Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest

Previously paid editors

Something came up at WT:OKA regarding editors who were previously paid (and therefore displayed a paid editor template on their User page per disclosure requirements), but who are no longer paid and continue to edit in a fully volunteer basis like any other unpaid editor at Wikipedia. Should we say something about this at WP:COI? Do we need a new {{paid}}-like template, to say they were {{previously paid}}, or do we maybe add a new parameter to the old one, with new parameter |previous=yes? Or should those editors simply remove their {{paid}} template when they are no longer editing for pay?

I think I would vote for the new-param/new-template solution, as I think I would want to know that someone previously edited for pay so I would be informed, when checking earlier contributions, but I think I would also like to know that they are no longer paid editors. And it doesn't seem right to oblige them to leave the {{paid}} editor template up forever, if it no longer reflects the reality of their current contributions. Would like to know what others think. Mathglot (talk) 10:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I think {{paid}} (unlike {{coi}}) is already implicitly past tense. We want to know if someone was paid for a particular set of edits, and that information remains relevant as long as those edits are in Wikipedia's database (i.e. forever). Perhaps we should update the template to explicitly use the past tense (e.g. "were paid" instead of "have been paid" currently), but I don't see the need a strong need to make a distinction between completed contracts and ongoing ones. They should definitely not remove the paid template, otherwise every freelancer that does one-off jobs could claim that they have nothing to disclose right now, because the work was completed when they clicked save. The situation at OKA, where editors are paid a stipend for ongoing and nonspecific contributions to Wikipedia is not typical, and as I think we've both said elsewhere "paid editing" is probably not the most accurate description of it in the first place. – Joe (talk) 11:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, and I get the verb tense issue point, but it just seems like leaving it up forever is a bit of a scarlet letter. Some editors who are indeffed for serious policy violations get to come back if they manage a successful appeal, and the indef banner eventually ages off their Talk page, although you can find the evidence in the log or page history if you look. Others indeffed get to come back under clean start, and then you can't even find a trace at all. Why should a formerly-paid editor who has adhered to all policies and guidelines including disclosure, be obliged to retain the banner forever, when previously indeffed editors are not? That's the problem I have with it. Maybe there should be an elapsed time after which it goes from "paid" to "previously paid" and then eventually ages off? Mathglot (talk) 19:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

The purpose of disclosure is to let the reader know that certain text is written under a COI and factor that, however they choose, in their reading. It's about honesty concerning relationship with the writing and not a punishment (indeed not a comment on good faith or anything else per the guideline). Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker, there is already a solution for that: the {{connected contributor}} template, which goes on the article talk page, and I have no objection whatever of it remaining there, for the reasons you point out. However, a COI disclosure statement or template does not tell you which article(s) is/are involved; do you see a reason why it should remain on the user's talk page forever? Mathglot (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

It very much should say which articles are involved. The {{paid}} template has an |article= parameter for that reason. – Joe (talk) 23:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

For better or worse, the terms of use don't specify any conditions under which a notice can be removed. However an editor can note when their paid editing ended, or even disclose which edits were paid for, should they choose. isaacl (talk) 15:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Nine years ago, another editor advised me to create a separate account for edits that are not paid (and to disclose that both accounts belong to me). I find it useful, but I'm not sure if that is a solution others would advise currently. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Not a bad solution, technically speaking, but I still don't see why a formerly indeffed user may be simply welcomed back to the fold, while a formerly paid editor who never did anything wrong has to jump through extra hoops. Mathglot (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, paid editors are not excluded from the fold in the first place. They're just asked to disclose their conflict of interest, which per this guideline is supposed to be a "description of a situation, not a judgment about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith", though I'll grant you that in practice many editors will judge them for it. – Joe (talk) 23:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

COI

How do I get my name added to a description? It's incomplete without my name. LCSWV (talk) 19:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

@LCSWV your question doesn't make a lot of sense. Please elaborate. Graywalls (talk) 18:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Threshold that should be met in order to tag an article

Talk:Tooth_&_Nail_Records_discography I tagged that article, because of substantial addition of contents by an account that was created, seemingly just for this purpose and promptly disappeared. It's a tactic commonly employed by company's marketing personnel, or external public relations editors, because they do not wish to have the account linked to their other editing activities. As long as I explain it, I feel this meets the threshold to mark it as "appears to have COI". I welcome comments. Graywalls (talk) 18:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• Maybe a moot point because the creator in question has been gone for 14 years. I think that almost every use of this tag is basically an educated guess and this educated guess seems as good as any and so I would say that it is not improper to place the tag. But this tag is really to help bring this to some sort of a resolution (regarding the creator or the article content) and I don't see what that would be at this point. And some would argue an undue influence on the AFD. So, IMHO OK to place the tag but probably a better idea to not do so. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  Delayed discovery doesn't negate the issue of article contamination with undue contents that causes over-representation of the advocate's interest. @North8000:, that White Stag article is a great example of this. PR editing effort often creates new account as needed. The most recent suspected PR activity took place in March 2024 on the article in question. The pattern shown by account creation date, brief period of making substantial edits exclusively on this article and disappearing is indicative of brand involved page maintenance/public relations editing based on my experience observing COI edits. I would say it rises to the level of "reasonable suspicion". Graywalls (talk) 20:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  I see absolutely no reason for a tag. There is no way to resolve the "issue" as the user did not add any POV information. There is also no evidence that the user was paid, and I see no reason to assume they were. Tags are placed so articles can be fixed, where is the issue to fix here? glman (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Glman:, the UPE tang and COI tag are not the same. This one is a COI tag. "appears to have a COI" is not a high standard and as I said, I put this at the same level as "reasonable suspicion", so beyond a hunch, and can be articulated with a reason, such as editing pattern. Graywalls (talk) 01:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  I still fail to be convinced. It is entirely plausible that the editor is a fan of the label or certain releases. Nothing added to the page is POV, so again, how would one adjust the article to have the tag removed? glman (talk) 17:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Is contact via email and LinkedIn considered as COI?

I'm involved in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Corm II and one of the advocates for keeping the article has written I do not know Corm II personally. In the real world and among real people who don't spend their time online, that means that we have never met. I obviously got in touch with him through email (we are connected on LinkedIn) for this article. He gave me personal info as well as some personal media he had in his possession. That's it. Full stop. Is this type of online-only contact considered as COI or would it be acceptable not to disclose it on your user page? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

If they're contacting them for the purpose of improving a Wikipedia article (by whatever means), then I don't see a conflict of interest. It's a longstanding if relatively uncommon practice to for example contact the subject of an article to ask for a freely-licensed image. Obviously asking them for "personal info" is not a good idea because it cannot actually be used in articles, but that's a question of WP:V and WP:BLP rather than WP:COI. – Joe (talk) 07:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)