Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Sources on conflict of interest (chronological)
  • Michael Davis, "Conflict of Interest," Business and Professional Ethics Journal, 1(4), 1982, pp. 17–27 (influential)
  • Luebke, Neil R. "Conflict of Interest as a Moral Category," Business & Professional Ethics Journal, 6, 1987, pp. 66–81. JSTOR 27799930 (influential)
  • Michael Davis, "Conflict of Interest Revisited," Business & Professional Ethics Journal, 12(4), Winter 1993, pp. 21–41. JSTOR 27800924
  • Michael Davis, Andrew Stark (eds.). Conflict of Interest in the Professions, University of Oxford Press, 2001.
  • Andrew Stark, Conflict of Interest in American Public Life, Harvard University Press, 2003.
  • Sheldon Krimsky, "The Ethical and Legal Foundations of Scientific 'Conflict of Interest'", in Trudo Lemmings and Duff R. Waring (eds.), Law and Ethics in Biomedical Research: Regulation, Conflict of Interest, and Liability, University of Toronto Press, 2006.
  • Bernard Lo and Marilyn J. Field (eds.), Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice, National Academies Press, 2009.
  • Wayne Norman, Chris McDonald, "Conflicts of Interest", in George G. Brenkert, Tom L. Beauchamp (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Business Ethics, Oxford University Press, 2012, pp. 441–470.

"including holding a cryptocurrency"

Why are cryptocurrencies being singled out here? Shouldn't the explanatory text then include those holding currencies and commodies (apart from financial instruments and securities)? — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 09:24, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I'm also interested, having read some articles on the internet that criticize this. Can we find out more about @Jytdog: ? It was you who added that sentence (see this diff). Lofhi (talk) 18:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Please review the archives, where you will find this discussed twice. Given the recent disruption (there are current two open threads at admin boards) there is very little chance that either of you will get consensus to remove this.Jytdog (talk) 19:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
@Jytdog: can you give me a link to the admin board? There seem to be several. I am not an English contributor. Lofhi (talk) 20:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
There is one at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Indef_request_for_Comefrombeyond, another at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#TBAN_for_Shiftchange.
You will find several others in this search of the admin boards and their archives, and yet more in the archives of the conflict of interest notice board, here.
by its nature of being open and on the internet, Wikipedia is vulnerable to any online group of advocates. Most cryptocurrencies have such groups around them, and on top of the regular advocacy (say vegans, or people who like some video game), we have very clear financial COI on top of fandom. Terrible. Jytdog (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
While its true that some hodlers of cryptocurrencies are prone to editing Wikipedia in a manner that is not in conformity with our policies and guidelines, the same principle is applicable to others dealing in currencies, commodities and securities. Singling out cryptocurrencies in this manner does not seem consistent. I sense an RfC in the making. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 06:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
This is hand-wavy theoretical stuff and is not kind of argument that is going to persuade anybody in Wikipedia. Crypto people actually disrupting the hell out of WP. Jytdog (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Note: One of the threads above - the one TBANing Shiftchange, has closed and the permalink is here. Jytdog (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Note - Bitcoin.com has published If You’re a Wikipedia Contributor, Owning Cryptocurrency May Be a Conflict of Interest though they get the facts wrong. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC on "cryptocurrencies"

Not even sure if there's really a point of formally closing this, but there's very clearly a consensus to keep in the sentence about cryptocurrencies. That said some users seem not have understood what the sentence was actually meant to be getting at until it was explained (see also User:WhatamIdoing's comments), so perhaps it could do with some rephrasing for clarity. --Brustopher (talk) 13:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the COI policy page make a specific reference to cryptocurrencies? (see WP:EXTERNALREL). — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 07:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Yes. There is nothing wrong with including it as an example. There has been a problem with users attempting to misuse WP to raise the value of their cryptocurrency holdings. Including it helps avoid misunderstandings about whether or not it is covered by this guideline. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes I would prefer “no”, as I don’t like listing specifics on stuff like COI out of fear it is impossible to list everything, but the current flavor of the day is crypto to the point where I know many people who would support a CSD criteria for it (likely wouldn’t pass, but it’s gotten to that level). When we’re being flooded with these articles making it clear when COI applies is important. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes - it certainly is a flood. Cryptocurrency in general and initial coin offerings in particular are massive problems, along the line of our worst historical problems with financial products, binary options and retail forex. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes per the above. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes per Tryptofish. Thryduulf (talk) 11:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes - It might be unclear to new users that the policy includes cryptocurrencies, since many cryptocurrency holders don't technically have any personal or professional relation to their coins. Adding an explicit reference, then, will clarify to holders that any edits they make about their coin WILL be considered COI. Nanophosis (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments on RfC

@Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington: should we just consider this closed? Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your inputs above. We should let this run for a few weeks so we can potentially get wider community input. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 22:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Have you posted it anywhere? If you haven't, theere won't be any further input from Wikipedians. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
As long as the RfC tag remains as it is now, it will be listed as an RfC until a month from the initial post has passed. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
@Smallbones: A bot invited me here about 7 hours ago (message on my talk page) so it's not impossible more people will show up. Thryduulf (talk) 11:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
@Smallbones: I found this at random browsing the list of open RfCs, and just happen to be incredibly sick of seeing edits about crypto that are clearly motivated by an investment in the coin. Anyway, I'd say it's almost done, but give it a few more days before closing. Nanophosis (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 Comment: I am still trying to understand why this is different from holding (or shorting!) a stock. Is it just that we have had a particular problem with this lately? Conversely, if there is a COI from holding a cryptocurrency, there is presumably equally a COI from holding a cryptocurrency-based derivative, such as a put: betting against a cryptocurrency would lead to an equivalent COI to holding the cryptocurrency, no? - Jmabel | Talk 18:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I think it's a combination of it being a particular problem lately and it being potentially not as obvious as some other things. Obviously, we cannot and should not list everything, but it can be helpful to specify something when experience has shown that it is not often understood. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I think that the confusion might be due to the first bit of the sentence, rather than the example of cryptocurrency. "Any external relationship...can trigger a COI" isn't exactly true. Most "external relationships" have no potential for triggering COI. My best friend at age 4? Nope, no chance of triggering a COI for anything. My local grocery store? Hey, they've got an article. I had no idea, and no interest in even reading it, much less editing it, but the fact that I shop there is irrelevant. This phrasing makes it sound like your relationship with your Kindergarten teacher can somehow magically trigger a COI if you edit an article on your favorite sports team. What we mean is that any external relationship that actually has some connection to what you're editing can trigger a COI. So, yes, if your editing relates to cryptocurrency, and you own more than a trivial bit, then you might have a COI for those articles, just like someone who owns stock in a publicly traded corporation might have a COI for those articles. But owning cryptocurrencies and editing articles about sports teams or antique violins? Nope, no COI there. It's not the mere ownership of a cryptocurrency that matters. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What is a UPE?

This page is a redirect for WP:UPE. What is a UPE? Should be defined. NumberC35 (talk) 22:11, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

NumberC35: undeclared paid editing. If you click the link it goes to the paid editing section. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest&oldid=846641505"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA