Template talk:COI

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Templates for deletion This template was considered for deletion on 2007 May 18. The result of the discussion was No Consensus.

Contents

[edit] Edits required following the TfD

I'm considering the TfD result as being probational on the edits and changes being made to these templates that were identified in the TfD discussion.

  • Template should be placed on the Talk page only
  • Template should not suggest 'COI taint' because of the article's edit history.
  • Language should not be inflamatory or suggest an mal-intent of an editor.
  • There should be a clear identification of when the tag can be removed.
  • It shouldn't look like angry fruit salad.

I've made changes to the templates based on this. --Barberio 09:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

On the 'talk page only' thing, I'm considering contacting someone with a suitable bot, to move all the current transclusions to the talk pages. --Barberio 09:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean about the TfD result being probational. Yes, there was rather strong consensus that the templates should at least be reworded, but that doesn't mean that if other people disagree, they must be deleted instead. -Amarkov

moo! 15:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

If the templates can be rewritten into a state where they're consistent with wikipedia's standards, then they're going to stay and might be useful. But if they continue to go against wikipedia's standards they're almost certain to end up back on TfD sooner or later. --Barberio 17:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I see no such consensus - in fact, I see a strong consensus for the template remaining as-is, with only two or three people suggesting it be retargeted for the talk page. —Cryptic 16:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
My count says ten people noting the need for a rewrite. And I'm going to assume that those who said the template should have been deleted will support a rewrite too. --Barberio 17:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong oppose. XfD's are not decided by counting, and with all respect, you are highly partisan. You don't have the right to assert what needs to be done here. You're not in charge here and now. If anyone wants to edit the templates, please suggest changes. See also Template talk:COI2. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 03:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Are you really accusing me of malicious editing? Do you dispute that my edits were in line with the discussion on how the template should be rewritten in it's TfD? Are you prepared to argue against the edits, and all the arguments made in favour of these edits on the TfD, rather than making personal attacks against me? The opinion in favour of a rewrite seems pretty well settled consensus in the TfD, can you please identify the exact problems you found with the edits to the template, and argue why your preferred version should remain. OOtherwise, you're just asserting a claim to authority over who should do what with your template, and we don't allow that here. --Barberio 11:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
To answer for myself: I prefer "tendetious"; yes; that's projection on your part, not what was explicitly said; irrelevant given the third answer; and boy, does WP:KETTLE apply. --Calton | Talk 13:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
The admin closing the TfD clearly noted the consensus support for a rewrite. There's a clear body of text in the TfD about a rewrite and what should occur. I just don't get where you're making the conclusion that there isn't support for a rewrite. --Barberio 14:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
So propose new text and see if you can develop a consensus. I am open to changing these for the better, but I oppose weakening them. Jehochman Talk 15:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose only the moving to talk page part. Additionally, transcluding the template to an article should instead put the article in Category:NPOV disputes... Ranma9617 01:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I also oppose moving the tag to the talk page. Part of this may stem from the different ways in which people use this tag (and therefore it may need to be split into multiple tags.) I use this tag while working on the DEP project. The articles we run into there are short, often new articles, with no internal links (which is how they end up on our triage list.) We use the tag to flag articles that were created by the subject, but may have some potential for notability -- they need extra review to see if there are NPOV issues. We have a definite need for some form of the COI tag that expresses this. Perhaps something along the lines of "the main contributor to this article has a conflict of interest -- this article requires review to insure it have has a NPOV. Please remove this tag when the review is complete." --Kathy A. 17:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reason for a rewrite

You can read all the comments from people saying why the template should be rewritten, and how the template should be rewritten, here. --Barberio 11:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see my $0.02 and proposed new template format at Template Talk:COI2. Wikidemo 17:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No Progress on a Rewrite?

There has been very little, in fact no progress towards addressing any of the concerns raised on the TfD about the problems with this template. Specifically the general consensus there that this tag belonged on talk pages not article pages, needing wording that does not 'taint' articles because of their edit history, and explaining how the tag can be removed.. --Barberio 16:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quick suggestion

Just a quick suggestion, both for {{COI}} and {{COI2}}:

The neutrality of this article or section is disputed.
The creator of, or one of the main contributors to this page may have a conflict of interest with the subject of this article.
Due to issues of maintaining neutrality and avoiding promotional articles,Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines strongly advise that editors do not directly edit articles on topics where they have a close personal or business connection. If this applies to your edits, you are advised to collaborate with independent editors via the article's talk page only.

I would also like a reword for 'close personal or business connection' so that it also covers non-provit organisations, and the like. And then categorise in an appropriate category (for WP:COIN), as well as in a category for neutrality. For {{COI2}} we could then also add notability .. for articles that have been created/majorly edited by someone with a (suspected) conflict of interest, and where the patrollers also think the article may not be notable enough. All that is left after that will go to AFD or speedy anyway.

I will have a further thought later, hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category

Is "topics of unclear importance" the right category to associate with this template? YechielMan 21:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

No, CAT:NN deals with the notability and importance of articles, not a conflict of interest. Until somebody objects, I'm going to start a new category for this template. Panoptical 18:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changing color

I was bold and changed the color of the edge of the template, I thought that orange was quite ugly. Feel free to revert it and discuss more here. Also, I'm not sure if i changed the color correctly,
{{ambox | type = | image = [[Image:Unbalanced scales.svg|40px]] | text = <div>

I deleted "content" from after type =, this changed it to blue which seems to make the template not jump out at the reader so much. Thanks, Urdna 03:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the color supposed to follow the template standardization guidelines? Orange means it's a content issue. --Fabrictramp 13:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Reading the color guidelines some more, I can make a strong case for either orange or yellow, which would eliminate blue. I'm reverting back to orange, pending more discussion. --Fabrictramp 13:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, sorry; I forgot about the guideline :-/ The color does make sense for content problems. Sorry, Urdna 01:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Raising the Integrity of Placing COI Tags

It is too easy for someone to put a WP:COI tag on an article. Editors need to take responsibility prior to tagging someone else's hard work in accordance with WP:FIVE or WP:AGF. Editors must be able to show that they have taken the proper procedure under "How to handle conflicts of interest" WP:COI prior to adding the Template:COI. Many of the editors of the articles in question have not been treated with the respect laid out by the WP Admin. Before COI editors become the police, judge & jury it's important to the integrity of WP that these guidelines be followed. In a case where an article I had written was tagged the "COI editor" did not contact me at all prior to tagging my article. When trying to communicate with the "COI editor" and asking for specifics they said " I am not well versed in how a COI editor should handle the situation". I believe it is important to the integrity of WP that a COI editor become "well versed" in what they are doing before they take action.HollywoodFan1 (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Since you are currently a party to an issue that has been raised at WP:COIN, please wait until that is over before proposing to change the rules. The problem is still being worked on, and the placement of the COI tags in the case of your articles may be re-done properly. COI tags on an article are usually a sign of a negotiation that is not yet finished. COI warnings to users (like the one issued in your case) are routine and are usually well-justified. I note that your removal of a COI tag from Marta McGonagle is against policy and may cause trouble. Your venturing to close out your own issue at the COI noticeboard is also likely to cause concern. Please cooperate with editors trying to implement the policies, and we'll get this over with. EdJohnston (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
From what I've seen of your work I believe you are an outstanding editor with the best of intentions, but with all due respect I am not electing to change any rules. I just want to bring the attention to the guidelines already put into place by WP Admin that are not being respected. I did not mention any names so it wouldn't be a conflict. In looking at COIs all over wiki, I believe this template has been misused and according to wiki's own guidelines editors should take the responsibility to contact the article creators prior to placing it on the conflict board or putting a COI tag out there. I have acted openly and with integrity.HollywoodFan1 (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, HollywoodFan1 (talk), from what I can tell, you don't have any more of a conflict of interest than any other newbie on those articles. It seems the whole reason you got brought into that discussion was because someone accused you of being a sockpuppet, "it seems you are editing both as HollywoodFan1 and SJR2008," which you clarified was not the case. Because of that, your involvement in the COI noticeboard discussion really should be over, unless, as you stated, someone has some other kind of accusation about you, which if they did, they really should have put it in the noticeboard notice in the first place. Also, someone really should have put something like, "HollywoodFan1, you have been mentioned in a COI discussion, Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#MetaphorEnt, on your talk page, which it seems didn't happen. They have a guideline of not biting newbies, and it seems you've been at least nibbled in this COI notice. Fredsmith2 (talk) 00:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your insight. Right after this, that editor put the article I was working on up for deletion. I've been officially WP:BITE. A couple editors came to my rescue and helped to make the article I was working on stronger. The lesson here is that WP becomes stronger through positive help and editors working with integrity. I still stand strong with the way WP Admin set up this site, that editors should try to work with the creator of an article before putting derogatory tags up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HollywoodFan1 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Oops. I forgot to sign.HollywoodFan1 (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Usage

This template has been added to at least 3 articles I have edited, George Khoury (author), Loren Coleman and Comics Bulletin, but I am struggling to find a way to address this. In the first case the subject has edited the article but there are no WP:NPOV issues I can see - if there are no problems to fix it is going to be tricky demon starting that you have addressed concerns. The others need some work but as part of an ongoing process (and in most things causing concern weren't added by those users).

The problem I see is that this template is slapped on any article the subject (or someone closely connected to the subject), when really the notable Wikipedians tag is the best way to flag this issue. If there are WP:NPOV concerns then this should the ones flagged. Equally if you go to the trouble of adding such a banner to the top of an article you should at least spend the time to drop a note into the talk page highlighting the areas of concern so that other editors can address them.

So I'd like to see better documentation on this to stop its indiscriminate use - this is a large and serious template to use on an article (see the TfD discussion) and I think other avenues should be explored first (using NPOV tags and noting this with the notable Wikipedians tag on the talk page). If there are serious problems with a large part of the article that will require a while to fix then I can see this as being a legitimate use (similar to the under construction tag, as it shows work is ongoing and until then people should be cautious about the tone of the article) but it needs some kind of follow-up on the talk page. It seems too many people are spotting the subject has edited the article, slapping this template on the page and walking off thinking "job done". I have seen numerous cases of people editing their own articles and I've checked their edits, flagged it on the talk page and dropped them a note on their talk page pointing them to WP:COI. 99% of such incidents like that can be fixed in this way. People have dropped Loren Coleman a note on COI User talk:Cryptozoo (which led him to following the guidelines and dropping references into the talk page - everyone wins) but no one has done anything similar for User talk:George Khoury.

So there isn't necessarily a problem with this template but there seems to be a big issue with its usage and I think improving the documentation would really help make this a useful template and also ensure that these problems can be resolved (because at the moment those headers are just hanging around and if there are issues that still need fixing then they aren't being as no one has flagged what they are). (Emperor (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC))

The three articles you mention seem to have some neutrality problems: George Khoury (author), Loren Coleman and Comics Bulletin. If someone has time to work on them, I imagine it might be fixed with an hour's work (or less) on each one. Outside views of an article subject are more helpful than a mere collection of their publications or interviews with them. Comics Bulletin seems to have a promotional tone, but that might be cured by shortening the article. If you agree that there is something here needing to be fixed, would you have some time to make these improvements? If not, then maybe we could list these articles at WP:COIN and see if anyone is available to do some rewriting. EdJohnston (talk) 19:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I have dropped in notes into the talk pages of all of those articles. If anyone has suggestions how these issues can be addressed then drop them in there, I or another editor can then work to fix them (I'll also alert the relevant projects). Of them all it is the Khoury that has me stumped, as (with the usual caveats) I can't see any neutrality issues. I did start a bibliography to stop the biography section from getting too "listy" (he wrote this and this and this) so that could be snipped but the main problem I see is that it needs expanding (which people might be loath to do with such a strong notice pinned to the top of the article - I know I have avoided editing them because I don't know if any additions I make would be removed if a major rewrite was called for).
It doesn't either address my broader point, I'm sure given time we can fix any major issues on those specific entries, what I'm saying is that this is an "aggressive" tag (when not followed up its finger-pointing can just lead to confusion - note the comment from one editor saying they don't have COIs with the site, it may not have even been their edits we won't know unless someone is specific) and people need to put in a bit more time actually explaining why they added it and what needs to be done to fix any issues. It should be a last resort with adding notable wikipedians being used first along with fixing things and if you can't then add a neutrality tag. If the problems are too widespread and the article needs hefty work then I can see it might have some use, but again only if there is actual specific follow-up or everyone is left to try and guess what the problems are which makes working to address them much more difficult. (Emperor (talk) 15:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC))
George Khoury (author) sounds promotional. Incomplete articles, and tagged articles, are placeholders indicating that future work is needed. I can see the future work needed in this case. The lack of any critical information, or any comparison with others, is a clue that the article is one-sided. The Guardian article given as an external link in Khoury's article is the only hint of a true outside evaluation. The four items in Khoury's reference section are all publisher blurbs. EdJohnston (talk) 20:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

Is there a reason that this template is not semi-protected? Maybe it should be, considering its high visibility and potential to antagonize some editors. EnviroboyTalkCs 16:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)