| Revision as of 08:44, 20 April 2005 editRadiant! (talk | contribs)36,918 edits →Reworking of the entire article← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 19:02, 13 December 2024 edit undoTryptofish (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers69,579 editsm Reverted edit by 23.28.7.180 (talk) to last version by CleoMeterTag: Rollback | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Warning|To discuss conflict of interest problems with specific editors and articles, please go to<br />].}} | |||
| == "The Kid" == | |||
| {{COI changes disclosure requirement}} | |||
| {{talk header |sc=WT:COI}} | |||
| {{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 | |||
| |archiveheader = {{aan}} | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 150K | |||
| |counter = 36 | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 4 | |||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| |algo = old(18d) | |||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Conflict of interest/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| I wrote about the fiasco related to an ex-user. I know that he does not desire to have his name mentioned in perpetuity; however, I felt the matter was important to this article. ''If'' anyone feels that my inclusion of this material violates said person's privacy, or fans flames of further controversy, feel free to delete that section. I will not object. ] 05:31, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | == COI == | ||
| How do I get my name added to a description? It's incomplete without my name. ] (]) 19:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | == |
||
| :@] your question doesn't make a lot of sense. Please elaborate. ] (]) 18:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| This rule could be summarized "Don't start an article about yourself. If you or your project is notable enough, someone else will start the article." | |||
| ::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 == | |||
| Add to first paragraph? - ] 22:16, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ] 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) | |||
| == Minor revert war == | |||
| *: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) | |||
| There has been a minor revert war about whether articles on high schools can be considered vanity or not. I should point out that it was present in the first version of this page, and given the age of the page one cannot unilaterally take that out. I should also point out that the person to first remove the clause is presently blocked for disruption. | |||
| *::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? == | |||
| Note that this does not mean that ''all'' high school articles are vanity, merely that ''some'' are (just like not all articles on people are vanity, but some are). If people want to establish that high school articles are never vanity, they should find an appropriate place to put the matter to discussion. ]]] 12:00, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *The article as it stands right now is self-contradictory. Its second paragraph contradicts its third paragraph. ] 10:33, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC) | |||
| **You mean "Usually, vanity authors write about themselves..." contradicts "Joe Blow is a 32-year-old actuary from Seattle, Washington..."? I don't get it. ]]] 12:31, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ***At the time that I wrote that, the article was somewhat different, and "Articles about start-up businesses or musicians are not vanity pages and are considered acceptable" contradicted "Several wikipedians include other personal articles under the "vanity" deletion criteria. These topic types include articles about one's high school, start-up business or band, for example.". ] 12:46, 2005 Apr 19 (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) | |||
| == Lack of fame/recognition == | |||
| :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 ]. – ] <small>(])</small> 07:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Under the somewhat twee subtitle "Does lack of fame a vanity article make?", we read: | |||
| ::Many thanks. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :A page should not be cast away as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. There is presently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required for a page to be included in Misplaced Pages, and therefore, lack of fame should be completely ignored in deletion debates. | |||
| == Proposal for New Article: Robinson Tesla-network == | |||
| (This appears to have been added by ] in and not touched since.) This appears to say "We don't know what the required degree of recognition (RDR) is and therefore it is zero." Huh? | |||
| 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. | |||
| Or does this perhaps mean "Of itself, even infinitesimally low DR is not grounds for the charge of vanity"? That seems OK, leaving open the possibility of: "I do not claim that the article is vanity, but do claim that its subject has such a negligible DR that it should be deleted." -- ] 07:17, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC) | |||
| *Well, whatever EventHorizon says, 'lack of fame' is never 'completely ignored' in deletion debates. A subject doesn't have to be ''famous'' per se but needs to have some kind of merit before an article is merited. There's the biography inclusion guidelines, for instance. ]]] 10:08, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *That text has actually been in the article since its creation. ] merely moved it. The final part of the sentence is illogical, and a prescription that is entirely ignored in practice. ] 10:26, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC) | |||
| *Actually the passage you cite first appeared in the very first revision of this page back in May 2004, and has not been changed since, only moved to another location. It is true that "vanity" does not automatically follow from "non-notable" and the passage is correct that the degree of notability required for inclusion is frequently contested. Some very senior Wikipedians, like ] maintain that notability is not a deletion criteria. Obviously that flies on the face of what happens on VfD every day. However, the suggestion "...and therefore, lack of fame should be completely ignored in deletion debates." is not very relevant to the problem of how to define "vanity" and should be removed by that reason, and also for being out-of-synch with current practice. I don't know what this semi-policy tag is, but don't let it stop you from improving this confusing section. ] 10:30, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| The draft includes the following sections: | |||
| Thanks, all, for what I take as a confirmation that I wasn't losing my marbles. This page does seem a crock. Note that it also says: | |||
| 1. History – Overview of the network’s founding and development. | |||
| : . . . it is particularly important that if you must write on these topics to write a good article in an encyclopedic style that establishes as much notability as possible. | |||
| -- which not only implies that notability is of some importance but emphasizes its importance (at least in some contexts. I think this page could benefit from a lot of work. -- ] 10:40, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC) | |||
| 2. Purpose and Objectives – Details on its affiliate marketing focus. | |||
| == Reworking of the entire article == | |||
| I've just got my toes wet in the article, as it were, making a few changes. There are a lot more that could be made. I think that a lot of what it says is wrong. One example: it may be a small minority (I don't know), but a significant number of vanity pages are truculently defended by their creators and recreated after deletion. -- ] 10:55, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC) | |||
| 3. Products and Services – A description of Tesla products it promotes. | |||
| See ]. -- ] 06:29, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC) | |||
| :PS but let's discuss it here instead. Incidentally, is a much more interesting example of vanity than that presented in the article. (Admittedly vanity is not the only problem here, but it does seem to be the main motivation.) -- ] 12:05, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC) | |||
| I'd agree that this page needs cleaning up. I'd also support a rule prohibiting anyone from writing an article about themselves, their companies, their rock bands, etc. Note that the ] guidelines suggest, among other things, that the subject in question be of interest to 100+ people. —] | ] 20:47, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| 4. Key Milestones – Notable achievements in affiliate marketing. | |||
| :I would support that as a hard rule as well--no starting an article on yourself or things you're officially associated with (within reason). Thus, we would remove "Do not consider an article vanity simply because the subject wrote it about him/herself." ] ] 02:57, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't think this is such a good idea. "Vanity" pages should be deleted for reasons like not ], promotional material, or not verifiable. People '''can''' (sometimes) write reasonably neutral, informative articles about their own websites, like ]. You'd only find out if they are honest enough to admit it, why punish them for that? Vfd deals with promotional articles about notable things pretty well, either they get cleaned up, or deleted. ] 05:06, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Point taken on the enforcability. ] ] 05:23, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| :::Yes, point taken. But in practice you don't only find out that people have written their own articles when they're honest enough to admit it; you also find out when they're thick enough to let drop something that implies it. (Sometimes they even admit it in VfD: "Why can't I have an article about myself?" etc.) Still, Kappa's line is interesting. Is it necessary to have a "no vanity" rule/guideline? Isn't the combination of existing rules/guidelines, plus that of "no promotion" (if this does not already exist), sufficient? -- ] 06:19, 2005 Apr 20 (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 the general guideline is that, if you (or your business/band/...) is notable, someone else will write an article about it. However, as Kappa states, occasionally people do write good articles about their own things, since they're by default very knowledgeable on the subject. The trick is keeping it NPOV. I do believe the vanity clause is useful, because if I were to write an article on myself that would arguably not be promotion (since I'm not selling anything) nor would it be unverifiable. ]]] 08:44, Apr 20, 2005 (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. |
|
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  |
 | This 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)
- @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 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)
- 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)
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)