Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest: Difference between revisions

By /

 

Line 124: Line 124:

In other words, while he has no personal association with the subjects he wrote about, he ”wants” a connection, so he contributed the articles with an expectation of gaining compensation (a non-monetary personal benefit). Therein lies the conflict between his interests and the interests of Wikipedia.

In other words, while he has no personal association with the subjects he wrote about, he ”wants” a connection, so he contributed the articles with an expectation of gaining compensation (a non-monetary personal benefit). Therein lies the conflict between his interests and the interests of Wikipedia.

Perhaps a mention of such a situation should be mentioned in the guideline. ~[[User:Anachronist|Anachronist]] (who / me) <small>([[User talk:Anachronist|talk]])</small> 19:41, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps such a situation should be mentioned in the guideline. ~[[User:Anachronist|Anachronist]] (who / me) <small>([[User talk:Anachronist|talk]])</small> 19:41, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I’m confused by the exception in: The use of administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except as a Wikipedian-in-Residence, or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF, is considered a serious misuse and likely to result in sanctions or their removal. Is it saying that any admin that engages in paid editing is subject to sanctions if they’re not paid by specific organizations? I think the more likely interpretation is that you can’t be paid to do admin actions which is already covered in the text above this. Like hopefully someone would never do this but theoretically this could allow someone to protect the article of their host institution, which is not what I think is intended here. So is there something I’m not getting or is this some odd exception that should be removed? The only other edge case I can think of is maybe this a roundabout way of saying “oh, people are paid by the WMF to do things like office actions and that’s okay”. Not sure how that would apply to affiliates and WIRs, though. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:08, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s mainly intended to cover situations like this: say we have an article on Clarence Horsepacket, a 40-year-old businessman living in Saskatoon. It’s fully referenced to 100% cast-iron guaranteed reliable sources. One of these describes an embarrasing incident when Horsepacket was at university; there were plenty of witnesses to the indiscretion, but Horsepacket would rather keep it quiet, because he’s going into politics and intends running in an upcoming election. He wants this covered up, but he knows that if he simply removes the paragraph in question, he’ll probably be reverted; he also knows that it’ll still be in the page history. So he finds somebody in real life who is an admin on Wikipedia (it’s not difficult: go to one of these and put the names to faces) and offers a wad of cash under the table to delete the article. If it’s accepted, there’s the crime. —Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:33, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I get that, I just don’t understand why there’s an exception for Wikimedians in Residences doing admin actions in which they would have a COI. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:37, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An example I can think of is if an edit-a-thon organizer is cleaning up after participants. For example, a participant may have created an article that fails to meet the standards for having an article. If the organizer has administrative privileges, they may wish to take on the workload of deleting the article themselves rather than burdening someone else. If the organizer is being paid to hold the edit-a-thon, such as a Wikipedian-in-residence might be, then this would be a case of being paid to use administrative privileges. That being said, since the title of Wikipedian-in-residence is self-assigned without any oversight, I do agree that it’s a open loophole. isaacl (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It just seems confusing for readers that don’t know what a conflict of interest is. Why would they have to go to the third section just to find out? NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 03:30, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Several articles in Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests should most likely be deleted. I want to send them to AfD, but I am worried this could be interpreted as “punishment” for following the rules, discouraging COI editors from making edit requests since it carries the risk of their article getting deleted. Is this a valid concern or am I being too cautious? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:18, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just my opinion, but I don’t think you need to be too worried about it. So long as the deletion rationale is solid (and not based only on the existence of a COI), I think that’s OK on the merits. But I’d probably not want to nominate a very new article if there is still a need for time to flesh it out. —Tryptofish (talk) 01:29, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I really would like to contest the standards required to post an article for musicians. I believe it is incorrect to assume that an artist who doesn’t meet these specific guidelines is not fit to have a public, accessible article posted on this site. After all, Wikipedia’s purpose “is to benefit readers by acting as a widely accessible and free encyclopedia; a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge” … right? What benefit is it to limit information based on what is “notable” (popular)?
Local music is one of the last living and breathing forms of revolutionary art. In every city, local musicians define the culture of their area and largely carry the weight of local entertainment on their backs in both small and large municipalities. Guidelines like the ones outlined in WP:NMUSIC seem to disproportionately impact local musicians. I see political and otherwise informative articles all the time with much less information listed out than what I offered in my article, which has now been moved to drafts.
It’s also incorrect to assume that an artist cannot tell their own history without being biased one way or the other. If the resources are available but nobody has cared enough to search for them, compile them, and then share them on Wikipedia, who should do them?
Is there any way I can make my petition with the ‘higher-ups’ of Wikipedia to push for more representation and inclusive guidelines for local art?

Khllnsm (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Khlinsm:, Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy) is the place to do so.
There are other platforms, such as localwiki.org where you can create hyper local contents. If Wikipedia gets too inclusive, it becomes a spam page full of things like listings of all the dive bars and highly non-notable garage bands that play there, the fastest sprinter in the neighborhood, the oldest car dealer in city and similar trivial existence. Graywalls (talk) 16:06, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dissenting interpretation regarding: Special:Diff/1328356482
The article Eric Gilbertson (climber) had been repeated re-created. The first two times by the same user and had been deleted by AfD. It was created for the third time by a different user. It was nominated for deletion for the third time, but was kept in the third AfD. For the purpose of evaluating notability, previous edit history was restored during the AfD.

My understanding is that not having edited on the article space doesn’t quash out the tag that the COI users in question have edited the article. Could someone with more experience than me and familiar with this clarify? Graywalls (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The numerous pages for business and financial companies often describe things that are not part of their core business and don’t differ from the things their competitors do, but are part of their advertising. One example is scholarships for women/minorities/LGBTQ+++. Another example is a photo of the office building where their headquarters is located (sigh!). When a COI editor requests an update to one of these, can the reviewing editor say, “No, that’s trivial, nobody wants to read that.”? Julian in LA (talk) 01:50, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you do so civilly, and try to back up with a policy based argument rather than your personal taste. Public relations firms that do Wikipedia quite adept in Wikipedia policies, so just saying “nobody wants to read that” won’t put you in a good place. Graywalls (talk) 08:37, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If I say it to myself, and just write “no” on the talk page, is that OK? Public relations firms are “quite adept” at putting a picture of their headquarters building on the page. There are dozens of examples of this. This question has two specific examples, which would be equally trivial for any business. Julian in LA (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Are some conflicts of interests non-profit? If so, can being purely a fan of a sports club and editing in favour of that club also trigger such a conflict, in addition to an NPOV violation? Quang, Bùi Huy (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s more a matter of benefit (beyond just feeling happy) than of profit. So a fan who just feels good about edits that favor their team might have a POV issue, but that’s not really a COI. One could have a COI without actually making a profit, if one gains some sort of benefit, such as free tickets to an event. —Tryptofish (talk) 00:02, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You betcha. If you’re in the US, “non-profit” is just a legalese referring to the way it is registered with the government. I am constantly cleaning up after public relations editing on non-profit, public agencies, governments, politicians in addition to corporate. Even you editing about your family members puts you at COI editing. Graywalls (talk) 06:34, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The current COI guideline may unintentionally discourage subject-matter experts from contributing, particularly in large public institutions where promotional incentives are minimal. Editors affiliated with an organization often possess the most accurate institutional knowledge, while unaffiliated editors may lack context, access to sources, or technical understanding. Although disclosure and neutrality are essential, a blanket discouragement of article creation may contribute to systemic bias and knowledge gaps, especially for academic and public-sector organizations. Could the policy be refined to distinguish between promotional conflict and informational expertise, perhaps with stronger disclosure and review mechanisms rather than discouragement of participation? Erfan2017 (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please be more specific or provide some concrete examples? ElKevbo (talk) 23:56, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the question. I can clarify with a concrete example.
Suppose I work for a university, a public research institute, or a well-established academic center. If I want to create or substantially improve an article about that institution—one that is already notable and widely covered by independent reliable sources—I am required to declare a COI, draft the article in my sandbox, and then wait an indeterminate amount of time for an unrelated editor to review and publish it.
By contrast, an unaffiliated editor with limited subject-matter knowledge may create and publish the same article directly in mainspace, provided notability is met. In practice, this can result in articles that are less accurate, less complete, or that misunderstand institutional context, while knowledgeable editors are procedurally discouraged from contributing.
This concern is especially relevant for scientific, academic, and public-sector organizations, where the risk of promotional editing is relatively low and claims are typically constrained by verifiable, third-party sources. The neutrality risk in these cases is fundamentally different from that of political, ideological, or biographical articles, where selective emphasis and framing (“cherry-picking”) can significantly shape reader perception.
For example, political parties, governments, religious movements, or controversial public figures present a much higher risk of partisan editing, whether positive or negative. In those domains, strict COI controls are clearly justified. However, applying the same level of discouragement to editors contributing factual, source-based content about universities or research organizations may unintentionally create systemic gaps and reduce article quality.
I am therefore suggesting that the guideline could better distinguish between promotional conflict and informational expertise. Rather than discouraging participation outright, the policy might emphasize mandatory disclosure, stronger sourcing requirements, and post-publication review for low-risk domains such as science, education, and public institutions. This could preserve neutrality while allowing knowledgeable contributors to improve coverage where independent editors may lack access or technical understanding. Erfan2017 (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would also add that the absence of a formal affiliation does not imply neutrality. Editors who have no employment or family connection to a subject may nonetheless have a strong ideological or political motivation to shape an article as a form of activism. In practice, some of the most persistent edit wars occur on topics involving armed conflicts, geopolitics, and high-profile political figures—for example, coverage related to the Russia–Ukraine war or ongoing conflicts in the Middle East—where editors may selectively emphasize sources or narratives aligned with their views.
In these cases, a traditional COI framework is rarely applied, despite the clear presence of advocacy-driven editing. This suggests that current COI guidance may be misaligned with actual risk: it is enforced most strictly where factual, source-constrained content is beingdded (such as academic or institutional articles), while it is largely absent where ideological bias and editorial conflict are most prevalent. A more nuanced approach that accounts for advocacy and activist motivations—not only formal affiliations—could better address the areas where neutrality is most fragile. Erfan2017 (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Many good points. This guideline needs major reworking. And it needs the the “golden rule” which defined defining COI restored. Which made the distinction between a potential COI influence being present and actual COI editing. Also (as you point out) the current “potential COI influence” definition often malfunctions. Wrongly identifying weak ones and ignoring strong ones. North8000 (talk) 22:14, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think those comments misunderstand the guideline in some important respects. It’s not true that such an editor is permitted only to draft something in a sandbox and wait for another editor to move it to mainspace. That can be best practice, especially when starting a new page from scratch. But, so long as the needed disclosure gets made, the edits can be made in mainspace, with the understanding that other editors are going to scrutinize it, and non-NPOV content is likely to be reverted or deleted. —Tryptofish (talk) 00:09, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In that sense, the issue is not simply whether disclosure permits affiliated editors to contribute in mainspace, but how risk is assessed in practice. Affiliation alone is often treated as a proxy for promotional intent, even in low-risk, source-constrained contexts such as public universities or research institutions. This places a disproportionate burden on editors whose connection is professional rather than ideological.
At the same time, the current COI framework largely leaves highly motivated political or ideological actors unexamined. Unlike an affiliated editor—whose relationship may be limited to employment—an activist or believer may feel a strong duty or mandate to influence how a topic is framed. That motivation can create a substantially higher and more persistent risk of conflict of interest, yet it falls outside the formal COI definition and is rarely scrutinized with comparable rigor.
Clarifying this distinction in the guideline—by separating promotional conflict from informational expertise and by acknowledging advocacy-driven motivations as a source of editorial risk—could better align enforcement with where neutrality is most fragile, while reducing unnecessary discouragement of knowledgeable contributors. Erfan2017 (talk) 02:44, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who works at a university, and has chosen not to edit the article of my employer, I have never had a problem. First, the community can be trusted. If people start adding poor quality content, someone almost always fixes it. It doesn’t have to be me. If they don’t, I can raise it on talk, and someone always does. If that somehow didn’t work there are other places I could raise it. The trick is – trust the community to get it right, and communicate if something falls through the gaps. They manage it far more oftent than we give them credit for. – Bilby (talk) 02:55, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree that college and university employees are somehow special and that we need to change our COI practices and policies to accommodate them (“us,” actually, as I have worked in higher education my entire adult life). You are always welcome to make suggestions, requests, and recommendations in an article’s Talk page, even for articles with which you have a COI including articles about your employer. ElKevbo (talk) 03:28, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Plus one to this. 海盐沙冰 / aka irisChronomia / Talk 07:02, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Non-profit labels are mostly meaningless and public relations editing by institutes of higher education is a serious issue I come across all the time. They operate like a business. Someone’s employer of record being the school isn’t as relevant as the relationship between the edits they’re making and the relationship and proximity of what they’re editing vs their professional duty/personal relationship. Someone who works in the cafeteria, their employer or record being the school editing things about the chemistry department out of personal interest is a non-issue. Them editing about union/management issues related to food service likely would be. Someone who works for the school (directly as their payroll employee, or brought in from staffing agency doing PR/Comm stuff) in communications, external relations, marketing or public relations making any edits on their institution, executives, professors, would be much more problematic. Graywalls (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I don’t think the discussion has yet addressed a key imbalance in how the current COI guidance works in practice.
The main goal of COI is to reduce the risk of biased or advocacy-driven content on Wikipedia. In reality, however, formal affiliation is often treated as automatic bias, while other sources of bias—such as strong political, ideological, or activist motivation—are mostly outside the scope of the guideline.
An affiliated editor (for example, someone employed by a university or public research institution) may have professional proximity to the subject, but their edits are usually limited by independent reliable sources and reputational accountability. By contrast, an unaffiliated editor may still have a strong desire to promote a particular narrative, especially in areas like geopolitics, armed conflicts, or controversial public policy. That kind of motivation can lead to selective sourcing or framing, yet it is rarely examined under the current COI framework.
This creates a mismatch in enforcement: strict caution and procedural barriers in relatively low-risk, source-constrained topics (such as academic or public institutions), and much less scrutiny in areas where neutrality is often most fragile.
My point is not that affiliated editors should receive special treatment. Rather, I’m suggesting that the guideline could more clearly distinguish between promotional conflict and informational expertise, and better recognize advocacy-driven motivations as a real source of editorial risk. Clearer definitions would reduce assumptions about individual editors and better align the guideline with its core purpose: protecting neutrality.
I’m adding this comment only to clarify my original concern. I’ll step back from further replies to allow other editors to contribute and develop the discussion. Erfan2017 (talk) 15:20, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Issue with affiliated COI is the me/us/our industry promo, whitewash and search optimization. The other thing you speak of isn’t COI, but more of POV issue. Graywalls (talk) 16:00, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As alluded to by Graywalls, our WP:NPOV policy is really more important than this WP:COI guideline. NPOV is all about advocacy and biased content, and it applies regardless of who made the edit. COI’s main purpose should not be confounded with that of NPOV, because COI serves principally to encourage transparency when someone has a potential bias that results from potential material benefit. Of course there are lots of other ways that bias can arise, without material benefit as the motivation, but NPOV has that covered. —Tryptofish (talk) 00:43, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Affiliated editors aren’t prohibited per se from working on main space, but nonetheless, strongly discouraged.
This is how I personally view editing of articles by company’s communications/public relations effort:
A married wealthy 70 year old man is visiting his son, who has an 18 year old son. The man has a fling with the grandson’s 18 year old wife and they both kept it to themselves. She also happens to receive extravagant gifts. Gifts, not prohibited business transactions. If this takes place in a jurisdiction where adultery isn’t prohibited by law, no offense occurred under the letter of the law as long as it was consensual between both of them. Prevailing school of thought on something like this is that it’s morally and ethically reprehensible. Public relations editing of Wikipedia pages maybe acceptable in the reputation management and corporate communications industry. Tricks like “but it was edited by an unpaid intern” or “a volunteer” might skirt what the FTC considers covert paid advocacy (a United States government agency) but it is antithetical with the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. Graywalls (talk) 07:36, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Due to WP:OUTING, what we can post about external evidence that connects a user with external user names or identity is severely restricted. If it involves paid COI, such evidence is sent by email to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org however, what about sibling/acquaintance/family COI that involves private evidence? Graywalls (talk) 03:15, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That kind of non-paid COI information can be emailed to ArbCom, functionaries, or a trusted admin, depending upon circumstances. One can also, of course, use WP:COIN to state that you are concerned that [editor] has a COI, based upon private evidence that you have submitted, without specifying what the private evidence or the COI is, although that may not be useful if it limits the report to wording that borders on meaningless. —Tryptofish (talk) 00:48, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the name, paid-en-wp does take “reports of undisclosed conflict-of-interest or paid editing“. Sometimes other places make more sense, but we can at least point you in the right direction. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:19, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A recent situation arose at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#WindsorMaster47 and Skild AI. It’s a long discussion, but here’s the gist: One editor (now appealing a NOTHERE block) insists that he doesn’t have a conflict of interest because his situation isn’t explicitly covered by the COI guidelines, but the other participants in that discussion see a conflict.

The editor stated here that he is contributing articles about two researchers and their company for the purpose of gaining an audience with those two researchers. To that end, he unilaterally moved his drafts to mainspace after they were declined at AFC, and now all three are at AFD although two of them are likely keepers.

In other words, while he has no personal association with the subjects he wrote about, he wants a connection, so he contributed the articles with an expectation of gaining compensation (a non-monetary personal benefit). Therein lies the conflict between his interests and the interests of Wikipedia.

Perhaps such a situation should be mentioned in the guideline. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Exit mobile version