Wikipedia talk:COI+/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

"Optional but recommended"

I strongly suggest "optional but recommended" items be pulled out of the "I agree" list, since the person doing the certifying is NOT agreeing to them. Rather, there should be another list, immediately below the "I agree" list, something like:

I understand that the following are optional, but recommended:"

• Item
• Item
• Item

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I have separated them by order. Is that sufficient? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I made the change, I see no reason not to. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Revised "Background" section

I understand the need for a background section, but I think it is a bit too negative and bit too historical. I suggest rewriting this section to emphasize the opportunity for Wikipedia rather than the problems to date. Below is a first cut (sufficiently different and unfinished that I didn't want to do it directly). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Many Wikipedia editors are skeptical of efforts by editors who are paid (directly, as for example corporate communications departments) or indirectly (as, for example, public relations employees) to edit Wikipedia articles, and who often do so without any disclosures. On the other side, corporate and PR editors who would, in theory, be willing to work within Wikipedia rules end up being blocked (and their contributions reverted) because of mistakes (from the perspective of the Wikipedia community) that escalate into edit wars and/or incivility.

In the past year, some members of the corporate world and PR industry have argued that they would be more valuable to Wikipedia if allowed to be part of the Wikipedia ecosystem and that the Wikipedia community should not exclude them. Middle ground has been sought in such efforts as WikiProject Cooperation, in some of the activities of Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement (CREWE), and in the Chartered Institute of Public Relations' (CIPR) draft guidelines of COI best practices.

At the heart of the matter is that:

(1) Corporate and PR editors do have useful information and knowledge that could be used to improve Wikipedia articles.

(2) Corporate and PR editors, and others with strong COI issues, generally do not understand Wikipedia's policies such as Verifiability

(3) The conflict of interest guideline is more aimed at saying what not to do, or what is allowed under various circumstances, than as providing a set of instructions for corporate and PR professions, and similar, who are willing to abide by Wikipedia rules.

(4) The Wikipedia community spends a lot of time, on a one-to-one basis, correcting, educating, arguing with, and otherwise interacting with corporate and PR editors, much of which is ultimately unproductive with regards to improving (as opposed to protecting) Wikipedia articles.

Thanks for these great ideas. I did emphasize the negative in the current version, because I wanted to acknowledge where we're starting from. I will incorporate several of your changes. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 16:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Updated, please check. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

IMHO the overview should be an overview of the certification program, not the history of COI editing. In every essay, best practices, etc. I come across, there is a lot of text and time spent on editorialized POV on COI, when readers need clear instructions and value propositions. Something like:

"The COI certification program is intended to make it easier for the editorial community to identify editors with a conflict of interest that are trying to do the right thing. Participants may receive more civility and good faith from the community, while helping shield themselves from the criticism of uninformed journalists and media humiliation. It consists of agreeing to a statement of ethics and... "

This covers what it is and why I should join it, rather than perspective on the issue of COI. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 18:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Reliable Sources plz

Can you ditch the "Corporate and PR editors do have useful information and knowledge that could be used to improve Wikipedia articles" bit? One of the perennial issues with Corporate editors is that they know the "truth" about their clients and have access to certain primary sources. But we want them to ditch that and use reliable third party sources instead - this is a great example of why our policy needs to continue to value verifiability above truth. I'm not convinced that we should tolerate paid editors, but if we were to do so the first lesson they need to learn is that the only useful information they can bring to Wikipedia is their press clippings file. ϢereSpielChequers 22:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I've revised the wording to be consistent with Wikipedia's preference that editors avoid primary sources. As you point out, such editors often have access to press clippings files; that's potentially quite useful information that is not primary at all. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for those changes. The intent was never to encourage the use of primary sources, only to acknowledge that COI/PR editors have something to contribute. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 13:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Bright Line

User: Nouniquenames and I spent a couple hours crunching out template work for the {{request edit}} process with plans to keep working on it tomorrow. I hope others will contribute as well here and here to fine-tune the templates, text, etc.

The reason I bring it up here is that we created the draft templates so that you can decline a request edit with {{request edit | D | A}} to say that the edits look good at-a-glance, but ask the COI editor to implement them themselves, or you can do a bright-line approach by approving the edit with {{request edit | A}} and implementing them on the COI's behalf.

One of my key takeaways from talking to people at Wikimania, in particular some of the comments by User:DGG was the freedom of every editor to do as they please. Instead of trying to create a single stringent process or reach impossible consensus regarding the bright line, this allows each editor to handle it the way they want to, while creating a reasonable process for feedback. DGG might use D | A, while a Bright Line supporter might use | A. I declare the problem solved (soon). :-D User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 07:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I like the flexibility your approach gives to reviewers. I feel it's important to mention that COI Certification is less for us and more for them. It's something paid COI/PR editors can follow and aspire to. The community can of course interface with that however they see fit. It's not binding on us. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 13:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Streamlining

I've received some feedback on the Wikipedia-l mailing list that the idea is a good one but could use a bit of streamlining. In an attempt to focus the attention of COI certification participants, I've moved 'Review the troubleshooting flowchart' from 'required' to 'optional'. I think that's the only one I'm personally comfortable taking out of the core agreements, but I'm very open to feedback if others think we can make the document even more approachable and effective. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 14:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

A very good idea, developing into something great

I think this is perhaps the most important development since the creation of WikiProject Cooperation in breaking the years-long hand-wringing and rug-undersweeping of the COI / paid editing / paid advocacy debate. Kudos to Ocaasi for the idea and execution. I'm also in agreement with the changes suggested and implemented by John Broughton, Ryan Vesey, Monty and WereSpielChequers. Judging from the discussion even on this page, total consensus still lies beyond reach, but I do think this can provide a framework toward it. And I'm very interested to see what Jimbo makes of it.

If I had one suggestion at this point, it would be to clarify the first sentence of Background where the following is concerned:

...editors who are paid (directly, as for example corporate communications departments) or indirectly (as, for example, public relations employees)...

I don't see a clear distinction between "corporate communications departments" and "public relations employees", except that a "department" cannot be an editor, whereas an employee within it certainly can. My suggestion would be to change "departments" to "consultants"; speaking as a consultant myself, a company may retain a specialist solely for this purpose, whereas an employee likely has a number of duties and therefore would be paid indirectly for Wikipedia engagement. At least that's how I interpret it, perhaps others see it differently.

But that is the only suggestion I have to make. Overall I think this is precisely the balance to be struck between the volunteer community understandably wary of outside interests, and well-intentioned PR industry representatives of those interests. Although it's always possible this could go in a different direction later, overall I think this started off very well and is heading in the right direction, and I'd be happy to be its first following participant. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Direct Editing

I think the restrictions on direct editing of articles will turn this into a system that punishes good faith paid editors while rewarding those who don't commit to this certification. The whole point of the debate is whether a good faith paid editor can maintain neutrality and make good edits to articles, requiring they use requested edits and discuss everything first assumes they cannot, which is exactly the point of view taken by those who oppose paid editing. When {{Requested Edit}} can take months to respond to, its just not reasonable to demand the use for editing articles if the editor has the ability to make good, unbiased edits. The overall concept has promise, but in its current form it punishes those who declare, despite claims to the contrary. For this to make sense, certified editors need to retain full WP:BRD privileges, the certification should be about making sure the BRD edits are good. Monty₈₄₅ 15:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe the COI certification 'agreements' is both in line with policy and reasonable. It doesn't explicitly prohibit direct editing. I strongly encourages having other editors review your work in a timely fashion (about 1 month at the max), and suggests intermediate steps to make that happen. It also 'permits' uncontroversial edits, as does WP:COI. I want to make any ambiguities more clear, so I'm concerned that you viewed this as assuming the 'brightline' no direct editing idea. I'll have to review, but maybe you could give it a closer look to see where that impression comes from. Best, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the a month wait is unreasonable absent a history of bad edits from the COI editor. If the total time frame was days it would weaken my argument on the point substantially, though I would still prefer the BRD approach. Currently you have the requirement: Make no direct changes but uncontroversial factual or grammatical errors to my or my competitors' articles unless other editors have reviewed the changes or the timeline (below) has passed. This doesn't really allow for the expansion of the article, even if balanced and well cited. Normally, the chance for review of a proposed edit occurs once the edit is made, and if there are problems they can be fixed through normal editing, or the whole edit can be reverted. Why not focus on review of the edits after they are made, maybe by creating a COI review tag for the talk page indicating a COI editor has made a change and it should be reviewed. That way the onus of an untimely review doesn't fall on the editor contributing in good faith.

I'm going to disagree with you here Monty. COI editors should not be using the BRD cycle because it cannot be made certain that all of their edits will be checked and their edits should be looked at by someone else. It is the current accepted practice and should continue. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

On second thought, the review tag looks good because it makes sure the contribution would be looked at; however, I fear that will cause more hardship for COI editors because the editors most vocal in their disagreement with paid editing will probably be the ones checking and reverting those edits. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Like everything on the issue of COI, there are no firm rules that work 100% of the time. We can't set a stringent criteria or process. It requires human judgement from an experienced editor to determine if a COI editor deserves certification. The Bright Line doesn't guarantee an editor should qualify and direct editing doesn't guarantee they don't. While it's unlikely, a paid editor could directly edit and include a Criticisms section. On the other hand, from the Talk page, we could create articles that are misleading, not supported by the citations (who will check?) and has overt omissions. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 15:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I think encouraging participating editors to make direct changes and then have them reviewed is backwards, given the level of skepticism of COI editors in the community. We have to start somewhat conservatively. After a year or two of positive contributions by COI editors, maybe we can reverse the edit/review order, but for now I think it's fair to encourage at least attempts at review first, at least for controversial edits. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I rather totally disagree with the encouragement of indirect editing for the writing of articles. I work a good deal with the contributions of paid editors, declared and undeclared. If they edit directly, I can see what they do and fix it. I take responsibility for the fixes I make, but not the article as a whole. I am just as willing to do this as I would for any other good faith editor. As with any editor, if I judge it unfixable, I will start the process for deleting it. As with any editor, if what they contribute is harmful or worthless, I will start the process of warning or removing them.

But if they write elsewhere than main space, and expect me to approve their articles, I will not do it. This amounts to taking responsibility for the whole of an article I did not write, and there is no way I am going to commit myself to that extent without repeating the entire research. When asked to do so, I will now only do so by treating it as a suggestion and writing an article myself from scratch, something I do not have time to do often--and something I am not sure I am willing to do at all, for the entire process is deceptive: they are getting paid for the work I am doing. If they want to get paid for their work, they should take the responsibility for it. The only fair way to make an encyclopedia is to treat all editors as equal.

What both COI and other editors should put on the talk page, or on one of the boards, is material so tricky but nonetheless important that it should be reviewed first--such as the use of a particular source, or the inclusion of personal biographic details especially if negative. DGG ( talk ) 19:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I've read your comment closely, but I'm not sure I understand the conclusion. You think it's better for even COI editors to not have someone review their work? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 19:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

There is a common problem with the bright line in that the reviewing editor may want to approve the edits, but does not want to take responsibility for them. This can be addressed as a technological problem if there is a way to approve edits but maintain ownership in the edit history. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 20:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Two points. I think another editor taking responsibility for the approved edits is kind of the whole point. If they don't take responsibility for them, then they're just a proxy for the COI editor. Second, I don't think we need a formal mechanism to 'attribute' the original editor, as we have [edit summaries] and [talk page comments] already. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course I want to review their work. I want to review it on its merits, as I would anybody else. I think it very important they they self-identify, as similarly for anyone with significant COI or bias, so that the possible effect of that can be taken into account. I recognize we have no way of enforcing that last point, and I think much more highly of those who do identify. I am much more skeptical about the work of those who do not--I do pay some attention to whom the editor is likely to be. The bright line that I think some particular piece of paid editing not awful will be that I don't move to delete it. This is part of the general problem of reviewing new articles. The harm from paid editing is the harm from insufficient review, and that danger applies equally with amateurs and zealots. DGG ( talk ) 00:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

More generally, I see efforts at various places to formalize aspects of Wikipedia,such as the formal organization of the GLAM and education programs. I disagree with the general concept behind them. WP has prospered to the point it has by having the bare minimum of formal organization. Those parts we try to organize or reduce to schema tend to work the least well, like arb com and Dispute resolution (unless they're almost entirely technical, like sock-puppets). I recognize that those who otherwise work within formal organizations may not be happy with this--I recognize that someone whose income or prestige depends on it may feel very uncomfortable about exposing their work to random individuals. This is a mismatch between their values and ours. We have accomplished whatever good we have done in the world by the chaotic use of ours, and should pursue it. I worked in formal structures all my life before coming here; they are good for many purposes. This is intended as an alternative. I was quite unsure initially I would adjust to it, but I find it more satisfying than just doing the expected. DGG ( talk ) 00:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I think we have more agreement than it appears. You support editor review, and COI disclosure. Your main criticism with attempts to formalize guidance; but the COI/PR industry is begging for more clear guidance. Hopefully COI certification is just a vehicle for bringing Corporate editors into our 'chaotic world, but giving them some basic guidance as to how to navigate it. COI certification is not policy, wouldn't be policy, and isn't designed to replace policy. It's just a concrete map for paid editors to follow, to help them avoid the most common obstacles of their profession. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 13:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Attempts to formalize editing fail when dealing with actual circumstances. There is a continuous range of edits from totally irresponsible and transparent editing to the neutral and soundly based approach of an academic study. There is no bright line for what we keep and what we do not keep--there are too many factors. In practice we will tolerate slightly promotional edits if the subject is really important, when we would not if the notability were borderline. The G11 speedy category talks about an article not being fixable with normal editing, but what normal editing is depends entirely upon the editor. The only firm guideline I can give people in this field, is to always include substantial third party references. Though that does not actually relate directly to promotionalism, in practice it tends to prevent it. Where there are no such references, all anyone can do is provide the company;s own message. DGG ( talk ) 02:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Streamlining

A fine idea, but the details seem heavy-handed and nomic-friendly. Points 4, 6, 7, and 9 could be optional.

And you could lose half of the words without losing the intent. – SJ + 21:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd love to reduce the word count without losing meaning. Feel free to try and do that, or anyone else who's interested.

I'm not sure I agree on all of 4, 6, 7, and 9 being optional.

4. Join WikiProject Cooperation; I suppose could be optional.

6. Make a Talk page COI declaration on any articles I work on related to my employment; The talk page declaration seems essential, else other editors won't know where you have a conflict of interest during your actual editing of those subjects.

Oh, I misread the intent. Yes, of course this is needed. (I thought it was a user talk statement to complement the userpage statement.) – SJ +

7. Add my COI declaration to my signature; That's in case the userpage or talk page declarations are missed or archived. I don't think you should have to hunt to find out someone has a COI, at least not if they're following best practices.

Perhaps if it can be a more concise link... this still seems optional to me.

9. Pursue further resolution if necessary at the COI or other noticeboards, online chat help, and the Open Ticket Request System (OTRS) email address at [email protected]; this one's more of an instruction disguised as an agreement. I want users to know what to do if their first attempt at getting assistance fails. Also, in order for the Response timeline to make sense, you need steps 2 and 3 of that process, which are included in #9.

Definitely sounds optional. You can always choose not to pursue resolution and to give up on that particular edit... – SJ +

Thanks for your feedback. I'm going to think about how we can continue to streamline this document. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 22:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and moved joining WikiProject Cooperation to optional but recommended, and clarified that it's article talk page disclosure not user talk page. Thanks for the tips. We'll continue to chew on improving COI signatures and further resolution options. By the way, what do you mean by a 'shorter link' for a Signature. Right now the code recommends just appending ([[User:YOURUSERNAME|COI]]) to your signature, which is literally just (COI). Thanks again for your thoughts. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 14:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Making people join a facebook group

 Done I've removed that statement ϢereSpielChequers 08:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

We should not force anyone to join a third party commercial site as a condition of editing. Its just a wrong way to do things. Monty₈₄₅ 15:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 15:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I can make that (optional but recommended) as well. It's supposed to be for their benefit, but I agree that it isn't fair to 'require' it. Not that anyone would enforce it if they didn't. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

It's good that you changed it, but I'm not convinced that we should even recommend it, particularly since it's off-wiki. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• We don't recommend or otherwise endorse third parties. We could adopt a standard against which such bodies were judged and then recommend that people use an organisation that meets that standard - that's basically what we do with reliable sources. But a clear standard that any PR trade body can decide whether they want to try and meet it is very different from endorsing one such trade body. Also weren't CREWE associated with that discredited survey? If we were in the business of recommending third parties I'd suggest being suspicious of them. ϢereSpielChequers 17:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea, so I'm only being critical to help improve it. Since it's in live-space, I won't touch it. Here's my brainstorm:

• The certification should have two strategic criteria (a) this editor has proven to be honest, trustworthy and fair, demonstrating integrity and respect for Wikipedia (b) this editor has learned the skills they need to be helpful for the level of engagement they are participating in.
• Certification shouldn't be about reading materials, joining groups, or "acknowledging history," but about your edit history. Perhaps with a nomination and review process, in addition to a signed statement of ethics.
• We can't guarantee civility any more than we can for volunteer editors. So the reward should be (a) validated community endorsement for corporations attempts to shield them from media humiliation. (b) Community endorsed Wikipedia consultants gives clients a sense of confidence and boosts their ability to attract business (and the quality of paid editing Wikipedia gets as a result)
• I suggest two tiers. A lot of PR people don't want to get this involved in Wikipedia. They just need to make factual corrections and stuff. Tier 1 could be for that, while Tier 2 is for major content contributions. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 15:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• I like your strategic criteria, and I will put them in the introduction.
• I disagree about reading materials and joining not being important steps. Many editors will have no edit history to judge. As for a nomination or review process, it's really more about editors who aspire to follow best practices, not those who are approved.
• As I say in the FAQ, nothing in the COI certification is a guarantee or a special privilege. It is just a personal statement of intent to do better.
• I like your idea about boosting confidence and attracting business, I will add a 'motivations to participate section'.
• I don't think two tiers is a great idea, since it complicates the concept. I do think the 'optional but recommended' sets up a 'higher' tier but without creating more complexity. The certification is really about 'what is the minimum you need to do to be successful here'. Thanks very much for your feedback; I want to hear more of it as this develops. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm.... I would say it's less of a certification program then, and more of a statement of ethics. "This user has read and agrees to the COI statement of ethics." Still an ok idea, but not the same as certification. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 15:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it includes ethics, but also practices. Certification was the best word I could come up with, but I'm open to suggestions. I don't think 'COI ethics' conveys the totality of the protocol. Let me know if you come up with anything else... Ocaasi ^{t | c} 16:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not completely in agreement with removing the Facebook recommendation entirely. I thought that moving to optional but recommended was a good step. The CREWE Facebook group is a great resource for paid editors and a place where they can connect not with Wikipedians but with their own peers. I think it's something worth pointing out to them. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Definition of conflict of interest?

Hello,

Conflict of Interest (CoI) is a much bigger issue than paid editing. I have seen several serious CoI within Wikipedia where the editors are not strictly paid because they edit WP, nevertheless they do not respect the basic NPOV rules: allowing other opinions to be heard, balancing sources from various organisations (medias / professional / non profit organisations, etc.).

I have suggested some basic rules about this on the French WP, but not only they were blankly rejected, but I was barred from mentioning the whole subject. The first step against CoI is making the editors conscious that, because of their profession, background, culture, etc., they may have a bias on a subject. Yann (talk) 11:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Yann. Thanks for taking the time to comment.

It sounds like your concern is in reference to the fact that some editors push a point of view because of their personal feelings as opposed to just have a monetary interest that motivates them. I'm always up for a discussion on WP:COI but in my opinion, this difference is covered between WP:COI and WP:NPOV. You may want to bring this up on the WP:COI or WP:NPOV talk page as this is discussion is more about a certification for COI editors who are looking to work closely with non-COI editors who are willing to help. OlYeller21^Talktome 12:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Signature + COI notification

What good does it do to have a COI notification on a users talk page? How many readers of an article will take the time to visit the talk pages of all the editors involved in editing an article? My guess? None! And, if they did would they really know to check all the userboxes for a COI notification? And, if they did discover the appropriate userbox (unlikely) would they bother to click on it to find out what COI meant? Again, very few, if any. I suggest that COI editors should be required to include their COI status along with their signature when they are editing articles for their employer. The reader is entitled to know that it is not a Wikipedia volunteer that is providing the information. It is a paid employee. ```Buster Seven Talk 00:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Upon further re-read of project page, I see that this (signing with COI info) is the 6th bullet. It's a good start. I'm just not convinced that the normal visitor will take the time to investigate your talk page or link to WP:COI. ```Buster Seven Talk 00:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you've misinterpreted the document which may indeed need to be clarified. The notifications are on 1) the editor's userpage; 2) talk pages of articles they work on related to their employer; and 3) in their signature. The reason to include a brief (COI) link in the signature is indeed as you pointed out, to make sure other editors didn't miss the COI notice on either the editor's userpage or the article's talk page. Hope that helps explain a bit better; please suggest any changes to the document to make it reflect that intent. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. 3 places should do the trick. ```Buster Seven Talk 16:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

My read was that COI certification is not intended for the reader, but for other editors. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 17:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the intent of having (COI) show up in the edit history would be for readers, to be able to determine at-a-glance which edits need review. It's still an interesting idea, but I'm not sure if it's too cumbersome to ask/require adding (COI) to edit summaries. It'd be quite easy to forget to do and should only happen anyway after/with talk page discussion. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Bias

I signed up anyway, but one comment on this requirement: "Not intentionally introduce substantial bias into articles related to my COI"

Reason being, neutrality is an impossible objective for any editor, especially those with a COI. I don't think COIs can be neutral, but I do think we can provide content that is credible and informative to the reader - content that is "neutral enough."

I would also suggest a requirement for honesty be incorporated into the criteria. The difference between a certified and non-certified COI should be about trust, not neutrality. If we can trust that the COI is not intentionally manipulating us, withholding information, etc. than they are easier to work with. One of the major threads I see is when a COI creates an otherwise complete article with major omissions. This creates a trust issue that makes the collaboration difficult. If editors know that they can trust certified COIs, this would create value in the designation.

In other words, we shouldn't ask COIs to be neutral, only to be honest. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 17:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we should focus on the input side rather than the outcome side. e.g. "Make an effort not to introduce bias..." . Reason being, COI editors may be unknowingly or unintentionally biased. Also, congrats on signing on! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

That works. And maybe "Will not intentionally withhold information that disservices them or their clients." All of this brings us to the same issues we're tackling on the Talk page of the COI guideline - that it's hard to set a criteria based on someone's motives, priorities or intentions, but it's a place to start. A company that censors negative information obviously didn't have healthy motives - so motives are something that we can reasonably evaluate from an edit history. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 17:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Random suggestions

I'm just giving the project page a top-down review and making some suggestions here. I may sound overly critical, but I'm just trying to be constructive. Here they go:

1. The Background section can be removed. The lead provides an adequate summary. In a section like this, it's impossible to create something that isn't POV pushing, which isn't of any help to the reader. For example, the following all have POV issues:
   • "Many editors are skeptical"
   • "unintentional mistakes"
   • "more valuable to Wikipedia if allowed"
   • "Wikipedia should not exclude them"
   • "Middle ground... "
   • "At the heart of the matter..." this section seems to lobby the reader on the value of paid editors

   I feel like we are lobbying the reader to attain a pro-paid editing viewpoint, rather than explaining what the certification project is and its goals, etc. in manner where everyone can see the value (even PAIDWATCH members).

2. A few changes I would suggest to the COI+ criteria
   • Remove "acknowledge a history." I happen to agree, but don't believe that someone oblivious to the history of COI editing on Wikipedia shouldn't be allowed to be certified.
   • "Read the plain..." suggest changing it to something more broad about learning the skills needed. A COI editor that just wants to make factual corrections (this is many) doesn't need to read PSCOI.
   • I think we could cut the optional list. Some of these would be more appropriate in a See Also or Further Reading section
   • "I expect to" is strong. Suggest changing the language a little to saying that editors may have greater trust in you and be more willing to work with you.
   • Suggest adding something about expected levels of honesty and avoiding omitting/witholding crucial information or being manipulative
3. Add a suggested reading section with links to all the documentation, PSCOI, COIBEST, COI guideline, CIPR draft best practices, etc., which I suggested removing from other sections.
4. The response timeline seems to be setting a lot of firm rules where no such process or structure exists and where more judgement is required. For example, a non-response from OTRS would not give a COI permission to remove controversial content. I have waited longer than a month just on the Talk page in circumstances where that didn't give me permission to edit. Suggest moving this to part of the COI+ criteria to be patient, with some kind of more loosely suggested timelines instead of firm rules and permissions.

My suggestions... User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 17:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

1. I think the background section is useful, particularly for editors less familiar with the history of COI. It does set up giving the benefit-of-the-doubt to paid editors, but that's what this whole approach is about. COI editors make a show of good faith and in return they receive good faith. So I think the 'pro-paid editing' bias is actually intentional. This document is pro-paid editing, to the extent that paid editors agree to follow the steps in the document, they should be well received and able to make a positive contribution
2. Though I may be biased about WP:PSCOI, the feedback I've heard from others is that it's our best single page introduction to the issues paid editors face. I want paid editors to be knowledgeable of what COI is really about and I frankly can't think of a better way to acclimate them to Wikipedia than reading that guide. Acknowledge a history is important to balance the 'pro paid-editing' side of things, since the reason this approach even exists is because of the tortuous history of paid editing on Wikipedia. Cut the optional list is something we can consider. I want to give paid editors an overview of the tools they might benefit from and I'm not sure what better way to do that. Maybe it should go at the end of that section rather than the middle. I expect was originally 'I reasonably expect', but someone cut out 'reasonably'. I note your point that it sounds a bit strong, but I think in contrast to the multiple requirements certification participants are agreeing to, an 'expectation' in return is not too much to ask. Expectations of honesty are laid out in the introduction. I don't think we can force COI editors to avoid omitting/witholding information, particularly as it may be a requirement of their job to not actively 'harm' their clients. The best I think we can hope for is that they don't remove negative information from articles.
3. The reason there's no reading list is because there are links in the Certification agreements. As long as we have them somewhere we're fine, but I wanted the focus to be on that single agreements section.
4. The response timeline does set firm expectations but that is the whole point. At present there is no clear guideline for how long changes should take. Rather than influence policy, this document is trying to create the scaffolding for what might actually work in process. I think the response timeline is clear that removing controversial negative information is never ok. Otherwise, I think the Response timeline is fully in accord with WP:COI. We even go further in requiring the direct editor to notify the article talk page and the COI noticeboard. That's what this agreement does--it sets a more concrete protocol and higher standards than what is actually required by policy. The one exception may be 'permission' to make a direct edit after ~1 month of waiting for responses. I think that's just a reasonable compromise and I don't think it puts too high a demand on the community. If we can't get around to an edit in 5 weeks, then do we really have a position to present a good faith edit (with notification) by a COI editor? It's a give and take, but I think enough is being asked of COI editors to receive that in return. Thanks for your feedback; looking forward to hearing your response. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 18:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

If it is acceptable practice to create otherwise complete articles with obvious omissions of everything negative or controversial - that would make me uncomfortable as a volunteer tasked with collaborating with such an editor, because I can't trust them and wouldn't post their content without substantial independent research. I would instead choose to spend my time elsewhere than help a COI I couldn't trust to be honest and show a genuine attempt at NPOV. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 20:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

David, of course that is the goal I just don't know if we can list it as a requirement here. If editorss want to make good faith factual contributions without whitewashing articles, then this protocol is a way to encourage that. I just don't think we can force edits to disclose negative information about their companies. They are committing to the goal of neutrality, for what it's worth, as well as "making an effort not to introduct positive or negative bias." I hope that pretty much covers the basis of what we're trying to do. If an editor follows all the steps outlined here, I think it's a great start. We can work towards an even higher standard going forward, but at first it's important just to get people on board with the basics. That said, I'll be glad to have you back as a participant at any point. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I respectfully find that - by definition - these two aspects cannot co-exist:

• committing to the goal of neutrality
• only committing to making edits that are self-serving

It's rather the whole point of COI - and a reasonable argument for banning COIs entirely - that we are unable to make neutral articles, because doing so is not in our best interest.

However, I would only expect a COI to participate in such a way that meets a reasonable expectation of neutrality to be informative, credible and useful to the reader, while demonstrating honesty. Where exactly to draw the line would be complex and likely vary by editor, but openly endorsing cherry-picking tactics I don't think is in Wikipedia's best interest.

Anyways, that's my two cents. I'm off to go work on some other stuff. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 21:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I've given this discussion a lot more thought, and I want to emphasize a few things and, by the end, ask you to reconsider your position.

• First of all, I think I understated how seriously the guidelines as written aim for neutrality in the broad sense of the word. Not merely not taking out negative information but making an effort to present all sides in proportion to their presence in reliable sources. That is indeed what 'committing to neutrality' means. Not just phrasing things even-handedly but including all sides as appropriate. I do think that 'making an effort not to introduce positive or negative bias' does cover the scenario you might fear of a company only putting in the good parts of their history and reputation. I don't think that's neutral, and I do think this document should aim for better.
• Perhaps the reason I was less open to your criticism was the way it was phrased. Something about it sounded like it would drive COI editors away rather than bring them into cooperation with us. 'Vowing not to withhold negative information' to me sounds too strong. If a COI editor comes to an article to clarify the company structure and update some financial statistics, I don't expect them to be excluded from participating just because they don't also bring with them their entire rap-sheet of controversies. On the other hand, if a company tries to rewrite a history (or controversy) section, I would expect them to attempt to write with actual weighted balance between positive and negative information.
• Last, just to be claim, my phrase 'pro-paid editing' is not pro-direct editing, but pro-paid-editor-participation. I think paid editors can help us and I think this document does ask a lot of them. To hopefully resolve this question I'm going to post it for discussion in the following section. Pending that, I'd appreciate your reconsideration. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 22:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

'Vowing not to withhold negative information': Should it be one of the required agreements?

In the section above myself and King4057 had a little debate about whether the COI certification agreements should include a pillar 'explicitly vowing not to withhold negative information about one's clients'.

My initial position was that such a vow was too harsh and unrealistic, and that we already had editors 'committing to neutrality' and 'making an effort not introduce positive or negative bias'. King's position was that not making COI editors take that vow would be permitting them to cherry-pick which facts they included and fall short of what neutrality means in the bigger sense--a full weighted balance of positive and negative information rather than merely neutral language. So I have a few questions I'd like to raise for discussion:

1. Does the document as it stands (and as you read it) require COI editors agree to neutrality in the sense of true balance or just neutrality as in unbiased language?
2. Should the document require COI editors to vow 'not to withhold negative information'?
3. What would be the positive or negative consequences of either choice?

Thanks much for you consideration of this question, as I think it strikes at the heart of what this document is aiming to do. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 22:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

In my mind, this is still too prescriptive. Rather the criteria should be that they demonstrate attributes of trustworthiness and honesty. A COI that consistently creates polished articles that omit everything negative or controversial, does not demonstrate a true commitment to neutrality or honesty, rather they create one-sided articles in plain sight. Volunteers that review their work are therefore burdened to do their own independent research before they would be comfortable submitting the article.

A COI that at least discloses when negative sources exist, provide a reasonable path for a trusting relationship with a volunteer and equips them with the confidence to collaborate in good faith or balance the article themselves if they choose to. Writing negative information would not be a requirement, but rather how a COI handles negative information provides a reasonable means to measure against our criteria of honesty and a commitment to neutrality.

Just a suggestion, but I think it's been adequately presented here and I have nothing more to add, so I'm off to other things. Cheers! User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 23:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

How about combining this with "Acknowledge the history of harmful behavior by many COI editors"—which I would suggest to rewording as "Recognize the troubled history of COI editing"—adding "and commit to demonstrating good faith and integrity at all times"? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's Not Legitimize COI Editing

Of course, people being paid to edit Wikipedia will have time to go through the steps listed, but it won't change the fact that they have fundamental biases which will impact the neutrality of the articles they edit. Any kind of certification could be construed as permission to edit however they want, or such certification could be used as a defense when someone catches them pushing POV. I don't want to legitimize COI editing in any way, and this proposal would do so. Ebikeguy (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I respect your discomfort with 'legitimizing' COI editing, but I think it ignores what is already happening. COI editors exist and they are a problem. The question is, what do we do with them? Do we shut them out and pretend they aren't there, squash them when they appear, and drive them underground? If we take that approach we will not make headway, and we will only gain a symbolic victory. There are good COI editors who want to follow policy and want to make positive contributions to the encyclopedia. This COI certification proposal is explicitly not permission to edit however you want; rather, it's an agreement to not be biased, to not make major edits directly without review, and to seek feedback through a variety of channels before finally, reluctantly, resorting to making changes yourself. I don't think that we have the option of ending COI editing, and since we have to live with it, we might as well make it a positive part of the encyclopedia rather than a constant scourge. That's all my opinion of course. Fortunately, no one would be required to follow the protocol, but at the same time, if a COI editor wants to, why shouldn't we encourage them to follow best practices? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 14:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm with ebikeguy. COI editors, a category into which I also place all paid editors, have no place whatsoever on Wikipedia. Anything that attempts to legitimise their work is the start of a slippery slope that we don't want to be on. With the greatest of respect this proposal is complete bollocks and should be stopped. --Biker Biker (talk) 14:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I see it entirely the other way round - their work is already effectively considered legitimate (we have no policy against them, and there would be no point in having one, since we have no way of knowing who people are unless they tell us), so this proposal seems entirely positive, as an excellent way of encouraging such people to contribute responsibly rather than irresponsibly. Victor Yus (talk) 15:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there is a problem with legitimizing COI. As Victor says, legitimizing it leads to better behavior. But I do agree that certification entails endorsement of specific editors. That's not really a problem either, except that we're talking about certifying basically anyone who applies. If we're going to endorse a COI editor, the criteria should be very high, to the extent that none of us qualify today, but we may aspire to it. I would like to aspire to be certified and have a process to submit myself to intense scrutiny to determine if I may qualify as a community-endorsed asset to Wikipedia. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 15:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The more I look at paid editors the less I want them editing articles where they have a COI. Filing reports at RPP and AIV would be OK as would reverting blatant vandalism. But it just isn't realistic to expect a marketing professional to be neutral where their client is concerned. ϢereSpielChequers 17:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Paid editors are, by definition, not neutral. Well said. Ebikeguy (talk) 03:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Paid editors aren't not "not neutral" by definition. Neutrality is determined by behavior, not intent. It's possible for paid editors to edit in a manner that is completely within our guidelines. I don't know how often that actually happens, but you can't say that a paid editor can't be neutral. We have no prohibition against paid editing, see Wikipedia:Paid editing for past efforts to establish such a thing. I don't embrace paid editors, I'm wary of them and I believe that overall they're a net negative to the encyclopedia, but the community doesn't seem to have much of a problem with them.

As to COI editors in general, I've run into many cases where a person with a conflict of interest has been of immense help, even bringing an article up from a stub to GA status on his own. COI editors definitely have a place on Wikipedia and should be warmly welcomed as long as they are contributing positively and not causing conflicts. -- Atama頭 16:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

To me it's more a matter of various pie-in-the-sky editors trying to illegitimize CoI editing. Every editor has a CoI when it comes to something somewhere; there isn't anyone on the planet capable of editing WP who wouldn't be biased about editing certain topics, even if just the article on their home town. Casting this as a CoI issue when it's really an editing-for-hire issue strikes me as a mistake. I've long ago disclosed my most obvious CoIs on my userpage, but I've never been paid to edit in any of those topics. The two aren't really related concerns. I could take a short-term job doing paid editing for someone I've never heard of before, and have no contact with other than a paycheck, being directed to adhere strictly to WP policies and guidelines - a kind of "clean room" approach, where I'm not being fed anything at all, only paid to produce a complete and accurate article based on my own research. That wouldn't actually be a conflict of interest at all in any meaningful sense of the term. But doing an unpaid puff-piece about, say, the CryptoRights Foundation, a former employer I still volunteer for, would be a major CoI despite my not being paid. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 00:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Certification followers and helpers

I've been very active at WP:COIN and I'm very interested in this movement.

I'm a bit concerned over the follower and supervisor roles. Are there any prerequisites to volunteering for either role such as a basic understanding of WP:COIN or rights such as admin tools? I ask because I often see editor, even established editors, misunderstand WP:COI which can quickly sour a discussion between an editor and a COI editor. It's an issue that can usually be reversed but may be more difficult to reverse if the non-COI editor is an "official" follower or supervisor. I'm not particularly in favor of convoluting the guideline by certifying certifiers but I think I would be satisfied if we created a section or subpage that outlines and underlines the policies and guidelines followers and supervisors are expected to have a firm understanding of. I also don't wish to further bloat this guideline as I think its brevity will play a large role in its success. I may be making a mountain out of a molehill but wanted to hear what others have to say. OlYeller21^Talktome 23:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to rename 'supervisor' as 'helper'. Like most of our efforts, there's no hard prerequisite except for good faith. The only role of the helpers will be to assist COI+ certification followers and recommend to them where they are going wrong. I do like your idea of creating a subpage for COI+ helpers with some basic instructions. I'm going to draft that this week. Thanks for your feedback! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Subject to Abuse

I think that the helper certification should not be a volunteer position. Anyone including PR representatives can abuse this standing. Phearson (talk) 20:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... how about, "COI certification helpers should have demonstrated experience working with COI editors and guidelines, understand the best practices recommended in this document, and be willing to walk editors through issues if necessary." If not that, what method would you recommend? I suppose I could create a subpage for people to 'apply' to be on the list and have myself and a few others 'approve' helpers. I was aiming more towards good faith and transparency resolving most of the issues and avoiding creating another layer of complication. Do you think we can find a way to set some reasonable expectations without formalizing them? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 23:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Another awesome idea

This one seems great! My one question is whether one month one week and one day is a reasonable amount of time to expect a corporation to wait. Shouldn't OTRS be able to get a response in slightly faster than that? I'm thinking 1 day, 1 week, 2 weeks. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

If I had to guess (as an OTRS volunteer), average response time is about a month. There's a wide spread therein, but we have lots of tickets between 30 and 60 days old. Many of them are more complicated and less easily resolved, but I think 30 days is actually on the reasonable side, at least for OTRS. A safer bet would be 60 days, which is I think obviously too long. So 30 days was a good starting point. If this project goes well and the community gets behind it, we could gradually shorten the timeline. But for starters it can't be too ambitious or it won't be realistic and the community won't, frankly, like it. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 00:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree, I think this is a good way of monitoring COI, while allowing individuals with potentially beneficial contributions the chance to contribute. My question is, would the COI+ mark be somehow visible in the edit history of a page? How would the community at large be alerted to COI+ edits for approval? Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 17:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

One of the recommendations is to put (COI) in the signature of the user. I'm not sure if that would show up in the edit history, I suspect not. The only way to do that would be to encourage/required editors to put (COI) at the end of their edit summary. This is an interesting idea, but I'd like others to weigh in on it. It seems slightly onerous after notifying in 3 different places, especially considering that the guideline is primarily pointing users away from substantial direct edits. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 19:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Another possibility might be to have a sorting template, similar to "stub" templates, that allows a COI editor to flag an article they have contributed to or created. In a similar vein, is it possible to create a sorting mechanism through the COI designation incorporated into a COI editor's signature? Eekiv (COI) 01:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions for clarification and further streamlining

I had a great talk with a representative from the Public Relations Society of America, the largest PR membership organization in the US (and probably the world). They showed this document to several members and the response was generally favorable. That's a great sign that we're headed in the right direction and might be on our way to having COI certification receive significant buy-in from PR organizations. PRSA did have some questions/suggestions that I'd like to propose for discussion:

1. Can we rework agreement 2, "acknowledging the history of harmful COI edits", to sound less punitive and negative. Perhaps: "Be aware of the impact of past negative behavior by non-neutral editors"
2. Can we move agreement 2 "acknowledging the history of harmful COI edits", out of the agreements section and into the introduction or background section
3. Can we rename WP:PSCOI to have the more explicit name: The plain and simple guide for editing with a conflict of interest or The plain and simple guide for editors with a conflict of interest
4. Can we move the 'optional but recommended' section to the bottom of the page under a heading for "additional resources"
5. Can we come up with a better name that COI Certification

Otherwise they were pretty pleased with what we have and thought it was balanced (including the response timeline which seemed like a fair compromise). I look forward to hearing feedback on the above issues. Cheers! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 14:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Glad to hear they were receptive. Speaking for myself, their requests sound reasonable enough; though I don't agree with all of them, nor would I strenuously object if there proves to be consensus for them. Some specifics:

• I've had the same thought about "acknowledge" sounding too punitive. The important thing is not that PR representatives make reparations for boneheads gone by, just that they understand the situation they are in. That's not asking too much, and this is why I'm a little resistive to moving it out of agreements. But not entirely: maybe this information be moved to background, and familiarizing oneself with the background be the requirement?
• I'm not a big fan of renaming WP:PSCOI. The two suggestions given are just longer; what they gain in syntax they lose in conciseness.
• Lastly, I do support renaming the project; "certification" implies a formality that is not present here. Knowing the language of PR, I'd suggest including the phrase "best practices". So perhaps "COI Best Practices" while retaining COI+ as shorthand, which I like quite a bit.

Those are my thoughts for now, looking forward to others' input. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 02:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and implemented some changes:

• Reworded the acknowledge harmful past section to be aware of the impact of past negative behavior and move it out of the agreements into the introduction
• added 'for editing' to PSCOI, but not in the page itself, only in the link description
• moved the optional-but-recommended section to 'additional resources' at the bottom
• Removed 'certification'. I think a better name is just COI+, as in coi plus or coi positive. I updated all links and shortcuts and references to reflect the new name.

Thanks for your advice. I think the document is getting more clean and 'streamlined'. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree personally that (obviously) there is a long history of misbehavior by PR pros on Wikipedia, however I don't see why acknowledging it would be a requirement. If one particular PR person is in denial or not familiar with this context, that shouldn't prevent them from participating. Corporate 20:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Self-identifying without even knowing it

This is just a question of what to do in order to provide information which MAY be of future use but at the same time not pre-judge the actions of a fellow editor. See Love's Travel Stops & Country Stores User: ‎24.248.247.30 self-identifies in the edit summary...((I work for the company and currently we have 293 locations and growing)). A very innocent and purposeful edit. I saw the summary while at Recent changes. I merely use it as an example of seeing info pertaining to WP:COI and wondering if 24.248 (or any editor that self-identifies) should be added to a list (where ever it is?) of COI editors. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I have suggested PAIDWATCH develop a shared watchlist of articles that need extra eyes due to prior problematic COI editing. The same could probably be done for the contribs of known COIs who directly edit.

On the other hand, there would be no reason to watch COI+ members, since they subject their contributions to scrutiny up-front using Talk page strategies. Corporate 20:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Non paid work is similar to slavery

Hello,
Human being have 2 bugs : laziness and interest. Concerning interest, there always will have COI between you and the society : because when you use information (including software) to preserve your freedom, you don't pay any charge for your job to the community.
Is it a conflict of interest to be paid for a job on wikipedia ?
If you just consider Wikipedia as a workplace, working without pay is very similar to slavery. So in my opinion, wikimedians must be free to choose if they want to be paid for their work. If not, every civil servant should not be allowed to edit public informations as well as retired people with their pentions.--Eurobas (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Slaves were prisoners. They had no freedom of choice. But they were not slaves to the cotton fields where they worked (aka Wikipedia). They were slaves to the Master that stole their work. I'm a volunteer, not a slave. There is no whip across my back if I choose not to edit tomorrow...or the day after, etc. Rather than non-pay being slavery, I see it as "Pay is endentured servitude". The paid editors boss (or contract) demands results. Favorable results. I think you have it backwards. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right. I'm a volonteer too but i fight for freedom to be paid. I think hat the real issue here is to let professional services exist on Wikimedia (such as some existing on Linux) ; but it will not be easy to find costumers ready to pay for it.--Eurobas (talk) 09:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It will also be hard to find volunteers willing to protect the Encyclopedia from a barrage of users more concerned with their customers/clients/Master's desires than they are with the responsibilty to Our Reader. I have almost no interest or concern for the companies or for the WP editors that they hire (or will hire). ```Buster Seven Talk 14:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not correct to compare Wikipedia consulting to volunteer work. Companies have strong opinions about themselves that they feel should be reflected on Wikipedia. Working with companies to understand the gap between how they see themselves and how they are seen in reliable sources is a difficult job. For many companies it's even an emotional undertaking when they feel reliable sources have misinformation about them, or that honesty, balance and neutrality entails directly shooting themselves in the foot.

Working as a volunteer is easy, fun and interesting. When Wikipedia is done properly as a paid advocate, it is just as difficult and stressful as any other line of corporate work. An article I could write in 3 hours as a volunteer could take 3 months as a COI.

On the other hand, some companies have realized they are unable to be neutral about themselves, cut themselves out of the process entirely, and grant a Wikipedian editorial freedom. I think these are the scenarios where volunteer Wikipedians would be well-equipped to absorb that segment of the COI market.

Just as it is frustrating and offensive for PR people to claim they have a natural alignment to Wikipedia, when I know facilitating that alignment is a significant task, it is equally irritating when volunteers suggest it is easy to do. There is a need to find better compromise between these extreme perspectives. It is a difficult task, but that does not mean there is not value in overcoming it or that it can't be done. Corporate 21:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC)