Misplaced Pages

talk:Conflict of interest - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 04:06, 28 February 2024 (Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Conflict of interest/Archive 34) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 04:06, 28 February 2024 by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) (Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Conflict of interest/Archive 34) (bot)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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.
Shortcut
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 
Media mentionThis page has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Where to draw the line

I was thinking of writing something about humans, but I am a member of that group, so do COI restrictions apply? How about about an organization or group which has millions (or thousands) of members which the editor is one of? I picked a whimsical example, but we really should give guidance on where to draw the line. I think that Tryptofish's "whether the editor stands to gain something tangible (more than just feeling good) from the edits." (above) would be a good place to draw it. Probably excluding extremely tiny or dispersed benefits. For example, if I'm an Italian American, making them look good might tangibly benefit me a bit but that is a very tiny/dispersed benefit. Also, if (as basically required by Misplaced Pages) an editor contacts the subject of an article to obtain a usable image, and potentially or actually gains a distant friendship as a result, is that now a COI? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I think that what you quoted from me actually answers your question, as long as you note that I said "something tangible (more than just feeling good)". The example of getting an image from a page subject is a tangible benefit to Misplaced Pages, but not a tangible benefit to the editor who obtained the image (unless the editor was paid for it, which moves it solidly into a COI). --Tryptofish (talk) 18:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

COI Article Talk disclosure

In general, I see no reason why it would not be beneficial for an editor with a COI to disclose the fact on the talk page of the article they are working on; it would support their edits to be properly and appropriately scrutinized.

In line with this, I am considering proposing that we require the use of {{connected contributor (paid)}} and {{connected contributor}} on the articles talk pages.

However, before actually proposing this I wanted to float the idea here and get input on whether or not this would be a good idea. BilledMammal (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

That is listed as one of the three ways that Misplaced Pages as a community accepts as disclosure of COI and being a paid editor. Per the project page, There are three venues to do this: adding a template to a page, making a statement in an edit summary, or disclosing it on a user page. Is there a particular reason you find insufficient the other two options that Misplaced Pages has been considering acceptable and equivalent to talk page templates? P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 04:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
For a disclosure to be functional it needs to be evident to editors reviewing the article, both now and in the future.
A disclosure on the user page is not sufficient for this, as it is uncommon to check the user page of editors involved in creating an article when reviewing this.
A disclosure in the edit summary is sufficient for the short term, but less so in the long term - I wouldn't object to requiring both, though.
And in general, what is the harm of requiring this disclosure? BilledMammal (talk) 04:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Agreed, in all the mess of edits how is one to know that they'd to look each and every editors talk page to check if they have a COI on an off chance? TarnishedPath 04:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
A disclosure in the edit summary is sufficient for the short term, but less so in the long term
I feel almost the opposite is the case. As Misplaced Pages pages are not static, being subject to edits by other editors as well, a COI disclosure template on the talk page could become obsolete inaccurate as the page text shifts. Contributions from the editor who had a COI could eventually be completely gone. But while that's my feeling about it, I want to respect that some editors with COI may find a talk page template more useful than an edit summary disclosure, or user page disclosure—and vice versa. I think it's best to leave the options open and to maintain the policy as it has been. 05:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC) P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 05:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
I don’t think we should be focusing on what editors with a COI find most useful, but what the broader community finds most useful - after all, the disclosure is for the benefit of the latter, not the former.
As for your specific concern, I struggle to see what harm the presence of an obsolete tag would have. Could you elaborate? BilledMammal (talk) 05:23, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Obsolete tags take time and energy to clean up, and they would need to be cleaned up because of providing inaccurate information. I don't think obsolete tags are useful to the project. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 06:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
What harm would come of an editor thinking that an article was still influenced by an editor with a COI?
And in general, I think it is very rare that an article is rewritten so completely that all vestiges of influence are gone. BilledMammal (talk) 06:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
The editor might end up losing time to searching for the COI contributions to review them, only to discover that those contributions are no longer there anyway. Editors on the talk page might refer to the template to characterize the page as compromised, presuming that content currently live was placed by a COI editor and not realizing those contributions came later. These are just two possible situations.
What harm would come of an editor being able to see COI disclosures in the edit history? P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 07:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
None. Being only able to see them in the edit history, however, would be problematic as once the edit drops off the watch list it can only be seen when reviewing the history, and on active pages can easily be overlooked - or never seen, as it is buried too deeply in the history.
As for your specified problems, they all seem to be of the variety "we can't trust editors to use information intelligently". I have more faith in our editors than that. BilledMammal (talk) 07:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Draft RfC

This RfC relates to how editors with a COI should disclose it:

Question A: Should editors with a conflict of interest, when making edits related to it, be required to disclose it in edit summaries?
Question B: Should editors with a conflict of interest, when editing articles related to it, be required to disclose that on the article's talk page?

Editors should respond with "Yes" or "No" to each of these questions.

Thoughts on this proposed question? Are there any ambiguities? BilledMammal (talk) 05:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Something that this draft leaves ambiguous is how and that editors with COI make disclosures in the present. Without context, an editor unfamiliar with COI might think that answering no to the questions means editors do nothing to disclose COI. I would expand the introduction:
This RfC relates to how editors with a COI should disclose it. Currently, an editor may disclose a COI by any one or more of three venues: placing a connected contributor template at the top of the affected page's talk page, making a statement in the edit summary of any COI contribution, or noting the COI on their user page.
Then the questions as you have them. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 06:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't think that's necessary. It's best to keep the question brief, and that context isn't useful in my opinion - we're asking about implementing a requirement, so the optional aspects aren't relevant. BilledMammal (talk) 06:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
There already is a requirement. COI is required to be disclosed by at least one of the three venues. The only option is which, not whether. It's good for questions to be brief, but I still think as written it risks giving off a mis-impression of existing COI policy.
Perhaps my suggesting phrasing could be improved:
This RfC relates to how editors with a COI should disclose it. Current policy is that an editor who must disclose a COI has the option of three venues: placing a connected contributor template at the top of the affected page's talk page, making a statement in the edit summary of any COI contribution, or noting the COI on their user page. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 07:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
That statement looks good as part of the explanation to the RfC. My only statement To Question A and B above is that there is nothing that states that either would be in addition to anything. So should each of them state that the disclosures would be in addition to noting COI on the user page? TarnishedPath 07:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
@BilledMammal, Question C: Both All methods as shown in the statement above posted by P-Makoto on all occasions without exception?? TarnishedPath 06:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Question D: Should the policy on COI disclosure be left as it is? P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 06:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
I've added a new line that I think should address your concern, by providing instructions that this isn't an A or B choice? BilledMammal (talk) 06:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
I have low enthusiasm for doing this. As commented on above this subsection, our existing guideline allows disclosure in any of three ways. Some editors may feel that disclosure on a user page is insufficient because other editors might not look there, but I'm not convinced that this is a big enough problem to require changing what we currently have. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
My comments above the RfC draft imply such, but just to be fully clear, I do agree with Tryptofish. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Exactly which court case?

In the section US: Federal Trade Commission, state law, and native advertising I have marked the following

State law may have similar prohibitions. While the FTC law may apply only to interstate and foreign commerce, state law applies to intrastate commerce and must be obeyed. At least one state court case found liability for an ad disguised as editorial content.

With because the person did not provide the case citation. In referring to legal issues, it is critical to state the name of the case and the case citation in order to allow others to find it. While I can presume that this case did in fact happen, we don't know what state, what organization was sued, or any way to actually read the court decision.

"Understanding of things by me is only made possible by viewers (of my comments) like you."

Thank you.
Paul Robinson Rfc1394 (talk) 13:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Nick Levinson: as the original contributor: SmartSE (talk) 17:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
I agree that it would be helpful to clarify that. We probably don't need a citation, however, because if we have a page about the case, then a blue-link to that would be more helpful. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Religious COI

The article mentions COI's of a religious nature. Does this mean someone ay have a COI when editing an article related to there faith? GrayStorm 23:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

There is the caveat that How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Misplaced Pages is governed by common sense. I think there is very little to be concerned about if a Muslim edits the Quran article and is following Misplaced Pages rules and policies. Other examples in the policy focus on business, financial, and personal relationships, like writing about one's spouse or about one's business, and those are the COIs that I think genuinely are of interest to us as a community.
Frankly, I would support trimming religious, political from the policy text, as those affiliations simply don't rise to the level of issue that we are concerned with as Wikipedians. The community doesn't have a problem with U. S. Americans who aren't expatriates writing about Andrew Jackson or Living constitutionalism (political "relationship"), or with atheists who haven't been "born again" writing about Richard Dawkins or Hitchen's razor (religious "relationship"), etc. The community has a problem with editors who violate Misplaced Pages's policies or pillars, and that can and does happen irrespective of religious or political "relationship". P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Category: