User:Ocaasi/COI

Editors with a conflict of interest--a real life involvement with a subject that may effect their neutrality--are common on Wikipedia. This includes ideological editors, editors who work for companies they write about, artists, public relations workers, and general paid editors. The Wikipedia community has taken a firm but not prohibitive stance on COI editors: COI editors are okay, COI editing is not. What this means is that recognizing and carrying a bias or a personal investment in a subject is acceptable so long as it does not interfere with neutrality or other community norms, and so long as it does not become disruptive.

COI editing is editing with bias to promote (or demote) a subject. COI editing happens because real world issues overlap with the encyclopedia articles they describe. Wikipedia articles are important; as the primary source of general reference for an increasing portion of the world, what words appear on our pages can have serious impacts in debates, product launches, personal fame and reputation, and other consequences. Wikipedia policies are well designed to handle COI editors, because the core of our policy approach involves neutrality and civility. If editors adhere closely to sources, use neutral phrasing that don't take sides and include all relevant points of view, while being collegial with those who disagree, they are welcome here.

In fact, COI editors may provide a benefit to the encyclopedia since they can advocate for views that might otherwise be underrepresented. For example, COI editors as some corporate articles have helped to correct an anti-corporate bias that is widespread among technologically savvy, liberal, media-aware individuals. This has been good for the encyclopedia.

COI editors also advocate for the inclusion of subject that might otherwise be missed. So long as they follow our notability guidelines, COI editors can help increase the ecosystem of articles where we have reliable, sourced content. This is good for the encyclopedia.

COI editors also put our fundamental beliefs and practices about neutrality to the test. Although many editors share a concern that COI editors will unravel the delicate fabric which keeps editors faithfully representing the 'truth' about subjects (the verifiable truth), COI editors who follow best practices may go out of their way to show that they are in fact following the lead of sources and representing content fairly. This is good for the encyclopedia.

Perhaps most importantly, COI editing already exists. It happens mostly in secret and in ignorance. COI editors are generally regarded with skepticism, mistrust, and anger. For this reason most editors with a COI remain hidden.

The best COI editors are clear about their background and transparent about their process. They seek feedback, provide sources, and propose drafts. They hold themselves to a higher standard than many regular editors. These are the editors and the practices we want to promote. By bringing attention to COI editing, we can bring it into the light. We can educate COI editors and give them the support they need to edit in harmony with our policies. They may never be 'Wikipedians', rugged objectivists (small 'o') but they can still be purposeful contributors.