COI Request for Comment Options

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Has anyone started a thread on this yet? (link to RfC) I am struck by the fact that there is plenty of highly intelligent discussion there. I like this comment by Jclemens:

Likewise, editors who violate our content guidelines can do so just as easily out of personal ideology as they can for direct or indirect monetary gain.

I think also that people who have a genuine problem with COI are not likely to disclose it, so there is no point in penalizing the honest editors who do disclose it. The "View by Hipocrite" backs up my hunch that he is a significant dick. He says that "Wikipedia, the community, does an incredibly poor job of protecting its editors who attempt to stem the tide of this torrent of disinformation" -- and of course, it's always the other guy who is making a torrent of disinformation, and it's always you and your crew trying to stem the tide with your own torrent of "correct" information.

This post has been edited by It's the blimp, Frank:

[Fusion]

Actually the most awkward people to deal with are often those who have some delusional theory like the "Chariots of the gods" enthusiasts. I think that they are not CoI or in it for any obvious gain. They just believe thsy have uncovered some conspiracy and it is their duty to warn others.

[Peter Damian]

Actually the most awkward people to deal with are often those who have some delusional theory like the "Chariots of the gods" enthusiasts. I think that they are not CoI or in it for any obvious gain. They just believe thsy have uncovered some conspiracy and it is their duty to warn others.

In another words, they have a conflict of interest. Their interest is to warn others about a conspiracy. This conflicts with the interests of a reliable and neutral reference source.

Wikipedians imagine this can only happen when people are paid to edit.

[Guido den Broeder]

Actually the most awkward people to deal with are often those who have some delusional theory like the "Chariots of the gods" enthusiasts. I think that they are not CoI or in it for any obvious gain. They just believe thsy have uncovered some conspiracy and it is their duty to warn others.

In another words, they have a conflict of interest. Their interest is to warn others about a conspiracy. This conflicts with the interests of a reliable and neutral reference source.

If, however, their interest is merely telling the world about their theory, then there is no conflict with Wikipedia's interest.