For clearer advice for editors who might have a conflict of interest, see Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide.

Template:Subcat guideline

この文書の要旨: Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers. Do not write about these things unless you are certain that a neutral editor would agree that your edits improve Wikipedia.

If you want to ask advice about your situation or a possible conflict of interest situation, please visit the conflict of interest noticeboard.

Template:Under discussion A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.

COI editing is strongly discouraged. When editing causes disruption to the encyclopedia through violation of policies such as neutral point of view, what Wikipedia is not, and copyright compliance, accounts may be blocked. COI editing also risks causing public embarrassment for the individuals and groups being promoted.^[1]

Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged—but not actually required—to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of the related article they are editing, particularly if those edits may be contested. Editors who disguise their COIs are often exposed, creating a perception that they, and perhaps their employer, are trying to distort Wikipedia. When someone voluntarily discloses a conflict of interest, other editors should always assume the editor is trying to do the right thing. Do not use a voluntarily disclosed conflict of interest as a weapon against the editor.

When investigating possible cases of COI editing, Wikipedians must be careful not to reveal the identity of other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over this COI guideline. An editor's conflict of interest is often revealed when that editor discloses a relationship to the subject of the article to which the editor is contributing. Where an editor does not disclose an existing affiliation or other conflict of interest, carefully following Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy may help counteract biased editing.

Template:Guideline list COI editing is strongly discouraged. COI editors causing disruption may be blocked. Editors with COIs who wish to edit responsibly are strongly encouraged to follow Wikipedia policies and best practices scrupulously. They are also encouraged to disclose their interest on their user pages and also on the talk page of the related article they are editing, and to request others' views, particularly if those edits may be contested. Most Wikipedians will appreciate your honesty.

If you have a conflict of interest, then any changes that might be seen as controversial or not strictly neutral should be first suggested on the relevant talk page or noticeboard. Before committing time or undertaking an agreement to write, you may also wish to seek advice before starting any new article in order to confirm it is suitable. It is also advisable to take similar care on subjects where you do not have a conflict of interest but do hold strong views or have a significant involvement.

Anything you say and do on Wikipedia can have real world consequences. COI editing is routinely exposed and can be reported adversely in the media. All edits are on the public record and remain so indefinitely. You do not control articles and others may delete them, keep them, or add information that would have remained little-known. While Wikipedians generally avoid naming editors and their paymasters, other media routinely do. This has led at times to extreme media embarrassment for the company or organization, dismissal (firing) of those at fault, and at times even court actions or charges, if done in a work or professional context. Editing in the interests of public relations (other than obvious corrections) is particularly frowned upon. This includes, but is not limited to, professionals paid to create or edit Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is a very public forum, and news of attempts to improperly influence Wikipedia are frequently reported in the media.

When investigating possible cases of COI editing, Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence and requires that Wikipedians must take care not to reveal the identity of other editors. Instead, editors' behavior and trust-related tools can be used to evidence COI or other editorial abuse which avoids the need to formally identify the user. In other cases, carefully following Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and other policies may help counteract biased editing.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vanity press nor a forum for advertising and promoting yourself or your ideas. As such it should contain only material that complies with its content policies, and Wikipedians must place the interests of the encyclopedia first. Any editor who gives priority to outside interests may be subject to a conflict of interest.

There are no firm criteria to determine whether a conflict of interest exists, but there are warning signs. Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, its author's family members, employer, associates, or their business or personal interests, places the author in a conflict of interest. When editors write to promote their own interests, their contributions often show a characteristic lack of connection to anything the general reader might want to consult as a reference. If you do write an article on an area in which you are personally involved, be sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, third-party, independent published sources, and beware of unintentional bias. Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's five pillars.

If other editors suggest that your editing violates Wikipedia's standards, take that advice seriously and consider stepping back, reassessing your edits, and discussing your intentions with the community. In particular, consider whether you are editing tendentiously.

Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant and conforms to the content policies, particularly WP:SELFPUB. Excessive self-citation is strongly discouraged. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion. In any case, citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work, giving proper due to the work of others as in a review article.

If you fit either of these descriptions:

1. you are receiving monetary or other benefits or considerations to edit Wikipedia as a representative of an organization (whether directly as an employee or contractor of that organization, or indirectly as an employee or contractor of a firm hired by that organization for public relations purposes); or
2. you expect to derive monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia; for example, by being an owner, officer, or other stakeholder of a company or other organization about which you are writing;

then you are very strongly discouraged to edit Wikipedia in areas where there is a conflict of interest that may make your edits non-neutral (biased). Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy states that all articles must represent views fairly and without bias, and conflicts of interest may significantly and negatively affect Wikipedia's ability to fulfill this requirement. If your financially motivated edits would be non-neutral, do not post them.

If you have a financial interest in a topic (either as an employee, owner or other stakeholder) it is advised to provide full disclosure of your connection, and to use the "discussion" pages to suggest changes (using the {{Request edit}} template to request edits) rather than editing articles directly. Requested edits will be subject to the same editorial standards by neutral editors (which means they are not guaranteed to be carried out) and will help avoid situations of advocacy and related problems.

Generally speaking, the Reward Board is an exception to the above cautions. There, you may derive monetary gain from editing Wikipedia, as these are usually rewards for featured or good article status which should not introduce bias. However, be wary of editors asking you to make specific edits that challenge your sense of neutral perspective, or to clean up a "hatchet job", as you may unwarily become their meatpuppet.

If you are involved in a court case, or close to one of the litigants, you would find it very hard to demonstrate that what you wrote about a party or a law firm associated with the case, or a related area of law, was entirely objective. Even a minor slip-up in neutrality in a court-case article on Wikipedia for an active case-in-progress could potentially be noticed by the courts or their parties, and this could potentially cause real-world harm, not just harm to Wikipedia. Because of this, we strongly discourage editing when this type of conflict exists.

It is not recommended that you write an article about yourself. If you are notable, someone else will notice you and write the article. In some cases, Wikipedia users write articles about themselves when the more appropriate action would be to create a user page. In these cases, the article is normally moved into the user namespace rather than deleted. If you believe you may be notable enough, make your case on the appropriate talk pages, and seek consensus first, both with the notability and any proposed autobiography.

Conflict of interest often presents itself in the form of self-promotion, including advertising links, personal website links, personal or semi-personal photos, or other material that appears to promote the private or commercial interests of the editor, or their associates.

Examples of these types of material include:

1. Links that appear to promote products by pointing to obscure or not particularly relevant commercial sites (commercial links).
2. Links that appear to promote otherwise obscure individuals by pointing to their personal pages.
3. Biographical material that does not significantly add to the clarity or quality of the article.

Editors should not create articles which serve solely to promote their subject. All Wikipedia articles should contain useful information written as if from a neutral point of view. The writing of "puff pieces" and advertisements on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited. If you contribute to Wikipedia on behalf of clients, you owe it to both them and the encyclopedia to make very sure you understand the standards for content here, and do not insert promotional material.

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 organizations or political campaigns that engage in advocacy in that area, you may have a conflict of interest.

Friedrich Engels might have had difficulty editing the Karl Marx article neutrally, because he was a close friend, follower, and collaborator of Marx.^[2] Any situation in which 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.

Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you towards some bias. 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, try to identify and minimize your biases, and consider withdrawing from editing the article. As a rule of thumb, the more involvement you have with a topic in real life, the more careful you should be with our core content policies—Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Verifiability—when editing in that area.

The definition of "too close" in this context is governed by common sense. An article about a little-known band should preferably not be written by the band's manager or a band member's spouse, and a biography should preferably not be written by the subject's spouse, parent, or offspring. However, an expert on a given subject is welcome to contribute to articles on that subject, even if that editor is deeply committed to the subject.

Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit," but if you have a conflict of interest, we have some advice for minimizing problems:

1. Avoid editing or exercise great caution when editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with

   Why we recommend this: When people are very close to a subject, their view of it might be distorted, despite the best will in the world. Their closeness might cause them to see the subject in a more (or less) flattering light than the independent, reliable sources do. Wikipedia wants to reflect the sources' views, not the personal views of individual editors.

2. Avoid advocating deletion of articles related to your competitors at deletion discussions

   Why we recommend this: Everyone is encouraged to identify independent, reliable sources that might be useful for building an article, even for your own company or competitors. People close to a subject often know more about the available sources for the subject than anyone else. However, advocating against the articles about your competitors might be seen as unfair, especially if you do it "secretly" (without disclosing that you are connected to the subject).

3. Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article, your own user subspace, or a website of your organization from other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam)

   Why we recommend this: Wikipedia benefits when people build the web between articles and provide links to external resources. However, Wikipedia also needs to prevent inappropriate promotional behaviors and spam masquerading as citations. People who are close to a subject may consider these links more important than they actually are.

4. Avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

   Why we recommend this: Compliance with the content policies is mandatory for everyone, not just users with a connection to the subject. However, people who are close to a subject are more likely to accidentally breach these policies. Therefore, the community encourages them to be particularly careful.

Contributing signed-in users may use their user subspace to publish short autobiographies within the bounds of good taste and compatible with the purpose of working on the encyclopedia. If you wish to write about yourself without working on the encyclopedia, consider starting a website or a blog instead. Wikipedia is not a free webhost.

Conflict of interest often raises questions as to whether material should be included in the encyclopedia or not. It also can be a cause, or contributing factor, in disputes over whether editors have an agenda that undermines the mission of Wikipedia. Suspected conflict of interest incidents may be reported on the conflict of interest noticeboard (WP:COIN), and users may be warned with the {{uw-coi}} user warning template. Conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article, though other problems with the article arising from a conflict of interest may be valid criteria for deletion.

Dealing with suspected conflicted editors

The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor, referring to this guideline. If persuasion fails, consider whether you are involved in a content dispute. If so, an early recourse to dispute resolution may help. Another option is to initiate discussion at WP:COIN, where experienced editors may be able to help you resolve the matter without recourse to publishing assertions and accusations on Wikipedia. Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban.

Wikipedia places importance on both the neutrality of articles and the ability of editors to edit pseudonymously. Do not out an editor's real life identity in order to prove a conflict of interest. Wikipedia's policy against harassment prohibits this. COI situations are usually revealed when the editor themself discloses a relationship to the subject that they are editing. In case the editor does not identify themself or their affiliation, reference to the neutral point of view policy may help counteract biased editing.

Primacy of basic content policies

All text created in the Wikipedia main namespace is subject to rules covering criteria for articles (what Wikipedia is not); encyclopedic quality (verifiability and original research); editorial approach (neutral point of view); as well as the Wikipedia copyright policy. All editors are expected to stick closely to these policies when creating and evaluating material, and to respect the good faith actions of others who edit content to ensure it complies with these policies.

Who has written the material should be irrelevant so long as these policies are closely adhered to. The imputation of conflict of interest is not by itself a good reason to remove sound material from articles. However, an apparent conflict of interest is a good reason for close review by the community to identify any subtle bias.

Where an article is about something obviously important, but was written with too much COI to easily edit, it is often possible to reduce the article to basic identifying information, and then neutral editors can help improve the article.

Importance of civility

During debates on articles' talk pages and at articles for deletion, disparaging comments may fly about the subject of the article/author and the author's motives. These may border on forbidden personal attacks, and may discourage the article's creator from making future valuable contributions.

Avoid using the word "vanity" or similar judgmental terms—this is accusatory and discouraging. It is not helpful, nor reason to delete an article. Assuming good faith, start from the idea that the contributor was genuinely trying to help increase Wikipedia's coverage.

Conflict of interest in point of view disputes

Another case can arise in disputes relating to non-neutral points of view, where underlying conflicts of interest may aggravate editorial disagreements. In this scenario, it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Do not use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. When conflicts exist, invite the conflicted editor to contribute to the article talk page, and give their views fair consideration.

There is a little drama that is enacted more often than it should be.

• Act One: Someone writes a hatchet job about a company with a less-than-stellar reputation.
• Act Two: The company arrives, and is (justifiably) horrified and angered by the hatchet job. It responds without experience, clumsily, by trying to whitewash the article.
• Act Three: Self-righteous Wikipedian responds in anger against the attempt to "censor" or "whitewash" by yelling at the company, and forcing the article back to hatchet job status.
• Act Four: Company complains to the volunteer response team and the office.
• Act Five: In the happy version of the ending, OTRS/the office comes in and reminds everyone to act with love and neutrality to write a good article which is acceptable to both reasonable critics and reasonable supporters of the company ... reliance on solid sources, neutral language, etc., carries the day.

In reality, Act Five often ends up cycling back through Acts One through Four. This is a Bad Thing.

Remember: an editor with a self-evident interest in the matter turning up on the talk page is an indication that they are playing it straight. Even if the changes they advocate are hopelessly biased, treat them with respect and courtesy, refer to policy and sources, and be fair.

This section of the guideline is aimed at editors who may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits in mainspace where there is a clear conflict of interest, or where such a conflict can be reasonably assumed, are strongly discouraged. Significantly biased edits in mainspace are forbidden.

Editors who may have a conflict of interest may nevertheless add material that accords with the Photographs and media files or Subject and culture sector professionals sections below, and are allowed to make certain kinds of non-controversial edits, such as:

1. Removing spam and reverting vandalism.
2. Deleting content that violates Wikipedia's biography of living persons policy.
3. Fixing spelling and grammar errors.
4. Reverting or removing their own COI edits. Cleaning up your own mess is allowed and encouraged.
5. Making edits that have been agreed to on the talk page.
6. Adding citations, especially when another editor has requested them.

If another editor objects for any reason, then it's a controversial edit. Such edits should be discussed on the article's talk page.

Wikimedia Commons encourages parties with potential conflicts of interest to upload digital media files, such as photographs, illustrations, audio files, and video clips, so long as the media is of good quality, is in a format we use, and the copyright holder is willing do so under one of the free licenses we accept.

While Commons prefers full resolution media, reduced resolution images are acceptable when the copyright owner is unwilling to freely license a full quality image. See Commons:Welcome for detailed requirements.

Once media files are uploaded to Commons, they can then be incorporated into Wikipedia articles where appropriate. The best approach is to mention the availability of the image or media files on the article's talk page. But it is usually acceptable to edit the article directly to add one or two images that illustrate the existing article content, e.g. adding a publicity mug shot to the biography of a performing artist (but only if it's available under a free license).

Museum curators, librarians, archivists, art historians, heritage interpreters, conservators, documentation managers, subject specialists, and managers of a special collection (or similar profession) are encouraged to use their knowledge to help improve Wikipedia, or to share their information with Wikipedia in the form of links to their resources.

Wikipedia prefers the addition of content using reliable sources. If a link cannot be used to expand an article, the link may be placed under further reading or external links providing the link complies with the external links guideline and is not covered by any of the points under links to avoid. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files.

Don't create a shared organizational account and don't use the name of the organization in the account name: the account is yours, not your employer's. It is recommended, but not required, that such editors to declare their affiliation on their user pages.

When in doubt, first suggest the addition of the link on the talk page of the article, or discuss the addition with an appropriate WikiProject. For more information, see Advice for the cultural sector.

Some editors declare an interest in a particular topic area. They do this in various ways. Many Wikipedians show their allegiances and affiliations on their user pages. You may choose to reveal something about yourself in a talk page discussion.

Reasons to declare an interest

• You will benefit from the assumption of good faith. Most editors will appreciate your honesty and try to help you.
• You lay the basis for requesting help from others to post material for you, or to review material you wish to post yourself.
• Professional public relations firms may be required to abide by code of ethics, such as the GA code of ethics or PRSA code of ethics.

Disadvantages of COI editing on the sly

• If your edits violate neutral point of view, they can be reverted.
• Although other editors are not allowed to reveal your identity, they may come to understand who you are, and may realize that you are gaming the system.
• People outside Wikipedia, such as reporters, may uncover your COI editing, and may generate negative publicity for you or your company. Wikipedia cannot prevent outsiders from discovering and revealing your identity.

Reasons NOT to declare an interest

• Do not publicly declare an interest if this could put you at harm in the real world, e.g., from stalkers.
• Please read WP:REALNAME. Some COI declarations have the effect of announcing your real name (e.g., the sole author of a book cannot simultaneously identify himself as the author and prevent editors from knowing his real name).

Example of a disclosure

• This disclosure note shows how a user who wishes to edit on behalf of a topic to which they are closely connected can request help from other editors.

In a few cases, outside interests coincide with Wikipedia’s interests. An important example is that unsupported defamatory material appearing in articles may be removed at once. Anyone may do this, and should do this, and this guideline applies widely to any unsourced or poorly sourced, potentially libelous postings. In this case it is unproblematic to defend the interest of the person or institution involved. An entire article that presents as an attack piece or hostile journalism can be nominated for speedy deletion and will be removed promptly from the site. Those who post here in this fashion will also be subject to administrative sanction. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons gives details on how biographical articles on living persons should be written.

On the other hand, the removal of reliably sourced critical material is not permitted. Accounts of public controversies, if backed by reliable sources, form an integral part of Wikipedia's coverage. Slanting the balance of articles as a form of defence of some figure, group, institution, or product is bad for the encyclopedia. This is also the case if you find an article overwhelmed with correctly referenced, but exclusively negative, information. This may present a case of undue weight, for example, when 90% of an article about a particular company discusses a lawsuit one client once brought against it. In such a case, such material should be condensed by a neutral editor, and the other sections expanded. One of the best ways to go about this is to request this on the article's talk page.

The intermediate territory will naturally contain some grey areas. Although this is not recommended in the NPOV policy, criticism may tend to collect in a separate section. There you may find properly referenced reports of well-publicised debates next to vague assertions that "Some people say X, while others think Y." Treat everything on its merits. Ask for reliable sources. Before removing a whole criticism section or article and distributing its parts over other sections of the article, which may be the best way ahead, consult other editors on the talk page. Use crisp, informative edit summaries to detail what you have done, an excellent way to establish your reputation as a diligent editor. Raise any less-obvious reasoning as a note on the talk page, with any additional links that support your edits.

An editor with a conflict of interest who wishes to suggest substantive changes to an article should use that article's talk page. The {{request edit}} template should be used; it must be added manually to the talk page. When making a request, please consider disclosing your conflict of interest to avoid misunderstanding.

To request a new article, you can present your idea on the talk page of a relevant article or WikiProject.

Wikipedia's Law of Unintended Consequences If you write in Wikipedia about yourself, your group, your company, or your pet idea, once the article is created, you have no rights to control its content, and no right to delete it outside our normal channels. Content is irrevocably added with every edit, and once added will not be deleted just because the author doesn't like it anymore. Any editor has the right to add or remove material to the article within the terms of our content policies. If there is anything publicly available on a topic that you would not want included in an article, it will probably find its way there eventually. More than one user has created an article only to find themselves presented in a poor light long-term by other editors. If you breach our editing policies or "edit war" in an attempt to obtain a version of your liking you are likely to have your editing access removed. In addition, if your article is found to not be worthy of inclusion in the first place, it will be deleted, as per our deletion policies. Therefore, do not create promotional or other articles lightly, especially on subjects you care about.

Accounts that appear, based on their editing history, to be single-purpose accounts that exist for the sole or primary purpose of promotion (e.g., of a person, company, product, service, website, or organization), in apparent violation of this guideline, should be warned and made aware of this guideline. If the same pattern of editing continues after the warning, the account may be blocked.

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Paid Advocacy Watch

• Conflict of interest editing on Wikipedia (a Wikipedia article)
• Wikipedia:Username policy
• Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from enterprise)
• Template:Uw-coi for warning editors who have an apparent conflict of interest.
• Template:COI for tagging articles affected by conflict of interest that may be candidates for deletion.
• Category:Requested edits lists proposed edits for review where the proposer has a self-reported conflict of interest.
• Wikipedia:Spam
• Wikipedia:Reward board
• Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations
• Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest (medicine), an essay
• Wikipedia:Independent sources, on conflicts of interest by the authors of reliable sources
• User:COIBot
• Users creating autobiographies, an edit filter.
• Database report of biographies of living people with a close title to their page creator.
• The plain and simple conflict of interest guide
• Paid editing on Wikipedia

• Wikipedia:Wikiproject Paid Advocacy Watch
• User:Durova/The dark side. The risks of trying to subvert Wikipedia.
• User:Jmabel/PR. Guidance for public relations people
• User:Uncle G/On notability#Writing about subjects close to you. On writing about subjects that are close to oneself.
• Wikipedia:Search engine optimization. An essay for search engine optimization people.
• Wikipedia:Vested interest. About interests that may not be conflicts.
• Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest
• pr-consultants-should-think-twice-before-using-wikipedia-to-promote-clients Advice from a UK PR company
• Wikipedia:Paid editing (essay). What to do when it comes to paid editing and you.
• The plain and simple conflict of interest guide
• Speaking Different Language? Corporate Communications and Wikipedia (presentation)

Template:Wikipedia policies and guidelines