Fredk01985

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Fredk01985. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

• avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
• instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
• when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

December 2016

Hello, I'm 331dot. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Education International have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 14:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Please indicate that you have read and understand the above post regarding conflict of interest and paid editing(if applicable). If you are associated with this organization, you should not edit about it directly, instead suggesting edits on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 14:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

reply

Hello 333dot. I know about COI and read all the terms carefully, that's why I indicated that I'm part of the organisation as recommanded. The text was written by external people but proofread by Education International. I don't know what you mean by promotionnal as these are just factual corrections to reflect better (in a more neutral tone) the historical background and the actual state and activities of Education International (which is not commercial or ideological and only runs on membership affiliation that's not related to any individuals but trade unions and professionnal organisations). Nevertheless could you indicate exactly what point(s) you thought where promotional and what would be the ideal steps to make the changes acceptable (We consider that having a third party person adding content on our behalf would look even worst than being transparent and doing it ourselves). We don't mind if people edit the content of this wiki page; we don't consider it as ours but part of a community effort. Thank you for checking our editions with care. Fredk

I realize that you stated you are associated with the organization, however you did not state if you are paid to do so or not. Wikipedia's Terms of Use require users who have a paid association to state such status per the paid editing policy. It makes no difference whether you post the content, or people hired by the organization do so. It is still a conflict of interest.

It was promotional because you had in my opinion turned the page into a promotional brochure about the organization, moving it away from an encyclopedic article. Much(though not all) of the content you put is impossible to verify with independent reliable sources. That would include posting the contents of your organization's governing documents(which can be changed at any time) and the "priorities" and mission of the organization. Wikipedia articles are not not meant to be a directory of organizations, but encyclopedic articles backed by independent sources and not primary sources in almost all cases. If you have independent sources that discuss what your organization does, that would be considered acceptable.

As you have a conflict of interest, it is strongly advised that you or any representative of the organization not edit the page directly, but instead suggest changes on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 14:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

OK got it. I fully understand that Wikipedia needs to avoid self-promotion and that the editions I made lack some external sources to cross the information. But again we don't sell anything nor goods nor services. And it's quite difficult to find neutral sources to talk about a trade union federation. I can find pieces published in media but again it won't necessarily be neutral. But, anyway, I don't want to bother you with our status or situation.

To move forward: what if I place all the changes as requests for edit? Do you think it could get an acceptable status and not been rejected as a all ? It's quite substancial and I don't know who will read it with enought care to decide if he/she can accept any submitted changes. I feel a bit like we are facing a non-solution situation: we cannot edit and probably nobody will.

thank you for your patience and feedback. ~Fredk

I would stress that the page was here long before you came along(it was created in 2005), and I don't believe it will be deleted outright, as international organizations are generally considered to be notable. I think that a good page for you to review might be this FAQ page which goes into some commonly asked questions that organizations have. One point made there is that Wikipedia draws no distinctions between for-profit and non-profit organizations; they are all treated the same. It is also true that it is harder to write about organizations that aren't often written about in the press or other outside sources. However, policies on verifiability and independent reliable sources are important principles of Wikipedia.

I would encourage you to propose changes you believe are needed on the article talk page and discuss why you feel they are needed; making it a formal edit request might draw more attention to it, and you can review how to do that on this page. As I have stated, I think it unlikely that posting the mission statement and governing documents would be accepted(which should really go on your organization's own website anyway); but you can certainly attempt to persuade others that it is needed. 331dot (talk) 15:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you some much for time you've spent with me for the very needed clarifications. I get the right picture now -- I think :p (but still have to read in details the FAQs). We probably need to think another way and speak about actions and facts that may have been covered in media or even by our affiliated members. Fredk01985

Fredk01985, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Fredk01985! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cordless Larry (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)