| Revision as of 20:41, 2 March 2014 editSmallbones (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Pending changes reviewers59,541 edits →Re: m:Terms of use/Paid contributions amendment: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:56, 2 March 2014 edit undoAtama (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers17,335 edits →Re: m:Terms of use/Paid contributions amendment: I think we'd need an RfC to get anything to stick.Next edit → | ||
| Line 96: | Line 96: | ||
| 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) | 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) | ||
| :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) | |||
Revision as of 21:56, 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)
- IMHO, that's the way I read it. See also WP:CHEESE for a humorous outline of the concept. Montanabw 18:37, 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)
Re: m:Terms of use/Paid contributions amendment
It appears that the m:Terms of use/Paid contributions amendment 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.
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."
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."
There are many other passages that will need this cleanup. I think it's time to get started. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:41, 2 March 2014 (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). -- Atama頭 21:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)