in mind that none of these will necessarily resolve things in the way you want.

Removal of reliably sourced critical material is not usually 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 90% of an article about a particular company discusses 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 image Wikipedia is using of me/my product/my friend is unflattering
Wikimedia Commons encourages anyone to upload digital media files, such as photographs, illustrations, audio files and video clips, so long as the media is of good quality, is in a format we use, and the copyright holder is willing do so under one of the free licenses we accept. (See Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses) While Commons prefers full resolution media, reduced resolution images are acceptable when the copyright owner is unwilling to freely license a full quality image. See Commons:Welcome for detailed requirements.

Once media files are uploaded to Commons, they can then be incorporated into Wikipedia articles where appropriate. To get an idea of what would be appropriate, look at pages on similar topics. Bear in mind that Wikipedia is not obliged to use your preferred image, particularly if it appears to have been artificially improved.

I want to link to my website from Wikipedia
Only add an external link to a Wikipedia page if it genuinely provides useful information on that topic. It is also acceptable to add a link to a subject's official webpage from its Wikipedia page. Unacceptable types of link include:
 * Links that appear to promote products by pointing to obscure or not particularly relevant commercial sites.
 * Links that appear to promote otherwise obscure individuals by pointing to their personal pages.
 * Biographical material that does not significantly add to the clarity or quality of the article.

Adding inappropriate links to multiple pages is known as linkspamming and can result in your account being blocked.

I am a recognised authority in this subject
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 (in particular, see the guidelines on reliable sources). Excessive self-citation is strongly discouraged. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion. Self-published sources should be used with caution, and avoided if possible.

Also remember that other editors have no way of knowing that you really are the expert you claim to be. Insisting that your edit is the right one because 'I am an authority on this' is usually counter-productive. Annoying as it may be, even if you are the world authority on a subject, you have no special rights over its Wikipedia page.

I want to make an edit relating to a court case I am involved with
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 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.

I want to raise awareness of a particular cause
Activities regarded by insiders as simply "getting the word out" may appear promotional or propagandistic to the outside world. Always abide by Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, even if you do not have a neutral point of view. Remember that the other side has as much right to use Wikipedia as you do, even if you think they're clearly wrong.

Dealing with editors with conflicts of interest
Remember that conflicts of interest are not problems in and of themselves, only when they interfere with the aims and quality of Wikipedia. Conflicts of interest frequently lead to breaches of Wikipedia policy, but the problem is the breach of policy, not the conflict of interest. It is in Wikipedia's interests for editors with conflicts of interest to be open about them; if such editors are not breaking any policies or being disruptive they should be monitored but otherwise treated like any other editor.

Problems resulting from suspected conflict of interest 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 although other problems with the article arising from a conflict of interest may be valid criteria for deletion.

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. Another option is to initiate discussion at WP:COIN, where experienced editors may be able to help you resolve the matter without recourse to publishing assertions and accusations on Wikipedia. Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban.

Wikipedia places importance on both the neutrality of articles and the ability of editors to edit pseudonymously. Do not out an editor's real life identity in order to prove a conflict of interest. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over this guideline. COI situations are usually revealed when the editor themselves discloses a relationship to the subject that they are editing. In case the editor does not identity themselves or their affiliation, reference to the neutral point of view policy may help counteract biased editing.

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.

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.

For an article about something obviously important, but which was written with too much bias to easily edit, it is often possible to reduce an article to the basic identifying information and then neutral editors can help the article to be improved.

Be civil
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.

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. Assume good faith, and 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.

How not to handle COI
There is a little drama that is enacted more often than it should be.


 * Act One: Someone writes a hatchet job about a company with a less than stellar reputation.


 * Act Two: The company arrives, is (justifiably) horrified and angered by the hatchet job. They respond without experience, clumsily, by trying to force a change to a whitewash.


 * Act Three: Self-righteous Wikipedian responds in anger against the attempt to "censor" or "whitewash" by yelling at the company and forcing the article back to a hatchet job status.


 * Act Four: Company comes crying to otrs and the office.


 * Act Five: In the happy version of the ending, otrs/the office comes in and reminds everyone to act with love and neutrality to write a good article which is acceptable to both reasonable critics and reasonable supporters of the company... reliance on solid sources, neutral language, etc. carries the day.

In reality, Act Five often ends up cycling back through Acts One through Four. This is a Bad Thing.

Remember: an editor with a self-evident interest in the matter turning up on the talk page is an indication that they are playing it straight. Even if the changes they advocate are hopelessly biased, treat them with respect and courtesy, refer to policy and sources, and be fair.