Wikipedia talk:Editing with a conflict of interest

Systematic bias

Systematic bias can result from people being paid to edit wikipedia. We need to face the issues involved. WAS 4.250 21:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Autobiography guideline

Wikipedia:Autobiography says "You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest." Paying others to do things they themseves are not allowed to do is not acceptable behavior. See this where a talk page is used to advertise for exactly that. WAS 4.250 21:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

The key policy at risk is WP:NPOV. WAS 4.250 21:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Steele

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Robert Steele is an example of this. WAS 4.250 22:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MyWikiBiz

User talk:MyWikiBiz is an example of this. WAS 4.250 22:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Close to your profession?

Well, I kind of object to the 'close to your profession'. For example, it would require doctors to submit pages they created on illnesses.

Instead of requring vetting of new page creation, I'd rather that we just ask for an explicit declaration of a conflict of interests in some relevant place, since otherwise this is just another layer of beurocracy that we don't need.

But first we need to decide on what would be a conflict of intrests, and I really don't think that's as simple as 'professional connection'. --Barberio 21:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy has blocked User:MyWikiBiz and explicitly stated that the user would not be allowed to post articles directly, so it seems that simply declaring potential COI is not an option. Perhaps WP:COI could explain the issue and point to Wikipedia:Articles for creation instead of being a new process in its own right.--Eloquence * 22:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The issue is how best to manage Wikipedia when systematic and random, overt and covert, paid and unpaid, deliberately subversive and well-meaning influences undermine NPOV. The idea is to ignore the little stuff and try to build systematic defenses against the biggest threats - such as autobiographies and paid editing. WAS 4.250 22:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Draft Text

This needs some wikification, and working out where to link to and so on...

Editors are strongly advised to disclose any conflict of interest, or potential conflict of interests, when editing an article. Editors are strongly advised that they should not edit pages where there is a clear conflict of interests.

Editors are advised that where articles need to be edited or created, and a clear conflict of interest prevents them from editing, they should ask an independant third party to do so.

===What is a Conflict of Interests?===

A conflict of interests can arise in a variety of ways, for example,

You are an employee, owner or significant stock holder of a business related to the subject of an article.
You have a personal interest or relationship with persons the article is about or related to.

If you believe a conflict of interests may be present, it is a good idea to declare it, and have a third party assess it.

A minor or remote conflict of interest should not automatically prevent you from editing pages related to it, however you should declare this conflict of interests. Closer conflicts of interests may raise problems as it may introduce unintentional bias into the article. Where there is a clear conflict of interests, you should refrain from editing the article.

===How do I correct a mistake in an article if I find one, but have a conflict of interests.===

Place a comment on that articles talk page, asking for a correction, and noting the conflict of interests present. If this does not draw attention, consider posting here to ask for the page to be edited by a third party.

===There is a subject that Wikipedia does not yet cover but should, yet I have a conflict of interests?===

Place a request here asking someone to create this page. You can also direct them various points of research.

===Can I edit or create my own Autobiography?===

No. You should refer to the Wikipedia Autobiography Guideline.

===I'm either being paid or contracted to edit Wikipedia, or it is part of my role in a salaried position.===

Advertising will be deleted from Wikipedia when it is found, it may be replaced with alternative text, or the entire article deleted.

Being employed to edit articles involving your employer is a clear conflict of interests that may not only result in you edits being reverted, but you being blocked from editing.

I think there are already relevent places to point people to for the third part interventions on creating and editing pages. --Barberio 22:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That looks good (apart from one typo I corrected) - it needs to explicitly point at links to the possible 3rd parties though. Yomangani ^talk 22:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We need to decide where to link to first. --Barberio 23:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True. Wikipedia:Requests for Comment for the assessment? And I suppose here for the article creation - no point in listing it if nobody is watching. Yomangani ^talk 23:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another perfect example

...is the Graal Online article, where the owners of the game tried to prevent criticism being added, as well as adding more positive-connoting words to the article in an attempt to create a subtle advertisment. Was deleted at AfD, then deletion endorsed at Deletion Review. I think that this is the perfect case of someone related to the subject of the article, being paid/recieving income from the subject of the article, making "problematic" edits. Daniel.Bryant 07:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"...do not attract editors"

One of the arguments on the Wikipedia:Notability page is Non-notable topics do not attract editors. I think it is relevant here. If someone creates or edits an article on Microsoft, it is a notable topic, bound to attract a lot of eyes, and a lot of edits. It's difficult for POV content to be posted on such an article. If, on the other hand, an article for Fred's Laundromat is created by Fred, or someone working for him, odds are pretty slim that anyone who actually knows anything about it will review and update the article. What we end up with is a free Yellow Pages ad for Fred. We've certainly seen this pattern for smaller company articles obviously created by principals of the company. Paid article-writers would engender the same issue. Fan-1967 16:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is this unique?

We already have WP:VANITY. What's new in this policy that's not in that one? Fagstein 17:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia lacks explicit guidelines concerning financial conflicts of interest as in getting paid to write an article or offering on talk pages to pay others to write articles with the effect of selling a solution to a market; such as selling the idea of OSINT as a solution while releasing notices to news organizations that claim standing as "Chief OSINT evangelist". This is a current example of an actual case and we will see other examples crop up. No one can blame people for promoting themselves in whatever way we let them. The issue here is "Should we let them?" WAS 4.250 18:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a hunch, but I have reason to suspect there's a lot more of this going on than we have any idea of. Fan-1967 15:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. Just like there is a great deal more theft and violence than is actually punished by the justice system. The idea is to keep it limited by various means rather than let it get out of hand. WAS 4.250 19:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think getting paid is sort of irrelevant. It's the edits, not the user. Point them to WP:VANITY, make it clear on their talk page why it's wrong to be paid to edit articles, and if they persist, take it to WP:AN or RFC/ArbCom. How often does this happen anyway, where a user is paid to edit and refuses to abide by repeated messages left on their talk page to stop? Fagstein 19:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a matter of of trying to limit a systematic form of POV editing. We should try to maximize our quality. Saying no to paid editing is part of that. Jimbo's solution to allow paid editors to point their work out to non paid editors who then use their judgement in actually adding (or not) seems optimal to me. WAS 4.250 19:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps we should add a paragraph to WP:VANITY that says people employed by companies can't edit articles on those companies. Keep in mind people aren't likely to disclose that they're being paid to edit. We're lucky if they even bother logging in first. Fagstein 18:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not actualy the problem. For instance, we don't mind an employee at Blizzard editing a page to correct the name of a character in their games, there's no conflict of interests in making that simple an edit. We would mind an employee at Blizzard making edits to link to positive reviews since that is a conflict of interests. Being directly paid to edit is such a blatant conflict that it may cause someone to be banned. And I do think we need a clear guideline/policy on that. --Barberio 20:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

If the founding author of an article is an experienced Wikipedian, it seems to me they should know whether it belongs on Wikipedia or not, and be able to stay out of edit wars with respect to it or else face the usual penalties. IMO, conflict of interest only becomes a particular issue if one is to become a steward, bureaucrat or member of the Board of Trustees or ArbCom, or be brought in as a mediator. Otherwise, conflicts of interest can be kept in check by other editors, as long as Wikipedia:Spam remains in force. Neon Merlin 20:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I change your mind for U.S. $250.00 per week (the amount being offered in the OSINT example)? You see, I really want to help Wikipedia and I'm willing to spend the money to help both you and Wikipedia (which helps the whole world). So please accept my offer of $250 per week and you, me, Wikipedia, and the whole world will benefit. By the way, someone deleted the link to my website in the "Feed the poor" article. Please see what you can do. WAS 4.250 01:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose on two grounds:

I see nothing objectionable about being paid to edit, unless the person or institution paying you has editorial control over what you write. For example, I cannot see any argument against a university sponsoring an assistantship that included writing for Wikipedia.
The statement about "subject of the article is very close to your profession" seems silly. Do you want only people who have never programmed professionally writing about computer programming? Do you want to bar professional writers from volunteering to write about the fields in which they are expert? Do you want to say that musicians cannot write about music? Absurd.

- Jmabel | Talk 04:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. In any case it is quite likely that paid editing is happening right now and we are not even aware of it. This proposal is poorly worded and will only encourage paid editors to remain underground. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 13:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is the proposal poorly worded, it also completely destroys the idea that, after the Siegenthaler incident, users should be allowed to edit articles about themselves (and this should be prominently stated, so even new users will know it). Ken Arromdee 14:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The object of this proposal is to deal with Conflicts of interest. To the extent that it does not, it needs to be fixed rather than otherwise dealt with. For example, not all paid editing necessarily involves a conflict of interest. I read that the US government thru some grant is or was expected to provided money for wikimedia to translate articles into languages that have too few articles in their wikpedia version (I read this months ago and am going on memory). Editorial control is not necessary for there to be undue influence, but a typical public university sponsored internship/assistantship arrangement would not involve a conflict of interest. Yet if the subject were of special interest to the funding agency such as an article on the university, or on intelligent design by a Christian fundamentalist university; a conflict of interest would exist. "Subject of the article is very close to your profession" definitly needs to be reworded. Paid editing will always exist underground. Limiting POV editing by dealing with conflict of interest editing by clear policies is useful. Editors editing their own bio is dealt with clearly by a relevant policy. We now need the same for the wider concept of conflict of editing, especially for paid editing. This article needs a lot of work, and if I could improve it I would. Maybe after a whole lot of talk, ideas for improving it will be become apparent. WAS 4.250 21:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose this policy. Conflicts of interest are not inherently, intrinsically and by their very nature bad. They're only bad things if they lead to bad editing. And we have all sorts of nifty policies like notability and verifiability and NPOV and NOR and this really neat wiki-process to fix up generally poor text for handling bad editing. If person is constantly POV-pushing, it doesn't matter whether it's because they are an asshole, a true believer, or are doing because it is in their interest - it is still POV-pushing and we don't need yet another redundant policy for that. --Rhwawn (talk to Rhwawn) 22:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both organized (example paid) and systematic (example autobiography) conflict of interest that results in POV pushing is especially worrisome and should be dealt with. Autobiography already is. WAS 4.250 06:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paidediting - my thoughts

Looking at this topic, I found I had a fair ammount to say. Rather than posting the entire lot in each associated debate, I created an essay in my userspace, paidediting. Please have a read, give feedback, and add to it if you wish. LinaMishima 15:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very well done. I recommend everyone interested in this subject go read it. But I just wish to add here the meat of your page:

Paid-for editing will be allowed under these conditions:

Companies charging for Wikipedia editing must pay an amount of the costs to the Wikimedia Foundation
Companies must register their paid-for editing with the Wikimedia Foundation
Articles created or edited by paid-for editors must receive consensus from the community before the removal of paid-for notices or moving into main article space
All images added to support the article must be released under the GFDL
Paid-for editors enforce strict standards of verification and notoriety checks
Paid-for editors follow the manual of style
The Wikipedia community creates watertight rules to determine the acceptability of paid-for articles, especially with respect to notability and reliable sources WAS 4.250 21:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I should clarify for the casual reader that the above is the 'mandated' conclusions, rather than the reasons supporting them, or additional suggestions for general fair play. You can find such detail on the article itself. As such things are a community project, the article itself is free for anyone to work on, as long as the core concept remains (I'm stating this as some people dislike username space article editing). LinaMishima 21:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of "Conflict of Interest"

I wish to say that the current definition of "conflict of interest" is too narrow. The definition that Barberio employs in his proposed text is much better. It is important to recognize that an appearnce of impropriety can occur when a close friend of relation of the subject creates an article, and this proposed policy should address such situations.-- danntm ^T _C 16:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's a vote for the Proposed Draft Text. I'm not taking sides at the moment on which conflict of interest policy to choose, only that there should be one. WAS 4.250 20:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coming at this from an entirely different angle

Numerous PR flacks around the world are already editing Wikipedia, and will be. I would suggest that instead of trying to ban the inevitable, a là "War on Drugs", we work on how best to manage the situation. I think we should start from something like Brian Wasson's, "The wide world of Wikipedia, and why PR practitioners should take note". It's clear that Wasson is trying to work out how to do this ethically; it is equally clear he hasn't quite got it right; we should make the appropriate adjustments and turn it into a guideline.

I also don't think that the matter is all that different from someone writing about their favorite band, or their favorite author, or a politician that they strongly support or oppose. Money is not a radically different motivator than other things. My biggest concern on the money front? That some big company or political pressure group might pay someone to put in the kind of time that it takes to "sit" on a page and effectively "own" it by wearing down other contributors. Clearly, behavior of that sort is a breach of ethics in any case, but would be far more so if it is being done for money: someone would basically be buying control of their (or their rival's) Wikipedia entry.

"Sunshine is the best disinfectant." A good disclosure policy would make conflicts of interest visible, and would make efforts to hide conflicts of interest a clear breach of the rules. But there are always going to be conflicts of interest, if only on the level of artistic tastes, political beliefs, and personal feelings about other editors, any of which can be in conflict with the effort to create a good encyclopedia. - Jmabel | Talk 17:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I disagree with is the idea that the above is "an entirely different angle". I agree with every point you made. This policy proposal is an attempt to manage. And money can pay multiple persons all over the world to edit a single article on a repeated basis as long as doing so produces the profit needed to pay for it. Capitalism is self reinforcing and dangerous when not adequately controlled. Like fire it is a good servent and a bad master. WAS 4.250 21:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was an earlier proposal

You may be interested in an old proposal I promoted a year ago regarding similar concerns: ~~Wikipedia:Conflict of interest~~--Yannick 23:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My old proposal has since been bumped into oblivion by a move of the old WP:VANITY policy.--Yannick 23:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever it is, it needs Jimbo's endorsement

The proposal is potentially nice. It's potentially workable. The main problem I would see is that Jimbo Wales needs to personally approve of or endorse it, because I'm not willing to revamp MyWikiBiz.com's business model, only to have him personally block my account because it doesn't meet his personal approval. Honestly, I am 90% certain that I will go along with any solution that Jimbo Wales will endorse, as long as the "placement" of our GFDL content is somewhere within Wikipedia, and I don't necessarily mean in the mainspace. -- MyWikiBiz 02:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. Jimbo has already stated he doesn't know how to run wikipedia and his job is mostly to let it run itself. Frankly, even when we beg him to intervene he does his best not to. He says soon his job will be like the Queen of Emgland - waving in parades. WAS 4.250 05:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for your business model, you do as you wish and so will we. You had a deal with Jimbo and now you are trying to renegotiate it. Why should anyone believe you won't bargin for all you can get and after that still do as you please anyway? I think your word is worthless, but I'm often wrong in these kinds of things. I'm much better at math. WAS 4.250 05:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

as long as the "placement" of our GFDL content is somewhere within Wikipedia, and I don't necessarily mean in the mainspace. Well good grief why didn't you say so in the first place? Place your stuff in your userspace and it'll be all alright! Place your articles like this: User:MyWikiBiz/1, User:MyWikiBiz/2, User:MyWikiBiz/3, User:MyWikiBiz/4, User:MyWikiBiz/5, and so on. Unlimited space. You can use names rather than numbers. WAS 4.250 05:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you speak for Jimmy Wales on that? Are you confident enough of that solution to bring it before him? Will it be a durable policy? As I said, I'm not going to change the business model to something that Jimbo can "block" again, without discussion or community support. The Queen of England indefinitely blocked me for violating a "policy" that wasn't anywhere in writing. I didn't like that particular parade. -- MyWikiBiz 12:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you speak for Jimmy Wales on that? I speak only for myself.
Are you confident enough of that solution to bring it before him? He doesn't decide on this sort of thing. We the community decide. He has said that over and over and over.
Will it be a durable policy? It is policy that all decisions except the fundamental policies (verifyability, NPOV, no original research, no law breaking) can be reviewed and reconsidered. So durability will never be guaranteed.
As I said, I'm not going to change the business model to something that Jimbo can "block" again, without discussion or community support. Change from what?
1. Change from directly posting articles into the mainspace. -- MyWikiBiz 14:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. My understanding of your deal with Jimbo is that you are unblocked with the provision that you do not directly post articles into the mainspace. Doing so would seem to me to be cause to reblock you. Admins make these desisions on the basis of their own judgement so all you need is one to see it that way and you would be reblocked. (I am not an admin nor do I care to be one.) Un-reblocking by a second admin could happen but that is called "wheel warring" and admins who do that risk being de-syoped (admin=syop in wikispeak). See below for use of user-space. WAS 4.250 00:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Queen of England indefinitely blocked me for violating a "policy" that wasn't anywhere in writing. I didn't like that particular parade. Yeah, it sucks when that happens. Don't take it personal. The governance mechanisms at wikipedia are lacking in finesse. Making up rules as we go along is standard practice. If the rules work out in practice they get written down. The rules are sometimes called "descriptive" and not "prescriptive" meaning they more or descibe what we've in general done so far but if they get in the way of making Wikipedia a free great encyclopedia they can be ignored or added to. Its a bit of an anarchy. WAS 4.250 13:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hear ya, WAS. Again, I have to say you're a dedicated Wikipedian. I'll have to make a barnstar with a dollar sign on it, "for working civilly with people who want money for doing what others do voluntarily". I e-mailed Jimbo to see if we went with this "user subpage" concept, whether he would step in against it or not. I just need his word, and perhaps a mention in writing somewhere public of his endorsement... not necessarily a formal policy. -- MyWikiBiz 14:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Wikipedia:User page guideline gives you all the authority you need to add articles to your user-space that you in good faith believe are encyclopedic, verified with sources, and unbiased. It says: "What about user subpages? If you need more pages, you can create subpages. More or less, you can have anything here that you might have on your user or user talk page. Examples: a work in progress, until it is ready to be released (this is typically not necessary, though some people do this), archives of user talk, tests, ..." WAS 4.250 00:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I suspected, WAS, you don't have a clear understanding of where Jimbo Wales stands on this issue. In a private e-mail from me to him, asking if he could live with posting articles on my User sub-pages, then posting a "notice" about them in "Conflicts of Interest", his reply was: "Absolutely unacceptable, sorry." No further clarification or illumination. As I am beginning to see it, the community thinks THEY have final say in what shall be policy, while Jimbo Wales feels that he has final say (based on a 15-minute telephone conversation with one user), regardless of the community's opinion after hours, and days, and weeks of thoughtful dialogue. This doesn't leave much incentive for the spirit of cooperation and good faith. I'll be happy to forward the e-mail in question to anyone who requests it. -- MyWikiBiz 17:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you see nothing wrong with forwarding a private email to "anyone who requests it?" Wow. That's not a very good reflection of your business policy and ethics. This thing just gets weirder and weirder...Sarah Ewart (Talk) 18:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah, based on the telephone conversation that I had with Jimbo, we ended the discussion with the agreement that our initial "compromise" could serve as the beginning of an open, public discussion on what to do about Conflicts of Interest within Wikipedia. Jimbo has failed, as far as I can tell and despite invitation, to participate in that public dialogue. E-mail is not confidential, and the targeted recipient may not be the final recipient. If Jimbo (or I) had a concern about the confidentiality of the discussion, we would mark the e-mail with a comment about it being intended for the recipient only. I've already publicly revealed the content of Jimbo's e-mail -- "Absolutely unacceptable, sorry". I waited ~~nearly a week~~ three-and-a-half days, and sent one reminder, to get that reply. The only reason I would forward it would be if someone didn't believe that Jimbo actually said that. Why is that such an anathemic idea? If you have concerns about business policy and ethics, have you spoken up about the appropriateness of indefinitely banning a user for doing something (that others have said is already taking place, for quite some time) that was not expressly written about anywhere as being prohibited activity? That struck me as bad business policy and a compromise of ethics for a "free" encyclopedia. But my reaction was to create a fair and open dialogue about it. But I'm the scoundrel? I can't speak for those who chose not to participate in that dialogue, except for what they tell me in personal e-mail. -- MyWikiBiz 19:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to support MyWikiBiz on this "ethical" point. Jimbo was acting in the name of Wikipedia when he wrote the email, and therefore it is legitimately within the scope of community interest. It sounds like it was "private" only in the sense that no one else was CC'd, not in the sense of "confidential." I'm quite familiar with engineering ethics, and somewhat familiar with business ethics, and this would not be a violation of either code. Sarah, please do not add fuel to the fire.--Yannick 21:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit perplexed here. I did write "Absolutely unacceptable, sorry." I find it laughable that MyWikiBiz is claiming that this is an attempt to override or deny community consensus. And I think that it is precisely this kind divisive and assuming-bad-faith behavior that illustrates exactly why we should be extremely wary of his pious claims that he intends only to write neutrally, despite being paid by the subjects of the articles. His entire enterprise was premised on something I consider to be deeply unethical, and nothing I have seen since gives me any firm hope that he understands why. This is absolutely unacceptable, sorry.--Jimbo Wales 13:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any evidence that MyWikiBiz edits to promote a POV? Otherwise I think your comment would in-fact also be assuming bad faith. If his goal is to create neutral and factual articles within the policies of WP:V and WP:NOR then I can't see the problem. However, if that's not the case, then I'd agree with you wholeheartedly. Its a fine line, I admit... but are we throwing the baby out with the bathwater? ---J.S (t|c) 22:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Is there any evidence that MyWikiBiz edits to promote a POV?" Yes. For example, wrote a self-serving autobiography using multiple wikipedia accounts that did not identify himself as being the same person and did not have sources for the self-serving parts and when his identity became known was deleted. Other examples exist. More than one person has concluded "he needs to be on a short leash". WAS 4.250 01:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo's involvement

A few points:

MyWikiBiz has announced he intends to not follow his agreement with Jimbo in the first place so my recommending him to place stuff in his user space is rather than posting it in the main space. If MyWikiBiz chooses to follow his agreement and place it at his own website a wikipedia admin can place it at MyWikiBiz's user space and all concerns will be met.
the mailig list had something about jimbo struggling to catch up on thousands of e-mails; he may simply lack time or inclination to revisit something he has already made a decision on, expecting wikipedians to take the ball and run with it as ususal.
here Jimbo says "I was not and I still am not smart enough to figure out how to make Wikipedia work. The Wikipedians figured that out, my role has only been to listen and watch, and to guide us forward in a spirit of sincerity and love to do something useful." I think it is quite clear he wants us to sort out the details. WAS 4.250 22:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "clear understanding of where Jimbo Wales stands"; read Koan and this. Jimbo's stand concerning his stands is wise. WAS 4.250 23:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I gave off the impression that our intent was not to follow the agreement with Jimbo (an agreement, by the way, that is still merely verbal, still not in writing, still only applies <apparently> to MyWikiBiz, still has not been universally extended to all paid-for-edit parties (Reward Board, anyone?), and still <presumably> could be revoked unilaterally at any moment by Wales). The problem with us "sorting out the details" is that if our resolution runs afoul of Jimbo's desires, he has the right to shut us out of the equation, and no admin has the courage or stupidity to override one of his blocks. Our intent was to try to find a more equitable, universal, yet fully-disclosed solution. But, since Wales seems to be uninterested in working on this any further, with any sense of constructive dialog, MyWikiBiz.com is indeed setting up an area within its own domain for storing GFDL content, which will be available to anyone, and notice of which will be given to admins of our choosing. We don't see the point of there being an intermediate post into our User space, since that was not part of our verbal agreement with Jimbo, and it just adds another step to an already step-laden process. -- MyWikiBiz 00:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for ageeing to conform to your original agreement with jimbo. Wikipedia is in constant flux, so fully expect things to change in whatever way makes sense in terms of wikipedians trying to make this the best free unbiased encyclopedia we can. Specifically, expect rules to not matter much if you write great encycloedic articles; but expect new rules to be created to impede new and creative efforts that are perceived to threaten wikipedia as a free unbiased encyclopedia. I hope you make a lot of money helping wikipedia. WAS 4.250 03:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little confused and perplexed by this dialogue. I have no idea why MyWikiBiz is accusing me of being "uninterested in working on this any further, with any sense of constructive dialog". It seems to me that the solution we agreed upon is fine, that he is free to write whatever he wants on his own website, and that it is deeply unethical for him to attempt to directly interact with Wikipedia in any way as a paid promoter. Period. There are a great many "straw man" arguments here which attempt to blur the distinction between, for example, someone being paid by a grant to translate content, as opposed to someone being paid by a company to write an article which puts that company in a good light. Suffice to say, MyWikiBiz should be kept on an extremely short leash here, as this is a highly problematic effort at best.--Jimbo Wales 13:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reason I said what I said, likely derived from my comparison of the scores of person-hours that the community has been putting into this dialogue, versus the three-word contribution that I received from you, Jimmy. Many respected other editors and admins have been very clearly (hardly "straw man" arguments, in my opinion) evaluating why "our" compromise is NOT the best long-term solution for Wikipedia. But, if that's how we're supposed to treat paid-to-edit content, then we will comply. I'm still concerned that 95% of the other paid-to-edit entities out there will NOT be following this practice. Finally, I object to the notion that our purpose is to put our clients "in a good light". They don't even WANT that. They want a reputable, neutral description of their company. Mature companies with clear marketing objectives don't see Wikipedia as an advertising medium -- they see it as an excellent reference compendium. The folks who will be using it as an advertising medium likely will be doing so "in the dark", outside the boundaries of "our" agreement. -- MyWikiBiz 13:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MyWikiBiz, we're not meaning to single you out particularly -- if other groups are doing the same thing, we (hopefully) will spot them and react accordingly. We're primarily interested in protecting the project and our community, and a lot of care should be taken when it comes with interactions with people whose interests in editing are so different than our regular community, especially when money is involved. Part of what makes Wikipedia work is that we have a by-and-large good community and we do our best to keep it that way. Being "fair" isn't a direct concern of ours, but you can trust that we will do what it takes to protect ourselves from behaviour from your competitors (or anyone else) that feel harmful to what we're doing. You may be seeing a bit of the rough ends of this process, because your edits are at least fairly close to groundbreaking for us (as I understand), and I regret if things feel rougher than they might, but nothing personal is meant. In the meantime, it really was very uncool to push for deletions of articles that you wern't involved in and suggest they should've bought your services. That's probably a lot more ill-will-building than even the notion of paying for articles. Take care. --Improv 00:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-existing articles

Do we want to force editors to go through the steps with articles that they have already created, as I am doing with User:Powerscore? Λυδ α cιτγ 17:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What to do instead

You should instead write on your own website, and ask Wikipedians to look at your work. You may also feel free to engage in constructive dialog on the talk pages.

Why is a talk page this any different from creating an article? If we are to discourage constructive and well-written spam articles because of conflicts of interest, why should we encourage constructive dialogue from someone with the same conflicts?

I'm not sure what asking Wikipedians to look at your work refers to, and how this would not be external link spam. Λυδ α cιτγ 22:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Member vs. members

Do we want to allow a single Wikipedian to vet an article, as is done at Wikipedia:Articles for creation? Should we restrict this vetting to admins? Or, should we establish a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion-like system where consensus is searched for? Or an Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee-type board with elected members?

The last seems rather inefficient to me, since we already have elected "officials" (admins). I would favor the second or third options. Λυδ α cιτγ 22:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Third option, an AfD style consensus, based on merit of article according to policy rather than vote count, with admin needed to close. This way, there is consensus rather than a single user's action, validating the move, and a means to prevent abusive manners (by anyone but the closing admin, but for that there can be a review process). If we reach consensus here, I shall add to User:LinaMishima/PaidEditing as a new resolves. LinaMishima 22:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There should be talk about the proposed content by anyone who wishes to comment and the actual placing of content in main wikipedia space is done by someone (anyone??) who is willing to stand behind that content as if he wrote it himself (deleting or rewriting or putting instead into the talk space of the article anything they are not willing to stand behind 100%). WAS 4.250 23:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect this may lead to one eccentric figure championing all the spam articles and putting them into article space, whereupon they are immediately AFD'd. If fifty people think the article doesn't deserve to exist, and a couple think it does (as often happens at AFD debates), it seems foolish to sanction the two dissenters to create the article. I would rather entrust the admins with the decision - they have our trust already, and they are presumed to be competent and knowledgable about our policies. Λυδ α cιτγ 00:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever puts content in the main wikipedia space is responsible and acountable for that. Being an admin is no excuse for adding bad content and not being an admin is no barrier to adding content one believes is great encyclopedic content - whereever one finds it. WAS 4.250 01:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but much of this content is obviously controversial, and if there's bound to be an immediate AFD, I don't see the point of letting one user create the article. An admin, on the other hand, is much more likely to judge and react to the community consensus. Λυδ α cιτγ 13:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I get the very distinct feeling that I am misunderstanding you and that you are misunderstanding me. "This content" can not be "obviously controversial" as it is not even written yet. If someone persists in creating articles that are "bound" to be deleted then they should be indefinitely blocked. Nonadmins like me create articles all the time. If I see an excellent wikipedia article lying about in someone's user space and not in the main space simply due to process then I will personally move it to the main space regardless of process. So don't invent process rules that shouldn't be enforced if they are made. Content decisions should be made by those who take the time to read the sources and understand the content and take full responsibility and accountability for their edits of the mainspace content and not by a community vote of whoever shows up at a process wanking. WAS 4.250 20:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Jimbo says this. WAS 4.250 23:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Refactoring talk page?

Would anyone object the archiving of discussions here that have gone quiet, moving rewrite versions off to sub-pages, and then a summary/refactor of the archived/moved content being left on the main talk page (ie, here)? I suspect some good points for elements we need to consider have been left behind, and the big discussions debating points detract from the ideas themselves being convayed within. With some more structure and emphasis on the key points of past debates, I hope to make this discussion more approachable and hence hopefully be able to draw more people into the process. Thoughts? LinaMishima 14:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are only 21 threads - I'm not sure if a complete refactor is necessary. I would suggest moving the "Proposed Draft Text" to a subpage, but everything else still seems relevant to me. Λυδ α cιτγ 15:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point in a refactor is to keep all the relavant information, just in a more accessable form. Almost every thread (if not all) has relevant information within, however it is not all immediately accessable for new visitors. I'm also a bit of a purist - I feel that stale discussions can get in the way of discussing matters anew, as either they will be mistaken for being active (often reawkening arguements long past), they will be seen and assumed to have been 'delt with' (which is not always the case), or they simply won't be read when people bring up the points again resulting in good ideas not being taken into account.

My main reason for suggesting this was the vast improvements to Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)/Sidebar redesign that I felt the summary made, which made it much more suitable to be promoted. However I see your point, and generally agree. Perhaps rather than the above, a to-do list of some sort should be drawn up, a list of points we should really consider? LinaMishima 16:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any refactoring would necessarily be based on the refactorers points of view and so I am very wary of any such attempt. Please feel free to add to the bottom to re-bring up stuff that needs to be brought up and seems left behind. And feel free to add a to-do list to the very top. Also sometimes rewording subsection headings makes navigation easier for new readers (maybe add a word or two in parenthesis?) - just be real careful about POV considerations. WAS 4.250 20:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikien-l discussion : the main points

What follows is an account of the most recient discussion on wikien-l about paid article editing. Summaried here to try and move points from that discussion into this one:

Jimmy Wales expressed an opinion for external article creation and talk-page only open involvement. [1]

"we frown upon" editing by PR firms of their client's articles, and consider this improper
Articles should be written under the GFDL and placed on company website to be imported by neutral wikipedians later
Edits to existing articles via open and indentified requests on talk page
Believes in encouraging asking for transparency and independant editing

David Gerard wondered about making the request for PR to stay detached a press release. [2]

Gerard was opposed by geni, who argued that it would then form yet another rule and encourage rule proliferation. [3]

Sam Korn rebutted by stating that the rule already existed. [4]

Geni restated his case, saying that announcing the rules would promote process creep. [5]

Erik Moeller cc'd Sheldon Rampton of PR Watch in on the discussion, and argued that if we do not allow PR firms to work, they will still edit, but clandestinely. Suggests use of userspace for paid articles. First mention of this article! [6]

Death Phoenix agreed with the suggestion of using userspace. [7]

Stephen Bain also agreed, and talking about bringing people into the community. [8]

Gregory Maxwell, however, worried about the implications of an increased use of userspace for biased articles, with the high rankings that any wikipedia article (no matter which namespace) recieves in google. [9]

Erik Moeller suggested a required disclaimer template for COI articles. [10]
Steve Bennett agreed, and suggested "This article has been edited by the company in question or an agent acting on its behalf. It may not conform to the neutral point of view policy or may omit important facts." Bennett also suggested that this should not be a big deal, and any damage to reputation would be limited to articles on companies only. [11]

Andrew Gray mentions a seattle times article on the ethics of using myspace as a source (not strictly related to this debate, but I thought it was interesting, and it's ethics related).
Sheldon Rampton suggested this was really a special case of WP:VAIN and WP:AUTO, and noted that a paradox exists between these policies and anonymous editing. He goes on to suggest that article creation and major changes should not be allowed, but minor changes should be allowed. [12]

Also suggests all editing be done transparently, disclosing their interest and their changes on the talk page.
Notes that current PR trends lean towards campaigning against your competitors!
Suggests that transparent editing will discourages anonymous, POV or otherwise policy-breaking editing by virtue of these causing embarrasment.

Kelly Martin suggests that she would rather ban PR firms entirely, as she has had bad experiences with edits by them. [13]

Gregory Maxwell counters by suggesting that this would only cause PR firms to edit in secret, which he feels seriously damages wikipedia's integrity. [14]

Erik Moeller mentions us, this time as WP:COI, stating that although this may be slightly harmful, the secrecy and disruption that anonymous COI editing causes would be far worse. [15] [16] [17] [18]

Also argues that an open process for COI editing prevents any call of foul play by any party involved.
Mentions that the article here needs better structure.
Suggests that this 'soft' approach is the only sensible way forward without full real life background checks on every editor.

Gregory Maxwell examines the posibilities in allowing or banning PR editing. Suggests that a well-funded PR firm will wikilawyer to get their own way, and generally by allowing paid editing we loose a moral highground. [19] [20] [21]

Suggests that PR firms can't cry foul if all PR firms are clearly disallowed.
Suggests that PR firms will be more willing to accept "no means no" than other editors.

Steve Bennett notes that if PR firms have to edit under their company name, no PR company would risk the story "HGDYI inserts bias into wikipedia", and agrees that PR firms generally cannot change account details regularly (as it's not worth it). [22]
Kelly Martin argues that the costs of anonymous editing outweigh the benefits. [23]

Kat Walsh points out that minor corrections are allowed by WP:AUTO, and that WP:NPOV is ultimately all she is concerned about. [24]

Kat would prefer that PR firms edit only in talkspace, as NPOV is normally not compatable with the goals of a PR firm.
Also believes that those with agendas know how to work us and will not reveal their bias at all, and that the community can be relied upon to protect us from harm using existing rules alone.

- User:LinaMishima

In my opinion you seriously distort some of what they said. I highly recommend everyone read the archives for themselves if they intend to draw serious conclusions from the comments. WAS 4.250 20:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried my best to produce an accurate summary. I'm fairly certain I messed up slightly on the last two entries, which isn't too surprising given the length of the task involved. Could you please point out where I have misrepresented the details, so that I can correct them and learn for the future? LinaMishima 21:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I implied you did anything other than try your best to produce an accurate summary. I read the exchange then read your summary and the two readings strike me as being different in emphasis and in the points the originals were trying to make. If I summarized, my summary would reflect the filters of what I consider important just as yours did. I can not provide a better summary, only a different one; one reflecting my points of view. So I recommend "Use the source, Luke". Perhaps if you provided links to the individual archived messages then it would facilitate people reading the source. But we are all unpaid volunteers, so don't feel pressured to do work you don't feel like doing. WAS 4.250 22:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I organized and linked the summery; I also edited a little bit. Λυδ α cιτγ 02:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IP address blocks

The following is a comment by I solicited at User talk:Daniel Bush:

It's a good proposal, but for the corporations that I've noticed editing Wikipedia, such as Zango, in which it appeared the founder had edited, it would seem that this would be little motive to continue subverting Wikipedia for marketing practices. There needs to be mention in this policy of the punishment that may result in its violation in the most extreme cases.

If edits from Zango continue to be for nothing but the purpose of promoting its adware, and alleged spyware, through editing Wikipedia articles on itself, and linkspamming in unrelated articles? They have been blocked temporarily, but this has not worked, so should it be blocked permanently? It seems that the founder of Zango may have even edited Wikipedia under the username Dtodd.

Zango has been warned several times under various IP addresses not to promote itself on Wikipedia, but because administrators don't see each others' warnings, they often just place another warning sticker on the user message page. Sometimes warnings of the highest degree, saying you will be blocked if you repeat your actions again, only result in yet another warning, because the administrator supposes it has been a couple of months since the last action, when this is not true. I think this is unfortunate leniency on Wikipedia's part.

Additionally, should organizations like Zango that have their IP address blocks have their IP addresses blocked individually, or blocked as a single entity? The answer to this question could be applied to other things, like the offices of members of the U.S. Senate, in the extremely unlikely event such an "edit war" would arise. Aside from that, I have no suggestions. Daniel Bush 08:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC) (copied here by WAS 4.250 20:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Userspace template

Which one do people like better?

File:Purple question mark.gif

This page is a proposed Wikipedia article. It is currently in user space, and is not an actual Wikipedia article.

This is a Wikipedia user page. IT IS NOT AN ARTICLE.

Either way, we should make an actual template out of it. Λυδ α cιτγ 02:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care so that's one vote for yours and no votes for mine. So I'm replacing the template with yours. If no one else speaks up, feel free to "make an actual template out of it". WAS 4.250 05:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first one looks better. Peter O. (Talk) 19:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidence of Interest

Often there is a coincidence of interest between an external independent entity and Wikipedia's goals. I feel that sometimes people confuse having a conflict of interest with having an interest.

The important factor here is to declare an interest so editors here can form their own view. In fact, it is often possible to increase the benefit to all sides with constructive engagement. This is true in the case of my own company, Forbidden Technologies plc, which shares a common goal with the WMF: having a resource of free video content. Stephen B Streater

That's a very interesting point, actually. If you work within a field and edit articles relating to the field, you don't automatically incur a conflict of interest. A conflict only occurs if there are additional factors at work, such as needing to promote something, being paid by the subject in question, etc. A most needed contribution, thank you! LinaMishima 17:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the further you are from a subject the lower the quality of information you are in a position to contribute. As for promotion, that also needs qualification. If I work for an organisation like Greenpeace I might want to promote cleaner lifestyles (I might also be paid by Greepeace for this), does that mean I have a conflict of interest with respect to articles that concern fossil fuels and the like? You can still be green and use fossil fuels. As long as I had stated my position, say on your user page? What if you change jobs? To be fair you would have to maintain some sort of history too!? mk 17:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. An earlier version of the page made that mistake ("If you are getting paid to write articles for Wikipedia, or if the subject of the article is very close to your profession"), and was corrected. Λυδ α cιτγ 21:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right now that is dealt with merely by linking to the wikipedia article Conflict of interest. Perhaps we need a well written subsection detailing the points you guys just raised. Any volunteers? WAS 4.250 23:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would, but then would I have a conflict of interest ;-) Stephen B Streater 23:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Write it and post it here on the talk page. WAS 4.250 23:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidence of Interest

Draft (please edit in place and leave comments at the bottom). Stephen B Streater 11:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has noble aims and it comes as no surprise that these benefit many people and organisations outside of Wikipedia itself. As well as finding the general resource of a great encyclopaedia handy, commercial organisations benefit particularly from the free licence conditions covering content here, which allow commercial re-use of information.

Situations can arise where a company has an interest in what happens here - not a conflict of interest but a coincidence of interest or common interest. The question this policy seeks to address is how to deal with this situation.

Practical guidelines:

Any interest should be clearly declared in advance
The decision on whether the interest is a conflict or a coincidence should be left to disinterested parties
The parties should seek to maintain clear communication
Cooperation of organisations with coincident interests should be encouraged

In addition, there may be simple ways to align the interests of an outside organisation to that of Wikipedia. For Wikipedia to benefit, only one interest of an outside source needs to coincide with one interest of Wikipedia.

Comments

I don't see that as being a useful addition to the proposal. It seems to negate the existing content of the proposal. I think the problem is you are thinking of you and your desire to have free content distributed; whereas the problem this proposal is seeking to address is coordinated systematic unethical lying manipulative organized predatory behavior. What we don't want to get cause in the net is individuals acting without coordinatetion with an organization; or organizations that are acting in an ethical above board way in all their dealings (or close enough we don't need to worry about them) like the ACLU or your local church. We do want to, need to, tell PR firms simply don't edit or you will be embarrassed; in exactly the same way as police try to make it known don't steal or you will go to jail. WAS 4.250 14:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the proposal. It is not an addition to a proposal. As far as I know, there is no other proposal which discusses how to cooperate productively with like-minded interested parties, and this is the gap I'm proposing to fill. Which proposal are you thinking of adding it to? Stephen B Streater 15:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this is about PR firms not editing their clients' articles, then rename this proposal as Wikipedia:Conflict of interests by PR agencies. As it stands now is too generic and skirting what seems to be the main problem. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of hijacking my on thread: no, this is not about PR. I have a technology company, and it benefits from Wikipedia's free content policy. Some guidelines on how to engage to increase the amount of free content (in particular, free video content) here would be useful. As it happens, our technology enables just this. Stephen B Streater 17:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is a Wikipedia conflict of interest?

The Conflict of interest article refers to people in a special position of trust, or a "professional or official capacity". Wikipedia editors are not in such a position.

So how does one interpret the CoI term in this context?

I've seen people (in other contexts) go as far as saying "anything related to the same branch of industry you work in is CoI", and people say "as long as you can't know that money will enter your pocket, it's not CoI" - so the question is not academic to me. --Alvestrand 08:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Process creep reducing quality of encyclopedia

Far from it being obvious, I am totally unconvinced that it is inherently wrong to be paid to write Wikipedia articles. On the contrary, I see editors like MyWikiBiz having a very strong obligation to edit within our community standards -- not just to us, but to his own business. The "MyWikiBiz" fails if he misbehaves and gets banned; on the flip side, as long as he edits well and respects WP:NPOV, he is both adding quality content to our encyclopedia as well as satisfying that which his customers are paying him to do. I see his economic incentive to edit well as being much stronger than that of many Wikipedia editors whose editing strategy, so to speak, centers around heightening their community status or pushing their own personal viewpoints. It's completely silly to pretend like many if not most Wikipedia articles are started by people who are not deeply "interested" in the topic at hand, and thus conflicted to some degree, so making this particular subset of editors jump through additional hoops is a little unfair. Judge the EDITS, not the EDITOR. — GT 20:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you to a certain extent. Jimbo doesn't, however. I don't know if he would step in if a consensus wanted to dis-discourage editing w/COI. Would you like to find out? Λυδ α cιτγ 01:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Public relations

Public relations people are going to write articles in Wikipedia whether we like it or not. I've offered my draft of how I think this should be approached. If you have comments, for now please use its talk page: I've deliberately left this in my own user space. - Jmabel | Talk 17:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Propose expanding WP:VAIN instead of creating a new guideline

There's been some discussion that Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines have a prejudicial and not very descriptive title. What they're really addressing is a specific type of conflict of interest. Why not rename the Vanity guidelines as "Conflict of interest guidelines", and merge over from here whatever they're missing? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to ask Wales about that. This is directly related to User:MyWikiBiz -- you might wish to catch up on the background of that issue. Jim62sch 23:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just say no to PR firms

Just say no to PR firms rather than create a guideline or policy for them seems to be gaining in acceptance. WAS 4.250 07:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say that Gregory Maxwell's solitary opinion represents an acceptance that "seems to be gaining". Wikipedia: the free encyclopedia that anyone (a few key Admins say can edit) can edit. --MyWikiBiz 12:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this policy has applicability beyond PR firms - editing funded by grants, editing funded by any employee, editing by employed experts where efforts on wikipedia considered part of job dutes, editing by academics where such editing is permitted by their employer, ...

Whether combined with the vanity guidelines or a seperate policy - how to deal with conflicts, whether such conflicts need to be openly acknowledged, rules for higher scrutiny in applying ownership, tenacious editing, etc, if they are even necessary, are all things that we as a community need to resolve and are resolving - through practice of the current admins and through pages like this. A bright line rule, while easier to implement, may not be the best standard. --Trödel 13:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst the bit about PR firms is worded against them, sadly I do believe that it has a very valid point. Even if we allow open PR editing, misuse will still happen, the bad firms in question will simply learn to do it in secret, PR firms work may well be decimated by a cautious editor base, and real lawyer wikilawyering becomes a possibility. In my opinion, the entire thing is mis-named, and sadly the author allowed their bias to dilute a key point:

"We accept neutral and factual edits from any person ... In fact, I'm arguing that our handling of editors works well enough
that we don't have to create a special "permission to promote" compromise in order to reduce the amount of secret editing that will
happen."

Once a PR firm has been educated in how to edit wiki ethically, our existing rules and policies should be enough to keep them in check, and we should not look to grant them any special authorisation. If they are required to abide like every other editor, niether side risks the dangers of authorised PR editing. We do perhaps need some changes to the vanity guidelines, so as to allow self-editing of a neutral and factual nature (ie, making vanity mean vanity), a proper document akin to User:Jmabel/PR, and a degree of ideological changes in some key players, however. LinaMishima 14:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "just say no" comment on the mailing list is a gross over-simplication of the issue at hand. Equating PR firms as spammers who contribute zero information or text into articles is incorrect. And even if we "just said no", then absolutely no PR firms will follow such a rule. The best bet, is to make paid-for editing as transparent as possible, I commented on User talk:MyWikiBiz about how our current "Jimbo Concodat" rule explicitly obscures this by getting others to post paid-for articles on Wikipedia. - Hahnch e n 00:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have received remarkably little feed back

I have received remarkably little feed back about User:Jmabel/PR. Is there perhaps a different way I should present my ideas? - Jmabel | Talk 18:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have presented your ideas just fine. No feedback means those who read it choose to not respond. Lack of positive response probably indicates lack of agreement. Lack of negative response may indicate people don't want to hurt your feelings. Then again, maybe nobody read it and the solution is to copy it everyplace. Of course, the real answer is that your solution is too advanced and we just aren't ready for it. WAS 4.250 20:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm misreading your remarks; my paraphrase of what I'm hearing you say (and I may be hearing wrong) is "fuck off and go away."

For what it's worth, if anyone is failing to respond negatively to the ideas I put forward because of concern for my feelings, please, have at it. And I'd much rather have someone actually engage on the substance of what I wrote than to dismiss me with platitudes. - Jmabel | Talk 04:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A PR person speaks

As it happens, I only realised that I may be strongly discouraged from editting Wikipedia after I had contributed 500 edits. During that time, I think I have learned:

to declare an interest, so that other editors are aware of potential bias and can take it into account;
to write from a hopefully NPOV (though probably getting better at this as time goes on);
to positive encourage editors who seem to have a different perspective to mine to participate [25], [26];
certainly not to edit war when others editors suggest that I am not writing neutrally (this has happened twice, one suggestion being made by an editor whose name is that of an employee of an opposing organisation), leaving resolution of such issues to others;
occasionally to make suggestions on articler talk pages before making them myself [27], [28]
not to edit pages of opposing organisations.

My own view (as you would expect) is that I have made a positive contribution (for example on hare coursing) and I suspect that other professionals in their field have too. But it seems strange to ask editors to drop out of active editting as soon as they start to learn the rules. Surely the danger is greatest when PR editors are new? Final thought: my experience is that some (specialist?) issues like fox hunting find few people who have all three of interest, expertise and a neutral point of view. (apologies if this sounds like an attempt at self-justification, it's genuinely my intention to use myself only to illustrate a point. MikeHobday 06:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitional issues

Could I also raise some definitional issues, as a PR person?

As the employee of a campaigning organisation (cf Greenpeace reference above), I do not know if I am "being paid to edit Wikipedia" because I edit in my own time and at my own initiative. Does this mean that I do not have a work life balance, or does it mean that I am expressing a view voluntarily?
Because I have paid expertise on certain subjects, am I less capable of expressing a NPOV than someone whose personal involvement in the subject is just as pasionate and just as intensive but unpaid?

My point is not to wikilawyer but to suggest that the proposed definitions need further clarification. MikeHobday 06:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The points you raise illustrate why, perhaps, the current policies are sufficient. NPOV is already policy and repeated attempts to create bias is a blockable/bannable offense already. POV warriers are banned already. Blocking/banning someone who creates positive promotional articles for money can be viewed as simply a continuation of existing policies and practices. Then again, maybe some additional clarification in some form somewhere on Wikipedia would be useful. We are, here, hashing all that out. WAS 4.250 09:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Absolutely unacceptable, sorry"

So, Radiant! has changed this page to be a "guideline". How do we all feel about the fact that Jimmy Wales said, in response to this aspect of WP:COI that it was "Absolutely unacceptable, sorry"? -- MyWikiBiz 22:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MyWikiBiz, if you don't stop trolling, I am going to ban you myself, got it?--Jimbo Wales 03:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully he's changed his mind. Anyway, the guideline template doesn't say anything about the owner of the website's opinion. Λυδ α cιτγ 01:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, not by Jimmy Wales.--Yannick 02:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I am to interpret the opinions of Radiant!, Audacity, and Ytrottier as having more collective influence than Jimmy Wales' opinion? My e-mail to Wales said the following:

Dear Jimbo, There is a proposal at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflicts_of_interest. I think that MyWikiBiz.com could live within those parameters, but I don't want to get my heart set on it, if you feel that it still would be unacceptable (because the paid-for GFDL content would be entering "Wikipedia user space", even if it is not originating by the paid party in the "article mainspace"... I'll look forward to your thoughts or comments. Kindly, Greg

His response was, "Absolutely unacceptable, sorry." Very interesting. Is the community actually standing up in opposition to the God-king? I'll run it by him in another e-mail. Maybe the distinction that Wales was making with me was that mine would be a "paid" conflict of interest, while WP:COI seems to be addressing (more likely) a "self-interest" conflict of interest. (BTW, I'm not opposed to what's evolved here. It just seems like a dramatic step that was implemented "under the radar", by a user who had not once previously contributed to WP:COI or its related Discussion page. Just because conversation had died on the topic doesn't mean everyone had formed consensus.) --MyWikiBiz 03:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MyWikiBiz, please knock it off, ok? On August 17, I told you that the version of policy at that time was absolutely unacceptable. I proposed some changes on August 21. Since that time, people have incorporated my changes and a lot more. I still think this policy does not go far enough, and is not stated strongly enough, because the policy should allow anyone to block you on sight for what you have attempted to do. The policy should make much more clear that it is absolutely and totally unethical to propose to write articles on behalf of companies for money. Period. This needs to be stated forcefully and repeatedly. However, since the policy does now certainly provide us with a starting point for discouraging it, including the language that I proposed, I support it.

You trying to stir up sentiment against me based on false reporting of what the situation is... well, it just tells me exactly why we need this kind of policy.--Jimbo Wales 03:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I guess in re-reading the content of WP:COI for a fifth time, I'm beginning to see that it doesn't really supercede the "Jimbo Concordat" that we agreed to in early August. What was throwing me off was the Full articles section, which seemed to contradict the Concordat. But now I see that posting to a user subpage is only if a conflicted user wishes to "submit an entire article for community review". I am of the understanding now that if one does not want their article reviewed by the community before its consideration for posting to the article mainspace, one should just keep the article in its original form on one's own corporate webpage (ideally in a GFDL area). I may have misinterpreted WP:COI earlier today, so my apologies are in order. I wish there wasn't so much hostility borne toward me, though. As I've said about The Family & Workplace Connection and Arch Coal, we're not trying to inject evil content into Wikipedia. I'm going to observe a moratorium on this topic now. --MyWikiBiz 04:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly recommend you do a lot more than observe a moratorium on this topic now. I recommend that you change your entire business model. Do you want to write corporate full bios? Go ahead. Do you want to release them under the GNU FDL? Go ahead. Do you want to imply, on your website, that by paying you, companies can get a great article on Wikipedia. No. You may not, you must not, it is deeply inappropriate. You need to tell companies the truth, on your website: "Wikipedia strongly frowns on paid consultants on behalf of companies editing Wikipedia. If you are caught using my service, you run a serious risk of bad publicity."--Jimbo Wales 04:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voluntary disclosure

I do not like this new guideline because the hardline discourages voluntary disclosure of conflicts of interest, particularly in mild cases such as a non-PR employee editing a page about his industry or a politician editing a page about an issue she champions. Voluntary disclosure is often preferable to forcing people to contribute anonymously because it provides a better basis for open discussion and consensus building. I think many of the comments above lean to this opinion as well. Voluntary disclosures should be made on the edit summary or on the article's talk page, and I would expect this to motivate other editors to review the edits pretty much automatically. This is how all the codes of ethics that I am familiar with deal with CoI's.

At the same time, this guideline should also point out that bias can be introduced by things as subtle as adding more material on one subject than another, and that paid contributors can easily wear down our volunteers and subvert the system. Frequent introduction of bias like this is a flagrant violation of WP:NPOV and should be easily blockable, regardless of whether voluntary disclosure has been made or not. I do not see the talk-page pre-article as a complete solution to this problem, and I don't think it has received much support by others either.

I think this proposal was prematurely promoted to a guideline, and I hope that people will still consider large changes to it. I think it should be rewritten to encourage voluntary disclosure and strict adherence to WP:NPOV, WP:CORP, WP:AUTO, etc. as a first remedy, but warn that prolific users with a pattern of violations shall be blocked, regardless of disclosure.--Yannick 05:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where do we stand on this?

On October 4, Radiant marked WP:COI as a guideline. The tone implies essentially "if you are paid to edit Wikipedia, don't. But you can write a GDFL potential article elsewhere and have it vetted by respected Wikipedians who will post it. Everything should be done in an aboveboard manner." The exchange on Oct 4 and Oct 5 on this discussion page, and the ongoing DRV of Arch Coal don't seem fully consistent with this philosophy; in particular Jimbo seems to be taking a harder line with MyWikiBiz. Now, all sorts of issues cloud the picture, in particular ongoing communication between Jimbo and MyWikiBiz which we are not privy to. But can someone clarify where we stand? I see a couple of possibilities, and maybe there are others:

The guideline is widely accepted (including by Jimbo), but there are specific issues why MyWikiBiz is a problematic contributor. Nevertheless, others can follow the guideline and have paid contributions posted by others (after vetting) and the end product appreciated by all.
The guideline is not accepted by Jimbo, and then it should not be called a guideline. But some collaborative solution is possible, and we should continue to seek a consensus agreeable to all including Jimbo. Those who might have a financial interest in writing Wikipedia articles are invited to join in the discussion in a collaborative manner.
Recent experiences have sufficiently soured the atmosphere to prevent a consensus solution to this altogether in the near future, and attempts to reach it at the present time are a futile use of wikipedians' time. Any attempts to edit wikipedia "for money" should be excised, to the extent it is possible to identify them. Those who might have a financial interest in writing Wikipedia articles should find something else to do for the coming months or longer.

Martinp 19:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I accept the guideline, although I suspect it will not be nearly enough to deal with the problem. MyWikiBiz is particularly problematic because of the way he promotes his service and the way he has behaved on-site.--Jimbo Wales 16:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for dropping in again on this issue Jimbo. Of course, I do not know all the details about MWB's activities, but I have some comments about the system we have here. I'm just going to list what I believe to be the flaws involved:

GFDL articles are copied over unilaterally without discussion by a single Wikipedia user, in the case of Arch Coal, it was User:J.smith. Would it not be more useful for multiple users to comment and edit an article before it became live?
The user copying the article over may not indicate that the article was by a paid editing firm. Would you have known that the Arch Coal article was written by MWB had it not been raised on his talk page?

Instead of the current system where GFDL articles are posted off wiki and allowed to be scraped, what about allowing them to be posted in the User space, where the could undergo a a system similar to Wikipedia:Requests for feedback or WP:AFC? The articles would be prominently marked as such to avoid confusion with actual encyclopedia pages. There would be spaces for comments below, and it would also allow established users to edit the in-waiting articles. After a set period of time, these could then be moved across to the mainspace. Thus we have a trace of who's posting what, and multiple users' input. - Hahnch e n 01:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicts of interest from the front lines - Danny's take

"[...] I have dealt with Walmart, Coca Cola, and GM (among other firms) on the phone. I have spoken with Congressmen and Senators. I have spoken to their lawyers. I have spoken to their PR people. I have spoken to their VPs in charge of advertising. I did not give in to their cajoling, their threats, or their attempts at bribes. [...] The fact is, we are dealing with a problem here. We have companies galore trying to spam us. OTRS is just a small indicator of this. We have adverting executives calling to see if what they can do to move their company to a higher position on a list, or how much it costs to get them on the front page. We are prime advertising. We will soon be the tenth largest website in the world, and "anyone can edit." It is not only top notch internet advertising, but it is free too. You see, these people dont see the difference between us and MySpace. They know that we will push up their Google rankings. They know that everyone will look them up on Google and find the Wikipedia article. And I repeat, it is free. For the Americans among you, it is like getting a free commercial slot in the last two minutes of the Superbowl. And I repeat, it is free. And for this prime slot, they want to make sure they look as good as they can. This is not hypothesis. We are dealing with it every day, from people who threaten to sue us for violating their First Amendment rights to post about their company to clueless people who think that if we put up a banner to their online poker site we will all make money. We get it from the big Fortune 500 companies and we get it from the local car rental shop, from the sister of a guy who is opening up a new real estate business in Durham North Carolina (I am not kidding) to reps of Coca Cola ("The article is biased"). We get it from Washington thinktanks led by former cabinet members to Flickr-like rip off sites (they offered us $35 for every photographer we send to them). As a site where advertising is anathema, we have to make a choice. Do we allow this? Personally, I am opposed to paid advertising on Wikipedia, but I am even more opposed to free advertising which we cannot monetize. As editors, we end up having to make choices. With our goals in sight, How do we continue being an encyclopedia, and not some advertising forum or MySpace? What is the difference between an article about Budweiser (which I believe we should have even though their beer is foul) and articles on every micro-brewery in the state of Wisconsin? [...]"

from [29]

Copied here by WAS 4.250 05:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What Danny is talking about here is much more serious than a conflict of interest. He talks about threats, bribery, infiltration, and patterns of bias, powered by substantial financial resources. A hardline is justified in these cases: revert and block at will, because it's the only way our volunteer force can defend themselves from the paid mercenaries. But this hardline policy does not belong under the heading of "Conflict of Interest" which casts too wide a net. "Conflicts of interest" is a phrase used by many professional codes of ethics to refer to a very common, and generally harmless, situation. The remedies are almost always voluntary avoidance and voluntary disclosure. Following disclosure, whether voluntary or otherwise, another level of judgement is made as to whether the professional has let his conflicting interests affect his judgement, and that is what leads to firings, lawsuits, etc. Enforce WP:CORP, WP:NPOV, and WP:AUTO strictly, rather than blur the laws to let the elite do whatever they want.--Yannick 19:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict?

I'm greatly disappointed that commercial writing is discouraged. I see no problem if an editor is paid to writer an article on a company and get it to featured status. This is not mentioned anywhere on the page. I think we should be explicit that *as long* as the article conforms to all FA criteria (NPOV, referenced work, good writing, comprehensiveness), a user should not be discouraged from debarred from writing on/for his contracted company. If we could put up a clause that commercial writing is ok, but it should be made featured, it would greatly improve the quality of many articles on corporations. I know many people would disagree with commercial writing is ethically bad, but this is a good way to improve the quality of articles on wikipedia. I know of one featured article that the nominator stated his conflict of interest while nominating, and nobody objected based on those grounds. Biases are inherently present in all wikipedians. Putting that aside and writing neutral articles should be stressed. -- A wiki admin 01:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)