User:Ocaasi/COIreview

''Please leave comments or suggestions on the talk page. If I propose this, I'll move it to the appropriate Wikipedia-space talk page for comment prior to it being moved live. Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 02:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)''

Principle of independence
Editors should be especially mindful when working with those who have a COI that a COI editor's interests conflict with Wikipedia's. They might be financially, legally, or professionally obligated to advocate for a position which is counter to neutrality. Editors should civilly apply appropriate scrutiny and criticism to requests from parties with a COI because they may, or even must, pursue a non-neutral agenda. Editors should make sure not to be unduly swayed by the credentials or position of a COI editor and to treat their arguments as they would those from any other, with rigor and due diligence.

Regardless of the background, position, clout, or external power of a COI editor or representative, Wikipedia exists always and only to represent the interest of neutrality, as reflected in published reliable sources with due weight. If a COI editor engages on a talk page, they have no special power and other editors should not feel beholden to do what they request. Talk page engagement is an opportunity for consensus to develop over suggestions, based on the best available sources. It should be made clear to all parties involved from the beginning that editors may hear a criticism or review a draft, but they have no obligation to do anything about it unless they independently decide it is what's best for the article and form a consensus among other involved editors that this is indeed the case.

A special note for requests that come through OTRS, our email response team. Such requests, unless specifically stated as an Office Action, never represent the position of the Wikimedia Foundation. OTRS volunteers are merely members of the community who correspond with the public and they have no special weight, authority, power, or privilege to influence conversations. Their involvement should be treated with no such deference and they should engage with robust criticism and review as it arises.

Proportionate scrutiny: robust review
To the extent that a proposed draft from a COI editor/corporate representative/paid advocate is:
 * a) about a controversial company, organization, or public figure
 * b) contributing a substantial amount of text or revisions
 * c) contributing text about the controversies themselves.or making extraordinary claims
 * a more robust review process is needed.

Imagine this as somewhat of a sliding scale in which a small non-profit that recommends a change to a fact about their history or operations needs just ordinary review, but a major oil company proposing changes about their own environmental record warrants warrants very serious scrutiny, and from a variety of editors with different perspectives.

Robust review involves broad disclosure, active involvement from more voices (especially including critics), and clear notification on noticeboards that these discussions are ongoing.

Steps for review
''Wikipedia is a very busy, free-form place and officially has no deadline. COI editors may use the following as a loose guide which may help but implies no guarantee of response. If one of these steps does not lead to resolution go to the next step:''


 * Tips
 * Move through the steps in sequence, but continue to check the forums where you previously posted even as you advance to a new step. OTRS can often only direct you back to the forums in previous steps, so it's best to invest your energies in those options as much as possible. If after 1 month no one has replied to your requests, feel free to leave a message on Jimmy Wales' talk page as he has requested.
 * If other editors have responded to your requests but not implemented them because they disagreed with what you are requesting, you should never implement changes by editing the article yourself. Instead, engage those editors in civil discussion and try to reach consensus about wording that is acceptable to all.  If necessary, invite other uninvolved editors to participate.
 * Exceptions to the above should only be for uncontroversial edits, specifically including removing outright vandalism, addressing unsourced and blatant lies or factual errors, fixing spelling, or fixing grammar.