| Revision as of 03:45, 19 March 2013 editSilver seren (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers43,919 edits →BP and large company editing in general: Reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:51, 19 March 2013 edit undoUseTheCommandLine (talk | contribs)Rollbackers3,618 edits →BP and large company editing in generalNext edit → | ||
| Line 149: | Line 149: | ||
| ::Your ] suggestion is an utter mockery of the sourcing policy. A userspace draft by an editor is not a source, regardless of how many times you claim that it's "BP's voice", which is just insulting Arturo. He is the one that wrote this material, he is a Misplaced Pages editor, and you should really stop treating him like a lesser person because of it. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 03:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC) | ::Your ] suggestion is an utter mockery of the sourcing policy. A userspace draft by an editor is not a source, regardless of how many times you claim that it's "BP's voice", which is just insulting Arturo. He is the one that wrote this material, he is a Misplaced Pages editor, and you should really stop treating him like a lesser person because of it. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 03:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC) | ||
| A wrinkle here that I have not seen considered is that if he's writing this in the course of his work for BP, then that seems to me to be a work-for-hire under copyright law. In the US at least, work-for-hire copyrights are owned by the company, rather than the creator. We need some kind of explicit permission for this material to not be a ]. (If Arturo is an employee, this does in fact mean that this is "BP's voice" -- laws matter.) -- <font face="monospace" ><nowiki>] ~/]<nowiki />] #_ </font> 03:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 03:51, 19 March 2013
| 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. |
| 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. |
Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest#Covert advertising: 2012 German court ruling
Suggested addition:
"Editors are individually responsible for following the laws in their own jurisdiction(s), as Misplaced Pages's policies may not match those laws by being either more permissive or prohibitive. The Misplaced Pages database is stored on servers in the United States of America, and is maintained in reference to the protections afforded under those local and federal laws. Where one's local laws conflict with Misplaced Pages's policies, the policies on Misplaced Pages take precedence for Misplaced Pages's purposes, but your local laws still apply to you as an individual." (See also the General disclaimer and Legal disclaimer).
Thoughts? Ocaasi 17:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- You mean that when your local laws conflict with Misplaced Pages's policies, the policies take precedence for Misplaced Pages's purposes. Clearly for your own purposes, your local laws take precedence. Also I don't believe being more permissive or prohibitive necessarily leads to what we would call a "conflict". Victor Yus (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've incorporated your suggestions above. Ocaasi 17:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not keen on this suggestion. It could be read as "ignore that what you're doing might be illegal in your country; what counts is what the law says in Florida." SlimVirgin 18:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- These rulings are indeed interesting and perhaps relevant for German and UK editors; however what the section as written currently does is reference two regional jurisdictions neither of which are not binding on Misplaced Pages. My point is "Misplaced Pages follows its own policies, and the laws of the US and Florida; be aware that your local laws may differ and you're responsible for following them, while also noting that Misplaced Pages's policies do not necessarily match your local laws." When we mention local laws, I think it's necessary to contextualize them with the guidance in those established disclaimers. I recognize this might seem like encouraging editors to act in the more permissive way, but I primarily intend it rather as a statement of fact about laws and jurisdictions insofar as they apply to Misplaced Pages. Ocaasi 18:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not keen on this suggestion. It could be read as "ignore that what you're doing might be illegal in your country; what counts is what the law says in Florida." SlimVirgin 18:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- If we go down this road, also of interest would be the US Federal Trade Commission's guidance: and . Still more the ethical guidelines of the Public Relations Society of America or Chartered Institute of Public Relations' ethical code. Yet, still I suggest caution in providing or even suggesting legal guidance to other editors, or relying on other organizations' rules which are not binding on Misplaced Pages. Our policies are not legal documents nor are they reviews of jurisdictional law and institutional practice. They reflect Misplaced Pages policies which may or may not have anything to do with a jurisdiction's legal statutes and court rulings, or a professional association's codes. While these might be informative for forming our policies and guidelines, I am not sure they belong in them. And if we do mention them, then I think we have to construct a representative and global summary of relevant laws and codes, which seems outside the scope of this specific guideline. Ocaasi 19:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'd also appreciate renaming the section Jurisdictional rulings and law as it's not just about the German court ruling and implies broader considerations.
- Last, I've asked Philippe to comment here about whether or not this guideline has legal implications or considerations and how we should approach that. Ocaasi 19:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- I've never been happy about this section, which leaves me feeling like it's just fine as long as I'm not part of one of the specific countries mentioned. I think it ought to be replaced with a single, very simple sentence that reaffirms the Terms of use, e.g., "In addition to complying with US laws, you should comply with your own country's regulations about advertising". If necessary, we could then link to articles on the legal issues associated with astroturfing or a separate essay that describe the latest legal cases. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Draft of a more comprehensive version
- Note, this is far longer than the current version and still not representative of global practices, nor in any way binding on Misplaced Pages policies/guidelines... but it is interesting. I strongly question whether selecting single recent cases from a court in Germany or a UK case that involved Twitter and not Misplaced Pages--or picking only large but not all encompassing PR organizations in the US and UK--makes this a meaningful improvement over the current version. My instinct is that the scope of this discussion primarily belongs in an associated essay; I'm collecting notes at User:Ocaasi/coicode. Comments are welcome. Ocaasi 00:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Jurisdictional law and professional codes
- Local and regional laws
Editors are individually responsible for following the laws, rules, and codes in their own jurisdiction(s) and professions, as Misplaced Pages's policies may not match, either being more permissive or more prohibitive. The Misplaced Pages database is maintained in reference to the protections afforded under relevant local and federal United States laws. Where one's local laws conflict with Misplaced Pages's policies, the policies on Misplaced Pages take precedence for Misplaced Pages's purposes, but local laws may still apply to editors as individuals. (See also the General disclaimer and Legal disclaimer).
Some court cases suggest editing by corporate representatives may be a violation of national or regional law. For example, in May 2012 the Munich Oberlandesgericht ruled that if a company or its agents edit Misplaced Pages with the aim of influencing customers, the edits constitute covert advertising, and as such are a violation of European fair trading law (see the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive). The ruling stated that readers cannot be expected to seek out user and talk pages to find editors' disclosures about their corporate affiliation. The case arose out of a claim against a company by a competitor over edits made to the article Weihrauchpräparat on the German Misplaced Pages. The judgment can be read here.
In another incident, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) in the UK ruled in June 2012 in relation to material about Nike on Twitter. The ASA found that the content of certain tweets from two footballers had been "agreed with the help of a member of the Nike marketing team." Since the tweets were not clearly identified as Nike marketing communications, they were therefore in breach of the ASA's code. "Nike becomes first UK company to have Twitter campaign banned", Sweney, Mike. The Guardian, 20 June 2012. The US Federal Trade Commission's advertising guideline and internet rules also guide against deceptive practices or making promotions or endorsements without disclosure.
- Professional ethical codes
Some professional societies such as the Public Relations Society of America in their ethical guidelines of the Public Relations Society of America or the Chartered Institute of Public Relations' in their ethical code require revealing sponsors and not intentionally concealing ones role as representative of a client or employer. The International Association of Business Communicators code requires communication that is ethical, truthful, accurate and fair, that facilitates respect and mutual understanding, that is honest and candid, and that fosters the free flow of essential information in accord with the public interest. The Word of Mouth Marketing Association's code advises promoting an environment of trust between the consumer and marketer through honesty and transparency without manipulation are rejected, with meaningful disclosures of relationships or identities, and disclosure of commercial relationships with marketers; WOMMA also "respects online venues to create and enforces rules as they see fit."
Again, while instructive and perhaps relevant for individual editors, these laws and codes are not binding for Misplaced Pages unless stated specifically in our policies.
- I think this would be fine material for an accompanying essay. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- I think it's sufficient to just say that anonymous corporate participants may be violating marketing regulations that require them to identify the source of their communications, especially on crowd-sourced websites. We don't need to provide them with legal advice or tons of historical context, just a "warning, don't do XYZ, it may be illegal!" CorporateM (Talk) 21:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC) (PR guy and frequent COI contributor)
Discussion at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy) suggesting that NPOV tags should replace COI tags
See Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy) #Outing and obvious COI. I'm pointing to it here not because of the issue I raised about outing but because editors here might be interested in the arguments that COI tags should not be used because NPOV tags are sufficient. Dougweller (talk) 20:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
COI template
I have initiated a discussion at Village Pump Proposals regarding applying Template:COI editnotice more broadly, in order to provide advice from WP:COI directly onto the article Talk page. Comments, support or opposition is invited. Cheers. CorporateM (Talk) 21:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Proposal for Fees Paid to Misplaced Pages for Rapid Adjudication of Edit Changes
This proposal is one that would need to be considered and acted upon by the Misplaced Pages board of directors, but I'm posting it here in the hopes that those here will perhaps help start a discussion page (I'm not quite sure how to do that. It's been years since I was active on Misplaced Pages) and contribute to the discussion to the point that maybe it finally moves up to Jimmy Wales' attention.
This idea occurred to me after reading web articles regarding PR professionals, such as Bell Pottinger Private, who have had discussions with Jimmy Wales about trying to balance transparency with neutrality in the editing process. This led me to theConflict of interest editing on Misplaced Pages article where I was glad to see there is an active discussion taking place to try to find some better balance of interests.
I was never a paid editor, but as a person with some training and expertise in the controversial area post-abortion syndrome(post-abortion syndrome), I did try to fix some clearly slanted article on the subject several years ago. I respected the need for neutrality and verifiablity, so I took great care to document every edit with citations to peer reviewed medical journal articles. But my effort to bring balance to articles net with adamant resistance from hostile point-of-view pushers who consistently deleted material which conflicted with their POV. This small gang of POV pushers engaged in obstruction and ] until I was eventually driven out.
I understand that there are now some opportunities to appeal edits to "the community" asking volunteers to review or mediate disputes. But this takes time and often more effort in communicating and documenting and arguing than it is worth. Plus, volunteer arbiters may simply bring their own biases to their decisions . . . and any sophisticated political or business group might also have "sleepers" in the volunteer dispute resolution groups who are there precisely to tilt the balance their way from an "objective" volunteer.
So here's my suggestion. It is one that would benefit PR professionals, volunteer editors with expertise in a field, and any editor who believe the balance of an article is being distorted by POV editors who block true and verifiable information and front load articles with POV material.
'Per Piece Paid Editing/Judging From Misplaced Pages Staff Editor/Judges'
Volunteer Misplaced Pages editorial mediation and arbitration services are fine. But they can take a long time and may not be fair or objective.
Misplaced Pages should offer an option for users to pay a fee for a professional editor, on Misplaced Pages's staff, to review the proposed changes and the basis of information for them, and to enter those those changes in the article with a definitive, official order that the approved edit shall not be changed without the consent of the person who proposed the change (and paid for it's review and verification).
This means a professional PR person with a business, for example, can transparently submit a proposed change to the Misplaced Pages editor/judge and if accepted, have it immediately and authoratitvely "locked into the article", notifying the other editors (especially those who are POV pushers) to not disrupt the edit.
This solution would (a) provide revenue to Misplaced Pages, (b) provide a mechanism for rapid correction of untruths or omissions, and (c) provide a mechanism to deliver paid, professional, authorative oversight to contentious articles in a manner that still allows for the articles to evolve but will reduce edit wars.
If the person paying the fee is unhappy with the judgement, they should be allowed to pay a second fee to have the issue examined by a panel of 3-5 of Misplaced Pages's paid staff--whom, of course, should be chosen based on a variety of different political, religious, and ideological views and all committed to striving toward a fair balance of such views in every article.
People willing to pay for accuracy and balance should be able to help improve Misplaced Pages without having to battle POV pushers as I did.
This proposal would help corporations with paid PR people to participate in Misplaced Pages in a transparent and timely way, and it would also help those of us with an interest in controversial subject matters to get timely and definitive decisions on edits knowing who is taking responsibility for the "yea" or "nay" decision rather than being subject to the manipulations "gangs" POV pushers and the intricacies of dealing with volunteer arbiters.
Would someone like to start a page to discuss this proposal?
This post is partially a repost of a comment I postedon this Misplaced Pages page --Strider 15:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
BP and large company editing in general
There are some significant issues raised by the editing of User:Arturo at BP on the BP article talk page. I don't want this discussion to be about Arturo's behavior, but rather on the issues raised. Indeed it may very well be the case that he is editing according to the letter of our rules, but not in the spirit that any non-paid Misplaced Pages editor would recognize.
The issue - BP, through Arturo, is providing the content for the BP article, especially in regards to its environmental performance, by posting a notice on the talk page, which is followed by Misplaced Pages editors putting the content "as is" into the article. Notice he is not editing the article directly himself. Arturo is not exercising independent judgement during this process. He states on his talk page: "The information I present from news sources is verified by the various subject matter experts within the company. I am not an expert myself on all of the topics..." In other words, the material is cleared by higher-ups first. Probably the most worrisome problem here is that our editors don't appear to be exercising independent judgement either, just posting the material "as is."
It should be clear to everybody that having BP write up the BP environmental record for Misplaced Pages in a way that is not transparent to our readers is completely unacceptable for Misplaced Pages, and it should be completely unacceptable for BP as well. Somebody over there hasn't thought this through very well. BP has every opportunity to present its side of the story as often as they want in adverts, press conferences, etc. Putting material in Misplaced Pages (where the author can not be easily disclosed to the public) is going to be viewed as trying to pull the wool over people's eyes. There definitely is a conflict of interest - and not just in the way Misplaced Pages defines it - because of things like all the environmental lawsuits BP is involved in.
BP may also be skirting the law in the US that prohibits undisclosed advertising (this was the law long before the internet and has been confirmed in the case of using the internet - google "astroturfing" if you're not familiar with this). BP is certainly violating the codes of ethics of the main US and UK PR associations codes of ethics.
I can think of 3 ways to handle this, though there must be more:
- Appealing to BP's common sense to just withdraw - they must know that this will come out and how bad they will look.
- Just use WP:Ignore all rules to remove the offending content - this rule - Misplaced Pages's 1st rule - was designed for these cases where the right thing to do is so totally obvious that little discussion is really needed.
- Change the rules so that no large companies (say Fortune 500 sized) can edit even on talk pages.
I'll inform various parties. Thanks for any feedback. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- "Probably the most worrisome problem here is that our editors don't appear to be exercising independent judgement either, just posting the material "as is.""
- Wow, you have seriously overstepped yourself. Please remove this personal attack on several editors now. Silverseren 02:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- It's best not to try to make this personal. I certainly haven't mentioned any names. But when I describe the general situation, I'll call 'em as I see 'em. There has been a tremendous lack of independent judgement on this matter. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- You don't need to name names, you've already clearly stated that anyone involved in Arturo's userspace drafts or other talk page suggestions is who you're referring to. So, namely, myself, Beagel, Petrarchan47, Rangoon11, Martin Hogbin, and BozMo. I might be missing a few people. Are you seriously accusing all of us of lacking "independent judgement"? Silverseren 03:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- It's best not to try to make this personal. I certainly haven't mentioned any names. But when I describe the general situation, I'll call 'em as I see 'em. There has been a tremendous lack of independent judgement on this matter. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- I think another troubling aspect is, assuming my interpretation is correct, that some editors were asking the CoI editor to make changes, rather than making them themselves. This cedes editorial control to the subject being written about, and further makes the editorial process (history, etc) totally opaque. It makes things very easy for the editors doing the integrating, but at what cost? -- #_ 02:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Because it's being polite to the person's userspace draft. It's generally considered rude to go in and start changing someone's draft page without solicited permission. I don't see how it makes any difference either, as the resulting changes are reviewed just the same. The same suggested sources are used, the wording is scrutinized, what exactly is the difference? Silverseren 03:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- I think another troubling aspect is, assuming my interpretation is correct, that some editors were asking the CoI editor to make changes, rather than making them themselves. This cedes editorial control to the subject being written about, and further makes the editorial process (history, etc) totally opaque. It makes things very easy for the editors doing the integrating, but at what cost? -- #_ 02:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with Smallbones that this is problematic; it has the potential to make both Misplaced Pages and BP look bad. The BP employee, User:Arturo at BP, has said he is here on behalf of BP; he's not just someone who happens to work for the company. He has posted 10 fairly extensive drafts that are being ported over into the article without signalling to the reader that these are BP's words. I believe he has acknowledged conferring with BP's subject-matter experts to approve the text.
- The best thing would be for BP to withdraw and for the material to be removed from the article. Alternatively, we can regard the drafts as unpublished primary source material: BP's view of itself, or its interpretation of the news coverage it has attracted. I've asked Arturo at BP (diff) to consider posting his articles to BP's website (that is, if BP will not agree to withdraw). That way, we could use them as published primary sources. It's not unusual to ask article subjects to post material to a website so that we can cite it.
- Looking ahead, we should try to come up with words about this for the guideline. No one minds if a small business makes a suggestion for content, but a multinational can't be allowed to rewrite areas where it has been the subject of media criticism and even criminal charges. It's not only a question of checking the text for errors; there are issues of weight to decide, which sources to use, which vocabulary to choose, and what not to include. These are issues that the company really shouldn't be influencing. SlimVirgin 03:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- How is it going to make anyone look bad? BP following Misplaced Pages's rules and doing things through the talkpage the proper way, as requested by Jimbo, is somehow bad?
- And you and I both know that Wikipedians get subject matter experts to look over their work all the time. Heck, there was that proposal at FAC for a while on getting a known list of experts for various subjects together that were willing to look over the article submissions for their subject. It seems extremely proper for Arturo to be conferring with the people who know more about the subject than him and getting their input.
- Your WP:PRIMARY suggestion is an utter mockery of the sourcing policy. A userspace draft by an editor is not a source, regardless of how many times you claim that it's "BP's voice", which is just insulting Arturo. He is the one that wrote this material, he is a Misplaced Pages editor, and you should really stop treating him like a lesser person because of it. Silverseren 03:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
A wrinkle here that I have not seen considered is that if he's writing this in the course of his work for BP, then that seems to me to be a work-for-hire under copyright law. In the US at least, work-for-hire copyrights are owned by the company, rather than the creator. We need some kind of explicit permission for this material to not be a WP:COPYVIO. (If Arturo is an employee, this does in fact mean that this is "BP's voice" -- laws matter.) -- #_ 03:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)