Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest

Concerns regarding expert participation under current COI guidance

The current COI guideline may unintentionally discourage subject-matter experts from contributing, particularly in large public institutions where promotional incentives are minimal. Editors affiliated with an organization often possess the most accurate institutional knowledge, while unaffiliated editors may lack context, access to sources, or technical understanding. Although disclosure and neutrality are essential, a blanket discouragement of article creation may contribute to systemic bias and knowledge gaps, especially for academic and public-sector organizations. Could the policy be refined to distinguish between promotional conflict and informational expertise, perhaps with stronger disclosure and review mechanisms rather than discouragement of participation? Erfan2017 (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Can you please be more specific or provide some concrete examples? ElKevbo (talk) 23:56, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the question. I can clarify with a concrete example.

Suppose I work for a university, a public research institute, or a well-established academic center. If I want to create or substantially improve an article about that institution—one that is already notable and widely covered by independent reliable sources—I am required to declare a COI, draft the article in my sandbox, and then wait an indeterminate amount of time for an unrelated editor to review and publish it.

By contrast, an unaffiliated editor with limited subject-matter knowledge may create and publish the same article directly in mainspace, provided notability is met. In practice, this can result in articles that are less accurate, less complete, or that misunderstand institutional context, while knowledgeable editors are procedurally discouraged from contributing.

This concern is especially relevant for scientific, academic, and public-sector organizations, where the risk of promotional editing is relatively low and claims are typically constrained by verifiable, third-party sources. The neutrality risk in these cases is fundamentally different from that of political, ideological, or biographical articles, where selective emphasis and framing (“cherry-picking”) can significantly shape reader perception.

For example, political parties, governments, religious movements, or controversial public figures present a much higher risk of partisan editing, whether positive or negative. In those domains, strict COI controls are clearly justified. However, applying the same level of discouragement to editors contributing factual, source-based content about universities or research organizations may unintentionally create systemic gaps and reduce article quality.

I am therefore suggesting that the guideline could better distinguish between promotional conflict and informational expertise. Rather than discouraging participation outright, the policy might emphasize mandatory disclosure, stronger sourcing requirements, and post-publication review for low-risk domains such as science, education, and public institutions. This could preserve neutrality while allowing knowledgeable contributors to improve coverage where independent editors may lack access or technical understanding. Erfan2017 (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

I would also add that the absence of a formal affiliation does not imply neutrality. Editors who have no employment or family connection to a subject may nonetheless have a strong ideological or political motivation to shape an article as a form of activism. In practice, some of the most persistent edit wars occur on topics involving armed conflicts, geopolitics, and high-profile political figures—for example, coverage related to the Russia–Ukraine war or ongoing conflicts in the Middle East—where editors may selectively emphasize sources or narratives aligned with their views.

In these cases, a traditional COI framework is rarely applied, despite the clear presence of advocacy-driven editing. This suggests that current COI guidance may be misaligned with actual risk: it is enforced most strictly where factual, source-constrained content is beingdded (such as academic or institutional articles), while it is largely absent where ideological bias and editorial conflict are most prevalent. A more nuanced approach that accounts for advocacy and activist motivations—not only formal affiliations—could better address the areas where neutrality is most fragile. Erfan2017 (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Many good points. This guideline needs major reworking. And it needs the the "golden rule" which defined defining COI restored. Which made the distinction between a potential COI influence being present and actual COI editing. Also (as you point out) the current "potential COI influence" definition often malfunctions. Wrongly identifying weak ones and ignoring strong ones. North8000 (talk) 22:14, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Actually, I think those comments misunderstand the guideline in some important respects. It's not true that such an editor is permitted only to draft something in a sandbox and wait for another editor to move it to mainspace. That can be best practice, especially when starting a new page from scratch. But, so long as the needed disclosure gets made, the edits can be made in mainspace, with the understanding that other editors are going to scrutinize it, and non-NPOV content is likely to be reverted or deleted. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:09, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

In that sense, the issue is not simply whether disclosure permits affiliated editors to contribute in mainspace, but how risk is assessed in practice. Affiliation alone is often treated as a proxy for promotional intent, even in low-risk, source-constrained contexts such as public universities or research institutions. This places a disproportionate burden on editors whose connection is professional rather than ideological.

At the same time, the current COI framework largely leaves highly motivated political or ideological actors unexamined. Unlike an affiliated editor—whose relationship may be limited to employment—an activist or believer may feel a strong duty or mandate to influence how a topic is framed. That motivation can create a substantially higher and more persistent risk of conflict of interest, yet it falls outside the formal COI definition and is rarely scrutinized with comparable rigor.

Clarifying this distinction in the guideline—by separating promotional conflict from informational expertise and by acknowledging advocacy-driven motivations as a source of editorial risk—could better align enforcement with where neutrality is most fragile, while reducing unnecessary discouragement of knowledgeable contributors. Erfan2017 (talk) 02:44, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

As someone who works at a university, and has chosen not to edit the article of my employer, I have never had a problem. First, the community can be trusted. If people start adding poor quality content, someone almost always fixes it. It doesn't have to be me. If they don't, I can raise it on talk, and someone always does. If that somehow didn't work there are other places I could raise it. The trick is - trust the community to get it right, and communicate if something falls through the gaps. They manage it far more oftent than we give them credit for. - Bilby (talk) 02:55, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that college and university employees are somehow special and that we need to change our COI practices and policies to accommodate them ("us," actually, as I have worked in higher education my entire adult life). You are always welcome to make suggestions, requests, and recommendations in an article's Talk page, even for articles with which you have a COI including articles about your employer. ElKevbo (talk) 03:28, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Plus one to this. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 07:02, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Non-profit labels are mostly meaningless and public relations editing by institutes of higher education is a serious issue I come across all the time. They operate like a business. Someone's employer of record being the school isn't as relevant as the relationship between the edits they're making and the relationship and proximity of what they're editing vs their professional duty/personal relationship. Someone who works in the cafeteria, their employer or record being the school editing things about the chemistry department out of personal interest is a non-issue. Them editing about union/management issues related to food service likely would be. Someone who works for the school (directly as their payroll employee, or brought in from staffing agency doing PR/Comm stuff) in communications, external relations, marketing or public relations making any edits on their institution, executives, professors, would be much more problematic. Graywalls (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don’t think the discussion has yet addressed a key imbalance in how the current COI guidance works in practice.

The main goal of COI is to reduce the risk of biased or advocacy-driven content on Wikipedia. In reality, however, formal affiliation is often treated as automatic bias, while other sources of bias—such as strong political, ideological, or activist motivation—are mostly outside the scope of the guideline.

An affiliated editor (for example, someone employed by a university or public research institution) may have professional proximity to the subject, but their edits are usually limited by independent reliable sources and reputational accountability. By contrast, an unaffiliated editor may still have a strong desire to promote a particular narrative, especially in areas like geopolitics, armed conflicts, or controversial public policy. That kind of motivation can lead to selective sourcing or framing, yet it is rarely examined under the current COI framework.

This creates a mismatch in enforcement: strict caution and procedural barriers in relatively low-risk, source-constrained topics (such as academic or public institutions), and much less scrutiny in areas where neutrality is often most fragile.

My point is not that affiliated editors should receive special treatment. Rather, I’m suggesting that the guideline could more clearly distinguish between promotional conflict and informational expertise, and better recognize advocacy-driven motivations as a real source of editorial risk. Clearer definitions would reduce assumptions about individual editors and better align the guideline with its core purpose: protecting neutrality.

I’m adding this comment only to clarify my original concern. I’ll step back from further replies to allow other editors to contribute and develop the discussion. Erfan2017 (talk) 15:20, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Issue with affiliated COI is the me/us/our industry promo, whitewash and search optimization. The other thing you speak of isn't COI, but more of POV issue. Graywalls (talk) 16:00, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

As alluded to by Graywalls, our WP:NPOV policy is really more important than this WP:COI guideline. NPOV is all about advocacy and biased content, and it applies regardless of who made the edit. COI's main purpose should not be confounded with that of NPOV, because COI serves principally to encourage transparency when someone has a potential bias that results from potential material benefit. Of course there are lots of other ways that bias can arise, without material benefit as the motivation, but NPOV has that covered. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:43, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

The notion you're putting forth of 'informational expertise' seems largely irrelevant on Wikipedia because all articles are to be based on Reliable Sources. Not on any individual editor's expertise. And formal affiliation does tend to result in bias, conscious or otherwise. Most people are also likely to find something written by someone with an inherent conflict of interest less persuasive and reliable than if written by a 3rd party. Guile's Theme (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Affiliated editors aren't prohibited per se from working on main space, but nonetheless, strongly discouraged.

This is how I personally view editing of articles by company's communications/public relations effort:

A married wealthy 70 year old man is visiting his son, who has an 18 year old son. The man has a fling with the grandson's 18 year old wife and they both kept it to themselves. She also happens to receive extravagant gifts. Gifts, not prohibited business transactions. If this takes place in a jurisdiction where adultery isn't prohibited by law, no offense occurred under the letter of the law as long as it was consensual between both of them. Prevailing school of thought on something like this is that it's morally and ethically reprehensible. Public relations editing of Wikipedia pages maybe acceptable in the reputation management and corporate communications industry. Tricks like "but it was edited by an unpaid intern" or "a volunteer" might skirt what the FTC considers covert paid advocacy (a United States government agency) but it is antithetical with the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. Graywalls (talk) 07:36, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Self-written source

Greetings. I have noticed at the Willah Mudolo article that an editor wrote paragraphs and added citations with "himself" as the author of the citations. Literally, every citation from "number 14" (I think) up to the last one has got the same name under "author" as the editor who added the information to the article. Is this allowed or even recommended? Thanks. GeographicAccountant (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Yikes. It's not strictly forbidden, but... yikes. You have a couple of options, depending on what appeals to you. You can simply revert, or post at WP:COIN, or start a discussion at that editor's talk page. What applies here in particular is WP:REFSPAM. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Why is directly Editing an article 'strongly discouraged' for COI editors but creating an entire article in Afc is allowed?

It just doesn't make much sense to me. The wording of the COI policy appears to 'strongly discourage' direct editing by COI in mainspace articles.

But being able to create an article, by doing so writing the entire article, seems to completely violate the spirit of the COI policy. I bring this up because I've recently come across 2 editors, 1 who already some time past created the entire article on their COI, and another attempting to do so, and it just seem to violate the spirit of the policy that they can get around it by creating the article instead of editing an exisitng one even though objectively creating an article seems to be a step above merely editing an exisitng one directly. Not to mention I find the idea of creating an article by someone with a COI in itself to be very dubious. If this topic or individual merited an article, ie they were so notable, isn't it a little coincidental it is a COI creating it? When I see an article was created entirely by someone with a COI and responsible for 95%+ of the article text that tends to make me suspicious of the article and I believe most people would prefer to get their information from a true 3rd party without any mediation by those with any COI.

If the idea is to not discourage editors from declaring their COI there could be other solutions. One example maybe to create a place where editors, including COI editors, can suggest articles to be created without actually writing the article themselves in the process and leaving it entirely up to someone else to see the merit in taking it up. This would more closesly follow the spirit of the COI policy on mainspace articles that asks them to 'suggest' edits on the talk page rather than writing them directly themselves. Since creating articles is something those with the ambition of adminship often seek out there would probably be a steady stream of editors willing to take up worthy topics to create an article on in order build out their wiki resume so to speak.Guile's Theme (talk) 21:39, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Doesn't an AfC require approval by other editors for it to enter mainspace? Geogene (talk) 22:28, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

It does, but it still results in articles entirely created and written by a COI editor which seems to violate the spirit of the COI policy more broadly where they not supposed to edit articles directly. Guile's Theme (talk) 22:32, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps this is a problem with AfC reviewers, if they allow such a COI article to pass. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:17, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

I mean the guidelines also encourage the use of the {{Edit COI}} template which is basically a special form of edit request. Edit requests when used correctly are for asking for changes to be made to an article which you can't make yourself for normally some technical reason, but which don't require discussion or modification. While there are some changes for the COI one, in particular to allow for discussion and other stuff, it's still designed so an editor reviewing the request can just make the edit without needing to modify it, and can even authorise the COI editor to make the edit themselves. So I don't think there's any inconsistency. It's not that changes made or text written by editors with a COI cannot appear in main space. It's simply that it needs to be reviewed by a non COI editor before this happens. These editors should given proper scrutiny to these edits given the COI but if after that scrutiny is applied they still feel it's okay to be in main space then there's not a problem. Now if editors are passing stuff they shouldn't into main space, that's a problem with these editors not applying proper scrutiny but the problem needs to be whatever was written isn't appropriate for main space not simply that it was written by someone with a COI. BTW, we already have places for suggested articles. These don't work when they're mostly used by editors without a COI. It seems very unlikely they'll work when used by editors with a COI. Nil Einne (talk) 01:13, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Clarification needed: Volunteer expert historical editing vs. COI

Please review my background regarding recent COI concerns. Please advise on how to address.

I am an unpaid volunteer for both the Travis County Historical Commission (TCHC) and the Texas Historical Commission's archeology/history stewards program (TASN). I have no financial gain, direct or indirect, from any of my edits.

My edits have nothing to do with the TCHC, THC, or TASN, their members, or their internal business. My Wikipedia account, dating to 2005, is entirely my own personal account; it is not a shared account.

Per WP:EXPERT, Wikipedia explicitly welcomes subject-matter experts. My background gives me specialized knowledge in Austin, Travis County, and Texas history, but it does not give me a financial or personal stake in historical articles. I am using my expertise strictly to improve the quality of Wikipedia articles for readers.

I am not affiliated with the Travis County Archives. While I occasionally use their records (such as deed records or published historical marker applications) as references, these are consulted strictly as verifiable source materials available to any researcher.

While I am a local historian who engages with the community to promote historical accuracy, my Wikipedia edits are never used to publish original research (WP:NOR) or advocate for any city, county, state or non-profit entity. Every edit I make is strictly bound to what can be verified in existing, independent, published literature.

My contributions to correcting factual errors are done by introducing high-quality, peer-reviewed, scholarly, verifiable secondary historical sources per WP:V

User notification: {{ping|Magnolia677}}

~~~~ rdenney (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

My issue is edits like this, where you use Wikipedia to "set the record straight" using links to your organization to support your edits. As suggested on your talk page, this may have been better addressed at WP:COI/N. --Magnolia677 (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi, you are asking questions on my own talk page. I'll be glad to answer your questions but not sure if we are doing that there, or here? I started the COI/N at your suggestion. rdenney (talk) 20:32, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

I've been following the COI guideline for a long time, and I'll try to give my take on the questions and issues raised here. Let me start with some simple factual things. This is WT:COI, not WP:COIN, which are two different things. Since there are already discussions in a couple of places, maybe a COIN thread isn't needed for now, especially since it looks to me like everyone is trying to cooperate.

Based on Rdenney's work being unpaid volunteer work, I don't think there is any problem in terms of WP:PAID, either in letter or spirit, so I don't think that needs further discussion. The Texas Historical Commission has paid employees, but in this case, this is unpaid work.

The COI question boils down to whether or not the unpaid volunteer work rises to the level of a COI. For the most part, I don't think that it does. Making use of publicly available library resources to correct factual errors in Wikipedia content is good editing, and having a hobby-like interest in the subject matter does not make for a COI. I see that your user page clearly discloses your volunteer activities, so there is no problem with transparency. I see that there is some discussion on the user talk page about external links. Those are things like what one can see at Austin, Texas#External links (where I'm not currently seeing any problem, either). It's best to avoid adding WP:SPAMmy links, so if that has happened in the past, it would be better not to do so (see also WP:ELNO, in case that has any relevance).

When I look at edits like [1], I can see two issues that might have also been noticed by Magnolia677. First, the new text begins with "A misconception one may see concerning Waterloo...". That isn't exactly a COI problem, but I can understand how it might raise red flags for other editors. We don't normally say that kind of stuff in "Wikipedia's voice". It would be more encyclopedic to simply say the corrected facts, cited to reliable sources, and leave it at that. If the misconception has been a big deal, noted by independent sources, then one could, lower in the paragraph, say something like "[Source] has noted that there has previously been a misconception about...", followed by an inline citation to that source. The other issue is the edit summary, which focuses on how TCHC has tried to address the misconception, when all that was really needed was something about adding a section on the founding. I see that there had been a section heading about historical misconceptions, that was reverted, and I agree with reverting that, unless there is something very specific to Austin as being more subject to misconceptions than most cities, which I doubt.

In my opinion, those things can give the appearance of COI editing, and it would be a good idea to adjust some of your writing style to avoid that appearance, but I don't actually think that there is a COI problem, per se, here. Communication style and misunderstandings aside, using good sources to correct content errors is welcome here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

re: "... it would be a good idea to adjust some of your writing style to avoid that appearance [COI], but I don't actually think that there is a COI problem, per se, here. Communication style and misunderstandings aside, using good sources to correct content errors is welcome ..."

Thank you and {{ping|Magnolia677} for your feedback and will take all this to heart. This was my first COI experience so my apologies for getting this posted in the wrong section (should have been COIN). If everyone is OK with this, is there any form I need to fill out to prevent this being an issue in the future? rdenney (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

{{ping|Magnolia677}} rdenney (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Happy to help. I think that what you already have on your user page takes care of any disclosure you have to do. There is no form as such, but if in the future you feel like you might be getting close to a COI, you can put Template:Connected contributor at the top of the article talk page, for the article you have edited. Or, to be on the safe side, instead of editing an article directly, you can suggest an edit on the article talk page by using Template:Edit COI. By the way, you should not be putting <nowiki></nowiki> around the pings, because that makes the ping template inactive. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2026 (UTC)