Misplaced Pages

:Requests for comment/COI: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:30, 28 February 2012 editRklawton (talk | contribs)Administrators40,714 editsm →View by Rklawton: formatted← Previous edit Revision as of 02:33, 28 February 2012 edit undoSlimVirgin (talk | contribs)172,064 edits + commentNext edit →
Line 162: Line 162:
#: Fred, that's a non-sequiter. We're not talking about paid advertising, we're talking about policy-compliant encyclopedic content. Advertising is an entirely different matter. ] (]) 23:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC) #: Fred, that's a non-sequiter. We're not talking about paid advertising, we're talking about policy-compliant encyclopedic content. Advertising is an entirely different matter. ] (]) 23:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
#:: Perhaps you do not live in a country where the government is controlled by corporations using the technology of public persuasion. ] ] 01:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC) #:: Perhaps you do not live in a country where the government is controlled by corporations using the technology of public persuasion. ] ] 01:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. I agree with Jclemens that the key issue is not paid editing, but advocacy (paid or unpaid). But in reality, paid editing almost invariably involves advocacy, because for the most part if a paid editor displeases his employer, he will lose his job or commission. So a paid editor can only be neutral if the employer requests it, or chooses to allow it. (An example would be Oxford University employing a Wikipedian to write a "warts and all" history of the university.) But where there are strong ideological or financial issues at stake, an employer is unlikely to permit a "warts and all" approach. And even if they were to do so, a Wikipedian taking instruction from — or allowing herself to be overly influenced by — a person, company or institution outside Misplaced Pages, involves placing the interests of that outside influence over the interests of Misplaced Pages, and that is the very definition of a problematic conflict of interest. It causes all kinds of editorial imbalances, and relies on unpaid volunteers to oversee it, placing an extra burden on them.<p>I can see that it might be less problematic if a paid editor who has been an experienced Wikipedian were to be paid for a specific project, because she will have a deeper understanding of the content policies. But a paid single-purpose account arriving at Misplaced Pages for the sole purpose of editing in a certain direction will not have that background, and it is hard to imagine in such cases that payment will not, as a matter of fact, equal advocacy. <font color="black">]</font> <small><sup><font color="gold">]</font><font color="lime">]</font></sup></small> 02:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

;Comment ;Comment
#There was some fairly lengthy discussion of paid editting over at ]. There's a difference between paid advocacy and other forms of editting that may broadly be seen as part of someone's employment per proposer ''some paid editors are PR shills, others are grant-supported academics''. However, I disagree that we should treat them all the same. There is a huge difference between an academic adding information on a topic they know something about, such as a mineral, a tree species or a language and a public relations practitioner editting the article about one of their clients. There is also a big difference between the two types of edit as to how much resources this volunteer community must put into addressing any problems from the edit. ] (]) 09:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC) #There was some fairly lengthy discussion of paid editting over at ]. There's a difference between paid advocacy and other forms of editting that may broadly be seen as part of someone's employment per proposer ''some paid editors are PR shills, others are grant-supported academics''. However, I disagree that we should treat them all the same. There is a huge difference between an academic adding information on a topic they know something about, such as a mineral, a tree species or a language and a public relations practitioner editting the article about one of their clients. There is also a big difference between the two types of edit as to how much resources this volunteer community must put into addressing any problems from the edit. ] (]) 09:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:33, 28 February 2012

Please consider joining the feedback request service.
An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
Shortcut

This is a RfC initiated in accordance with the ArbCom remedy in a recently closed case.

View by ASCIIn2Bme

Proposal
Delete WP:COI/N and WP:COI. (Ok, for the bureaucratically inclined: mark the former as {{historical}} and the latter as an {{essay}}.)
Rationale
Because the guideline is only "discouraging" COI editing, the brazen will not be discouraged, while claiming to operate within the guideline. And because the only recourse is to discourage them some more with lots of messages and threads, if you do that, you are really only providing them with ammo for a WP:HARASSMENT wikilawsuit (e.g. at ArbCom). It is thus clear that the COI Misplaced Pages guideline and associated drama board is only serving to antagonize and burn out people, while driving away only the somewhat ethically minded "bad apples" (mildly conflicted editors like experts editing in their field) and setting up traps for the clueless would be "enforcers". So, the guideline and particularly the associated drama board are a net negative for Misplaced Pages: the only people who stand to gain from it are those who ignore its advice. And that's in the lucky case when they even disclose their COI. If you ever get suspicious and try find out for yourself, oh my! The ArbCom case says, citing policy: "Focus on the edits not the editor". If there are blatant WP:SPAM problems, there are plenty of venues for dealing with that. For the more insidious NPOV problems, I'm not sure Misplaced Pages has a good answer, but third opinion, RfCs, WP:DRN, RfC/Us and ultimately arbitration are probably superior to the toothless and counterproductive WP:COI-style drama.
Support
  1. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  2. I don't agree with all of ASCII's reasoning, but I agree with downgrading the COI guideline to an essay. Because Misplaced Pages places a priority on anonymous editing, it just can't support enforcing sanctions against editors based solely on COI. Any sanctions against editors with COI also needs supporting evidence that the editors have violated other policies or guidelines, such as WP:NPOV. Thus, COI doesn't need to be a guideline. Cla68 (talk) 01:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  3. Nobody Ent 02:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  4. "Focus on the edits, not the editor" is a problem I've long had with the nominal handling of COI on Misplaced Pages. Or, to quote myself from a discussion three years ago, "If the article is {{Nonnotable}}, {{POV}}, {{unbalanced}}, an {{Advert}}, needs {{cleanup}} or {{Unreferenced}}, or whatever, we have plenty of templates to say what the real problem is. But if it's a perfectly fine, NPOV article that just happens to have been written by someone with a potential conflict of interest, what is the point in marking it with a {{COI}} banner?" Anomie⚔ 03:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
    True, but if the article has a promotional POV, or is advertising, and is written by the subject in that way, then {{coi}} may be a good alternative to {{advert}} or {{POV}} - it defines better the source of the problem - this reasoning is akin 'we have {{fact}} for statements which are unreferenced, so there is no need to have {{unreferenced}} on top of articles which are (largely) unreferenced, tag the sentences and identify the problem instead'. --Dirk Beetstra 17:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  5. There's a legal principle somewhere that an unenforceable law (for which one can substitute "policy" or "guideline") is worse than no law. This is not to say that COI editing is a good thing; rather, the illusion that we can have any control over it does far more harm than good. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  6. Lord Roem (talk) 05:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  7. Agreed, it is not worth the grief. All it does is provide ammo for the dramah brigade, and encourage harmful actions such as Will's off-wiki sleuthing. Concentrate on the edits, not the editor.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
    Similar to somewhere below. Sometimes editors get (improperly) harassed on WP:AN/I. Do we call then to delete WP:AN/I to take away the ammo for the dramah brigade, or do we discourage the harassment? --Dirk Beetstra 17:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  8. Support, with a caveat: it would be better if WP:COI was completely rewritten, keeping mind many of the comments here that point out that a great deal of editing on Misplaced Pages is done by editors with varying degrees of conflict of interest. WP:COI instead should be much more friendly guidance and help, rather than leading with the assumption of "conflict = shouldn't edit." This gem from WP:COI is in direct conflict with most of the sentiment here: "If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, try to identify and minimize your biases, and consider withdrawing from editing the article." In other words, if an editor accuses you of COI, you should identify your conflict (implying that you should out yourself?!?!). And "in case the editor does not identify themself or their affiliation, reference to the neutral point of view policy may help counteract biased editing." - We are currently encouraging editors to harass someone into outing "identify(ing)" themselves. First Light (talk) 16:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
    No, that is not what it reads, both examples are interpreted wrongly. I agree, there is ambiguity there, I read that as 'try to (identify and minimize) your biases' - not 'identify and (minimize your biases'. And the second one: "iin case the editor does not identify themself .." - so, if you do not know the editor has a conflict of interest - '... reference to the neutral point of view policy may help counteract biased editing' - so, you don't know that the editor has a conflict of interest, so do not accuse him of a conflict of interest, but since you do know that his editing is not neutral, point him to the neutral point of view policy instead. So .. no .. there is no harassing there. Both points do need clarification, but this is by no means an attempt to harass people to out themselves. --Dirk Beetstra 17:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
    I said "implied" regarding the first quote, because a newish editor will certainly take it that way ("identify your conflict") after reading through the rest of the COI guidelines. Regarding the second quote, we should, according to ArbCom and POLICY, "Focus on the edits not the editor". The second quote is clearly saying "if you can't get the editor to admit to a conflict of interest, then use other Misplaced Pages policies." That's exactly why the recent ArbCom decision was made, to correct this "harass first, focus on the edits second". I can also see why the editor who was trying to out other editors' religion might have felt he had support in doing so, because yes, it is precisely giving guidance to try to force an editor to admit a conflict first. First Light (talk) 18:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
    Regarding the first: As I said, ambiguous, readable in two ways.
    Regarding the second 'in case the editor does not identify himself ..', also ambiguous, but it certainly does not read 'if you can't convince the editor to identify himself', or 'if the editor refuses to identify himself', it can however read 'if you don't know who the editor is', and also what you say.
    I can agree that the ArbCom makes a decision that corrects 'harass first, focus on the edits second', but that is not necessarily a direct outcome of this sentence in WP:COI - these statements are at worst ambiguous, they do not encourage harassment, and when an editor chooses to read the sentence like that, and starts harassing first and then focus on the edits (if ever he gets to the latter), then first the editor that misreads this (ambiguous) statement should be .. talked to, and then that statement should be changed. But no, it is not giving guidance to force an editor to admin a conflict first. --Dirk Beetstra 18:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
    However you and I interpret WP:COI is certainly open to debate, and rightfully so. We'll have to agree to disagree. But a long-standing admin interpreted WP:COI in such a way as to use it as justification to harass and threaten editors. Here is some of the evidence for that. There is plenty more if you read through other sections of that page. WP:COI clearly needs to be thrown out or rewritten. "Focus on the edits not the editor." First Light (talk) 21:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  9. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose, but focus on the edits, not the editor. We have some very productive people around who nonetheless have a conflict of interest. We all have a conflict of interest somewhere. People know how to work with it. WP:COI is a guideline, not a policy. --Dirk Beetstra 04:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  2. Oppose deleting COI policy: I edit in at least one area where I am quite sure that there are dozens of paid operatives quietly working together; meat puppets putting on an NPOV act. At least knowing that if they accidentally out themselves (or expert hackers track them down) they might be banned is at least a minor discouragement to their activity. I myself have been offered money to edit and turned it down; in the first case because I suspected I wouldn't like what the companies would want me to work to have put in, and having to reveal my COI would make it even more embarrassing. In the second, by a group that has similar views to mine in areas I edit; I didn't want to jeopardize my freedom to edit in that area and said no. However, if there was no clear written COI policy, how easy might it have been to take money and do my thing, careful not to obviously violate policy but still putting in a lot of content in a not obviously POV way that no one else might ever properly balance, like with criticism or mention of alternate views. And how easy for hundreds or thousands of new editors motivated only by profit to work for hundreds of thousands of companies doing the same. (Don't be naive. People will set up part-time employment agencies to link freelancers and companies/organizations/individuals if you delete this policy.) You can't force volunteers to put in a lot of material they find uninteresting or even distasteful to enter; but should we encourage paid people - and even large numbers of them - to enter all sorts of material favorable to their cause which they can innocently claim that they didn't balance because "Oh, I didn't have the time. I'd love to but... Gee, you know...." and other B.S. Let's get real here. CarolMooreDC 04:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
    Excuse me, but did you actually read the WP:COI "policy"? What part of it authorizes that "they might be banned if they accidentally out themselves (or expert hackers track them down)"? What is certain is that if these "expert hackers" have Misplaced Pages accounts, they will be banned for WP:OUTING. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 04:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
    "Significantly biased edits in mainspace are forbidden." New editors who do it may be forgiven; editors who get in a dispute and lose their temper may be forgiven; editors who do it and keep doing it and are found to have denied a COI in whatever way are what Timid Guy Ban Appeal called "extreme cases." However, as we all know, some editors have more supporters than others so what might be considered extreme for a less "popular" editor might be far less than what is called extreme for one with more supporters. (And I'm sure good hackers can out people without being banned; and then there are all the times people accidentally let the cat out of the bag, on or off wikipedia.) CarolMooreDC 05:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
    ASCIIn2Bme, if someone is editing as 'John Sebastian Maria Victor Doe' and adds his 'johnsebastianmariavictordoe.blogspot.com', then you are not exactly outing such an editor. If someone edits the page John Doe Inc. from 127.0.0.1, the static IP address of John Doe Inc. then you are not exactly outing such an editor. if John Sebastian Maria Victor Doe adds myrubbish.wordpress.com, and you follow the link and read that that wordpress.com is written by John Sebastian Maria Victor Doe .. then you are not exactly outing a person. If the person is identifying himself as someone, then it is not outing to say that he is that someone. If 127.0.0.1, the static IP address of John Doe Inc. is editing Jimbo Wales, adding a non-neutral sentence, to it, and someone accuses that person of having a COI, hoping that that person is saying that he is actually Jimbo Wales and that John Doe Inc. is his cover organisation, then that person is indeed outing the editor. Now, I am not saying that that does not happen, but that is reason to .. firmly talk to the 'outer', but firmly. Unfortunately, the damage is then already done, and probably Jimbo Wales should be told not to edit his page in such ways ... --Dirk Beetstra 17:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
    Adding to this, WP:OUTING actually says: " However, once individuals have identified themselves, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest in appropriate forums." --Dirk Beetstra 17:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  3. Oppose: I agree that it is very unlikely someone can violate WP:COI without also violating at least WP:NPOV. However, as a guideline to an inappropriate behaviour pattern, it is helpful. Downgrading the guideline to an essay sends the wrong message about how seriously we take these things. Babakathy (talk) 10:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  4. Oppose: That COIN has no enforcement mechanism and editors directed at COIN to not edit articles on which they have a COI, but to confine themselves to the talk pages, is not reason to throw away COI or COIN. The solution is to actually enforce it.Fladrif (talk) 15:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  5. As someone who volunteers at COIN often (and has been doing so for years) and who has worked with numerous editors who have conflicts of interest (either to help them or stop their behavior) I'd say that both COI and COIN are extremely beneficial to Misplaced Pages. The only time when the guideline and noticeboard have problems is when people fail to fully understand their purpose or how to apply them. COI gives guidance on how to approach situations where an editor has a conflict of interest. It's true that there is nothing enforceable on it, so it might lack the teeth of guidelines like WP:N or WP:SPAM (violating the former leads directly to article deletions, the latter can lead to being blocked). But reducing it to an essay might cause it to be dismissed when it shouldn't be. As to the noticeboard, it is in frequent use and most problems there are able to be resolved, so it seems absurd to try to shut it down. Basically, however, the proposal above couldn't have been written by someone with much experience in this area, it makes assertions and assumptions that are patently false. -- Atama頭 16:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
    Okay, maybe my experience was a freak accident and so was Will's. I've picked a couple of threads from the current board Misplaced Pages:COI/N#FortressCraft, Misplaced Pages:COI/N#Department_of_Corrections_.28New_Zealand.29 mainly because they are brief. I don't see any resolution in those, but surely I see calls for people to be banned for their COI and when the "defendant" responds s/he complains of harassment and outing. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
    That does not call for deleting WP:COI/N/WP:COI, ASCIIn2Bme, that calls for .. talking to the editors who suggest banning solely on the fact that someone has a WP:COI. People get (sometimes improperly) harassed on WP:AN/I, does that call for deletion of WP:AN/I, or does that call for actually doing something against the harassment? --Dirk Beetstra 17:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) In balance, Misplaced Pages:COI/N#User:Noamusician_and_NOA_.28singer.29 resulted in a block for WP:BADNAME (but shouldn't/couldn't that have been reported somewhere else?) and the spam article they created repeatedly enough to deserve WP:SALT could have been reported to WP:SPAM as well. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
    Editors on WP:AN/I are regularly pointed to the other noticeboards for their complaints, does that call for the deletion of WP:AN/I? --Dirk Beetstra 17:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
    Thirdly, there are threads where people self-declare COI, e.g. Misplaced Pages:COI/N#Introducing_myself and Misplaced Pages:COI/N#My_Conflict_of_Interest. I suppose having a central record of those might be useful, although, I don't know if that alone justifies the COI/N board. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  6. The solution lies not in throwing the whole thing out, but aggressively reworking it by taking in some of the statements that have gained support here. I'd rather not leave a vacuum on the issue. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater. What we need is more friendly but firm enforcement of existing rules. --Jayron32 19:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. Your assumption that the output of COI or COIN in a net negative is backed up by no evidence what-so-ever. This isn't surprising as I've never seen you participate at COIN. As I actually have experience at COIN, my opinion that it's by far a net positive should easily outweigh your uninformed opinion. OlYeller21 20:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. Essentially per Atama and OlYeller21. Whilst issues raised at COIN aren't always dealt with, I think that's more down to a lack of volunteers rather than an institutional problem. Without COIN, cases such as this might not have been reported, and the project would still be awash with crap spouted by a PR agency for the world's worst regimes. SmartSE (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. We need a rational policy, not suppression of the subject. There is a vast difference between Trancendental Meditation and Kraft Cheese Dinner. Misplaced Pages is not a forum for unpaid advertising maintained free of charge by public relations operatives. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. While there might be changes that would narrow the guideline, maybe to only effect when there is an active dispute, the guideline itself points to what good behavior is when a COI situations occur. Belorn (talk) 22:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  12. Oppose per User:Jayron32. -- Alexf 02:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  13. Oppose. Further watering down WP:COI would seriously undermine WP:NPOV; a conflict of interest makes NPOV difficult, if not impossible. Miniapolis (talk) 02:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Statement of the problem by Jclemens

Many issues concerning paid editing, anonymous editing, outing and harassment, are unresolved. Our policies and guidelines are complicated and sometimes contradictory. Investigating, sanctioning and/or exonerating editors on the basis of who they are or what they do in real life is not only controversial but often impossible. Furthermore, extreme cases apart, there is no consensus about the extent that editors may edit articles on topics with which they are personally involved. Hence, of necessity, review must focus primarily on the editing patterns of those editors about whom problems are claimed. Furthermore, it appears that editors who declare a conflict of interest are often subject to criticism on that basis, even though they have been abiding by the COI guideline's requests.

(most of this shamelessly stolen from here)
Support
  1. Jclemens (talk) 01:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  2. Cla68 (talk) 01:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  3. I agree, but I think more than a mere statement of these obvious facts is needed at this point. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  4. First Light (talk) 01:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  5. Completely agree. --Elonka 01:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  6. bobrayner (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  7. Nobody Ent 02:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  8. Agree. --Dirk Beetstra 04:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  9. User:Rklawton - COI is just one possible cause for POV, but COI doesn't always cause POV, and POV has many other causes than just COI. In fact, COI can serve as an excellent motivation to improve poor quality articles if only we could harness that energy. For example, Wikipedians have rated 32% of our articles on Fortune 100 companies as "Start Class" or lower, yet every one of those articles shows up on the first page of both Google and Bing searches. At the moment, only one Fortune 100 company has the FA rating: Microsoft, and no Fortune 100 articles are rated "A-Class". That's just embarrassing! Why not challenge PR people to bring these 32 articles up to FA status? What's the worst that can happen - we revert? Rklawton (talk) 04:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
    Well said. I think though that we do have quite some editors around who have a COI, and who are actively editing their own articles (in a NPOV way). But I agree, we could use more of them. --Dirk Beetstra 04:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  10. Lord Roem (talk) 05:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  11. Since only the quality of edits is relevant, there is no need for a specific guideline. I have never seen COI used legitimately for anything but harassment, and I have seen it used quite a few times. COI is absolutely nothing but a way of legitimizing stigmatization and harassment. B——Critical 06:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  12. Summary as stated by proposer is reasonable. Babakathy (talk) 09:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  13. MER-C 10:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  14. Good starting point for us to agree on. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  15. This I can agree with, though much of what is said above isn't an absolute. For example, as to the last statement about self-declared COIs, I've seen many cases where editors with COIs are given much more leeway to operate based on the good faith shown by self-declaring. But it's true that sometimes people use the COI as a weapon against people. -- Atama頭 16:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  16.  Sandstein  16:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  17. BusterD (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  18. Accurate statement of the problem. I await solutions. --Jayron32 19:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  19. This is a well-put statement of the issue. Carrite (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  20. Who could possibly disagree? SmartSE (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  21. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  22. Miniapolis (talk) 02:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment
  1. As a statement of the problem, it is certainly accurate. The issues are currently unresolved. But it provides no direction for a solution. Surely the point of this is RFC is to attempt to develop a consensus on how to correct the problem and address the issues.Fladrif (talk) 15:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
    Agreed, it's not designed to be all-encompassing, just enumerating the starting point. I've posted my own opinion separately on one point to date, and will be commenting on others. I expect the closing admin to take all of these into account in the final analysis. Jclemens-public (talk) 20:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

View by First Light

This is based on observing the recent Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy ban appeal, and being disturbed by the behavior that was hopefully corrected. But just in case it wasn't made clear:

Being a member or adherent of a particular religion, church, or sect does not, de facto, constitute a Conflict of Interest. For example, a quick look at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Catholicism#Members (dedicated to improving articles on Catholicism) shows that many productive members declare themselves to be Catholic. An editor who edits articles relating to a specific religion, church, or sect should not be required to declare that they are a member of that religion, church, or sect. They should also not be asked to declare or to deny that they are an adherent of a religion, church, or sect. The religious beliefs of Misplaced Pages editors should be a private matter, unless they choose to declare them. Editors of such articles should be judged solely on their editing behavior, including use of reliable sources, adherence to a Neutral Point of View, and the willingness to calmly discuss controversial issues that arise.

Support
  1. First Light (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  2. Agree, but one of the issues with some new religions is that it is alleged that they sell their philosophies and techniques at a premium price, and therefore may have a profit motive for trying to keep out pejorative information in their articles in Misplaced Pages. Again, however, you should be able to judge edits by NPOV and other policies and guidelines, not COI. Cla68 (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
    I think many churches (including large, established ones) could be accused of both profit motive and the motive of trying to get more adherents for philosophical reasons (prophet motive?). That's why I didn't mention motive at all. I think that financial incentives are actually a secondary reason for most advocacy editing on Misplaced Pages. First Light (talk) 02:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  3. Endorse. The personal faith of an editor is not relevant to whether they should or shouldn't be allowed to edit in a topic. The important elements are their editing behavior, not their beliefs. --Elonka 02:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  4. Nobody Ent 02:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  5. Ideally, anyone holding any strong conviction would want the topic covered appropriately and neutrally by Misplaced Pages. I realize that's not always the case, but there are plenty of editors with strong convictions on any number of topics--religious, political, whatever--who do contribute well. Jclemens (talk) 02:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  6. Definitely. If we do not allow people to edit what they care about, let's just toss the project out the window. Yes, people have died for religion, but they've died over football too.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  7. Absolutely. Being a member of a religion does not represent a formal conflict of interest. Yes, it can color one's view of the world, but so can't being a fan of a sports team, or of a movie franchise, or being a resident of a particular city, or any number of other issues. Not every possible association which colors an editors outlook on the world rises to the level of "conflict of interest", if we held it to this standard, no one would ever edit anything. Personal religion is NOT a conflict of interest basis; excepting in cases where a person is an employee or contractor of a religious organization, and that standard exists for employees or contractors of any organization, and has nothing to do with religion per se. --Jayron32 19:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


Oppose
  1. No, it is a conflict of interest We all write about our own subjects, believes, and interests - but that does not mean that you can not write about it in a neutral and appropriate way. 'Due care'. --Dirk Beetstra 04:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
    I'll add a comment in my own oppose, although it is an answer to many around here. On 'A Catholic editing the article on Catholicism has no COI': he has if he is promoting his religion, or his own church, with the hope that more people will come to his church, and avoid that it is being combined with another Catholic church (which is bigger and 50 km away). It is simple, keep a NPOV on all subjects you edit, especially on the subjects that are near to you. There is no-one forbidding you to edit if you avoid all impropriety (and those who do try to forbid you, WP:AN/I is thataway). --Dirk Beetstra 19:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  2. Agreed. We all have lots of conflicts of interest. The issue should not be 'is there a conflict of interest', the answer is often yes. The issue should be 'can we edit productively, following NPOV, and avoiding outing and harassment'. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  3. Agree with this. A COI is determined when there is a clear, direct connection between an editor and the subject. A Catholic editing the article on Catholicism has no COI, but a priest who edits the article for the cathedral that he serves at probably would. The same way that George Lucas would have a COI with Star Wars articles, but a Star Wars fan wouldn't. -- Atama頭 16:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment
  1. The guideline on COI here at WP is narrower than in a corporate governance setting, where one is considered to have a COI by being involved in any decision to do with the Interest. Our guideline says Do not edit Misplaced Pages to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers(my emphasis). The guideline does not prevent or even discourage me from editing in an area where I have an interest, but says that you should not write about these things unless you are certain that a neutral editor would agree that your edits improve Misplaced Pages. We all have a conflict of interest in the general sense somewhere but if one edits with 'Due care', one does not violate WP:COI despite the interest. Babakathy (talk) 09:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  2. Nothing in the TimidGuy Appeal case involved anyone asserting that editors had a COI because of their belief in TM. It involved an acknowledged COI by editors who voluntarily disclosed on Misplaced Pages that they were employees of the TM Organization. Fladrif (talk) 15:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  3. It can't really be said better than the bold text at the top of WP:COI "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Misplaced Pages, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." - If you are a Christian (or TM follower or whatever) writing about Christianity then there is not a COI. If however, you are being paid by a church to edit here, with a particular point of view, then you have a COI and it could well cause problems. SmartSE (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  4. The contorted and narrow way in which WP:COI is defined is in fact part of the problem. It's too easy for people to throw up their arms and declare they have "no COI" here. For a real-world definition see conflict of interest. In the words of one Arbitrator (who knows something about this from her professional life): "Our current guideline, as written, means that every professional writing in their field of expertise (including physicians and university scholars) could be considered in conflict of interest, whilst editors with a strong personal viewpoint could probably be considered exempt. This is unsatisfactory. Risker (talk) 05:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)" ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

View by bobrayner

  • People editing from - or on behalf of - an organisation are a small minority; some manage to produce edits that meet en.wikipedia's standards, some do not. However, among the remaining (vast) majority we have just the same division; there are many good editors but there are also many problematic editors who have kept the drama-boards busy and stoked arbcom cases because of their urge to push a particular religious, ethnic, or nationalist cause (and a few other causes besides).
  • The division isn't black and white; a wise man once said that the line between good and evil runs through every man's heart, so many editors make a mixture of good and bad edits - we should encourage the former whilst discouraging the latter.
  • We should, therefore, put more emphasis on bad edits, not bad editors. I'm all in favour of taking a firmer line on persistent NPOV problems - an area where en.wikipedia is often weak - but an editor should only be labelled as bad if we have a good reason to believe that they (or a substantial chunk of their edits) are a net negative to the encyclopædia. Branding "COI" on the foreheads of some editors before assessing whether their edits are improving or worsening articles seems to be completely missing the point. bobrayner (talk) 01:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Support
  1. bobrayner (talk) 01:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  2. Cla68 (talk) 01:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  3. First Light (talk) 02:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  4. Nobody Ent 02:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  5. Jclemens (talk) 02:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  6. True, but there is nothing wrong with quite early on (after the first edits which are questionable) to remind an editor about it. I know quite a number of editors who have a vested interest in a certain part of editing, and I have reminded many of them, early on, to be cautious about those edits, per WP:COI. --Dirk Beetstra 04:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  7. Per Dirk Beetstra. Babakathy (talk) 09:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  8. MER-C 11:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  9.  Sandstein  16:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  10. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  11. Comment on edits, not editors. Well put.
  12. This again states the point well, but doesn't really offer policy guidance. Carrite (talk) 19:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Just to get some examples of why the policy is useful. Recently a party wanted to AfD Libertarian Party (UK). He didn't mention he was a member of another small UK party, but another editor found he'd mentioned it on his user page. I then admitted I was a former (2001) officer of the local Libertarian Party (USA). WP:COI really did make it necessary that we reveal all that. And it helped put the whole AfD in perspective. And the article was not deleted. CarolMooreDC 17:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

View by Jclemens

Wikipedians edit for many different reasons; all agree to support our pillars, abide by our content guidelines, and contribute their work freely under our chosen licenses. Whether an editor is directly paid to edit Misplaced Pages is irrelevant to the quality of their contributions: some paid editors are PR shills, others are grant-supported academics. Likewise, editors who violate our content guidelines can do so just as easily out of personal ideology as they can for direct or indirect monetary gain. Thus, any policies or guideline on conflict of interest should treat paid editing neutrally--no better or no worse than any other motivation for editing Misplaced Pages.

Support
  1. Jclemens (talk) 02:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  2. Cla68 (talk) 04:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  3. Absolutely. Look at the edits, not at the editor. --Dirk Beetstra 04:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)Switched to oppose.
  4. First Light (talk) 04:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC) As much as I used to think that paid editing was anathema, there is no way to prove it without attempts to harass and out an editor. I've also seen that true believers in the realm of politics, business, religion, and the sciences seem to be more commonly editing Misplaced Pages with a conflict of interest. The only solution is to look at the edits, not the editor.
  5. B——Critical 04:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  6.  Sandstein  11:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. While editors can and do violate content guidelines (and policies) for any number of reasons, paid editors have a compelling reason to do so—a personal financial stake in producing content whose nature is frequently incompatible with the reliably neutral properties expected of an encyclopedia. Such conflicts of interest can neither be adequately ameliorated by self-disclosure nor resolved through education; they inevitably breed suspicion and promote conflict. If paid editing is now to be welcomed, I cannot help fearing for the continued viability of what I took to be a collaborative volunteer project. Rivertorch (talk) 08:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
    You presume that belief systems, of whatever sort, cannot be a stronger motivation than money. While your presumption may be true in many cases, I suspect it also reflects a Western, capitalist bias in your world view. In fact, I would say that the major cause of POV-motivated arbitration cases have been nationalistic and religious in origin. Jclemens (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
    With respect, you know nothing about my world view, and I don't think your stated suspicions about it are especially constructive. I do not presume what you've said I presume about motivations, and I'm well aware of the nature and scope of nationalistic and religious conflicts at WP over the years. What I do presume is that paid editing is uniquely problematic because it lies outside the collaborative volunteer environment—an environment that depends on consensus and mutual goodwill to thrive. Paid editors' wages, job security, and career stability and advancement are on the line, and that, in most cases, will override any feelings of duty they may have toward respecting the spirit of WP's rules. Rivertorch (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
    If I'm reading that correctly, you're presuming that EVERY paid editor is solely supported by their Misplaced Pages editing. I think that is unsupported and possibly unsupportable. Protestations aside, you've just presumed that every paid editor is editing for a career, rather than a side job. I have seen no evidence as far as the proportion of paid editors who are careerists vs. hobbyists, but if a future study of the topic shows there's even a 50/50 split, I'll buy you a beverage of your choice. Cheers, Jclemens-public (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  2. Whether an editor is paid to edit Misplaced Pages is directly relevant. The obligation of the editor to their employer or client has clear precedence over his or her obligation to the principles of Misplaced Pages. The two can only be reconciled if, pursuant to existing policy, the editor with such a conflict of interest is required (i) to disclose the conflict and (ii) to confine their activities to talkpages where they may attempt to persuade other editors on content issues. The Gingrich PR guy referenced on Jimbo's talkpages is the model that should be followed where an editor is either paid directly to edit Misplaced Pages or the editing of Misplaced Pages falls within the general ambit of their job description. Fladrif (talk) 15:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
    Existing policy says neither of these things. COI is a guideline, and at least one opinion here is that it should be demoted to an essay. Jclemens (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
    WP:COI strongly encourages both of these things. At least one opinion here is that it should be a policy, mandatory and directly enforceable at COIN, not merely a guideline. If you are going to take the position that this RFC is only about what the existing problem and policy is, and not what it should be, there is no point in this RFC and ArbCom's vote to hold this RFC was a sham. Fladrif (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  3. Paid editors can get fired if they fail to produce expected results. That's a whole bunch different than being (say) a Catholic or a member of the U.S. Democratic Party. Paid editors should disclose that they are being paid, and should not be allowed to directly edit articles (other than to remove WP:BLP violations or correct very minor factual errors). They can make suggestions (and propose new wording) on article talk pages, for articles that they are being paid to influence. Similarly, there is absolutely no way that a person can be neutral when editing the Misplaced Pages article about him/her, and we should prohibit that. (Of course there will be lots of people, particularly paid editors, who figure out ways to avoid being detected, but if we only kept rules that were 100% effective, we wouldn't have any rules at all.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
    All paid editors, or just paid advocates? Jclemens-public (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  4. Upon rereading this, switch to oppose. You'd be surprised what editors (spammers) do to get their information displayed on Misplaced Pages, and to get it displayed in a very positive way. They get paid to do it. If they can show that they edit neutrally, yes, sure, then this is fine, until that moment, they should be regarded what they are, people who get paid to represent an organisation with the aim of 'promoting' (in whichever form) that company. --Dirk Beetstra 18:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
    Again, your objection focuses on one specific type of paid editor, a paid advocate. Do you suggest that editors paid by a museum to put in neutral information about the museum's holdings should be treated differently than PR shills? If so, then payment isn't the issue, advocacy is. Jclemens-public (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  5. Paid editing represents a special sort of conflict that I think rises above personal traits, fandoms, and affiliations. It does require special attention. Not outright banning, but where paid editing is occuring, it should be under a higher level of scrutiny. --Jayron32 19:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  6. Commercial advertising placed for no charge on Misplaced Pages is an abomination. The higher its quality the more gross the violation. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
    Fred, that's a non-sequiter. We're not talking about paid advertising, we're talking about policy-compliant encyclopedic content. Advertising is an entirely different matter. Jclemens-public (talk) 23:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
    Perhaps you do not live in a country where the government is controlled by corporations using the technology of public persuasion. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. I agree with Jclemens that the key issue is not paid editing, but advocacy (paid or unpaid). But in reality, paid editing almost invariably involves advocacy, because for the most part if a paid editor displeases his employer, he will lose his job or commission. So a paid editor can only be neutral if the employer requests it, or chooses to allow it. (An example would be Oxford University employing a Wikipedian to write a "warts and all" history of the university.) But where there are strong ideological or financial issues at stake, an employer is unlikely to permit a "warts and all" approach. And even if they were to do so, a Wikipedian taking instruction from — or allowing herself to be overly influenced by — a person, company or institution outside Misplaced Pages, involves placing the interests of that outside influence over the interests of Misplaced Pages, and that is the very definition of a problematic conflict of interest. It causes all kinds of editorial imbalances, and relies on unpaid volunteers to oversee it, placing an extra burden on them.

    I can see that it might be less problematic if a paid editor who has been an experienced Wikipedian were to be paid for a specific project, because she will have a deeper understanding of the content policies. But a paid single-purpose account arriving at Misplaced Pages for the sole purpose of editing in a certain direction will not have that background, and it is hard to imagine in such cases that payment will not, as a matter of fact, equal advocacy. SlimVirgin 02:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment
  1. There was some fairly lengthy discussion of paid editting over at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Cooperation. There's a difference between paid advocacy and other forms of editting that may broadly be seen as part of someone's employment per proposer some paid editors are PR shills, others are grant-supported academics. However, I disagree that we should treat them all the same. There is a huge difference between an academic adding information on a topic they know something about, such as a mineral, a tree species or a language and a public relations practitioner editting the article about one of their clients. There is also a big difference between the two types of edit as to how much resources this volunteer community must put into addressing any problems from the edit. Babakathy (talk) 09:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
    Call me dense, but I don't see how "grant-supported academics" constitutes a subset of "paid editors". Rivertorch (talk) 09:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
    The argument could be (has been) made that an academic might be a paid-editor if such an edit could be seen as part of their work. Many universities include some aspect of outreach, community service or public appreciation of science in a lecturer/professor's job descrption. I used to work for University of Zimbabwe and edits I have made to articles such as Batoka Formation would have been considered as worthwhile comunity service and proper use of my time as an academic employee.in fact those specifc edits post-date my paid employment at the university but you get the point I hope. This is why some in the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Cooperation started referring to paid advocates as distinct. Babakathy (talk) 10:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
    Academics who receive grants (from whatever source) to improve Misplaced Pages, by whatever means, are paid editors. Likewise, academics who edit articles on which they publish are able to receive direct (book royalties) and indirect (tenure, promotion) financial gain through promoting their own theories. If we're going to look at "paid advocacy" vs. "paid editing" vs. "unpaid advocacy", what is the real issue: payment, or advocacy? I submit that it is the latter. Jclemens (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
    If advocacy is the only issue, then it can be dealt with by NPOV, irrespective of the interest the user has. I think the point of WP:COI is it captures the motivation behind a series of problematic behaviour types (including NPOV editting) and COIN provides a forum to handle this. If one looks at COIN, it also provides a forum for good faith avoiding the problems. Babakathy (talk) 16:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
    That would be the point: if the edits are good, whether or not the editor is paid to make them isn't important. Likewise, if the edits are bad, they are bad whether or not the editor received a single penny to amek them. COIN doesn't help with any of that, does it? Jclemens-public (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

View by Nobody Ent

Says here "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." so anyone should be allowed to edit.

Support
  1. Nobody Ent 02:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Sure, it says that, but we also refer to policies and guidelines. At a simplistic level, anyone can edit but not if you're blocked... Babakathy (talk) 09:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  2. That is no more of an absolute than WP:AGF. If that was a hard-and-fast rule we could never protect or semiprotect pages. Saying "most people can edit most pages" would be the most accurate way to put it, but is much more clumsy than "anyone can edit" so the latter expression is used. -- Atama頭 16:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  3. I certainly hope that we're not going to let a slogan override ten years of reasoned discussion, and tens of thousands of selective blocks, regarding who we don't want to allow to edit. Or is this a proposal to do away with the Arbitration Committee, whose job is essentially to decide who won't be allowed to edit, under which specific circumstances? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  4. While I embrace the spirit of that statement, it is without context a dangerous oversimplification. I doubt that the proposer means 'unblock all our banned editors', but in all realism, certain people have to be excluded from "anyone". The purpose of this RfC is to see if paid editors and editors with strong COI in the areas they edit are to be excluded from "anyone" and to what extent. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  5. We regularly stop people from editing, for many issues, including vandalism and disruption. If we held the "freedom to edit" to the absolute standard this implies, Misplaced Pages would never work as we could never stop vandals from editing either. See Shouting fire in a crowded theater and Schenck v. United States for an anlogous restriction on another important freedom, that being speech. --Jayron32 19:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

View by Carolmooredc

Proposal
Delete WP:COI/N (mark as {{historical}}) and keep WP:COI.
Rationale
This is an alternate proposal. Paid advocates for specific organizations, viewpoints, etc. should admit it on articles for all the reasons people have advocated over the years. If they are unfairly harassed, they have recourse. In my experience WP:COI Noticeboard is too easily abused to harass people for POV reasons, including opposing the POV of quasi or organized groups of editors. If there is a real COI concern individuals should be reported to WP:ANI if they have admitted to being paid and there is evidence they are violating policy; they should be reported privately
Support
  1. CarolMooreDC 02:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Sorry, but just moving the noticeboard somewhere else, which is what this proposal amounts to, isn't going to solve anything. And "reported privately" to whom? Not to Jimbo for a ban I hope... ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
    Comment: Questionable complaints to WP:ANI are considered more serious than those to WP:COIN and therefore hopefully they would be used far less for harassment purposes. In WP:BLP I've been having trouble keeping some editors from creating a defacto policy banning people with just personal grudges from even editing talk pages. So I don't think people are ready to get rid of WP:COI. (Especially since these proposals are coming in the middle of new discussions about WP:Wikiproject Cooperation which wants to help paid PR people edit; some might not consider that a coincidence.) Getting rid of WP:COIN is probably best you might hope for. CarolMooreDC 03:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. People should not be branded easily, but there should be an on-wiki place where those cases where editors who have a conflict of interest do not edit neutrally. One could move it to WP:NPOV/N, but I am against deletion. If that noticeboard is actively harassing an editor, we have other noticeboards for that. --Dirk Beetstra 04:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  3. For the same reason I opposed ASCIIn2Bme's idea up top. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. This will not stop discussions about conflicts of interest, merely foist them off onto the already overworked WP:ANI. --Jayron32 19:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

View by BeCritical

Proposal
Delete COI and its noticeboard.
Rationale
COI is nothing but a vehicle for harassment, and is set up that way from the very start: you have COI and COI/N, yet the only legitimate reason to get after (persecute?) someone who has a COI is because they have breached NPOV. Thus, COI essentially says that its use (getting after people who have a COI) is illegitimate, and its function (NPOV enforcement) is redundant. If COI is good for anything but harassing people, it is that it enforces NPOV, but there are definite extreme problems with enforcing NPOV by any other means than the general consensus. Also, COI essentially discourages statements of COI, since to state a COI is to give a community-sanctioned weapon to anyone who wants to drum you out of a controversial article. B——Critical 04:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Support
Oppose
  1. Helpful guideline, even for one's own behaviour. Babakathy (talk) 09:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  2. Simply, no. Also, taking away the guideline will not take away the editors who harass people who have a COI. --Dirk Beetstra 10:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  3. As said above, COI is a useful guideline, beyond which new editors may start encountering serious resistance. MER-C 11:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  4. As per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  5. No, COI is not a vehicle for harassment. The canard that editors who have a COI are unfairly persecuted is unsupported by any evidence whatsoever. Editors with a COI who disclose the conflict and properly confine themselves to article talk pages and attempt to persuade other editors on content issues rarely have any problems. Fladrif (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  6. Don't these RfC's need to say in big bold letters - do not make the same proposal as already made?? :-) CarolMooreDC 17:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  7. For the same reason I opposed ASCIIn2Bme's statement up top. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. Same as first item, same response. --Jayron32 19:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

View by Pharaoh of the Wizards

Please note we do not accept advertising now to accept paid editing and COI editing will negate that and WP:NPOV is the basis of the creditability of the encyclopedia.The site is worth millions in advertisement revenue for its traffic Conflict of interest editing is incompatible with the aim of producing a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia and will led to POV pushing.Further not all articles are watched once it gets past New Pages Patrol or even editing can be done to an existing page with few watchers .

There are broadly 3 types of COI Editors

1:Single-purpose account pushing there COI and promoting themselves or an organization, an agenda or a person amongst others.(Note some of them get blocked for spamming etc but not all)

2:Editors editing on behalf of others being there employees or for money and some companies also maintain the article for a monthly fee and revert edits made by others editors this goes unnoticed in pages with few watchers.

There can also be negative editing a company may ask its employees or others to ensure that articles of rival companies or persons (like a Politician ensuring that the page of his election rival is negative) highlights more negative points than positive one.

The first 2 should not be allowed as they do not have an here inherent interest in Misplaced Pages is to build an a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia. Whether it is being by the person himself as an employee or as member or a paid editor. Also as per this this by Jimbo By Yellowmonkey and this

3:Established Editors editing with substantial contributions in other areas they may edit the areas where they may edit a article with a COI which may include there University,School ,Office ,Religion,country and may revert others. This is more related to his Point of view related than COI.But every editor has his point of view in some area or the others and if there is edit warring it should dealt as is the case. Note there inherent interest in Misplaced Pages is to build an a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia is not questioned here.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Support

  1. Comment on edits, not on editors. But if the vast majority of their edits is promoting/pushing one (or an) organisation or one (or a) point-of-view - then such editors do not take due care in how and what they are editing, and the encyclopedia should be protected to make sure that such edits do not continue. WP:COI is not a reason to stop someone from editing, it is a reason to take due care with your edits (and avoid the impropriety). --Dirk Beetstra 05:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  2. Per Dirk Beetstra. Babakathy (talk) 09:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment

  1. This pretty much sounds like the current policy, though perhaps WP:COI could make it more clear since too many editors yell COI when it's just POV. Do you want to actually delete WP:COI and WP:COIN? Not clear. CarolMooreDC 16:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  1. Can't follow this point to decide if anything needs to be supported or opposed. Needs carification. --Jayron32 19:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

View by Sandstein

Conflict of interest (COI) is a problem only where it leads to the production of non-neutral (or unverifiable, or otherwise policy-noncompliant) content. It is possible to have a COI and still contribute useful content. The risk resulting from COI is reduced on Misplaced Pages compared to traditional publishers, because the Wiki process allows for the relatively rapid correction of any deficiencies that may result from a COI. COI is also not the only reason for the production of non-neutral content. Such content is also (and probably more often) produced as a result of incompetence, bias or prejudice (ideological, religious or otherwise).

Consequently, policy and enforcement efforts should focus on removing and preventing non-neutral content generally, rather than COI as but one possible cause. Editors who persistently make non-neutral contributions for whatever reason should be warned and ultimately sanctioned as may be necessary to prevent them from making such contributions.

Support
  1.  Sandstein  16:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  2. Yes, yes, definitely. A COI on its own isn't a problem until and unless it leads to disruption. Identifying a COI can help give us a clue as to how to deal with a related problem. -- Atama頭 16:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  3. Yes, better enforcement of other policies, mainly of NPOV, will implicitly deal with the detrimental long-term COI editors (declared or not). ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  4. I support this. And I think that WP:COI is a good guideline to point such editors to if they do not edit neutrally (and can be identified as having a COI, and WP:COI/N is a good noticeboard to discuss editors which have a known COI and to consider to them to change their behaviour. And I do think that policy and guideline everywhere are focussing on removing and preventing non-neutral content, including WP:COI. --Dirk Beetstra 17:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  5. Agreed. We have lots of different neutrality problems; I think that zeroing in on one of the smaller ones is counterproductive. bobrayner (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  6. Jclemens-public (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  7. Yes, hunting down and identifying editors with a conflict of interest is a waste of time and effort. Emphasis needs to be on removing biased editing and maintaining neutral point of view. Only when a paid editor or clumsy public relations operative aggressively interferes with editing should they become the issue. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  8. First Light (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC) "Focus on the edits not the editor."
  9. Agree, but we need a more formal statement that will help guide our admins in addressing COI concerns. Cla68 (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. In other words a bunch of paid editors from one ideology or nation state's propaganda office can come in here, edit away to make their side look good, meat puppet away on an article, come up with a bunch of phony arguments against the one or two volunteer editors trying to make the article NPOV, and even get them blocked/banned when they even slightly lose their temper and say something stupid - instead of just going away like they were supposed to do. We already have that happening. Why encourage it through abolishing WP:COI?? CarolMooreDC 16:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  2. Paid editors who want to contribute productively can do so, today - they just have to do this via article talk pages. That's far more effective than asking volunteers - who do burn out, and who can go elsewhere - to get into lengthy discussions with people who are paid to fight for a particular point of view. Paid editors have a built-in advantage; requiring them to put comments on article talk pages balances things out, since the burden of proof is then on them, not on volunteers, to show that their suggestions are valuable. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Discussion

View by Sven Manguard

Everyone comes to Misplaced Pages with established viewpoints. Everything from a person's country of birth to their religion to their educational institutions or workplaces to their particular hobbies gives them established viewpoints. Everyone who edits Misplaced Pages, even if they make a conscious effort to follow NPOV, is effected by those viewpoints. It effects what they choose to work on, what sources they choose to use, and how they fall in talk page dicussions. This is rarely malicious, and almost impossible to avoid.

Some segment of the editors let their established viewpoints get the better of them, and become intractable, abrasive, or combative. Misplaced Pages is very bad at getting rid of people that contribute content but prove impossible to work with.

Editors who are paid to edit fall into both groups. Some of them follow policy, some of them are required (or choose to) be intractable, abrasive, or combative.

We should not treat paid editors differently from unpaid editors. Users who follow our rules should be allowed to participate normally, period. Editors who are so intractable, abrasive, or combative that they cannot function in the community should be asked to leave, irregardless of whether they are paid or unpaid.

Support
  1. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  2. And WP:COI is there, early on, to give those who are here to give guidance how they should handle their conflict of interest. For those who choose not to follow that, indeed, they should just be treated as those who are not being paid for their edits and show a strong, intractable, abrasive or combative attitude. --Dirk Beetstra 19:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  3. This is an ideal goal, although COI declarations remain necessary, in my view. Carrite (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  4. Jclemens-public (talk) 20:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  5. First Light (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC) "Focus on the edits not the editor"
  6. Cla68 (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose
Comments

View by Anonymous Coward

Out there in the real world scientific journals insist that the authors declare any conflicts of interest even though peer review ought to catch obvious problems with the science - they have been doing this for ten or twenty years now. This is because sponsorship, inventments or mere cozy relations raises issues beyond the science itself. Ask yourselves: imagine there is a professor of economics, whose focus is attitudes towards money, especially retirement savings, and who is funded in part by Fidelity Investments. Would you trust this person's advice with regards to your investments; would you trust her when she gives advice on policy to government institutions? If not, why not?

Obviously in the anonymous environment that is Misplaced Pages that there is no way to verify suspicions of conflict of interest, and that's one of the things that's wrong with this site. Good luck!

Comments
Misplaced Pages operates in different ways than academia on more than one level. The request that Misplaced Pages operate like academia coming from an anonymous editors is only funny. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

View by Rklawton

Resolved
We don't need COI to remove the clumsy; we don't need to remove the honest; liars are going to lie. Rklawton (talk) 02:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment
Support
Oppose
 Category: