User talk:KDS4444/COI

This is a proposed revision of the current Wikipedia guideline article on conflict of interest. The degree of revision is fairly extensive, but it is not meant to contradict any existing editorial philosophies or approaches. The current guideline is somewhat hostile, complicated, and long; in this revision, I have attempted to make editors feel more comfortable acknowledging and disclosing that they in fact have a COI and to feel okay about taking the appropriate steps to declare it. I do not mean for this revision to encourage COI editing— I believe such editing is already quite rampant, and the revisions to this guideline are meant to make it easier for the community to transparently monitor it.

Some changes to note: I have removed the footnotes to the longwinded legal definitions of "interest" and "conflict of interest". Even as "just" as footnotes, they are not particularly well-suited to this guideline. While these might be interesting to those searching for a theoretical understanding, I believe the main purpose of this guideline should be to succinctly explain what COI editing is, why it is usually harmful and why we need disclosure, who should disclose it, and how/ when/ where they should do it. Those looking for more information can always read the article we already have on conflict of interest for a broader viewpoint and legal definitions. In particular, I don't think it is helpful to explicate here the meaning of the word "interest" or explain how it can "conflict" with anything. "My interest in maintaining my level personal fitness conflicts with my interest in eating lots of ice cream!" I think our readers understand that's not what we're talking about. Let's not distract them with footnotes.

Further: our instructions on what do if you have a COI appear on several pages, and have a few inconsistencies; even some of the places where they seem to be consistent are rather vague on the details. We should not have multiple guidelines giving similar sets of instructions on how to handle a COI, we should have one set of guidelines— this set— and all others should defer and link to it with regard to specific acts editors should take if they have a COI. Put another way: I believe there should be no instructions elsewhere because even minor variations in those instructions can easily confuse or mislead editors. We have internal links for lots of reasons, and this is one of them. One set of instructions.

Another problem: we instruct people to disclose their COI in any edit summary of any edit they make or in any discussions they have with others on subjects related to the article with which they have a COI, but this comes across as more of a suggestion than a request because it contains no specifics and gets mentioned elsewhere with no examples of how it should be done. And if an editor HAS a COI, and has declared it, and is making an edit to a talk page to request an edit, is there any point in also having them mention their COI in their edit summary of that requested edit? Because the editor has supposedly already declared ON THE TALK PAGE that they have a COI, and this will be immediately apparent to any other editor considering whether or not to accept that edit. It's vague, it's overkill, and the only people who will ever bother or even remember to do it are already so disclosed that it seems like we can dispense with this additional requested behavior.