Misplaced Pages

talk:Conflict of interest: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:46, 20 July 2014 editFigureofnine (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers6,295 edits →Paid editing and the perception of promotion← Previous edit Revision as of 20:55, 20 July 2014 edit undoFrieda Beamy (talk | contribs)367 edits I know we agreed on the wording once, but we are at the point where the redundancy and historical note can be trimmed. Further redundancy tightening and clarification is possible.Next edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Warning|To discuss conflict of interest problems with specific editors and articles, please go to<br />].}} {{Warning|To discuss conflict of interest problems with specific editors and articles, please go to<br />].}}
{{notice|"Any editor who discusses proposed changes to WP:COI or to any conflict of interest policy or guideline, should disclose in that discussion if he or she has been paid to edit on Misplaced Pages." - ]}} {{notice|1="Any editor who discusses proposed changes to WP:COI or to any conflict of interest policy or guideline should disclose in that discussion if he or she has been paid to edit on Misplaced Pages." – ]. Here is a list of participants in discussions of the COI guideline, who have been or are paid to edit. New contributors can add their own usernames here, or others may add them. Link to disclosure must be '''definitive''' and not speculative, and ], ], and ] are enforced here as everywhere.
{{tmbox
| small = {{{small|}}}
| type = notice
| image = ]
| smallimage = ]
| text =Here is a list of participants in discussions of the COI guideline, who have been or are paid editors. The starting list gathers various disclosures already made on this page. New contributors can add their own usernames here, or others may add them. Link to disclosure must be '''definitive''' and not speculative, and ], ], and ] are enforced here as everywhere.


This list is '''not here''' to promote personal attacks or to be used in refuting arguments made by conflicted participants, but rather to satisfy the obligation in ] that "Any editor who discusses proposed changes to WP:COI or to any conflict of interest policy or guideline, should disclose in that discussion if he or she has been paid to edit on Misplaced Pages." This list is '''not here''' to promote personal attacks or to be used in refuting arguments made by conflicted participants, but rather to satisfy the obligation quoted above.


Again, '''this list is not here to promote ] or ], but simply to provide the necessary disclosure to other participants.''' Again, '''this list is not here to promote ] or ], but simply to provide the necessary disclosure to other participants.'''

Listed in alphabetical order, with link to disclosure:


* {{u|BlackCab}}: disclosure is * {{u|BlackCab}}: disclosure is
* {{u|CorporateM}}: disclosure is ] * {{u|CorporateM}}: disclosure is ]
* {{u|Frieda Beamy}} * {{u|Frieda Beamy}}
* {{u|TParis}}: disclosure is and .}} * {{u|TParis}}: disclosure is and }}
{{talkheader}} {{talkheader}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config

Revision as of 20:55, 20 July 2014

To discuss conflict of interest problems with specific editors and articles, please go to
Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard.
"Any editor who discusses proposed changes to WP:COI or to any conflict of interest policy or guideline should disclose in that discussion if he or she has been paid to edit on Misplaced Pages." – WP:COI. Here is a list of participants in discussions of the COI guideline, who have been or are paid to edit. New contributors can add their own usernames here, or others may add them. Link to disclosure must be definitive and not speculative, and WP:OUTING, WP:NPA, and WP:HARASS are enforced here as everywhere.

This list is not here to promote personal attacks or to be used in refuting arguments made by conflicted participants, but rather to satisfy the obligation quoted above.

Again, this list is not here to promote personal attacks or harassment, but simply to provide the necessary disclosure to other participants.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Conflict of interest page.
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36Auto-archiving period: 5 days 

Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12
Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15
Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18
Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21
Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24
Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27
Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30
Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33
Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.
Archiving icon
Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.


Sources on conflict of interest

Amendment proposal for "How to handle conflicts of interest"

Currently this section starts with a subsection called "Noticeboards and templates" which says

The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor, referring to this guideline. If persuasion fails, incidents may be reported on the conflict of interest noticeboard (WP:COIN), and users may be warned with the {{uw-coi}} user warning template. Conflict of interest is not in itself a reason to delete an article, though other problems with the article arising from a conflict of interest may be valid (see criteria for deletion).

I propose that:

  • we delete the subsection header
  • The text say instead:

If an editor directly discloses information that clearly demonstrates that he or she has a COI as defined in this guideline or is a paid editorhas made one or more paid contributions as per the Terms of Use, raise the issue with the editor in a civil manner on the editor's Talk page, citing this guideline. If the editor does not change his or her behavior to comply with this guideline and/or the Terms of use, create a posting on WP:COIN, following the instructions there. Relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, and the article itself may be tagged with {{COI}}. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. Do not work outside the advice provided here and hound the conflicted editor in Talk pages across the project, which can boomerang and can lead to sanctions against you.

If an editor edits in a way that leads you to believe that he or she might have a conflict of interest or might be a paid editorhave made one or more paid contributions, remember to assume good faith. You may raise your concerns, in a civil manner, on the editor's Talk page, but it is generally unwise to pursue such concerns further without clear evidence in the form of a disclosure from the editor. Consider whether the editor's use of sources complies with WP:RS and sourcing guidelines, and whether the issue may be advocacy. The appropriate forum for concerns about sources is WP:RSN. The appropriate forum for concerns about POV-pushing and advocacy is WP:NPOVN. If there are concerns about sock- or meatpuppets, please bring that concern to WP:SPI. If there is evidence of a COI or paid contributions outside of a direct disclosure from the editor, obtained without violating the outing policy, you may bring a case at WP:COIN but be aware that raising Raising accusations of COI or paid editing without clear evidence can boomerang and can lead to sanctions against you.

I think we need section to be much more clear, especially now that the ToU makes paid editing a policy issue. The rest of the section should remain as is. Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 12:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC) (amend as per Mike Cline's suggestion, and with an additional thought Jytdog (talk) 13:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC))

Although I've been drafting some thoughts along these lines, they are not yet ready for open discussion. But I would like to suggest that we refrain from using the term "paid editor" and use instead "paid contributions". The TOU does not use the term "paid editor", although it is used once in the FAO. The requirement is that "paid contributions" are disclosed. The amendment, however it is written, should focus on how to deal with suspected undisclosed "paid contributions". We must remember that it is the nexus of editor, organization and contribution that creates a "paid contribution", and thus a contribution that must be disclosed. When there is evidence of such a nexus and no disclosure has occurred, the guidance here should provide the best advice and process to ensure editors understand the need for disclosure and how it should be accomplished. We must keep foremost in our minds that the reason for the "paid contributions" disclosure policy is not to punish or challenge editors, but instead a means to promote and ensure integrity of content in the encyclopedia. Put the focus on the contribution, not the contributor. --Mike Cline (talk) 12:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
mahusay na mahusay --Mike Cline (talk) 13:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
? Jytdog (talk) 13:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC) (I see that is tagalog for "excellent"  :) Jytdog (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC))
mahusay na mahusay = "Excellent" in tagalog with some exuberance. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
The key is going to be making it clear that paid editors are not inherently 'bad' by default. Bad paid editors violate other policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:V. Something here needs to be clear that we don't treat paid contributors like dirt just because they are paid contributors. That's not sufficient justification. Furthermore, paid contributors, like all new editors, arn't going to get WP:NPOV and WP:V right off the bat. Let's not get into the habit of giving paid contributors a '1-strike you're out' situation when we give every other newbie 10 strikes.--v/r - TP 17:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Went ahead and added this, this morning. Included a new subsection referencing WP:BITE. Jytdog (talk) 12:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
No, paid editing is inherently bad. That is why the Foundation is requiring disclosure. The purpose of this guideline and any conflict of interest rule is to curb paid editing, not to encourage it or to excuse it. But the way you two are tilting this COI guideline, filling it with unnecessary admonitions, you'd think that the main problem is opposition to COI, not the enormous numbers of commercial services that operate for the express purpose of exploiting Misplaced Pages's brand for selfish private interests. Coretheapple (talk) 13:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Core you know that there are strong feelings all around on paid editing issues, which is why the community has spectacularly failed to reach any consensus on addressing paid editing beyond that this guideline has said. you know that. We do have strong and clear disclosure requirements now, thanks to WMF taking action when we could not. i hope you can see that the significant chunk of the community that has worried about the effects of stronger action on paid editing has concerns that - in a context where we are trying to remain together and work together as a community - can reasonably be addressed. i hope you can see that. Jytdog (talk) 14:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

subsection on BITE

I added a subsection on BITE in this dif as per discussion above and below. Core reverted in this dif with edit note "We don't need a lecture on the subject, especially one that misapplies WP:BITE to non-newcomers, a sentence is sufficient". I understand what Core thinks is missapplying BITE... As for utility, i myself have gotten grumpy and have bitten newcomers over clearly promotional editing... which was clearly done in ignorance. With clear intent to be promotional (which is what teed me off) but also in ignorance. i regret having bitten. i think the little "lecture" is helpful to "", in this context. am happy to discuss. Jytdog (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:BITE is specifically for newcomers. Non-newcomers are covered by other policies/guidelines, which are cited. We have plenty already making the same general point, and also I thought the tone was unnecessarily condescending. Coretheapple (talk) 14:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
for what it is worth, in the content I proposed, i literally copied the first three sentence of BITE and then added "Take time to educate new editors and give them time to learn. Please do not bite the newcomers." Jytdog (talk) 14:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't object to referencing BITE, but there is no need to recite it, as if people are too stupid to follow the link. Also it implies that COI editors are generally or predominantly newcomers and I know of no evidence of that. The most troublesome problems we've had are socks and longstanding accounts. Coretheapple (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
thanks for leaving the link in. Jytdog (talk) 15:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Which longstanding accounts? How many, whom are they, who do they work for, and what were they advocating?--v/r - TP 22:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The civil way to challenge undisclosed paid contributions

I believe there is a civil way to challenge undisclosed “paid contributions” within the WP community. It will require some discipline, some guidance in an appropriate guideline and a clear role within our COI Noticeboard processes. The discussions above and at COIN demonstrate that undisciplined, unsupported accusations of undisclosed “paid contributions” by one editor to another cause nothing but angst for everyone involved and rarely resolve the situation effectively. If editors always based their initial actions in this arena with WP:AGF in mind, I suspect the number of undisclosed “paid contributions” accusations that would have to be dealt with at COIN would be small. Noticeboards tend to be viewed by inexperienced editors as very punitive and unfriendly places where the “gang” holds all the cards. I think there is recognition, as evidenced from the discussions above, that there are/or will be a lot of “paid contributions” that will require disclosure. A great many “paid contributions” will be made by editors who, by virtue of their inexperience, will be totally clueless about the TOU and its COI implications. I would like to see the community approach these undisclosed “paid contributions” in the most civil manner possible and suggest we adopt something like this as the recommended first step in dealing with suspected undisclosed “paid contributions.” (This is just a first concept draft template and most certainly can be improved)

Based on this (these) edits , you may be making what are considered "paid contributions" link to definition that require disclosure. The Wikimedia Terms of Use link to section and Misplaced Pages policy link to policy require disclosure of your employer, client, organization and affiliation when making "paid contributions" to Misplaced Pages. How to disclose "paid contributions" is outlined in link to details.

If you have already disclosed "paid contributions" or believe this (these) contributions are not "paid contributions", please ignore and delete this notice. Otherwise, if evidence surfaces to indicate you are making "paid contributions" without disclosure, you may become subject to community sanctions.

Our guidance would suggest that this information box be placed on the user talk page of any editor where an undisclosed “paid contribution” is suspected. It is designed to be “non-accusatory”, giving the editor the opportunity to disclose and the information, rationales, policy, methodology etc. via links to educate the editor on the disclosure requirement. I suspect most “clueless” editors would appreciate this approach. It can be supported with whatever narrative the particular contribution warrants. How the particular contribution is dealt with from a content perspective would follow normal community content guidance and policy. I think this approach would fit in well with the changes Jytdog is proposing above. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that is great, and would be happy to have that incorporated into the current or amended section. Jytdog (talk) 13:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes I think this helps. Coretheapple (talk) 14:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
quick note, the ToU requires disclosure of "employer, client and affiliation", not "or" affilation... Jytdog (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I made the change, but we'll have to ensure the template matches the actual disclosure requirement in a grammatically correct way. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
This is good for user talk pages, but what about a discussion like on ANI?--v/r - TP 17:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I would think that notifying an editor of a undisclosed "paid contribution" on their user page is just the first step. If they disclose, no further action re "disclosure" is necessary. If they fail to disclose and there is sufficient credible evidence that the editor should have disclosed, elevating undisclosed "paid contributions" situations to either COIN or ANI should be part of a disciplined process. But in my view, ANI or COIN should never be the first step, and when it is, those discussions should be closed and all parties directed to the disciplined process. Whether any given "paid contribution" is disclosed or not, it should always be subject to our normal content scrutiny. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay, but given a scenario where an editor goes to ANI for perhaps battlegrund behavior or BLP concerns, and then it's revealed that they have a COI - what do we do then? Leave the notice on their talk page still? How do we address it in existing ANI threads?--v/r - TP 17:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

There's no doubt that scenarios will arise where suspect undisclosed "paid contributions" are not the precipitating event in the discussion. In those cases, the appropriate discussion venue will flow from the context of the situation--it could anything covered by our noticeboards, move or deletions discussions, etc. Just as we do with all complex issues, disputes, behavior problems and content issues, we try to contain discussion in one venue, and generally direct it to the most appropriate venue for the context. In any discussion venue, once there is some evidence that an editor has made undisclosed "paid contributions", the established, disciplined process we establish should be followed. I believe the first step in the process should be the benign, civil notification on the user page. The additional context of that notification can certainly include references to other discussions. What we want to avoid, and that's why I am suggesting this approach, is situations were a AGF editor, unaware of TOU disclosure requirements is slammed at ANI or COIN without any opportunity to do the right thing. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

removal of dubious restricition

The following new addition removed as questionable:

"Do not work outside the advice provided here and hound the conflicted editor in Talk pages across the project, which can boomerang and can lead to sanctions against you."

First, what the heck is "Do not work outside"? I may work wherever I want, unless against wikipedia goals and major policies. Second, accusation is wikihounding cannot stop me to watch over a COI person. This the whole purpose of the discussed disclosure: a paied editor requires extra scrutiny, even if AGF and all. If I am abusive, you have prove it, not vice versa. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. There is no reasonable basis for the additions, which undermined the ability of editors to police conflicts of interest. They placed restrictions upon editors that were completely unreasonable. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 00:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
please read discussions in the three sections directly above. Jytdog (talk) 23:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually I did read. And this reading prevented me from knee-jerk reaction to revert the whole addition and limit myself to the encroachment of my rights to protect wikipedia from spam. This policy is supposed to restrict COI POV-pushers, not me. If and when anti-COI vigilantes go amok, then we will think how to deal with this new abuse. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
You have no rights on Misplaced Pages - at all. Period. Dot. WMF has decided that it is harassment to out a user and doing so, whether you suspect a COI or not, is going to get you blocked. You may follow the approved channels, only, and take private information to Arbcom. That is what is meant by that line.--v/r - TP 02:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorrry, I am not native English speaker. Are you being ironic? If a community of contributors has no rights in wikipedia and more than 300 major editors will feel this way, aren't we running off the cliff into a major schism fork? When Jimbo was "benevolent dictator", he had certain moral rights of a pioneer. But somehow I don't feel that WMF inherited these rights. Besides, you know, monopoly is a screwed thing, even if based on noble ideas. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
No, there is no irony. You have no legal or otherwise rights to this encyclopedia. Each time you hit the "submit" button, you waive even your own copyright rights to your contributions. You just have none. There can be no encroachment on your 'right' to protect Misplaced Pages because that 'right' doesn't exist.--v/r - TP 22:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I think that Staszek meant "ability" not "legal right," so there's no need to bite his head off over this. Coretheapple (talk) 00:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Probably right, but after patrolling ANI for so many years, 'my rights' just makes me shake my head.--v/r - TP 01:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Staszek Lem I understand where you are coming from. But please understand that there are strong feelings on many sides of the paid editing issues. People who have been worried about policies like the new ToU - which are a significant chunk of the community - have valid concerns. One concern, is that if an editor discloses a COI or paid contribution, other editors will follow the conflicted editor around the project and will attack the conflicted editor -- that others will focus on "contributor, not content" which is a bad thing. We are a community and we have a responsibility to at least try to see each other's point of view and to actually try to find ways to work together. Now that we have stronger disclosure requirements, it makes sense that we have stronger warnings against outing, personal attacks, and harassment. We all need to focus on content, not contributors. Yes it is fine to scrutinize a conflicted editors contributions, but it is not OK to attack and hound the conflicted editor, personally. Right? Jytdog (talk) 02:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
As it is, paid/COI editors who have done great damage to the project invariably cry "harassment" when their depredations are countered. What you are proposing makes it harder to deal with the problem, and gives more tools to bad-faith COI editors and more roadblocks in the path of volunteer editors seeking to curb their disruption. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
i don't agree with what you write above nor the rhetoric in your edit notes, but i am fine with the actual changes you made to the guideline. Jytdog (talk) 23:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
He is right. I have also changed the language at the top of the page to conform with what I and everybody else agreed to at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. I agreed to certain language, all of us did, and now it is there. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 00:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I did not agree to any language that said I was paid to edit. I agreed to language that said I had a conflict of interest. I've reverted your unilateral changes - someday I hope you will learn that you shouldn't WP:BEBOLD on controversial changes which you know are going to be opposed.--v/r - TP 02:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
You agreed to the precise language that I have just inserted at the top. We all agreed to it, including you. I have put it back up as it is what I agreed to, and as honorable people we keep our promises, and that includes administrators.Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I did not insert the links to the disclosures that were in the original language, even though we all agreed to them, in the interest of comity and to put an end to this matter. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 00:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
For rhetoric I apologize. I am not native English speaker, so my texts are blunt, unfortunately. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
it is kind of you to apologize.  :) Jytdog (talk) 02:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I think I basically agree with Staszek, even if I would express it differently. I think the recently added sentences which Staszek removed or qualified do not have consensus, at least. I think I agree with most of what Jytdog added, though. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 03:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
One example of standard behaviour which those sentences would seem to limit would be G11 CSD filings. The sentences say that one should not go beyond the advice given for dealing with paid contributions. It also says that it is "generally unwise" to make accusations of paid contributions without a disclosure from the editor. Filings for CSD G11 are almost always accusations of paid contributions: That's exactly what is being claimed—that the editor is including "Unambiguous advertising". And these filings are never made on the basis of a disclosure from an editor. It's rather more or less the "duck" test. And the practice is certainly beyond the advice given. G11 CSD filings are very common; I can't quite tell how many I've filed myself, however.--Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 03:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
If the editor in this discussion had read the recently added material, perhaps they could've avoided a block. This is existing practice by the wider community. Practice is dictates policy. Policy does not dictate practice. Don't include it if you don't want to, doesn't mean the folks at ANI arn't still going to block editors who throw around COI accusations w/o evidence the first time if neccessary.--v/r - TP 05:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Atethnekos thanks for the reasonable discussion. The stuff I added in cases where there is not explicit self-disclosure says "consider going to WP:NPOVN" and in my mind, CSD G11 is indeed about content (not contributor) - it specifically references WP:NPOV. The section of the guidance on not explicit self-disclosure also does the leave the door open to going to COIN. Do you see what I mean? Jytdog (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
The purpose of this guideline is to curb COI editing, not to curb enforcement of the guideline. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Figure I don't agree. This guideline tells the whole community what constitutes COI, how people with a COI should act, and provides guidance to the community how to handle possible or actual COI. There are appropriate ways to handle it, and inappropriate ways to handle it. Jytdog (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
The preexisting language is fine. I realize that you were unfairly naggged for COI, but that would have happened no matter what kind of language exists in this guideline. You went overboard in your language. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
The purpose of this guideline is to describe community practice in handling conflicts of interest. It is not to make up new rules, it is not to limit it to just a certain topic. It is a reflection of community practice. If community practice is to discourage outing and harassment when accusations of conflicts of interest are made, community practice should be reflected here. If there are any doubts about that, read WP:Policies and guidelines which exactly describes what policies and guidelines are.--v/r - TP 18:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
The community practice that forbids outing and hounding is covered in the corresponding policies. No need to repeat it repeatedly and verbosely and threateningly in each and every other guideline. A brief reminder would suffice. This was basically the point of my change. Otherwise the changed policy section became full of threats against me and ridiculously pussyfooting around paid editors. (I am fine with the current version.) Staszek Lem (talk) 18:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

RFC

@SlimVirgin, Jytdog, and Dank: Hey guys, where are we on this RFC? Are we moving forward?--v/r - TP 22:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm out, TP. - Dank (push to talk) 23:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I would argue that based on the inability to generate any kind of consensus (by editors who actually understand some of this stuff) around what an RFC might ask is that there's no real need for one. We have a Misplaced Pages policy on disclosure of paid contributions. It is codified in the TOU. What remains to be accomplished is the establishment of some reasonable guidelines around preferred disclosure process, etc. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I gave up. The rancorous and unproductive discussion among the few editors who tried to draft an RfC left me even more convinced that WP is incapable of governing itself on COI issues. My suggestion for avoiding the dead end - to entrust someone to draft and post an RfC - was not taken up. I really don't know how to proceed.Jytdog (talk) 19:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
So, am I free to assume that trying to develop consensus on RFC wording failed because of a few who filibustered and I should proceed with my original intent of filing an RFC by myself? Would you oppose me using your own proposal?--v/r - TP 23:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Not sure if you are asking me in particular but I will answer for me. What i had hoped is that everyone would agree to step back and allow a trusted noninvolved editor (or admin) lead a process to obtain community consensus on confirming the ToU or putting something definitive in its place as our "alternative disclosure policy". You withdrew your original RfC, which I am still grateful for, and you are free in my eyes to do as you will now. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi TParis, it's not something I'd have an interest in initiating, but I posted a draft here of an RfC with just one question. Anyone is free to run with it (or any other). SlimVirgin 02:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Well ... I'm very surprised, but I'm back in. The new Arbcom case involving the Foundation and RfCs means that I don't have to be making judgments on things that are far above my paygrade, I'll follow whatever guidance comes from that case. FWIW, I'd recommend waiting a week (till the evidence phase is over) before filing an RfC ... even better would be to wait until the workshop phase is over, which might be 3 weeks. I apologize that I was slow on the uptake earlier; I've done better with past RfCs, and I'll try to do better with this one. I completely understand SV's reservations about my lack of distance ... but now I can let Arbcom deal with those tough questions where I might have had a hard time finding the neutral path. As always, I'm open to any suggestions that I might not be the right person for the job. - Dank (push to talk) 14:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Can you please explain the pertinence of that arbitration case? Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, I'll encourage the voters to vote on the issues and not "for" or "against" the Foundation, but for the closer(s), the Arbcom case is pertinent. It's possible the Foundation will disagree with my close ... given the votes last November, it's way too early to prejudge the outcome. If you read what's been written in that Arbcom case so far, you'll see that there's a track record of awkwardness in similar situations. I don't think anyone ... including me ... would have been happy if I had tried to handle that kind of conflict myself, that's clearly in Arbcom territory. - Dank (push to talk) 17:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
The reason I asked is because there is no dispute that we have the explicit right to create a different COI policy than the one stated in the TOU. So I do not see a conflict with the Foundation here, nor any effort by the Foundation to directly intervene with its personnel as in the arbitration case. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I also don't see any connection between that case and an RfC about the ToU. Holding RfCs to determine alternative disclosure policies was the Foundation's idea. SlimVirgin 18:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the Foundation said anything about RfCs but did not prohibit them. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
You guys aren't seeing the intervention because, in the other cases, it came after the RfC, not before. We won't know till it's over. - Dank (push to talk) 21:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps, but the preliminary statement by 28Bytes indicates an action that just does not seem within the realm of possibility here. Even if it were to happen, how does that affect what we do now? Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't affect what voters do now or during the RfC (hopefully). My preference would be not to say why I think the odds are higher that they may intervene after the fact, because my opinions might influence someone's vote. If it bothers anyone that I brought it up to the point where they think I might not being doing a good job, I'll tell you the things I was concerned about that caused me to withdraw earlier (but that aren't a concern for me, now that other people are dealing with these things in another place). - Dank (push to talk) 22:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm glad you brought it up, though I'm still not quite "getting" it. I will look closer at that arbcom case. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Paid editing and the perception of promotion

Wikimedia's Terms of Use were updated on 16 June 2014 and included, in Section 14, a prohibition on paid contributions without disclosure. The opening section of the FAQ page notes: "Some contributors do receive payment for their edits. These contributors improve the overall quality of the projects when they edit with a neutral point of view ... On the other hand, paid advocacy editing - i.e. paid editing of articles to promote companies, products, and services - is strongly discouraged or banned on most, if not all, the projects."

An ANI complaint has been started over a series of edits I carried out at A2 milk—an article that was a low-quality stub. I was paid a fee to edit the article to improve it, and have posted a disclosure notice at my user page. The intention was not to promote the product and at that ANI I have described the context in which I began. I am now accused by several editors of trying to inject a promotional tone, although the editor who lodged the ANI, User:Stalwart111, has since agreed the article is not now promotional — an achievement reached fairly rapidly through the normal collaboration process and mainly due to the intervention of User:WhatamIdoing. (Once he left it all turned to shit).

So here's my difficulty: I have honestly attempted to work within the rules on paid editing. Though I don't attempt to promote A2 milk, other editors have seen this as an issue of Paid advocacy, public relations, and marketing. The ANI has now produced a proposal for a topic ban on A2 milk. Given the long-standing antipathy towards paid editing, it strikes me that any kind of paid editing, however well intended and though within the Terms of Use, could be interpreted as paid advocacy, PR and marketing. Those taking the high moral ground will always assert that someone in my position is driven by a requirement or agenda to promote, which in a discussion board where the hounds are baying for blood, is a position rather hard to fight.

In short, the rules may allow paid editing, but the community may not. If that's the case, why have the rule? Is there in fact a need for a better forum than ANI in which to examine claims of paid advocacy? I'd appreciate some thoughts. BlackCab (TALK) 05:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Friends don't let friends edit with a COI.
In the New York Times' handbook for their employees, "Ethical Journalism", they say: "34. Staff members may not accept employment or compensation of any sort from individuals or organizations who figure or are likely to figure in coverage they provide, edit, package or supervise." Pretty much all respectable publishers have a policy like this. And for good reason: Such conflicts of interest destroy the trust of readers. Some people who are tempted to make some amount of money in such a way rationalize their behaviour with the thought that they are not promoting, that they are just hired to write neutrally about the topic, and that that is all they will do. This is of course rejected by the experts who have studied the effects of conflicts of interest: No one is immune, even when one is not consciously aware of being affected by their conflict of interest (Moore & Loewenstein 2004 )
This seems to be exactly what has happened in this case. One person does not understand why everyone else who has looked at the edits has judged them to be paid advocacy. To quote Upton Sinclair: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
My advice would be to follow the recommendation of this guideline, which says that we should not make such edits. We shouldn't make such edits: It's wrong because it hurts this encyclopedia. It's not a bad faith action which makes it wrong, it's just well-documented human psychology as Moore & Loewenstein note. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 07:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • BlackCab, you've conveniently paraphrased that section from the FAQ. It reads:

However, some contributors do receive payment for their edits. These contributors improve the overall quality of the projects when they edit with a neutral point of view. This includes many contributors associated with institutions such as universities, galleries, libraries, archives, and museums. On the other hand, paid advocacy editing - i.e. paid editing of articles to promote companies, products, and services - is strongly discouraged or banned on most, if not all, the projects.

You don't work for a museum or art gallery - you work for a public relations and media management firm for whom the company in question is a major client. Your employer is not some benevolent institution seeking to expand Misplaced Pages for the good of humankind. It's a multinational corporation with a commercial agenda. And that's fine - you're still not prevented from contributing using the same requested edit templates as every other COI editor (my talk page archives are littered with requests from COI editors with whom I have a good working relationship). But no matter how many times that is explained to you, you continue to think of yourself as being part of some special third category where you can do what you want and everyone else is wrong. Then you started edit-warring. So I asked for you to be topic-banned. St★lwart 08:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
My thoughts (see talk header) are that we do have a better forum, WP:COIN; COI editing is never to be punishable in itself but only as an aggravating factor of other punishable behavior; the transparency of the disclosure should be considered to determine how aggravating the factor is. The theory is that the community will not prevent paid editing when the disclosed editor pursues the highest standards of editing (almost the bright line), but the practice is somewhat lacking and needs time to be worked out. Frieda Beamy (talk) 15:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

As Stalwart111 correctly pointed out at ANI, your edits were in fact promotional. Paid editing is really superfluous to this discussion. You used Misplaced Pages for promotional purposes. Coming here and making your supposedly "neutral" edits a paid editing issue is disingenuous. If you hadn't disclosed, editors would still rightly assume in their own minds (even if they could not say so outright) that your sudden passion for this brand of milk was not based upon chugging it down, but compensation. Yes, we must assume good faith, but we are not stupid. If anything, there would be a greater feeling for a topic ban, as people would feel, in their heart of hearts, that you were not coming clean. That would be the case whether or not the TOU required disclosure. No, as has been pointed out ad nauseum, one cannot and should not persecute or hound people who are paid editors. But when editors act as advocates, whether they admit that they are paid or not, they are going to be topic-banned. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Really? On first offense, as judged by advocacy watchers only, after nearly 10,000 edits, and while trying to make reparations? A topic ban would shut down discussion of a content issue where there is not consensus and would not stop any paid editing in any other area. The new paradigm is that WP works with COI editors, including working with them if they fail the highest standards. But little of this discussion relates to this page. Frieda Beamy (talk) 17:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
"Advocacy watchers"? No, the correct description is "editors with no connection to the subject." Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:Conflict of interest: Difference between revisions Add topic