| Revision as of 00:29, 28 February 2014 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,292,030 editsm Archiving 3 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Conflict of interest/Archive 15) (bot← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:56, 2 March 2014 edit undoMiddle 8 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,217 edits →"Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise": got it, I thinkNext edit → | ||
| Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
| :::Thanks! IMO, that's an improvement on what I was contemplating restoring. --] (]) 20:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC) | :::Thanks! IMO, that's an improvement on what I was contemplating restoring. --] (]) 20:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :::: OK... thanks for explaining this, and I think I get it. It does mean the same thing as the original wording, plus an explanation of where COI does enter in: COI doesn't arise from subject-matter expertise in itself, but rather from the external relationships one may have in that field. So (e.g.) a psychiatrist wouldn't be conflicted in editing an article about antidepressants, but would be if she were getting paid to promote a specific antidepressant. Is that right? --] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 07:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Writing about myself == | == Writing about myself == | ||
Revision as of 07:56, 2 March 2014
| Skip to table of contents |
 | To discuss conflict of interest problems with specific editors and articles, please go to Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. |
 | "Any editor who discusses proposed changes to WP:COI or to any conflict of interest policy or guideline, should disclose in that discussion if he or she has been paid to edit on Misplaced Pages." - WP:COI |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Conflict of interest page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36Auto-archiving period: 15 days  |
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
|
Archives |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Sources on conflict of interest
- Davis, Michael and Stark, Andrew (eds.). Conflict of Interest in the Professions, University of Oxford Press, 2001.
- Krimsky, Sheldon. "The Ethical and Legal Foundations of Scientific 'Conflict of Interest'", in Trudo Lemmings and Duff R. Waring (eds.), Law and Ethics in Biomedical Research: Regulation, Conflict of Interest, and Liability, University of Toronto Press, 2006.
- Lo, Bernard and Field, Marilyn J. (eds.). Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice, National Academies Press, 2009.
- Stark, Andrew. Conflict of Interest in American Public Life, Harvard University Press, 2003.
"Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise"
For quite some time, this sentence was part of WP:COI, and referenced in discussions:
| “ | Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. | ” |
It was removed in this edit, part of a series of edits by an editor doing a general clean-up and copy edit (see series of edits by SlimVirgin in late October '12). I'd assumed there was a specific reason and consensus for its removal, but that doesn't appear to be the case (which isn't meant to reflect in any way whatsoever on SlimVirgin's conduct). Quite possibly it was deleted because it was under "citing yourself" and kind of peripheral to that section. It's a pretty important issue. Should it be restored?
Personally I think it should be. WP should be making clear to people with such expertise that they're welcome here.
Note, I recently opened a thread at COI/N on myself and whether I have a COI because of my own profession: WP:COIN#Acupuncture. I'm not trying to game that discussion, and have mentioned in that thread that I'm posting here. Feel free to comment there too. Thanks. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 06:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Unless someone objects, I am going to wait a few days and then WP:BOLDly restore the text. I would also note that since it was removed we have had several RfCs with wide participation on related issues. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- It's already in the guideline, expressed slightly differently; see last sentence of WP:EXTERNALREL: "But subject-matter experts are welcome to contribute to articles in their areas of expertise, while being careful to make sure that their external relationships in that field do not interfere with their primary role on Misplaced Pages." SlimVirgin 04:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks! IMO, that's an improvement on what I was contemplating restoring. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- OK... thanks for explaining this, and I think I get it. It does mean the same thing as the original wording, plus an explanation of where COI does enter in: COI doesn't arise from subject-matter expertise in itself, but rather from the external relationships one may have in that field. So (e.g.) a psychiatrist wouldn't be conflicted in editing an article about antidepressants, but would be if she were getting paid to promote a specific antidepressant. Is that right? --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 07:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Writing about myself
Dear Friends, Wiki doesnot allow us to write about myself, why?
Will it not be accepted if I write it in 'third person'?
Along, can I write about my team, set up for social works by us?
Please kindly answer as I am a new user of wiki.
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yogirajbiplab (talk • contribs) 08:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- You are very strongly discouraged from writing about yourself, because it is nearly impossible for a person to be completely impartial in that situation. Also, before you or your "team" has an article on Misplaced Pages, you must ensure that you or your team would be considered notable by having significant coverage in reliable sources. Have books been written about you or your team? Magazine articles? What accomplishments have you or your team received that have gained widespread attention? If you are certain that you or your team qualify for inclusion in Misplaced Pages, your best bet is to go to Articles for Creation for help in getting the process started. You will need to have patience though, there are thousands of articles waiting for submission, so it takes time to have them reviewed, and a great number of them are rejected. The alternative to this process though is the probability that an article that you create yourself being deleted swiftly. -- Atama頭 17:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- If you can write about yourself while relying only on knowledge that can be obtained in reliable sources, go for it. Bend over backwards to make sure everything is cited properly. --B2C 18:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yogiraj Biplab
- Team Hungama
- --Guy Macon (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- If Guy Macon's links above are links to you, and your team, then I'm pretty confident that neither will meet our notability requirements for inclusion in Misplaced Pages, I'm sorry. -- Atama頭 19:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- Or you can think of it as a challenge. Go and do something great that changes the world for the better, and you will become notable enough to have a Misplaced Pages article about you. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- If Guy Macon's links above are links to you, and your team, then I'm pretty confident that neither will meet our notability requirements for inclusion in Misplaced Pages, I'm sorry. -- Atama頭 19:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)