Wikipedia talk:Vested interest

This essay is borderline in violation of No personal attacks. In Wikipedia we discuss the article and not the subject, and we discuss the edit and not the editor. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You mean the practice of discrediting someone's opinion because of a vested interest, right? I tried to write in there that it's important to be civil and assume good faith.  I don't want to encourage people to do this very much, in fact, the point is to discourage it when it's irrelevant, which is most of the time.   Mango juice talk 01:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I fail to see how this essay is anywhere near violation of NPA, since it doesn't mention anyone specifically and isn't the least bit antagonistic. However, having been involved in a recent Arb which was primarily centered around someone who is paid to promote a "nonprofit" commercial event, and has introduced hundreds of links and articles to wikipedia claiming not to have a COI, the semantic loop-holes created by this lesser distinction would probably cause many problems later. Arb Com is apparently relaxing their enforcement and definition of WP:COI and WP:OWN anyway, which further muddies the waters. Fred Bauder has recently stated:
 * "Conflict of interest, a guideline, discourages editing of articles concerning matters you have a substantial personal interest in, such as articles about an organization you are deeply involved with. However, such editing is not prohibited, if editing is responsible." Link
 * While personally feeling we need less abstract and arbitrary policies on COI and ownership issues than defined above, there does need to be a distinction between emotional investment and fiduciary investment in articles, and I think that as long as these distinctions are explicitly referenced, this essay might be a good start to differentiate between these. - WeniWidiWiki 15:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * To be fair, Jossi did clean up the essay a fair bit between then and now. I think it's now more careful to agree with the points made by WP:NPA.  Mango juice talk 17:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying about that. I still couldn't find any NPA issues even with the draft, but maybe I take a more literal view of the policy than others do. - WeniWidiWiki 18:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Mangojuice, may I suggest the removal or rewriting of the following phrase: "Discuss the article, not the subject". In many cases, AFD discussions revolve around the availability and incorporation of new sources, which is directly relevant to the notability of the subject.  I think I understand what you're trying to say: stay on topic, WP:NOT a soapbox for personal views on religion, politics, etc.  However, as currently written, it's a little ambiguous.  One more thing ... how is this essay a violation of NPA?  It reads to me more like a clarification or extension of the discussion etiquette section at WP:AFD.  A great essay, in my opinion.  Cheers, Black Falcon 17:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey -- it's not my essay anymore, it's Wikipedia's, so feel free to make your own updates (but thanks). But yeah, i agree -- I think that's trying to say to discuss the article, not its editors, which makes the next phrase redundant.  I'll change.  Mango juice talk 17:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)