Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Edits by Arthur Rubin and Ansell

The chauvinist bias should be removed from this page, as Ansell indicates. Also, it is not a "clear grammatical error" as Arthur Robin indicates, as "they" is becoming more acceptable as a way of avoiding bias. Style manuals usually suggest rewording "he or she" out of it. So, it should probably be reworded. My vote, however, would be to remove the entire sentence, including the bolding, because I think this sentence weakens the guideline.

But if this sentence must be kept, will someone please change it to:

Editors who forego advancing the aims of Wikipedia in order to advance outside interests stand in a conflict of interest.

And about the bolding, please, someone, anyone, get rid of the bolding. This guideline looks like a tract for a pyramid scheme or a Ponzi scheme, rather than a professional behavioral guideline for an encyclopedia.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style clearly states, "Italics are used sparingly to emphasize words in sentences (bolding is normally not used at all for this purpose). Generally, the more highlighting in an article, the less the effect of each instance."

In a nutshell: GET RID OF MOST OF THE BOLDING ON THIS PAGE!!!

Wikipedia's policy is to be bold. Wikipedia's policy is not to USE BOLD. Fredsmith2 (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I actually don't mind the bolding on this page so much. WP:MOS applies to edits in article space, so far as I know. But while I'm here, there is a persistent problem where a mere COI and editing in violation of the COI guideline are not carefully distinguished. Somebody can have a technical COI and it is harmless, so long as they behave correctly in matters where they have a conflict. A COI violation happens when you edit in a case where the guideline says you shouldn't. In my view, the current guideline doesn't make this point clear enough. The sentence you are criticizing I think is attempting to define a COI violation but not doing it very clearly:

Editors who forego advancing the aims of Wikipedia in order to advance outside interests stand in a conflict of interest.

I'd prefer a different wording, since I think it's possible to 'stand in a conflict of interest' without violating the guideline, so long as you abstain from editing where required. EdJohnston (talk) 22:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It is very unclear. ...plus all that other stuff you said. What's this really trying to say, anyway? Is it saying that advancing outside interests is always a conflict of interest, or is it saying that you can advance outside interests as long as you keep the aims of Wikipedia in mind? And, exactly which aims of Wikipedia must you keep in mind to successfully advance an outside interest? If there aren't answers to these questions, then this line should probably be deleted.

I would also tend to think that the policy pages and behavioral guideline pages should be pillars of style, and excellent models of well-written pages, to serve as examples to people writing articles, rather than having a very non-professional sytle. But maybe I'm wrong. Do the policy pages have a much looser requirement for style, similar to how talk pages do? Fredsmith2 (talk) 00:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, "violation of the COI guideline" is a relatively new concept, within the last year. That's probably why it's not really talked about on here, is that it's still creeping its way into this guideline. A year ago, the COI guideline only seemed to indicate that editors with a conflict of interest had no right to control content of pages they've come up with, and that was the only way to literally violate the guideline, is if you got mad about someone else editing a page you had a COI with. "Violations" of COI were handled by other policies and guidelines, and in my opinion, still are adequately handled there. I agree that we should do something about all of the cases you have to deal with as an admin, but I think that adding a bunch of bolded warnings to this guideline may not be the most effective way to do it. Fredsmith2 (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry my edit caused someone a hassle. I thought that "they" had been an accepted singular self-reference for quite a few years now. I certainly have never had any academic assessments/articles commented on for my usage of it. Sorry if there are traditionalists who prefer a chauvinist grammar but the world is changing. Feel free to use a changed version, but reverting me won't bring back the old boys culture! Ansell 05:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Exposing COI versus outing the editor

Let's say I know of an editor who is working here under numerous sockpuppets, and given the subjects, his edits present a conflict of interest. His edit history, while incriminating, only tells part of the story. He has added external links, all with the same owner, to the articles that he edits. It's already obvious to me that the guy's efforts here have more to do with self-promotion. Later on, two people contact me off-wiki and confirm my suspicions. How can I act on this information without outing the editor, and violating some rule myself? I know some admins have already gotten in trouble for dealing with this sort of thing off-wiki, yet at the same time I could see the need for a non-public (but official) channel to deal with this. Is this an OTRS issue or should I bother them with something like this? Thanks, -- Leo DeVeaux (talk) 13:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

If the case is truly this blatant, why not just file a regular complaint at WP:COIN? It should be possible for people who see the report to read between the lines without the need for you to expose any information you shouldn't. EdJohnston (talk) 14:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. We often spot COI by the tone of the edits, which are non-NPOV and unencyclopedic. COI can be imputed from editing patterns without needing to expose the editor's identity. We would only discuss the editor's identity if they have self-disclosed, as is fairly common. Jehochman ^Talk 14:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it also seems relevant if an editor is employed by an interested party -- for example, the publisher of a book -- and is using articles to market the book. Knowledge of such employment strengthens the case in ambiguous patterns of editing. Furthermore, "exposing" the editor's employment in such cases does not seem to violate the spirit of WP:OUTING, which appears as part of a more general article on harassment. Perhaps some clarification of the WP:OUTING section in the harassment article to reflect the Conflict of Interest policy would be appropriate. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Steve here. We need to contemplate the reasoning behind WP:OUTING--what is the point of it?--and determine if that reasoning is applicable to people who are self-promoting. If our rules and guidelines only serve to thwart more important project principles, such as NPOV, then it is time to re-examine them. Outing is verboten because it "places the other person at unjustified and uninvited risk of harm in "the real world" or other media." The question is: if another person is publicly saying things they are also saying on Wikipedia, and it becomes a COI problem, then does the "protection" reasoning behind WP:OUTING still apply? --David Shankbone 15:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well in this case, it would be self-employment. The problem is that these edits have occurred across different sock accounts over a long period of time, too old for WP:SSP or WP:RFCU. If I made an accusation against the currently-active user name, I could only offer WP:COIN my word that he's a sock, and hope they accept that. But this person is so volatile, I am certain it will lead to a really huge dust-up (in fact that seems to be his strategy around here, grinding down opponents through intimidation or sheer exhaustion). The guy has actually posted his own (ostensibly notable) full name in some articles (but from an IP - when I called him out on this, he outed me, and Oversight-L had to take care of it). He has really built his own trail of evidence, as anyone can do a WHOIS lookup on a web address, but I wasn't sure whether pointing this out might be considered "outing" (it's not as though I've dug up anything private). And finally, a well-established and respected Wikipedian approached me off-Wiki about the matter, but after I told him what I knew, I didn't hear any more about it (perhaps something else hapened behind-the-scenes). Thanks, -- Leo DeVeaux (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

If an employee who is a newcomer to Wikipedia makes the mistake of editing an article about there employer in a biased way, we can revert. We can warn the person about COI. If they are highly persistent, they can be blocked. Outing the person could cause negative publicity for the company and cause the editor to lose their job. That result is too strong for the offense. Jehochman ^Talk 16:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me suggest that rather than blindly reverting when there's an obvious conflict of interest and they're an obvious newbie, that we try one of the following first:

• Reworking the newbie's edit to remove the COI
• Initially try an educational approach, rather than a "warning" approach

And, I'm talking about real, genuine, sincere newbies here, rather than bots or professional marketers. A lot of people have their first wikipedia experience because their employer tells them to edit wikipedia. The newbie can't change that. Instead of trying to make these folks' experience difficult for them, and ostracizing them, we should be trying to befriend them and make them wikipedians. Our initial approach to a newbie should be, "How can we make this person a valuable wikipedian?" rather than, "We might need to block this person!"Fredsmith2 (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Our warning template is mellow, see below, and we have Wikipedia:Business' FAQ to provide helpful advice. These can be used as appropriate. Jehochman ^Talk 18:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

{{uw-coi}}

---

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);

   and you must always:

4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you.

---

As I suggested above, I've proposed an exemption to the harrassment guidelines to allow posting of limited employment information to demonstrate Conflict of Interest. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Harassment#Is Revealing Conflict of Interest Harrassment? --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Issues for those of us accused of COI (& Suffering Off-Wiki Harassment for It!) Reading this section has been helpful (including especially link to harassment) and putting something on the main page would help a lot. Couple points.

• First, perhaps WP:Privacy could be merge into Wikipedia:OUTING#Posting_of_personal_information which I discovered in this discussion, to avoid confusion or for people with various outing issues, who don’t happen to find the outing article. (I suggested that on that articles talk page too.)
• I’ve read COI a few times, though this is first time I’ve looked at the talk page. I’ve done so because of my many interests, associations and writings and because a) I’ve done 20-30 hours of web site work over a year period for an individual’s not-for-profit group A, and as a friend I cleaned up and added purely factual material to his wiki page, and b) I do an unpaid weekly blog for associates of not-for-profit group B group whose wiki article was being turned into an attack article. I worked with other anonymous editors to make it more NPOV.
• Having here discovered Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki_harassment on this page I now realize that the person who has been attacking me viciously off-wiki for (what I believe are NPOV edits) to the group B article probably has been editing the article on group B. A lot of anonymous IPs have worked on it. (Someone who threatened me on COI just started an account name - but complained about a change I made to “his” edit that was not made by him but an anon IP.) I wouldn’t be surprised if this person also has been editing group C article which was turning into another attack article filled with libelous unsourced info til I and other anonymous editors dealt with it. I was smeared off-wiki for those edits too. So guess will have to figure out how one discovers who is doing this stuff to stop them if then continue the harassment, on or off-wiki.
• Anyway, it would be nice if on Help:Contents the listing of Policy and Guidelines could be expanded a bit. It looks like it’s just one more issue, but it’s got some of the most important issues, including these.

Just my thoughts! Carol Moore 23:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

The phrase 'conflict of interest' doesn't appear on your talk page, so it does not seem that any Wikipedia editors have raised this officially with you. Is the 'harrassment due to COI' you speak of in your edit summary something that happens to you in your off-wiki activities? EdJohnston (talk)

I do not think WP:PRIVACY should be merged into WP:OUTING (which is actually just a section of WP:Harassment.) They deal with two different, though somewhat related, subjects. PRIVACY is a page of advice to users about protecting their own privacy. All of it, except the last sentence, is about what you might want to post (or not post) about yourself. The last sentence mentions that you should not post personal information about others, but that is really there more as a point of comparison than anything else. It is kind of a "See also", and it does have a link to WP:Harassment (which answers your concern about people not finding it; in fact, I will edit it now to make the reference more explicit). WP:PRIVACY really would not work as a section of WP:Harassment; among other things, PRIVACY is not a guideline at the present time (it has a "proposed" tag, but it is probably more of an essay), while Harassment is tagged as a guideline but, in my opinion, is really more of a policy. 6SJ7 (talk) 04:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

TO: EdJohnston. First, sorry if not clear. The editor I'm having a problem with threatened to report me to an adminstrator for COI on Group A talk page. But after I told him that his sharing info on me he'd drudged up might get him banned ala WP:Privacy, hopefully he backed down. Of course THIS COI/Outing discussion evidently means I might have been wrong. And then once I realized he might be the same person doing the off-wiki harassment of me, I certainly can see the need to be able to report somewhere such personal info, should it be evidence he or some other wiki-editor is the person harassing me offline about my online wiki edits.

TO: 6SJ7 Great addition! Too much to read and understand for it all to sink in! Your additions I think will help others, including those like me who who end up there because "WP:privacy" is the first thing they think of to type in when faced with the problem! :-) Carol Moore 05:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc /talk

Register article

The Register [1] recently reported that past changes to this policy may have been done with ulterior motives by the editor named in said article. I'll leave it up to interested parties to determine if this is the case, but I wanted to make everyone aware of it. Cla68 (talk) 03:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, this is no a policy page but a guideline. Secondly, my last edit to this guideline was around June 2007, that was minor. Thirdly, my contributions to this guideline where discussed thoroughly around October 2006 here. Lastly, I do not think that doing forum shopping helps at all, Cla68, and simply creates drama. You already started a discussion about this at Wikipedia:COI/N#User:Jossi_and_Prem_Rawat. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:24, 7 February 2008

Proposal change: assume good faith, esp. in dispute resolution

I propose a change to the policy that is inappropriate to fail to assume good faith when having a COI and that it is completely inappropriate to try to stop dispute resolution. SeeWikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Jossi_and_Prem_Rawat_2 Andries (talk) 13:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

There is already wording about this in the guideline, Andries. Conflict of interest in point of view disputes: Another case is within disputes relating to non-neutral points of view, where underlying conflicts of interest may aggravate editorial disagreements. In this scenario, it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Do not use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. When conflicts exist, invite the conflicted editor to contribute to the article talk page, and give their views fair consideration. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not see it. I think you misunderstood my proposal. Andries (talk) 16:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

What I meant to say it is that it is inappropriate to assume bad faith of an editor with an opposing view when having a COI. Andries (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

No, we do not legislate common sense. It is already not acceptable to assume bad faith, except when there is evidence of bad faith. This proposal is superfluous instruction creep. Jehochman ^Talk 16:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It's worse than that; it appears to be an attempt to get some ambiguous language into a policy/guideline such that it can subsequently be used as ammunition for wikilawyering in some strange personal vendetta. –Henning Makholm 04:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it is to prevent happening a serious problem to Wikipedia again that gave Wikipedia a lot of well-deserved bad publicity in the media. Andries (talk) 04:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

But having a COI on a subject and assuming bad faith of editors on the subject with opposing view is I think quite bad behavior. Andries (talk) 16:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• However you guys decide to slice it, I would strongly prefer Jossi's opinion on this matter to not be considered, nor the opinion of any of his proteges. --Pax Arcane 17:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Editing and/or creating articles about people you have known or met in real life in a non-promotional way

Would this still be a conflict of interest? I'm curious. Personally I think it would not be if you felt that the person in question was genuinely notable and could reference it to reliable sources, and kept it objective. I believe that it has to be taken on a case-by-case basis, but in cases where an experienced editor feels someone notable that they have met or known in real life is missing or in need of improvement on Wikipedia to write an NPOV, sourced, quality article, that is not "an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor".--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Experienced editors can write an NPOV treatment of any subject, including those they are close to and including BLP. All COI concerns should be treated on a case by case basis. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Direct discussion vs. outing

I see in the section on how to handle conflicts of interest that it suggests directly discussing potential issues, but also says that outing editors is always wrong. In the case of biographies, however, I'm not entirely sure how this would work. Is the idea that one should ask whether there is a COI, but not whether it is the subject him or herself? I would think in the case of someone editing a biography that it is allowed to ask whether the person editing the biography is its subject, and presumably that this is what "direct discussion" means. I realize such situations have led to controversy, but I would guess it is also the general practice. If there are problems with clarifying this, I'd be curious what they are. Mackan79 (talk) 15:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering how large the archives are on this page

wouldnt it be a good idea to create a summary or index of past arguments and their outcomes? Low Sea (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I just archived this talkpage (which was over 300K) into separate archive pages, and added some nav templates so it's easy to scroll through them and scan the table of contents on each one. However, if someone wants to take the time to create a more detailed summary, I am sure that would be useful too. --Elonka 21:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Tag

I have removed the "guideline" tag, since it only contains advice for editors, not anything that can actually be seen as a guideline - particularly since any attempt to find if someone is not following this 'advice' would itself be a violation of several policies, there is no sense in calling this a guideline. --Random832 (contribs) 17:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It's guidance on how to behave; guidelines needn't necessarily be "actionable". The guideline tag indicates the consensus support it enjoys, while an essay has no such status. It's a major change, and if it is to be made, it should be discussed first. SamBC(talk) 17:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it is in direct contradiction with a policy that also supposedly has consensus demonstrates that a consensus does not exist. --Random832 (contribs) 18:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It isn't in contradiction with any policy, Random. All you need do in the case of a suspected COI where there is policy violation is say, e.g. "User:X's edits are so poor and so fawning [or so attacking] that I suspect he is in some way connected to [whatever it is, or whoever it is]." There is never a reason to out someone onwiki by publishing what you think is their name; if the name itself rather than the suspected connection is important, it can be e-mailed to involved editors and admins, or if sensitive to the ArbCom.

Remember that what matters most are that the edits are poor. A COI might be the reason for the poor edits, but it's the poor editing that gives rise to the suspicion of COI in the first place (assuming the user hasn't said who they are.) SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 18:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Should it even matter, then, if the person does disclose a COI? Or if they do and then come back as another account, should we take care not to disclose who is returning? To hammer people when they disclose their identity but give them impunity if they don't is one of the major inconsistencies. Mackan79 (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Then why do we have COI/N, and why do we routinely allow threads that _DO_ include a real name? --Random832 (contribs) 18:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess I don't see why it's important to have a guideline about conflicts of interest at all, if all that matters is the content of the edits. --Random832 (contribs) 18:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

All that matters is the content, but given that COI is often a reason for violating NPOV, we alert people for that possibility. Our goal is to allow everyone to edit, but people with COI should be extra careful, and others should be extra alert for NPOV (and other related) violations in such cases. Crum375 (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

So what is the purpose of WP:COI/N? Why was it not deleted when I brought it to MFD last month? --Random832 (contribs) 18:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

According to its mandate, it's for resolving "... disputes with tendentious editors and cases where editors are repeatedly adding problematic material over a longer period of time." I see no conflict between that activity, sensibly carried out, and the rest of our rules. Crum375 (talk) 19:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Editors who do disclose their affiliation with the subject of an article and ask for advice in how to stay out of trouble are usually very well treated at the WP:COIN. The main problem is when you see a pattern of clear promotional editing (often using what appears to be insider knowledge) and then the editor behaves in a cagey manner when questioned about their connection. Discretion should be employed even when that happens, but you'll see phrases like 'apparent COI' used. Nobody is going to go out and publish the email address and phone number of a possibly COI-affected editor, but you'll see cases where adverse inferences about someone's affiliation are drawn, and the adverse inferences often appear to be correct. If you see what you consider to be improper speculation about someone's identity, you should make that known to the person speculating, using email if necessary. Or complain to an administrator.

There have been AfD debates where people affiliated with the subject participated, and I see no impropriety if they disclose their affiliation (not their personal identity) when commenting there. EdJohnston (talk) 19:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This seems consistent with this page as written, other than the two sentences: "Remember, conflicted editors do not lose their privileges to edit Wikipedia pseudonymously. Revealing the names of pseudonymous editors is in all cases against basic policy." Do others agree that these should be removed? I pointed out above it also seems inconsistent with the first sentence of that paragraph, which states that "The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor...." Mackan79 (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is a tension between COI/COIN and editors rights to privacy. This tension is real. That doesn't mean we should remove this. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, do you mean we shouldn't remove the guideline, or were you responding to my suggestion? I agree there's a tension here, but this is also why I don't think it's a good idea to suggest editors have privileges that they don't entirely have. Mackan79 (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Editing anonymously is a core principle of Wikipedia. If I work for IBM, and edit that article, it should not make me lose my anonymity. If I make poor edits, and violate NPOV or NOR, this can be corrected via normal processes without revealing my personal info. If personal details need to be shared, that can be done discreetly via email. Crum375 (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

What if you're editing tendentiously from a company IP, and you admitted off Wiki what you're doing? The WP:COIN seems pretty clear that in some cases we discuss this, where it clearly becomes an issue. Mackan79 (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

If I publish my private info on a public forum, along with my intentions to disrupt Wikipedia, I would no longer be anonymous. One thing we need to watch out for, however, is situations where people have previously (e.g. due to inexperience) published their personal info, and later decided to become anonymous. We have to make all efforts to help them regain their anonymity in such cases. Crum375 (talk) 15:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

In all cases

Regarding the rv here, the problem as noted above is that we clearly don't follow this in "all cases." Among other things, the previous version tells people they have privileges they don't have. I think it would be better to keep a simpler version that tells people where to go to discuss this, while noting that bad faith use of the guideline is looked upon badly. I don't think we should say something which goes against practice. Mackan79 (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

There is never a reason to disclose an anonymous editor's personal info publicly. That we sometimes do it does not make it right, and violates a core Wikipedia principle. In all cases private info can be forwarded via email to the appropriate parties. Crum375 (talk) 15:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's correct that ArbCom wants to resolve every such case, but I'm interested if others have a view. Mackan79 (talk) 15:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mention ArbCom — admins and other established and trusted editors may also receive such emails to help decide COI issues. Crum375 (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I have received such emails about one particular editor, and I was not sure how to handle them. In these cases the emails confirmed my own suspicions. However, if I were to block someone based upon such an email, how would I provide evidence without revealing the identity of the "informant?" At the same time, if I were to give the blocking reasons on Wikipedia, then it might very well reveal sensitive information (perhaps even unintentionally) about the person being blocked. Finally, the emails were from individuals who had a personal, off-Wiki disagreement with the editor in question (although I do not doubt the veracity of their information). So I don't think "I've received an anonymous email which says this is a COI" is going to carry much weight. Based on this reasoning, in my own situation I finally forwarded the emails in question to the ArbCom mailing list. (I am even using a pseudonym in this forum (which I've also told ArbCom), because otherwise it would be quite apparent about whom I am writing.) Thanks, -- Leo DeVeaux (talk) 16:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Also see my earlier comments in #Exposing COI versus outing the editor. -- Leo DeVeaux (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think it's hard to say what should happen in a specific situation without knowing anything about it. Clearly at some point, however, discussion of the COI becomes appropriate, whether done by a normal editor or the type contemplated by Crum375. This raises the question to me of why we would say it is always inappropriate, when clearly this is not a matter of any consensus and goes against what is generally done. Mackan79 (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It's never appropriate to publicly reveal an anonymous editor's personal information, unless perhaps to protect against a potential physical threat to the public. Otherwise, we should always use email, using discretion and common sense. Crum375 (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

What exactly does one email? Or what if the person doesn't respond? I don't see how a preference for emailing resolves the problem. Mackan79 (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The point of email is to use it when personal information must be revealed to handle a rule violation. The actual personal details don't need to be made public, only the surrounding facts. Established trusted editors, admins and arbs will generally respond fairly quickly to emails. Crum375 (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but the problem is that you are demanding a policy which would prevent even admins and "established trusted editors" from ever discussing such a COI on Wikipedia other than in general terms. Again, that clearly isn't general practice or supported by any consensus. Mackan79 (talk) 22:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I am not demanding anything — simply reminding all that we must conform to our fundamental principle that protects anonymous editing. To do that, we never disclose personal information publicly — whenever we need to relate this information, we send it by email to specific individuals. There is no problem discussing a COI, we can always say User:XXX appears to be an IBM employee. We just can't say publicly that User:XXX is John Smith, residing at 123 Oak St. in Peoria. Crum375 (talk) 22:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not sure I understand your position on this. As far as I can see you're saying that even if someone admits they are editing material under a clear conflict, then finds out this is strongly discouraged, they could comes back with a different account and we should help them by not acknowledging that it's the same conflicted user. It seems to me that this is stating what you'd like policy to be, rather than acknowledging in a guideline what editors do. I think this is a problem, among other things, in telling editors they have a privilege that WP:COIN clearly shows they don't have. I'm also not sure anyone has shown in answer to Cla68's question where the basic policy is that this refers to. Mackan79 (talk) 16:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

If someone admits to a COI and comes back with a new account, and we can prove (e.g. via CU) that it's the same user, we may assume the same COI as before. But having COI per se does not preclude you from editing, unless you are violating the rules. The point is that all this is no reason to publicly divulge an anonymous editor's personal information. The basic policies are WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:CIV, WP:BLOCK, etc.. If you adhere to them, you may edit even if you are COI or POV. Crum375 (talk) 17:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a two way conversation is helping, so I'll leave it there for others to comment if they like. The guideline says that discussing identity is always against "basic policy," but nobody has shown which policy this refers to, and clearly editors often do exactly that on WP:COIN. The edit I made to fix this is seen here. Mackan79 (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason your edit was reverted is that it removes the established prohibition on publicly revealing editors' personal identity information. The relevant "basic policies" are WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:CIV (which generally allow us to edit as long as we behave properly and the edits meet specific content requirements, not based on who we are), as well as the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy, which allows users to edit anonymously if they so choose. Publicly revealing such information is blockable per the WP:BLOCK policy. Crum375 (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

just a heads up....

the above conversation echoes the recent thread here in many ways - it seems to me that quite a few editors at different places mention 'real world' names 'on-wiki' - further, there seem to me to be a few people saying very clearly that this is not allowed, but not really a consensus that this behaviour is against policy... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 20:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Disclosing personal information is against policy. See Wikipedia:BLOCK#Protection. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 23:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I totally understand that that is both your position, and likely policy - it does seem sensible to me to ask if posts like this one and this one are a) against policy and b) all that common or not. Ed's post at the thread linked to above seems quite sensible to me, and I thought the thoughts of editors of this page would probably help too! Privatemusings (talk) 23:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not likely policy, PM; WP:BLOCK is policy. :)

In your example above, exactly the same thing would have been achieved by simply saying the user appears to be connected to the topic. Naming people is almost always unnecessary. The only times the particular name might matter is where there's a real-life feud between people, especially anything involving legal action, where one is suing the other, for example. It's then obviously important that Wikipedia not be used as a platform to damage one of the sides. In those cases, it might be appropriate to alert other editors and admins by e-mail, and if necessary ArbCom, to the identity — although, even in those cases, it should be enough to say User:X's edits suggest he might be connected to court case Y, because it's the connection that matters and the nature of the edits, not the name.

I still can't think of an occasion where a name would absolutely have to be disclosed onwiki if the user himself hadn't disclosed it. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 00:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Your view seems to me to be very similar to User:EdJohnston's - who seems to be one of the most active volunteers at the noticeboard - perhaps we should also solicit his views about whether or not anything needs to be done to resolve the mild tension that results between the clear policy statement you link to, and emergent practice (live link to thread with a 'real name') I'm not sure, but I think there may be a use to figuring out how we handle good faith users mentioning 'real world' identities (whether that's a policy, guideline, or just unspoken thing, I'm not sure...) - everyone seems to be taking a very sensible approach, which is cool, but it's also a good time to look for resolution (if it's even needed!) - Privatemusings (talk) 01:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course, WP:Block doesn't say what kind of discussion is or isn't justified; it merely says that a block may be appropriate when an editor is outed, which is clearly true. I can't see where a person's identity would absolutely need to be discussed either, but I can see plenty of situations where ignoring it would cause a lot of frustration and confusion, and where this would embarrass Wikipedia where an open secret came to the fore. It's also apparent that users are routinely discussing this, and that it would be a bit ridiculous not to when some editors make it very apparent (without necessarily saying explicitly). The problem is that staying around to prove someone is tendentious enough to be blocked, without reference to the fact that they're clearly conflicted, can take a great deal more energy than most people are willing to invest, even if they knew how to take on such editors. Mackan79 (talk) 04:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

There is really no conflict, and nothing needs to be resolved. The policies are clear and unambiguous: The Foundation's fundamental privacy policy is protected by the corresponding blocking policy. We may not publicly disclose anonymous editors' private information, period. If we need to identify them for COI or other purposes, we must do so discreetly via email. If someone is not willing to invest the extra effort required to adhere to these policies, they shouldn't be enforcing COI. And if someone persists in violating these policies, they will be blocked. Crum375 (talk) 11:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

So when are the people cited in thread links above who revealed alleged real names going to get blocked, or at least warned? *Dan T.* (talk) 16:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The foundation Privacy Policy only applies to information like checkuser and server log data. If someone makes it obvious from their editing who they are, the foundation privacy policy doesn't protect them from someone connecting the dots without Foundation tools and data. WP:BLOCK still applies in a meaningful way. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

You are adding things to the Privacy Policy that are not there. As it stands, we are not allowed to publicly disclose anonymous editors' personal information, and if someone does it, per our blocking policy, they may be blocked. Crum375 (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Crum375, could you please quote the part of the privacy policy you're referring to? I don't see anything that would apply here. Mackan79 (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This is from the Foundation's Privacy Policy:

The content of this page is an official policy approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. This policy may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored on local Wikimedia projects...
* you may choose to publish under a pseudonym...
* Therefore if you are very concerned about privacy, you may wish to log in and publish under a pseudonym...
* Using a user name is a better way of preserving your privacy in this situation.

In addition, en-Wikipedia's blocking policy says:

Protection
A user may be blocked when necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public. A block for protection may be necessary in response to: ...
* disclosing personal information (whether or not the information is accurate);

This makes it very clear that public disclosure of personal information of an anonymous user is not allowed and any user violating this policy may be blocked. Crum375 (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I see a number of statements about what someone should do to protect their privacy if they are particularly concerned. So then we say that someone picks a user name which suggests a real name tied to an employer, says off Wiki that they're editing an article relating to their employer, edits in and out of an IP of that employer, and does so in a way that persistently promotes the employer's POV. You believe the privacy policy prohibits discussion of any of the former three? I suppose I don't see how advising people on what might do to protect their privacy means they can do one of these things, ignore everything else, and then all editors are still prohibited from discussing it. Mackan79 (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I should add that the blockquotes provided are not an accurate representation of the text; you have provided ellipses, but you haven't noted the other extents to which the text was modified, for instance by adding bullets to text taken from the middle of paragraphs. Mackan79 (talk) 19:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to fix the format of my quotation. The point is simple: the Foundation tells us we may edit anonymously to protect our identity, if we so wish. Wikipedia policy tells us that we must not publicly disclose personal information of an anonymous editor. Editors who violate this policy may be blocked. Crum375 (talk) 19:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Except that you still haven't shown how this is true. Which Wikipedia policy tells us we "must not publicly disclose personal information of an anonymous editor"? I would think if we wanted this to be policy, we would say in a relevant policy, "Revealing the names of pseudonymous editors is in all cases impermissible." So far no statement remotely like that has been found in any policy, while this page and WP:COIN show that it happens routinely with editors causing problems relating to clear conflicts of interest. Unfortunately I can't fix the blockquote, since there wasn't anything there to put in a blockquote. Mackan79 (talk) 19:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy says we may block a user for "disclosing personal information (whether or not the information is accurate)." That's clear and unequivocal. Crum375 (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Clear and unequivocal that someone could be blocked for this, yes, and clearly necessary for that purpose considering that outing can often be a form of harassment. Clear and unequivocal that it is impermissible in all circumstances, no, you'd have to do better. Mackan79 (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Like all our policies, there may be extenuating circumstances and unusual WP:IAR cases. But as it stands, the default position, as stated in the above policies, is that you may not reveal anonymous editors' personal details. If you do that, you may be blocked. Crum375 (talk) 20:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it would only be IAR if you showed the policy that was being ignored. You haven't shown any; rather you're attempting to vastly stretch, if not misstating, what is in those policies. Reverting to these comments about "you may be blocked" is also tendentious, and I'd encourage you again to consider the way you are discussing this. Mackan79 (talk) 20:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) The policy says you will be blocked if you reveal an anonymous editor's personal information. I don't see any room for stretching anything. And I encourage you to stick to the message and not the messenger, as I always try to do. Crum375 (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Outing people is problematic if it is done to harass editors. When there is a serious COI there is nothing wrong with bringing that to the attention of the community. This of course needs to be done carefully and in good faith. The ArbCom has more or less agreed with this position. See the Agapetos Angel arbitration. There is a serious tension between our COI guidelines and our desire to protect anonymity. We need to exercise reasonable care in balancing them. That means we don't just block people for raising such issues but that doesn't mean that trying to out editors is in general at all acceptable. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

well said, Josh - I'd echo your words, except I'd probably downgrade a 'serious tension' to a more mild one... I do also see the merit in Slim's post above saying there might not be a situation where one absolutely has to mention a real name 'on-wiki'. Leaving aside the discussion of whether or not we already have a clear policy (I think the relevant bit is the blocking policy, not the privacy policy - that's just a bit distracting, I reckon, Crum...) - we certainly don't have clear practice, and I guess what I want to say is that I'm not really unhappy with the status quo - that people are enjoined to not mention names, but when good faith editors do, we don't cause a big fuss (or a small one!) - we just take it in our stride and move along... Privatemusings (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) We are not allowed to disclose personal details (such as names or addresses) of anonymous editors. If someone does, they may be blocked. There is no "balancing act". To pursue COI allegations, use the pseudonym — say editor X may be associated with topic Y and may have a COI, and when someone (established editor, admin or arb) legitimately needs more specific details that may invade X's privacy, supply them via email. Crum375 (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Crum, you might like that idea but that's not how we do things. For example if you look at COIN on any given day you'll see people noting that usernames of new editors are the same as the head of a company or is their initials or similar things all the time. That's generally considered acceptable. If we didn't consider that acceptable COIN really wouldn't function at all. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

There are things we do wrong all the time all over WP. That doesn't make them right. Can you provide an example that we can analyze in detail, showing why there was an absolute and unavoidable need to publicly reveal an anonymous user's real name or personal details? I have yet to see such a case. Crum375 (talk) 20:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

josh is right you know Crum - honest! We're in danger of talking past each other here - I don't want to annoy you, but rather than rely on others to explain stuff, consider taking a look through the noticeboard, and understand that what we / I am trying to communicate to you is simply 'hey, people do mention names without getting blocked, or having their posts edited, and it kinda works ok...' - are you happy enough with the status quo too? Privatemusings (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

ps - please please please don't go through the noticeboard editing other folk's comments! I think that would be a bad idea - and p'raps I'm being silly for even mentioning it...! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 20:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Crum, I'm not asserting that it is always necessary but rather that it is a) sometimes much more efficient and b) regardless it happens frequently when the users are blatant about their COIs. See for example User:Bcamenker who was edit warring on MassResistance which was founded by Brian Camenker. Now, the COI there was pretty obvious and was discussed on Wiki before Bcamenker explicitly said that he was in fact Brian Camenker. Now, there's no community desire to make such discussions not acceptable and frankly it would be ridiculous to say that one couldn't point out on Wiki the striking resemblance of the usernames. One also sees examples all the time where the username seems somewhat connected. See for example Wikipedia:COIN#James_The_Funny_Funny_DJ where no one had any objection to the matter (and that just happens to be the one that is most recent on the bottom of the page). And I scroll up a little bit I find another where it was written by one Sdod2 about ... Stirling Dodd. Scrolling up a few more we come to Wikipedia:COIN#Cardinal_Health where the user in question was Gdowdy and a tiny amount of research found that one vice-president there was named Gary Dowdy. If I wanted to I could easily provide many more examples. The community seems to accept these as necessary. And moreoever, they are necessary for the COIN board to function. If you think that people discussing such matters should be blocked, I suggest you start blocking them and redacting COIN and see if the community supports you. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Joshua, I am not asking for an example where it's easier to handle a COI case by revealing a person's name. I am sure almost every case is like that, just like it's easier (or more "efficient") for law enforcement to ignore the Miranda rule. What I asked for is one single solitary example where it was absolutely necessary to publicly disclose an anonymous editor's personal information in order to pursue the COI case. Note that WP:COI is only a guideline, while WP:BLOCK is policy, as is the Foundation privacy policy. Do you have such an example? Crum375 (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

If that's your standard I can't help matters. Anything in reality can be done more inefficiently without it being impossible. What you are suggesting would make COIN effectively non-functional due to to the massive inefficiency involved. The community has already made and continues to support the current procedure based on this understanding. This is again a view endorsed by the community and by the ArbCom and reflected in our daily practices. If you disagree I suggest you start blanking comments in COIN and start blocking people there and see what happens. Policy reflects what we do. And what we do is clearly not what you want us to do. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think people on COIN need to be clear that BLOCK trumps COI with respect to revealing anonymous editors' private information. They should learn to find ways to pursue their goals (which we all agree with) with increased sensitivity to people's privacy and greater reliance on email where needed. Perhaps this will be less efficient, but it's correct way of doing it. Crum375 (talk) 21:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Crum, apparently you are the only person who thinks this is "correct" and again the community has decided that this isn't helpful or necessary. Indeed, this isn't even reasonably feasible. I suggest you try to spend a little time looking at the COIN board and try to help out there. Then come back in a few weeks if you think this would work at all. We have a massive problem with COIs and we don't need to severely hobble our handling of it because of your personal interpretation of policy. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The policy says "A user may be blocked ... in response to ... disclosing personal information (whether or not the information is accurate)."

This is not my "personal interpretation," this is what our policy says. WP:COI is not policy, only a guideline (which someone had recently changed to "essay" and I reverted back to guideline because I do think COI is very important.) The point is, you can't enforce the law while breaking it. This is true for Miranda and true here. Crum375 (talk) 21:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Crum and yet no one else other than you seems to think that this prohibits all discussions of COI. Among other problems with that wording there is that nice little word "may" and there's the fact that the community simply doesn't do this. If you could convince us that the policy as written forced what you want, the community response would be to the change the policy not change our practices. Policies reflect practice not the other way around. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Policies are both prescriptive and descriptive. In this case, we have a core Foundation policy that tells us that users may edit anonymously, and a Wikipedia policy that says that those publicly revealing an anonymous editor's private information may be blocked. If there is absolutely no other way to pursue a COI allegation without publicly revealing the information, and email cannot be used instead, then there may be a problem, and we may need to modify the policies. But at this point, you have not presented a single example where such problem would exist. Saying that it's less efficient to follow the policies does not trump the policies. Crum375 (talk) 21:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Policies are prescriptive when they accurately describe what the community does, but you still haven't responded in the several times it has been pointed out that WP:Block says editors "may" be blocked for outing, not that discussion of identity is always inappropriate. You also haven't shown how email does anything other than defer the problem. The problem with your method is that it would require editors on a page all to somehow know about a COI and address it, but never to say what it is. Regardless, continuing to say there is no justification for ignoring policy, when no one agrees that your assessment of policy is correct, doesn't get us anywhere. Mackan79 (talk) 21:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You are missing some points. First, we need to pursue COI by using the anonymous handles, while supplying information without disclosing names. For example: "I suspect editor X works for IBM, and his edits are COI, see diffs. Email me if you need more information." Also, the policy does say "may be blocked" not "must be blocked" as it does for virtually any offense. Admins always have discretion for extenuating circumstances. But the basic policy remains that private information may not be disclosed, per above. Crum375 (talk) 22:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, but your argument still doesn't get the prohibition you're seeking. Where does policy say that discussing identity is always impermissible? You haven't shown this. You have shown a blocking policy that says editors may be blocked for discussing identity, and claimed that it means the former. But of course we all know that editors can be blocked for discussing identity, and nobody disputes this. In many cases such a block would be necessary, and thus it needs to be in the blocking policy. The question here is whether any discussion of COI, acknowledging the identity of an editor who may not explicitly have said it, violates basic policy. To say that the blocking policy is definitive on this is simply incorrect, and obviously so; this is not how a ban on any discussion of an editor's identity would look if we wanted to write one. It's also not where we would place such a prohibition. In this context, the fact that several editors have disagreed with you that there would be any consensus for that position should also be relevant. It seems you could stand to acknowledge some of this. Mackan79 (talk) 22:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The policy tells us that we may block an editor for publicly revealing an anonymous editor's personal information. There are no exceptions mentioned. It does not say that there is a special exclusion if the discussion involves COI. And COI is not even policy. So the situation is clear, and COI discussions, like all discussions, must conform to policy. Crum375 (talk) 22:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course there aren't exceptions, since all it says is that editors "may" be blocked. For that matter, I don't think anyone would support total immunity for anything relating to COI, or would think COI is the only circumstance where discussing an account's identity might be appropriate. It's hardly a reason to assume a prohibition that still doesn't exist, and wouldn't, since it simply ignores the balance that many editors have discussed as inherent in this guideline. Mackan79 (talk) 22:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) An editor may be blocked for:

• persistently making personal attacks;
• making personal, professional or legal threats (including outside the Wikipedia site);
• performing actions that place users in danger;
• disclosing personal information (whether or not the information is accurate);
• persistently violating copyrights;
• persistently posting material contrary to the biographies of living persons policy;
• accounts that appear to have been compromised, as an emergency measure.

So by your laissez-faire logic, we might as well ignore all of these, and keep on making personal attacks, legal threats, endanger users, and persistently violate copyright and BLPs with impunity, because the operating word was may? Clearly "disclosing personal information" is in the exact same category as all of these offenses, and is prohibited and blockable just the same. Crum375 (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

We don't always block for personal attacks for example. Furthermore, the words "personal information" are presumably relevant; the actual name of an editor with a conflict might be relevant, but for example more personal information such as addresses and phone numbers are clearly never acceptable. But as we've already tried to explain to you if your argument has any validity it is an argument for changing the blocking policy to reflect what we actually do. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The basic problem is you're trying to turn WP:Block into our general behavioral guideline, when that's not what it is, and that's not how it is written. In any case, saying an editor may be blocked for something doesn't mean the action is a violation of "basic policy" in every instance; I and others have discussed the difference above. We'd need a lot clearer evidence to say that what goes on at WP:COIN somehow violates basic policy. Mackan79 (talk) 23:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

If people violate a policy they are blockable, especially if they justify their violation of a policy by saying it makes enforcing a guideline more effective. Crum375 (talk) 23:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Crum, if you think this is blockable then start blocking people. Otherwise stop. This is getting tendentious. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we have probably exhausted the subject. We have a policy and a guideline that clearly say we may not out people, with no exception carved out. Some people do it anyway, and it is in violation of policy and guideline, and blockable. I don't think there is much more to add. Crum375 (talk) 00:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:Consensus, Crum. Believing that you alone are right doesn't exactly cut it on a wiki. Mackan79 (talk) 00:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

---

<-- you're certainly very focused in your discussion, Crum! - and I say that with a smile, because I'm still not sure if we (any of us here) actually disagree on anything at all! - are you unhappy with the way the noticeboard is running? Do you wish to modify any policy or behaviour at all? - maybe we're all signing from the same hymn sheet after all! Privatemusings (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd still like to make the change here, since I don't think the previous version was accurate (or particularly focused). Possibly it isn't important, but I'd think we should want the guidelines to be accurate, and particularly not to say people have privileges when they don't. People who come to edit about their employer, for instance, shouldn't think they'll be entirely protected from discussion that they've done so, and probably Wikipedia shouldn't advertise a policy of disregarding that kind of thing. Mackan79 (talk) 22:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Your proposed change to a guideline would contradict policy, so you'd need to change policy first. Specifically here, no one is saying that COI is acceptable. This is why we have the COI guideline. All we are saying is that we must pursue COI allegations without publicly revealing personal details of anonymous editors. Crum375 (talk) 22:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

My edit removed a statement about basic policy which hasn't been supported here, and which the talk page shows lacks consensus. Even if the statement did have consensus, my change couldn't have contradicted anything since all I did was remove the statement. In terms of all we are saying, I think this is discussed above. My concern remains that it misstates policy as well as general practice. Mackan79 (talk) 22:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but it's wrong. Both guideline and policy are correct. Crum375 (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

In the nicest possible way, Crum - there is another explanation! :-) Privatemusings (talk) 00:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

betwixt black, white; the big grey mushy bit

following the above, I thought I'd point folks at this recent thread, which I reckon illustrates quite nicely the grey areas involved in pinning this stuff down. I reckon it might be very helpful to be very concise, and just say whether or not we think this sort of post is ok, or not. I'm not 100% certain, but I think it probably is. Privatemusings (talk) 23:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

context, and a suggestion....

to offer a bit of context - the specific wording of the section below doesn't really matter all that much to me - I'm not really sure that people read these things all that thoroughly, and generally just adopt a common sense / someone will tell me if I make a mistake approach. I mean this as a call for calm, because of course it doesn't mean we shouldn't try and have a clear a guideline as possible! Here's my idea;

Dealing with suspected conflicted editors

The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor, referring to this guideline. If persuasion fails, consider whether you are involved in a content dispute. If so, an early recourse to dispute resolution may help. Editors and admins may act in conflict of interest situations as in any case of point of view pushing. You can also file a case at WP:COIN, where experienced editors may be able to help you resolve the matter without recourse to publishing assertions and accusations on Wikipedia, which is prohibited, as it exacerbates the situation.

thoughts? Privatemusings (talk) 00:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

ps. on review I've taken out "(with very few exceptions)" from the final sentence.... that clause may be the total of our disagreement! - Privatemusings (talk) 00:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

pps. happy to drop the final clause (after the ,) too - which may be contentious / redundant.... Privatemusings (talk) 00:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be closer to practice, but still states that what is done at WP:COIN is prohibited. I'll suggest another version for comment, which would be:

Dealing with suspected conflicted editors

The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor, referring to this guideline. If persuasion fails, consider whether you are involved in a content dispute. If so, an early recourse to dispute resolution may help. Another option is to initiate discussion at WP:COIN. However, using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is strongly discouraged.

This makes a bit clearer that harassment is one of the main concerns, while staying within general practice. Mackan79 (talk) 00:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

taking about 6 of 1 and half a dozen of the other.. hows about;

Dealing with suspected conflicted editors

The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor, referring to this guideline. If persuasion fails, consider whether you are involved in a content dispute. If so, an early recourse to dispute resolution may help. Another option is to initiate discussion at WP:COIN, where experienced editors may be able to help you resolve the matter without recourse to publishing assertions and accusations on Wikipedia. Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban.

keeps the prevention language strong, and offers useful ways forward? - Privatemusings (talk) 01:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Brought up on block policy talk page.

Given the concerns above I've brought the matter up at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy. Presumably BLOCK should be clarified to unambiguously reflect consensus and practice. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

off topic...

but this edit summary did tickle me! - p'raps we need a category for 'johnny-come-lately guidelines' - tee hee! - Privatemusings (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Page protected

Since there was an active edit war, I have protected the page for 48 hours. I know that some of the participants are admins and don't have to honor the protection, but I am asking you to please abide by it. Please work things out here at talk, thanks. --Elonka 01:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the current discussion boils down to consideration of these two sentences; "Remember, conflicted editors do not lose their privileges to edit Wikipedia pseudonymously. Revealing the names of pseudonymous editors is in all cases against basic policy." - I'm not sure that either is particularly helpful, and think they might cause more harm than good. Per the above, we seem to have a particular issue with the second sentence not really reflecting current practice...... thoughts? Privatemusings (talk) 01:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It's very much against both policy and current practice. I don't know why you would think outing people was suddenly acceptable, because there's a strong consensus against it. All the editors who think it's okay to out people might want to start the ball rolling by outing themselves. :-) SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 02:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Possibly we should say something about private discussion being required for long term editors, which I think is where harassment would be most significant. However, WP:COIN makes pretty clear that new editors who show a conflict can't exactly expect protection, whether we think they should have it or not. It's not that I disagree that this is a concern, but that even so, the statement isn't the right way to say this. Mackan79 (talk) 02:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we've hit the nail on the head of the disagreement here - a conflation between noticing that at the conflict of interest noticeboard people tend to mention names, and a position that 'outing' is ok. My feeling is that the noticeboard is kinda working ok - that the experienced editors there seem to be handling it all quite well, and posts like the one I mentioned above (this one) actually help grease the wheels of the wiki. Harassing people is wrong, and must be strongly sanctioned, especially if that harassment takes the form of aggressive 'outing' - but I also see it as a different thing to saying that the noticeboard has some mentions of names which actually kinda help.... hope this helps explain my perspective... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

or to put it really simply; does behaviour at the noticeboard need to change? Privatemusings (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The current situation is working fine. If someone appears to out someone gratuitously on COI, admins there can take action if they feel it's warranted. Perhaps we could add a note to the top of the page saying that naming people who have not named themselves should be avoided wherever possible.

Imagine if I were now to use everything I know about you to find out who you are. I then went through all your contribs from your different accounts, and I found something where you had been editing just a little close to the bone, and I used that as an excuse to out you on COIN. Would you support that? I'm assuming not, as you seemed very upset when your previous user names were posted without your permission.

This is a situation where we need to do as we would be done by. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 02:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think one requirement should be that any conflict is only raised as a current issue. I also agree with a "least intrusive means" approach. The problem is only with saying that this is always against policy, if people do often discuss this without complaint. Mackan79 (talk) 02:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

it's cool to see that you feel the current situation is working fine - I largely agree with you, so we've got some common ground. I'll happily talk about my editing history until the cows come home too, but here's probably not a good spot! - my talk page is always open...

I reckon that the conversation about changing this guideline relates to the sense that if the current system is working ok, then the guideline shouldn't appear to prohibit it! - You mightn't agree that such a tension exists, or needs to be dealt with explicitly, (or that the guideline or noticeboard say any such thing) but I'm pretty sure that's where most recent participants on this talk page are coming from..... and I reckon we're actually making progress through pretty difficult ground... Privatemusings (talk) 02:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

PM, you didn't answer my question, and I'd really appreciate a reply. It was: Imagine if I were now to use everything I know about you to find out who you are. I then went through all your contribs from your different accounts, and I found something where you had been editing just a little close to the bone, and I used that as an excuse to out you on COIN. Would you support my right to out you in that way? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 19:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

sorry slim, I was trying to depersonalise things a bit, but have no intention to be evasive. I would trust the editors at the noticeboard to deal with such an approach appropriately. If such an approach were determined to constitute 'harassment' (and depending on it's nature, I might assert that it crossed a line) then I would except blocks, oversight etc. I think we agree that the current situation is working fine, but may disagree about what that means for this particular page.... still thinking though! - Privatemusings (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, PM. I have to say that, based on your reaction to your previous usernames being posted, I think if someone were to post your real name and try to justify it, you'd have a hairy conniption, simply because it would be completely unnecessary.

What you have to ask yourself is this — why is anyone arguing in favor of outing people? What is their motivation? It is never necessary to do it onwiki. If you disagree, please give me one example of a situation (real or imagined), where the only way to deal with a COI would be to name the culprit onwiki, where he hadn't already named himself. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 22:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If you see people arguing in favor of outing people you seem to be reading a different page than me. But the reason why I take issue with this statement are: 1. It is inaccurate about policy, 2. It states editors have a privilege they are not actually given, 3. It's inconsistent with practice, 4. Unenforced rules cause problems when they are inconsistently applied, 5. Pushing all discussion of COI off of Wikipedia would harm Wikipedia's neutrality, transparency and credibility. Or in other words, I don't believe we should retain a sentence that is inaccurate, misleading, prone to misuse, and harmful to Wikipedia. Does it mean a change in current practice? No, it leaves things exactly as they are, but simply doesn't make an inaccurate statement about what happens in these situations. This is all that has been proposed. Mackan79 (talk) 22:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I've raised the recent events for discussion on AN/I here, as I don't believe these recent reversions are how discussion on a policy page are supposed to take place. Thanks, Mackan79 (talk) 02:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I remember a case where the anti-creationist cabal here at wikipedia outed an anon for being the wife of the creationist whose article she was editing (Durova was also involved). I remember numerous anons being outed as being Jon Awbrey (a banned editor). We out all the time and always have. WAS 4.250 (talk) 09:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Awbrey had outed himself. I am talking about situations where people have only ever edited with pseudonyms, and where someone has posted onwiki what they think is the person's real name. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 22:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I remember seeing articles that were totally POV, violating NPOV. And ones which had no sources, and poor sources, violating V and NOR. I remember seeing editors using despicable language towards each other, violating CIV. In fact, all these egregious policy violations, and many more, are going on every day here. So should we throw away all our policies because they are being violated all the time? Crum375 (talk) 10:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

My examples are of policy being followed. Your examples are of policy not being followed. The point is that outing when it improves the encyclopedia is policy and always has been. You and Slim out all the time yourselves when you think some anon editor is the enemy. But the enemy of wikipedia is POV, not any specific persons. And COI is the mother of POV editing. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean; are you saying that we outed User:Jon Awbrey? I would imagine the username he chose did that. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

We've outed numerous accounts as being Awbrey or other known individuals. If that isn't apposite, see Crum's comment above that if someone wants to return to anonymity we should help them do so. Mackan79 (talk) 02:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Identifying sockpuppets of banned editors is not "outing", and it's pure wikilawyering to pretend it is. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I admit I'm not sure where these back and forths are going. Of course, some would say it's wikilawyering to argue that WP:Block, in stating what editors may be blocked for, amounts not just to a total prohibition on discussing the identity of pseudonymous editors "in all cases," but requires us to include such a statement in this guideline. On the other hand, perhaps there's been too much wikilawyering on both sides of the issue and we could try to be a little more substantive. Mackan79 (talk) 04:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's put this in the open

There seem to be a variety of issues here which aren't be stated explicitly so lets put them out in the open. Some of this discussion is occurring due to the Wordbomb matter. Crum edit warred (and was blocked) on the RfAr page about material related to outing, claims related to which SV blocked Wordbomb for posting in the first place. Some editors may be attempting to phrase things in a way that justifies Crum's edit warring while others may be doing what they are doing so they will be in a position to claim that SV's block of Wordbomb was justified. Both of these goals miss the real point; first, no one can say that SV didn't act in a reasonable fashion given the situation. Even if the community attitudes have changed about precisely what outings are considered acceptable, SV's blocking of Wordbomb would likely be considered ok given that he had been told to stop and to email the claims. Furthermore, even if the block would not have occured under current understanding, that was then and this was now. To accuse someone of bad-faith in such circumstances is about as unreasonable as to complain if someone violated 3RR before 3RR was established or to block people who uploaded images with copyrights that were acceptable at the time but are no longer acceptable. Let's try to make this guideline and the block policy actually reflect what we do and what the community considers acceptable and not try not to use Wikipedia policies and guidelines as pawns in personal vendettas. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what any of this has to do with WB, Joshua. That outing is not allowed has been in the WP:BLOCK policy in one form or another for a long time, and that is reflected in this guideline. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 19:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so assuming I'm completely and utterly wrong, can you explain to me what the resistance is to clarifying this and BLOCK to reflect actual practice? Again, COIN deals with minor outings of SPAs all the time. The ArbCom endorsed such behavior under limited circumstances in the Agapetos Angel arbitration. Obviously outing to harass is blockable. What then is the issue here? JoshuaZ (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Policies reflect best practice, and it's not best practice to go around outing people. There is in fact a very strong consensus against doing so, and people's details are for that reason routinely oversighted if they request it. You're relying on a couple of examples where the person has more or less outed themselves (or has in fact outed themselves completely), and someone has asked about them on COIN.

The only people arguing here to change the policy that I have seen are Mackan79 and PrivateMusings. And you, but you seem to have misunderstood what's being said. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 20:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to think that I'm misunderstanding but Crum's comments above don't seem to indicate that. Crum seems for example to think that if someone has a username of First initial Lastname and is editing an article about a company run by First Name Lastname that we can't say on the project that they are likely the same person. That's exactly what I outlined in for example the Brian Camenker case above and Crum seems to not be ok with that. Indeed, Crum argued that essentially all those minor outings on COI are blockable. If you think Crum is wrong then I suggest you say so explicitly. Otherwise I'm forced to agree with PM and Mackan. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not exactly what I said. If we have a case where there is reason to believe someone has a COI, and the evidence includes personal information of an anonymous editor, we can say that "editor X has a COI — he is editing article Y, and I can email any admin or established editor my evidence." Then, the email may include any pertinent information. I doubt this would slow the COI vetting process very much. Crum375 (talk) 20:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so do you think that something like the Brian Camenker case constitutes unacceptable outing or not? Your reply in the section above seems to indicate you think it is a problem. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what the Brian Camenker example is, or what Crum's arguments are (too much to read above). What I'd say is that we always need to apply common sense. If someone is editing John Burton Engineering, and his user name is John B, and he's turning it into a vanity piece, then obviously we can say, "COI problem with User:X, and judging by the user name he may be connected to the company." But even then, some care is needed, because it might be someone just using that name.

We had a situation like that once where someone pretended to be an expert on something, and was editing articles without sources. Someone else worked out who that editor was in real life, and posted somewhere that he didn't, in fact, have any expertise (I think he also had an article on himself where he was claiming the expertise). So anyway, quite a few of the articles he had created were deleted. Then the real person got in touch with Jimbo to say he was not, in fact, the person behind the pseudonym, and he complained about the insults that had been posted about him, and it all got horribly complicated. (Had the pseudonym just pretended to be the real person, or was the real person now pretending he had not been the pseudonym?)

The lesson to extract is that introducing a real name is almost always an unnecessary complication that could backfire in future, and which never helps the editing process. It's always enough to say, "This person's edits look as though he may be personally connected to the issue; more eyes needed, please." That request is just as powerful as, "It's him, I know it's him!" SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 22:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has any disagreements with the above except possibly Crum. So in that case, what is the objection to making that clear in the policy and guidelines? JoshuaZ (talk) 01:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I see it as pretty clear already. It says conflicted editors don't lose the right to edit pseudonymously. We could add something to the top of the COIN page asking people to be careful when naming people, but I'd prefer to let the regular edits/admins on the page handle it as they see fit. The BLOCK policy gives them the right to take action if someone crosses the line, but it's left to them to judge what crossing the line means. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 02:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is squaring this with "is in all cases against basic policy." Even in closing, you say, "almost always." If you recognize that it's "almost always" and not "always," then it seems you should be able to help in coming up with a wording that protects what we'd like to protect more accurately. Mackan79 (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no issue, really. It's against policy, so if it's done at all (and it's hard to really see a reason why it should be), then there'd better be a damned good reason for doing so. Frankly, WP:COI has been an abused guideline from the start; it's intended as a guide for the editors with the COI, to help them recognize when they might have difficulty editing in accord with policy. However, in reality, it is all too often used by others as means of trying to force editors to stop editing pages, regardless of the quality of their edits. If someone who works for IBM is able to edit the IBM article in accord with WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V, then more power to them. The issue is not the "COI" itself, but violating the core content policies with edits - and those are violated all the time, mostly by people who have no "COI" at all. As it is, I've seen COI being rather horribly abused, with editors using it as a means of trying to bully other editors into avoiding topics altogether - for example, insisting that because an editor has a "COI", he's not allowed to even comment on an article Talk: page, or because an editor happens to be a subject matter expert on the topic of a specific organization, having written about them professionally, he now has a "COI" and cannot edit articles about that organization. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

A fine perspective also, Jayjg, but still not an answer for why this guideline inaccurately describes policy. If you disagree with practice, it seems the general approach is to convince editors that what they're doing is wrong. Right now, people clearly don't think it is. Mackan79 (talk) 02:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The guideline doesn't inaccurately describe policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you also saying, then, that to state an editor may be blocked for something is to say that it is a violation of basic policy in every case? Without being facetious, I wonder how you would write it differently if discussion which revealed someone's name might in some cases be permitted. To me it's clear that the WP:Block doesn't specify when such discussion violates policy or should result in a block. Mackan79 (talk) 05:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, but perhaps it might be helpful here to discuss actual wording? Instead of an absolute "it can be either A or B", can the different sides try to wordsmith some wording that both are happy with? --Elonka 04:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This would be helpful. The text in question is: "Remember, conflicted editors do not lose their privileges to edit Wikipedia pseudonymously. Revealing the names of pseudonymous editors is in all cases against basic policy." All editors agree that outing that looks like harassment should be prohibited, and that this needs to be clear; however, a number of editors don't agree the statement about policy is correct. Mackan79 (talk) 04:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the extremest language in the written policy does not accord with what we seem to all agree is actual policy in practice, which is as SlimVirgin said "apply common sense. [...] The lesson to extract is that introducing a real name is almost always an unnecessary complication that could backfire in future, and which never helps the editing process." Self-outing is not a binary proposition; there are all degrees of self-outing. We need to replace the absolutist terminology with something more nuanced yet very firm that revealing real names is to be as avoided as possible so long as doing so does not cause lasting damage to Wikipedia's NPOV. WAS 4.250 (talk) 09:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not include both then? Say, "According to policy <describe policy>; however in actual practice <describe actual practice>. ArbCom decisions on the matter have been <describe decisions>. Certain elements <describe elements> remain controversial and are enforced in different ways depending on context, and the judgment of the reviewing admins." --Elonka 21:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

We could say "According to policy a user may be blocked for outing the identity of a pseudonymous editor; however in practice the names of accounts are sometimes discussed where there are ongoing issues with a clearly conflicted editor, particularly with new editors who edit only in a narrow area. Outing the identity of established editors is highly controversial and will almost always be seen as harassment. Editors should always remember that Wikipedia generally protects pseudonymous editing, and that because of the high ranking of Wikipedia in search engines, any discussions of private individuals by name should be avoided." Mackan79 (talk) 02:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

another go......

I wonder if a parallel approach might be to consider the words before the contentious bit, which maybe we'll all agree on. How's this for the section..;

Dealing with suspected conflicted editors

The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor, referring to this guideline. If persuasion fails, consider whether you are involved in a content dispute. If so, an early recourse to dispute resolution may help. Another option is to initiate discussion at WP:COIN, where experienced editors may be able to help you resolve the matter without recourse to publishing assertions and accusations on Wikipedia. Introducing a real name is almost always an unnecessary complication that could backfire in future, and which never helps the editing process. Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban.

Remember, conflicted editors do not lose their privileges to edit Wikipedia pseudonymously. Revealing the names of pseudonymous editors is in all cases against basic policy.

I've added WAS' bit from above - and leaving aside the last para for now, I wonder what folk think..... Privatemusings (talk) 09:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, "almost always" I don't mind, but "never helps the editing process" is still iffy, and a bit contradictory with the previous statements. One of the problems is that we're not necessarily talking about someone saying "I think User:JD is John S. Doe, employee of this company," but under our current language anything that would "reveal" the name of a pseudonymous editor. A name could be revealed even without saying it. Even so, it seems clear to me that accounts will routinely come along where you need to know that this is the author of the article, or the litigant in the dispute, etc., and the answer needs to be tact and responsibility, not to say that all discussion is entirely pushed off site.

In terms of additional clarification, I think it may be a mistake to say too much in this section, even that aims to protect. I might suggest: "Also remember that Wikipedia is a top rated website which generally protects pseudonymous editing. For this reason, speculation about identity can be harmful and should almost always be avoided. One exception is often new accounts which indicate an identity in their username and edit only in a narrow topic area." If that helps, it might be adjusted as needed. Mackan79 (talk) 16:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Could somebody please write an article on James Newton Chadwick, 21 year-old singer-songwriter? He is my favourite musician in the world but I'm always surprised he doesn't get a mention on here.

Simple Chickpea (talk) 22:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with merge discussions

How to avoid COI edits

Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit," but if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when:

• Participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,

This text makes sense, but does it go far enough? In Wikipedia editing merging articles is often an alternative to deleting, and often has nearly the same effect. Is there any opposition to making it "deletion or merge discussions"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Removal of WP:N material from this guideline

I just boldly removed quite a bit of text from the guideline because it dealt exclusively with notability and other than 1 sentence did not even mention COI. I reintegrated that 1 sentence. This was done because (A) this is a guideline on WP:COI not WP:N and (B) notability is not the only or even the most common reason for deletion, placing this one-of-many-reasons into such prominence gives it undue weight in the minds of new WP editors. -- Low Sea (talk) 00:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Refer to this revision: [2] per--NewbyG (talk) 03:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Flawed policies

WP:SPAM and WP:COI would appear to be deeply flawed policies if they can be cited cogently to justify the warnings recently directed against James Franklin. Squaring the circle is on my watchlist and I came across this edit. In the edit summary, user:Hu12 called this edit "spam". That didn't make sense at all. It was a link to a lecture by a respected professor on the topic that the article was about! That's a valuable contribution. I restored the link.

Then I looked at Hu12's edits. He was systematically deleting external links to lectures at Gresham College. The edits were put there by James Franklin, who is employed by Gresham College. Apparently this raised two concerns: (1) that the purpose of the links was only to promote Gresham College's web site, and (2) that there was a conflict of interests of the sort treated at WP:COI. Understandable concerns, but there's a difference between valid grounds to suspect a problem, and valid grounds to conclude finally that there is. The latter requires more information than the former. One must look at, among other things, the nature and purpose of the links. They are a valuable contribution to Wikipedia. A neutral person with no such conflict could reasonably add them. Hu12 actually blocked the user, James Franklin. Maybe a dozen or so people stepped in and started saying the links are good and the user should not be blocked. I might have been the fourth or fifth one, and I unblocked the user and at the suggestion of one of the others I posted to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/incidents about it. Two views emerged: (1) That I was making far too much of the matter and I should apologize to Hu12; and (2) That Hu12 was vastly overreacting and should apologize for blocking the user.

Now the thing that really surprised me is that AFTER all this, user:BozMo, who was aware of all of this discussion, still posted a warning on James Franklin's user page telling him not to post links to lectures at Gresham College.

I think that is wrong. But he cited WP:SPAM and WP:COI in support of his position. If those policies can really justify his position, then those policies need to change. If someone who works for Encyclopædia Britannica starts posting large numbers of links to on-topic articles at Encyclopædia Britannica, it may be reasonable to suspect something amiss, but for that to be the bottom-line conclusion even AFTER the nature of the links is examined is wrong. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not to worship rules and regulations. I've posted these same comments at the SPAM policy talk page. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Just thought I would share

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2001-March/000069.html WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

"Hypothetical" situation

Let's say that a page is created about a certain webcomic. And let's say that this comic is very polarizing, with many people loving it, and many people loving to hate it. Now let's say that this page, after much debate, starts including a section about how what people are saying about the comic( much like the reception section on most articles about movies), and that some people, such as rival webcomics, parody it. Then, along comes a user who defends the comic, and removes much of the criticisms in that section. But then it becomes apparent to people outside of the page that this user is actually the author of this webcomic. But the user is hiding behind the policy on Outing, saying that it's against the rules to declare that this user is actually the author of the comic. What can be done about the conflict of interest in this case? Zell65 (talk) 03:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If your hypothetical edit should happen to be this one, I agree with the removal of that particular criticism. Wikipedia does not have an article on the John Solomon of http://badwebcomics.blogspot.com. This means he is unlikely to qualify as a well-known expert whose views are citable even when they appear on a blog, which is not normally accepted as a reliable source. The two other criticisms of the comic, made by people who have articles, have been kept in the article at Ctrl+Alt+Del#Reception. EdJohnston (talk) 13:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If your evidence on who the author is on wikipedia is only coming from that encyclopedia drama page then you need to reconsider your evidence. Especialy if you continue to go around spreading your opinions to other editors as you did here. Having no evidence, or bad evidence and then going around to everyone and spreading that is not good faith, and is damaging to wikipedia. You cannot go around spreading rumors as fact. Knowledgeum :  Talk  21:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If they are complete lies and I look like a total crazy, then Thrindel should not care. He can go on living his life, and dismiss me entirely as an idiot, as can everyone else. But if I'm right, and it turns out that Buckley is Thrindel, then you just better remember what I've said. Zell65 (talk) 21:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thrindel should care, because noone no matter who they may be in real life deserves to be dragged through the mud by anyone, no matter what thier intentions are. Using "well it _might_ be true" and "_if_ in the _future_" to support you accusing someone of some wrong doing, and then spreading it around to other editors as a fact, does not work and is not ok. You cannot justify any of your evidence against anyone on that argument and therefore you need to stop this accusation until you have some real evidence. Knowledgeum :  Talk  18:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You say I'm the one making up lies? I have not been "spreading it around to other editors as a fact". One user asked me "what Thrindel's deal" was, I told him what I believed to be true, even stating that it was just a rumour: "there are some rumours that Thrindel is in fact Tim Buckley" (from this talk page) That was the end of it. Anything you're claiming beyond that is a gross exaggeration, and I find that it repulsive that you would paint me as a rumour monger. Also note the comment made by 124.182.142.17 on that same talk page. There are some who do believe that it is not a rumour, they say that it is a known fact, and that the connection was found some time ago, but that Thrindel has since made himself less conspicuous. I do not feel the same as those people, and I have not seen proof one way or another. I consider it much the same as a belief in God. Many people say "God does not exist, because I have never seen proof of him." while others say "God does exist. I have seen miracles which prove that he does exist.". Again, I do not consider it greatly important whether Thrindel is or is not Buckley, only that whoever it is, he continues to be productive. It is true though, and this you cannot deny, that he has drawn a fair amount of attention outside of Wikipedia. Why would someone want to manufacture such lies just to attack what seems to be a relatively inconsequential user such as Thrindel? Zell65 (talk) 06:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't overlook legal threats

Recently an editor added a mention of WP:DOLT to the guideline. I'd suggest that we may not need that here, since the example given in the WP:DOLT essay is almost identical with the one already spelled out in the section it's a part of, How not to handle COI. If some mention is still needed, maybe a sentence that says 'A person making legal threats may actually have a valid concern about an article, so check first before calling for a block.' EdJohnston (talk) 15:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

My blog, following Wikipedia's rules

Please view my redone blog first: http://megamannetwork.wordpress.com/

Hello I am the one who previously wrote an article in Citing sources, since it was the wrong place to post this discussion I have brought it here.

I was told that I could not post my blog on Wikipedia as the rules state they are "unreliable", I was given though, guidelines, and supposedly my blog will be allowed if I follow them, which I have. I have done what the rules say I must, no video's without copyrights and mark your references as to where I got my information. And this was said by one of the moderators named Gerry Ashton about using the blog: "blogs are usually unreliable. One exception is blogs run by a reliable source, such as the New York Times or Scientific American" I have followed the guidelines Wikipedia has stated as the "standards" for a reliable source.

• Unfortunatly, we aren't talking about Rocket Science here, it's just Megaman, but to those interested in this topic the accuracy is fiercely defended and challenged when necessary. I have read Scientific American, which is a personal favorite (the latest issue is on cancer),and occasionally the Times, but have never seen Rockman referenced. Based on this, I would think that Wikipedia would reasonably allow information that was properly referenced from sources deemed reliable considering the subject at hand. It should also be noted that such distinguished writers, as those published in both the Scientific American and Times, also carry their own blogs (which would be considered as gospel).

We aren't asking for the acceptance of blogs as a whole, only under your complete and honest discretion of the material at hand. It should also be noted that, by allowing this mutual participation, Wikipedia is placed in the limelight of the hundreds of young people that avidly pursue every scrap of available knowledge on their personal subjects of interest, and your consent would only strengthen your position with those who might otherwise deem your site an "article archive" instead of a more personable knowledge base. We appreciate your consideration and understanding, as well as your direction for the writers of the future, who would benefit from understanding what is required to meet the standards of Wikipedia. If this is still outside of the box for Wikipedia moderators, perhaps you can suggest something like "Wikipedia Junior", where young writers can publish and adhere to the rules based on their areas of influence and interests.

Thank you,

D Alexopoulos —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blazinglight (talk • contribs) 04:22, 7 September 2008

This discussion began over at "Wikipedia talk:Citing sources", so I will just summarize some points that were made over there. When you say you want to "post [your] blog on Wikipedia", I take it that what you mean is that (1) you would like people to cite your blog as a reliable source of information on Mega Man in Wikipedia articles; and/or (2) you would like to be able to add your blog's website address as an external link in relevant articles.

• As a reliable source. If you have stated where the information on your blog is from – books, magazine and newspaper articles, and so on – then I think it is all right for your blog to be used as a source that people can cite, provided that you have removed videos and music that you did not have permission from the copyright owners to use on your website (Wikipedia articles cannot be linked to websites that contain material in breach of copyright: see "Wikipedia:Copyrights").
• As an external link. However, as WhatamIdoing pointed out, the guideline "Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided" states that links to blogs and personal web pages are usually to be avoided, "except those written by a recognized authority". A footnote explains that "[a]s a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies". This means that, at present, Wikipedia policy is that only blogs by people who are famous enough to have a Wikipedia page of their own should be added as external links. It seems that if you would like to have this policy reconsidered and changed, you will need to start a discussion on this at "Wikipedia talk:External links". WhatamIdoing also points out that a blog owner should not add his or her own blog as an external link to Wikipedia articles as this "is a violation of the conflict of interest rules, which is interpreted most strictly for external links". WhatamIdoing says that you should suggest on the talk pages of relevant articles that your blog be added as an external link, and leave it to other editors to decide whether this should be done or not. This issue can be discussed on this talk page.

— Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 04:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Request edit

I'd like to propose a move of Template:Request edit to another name. ANyone is invited to participate in the discussion here. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 01:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Important Policy update

Copied from WP:COINGordonofcartoon (talk) 23:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I have added the following paragraph to WP:COI to reflect the actual state of matters.[3] Please familiarize yourself with this, and feel free to discuss if you think this does not reflect actual practice.

When investigating possible cases of COI editing, Wikipedians must be careful not to out other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over this guideline. COI situations are usually revealed when the editor themselves discloses a relationship to the subject that they are editing. In case the editor does not identity themselves or their affiliation, reference to the neutral point of view policy may help counteract biased editing.

Thank you for you help, and thank you to User:FayssalF for reviewing this edit.[4] Jehochman ^Talk 18:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think it goes too far. WP:OUTING doesn't apply if edits out themselves - as you say, where there's self-disclosure - but I don't think anyone can be blamed for considering editors to have self-outed if it's very easily deducible (e.g. an anon making edits about Snibbosoft from the Snibbosoft IP address). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The point is to create a free NPOV encyclopedia. Various values/goals need to be balanced to achieve that. One does not achieve balance by making some goals take "precedence" over others. This requires thoughtful, caring, careful editorial and administrative judgement. Not mindless rule following. WAS 4.250 (talk) 08:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:OUTING vs. WP:COI & WP:NOR

While WP:OUTING addresses the serious issue of stalking, as currently written, it renders WP:COI and aspects of WP:NOR (specifically WP:COS) unenforceable. Any good-faith attempt to identify a user as having a COI usually necessitates some degree of real-life identification. Typically, the user name is a give-away, but otherwise only an intentional or inadvertent admission by a registered or anonymous user is usable evidence – and the problems are mostly with editors who do not want to have their COI edits exposed as such or are unfamiliar with WP:COI in the first place. I feel that the community needs to discuss whether WP:Outing trumps WP:COI and WP:COS or else needs to accommodate legitimate, good-faith enforcement of these policies and guidelines. While the issues have been raised before, there has been no resolution, and that lack of resolution is hampering the work of enforcing WP:COI. If you have an interest in helping resolve this problem, please comment at WP:OUTING vs. WP:COI & WP:NOR. Thank you, Askari Mark (Talk) 15:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

this has been discussed in detail here Wikipedia talk:Harassment#WP:OUTING vs. WP:COI & WP:NOR, not going to happen. Semitransgenic (talk) 02:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been getting annoyed by a bunch of people showing up to defend a certain law and giving me a hard time about not being a lawyer or accountant and how dare I think I knew anything or my WP:RS were any good. I read this article and was reminded about wikiscanner and typed in the article name and found a bunch of edits that are 1.5 years and older by editors from a bunch of companies that indeed do have reasons to either support - or be against - the law. So I told everyone about it on talk to make them aware that they or their company, govt agency could be outed.

But then I remembered that technically if a current editor was editing then and they were the ONLY person editing that day that would effectively out them. Does the article need to specify about how to use or not use this tool and any other ones? Or did I miss something? Thanks. Carol Moore 01:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Turns out there is a new, more up to date, wikiscanner coming out soon, so this may become more of an issue. Perhaps a sentence in here something like: "It is proper to alert editors on talk pages that a program may be scanning and making identifiable the institution from which edits are made, or even to note when questionable edits may be related to the POV of the person editing from that institution. It is not proper to try to track down the personal identity of editors linked to those institutions." Carol Moore 14:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC) 'Carolmooredc'

This issue has come up in another BIO article where partisans and possible employees of the person in question were repeatedly deleting info, I put up link to the 2007 results of wikiscanner showing possible partisan IPS, and a number of deleters again disappeared. But I still worry I'm stepping on wp:outing by bringing this up. Since I haven't gotten a response on talk, I might just formulate a policy for the page and then maybe people will pay attention :-) Carol Moore 19:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC) Carolmooredc

Edits of WP:OUTING are often controversial. Can you say more about the article where you used Wikiscanner? Other editors may want to think about how you could have dealt with the situation on that article without trying to narrow down the affiliations of the other participants. EdJohnston (talk) 19:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for response. First time on several pages I've asked about policy on this I've gotten a response.

Actually I was talking about changing this page, but I guess it's most appropriate to whichever page infers there is such a thing as wikiscanner that can catch people. (Though I can't find that right now on either page, so either it's on some third page or has been deleted.)

Anyway, the specific comments I made were in these two articles:

• Community Reinvestment Act [5]
• Rahm Emanuel (later deleted by an editor as irrelevant which is why I came back here) here Carol Moore 20:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC) Carolmooredc

Wikiscanner is a publicly available tool. People who edit WP from their workplace, and are later exposed by others who use Wikiscanner, have only themselves to thank. But it is unlikely that use of Wikiscanner is a good thing in Wikipedia discussions. The most correct people (e.g. Arbcom) have found ways to avoid stating the obvious in COI matters, and it's a good thing if everyone else does too! For an example see this Arbcom case, where they talk around the issue but avoid giving giving the identity of the real person whose account is being banned. Ironies abound, but we just live with them. There are ways of discussing possible COI that don't require speculating as to identity, and we should follow those, except in case of major and obvious abuse. I think I would have tried to avoid saying what you did in the discussion of Community Reinvestment Act. EdJohnston (talk) 21:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you think that the Rahm Emanuel was more subtle? Or in general discussion of possible COI could one say: "remember those with unadmitted COI, especially regarding employment, there is something called wikiscanner." And leaving it at that. I mean it's really just warning them it exists in case they are deleting WP:RS like crazy which was the problem I was having with both articles, esp with anon IPs, before mentioning wikiscanner. Also, do you know where the more general warning that people's COI's could become public (if exposed by media, I think) is? An alternative would be to quote that, but I can't find it. May be deleted. Carol Moore 22:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC) Carolmooredc

COI and Govt Employees

On behalf of federal web managers, I would like to get some clarification and guidance --and maybe start a discussion-- regarding employees of the federal government editing Wikipedia articles. I primarily mean civil servants rather than political appointees and specifically as part of our responsibility to provide accurate information to the public.

We recognize that Wikipedia is a frequent resource for many Internet users, including us. Our log files show that federal websites receive many referrals from Wikipedia. And many of us support and respect the work that the Wikipedia community does to create quality articles. We understand and have studied policies and guidelines, and more than one of us have edited a page or two.

I am reaching out to the Wikipedia community to help us develop appropriate guidelines and policies for our agencies and our participation. COI guidelines seem to discourage employees from editing on behalf of employers, but we frequently see information that is unclear or sometimes wrong. While we know we can just edit, we want to do so transparently and acceptably. There is concern that we will offend the Wikipedia community and encourage negative attention if we get this wrong.

On the other hand, there are great resources in the federal (and state and local) space that would be valuable to Wikipedia users, and we know about them, and can cite them, too.

So, what are the best ways for federal employees to contribute to this project?

For example, some federal editors will only edit in their official capacity from a government computer with a government IP and from a Wikipedia account. Should that account indicate the name of the agency? Whether it is a communications or a program office? I don't think there would be any controversy on editing dates that are incorrect or improving a reference or correcting an error (like which agency has jurisdiction over an area). Are there things that we shouldn't edit? For substantive changes, should we be explicit about our roles on talk pages? If we don't get any feedback on proposed changes, how long should we wait until we make the change ourselves? Other ideas/areas/pitfalls?

The goal is to create guidelines and best practices for the federal web community. We will publish on webcontent.gov.

I am happy to move this to another area if that makes more sense, and if you want to post comments and discussion on my page, please do. Thanks for your help. Kos42 (talk) 03:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Replied over at User talk:Kos42#WP:COI and government employees. Others are welcome to add their own suggestions in that thread. Answering your specific question, I'd say that an employee who is editing an article that relates to what their employer does is strongly advised to give their affiliation when they comment on Talk. (Not their personal identity, just their affiliation). They should also be sure to abide by the advice in WP:COI. Sometimes they may have specialized knowledge due to their work. If so, they should not make changes to articles that are based entirely on personal knowledge; everything should be cited to a published source. EdJohnston (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Given that most govt employees have the arm of the law behind them, I would say that employees editing from work or home on issues related to their job or employeers need a higher standard of disclosure and should do so only by declaring themselves govt employees, either in signature or in edit summary. (I personally would like to go further and see their allowed edits only be to put a tag on information citing the problem with it, leaving any deletion to non-government employees, including alleged defamation in Biographies. Of course, on the other hand their outing themselves in any case might intimidate others into deleting material that shouldn't be deleted! So any editing of material related to their jobs can be problematic. In any case, I think WP:FAQ/Business should specifically mention government employees and will discuss at that talk page. Carol Moore 20:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

---

Early in 2007, to seek clarification about government roles in Wikipedia, I asked questions of Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia's founder, and of the volunteers that can be reached at info@wikimedia.org. I received a couple responses from volunteers who respond to question on behalf of the Wikimedia foundation. Wikimedia does not have "editorial authority" over wikipedia, so they are responses from fellow 'wikimedians'. However, as you will read in the responses, Wikipedia policy is generated by its users, not by the foundation itself. --KPeterson (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

In sum, the responses in these two letters state the following: governement employees can edit wikipedia just like anyone else, but that special designation is not appropriate, even in cases where goverment is THE authority on a subject (a congressional law, EPA policy etc). wikipedia relies on the authority of citations, not its authors. feds should set up individual accounts (not a group acccount such as "EPA"). Further, if we want to make user accounts for officia purposes, they recommend that we should state this in our 'user' page (eg. 'the entries made in my account are made in an official EPA capcity') Lastly, they would be interested in seeing our employee guidance

---

.....One of the issues that we are interested in exploring is the concept of EPA's civic role in making edits/entries in Wikipedia. I have a couple questions for you regarding government employees editing Wikipedia.

1) Federal employees should stay away from editing any entries that could be politically misconstrued. For example, it would be inappropriate for any EPA employee to edit the entry for our current appointed Administrator, Steven Johnson. Rather, in my office, I would advocate that my colleagues edit entries like “Watershed Management” or "TMDLs", topics in which we have expertise and can offer an authoritative definition. However, we want to avoid allegations that we are abusing our civic duty or “spinning” Wikipedia entries for some political agenda. Have other federal agencies approached you about this issue? What is your advice to them? Articles like the one linked below cause concern. http://allspinzone.com/wp/2007/08/17/wikipedia-edits-government-goes-wild/

2) My office administers several of the United States’ wetlands protection programs. http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/. In this case, our office has been given the legal mandate to make the authoritative interpretation of the definitions of “Wetlands”. We could put the correct information into the Wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetlands (copied from our Website), but users may not realize that the edit has been made by an authority on the subject. However, some of the Web community realize that it is very likely that in the next few years, Wikipedia entries regarding specific regulatory acts or environmental concepts will outpace EPA's own pages as the "definitive source" in the minds of many users.

When that happens, does EPA have a duty to monitor and influence those pages so that misinformation about regulatory matters is not propagated? While I do not think that we would want or need to “lock down” about ‘wetlands’, there would be value to the public to be able to verify that the source of a particular Wikipedia edit is an authoritative source. As Wikipedia increasingly becomes a preferred source of information for accessing "the sum of all human knowledge", this may be a concept that the Wikipedia Foundation should consider. This could this be done by using a different color text for entries made by designated authoritative sources. Has Wikipedia considered working with the government to allow special designation for authoring entries for which is the final authority? Irregardless of anything else the government may do, government has a special responsibility when it comes to matters of interpretation of the law that it enforces.

Thank you in advance for your time and consideration on these issues,

-Kol

Thank you for your mail.

It occurred to me that Jimmy may not get to all his emails, so I thought that I would forward this email to the Wikimedia Foundation directly.

Indeed, Jimmy Wales receives so much mail that he cannot process them in real time. In fact, he forwards most of the email he gets about Wikipedia to this address, which is listed as an official contact.

The Wikimedia Foundation largely relies on volunteers for its operations. I'm one of these volunteers and I will try to address your questions. Please note that the Wikimedia Foundation is not an editorial authority for Wikipedia - Wikipedia is what its users make it to be.

1) Federal employees should stay away from editing any entries that could be politically misconstrued. For example, it would be inappropriate for any EPA employee to edit the entry for our current appointed Administrator, Steven Johnson.

My personal opinion is that public employees should stay away from *edits* (not entries) that could be politically misconstrued. However, with due caution, they can make changes that any reasonable person would find objective and not politically motivated. For instance, I see nothing wrong with an EPA employee editing the page about the administrator and fixing an erroneous date, fixing a broken URL (if the official page of the administrator is moved on the EPA site, for instance), or even adding facts that no reasonable person would dispute or find inappropriate for Wikipedia.

Please note, though, that "official" biographies are often written in a style or contain contant inappropriate for Wikipedia. I do not know whether this is the case for the biographies of US government officials but this is certainly true, in our experience, with those written by PR staff in private industry.

To summarize, what is needed is tact.

I also recommend that, if needed, EPA employees editing Wikipedia in an official capacity should create individual accounts and clearly write on their user page that they are doing this. The reason for individual accounts is that, in our experience, group accounts (accounts used by a group of users with a shared password) create more problems than they solve. With group accounts, one user may read messages about the actions made by another user, leading to confusion. As for the mentions on the user pages, this is simple precaution against conspiracy theorists ("this user only edits pages related to the EPA, this is the US government hiding and censoring Wikipedia").

Finally, remember that on Wikipedia, there is a rule that all facts should come with a citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:REF

Rather, in my office, I would advocate that my colleagues edit entries like “Watershed Management” or "TMDLs", topics in which we have expertise and can offer an authoritative definition.

I'd advise much caution there, regarding what is an authoritative definition.

First, a legal definition or classification is not necessarily the only one that can be regarded as valid. On the same issue, different groups of scientists, or even different groups of citizens, may have different definitions. For instance, it is not uncommon, in developed countries, that political parties or other pressure groups dispute the "official" definitions for unemployment or inflation. This is part of normal political debate, if only because the "official" criteria used to measure such or such phenomenon should be open to scientific or political scrutiny.

Second, legal definitions are valid only within a certain jurisdiction. The legal definition of what is a "wetland" in the United States, for instance, does not necessarily apply in other countries. One should always remember that Wikipedia is an international project written with a neutral point of view, not an American project written for and by the US public.

As a consequence, all information regarding US-specific legal classifications should be marked as such. If you write a single sentence talking about a US-specific legal fact, use phrases such as "In the United States,". If you need lenghtier explanations, it might be appropriate to have a section "Legal issues in the United States" or similar. Never ever state a US-specific fact as though it were general.

[There was a time, for instance, when articles about courts and laws were, for some of them, written as though the US situation was a general case, some were written about the British system without noting that it was not a general case, etc.]

> http://allspinzone.com/wp/2007/08/17/wikipedia-edits-government-goes-wild/

The WikiScanner only counts anonymous edits, thus not those made from logged-in accounts. If your users create accounts, they will not be in these "statistics".

An important criterion is that you should never make changes that appear to change "perception". It's not only a question of raw facts. For instance, you might prefer a sentence that puts a positive spin on an EPA project to a sentence putting a negative spin through the use of positive or negative vocabulary - refrain from making the change.

2) My office administers several of the United States’ wetlands protection programs. http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/. In this case, our office has been given the legal mandate to make the authoritative interpretation of the definitions of “Wetlands”. We could put the correct information into the Wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetlands (copied from our Website), but users may not realize that the edit has been made by an authority on the subject.

As I said before, such addition should go to the US-specific section (there's a subsection titled "United States"), because it deals with US-specific legal protections.

I think though that there is a misconception here, which I think is due to misinformation about Wikipedia propagated in the media. Wikipedia prefers not to rely on the individual "authority" of contributors. It relies on the authority of the sources cited. This is why all facts mentioned on Wikipedia should come with a citation of a reputable, identifiable source on the subject. For instance, if you add an official definition, you should cite the specific law, regulation etc. and give a Web link.

As an example, see: Foie gras [fwɑ gʁɑ] (French for "fat liver") is "the liver of a duck or a goose that has been specially fattened by gavage" (as defined by French law[1]).

You'll see that at several points, there are mentions of legal criteria (the definition of foie gras as well as several categories of foie gras, according to the laws of France). On each occasion, these legal criteria are attributed to a specific jurisdiction and come with a citation of a specific part of a law.

If the reader wishes to check what is written on Wikipedia, ideally, he or she should just have to follow the links or bibliographic references and not rely on the fact that such or such user claimed to be an expert on such or such topic.

When that happens, does EPA have a duty to monitor and influence those pages so that misinformation about regulatory matters is not propagated?

You have no "duty". Obviously, you may prefer to keep these pages in your "watch list".

While I do not think that we would want or need to “lock down” about ‘wetlands’, there would be value to the public to be able to verify that

I would recommend against anything that could smack of a will to keep such or such article as a "personal" article, especially from a government agency.

This could this be done by using a different color text for entries made by designated authoritative sources.

There is actually a proposal for automated systems that could evaluate the reliability of users and their modifications from statistical measurements. See the works by Pr Luca de Alfaro et al.

Has Wikipedia considered working with the government to allow special designation for authoring entries for which is the final authority?

No. Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view, not the point of view of the US federal government.

I think you'll save yourself lots of problems if you write US-specific legal classifications in sections or paragraphs clearly marked as containing US-specific legal facts, keeping to dry, objective facts without any interpretation issues. Think of text such as "In the United States, the legal definition of what is a wetland is laid in regulation #blahblah of the EPA: quotation of the definition."

Yours sincerely, David Monniaux

-- Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org --- Disclaimer: all mail to this address is answered by volunteers, and responses are not to be considered an official statement of the Wikimedia Foundation. For official correspondence, you may contact the site operators at <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>.

---

Thank you for your mail.

I appreciate that you have something to offer to Wikipedia, and that in many cases your staff may be the real experts on a particular topic - such as what constitutes a U.S. "wetland". People in such a position are more than welcome to suggest additions or modifications to articles, and even to join the people who keep an eye out for the insertion of conspiracy theories and the like. However, the thing I think is critical to engaging with Wikipedia and the other projects of the Foundation is to be up-front and honest about who you are. If staff want to go to a specific environmental article and add a link to a newly published report then anyone looking in the history should be able to see that. Much of the sensationalist press on the issue of government employees editing Wikipedia has been as a result of it only becoming apparent when the Wikiscanner tool was made available. If user "Mike (EPA)" comes along, links to a new report on an article discussion page, and comes back a few days later and inserts it in the actual article - assuming nobody else has - then what is going on is apparent to all. Personally I see no reason why an EPA employee can't also be a good Wikimedian; they can contribute other things too - like photographs that perhaps didn't make the cut for your websites but are still public domain.

The one key, non-negotiable issue with Wikipedia is its Neutral Point of View policy. So if you do have someone saying "Hi, I'm from the EPA I'd like to add xxxx to this article" they have to consider that the audience is global, and it may be misconstrued if they remove negative or critical material. To that end it is important to engage the community on discussion pages. I don't know if WMF would have to go as far as verifying who's who from the EPA, but I'm sure you can understand that on-wiki someone can readily claim to be something they're not.

I'm hoping this helps you formulate some slightly clearer questions. It would be a real first to see someone like the EPA adopt a set of employee guidelines for contributing to Wikipedia as part of your mission to inform the public. A parallel set of guidelines may be needed for staff who can't resist the urge to update the article on their favourite TV show during their lunch break, but I suspect policies to cover that will become commonplace over the next few years - and not just for government employees.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts on my above musings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolpeterson (talk • contribs) 22:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Further Discussion Government Issue

There is a lot of material above which does seem to suggest some text changes to WP:COI policies. Does someone want to make such a brief and specific proposal? My concern remains government government spying that people editing FBI, CIA, DIA, IRS, DEA, Homeland Security and other such sensitive sites (not to mention any agency overseeing some other activity they engage in) will become fearful upon seeing an employee of those agencies editing -- especially upon seeing them making criticisms of the article or deleting controversial but WP:RS info. How do we deal with this real issue? Don't see any insights above and maybe someone has to go back to the top on this. Carol Moore 16:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

I don't see much likelihood of intimidation. There was a case at WP:COIN some time back where a couple of people connected to the UK police were making inappropriate edits. The official connections of the people making the edits were no obstacle to properly dealing with the matter. It was handled the same way any edits by the employees of a business or corporation would have been addressed. EdJohnston (talk) 17:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, we'll think positive thoughts til becomes more of a problem. In meantime, it does seem that at very least WP:COI should specify we're talking about employees of governments as well as companies. Also note proposed to add government to Wikipedia:FAQ/Business - Or do we need a separate one - Wikipedia:FAQ/Government?? Carol Moore 17:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

[Wikipedia:FAQ/Business] needs to change "business" to "organizations" and this guideline already is about any COI even if not due to being part of an organization. Anyone who is being paid to edit is on thin ice and needs to be extra careful that their edits are neutral. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Replying on both WP:COI and WP:FAQ/Business: As long as in the texts "organizations" is described something like as "corporate, private, church, charitable or governmental." Anyone else have a comment or should one of us just edit article to get your attention? :-) Carol Moore 21:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Many businesses are owned by individuals rather than companies or organizations. Additionally, if somebody works for a Church, and they are editing religious topics, I would not see that as a COI. Excessively general descriptions are more likely to fail. I have proposed a sister guideline that could be of use in some sitatuons Wikipedia:Advocacy. Jehochman ^Talk 22:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem is we have someone from a governmental organization asking for guidance. Just making it clear the policy applies to any kind of employer-employee situation and list a non-exclusive list saves people time of having to ask. Obviously, whether there is a COI for an employee depends on whether the article is directly related to the actual employer, or a very specific political, economic, religious, philosophical historical event, policy position or action that that employer is involved with in some way, more than to any philosophy that employer might have, unless again that was the subject of an article. On the other hand if an employee is paid $100 a day to edit wikipedia in line with the employer's philosophy (may lottery winning fantasy), it certainly is an edge up on a non-paid editor whose motivation and POV may be less intense. In fact, I just declared one myself for a tiny organization, with an article someone else started, I do $200 a year worth of web work for. Keeps me on my best behavior :-) Carol Moore 23:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

I agree with the thinking expressed here. One caveat about government employees: The U.S. government is a huge organization. A postal worker doesn't necessarily have a real conflict of interest when writing about the U.S. Army, or the EPA., and vice versa. Some conglomerates also have so many divisions that an employee may not even realize all of the other businesses to which she is connected. I don't know if there's any way of succinctly limiting the COI to closely related parts of an organization. Perhaps this is just a matter for good judgment. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

<------back-dent OK, I made two small changes that could be tweaked. Also see Wikipedia_talk:FAQ/Business#Does_this_article_apply_to_Government_Employees.3F where suggested renaming FAQ/Organizations Carol Moore 19:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Deliberately biased editing

• an expert on climate change is welcome to contribute to articles on that subject, even if that editor is deeply committed to the subject.
• Activities regarded by insiders as simply "getting the word out" may appear promotional or propagandistic to the outside world. If you edit articles while involved with organizations that engage in advocacy in that area, you may have a conflict of interest.

I was hoping this article would provide some useful guidance for dealing with the rampant bias and pervasive tag team editing on climate change articles like Global warming. Instead I find a exception just for that area!

There is tremendous controversy over theories of global warming and in particular the data collection methods relating to temperature. I hope Wikipedia would not take a side in this controversy, but rather agree to remain impartial.

Partisans on one side say that there is no controversy 'within science'. Yet hundreds of peer-reviewed articles have been published as well as dozens of technical or popular books (citing these peer-reviewed articles), challenging the mainstream view.

I disagree with the idea that some new concept of "undue weight" should trump NPOV. (If the link in the previous sentence is still red, that means it's not a widely known concept outside in the real world.) We should describe all views fairly. We should not endorse any one view, not even a mainstream view.

I would like to see writers who are partisans for the mainstream view banned from editing articles related to that view, on account of their demonstrated conflict of interest. I would like to see Wikipedia:WikiProject Neutrality revived and get to work on removing all this bias stemming from conflicts of interest.

Sigh. But I'm not holding my breath. Every time I've asked for this sort of help in the last 3 or 4 years, I'm either ignored or personally attacked. I was barely able to save my essay on Wikipedia:POV pushing, by userfying it. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

No offense intended Ed, but you also edit topics to which you are, by appearances, "deeply committed". Can you describe how you think editing religious topics is different from editing scientific topics. How do we define the "mainstream view" on topics like science and religion? Why should "partisans" of the "mainstream view" on those topics be banned, but not partisans of the minority view? (Some might argue that partisans of any issue are a problem, but that's not your proposal.) ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Guideline vs Policy. Need some Policy.

I'm having trouble reconciling. I've been asked to help a (IMO notable and worthy of an article) organization by creating an article on the organization. I declined, feeling it was inappropriate to do so, based on my recollection of COI, and for other reasons mentioned here, felt it was not a good idea for the organization. Now I come here and see that it's not forbidden for someone with a COI, such as an employee of organization X, to edit X's page. I also see this: "Editing in the interests of public relations is particularly frowned upon." but not forbidden. I saw an admin who publicly admitted being on an org's staff make a controversial edit: deletion of a critical paragraph that was in compliance with V, RS and NPOV that had remained on the org's page for over a year. I am not here to admonish the admin and do not wish to reveal the edit or admin, and did not wish to argue over whether the edit respected NPOV. I do feel that this is not an isolated case; I have seen previous criticism of the admin's edits appropriateness with respect to COI. I have also seen cases where PR firms, identified by IP/rDNS, edited clients' articles in controversial ways. I'm here to propose the promotion of the following to POLICY: Controversial edits by an editor with a known COI are forbidden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elvey (talk • contribs) 23:32, December 9, 2008 (UTC)

Clarification

The COI policy confuses me. It says that editing with a conflict of interest (particularly when there is money involved) is 'strongly discouraged', but pretty much all the reasons why seem to come back to other policies - notability, npov etc. Most of the cases that come to the attention of the COI noticeboard also seem to involve editors who have written crappy pages, created pages on non-notable subjects, linkspammed or whatever - all things which would be bad whether the editor has a conflict of interest or not.

So, is editing with a conflict of interest considered bad in and of itself, or only when it leads to bad editing? It does seem like the vast majority of people with a COI make bad edits, but it does not necessarily follow that COI automatically leads to bad editing. For starters, everyone who comes onto Wikipedia for the sole purpose of promoting their company or whatever is a new editor and thus likely to make bad edits regardless of their motivations. Also, I'm pretty sure that there are plenty of editors out there with conflicts of interest that no one knows about because they haven't drawn attention to themselves by making obviously biased or otherwise crappy edits. I think it's probably in the best interests of Wikipedia to encourage these people to be open about what they're doing rather than passing themselves off as ordinary editors.

Basically I think we need to decide whether conflict of interest editing is bad regardless of the quality of the edits (and if so, why) or just when it violates other policies. If the former, the COI page should be more explicit about this, and provide reasons why COI editing is bad in and of itself. If the latter, the term 'strongly discouraged' should probably be dropped and COI editors encouraged to be open about who they are and abide by a code of conduct, something along the lines of 'obey the spirit and letter of all policies, don't get involved in controversial editing, and be honest about what you're doing'. --Helenalex (talk) 01:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

First, you need to claim the posting above this one - perhaps make the clarification a subsection.

Second, a quick reading of your page suggested there may be some problems, but you solution was not clear. I think you'd basically have to create a whole talk page with your suggested alternative, preferably in two columns New next to the Current one.

Third, I don't know if free lance wikipedia editing for companies is frowned upon, but you were open about it. But you should link to that section of your talk page here. CarolMooreDC (talk)

Oops. I forgot to add that stuff to this page (the most relevant one...) because everyone ignored my post on this page until now. Anyway, my suggested alternative is here and the stuff about my conflict of interest is here. The post in the section above this one is someone else's. --Helenalex (talk) 07:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

So, here is the essence of what I'm trying to do and why:

I have been editing Wikipedia (without any kind of conflict of interest) for the last two years, while working on my PhD. Because this is not the greatest time to enter the job market, I decided to investigate the possibility of making my Wikipedia skills and experience commercially available. The first thing I did was find out whether Wikipedia actually allows this kind of thing, so I looked up the conflict of interest guidelines. These are very ambiguous: they do not perform the basic function of guidelines, which is to guide people, nor could they be used to settle a dispute over COI. At the moment I could appeal to them to argue that they only frown upon COI because it tends to lead to bad editing; where the edits are fine the COI is not a problem. However other people could point out that COI editing, particularly for financial gain, is 'strongly discouraged'. I could therefore potentially be blocked or have all my edits reverted even if I wasn't breaking any policies.

The guidelines should be clarified to more clearly allow good COI edits, for two main reasons:

• All editors should be judged on the quality of their edits, not their motivation. If someone corrects demonstrably untrue information on behalf of a client, in terms of Wikipedia's quality this is no different from them doing it because they happen to notice and fix it for free. Professional editors should expect to have their edits scrutinised more closely than volunteers, and should adhere to policy more strictly. People who linkspam, add PR speak, delete referenced information, create clearly non-notable articles or otherwise violate policy should still have their work reverted and, if necessarily, they should still be blocked. But this should always be because of policy, not because of their conflict of interest.

• People are already editing for financial gain: it is in Wikipedia's interest to encourage them to be open about it. At the moment competent COI editors (ie, those who don't draw attention to themselves with really bad edits) have a pretty strong incentive not to declare what they're up to. As long as they appear to abide by policy and don't edit exclusively on one topic they can usually edit to their hearts' content without anyone suspecting they're not an ordinary contributor. If they declare themselves, they run the risk of being blocked or harassed. If they were encouraged to declare their COIs, other editors could keep an eye on them to make sure they don't cross any lines that they shouldn't. The current guidelines reward the sneaky and punish the honest.

If there is strong feeling against editing for profit, I won't do it but, nonetheless, the guidelines need to be clearer. My suggested rewrite, with changes made by or at the suggestion of three different people so far, are here. A full explanation of the proposed changes is here.

I have posted notices about this on various project and policy boards around Wikipedia. Changes should ideally be made by someone without a conflict of interest, so anyone who wants to do this, please do. If no one wants to do this within the next week, and there are no major objections, or if an obvious consensus develops, I will change the guidelines. Thanks to all the people who have already given feedback (and yes, I do know about mywikibiz.com). --Helenalex (talk) 11:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this change would be helpful. All editors should be judged on the quality of their edits, not their motivation. This would take away the enforcement of most of our behavioral standards. The very definition of vandalism includes that the editing is intended to harm the encyclopedia, which is a judgement about the person's motivation. A puzzling edit that was put there to cause trouble is reverted on sight and the editor may be sanctioned; a puzzling edit that represents a possibly-misguided attempt to improve the article is kept and a serious discussion is held. That is why the motivation of the editor matters. The proposed editing of WP for pay might be allowed if it were closely scrutinized, since WP:COIN can reach a consensus that certain things are or are not appropriate. If you don't believe your business can proceed unless WP:COI is watered down to the degree you request, then it shouldn't be done. EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't want to say anything til someone with more experience spoke first and EdJohnson's comments make sense. Because I've fantasized about being a "neutral" freelance editor myself, I have tnought about this. Like, who's gonna pay you for being required by wiki policy to enter the worst scandal your employer/contractor's had which had so much publicity NOT including it would be POV and defacto evidence of COI? If a person is just a partisan, they are more likely to be able to control their POV. But when they are getting paid it can be harder and thus becomes a COI.

Also, one side of a conflict may have a strong COI for deep set emotional reasons/loyalities to protect a topic while another may merely be insistent that true facts not be suppressed and argue on and on on that basis, which may or may not be a POV?

My one mini-COI was in editing pages about a group and its director out of my own person interest. I was doing $200 a year of web page editing for them - but not paid for wiki editing. I keep telling him to find someone who's a more expert web designer anyway. And given the tiny income, I didn't have a problem putting in or leaving in a couple things he didn't like. So POV to COI can be a spectrum but there is no doubt, the more your income depends on your boss or contractor, the more you'll find yourself making edits that are not NPOV or defending edits other editors think are POV, which can be disruptive.

There are a couple people who are so contentious I've had to ask one if he was getting paid by a special interest group he does an excellent job of representing to pull all his numbers (but I didn't quite comply with instructions in this article and his friends jumped on me). (Of course, he might just be a wiki addict or stubborn taurus the bull like me and does it hours a day for free!) There's another who is an economist and I think he's doing this as much to please some superior as his own liberal-government-laws-are-so-perfect viewpoint. But haven't gotten around to yet. Enough from me.... CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this is not a good direction to follow. Several points have already been mentioned. One more that comes to mind is the issue of paid and unpaid editors working on the same article. If there's a disagreement, the paid editor has a financial incentive to see his or her version prevail. That profoundly distorts the building of consensus and other editing tasks. Everyone who comes here should make their main interest building a better encyclopedia. Anyone who has an different primary motive has a conflict. We should not encourage folks who don't place the project's best interests first. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The biggest problem I have with wikipedia is editors who are hell bent on deleting anything negative (or positive) about their topic of interest, no matter how well known and WP:RS the factoid/incident/etc is, even when passerbys come by to the page and say "I can't believe this isn't in the article." And they keep reverting with one new dubious excuse after another, against the views of a majority of editors, for months and months and months - without ever bothering to put in anything positive (or negative) to balance it out. I mean is one supposed to do besides quit editing the article and let them WP:OWN it?? It's not like they'd tell you "Oh, yea, I get paid 100,000 a year to do this" if they are paid. Even if it's just an extreme POV, when you get enough editors on enough articles complaining that this POV is so strong it must be a conflict of interest, it seems like it's time for those editors to get together and do something!! Assuming it's wiki-legal for us to do that; who can remember all the do's and don'ts after a while... CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who follows WP:COIN will notice that we have a surprising amount of tolerance for employees editing their companies' articles. We expect that employees will show deference to WP policy and will listen carefully when problems are pointed out. Employees sometimes have useful information to contribute. On the other hand, employees who remove the COI tag and restore promotional content after it gets reverted by regular editors can get into deep water quickly. Any editor-for-hire would have the same conflicts as a company employee and may or may not have any special knowledge that might be helpful. An editor-for-hire who listens well and is a good negotiator has a chance of being successful. EdJohnston (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh good, so people do care. Sorry for forcing the issue, but it seemed like the only way to get a response other than a vague agreement that the guidelines need work. Since there is clearly opposition to change without discussion followed by consensus (that wasn't clear until now), I won't make any changes unless there is an obvious consensus - and now that a proper discussion has started we may actually reach one.

Can we now try to reach a consensus on the key issue, which is what Wikipedia's stance on COI editing actually is? As far as I can see, there are three ways we could go:

1. Modify the guidelines to make it clear that COI editing is allowable as long as such editors do not work against Wikipedia's interests, abide by the spirit and letter of all policies and guidelines, and avoid making controversial edits without consensus.

2. Modify the guidelines to make it clear that COI editing, especially for financial gain, is unacceptable regardless of the quality of the edits. The only exceptions would be in regards to WP:BLP (specifically libel) or copyright infringement.

3. Make no signficant changes to the guidelines, retaining the current ambiguity.

No changes should be made, by me or anyone else, unless there is a general consensus in favour of change in a particular direction. If there is no clear consensus I will drop the whole thing. --Helenalex (talk) 01:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

In response to the specific issues raised above:

Ed, regarding motivation, a change in policy would encourage COI editors to be more open about their motivations, allowing other editors to understand their edits in the light of what they are trying to achieve.

Carol, I'm not 100% convinced that a partisan would be more NPOV than a paid editor. While the paid editor does have an interest in keeping coverage of their client positive, they have an even stronger incentive not to get blocked. I do agree that any editor for hire would be tempted to stray over the line, which is why its important that they be open about what they're doing. If they know that they are being watched and risk being blocked if they edit with a clear bias, they are less likely to give into this temptation than an editor who is masquerading as an ordinary editor and could probably get away with it. In regards to your second post, editors who persistently make POV edits or otherwise break policy should still be reverted or blocked, regardless of what the COI policy is. Editors whose paycheck depends on them being able to edit Wikipedia would probably be pretty reluctant to do anything to get themselves blocked.

Will, I agree, but I think that careful COI editing can benefit Wikipedia or at least not work against its aims. Expanding stubs with referenced information, adding good images, correcting inaccuracies and making updates is surely a good thing whether it's done for free or for pay. COI editors should seek community consensus before going any further than that, though. --Helenalex (talk) 02:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Recommend no changes in the guideline at this time, but it is always appropriate to write user essays that expound on the guideline and see if other editors adopt them. If they do, move them to Wikipedia:Essayname. Eventually, the content of those essays may be merged into the guideline. That's one way to form consensus, and change in consensus is how guidelines change.

IMHO, COI editors who act ultra-conservatively, who do nothing more than remove incorrect material, add missing citations, and make non-content changes like typo-fixing, need not disclose, but it is to their benefit to do so. Those that edit "as a normal editor" with the "normal editor" level of boldness absolutely should disclose so they can get their hand slapped and reverted when they introduce new material that's self-serving without discussing it first. Those that are too bold too often should be asked politely to back off when making self-serving edits, blocked, or ultimately banned from editing content related to their conflict of interest. With the exception of "making" people disclose COI, I think all of these actions can be done within the current guidelines and policies. However, it is within the policy to treat people who are "too bold, too often" in ways that generate a lot of reverts as disruptive, and it is also within the policies and guidelines to remove all good faith assumptions from anyone who is later found to have been editing non-conservatively in a COI article. Trust me, you don't want to lose the assumption of good faith.

By the way, the Obama, Clinton, and probably McCain 2008 US Presidential Candidates had people monitoring articles about them, removing incorrect information. I do not know if they were so bold/arrogant as to insert material or if they just waited for their fans to do it for them. The right way is to wait. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• I would suggest rewording the guideline to something realistic. Rules that aren't followed do not help the encyclopedia. In practice, we do accept articles and edits made with COI -- COi is just a reason for being careful about them. We should probably say so. Should we instead enforces the rule? I don't think we'd have all that much of an encyclopedia of many topics, because who is actually likely to write the articles, except the people who are interested in the subject? On most topics, they will almost inevitably have a COI. I've done a few scientist bios--they have always been about people whom I knew, because why else would I have bothered in particular? (except sometimes in order to rescue an article). The one on my advisor was requested by the relevant workgroup--as nobody else stepped up, i found the sources & I wrote it. Had anyone else stepped up, it would surely have been another student or colleague. Who writes about sports teams but the fans? or for that matter, figures in entertainment? Let anyone write, just as the motto says, and the rest of us will edit it. When i deal with spam--and I watch dozens of highly susceptible pages for this--it is enormously easier to deal with frank COI. DGG (talk) 06:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

More substantial change than some essay that chips away at the guideline is needed. Like the editors above, I strongly feel that full open disclosure of our motives is worth far more than blanket refusals to allow editors with COIs to make productive edits. That said, we should also work in the other direction: We need to further strengthen the wording of the section that makes it clear that partisanship and fanboyism are also dealt with here, perhaps even drafting a short subsection section with easy to remember redirect. It'd be a nice thing for people WP:IARing WP:LAWYER to wave around. MrZaius^talk 10:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• I think DGG is confusing interest with conflict of interest. Nobody writes articles about topics that don't interest them. The problem comes when their interest in promoting (or denigrating) that topic conflicts with the need to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The old WP:VANITY page, a predecessor to this guideline, pointed out that it is very hard to write a neutral, verifiable autobiography. For some people, it may be too hard to write a neutral article about their sports team, and it's almost always impossible to place the needs of Wikipedia first if one is being paid to promote a particular subject. So yes, celebrate the idea of writing about one's interests, but at the same time require that all editors put the goals of this project first. If they can't then they shouldn't edit those topics.   Will Beback  talk  18:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd say at most you'd need only subtle clarifying changes here and there, which wording should be specifically suggested here on talk. People will read what they want to read, so having strong language against conflict of interest upfront is necessary to detract those who are coming into to push their personal or groups or company's agenda. Later, if they get that far, they can find out how to edit without letting conflict of interest hurt wikipedia.

What I'm going to look at is if the language defining NON-paid COI's is clear enough cause that's the bigger problem I see. Including people accusing each of other it all the time on certain articles, without really defining when POV becomes COI or going to next step of complaining about it in appropriate place. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Will Beback: Actually, I do write articles that have little or no interest to me, but only when I'm motivated by something. Sadly, usually it's seeing a terribly-written article on a notable subject while patrolling new- or random-pages, and WP:STARTOVER is better than WP:DONOTHING or WP:BANDAID. Several times over the years I've spent a few hours researching a topic that I didn't really care about. I'd be very surprised if I'm not the only one who does this. Now, I'm not saying these are good articles, but I try to at least write decent stubs or starts. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, writing a page on one's advisor was one of the things one is specifically not supposed to do, which is why I mentioned it. But that advice seems to no longer be present, so I guess i didn't violate it after all. But about what is called here true COI, I see nothing at all wrong with an employee of a company or organization writing an article about it, provided it gets edited. The page makes a particular references to PR staff doing this--i have found in working with them that some of them know how to do it well and objectively to our standards, and others can be taught--leaving a large number who do not let themselves be taught, and get blocked, and, if they are lucky, get the article written properly for them. I'd replace the rule with a rule saying to declare one's COI, and read first how to write an article, how to add links properly, etc. etc. DGG (talk) 02:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so there seems to be general agreement that a) the guidelines should not actually encourage COI editing, and b) that COI editing can be fine in practice as long as the editors put Wikipedia's interests first. So, I suggest the following:

• Keep the nutshell summary which reads 'Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers, unless you are certain that the interests of Wikipedia remain paramount.' I would also suggest adding something along the lines of 'Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a promotional tool'.
• Modify or replace the intro sentence reading 'COI editing is strong discouraged' to emphasise that COI editing is strongly discouraged because it tends to result in bad editing, not because it's inherently bad in itself. It should warn COI editors to be very careful without appearing to legitimate the blocking or automatic reversion of COI editors who abide by the rules.
• Replace the sentence 'Producing promotional articles for Wikipedia on behalf of clients is strictly prohibited' because 'promotional' is too vague to be useful. Suggest replacing it with something along the lines of 'Editors should not create articles which serve solely to promote their subject. All Wikipedia articles should contain useful information written as if from a neutral point of view. The writing of 'puff pieces' and advertisements on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited'. This gives people a better idea of exactly what it is that we have a problem with and should hopefully prevent Wikilawyering over whether or not a specific article is 'promotional'.
• Add a prominent section encouraging COI editors to declare their interests, especially if their editing goes beyond the clearly non controversial. --Helenalex (talk) 00:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I like your suggestions, but the third one needs some emphasis on those who contribute as a profession. Perhaps "If you contribute to Wikipedia on behalf of clients, you owe it to both them and the encyclopedia to make very sure you understand the standards for content here, and do not insert promotional material." DGG (talk) 03:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

If people are making a living off it, either as part of job or free lancing, shouldn't they use their real names? CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

DGG - Sounds good.

Carol - Are you talking about user names, or just giving real names on their user page? I have no objection to either, but we might need to check the policies on anonymous editing. --Helenalex (talk) 05:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

We don't require company employees to give their real names, though we sometimes challenge editors to admit their affiliations. Company people sometimes choose to give their real name and even their job role. When they do that it greatly improves their credibility in COI discussions. EdJohnston (talk) 06:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I was using an excuse to talk about my own opposition to anonymity in general; but I know I'm in a small minority. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

In terms of my second suggestion above, suggest replacing 'COI editing is strongly discouraged' with 'Editing which prioritises the promotion of the subject above Wikipedia's aims is liable to be reverted and, in serious cases, will result in account blocking. All editors are strongly encouraged to familiarise themselves with Wikipedia's five pillars, and in particular policies regarding notability and neutral point of view.' This causes slight repetition in the sentence following, but I think the need to hammer home the message of 'don't try to manipulate Wikipedia for PR or you will get blocked' justifies it.

As per the fourth suggestion, suggest adding the following paragraph to the end of the intro:

Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested. Most Wikipedians will appreciate your honesty. Editors who disguise their COIs are often exposed, creating a perception that they and their employer are trying to distort Wikipedia. --Helenalex (talk) 02:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

"COI editing is strongly discouraged" comes right after a very specific definition of what Conflict of Interest is, so therefore it seems appropriate. At this point I've lost track of what it is you feel prevents you from editing the way you want to for clients: the fact you should say you are doing it for them on the talk page? the fact that you may only be able to influence some controversial changes from the talk page? Or what? CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I have absolutely no problem with either of the things you mention. What I am worried about is that people will take it upon themselves to 'strongly discourage' what I'm doing, even if I'm not breaching any policies, by reverting all my edits or trying to get me blocked. Currently the guidelines could be seen as justifying this, since that sentence fairly strongly suggests that COI editing is bad in and of itself. I thought we'd come to a consensus that Wikipedia is okay with COI as long is it puts Wikipedia first, doesn't breach policy etc, and I'm not sure how else to express this. If you can think of a better wording, please suggest it, or tell me if I've got the wrong end of the stick and there's still opposition to COI editing no matter what form it takes. --Helenalex (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think the problem here is that you do not realize (and it may not want to explicitly state) that wikipedia is in effect making other editors the "police" of COI. If you can manage to make all the edits you want without raising COI concerns without - or despite declaring your COI - then you are scot free. But once a COI is revealed in whatever fashion it takes just one or two editors opposed to your editing the page to effectively shut you down except for your asking for changes on talk pages. You just have to explain that problem to the people you intend to work for in advance and see what happens. Your motives and intentions may be pure, but frankly I think there are a bunch of secretly paid people pulling all kinds of nasty stuff on Wikipedia now and I don't want to give them the least bit of encouragement! It's hard enough to out them as it is. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The thing about this is that - as you pretty much say yourself - this is a really strong incentive for people not to be honest about what they're doing. If someone can make all the edits they want scot free, but if their interests are declared or revealed people can shut them down, why on earth would anyone declare their interests? Even for someone who genuinely wants to work with Wikipedia and within all its policies, there is still a strong incentive not to be honest, let alone someone whose edits are likely to cross the line. Yet it is in Wikipedia's interests to encourage this kind of honesty. You talk about the difficulty of outing people, but a blanket 'we don't like COI' statement removes all incentive for people to out themselves.

IMO the dickheads who pull the nasty stuff will pull it regardless of what the guidelines and policies are. The trouble is distinguishing them from essentially well meaning people who have personal bias or whatever. By declaring themselves, ethical COI editors are basically saying 'I have enough respect for Wikipedia and am confident enough that I am abiding by all the rules that I encourage people to minutely examine all my edits for signs of bias, and probably expose myself to some hostility'.

Would strongly discouraging COI editing without full disclosure be an acceptable compromise? --Helenalex (talk) 06:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You do have a point there. But again caveats don't belong in the lead, further down. Otherwise this is one of those places I'm more likely to let those with more experience here have a greater say. This week anyway. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Since we don't seem to be reaching a consensus, I will move on from this for now. I do hope you will reconsider, though - my suggested change (COI editing without full disclosure is strongly discouraged) encourages openness and should warn the sneaky bastards just as much as the existing version. Some input from someone other than the two of us would also be nice...

Other than that, can I take it that everyone is okay with the other edits I suggested above (with DGG's addition)? --Helenalex (talk) 21:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I would strongly support such changes and agree with the summary above: "COI editing is allowable as long as such editors do not work against Wikipedia's interests, abide by the spirit and letter of all policies and guidelines, and avoid making controversial edits without consensus." I would also potentially support requiring the disclosure of conflicts before making any contentious edits (in policy terms, allow conflicted edits where the conflict is disclosed). Conversely I would strongly oppose any measure to ban conflicted editors (after all they are usually the most knowledgeable and motivated on a subject), or indeed any measure that would force them underground; if it's going to happen anyway (and it is) then we may as well avoid punishing people for disclosing conflicts. I'm working on reducing the backlog (currently ~2,500 articles) by identifying [ab]use of the {{COI}} tag regardless of the quality of the edits and have written an essay for raising and explaining the issue non-confrontationally (rather than just stripping the offending tags). -- samj _in^out 14:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I wrote about this on talk sometime ago. As someone with, by normal standards, a relatively weak COI I made the "mistake" of declaring this in my User page. The result was that no matter what edits I made and how well they were sourced they were being challenged (and usually deleted) by others with a different POV purely on the basis of WP:COI. The same editors (including it must be noted with disappointment some admins) were ignoring unsourced POV edits in the other direction by anonymous editors, creating a serious WP:UNDUE issue. With virtually every change looking like it would have to head to mediation I eventually gave up out of sheer exhaustion. The end result of that is that in terms of making a good, sourced, wikipedia article, it was a mistake for me to declare my potential COI - in my opinion that is very, very wrong. People with a COI should be encouraged to declare it. The policy as written does the exact opposite. Disclosed COI means that editos can be more carefully watched under the usual NPOV, RS, UNDUE policies, which is really where the problem lies, not COI. So, in short I strongly support the proposed changes. --Insider201283 (talk) 00:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

source, not Wikipedia editor, has a conflict of interest; that's not a defined COI, oddly

If a source "S" cited in an article text or footnote has a conflicting interest in the subject on which S is speaking in Wikipedia, that seems not to be a conflict of interest within the meaning of this COI article, because this article says "A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of ... a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia ... and the aims of an individual editor ... " (italics added) not the aims of a source cited in Wikipedia. Therefore it would seem that this article should be broadened.

Or, as a distant second choice, the article's defined COI could be left narrow, and S, who has the common-parlance, non-wikipedia conflicting interest, could arguably be disqualified from being a Reliable Source, if one stretches in one's use of the Reliable Sources guideline, e.g. one could cite that guideline's words "How reliable a source is depends on context" and then argue that S might not be reliable because S has a specified common-parlance conflicting interest. But some other wiki user might counter-argue that S's interest is not a wikipedia-defined COI. Thoughts? Bo99 (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

These issues should be the domain of wp:NPOV and wp:FRINGE. Perhaps those two should contain a small section about this specific issue. I think any wording here would be best framed as NPOV and FRINGE related issues. NJGW (talk) 20:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the good creative thinking, but those rules and/or guidelines are not really on point. Assume the very usual case: the source S is supporting an idea that is not a fringe view; and the Wikipedia article conforms to the neutral point of view requirement in that the article purports to summarize what the source says. The problem remains that the source has a conflicting interest in the subject, and we can't even label the conflict of interest a Wikipedia "COI", as this article now is worded, because the source, S, is not a Wikipedia editor. Bo99 (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

See wp:NPOVREASON. Also, the fringe guideline explains how to handle many situations with multiple view points, not just obvious fringe science. Furthermore, according to policy, "All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them." If there are disagreements over the quality/validity of a particular source, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is the way to go. I don't think COI needs to be streched to cover all these issues (it is afterall explicityly about the actions of editors), but language connecting to the proper policies/guidelines could be useful. NJGW (talk) 21:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the good creative thinking. Those links are not precisely on the target i raised but they got me thinking and to sort of a resolution: This article covers only

Conflict Of Interests Held By An Editor Writing In Wikipedia (and should be so re-titled, in order to be written precisely and well, but i'm just making the suggestion and will leave it at that; no reply necessary). In contrast, a

conflict of interests held by a source cited in Wikipedia is not covered by any Wiki policy/guideline/etc i believe, and is only covered in Conflicts Of Interest, barely and implicitly. Bo99 (talk) 00:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

What Bo99 is talking about goes beyond minority viewpoints. For example, if commentator X says that Y is the best thing since sliced bread, and X has a financial interest in Y. I'm not sure what should be done about this, but the issue is not (IMO) covered by existing policy. --Helenalex (talk) 05:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if X has a financial interest in Y etc, then X is not a wp:Reliable source. If you think RS needs a clause about this (giving feedback on how to deal with instances where such a relationship is suspected, and directing deadlocked editors to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard) that's a good idea. There could be a link to there from here as well. But there's no need to change what this guideline is about: Wikipedia editors with a COI. This is a behavioral guideline. RS is a about sources. NJGW (talk) 09:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly - biased sources are inherently unreliable (at least when dealing with bias issues). A number of recent discussions have led me to the idea of listing reliable sources (e.g. the blacklisting of ReadWriteWeb and the desire for a whitelist to prove that a given source was considered reliable). I doubt I'm the first and there's no doubt better forums for that thread. -- samj _in^out 17:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This is about editors' conflicts of interest. If you believe a source has a conflict of interest you can

1. describe WP:RS factoids related to their point of view: "Asbestos, Inc., which claims it is being harassed by "blood sucking attorneys,"(ref) has been sued by 1.2 million individuals for its failure to properly alert buyers to the dangers of asbestos.(ref)
2. find a source which actually details the conflict of interest using that term

WP:NPOV workshop might help you. Linked somewhere on WP:NPOV CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Change company name

Mijks (talk) 13:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC) On this page, I tried to edit a specific part which is the company name (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Mijksenaar). Two years ago, it changed from Bureau Mijksenaar into Mijksenaar. So as an employee, I'd like the correct name to be used in future, not a conflict of interest I suppose! Mijks (talk) 13:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Better language identifying entities

Right now WHAT is covered by COI is rather sloppily described variously as: "of individuals or of organizations, including employers" - "individuals, companies, or groups" - "the individuals and groups being promoted." - "some figure, group, institution, or product" - "yourself, your group, your company, or your pet idea," - a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization - and "public relations departments of corporations or governmental entities; or of other public or private for-profit or not-for-profit"

I think we need a little more conformity in our thoughts. How about:

• two basic categories are individuals and organizations (which I guess occasionally might be called "entities")
• word individual(s), modified as necessary, should be used instead of "figure" or "person"; (for example "individuals revered as celebrities or role models")
• organizations should be clearly defined up front as "companies, corporations, governmental entities (including militaries), not-for-profits, special interest groups" (Note I added militaries because of two off-wiki recent runs ins where people didn't quite get that the military is a governmental entity as opposed to some free standing above reproach entity, certainly not one tainted by COI.)
• unmodified "groups" is just too vague and should not be used at all; loosely organized "special interest groups" actually are a bigger problem on wikipedia and phrase should be spelled out.
• For future discussion: "Ideas" as COIs: obviously lots of people have strong POVs on issues they write on; when does it become a COI? That has to be made clearer, first by using better language than that sprinkled above. I'd suggest some specific language like: "opinions, ideologies or traditions" (or some other relevant combination) be used where there is such discussion.

Obviously exact implementation would be decided as article was edited, but if people think this makes sense I can do it in the article and people can change as they see necessary. I did a similar clean up in changing Wikipedia:FAQ/Business to Wikipedia:FAQ/Organization. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the first two suggestions are necessary, but I also can't see any problem with them. The other three sound like a good idea. The last one should probably be discussed further as it seems like an expansion of the definition of COI. A very sensible one IMO but others might feel differently. With regards to the first four, I suggest you go ahead and make changes, and if people see problems they can raise them here - it will be easier to discuss wording of specific sentences once the changes have been made and it doesn't sound like this is a big enough change that it needs to be fully prepped on the talk page. --Helenalex (talk) 05:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. Didn't clarify the last one was For future discussion: as I just did. Will give people a few more days to opine. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been procrastinating about doing this, but may soon so speak now if don't like proposal (assuming it hasn't been done already; have to re-study it) :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:COI#Photographs_and_media_files

I propose adding the following language to the Wikipedia:COI#Photographs_and_media_files section:

As with edits, additions of self-created images to articles should be judged on a case-by-case basis. Adding an image that editors agree improves the quality of the article does not present a conflict of interest problem. However, if the addition of the image is disputed, self-interested editors should not edit war and should instead confine their position to the talk page of the article, through the typical process of dispute resolution.

Mainspace captions should not promote the creator of the imageunless the creator is independently notable. The place for identifying a non-notable creator of an image is on the page of the image.

THF (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not at all happy with that last sentence, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Captions: "Captions should be succinct; more information about the image can be included on its description page, or in the main text." (my italics). I would prefer Mainspace captions should not promote the creator of the image. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Didn't intend to create an inconsistency. THF (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)