Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest

Is conflict of interest too complicated an expression? Particularly it involves using the less common meaning of the word "interest" so is likely to translate badly word by word.

Bias? Partiality? Lack of neutrality? --BozMo BozMo at En 20:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

English

Mujhe English nahin aati Pintu pancheshwar (talk) 14:10, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed changes

My recent changes were reverted so I'm requesting consensus for my changes here.

1.

Change "If you think a user has a COI, you must be careful not to out them" to: "if you think a user has a COI, you must be careful not to expose them."

2.

Change lead "A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is when an editor wants to do something which does not help Wikipedia's goal..." to: "A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is when an editor is directly involved in a subject of a page. For example, an editor may be an employee at a company and edit the page on their company. Someone with a COI may want to do something which does not help Wikipedia's goal..."

- 172.112.210.32 (talk) 22:43, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better to post this on WP:AN for more visibility. :) PotsdamLamb (talk) 22:56, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll go ahead and do that. 172.112.210.32 (talk) 00:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PotsdamLamb: No, this doesn't require an admin. This is the correct place for the discussion. -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments below were copied from WP:AN, so that all the discussion takes place here, and previous comments there can be replied here. Thanks. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 01:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to disagree with your changes:

Expose has multiple meanings and since this is simple wikipedia, out has less meanings to figure it out.
The idea of simple is to keep sentences short and understandable. The example you gave (and the reason I reverted your changes) is it is too long for a non-native English speaker/reader to possibly understand.

Thank you for bringing this over to here for discussion. PDL^{Talk to me!}_{OMG, What have I done?} 00:56, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About 1, "out" is generally understood to mean "away from". Maybe this could be better: "..you must be careful not to reveal their COI."

And 2 is basically an explanation of what a COI is. Maybe there can be an explanation of a COI that is also simple enough for readers to understand, but I haven't come up with anything for that yet. 172.112.210.32 (talk) 02:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For point 1, I don't like the alternative, however we need to link those words back to the enWP policies, because "out" isn't a simple to understand term. I would actually prefer something else that is specific and not ambiguous (are "reveal" or "show" any better?) As for point 2, I actually agree with the change. The lede as described is not an accurate reflection of what a COI is. If we want to simplify it further, simply remove the second sentence in the proposed change, but I strongly support making the change overall. Griff (talk) 04:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with change #2 - vandalizing is something that goes against Wikipedia's goals and interests, but nobody has ever called that a COI. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 01:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalizing is not a COI in most scenarios, it is usually someone out to do harm to the project itself.

For P-1 how about "if you think a user has a COI, you must be careful not to identify them publicly on Wikipedia."

For P-2: the coi can also reveal trade secrets, insider information, etc. Especially in the US within certain industries like the stock markets or publicly traded companies. Some states have strict laws too (i.e. California) you can go to jail for intimidating someone just by the way they look at you and then you can get a restraining order immediately because they don't investigate. So my point being the coi has to be boiled down to about an 8th graders reading level. PDL^{Talk to me!}_{OMG, What have I done?} 01:37, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with change 2, and what Fehufanga said. For change 1, I agree that right now it is very confusing; it would be better if WP:OUTING was linked to English WP, but even better if it was explained in simple language here. I don't think "not to expose them" is right, and I think "you must be careful not to reveal their COI" does not match the intention of this page. I can say "Based on their contributions, I think this editor works for Chevron" but I should not say "This editor is James Lee from Chevron" because that would be en:WP:OUTING (in my understanding). Lights and freedom (talk) 01:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while since this discussion was started, but I do feel like discussion should start back up. The way I see it on my first suggestion, the current lead is not clear by "out" and someone could easily confuse "out" in that sentence as being the opposite of "in". My second suggestion was about explaining more clearly what a COI meant. Vandalism is something which does not help Wikipedia's goal, but that is not a COI. 172.112.210.32 (talk) 03:03, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I like PDL's suggestion: "If you think a user has a COI, you must be careful not to identify them publicly on Wikipedia."
I think your original wording is good.

Lights and freedom (talk) 03:17, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]