Wikipedia:Conflict of interest
![]() |
This page documents an English Wikipedia behavioral guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.
|
![]() |
This page in a nutshell: Do not edit Wikipedia in your own interests or in the interests of your external relationships. |
Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest.[a] That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgment about that person's opinions or integrity.[b]
COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. It undermines public confidence and risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals and companies being promoted. Editors with a COI cannot know whether or how much it has influenced their editing. If COI editing causes disruption, an administrator may opt to place blocks on the involved accounts.
Editors with a COI, including paid editors, are expected to disclose it whenever they seek to influence an affected article's content. Anyone editing for pay must disclose who is paying them, who the client is, and any other relevant affiliation; this is a requirement of the Wikimedia Foundation.[6] In addition, COI editors are generally advised not to edit affected articles directly, and to propose changes on talk pages instead.
When investigating COI editing, do not reveal the identity of editors against their wishes. Wikipedia's policy against harassment, in particular the prohibition against disclosing personal information, takes precedence over this guideline. Editors discussing changes to this guideline should disclose whether they have been paid to edit Wikipedia.
Wikipedia guidelines | |||
---|---|---|---|
Behavioral guidelines | |||
|
|||
Content guidelines | |||
Editing guidelines | |||
|
|||
Style guidelines | |||
Deletion guidelines | |||
Other guideline categories | |||
Contents
- 1 Wikipedia's position
- 2 How to disclose a COI
- 3 What is conflict of interest?
- 4 Dealing with edit requests from COI or paid editors
- 5 Copyright of paid contributions
- 6 Covert advertising
- 7 Other categories of COI
- 8 Miscellaneous
- 9 How to handle conflicts of interest
- 10 See also
- 11 Notes
- 12 References
- 13 Further reading
Wikipedia's position[edit]
Purpose of Wikipedia[edit]
As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia's mission is to provide the public with articles that summarize accepted knowledge, written neutrally and sourced reliably. Readers expect to find neutral articles written independently of their subject, not corporate or personal webpages, or platforms for advertising and self-promotion. Articles should contain only material that complies with Wikipedia's content policies and best practices, and Wikipedians must place the interests of the encyclopedia and its readers above personal concerns.
COI editing[edit]
Editors with a COI should follow Wikipedia policies and best practices scrupulously.
If you have a conflict of interest you should declare your COI, and put edits through peer review instead of editing articles directly:
- you should disclose your COI when involved with affected articles;
- you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly.
- you may propose changes on talk pages (to which you can call attention by using the
{{request edit}}
template or by posting a note at the COI noticeboard), so that they can be peer reviewed before being published;- you should put new articles through the articles for creation process instead of creating them directly, so they can be peer reviewed before being published;
- you should respect other editors by keeping discussions concise.
- you should not accept any such affected article(s) at articles for creation process.
Note that no one on Wikipedia controls articles. If Wikipedia hosts an article about you or your organization, others may add information that would otherwise remain little known, decide to delete the article, or decide to keep it should you later request deletion. The media has several times drawn attention to companies that engage in COI editing on Wikipedia (see Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia), which has led to embarrassment for the organization concerned.
Paid editing[edit]
An editor has a financial conflict of interest when they write about a topic with which they have a close financial relationship. This includes being an owner, employee, contractor, investor or other stakeholder. Being paid to contribute to Wikipedia is one form of financial COI; it places the paid editor in a conflict between their employer's goals and Wikipedia's goals. The kind of paid editing of most concern to the community involves using Wikipedia for public relations and marketing purposes. Sometimes called "paid advocacy", this is problematic because it invariably reflects the interests of the client or employer.[c] The Wikimedia Foundation requires that all paid editing be disclosed.[6]
If you receive or expect to receive compensation (money, goods or services) for your contributions to Wikipedia, you must declare that, and should put edits through peer review instead of editing articles directly:
- you must disclose who is paying you; on whose behalf the edits are made; and any other relevant affiliation;
- you should make the disclosure on your user page, on affected talk pages, and whenever you discuss the topic;
- you are very strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly.
- you may propose changes on talk pages (to which you can call attention by using the
{{request edit}}
template or by posting a note at the COI noticeboard), so that they can be peer reviewed before being published;- you should put new articles through the articles for creation process instead of creating them directly, so they can be peer reviewed before being published;
- you should respect volunteers by keeping discussions concise (see PAYTALK).
- you should not accept any such affected article(s) at articles for creation process or mark them as reviewed as part of new pages patrol.
Requested edits are subject to the same standards as any other, and editors may decline to act on them. To find an article's talk page, click the "talk" button at the top of the article. See WP:TEAHOUSE if you have questions about these things.
Wikimedia Foundation terms of use[edit]
The Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use require that editors who are being paid for their contributions disclose their employer (the person or organization who is paying for the edits); the client (the person or organization on whose behalf the edits are made); and any other relevant affiliation. This is the policy of the English Wikipedia.
How to disclose a COI[edit]
General COI[edit]
If you become involved in an article where you have a general COI (one that does not involve being paid to edit Wikipedia), you should let other editors know about it whenever you discuss the topic. If you want to use a template to do this, place {{connected contributor}}
at the top of the affected talk page, fill it in as follows, and save:
Connected contributor template |
---|
|
Note that someone else may add this for you. You can also make a statement in the edit summary of any COI contribution. If you want to note the COI on your user page, you can use the {{UserboxCOI}}
template:
UserboxCOI template |
---|
Edit your user page and type |
If you propose significant or potentially controversial changes to an affected article, you can use the {{request edit}}
template. Place this at the bottom of the talk page and state your suggestion beneath it (be sure to sign it with four tildes, ~~~~). If the proposal is verifiable and appropriate, it will usually be accepted. If it is declined, the editor declining the request will usually add an explanation below your entry.
Paid editors[edit]
If you are being paid for your contributions to Wikipedia, you must declare who is paying you, who the client is, and any other relevant role or relationship. You may do this on your user page, on the talk page of affected articles, or in your edit summaries. The community expects paid editors to declare that they are being paid whenever they seek to influence an article's content; this includes when writing drafts in draft space or user space. If you want to use a template to disclose your COI on a talk page, place {{connected contributor (paid)}}
at the top of the page, fill it in as follows, and save:
Connected contributor (paid) template |
---|
|
The employer is whoever is paying you to be involved in the article (such as a PR company). The client is on whose behalf the payment is made (usually the subject of the article). If the employer and client are the same entity—that is, if Acme Corporation is paying you to write about Acme Corporation—the client parameter may be left empty. See {{connected contributor (paid)}}
for more information. Note that other editors may add this template for you.
You are expected to maintain a clearly visible list on your user page of your paid contributions. If you propose changes to an affected article, you can use the {{request edit}}
template. Post it on the talk page and make your suggestion underneath it. Paid editors must respect the volunteer nature of the project and keep discussions concise; see WP:PAYTALK.
What is conflict of interest?[edit]
External roles and relationships[edit]
While editing Wikipedia, an editor's primary role is to further the interests of the encyclopedia. When an external role or relationship could reasonably be said to undermine that primary role, the editor has a conflict of interest. (Similarly, a judge's primary role as an impartial adjudicator is undermined if she is married to the defendant.)
Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, financial (including holding a cryptocurrency), or legal—can trigger a COI. How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense. For example, an article about a band should not be written by the band's manager, and a biography should not be an autobiography or written by the subject's spouse.
Subject-matter experts (SMEs) are welcome on Wikipedia, particularly within their areas of expertise, subject to the guidance on financial conflict of interest and the guidance on citing your work below. SMEs are expected to make sure that their external roles and relationships in their field of expertise do not interfere with their primary role on Wikipedia.
COI is not simply bias[edit]
Determining that someone has a COI is a description of a situation. It is not a judgment about that person's state of mind or integrity.[5] A COI can exist in the absence of bias, and bias regularly exists in the absence of a COI. Beliefs and desires may lead to biased editing, but they do not constitute a COI. COI emerges from an editor's roles and relationships, and the tendency to bias that we assume exists when those roles and relationships conflict.[9] COI is like "dirt in a sensitive gauge."[10]
Why is conflict of interest a problem?[edit]
Until the latter half of the 20th century, the professions relied on the "virtue-centric approach": those with a COI were simply expected to act honourably and objectively.[f] This is now known to have been naive.[4]:447 The virtue-centric approach underestimates the extent to which the judgment of individuals with a COI may be impaired. Conflicted individuals cannot know the extent to which they have been influenced. Philosopher Michael Davis writes that they often "esteem too highly their own reliability".[12][13] For example, a conflicted person might overcompensate in an effort to be fair, leading to decisions he would otherwise not have made.[12]
The virtue-centric approach ignores the damage COI inflicts on public confidence and the unease it causes within the affected community. If a judge is involved with a defendant, that judge's role as an impartial adjudicator is undermined in the view of her colleagues and the public no matter how convinced she is that she can remain impartial. The appearance of impropriety means she would have to recuse herself.
Actual, potential and apparent COI[edit]
An actual COI exists when an editor has a COI with respect to a certain judgment and is in a position where the judgment must be exercised.[14]
- Example: A business owner has an actual COI if he edits articles and engages in discussions about that company.
A potential COI exists when an editor has a COI with respect to a certain judgment but is not in a position where the judgment must be exercised.[g]
- Example: A business owner has a potential COI with respect to articles and discussions about that company, but no actual COI if she stays away from those pages.
An apparent COI exists when there is reason to believe that an editor has a COI.[h]
- Example: An editor has an apparent COI if he edits an article about a company and for some reason appears to be the company owner, but in fact he may have no such connection. Apparent COI causes bad feeling within the community and should be resolved through discussion whenever possible.[i]
Dealing with edit requests from COI or paid editors[edit]
Responding to requests[edit]
Editors responding to edit requests from paid editors are expected to do so carefully, particularly when commercial interests are involved. When large amounts of text are added to an article on behalf of the article subject, the article has, in effect, been ghostwritten by the subject without the readers' knowledge. Responding volunteers should therefore carefully check the proposed text and sources. That an article has been expanded does not mean that it is better.
- Make sure the proposed paid text complies with WP:WEIGHT.
- Look for unnecessary detail that may have been added to overwhelm something negative.
- Make sure nothing important is missing. Responding editors should do their own search for independent sources. Do not rely on the sources offered by the paid editor.
- Look for non-neutral language and unsourced or poorly sourced content.
- Be cautious about accepting content based on WP:SPS such as a personal website, or primary sources such as a company website or press release.
- If the paid text is added to the article, the edit summary should include full attribution; for example: "Text inserted on behalf of paid editor User:X; copied from Draft:Paid draft." See WP:COIATTRIBUTE below.
Attribution in edit summaries[edit]
If editors choose to add material to an article on behalf of a COI or paid editor, they must provide attribution for the text in the edit summary. The edit summary should include the name of the COI or paid editor, a link to the draft or edit request, and that the edit contains a COI or paid contribution. For example: "Text inserted on behalf of paid editor User:X; copied from Draft:Paid draft." This transparency helps editors and readers to determine the extent of COI influence on the article. It also complies with copyright requirements.
Paid editors on talk pages[edit]
Paid editors must respect the volunteer nature of the project and keep discussions concise. When proposing changes to an article, they should describe the suggested modifications and explain why the changes should be made. Any changes that may be contentious, such as removal of negative text, should be highlighted.
Before being drawn into long exchanges with paid editors, volunteers should be aware that paid editors may be submitting evidence of their talk-page posts to justify their salaries or fees. No editor should be expected to engage in long or repetitive discussions with someone who is being paid to argue with them. Editors who refuse to accept a consensus by arguing ad nauseam may find themselves in violation of the disruptive-editing guideline.
Copyright of paid contributions[edit]
Editors are reminded that any text they contribute to Wikipedia, assuming they own the copyright, is irrevocably licensed under a Creative Commons-Attribution-Sharealike license and the GNU Free Documentation License. Content on Wikipedia, including article drafts and talk-page comments, can be freely copied and modified by third parties for commercial and non-commercial use, with the sole requirement that it be attributed to Wikipedia contributors.
Paid editors must ensure that they own the copyright of text they have been paid to add to Wikipedia; otherwise they are unable to release it. A text's author is normally assumed to be the copyright holder. Companies sometimes provide paid editors with text written by someone else. Alternatively, a paid editor might write text for Wikipedia within the scope of their employment (a "work for hire"), in which case copyright resides with the employer.
Where there is doubt that the paid editor owns the copyright, they (or the employer or author) are advised to forward a release from the copyright holder to the Wikimedia Foundation (permissions@wikimedia.org
). See WP:PERMISSION for how to do this and Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a sample letter.
If editors choose to add material to an article on behalf of a paid editor, they must provide attribution for the text in the edit summary. See WP:COIATTRIBUTE for how to do this.
Covert advertising[edit]
US Federal Trade Commission and native advertising[edit]
All editors are expected to follow United States law on undisclosed advertising, which is described by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) at Endorsement Guidelines and Dot Com Disclosures. The FTC regards advertising as deceptive if it mimicks a content format, such as a news report, that appears to come from an independent, impartial source:
Marketers and publishers are using innovative methods to create, format, and deliver digital advertising. One form is "native advertising", content that bears a similarity to the news, feature articles, product reviews, entertainment, and other material that surrounds it online. ...
In digital media, native ads often resemble the design, style, and functionality of the media in which they are disseminated. ... The more a native ad is similar in format and topic to content on the publisher's site, the more likely that a disclosure will be necessary to prevent deception.[17]
To judge whether an ad is deceptive under the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914, the FTC considers "both what the ad says and the format it uses to convey that information ... Advertisements or promotional messages are deceptive if they convey to consumers expressly or by implication that they’re independent, impartial, or from a source other than the sponsoring advertiser ...".[17]
European fair-trading law[edit]
In 2012 the Munich Oberlandesgericht court ruled that if a company or its agents edit Wikipedia with the aim of influencing customers, the edits constitute covert advertising, and as such are a violation of European fair-trading law. The ruling stated that readers cannot be expected to seek out user and talk pages to find editors' disclosures about their corporate affiliation.[18]
UK Advertising Standards Authority[edit]
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) in the UK found in 2012 that the content of tweets from two footballers had been "agreed with the help of a member of the Nike marketing team". The tweets were not clearly identified as Nike marketing communications and were therefore in breach of the ASA's code.[19]
Canadian Code of Advertising Standards[edit]
This states: "No advertisement shall be presented in a format or style that conceals the fact that it is an advertisement."[20]
Other categories of COI[edit]
Legal and other disputes[edit]
The biographies of living persons policy says: "[A]n editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual – whether on- or off-wiki – or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest."
Similarly, editors should not write about court cases in which they or those close to them have been involved, nor about parties or law firms associated with the cases.
Campaigning, political[edit]
Activities regarded by insiders as simply "getting the word out" may appear promotional or propagandistic to the outside world. If you edit articles while involved with campaigns in the same area, you may have a conflict of interest. Political candidates and their staff should not edit articles about themselves, their supporters, or their opponents. Government employees should not edit articles about their agencies, government, political party, political opponents, or controversial political topics.
Writing about yourself, family, friends[edit]
You should generally refrain from creating articles about yourself, or anyone you know, unless through the Articles for Creation process. If you have a personal connection to a topic or person, you are advised to refrain from editing those articles directly and to provide full disclosure of the connection if you comment about the article on talk pages or in other discussions.
An exception to editing an article about yourself or someone you know is made if the article contains defamation or a serious error that needs to be corrected quickly. If you do make such an edit, follow it up with an email to WP:OTRS, Wikipedia's volunteer response team, or ask for help on WP:BLPN, our noticeboard for articles about living persons, or the talk page of the article in question.
Citing yourself[edit]
Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion: propose the edit on the article's talk page and allow others to review it.
Cultural sector[edit]
Museum curators, librarians, archivists, and similar are encouraged to help improve Wikipedia, or to share their information in the form of links to their resources. If a link cannot be used as a reliable source, it may be placed under further reading or external links if it complies with the external links guideline. Bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files.
Wikipedians in residence, reward board[edit]
There are forms of paid editing that the Wikimedia community regards as benign. These include Wikipedians in residence (WiRs)—Wikipedians who may be paid to collaborate with mission-aligned organizations, such as galleries, libraries, archives, and museums. WiRs must not engage in on-Wikipedia public relations or marketing for their organization, and they should operate within the bounds defined by Core characteristics of a Wikipedian in Residence at Wikimedia Outreach. They must work closely with a Wikipedia project or the general Wikipedia community, and are expected to identify their WiR status on their user page and on talk pages related to their organization when they post there.
Another benign example of paid editing is the reward board, where editors can post incentives, usually to raise articles to featured-article or good-article status. If you participate in this, transparency and neutrality are key.
Miscellaneous[edit]
Solicitations by paid editors[edit]
In any solicitation sent to a prospective client, paid editors should disclose the following information:
- Paid editors do not represent the Wikimedia Foundation nor the Wikipedia editing community, and they have no authority beyond that of any volunteer editor.
- Paid editors must disclose their employer, client, and affiliations on Wikipedia. There is no confidentiality for the client.
- Paid edits may be reviewed and revised in the normal course of work on Wikipedia. Neither the client nor the paid editor own the article.
- Paid editors cannot guarantee any outcome for an article on Wikipedia. It can be revised or deleted by other editors at any time.
Providing a client with a link to this section is appropriate disclosure, if it is done in a neutral and non-deceptive manner.
- Paid editors must also provide a link to their user page which includes a declaration of their paid editing status.
If you received a solicitation from a paid editor that does not include this information, we recommend that you not do business with them. They are not following our policies and guidelines. Some of these solicitations have been linked to fraud. See Orangemoody editing of Wikipedia. If you think you’ve received a fraudulent solicitation, please forward it to arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org for investigation.
Law of unintended consequences[edit]
Once an article is created about yourself, your group, or your company, you have no right to control its content, or to delete it outside the normal channels. Content is irrevocably added with every edit. If there is anything publicly available on a topic that you would not want to have included in an article, it will probably find its way there eventually.
[edit]
Do not create a shared organizational account, or use the name of an organization as the account name. The account is yours, not your employer's.
Making uncontroversial edits[edit]
Editors who have a general conflict of interest may make unambiguously uncontroversial edits (but see WP:FINANCIALCOI). They may:
- remove spam and unambiguous vandalism,
- remove unambiguous violations of the biography of living persons policy,
- fix spelling and grammatical errors,
- repair broken links,
- remove their own COI edits, and
- add independent reliable sources when another editor has requested them, although it is better to supply them on the talk page for others to add.
If another editor objects for any reason, it is not an uncontroversial edit. Edits not covered by the above should be discussed on the article's talk page. If an article has few uninvolved editors, ask at the talk page of a related Wikiproject or at WP:COIN. Also see WP:COITALK.
Supplying photographs and media files[edit]
Editors with a COI are encouraged to upload high-quality media files that are appropriately licensed for Wikipedia and that improve our coverage of a subject. For more information, follow the instructions at Commons. In some cases, the addition of media files to an article may be an uncontroversial edit that editors with a COI can make directly, but editors should exercise discretion and rely on talk pages when images may be controversial or promotional. If the addition of an image is challenged by another editor, it is not uncontroversial.
How to handle conflicts of interest[edit]
If an editor has disclosed that s/he is editing with a COI, or edits in a way that leads you to believe they might have a COI, raise the issue in a civil manner on the editor's talk page, citing this guideline, or open a thread on WP:COIN. Avoid making disparaging comments about the subject of the article, its author, or the author's motives.
If there has been no COI disclosure, consider first whether the issue may be simple advocacy. The appropriate forum for concerns about advocacy is WP:NPOVN. The appropriate forum for concerns about sources is WP:RSN. If there are concerns about sockpuppets or meatpuppets, please bring that concern to WP:SPI.
Avoid outing[edit]
When investigating COI editing, the policy against harassment takes precedence. It requires that Wikipedians not reveal the identity of editors against their wishes. Instead, examine editors' behavior and refer if necessary to Wikipedia:Checkuser. Do not ask a user if they are somebody; instead one can ask if they have an undisclosed connection to that person. If revealing private information is needed to resolve COI editing, and if the issue is serious enough to warrant it, editors can seek the advice of functionaries or the arbitration committee by email.
Dealing with single-purpose accounts[edit]
Accounts that appear to be single-purpose, existing for the sole or primary purpose of promotion or denigration of a person, company, product, service, website, organization, etc., and whose postings are in apparent violation of this guideline, should be made aware of this guideline and warned not to continue their problematic editing. If the same pattern of editing continues after the warning, the account may be blocked.
Templates[edit]
Relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{connected contributor}}
or {{connected contributor (paid)}}
. The article itself may be tagged with {{COI}}
. A section of an article can be tagged with {{COI|section}}
Other templates include:
{{uw-coi}}
(to be placed on user Talk pages to warn editors that they may have a conflict of interest){{uw-coi-username}}
(another Talk page warning, this one for editors whose username appears to violate the WP:Usernames policy){{COI editnotice}}
(this template goes on article talk pages and gives instructions to COI editors on how to submit edit requests to the article){{UserboxCOI}}
(for users to self-declare on their own Userpages those articles with which they have a conflict of interest, one such template per article)
See also[edit]
Wikimedia Foundation
- wmf:Terms of Use#4. Refraining from Certain Activities
- Sue Gardner, "Press releases/Sue Gardner statement paid advocacy editing", Wikimedia Foundation, 21 October 2013.
Contact us
Article
Policies
Wikiprojects
Miscellaneous
- Wikipedia:About you
- Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library/Cultural Professionals
- Category:Requested edits (lists edits for review where proposer has a conflict of interest)
- Category:Wikipedia articles with possible conflicts of interest
- Wikipedia:Reward board
- Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations
- User:COIBot
- Users creating autobiographies (an edit filter)
- Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms, June 2014
Essays
- Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with close associations
- Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest (medicine)
- Wikipedia:Don't cry COI
- Wikipedia:For publicists publicizing a client's work
- Wikipedia:Ghostwriting
- Wikipedia:Help available for editors with conflicts of interest
- Wikipedia:Independent sources
- Wikipedia:Paid editing (essay)
- Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide
- Wikipedia:Public relations (essay)
- Wikipedia:Search engine optimization
- Wikipedia:Wikipedia is in the real world
Historical
- Wikipedia community discussion on paid editing, 2009, sparked by discovery that admin/crat/OTRS editor was editing for pay discussion ended with no clear consensus
- Wikipedia community discussion on conflict of interest, 2012.
- Wikipedia:COI+ (failed proposal, 21 February 2013)
- Commercial editing (failed policy proposal turned into an essay, November 2013)
- No paid advocacy (failed policy proposal, November 2013)
- Paid editing policy proposal (failed policy proposal, November 2013)
- Conflict of interest limit (failed policy proposal, December 2013)
Notes[edit]
- ^ The word interest refers here not to curiosity but to something in which a person has a stake. Interest (from Middle English, interess) originally meant "the possession of a share in or a right to something."[1][2] Neil R. Luebke, 1987: "[T]he term 'interest' [in 'conflict of interest'] means some actual share or right on the basis of which one can materially gain or lose. It does nor mean an affection for some person, a feeling of sympathy for some cause, or a desire for some area of activity. In this sense I could have an interest in the Bad-News-Corporation, through a generous bequest by my rich uncle, even though I detest its corporate practices and conscientiously refuse to buy its products."[3]
- ^ Wayne Norman, Chris McDonald, 2012: "A person has a conflict of interest because of the kind of situation she finds herself in, not simply because of the actual state of her own desires, interests, motives, and so on."[4]:447
Bernard Lo and Marilyn J. Field, Institute of Medicine, 2009: "A conflict of interest is a set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgment or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest. ... Secondary interests may include not only financial gain but also the desire for professional advancement, recognition for personal achievement, and favors to friends and family or to students and colleagues ... [Conflict of interest] policies do not ... imply that the individual researcher ... is an unethical person. They assume only that under some conditions a risk exists that the decisions may be unduly influenced by considerations that should be irrelevant. ... the determination that an individual or institution has a conflict of interest is a judgment about the situation and not about the ... [person] who happens to be in that situation."[5]
- ^ Advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not. Paid advocacy is an especially egregious form of advocacy. Sue Gardner, then executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation, wrote in 2013: "Editing-for-pay has been a divisive topic inside Wikipedia for many years, particularly when the edits to articles are promotional in nature. Unlike a university professor editing Wikipedia articles in their area of expertise, paid editing for promotional purposes, or paid advocacy editing as we call it, is extremely problematic. We consider it a 'black hat' practice. Paid advocacy editing violates the core principles that have made Wikipedia so valuable for so many people."[7]
- ^ Davies writes: "A conflict of interest is a situation in which some person P (whether an individual or corporate body) stands in a certain relation to one or more decisions. On the standard view, P has a conflict of interest if, and only if, (1) P is in a relationship with another requiring P to exercise judgment in the other's behalf and (2) P has a (special) interest tending to interfere with the proper exercise of judgment in that relationship. The crucial terms in the standard view are 'relationship,' 'judgment,' 'interest,' and 'proper exercise.'"[8][4]:445
- ^ Norman and McDonald quote legal scholar Bayless Manning, 1964: "[S]ubjective intent is not important [in conflict of interest law] ... If the wrong kind of outside interest is held, no amount of leaning over backward or purity of soul will satisfy [a confirmation] Committee or the statutes."[4]:447
- ^ The first court case to use the term conflict of interest as currently understood was in 1949 in New York.[11] Until the 1950s, COI in the professions was addressed by expecting the conflicted individual to act objectively. Norman and McDonald write that this was naive.[12]
- ^ Columbia University, Responsible Conduct of Research: "A potential conflict of interest involves a situation that may develop into an actual conflict of interest."[15][14]
- ^ "An apparent conflict of interest is one in which a reasonable person would think that the professional's judgment is likely to be compromised."[15][16]
- ^ One approach is to disclose personal information, either on Wikipedia or privately to a trusted editor, although editors should not feel obligated to do this.
References[edit]
- ^ Jay M. Feinman (ed.), One Thousand and One Legal Words You Need to Know, Oxford University Press, 2005, 100.
- ^ Angus Stevenson, Maurice Waite (eds.), Concise Oxford English Dictionary (luxury edition), Oxford University Press, 2011, 740.
- ^ Neil R. Luebke, "Conflict of Interest as a Moral Category," Business & Professional Ethics Journal, 6, 1987 (66–81), 68. JSTOR 27799930
- ^ a b c d 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, 441–470.
- ^ a b Bernard Lo and Marilyn J. Field (eds.), Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice, Institute of Medicine, National Academies Press, 2009, 49.
- ^ a b "Paid contributions without disclosure", Terms of Use, Wikimedia Foundation.
- ^ Sue Gardner, "Press releases/Sue Gardner statement paid advocacy editing", Wikimedia Foundation, 21 October 2013.
- ^ Davis 2001, 8.
- ^ Michael Davis, "Introduction," in Michael Davis and Andrew Stark (eds.), Conflict of Interest in the Professions, University of Oxford Press, 2001, 12.
- ^ Davis 2001, 11.
- ^ Davis 2001, 303, citing In Re Equitable Office Bldg. Corporation, 83 F. Supp. 531 (S.D.N.Y 1949).
- ^ a b c Norman and McDonald, 2012, 461.
- ^ Davis 2001, 11–12.
- ^ a b Davis 2001, 15.
- ^ a b "Conflicts of interest", Responsible Conduct of Research, Columbia University.
- ^ Davis 2001, 18.
- ^ a b "Native Advertising: A Guide for Businesses", Federal Trade Commission, December 2015.
- ^ The case arose out of a claim against a company by a competitor over edits made to the article Weihrauchpräparat on the German Wikipedia. The judgment can be read here.
- ^ Mike Sweney, "Nike becomes first UK company to have Twitter campaign banned", The Guardian, 20 June 2012.
- ^ "Disguised Advertising Techniques", The Canadian Code of Advertising Standards.
Further reading[edit]
![]() |
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia. |
- (chronological order)
- Michael Davis, "Conflict of Interest," Business and Professional Ethics Journal, 1(4), 1982, 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, 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.
- Thomas L. Carson, "Conflicts of Interest and Self-Dealing in the Professions: A Review Essay," Business Ethics Quarterly, 14(1), January 2004, 161–182. JSTOR 3857777
- 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.
- Michael McDonald, "Ethics and Conflict of Interest", The W. Maurice Young Center for Applied Ethics, University of British Columbia, 23 April 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, 441–470.