This page is a substantial rewrite of Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. Many changes were made for the purposes of organising the page in a more coherent fashion, in particular making it easier for editors with particular conflicts of interest to use. I have also made several substantial changes to the meaning. In particular:

• The definition of 'conflict of interest' (COI) has been broadened and standardised. In the original guidelines it sometimes meant a conflict between an editor's interests and those of Wikipedia and sometimes the consequences of such a conflict. This revision recognises that an editor with a COI has one regardless of whether it affects the quality of their edits. It also recognises that there are many types of COI, including for example fanatical support for a sports team.
• Wikipedia's position on editing with a conflict of interest has been clarified. In several sections of the original guidelines, editors were told that such editing is 'strongly discouraged', but most of the page focussed on edits which would be problematic regardless of motivation. These guidelines make it clear that editors will be judged on the quality of their edits, not on their motivations. COI editors are still strongly advised to take special care with NPOV, notability etc, and not to make edits relating to court cases they are involved in.
• The original guidelines in part advised COI editors to limit themselves to talk pages and not actually do any real editing themselves except to upload images, correct typos or remove libel. This was inconsistent with other parts of the guidelines and also with Wikipedia's general aim of being an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. In addition, taking this route is often impractical. Many pages, particularly those of somewhat obscure companies or individuals, are not very well monitored and in general posting a suggestion on a talk page with the suggestion that 'someone should fix this' is not an effective way to get changes made. It is now only suggested that editors take this path if they do not know how to edit Wikipedia, want to correct perceived bias, or want to make potential controversial edits. Editors who want to add sourced information, correct inaccuracies, make updates etc should be able to do so without getting permission first, even if they have a COI. If their edits are problematic, the community knows how to deal with this.
• Editors with COIs are now more strongly encouraged to be open about them. This is also acheived by removal of the 'strong discouragement' of COI editing, which encouraged COI editors to pose as ordinary editors. It is in Wikipedia's interests for editors with COIs to be open about what they are doing. --Helenalex (talk) 00:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This all sounds like fine justification for a revision; but where is it? There are lots of reasons to want conflicts to be openly stated. (there are similar changes needed to the username policies) +sj+ 05:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The final proposed version is at User:Helenalex/coirewrite. I'm not sure which bits are changed - markup might help. AndrewRT(Talk)(WMUK) 22:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been half a year since this was forked, too. Might be a fair number of changes to be merged back in. MrZaius^talk 08:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In line with the fourth change, I am declaring my conflict of interest regarding the conflict of interest guidelines. At present I am considering settting up a business making (hopefully) non controversial Wikipedia edits (updates, adding images, making sourced corrections, and adding sourced information) on behalf of companies, political parties, talent agencies etc. Before doing this I want clarification of where such an enterprise would stand and what it would be able to do. At present the COI guidelines can support arguments for and against such businesses, which not helpful to Wikipedia or any of its contributors. If there is strong community opposition to editing for pay, I will not establish the business.

Because of my clear conflict of interest, I would prefer not to make major changes to the COI guidelines myself. The user page is simply my idea of what the guidelines should be. I believe that they take account of Wikipedia's policies, the reality that people already are and will continue to edit with financial and other conflicts of interest, and the need to monitor and guide such editors rather than drive them underground.

I have been editing Wikipedia for two years, on a range of subjects (mostly New Zealand, Northern Ireland, and politics). Up until this point I have never had a conflict of interest, and should I establish my business I will use a new account and continue to abide by all Wikipedia policies and guidelines, regardless of what they might turn out to be. --Helenalex (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re your change of language to "prefer not to" make changes yourself: We would prefer neither you nor anyone make big changes without a big discussion first. A major proposal should be proposed and either discussed or get a significant number of "yeah, go ahead's" before being implemented. If people don't bother to discuss it, major proposals die for lack of interest. Minor proposals can usually get away with an announcement and at least 1 or 2 "go ahead's" and a several-day period to see if anyone objects. Trivial changes, like typo fixes or minor rewordings for grammar may not need any discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]