Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:53, 2 March 2014 editCoretheapple (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers30,696 edits →Specific changes that should be discussed: policy, not guideline← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:02, 13 December 2024 edit undoTryptofish (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers69,506 editsm Reverted edit by 23.28.7.180 (talk) to last version by CleoMeterTag: Rollback 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{skiptotoctalk}}
{{Warning|To discuss conflict of interest problems with specific editors and articles, please go to<br />].}} {{Warning|To discuss conflict of interest problems with specific editors and articles, please go to<br />].}}
{{COI changes disclosure requirement}}
{{notice|"Any editor who discusses proposed changes to WP:COI or to any conflict of interest policy or guideline, should disclose in that discussion if he or she has been paid to edit on Misplaced Pages." - ]}}
{{talk header |sc=WT:COI}}
{{talkheader}}
{{Press
| subject = page
| author = Garber, Megan
| title = Okay, Who Edited the 'Choco Taco' Misplaced Pages Page From Congress?
| org = '']''
| url = http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/07/okay-who-edited-the-choco-taco-wikipedia-page-from-a-congressional-computer/374488/
| date = July 15, 2014
| author2 = Sali, Meghan
| org2 = '']''
| title2 = Keeping Truth Alive In A World Of Anonymous Misplaced Pages Edits
| date2 = February 1, 2017
| url2 = http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/meghan-sali/truth-in-era-of-wiki-edits_b_14531364.html
| title3 = Misplaced Pages editors for hire
| date3 = June 12, 2009
| org3 = ] SciTechBlog
| author3 = Wes Finley-Price
| url3 = http://scitech.blogs.cnn.com/2009/06/12/wikipedia-editors-for-hire/
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 15 |counter = 36
|minthreadsleft = 1 |minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(15d) |algo = old(18d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Conflict of interest/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Conflict of interest/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}

{{archives|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot II|age=15}}
{{Archive box|search=yes|
* ] <small>(Dec 2004–Aug 2006)</small><br><small>''(old pagename: Vanity guidelines)''</small>
* ] <small>(August–Sept 2006)</small>
* ] <small>(August–October 2006)</small><br><small>''(Editing with a conflict of interest)''</small>
* ] <small>(Oct 2006–March 2007)</small>
* ] <small>(March–July 2007)</small>
* ] <small>(August 2007)</small>
* ] <small>(Sept–December 2007)</small>
* ] <small>(Jan 2008–Feb 2009)</small>
* ] <small>(Feb–September 2009)</small>
* ] <small>(Oct–December 2009)</small>
* ] <small>(2010)</small>
}}
__TOC__ __TOC__
== COI ==
{{Clear}}

==Sources on conflict of interest==
*] and Stark, Andrew (eds.). , University of Oxford Press, 2001.
*Krimsky, Sheldon. , 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.). , National Academies Press, 2009.
*Stark, Andrew. , 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 ], and referenced in discussions:
{{Cquote|Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest.}}
It was removed in , part of a series of edits by an editor doing a general clean-up and copy edit (see series of edits by {{U|SlimVirgin}} in ). 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?


How do I get my name added to a description? It's incomplete without my name. ] (]) 19:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Personally I think it should be. WP should be making clear to people with such expertise that they're welcome here.


:@] your question doesn't make a lot of sense. Please elaborate. ] (]) 18:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Note, I recently opened a thread at COI/N on myself and whether I have a COI because of my own profession: ]. 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. --] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 06:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
::I think they were trying to make a joke. "The article on Conflict of Interest is incomplete without my username in it" being a self-depreciative way of saying "I have conflict of interest"
::It shouldn't be here, though, since it is irrelevant to the content of the article. ] (]) 17:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)


== Threshold that should be met in order to tag an article ==
:<s>Unless someone objects, I am going to wait a few days and then ]ly restore the text. I would also note that since it was removed we have had several RfCs with wide participation on related issues. --] (]) 04:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)</s><sup>See below. --] (]) 20:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)</sup>
] I tagged that article, because of substantial addition of contents by an account that was created, seemingly just for this purpose and promptly disappeared. It's a tactic commonly employed by company's marketing personnel, or external public relations editors, because they do not wish to have the account linked to their other editing activities. As long as I explain it, I feel this meets the threshold to mark it as "appears to have COI". I welcome comments. ] (]) 18:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)


*Maybe a moot point because the creator in question has been gone for 14 years. I think that almost every use of this tag is basically an educated guess and this educated guess seems as good as any and so I would say that it is not improper to place the tag. But this tag is really to help bring this to some sort of a resolution (regarding the creator or the article content) and I don't see what that would be at this point. And some would argue an undue influence on the AFD. So, IMHO OK to place the tag but probably a better idea to not do so. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 19:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
::It's already in the guideline, expressed slightly differently; see last sentence of ]: "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." ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 04:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
*:Delayed discovery doesn't negate the issue of article contamination with undue contents that causes over-representation of the advocate's interest. {{re|North8000}}, that White Stag article is a great example of this. PR editing effort often creates new account as needed. The most recent suspected PR activity took place in March 2024 on the article in question. ] shown by account creation date, brief period of making substantial edits exclusively on this article and disappearing is indicative of brand involved page maintenance/public relations editing based on my experience observing COI edits. I would say it rises to the level of "reasonable suspicion". ] (]) 20:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
*::I see absolutely no reason for a tag. There is no way to resolve the "issue" as the user did not add any POV information. There is also no evidence that the user was paid, and I see no reason to assume they were. Tags are placed so articles can be fixed, where is the issue to fix here? ] (]) 22:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::{{re|Glman}}, the UPE tang and COI tag are not the same. This one is a COI tag. "appears to have a COI" is not a high standard and as I said, I put this at the same level as "reasonable suspicion", so beyond a hunch, and can be articulated with a reason, such as editing pattern. ] (]) 01:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
*::::I still fail to be convinced. It is entirely plausible that the editor is a fan of the label or certain releases. Nothing added to the page is POV, so again, how would one adjust the article to have the tag removed? ] (]) 17:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)


== Is contact via email and LinkedIn considered as COI? ==
:::Thanks! IMO, that's an improvement on what I was contemplating restoring. --] (]) 20:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


I'm involved in ] and one of the advocates for keeping the article has written ''I do not know Corm II personally. In the real world and among real people who don't spend their time online, that means that we have never met. I obviously got in touch with him through email (we are connected on LinkedIn) for this article. He gave me personal info as well as some personal media he had in his possession. That's it. Full stop.'' Is this type of online-only contact considered as COI or would it be acceptable not to disclose it on your user page? ]<sup>]</sup> 07:09, 19 November 2024 (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)


:If they're contacting them ''for the purpose of improving a Misplaced Pages article'' (by whatever means), then I don't see a conflict of interest. It's a longstanding if relatively uncommon practice to for example contact the subject of an article to ask for a freely-licensed image. Obviously asking them for "personal info" is not a good idea because it cannot actually be used in articles, but that's a question of ] and ] rather than ]. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 07:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::IMHO, that's the way I read it. See also ] for a humorous outline of the concept. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


::Many thanks. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
== Writing about myself ==
Dear Friends,
Wiki doesnot allow us to write about myself, why?


== Proposal for New Article: Robinson Tesla-network ==
Will it not be accepted if I write it in 'third person'?


Hello, I would like to propose the creation of a new Misplaced Pages article titled Robinson Tesla-network. This network, established on June 30, 1997, focuses on affiliate marketing by promoting Tesla Inc.'s products and services. Its primary objective is to generate revenue through strategic online advertising campaigns.
Along, can I write about my team, set up for social works by us?


The draft includes the following sections:
Please kindly answer as I am a new user of wiki.


1. History – Overview of the network’s founding and development.
Thanks <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 08:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
: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 ] by having ''significant'' coverage in ]. 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 ] 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. -- ''']'''] 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. --]2] 18:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
::
::
::--] (]) 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 ] requirements for inclusion in Misplaced Pages, I'm sorry. -- ''']'''] 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. --] (]) 19:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


2. Purpose and Objectives – Details on its affiliate marketing focus.
== Re: ] ==


It appears that the ] will be passed, at least in some form, and that this page may confuse editors in some respects if the amendment does pass. Yes, there are 3 weeks left in the comment period, and then the Board of Trustees does then have to pass the amendment specifically by a resolution. But, it's also clear that only 21% of !voters oppose the amendment and that we'll have some clean up to do here once the amendment is implemented.


3. Products and Services – A description of Tesla products it promotes.
I simply propose that we get to work on the needed changes now. My specific proposals include:


===If the amendment is implemented===
On that day we post at the beginning of the text:
"Misplaced Pages's Terms of Use have recently been changed, see (link). As a result we may be making adjustments to this guideline. Until these adjustments are made all paid editors must strictly follow the terms of both this guideline and the Terms of Use."


4. Key Milestones – Notable achievements in affiliate marketing.
====Specific changes that should be discussed====
*Directly under "paid editing" we should add.
**"All paid editors must read the Terms of Use (link), particularly section xx (link) and abide by those terms."


*In the Paid Advocacy section immediately after point 2.
**"'''then you must disclose each paid edit and''' are very strongly discouraged from directly editing Misplaced Pages"
**in the next paragraph, change "You '''should''' provide full disclosure of your connection" to "You '''must''' provide full disclosure of your connection"


*Under "You and your circle"
**Change "you are advised to refrain from editing articles directly, and to provide full disclosure of the connection" to "you are '''strongly discouraged''' from editing articles directly, and '''must''' provide full disclosure of the connection."


I have included independent references to support the draft's content, such as industry reports and marketing insights. I acknowledge my conflict of interest, as I am affiliated with the network, and welcome feedback to ensure neutrality and adherence to Misplaced Pages's guidelines. ] (]) 00:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
There are many other passages that will need this cleanup. I think it's time to get started. ]<sub>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 20:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
:The username for your account violates ], so you will have to change it. It is important that you carefully review and follow ] and ]. It would probably be a good idea for you to submit your proposed draft via ]. And please make sure that the draft article satisfies the requirements at ]. --] (]) 00:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:I think that interpreting the TOU amendment will probably require an RfC. I hate to have to do it, it feels like it's bureaucracy in response to bureaucracy, but I think if it's not done that way someone is going to just revert any changes made and accuse people of making major guideline changes without the backing of consensus. I wish I could say that it wouldn't be controversial to make common-sense changes to this guideline with the support of the amendment, but recent discussions on this talk page have convinced me otherwise (two weeks of discussion in the beginning of February filled up all of Archive 15 for example). -- ''']'''] 21:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
::We also have to keep in mind, if this is enacted by the Foundation, that whatever is done on Misplaced Pages as compliance has to be a policy, not a guideline. ] (]) 22:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:02, 13 December 2024

To discuss conflict of interest problems with specific editors and articles, please go to
Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard.
Users who have been paid to edit Misplaced Pages must disclose this fact when discussing proposed changes to WP:COI or related pages.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Conflict of interest page.
Shortcut
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: 18 days 
Media mentionThis page has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

COI

How do I get my name added to a description? It's incomplete without my name. LCSWV (talk) 19:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

@LCSWV your question doesn't make a lot of sense. Please elaborate. Graywalls (talk) 18:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
I think they were trying to make a joke. "The article on Conflict of Interest is incomplete without my username in it" being a self-depreciative way of saying "I have conflict of interest"
It shouldn't be here, though, since it is irrelevant to the content of the article. CleoMeter (talk) 17:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Threshold that should be met in order to tag an article

Talk:Tooth_&_Nail_Records_discography I tagged that article, because of substantial addition of contents by an account that was created, seemingly just for this purpose and promptly disappeared. It's a tactic commonly employed by company's marketing personnel, or external public relations editors, because they do not wish to have the account linked to their other editing activities. As long as I explain it, I feel this meets the threshold to mark it as "appears to have COI". I welcome comments. Graywalls (talk) 18:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Maybe a moot point because the creator in question has been gone for 14 years. I think that almost every use of this tag is basically an educated guess and this educated guess seems as good as any and so I would say that it is not improper to place the tag. But this tag is really to help bring this to some sort of a resolution (regarding the creator or the article content) and I don't see what that would be at this point. And some would argue an undue influence on the AFD. So, IMHO OK to place the tag but probably a better idea to not do so. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
    Delayed discovery doesn't negate the issue of article contamination with undue contents that causes over-representation of the advocate's interest. @North8000:, that White Stag article is a great example of this. PR editing effort often creates new account as needed. The most recent suspected PR activity took place in March 2024 on the article in question. The pattern shown by account creation date, brief period of making substantial edits exclusively on this article and disappearing is indicative of brand involved page maintenance/public relations editing based on my experience observing COI edits. I would say it rises to the level of "reasonable suspicion". Graywalls (talk) 20:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
    I see absolutely no reason for a tag. There is no way to resolve the "issue" as the user did not add any POV information. There is also no evidence that the user was paid, and I see no reason to assume they were. Tags are placed so articles can be fixed, where is the issue to fix here? glman (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
    @Glman:, the UPE tang and COI tag are not the same. This one is a COI tag. "appears to have a COI" is not a high standard and as I said, I put this at the same level as "reasonable suspicion", so beyond a hunch, and can be articulated with a reason, such as editing pattern. Graywalls (talk) 01:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
    I still fail to be convinced. It is entirely plausible that the editor is a fan of the label or certain releases. Nothing added to the page is POV, so again, how would one adjust the article to have the tag removed? glman (talk) 17:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Is contact via email and LinkedIn considered as COI?

I'm involved in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Charles Corm II and one of the advocates for keeping the article has written I do not know Corm II personally. In the real world and among real people who don't spend their time online, that means that we have never met. I obviously got in touch with him through email (we are connected on LinkedIn) for this article. He gave me personal info as well as some personal media he had in his possession. That's it. Full stop. Is this type of online-only contact considered as COI or would it be acceptable not to disclose it on your user page? Spiderone 07:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

If they're contacting them for the purpose of improving a Misplaced Pages article (by whatever means), then I don't see a conflict of interest. It's a longstanding if relatively uncommon practice to for example contact the subject of an article to ask for a freely-licensed image. Obviously asking them for "personal info" is not a good idea because it cannot actually be used in articles, but that's a question of WP:V and WP:BLP rather than WP:COI. – Joe (talk) 07:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Many thanks. Spiderone 17:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Proposal for New Article: Robinson Tesla-network

Hello, I would like to propose the creation of a new Misplaced Pages article titled Robinson Tesla-network. This network, established on June 30, 1997, focuses on affiliate marketing by promoting Tesla Inc.'s products and services. Its primary objective is to generate revenue through strategic online advertising campaigns.

The draft includes the following sections:

1. History – Overview of the network’s founding and development.


2. Purpose and Objectives – Details on its affiliate marketing focus.


3. Products and Services – A description of Tesla products it promotes.


4. Key Milestones – Notable achievements in affiliate marketing.


I have included independent references to support the draft's content, such as industry reports and marketing insights. I acknowledge my conflict of interest, as I am affiliated with the network, and welcome feedback to ensure neutrality and adherence to Misplaced Pages's guidelines. Robinson-teslanetwork (talk) 00:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

The username for your account violates our username policy, so you will have to change it. It is important that you carefully review and follow WP:COI and WP:PAID. It would probably be a good idea for you to submit your proposed draft via Articles for Creation. And please make sure that the draft article satisfies the requirements at WP:Notability (organizations and companies). --Tryptofish (talk) 00:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Category: