Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Archive 23

Proposal for new limitation
Propose to add to the main advice box, as in this dif
 * If you are paid to edit articles, do not edit policies, guidelines, templates, help documents, etc.

This has not come up before that I am aware of, but then this happened followed by this. There was pretty clear consensus on both noticeboards for this principle. If we agree to add here, the same change should be made to WP:PAID, I reckon. Jytdog (talk) 10:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Support proposal I am strongly opposed to paid editors changing guidelines/policies/help pages. First, because there has been a previous case where a longtime (undisclosed) paid editor actually influenced certain guidelines and later used it to defend their own stance in certain articles (See this). My second reason is because paid editing is a form of Systemic bias. I find it ethically wrong that certain individuals and companies can hire editors and have a nice puffed up article on Wikipedia. At the same time, volunteer editors also spend time trying to trim the articles and reduce promotional content. The encyclopaedia gradually gets slanted towards these articles. Although I dislike it, I can live with it as long as paid editing is properly disclosed. However, when paid editors start changing guidelines/policies/help pages, it risks introducing the bias into the very functioning of Wikipedia itself. This is much more critical. If the notability barriers for companies are brought down, it becomes easier to slip in articles and use Wikipedia for promotion. If it is made harder to tag articles for problems, editors may refrain from pointing out problems altogether, which serves the purpose of COI editors. If it is made easier to remove maintenance templates, then COI editors can simply remove the tags without fixing problems. On a long term, this risks transforming a free encyclopaedia to a platform hosting information about people who can pay for it (something like a paid web-host, with free volunteer customer service). Since I don't want that to happen, it is best that paid editors are not allowed to edit policies/guidelines/help pages directly. The problem needs to be nipped in the bud right now. Support adding this diff to WP:COI and consequently to WP:PAID as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. This plugs an obvious loophole. Additionally, paid and COI editors should not be participating in AfD discussions, where they can be disruptive and tenacious. Note too the template help discussion here regarding removal of article maintenance templates by COI editors generally. Coretheapple (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No. This is far too broad, especially given that many people who are "paid" to edit (e.g., Wikipedians in residence) are longterm community members with significant knowledge and experience. Risker (talk) 18:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think this can be cured by simply referencing the TOU. That is, editors paid as defined by the TOU. A tweak would do it. Coretheapple (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * , If I may, you have previusly advocated tightening Notability-business rules to alternatively address paid editing, and now when a paid editor has been blocked in part for trying to edit the Notability-business rules, your response is just 'no'. What can we do? Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Risker about that, please see this about a GLAM editor editing this guideline with respect to GLAM, to make it less restrictive for him/herself. In my view if someone is GLAM and is very well respected, if they make a proposal to change a policy etc it will surely be well heard.  Also, would love to hear what would make to sense to you to prevent problems in the future.  Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Important, broad policies and guidelines should not be changed as a result of one-off situations. Having re-read the sections that Jytdog has referenced, what we had here was an individual who was completely inappropriately changing policies without proper disussion. The fact he was a paid editor was irrelevant: people who change policies without proper discussion are almost always making changes that reflect their editorial preferences. We already have a policy about changing policies. The substantive sentence is: Editing a policy to support your own argument in an active discussion may be seen as gaming the system, especially if you do not disclose your involvement in the argument when making the edits. Let's not duplicate things., I'm not sure why you'd link my belief that more stringent notability requirements for businesses with the longstanding procedures for modification of guidelines and policies. I don't see anyone rushing to even have the discussion about tightening notability. , Wikipedia is becoming extremely overburdened by intertwining and often contradictory or out-of-step rules. They aren't working. I believe that your assessment of the discussion on ANI is actually quite wrong, and reflects your own point of view. I want to stop seeing people propose modifications to important policies and guidelines based on their own viewpoints. I'm not persuaded that your proposal here is any less problematic than that which just got someone else indeffed. Risker (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That person was indeffed for battleground behavior, not for proposing changes. Hm. In any case, thanks for making your opposition to this clear.  This may take an RfC but we'll see how this goes.  But what you mention there about WP:PAG is super helpful and may be all we need. Thanks  Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)(redact Jytdog (talk) 22:06, 5 June 2016 (UTC))


 * Risker, why do I link it, because the link should be obvious: 1) you have a paid editor editing the buisness notability rule in ways the community found against wikipedia's interest due to conflict; 2) you have a business notability rule, which you argue should be tightend to address the conflict of paid editing. Ergo. It's not going to be tightened with paid editors editing it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment The editor who prompted discussion of this problem is now indef blocked.. Did that resolve the problem for now, or is this a broad enough problem to require policy changes? In general, editors probably should avoid editing policy pages where they are close to violating that policy. That's a "discuss on talk first" kind of issue. John Nagle (talk) 05:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That editor was already indeffed and unblocks had been refused when I first proposed this. It was to avoid future such situations that I did it.  (It is bad form to try to change policies/guidelines to win an argument; the argument was indeed already over.)  I am unaware of this happening before.  Consensus was strongly against what this editor was doing at COIN and ANI so it seemed reasonable to see if there was consensus to add it to the guideline.Jytdog (talk) 11:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose as instruction creep. Changes to policy and guidelines already requires consensus and no one should be editing them without seeking consensus for their change first.--v/r - TP 18:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support -- the less paid editors do the better. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose as instruction creep. It's not usually a good idea to expand a guideline to address a one-time problem; WP:Nobody reads the directions anyway (and if they did, then they would have discovered that gaming guidelines is already named as a bad idea in WP:Policy), so uncommon problems are almost never solved thereby.  Separately, I oppose including the Help: and Template: namespaces.  I'm having trouble seeing how one could re-write, say, Help:Edit summary, to benefit a client.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Lede: accent shifted
After I expressed some thoughts about "Ghostwriting" I have reread the lede and I am afraid this policy slides down the slippery slope of Parkinson's laws. The lede does not focus on the primary goal: delivering reliable information. Instead, it dwells at lengths on reputation. This the point of view of a bureaucrat covering their ass no matter what, rather than of an encyclopedist.

I edited the lede to fix this a bit, but I would ask for a stronger statement which says what is primary and what is secondary, something like: "Any COI is prone to introducing bias, intentional or unintentional. Since it is a well-known fact, failure to handle potential COI undermines confidence in Wikipedia's ability to provide reliable and non-partisan information". Staszek Lem (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * In the "real world" it's not even reputation as much as it is property rights. If a writer for a publication has a conflict of interest, he is abusing his position in one field (in this case Wikipedia editor), effectively stealing from it, "misappropriating" its bandwidth and prestige for the benefit of a third party (the subject of the article) in which he has a direct personal interest. This current approach expresses that fundamental problem with COI indirectly but I think is generally on target. It says that COI hurts the project's reputation, which is not because of bias but because it means the project is manipulated by a third party. The outside world isn't going to say "oh gee, the text is fine, it is NPOV, it is balanced, so it is OK for Donald Trump to write his article." Coretheapple (talk) 19:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I am with you here. However we are going to allow Donald Trump to submit his pieces, right? And diligent wikipedians are going to accept it after careful vetting, right? And we have this policy in place, so that outside world will say:  "oh gee, the text is fine, it is NPOV, it is balanced, they did not allow Donald Trump to write his article the way he wants."  Therefore my suggestion specifically speakd about  failure to handle potential COI. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The guideline is flipping back and forth, being weakened in places and strengthened in others, and some of the writing isn't ideal (and some of it doesn't make much sense). Much of the guideline has been written carefully over the years, even if it doesn't look that way, to accommodate issues and nuances that people care about. Sometimes particular wording was the only way to gain consensus. Sometimes it reflects academic texts that explain what COI is. We have to guard against weakening it to the point that it supports what it's warning of, or making it so extreme that it's used as a weapon against good editors.


 * For example, regarding the recent proposal that "if you are paid to edit articles, do not edit policies, guidelines, templates, help documents, etc," I understand the spirit of it, but it would mean that a Wikipedian of 10 years standing who had done some paid editing for GLAM, would not be able to edit Infobox person, while someone who edits with an unpaid COI could do what they wanted.


 * The paid editing the community is concerned about is commercial and PR editing. Editors care about the pharmaceutical industry talking up its own products. They care much less when someone edits an article about her notable mum. And they support or don't mind when GLAM people write carefully for the institutions they work with. The guideline ought not to mix those things up, though I know that finding the right words isn't easy. SarahSV (talk) 21:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sarah, your comment is applicable to each and every our policy. However it does not answer whether my concern was valid or serious. The concern was that the current wording of the lede seems to protect the apparent Wikipedia's reputation rather than to protect the quality of information. IMO exactly this shift of the perception of our work have led to the recent WMF disaster. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * This guideline covers all COI editing, and if you watch ANI or AN, you will see that by far the most disruption comes from people writing about themselves or their mum.  I understand that some editors have a bias against the pharma industry but that is those particular editors' axes to grind/fixation; but in the world of people who actually edit health content and who work in WP:MED, we see very little presence from big pharma in WP:MED.  We see way more conflicted editing from alt med/dietary supplements and their advocates, actually.  The medical device industry is bad, for sure.  There was just a discussion about that at WT:MED here. Jytdog (talk) 21:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Staszek Lem that this guideline has shifted the emphasis significantly. I tend to disagree with the change, but it happened, and there are plenty of other ways to contribute.

I'm not sure that it makes much difference, though. We still have COI problems, and we still have a small group of anti-COI editors who deal with the bulk of the mess. We still enforce the same general things to the same general standard, and enforcement is still based mostly on "I know it when I smell it" than specific points in the guideline. The exact words that they quote at the editors whom they deem to have violated the rules just don't seem to matter that much. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Which is what I said at the beginning. We went from a guideline that suggested COI editors follow it, and they might have, to a guideline that demands COI editors fall in line, which is going to be totally blown off.  It makes people feel better, but that's about it.  It has no practical effectiveness.--v/r - TP 01:27, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Ghostwriting passage
There is no conseensus for how to word this. Adding versions below for discussion:

Editors should exercise caution when responding to edit requests from COI and paid editors, particularly when commercial interests are involved. When large amounts of text are added on behalf of the article subject, it means that the article has, in effect, been ghostwritten by them, without the readers' knowledge.
 * SlimVirgin's version created somewhere in this set of edits then further tweaked here and

Editors should exercise caution when responding to edit requests from editors with a COI. When large amounts of text are written by the subject or their representatives, it means that the article has, in effect, been ghostwritten by them, without the readers' knowledge.
 * Coretheapple's version created here:

Editors should exercise caution when responding to edit requests from editors with a COI. When large amounts of text are added on behalf of the article subject without careful review, it means that the article has, in effect, been ghostwritten by them, without the readers' knowledge.
 * Jytdog's version made here:

Editors should exercise caution when responding to edit requests from COI and paid editors, particularly when commercial interests are involved.
 * Staszek Lem's version from here:

Those are four key ones, I think. Jytdog (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC) (redacted Jytdog (talk) 20:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC))


 * Uh, no.


 * What you personalize as "Coretheapple's version" is a tweak of the preexisting version that you weakened in this edit. The earlier version was this. It is the consensus, stable version, not "my" version:


 * Editors should exercise caution when responding to edit requests from COI and paid editors, particularly when commercial interests are involved. When large amounts of text are added on behalf of the article subject, it means that the article has, in effect, been ghostwritten by them, without the readers' knowledge.


 * You then removed the paragraph entirely. Not good. Please self-revert. Coretheapple (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus for what to say here; there is a range of views on this content that was BOLDLY added and it is completely normal for BOLD changes to stay out of policies and guidelines until there is consensus to include them. If you do not want the version you made considered above that is fine; I struck the listing above - feel free to pose one of your own then. Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The key points of contention are whether to emphasize paid editing or make this general for all conflicted editors, whether it matters that content has actually been reviewed by independent editors, and whether to use the "ghostwriting" term at all. Jytdog (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello? You've been repeatedly weakening/removing a portion of this guideline that has been there since December 8 . You're acting as if someone shoved it in yesterday.


 * Since it has been there since December 8, it is the consensus version per WP:EDITCONSENSUS.


 * You've actively edited this guideline many times since Dec. 8, and you claim that only now are you "noticing" this "bold" thing. Give me a break. The key point of contention is that you are intent on weakening the guideline and are only too happy to edit-war over it. Haven't you gone down this road before, without very good consequences for you? Please self-revert. Or not. Your choice, but you are clearly acting against consensus. Coretheapple (talk) 20:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * if there has been prior discussion of this passage here on Talk, please provide a link to it. Thanks. Also thanks for making clear which version you support. Now we can see what other folks say and try to reach consensus on language for this passage, which is important.  Jytdog (talk) 21:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Re your edits against consensus, you're into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory now and it is going to be a solitary journey. Coretheapple (talk) 21:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope. There are only four of us discussing now. You and SV support her BOLD edit; neither Staszek Lem nor I are OK with it. More folks will chime in with time and we will see where consensus ends up, now that this is being discussed.  Jytdog (talk) 21:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Staszek's editing and his comments in colloquies with me above indicate basic agreement with my position on "ghostwriting," though he prefers a different term. Of course, he is here and can state otherwise obviously. I see you've self-reverted. Good. One down, one to go. Coretheapple (talk) 22:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not exactly "here". I am a "random passer-by" and I don't grasp exactly what exactly is your disareement. I just poked my nose into here and I believe my first comment was that I dislike both versions (and you have right to dislike my dislikes). Staszek Lem (talk) 01:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * "More folks will chime in with time" - this seems ripe for an RfC, I think the wider community would want to be aware of these proposed changes. To me this seems far too important to be left to a small handful of random passers-by.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   23:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Eventually. This just started yesterday and its not yet clear what the range of views are that we should get feedback on. Jytdog (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Staszek Lem's take 2 on Ghostwriting
I understand the attractiveness of the term "ghostwriting", but I stay that its usage in fact obfuscates the situation at hand. The correct term for this problem would be "editing by proxy" or, in extreme case "rubberstamping". We need to state that something bad is happening. But this "bad" is not "ghostwriting" per se. There are plenty of legit reasons for ghostwriting in wikipedia: fear of persecution, being jailed, blindness, computerophobia, etc,.

At the same time I understand in your brains this term is already associated with what you mean in this context. Therefor here is a trade-off version of the first passage:


 * When a volunteer wikipedian responds to edit requests from editors with a COI, the volunteer is essentially "editing by proxy". If large amounts of text written by the subject or their representatives are added without due diligence, then the point of view of the subject is de-facto rubber-stamped by the volunteer, but the readers are usually not aware of this ghostwriting and may take the COI POV for Wikipedia's NPOV.

In this phrasing thee sides of the "counterfeit dice" are explained: (a) PR concealed POV-pushing, (b) wikipedian's role in enabling this concealment, (c) gullible readers. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Except that POV-pushing is not the only concern. The overriding issue is the expectation that readers have that the content of Wikipedia is not authored or drafted by the subject. Even without POV pushing, it is still editing by proxy/ghostwriting/whatever you want to call it. Thus this is a significant change from the current language. Coretheapple (talk) 02:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Except to the except that in fact (if you care to read what I wrote) there are whole 3 (three) concerns addressed, including yours. And there is no expectation in readers you think. Reader don't know and care who wrote it: for all their purposes it is anonymous wikipedia, where PFY and Bill Gates have same editing rights.  The expectation the readers have is that the information is true and non-partisan (or at least verifiable) (even if wikipedia rules say that Wikipedia is not a reliable source :-). Finally, Yes it is a change, and we are discussing it, because the current version is contested. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If all they care about is that material be written "true and nonpartisan" then we can just throw out this whole COI guideline because all that stuff is covered by policy. When the BP situation arose it was an immense reputational hit for WPedia and BP. http://www.salon.com/2013/03/21/bp_edited_its_own_environmental_record_on_wikipedia/http://www.cnet.com/news/bp-accused-of-rewriting-environmental-record-on-wikipedia/ Coretheapple (talk) 02:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * We all agree that we want this guideline to be clear so that people inside and outside of WP better understand how we actually manage conflicted editors. Jytdog (talk) 02:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly. And my intention is for the policy to help people understand that we do this not because we leftist wikipedia hate corporations, but because we want the quality of information. The rest is secondary, means towards the main goal. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Please don't look only at the surface of the events. BP scandal was not because they edited, but because they were whitewashing. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * To be clear, the claim was whitewashing. There was an NPOV dispute there among the independent WP editors discussing the BP employee's proposals and that dispute got very, very bitter and feelings are still raw about it.  The claims in the press that BP was controlling that discussion were unhelpful and inaccurate in my view; the dispute was among WP editors.   Like I said above I bailed because it got too unpleasant.Jytdog (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The issue at BP was that the company was trying to rewrite the article. The concern was not "whitewashing," but (as the guideline says) the tendency to bias that we assume exists when roles and relationships conflict, and the damage that does to public confidence. The public, academics and the media understand what is wrong with BP writing BP. It is only on Wikipedia that you find people arguing otherwise. But those same people would not be happy to find that apparently independent articles about Clinton in the NYT had been written by her. That would cause them not to trust the NYT anymore. Similarly, when the public finds BP writing BP, directly or otherwise, they don't trust Wikipedia anymore, or BP. SarahSV (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sara, that was you who made that incorrect claim that BP has rewritten 44 percent of the page about itself. This claim was picked-up by (or rather sent to) some partisan media outlets from where it was picked-up by the mainstream media. The claim was presented as a fact without checking how it was made. It was explained that time several times why your calculation was incorrect. Also, all information added to the article was vented by independent editors and not everything was included. Beagel (talk) 08:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The figures were correct. A company rep created ten drafts for different sections and editors copied at least eight of them into the article. You posted three. The issue with these interactions is that they transform companies from sources into authors. As a reader, if I want to read about company X from its own perspective, I go to its website. When I read the Wikipedia article on that company, I hope that the authors have no connection with the company, just as when I read apparently independent Amazon book reviews, I hope that the book's publisher hasn't written them. What happens when those lines are crossed is a form of astroturfing. If you were to discover that the BBC had allowed Donald Trump to direct a documentary on himself, without telling viewers, you would be astonished, and it wouldn't help in the slightest if the BBC defended itself after the fact with: "But we did have people check that what he said about himself was correct." SarahSV (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This is exactly where you are wrong and it is pity you did not read responses what is wrong with your calculations that time. Your calculation is arithmetically probably correct but what you calculated has nothing to do what was actually changed in the article. Most of these drafts (but I agree, not all, one of the exceptions was probable subsection about oil sands which was changed by an independent editor before inclusion, and the environmental section which was not posted) where updates of the existing information already in the article and they based on the existing text. What Arturo did was just to integrate updated or new information into existing text and presenting the text of the whole section with changes as a single draft. This does not mean that the whole draft of the section was written by Arturo – it was still mainly the text written by Wikipedia editors before that draft. So, it is incorrect to say that BP wrote full draft. If instead of integrating all changes in one section into the single draft, Arturo would ask all these changes one-by-one, we would have a very different figure from your 44%. Also, not all changes proposed in these drafts by Arturo were posted without changes. I remember that I myself was not agreed with some things which I changed. And finally, in the case of at least these requests I implemented, I checked these changes myself and I bear the full responsibility of them as an author. In this information I personally included, there was nothing which I was not ready to include or change as an independent editor on behalf of myself. Beagel (talk) 07:27, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes I understand that is your perspective. Arturo didn't touch the actual article. The dispute was purely among Wikipedians with regard to how to implement what BP wanted.  Big picture: there is no way that you or Core or anyone is going to get consensus at this time to prevent disclosed paid editors from offering proposals on articles on Talk pages.  The guideline needs to deal with the reality of that process - it shouldn't praise it or curse it; it should be neutral.   Jytdog (talk) 23:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * fwiw the content as it stands now, here, is ok by me. there is more that could be said, for example there is no need to accept all of what is proposed, or any of it.... but this is much better than what was.  Jytdog (talk) 06:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be useful to state that editors responding to an edit request are taking personal responsibility for any changes they make. If the edits fail concerns about due weight, give minority views inappropriate coverage, are not sufficiently impartial, or exhibit any other shortcomings, whoever actually made the changes bears the onus of any criticism and subsequent discussion. isaacl (talk) 16:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd rather say "... are sharing the responsibility". Staszek Lem (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, all editors participating in a discussion share responsibility for the resulting consensus. From the tenor of the thread, though, I'm assuming the concern is with edit requests for which there hasn't been a lot of discussion, and one editor has both determined the best course of action and implemented it. In this case, the single editor bears a larger responsibility for failing to follow Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and best practices, as the one who decided what changes to make to the article in question. isaacl (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The person who makes the edit owns it. We take action against editors if they consistently make content-violating edits, and that would apply to people who establish a pattern of implementing edit requests that violate content policies. I am unaware of anyone who has been doing that.  Jytdog (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I just want to point out that this passage is really important. Compare this to this, the latter after I went out looking for more sources and revised, removed crappy press release sourcing and using stronger sourcing. The former is what happens if edit requests are not vetted with a search for independent sources.... Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That's why I think it is important to impress upon those responding to edit requests that they are taking responsibility for any changes they make. There are a litany of editing polices, practices, and so forth that they should be following. While it can be useful to list some of the highly relevant ones on this page, in general all usual guidance remains in effect. isaacl (talk) 19:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep. Jytdog (talk) 07:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

COI management
I've been meaning to add content to this guideline for a while, explaining clearly and concisely how we manage COI in Wikipedia. Just did that here, which was reverted less than a minute later here. Anyway, the diff is there. Jytdog (talk) 20:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you can explain why your proposed changes in this long-established consensus language are necessary or desirable. Coretheapple (talk) 21:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No where in the current guideline do we concisely and clearly explain the two step COI management process. Jytdog (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * What about your other changes? You made significant changes to two other paragraphs. Coretheapple (talk) 21:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you are specifically referring to. Jytdog (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The changes that you made in the second and fourth paragraphs visible in this diff. Coretheapple (talk) 21:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The edit left the lead making no sense. SarahSV (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * And that is not a credible response, Sarah. It explains what COI is, why we manage it, and how we manage it.   It is better than it was.  People can read that and know what to do. This is the second time you have made this kind of blanket claim instead of actually working to improve the guideline.  Jytdog (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It was a material weakening of a significant part of the guideline, essentially turning it into a how-to manual for COI editors, apart from being verbose and mealy-mouthed. Coretheapple (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * (e/c)Well, your edit only addresses part of it, a very important thing is that readers can know about the COI (we do that with templates on the talk page, while outside Wikipedia, it is often a note at the bottom). Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Core this is about the third time you have accused me of weakening the guideline; your assumption of bad faith is getting in the way of working. There is no way you could even have read and considered my changes in the 1 minute you took to revert. So please explain exactly how I have weakened the guideline in that edit.  Jytdog (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You certainly are under no obligation to abide by BRD, but the ball is in your court as far as abiding by that is concerned and explaining your edit. Of course, obviously no force on earth can make you explain your edit, so if you don't want to - don't. Coretheapple (talk) 22:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * just to be clear, do you mean that readers don't know about COI editing as it is not usually noted in the article proper but only on the talk page? This is true, and perhaps should be mentioned. Coretheapple (talk) 22:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, no one can know about COI, unless it is disclosed (as I said, we do that with templates on article talk pages, other publications do it with notes). It's just part of being as honest as possible. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes I vaguely recall it being discussed in the past and running into scads of vituperative opposition. Coretheapple (talk) 23:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * it is an interesting suggestion. generally policies and guidelines are for editors are not intended for readers. But i could see adding something about that. Jytdog (talk) 22:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Replying to Jytdog's point at 21:54, 22 June, the lead says:

"Conflict of interest is not about actual bias introduced into Wikipedia's articles. It is about a person's roles and relationships, and the tendency to bias that we assume exists when roles conflict.[3] That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation. It is not a judgment about that person's state of mind or integrity."

Jtydog changed it to:

"Conflict of interest is managed in Wikipedia and other knowledge-producing organizations because people's external roles and relationships tend to bias judgement.[3] That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation. It is not a judgment about that person's state of mind or integrity."

The current lead explains the difference between actual bias and how we assume a tendency to bias exists when there is a COI. It is sourced to an academic reference. It does not say there is a tendency to bias. It talks about other people making that assumption, which is an important distinction. It is the public's perception of an issue that is harmed by COI, even when the issue itself might not be harmed by it. That distinction explains the next part: that someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgment about that person's state of mind.

Jytdog's version removed that explanation and that distinction. It said that people's roles and relationships do tend to bias their judgment. It then contradicted itself by saying that pointing out someone's COI does not involve making a judgment about that person's state of mind. SarahSV (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * A couple things. I was in the middle of working when I was reverted, so I wasn't done.  That bit could be improved maybe.    But your blanket condemnations are making efforts to improve this hopeless as is Core's continued assumption of bad faith.  Sarah  -  I mentioned I wanted to add this sort of content about managing COI here - see your response there.  That was a different era for sure.  You are really, really acting like you WP:OWN this guideline. Jytdog (talk) 22:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Rather than attacking other editors, why don't you explain why you made the edits to those two paragraphs? First you said you didn't know what paragraphs I was talking about. Then I supplied a diff. So now you know what paragraphs I'm talking about. Why did you make those changes? Coretheapple (talk) 22:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Between you and Sarah there is a lot going on. The old content had 4 paragraphs, the content had 5.  you asked above about  second and fourth paragraphs visible in the dif.  The change to the 2nd paragraph put COI management in Wikipedia in the context of other knowledge-producing organizations: "Conflict of interest is managed in Wikipedia and other knowledge-producing organizations because people's external roles and relationships tend to bias judgement".    What we do here is not bizarre, but in line with everywhere else.  I broke the old 3rd paragraph into 3.  The first of those three puts COI management in the context of other WP policies - this is one place where we do care about contributors, and I explained why (it is normal, per the paragraph above).   The next paragraph explains more clearly how we manage COI here through disclosure and peer review; it ends with the boldled admonition not to edit directly - that is the takeaway from that section. Emphasizing that.   It is improves on what was there as it tells conflicted editors exactly what they should do if they want to create an article or edit an existing one, and makes no bones that they are not to edit directly.  Finally I set off the requirements of the ToU and PAID in its own paragraph, which emphasizes  it.   I made the lead stronger and clearer.  there may be some logical flaw that Sarah is on about but that is pretty easy to clear up.   Jytdog (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well let's look at the first two sentences of the paragraph SV pulled above. Apart from using "bias" improperly and awkwardly as a verb, you have removed two very significant and important statements. First you took out a clear statement that COI is not about actual bias introduced into articles. It then goes on to say that COI "is about a person's roles and relationships, and the tendency to bias that we assume exists when roles conflict." These are two very important points to make in a COI guideline. You just cut them out. Why did you do that? What do you have against them? Coretheapple (talk) 22:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Like I said that bit is complicated and you reverted while I was working. That can probably be improved.  That leaves a lot of other stuff that I did.  Jytdog (talk) 22:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, moving on to the next paragraph. It currently says "COI editing is strongly discouraged. It undermines public confidence in Wikipedia, and risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals being promoted." You moved the "strongly discouraged" part to the end, which I think reduces its significance considerably and changes the tone of the paragraph. But more importantly, you changed the statement that COI editing risks causing embarrassment to unmanaged conflicts posing that risk. That's a substantial change. Why did you make that change? What was wrong with the existing language? Coretheapple (talk) 22:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I explained above. That paragraph became an explanation of why we manage COI and how it fits with other things we do.  The "do not edit directly" is instruction, and I put it with the rest of the instructions.  it is important to tell people what they should do, not just what they shouldn't do. Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * COI editing can cause embarrassment whether "managed" or not. The public doesn't care that an anonymous person may have "checked" the edits. They see only the headlines that company X tried to rewrite its own article. When you talk about things we do, you mean things that you do. Other people handle things differently. SarahSV (talk) 23:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No. If we have a clear guideline and COI editing is managed well, people can trash talk and that is all they will be doing.  We cannot stop that and the guideline cannot be written to deal with irresponsible speech.  People write all kinds of garbage about WP.  More importantly this guideline needs to be useful; it is not a soapbox. Jytdog (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Where is the soapboxing in this guideline? Coretheapple (talk) 23:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I was reacting to what SV wrote above. This guideline cannot take that stance conflicted editors complying with this guideline and the other policies and guidelines are doing a bad thing.  It shouldn't bless it either.  It is just is. Just like V doesn't rail on about unsourced content or the hoaxes that people have played on WP and the resulting scandal about that. Jytdog (talk) 00:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a guideline. 'Don't do something because this may happen' is called guidance. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus to change anything here from the earlier version. I don't see much substance in the changes that have been put in and now removed. But that writing does seem less clear, and more open to misinterpretation. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 05:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * In fact there already has been a change to this section, with a sentence removed contrary to longstanding consensus and no consensus to change. Note the edit summary provided at removal there is no consensus for how to word this. Moving to Talk until we can get consensus for something. The editor in question got it backwards. The text in question was there for six months, so there is a consensus and there is no consensus to change or remove. Coretheapple (talk) 13:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * We have some unclear writing in the guideline now. SarahSV (talk) 21:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * We had some unclear writing before. And some bad writing.  Nothing is ever perfect.  Try being constructive. Jytdog (talk) 23:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If anything, we don't have enough people paying attention to the slow undiscussed changes by a small coalition of users to this guideline and those several users claiming consensus by silence when the changes are finally noticed.--v/r - TP 23:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * , you're welcome to point out anything that you believe doesn't have consensus. I recall only two issues that you objected to:


 * The first was Jytdog adding your name to a template, at the top of the talk page, of paid editors who had edited the guideline; I agreed and removed the whole thing. The second was that you wanted to start an RfC on the terms of use so that WP would adopt an alternative policy, but you didn't do it, so that remains as policy. That isn't the decision of anyone here; the WMF has said that each project has to develop an alternative policy on paid editing if they want to opt out of the terms-of-use provision. You're welcome to start that RfC at any time if you still object. SarahSV (talk) 23:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "but you didn't do it" - I did start one, and I was asked to retract it in favor of one you and Jytog would craft. But then you two backed out.--v/r - TP 00:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * , I didn't have any intention of starting an RfC. (I wrote at the time "it's not something I'd have an interest in initiating," but added that I had posted a draft with one question and "[a]nyone is free to run with it (or any other).") Several projects have opted out (list), so there's nothing to stop you from starting one. But the WMF requirement that paid editors say who they work for has nothing to do with this guideline. SarahSV (talk) 02:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * As you know, the problem was that the most interested parties were not able to agree upon suitable wording for a Request for Comments. With only a relatively small number of editors participating, without some degree of agreement it is hard to establish consensus. I appreciate why there was difficulty in trying to achieve a meeting of the minds; it's unfortunate but within the framework of how English Wikipedia currently makes decisions, the way forward is stalemated. isaacl (talk) 05:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Filibustered is the appropriate term.--v/r - TP 08:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Some thoughts
I'm about to fix some of the recent confusion, because some areas now make less or no sense. Another area I would like to expand is how to handle conflicts of interest, and in particular what to do when it involves real-life information.

We should consider going step by step through the process advising editors what to do if pointing out a COI may involve off-wiki material. We currently say what not to do, but we don't say what they ought to do. Several ArbCom members have written about this, so we should fish out what they said and try to put together something coherent. SarahSV (talk) 21:14, 26 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes the latter is an extremely good idea. Every now and then I see people blocked forever for runnin gup against those rules, which appear to be enforced with head-chopping strictness. Coretheapple (talk) 20:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

RfC on ToU?
Should we have a simple RfC on adopting or rejecting the ToU? Just noodling here - we would actually do this at the village pump. My sense is that the ToU will be overwhelmingly accepted by en-wiki and confirming that this in en-wiki will have multiple benefits.

Something simple like:

The WMF Terms of Use currently state These Terms of Use prohibit engaging in deceptive activities, including misrepresentation of affiliation, impersonation, and fraud. 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 must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways:


 * a statement on your user page,
 * a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or
 * a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions.


 * 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.
 * 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.


 * For more information, please read our FAQ on disclosure of paid contributions.

We reserve the right to exercise our enforcement discretion with respect to the above terms.

The ToU has been adopted as the WP:PAID policy in en-wiki, but this was never ratified by an RfC.

The purpose of this RfC is to accept or reject the ToU as policy in en-wiki; please !vote "accept" or "reject". If you reject, please say what you would prefer in its place, as this will help shape options in a subsequent RfC.

If this is rejected the ToU remain in effect until en-wiki actually adopts an alternative policy. If this is accepted, subsequent RfCs will discuss other issues, like amending the en-wiki adaptation (e.g. what the heck is "affiliation" that people are meant to disclose, which is actually ignored in the connected contributor (paid) template; and specifying how disclosure should be made), and confirming or changing the current COI guideline which "strongly discourages" paid editors from directly editing articles. This RfC is a simple "accept" or "reject".

How about that? Jytdog (talk) 06:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, we don't need an RfC to accept the Terms of Use, because they hold unless we have an RfC to modify them. Thus the only reason to hold an RfC is to propose an alternative paid contribution disclosure. Is there a wish to reduce the ToU's requirements on paid disclosure? - Bilby (talk) 08:50, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hm. People have questioned whether this is actually en-wiki policy; I don't agree with them, but they have. This would lay that to rest (I think), and solidly, and make it something en-wiki accepted that was not just foisted us on, as some feel and say. I should also say that there is a chance the community would reject it; I see that as an outlier, but there are some who want a shot at doing that.  But if it came out like I reckon it would, the first part of the standard COI management process - disclosure - would be on very firm footing.  Then as mentioned the follow up RfC would explore tweaks to this, and really importantly, the question of whether "should not directly edit" can be strengthened to "may not directly edit".  In other words, make the second step of the process -- peer review - also strengthened.  I would love to get there and have that added to PAID.  I don't think we can jump right there without first affirming the disclosure step via an RfC.  Jytdog (talk) 10:01, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * People can question it, but there is no actual doubt - if it is in the ToU you agree to it every time you click "save page", and it holds on Wikipedia. The problem here is that the only possible change an RfC can have is to lessen the paid editing restrictions in the ToU. It can't "ratify" them because there is nothing to ratify - they are already policy - and we know from prior experience that the community won't support further restrictions on paid editors, so it won't be strengthened. - Bilby (talk) 15:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that's well put. Coretheapple (talk) 16:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll not participate in this farce of an RfC after mine was filibustered a year ago while certain editors harassed all opposition out of here. The time to do this would've been at the adoption of the new ToU - not after a year of the relentless ownership of this guideline and then the "silence is consent" mantra.  Enjoy your circlejerking.--v/r - TP 17:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Bilby I agree that this is current policy; it is just that there are those who think that it isn't and all we have is the operation of law, not actual community consensus (although by now I think the practice of the community has pretty much ratified it, but we don't have an actual RfC close to point to and it is not easy to demonstrate the "adopted by practice" argument with diffs) And I am not sure that the community will not accept strengthening the direct editing "should not" to a "may not".  I feel that the mainstream view in the community - the consensus - has been solidifying to support good COI management and I think there is a reasonable chance that strengthening to "may not directly edit" will fly in a 2nd RfC, after this one.
 * TParis what is wrong with the framing of the RfC? Why do you call it a farce?  Don't you want the community to have the chance to reject or accept the ToU as policy?  Jytdog (talk) 19:13, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The time to do that would've been when the change was made. At this point, the strawman that silence is consensus will win the day without critical thought put into it.  Had this been put to an RfC a year ago, we could've looked at this impartially.  At this point, the belief that the change had consensus all along is going to be a primary factor in the discussion instead of the actual merits.--v/r - TP 23:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 2 years ago, actually. I think there is value in getting confirmation.  So you think there is no point - that this is widely accepted as policy now?   Jytdog (talk) 23:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it would be more fruitful to look back at the last two years and reflect: has the change been beneficial? Have some situations been handled via courses of action that became available with the new terms of use? Has there been any change in how paid editing has been dealt with? In cases where the terms of use have been brought into play, were there any complications in applying them (for example, ambiguity around what constitutes compensation, or the nature of the editor's disclosure)? Perhaps this opportunity can be taken to gather some data and based on that, see if any new approaches ought to be tried. isaacl (talk) 01:02, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The only thing the ToU did was embolden some editors.--v/r - TP 04:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Though I appreciate the sensitivity of the area, are there any examples you feel we can examine instructively? It would help with understanding if anything different should be attempted. isaacl (talk) 11:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Examples of what? User behavior?  COI Editors?  I know of a few editors that have COI disclaimers.  Wikipediocracy also has at least one article I know about where the author admits that all the COI policy did was drive their editing underground.  And I've tried tracking down paid editing on freelancer.com and it seems to me that throwaway accounts are used to fulfill those.  The idea isn't to have an all-powerful admin account for COI editing, the game plan is to have the experience of a long-term editor, but use a throwaway account to perform the edits.  Generally, this is done from a library or Starbucks so the IP can't be traced to a specific user.--v/r - TP 22:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You said the "only thing the ToU did was embolden some editors." Do you have examples of how editors were emboldened since the changes to the terms of use? isaacl (talk) 02:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

COI editing of wikipedia policies
It occurs to me that WP:COI has a dangerous gap: it does not cover the issue of COI editors influencing our policies. Not once I saw COI editors fighting teeth and claw to tweak our policies towards their interests.

IMO there must be a firm statement severely restricting the ability of COI editors to waste our time by endless wikilawyering: once it is identified that the suggested policy/guideline change somehow favors the interest of the editor, the conversation with this person must be stopped immediately. Uninvolved editors may try and find something useful but the COI editor's advocacy must be barred. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S. Of course, not only COI editors try to tilt the policies to their advantage, but here we have a special case, right? Staszek Lem (talk) 19:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * As per previous consensus, there is a note at the top of this page saying that anyone paid to edit English Wikipedia must disclose this in any discussion regarding changes to this page or related ones. Excessive discussion is unfortunately one of the general challenges of unmoderated, online communities that is a problem with all types of editors. Given the community's current bias against moderation, it's a difficult issue to address. isaacl (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I am not talking about editying of this policy. I am talking about all policies and guidelines. And I am not talking about moderating all editors: only those we definitely know have a financial gain in sabotaging our policies: this is exactly the issue of COI. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure; it's a subset of the larger issue where any editor can prolong discussion unproductively. isaacl (talk) 00:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * There is already a section on this above. But, of course, we know people are paid to edit - there can therefore be no doubt that they edit everything (including Notability, etc.) and try to protect all that editing by policy.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The "section above" is not what I am suggesting. Jtdogg was suggesting complete ban ("If you are paid to edit articles, do not edit policies, guidelines, templates, help documents, etc."). I am not that drastic. They may have their say, but very short. The opposers were citing "instruction creep", because policy change requirese consnsus anyway. My suggestion is to ensure the "No Consensus" comes swiftly, without dragging the endles chat with a money-maker. And your position on the issue is...? Staszek Lem (talk) 20:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * My position is that while we know such corruption exists, we are complicit in it as long as we don't just plainly say in effect, 'listen, we require you to be honest and transparent about it, so please do so, or don't be involved. Furthermore, don't make the project complicit in such dishonesty and corruption, so refrain.' Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that this aspect needs to be strengthened. And when we say "paid editors" we need to include all editors who have received money related to their editing. Yes, everyone, broadly construed, including people like Wikipedians in residence or whatever. It won't kill them not to edit this guideline. I don't want to come here and see someone who has gamed the system, so as to not come under the paid editing rules, yammering about this guideline,. Coretheapple (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you make a comprehensive list of all possible ways Wikipedia policies can be gamed so we can ban them all in one swoop?--v/r - TP 22:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Even if this was a policy page in which we actually "banned" stuff, what you're saying is way down in non-sequiturland. Coretheapple (talk) 23:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree that the comment is a non sequitur. It's a fair issue to raise about trying to micromanage every possible behaviour of editors. Paid editors are supposed to disclose their status, and so any evaluation of consensus for changing any page can weigh this appropriately. isaacl (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Quite the opposite of micromanaging. One writes/tweaks the guideline to cover efforts to game the system as they come to light. So that volunteer editors can't, for instance, take money from the subject of an article and then get someone else to do the edit. Clever, isn't it? That's gaming the system. An editor is paid to accomplish an objective, and he does it by getting someone else to do the dirty work. We don't need a crystal ball. When the methods of gaming the system come to light, we deal with them. To say that you have to make a "comprehensive list" is just hogwash. We deal with the bullshit games as we become aware of them. And then, editors who have engaged in that kind of pocket-lining should not be editing the guideline. Coretheapple (talk) 13:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree. To be honest, after my interaction with an extremely tendentious paid editor at Help talk:Maintenance template removal, I am leaning towards supporting a blanket ban on paid editors from editing policies, guidelines, templates, help documents, etc. I would frame the sentence as "If you are paid to edit articles, do not edit policies, guidelines, templates, help documents, etc. You are however welcome to suggest changes to the same on the talk page". --Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Internships?
Can we add some material to this page on how people in paid -- and especially -- unpaid internships should approach COI? In some ways, interns are a lot like college students doing class projects, but on the other hand, they are employees, too, even if they don't get paid in money... I suspect this has been discussed before, but I can't find anything on it in the archives of this talk page other than this. Might be worth adding a bit that can then be linked as WP:INTERN or something. Montanabw (talk) 22:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC) Follow up:  A search for just "intern" instead of "internship" pulled up about six more discussions, mostly in passing. Opinions seemed to vary and I could not determine if there was any real consensus. Montanabw (talk) 22:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If anybody is curious, this is coming up because we have a couple of magazine interns making new articles in the horse project. They seem to have good intentions, but we had to do a lot of work to clean up their first contributions. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 01:25, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Interns are considered paid employees for all practical purposes. See WP:PAID Interns, even if not paid directly, are considered employees for this purpose. If they are directed or expected to edit Wikipedia as part of an internship, they must disclose, just as other paid contributors must. Accordingly, WP:COIDISCLOSEPAY needs to be followed. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That appears to have been added in February and I can't find any discussion to justify a claim that it is policy. It also fails to reflect the large variety of types of internships. If your not getting paid, its an educational internship, and your not editing about a subject the organization has a strong stake it, it is really no different than editing as part of a class assignment. Monty  845  02:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm forgetting the exact incident, but it was something like an editor claimed to be an unpaid intern and was refusing to use request edits. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There was a secondary discussion later as well on a related topic but I can't remember now. The interns were editing about the company and general articles, but still related to the company's interests. If an internship is paid, it is definitely considered a paid contribution. If an internship is unpaid, it is still effectively a paid contribution because the intern is definitely deriving some kind of renumeration - maybe a job offer or a recommendation letter for another company. I see declaration as a transparent method of editing and also plugs a loophole which can be exploited by the company. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Seems like the internship question should at least be linked here. I like 's suggestion that they at least be held to the disclosure and transparency standard, as there is such a range of internships out there, many unpaid but supervised in some fashion. What I am finding over at WP:Equine is a lot of fairly young and naive intern-editors either a) editing the company page -- sometimes badly and without the company even knowing this is going on (which occurred at Fasig-Tipton a while back); or b) editing subject-related articles but not the company page. (as with the two youngsters and I are looking at now). If you take the University professor or student standard, I see no harm to interns editing articles on topics related to the general topic of their internship, just like we want people like University professors to write about their subject of expertise, but students are also supposed to tag articles they are working on as a school project, so that seems a minimum standard for interns. Montanabw (talk) 22:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Recent edit
I suggested on 26 June that we develop something about how to handle COI if it involves private information. Nothing came of it, and discussions are taking place at WP:HARASS about how to develop that aspect of the policy. Therefore, for now, I've added to the section on outing:


 * "If revealing private information is needed to resolve COI editing, and if the issue is serious enough to warrant it, editors can seek the advice of functionaries or the arbitration committee by email."

I'm unsure about it in case it appears to encourage people to look for private information, so perhaps it needs to be expressed differently (that's why I wrote "can seek the advice of" rather than "should contact"). If more detailed advice is developed at the policy, we can summarize it here later. SarahSV (talk) 18:27, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that is good language. Thanks for doing that. Jytdog (talk) 19:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Suggestions on handling this one
The editor User:Janice M. Ladendorf has listed her self-published books on her userpage and is discussing why their content should be added to some wikipedia articles on their talk pages. She is working in good faith on a sandbox draft and not linking to her work (which I have heard is used for SEO backlinks, so I'm glad she's not doing it), but she is being quite argumentative about wanting to use her own OR... not sure how to handle this, and as I am an active editor in the areas she's editing, I thought it best to post here to get some different eyes to watchlist. Montanabw (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I am also posting here because I have interacted with this editor as well. While they seem well-intentioned, they do want to use self published stuff, and the draft is written in a promotional way. It's also about a man who is hard to write about because a lot of what he did, or claimed to have done, is now disputed. I'd suggest that they be encouraged to do cleanup work or something instead of the draft, at least for now. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 20:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This needs to be posted at WP:COIN. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

As I understood Wikipedia policies, I became increasingly uncomfortable with them. I have deleted the draft article and any mention of my books. Janice M. Ladendorf (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policies are primarily here to keep people from deluding others. I'm NOT saying you're trying to do that, but some people do make up ridiculous things and try to get them published here. That's why everything had to be verified to second or third party sources and you can't trust what a famous person says about themselves, because some people do lie or exaggerate. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 22:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Strongly Discouraged
I propose to add a link to Strongly Discouraged in the See Also section of this guideline. Your thoughts? -- 1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 15:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Better just to incorporate the essay's main point and put "should not" in place of every "strongly discouraged." Smallbones( smalltalk ) 14:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Abusing the definition of conflict of interest
@Optakeover and @Walter_G%C3%B6rlitz are abusing the definition of COI by deleting my edits. Yes I was honest that I work for a singer and his management. However there is NOTHING wrong with wanting to make his page on Wikipedia more accurate! I am not being paid to PROMOTE him on Wikipedia. I do however have more accurate information and a more recent photograph to use to update his page. Why would you NOT want his page to be CORRECT? He is not a rapper, he is a pop singer. This is not controversial information, it's just a fact. Webgirljess (talk) 14:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Like a resume?
How do I stop an article sounding like a resume? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.18.229 (talk) 06:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC) Wendy Allen 22.9.2016

92.0.18.229 (talk) 06:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Without knowing the specific article in question it's hard to say. Evidently whatever you contributed has been deleted. Coretheapple (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Seconded. The only advise is to take a look how several good biographical articles look like. Also it is good to have independent sources which describe how this person is notable, see WP:PERSON. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)