Template talk:COI editnotice - Wikipedia

This template originally emerged from an Idea Lab post, where several ideas related to COI were brought up and this one appeared to gain the most traction. It has since evolved as a result of thorough discussion and editing. The recent AfD results seem to suggest people feel it is a helpful template. The idea is to boil down WP:COI into just a few sentences and beam some straightforward instructions/advice directly to the article, where PR people are looking.

There are two issues that appear to need more discussion:

1. Should this be an edit-notice for company articles or a Talk page template?
2. Should it be added to all company articles or just those that show problematic COI behavior?
3. Also, any other thoughts/suggestions/discussion

Amendment: Should it be added to the Talk page AND as an editnotice? CorporateM (Talk) 16:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC) (PR guy and frequent COI contributor)Reply

Discussion

As RfC initiator:

1. Edit-notice as I find that many of my PR colleagues are not aware that there is a Talk page

2. All articles because almost any company article has a PR person at the very least looking at it and most have some indications of COI that could have been done more cautiously.

3. none

CorporateM (Talk) 16:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Comment (I may vote later—feel free to remind me) Why just company articles? The visible part of the template seems generic enough for other article types such as biographies (aimed at BLP subjects and families of deceased subjects), academic institutions (including schools) and indeed anywhere there might be a COI issue --Senra (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

• I like this idea, I agree with Senra that it could be added to more articles, but for a starter having it added to all articles in Category:Companies or a subcat would be useful. Semi-protected pages have an area you can click to a basically pre-filled form for requesting an edit. I'd like to see that added to this. Ryan Vesey 17:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

• • BLPs have a BLP template that says "If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page." This template was originally thought of as a way to mirror the success of the BLP template for companies, but the feedback we got drove it to focus on the COI side of things, rather than on fair representation. Ryan - that's brilliant. I'll have to look into how they do that. I would love to have a wizard like AfC does, but it is beyond my abilities to make one. CorporateM (Talk) 18:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
    • BLP's have a template, yes. In fact when you open an edit window on a BLP you get:

      This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.

    • which frankly is a bit wikilawyerie (is that a word?). Normal biographies do not get this message. The COI issue is far more widespread than BLP's and the proposed wording here is perfect --Senra (talk) 21:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
• I think edit notices are more effective than talk page banners and have the additional effect of ensuring that potentially conflicted editors have definitely seen the message. I would limit it to organisations rather than just companies as charities, etc., have similar issues. QuiteUnusual ^TalkQu 18:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Support for edit notice on all company articles as proposed. I love the idea that this could be used on many more types of articles as per my comment above. To over-use a cliché, let's take baby steps first --Senra (talk) 22:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

(Reminder to myself mainly): I voted on this version of the template at this version of the RfC --Senra (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

• It could be both an edit notice and a talk-page notice. Minor point: I'd change the title to something like "COI notice". "Extant organization" doesn't mean much, and if the organization weren't extant, it wouldn't have anyone representing it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

The template is now moved and has a "click here" button, which preloads a {{request edit}} string with instructions per Ryan's idea. It now needs word-smithing again. But I'll keep tweaking it and others are welcome to as well. A wizard for the request edit would be better, but not sure I would be able to pull that off. CorporateM (Talk) 04:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

• !Vote

1. Both. Make it easy for involved editors to make a request.
2. Apply selectively wherever organization COI appears.

Jojalozzo 02:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

• support option 1. It's worth remembering that at the moment we display BLP edit notices, 'you're logged out' edit notices, semi- and full-protect editnotices and localised editnotices. Adding another one, universally, is going to get us to the point where the actual edit window is pushed off the page. :/ Ironholds (talk) 05:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

It was actually three questions, as oppose to three options. CorporateM (Talk) 14:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

In that case, let me be more clear; I oppose any option which sees this as a standardised edit notice. I also think this RfC should be advertised a lot more widely than it is - it isn't a question of economics it's a question of policy, ultimately. Ironholds (talk) 18:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Based on the discussion, I'm thinking edit-notice + Talk page template, as it's done with BLPs, for all articles on "organizations." Afterwards I might start a second RfC on the contents of the notice itself and of the pre-filled "click here" button. CorporateM (Talk) 16:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

• As a template, I see it handy enough. I see what Ironholds is saying, I often go to article talk pages that have so many notices, they don't get noticed, so you end up diluting them. But if used in conjunction with a talk page notice, and only used on articles where there is a problem, I see it as second reminder to persuade COI to use more caution or just use the talk page. To me, the real problem is that if every COI editor used the talk page, we couldn't handle responding to the load. Eventually, enwp is going to need a board to filter and add requested additions by COI editors if something like this is going to work. Obviously, a sizable minority want to ban COI editing outright and there is no consensus on how to handle them. I don't see this band-aid hurting anything, but not sure how effective it will be either. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

  Note that my objection is not to this as a talkpage notice - it's to having it as an editnotice. Ironholds (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

  Ah, that is a different thing, and I understand your reasoning. editnotices can be annoyingly space consuming as you point out, so pithy is best. I really don't know how effective they are either. Honestly, I am more likely to see the talk page notice than edit page notice, but I don't claim to be typical in this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

  It would be interesting to conduct some tests on this; perhaps you could ask me in my official capacity? :). Ironholds (talk) 22:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

    Done I really have no idea how this can be tested objectively, but then again, that is your specialty and not mine. Do keep me in the loop please, I really think that if you found some definitive info, it would benefit everyone here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure proxy-editing is scalable. I would see Request Edit done at-scale as more of an approval cycle. The volunteer only needs to validate whether the request is "an improvement" than give the "go-ahead" by adding a G to the template ({{Request Edit|G}}), except on high-profile controversies that may warrant more attention. I processed about 20 Request Edits and I would gander about 75% were obvious declines. If we had 100 Request Edits a day, I think that would be excellent, both because we could accept good content and prevent bad content from ever being posted.

But honestly, it's not an enjoyable job and I may see why folks have not been managing the queue. Many COIs are argumentative and bitter and not pleasant to work with. CorporateM (Talk) 19:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

That is an understatement. I've found a large minority to be pleasant and genuinely trying to conform to standards. We've both found others who are simply hired guns and could give a shit less, using a throwaway acccount. For those, notices aren't going to be effective no matter what they say. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yup. I would say good-faith is a matter of process, instructions and education - bad-faith is a matter of detection, which this won't do much for. There's a bigger grey area between good and bad-faith than most editors think as well. But I would also bet we would see more good-faith participation if companies didn't feel like it was something that had to be hidden - that a dubious path is the only one available. CorporateM (Talk) 22:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

On that point, you and I agree. Again, that doesn't address paid editors, but it does cover employees of companies. Providing a clear path to contribute both ethically and successfully is the key. Right now, it is too complicated and without a clear policy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I hope i'm not too late to contribute, RFC Bot left me the notification of this overnight last night. Anyway, for 1. I would say that it should definitely be fit for an article page, for 2. I would personally say that it should go on the pages of smaller companies because they are more likely to have staff trying to use WP to advertise, however out of the two options I would say those that show COI Behaviour would definitely prove more beneficial, after all that's why we have the 'user so and so has a COI' template right? Nothing for 3. MIVP - (Can I Help?) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 09:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

• I was asked about this a little while ago, and my view at the time was that its use as an edit notice had the effect of marginalizing what remains acceptable behavior: neutral editing directly on the article. I still support the principle that anyone may edit directly if they edit properly. Unfortunately, experience has shown that a high percentage -- perhaps even the majority -- of COI editors do not edit properly, and the only general advice that we could in fairness give an editor is that the only safe method is to use the talk page. This is therefore useful as an edit notice.

I would prefer to use it for all organizations, not just companies. I find the company pr less difficult to deal with than that of other organizations. But I think its application to such a large number of articles at once would cause too great a problem in monitoring it; we should either pick a set of known problems, or start with an arbitrary but smaller group, such as companies in a particular state.

As for the wording, it should be exactly like the semi-protected notice -- pure routine, whose purpose is to make a list to follow up . Then we can see if we do in fact follow up, because if not, it's worse than useless--users not being satisfied with the procedure will ignore it. DGG ( talk ) 02:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

And your thoughts on the problem that users are going to be presented with 3 or potentially 4 edit-notices, and may simply switch off? Ironholds (talk) 06:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I wonder if it would be possible to add it only to org pages that are not semi-protected/protected. A lot of the worst PR editing is from aloof IPs and semi-protected pages have a much better chance of being closely watched. If it's not semi-protected, it would only be the second edit-notice after copyrights for most of the articles. CorporateM (Talk) 12:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Can you think of an automatic way to identify protection status? Ironholds (talk) 14:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

It would need to be applied to Category:Organizations, except where it is also in Category:Wikipedia semi-protected pages or Category:Wikipedia protected pages. For the trial, we could use something like Category:Advocacy groups being that I would suspect they would be some of the worst offenders. I'm not sure how complicated our bots can get on applying to a category except where another category also exists. Seems simple enough though. CorporateM (Talk) 15:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sure, if you can find someone to write the bot ;p. Ironholds (talk) 13:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I feel there is wide support for some form of notice or Talk template to get PR editors to "slow their roll" but many different opinions regarding what exactly we should suggest they do that fits into a single sentence and works in all or most cases.

I'll suggest that the linchpin is a single word, which in the current template is

"are expected not to edit this article."

Other options may be "required," "encouraged," "may," "should consider," "exercise caution," and possible qualifiers like "generally." Better yet (in my opinion) would be some language about "permission." We need language that most of the community would not object to, even though members of the community have varied opinions on it. Any thoughts? CorporateM (Talk) 17:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply