Wikimedia Forum/Archives/2023-08
 | Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in August 2023, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index. |
Conflicts of interest
Sorry if this is the wrong place to bring this up (and please redirect me if it is). I notice that some rather major Wikipedias (e.g. da-wiki) have no link from project:Conflict of interest (Q4663309). Does that mean they inherit some sort of default policy, or that they actually have no rules about this? I ask because of an issue that came up on Commons, where it looked to me like someone's edits on da-wiki raised COI issues, and I was very surprised to find no policy to refer them to.
Please ping me if replying, I don't maintain a watchlist on meta. - Jmabel (talk) 04:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- Found a policy for paid editing -- foundation:Policy:Terms_of_Use#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities -- but what about other COI? - Jmabel (talk) 18:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Jmabel "COI" is usually a refinement from NPOV policies, to provide additional guidance and processes (from the premise that a person with a conflict of interest may not be able to present a neutral point of view). For dawiki, try starting with the information in w:da:Wikipedia:Skriv Wikipedia fra et neutralt synspunkt. — xaosflux Talk 18:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- I beg to differ. COI is primarily about who is writing, not about what they say. Above all, it is about disclosure, which is an entirely different matter than the content of what is written. - Jmabel (talk) 20:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: All meta produced documents typically lay the foundation for all the WMF-content wikis as guiding principle, and a baseline, rather than default policy. Noting that an absence of a specific policy doesn't mean that it isn't covered on another page, it may be that there is just not that WD target alignment. The ability to have targeted redirects as a means to direct is a newer concept at WD and often those purposeful redirects that end up at sections of a major page are not yet present.
With regard to CoI, please do not solely see this from a WP article-writing lens. Admins can have a CoI. Users can edit on wikis in places where they have a vested interest though no conflict of interest, for example adding their own image to Commons (sometimes within scope, sometimes out of scope), adding citable data to Wikidata, or reproducing a within scope work at a Wikisource. What we are wanting is people editing to the purposes of each wiki and following the local guidance. Open statements about vested and conflicted interest are always ideal. And even in the absence of those declarations at a wiki I will regularly pull up editors cross-wiki where I see that they have an apparent conflict of interest in their editing (COIBot has the task to help identify these editors), irrespective of whether there is a local policy or not.
- Code of conduct and conflict of interest policies
- Conflict of interest policy
- Conflict of interest editing
seem to be the local pages, aside from the foundations pages — billinghurst sDrewth 00:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: All meta produced documents typically lay the foundation for all the WMF-content wikis as guiding principle, and a baseline, rather than default policy. Noting that an absence of a specific policy doesn't mean that it isn't covered on another page, it may be that there is just not that WD target alignment. The ability to have targeted redirects as a means to direct is a newer concept at WD and often those purposeful redirects that end up at sections of a major page are not yet present.
- I beg to differ. COI is primarily about who is writing, not about what they say. Above all, it is about disclosure, which is an entirely different matter than the content of what is written. - Jmabel (talk) 20:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Jmabel "COI" is usually a refinement from NPOV policies, to provide additional guidance and processes (from the premise that a person with a conflict of interest may not be able to present a neutral point of view). For dawiki, try starting with the information in w:da:Wikipedia:Skriv Wikipedia fra et neutralt synspunkt. — xaosflux Talk 18:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- There is no COI policy or even a guideline about it in the Finnish WP, for example. (The link in the Wikidata item is an essay and nobody refers to it). We have plenty of articles that were created by the BLP subject themselves or someone very close to the topic, but since it's in no way forbidden or even discouraged, the biggest problem from the community's perspective usually is that the article lacks notability or independent sources.
- Personally I don't really have a problem if a BLP subject wants to update "their article". A lot of articles are effectively abandoned by the community, especially if the topic is not very popular, and I imagine it must be frustrating to see old and maybe inaccurate information about yourself or your company on Wikipedia. (If someone leaves a message on the talk page asking something to be added to the article, often the reply will be "do it yourself".) I do have a problem when the editing goes far beyond just keeping the article updated, because that's usually when the article becomes more like an ad instead of an encyclopedia article. kyykaarme (talk) 07:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Global bot flag request for Lingua Libre Bot
- Apologies for sending this message solely in English. Please help translate to your language.
Hello,
This is a notice pursuant the global bot policy, to inform you that Lingua Libre Bot is requesting approval to operate as a global bot.
The discussion can be found at Steward requests/Bot status in Meta-Wiki. All Wikimedia Community members can participate in the discussion if they so wish.
Thank you.
You are receiving this message because this page is listed in the list of pages to notify about new global bot discussions. If you no longer wish to be notified, you may remove this page from that list at any time.
Review the Charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee
Hello all,
I am pleased to share the next step in the Universal Code of Conduct work. The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) draft charter is now ready for your review.
The Enforcement Guidelines require a Building Committee form to draft a charter that outlines procedures and details for a global committee to be called the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C). Over the past few months, the U4C Building Committee worked together as a group to discuss and draft the U4C charter. The U4C Building Committee welcomes feedback about the draft charter now through 22 September 2023. After that date, the U4C Building Committee will revise the charter as needed and a community vote will open shortly afterward.
Join the conversation during the conversation hours or on Meta-wiki.
Best,
RamzyM (WMF), on behalf of the U4C Building Committee, 15:34, 28 August 2023 (UTC)