jf_wikipedia(a)mac.com wrote:
We have had a vigorous debate on these issues on the
talk page, and
similar concerns were voiced there. The current wording about "close
relationships" makes allowances related to editing within policies.
It now reads:
----
== Close relationships ==
Friedrich Engels would have had difficulty editing Karl Marx, because
he was a close friend, follower and collaborator.[1] Any situation
where strong relationships can develop may trigger a conflict of
interest. Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political,
academic, financial, and legal. It is not determined by area, but is
created by relationships that involve a high level of personal
commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon, a person,
subject, idea, tradition, or organization.
There is no tidy definition of what is meant by "too close" in this
context, and editors should use their common sense in deciding
whether this guideline applies. An article about a little-known band
should preferably not be written by a band member or the manager. On
the other hand, an expert on climate change is welcome to contribute
to articles on that subject, even if he is deeply committed to it. As
a rule of thumb, the more involved you are in a particular area in
real life, the more careful you should be to adhere to our core
content policies — Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No
original research, and Wikipedia:Verifiability — when editing in that
area. Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being
neutral, but it may incline you in that direction. Be guided by the
advice of other editors. If editors on a talk page suggest in good
faith that you may have a conflict of interest, take seriously what
they say and consider withdrawing from editing the article.
----
There is some opposition to this wording on the basis that it is "too
soft", but IMO it captures the spirit of what this guideline wants to
say about editing articles in which one may have a COI based on a
"close relationship".
Conflicts of interest are a fact of life, and should not in themselves
bar a person from editing a subject. It's more important that potential
conflicts of interest be declared so that the person's perspective is
clear. While neutrality is important, and articles should clearly
approach neutrality more closely with each edit, no-one can completely
divorce himself from his own perspective on a controversial issue. A
person directly connected with a company may very well quote from the
company's PR material; that's fine because he can very well be an
authority on what the company's point of view really is. Editing that
should not distort what the company is trying to say. If the company's
statements differ from what it actually does that needs to be expressed
too, but this is in addition to rather than instead of the company's
propaganda.
The contrast that you make between the band manager and the climate
change crusader is interesting. There is a lot of controversy about
climate change, but you seem to support a lighter application of the
rules in this case than with the band manager in an article that is of
more limited importance. In the absence of further information why not
let the band manager's comments stand if they are not of a controversial
nature?
The advice of other editors is to be considered, but a claim that
someone is in a conflict of interest is often a personal attack. It can
too often be used as a bullying tactic to make the opposing POV dominant.
Ec