Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Misplaced Pages about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. Someone having a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgment about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith.
COI editing is strongly discouraged on Misplaced Pages. It undermines public confidence and risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals and companies being promoted. Editors with a COI are sometimes unaware of whether or how much it has influenced their editing. If COI editing causes disruption, an administrator may opt to place blocks on the involved accounts.
When investigating COI editing, do notreveal the identity of editors against their wishes. Misplaced Pages's policy against harassment, and in particular the prohibition against disclosing personal information, takes precedence over this guideline. To report COI editing, follow the advice at How to handle conflicts of interest, below. Editors making or discussing changes to this guideline or related guidance shall disclose whether they have been paid to edit Misplaced Pages.
As an encyclopedia, Misplaced Pages's mission is to provide the public with articles that summarize accepted knowledge, written neutrally and sourced reliably. Readers expect to find neutral articles written independently of their subject, not corporate or personal webpages, or platforms for advertising and self-promotion. Articles should contain only material that complies with Misplaced Pages's content policies and best practices, and Wikipedians must place the interests of the encyclopedia and its readers above personal concerns.
Editors with a COI should follow Misplaced Pages policies and best practices scrupulously:
you should disclose your COI when involved with affected articles;
you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly;
you may propose changes on talk pages (by using the {{edit COI}} template), so that they can be peer-reviewed;
you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly;
you should not act as a reviewer of affected article(s) at AfC, new pages patrol or elsewhere;
you should respect other editors by keeping discussions concise.
Note that no one on Misplaced Pages controls articles. If Misplaced Pages hosts an article about you or your organization, others may add information that would otherwise remain little known. They may also decide to delete the article or decide to keep it should you later request deletion. The media has several times drawn attention to companies that engage in COI editing on Misplaced Pages (see Conflict-of-interest editing on Misplaced Pages), which has led to embarrassment for the organizations concerned.
Being paid to contribute to Misplaced Pages is one form of financial COI; it places the paid editor in a conflict between their employer's goals and Misplaced Pages's goals. The kind of paid editing of most concern to the community involves using Misplaced Pages for public relations and marketing purposes. Sometimes called "paid advocacy," this is problematic because it invariably reflects the interests of the client or employer.
More generally, an editor has a financial conflict of interest whenever they write about a topic with which they have a close financial relationship. This includes being an owner, employee, contractor, investor or other stakeholder.
The Wikimedia Foundation requires that all paid editing be disclosed. Additionally, global policy requires that (if applicable) you must provide links on your user-page to all active accounts on external websites through which you advertise, solicit or obtain paid editing. If you receive or expect to receive compensation (money, goods or services) for your contributions to Misplaced Pages, the policy on the English Misplaced Pages is:
you must disclose who is paying you, on whose behalf the edits are made, and any other relevant affiliation;
you should make the disclosure on your user page, on affected talk pages, and whenever you discuss the topic;
you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly;
you may propose changes on talk pages by using the {{edit COI}} template, so that they can be peer-reviewed;
you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly;
you must not act as a reviewer of affected article(s) at AfC, new pages patrol or elsewhere;
you should respect volunteers by keeping discussions concise (see WP:PAYTALK).
Requested edits are subject to the same standards as any other, and editors may decline to act on them. The guide to effective COI edit requests provides guidance in this area. To find an article's talk page, click the "talk" button at the top of the article. See WP:TEAHOUSE if you have questions about these things. If you are an administrator, you must not use administrative tools for any paid-editing activity (except when related to work as a Wikipedian-in-residence, or as someone paid by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate).
The Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use require that editors who are being paid for their contributions disclose their employer (the person or organization who is paying for the edits); the client (the person or organization on whose behalf the edits are made); and any other relevant affiliation. This is the policy of the English Misplaced Pages.
If you become involved in an article where you have any COI, you should always let other editors know about it, whenever and wherever you discuss the topic. There are three venues to do this.
1. If you want to use a template to do this, place {{connected contributor}}at the top of the affected talk page, fill it in as follows, and save:
Connected contributor template
{{Connected contributor|User1=Your username|U1-declared=yes|U1-otherlinks=(Optional) Insert relevant affiliations, disclosures, article drafts or diffs showing COI contributions.}}
Note that someone else may add this for you.
2. You can also make a statement in the edit summary of any COI contribution.
Edit the source of your user page and type {{UserboxCOI|1=Misplaced Pages article name}}, then click "Publish page..." or "Publish changes...".
Example
For a COI disclosure, see Talk:Steve Jobs In this edit, one editor added a COI declaration for another editor.
Also, if you propose significant or potentially controversial changes to an affected article, you can use the {{edit COI}} template. Place this at the bottom of the talk page and state your suggestion beneath it (be sure to sign it with four tildes, ~~~~). If the proposal is verifiable and appropriate, it will usually be accepted. If it is declined, the editor declining the request will usually add an explanation below your entry.
If you are being paid for your contributions to Misplaced Pages, you must declare who is paying you, who the client is, and any other relevant role or relationship. You may do this on your user page, on the talk page of affected articles, or in your edit summaries. As you have a conflict of interest, you must ensure everyone with whom you interact is aware of your paid status, in all discussions on Misplaced Pages pages within any namespace. If you want to use a template to disclose your COI on a talk page, place {{connected contributor (paid)}} at the top of the page, fill it in as follows, and save:
Connected contributor (paid) template
{{Connected contributor (paid)|User1=Username of the paid editor|U1-employer=Name of person/organization that is paying for the edits|U1-client= Name of client|U1-otherlinks=Insert diff to disclosure on your User page.}}
The employer is whoever is paying you to be involved in the article (such as a PR company). The client is on whose behalf the payment is made (usually the subject of the article). If the employer and client are the same entity—that is, if Acme Corporation is paying you to write about Acme Corporation—the client parameter may be left empty. See {{connected contributor (paid)}} for more information. Note that other editors may add this template for you. Paid editing without such a declaration is called undisclosed paid editing (UPE).
You are expected to maintain a clearly visible list on your user page of your paid contributions. If you advertise, solicit or obtain paid editing work via an account on any external website, you must provide links on your user-page to all such accounts.
If you propose changes to an affected article, you can use the {{edit COI}} template. Post it on the talk page and make your suggestion underneath it.
The use of administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except as a Wikipedian-in-Residence, or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF, is considered a serious misuse and likely to result in sanctions or their removal.
While editing Misplaced Pages, an editor's primary role is to further the interests of the encyclopedia. When an external role or relationship could reasonably be said to undermine that primary role, the editor has a conflict of interest similar to how a judge's primary role as an impartial adjudicator would be undermined if they were married to one of the parties.
Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial (including holding a cryptocurrency)—can trigger a COI. How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Misplaced Pages is governed by common sense. For example, an article about a band should not be written by the band's manager, and a biography should not be an autobiography or written by the subject's spouse. There can be a COI when writing on behalf of a competitor or opponent of the page subject, just as there is when writing on behalf of the page subject.
Subject-matter experts (SMEs) are welcome on Misplaced Pages within their areas of expertise, subject to the guidance below on financial conflict of interest and on citing your work. SMEs are expected to make sure that their external roles and relationships in their field of expertise do not interfere with their primary role on Misplaced Pages.
Determining that someone has a COI is a description of a situation. It is not a judgment about that person's state of mind or integrity. A COI can exist in the absence of bias, and bias regularly exists in the absence of a COI. Beliefs and desires may lead to biased editing, but they do not constitute a COI. COI emerges from an editor's roles and relationships, and the tendency to bias that we assume exists when those roles and relationships conflict.
Why is conflict of interest a problem?
On Misplaced Pages, editors with a conflict of interest who unilaterally add material tend to violate Misplaced Pages's content and behavioral policies and guidelines. The content they add is typically unsourced or poorly sourced and often violates the neutral point of view policy by being promotional and omitting negative information. They may edit war to retain content that serves their external interest. They may overuse primary sources or non-independent sources, and they may give too much weight to certain ideas.
An actual COI exists when an editor has a COI with respect to a certain judgment and is in a position where the judgment must be exercised.
Example: A business owner has an actual COI if they edit articles and engage in discussions about that business.
A potential COI exists when an editor has a COI with respect to a certain judgment but is not in a position where the judgment must be exercised.
Example: A business owner has a potential COI with respect to articles and discussions about that business, but they have no actual COI if they stay away from those pages.
An apparent COI exists when there is reason to believe that an editor has a COI.
Example: Editors have an apparent COI if they edit an article about a business, and for some reason they appear to be the business owner or in communication with the business owner, although they may actually have no such connection. Apparent COI raises concern within the community and should be resolved through discussion whenever possible.
Dealing with edit requests from COI or paid editors
Editors responding to edit requests from COI or paid editors are expected to do so carefully, particularly when commercial interests are involved. When large amounts of text are added to an article on behalf of the article subject, the article has, in effect, been ghostwritten by the subject without the readers' knowledge. Responding volunteers should therefore carefully check the proposed text and sources. That an article has been expanded does not mean that it is better.
Make sure the proposed paid text complies with WP:WEIGHT.
Look for unnecessary detail that may have been added to overwhelm something negative.
Make sure nothing important is missing. Responding editors should do their own search for independent sources. Do not rely on the sources offered by the paid editor.
Look for non-neutral language and unsourced or poorly sourced content.
Be cautious about accepting content based on self-published sources such as a personal website, or primary sources such as a company website or press release.
If the paid text is added to the article, the edit summary should include full attribution.
If editors choose to add material to an article on behalf of a COI or paid editor, they must provide attribution for the text in the edit summary. The edit summary should include the name of the COI or paid editor, a link to the draft or edit request, and that the edit contains a COI or paid contribution. For example:
Text inserted on behalf of paid editor User:X; copied from ].
or you can also use the following format, from text requested in a talk page,
Edit made due to ] edit request by User:SVeatch; copied or adapted from "Revisions to Infobox, Introduction and History" at ]
The permalink helps avoid broken links when sections are archived.
This transparency helps editors and readers to determine the extent of COI influence on the article. It also complies with copyright requirements.
Paid editors must respect the volunteer nature of the project and keep discussions concise. When proposing changes to an article, they should describe the suggested modifications and explain why the changes should be made. Any changes that may be contentious, such as removal of negative text, should be highlighted.
Before being drawn into long exchanges with paid editors, volunteers should be aware that paid editors may be submitting evidence of their talk-page posts to justify their salaries or fees. No editor should be expected to engage in long or repetitive discussions with someone who is being paid to argue with them.
Editors are reminded that any text they contribute to Misplaced Pages, assuming they own the copyright, is irrevocably licensed under a Creative Commons-Attribution-Sharealike license and the GNU Free Documentation License. Content on Misplaced Pages, including article drafts and talk-page comments, can be freely copied and modified by third parties for commercial and non-commercial use, with the sole requirement that it be attributed to Misplaced Pages contributors.
Paid editors must ensure that they own the copyright of text they have been paid to add to Misplaced Pages; otherwise, they are unable to release it. A text's author is normally assumed to be the copyright holder. Companies sometimes provide paid editors with text written by someone else. Alternatively, a paid editor might write text for Misplaced Pages within the scope of their employment (a "work for hire"), in which case copyright resides with the employer.
If editors choose to add material to an article on behalf of a paid editor, they must provide attribution for the text in the edit summary. See WP:COIATTRIBUTE for how to do this.
All editors are expected to follow United States law on undisclosed advertising, which is described by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) at Endorsement Guidelines and Dot Com Disclosures. The FTC regards advertising as deceptive if it mimics a content format, such as a news report, that appears to come from an independent, impartial source:
Marketers and publishers are using innovative methods to create, format, and deliver digital advertising. One form is "native advertising", content that bears a similarity to the news, feature articles, product reviews, entertainment, and other material that surrounds it online. ...
In digital media, native ads often resemble the design, style, and functionality of the media in which they are disseminated. ... The more a native ad is similar in format and topic to content on the publisher's site, the more likely that a disclosure will be necessary to prevent deception. —Federal Trade Commission, 2015
To judge whether an ad is deceptive under the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914, the FTC considers "both what the ad says and the format it uses to convey that information ... Advertisements or promotional messages are deceptive if they convey to consumers expressly or by implication that they’re independent, impartial, or from a source other than the sponsoring advertiser ...".
State law may have similar prohibitions. While the FTC law may apply only to interstate and foreign commerce, state law applies to intrastate commerce and must be obeyed. At least one state court case found liability for an ad disguised as editorial content.
In 2012 the Munich Oberlandesgericht court ruled that if a company or its agents edit Misplaced Pages with the aim of influencing customers, the edits constitute covert advertising, and as such are a violation of European fair-trading law. The ruling stated that readers cannot be expected to seek out user and talk pages to find editors' disclosures about their corporate affiliation.
UK Advertising Standards Authority
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) in the UK found in 2012 that the content of tweets from two footballers had been "agreed with the help of a member of the Nike marketing team". The tweets were not clearly identified as Nike marketing communications and were therefore in breach of the ASA's code.
The biographies of living persons policy says: "n editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual – whether on- or off-wiki – or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest."
Similarly, editors should not write about court cases in which they or those close to them have been involved, nor about parties or law firms associated with the cases.
Activities regarded by insiders as simply "getting the word out" may appear promotional or propagandistic to the outside world. If you edit articles while involved with campaigns in the same area, you may have a conflict of interest. Political candidates and their staff should not edit articles about themselves, their supporters, or their opponents. Government employees should not edit articles about their agencies, government, political party, political opponents, or controversial political topics.
You should generally refrain from creating articles about yourself, or anyone you know, living or dead, unless through the Articles for Creation process. If you have a personal connection to a topic or person with an existing article, you are advised to refrain from editing that article directly and to provide full disclosure of the connection if you comment about the article on talk pages or in other discussions. Requests for updates to an article about yourself or someone with whom you have a personal connection can be made on the article's talk page by following the instructions at WP:COIREQ.
An exception to not editing an article about yourself or someone you know is made if the article contains defamation or a serious error that needs to be corrected quickly. If you do make such an edit, please follow it up with an email to WP:VRT, Misplaced Pages's volunteer response team, or ask for help on WP:BLPN, our noticeboard for articles about living persons, or the talk page of the article in question.
"WP:SELFCITE" redirects here. For Misplaced Pages citing itself, see WP:CIRCULAR.
See also: WP:MEDCOI
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. You will be permanently identified in the page history as the person who added the citation to your own work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion: propose the edit on the article's talk page and allow others to review it. However, adding numerous references to work published by yourself and none by other researchers is considered to be a form of spamming.
Museum curators, librarians, archivists, and similar are encouraged to help improve Misplaced Pages, or to share their information in the form of links to their resources. If a link cannot be used as a reliable source, it may be placed under further reading or external links if it complies with the external links guideline. Bear in mind that Misplaced Pages is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files.
There are forms of paid editing that the Wikimedia community regards as acceptable. These include Wikipedians in residence (WiRs)—Wikipedians who may be paid to collaborate with mission-aligned organizations, such as galleries, libraries, archives, and museums. WiRs must not engage in public relations or marketing for their organization in Misplaced Pages, and they should operate within the bounds defined by Core characteristics of a Wikipedian in Residence at Wikimedia Outreach. They must work closely with a Misplaced Pages project or the general Misplaced Pages community, and are expected to identify their WiR status on their user page and on talk pages related to their organization when they post there.
Reward board
Another example of acceptable paid editing is the reward board, where editors can post incentives, usually to raise articles to featured-article or good-article status. If you participate in this, transparency and neutrality are key.
Miscellaneous
Solicitations by paid editors
In any solicitation sent to a prospective client, paid editors should disclose the following information:
Paid editors do not represent the Wikimedia Foundation nor the Misplaced Pages editing community, and they have no authority beyond that of any volunteer editor.
Paid editors must disclose their employer, client, and affiliations on Misplaced Pages. There is no confidentiality for the client.
Paid edits may be reviewed and revised in the normal course of work on Misplaced Pages. Neither the client nor the paid editor owns the article.
Paid editors cannot guarantee any outcome for an article on Misplaced Pages. It can be revised or deleted by other editors at any time.
Providing a client with a link to this section is appropriate disclosure if it is done in a neutral and non-deceptive manner.
Paid editors must also provide a link to their user page which includes a declaration of their paid editing status. If an external website claims that a particular Misplaced Pages editor works for them, but that editor's user page has no such declaration, this is likely to indicate that the website is impersonating that editor.
If you received a solicitation from a paid editor that does not include this information, we recommend that you not do business with them. They are not following our policies and guidelines.
Some solicitations from paid editors have been linked to fraud; see for example Operation Orangemoody. A large number of businesses claim to offer editing services, but some of these are scams. If someone claims that experienced editors work for them, ask them for the user names of those editors and check the corresponding editor user pages for a paid-contribution disclosure; its absence likely indicates that the claim is false. Offers to guarantee that a page will be saved from deletion, in return for significant sums of money, are always fraudulent, as are offers to use special privileges on Misplaced Pages.
If you think you've received a fraudulent solicitation, please forward it to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org for investigation.
Once an article is created about yourself, your group, or your company, you have no right to control its content, or to delete it outside the normal channels. If there is anything publicly available on a topic that you would not want to have included in an article, it will probably find its way there eventually.
add independent reliable sources when another editor has requested them, although it is better to supply them on the talk page for others to add.
If another editor objects for any reason, it is not an uncontroversial edit. Edits not covered by the above should be discussed on the article's talk page. If an article has few uninvolved editors, ask at the talk page of a related WikiProject or at the COI noticeboard. See also WP:COITALK.
Supplying photographs and media files
Editors with a COI are encouraged to upload high-quality media files that are appropriately licensed for Misplaced Pages and that improve our coverage of a subject. For more information, follow the instructions at Commons. In some cases, the addition of media files to an article may be an uncontroversial edit that editors with a COI can make directly, but editors should exercise discretion and rely on talk pages when images may be controversial or promotional. If the addition of an image is challenged by another editor, it is controversial.
The use of non-free contents are restricted. Generally, using press photos or images provided by client who wish to feature them in the article but unwilling to irrevocably release the copyright under Creative Commons is unacceptable. Editors may not upload images provided by client for "Misplaced Pages article purpose only" and falsely claim they're licensed under CC BY-SA, as such photos are fundamentally incompatible with free content principles. Only the copyright owner or their authorized representatives may grant permission to use a work under a Creative Commons license, not the photographed subject or their public relations agent. If the same image is found copyrighted elsewhere prior to the upload date, it may be removed as a copyright violation. If you are the copyright owner and want to release content to Creative Commons for use on Misplaced Pages, see Commons:Volunteer Response Team § Licensing images: when do I contact VRT?.
If a user's edits lead you to believe that they might have a COI (that is, if they have an "apparent COI"), and there has been no COI disclosure, consider first whether the issue may be simple advocacy. Most advocacy does not involve COI. Whether an editor is engaged in advocacy should first be addressed at the user's talk page, then at WP:NPOVN, the neutral-point-of-view noticeboard. The appropriate forum for concerns about sources is WP:RSN, the reliable-sources noticeboard. If there are concerns about sockpuppets or meatpuppets, please bring that concern to WP:SPI.
If you believe an editor has an undisclosed COI and is editing in violation of this guideline, raise the issue in a civil manner on the editor's talk page, which is the first step in resolving user-conduct issues, per the dispute resolution policy, citing this guideline. If that fails to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period, then open a discussion at the conflict of interest noticeboard (COIN). This also applies to a disclosed COI that is causing a problem: for example, an acknowledged BLP subject who is editing their own BLP.
During the COIN discussion, avoid making disparaging remarks about the user in question, their motives or the subject of the article(s).
Post whatever public evidence you have to support that there is a COI, or that it is causing a problem, in the form of edits by that user or information the user has posted about themselves. Do not post private information; see WP:OUTING, which is policy, and the section below, "Avoid outing".
If private information must be shared to resolve a COI issue, it may be emailed to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org. Follow the advice in WP:OUTING: "Only the minimum information necessary should be conveyed and the minimum number of people contacted." The priority should be to avoid unnecessary privacy violations.
When investigating COI editing, the policy against harassment takes precedence. It requires that Wikipedians not reveal the identity of editors against their wishes. Examine editors' behavior instead and seek advice by email if necessary. Do not ask a user if they are somebody; instead one can ask if they have an undisclosed connection to that person. If revealing private information is needed to resolve COI editing, and if the issue is serious enough to warrant it, editors can emailpaid-en-wpwikipedia.org. Also see the section "Reporting to the conflict of interest noticeboard" above.
Accounts that appear to be single-purpose, existing for the sole or primary purpose of promotion or denigration of a person, company, product, service, website, organization, etc., and whose postings are in apparent violation of this guideline, should be made aware of this guideline and warned not to continue their problematic editing. If the same pattern of editing continues after the warning, the account may be blocked.
{{uw-coi}} (to be placed on user Talk pages to warn editors that they may have a conflict of interest)
{{uw-coi-username}} (another Talk page warning, this one for editors whose username appears to violate the WP:Usernames policy)
{{COI editnotice}} (this template goes on article talk pages and gives instructions to COI editors on how to submit edit requests to the article)
{{User COI}} (userbox for users to self-declare on their own Userpages those articles with which they have a conflict of interest; userbox can list up to nine articles)
Carson, Thomas L. (January 2004). "Conflicts of Interest and Self-Dealing in the Professions: A Review Essay," Business Ethics Quarterly, 14(1), pp. 161–182. JSTOR3857777
Misplaced Pages has gone through many prolonged disputes about the significance, factual accuracy, and neutrality of such articles. Avoiding such editing keeps Misplaced Pages neutral and helps avoid pushing a particular point of view.
Writing autobiographies is discouraged because it is difficult to write a neutral, verifiable autobiography, and there are many pitfalls.
If you have been published elsewhere on a topic, we welcome your expertise on the subject for Misplaced Pages articles. However, every Misplaced Pages article must cover its subject in a neutral, fair, and comprehensive way to advance knowledge of the subject as a whole. Please acknowledge and minimize your biases while enriching the Misplaced Pages readers' knowledge. Articles that exist primarily to advance the interests of the contributor will likely be deleted.
The problem with autobiographies
It is said that Zaphod Beeblebrox's birth was marked by earthquakes, tidal waves, tornadoes, firestorms, the explosion of three neighbouring stars, and, shortly afterwards, by the issuing of over six and three quarter million writs for damages from all of the major landowners in his Galactic sector. However, the only person by whom this is said is Beeblebrox himself, and there are several possible theories to explain this.
The quote above illustrates a number of fundamental problems with autobiographies:
They are often biased, usually positively. People will write overly positive impressions of themselves, and often present opinions as facts. Misplaced Pages aims to avoid presenting opinions as facts. Neutral point of view does not simply mean writing in the third person.
They are often unverifiable. If the only source for a particular fact about you is yourself, readers cannot verify it. Everything on Misplaced Pages must be verifiable. For example, unverifiable autobiographical claims are often made about one's internal thoughts, including one's feelings, hopes, dreams, and aspirations. There is no way for readers to verify what you think—a verifiable claim may result from a secondary source reporting on you expressing your thoughts publicly.
They can contain original research. People often include information in autobiographies that has never been published before, or is the result of first-hand knowledge. In order to verify information of this kind, readers would need to perform their own original research. Misplaced Pages does not distribute previously unpublished information, nor does it permit original research.
In this context, an "autobiography" is not only a biography you have written about yourself, but also a biography you have paid or instructed someone else to write on your behalf.
Why these problems exist
Your own neutrality cannot be adequately determined without external sources or analysis. Unconscious biases are commonplace and problematic in autobiographical articles, affecting neutrality and verifiability.
Even if you believe you can write a verifiable autobiography without doing original research, you may still not be able to achieve a neutral result. As a notable figure, you might emphasize objective data, such as the sheer volume of your published material, or the fact that your work has been translated into different languages or performed in other countries. Examples of volume or scope can create a non-neutral tone that is usually recognizable as deliberate self-aggrandizement. Likewise, deep biographical detail, such as details of your religious beliefs, the careers of your non-notable family members, or the mere fact that you have famous friends may not be verifiable or relevant.
If Misplaced Pages already has an article about you
It is difficult to write neutrally and objectively about oneself (see above about unconscious biases). You should generally let others do the writing.
Contributing material or making suggestions on the article's talk page is considered proper—let independent editors write it into the article itself or approve it if you still want to make the changes yourself. It may help attract attention to your talk page request to include the {{edit COI}} template as part of the request.
In clear-cut cases, it is permissible to edit pages connected to yourself. So, you can revert vandalism; but of course it has to be simple, obvious vandalism and not a content dispute. Similarly, you should feel free to remove obviously mistaken facts about yourself, such as marital status, current employer, place of birth, and so on. (Note it on the talk page.) If the fact has different interpretations, others will edit it.
Since Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, it should be a tertiary source—it should not contain any "new" information or theories (see Misplaced Pages:No original research) and most information should exist in checkable third-party sources. Facts, retellings of events, and clarifications which you may wish to have added to an article about yourself must be verifiable with reliable sources.
If you are a regular Misplaced Pages editor, you can identify yourself on the article's talk page with the {{Notable Wikipedian}} notice.
If Misplaced Pages has an article about you, we want it to be accurate, fair, balanced and neutral—to accurately reflect the sourced, cited opinions of reliable sources. If you believe reliable sources exist which will make the article more balanced, you can help by pointing other editors to such sources.
You may wish to make suggestions on the article's talk page or, if the problem is clear-cut and uncontroversial, you may wish to edit the page yourself. If your edit may be misinterpreted, you should explain it on the talk page. Note that if the fact has different interpretations, others will edit it. Your edits are more likely to be accepted if they are neutral and well-sourced to third parties.
If you feel insufficient attention is being paid to problems with an article about you, try placing a note on the help desk detailing the problems. Legal problems with material in an article about you, please email info-en-q@wikimedia.org promptly with full details. But do not post legal threats on Misplaced Pages itself (articles, talk pages, noticeboards)—doing so is a serious violation of Misplaced Pages rules (see WP:No legal threats) and will lead to your being immediately blocked from further editing until you withdraw the threat.
If the article about you has no photo, or you can supply a better one, feel free to contribute one under a suitable free content license. (If you did not create the photo yourself e.g. photos from promotional materials, make sure you have the legal authority to release the photo under such a license.)
Upon some of Cato's friends expressing their surprise, that while many persons without merit or reputation had statues, he had none, he answered, "I had much rather it should be asked why the people have not erected a statue to Cato, than why they have."
Encyclopaedia Britannica (1797)
If your life and achievements are verifiable and genuinely notable, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later, but creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged: we want biographies here, not autobiographies.
If no third party has yet created an article about you, there is the danger that, should the article be vandalised, there will be no interested editors watching and the vandalism may remain uncorrected for long periods.
Self-created articles are often nominated for deletion, and comments in the ensuing discussions are often most uncomplimentary. Many editors feel that persons who create autobiographies are exploiting a volunteer project for their own aggrandizement.
Anything you submit will be edited mercilessly to make it neutral. Many autobiographical articles have become a source of dismay to their original authors after a period of editing by the community, and in several instances their original authors have asked that they be deleted – usually unsuccessfully, because if an article qualifies for deletion the community will typically do that without prompting, and an article won't be deleted just because its subject is unhappy with it.
If you really think that you can meet the inclusion criteria, and if you are willing to accept that your article must be neutral and non-promotional, then propose one at Articles for Creation instead of creating one directly. Articles for Creation provides independent viewpoints that may uncover or discover biases you were unaware of, and shows you value volunteer editors' time over your own ego.
On Misplaced Pages, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article.
Information on Misplaced Pages must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Misplaced Pages's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below.
A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM.
Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.
"Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
"Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.
If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article.
In some topic areas, subject-specific notability guidelines (SNGs) have been written to help clarify when a standalone article can or should be written. The currently accepted subject guidelines are listed in the box at the top of this page and at Category:Misplaced Pages notability guidelines. Misplaced Pages articles are generally written based on in-depth, independent, reliable sourcing with some subject-specific exceptions. The subject-specific notability guidelines generally include verifiable criteria about a topic which show that appropriate sourcing likely exists for that topic. Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia.
SNGs also serve additional and varying purposes depending on the topic. Some SNGs, for example the ones in the topic areas of films, biographies, and politicians, provide topic-related guidance when articles should not be created. SNGs can also provide examples of sources and types of coverage considered significant for the purposes of determining notability, such as the treatment of book reviews for our literature guidelines and the strict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for organizations and companies. Some SNGs have specialized functions: for example, the SNG for academics and professors and the SNG for geographic features operate according to principles that differ from the GNG.
Some WikiProjects have provided additional guidance on notability of topics within their field. Editors are cautioned that these WikiProject notability guidance pages should be treated as essays and do not establish new notability standards, lacking the weight of broad consensus of the general and subject-specific notability guidelines in various discussions (such as at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion).
Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists
The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. The notability guideline does not apply to the contents of articles. It also does not apply to the contents of stand-alone lists, unless editors agree to use notability as part of the list selection criteria. Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight, balance, and other content policies. For additional information about list articles, see Notability of lists and List selection criteria.
Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Misplaced Pages article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Misplaced Pages, no amount of improvement to the Misplaced Pages content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Misplaced Pages article will not decrease the subject's notability.
The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability.
No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally.
Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article
The absence of sources or citations in a Misplaced Pages article (as distinct from the non-existence of independent, published reliable sources in libraries, bookstores, and the internet) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only that suitable independent, reliable sources exist in the real world; it does not require their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any.
Misplaced Pages articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface.
The current state of the article does not determine notability
Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.
While notability itself is not temporary, from time to time a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user via a deletion discussion, or new evidence may arise for articles previously deemed unsuitable. Thus, an article may be proposed for deletion months or even years after its creation, or recreated whenever new evidence supports its existence as a standalone article.
Notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time
Misplaced Pages is a lagging indicator of notability. Just as a lagging economic indicator indicates what the economy was doing in the past, a topic is "notable" in Misplaced Pages terms only if the outside world has already "taken notice of it". Once established, notability is not temporary. Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. However, sustained coverage is an indicator of notability, as described by notability of events. New organizations and future events might pass WP:GNG, but lack sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, and these must still also satisfy WP:NOTPROMOTION.
When creating new content about a notable topic, editors should consider how best to help readers understand it. Often, understanding is best achieved by presenting the topic on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so; at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context (and doing so in no way disparages the importance of the topic). Editorial judgment goes into each decision about whether or not to create a separate page, but the decision should always be based upon specific considerations about how to make the topic understandable, and not merely upon personal likes or dislikes. Misplaced Pages is a digital encyclopedia, and so the amount of content and details should not be limited by concerns about space availability.
Do related topics provide needed context? Sometimes, several related topics, each of them similarly notable, can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page (as at Music of the Final Fantasy VII series). Other times, when many similar notable topics exist, it is impractical to collect them into a single page, because the resulting article would be too unwieldy. In that case, a viable option is creating a new list or category for the broader topic and linking to the individual articles from it (as with Category:Restaurants in New York City).
What sourcing is available now? Sometimes, when a subject is notable, but it is unlikely that there ever will be a lot to write about it, editors should weigh the advantages and disadvantages of creating a permanent stub. On the other hand, an article may be a stub even though many sources exist, but simply have not been included yet. Such a short page is better expanded than merged into a larger page (see also the essays Misplaced Pages:Every snowflake is unique and Misplaced Pages:Run-of-the-mill). Sometimes, when information about a future event is scarce, coverage may instead be better suited to a larger encompassing article (see also Misplaced Pages:CRYSTAL). Other times, a future event may clearly be suitable for a standalone page before it happens (such as the next upcoming Summer Olympics). However, before creating such an article, make sure that the likelihood of the future event occurring is reasonably assured. For example, the WikiProject Film strongly recommends that a standalone article for a new film be created only if reliable sources confirm that principal photography for the film has commenced, as completion of the film is generally seen out to the end from this point on.
Editors apply notability standards to all subjects to determine whether the English language Misplaced Pages should have a separate, stand-alone article on that subject. The primary purpose of these standards is to ensure that editors create articles that comply with major content policies.
We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list. (See the advice below.)
We require multiple sources so that we can write a reasonably balanced article that complies with Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, rather than representing only one author's point of view. This is also why multiple publications by the same person or organization are considered to be a single source for the purpose of complying with the "multiple" requirement.
We require editors to use their judgment about how to organize subjects so that we have neither long, bloated articles nor articles so narrow that they cannot be properly developed. Editors may decide that it is better for readers to present a narrow subject as part of a broader one. For example, editors normally prefer to merge information about translations of books into the larger subject of the original book, because in their editorial judgment, the merged article is more informative and more balanced for readers and reduces redundant information in the encyclopedia. (For ideas on how to deal with material that may be best handled by placing it in another article, see WP:FAILN.)
Because these requirements are based on major content policies, they apply to all articles, not solely articles justified under the general notability criteria. They do not, however, apply to pages whose primary purpose is navigation (e.g. all disambiguation pages and some lists).
Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability. Misplaced Pages is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, autobiography, product placement, press releases, branding campaigns, advertisements, and paid material are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic worth writing and publishing non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.
Independent sources are also needed to guarantee a neutral article can be written. Even non-promotional self-published sources, like technical manuals that accompany a product, are still not evidence of notability as they are not a measure of the attention a subject has received.
Misplaced Pages is not a news source: it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage. For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage. Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage. The Wikimedia project Wikinews may cover topics of present news coverage. In some cases, notability of a controversial entity (such as a book) could arise either because the entity itself was notable, or because the controversy was notable as an event—both need considering.
Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; and other guidelines on appropriate stand-alone lists. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual entries in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Misplaced Pages articles.
In Misplaced Pages parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. Because Misplaced Pages aims to summarize significant opinions with representation in proportion to their prominence, a Misplaced Pages article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. Statements about the truth of a theory must be based upon independentreliable sources. If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner.
There are numerous reasons for these requirements. Misplaced Pages is not and must not become the validating source for non-significant subjects, and it is not a forum for original research. For writers and editors of Misplaced Pages articles to write about controversial ideas in a neutral manner, it is of vital importance that they simply restate what is said by independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality.
The governing policies regarding fringe theories are the three core content policies: Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability. Jointly these say that articles should not contain any novel analysis or synthesis, that material likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, and that all majority and significant-minority views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately. Should any inconsistency arise between this guideline and the content policies, the policies take precedence.
Topics that do not meet this criterion are not retained as separate articles. Non-notable topics with closely related notable articles or lists are often merged into those pages, while non-notable topics without such merge targets are generally deleted.
If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or:
Ask the article's creator or an expert on the subject for advice on where to look for sources.
Place a {{notability}} tag on the article to alert other editors.
If the article is about a specialized field, use the {{expert-subject}} tag with a specific WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online.
If appropriate sources cannot be found after a good-faith search for them, consider merging the article's verifiable content into a broader article providing context. Otherwise, if deleting:
If the article meets our criteria for speedy deletion, one can use a criterion-specific deletion tag listed on that page.
Use the {{prod}} tag for articles which do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, but are uncontroversial deletion candidates. This allows the article to be deleted after seven days if nobody objects. For more information, see Misplaced Pages:Proposed deletion.
For cases where you are unsure about deletion, believe others might object, or another editor has already objected to a previous proposed deletion, nominate the article for the articles for deletion process, where the merits will be debated and deliberated for seven days.
For articles on subjects that are clearly not notable, then deletion is usually the most appropriate response, although other options may help the community to preserve any useful material. Since deletion of an article is often heavily contested, editors are advised to thoroughly follow several recommended steps prior to nomination.
{{assess table}} and {{source assess}}, two templates used to present an assessment of the sources present in an article
MOS:NOTE: Manual of Style on "Instructional and presumptuous language"
Notes
Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.
Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and academic journals. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article.
Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Similarly, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source.
Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability. See also: Misplaced Pages:Verifiability § Questionable sources for handling of such situations.
Sometimes contacting the subject of a biography or the representative of a subject organization will yield independent source material. Of course we have to be careful to observe and evaluate independence. You might also see if there is an active WikiProject related to the topic, and ask for help there.
For instance, articles on minor characters in a work of fiction may be merged into a "list of minor characters in ..."; articles on schools may be merged into articles on the towns or regions where schools are located; relatives of a famous person may be merged into the article on the person; articles on persons only notable for being associated with a certain group or event may be merged into the main article on that group or event.
Misplaced Pages editors have been known to reject nominations for deletion that have been inadequately researched. Research should include attempts to find sources which might demonstrate notability, and/or information which would demonstrate notability in another manner.
Thorfinnur Omarsson is an Icelandic media personality and film & tv producer (spelled Þorfinnur Ómarsson in Icelandic language).
Omarsson has worked in Icelandic media and entertainment industry since late 1980s. He was the Managing Director of the Icelandic Film Fund and the Icelandic Film Centre from 1996 to 2003. During this period, some of Iceland's most prolific film directors made their debuts, such as Baltasar Kormákur (101 Reykjavík) and Dagur Kári (Nói albínói).
From 2003 to 2005 he was the Director of Media and Communication Studies at the University of Iceland.
Omarsson was the Head Spokesperson for the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission in 2006 and 2007.
Currently, Omarsson is the host of a daily television programme named Ísland í dag (Iceland today) on Stöð 2 (Icelandic Channel 2).
Omarsson was one of the founders of the Icelandic Film and TV Academy, which runs the Icelandic Edda Awards. He was the live-broadcast host of the first ceremony in 1999. Omarsson is a member of the European Film Academy.
Thorfinnur Omarsson is educated in France, where he also worked as a correspondent. He is son of Omar Ragnarsson. Omarsson lives with Astros Gunnarsdottir, a theatre director, choreographer, dancer and Pilates instructor.
This Icelandic biographical article is a stub. You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it.
wikimedia.org). See WP:PERMISSION for how to do this and Misplaced Pages:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a sample letter.
N No or few suitable sources that could be cited
Y Multiple suitable sources that could be cited
