Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest

Guideline revision version 3

To preserve the integrity, neutrality, and public trust in Wikipedia, it is crucial to effectively manage conflicts of interest among editors. A conflict of interest arises when an editor's personal, professional, or financial connections might compromise the objectivity of their contributions. This guideline outlines the types of conflicts and specifies the conduct required for editors who may be affected by them.

Financial Conflict of Interest

An editor has a financial conflict of interest when they stand to gain, or can reasonably be expected to gain, financial benefits from the coverage of a topic on Wikipedia. This conflict arises in various forms:

• Direct Financial Benefits: These include receiving direct payment for editing Wikipedia articles.
• Indirect Financial Benefits: Such benefits are not as overt as direct payments but are significant. Examples include:
  • Business Exposure: Gaining from increased visibility when a product, service, or company is featured in an article. For example, an editor who is a major shareholder or partner in a business could materially benefit from increased sales due to enhanced visibility of their product on Wikipedia. Conversely, an individual who holds a inconsequential stake, such as a small fraction of a percent of shares in a publicly traded company, would not be positioned to experience noticeable financial gains from such coverage.
  • Reputation Enhancement: Benefiting indirectly from an enhanced reputation due to having a personal article on Wikipedia or being prominently featured as an expert. This can lead to increased professional opportunities, such as book sales, speaking engagements, or consultancy work.

Non-financial Conflict of Interest

An editor has a non-financial conflict of interest when their personal or professional connections may compromise their ability to present a subject objectively. This type of conflict arises in various forms:

• Personal Relationships: Editing articles about friends, colleagues, family members, romantic partners, or personal adversaries can lead to biased content, whether overly favorable or unduly negative.
• Professional Connections: Editing articles related to one's employer or competitors in the industry can introduce biases that may either unfairly promote one’s own organization or undermine others. Similarly, citing oneself or ones close acquaintances as sources can introduce bias, influencing the content to unduly favor personal or professional interests.
• Significant Roles: Editing articles related to organizations in which an individual holds a significant role, or recently held a significant role, may introduce biases and a lack of objectivity in content related to the organization's interests. This is a spectrum, with whether an editor has a conflict of interest depending both on the level of authority or influence their role granted them, and the recency of the role. For example:
  • A general volunteer for the Democratic Party would have no conflict of interest.
  • A precinct captain for the Democratic Party would have a conflict of interest for a few years after they hold the role.
  • A presidential elector for the Democratic Party would permanently have a conflict of interest.

Managing Conflicts

• Editors with a Financial Conflict: Must not directly edit affected articles. Instead, they should propose changes using the Edit COI template, disclosing the nature of their conflict on their user page and in any location they discuss the topic.
• Editors with Non-financial Conflicts: While not strictly forbidden from directly editing affected articles, transparency is required; they must disclose their conflict in the edit summary and in any location they discuss the topic.

Exceptions

Aside from those explicitly listed here, no exceptions exist to this guideline; edits must abide by it regardless of their perceived harmlessness or quality. Editors who wish to avoid disclosing their conflict of interest may do so only be avoiding topics affected by it.

General exceptions

1. Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language.
2. Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC). What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first. Consider opening a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion instead of relying on this exemption.
3. Removal of content that is clearly illegal under U.S. law, such as child pornography and links to pirated software.
4. Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.
5. Reverting unambiguous spam, where the content would be eligible for page deletion under criterion G11 if it were a standalone page.

Wikipedians in residence

A Wikimedian in Residence (WIR) is a professional role in communications for an organization to share its knowledge within the Wikimedia platform, measure the impact of the same, and promote Wikipedia through training, education, and edit-a-thons. While WIRs can greatly benefit Wikipedia, there is a risk of edits that could unduly benefit their employers. To manage this risk, the following guidelines apply:

• Scope of Editing: WIRs may edit articles related to but not directly involving their institution. They must not edit articles where their institution is the primary subject or could reasonably be seen as directly benefiting from the article's content; if they wish to make changes to such articles they must follow the instructions at #Managing Conflicts for Editors with a Financial Conflict.
• Disclosure Requirements: WIRs must clearly disclose their role and association with their institution on their user page, as well as in any discussions or edits related to their role as a WIR

Reporting suspected violations

When violations of this policy are suspected or identified it is crucial to address them with transparency and caution, balancing protecting the encyclopedia with respect for the editors involved. Always adhere strictly to our no-outing policy; only post personal information if the editor has disclosed it on Wikipedia.

• User talk page: Non-urgent issues can be raised on the editor's talk page, using the COI warning template as appropriate.
• COI noticeboard: If issues remain unresolved after user talk page discussions, or if the user talk page is an unsuitable venue, escalate the matter to the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. This noticeboard also provides guidance for editors dealing with their own conflicts.
• Private communication: For issues requiring confidentiality, including where posting the information on Wikipedia would violate our policies on the posting of personal information, email evidence to the appropriate channels: for general COI issues, contact functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org, and for paid editing concerns, reach out to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org. Always consult these channels for advice before sending private information.

Updated to incorporate suggestions from the previous discussion; I'm also notifying WP:VPI for additional input. The intention is that this will replace the current guideline; the current text will be moved to an explanatory essay where it can be adjusted as needed. BilledMammal (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Big picture: I think this puts our guideline out of compliance with the global policy on paid editing and thus needs revision, to at minimum provide a useful link to what the policy requires. I also would hope that the intention is that an RfC would be held to replace the current text rather than attempting to do it as a BOLD edit. Small picture: Functionaries-en does not accept emails from non-members (with the exception of WMF emails) for the last 18-24 months. ArbCom should be announcing something on the UPE/COI private evidence side in the next day or so, so that can be updated. I also personally don't think the significant roles represents my thinking or understanding of that concept and think that we should not have an example that is so American centered. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Arbcom's announcement is live. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Can you clarify which aspect you think is out of compliance with the global policy?

An RfC would definitely be held; this isn't the short of change that can be done boldly. BilledMammal (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

The disclosure here does not meet the format of the global policy in terms of the level of disclosure required. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm still not very convinced by the presumed pipeline between being cited in a Wikipedia article and increased professional opportunities, such as book sales, speaking engagements, or consultancy work. This still seems like an inflated sense of Wikipedia readers' engagement with sources and attribution, or a misguided sense of people in charge of events at universities schedule book tours and talks. The discouragement of citing oneself in the non-financial conflict of interest section on the grounds that it may tilt content toward one's personal professional interests seems sufficient and more suitable.

Does exception #4, Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption contradict WP:BLP's guidance?: Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 14:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I also remain of the sense that the "Reporting suspected violations" section continues to unduly frame respect for editors in tension with protection of the encyclopedia. Your earlier explanation was that the two aren't in opposition, but you then go on to describe them as if oppositional: We respect editors by... while protecting the encyclopedia by... etc., as if the former isn't also the latter. All policies and guidelines exist for the benefit of the encyclopedia, so both identifying COI and respecting editors serve to protect the project. I would encourage a rephrase to When violations of this policy are suspected or identified it is crucial to address them with compliance to relevant guidelines and policies, balancing concern for undisclosed COI editing with respect for the editors involved. This avoids implying the latter policy somehow doesn't benefit the encyclopedia. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 15:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think so; the text is same as the long standing text at WP:3RRNO. BilledMammal (talk) 10:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Previously paid editors

Something came up at WT:OKA regarding editors who were previously paid (and therefore displayed a paid editor template on their User page per disclosure requirements), but who are no longer paid and continue to edit in a fully volunteer basis like any other unpaid editor at Wikipedia. Should we say something about this at WP:COI? Do we need a new {{paid}}-like template, to say they were {{previously paid}}, or do we maybe add a new parameter to the old one, with new parameter |previous=yes? Or should those editors simply remove their {{paid}} template when they are no longer editing for pay?

I think I would vote for the new-param/new-template solution, as I think I would want to know that someone previously edited for pay so I would be informed, when checking earlier contributions, but I think I would also like to know that they are no longer paid editors. And it doesn't seem right to oblige them to leave the {{paid}} editor template up forever, if it no longer reflects the reality of their current contributions. Would like to know what others think. Mathglot (talk) 10:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I think {{paid}} (unlike {{coi}}) is already implicitly past tense. We want to know if someone was paid for a particular set of edits, and that information remains relevant as long as those edits are in Wikipedia's database (i.e. forever). Perhaps we should update the template to explicitly use the past tense (e.g. "were paid" instead of "have been paid" currently), but I don't see the need a strong need to make a distinction between completed contracts and ongoing ones. They should definitely not remove the paid template, otherwise every freelancer that does one-off jobs could claim that they have nothing to disclose right now, because the work was completed when they clicked save. The situation at OKA, where editors are paid a stipend for ongoing and nonspecific contributions to Wikipedia is not typical, and as I think we've both said elsewhere "paid editing" is probably not the most accurate description of it in the first place. – Joe (talk) 11:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, and I get the verb tense issue point, but it just seems like leaving it up forever is a bit of a scarlet letter. Some editors who are indeffed for serious policy violations get to come back if they manage a successful appeal, and the indef banner eventually ages off their Talk page, although you can find the evidence in the log or page history if you look. Others indeffed get to come back under clean start, and then you can't even find a trace at all. Why should a formerly-paid editor who has adhered to all policies and guidelines including disclosure, be obliged to retain the banner forever, when previously indeffed editors are not? That's the problem I have with it. Maybe there should be an elapsed time after which it goes from "paid" to "previously paid" and then eventually ages off? Mathglot (talk) 19:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

The purpose of disclosure is to let the reader know that certain text is written under a COI and factor that, however they choose, in their reading. It's about honesty concerning relationship with the writing and not a punishment (indeed not a comment on good faith or anything else per the guideline). Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker, there is already a solution for that: the {{connected contributor}} template, which goes on the article talk page, and I have no objection whatever of it remaining there, for the reasons you point out. However, a COI disclosure statement or template does not tell you which article(s) is/are involved; do you see a reason why it should remain on the user's talk page forever? Mathglot (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

It very much should say which articles are involved. The {{paid}} template has an |article= parameter for that reason. – Joe (talk) 23:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

For better or worse, the terms of use don't specify any conditions under which a notice can be removed. However an editor can note when their paid editing ended, or even disclose which edits were paid for, should they choose. isaacl (talk) 15:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Nine years ago, another editor advised me to create a separate account for edits that are not paid (and to disclose that both accounts belong to me). I find it useful, but I'm not sure if that is a solution others would advise currently. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Not a bad solution, technically speaking, but I still don't see why a formerly indeffed user may be simply welcomed back to the fold, while a formerly paid editor who never did anything wrong has to jump through extra hoops. Mathglot (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, paid editors are not excluded from the fold in the first place. They're just asked to disclose their conflict of interest, which per this guideline is supposed to be a "description of a situation, not a judgment about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith", though I'll grant you that in practice many editors will judge them for it. – Joe (talk) 23:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)