User talk:Willscrlt/COI

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] First draft

I have created a first draft of a complete rewrite of WP:COI. It is a fairly bold re-write, because it attempts to reduce the number of possible scenarios and what they mean in each case, to a general plan for how to deal with COI in any form.

Instead of an absolute ban on editing, it recommends against editing, but allows it until and unless there are complaints. Also, once the complaints are resolved, there is a way for generally good editors able to suppress COI from their edits to resume editing, subject to approval by the other editors.

Let me know what you think. Please discuss changes before making edits to the proposed policy. Fixing typographical errors and wikifying policies I mentioned but didn't link to are welcome, however. Thanks. :-) --Willscrlt (Talk·Cntrb) 14:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This won't work

There are some things that are expected of any editor, of course, and it does make sense to reiterate them for COI issues. But, for instance, sourcing is not always done, and it makes no sense to ban people with a conflict of interest from adding information without a source. Especially when anyone has the power to tell someone with a COI to stop editing, and they are obligated to comply, until there is a consensus that they are allowed to edit the article again.

And then we'll have the frivolous complaints that they didn't source the statement "Joe is a man", leading to a ban from editing the article, and then having people refuse to come to a consensus that the person with COI is allowed to edit the article again, despite the fact that he was only article banned for a frivolous complaint. We'll have to set up a noticeboard for this type of article ban, which will take about 20 seconds to denegrate into wikilawyering about how you don't have a conflict of interest, people randomly article banning everyone, refusing to allow a consensus to be reached, and then reporting all the people they banned... In short, this is good as advice, bad as policy. -Amark moo! 15:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I certainly see your point about the frivolous complaints and so forth. However, there is currently a ban against anyone with COI from ever editing an article (the gist of the current WP:COI), unless they ignore all rules (in which case the current WP:COI is pointless). I am trying to help strike a balance between acceptable editing and conflicted editing. Editing an article in a neutral way, even one in which there might be COI, should be fine. It's the edits that result in non-neutral POV or OR that are the problem. I'm certainly very open to suggestions for how to rephrase or entirely rewrite the part about consequences.

As to the sourcing question, I probably did not make that point clear. Naturally, people do not have to source everything. However, if someone is reasonably likely to think that a statement is COI induced POV, then it should be sourced and attributed to a neutral third-party. Otherwise, the other editors are welcome to object to the edit on the grounds of the new WP:COI. Editors close to a topic should be able to easily source statements, because they are so familiar with the topic. As long as their statements meet WP:RS, WP:VERIFY, and WP:OR, then the fact or presumption that they have COI should not be an issue. Currently, regardless of what types of edits the person makes, all are to be avoided (essentially the editor is banned from editing articles of interest, even in neutral ways). At least, that's how the current WP:COI is frequently interpreted. --Willscrlt (Talk·Cntrb) 23:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)