Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:37, 13 June 2015

To discuss conflict of interest problems with specific editors and articles, please go to Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard.

Editors discussing proposed changes to WP:COI or related pages should disclose during those discussions whether they have been paid to edit Misplaced Pages.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Conflict of interest page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

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 a media organization: Garber, Megan (July 15, 2014). "Okay, Who Edited the 'Choco Taco' Misplaced Pages Page From Congress?". The Atlantic.

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.

Template:Connected contributor

Please see discussion at WT:COIN about whether it's appropriate to use Template:Connected contributor on an article talk page in a specific situation. Link to discussion. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI)

Jesse Cutler

Citing yourself

Does anyone mind if I remove this, and replace it with something about not citing oneself? As I recall, the section was in NOR a long time ago, and was moved here because no one was sure what to do with it. But it really isn't good practice nowadays for editors to cite themselves, and this may make new editors think it's okay.

Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion.

Sarah (SV) 20:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

It needs to stay, just updated to current consensus. It is a type of coi, and it is a reoccurring problem. --Ronz (talk) 21:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This one is really hard. We have had more than a little trouble at COIN with academics citing their own work and really not wanting to hear that using Misplaced Pages for self-promotion is not OK. Like this one, where a new editor's sole interest was adding content about his own work, cited to his own work. Simply prohibiting it would make instances like that easier to handle. But there are other examples where academic editors cited others ~pretty~ liberally, along with citing themselves plenty... and in my view improved the articles they worked on. I think the current language is a pretty reasonable balance. The sentence on " When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion" could be made stronger, perhaps made to say "If objections are raised" instead of "When in doubt". In general, nice edits btw. Jytdog (talk) 21:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. We could strengthen it, but really it shouldn't happen. It's a clear COI (would anyone else have cited them?), not to mention a bit cheesy. Ronz, when you say it needs to stay because it's a type of COI, do you mean we should discourage it, or say it's okay as we do now? Sarah (SV) 21:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I mind. Selfcitation is not a conflict of interest in any normal sense of the word, and it is standard academic practice and not cheesy. We should encourage experts to share their knowledge on wikipedia not discourage it. When some people selfcite in problematic ways we should handle that as we handle other POV editors. I prefer a selfciting expert to your standard pov pusher digging up fringe scholars to cite any day of the year, and the former is only a problem when they also happen to be the latter.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I can certainly think of cases where it might be necessary to cite oneself, especially for experts on obscure or esoteric topics. Granted such "experts" often fall afoul of WP:FRINGE/PS, but genuine experts oughtn't have their hands tied. I wouldn't like to see the practice prohibited outright, but perhaps the language could be strengthened a little, particularly by clarifying the "undue emphasis" clause to state that you shouldn't primarily rely on citing your own work, and should include citations to other authors where possible. Most importantly, it should probably mention that a separate article about a subject from your own work is not appropriate unless multiple scholars have also published on that subject independently of you. (I know there's a guideline like that somewhere.) --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

How about this for an alternative? It doesn't change much, except the tone.

Using material you have written or published is discouraged. It is good practice to cite other authors instead whenever possible. If necessary, you may use your own work as a reference, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies including WP:RS and WP:SELFPUB, and is not used excessively. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. If objections are raised, defer to the community's opinion.

(Changed according to Jytdog's recommendation above.) --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

that language is ok with me. btw here is an example of a discussion i had with an expert who was citing himself a lot, but also others, and, i think, improving articles - very technical stuff, however. (I checked and his work is highly cited). the conversation didn't go very well. it is hard when experts get all defensive. :( Jytdog (talk) 23:42, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

That's very similar to what I had in mind as well. I'm not sure about the citing others' bit though, as it would be highly dependent on the situation. --Ronz (talk) 01:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Why not handle this in a manner parallel to what we recommend for more obvious COI? Propose the citation on the article's talk page, and let others without a personal stake decide whether it should be included. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog provided a good example of an expert who made valuable contributions in part using his own work. It seems unlikely that he would have followed this procedure. Moreover in the cases where it is appropriate to apply it it may be unlikely that there will be anyone else on the talk page to comment, or even anyone else immediately available with the necessary expertise to represent the sources accurately. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• There is some stuff going on with this right now - see User:JARacino, Special:Contributions/JARacino as well as this conversation I just opened. I have asked her to come talk here. Jytdog (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with Boris that the citation should be proposed on talk. Sarah (SV) 19:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• I really oppose this idea. The people who legitimately use their own works, as in Jytdog's two examples, are usually new editors who are unfamiliar with procedure, but tend to bring in a lot of value. Their first interaction with Misplaced Pages should not be someone reverting their edits on technical grounds, cautioning them about a policy violation they've never heard of, and potentially outing them. I'm also thinking of cases like Talk:Clebsch–Gordan coefficients for SU(3) where even other technically sophisticated people might not be able to judge the validity of the references - in this case, the reviewer, who has a Ph.D. in physics, didn't completely understand what the article was about (and it is extremely well-written.) The cases when references are limited enough that one has to cite oneself will often fall in this category of extreme esoterica. It's time-consuming enough to write such expositions without having to wait for the opinions of people who might not understand the topic immediately, and who might not show up at all. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• Sammy, can you give some examples of people adding good content based on self-citing? In most cases I've seen it has involved inappropriate and extensive self-promotion (not just one or two articles, but lots). In a few cases, you would have to be a subject-matter expert to judge, because it was a question not only of whether that cite was okay, but also whether an independent person would have cited someone else. Sarah (SV) 20:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

please see the two examples i provided above. Jytdog (talk) 20:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I did look, but I can't see anything. Can you post a few links to something that's an obvious improvement? Sarah (SV) 20:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

need to run to a dinner. there are examples in the contribs i linked to if you spend a few minutes. in any case I will turn this around and ask you to provide difs showing that most editors who self-cite do not cite others and harm the encyclopedia. That is what you need to bring, to back up your original claims and in order to change the guideline. you have brought no diffs at all - just hand-wavy claims. Jytdog (talk) 20:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I don't think we need to fight over that point. Nobody can reasonably dispute that in most cases, self-citations are motivated by narcissism. However, @SlimVirgin: Jytdog's 1st example is of a bioinformatician (this guy) correctly citing work in which he was involved, e.g. here. Now, as for the usual suspects, the self-promoters who push things like this, there is another guideline whose name escapes my mind, and maybe you remember - it says that for scholarly topics, multiple independent research groups must cover the topic before it becomes notable. Perhaps that's the most relevant thing to threaten them with, not COI. I think perhaps that policy deserves to be mentioned in this guideline. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• back from dinner. At one of the difs linked to above ( this one, you find the following, where i actually analyzed diff by diff, the editors contributions. In my view all of these but the last three added value to WP:

You can see that the last three diffs there add some pretty raw promotion. The ones before that tend strongly to citing the editors own work (but as I mentioned above, the guy's software and work appears to be valuable - I found it cited by other editors that are not connected to him (as far as i can see) in other articles. And he did cite other people some. It is hard to argue that edits outside the last three were actually bad for WP. And his username clearly reflects his real name, so he is not hiding anything

Bringing yet another actual example... the diffs above are a contrast to this editor: Special:Contributions/Jensen-Jarolim, (which seems to be a group account, now blocked) that added the lab's preclinical findings that antacids may cause allergies (!) to a bunch of actual drug articles as actual side effects (!!), citing the lab's work. I found no reviews discussing that work with regard to actual side effects of actual drugs. This is not only self-cite but it is POV-pushing. That is to me a good example of self-citing that harms the encyclopedia. Jytdog (talk) 23:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

In my view all the edits above, including the ones you marked "pretty promotional," were good, constructive edits, which did not place undue emphasis on this editor's work. Neither he nor his group is mentioned by name, and the papers he cited are significant and absolutely should be in the article. When your first interaction with someone is to have them casually cautioning you about your "self-promotion" it's likely to leave a bad taste in your mouth, and I can completely understand why the guy got upset. A similar thing happened at European Sleep Apnea Database - this article was actually nominated for deletion because people were saying that the peer-reviewed journal articles it was mostly based on were "primary," since all the authors were connected with the database in virtue of having written about it in their research. (Doh!) Fortunately the AfD closer had more sense.

I disagree with this whole attitude conflating writing about one's research with writing about oneself or one's organization. Basically we have two conflicting interests here: to prevent self-promotion, and to encourage people to make contributions about their areas of expertise. I think it's clear that the second goal is much more important - it's what keeps the whole project going. We shouldn't then turn around and caution people to avoid mention of their own research, which is probably what they are experts in, or tell them to be careful because they might be under suspicion. This kind of interaction runs contrary to the spirit of WP:AGF. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

sammy i deal with more editors than i like at COIN who are WP:NOTHERE other than to promote their own work... it is a problem. this editor Special:Contributions/Kasmith was really bad, and was settling RW grudges here in WP by citing his own work and adding content about himself, and getting rid of references to his competitor-for-credit-for-discoveries. the other guy asked someone to fight back. goofy. The current language is a pretty decent balance - it warns people to be careful with overdoing it (it would be even better with a reference to WP:PROMO in there), and gives us tools to take it out. People who are really WP:HERE and are conscientious about COI are usually gracious about it but some people do get prickly. It is not like i pound on their heads. Jytdog (talk) 03:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@Sammy1339: you say "We shouldn't then turn around and caution people to avoid mention of their own research" but surely we should be especially wary of this since research (i.e. primary content) needs to be covered by secondary sources particularly for scientific/medical claims. Inviting editors to insert their own research without the validating weight of secondary coverage would be problematic on many fronts. Alexbrn (talk) 03:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: This is mostly an OR issue, not a COI issue. But actually most scientific papers can be used as both primary and secondary sources, because they usually have summaries and analysis of old information in addition to new experimental results or whatnot. We also can use primary sources, per WP:PRIMARY. WP:MEDRS establishes appropriately high standards for objective medical claims in light of the unreliability of individual medical studies and the high frequency with which meta-analyses are conducted, but we oughtn't generalize such standards to all of science. In some fields review articles are hardly ever written. --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Moreover we might also be talking about authors citing their own secondary sources. --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but that wouldn't be " their own research" but leaning on the secondary for the mention (much better). "In general, scientific information in Misplaced Pages articles should be based on published, reliable secondary sources, or on widely cited tertiary and primary sources" (WP:SCIRS). The problem with somebody citing their own primary work is that they are subject to bias in assessing its worth. I've come across problems on WP of editors trying to work citations of large quantities of their published primary work into articles. While one such reference may be no big deal, this kind of thing becomes more undue with each additional reference and warps the neutrality of the encyclopedia. The root of this kind of editing problem in failure to realise the COI in effect on the part of the editor. Alexbrn (talk) 14:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• At the very least we should follow the "non-controversial edits" section, which says: "If another editor objects for any reason, then it's a controversial edit. Such edits should be discussed on the article's talk page." Sarah (SV) 17:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

yes that is exactly what i had in mind with the change to " If objections are raised, defer to the community's opinion" - referring instead to that part of the guideline would be even better. Jytdog (talk) 18:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

So, developing this from your and Sammy's suggestion, would the following work?

Citing material you have written or published is discouraged. It is good practice to cite other authors instead whenever possible. If necessary, you may use your own work as a reference, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies and guidelines, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not used excessively. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. If another editor objects for any reason, it counts as a controversial edit, and should be discussed on the article's talk page before the material is added or restored.

Sarah (SV) 18:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I am ok with that. thanks for talking. Jytdog (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: I'm also fine with this language. I agree with your comments above, and think that generally most of the problem cases of self-citation violate other policies such as WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, etc. I suggest it might be better practice to refer to those guidelines when they apply. --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Break

I am not fine with that language. It should not be "discouraged", but simply a caution about not placing undue emphasis on one's own work, only citingoneself when the material is directly relevant to the topic of the article, and making sure relevant work by others are duly represented.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Support wording. We need to state outright that self-citing is "discouraged" or else the really determined will steer existing articles over a period of years, and/or go around creating new articles to cover obscure topics that only they and five other people in the world care about (which is hard to weight and not appropriate for a general reference). This is an issue whether Misplaced Pages coverage confers any real-world professional benefit or not. At the same time a ban on it isn't practical. I hope that a plurality of uninvolved editors will be able to spot the difference when these issues come up. Geogene (talk) 17:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• Selfcitation is not a problem unless the cited sources are tangentially relevant to the topic, and does not a priori constitute a conflict of interest. In academia selfcitation is exceedingly normal. The wording you are proposing is going to make it very hard to ever get expert editors to become editors. Adding selfcitations is the main way academics and topic experts are going to begin editing wikipedia, and it is indeed the only motivation they have to edit wikipedia, since they will gain no professional recognition for doing so (and in fact often the contrary). Most academics are quite capable of knowing when citing oneself is and isn't appropriate. The few who are blatantly selfpromoting, simply fall under the standard rules for due weight and on topic sources without having to make it out as if being a topic expert is a conflict of interest. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

If an expert's only motivation to edit Misplaced Pages is to cite themselves for promotional purposes, we don't want them. Geogene (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Then you are a fool, and your encyclopedia is doomed to die the slow death of amateurism. Experts dont cite themselves because of self promotion, but because they know about a topic, and because they want the public to have access to what they know. Just like most editors first edits are to their particular topics of interest correcting errors that they happen to know about, we can expect experts to approach wikipedia in the same way. If experts are then met with a horde of amateurs crying COI and crucifixion for something that is standard academic practice, then that expert is definitely not going to keep editing wikipedia, and wikipedia looses. Selfcitation is NOT a problem, only some particular kinds of selfcitatoin are and they are the ones that should be targeted. What you are targeting with this proposal is specifically the interest and ability of experts to become wikipedians. Experts SHOULD selfcite (because they are EXPERTS) and we should encourage them to use wikipedia to disseminate their specialized knowledge to a wider public. Then if some experts abuse this we can deal with this under the standard editing policies on weight and NPOV.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

If they don't edit Misplaced Pages for the only purpose of citing themselves, then they're useful and should be welcome. Geogene (talk) 17:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• Any restrictive changes to the wording of selfcite is going to have a significant impact on Misplaced Pages's ability to attract, engage and retain expert editors. As such I think that they must necessarily be supported by a broader community involvement. I think SV should make a broadly advertised RfC about her proposed changes. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

It's true that it's standard practice for academics to refer to their own work in scholarly articles, because they're building on it. But they don't have NPOV. Writing a WP article involves using sources that are representative of the debate, rather than developing an argument, and using them the way someone knowledgeable but uninvolved would.

Perhaps the best approach for an expert would be to write up the material using other sources. Post on talk that they have also written about this, and would like to add themselves as a source. If no one responds after a couple of weeks, they could add it but be prepared to have it removed if someone notices. Sarah (SV) 17:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

It is an unnecessary restriction that has potential very negative consequences in terms of lost motivation and lost knowledge for the encyclopedia. The best approach would be to encourage academics to write in the encyclopedia as they would if they were writing a general literature review of their topic of expertise and represent their own work in the same way they would in such a review. If the author is the main expert in a small field, then selfciting is not only appropriate it is required for the topic to have adequate coverage.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

How would you write that section so that (a) your concerns are satisfied, and (b) we discourage people from using WP for self-promotion (which is what a significant percentage of self-citing is about)? Sarah (SV) 17:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I think the current wording is very good. If I had to tweak it I would write: "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive, and is directly relevant for the topic of the article. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work relative to the body of literature on the whole - and it should not come across as self-promotional. When in doubt whether self-citing is appropriate, suggest the citation on the talkpage, and defer to the community's opinion."·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@Maunus:, I think the last sentence should be (something like): "If another editor objects for any reason, it counts as a controversial edit, and should be discussed on the article's talk page before the material is added or restored." This ties it in with the non-controversial edits section, and makes sure people don't ignore objections. Sarah (SV) 19:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

But that is basic editing policy that applies to all edits, I dont see why there would be a need to point that out specifically in the COI policy.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

It's already in the guideline in a lower session, namely you can make non-controversial edits, but the definition of controversial is when someone objects. Sarah (SV) 19:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

So why repeat it here?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

So that they don't have to read the lower section to know that it applies here too. Sarah (SV) 20:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

That seems to be an approach to repetition and redundancy that we do not usually follow at wikipedia.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Maunus i really disagree, when you write "encourage academics to write in the encyclopedia as they would if they were writing a general literature review of their topic of expertise". Writing an encyclopedia article in Misplaced Pages is not like writing a literature review. In a review, a named author reads all the research literature, and synthesizes that literature into a coherent story and decription, citing the research literature (primary sources here in WP) as they go. That is not what we do here! Instead, editors in Misplaced Pages read reviews already written by experts and summarize them here, citing the reviews (secondary sources). I find that one of the biggest problems that experts face, is wrapping their heads around the genre of encyclopedia article. Do you see that? Thanks Jytdog (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Academics on the whole are much more likely than the average internet user to be able to "wrap their heads around the encyclopedic genre". And yes it is an almost exact parallel to the literature review as an academic genre - your quote is certainly how I approach article writing myself.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

We also use primary sources, and in fact they can be the best sources to use. You just have to know how to use them, and know which primary sources the field accepts as authoritative. I agree with Maunus that articles are similiar to literature reviews. I think I disagree with him that academics will be able to judge their place in those reviews (or absence from them) dispassionately. Sarah (SV) 18:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure, they may not be able to do so dispassionately, just like all other editors have problems with being dispassionate about topics that they are invested personally in. That is where the normal editing process comes into the picture, to tone down any undue weight to specific authors, whether by selfciting or citing other favorite authors, or other types of skewed representations of the field of knowledge.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

every policy and guideline says we "should" use secondary sources (just like this guideline says that paid editors "should not" directly edit articles.) we don't want to actually encourage anybody to use primary sources nor to violate WP:OR by building a ] from them, as is done in literature reviews. Jytdog (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Primary sources are not discouraged (far from it). The policy (NOR) says: "Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources."

If you want to write that A saw X, the best source is A (e.g. the diary of a member of the Sonderkommando), not some other source who read what A wrote. You just have to make sure there's nothing contentious about it, that A is trusted by the secondary sources (the Holocaust historians in this case), that you're not using A's words for analysis, etc. See WP:PRIMARY. Sarah (SV) 19:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

edit conflict but I will cmt anyway

That's a misread of the policy which says (paraphrase), articles should be based on sources, RS, published secondary sources and to a lesser extent tertiary and primary sources. Primary sources may be used with care, but in some case primary sources are the definitive sources for content. Editor experience and knowledge in a field goes along way to understanding how to use primary sources as authoritative sources. Further, literary papers are not synthesized in the way we think of synthesis here which can often result in a conclusion that does not have a basis in the sources. Such a literary paper would never see publication and in a student paper would result in a poor grade. Believe I know, as a lesson I learned as a young undergraduate student in the literary field, a lesson which stuck at the heart of my grade point average.:O)(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC))

How 'bout changing the shoulds in the new wordings to musts, thus (bolded for clarity re. what's changing, not suggesting bolding in the guideline)): Citations must be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work relative to the body of literature on the whole - and it must not come across as self-promotional. Note: I just made this change without noticing that this sentence was being discussed. It was reverted (along with two other relatively uncontroversial looking should-> must changes) as no consensus; let's discuss.--Elvey 00:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Reverts on basis of non-existent COI

An editor keeps on reverting my edits here.

On the basis (in part) that "appear to reflect COI" and "someone with COI". I have no COI here.

He may have a COI. He is "Philosophy Junkie", editing "Philosophy Gourmet Report". A publication by Brian Leiter, with whom he says he has been in email contact. Some of my concerns of his potential COI are reflected here.

But a primary question is what do I do about an editor who is reverting me continually, on the basis of an alleged COI that is non-existent? --Epeefleche (talk) 12:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest opening a case at COIN. I started moving this there, and stopped. But that is what I think you should do, to de-personalize the dispute and let the community help resolve things. Jytdog (talk) 13:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Industry funding and ghostwriting of medical sources

In case anyone here would like to comment, I've opened a discussion about the above at Misplaced Pages talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Industry funding and ghostwriting of sources, with a view to adding something to the MEDRS guideline. Sarah (SV) 22:41, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Paid editor not disclosing connection

There's an editor whom I suspected was connected to a company that an extensive history of sockpuppetry, but the editor denied the allegation and I've let it go. Another editor contact me a few days ago with links to an Elance profile that appears to show that the editor in question was indeed paid by the company in question. Now, I realize that paid editing isn't necessarily problematic, but the editor is claiming to not be connected and participating in discussions as a neutral observer. I know outing editors is frowned upon here, but what's the best course of action? It seems problematic but I'm not sure how the policies would apply here. Mosmof (talk) 04:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I recommend that you open a case at COIN laying out the case for why you thought the editor had a COI before you received the email. Please do not discuss any evidence from outside WP in that filing per WP:OUTING, You don't know if that user is connected to the elance profile, and we will not know if that specific COIN filing is connected with your question above. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:24, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. The discussion is at Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Ronn Torossian. I've kept any offsite evidence out of the discussion. Mosmof (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Writing about "open source" (you may want to or have contributed to)

This may have been talked about. I'm passionate about an article on software I think is very important. I may want to contribute to the software not just the article about it. I will not get paid either way. Or until I will (unlikely, except maybe, say for using the code professionally, not even likely), am I allowed to continue helping with the article. I've tried to be as neutral as I can. I could not write about by contributions but would I have to exclude the whole project?

I would not want to have this dilemma: I can contribute source code or info in WP, but not both.. Both seems to help "for the common good".. I will never be a mjor contributor, where would I draw the line. Would even helping, say with documentation, not be ok?

Would it be ok, to say in the Talk page and/or my own talk page, "I'm a contributor to X". Would I have to give up what I did (and loose anonymity)?

Seems NOPAY at least does not apply: "you are receiving, or expect to receive, monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Misplaced Pages as a representative of an organization (as owner, officer, other stakeholder, employee or contractor; or as employee or contractor of a firm hired by that organization for public-relations purposes)". comp.arch (talk) 14:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

This sounds okay to me. Yes simply say you contribute to X on your talk page. Mention you are a volunteer. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for a new group of functionaries

I am considering proposing the creation of a new group of 5 elected WP:Functionaries to deal with concerns regarding undisclosed paid editing. These five individuals will be elected by the editing community at large, will be required to disclose their real life identity to the WMF, and will be given the ability to use WP:Check user to help with verifying issues.

This new group of functionaries will provide a much needed mechanism of enforcement of our WP:Terms of use while balancing our principle of WP:PRIVACY. They will be able to accept off Misplaced Pages evidence to make judgements regarding concerning practices. They will also be provided legal protection by the WMF. Wondering what people think of this proposal? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

All current functionaries (that is, checkusers and oversighters) work pretty much exclusively in the area of enforcing terms of use, and the suggestion that they aren't is unhelpful when you are advocating that new tasks be taken on. A bit of a reality check might be helpful here: over the years that I was involved in recruiting and appointing functionaries, there were very few individuals who applied for the flags and were appropriately qualified for access to non-public information who did not get appointed. It's a relatively small pool and it has become increasingly difficult to find suitable candidates as the years have gone on.

What you're proposing here is a new method by which individuals can be appointed as checkusers. Once they have the bit, the only way it will be removed is via Arbcom (unless you manage to change the entire Enwiki checkuser policy), and that will usually require inappropriate use of the tools and/or conduct unbecoming. Perhaps you might benefit from reading the case that was most recently closed by the Arbitration Committee to see what happens when someone goes too far in making allegations of COI when "checkusering" and blocking accounts. Risker (talk) 03:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Risker Arbcom has specifically stated that enforcement of the TOU is not in their mandate here. They are also already sufficiently busy. Thus this proposal. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Why aren't CU privileges revoked when someone finishes their term? In the real world people turn in their keys (or other access credentials) when their position changes. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Yup if you lose re election you lose CU in this proposal. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

SBHB, you know the answer to that. There is no election for CU/OS and no reappointment process currently. One could argue that position for arbitrators, but in fairness a significant number of steadily active CU and OS are former arbitrators. Risker (talk) 03:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

My working assumption was that CU/OS was granted upon appointment as an arb. Yes, that's formally incorrect, though more or less correct in a practical sense. Thus when a person's term ends they would lose their CU/OS privileges. The arbs would be complemented by a (presumably smaller than now) crew of folks who were specifically appointed as CU/OS. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Excluding arbitrators who already held the tools prior to joining Arbcom, the majority of arbitrators do turn in the CU/OS tools once they're finished their terms; after that point, they are subject to the same activity standards as any other checkuser/oversighter. That is, if they aren't actively using the tools, the tools can be removed. Looking just at CU, right now we have 13 community-selected CUs, 9 former arbitrators (of whom one was a community-selected CU before becoming an arb), 15 arbitrators with CU (of whom 6 were community-selected CUs) and 3 AUSC members (one of whom is a community selected CU). Arbitrators are not expected to participate in regular CU activities, although some choose to do so as their non-arbcom volunteer participation. This sounds like a very large contingent, but the reality is that Enwiki checkusers (including those who don't regularly use the tools as Arbcom or AUSC members) perform more checks in a month than checkusers from almost all of the other Wikimedia projects put together. The only other group that comes close to rivalling enwiki CUs are the stewards who work across hundreds of projects specializing in identification and management of spam. Risker (talk) 19:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about Arbcom, I was talking about functionaries (CU and OS). Until such time as the English Misplaced Pages community decides to shoulder the responsibility for recruitment and overseeing of functionaries, by whatever means, those tasks reside with Arbcom. I'm the first to agree that Arbcom is busy enough as it is. So, for that matter, are most functionaries. It is my understanding that every single candidate who took the time to complete the paperwork for the last round of CU and OS appointments was appointed to one role or the other - yes, all of them. We can't even get decently qualified people to run for adminship anymore. Perhaps that should be your first step, because administrators are the appropriate pool of talent for what you're after (they have to be able to block in order to be effective). Our pool of active administrators has been dwindling for years, to the point that several administrator tasks are falling ever-further behind and serious backlogs exist in multiple areas. You need to build the capacity from the ground up. Risker (talk) 03:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure so you want to see appropriate candidates for the position before considering it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, of course. But just as importantly, I don't want to rob Peter to pay Paul. Consider that this is *your* personal priority for administrator action on English Misplaced Pages. It probably isn't (a) the priority of the project as a whole or (b) the priority of the people who are already in a position to do something about it, i.e., the administrator corps. Seasoned administrators who routinely participate in administrator activities are a surprisingly rare commodity, with fewer admins actively using tools today than there were in 2008. As a project, we also need them blocking vandals, deleting dreck, protecting pages, closing RFCs, moving pages, granting lower level permissions, and otherwise keeping the place running, too. There are administrators who also watch the COI noticeboards and probably do just as good a job from there as anyone else is likely to do. Risker (talk) 04:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes I know a few good candidates and will see what I can do. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• support This is a great idea. It will help us deal with sockpuppeting elancers/fivvers much more effectively. Jytdog (talk) 06:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
• oppose this is a terrible idea, all we need is another special group of admins who have nothing to do with content creation. GregJackP Boomer! 06:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support There needs to be an acceptable mechanism to submit off-wiki evidence of obvious COI editing, or else this place will continue to pretend not to notice it. This is not a linear progression: the more vanity articles there are, the greater the demand for vanity articles there will be. Unless something is done, then this project will continue its evolution toward a more rarefied form of LinkedIn. Who here wants to volunteer to administer that kind of site? Geogene (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support - this looks fine to me. Some enforcement method is needed. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
• Noting: This would require a change in the Arbitration policy which specifies that Arbcom has the sole responsibility for granting and removing the CU/OS tools on English Misplaced Pages. The amendment terms are as follows: "Amendments to this policy require an identical ratification process. Proposed amendments may be submitted for ratification only after being approved by a majority vote of the Committee, or having been requested by a petition signed by at least one hundred editors in good standing." Risker (talk) 20:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: We've been down this road before, it didn't end well. ----Versageek 03:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
• Comment There are two issues here - an elected group to enforce the conflict of interest policy, and giving more people checkuser privilege. As for the latter, I've never found it a problem at WP:COI to ask for a checkuser when a situation looked like sockpuppeting. As for the former, my general impression from working tasks from the WP:COI board is that it doesn't even take admin authority. Most of the time, it's someone routinely promoting their business/band/product/self. Once they've been asked to stop doing that, they usually do. When they don't, referring the matter to AN/I usually deals with it. The serious problems end up at WP:AN/I anyway. Remember Banc de Binary, the COI problem from hell, the one that made the Wall Street Journal and forced a change in the Wikimedia terms of use? This new proposal would not have helped. John Nagle (talk) 06:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with John Nagle. However, I think this idea is interesting and is worth exploring further. I think a better idea, in conjunction with this, is to require all current checkusers to be re-ratified by the community. Any who have conflicts of interest of their own, or who have disregarded the guideline in the past, are not suitable for that tool and should not have it. Coretheapple (talk) 14:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
• Comment There really is a need to differentiate between third parties paid to edit wikipedia content on behalf of others on the one hand and editors with a COI due to BLP or other issues on the other hand. Lumping them all together is not helpful. In respect of the former case I think this is a good idea, the latter needs some new thinking ----Snowded 14:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press