I think that WP:COI (or Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest) is botched. The basic notion is that if you really intimately know about or care passionately about a topic that might have some impact on your career, even in some tangential way, you are either "strongly encouraged" or (just in case you are dense) "very strongly encouraged" to avoid editing Wikipedia on that topic.
Following this policy means that:
In the article about the theory of general relativity, Wikipedia would reject the submissions of Albert Einstein, but encourage those of a talented high school physics student.
In the article about Microsoft, Wikipedia would reject the submissions of Bill Gates, but encourage those of an amateur computer enthusiast, or (heaven forfend!) accept those of Steve Jobs editing anonymously.
In the article about the Pokemon character, "Brock", Wikipedia would reject the submissions of conceptual creator Satoshi Tajiri, but encourage those of an 8-year-old kid in his underpants on his mom's computer.
In summary, regardless of whether the authoring agent can prove Notability, use excellent independently-sourced Citation skills, and civilly engage in the Editing/Discussion process, if the author stands to make any personal money in the process, their edits must be "strongly" avoided/discouraged/deleted.
If that's the case, why is it that:
(1) Angela Beesley has edited the article about Wikia.com (her own company) on July 12, April 30, March 27, and February 18 of 2006; plus October 17, July 15, May 6-7, April 23, March 24, February 10, February 4, and January 14 of 2005?
(2) The Reward Board is allowed to remain in place -- WP:COI clearly says that if "you are receiving monetary or other benefits to edit Wikipedia", then "we *very strongly* encourage you to avoid editing..."
If Wikipedia's most staunch defenders of "non-conflict-of-interest" editing would grab hold of a clue, maybe they might see that commercial interests and scrutiny have a lot to offer Wikipedia, in terms of careful, fact-based editing, contributing hard-to-find information, and engaging in the ongoing editorial dialogue. The company that just repeatedly comes into the Wikipedia space and makes one biased, unsupported claim after another will just be making itself look foolish.
When you peel away all the layers of excuses and hypocrisy, let's face it, EVERYONE has some personally-beneficial agenda when they choose to edit one topic in Wikipedia over any of the 1.3 million other ones at their disposal.
(Great question, David!)
I am in broad agreement with this. I think the problem is especially that all WP:COI is going to do is make people not admit to their conflicts of interest, and encourage people to edit anonymously.
-Matt
On 11/3/06, Gregory Kohs thekohser@gmail.com wrote:
Following this policy means that:
In the article about the theory of general relativity, Wikipedia would reject the submissions of Albert Einstein, but encourage those of a talented high school physics student.
We have a large, ongoing problem with companies attempting to use WP as a promotional tool, as I'm sure you are aware, and political operatives attempting to use WP as a campaign tool. A policy is helpful and useful in dealing with these issues, if only to provide a link to paste on a spammer's page to help explain why he can't post a link to his sales page everywhere. I doubt that anyone would seriously interpret this policy in a way that would reject the contributions of a notable scientist editing articles in his field.
On 03/11/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/3/06, Gregory Kohs thekohser@gmail.com wrote:
In the article about the theory of general relativity, Wikipedia would reject the submissions of Albert Einstein, but encourage those of a talented high school physics student.
We have a large, ongoing problem with companies attempting to use WP as a promotional tool, as I'm sure you are aware, and political operatives attempting to use WP as a campaign tool. A policy is helpful and useful in dealing with these issues, if only to provide a link to paste on a spammer's page to help explain why he can't post a link to his sales page everywhere. I doubt that anyone would seriously interpret this policy in a way that would reject the contributions of a notable scientist editing articles in his field.
Have a look at the arbcom pages some time. Fred Bauder seriously proposed some time last year that Chip Berlet should not be allowed to edit articles about the LaRouchians because - hah! - his expertise on the subject meant he was too involved.
- d.
On 11/3/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Have a look at the arbcom pages some time. Fred Bauder seriously proposed some time last year that Chip Berlet should not be allowed to edit articles about the LaRouchians because - hah! - his expertise on the subject meant he was too involved.
Did he actually say that "expertise" should be a disqualification from editing or did he say that due to his experience Berlet may have a preconceived notion that the LaRouchians were all nuts and should thus be disqualified? The latter seems to be a more reasonable and defensible position, though it isn't one I that I agree with.
On Nov 3, 2006, at 9:59 AM, Gregory Kohs wrote:
I think that WP:COI (or Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest) is botched. The basic notion is that if you really intimately know about or care passionately about a topic that might have some impact on your career, even in some tangential way, you are either "strongly encouraged" or (just in case you are dense) "very strongly encouraged" to avoid editing Wikipedia on that topic.
We have had a vigorous debate on these issues on the talk page, and similar concerns were voiced there. The current wording about "close relationships" makes allowances related to editing within policies. It now reads:
---- == Close relationships == Friedrich Engels would have had difficulty editing Karl Marx, because he was a close friend, follower and collaborator.[1] Any situation where strong relationships can develop may trigger a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal. It is not determined by area, but is created by relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon, a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization.
There is no tidy definition of what is meant by "too close" in this context, and editors should use their common sense in deciding whether this guideline applies. An article about a little-known band should preferably not be written by a band member or the manager. On the other hand, an expert on climate change is welcome to contribute to articles on that subject, even if he is deeply committed to it. As a rule of thumb, the more involved you are in a particular area in real life, the more careful you should be to adhere to our core content policies — Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Verifiability — when editing in that area. Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you in that direction. Be guided by the advice of other editors. If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, take seriously what they say and consider withdrawing from editing the article.
---- There is some opposition to this wording on the basis that it is "too soft", but IMO it captures the spirit of what this guideline wants to say about editing articles in which one may have a COI based on a "close relationship".
-- Jossi
jf_wikipedia@mac.com wrote:
We have had a vigorous debate on these issues on the talk page, and similar concerns were voiced there. The current wording about "close relationships" makes allowances related to editing within policies. It now reads:
== Close relationships == Friedrich Engels would have had difficulty editing Karl Marx, because he was a close friend, follower and collaborator.[1] Any situation where strong relationships can develop may trigger a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal. It is not determined by area, but is created by relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon, a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization.
There is no tidy definition of what is meant by "too close" in this context, and editors should use their common sense in deciding whether this guideline applies. An article about a little-known band should preferably not be written by a band member or the manager. On the other hand, an expert on climate change is welcome to contribute to articles on that subject, even if he is deeply committed to it. As a rule of thumb, the more involved you are in a particular area in real life, the more careful you should be to adhere to our core content policies — Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Verifiability — when editing in that area. Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you in that direction. Be guided by the advice of other editors. If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, take seriously what they say and consider withdrawing from editing the article.
There is some opposition to this wording on the basis that it is "too soft", but IMO it captures the spirit of what this guideline wants to say about editing articles in which one may have a COI based on a "close relationship".
Conflicts of interest are a fact of life, and should not in themselves bar a person from editing a subject. It's more important that potential conflicts of interest be declared so that the person's perspective is clear. While neutrality is important, and articles should clearly approach neutrality more closely with each edit, no-one can completely divorce himself from his own perspective on a controversial issue. A person directly connected with a company may very well quote from the company's PR material; that's fine because he can very well be an authority on what the company's point of view really is. Editing that should not distort what the company is trying to say. If the company's statements differ from what it actually does that needs to be expressed too, but this is in addition to rather than instead of the company's propaganda.
The contrast that you make between the band manager and the climate change crusader is interesting. There is a lot of controversy about climate change, but you seem to support a lighter application of the rules in this case than with the band manager in an article that is of more limited importance. In the absence of further information why not let the band manager's comments stand if they are not of a controversial nature?
The advice of other editors is to be considered, but a claim that someone is in a conflict of interest is often a personal attack. It can too often be used as a bullying tactic to make the opposing POV dominant.
Ec
On Nov 3, 2006, at 6:49 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
It's more important that potential conflicts of interest be declared so that the person's perspective is clear.
That was also discussed in talk page at [[WP:COI]]. I agree with you that declaration of COIs is important as it encourages transparency. But other editors are of the opinion that such declarations are meaningless in this context. I would appreciate your comments in talk.
-- Jossi
jf_wikipedia@mac.com wrote:
On Nov 3, 2006, at 6:49 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
It's more important that potential conflicts of interest be declared so that the person's perspective is clear.
That was also discussed in talk page at [[WP:COI]]. I agree with you that declaration of COIs is important as it encourages transparency. But other editors are of the opinion that such declarations are meaningless in this context. I would appreciate your comments in talk.
After reading through that article and its talk page I can only regard it as so much excess verbiage to be cut severely. The problem with my getting involved in such a page is that I would waste a lot of time arguing over things that have little bearing on what I prefer to do. If it so happens that someone accuses me of a conflict of interest I can wait until then toi argue about what the policy should be.
It would be nice if people declared their conflicts of interest, but this kind of detailed rules is an absolute disincentive. I am not concerned with harassing people who might have these conflicts of interest. I very much prefer keeping their opinions there where they can be seen for what they are. Even PR people should have a place. If they claim that they are being paid to keep an article favorable to their client it's a promise that they can't keep, and it may even be fraudulent for them to accept money that they can't fulfill, but that is between them and their "client".
Ec
On 11/4/06, Gregory Kohs thekohser@gmail.com wrote:
I think that WP:COI (or Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest) is botched.
...
If that's the case, why is it that:
(1) Angela Beesley has edited the article about Wikia.com
Because the policy didn't exist then. [[WP:COI]] was a guideline about not making vanity pages until October 10th.
Angela.
Angela wrote:
On 11/4/06, Gregory Kohs thekohser@gmail.com wrote:
I think that WP:COI (or Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest) is botched.
...
If that's the case, why is it that:
(1) Angela Beesley has edited the article about Wikia.com
Because the policy didn't exist then. [[WP:COI]] was a guideline about not making vanity pages until October 10th.
Frankly, I am not bothered by your editing the Wikia article. I'm sure you understand that your edits are subject to being mangled by future editors. What the advocates for this page are treating as conflict of interest is really minimal in the real world. If the detractors believe that you are not being neutral it's up to them to offer alternative views of Wikia.
For you, continuing on the boards of both WMF and Wikia could have become a conflict of interest, but you fixed that.
Ec