Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Archive 15

Conflict of Interest vs Healthy Interest
I'm thinking of something like this, which balances a potential COI with healthy interest.

--Iantresman (talk) 12:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I would drop the third fourth column and treat that in prose (which we probably already cover well enough). The only thing that sticks out to me as a potential problem is members writing about something they are a member of.  If it's a large organization that has many members, fine, but that could be construed to apply to something much more likely to represent a COI, like member of a comedy troupe. Gigs (talk) 19:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I made a few small edits that don't significantly change the meaning. Gigs (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The chart provides nice nuance. I like the "Healthy" versus "caution" versus "don't do this" breakdown, at least in concept. The primary and tertiary rows seem to align with my understanding of COI pretty much OK.  I share the concern about the secondary column; again, to take known examples from my own editing, do I theoretically have a COI if I am a member of the Arabian Horse Association, which I think has well over 10,000 members (40,000 sticks in my head, but might be an old peak number)?  What if I am an officer in a local affiliate club in Montana? (I was for a while, am not now)  -  I can see not editing an article about my local club, maybe not even if I am not an officer (we have about 50 members, so it's not even notable, but still...), but what about the national affiliate?  What if I am not an officer of the national affiliate, but my club sends me to the annual convention as an official voting delegate? (that happened once).  What if I am one amongst hundreds of other people who serve on one of the national organization's committees?  (I do, right now).  We DO need to clarify if this row includes membership in an organization with millions of members, like my AARP example above?


 * The fourth column is fine using bullet points, I kind of like that it's nice and clear. Do note, however, that some interpret COI to mean that you can't even remove vandalism about yourself, you have to post a request on the talk page -- because some people think anything negative is "vandalism" even if it passes all the big capital letter policies.  Again, we get into the POV of the edits, which is inevitable, really.   Montanabw (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There has to be a line where we say "if your COI is this severe, you shouldn't be trusting yourself to edit neutrally". There's plenty of gray area under that line, such as your valuable horse collection, but the line has to be somewhere. Gigs (talk) 22:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I like the concept of this chart, as it outlines where the gray area is. Could at least narrow the drama potential.  Montanabw (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The reason I chose to include the forth column on "Potential Wikipedia Policy violations", is that it is these types of behavior that are directly problematic, not the potential COI. The reason is that many editors use anonymous usernames, so a potential COI can not be identified, whereas improper behavior can. Also, because I believe that publicising a potential COI may violate Wikipedia's privacy and outing policies, the focus falls on the misbehavior, not a potential COI. --Iantresman (talk) 01:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC) True, some stuff doesn't matter who you are, just don't do it. Motive or COI is irrelevant. Montanabw (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

@Gigs. I would argue that members of organisations do not benefit directly (ie financially), so there is no major COI. The member has to pay to join, they don't get recompense, unlike an official may. I can't think of an organisation where this could be a problem over other organisations. If I'm a member of the Democratic Party, Automobile Association, Local Scrabble Club, Flat Earth Society, it shows I'm interested, and probably just as fanatical as everyone else. --Iantresman (talk) 01:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Interest is not COI. It could be argued, reducto ad absurdum (or whatever the Latin is) that anyone with an interest is automatically not neutral.  Or, as I like to joke, "biased people are the ones that don't agree with you." LOL!   Montanabw (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Ian, thanks for doing this. I like the healthy interest v COI divide. I don't agree with some of the parameters, e.g. saying that some forms of paid advocacy are okay – the examples you give are okay, but they're not paid advocacy. Also, an official of a group writing about that group on WP wouldn't only require disclosure, but would require that he stop. And writing about yourself isn't a potential COI, but an actual one. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I suggested potential COI, because I was under the impression that some forms of editing, eg. removing vandalism, BLP conflicts and uploading images, are fine. So maybe we just need to to state in the Potential COI column which activities are actual COI. I've now colour-code the boxes. Can develop the table into a form that most are happy, with the aim of including something like it into the article? --Iantresman (talk) 09:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This is where we get into our crap terminology again. The COI isn't potential, the COI is a COI.  The edit might potentially be benign.   We really need to agree on more precise terminology. Gigs (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * See WP:ACTUALCOI for the sourced distinction. If someone has an article on WP, he has a potential COI, all the time, in relation to that article. He has an actual COI if he edits it, or takes part in a deletion discussion or something similar (if he exercises judgment in relation to the article's existence or content).


 * He has that COI if he removes vandalism, but we don't care, because it's trivial. But a COI is a fact about the world, given a certain definition of COI (the definition the legal and academic communities use, which is about roles and relationships, not states of mind). That fact about the world doesn't change just because a person is only reverting vandalism. That we don't care about the COI in that circumstance doesn't change the fact of it.


 * I like your chart a lot and the idea of COI v healthy interest, and I think if we can find parameters people might agree on, it would be a big step forward. So thank you for your work on it! SlimVirgin (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with both Slim and Gigs here. A COI is a COI, no matter how you slice it.  What WP must decide (and then articulate plainly) is when a COI exists, what contributions are undesirable (not in the best interest of WP norms) and what contributions are acceptable (presumably consistent with WP norms) are the questions to be answered.  The undesirability or acceptability of an COI/Contribution nexus is what must be articulated well. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Mike makes a good point. As I have said now, repeatedly, is that we have to both define COI AND define what is and is not acceptable for a COI. The remedy follows the definition and the definition reflects the remedy.  The harsher the remedy, the tighter the description, the looser the restriction, the broader the definition.  JMO.   Montanabw (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I favor fairly transparent disclosure if it allows for some secondary or even primary COI editing, because I really don't have an issue with a truly NPOV edit by anyone, regardless of COI - it's the result that counts. A person with a COI should be allowed to remove true vandalism, BLP conflicts and upload images. Though I think Jimbo and WMF favor a blanket ban on all paid advocacy, I personally would primarily focus on restricting third-party paid advocacy, as that opens up a whole cottage industry dedicated to ends that oppose the purpose of wikipedia and WP:NOADS. However, the line for people with secondary (or even primary) connections to the subject is fuzzier, restrictions and disclosure is appropriate, scrutiny definitely so, but not an outright ban - an employee of foo company could write in an NPOV style, subject to the "anyone can edit" scrutiny of the community. Though I think they should be mandated to disclose their connection, I don't think they should be banned wholesale. Some very good-intentioned people, particularly in small companies, may want to work on a wikipedia article. If they can do it without violating NPOV, COPYVIO, NOTABILITY and so on, this should be cautiously monitored, but allowed. And frankly, it's already happening, as noted, via anon IPs anyway... Montanabw (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Layout Suggestion: In my opinion, "Potential Wikipedia Policy violations Unacceptable behavior" should be on the bottom, not on the right, with the "Type" box saying "All editors" or even "All editors without exception". --Guy Macon (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

My layout suggestion would be this: 4 columns
 * Editor affiliation (Describes the COI the editor has with article subjects and topics)
 * Acceptable contributions (your healthy interest) (These would be scenarios where the COI/contributions do not harm the goals of WP
 * Undesirable contributions (your potential COI) (These would be scenarios where the COI/contribution would be deemed to harm the goals of WP
 * Cautionary advice (this column would be used to relate specific advice, links to policy, guidelines, etc. that might inform the editor who finds themselves in column 1).

This might be an extensive table, but compiling it with as much precision as possible might lead us to more universal, understandable guidance on COI.--Mike Cline (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

--Iantresman (talk) 18:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * So here's a version as suggested by Guy Macon for comparison:


 * Exactly what I had in mind. I like it. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Add WP:TOU: Misrepresenting your affiliation with any individual or entity -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. --Iantresman (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I see potential for abuse with WP:HARASS the way it's worded; a mere inquiry could be taken as harassment... JMO. I'm neutral on layout, though as a laptop owner, I liked the horizontal layout of the first chart better, though the content of the first column of the second chart is well-stated.  Montanabw (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you think of alternative wording re WP:HARASS. I just want to make editors aware of improper claims of WP:COI, where editors really have a healthy interest. On my narrow smartphone, the 3 columns worked better than 4. --Iantresman (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd stick to HARASS or [{WP:OUTING]] -- something consistent with that article's statement: "Statements of intent to properly use normal Wikipedia processes, such as dispute resolution, are not threats." Perhaps saying, "inquiries about a possible COI must not violate the terms of WP:OUTING and expressing concern about a possible COI must not escalate to threats or harassment"  -- just as an example.   Montanabw (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * All done, I took the wording from WP:OUTING.--Iantresman (talk) 09:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Adding table to article?
So is it worth considering adding this table to the main page on COI? --Iantresman (talk) 09:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Before attempting to add this to the guideline, I’d really like to see some clarity around parts of the language used.
 * We use article “subject” and article “topic” interchangeably in all our guidelines. Yet in this COI text, we seem to be using “subject” as referring only to human “subjects”, ie. Bob Jones. This needs clarification in the language, because having a COI impacts editing related article “topics” not just article [human] subjects.
 * I would like to see the use of the word organization as defined by WP:ORG adopted as the only reference to organizational affiliations eliminating all other terms and phrases. I would explicitly link to WP:ORG the first time organization was used.  I would eliminate all references to “business”, “professional companies” (as opposed to an unprofessional company) and other organizational type references. Just use “Organization”  Using business, et al in lieu of listing all types of organizations, introduces a bias, POV and confusion that this guideline should not have.
 * When talking about affiliation, include “employee” (broadly construed may be waged, salaried, contract, grants), members (relevant if organization is a membership (voting) organization where members are involved in governance), or governance (members of boards of directors or advisory boards)
 * When talking about editors writing about organizations when there is an affiliation with that organization, the scope must include articles not just explicitly about the organization, but article topics explicitly associated with the purpose of the organization. This is especially relevant to organizations that have an “advocacy” mission (as do most non-profits).  Advocacy is inherently promotional and biased, so editors with affiliations with an organization with an advocacy mission, should be cautioned against making contributions on topics that are directly related to the area of advocacy.
 * Just some ideas that would provide some clarity to the ideas in the table.
 * --Mike Cline (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It's good to have feedback like this, as I didn't intent "subject" to refer to a person, but an obvious ambiguity, now that you mention it. I think it should be clear that COI does not apply to just an article, but any statement in any article. Would like me to attempt the changes, or would like to... I think fresh eyes is good. Surrounding the original table with the template tag: ..  would let us keep the current version, without it taking up much space. --Iantresman (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Mike's comments illustrate a slippery slope we must be careful not to access. His definitions, if used, put a lot more things under COI, and hence we may need to think about what goes into each of your columns.  Just guessing, but what if Mike is a member of Trout Unlimited? (I don't know this, maybe he's not, I'm just using this as a theoretical).  Is he going to be forced to disclose this when he is taking Rainbow trout to FAC?  (Which he is doing at the moment).  Or my example of being a member of the Arabian Horse Association?  Must I ping this on any article related to horses or Arabian horses?  Seriously, I want this can of worms clarified  Something that stopa Mike from editing articles about fish or myself about horses would be, IMHO, counterproductive to the concept of wiki and its need for editors with expert knowledge in certain areas.   Montanabw (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd certainly like to keep the table as simple as possible, the less in it, the easiest it is to read. --Iantresman (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with this chart because it includes actual conflicts of interest and calls them "potential." Actually makes a bad, laughably weak guideline even worse than it currently is. Coretheapple (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you would disagree with the chart, if you disagree with just one word? If we removed the word "potential", would that be satisfactory? --Iantresman (talk) 01:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It helps. I am confused by the parenthetical "(This is an actual conflict of interest)" Since the word "potential" has been removed, is that necessary? Coretheapple (talk)


 * I like the idea of a chart. The problem with it as written is that it contradicts the guideline by saying all you need to do, if you're writing an article about yourself, family, book or business, is disclose and be prudent (not clear what the latter would mean) – whereas the guideline strongly discourages and very strongly discourages such editing, depending on whether money's involved.


 * Also, I initially liked the play on words between healthy interest and conflict of interest (where the word interest is being used differently), but I'm concerned now that it would feed into the idea that interest means the same thing in these two phrases.


 * I'm also not sure why "this is an actual conflict of interest" is repeated, and without the contrast with potential it might be confusing. A potential COI is when WP hosts an article about your book: you haven't edited the article but you have a potential COI in relation to it. You have an actual COI if you do edit the article (or vote in an AfD or exercise any other judgment in relation to it, other than making the decision to stay away from it). So all the things in this chart (writing about yourself, your business, etc) are actual COIs. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * My problem, SV, is that in reality, a lot of the more literal editors on wiki can't tell the difference between healthy interest and conflict of interest - and that's the concern - you can't idiot-proof something because idiots are such geniuses(!) I keep offering myself as an example here; at the moment, I don't make my living working with horses, though I have in the past and still am occasionally paid for assorted consulting or horse show judging (like one or two gigs a year, perhaps), am a member of a national organization, and have occasionally been involved in national issues via one committee I'm on that "meets" via email about once every four months or so. (If that...) I've published a few articles in assorted publications (none paid yet, though I spotted one national magazine using images I uploaded to commons and plagiarizing me rather blatently ... /snark) I see absolutely no reason for me to declare a COI, yet some people would probably want to ban me from editing any horse articles at all! If we don't want the drama that B2C's proposal below would generate (and B2C makes a good point, actually) we also want a guideline with enough wiggle room that we avoid witch hunting.  I like the stoplight concept - this is OK, this might not be OK, this is definitely not ok.  Preferably, with wide, gray, fuzzy margins that account for a damn good editor who also has a COI to be continued to be allowed to edit.    Montanabw (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

OTRS discussion on allowing corp/entity usernames
A discussion with OTRS volunteers on a possible policy change Gigs (talk) 19:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

We all have biases. Why pick on COI? Live and let live.
Trying to regulate COI directly is a huge waste of time and effort.

Given the anonymous nature of Wikipedia editing, it's surely trivial to get away with COI editing no matter what the rules are. Just like it's trivial to get away with any kind of biased editing on WP.

Thankfully, as I've said before, it's not the motivation of an edit that matters, but the content of the edit that matters. If someone edits something about the XYZ Corp, whether that person has a COI (perhaps he's the CEO of XYZ) shouldn't matter. What matters is the content. Either it's compliant with our content specific policies, or it's not. If it is, then it's fine to remain. If it's not, then it needs to be taken out. Who put it in or why (including whether they have a COI or not) does not matter.

I love and appreciate the healthy/potential-COI tables being worked on above. But if a friend, relative or business partner was sufficiently notable to have an article on WP, and I made an edit to it, so what? If it's properly cited to RS and does not conflict with any other policies or guidelines, why does it matter whether I or someone without a potential COI put in that material?

Imagine if all the time and energy spent on the supposed COI issue was instead directed to making more sure edits complied without content-specific policies and guidelines.

It seems to me we should be encouraging editing, even COI editing. For example, if Bill Gates wants to contribute to improve Microsoft, I don't see why that would necessarily be any more of a problem than a staunch Obama supporter editing Barack Obama. If any of the edits are a problem, someone else will revert or fix it, just as we do for any other problematic edits.

We all have biases that affect our edits. COI is but one of those biases, and is no more problematic than most any other biased edit, often less problematic. I say, live and let live. Have faith in our content-based policies and guidelines.

I honestly believe WP would be improved if this entire page was deleted. --B2C 00:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * That's why, in my table above, I've tried to move the focus away from COI (which is not a sanctionable offence in itself), and highlight actual policy violations. As you rightly say, everyone has their own bias, and we should WP:AGF, unless they mess up, either inadvertently or deliberately. --Iantresman (talk) 10:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You two raise good points. I think, though, that the problem raised by Jimbo and WMF is paid editing and the risk it poses to WP:NOADS and such.  So the line becomes a fine one if money gets involved.  Born2Cycle, what are your thoughts on how the paid editing issue dovetails with COI?   Montanabw (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * B2C, Two points: WP:COI is a guideline, i.e., a 'semi-official advice', not a policy. Further, it is not a content guideline; it is a behavioural guideline. I.e., it kicks in when editor's behavior caused by COI makes a trouble for wikipedia. IMO it is stated in the guideline pretty much clearly (although the guildeline looks quite bloated to my tastes). You are right the content is that matters. But bad behavior will screw up not only content, but also life of other content creators and hence hits not only that particular article but other good content will be lost or delayed because a good editor it tied up in a struggle with a POV-pusher. Yes, it was repeated numerously that we all have POV, but COI is a well-identified specific source of POV which we have reasons (mentioned in the guideline) to consider rather severe. If you feel that your sister is notable, feel free to write about her, but (a) be acutely aware of your own COI (b) stay away from revert wars with other editors who disagree with you.  Staszek Lem (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * There is a fine line, though; NPOV is a policy, things like COI are its children, so to speak. To take the sibling example, there are some editors who would say that you couldn't edit that article at all, not even a vandalism revert. I should try to find that other discussion, it's got some hardcore folks there.  I think it's in one of the paid advocacy threads, but haven't found it yet.    Montanabw (talk) 02:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that COI, as a guideline, does not prevent anyone from editing any article. This seems right, as most people have some kind of "interest", all editors have their own bias, and anonymous editors may have a COI, but their anonymity precludes us discovering it. Regardless of where eaco of us draws the COI line, it is still bad behavior and inappropriate editing that is unacceptable from anyone, and readily apparent irrespective of whether a COI is apparent. --Iantresman (talk) 09:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Behavioral guidelines, which are inherently subjective and the source of untold wasted time and resources, cause more problems than they resolve. To clarify, I consider WP:NPA (for example) to be a content guideline (talk page content, but still content). But policy/guidelines trying to limit or prohibit COI or no-paid-editing address WHY people edit rather than WHAT they edit. That's just nuts. I have no problem with paid editing. If someone wants to pay someone else to expand the article on Napoleon, or IBM, I have no problem with that, as long as they don't violate our content guidelines in those edits. --B2C 23:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I would tend to agree. COI is not a problem per se. Violating policy is the problem, and that may happen irrespective of whether there is a COI. --Iantresman (talk) 01:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Would you support deleting this page? Anyone else? I don't want to spend time and resources on a contentious AfD unless there is good reason to believe it will have consensus support.   --B2C 16:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's an interesting idea, in the sense that it may be better to have no COI guideline rather than a poor and weak one. However, make no mistake about it: an effort to delete the COI guideline will be highly contentious and would very likely result in extensive bad publicity for the project. Arguably it would be a net positive to draw outside attention to the utter cluelessness that prevails concerning COI and the absence of understanding of the seriousness of the issue. Were that to happen, perhaps then the Foundation would awake from its nap and enact necessary strictures against paid editing in its terms of use. The absence of strictures against paid and COI editing was just noted, correctly, by the CEO of Wiki-PR in a recent interview. Coretheapple (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I just don't get it. Peter makes a change that is properly referenced to a favorable article about Foo in the NY Times.  Paul finds out Peter is a paid editor, reverts his change on that grounds that Peter is a paid editor, and Peter is banned.  Mary then reverts Paul's revert to re-insert Peter's original change, since there was nothing inherently wrong with it, and it improved the article.  Why is paid editing, that does not violate our content guidelines, a problem at all?  --B2C 17:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Because (among many many many other things) it would destroy Wikipedia's greatest asset, which is its credibility, just as turning over the New York Times to subjects of its articles would do the same thing. Yes, paid editing is permitted by our COI guideline and by existing policy (Wales statements to the contrary notwithstanding), but that is a problem with the guideline and our policies, it does not mean that paid editing is good. Wikipedia guidelines and rules were not enacted by Hannurabi or Moses; they can do have flaws and gaps and this is one of them. But honestly, I'm not in the mood to reinvent the wheel on this subject. If you feel that paid editing is OK, and many editors do, I'm not going to change your mind. Many editors do not have much real-life experience in this matter, or have a kind of libertarian philosophy, or a desire to cash in, that makes any kind of understanding of the issues impossible. Also, Wikipedia's reputation is a collective issue for the project and for people like Wales and the WMF Foundation, and is not a problem for any individual editor. We are not employed here and do not put Wikipedia on our resumes. So my passion for arguing the issue has declined over the past months. Coretheapple (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We are not journalists. We are not researchers.  We don't have anonymous sources. We're not doing original research.  We don't ask our readers to trust us.   Our credibility stems directly and totally from our CONTENT policy.  EVERYTHING must be sourced to reliable sources, and is VERIFIABLE.  We must emphasize that OVER and OVER.  That's why COI doesn't matter.  That's why paid editing doesn't matter.  We should be credible because of WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NOR, period.  And if we and Wales can't explain and defend that, THAT puts the credibility of this project in question for more than failing to have some convoluted pointless and unenforceable COI/paid-editing policies.  --B2C 19:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said, it's been argued to death and I don't have much more to say on the subject. Coretheapple (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The good news is that attempts to make related nutty rules into policies have failed. No_paid_advocacy.  --B2C 22:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Most of the contributors in this section seem to be entirely clueless how the real world works. If Wikipedia in effect offers free advertising to everybody - guess what? - the "encyclopedia" will be filled up with ads. Even though we have content rules and guidelines that say "no advertising" that doesn't mean that the ads will disappear- rather the advertisers will just fight over their free ads until volunteers drop from exhaustion.
 * Let me remind everybody about the rules for this page:

"Any editor who discusses proposed changes to WP:COI or to any conflict of interest policy or guideline, should disclose in that discussion if he or she has been paid to edit on Wikipedia."

Smallbones( smalltalk ) 22:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * That's a commonsensical rule but I'm not seeing it at the top of this page. Where is it situated? Coretheapple (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I just don't see it, . Not having a rule against paid editing is NOT allowing free advertising to anybody.  You say "Even though we have content rules and guidelines that say "no advertising" that doesn't mean that the ads will disappear".  Yes, it does.  Case in point: how the real world works.  In the real world, Wikipedia has had content rules and a guidelines that say "no advertising" since at least 2003  and... guess what?  The few ads that ever appear practically instantly disappear.  Content rules against advertising are highly effective.  The real world demonstrates that rules against "paid editing" are not needed to avoid ads on Wikipedia. For the record, nobody has every paid me anything for even a single byte I've added, deleted or changed on Wikipedia.  --B2C 00:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You should actually read the guideline before proposing to delete it. The disclosure rule for paid editors on this page (and others) is the final paragraph of the introduction of WP:COI. I've now copied it to the top of this page. Your statement "The few ads that ever appear practically instantly disappear," is ludicrous.  Have you heard about Wiki-PR?  The investigation into their activities took many months, and still there were editors who were willing to argue to the death that they shouldn't be banned.  And Wiki-PR is the tip of the iceberg.Smallbones( smalltalk ) 03:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've read the guideline. I know about Wiki-PR.  Many months could have been saved by not doing that investigation.  Look at the content.  Is it grounded in RS, V and NOR?  If yes, then it's fine.  If not, then whack it.  Done.  Same process for every article, every edit.    The hand-wringing is really stupid.  --B2C 07:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * So put this page up for deletion. Go for it. Coretheapple (talk) 00:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * B2C has a point, but man oh man the three years of drahmahz that shall ensue. But I do think that we need to look at content.  Policy drives content.  I don't think that paid editing is inherently "free advertising" because we have the five pillars and other very strong guidelined, WP:NOADS being right up there.  My suggestion would be to have a fairly clear guideline for DISCLOSURE of COI, (the discussion above about "potential" versus "actual" indicates that yes, we still don't agree on what COI is...) but with that in place, then no restrictions on COI editors, the community itself can police violations of the rules, and if they can write a decent NPOV article, let the work speak for itself.   Montanabw (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I think a requirement to disclose COI or paid editing is just stupid. Almost completely unenforceable.  Even in the few cases where it works (the editor with the COI discloses), what exactly does that accomplish, besides flushing AGF down the toilet?  Speaking of AGF, it strikes me that any effort to police or regulate COI or paid editing is in and of itself a violation of AGF. The whole point of AGF, as applied to a COI situation, is that it should work something like this:
 * a) A (undisclosed) COI editor makes some good edits to an article about a company but also inserts some positive fluff without proper sourcing. The fluff is noticed and is quietly reverted citing WP:RS in the edit summary.  The editors learns his lesson
 * If we require disclosure, it's more likely to go something like this:
 * b) A disclosed COI editor makes some good edits to an article about a company but also inserts some positive fluff without proper sources. All of the edits are reverted due to a so-called "COI violation".  OR:
 * c) A (undisclosed) COI editor makes some good edits to an article but also inserts some positive fluff without proper sources. Someone suspects a COI influence, a 3 month COI investigation ensues resulting in finding out that the editor is the son of the company's owner.  All of his edits are reverted and he is banned.
 * Under what scenario does Wikipedia best flourish? I'm thinking (a).  Very little good and much harm comes from even attending to motivation (like requiring COI disclosure) rather than content.  --B2C 23:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Your logic, B2C, is pretty sound. And the witchhunt mentality you describe is a problem. My idea is that COI editing has to only be disclosed, but no ban whatsoever, content and policy is all that matters, but if an editor is trolled or in violation of policy, the COI is one piece of evidence pointing to a POV-pushing edit. But then again, the attribution of motive IS the core problem you are addressing, so I can see problems even with my proposal. But here's the thing: WP in general is vehemently opposed -and rightly so, IMHO - to accepting advertising of any kind, that's a pillar and at the core of wikipedia. From that core, Jimbo and WMF are of the view that paid editing (and by extension, COI editing) is a corollary of that pillar. How would you respond to that concern? (If I were in their shoes, I'd ask you: a) do you think advretising is OK or b)  do you think COI is different from advertising, and if so, how?)   Montanabw (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Define "advertising". If it's manifested as content in articles consistent with WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and our other content policies,  it's fine.  If it's in violation of any of those polices, then it should be reverted accordingly for that reason, not because it's "advertising".  It is that simple. For example, imagine if the head of GM advertising edits a WP article, or pays you to to edit  WP article, about a Chevrolet car to have it say that it won Motor Trend Car of the Year.  Is that "advertising"?  Should that be allowed?  I say if it's cited to the relevant Motor Trend article, or, even better, to a NY Times or similar secondary source referring to the Motor Trend award, it's perfectly fine.  The COI of the person who made the edit, or whether they were paid to do it, or whether they disclosed who they were or that they were paid, should not matter.  All that should matter is that the material meets our content standards.  Period.   That's what's so great our content standards.  That's what's so great about Wikipedia.  It's about time we let the world know!   --B2C 07:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the original "encyclopedia anyone can edit" message got us off on the wrong foot. We've evolved.  We're seasoned.  The message today should be (and is to a growing extent), "WIKIPEDIA HAS STANDARDS; you can't just say whatever you want there, it has to be well sourced and properly cited." All this focus on COI and paid editing distracts us from delivering that message.  It sends the opposite message.  It suggests we don't have such standards, and that's why we need to address COI and paid editing directly.  It's wrong.  It's detrimental to our mission.   We can manage and control COI and paid editing just fine, because of our standards.  Wikipedia rocks.   --B2C 19:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The reason COI is an issue is the same reason it's an issue anywhere else. A judge still recuses himself even if he's completely confident he could render a fair verdict in a case where he has a COI.  A fully results-oriented approach is not used in the real world because it will always lead to questions whether the COI played a role or not, questions that damage the credibility of the parties involved.  It's for the same reason we can't just have a results-oriented COI policy here that allows any sort of COI "as long as the editing is good".
 * Falling back on stricter referencing isn't a solution. We are here to write an encyclopedia and that requires editorial judgement and discretion.  No source is going to tell us how our articles should be structured, what amount of coverage we should devote to a particular sub-topic, etc.  We have wide latitude in what we write here.  We aren't a research summary service that provides a list of cited facts, we write encyclopedia articles. Gigs (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * But we're not like "anywhere else". No matter how confident a judge is in his or her own ability to render a fair verdict, nobody else has reason to have faith in that.  Not to mention how difficult it is to reverse a judge's ruling.  Since we're not rendering verdicts or creating content, everything we publish is verifiable, and nothing is final, there is no need for anyone to trust us or have faith in our judgment.  That's what we need to be stressing.  By having guidelines against COI and paid editing we're diminishing what is our greatest value. There is no reliance on "as long as the editing is good".  When I use WP for research, and I find anything that's dubious at all, I check the reference myself.  If it's not there, or doesn't support the content, I know not to rely on it.  Verifiable does not mean it's necessarily supported by reliable sources; it means you can verify whether it is supported by reliable sources.  And you can do that just as well for content entered by an editor who is paid, or one with a COI, as you can by a pure and virtuous editor. It's true that we have latitude, and it's possible that we can use that latitude to leave out crucial material, and that makes us imperfect.  But that cost, I believe, is minor, compared to the cost of having and especially trying to enforce rules against COI or paid editing.  --B2C 23:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a very simplistic view that largely ignores my point that we have a wide latitude when it comes to amount of coverage to devote to any particular subtopic, and how we characterize claims.  NPOV is ultimately about truth despite waffling to the contrary, and we have to decide which claims we will present as "truth" and which ones merit the treatment of more controversial claims such as specific attribution to the entity claiming it. We make these value judgments every time we edit, and our credibility relies on being able to defend those choices as neutral. Gigs (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC) 17:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * BC2, the bottom line is that if you went to court for theft, you wouldn't want the judge to be the neighbour you'd fallen out with last year because he suspected you were stealing his roses. If a local newspaper ran an article on a new business you'd set up, you wouldn't want the reporter to be the wife of your business rival. For exactly the same reasons, when readers come to Wikipedia to read about an oil company, they don't want the article to have been written by that company. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

IMHO, that's why anyone can edit; companies are here all the time, the most obnoxious stuff is almost always tossed and if they get "butt hurt" about it, they are subject to the same behavioral sanctions as anyone else. That's the beauty of it, and why I see no need for COI witchhunts, bad edits are bad edits. Montanabw (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Samples and examples
Just reverted a pretty blatent COI today here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cheyenne_Frontier_Days&diff=595010960&oldid=586523546   I'm posting it as an example of a pretty typical newbie COI-type edit and would like folks to apply the idea we are discussing here to how one might handle this situation. Montanabw (talk) 04:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Great example. Your edit summary said:
 * (Reverted good faith edits by CheFrontierDays (talk): Um, cut and paste copyvio and ad spam, See WP:COI. (TW))
 * But there was no need to mention WP:COI. All you need to do was cite WP:ADMASQ:
 * (Reverted good faith edits by CheFrontierDays (talk): Cut and paste not allowed. Need citations to reliable sources. See WP:COPYVIO, WP:ADMASQ, WP:CITE and WP:RS. (TW))
 * In other words, this user named CheFronteirDays probably does have a COI, and may even be paid by the event, but he or she can still contribute in a positive fashion. They just need to know our relevant policies. They'll learn.  We just need to WP:AGF  --B2C 16:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Or they won't learn and their only interest in Wikipedia is as a promotional vehicle, a far more common scenario for accounts that start out as spam SPAs.  Yes, we don't want to alienate the few exceptional people in this situation who are actually interested in writing an encyclopedia,  but they are the rare exceptions.   Gigs (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What part of WP:AGF do you not understand? --B2C 17:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The word assumption means a judgement rendered in a situation where there is a lack of proof or evidence. The vast majority of promotional SPAs stop editing after their initial attempts to insert advertising fail, some percentage of them try the same stunt again, under the same account or under a different account.  Some vanishingly small percentage of them become active editors with varied topic interests.  I'm not saying we shouldn't give them the opportunity to become a productive editor, and we generally give them many chances to do just that.  Their primary focus in the beginning is on "fixing" their target article though, so the COI guidelines are a good place to send them, since not many will say "Oh well, I guess I'll go edit articles on an obscure fungus now" Gigs (talk) 19:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

BTW- In this situation you really should give the newbie a talk page welcome, because the edit history isn't necessarily a place they will look (or even be aware of existing). I have left them one of the "policy welcome" templates. Gigs (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

@ Gigs, Where is the template you used to get that first section? That's a cool one. (And thanks for doing that, I was too cranky to follow up as I should have) also thanks for ADMASQ, didn't know about that one. Montanabw (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC) @B2C, you are right that we should AGF on these folks. Some do really well. A year or two ago, I helped someone with a COI to vastly improve the Gypsy horse; they clearly had expertise and access to solid source material that I did not, set me straight on where the usual sources are incorrect. In turn, I reviewed their additions, and still do - I am satisfied that NPOV and WP:RS are met. Likewise, a lovely but now inactive editor, ThatPeskyCommoner, took New Forest Pony clear to TFA, in the process making vast improvments to several other pony breed articles and wrote the wonderful History of the horse in Britain; I believe she is an owner and breeder of NF Ponies, hence, has a COI, but it didn't keep her from becoming an outstanding editor. OTOH, Gigs is right that 90% of these initially COI editors can't get past it. So it all depends. Montanabw (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Gigs, even though we know the earth is round, we can assume it is flat, and get along reasonably well. That is, knowledge does not prevent us from making assumptions to the contrary.  Similarly, we can assume someone acting in bad faith is acting in good faith. I argue that is the main point of AGF atWT:AGF. Anyway, my point here is that there is no need to drop AGF for the 90% of COI editors that are acting in bad faith, much less for the 10%.  --B2C 22:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Writing about myself
Dear Friends, Wiki doesnot allow us to write about myself, why?

Will it not be accepted if I write it in 'third person'?

Along, can I write about my team, set up for social works by us?

Please kindly answer as I am a new user of wiki.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yogirajbiplab (talk • contribs) 08:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You are very strongly discouraged from writing about yourself, because it is nearly impossible for a person to be completely impartial in that situation. Also, before you or your "team" has an article on Wikipedia, you must ensure that you or your team would be considered notable by having significant coverage in reliable sources. Have books been written about you or your team? Magazine articles? What accomplishments have you or your team received that have gained widespread attention? If you are certain that you or your team qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia, your best bet is to go to Articles for Creation for help in getting the process started. You will need to have patience though, there are thousands of articles waiting for submission, so it takes time to have them reviewed, and a great number of them are rejected. The alternative to this process though is the probability that an article that you create yourself being deleted swiftly. --  At am a  頭 17:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * If you can write about yourself while relying only on knowledge that can be obtained in reliable sources, go for it. Bend over backwards to make sure everything is cited properly.  --B2C 18:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yogiraj Biplab
 * Team Hungama
 * --Guy Macon (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If Guy Macon's links above are links to you, and your team, then I'm pretty confident that neither will meet our notability requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia, I'm sorry. --  At am a  頭 19:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Or you can think of it as a challenge. Go and do something great that changes the world for the better, and you will become notable enough to have a Wikipedia article about you. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

"Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise"
For quite some time, this sentence was part of WP:COI, and referenced in discussions: Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. It was removed in this edit, part of a series of edits by an editor doing a general clean-up and copy edit (see series of edits by in late October '12). I'd assumed there was a specific reason and consensus for its removal, but that doesn't appear to be the case (which isn't meant to reflect in any way whatsoever on SlimVirgin's conduct). Quite possibly it was deleted because it was under "citing yourself" and kind of peripheral to that section. It's a pretty important issue. Should it be restored?

Personally I think it should be. WP should be making clear to people with such expertise that they're welcome here.

Note, I recently opened a thread at COI/N on myself and whether I have a COI because of my own profession: WP:COIN. I'm not trying to game that discussion, and have mentioned in that thread that I'm posting here. Feel free to comment there too. Thanks. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 06:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Unless someone objects, I am going to wait a few days and then WP:BOLDly restore the text. I would also note that since it was removed we have had several RfCs with wide participation on related issues. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC) See below. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It's already in the guideline, expressed slightly differently; see last sentence of WP:EXTERNALREL: "But subject-matter experts are welcome to contribute to articles in their areas of expertise, while being careful to make sure that their external relationships in that field do not interfere with their primary role on Wikipedia." SlimVirgin (talk) 04:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks! IMO, that's an improvement on what I was contemplating restoring. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * OK... thanks for explaining this, and I think I get it. It does mean the same thing as the original wording, plus an explanation of where COI does enter in:  COI doesn't arise from subject-matter expertise in itself, but rather from the external relationships one may have in that field.  So (e.g.) a psychiatrist wouldn't be conflicted in editing an article about antidepressants, but would be if she were getting paid to promote a specific antidepressant.  Is that right? --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 07:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * IMHO, that's the way I read it. See also WP:CHEESE for a humorous outline of the concept.   Montanabw (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: Terms of use/Paid contributions amendment
It appears that the Terms of use/Paid contributions amendment will be passed, at least in some form, and that this page may confuse editors in some respects if the amendment does pass. Yes, there are 3 weeks left in the comment period, and then the Board of Trustees does then have to pass the amendment specifically by a resolution. But, it's also clear that only 21% of !voters oppose the amendment and that we'll have some clean up to do here once the amendment is implemented.

I simply propose that we get to work on the needed changes now. My specific proposals include:

If the amendment is implemented
On that day we post at the beginning of the text: "Wikipedia's Terms of Use have recently been changed, see (link). As a result we may be making adjustments to this guideline.  Until these adjustments are made all paid editors must strictly follow the terms of both this guideline and the Terms of Use."

Specific changes that should be discussed

 * Directly under "paid editing" we should add.
 * "All paid editors must read the Terms of Use (link), particularly section xx (link) and abide by those terms."


 * In the Paid Advocacy section immediately after point 2.
 * "then you must disclose each paid edit and are very strongly discouraged from directly editing Wikipedia"
 * in the next paragraph, change "You should provide full disclosure of your connection" to "You must provide full disclosure of your connection"


 * Under "You and your circle"
 * Change "you are advised to refrain from editing articles directly, and to provide full disclosure of the connection" to "you are strongly discouraged from editing articles directly, and must provide full disclosure of the connection."

There are many other passages that will need this cleanup. I think it's time to get started. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 20:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that interpreting the TOU amendment will probably require an RfC. I hate to have to do it, it feels like it's bureaucracy in response to bureaucracy, but I think if it's not done that way someone is going to just revert any changes made and accuse people of making major guideline changes without the backing of consensus. I wish I could say that it wouldn't be controversial to make common-sense changes to this guideline with the support of the amendment, but recent discussions on this talk page have convinced me otherwise (two weeks of discussion in the beginning of February filled up all of Archive 15 for example). --  At am a  頭 21:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * We also have to keep in mind, if this is enacted by the Foundation, that whatever is done on Wikipedia as compliance has to be a policy, not a guideline. Also RfCs take a long time and things get talked to death. The basic requirements of whatever resolution is passed must be complied with by all Foundation projects, including Wikipedia. I think that compliance is going to have to be prompt. Coretheapple (talk) 22:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What we would probably have to do, then, is make a whole new page as a variation of WP:PAID, make it a policy, and make some mention of it in this guideline. Because really, the issue of paid editing is closely-related but still tangential to conflicts of interest. It doesn't make sense to turn the whole COI guideline into a policy just because we need to adopt a policy for paid editors. --  At am a  頭 23:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * What Atama and Coreapple say above convinces me that the needed effort here, if the amendment passes, will take a long time. But some effort is going to be needed and we may as well start now.  I'd like to divide this up into 3 pieces:


 * the 3 sentences under "If the amendment is implemented"
 * everybody should agree that if anything is passed, that a section like this should be added on the day it passes. It just says that the amendment and WP:COI could easily be interpreted as being contradictory, but you must follow both (or the stricter of the two).  It may take some time to reconcile any apparent inconsistencies, but we'll do it.
 * Changing simple things like "is advised" to "is required". This will take some time, but it really shouldn't be controversial.
 * Ultimately this step is just a copyediting job
 * Coretheapple says that a new policy must be done to implement the ToU change. I don't think that is quite accurate.  Just about everything here on paid editing (and there is a lot) will have a certain extra strength, and hopefully admins and the ArbCom will enforce it, at least to the degree that they enforce other guidelines. I'm always astounded when people say that they they can ignore this guideline because its not a policy.  Nobody says that about any other guideline.  In short all the "paid editor" material can be expected to be enforced, all "other WP:COI" should be enforced as well but won't have the extra strength of the "paid editor" material. A paid editor policy could be started but won't be needed immediately.
 * There's no reason not to record supports and opposes on this, but I don't see a reason for a month long RfC.
 * New measures that are meant to "fill in the holes" of the amendment, e.g. how to properly disclose a paid edit.
 * lots of people have said that we have to have every paid edit disclosed in the edit summary, otherwise they'll simply going to get lost in the shuffle.
 * These measures are not simple copyediting and will be more controversial, so should probably be left until after we get agreement on the copyediting job. They would be good candidates to put into any new policy, but it is not required that they be in a policy to be enforced.
 * An RfC might be needed on these measures.
 * Smallbones( smalltalk ) 01:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Just to note tou changes become Wikipedia policy automatically, see TOU. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In that case, we won't need a specific policy created, we'd just refer to the TOU if violations occur. But we still probably need to modify the COI guideline since the amendment will affect how COI editors have to behave. Just in the same way that policies like NPOV and BLP affect the COI guideline. --  At am a  頭 17:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, since guidelines supplement policy. But initially, we just have to quote or summarize the applicable parts of the new TOU, here. As we already do with other parts of the TOU. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If it's enough initially to only quote the TOU, and not in any way analyze or interpret it, I suppose there should be no controversy in that. Just as a supplement to what is in the guideline now, without actually altering the existing content. --  At am a  頭 20:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Post Terms of Use change
The proposed change to the terms of use regarding disclosing paid edits has now gone through the required 30 day comment period, and the results of the feedback seem very clear. Just counting !votes is of course oversimplified, but gives a strong indication that the change will be implemented (up to the board of course).
 * Support 55.3%, 790
 * Support, but should be stronger 18.5%, 264
 * Support, but should *not* be stronger 3.3%, 47
 * Oppose 20.0%, 285
 * Abstain 2.9%, 42
 * total !votes 1428

With only 20.0% opposing the proposed change, I'll predict that the change will be made, essentially as proposed, soon - within a month at the latest.

I do think that the current text of WP:COI would be a bit confusing in spots given the ToU change, so I've done the copyediting needed at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Post Tou update, with my proposed changes (minor copyedits really) highlighted.

I propose that we go ahead with these changes if and when the board acts as I have predicted. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 15:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Link to Meta:Talk:Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment and note that it has been viewed 72,689 times over the 30 days. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 00:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Assuming it goes ahead, as seems likely, the TOU change should certainly be reflected here. However, there will also have to be creation of a policy to reflect it as well, since it is mandated by the Foundation, not nonbinding like the COI guideline. I guess it's possible that the Foundation will be issuing a directive on how its TOU change is supposed to be implemented. Wikipedia cannot have policies that are at variance with the Terms of Use. Coretheapple (talk) 15:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The tou is automatically policy: WP:TOU. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I say we wait to see the final form and directive so we don't have to do it all twice.  Montanabw (talk) 17:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * For example, I am for such a thing, but opposed the draft because the wording in it would accidentally create a monster. And so I wouldn't rule out a modified version. North8000  (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, the changes at
 * Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Post Tou update are all really copyediting, where WP:COI now says something like "should be disclosed" I've put in "must be disclosed." I've also put in the full text of the ToU change (without FAQ).  Since the new ToU will almost certainly have the "must be disclosed" in it, this copyedit will really not change anything, just reflect the board's approval.  As far as doing it twice - since I've already done it once - and since I won't post this if the board doesn't approve as I predicted above, we can review this simple copyediting now, or confuse people later.  Don't feel like you have to review now, but these copyediting changes are going to have to be made sooner or later.  Sooner will be better.


 * I do suggest that after the board's (predicted) approval, that we review the entire guideline - streamlining it would be a great improvement. But that will likely be a longer procedure.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 23:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

RfC to allow role accounts
An RfC regarding allowing role accounts Gigs (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Louise Glover on Wikipedia
When signing up to wikipedia I was on the belief that wikipedia was a truthful source of information. When I googled Louise Glover, the information that I got from Louiseglover.com did not match what I found on wikipedia... so I attempted to change it, to match what this person says themselves. Wikipedia changed it back, saying that my changes resembles someone elses. I dont know what they mean by this ??

As a journalist when searching for info regarding Louise Glover I could not find anything about her career from the last 4 years. Whats going on ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew1416 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You should take this to WP:Conflict of interest noticeboard. The experienced editors who reverted both you and another new editor seem to think you have a conflict of interest.  The edits apparently struck them as promotional.  I know you might be shocked by this, but there are many firms and people who try to promote their products or careers on Wikipedia.  Since we are an encyclopedia rather than an advertising site, we try to stop this promotion.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 18:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Also keep in mind that while we do allow a person's own claims to be used as a reference, we are very careful how that is used. The fact is that we try to verify all information on Wikipedia through reliable sources, and a person can't always be reliable when making claims about themselves. One of the criteria for using a person's self-published information for their own biography is that "it is not unduly self-serving" (that is actually the first criterion in the list). If other editors feel that the information you changed was promotional then it violates that criterion


 * I also wanted to clear up one misconception. You should not assume that Wikipedia is a "truthful source of information". That may sound strange coming from someone like myself who has volunteered a lot of time to this project for more than seven years but it's a fact. Wikipedia never claims to be a truthful source, nor does it even try to be truthful. There's a reason that Wikipedia article can't use Wikipedia itself as a reference. Wikipedia is an aggregate, it's an accumulation of information derived from sources outside of the project. Any information you find can only be trusted as far as the sources used to verify that information. If the sources used for verification are unreliable, or absent, you certainly should not trust the information you read.


 * My advice to you, as a journalist, if you are using Wikipedia for research, is to only use the information in one of our articles as an idea. Don't rely on it though. What if an article was recently vandalized to include something slanderous or nonsense? The most useful thing you can get out of an article is to look at what it is using for references and track down those references yourself. The references should be written by a reliable analyst who will have something you can actually use for information. Consider Wikipedia less of a source of info, and more of a bibliography. --  At am a  頭 18:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Problems caused by "billable hours" editing
I've been noticing this for the last couple of years but realized only recently that "billable hours" are probably the cause.

A paid editor arrives at the talk page, requests something impossible or impenetrable, or points out something trivial that you're surprised they even noticed (a spelling mistake in the third sentence of the fifth section). There's a bit of discussion and the edit takes place or is turned down. Three months later, they arrive asking for almost the same thing, or they offer a new list of sources, or they make the edit that was turned down, though they know they'll be reverted. This can go on for months or years.

If editors keep responding to the requests, it takes up a lot of volunteer time with fruitless discussion. The paid editor often absents himself after his first few posts while the volunteers are left to argue. I used to wonder in some cases (when it was an employee of a contentious company) whether it was deliberate disruption.

But since reading about this issue on the mailing list, I can see that paid editors simply need to justify their existence to their employers: "searched for sources: 12 hours; posted three comments on the talk page and replied to concerns: two hours; made two edits that were reverted: one hour," etc. If they don't make these posts, they have nothing to write in their reports for the employer. So the employer ends up paying for pointless posts, which volunteers feel obliged to respond to at the cost of precious time and good relationships with other editors.

Should we try to write something about this in the guideline – how to spot "billable-hours editing" and the best way to deal with it? Pinging and. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Heh. That's interesting. I really need to get on the gravy train. What am I doing editing for nothing? Actually I'm not sure this represents the usual pattern of employment in the P.R. industry. On-staff p.r. people are salaried, so billable hours are not applicable. I'm not sure about the paid-editing mills, but don't they charge a flat rate per article? It would really be silly from the client perspective to pay someone per billable hour in such a wasteful and unproductive fashion. Coretheapple (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * If you look at the case I linked to above, that's exactly what has happening, to the tune of around $50,000 for a year of editing and a tiny number of edits.


 * Even salaried people have to justify their existence. The head of PR for a company goes to a meeting organized by paid Wikipedians or a PR agency (one of those agencies that offer advice about how to handle WP) to convince her to take WP seriously. She assigns a staff member to edit WP. That staff member has to write reports to tell the PR head what's being done; that means the staff member has to post something on talk, at least, or there's nothing to tell. The head of PR, in turn, has to write reports to her boss showing that the staff member assigned to WP is actually doing something. It's all make-work.


 * It reminds me of the period when the Soviet Union fell and the intelligence archives started being opened up for Western journalists. Intelligence experts warned people not to trust the archives because the spies had had to justify their existence to their bosses by writing nonsensical reports. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * That's certainly true. Many times I have seen posts by on-staff editors that are so trivial, so nit-picky, yet requiring significant editor time to vet, that I was left shaking my head. That's sort of part of the general problem with paid editing, that it expends volunteer time, diverts resources that can be better spent in other areas (such as adding more consequential information to those same articles), and of course requires discussions like this one! Coretheapple (talk) 20:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "Even salaried people have to justify their existence." This is true. I've worked for salary before (I don't now) and even though I wasn't literally logging hours on a timesheet, I still needed to show that I was productive. (I ended up keeping a daily log of what I was working on, which officially was just to keep track of problems and solutions but unofficially was my way of showing that I wasn't slacking off each day.) And a salaried person who doesn't seem to be logging the hours you'd expect from an hourly person can appear to be abusing their situation and might be pressured to make up for that. So I could easily see that even someone not literally paid by the hour still has to show that they're putting in time on behalf of the client.


 * Given all that, maybe it's not so much an issue of "billable hours" as it is "staying billable", or "logging billable work". It's just a matter of semantics, but keeping it as inclusive as possible to accommodate different situations may make it more useful for someone. I could see someone saying "this isn't hourly work so it doesn't apply" when in principle it still does. --  At am a  頭 20:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I support this in general, the only problem is how to get the proper wording into the guideline. As a simple attempt to start off that discussion, I'll suggest putting the following as the 2nd paragraph under "paid editing":
 * Paid editors, especially those who are paid by the hour or submit "billable hours" to justify their pay, must respect the volunteer nature of the project and keep their discussions short. No volunteer editor should be subjected to long, tedious, or rambling discussions by somebody who is being paid by the hour to argue with them. Keep it short and to the point, otherwise you will likely be violating several Wikipedia guidelines and policies, e.g. WP:Tendentious editing, WP:Disruptive editing, WP:WikiBullying, or WP:Civility.

I'm sure somebody can come up with something better, but this might cover the basics. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 01:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * LOL, it's really blunt but I like it. :) --  At am a  頭 02:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd support something like that. Some suggested tweaks: "Paid editors, especially those who are paid by the hour, or who submit "billable hours" to justify their salaries, must respect the volunteer nature of the project and keep their discussions short. No volunteer editor should be subjected to long or repetitive discussions by someone who is being paid to argue with them," etc. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Though I appreciate the specific concern being raised, I do think that all editors (volunteer or not) benefit from not having to go through long, tediously rambling discussions, whether they originate from an editor paid by the hour, or not paid at all. So I would much prefer just emphasizing the problems with swamping any conversation, regardless of who is doing so. isaacl (talk) 02:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It would be inappropriate for the text to be expanded to include talk page discussions in general. This is not the place for guidelines/suggestions beyond COI issues. Any such expansion of applicability would require discussion and consensus on other pages. I also consider it unlikely you would gain consensus to, effectively, censor talk page discussions. &mdash; Makyen (talk) 03:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Just something to bear in mind that matters discussed in this guideline may be redundant with others, and so in the interest of providing clear guidance, avoiding overlap may be desirable. The proposed text addition points out that overly-lengthy contributions can be in contravention with existing Wikipedia guidelines. I agree though that trying to curb them is difficult in practice. isaacl (talk) 03:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Theoretically the entire guideline is "redundant", since disruption from a COI editor is no different than disruption from any other editor. We don't even disallow COI editing itself. However, there are certain issues that are exacerbated by conflicts of interest, and that includes the issue of stretching out discussions to waste everyone's time. That's why it's being brought up here specifically. --  At am a  頭 17:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think it is the paid aspect that provides incentive for discussion flooding. I suggest though that any revised wording not imply that the problem is limited to contributions by paid editors, or those with a conflict of interest. The ultimate question for these proposed changes, however, is what specific actions are being recommended? Without these, the proposal is somewhat moot. isaacl (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll concede that. It's worth noting that this isn't restricted to COI editors only. The solution, as I see it, is to identify this behavior as tendentious editing and that the editor can be warned and possibly blocked for behavior seen as disruptive. Basically, this is a way for us to more easily note that a COI editor is being tendentious (by understanding a probable reason why they're being that way) and not let them get away with it. --  At am a  頭 18:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the original question on the best way to deal with overly-verbose contributions: unfortunately, as some of the recent threads at the administrators' incidents noticeboard illustrate, there are various editors who object to any action being taken to try to curb an editor from swamping conversation. This makes it hard to do anything if the editor in question stays sufficiently within the bounds of civil discourse and is not receptive to suggestions and advice from others. The "assume good faith" guideline, as useful as it is for encouraging collaboration, is unfortunately a hinderance when trying to deal with those who are unable to engage productive with the community. Other than continuing to try to engage the editors on their discussion pages, sadly I don't know what else can be done. isaacl (talk) 03:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Taking a page from the real world: meetings are more effective when clear criteria are established for the meeting's success, and the discussion is moderated. So what could help is more editors able to act as moderators, who would first guide the participants to set criteria to evaluate the subject under discussion, and then guide discussion. Once again, though, this requires the editors to be receptive to working together to find the best consensus solution. isaacl (talk) 03:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

2nd try
Incorporating suggestions from and, I think we might be able to make some progress:


 * Paid editors, especially those who are paid by the hour, or who submit "billable hours" to justify their salaries, must respect the volunteer nature of the project and keep their discussions short. No editor should be subjected to long or repetitive discussions by someone who is being paid to argue with them. Any editor who refuses to accept a consensus against his or her position by arguing ad naseum will likely be violating several Wikipedia guidelines and policies, e.g. WP:Tendentious editing, WP:Disruptive editing, WP:WikiBullying, WP:Own or WP:Civility. Paid editors must not argue ad naseum.

Pinging, and  as well. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 16:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest ending the first sentence with "and keep discussions concise." Regarding the last sentence: it seems to repeat the immediately preceding sentence—perhaps it is unnecessary? isaacl (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I like this wording, with Isaacl's suggestions included. It doesn't say that this applies only to people with billable hours but does mention it. I agree that the last sentence is redundant (and I say this as someone who frequently has his own problems with redundant phrasing). And I agree that keeping discussion "concise", as in getting to the point quickly, is more important than keeping the discussion short. The point is to avoid a TLDR situation, and concision should accomplish that. --  At am a  頭 16:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

this is fine with me:


 * Paid editors, especially those who are paid by the hour, or who submit "billable hours" to justify their salaries, must respect the volunteer nature of the project and keep discussions concise. No editor should be subjected to long or repetitive discussions by someone who is being paid to argue with them. Any editor who refuses to accept a consensus against his or her position by arguing ad naseum will likely be violating several Wikipedia guidelines and policies, e.g. WP:Tendentious editing, WP:Disruptive editing, WP:WikiBullying, WP:Own or WP:Civility.

Smallbones( smalltalk ) 16:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * That's fine by me, Smallbones, thanks. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm adding it in right now. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 19:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

How about explicitly kicking the confirmed abuser in the shin, e..g with a special template in the article talk page and user talk page, so that their employer may see their money wasted? Also, it will help us accumulate statistics about dishonest "page mills". Staszek Lem (talk) 19:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I am concerned about this on multiple levels. One, this change comes during discussions on the Deepak Chopra article when a declared COI editor was treated badly because he apparently wrote too much and was told by other, so-called volunteer editors, that they didn't have the time to read through his posts. I'm always concerned when changes are made to guidelines or policies during contentious discussions that would effectively allow an editor in that discussion to be sanctioned. Second, seems we are penalizing COI declared editors for something we see all the time in other-editor behaviour. So, we can write as much as we  want as a none COI editor but a COI editor operates under editing restrictions which we don't have. I think this is very wrong, but in part because I'm very busy in real life this week, I won't say more.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC))
 * "I'm always concerned when changes are made to guidelines or policies during contentious discussions that would effectively allow an editor in that discussion to be sanctioned."
 * What we're adding here wouldn't necessarily lead to sanctions. The COI guideline on its own isn't really enforceable (in the sense that people get blocked for having a COI), it's more of an aggregate of other guidelines and policies and presented through the prism of COI. As stated in the proposed text, it's when the editor violates WP:TE, WP:DE, WP:OWN, etc. that sanctions may be forthcoming.
 * "Second, seems we are penalizing COI declared editors for something we see all the time in other-editor behaviour."
 * I hate to tell you, but that is a good summary of the entire guideline. Your concern shouldn't be isolated to this section, it applies to everything that is already written. But as I said before, this guideline doesn't have any enforcement beyond what is already in other guidelines and policies. As long as a COI editor isn't engaged in the kind of behavior that other editors would be sanctioned for, they are fine. --  At am a  頭 22:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The practice of overwhelming unpaid editors with length is the prime tactic of paid POV-pushers. See Deepak Chopra, mentioned above, and User:Hamilton83 on Jack Welch. I could find thousands more, but I decided just to mention the ones where I was the one overwhelmed by the disparity in fairness between volunteer and paid hours. Why do we let people do this to our volunteers, exactly? Hipocrite (talk) 12:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding that article specifically, I am not convinced there is any intentional filibustering, nor am I confident the subject of the article has no justification at all for complaining about the neutrality of the article. I certainly wouldn't go so far as to speculate about an hourly rate. Rather people with a close connection to the subject of the article often have a skewed perspective on what is neutral that inhibits them from being productive editors. In this case in particular, WP:STICK is probably relevant (and clearly Wall of text), as I am uncertain any productive content-focused discussions will emerge. The problem is that these articles take a huge swath of time to improve and if the PR rep is unable to be neutral enough to improve it themselves, the only thing to do is to wait until someone takes enough of an interest. CorporateM (Talk) 23:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Quick clarification
Hey, guys. So, let's say I'm a big fan of using my employer's software and I want to work on those articles as a Wikipedian, without payment or outside influence. Is that still a COI due to my close proximity to the software publisher? I'd edit with the intent of upholding policies and procedures, much like I would with any other article. I'm just seeking some clarification here and making sure I don't do something foolish. &mdash;Deckiller (t-c-l) 11:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll be frank here: I don't think WP:COI has an exact answer for you for several reasons, including the complicated and somewhat subjective nature of defining a COI, editors with COIs who have edited this guideline, and the generally poor enforcement of this guideline by admins (not necessarily referring to you - I don't know you), who are hesitant to use their judgement in contentious situations.


 * I'd say if you are working in the advertising, PR, legal or marketing departments, or are paid on a commission basis - stay away - you are just asking for trouble. Otherwise, the main part that would apply is

"If either of the following applies to you: 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 you expect to derive monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia (for example, by being an owner, officer, or other stakeholder of an organization; or by having some other form of close financial relationship with a topic you wish to write about), then you are very strongly discouraged from directly editing Wikipedia in areas where those external relationships could reasonably be said to undermine your ability to remain neutral. If you have a financial connection to a topic – including, but not limited to, as an owner, employee, contractor or other stakeholder – you are advised to refrain from editing affected articles directly."


 * As an employee you'd almost certainly have a "close financial relationship" to the topic, so you're advised to not edit the article, but can edit the talk page. If you ignore this advice and cause disruption, then admins should step in and make sure the guideline is enforced (like any other guideline).  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 12:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * COI (and the way we handle COI) is a complicated process. But I'll try to boil it down as simply as possible. If you are productive, if you edit articles to improve them (and do it well), and (by some miracle) don't get another editor angry enough to report you somewhere, then whether or not you have a COI doesn't matter. If, however, you engage in some kind of disruptive editing, or you run unto an editing conflict with another editor that requires dispute resolution, then your COI will likely be taken into account (and may lead to harsher sanctions than if you didn't have a COI). If you self-declare your connection to the article subject then that will be better for you than if it comes out some other way. As Smallbones said above, editing the talk page is a pretty safe route for you to take if you want to avoid trouble, only in rare cases do people object to an editor with a COI participating only via discussion. --  At am a  頭 16:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Should probably add info regarding the request edit template
One of the best things to do if you have a COI and want to be careful is to use Request edit. I had occasion to try and find something like that recently but couldn't locate it. If it's mentioned on this page, it's not displayed prominently enough. I don't see it in the "Advice" section nor is it listed under "See also", when it should probably be in both places. Just a heads-up. I'm not active enough on Wikipedia these days to feel comfy editing a policy page but I thought I'd point this out. equazcion  →  03:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The potential-COI editor
Greetings. I am a potential-COI editor who has high hopes of setting up some quiet, policy-compliant, drama-free editing, with transparent and clear-cut ethics. It occurs to me that the ethical potential-COI editor who has pledged to uphold 5P would be bound by those ethics to have a greater interest in this page being a crystal-clear guideline than the average editor. (Naturally, experience shows that many conflicted editors come to this talk with hidden agendas and not with a noble interest in being on the right side of the law, and so I am prepared for initial skepticism as to whether I might be such. As a Project Cooperation member, I'm of course interested in any review and informal mentoring and guidance in case I might edit with imbalance as well.) So I took courage to act on that apparent duty.

So is this the right page for potentially extended questions from those who honestly think (as I) that the guideline would be well-served by greater clarity?

For instance, it seems the definitions of COI slip around quite a bit conceptually in the article. I like consistent terms. The meaning of "your own interests" seems not to mean all your interests but only those that differ from WP's interests as implied through policy (chiefly encyclopedic improvement and maintenance). If everyone were to agree my own interests are truly identical with WP's on any topic (AGF routinely assigned to "nonconflicted" editors), then it would be misleading to strongly discourage me to promote "my own interests" on that topic, because I'm interested in encyclopedic coverage of it and am submitting any other interest (e.g. unconscious bias) to WP's interests as judged by consensus. So it seems that when a phrase like "your own interests" appears, it really means something like "your own independent interests", i.e. those contrary to WP's implied interests. Just to get the ball rolling, is that anywhere near a correct inference? Frieda Beamy (talk) 12:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your disclosure about COI and your desire for a clearer COI guideline. Making this guideline clearer has been an ongoing effort for years. I suppose the "nutshell" shorthand at the top of the page could be misleading as written. I don't know that "independent" is the right word to add, I think "outside" would be better, as represented in the phrase from the lead, "when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." Saying that people shouldn't edit for "independent interests" seems like saying that you shouldn't edit using your own judgment. --  At am a  頭 18:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that's a very good suggestion. Yes, the various recent failed COI proposals still haven't coalesced.
 * You also say quite sanely, "If you edit articles to improve them (and do it well) ... then whether or not you have a COI doesn't matter." But that seems to imply (especially if it's a frequent answer) that COI is not the problem at all but disruption is. (All the same, COI disclosure "may lead to harsher sanctions": interesting.) Anyway, WP wants to be very open and welcoming to everyone including ethical COI editors (digression: WP's new-account process is amazingly friendly and has never been bettered anywhere); but WP doesn't want to admit plainly what you implied because it's thought such a wide-open guideline might "invite abuse". Wouldn't something like peace through strength be better? If our abuse trappers, bot and human, were highlit, and if mechanisms drove editors to better handling of obvious and insidious damage, then as a corollary WP would be able to admit openly that yeah, we have lots of COI editors around, be nice.
 * A better question might be on "COI editing is strongly discouraged. It risks causing public embarrassment." This shows fuzz. COI is consensus policy because brightliners will say it means a good minority thinks "all COI editors" should never edit mainspace; and ethical engagers will say it means a majority allows that only "good COI editors" may, but only in deliberately unspecified cases (specification might fracture the majority). In my editing I interpret it as "if you're going to do it, be extra circumspect with everything, and be aware that many people think they can do it who can't". The upshot is that "good COI editing" doesn't risk embarrassment AFAIK and doesn't fit the second sentence, but the first doesn't say "bad COI editing" in contrast, and that's done for the purpose of remaining vague. So fuzziness happens because attempts to get specific fail. Anyway, like I said, potentially extended. Frieda Beamy (talk) 21:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

GLAM
Just noting here that I swapped our "warts and all" example for GLAM, to emphasize the "mission-aligned" aspect:


 * Old: "There may be benign examples of editors being paid – for example, a university asking you to write up its warts-and-all history."
 * New: "There may be benign examples of editors being paid; for instance, Wikipedians collaborating with mission-aligned organizations such as galleries, libraries, archives and museums.

Hope that's okay. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That's an improvement. I like it. bobrayner (talk) 13:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me too. I'm wondering whether it's a good time to do a complete paragraph or 2 on the Wikipedian-in-Residence (WIR) phenomenon. Too often, IMHO, folks use WIR to confuse the issues of Paid Advocacy, Paid Editing, Expert editing.  I do really think that WIR programs are very good for the encyclopedia, but somehow WP:COI has been interpreted as being against WIR programs.  See, e.g. User talk:Jimbo Wales for at least one example (and about 3 where some folks are sowing confusion). Pinging  on this, and
 * We could clear this up simply by writing a good paragraph or 2 here. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 14:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

WIR

 * Thanks, Bob and Smalbones. I agree that a good paragraph or so on WIR would be very helpful. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am saddened by the way WiR projects are commonly cited in discussions around COI - not that they're claimed to be a problem, but that they're always mentioned so it get to eventually have a 'guilt by association' feeling to it... Wittylama 22:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that a section mentioning WiR would be a good idea because 1) they are common enough now that editors are bumping into them 2) we have enough varied experience with WiR to show that it is possible to do it without coi. Sydney Poore/FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 21:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not ready to propose specific wording here and think that other editors should outline what they'd like to see. But the main points I'd like to see are:


 * with mission-aligned organizations, e.g. non-profits with their primary goal being education
 * WIRs identify themselves on their User pages and in edit summary (e.g. starting with WIR)
 * Work closely with appropriate WikiProject, e.g. WP:GLAM or WP:Medicine, and generally accept the project's advice
 * Work to encourage other editors at the organization to properly contribute to Wikipedia
 * The WIR and other paid editors in the org
 * not including marketing or PR people in the organization
 * not promoting attendance at a specific exhibition or to museum store or restaurant (the "commercial parts") of the org.
 * not editing the main article on the org, but other related articles ok, e.g. not on the "XYZ Museum", but "History of the XYZ Museum" ok
 * otherwise free to edit like any other editor, or on any talk page, as long as disclosure on User page and edit summary.
 * make a good faith effort to learn and follow our policies and guidelines, especially those on COI and paid editing
 * Wikipedia encourages this type of editing for mission-aligned orgs, especially when a WIR is involved.

Smallbones( smalltalk ) 16:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I suppose I should make my own COI declaration here. Though I consider myself to be as strict as anybody on the paid editing question, my main concern is about commercial editing (i.e. for-profit firms or non-profits acting like for-profits) and I've never had much concern about the WIR program.  I've been involved in WP:GLAM since before the very beginning, but off and on (more off).  User:Wittylama may remember me as part of a long ago conversation about Mike Royko and a link to the Newberry Library.  I've worked successfully with GLAM projects on the Delaware Art Museum and WP:Smarthistory, but not as a WIR and definitely not paid.  I attended one of the first GLAM training sessions in NYC.  To a lesser degree of involvement, I've attended many edit-a-thons, e.g. at the Smithsonian and the Chemical Heritage Foundation.
 * Smallbones( smalltalk ) 16:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In accordance with the core characteristics of a Wikipedian in Residence, someone in this role shouldn't edit articles directly related to the organization in question, to avoid conflict-of-interest issues. I think "History of" articles would be included in this guidance. isaacl (talk) 23:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That link looks very appropriate and maybe we can simply defer to it, say "WIRs should operate within the bounds defined by "the core characteristics of a Wikipedian in Residence" at outreach." I think I'll try some preliminary wording - my goal is not to invent anything new, simply to clarify current practice and make it official here.
 * Incidentally, note that section has a pointer to this page. A number of the guidelines you listed above are similar to ones on the Wikipedian in Residence page. Although its scope across multiple Wikipedia sites may make modifying it more time-consuming, it may be worth while to try to update the Wikipedian in Residence page, rather than have a separate list of guidelines on this page. That way the guidance won't be split across multiple pages and sites. isaacl (talk) 19:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

WIR 2
Suggested text:

Wikipedians-in-Residence (WIRs) are editors who work with non-profit organizations that are aligned with our mission of collecting and developing educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate that content effectively and globally. WIRs serve as a liaison between the Wikipedia community and members of the mission-aligned organization. They must not engage in public relations or marketing for that organization and they must operate within the bounds defined by "the core characteristics of a Wikipedian in Residence" at outreach and work closely with a Wikipedia project. Whether or not they are paid by the organization, they must identify their WIR status on their user page and in their edit summaries - for example by prefacing the summary with WIR. We encourage WIRs and the members of their organizations to participate in building Wikipedia.

I'm not sure that "non-profit" has been explicitly stated before, but think that every WIR so far has been in a non-profit. I'd also suggest that if WP:Medicine want to post their own "core characteristics of a Wikipedian in Residence" we include that in the text and if other projects want to have WIRs then they develop their own, and we add "or similar project statements" in if needed. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 20:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Since nobody has really objected, I'll put it in. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 19:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've removed the edit summary requirement but added a relevant talk page notification. If there's support for requiring every edit summary to be tagged, then I'd like to discuss it further.  It seems a bit onerous to me, especially for WIRs who are generally mission-aligned. Ocaasit &#124; c 19:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I was thinking just putting "WIR" at the start of the edit summary on relevant articles would be pretty easy. It does turn out however that this would be the most onerous requirement for any "COI editor".  All the best, Smallbones( smalltalk ) 21:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm rethinking this a little bit. For a WIR making many small edits to a lot of different articles, talk page notifications would actually be more onerous than edit summary notifications.  Meanwhile, for multiple edits to a single or just a few articles, the edit summary notification would be much more annoying.  So, perhaps we can leave it as an "a OR b", talk page notification OR edit summary notification? Ocaasit &#124; c 01:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Some thoughts (from someone who basically had to wing it as a WiR, but hopefully didn't get it wrong...)
 * a) "work closely with a Wikipedia project" as a requirement is problematic - there may not be a directly matched wikiproject; it may not be active; or the WiR may be "based" on another WMF project and not Wikipedia so have a support structure there and not here. I'd suggest changing this to something about working closely with the community - the outcome is the same but we're less prescriptive about the method. Perhaps: "...they must operate within the bounds defined by "the core characteristics of a Wikipedian in Residence", working closely and collaboratively with other Wikipedia users."
 * b) I'm not sure specifying "non-profit" is such a good idea. Certainly, every one so far has been with a non-profit (I think) or at least something functionally equivalent to a non-profit, but I don't think this is fundamentally required. (Imagine, say, the archives of a large long-lived corporation or broadcaster supporting a WiR - we'd have to handle it carefully but I think we could make it work to our benefit). Writing this distinction into policy wouldn't affect any past projects but might come back to bite us a while down the line, and we probably shouldn't close that door without thinking about it.
 * c) Agnostic on the edit summaries thing - but I'd be clearer that you mean "relevant edit summaries". I'm not sure asking an otherwise active editor to tag everything they do for a year is the most reliable approach ;-)
 * d) "They must not engage in public relations or marketing for that organization" - perhaps "They must not use Wikipedia for public relations or marketing..." - a little more specific about what we're concerned with. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * a) The WIR should consult with active community members in that project area, if possible.
 * b) The key is "mission-aligned" rather than non-profit, IMO
 * c) Yes, "relevant" edit summaries
 * d) Yes, "Use Wikipedia" for pr/marketing.
 * Smallbones, any objections here? Ocaasit &#124; c 19:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Glad I'm not completely off-base ;-) (Mission-aligned is definitely what we want to get at, but it's perhaps a bit of a clunky phrase?) I confess I was also thinking of the innumerable "but we're a charity so it's not spam!" debates in the past... Andrew Gray (talk) 19:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

WIR 3
My main interest on this is to describe the current WIR program and make sure that folks realize that it does not conflict with WP:COI. I'm afraid that some editors like to wikilawyer this guideline and some of the proposed wording might encourage them to greatly expand the definition of a WIR. In particular the "use Wikipedia for pr or marketing" phrase might signal to them that naming a museum pr person as a WIR would be ok. I don't think that has been done previously, and I wouldn't support that interpretation at all. Also a WIR who can't find an active Wikipedia community to work with wouldn't be much of a liaison IMHO. Finally - I love the quote from WittyLama - it says exactly what we want to do. But I checked with him on his talk page and he suggests that it might be too "idealistic" to directly put in the guideline.

So reworking it, I suggest:

Wikipedians in residence
 * We are doing the same thing for the same reason, for the same people, in the same medium. Let's do it together. - User:Wittylama, the first WIR

Wikipedians in residence (WIRs) are editors who work with organizations that are aligned with Wikipedia's mission of
 * collecting and developing educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate that content effectively and globally. (check quote)

WIRs serve as a liaison between the Wikipedia community and members of the mission-aligned organization. They must not engage in public relations or marketing for that organization. They must operate within the bounds defined by "the core characteristics of a Wikipedian in Residence" at outreach and work closely with a Wikipedia project or the Wikipedia community. Whether or not they are paid by the organization, they must identify their WIR status on their user page and should identify relevant edits (e.g. by prefacing the edit summary with WIR). We encourage WIRs and the members of their organizations to participate in building Wikipedia.

with appropriate link and checked quote Smallbones( smalltalk ) 05:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * While I'm honoured to be quoted in the WP COI rules by Smallbones :-) I'd suggest that the less idealistic and more policy-driven quote you'd like to use is that one of the principles I required for working at the British Museum was that "neither the GLAM nor the Wikimedia communities could oblige the WiR to undermine the policies and principles of the other". This recognises there were fears on both sides - the Wikimedians could be reassured that I wasn't going to try and whitewash articles that the museum didn't like, but equally the museum could be reassured that I wasn't going to try to extract all their high-res images from their internal servers. Wittylama 06:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I just simplified it a bit, with Witty no longer in there. I still love that quote, though - maybe in a footnote? Smallbones( smalltalk ) 16:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Self-promotion
I'm puzzled by the first sentence in this section:


 * "Conflict of interest often presents itself in the form of self-promotion, including advertising links, personal website links, personal or semi-personal photos."

The puzzlement is with the last item, "personal or semi-personal photos". My strong impression is that we want people to submit photos of themselves, if they are the subject of an article (submitting to Commons, with appropriate copyrights, of course). But the above sentence seems to discourage such submissions. Perhaps someone could either clarify the sentence, or correct my misimpression of the desirability of such photos on Wikipedia.

And while I'm being nit-picky, I'll note that the first and second sentences of the section are quite redundant, which I believe is a undesirable. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * In fact, there is a separate section, "Photographs and media files", with a more mixed message. Perhaps an intra-page link to that section? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The whole section seemed redundant, so I merged it into another one and left out the bit about images. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I've never actually seen it happen but I can imagine that someone could take a picture of themselves at a location (say, Mount Rushmore) and upload that picture to the article as a sneaky form of self-promotion. The fact that I've never actually seen this, though, makes it such an unlikely occurrence that I don't think it's worth mentioning in the guideline (and probably should be excluded per WP:BEANS). I can't imagine how else it is self-promotion to upload an image, though.


 * We do sometimes identify a COI through a person's candid picture uploads. If someone takes a picture of a celebrity at the dinner table eating fried chicken in someone's personal home, there is the suggestion that the image uploader is a friend or acquaintance of the celebrity and thus may have a COI in regards to them. But while that might be worth mentioning somewhere, it's not a form of self-promotion. --  At am a  頭 23:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There was a recent case (see contribs) of a user who uploaded selfies and used them to replace images in articles. The images have been deleted, but as I recall the lead image at Thumbs signal was replaced by a picture of the user, and similar edits were made at other articles. Johnuniq (talk) 01:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms
WP:Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms everybody here should be aware of this. I'll note that I had nothing to do with this (though I was informed of their meeting beforehand). I think it's a great day for Wikipedia, but of course this is not the end of the Corporate PR COI problem on Wikipedia. Rather it is a great step to build on.

I've suggested on the talk page there, that WP:COI include some sort of statement that we encourage PR firms to sign on to this. Minor problem - the UK based CIPR made a similar statement off-Wiki a couple of years ago and it might be seen as disrespect to our UK fellow editors to favor this US based initiative. So I'll give no concrete suggestions now. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 14:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Advertisements Prohibited

 * BTW, talking about "prohibited": WP:COI has a phrase: "The writing of "puff pieces" and advertisements is prohibited." I am pretty sure this is a rather generic guideline. Is it covered somewhere? WP:NOT-ish? Staszek Lem (talk) 18:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, at WP:NOT, specifically WP:PROMO which includes "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind" as the first list item, "Self-promotion" as the fourth list item, and "Advertising, marketing or public relations" as the fifth item. All of those would apply ("Opinion pieces" and "Scandal mongering" seem less relevant in this case). Those are all examples of prohibited/forbidden behavior that can lead to uncontroversial reverts, blocks, and other consequences when done by anyone (whether the individual has a verified COI or not). --  At am a  頭 18:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:COI has a phrase: "The writing of "puff pieces" and advertisements is prohibited." I am pretty sure this is a rather generic guideline. Is it covered somewhere? WP:NOT-ish? Staszek Lem (talk) 18:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, what's wrong with "advertisements"? Earlier I was advised to look up a dictionary, so I did now], and I see nothing evil with adverts. The real problem is biased language. An advert may be pretty neutral and factual. "The Company Co. makes goodies for 150 years. Its goodies are ranked Extra Cute by Bite Me magazine survey and earned 2013 "Golden Armpit Award" . Concluding, I think this phrase must be fixed. Some ideas may be borrowed from WP:PEACOCK. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I answered you with more depth above, but WP:PROMO which is part of WP:NOT does cover this.
 * Sorry, it was my duplication due to edit conflict. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As to the nature of advertisements, by definition an advertisement is never neutral. What you listed above as an example isn't really an advertisement, not as Wikipedia defines it. Wikipedia considers an advertisement to include "puffery" and is written with a subjective and biased style in violation of WP:NPOV. It's fine to include flattering information about an article subject if that information "fairly and proportionately" represents the significant views of published reliable sources. For example, check out our article on Citizen Kane. The lead of the article makes the bold claim that the film is "Considered by many critics, filmmakers, and fans to be the greatest film ever made," but it supports that claim later in the text of the article so that our neutrality policy is satisfied. I hope that helps clear up some of the confusion. --  At am a  頭 18:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * re: "I hope that helps clear up some of the confusion". Well, no, it is not. It merely demonstrates that the jargon of wikipedia is not always evident to ordinary people. Since you wrote "not as Wikipedia defines it", this definition must be near at hand near at a mouse-click. You wrote: "What you listed above as an example isn't really an advertisement " . On the contrary, I happenned to contest several prods/speedies of articles written like my example, and classified as "adverts" by wikipedians. So I reiterate my request: this phrase must be clarified in the guideline, not in the talk. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not a bad idea. We try to not duplicate information too much; see here, "When the scope of one advice page overlaps with the scope of another, minimize redundancy." But if a quick definition of advertising (borrowing from WP:NOT) helps clarify matters then I think it's helpful as long as it doesn't get too long.


 * Articles are going to get marked for deletion inappropriately, it's inevitable. When I do admin dashboard stuff, I usually review a number of G11 speedy deletion requests (it's one of, if not the most common speedy deletion request I see) and I tend to decline most of them, either because the info doesn't seem that promotional or because it's easy to remove the promotion without rewriting the whole article. But I don't know if that's because people don't understand what advertisements are, or if it's because they don't understand the G11 criterion. --  At am a  頭 19:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The definition of advertising is very simple (from dictionary.com)

ad·ver·tis·ing noun
 * 1. the act or practice of calling public attention to one's product, service, need, etc., especially by paid announcements in newspapers and magazines, over radio or television, on billboards, etc.: to get more customers by advertising.
 * 2. paid announcements; advertisements.

if you would like this restated in my own words "Any communication from a business meant to increase sales, attract customers, or otherwise increase the value of the business" but that's slightly narrower than the above definition. No matter - "promotion" is a broader term than advertising, and it is prohibited, "marketing" is broader still, and it is also prohibited. "Public relations" is a sub-set of promotion, and it is also prohibited.

So a very basic example of an ad would be - a farmer places the following notice in a newspaper. "Hay for sale, contact Ole McDonald at 555-1212." An example on Wikipedia would be when a company employee edits an article on the company and writes "The company sells widgets, doodads, zappers and other products."

So if we could find admins to enforce these rules, we'd be doing just fine. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 03:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Multiple accounts
Smallbones cited a provision of this policy with which I was not acquainted, WP:PAY. It is a very good policy but it warrants strengthening, to avoid multiple user accounts advocating for particular articles. I suggest wording saying in sum and substance as follows:

"To avoid undue burden on volunteer time and resources, every article subject should employ only one account."

-- Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 03:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Very strongly discouraged
There is language in WP:COI that I believe works against the purpose of the guideline, though I'm sure that it was meant to increase the strength of it:

"Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question."

I'll suggest instead:

"Paid advocates should not directly edit articles, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question."

The very strongly discouraged language underwent a slow transformation from "discouraged" to "strongly discouraged" to "very strongly discouraged" and then was put in bold. While I'm sure this was meant to increase the discouragement, instead it seems to read "something here is missing, you're allowed to do something but we're not going to say what it is."

My proposed "should not" language is the usual, direct way to get the meaning across. It means "It may not be an absolute prohibition for all cases, but you should not do it."

Very strongly discouraged occurs 3 times in the guideline and this suggested change should be made for all 3 cases. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 14:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you sure this shouldn't be "double extra very strongly discouraged"? And we can underline it and italicize it in addition to bold text.


 * Seriously, though, I agree. "Should not" is a fundamentally stronger statement, it's simpler, and cleaner. --  At am a  頭 17:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Simpler, yes, but whether it is stronger or not is going to depend on the reader's perception of what "should" means. Some readers will see "should not = shall not = must not" and others will see it as "should not = generally discouraged, but allowed in some undefined circumstances."  The latter reading is weaker than Very strongly discouraged.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  00:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You have a valid objection here. But what about second issue? Why is "very strongly" is stronger than "strongly"? and why not "extremely strongly discouraged," etc. as someone quipped? If you want to get rid of "some undefined circumstances," then plain forbidden/verboten/prohibido/interdit should work just fine. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking that both of you are joking a bit, but otherwise I'm not sure I understand. But don't worry.  I am not very strongly discouraged. I'll assume you mean "simpler is better."  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 02:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * (e/c) WP:Ignore all rules means there will always be at least a few exceptional circumstances in which any rule can and should be ignored, so I don't want to "totally" get rid of the implied "allowed in some undefined circumstances." However, we probably do want to make sure that the implication is that this is a very narrow, don't-try-it-unless-you-know-what-you-are-doing exception. I would prefer "extremely strongly discouraged" over "forbidden" because it's more accurate, but I'd prefer "very strongly discouraged" over "extremely strongly encouraged" because the latter just sounds stilted. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  03:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want some slack left, please keep in mind that "forbidden" does have slack; just as with "discouraged", something has to be "strictly forbidden". I guess all this is today's progressive devaluation of emphasis (alternatively, progresssive ADD); compare: 20th-century "thank you" -> today's "thank you very much" -> "thank you so much" . Staszek Lem (talk) 03:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think this will depend a lot on the circles you run in; in my experience, "forbidden" has the dictionary meaning of "not allowed", without any slack, and "strictly forbidden" is a redundant intensifier for emphasis. I agree that "should" has the connotation of a recommendation: it specifies something that ought to be done, or that the subject has an obligation to do, but this doesn't mean the subject will do it. In IETF RFC language, "should" denotes a recommendation. Perhaps making the statement more definitive, with a small exception carved out, would be more suitable, such as: Paid advocates must not edit articles related to their area of advocacy, and should instead propose changes on article talk pages, unless the Wikipedia community reaches a consensus agreement to the contrary. isaacl (talk) 08:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The word "forbidden" should not be used, because it's incorrect. When something is forbidden, that means we frankly don't allow it. There are few things on Wikipedia that are forbidden; violating a ban, copyright, or other editor's privacy are examples of behavior that is forbidden because doing any of those actions generally leads to an uncontroversial revert and possible revdelete/oversight, and a warning or block. Paid editing, on the other hand, is not forbidden, not at this time at least. Changing the language in this way would take a dramatic step that would require a publicized RfC because it would change the entire approach to how COI is done. Isaacl has it correctly; the word "forbidden" does not "have slack". Look it up in the dictionary for crying out loud, it means "not allowed" or "banned". It's much stronger language than what we have now, which is saying that paid editing is not something that we disallow but the community doesn't care for it, and if you do act as a paid editor prepare for some resistance.


 * Unless I missed something somewhere? Was there some super-secret RfC done sometime between the discussion at Meta about possibly requiring paid contributors to disclose their affiliations and now? When did we suddenly start banning this behavior altogether? --  At am a  頭 15:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't panic. I suggested the word "forbidden", but I am not a native language speaker. You proved that this word is not good. OK, relax. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Back to initial observation: "very strongly discouraged" was criticized because it borders with ridiculous. Do we need to throw a tantrum and bang with the fist on the table? I vote to get rid of "very": if "strongly discouraged" is not discouraging enough, then extra "very" will not help, because the most probable violators are either those who did not read the policy or those who chose to ignore it. And I am sure that the latter ones will not even be "super extra strongly discouraged or else". Staszek Lem (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Everybody seems to at least agree that very strongly discouraged is bad form - I'll make the changes I indicated above. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 17:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Very strongly discouraged ... or else?
Are there any sanctions for ignoring this discouragement? If yes, then what are they? If not, then what is the purpose of all this shouting? Neither boldface nor even large font will help against evil ones. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * There are no sanctions. If you ignore the prohibitions, you are more likely to get an article that looks like what your client wants it to look like, if you are any good at editing Wikipedia. Without empowering our editors and punishing people who ignore the sanctions in the mainspace, this will not be solved, because the cost-benefit of ignoring our meaningless rules is tremendously out of whack. Hipocrite (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * In other words, do you agree that instead of super-extra-boldfacing we must think of the ways of enforcement? Staszek Lem (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yup. Hipocrite (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If the changes to the Terms of Service end up going through, we'll be in a position of having teeth that can be used for enforcement. Without it, the odds of getting community consensus on how to proceed are remarkably small. - Bilby (talk) 04:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't see this discussion before I reverted the change in policy. The change should be discussed community wide.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC))
 * I think everybody agrees that it is just changing confusing wording to clear wording - little more than a grammatical change. Please read this section and the one above and state your objections - if any.  Until then I'll change it back.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 18:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * First apologies for making the revert while this was in discussion. I missed it for some reason. Second, strongly discourage and should not are very different in meaning not just a grammar change. Should not is a definitive statement and it means you cannot edit. Strongly discouraged means not a good idea but possible. In my view the slow progression from discouraged, to strongly discouraged, to should not is a subtle but meaningful change in COI which should have wide community input.  We are saying in effect now that a declared COI cannot edit. This is  not what the guidleline used to say In the past; a declared COI could edit with care. This is a guideline for which we are using definitive language and suggesting sanctions? I'm not convinced its a good idea and would welcome wider community input.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC))
 * As I understand it, both Davidwr and I believe that "should" is a weaker, more advisory statement than "strongly discouraged". Typically, in technical standards, "should" means something is recommended but not necessary. I disagree that this change is solely grammatical; the two phrases have different connotations and associated meanings. Accordingly, I do not believe there is a consensus to alter the wording from "strongly discouraged". isaacl (talk) 00:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see this as a simple grammatical change, either, but a slow tightening of the rules. For me, "should not" is a prohibition, "strongly discouraged" is a recommendation. I'm uncomfortable with a significant change like this without more discussion. - Bilby (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above. I am for cleaner prose, but changing "discouraged" of any form to "should not" is changing the meaning from a recommendation to a prohibition, which is something that has been discussed before in the past and never found consensus for. Furthermore I feel like we are setting editors up by telling them to request changes on the talk page, because most articles on obscure topics will never yield any replies. I have seen requests to fix a typo on talkpages by an IP address that went unaddressed for years simply because no one visited the page. I believe that if an editor is actually honest enough to try and follow our unenforceable policies then we should assume some good faith and encourage them to try and be neutral and improve their article. In practice I realise this will fail a lot, similar to host most new users fail to edit in a nonbiased manner, but I don't see asking users to make edit requests on the talk page as a realistic option. Perhaps we could recommend that they make their edits and then request on a noticeboard that users look at their page and see if it is neutral?AioftheStorm (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed changes to the Conflict of Interest Policy
The Wikimedia Foundation has made updates to the Terms of Use which conflict with the existing COI guideline requiring either updates or a explicit English Wikipedia consensus that the COI guideline fulfills the policy requirement of the Terms of Use to override it's conditions on COI editing. Several issues have been discussed on this page relating to the Terms of Use. The terms of use are in effect for all projects unless a project develops a local consensus otherwise and that consensus may be more restrictive or less restrictive. Commons is currently discussing this very thing.

"A Wikimedia Project community may adopt an alternative paid contribution disclosure policy. If a Project adopts an alternative disclosure policy, you may comply with that policy instead of the requirements in this section when contributing to that Project. An alternative paid contribution policy will only supersede these requirements if it is approved by the relevant Project community and listed in the alternative disclosure policy page."

According to WMF Legal, there is nothing wrong with a guideline being considered a 'policy' according to WMF's terms of use, but that a local project consensus needs to explicitly state its purpose as overriding the Terms of Use.--v/r - TP 18:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Disclosure
The terms of use mandate disclosure on any one of three pages: on editors user page, on an article talk page, or in an edit summary. Current English Wikipedia policy is to strongly encourage disclosure. We have these options that range from explicit compliance with the WMF to explicit refusal and a range in the middle:
 * Option 1 Do nothing. The WMF Terms of use will supersede the English Wikipedia WP:COI guideline.
 * Option 2 Ratify our own policy mandating disclosure
 * Option 3 WP:COI fulfills the requirements of the terms of use
 * Option 4 Only provide a link to the Terms of Use
 * Option 5 Restore the WP:COI policy to the last consensus version at

Discussion

 * The WMF has made it very clear that our COI policy does not "fulfill the requirements of the terms of use," as an alternate disclosure policy - see . Hipocrite (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And when pressed for clarifiation they said it was because the consensus behind it wasn't specifically as an alternative to their terms of use disclosure policy, see .--v/r - TP 18:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's also because WP:TOU is an English WP Policy, and WP:COI has never been adopted as a Policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Option 2 - Restate the Terms of Use so as to mandate, rather than encourage, disclosure. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Option 2 - Paid editing is a subset of COI and WP:COI is a guideline. This should be a separate and specific enwiki policy.- MrX 21:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Option 2 -The WMF policy is not forcing us to make paid editing disclosures mandatory; it will allow us to keep disclosures optional if we so choose. However, there is no good reason to make this choice. Undisclosed and unmoderated paid editing goes against neutrality policy, one of the five Wikipedia pillars. Making paid editing disclosures mandatory is within the best interest of Wikipedia, so policy (not just guidelines) should be passed accordingly. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment as noted above, Option 3 is improper because it suggests that this COI guideline overrule a policy. We need to adopt a policy to do that, and the TOU amendment specifically lets us do that if we want. Until and unless that happens, the TOU remain in force. Of the alternatives presented here, Option 2 makes the most sense. We should have a policy mandating disclosure. But I think that the presence of this false choice, Option 3, and the other issues, invalidates this entire RfC. Coretheapple (talk) 23:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Abstain See COI disclosure on user page. CorporateM (Talk) 02:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Option 6, we make our own policy as an alternative to the TOU that reflects our handling of paid editors to how it was before the TOU was created. AioftheStorm (talk) 03:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Option 3 Let's promote the guideline to a policy if needed. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 04:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's worth noting the objections in the section above, and think they're significant enough that this cannot run as a legitimate RfC with its current wording (and I hesitate to suggest major rewordings of RfC's already in progress.) For instance, Option 1 is factually incorrect - the ToU doesn't supercede WP:COI since they can exist simultaneously because they have different requirements and address different issues.  That said, if this somehow does end up running to completion in its current state, since the ToU changes came about as a direct result of a significant issue on ENWP that we haven't fully addressed the past instances of and don't have adequate tools to address future instances of if we don't keep the ToU in place or have an alternate disclosure policy that is more strict than the language about recommending disclosure/strongly discouraging direct mainspace editing previously found at WP:COI, the only options I see as viable are either letting the ToU stand in addition to the further guidance provided by WP:COI, or adopting an alternate disclosure policy that is stronger than the diff TP linked as 'last consensus version.' Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose RfC as invalid The options are confusing and redundant, encouraging vote splitting. It also seems like those votes for option 2 aren't realizing that by adopting our own policy, it gives editors here a chance to weaken the TOU to not require disclosure at all. Gigs (talk) 17:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Obligations of other editors
Are other editors, not the paid editors themselves, who are aware that paid editing is taking place under any obligations to disclose that information to the wider community?
 * Option 1 No obligation
 * Option 2 Encouraged to disclose to Arbcom
 * Option 3 Obligated to discourage the editor from paid editing and encourage disclosure
 * Option 4 Obligated to disclose the paid editing to Arbcom or other private channels
 * Option 5 Obligated to disclose publicly that another editor is paid editing, immunity from WP:OUTING

Discussion

 * Support Option 2 - Reporting is desirable but not required. No obligation to be an informer.  Option 3, including discouraging the paid editor, is an exercise in futility.  Paid editors won't go away voluntarily.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Option 1 - No obligation, but certainly no prohibition against notifying ARBCOM and/or the community provided that WP:OUTING and privacy rights are respected. I am strongly against any mandated obligation to disclose.- MrX 21:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Option 2-I believe that editors with probable cause that another is a paid editor should be encouraged to make a report. However, actually making this mandatory seems like an incredible exercise in pointlessness. If it’s mandatory, some sort of penalty would need to be assigned to users who don’t report. We would then need to go through all of the effort of proving that one editor was aware of the paid editor status of another. This does not address the problem of paid editing and is quite frankly, a waste of everyone’s time. Its best to just make reporting voluntary. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Huh? This question is also prejudicial or absurd. No one has a Wikipedia obligation "to do" anything on Wikipedia (or off). It's only when you do something on Wikipedia that Wikipedia obligations arise, and those are entirely dependent on what you are doing, like under WP:RfC when you post an RfC it needs to be neutrally worded. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a ridiculously worded question that goes against all normal WP:RfC practices. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This question is so ridiculous that I wonder if perhaps it should be left in, so that the Foundation can get a true understanding that Wikipedia editors are incapable of thoughtfully dealing with this issue. Coretheapple (talk) 12:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * We need to distinguish between our obligations under policy, and our obligation to act. No editor is obligated to act as a policeman under any policy, although there are certain things (like removing vandalism from BLPs) that are so important we get close to that. The reason I asked this question above is that I was wondering the ToU expects me to do if I am aware of undisclosed paid editors, but we're not forced to act on that information if we choose not to. So I guess how I'd tackle this question is to ask not what we are obligated to do, but what we are expected to do if we are aware of a paid editor, as "expected" gives room for individual discretion. In regard to the options, I think the privacy policy trumps paid editor disclosure, but there is a difference between saying "this account is used by a paid editor" and "this account belongs to L.J. from ... who is a paid editor". The second is outing, but the first should be acceptable. So I don't see a major problem with 1, 2, 3 or 4, but would oppose 5. - Bilby (talk) 14:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Bilby I didn't understand until very recently how open and profligate is the "paid editing market." There's a freelancers' bulletin board where Wikipedia assistance is openly solicited and offered, often naming specific clients and articles. Much as I dislike paid editing, the idea that I as an editor have an obligation to "rat out" people is abhorrent, and I think it would be to many other editors. It is a total red herring. Coretheapple (talk) 15:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There isn't one board - I follow five main ones, and there are others with lower rates of Wikipedia jobs that I might check in on from time to time. That said, I don't think I was clear - you are not under an obligation to "rat out" anyone, any more than you are under an obligation to report someone to SPI, or to nominate an article that has insufficient sources to AfD. I would also fight a requirement that I am obligated these things. However, under policy there are things we are expected to do, and my interest when I raised the section prior to this RfC was to understand what the ToU expected of editors who are aware of undisclosed paid editing. This section would be better written in terms of "expectations" rather than "obligations", and should be focused on enforcement procedures. If worded that way, I don't mind being expected to encourage paid editors to disclose or to report it to arbcom. I am opposed to any expectation that I out editors, or any wording that mandates enforcement. - Bilby (talk) 15:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This is the first time I've heard of such an expectation. Certainly not ordinary editors. Now administrators are another matter entirely. Coretheapple (talk) 15:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Are we facilitating or prohibiting?
What is the community's goal regarding paid editing. Does WP:COI actively describe the conditions on which paid editing, or paid editing to talk pages, would be acceptable, agreeable, or is our goal to stop all paid editing?
 * Option 1 Paid editing should be prohibited
 * Option 2 Paid editing should be discouraged, but not prohibited.
 * Option 3 Paid editing is agreeable under certain conditions listed in WP:COI which include no editing to articles directly
 * Option 4 Paid editing is acceptable.

Discussion

 * Support modified Option 1. Paid advocacy editing, or paid commercial editing, should be prohibited.  Paid editing by professors and similar experts is acceptable.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Option 2 - I don't lose sleep over paid editing. There are so many motivations that can cause harm to the encyclopedia, that we all need to all be vigilant to make sure that misinformation and promotion do not stay in the encyclopedia. I am not in favor of giving any class of editors special dispensation, as suggested by my esteemed peer, Robert McClenon.- MrX 21:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment This is non-neutral, inaccurate, and presents a false choice. The current guideline restricts paid editing and cannot "stop" paid editing because it is just that, a behavioral guideline. Option 3 misstates the purpose of this guideline, which is to discourage COI editing, not to make it "agreeable." If this RfC is to change the fundamental thrust of the guideline, it must do so forthrightly and not by this kind of sleight-of-hand. And since Option 3 would overrule the TOU unless disclosure is mandated, it's improper because this is a guideline, and the TOU is policy. Coretheapple (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Options 3 and 2-I do not like paid editing at all and wish we could prohibit it with 100% effectiveness. However, let’s be realistic here: there is always going to be demand for paid editing to Wikipedia and paid editors are not going away just because we prohibit it. If we allow some restricted forms of paid editing, we can monitor it and prevent the worst paid editing abuses from occurring. If we outlaw it entirely, paid editors will just refrain from disclosing their status and conduct their paid editing under the radar, far away from the scrutiny of non-paid users. Neither solution is ideal, but allowing some restricted forms of paid editing is the lesser of two evils. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Option 4, is it preferable? No. But it is acceptable. Biased editing is unacceptable, but I am convinced that ideological bias is more potent than financial bias. I believe that if I were paid to edit a Wikipedia article, I would have no problem being neutral. I don't believe someone could believe as I do, that they could be paid to edit an article while remaining neutral, and also believe that paid editing is an indomitable source of bias. Additionally, paid editors work on topics that no one would ever edit if they weren't being paid, and are realistically the only option that a person/business has if they want their page edited. You can make requests, but this is a volunteer site and requests are generally ignored, especially on obscure topics. This is a site based on the mantra that "anybody can edit", even anonymous people with no credentials. Our policies have never seemed realistic, but at the very least they are usually ideologically consistent.AioftheStorm (talk) 02:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Option 1. The question is misstated, but I'll assume that by "paid editing" is meant "paid advocacy editing" or "commercial editing" or "paid reputation management editing"... that sort of thing. Well of course it's no good. It should be prohibited because 1) it's no good, and 2) prohibiting something is how you have less of that thing. There may be bad side effects of prohibiting something, but that's a different issue. I don't think any sane person can say "Well, if we allow paid advocacy editing, we'll have less of it, and if we prohibit it, we'll have more." Right? I mean alcohol Prohibition was a disaster in America, but it did depress alcohol consumption. Alcohol consumption did not fall after Prohibition was repealed. Now, two things about that that were 1) there were bad side effects and 2) what's wrong with alcohol consumption anyway? Same deal here re paid advocacy editing. If you think that "driving it underground" is really bad side effect (not clear how that would be, but reasonable (although wrong IMO) arguments can be made to that effect) or if you think that paid advocacy editing is a good thing, then fine, you won't agree with me. But IMO making there be less of it is a really good thing and really important. And prohibiting things is how you do that. Herostratus (talk) 03:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll assume that by "paid editing" is meant "paid advocacy editing"
 * The question is stated correctly. Paid advocacy is already banned, this discussion concerns paid editing.AioftheStorm (talk) 03:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * This isn't a question that belongs in this RfC, because any reasonable person familiar with past discussions of this set of issues on ENWP fully understands that there is no possible way community consensus will be reached on this particular issue. All that including this question here does is distract from questions that actually need to be addressed.  Also, what Coretheapple said. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually I overlooked one of the problems with this question, which is that it fails to define paid editing. While I throw that phrase around myself, what I mean is usually referred to as "paid advocacy editing," or editing on behalf of a specific client to advance the client's interests. But "paid editing" can also be construed as benign activities like a professor writing about areas of expertise, like Greco-Roman arm-wrestling or whatever, that he is "paid" to follow. The more I look at this RfC, the more I realize that its ignorant phrasing, appeals to emotion and general stupidity is actually a fine representation of the Wikipedia attitude toward COI and paid editing. Coretheapple (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Objection
Not neutrally worded. That is not what the WMF has said, and its characterization in this RfC is clearly meant to prejudice this discussion. There is also no agreement that there is a substantive conflict between WP:TOU disclosure policy and WP:COI, and that statement in the RfC is also clearly meant to prejudice this discussion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree. Hipocrite (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've linked explicitly where the WMF legal said what they said.--v/r - TP 18:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And it's miss-characterized in the RfC, so object. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Where is the link to what WMF Legal said? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This followed by this are their two comments on the matter.--v/r - TP 18:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Except that the TOU does explicitly distinguish between guidelines and policies. You have to read the whole portion of the TOU in context. "Applicable law, or community and Foundation policies and guidelines, such as those addressing conflicts of interest, may further limit paid contributions or require more detailed disclosure." Then in the next paragraph, "A Wikimedia Project community may adopt an alternative paid contribution disclosure policy. If a Project adopts an alternative disclosure policy, you may comply with that policy instead of the requirements in this section when contributing to that Project." This TOU doesn't come out of nowhere. It was written with this project in mind, and I think the Foundation knows perfectly well that we have guidelines and policies, and that they are different. A behavioral guideline can't overrule a policy, and never has. It seems to me that yes, we can overturn the TOU here, but in so doing we would turn this from a guideline into a policy.

However, if the apologists for/"faciltators" of paid editing want to make a mess out of this, or replace this weak TOU with something weaker, as far as I am concerned they are welcome to do so, as the Foundation is responsible for this ambiguity and richly deserves any reputational hit that will flow from it. Coretheapple (talk) 14:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I reject the premise that there is a clear contradiction between the ToU and our guideline (one could argue that there may be, but that is different from what the RfC says) and I reject the implication that the ToU requires us to take any action. It is malformed and should be withdrawn. I don't object to an RfC but it needs to be better formed.Jytdog (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've asked your 'side' of this conflict to open an RFC about half a dozen times. None of you did.--v/r - TP 19:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The reason you didn't post this as a draft and ask for comments from people you disagree with, or even attempt to write for the enemy is that when you tried to assign work to other people (and shift the burden of consensus,) the other people didn't fall for it? Check! Hipocrite (talk) 19:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Because there is no requirement to. Feel free to propose an RFC to change the requirements of RFCs to require drafts.  Or next time when I suggest that one of you open it, do so.--v/r - TP 20:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * TP I hear you, but it would have been better to draft it and and ask what folks think instead of jumping straight to posting it. Would you please withdraw the RfC so we can discuss it?  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Feel free to change specific language you disagree with, Jytdog, I won't object.--v/r - TP 20:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The invitation is lovely but the way I am wired, I am really uncomfortable changing an open RfC. I will create a new section (above this to avoid cluttering the section below) with some thoughts... this is a very tough RfC to set up so it has a chance of producing an actionable consensus. Jytdog (talk) 20:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree: There is no such conflict between the new TOU and this guideline. The guideline says that COI editing is strongly discouraged and disclosing a COI is encouraged.  The TOU says that COI editing is prohibited without disclosure.  Encouraging disclosure for such editing is not contradictory with prohibiting non-disclosure for such editing. -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Um, no, the WMF's new ToU do not say anything, per se, about "COI edits", It discuses only paid editing. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's fine if you interpret it as distinct in this case; that still means there's no contradiction. -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, this is going to be a difficult RfC. I get what TP is saying about needing to get some kind of structure, but OTOH, you don't want people voting on whether the questions were the right questions, as often happens in these contentious RfCs. I have to stay neutral and I'm not taking a position, but maybe a little more discussion about how best to word the questions would be helpful. - Dank (push to talk) 20:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Now we need an RfC on how to word an RfC? I think the RfC is fine. Let's not pursue perfection at the expense of the good.- MrX 21:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * please see my comments in the section above. Dank knows what he is talking about... Jytdog (talk) 21:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand that that's how things usually work out, thanks to wikilawyering. I was merely making an appeal to address this at practical level. My guess is that the effort that will go into debating, rewording, and re-posting the RfC, will not be rewarded with any substantive benefit. But since people are already calling foul, might as well scrap it and start over.- MrX 21:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I fear you are not getting it. The community went through FOUR massive, mostly simultaneous proposals for a policy on paid editing last winter - huge, heated, zillions of bytes discussions -- all four of which ended in no consensus.  In other words, huge huge waste of time that produced nothing.   Except that Dank got some ideas, when he closed them all, of a way to potentially guide a productive conversation.   It is not a matter of wikilawyering -- the issues are complex and there are very strong feelings on many sides of the several issues involved.Jytdog (talk) 00:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm having second thoughts about my opposition to this RfC. Sure it's a disaster. Sure it's poorly drafted. Sure it's one-sided and so on and and so forth. But the only reason we've gotten this far is because the Foundation felt moved to act. If there is more stalemate, which seems likely, or if Wikipedia rejects the TOU, the Foundation will be moved to act again. Jimbo feels very strongly about paid editing, and I think it's fair to say that he has described this TOU change as the beginning of a process. So let the process begin. Let them do it. Everyone needs to keep in mind that our personal reputations aren't at stake here. It's really not our problem and I'm beginning to wonder, seeing this massive discussion begin, whether it's worth the trouble. Maybe it's best for the paid editing apologists to get their way, because if they do, they're begging the Foundation to take further action. And if the Foundation doesn't act, so what? Doesn't hurt me. Win-win. Coretheapple (talk) 00:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's a little mini-essay I wrote on the subject some months ago, entitled 'Why paid editing is not our problem". I recently removed it from my user page because it's not our problem. Coretheapple (talk) 00:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree that this RfC is a nonstarter as not neutrally worded and objectionable in various ways, beginning with the header - calling this guideline a "policy" from now to doomsday does not make it so - and including its "all or nothing" mindset and the fact that the proposer does not disclose his status as a former paid editor, as required by this guideline. If this indeed were a guideline, that failure to disclose would be even more acute than it is now, and it is pretty bad. Coretheapple (talk) 21:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There are some really tough questions here. I've asked for people to step up as closers over at WP:AN. If they do, I don't want to steal their thunder, I'll confer with them before I say anything here. - Dank (push to talk) 22:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I get it (now). When I posted previously I did not realize that you were referring me to a section above the RfC.- MrX 00:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * :) Jytdog (talk) 03:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

What a complete and utter mess. Burn it with fire and start over. Gigs (talk) 17:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for withdrawing. Hopefully we can move forward with a better RfC.  I know it's always hard to draft these things. Gigs (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

On changing the current regulation on paid editing
The current state is that:
 * The ToU which is policy or even "super-policy" says that if paid editors edit they must disclose their paid status.
 * It specifically does not either allow or prohibit paid editing.
 * The ToU specifically allows WP:Conflict of interest (as well as other policies and guideline) to increase the requirements on disclosure and paid editing.
 * WP:COI "very strongly discourages" paid editing on article pages, but does not specifically either allow or prohibit paid editing.

Making changes to the current state
 * The ToU change may be weakened or even repealed by a new policy which specifically mentions the ToU and is officially recorded on a specific page.
 * Changes in WP:COI may be made in the usual way
 * Changes in any policy or even creating a new policy on paid editing may be done in the usual way, as long as it does not weaken or repeal the ToU changes.

I hope everybody agrees to these basics, but feel that it would be best to affirm that through !votes.

Support as proposer Smallbones( smalltalk ) 21:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC) "Does this provision mean that paid contributions are always allowed as long as they are disclosed?"
 * Oppose - The TOU clearly intimates that paid editing is a permitted activity. To characterize the TOU as above is tendentious. As an illustration, a regulation that seatbelts must be worn by the driver of the car technically does not state that driving a car is a legal activity, but it clearly intimates as much. Carrite (talk) 16:32, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * See the [TOU FAQs]. You really should read the material before you comment on it.

"No. Users must also comply with each Wikimedia project’s additional policies and guidelines, as well as any applicable laws. For example, English Wikipedia’s policy on neutral point of view requires that editing be done fairly, proportionally and (as far as possible) without bias; these requirements must be followed even if the contributor discloses making paid edits." Smallbones( smalltalk ) 04:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Reminder
It's at the top of this page, but I think that editors need to be reminded of this. The COI guideline says "Any editor who discusses proposed changes to WP:COI or to any conflict of interest policy or guideline, should disclose in that discussion if he or she has been paid to edit on Wikipedia." Coretheapple (talk) 22:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Does the TOU mean that Foundation employees who edit Wikipedia as part of their job (I'm thinking of developers commenting on "improvements") must identify themselves.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure does. But the passage I quoted concerns conduct on this page specifically. Being part of a "guideline" and not the TOU, it is like the rest of it: toothless. Coretheapple (talk) 02:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

additional thought on ToU - they add force to our guideline
The ToU say: "Applicable law, or community and Foundation policies and guidelines, such as those addressing conflicts of interest, may further limit paid contributions or require more detailed disclosure." This is interesting. The ToU give force to our guideline - a "guideline" is something that indeed "may further limit paid contributions" under the ToU, which is higher than anything else we have here. That is quite an authorization. I imagine that is an interpretation that may be upsetting. But I didn't catch that before at all. Jytdog (talk) 06:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I just deployed that here. Jytdog (talk) 06:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Since this part of the tos specifically refers to this guideline, I agree with Jytdog. The FAQs also say that policies and guidelines must be followed.  The upshot is that the tos must be followed and this guideline "may further limit paid contributions or require more detailed disclosure,"  i.e. the stronger of the two applies.


 * There's also been a question raised repeatedly on whether the tos implies that paid editing is somehow accepted. The FAQs address this directly.  The answer is "no."  In detail:

Does this provision mean that paid contributions are always allowed as long as they are disclosed?

"No. Users must also comply with each Wikimedia project’s additional policies and guidelines, as well as any applicable laws. For example, English Wikipedia’s policy on neutral point of view requires that editing be done fairly, proportionally and (as far as possible) without bias; these requirements must be followed even if the contributor discloses making paid edits."


 * I suppose there might be an argument that, because this guideline doesn't specifically prohibit paid editing, but only says that it is very strongly discouraged then it must be allowed, i.e. arguing that 2 negatives make a positive. In point of fact this guideline has never said anything about making paid editing acceptable - quite the opposite.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 14:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Applicable law
The Terms of Use amendment and FAQs refer to "applicable law", but the amendment doesn't say what applicable law is, rather referring generally to the FTC, EU law, and California and New York state law and suggesting that other laws may apply as well.

In Section 13 "Disputes and Jurisdiction" of the ToU (which was not amended) it states: "You agree to submit to the personal jurisdiction of, and agree that venue is proper in, the courts located in San Francisco County, California, in any legal action or proceeding relating to us or these Terms of Use."

Does this mean that California state laws and US federal laws have a special status in a legal dispute over paid editing involving the WMF, but that other laws may apply as well? That's probably too big of a question to be put all in one sentence, but perhaps you can address this in parts.

Also at the very bottom of the ToU is a date when they were last revised. It says 2012 right now. Shouldn't it be June 16, 2014?

Smallbones( smalltalk ) 15:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Is editing Wikipedia from an hourly job &#8220;paid&#8221;?
If I were to edit an article related or unrelated to my field of employment while at work (i.e. &#8220;on the clock,&#8221;) then a literal reading of the revised terms of service would suggest that I must disclose my identity. After all, while at work people may be paid by the hour regardless of what they are doing. Furthermore, the new guideline mentions paid editing in the context of &#8220;deceptive activities&#8221; and &#8220;fraud.&#8221; Actual paid editing may not necessarily constitute fraud; even if somebody were to pay me to express a point of view, the ultimate end-result may be to make an article better in quality, or even to make it more neutral or remove bias. If that is the case, then such editing might neither be deceptive nor be fraudulent. By contrast, receiving compensation for time spent at work when I actually edit Wikipedia instead of doing my job may arguably constitute fraud against my employer and therefore violate the revised terms of service. (In reality my employer cares only that the editing does not interfere with the job being done, but other employers have a blanket policy against personal Internet usage.) 173.79.225.57 (talk) 17:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No. "As part of these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." You are not expecting compensation for your contributions. -- Neil N  talk to me  17:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd be very careful about Wikilawyering here. If you are really asking about doing work that your employer is encouraging you to do on time that he is paying you for, I'd say disclose.  You don't have to disclose your own name, but you do have to disclose your employer's and any other client and affiliation you have.  The WMF has reserved the right the take action in this case if you don't disclose, in which case you might be answering in a real courtroom, under real laws, not on a Wiki discussion board. They wouldn't have to prove anything about fraud - just that you were paid for the edit and that you did not disclose.
 * That said if you are editing in good faith and not influenced by your employer, I wouldn't expect anything so serious. Please just don't try to cut corners on this.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 18:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * What he seems to be describing is not paid editing but just ordinary COI editing, which this guideline is designed to discourage. Coretheapple (talk) 19:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Fulfilling this guideline
Those who take part in COI editing are supposed to be "strongly discouraged." This discouragement will not come from anyone except editors of good conscience. It is our responsibility to use not just milquetoast words when talking about this practice—words just as easily ignored as said—but to discourage it strongly in the face of resistance. And resistance exists.

Resistance to this discouragement is caused by narcissism. Some COI editors perhaps do not care at all about bettering this encyclopedia, but they offer no real resistance, even if they repeat some talking points. Real, honest resistance instead stems from the narcissistic view that one's abilities as an editor are just that much better. Editors with this view believe that the strong discouragement should only apply to others, not them; that they are not affected by their conflict of interest; that they edit neutrally despite any financial incentive not to do so. By their own self-love, they are the exceptional editors: "COI editing should be strongly discouraged, yes, sure, whatever, but I shall still do it, because I am allowed and I am the exception better than the rule of others."

How do we strongly discourage these editors? We tell them, whenever the issue of their COI editing comes up, why it is that the practice is strongly discouraged: because it hurts this encyclopedia. Their behaviour hurts this encyclopedia. No COI editor has ever displayed a relevant body of work that has been free of shortcomings in terms of neutrality. The existence of such shortcomings can always be reasonably suspected as being caused by a relevant conflict of interest where one exists. Such suspicions destroy trust. And we should tell them too of the consensus of our reliable sources concerning conflict of interest authorship: No one is immune, even when one is not consciously aware of being affected by their conflict of interest (Moore & Loewenstein 2004 ). If these messages and others are pressed consistently, perhaps we can move from inadequate, merest discouragement to the strong discouragement required by this guideline.

And every time someone tries to apologize for or enable COI editing, ask that person: "How is what you're saying consistent with our goal of strongly discouraging for COI editing?" If they cannot adequately answer this, then rightly tell them that they are failing to live up to the consensus on how a Wikipedian should behave as represented by this guideline. -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 08:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * But there are many editors, including some administrators, who believe in facilitating COI editing, not discouraging it. Some have engaged in paid editing themselves. They hate this guideline and despise editors who want to strengthen it. It's an emotional issue for them, as pocketbook issues frequently are. But keep in mind that the victim of this ethical blind spot is the project as a whole, and the reputation of Wikipedia, so ultimately we can't get worked too much into a sweat when the Foundation responds in a half-hearted and equivocal way. As it has. Coretheapple (talk) 14:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "But there are many editors, including some administrators, who believe in facilitating COI editing, not discouraging it." There are a majority of editors, as demonstrated by the failed attempts to prohibit it altogether, that believe outright bans of COI editing is fruitless and facilitating it offers the best option to ensure a NPOV encyclopedia.--v/r - TP 16:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No the community does not believe in "facilitating" COI editing. That's your position, and it is contrary to the spirit and text of this guideline, which says in plain language: "COI editing is strongly discouraged." It doesn't say "COI editing is OK if disclosed" or "COI editing needs to be facilitated in order that it doesn't go underground" or other rubbish like that. It says is "discouraged." We need to improve this guideline, not undermine it, and facilitating it would be directly contrary to what the community is saying in this guideline. Coretheapple (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If it is only my opinion, than why have you needed to change this policy to reflect yours? And why have you not sought community consensus with an RFC? The 4 previous RFCs failed. This isn't my opinion, it is the community's.--v/r - TP 17:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It is only your opinion because "facilitating COI editing" is contrary to the plain language of the guideline. It's that simple. What this guideline says has nothing whatsoever to do with what RfCs have concluded or whatever else you are referring to, as I can't make any sense of it. Coretheapple (talk) 17:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This entire policy is about facilitating COIs. It's about how to contribute as a COI editor in good faith and under what conditions we'll find it agreeable.  What this policy isn't about is prohibiting COI editing.--v/r - TP 17:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

TParis, my perspective is that COI editing remains an incredible contentious issue on enWP and the community is far from settled on the issue. I don't think its accurate to say "we'll find it agreeable"! There are editors who will be very antagonistic toward COI editors and some who will encourage them. The community cannot agree on any policy on this issue; the best it could do is to issue this guideline, with which the community remains uneasy. The guideline allows the presence of editors with a COI in the community and offers behavioral guidelines for what COI editors should and should not do, with most of the emphasis on restrictions. Because of this unsettledness, COI editors can expect trouble on Talk pages, but if they stay within the guidelines they are very unlikely to meet with any further restrictions or admininistrative actions. Jytdog (talk) 18:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, Jytdog, I entirely agree. I hope we do not stray from that in our current discussions.--v/r - TP 18:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * :) Jytdog (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * TParis, if you feel that "this entire policy [sic] is about facilitating COIs" -- when the then you need to reconcile that... I don't what it is... hidden meaning? ... with language in this behavioral guideline (it is not a "policy") that says the direct opposite, that it is to actively discourage such editing. Facilitate means "make (an action or process) easy or easier," so the guideline needs to say "COI editing is strongly discouraged and we want to make it easier for you", adding the italicized text. FYI, whatever you call it, there is no COI guideline or policy or tree stump on earth that is designed to "facilitate" COI editing, so Wikipedia would be a kind of trailblazer in doubletalk. Coretheapple (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)