Resolution talk:TOU Amendment - Disclosure of Paid Editing

You must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation?

The page says, "It may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored by ... any Wikimedia project." But Wikipedia:WP:MEDCOI is doing just that by saying "Citing your own organization is ...generally acceptable..." If WMF could intervene somehow (e.g. edit) Wikipedia:WP:MEDCOI to repair the erosion, that would be good and timely.

I've tried resolving the issue locally, where I've argued why this essentially unqualified guideline is unacceptable: "Citing your own organization is generally acceptable."

But it's looking like my effort will fail and would need project notices and an RFC to even have a chance to succeed. Thus my appeal for WMF involvement. RudolfoMD (talk) 02:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably more likely to be seen on a higher-traffic page like Policy talk:Terms of Use Pppery (talk) 01:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun from WMF Legal here.

@RudolfoMD, looking at the page, the full quote that appears there is, "Citing your own organization, such as a governmental health agency or an NGO producing high-quality systematic reviews, is generally acceptable – if the conflict of interest is disclosed, it is done to improve coverage of a topic, and not with the sole purpose of driving traffic to your site."

I don't know if this was added since you posted here in October, but as currently written, this doesn't seem to conflict with the letter or spirit of the terms of use, and doesn't seem to conflict with en-Wiki rules.

"Disclosure" of COI is really at the heart of the rules. If a COI edit is disclosed, then as long as it follows other project rules, it's likely allowable under the terms from a technical perspective.

From a practical perspective, the fact that it highlights government agency and high quality data gives examples where there there's likely to be no grey area. COI related to corporate reputation management or ideological bias could open up more grey areas. Intent also seems key: improving coverage (seems to be useful) and "not for the sole purpose of driving traffic (seems to reflect the NOTHERE guidance).

At the end of the day, Legal enforces the TOU in service of the community. To the extent that there are semantic conflicts with a project's rules and the TOU, enforcement would reflect the community's position on what the rule should look like. The TOU changes very rarely, but project rules are dynamic. If people in the community have a problem with an edit, then the TOU can be engaged. If the general consensus is that the community is fine with something, then the TOU need not be engaged.

In short, if there substantive or semantics problems with the TOU and current project guidance that this answer doesn't address, let me know. SSpalding (WMF) (talk) 19:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the Legal/TOU relevant part of the problem was largely fixed by that "if" clause you highlight, which was added soon after I posted in October and stuck.

I'm not sure your characterization that the guideline "gives examples where there there's likely to be no grey area" is right. I see the "such as" clause of the guideline, by creating a grey area that the discussion I linked to (now here) shows was interpreted differently by different parties, does the opposite? People claiming folks who work for GOs / NGOs can edit in their or their employers work because "they do not have a conflict of interest" - thus no caveat about disclosing the relationship. People claiming "Scientists do not have a conflict of interest with science" - wow! Those claims were made and even sort of defensible while that "if" clause was not present. (And I got heavy pushback for writing, "Proves I'm right that WP:MEDCOI cannot override the WMF with an effectively unqualified "Citing your own organization is generally acceptable" statement. If you (that is, anyone reading this) has been editing on organization time (with a narrow exception, i.e. for "side project time") since then (ca. 2014) and have violated the prohibition against concealing paid editing, well, I didn't determine exactly what you need to to to rectify.") In short, that "if" clause addressed the main problem with the previously essentially unqualified "Citing your own organization is ...generally acceptable..." statement.

COI violated/contradicted by MEDCOI

However, the current statement in WP:MEDCOI- "Citing your own organization is generally acceptable" - is still in clear conflict with WP:COI, which states, "COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia." (and " Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships.) MEDCOI contradicting COI in this way is absurd and a serious problem for Wikipedia, but at least it's no longer directly flouting/circumventing/eroding the TOU, as I see it.

Thanks for looking into this. RudolfoMD (talk) 05:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]