Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Archive 31) (bot |
212.186.133.83 (talk) →Who needs this?: new section |
||
Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
More than anything, though, I would love some written guidance, here or at [[WP:PSCOI]], to reduce the arguments! [[User:Rhanbury|Rhanbury]] ([[User talk:Rhanbury|talk]]) 19:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC) |
More than anything, though, I would love some written guidance, here or at [[WP:PSCOI]], to reduce the arguments! [[User:Rhanbury|Rhanbury]] ([[User talk:Rhanbury|talk]]) 19:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC) |
||
:To some extent, there are two separable issues here: that of persons affiliated specifically with an educational institution, and that of former employees etc. regardless of the field they were in. I think that a COI occurs when the editor stands to benefit from the edit in some way, as opposed to having a "rooting interest" in the subject matter. We don't consider editors who vote with a particular political party to have a COI with respect to related pages about politics, but rather we treat that as a matter of [[WP:NPOV]]. So a former student does not stand to benefit in any meaningful way if they correct a fact in the page about their school, but if they write something about how superior that school is in relation to its competitors, they better have independent sourcing or there will be a POV issue. A paid employee of the school may have a COI, and an employee paid to do public relations for the school definitely has one, and furthermore those are cases where [[WP:PAID]] applies, but students and their families should not be regarded as having COIs unless they are making edits that subjectively reflect well or badly on the school. Similarly for ex-employees of any kind of workplace. They might stand to benefit (perhaps through a pension) from promoting their former employer, or they might be inclined to write negatively about the employer if they left on bad terms. I would consider each of those to be COIs, and would want to see disclosure. But in all these cases, the critical issue as I see it is the nature of the edits: purely factual information tends not to raise COI issues, but content with a POV does. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 20:30, 6 December 2018 (UTC) |
:To some extent, there are two separable issues here: that of persons affiliated specifically with an educational institution, and that of former employees etc. regardless of the field they were in. I think that a COI occurs when the editor stands to benefit from the edit in some way, as opposed to having a "rooting interest" in the subject matter. We don't consider editors who vote with a particular political party to have a COI with respect to related pages about politics, but rather we treat that as a matter of [[WP:NPOV]]. So a former student does not stand to benefit in any meaningful way if they correct a fact in the page about their school, but if they write something about how superior that school is in relation to its competitors, they better have independent sourcing or there will be a POV issue. A paid employee of the school may have a COI, and an employee paid to do public relations for the school definitely has one, and furthermore those are cases where [[WP:PAID]] applies, but students and their families should not be regarded as having COIs unless they are making edits that subjectively reflect well or badly on the school. Similarly for ex-employees of any kind of workplace. They might stand to benefit (perhaps through a pension) from promoting their former employer, or they might be inclined to write negatively about the employer if they left on bad terms. I would consider each of those to be COIs, and would want to see disclosure. But in all these cases, the critical issue as I see it is the nature of the edits: purely factual information tends not to raise COI issues, but content with a POV does. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 20:30, 6 December 2018 (UTC) |
||
== Who needs this? == |
|||
This is a POV guideline that is only good as a [[thought-terminating cliché]]. It seems to proscribe [[impartiality]], which is superfluous, as it is already covered by NPOV. The idea seems to be that you can [[recuse]] an editor who meets certain formal criteria, just like you would recuse a partial judge. The "paid editing" subrule codifies an [[anti-consumerist]] POV that considers money the source of all evils. It criminalizes a state of things (being related or paid) and not behaviour (tendentious editing). |
|||
If tendentious editing is the problem, a paid POV warrior is no worse than a voluntary one, of which there are many in political, ideological and religious topics. In fact, everybody has convictions that he cannot simply put off like socks. Even with the best of so-called reputable sources, POV lies in the choice and arrangement of facts. So in fact, everybody has a COI. Not all paid editors are necessarily corrupt or bad, and if they are annoying, the fact that they are being paid (or that they are related) is of least relevance. |
|||
I have seen this guideline invoked mainly in two contexts: "alternative vs. scientistic medicine" and "public health vs. freedom of choice", and its purpose seems to be to forbid either point of view, without considering the individual merits of an edit. --[[Special:Contributions/212.186.133.83|212.186.133.83]] ([[User talk:212.186.133.83|talk]]) 17:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:07, 9 December 2018
Sources on conflict of interest (chronological)
- Michael Davis, "Conflict of Interest," Business and Professional Ethics Journal, 1(4), 1982, pp. 17–27 (influential)
- Luebke, Neil R. "Conflict of Interest as a Moral Category," Business & Professional Ethics Journal, 6, 1987, pp. 66–81. JSTOR 27799930 (influential)
- Michael Davis, "Conflict of Interest Revisited," Business & Professional Ethics Journal, 12(4), Winter 1993, pp. 21–41. JSTOR 27800924
- Michael Davis, Andrew Stark (eds.). Conflict of Interest in the Professions, University of Oxford Press, 2001.
- Andrew Stark, Conflict of Interest in American Public Life, Harvard University Press, 2003.
- Sheldon Krimsky, "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.
- Bernard Lo and Marilyn J. Field (eds.), Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice, National Academies Press, 2009.
- Wayne Norman, Chris McDonald, "Conflicts of Interest", in George G. Brenkert, Tom L. Beauchamp (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Business Ethics, Oxford University Press, 2012, pp. 441–470.
project
what is the hypothesis of the relationship between effective marketing strategies and organizational growth (Glorygold22 (talk) 08:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC))
- You're asking in the wrong place. Try Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous. -- Hoary (talk) 09:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Steve Jobs example lacking
The talk page for Steve Jobs is listed as the example for an editor declaring a conflict of interest, but the link just goes to the page, not to the declaration, which has long been buried. I'd suggest replacing the example with a more direct link to a disclosure. - Sdkb (talk) 01:26, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
When do FORMER employees, pupils, customers, or suppliers of an organisation still suffer from COI?
There has been some heated discussion on this topic in relation to who can edit schools articles, and outside a statement about "common sense" I have been unable to find any even vaguely authoritative guidance. For example, is someone who attended, or was employed by, a school 20 years ago still prohibited from editing the article on that school? Some editors certainly believe so, but the danger is that being too strict about it removes almost anyone who would have any knowledge or interest in editing the article from the pool of potential editors. I bet most school articles are actually largely edited by alumni. The official process of suggesting edits on the talk page for someone else to transfer into the article is so cumbersome and unreliable that it is not a practical substitute.
My personal opinion is that editors with a CURRENT direct relationship to an organisation should not edit, but those with FORMER relationships can edit, provided that they declare the COI on the talk page if they are making material edits, and possibly the same would apply to those with indirect relationships (e.g. spouses of employees). I'm not sure where parents of current pupils should sit, but on balance I'm inclined to think that counts as a direct relationship. Employees of customers and suppliers I would view as an indirect relationship unless the relationship forms a material part of their business, or represents a material part of the counterparty's business (e.g. an individual contractor to a business, or their biggest customer). Simply buying or supplying a small number of a mass produced product would not count as any relationship from a COI perspective.
More than anything, though, I would love some written guidance, here or at WP:PSCOI, to reduce the arguments! Rhanbury (talk) 19:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
- To some extent, there are two separable issues here: that of persons affiliated specifically with an educational institution, and that of former employees etc. regardless of the field they were in. I think that a COI occurs when the editor stands to benefit from the edit in some way, as opposed to having a "rooting interest" in the subject matter. We don't consider editors who vote with a particular political party to have a COI with respect to related pages about politics, but rather we treat that as a matter of WP:NPOV. So a former student does not stand to benefit in any meaningful way if they correct a fact in the page about their school, but if they write something about how superior that school is in relation to its competitors, they better have independent sourcing or there will be a POV issue. A paid employee of the school may have a COI, and an employee paid to do public relations for the school definitely has one, and furthermore those are cases where WP:PAID applies, but students and their families should not be regarded as having COIs unless they are making edits that subjectively reflect well or badly on the school. Similarly for ex-employees of any kind of workplace. They might stand to benefit (perhaps through a pension) from promoting their former employer, or they might be inclined to write negatively about the employer if they left on bad terms. I would consider each of those to be COIs, and would want to see disclosure. But in all these cases, the critical issue as I see it is the nature of the edits: purely factual information tends not to raise COI issues, but content with a POV does. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Who needs this?
This is a POV guideline that is only good as a thought-terminating cliché. It seems to proscribe impartiality, which is superfluous, as it is already covered by NPOV. The idea seems to be that you can recuse an editor who meets certain formal criteria, just like you would recuse a partial judge. The "paid editing" subrule codifies an anti-consumerist POV that considers money the source of all evils. It criminalizes a state of things (being related or paid) and not behaviour (tendentious editing).
If tendentious editing is the problem, a paid POV warrior is no worse than a voluntary one, of which there are many in political, ideological and religious topics. In fact, everybody has convictions that he cannot simply put off like socks. Even with the best of so-called reputable sources, POV lies in the choice and arrangement of facts. So in fact, everybody has a COI. Not all paid editors are necessarily corrupt or bad, and if they are annoying, the fact that they are being paid (or that they are related) is of least relevance.
I have seen this guideline invoked mainly in two contexts: "alternative vs. scientistic medicine" and "public health vs. freedom of choice", and its purpose seems to be to forbid either point of view, without considering the individual merits of an edit. --212.186.133.83 (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC)