Wikipedia:Conflict of interest - Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest - Wikipedia
Jump to content
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikimedia project behavioral guideline
If you want to report a problematic conflict of interest editor, see
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard
For practical advice for editors who might have a conflict of interest, see
Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide
"Wikipedia:Conflict" redirects here. For other uses, see
Wikipedia:Conflict (disambiguation)
This page documents an English Wikipedia
behavioral guideline
Editors should generally follow it, though
exceptions
may apply.
Substantive
edits to this page
should reflect consensus
Shortcut
WP:COI
WP:COI
This page in a nutshell:
Do not edit Wikipedia in your own interests, or in the interests of your external relationships. Paid editing must be disclosed.
Wikipedia guidelines
Guidelines list
Policies list
Behavioral
Assume good faith
Conflict of interest
Disruptive editing
Don't bite the newcomers
Don't disrupt to make a point
Etiquette
Gaming the system
Other behavioral guidelines
Discussions
Talk page guidelines
Signatures
Content
Citing sources
External links
Reliable sources
medicine
Fringe theories
Naming conventions
Non-free content
Offensive material
LLM content
Other content guidelines
Editing
Article size
Be bold
Understandability
Other editing guidelines
Categorization
Categories, lists, templates
Categorization
Disambiguation
Style
Manual of Style
contents
lists
tables
Notability
and
Deletion
Notability
Deletion process
Deletion guidelines for administrators
Project content
Project pages
WikiProjects
Templates
User pages
User boxes
Shortcuts
Conflict of interest
COI
editing
involves contributing to
Wikipedia
articles about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. Any
external relationship
can trigger a
conflict of interest
. Someone having a conflict of interest is a description of a
situation
, not a judgment about that person's opinions, integrity, or
good faith
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 are sometimes
unaware of 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 change 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
. COI editors are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly, and can propose changes on article talk pages instead. However, our
policy on matters relating to living people
allows very obvious errors to be fixed quickly,
including by the subject
When investigating COI editing,
do not
reveal the identity
of editors against their wishes. Wikipedia's
policy against harassment
, and in particular the prohibition against disclosing personal information,
takes precedence
over this guideline. To report COI editing, follow the advice at
§ How to handle conflicts of interest
. Editors making or discussing changes to this guideline or related guidance shall disclose whether they have been paid to edit Wikipedia.
Wikipedia's position
Purpose of Wikipedia
Further information:
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
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
Shortcuts
WP:COIEDIT
WP:COIEDIT
WP:EDITCOI
WP:EDITCOI
For broader coverage of this topic, see
Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide
Editors with a COI should follow Wikipedia policies and best practices scrupulously:
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 (by using the
{{
edit COI
}}
template), so that they can be peer-reviewed;
you should put new articles through the
Articles for Creation (AfC)
process instead of creating them directly;
you should
not act as a reviewer
of affected article(s) at AfC,
new pages patrol
or elsewhere;
you should
respect other editors
by keeping discussions concise.
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. They may also 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 organizations concerned.
Paid editing
Shortcuts
WP:PE
WP:PE
WP:PAY
WP:PAY
WP:NOPR
WP:NOPR
WP:NOPAY
WP:NOPAY
WP:FCOI
WP:FCOI
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.
More generally, an editor has a financial conflict of interest whenever they write about a topic with which they have a close financial relationship. This includes being an owner, employee, contractor, investor or other stakeholder.
The
Wikimedia Foundation
requires that all paid editing be disclosed. Additionally,
global policy
requires that (if applicable) you
must
provide links on your user-page to
all
active accounts on external websites through which you advertise, solicit or obtain paid editing. If you receive or expect to receive compensation (money, goods or services) for your contributions to Wikipedia, the policy on the English Wikipedia is:
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
strongly discouraged
from editing affected articles directly;
you may
propose changes
on talk pages by using the
{{
edit COI
}}
template, so that they can be peer-reviewed;
you should put new articles through the
Articles for Creation (AfC)
process instead of creating them directly;
you must
not act as a reviewer
of affected article(s) at AfC,
new pages patrol
or elsewhere;
you should
respect volunteers
by keeping discussions concise (see
WP:PAYTALK
).
Requested edits are subject to the same standards as any other, and editors may decline to act on them. The
guide to effective COI edit requests
provides guidance in this area. 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. If you are an administrator, you
must not use administrative tools for any paid-editing activity
(except when related to work as a
Wikipedian-in-residence
, or as someone paid by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate).
Wikimedia Foundation terms of use
Further information:
Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure
The
Wikimedia Foundation
's
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
General COI
Shortcuts
WP:DISCLOSE
WP:DISCLOSE
WP:DCOI
WP:DCOI
If you become involved in an article where you have any COI, you should always let other editors know about it, whenever and wherever you discuss the topic. There are three venues to do this.
1. 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
{{Connected contributor|User1=
Your username
|U1-declared=yes|U1-otherlinks=
(Optional) Insert relevant affiliations, disclosures, article drafts or diffs showing COI contributions.
}}
Note that someone else may add this for you.
2. You can also make a statement in the
edit summary
of any COI contribution.
3. If you want to note the COI
on
your user page
, you can use the
{{
UserboxCOI
}}
template:
UserboxCOI template
Edit the source of your user page and type
{{UserboxCOI|1=
Wikipedia article name
}}
, then click "Publish page..." or "Publish changes...".
Also, if you propose significant or potentially controversial changes to an affected article, you can use the
{{
edit COI
}}
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.
Example: In
this edit on Talk:Steve Jobs
, one editor added a COI disclosure for another editor.
Paid editors
Shortcuts
WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE
WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE
WP:COIDISCLOSEPAY
WP:COIDISCLOSEPAY
WP:UPE
WP:UPE
Further information:
Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure
"WP:UPE" redirects here; not to be confused with
Wikipedia:Use plain English
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. As you have a conflict of interest, you must ensure everyone with whom you interact is aware of your paid status, in all discussions on Wikipedia pages within any namespace. 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
{{Connected contributor (paid)|User1=
Username of the paid editor
|U1-employer=
Name of person/organization that is paying for the edits
|U1-client=
Name of client
|U1-otherlinks=
Insert
diff
to disclosure on your User page.
}}
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. Paid editing without such a declaration is called
undisclosed paid editing
UPE
).
You are expected to maintain a clearly visible list on your user page of your paid contributions. Disclosure on user pages may be done using the
{{
paid
}}
template as follows:
{{
paid
|employer=
name of employer
|client=
name of client
|article=
name of article
}}
. If you advertise, solicit or obtain paid editing work via an account on any external website, you must provide links on your user-page to all such accounts.
If you propose changes to an affected article, you can use the
{{
edit COI
}}
template. Post it on the talk page and make your suggestion underneath it.
The use of administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except as a Wikipedian-in-Residence, or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF, is considered a
serious misuse
and likely to result in sanctions or their removal.
What is conflict of interest?
External roles and relationships
Shortcut
WP:EXTERNALREL
WP:EXTERNALREL
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 similar to how a judge's primary role as an impartial adjudicator would be undermined if they were married to one of the parties.
Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial (including holding a
cryptocurrency
)—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. There can be a COI when writing on behalf of a competitor or opponent of the page subject, just as there is when writing on behalf of the page subject.
Subject-matter experts
(SMEs) are welcome on Wikipedia within their areas of expertise, subject to the guidance below on
financial conflict of interest
and on
citing your work
. 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
Shortcut
WP:COINOTBIAS
WP:COINOTBIAS
Further information:
Wikipedia:Advocacy
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. 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.
Why is conflict of interest a problem?
On Wikipedia, editors with a conflict of interest who unilaterally add material tend to violate Wikipedia's content and behavioral policies and guidelines. The content they add is typically unsourced or poorly sourced and often violates the
neutral point of view
policy by being
promotional
and omitting negative information. They may
edit war
to retain content that serves their external interest. They may overuse
primary sources
or
non-independent sources
, and they may give too much
weight
to certain ideas.
Actual, potential and apparent COI
Shortcuts
WP:ACTUALCOI
WP:ACTUALCOI
WP:POTENTIALCOI
WP:POTENTIALCOI
WP:APPARENTCOI
WP:APPARENTCOI
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.
Example: A business owner has an actual COI if they edit articles and engage in discussions about that business.
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.
Example: A business owner has a potential COI with respect to articles and discussions about that business, but they have no actual COI if they stay away from those pages.
An
apparent COI
exists when there is reason to believe that an editor has a COI.
Example: Editors have an apparent COI if they edit an article about a business, and for some reason they appear to be the business owner or in communication with the business owner, although they may actually have no such connection. Apparent COI raises concern within the community and should be resolved through discussion whenever possible.
Dealing with edit requests from COI or paid editors
Responding to requests
Shortcut
WP:COIRESPONSE
WP:COIRESPONSE
Editors responding to
edit requests from COI or 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
self-published sources
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.
Attribution in edit summaries
Shortcuts
WP:COIATTRIBUTE
WP:COIATTRIBUTE
WP:PAIDATTRIBUTE
WP:PAIDATTRIBUTE
Further information:
Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia
and
Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources
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]].
or you can also use the following format, from text requested in a talk page,
Edit made due to [[WP:COI]] edit request by User:SVeatch; copied or adapted from "Revisions to Infobox, Introduction and History" at [[Special:Permalink/1213729307]]
The
permalink
helps avoid broken links when sections are archived.
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
Shortcuts
WP:COITALK
WP:COITALK
WP:PAYTALK
WP:PAYTALK
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
guideline against disruptive editing
Copyright of paid contributions
Shortcuts
WP:COICOPYRIGHT
WP:COICOPYRIGHT
WP:PAIDCOPYRIGHT
WP:PAIDCOPYRIGHT
See also:
Work for hire
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. 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
Volunteer Response Team
permissions-en
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
See also:
Wikipedia:Reliable sources § Sponsored content
This section in a nutshell:
Avoid hidden advertising.
Shortcuts
WP:COVERT
WP:COVERT
WP:NOHIDDENADS
WP:NOHIDDENADS
US: Federal Trade Commission, state law, and native advertising
See also:
Native advertising
Consumer protection
, and
Direct-to-consumer advertising
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 mimics 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. —Federal Trade Commission, 2015
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 ...".
State law may have similar prohibitions. While the FTC law may apply only to interstate and foreign commerce, state law applies to intrastate commerce and must be obeyed. At least one state court case found liability for an ad disguised as editorial content.
citation needed
European fair-trading law
See also:
Unfair Commercial Practices Directive
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.
UK Advertising Standards Authority
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.
Advertising Standards Canada
The
Canadian Code of Advertising Standards
, administered by
Advertising Standards Canada
, states: "No advertisement shall be presented in a format or style that conceals the fact that it is an advertisement."
Other categories of COI
Legal and other disputes
Shortcuts
WP:COIBLP
WP:COIBLP
WP:COILEGAL
WP:COILEGAL
Further information:
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Use in continued disputes
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
Shortcuts
WP:COICAMPAIGN
WP:COICAMPAIGN
WP:COIPOLITICAL
WP:COIPOLITICAL
See also:
Wikipedia:Advocacy
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
Shortcuts
WP:COISELF
WP:COISELF
WP:SELFPROMOTE
WP:SELFPROMOTE
"WP:COS" redirects here. For the "credible claim of significance" essay, see
Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance
Further information:
Wikipedia:Autobiography
and
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Use in continued disputes
You should generally refrain from creating articles about yourself, or anyone you know, living or dead, unless through the
Articles for Creation
process. If you have a personal connection to a topic or person with an existing article, you are advised to refrain from editing that article directly and to provide full disclosure of the connection if you comment about the article on talk pages or in other discussions. Requests for updates to an article about yourself or someone with whom you have a personal connection can be made on the article's talk page by following the instructions at
WP:COIREQ
An exception to not 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, please follow it up with an email to
WP:VRT
, 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
Shortcut
WP:SELFCITE
WP:SELFCITE
"WP:SELFCITE" redirects here. For Wikipedia citing itself, see
Wikipedia:Verifiability § Wikipedia and sources that mirror or use it
See also:
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) § Personal conflicts of interest
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. You will be permanently identified in the
page history
as the person who added the citation to your own 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. However, adding numerous references to work published by yourself and none by other researchers is considered
to be a form of spamming
Cultural sector
Shortcut
WP:CURATOR
WP:CURATOR
"WP:CURATOR" redirects here. For the tool used by
Wikipedia:New pages patrol
, see
Wikipedia:Page Curation
See also:
Wikipedia:Expert editors
Further information:
Wikipedia:GLAM
Wikipedia:Advice for the cultural sector
, and
Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library/Cultural Professionals
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
Shortcut
WP:WIRCOI
WP:WIRCOI
There are forms of paid editing that the Wikimedia community regards as acceptable. 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 public relations or marketing for their organization in Wikipedia, 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.
Reward board
Another example of acceptable 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
Solicitations by paid editors
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 owns 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 an external website claims that a particular Wikipedia editor works for them, but that editor's user page has no such declaration, this is likely to indicate that the website is impersonating that editor.
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.
Beware of scams
Shortcut
WP:BEWARESCAM
WP:BEWARESCAM
Further information:
Wikipedia:Scam warning
Some solicitations from paid editors have been linked to
fraud
; see for example
Operation Orangemoody
. A
large number of businesses
claim to offer editing services, but some of these are scams. If someone claims that experienced editors work for them, ask them for the user names of those editors and check the corresponding editor user pages for a
paid-contribution disclosure
; its absence likely indicates that the claim is false. Offers to guarantee that a page will be saved from deletion, in return for significant sums of money, are always fraudulent, as are offers to use special privileges on Wikipedia.
If you think you've received a fraudulent solicitation, please forward it to
paid-en-wp
wikipedia.org
for investigation.
Law of unintended consequences
Shortcut
WP:LUC
WP:LUC
Further information:
Wikipedia:Wikipedia is in the real world
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
Even a subject of an article, be that a person or organization,
does not
own the article
or have any right to dictate
what the article may or may
not
say. No one, whether a subject or an article creator, has a responsibility to maintain an article or can normally be held responsible for its content.
(From
Wikipedia:Ownership of articles
. Bold original.)
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.
No shared accounts, no company accounts
Further information:
WP:NOSHARE
and
WP:ORGNAME
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
Shortcuts
WP:COIADVICE
WP:COIADVICE
WP:COIU
WP:COIU
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, grammatical, or markup 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
the COI noticeboard
. See also
WP:COITALK
Supplying photographs and media files
See also:
Wikipedia:A picture of you
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 controversial.
The use of
non-free
contents are restricted. Generally, using press photos or images provided by clients who wish to feature them in the article but unwilling to irrevocably release the copyright under Creative Commons is unacceptable. Editors may not upload images provided by clients for "Wikipedia article purpose only" and falsely claim they're licensed under CC BY-SA, as such photos are fundamentally incompatible with free content principles. Only the copyright owner or their authorized representatives may grant permission to use a work under a Creative Commons license, not the photographed subject or their public relations agent. If the same image is found copyrighted elsewhere prior to the upload date, it may be removed as a copyright violation. If you are the copyright owner and want to release content to Creative Commons for use on Wikipedia, see
Commons:Volunteer Response Team § Licensing images: when do I contact VRT?
How to handle conflicts of interest
Advocacy, noticeboards
Main pages:
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard
and
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
If a user's edits lead you to believe that they might have a COI (that is, if they have an
"apparent COI"
), and there has been no COI disclosure, consider first whether the issue may be simple
advocacy
. Most advocacy does not involve COI. Whether an editor is engaged in advocacy should first be addressed at the user's talk page, then at
WP:NPOVN
, the neutral-point-of-view noticeboard. The appropriate forum for concerns about sources is
WP:RSN
, the reliable-sources noticeboard. If there are concerns about
sockpuppets
or
meatpuppets
, please bring that concern to
WP:SPI
Reporting to the conflict of interest noticeboard
Shortcut
WP:COICOIN
WP:COICOIN
Main page:
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard
If you believe an editor has an undisclosed COI and is editing in violation of this guideline, raise the issue in a civil manner on the editor's talk page, which is the first step in resolving user-conduct issues, per the
dispute resolution policy
, citing this guideline. If that fails to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period, then open a discussion at the
conflict of interest noticeboard (COIN)
. This also applies to a
disclosed COI
that is causing a problem: for example, an acknowledged BLP subject who is editing their own BLP.
During the COIN discussion, avoid making disparaging remarks about the user in question, their motives or the subject of the article(s).
Post whatever public evidence you have to support that there is a COI, or that it is causing a problem, in the form of edits by that user or information the user has posted about themselves. Do not post private information; see
WP:OUTING
, which is policy, and the section below, "Avoid outing".
If private information must be shared to resolve a COI issue, it may be emailed to
paid-en-wp
wikipedia.org
, which is staffed by
VRT
volunteers. Follow the advice in
WP:OUTING
: "Only the minimum information necessary should be conveyed and the minimum number of people contacted." The priority should be to avoid unnecessary privacy violations.
Avoid outing
Shortcut
WP:AVOIDOUTING
WP:AVOIDOUTING
Further information:
Wikipedia:Harassment § Posting of personal information
, and
Wikipedia:Wikimedia Foundation statement on paid editing and outing
When investigating COI editing, the
policy against harassment
takes precedence. It requires that Wikipedians
not reveal the identity of editors
against their wishes. Examine editors' behavior instead and seek advice by email if necessary. 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
email
paid-en-wp
wikipedia.org
. Also see the section
"Reporting to the conflict of interest noticeboard"
above.
Dealing with single-purpose accounts
Further information:
Wikipedia:Blocking policy § Disruption-only
, and
Wikipedia:Single-purpose account
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
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)
{{
User COI
}}
(userbox for users to self-declare on their own Userpages those articles with which they have a conflict of interest; userbox can list up to nine articles)
See also
Wikimedia Foundation
Terms of Use#4. Refraining from Certain Activities
Sue Gardner
"Press releases/Sue Gardner statement paid advocacy editing"
, Wikimedia Foundation, 21 October 2013.
Wikipedia:Contact us/Article subjects
Article
Conflict of interest editing on Wikipedia
Policies
Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure
Wikipedia:Username policy
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
WikiProjects
Wikipedia:WikiProject Integrity
Miscellaneous
Wikipedia:About you
Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library/Cultural Professionals
Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests
(lists edits for review where proposer has a conflict of interest)
Category:Wikipedia articles with possible conflicts of interest
Wikipedia:Reward board
Wikipedia:FAQ/Article subjects
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:Deceptive advertising
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:POV railroad
Wikipedia:Public relations (essay)
Wikipedia:Search engine optimization
Wikipedia:Wikipedia is in the real world
Historical
Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation
(defunct)
Wikipedia community discussion on paid editing
, 2009, sparked by discovery that admin/crat/OTRS editor was editing for pay
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)
Further reading
Wikimedia Commons has media related to
Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia
(chronological)
Davis, Michael
(1982).
"Conflict of Interest"
Business and Professional Ethics Journal
, 1(4), pp. 17–27 (influential).
doi
10.5840/bpej1982149
Luebke, Neil R. (1987). "Conflict of Interest as a Moral Category,"
Business & Professional Ethics Journal
, 6, pp. 66–81.
JSTOR
27799930
(influential)
Davis, Michael (Winter 1993). "Conflict of Interest Revisited,"
Business & Professional Ethics Journal
, 12(4), pp. 21–41.
JSTOR
27800924
Stark, Andrew (2003).
Conflict of Interest in American Public Life
, Harvard University Press.
Carson, Thomas L. (January 2004). "Conflicts of Interest and Self-Dealing in the Professions: A Review Essay,"
Business Ethics Quarterly
, 14(1), pp. 161–182.
JSTOR
3857777
Krimsky, Sheldon
(2006).
"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.
McDonald, Michael (23 April 2006).
"Ethics and Conflict of Interest"
, The W. Maurice Young Center for Applied Ethics, University of British Columbia.
Wikipedia key
policies and guidelines
(?)
Five pillars
Ignore all rules
Content
(?)
Verifiability
No original research
Neutral point of view
What Wikipedia is not
Biographies of living persons
Copyright violations
Image use
Article titles
Notability
Autobiographies
Citing sources
Reliable sources
Medicine
Do not include copies of lengthy primary sources
Plagiarism
Do not create hoaxes
Fringe theories
Patent nonsense
External links
Writing articles with large language models
LLM-assisted translation
Conduct
(?)
Civility
Consensus
Harassment
Vandalism
Ignore all rules
No personal attacks
Ownership of content
Edit warring
Dispute resolution
Sockpuppetry
No legal threats
Child protection
Paid-contribution disclosure
Assume good faith
Conflict of interest
Disruptive editing
Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point
Etiquette
Gaming the system
Please do not bite the newcomers
Courtesy vanishing
Responding to threats of harm
Talk page guidelines
Signatures
Deletion
(?)
Deletion policy
Proposed deletion
Biographies
Speedy deletion
Attack page
Oversight
Revision deletion
Enforcement
(?)
Administrators
Banning
Blocking
Page protection
Editing
(?)
Editing policy
Article size
Summary style
Be bold
Disambiguation
Hatnotes
Broad-concept article
Understandability
Style
Manual of Style
Contents
Dates and numbers
Images
Layout
Lead section
Linking
Lists
Classification
Categories, lists, and navigation templates
Categorization
Template namespace
Project content
(?)
Project namespace
WikiProjects
User pages
User boxes
Shortcuts
Subpages
WMF
(?)
Universal Code of Conduct
List of policies
Friendly space policy
Licensing and copyright
List of all policies and guidelines
List of policies
List of guidelines
Summaries of values and principles
Conflict of interest
Issues
Chinese wall
Conflict of interest in the healthcare industry
Conflicts of interest on Wikipedia
Dual loyalty
Funding bias
Insider trading
Judicial disqualification
Media capture
Nepotism
Pork barrel
Regulatory capture
Self-dealing
Self-regulation
State capture
Shill
Related
AllTrials
Arm's length principle
Bias
Business ethics
Cochrane
Corruption
Cui bono
Follow the money
Legal ethics
Lobbying
Canada
Germany
United Kingdom
United States
Medical ethics
cases
Medical ghostwriter
Moral hazard
Pharmaceutical marketing
Pharmaceutical sales representative
Pharmacovigilance
Political ethics
Political bias
Revolving door
Sponsorship of continuing medical education
Law
Nemo iudex in causa sua
R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet (No 2)
R v Neil
R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy
Media
Bad Pharma
Big Pharma
Inside Job
Side Effects
Who Killed the Electric Car?
Taken for a Ride
Conflict of interest (category)
Conflicts of interest on Wikipedia (category)
Retrieved from "
Categories
Wikipedia behavioral guidelines
Wikipedia notability
Wikipedia conflict of interest guidelines
Hidden categories:
Wikipedia move-protected project pages
Wikipedia semi-protected project pages
Wikipedia
Conflict of interest
Add topic