This is an explanation and disclosure of potential or perceived conflicts of interest related to my editing at Wikipedia.
General statement edit
I have been editing Wikipedia since early 2005, well before any of the potential conflicts of interest arose. I highly value Wikipedia and NPOV, and I also value my good standing in the Wikimedia community . I have a respectable contribution history (more than 6,283 edits, including more than 2787 in article space, and 70-ish new articles) and I'm involved with Wikimedia activities (including Wikimanias and a Wikipedia-editing workshop in North Queensland).
That doesn't affect my need to respect the policies and guidelines of the Wikipedia community. I simply mention it because opinions on COI vary so widely. This is just to ask: before jumping to conclusions about my editing, know that I'm committed to the improvement and success of Wikipedia and intend all my contributions to reflect that.
My strategy on "conflicted" articles edit
This page is out of date since I learnt about WP:COI+ and Jimbo's "bright line" - I'll refer to that before I do any actual editing where I might have a COI.
- Adding a suggestion to a talk page (as I've done in the past) is great in theory, but on a quiet page it may go months or even years without being acted on. If there's no NPOV problem, it's often easier just to do it (and also means less work for others).
- I don't see a COI problem with doing pretty NPOV edits which unambiguously improve the Wikipedia page - like adding clearly notable sources.
- I have a "zero revert" policy on pages where I could have a perceived COI. If someone changes my edits, that's fine and I'm not going to revert, but I may make a suggestion on the talk page.
Appropedia edit
I'm active with Appropedia and a director of the Appropedia Foundation. I've culled that article pretty heavily, because it was really inappropriate for Wikipedia in its original form - I actually made the article less promotional. (I left diffs and explanations on the talk page as I went, and had no objections... no response at all, in fact.)
There are times when an Appropedia link is worth putting on a Wikipedia article. I generally don't do this, but I might leave a note on talk pages, and I do tidy up the formatting of links.
Carbon capture and storage topics edit
I'm currently (2012) consulting with the Global CCS Institute, doing technical writing on carbon capture and storage (CCS) and carbon dioxide utilization (what, no article yet...?). I provide advice on their openCCS platform. As a result I'm often reading Wikipedia articles in the area and will make edits when I think they are uncontroversial and improve the article (though I haven't done any such editing, as of 23:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)). I end up working on articles that I wouldn't have touched if it weren't for this consulting job. I think that's a good thing, and I'll keep making an effort to ensure that.
Working with the Global CCS Institute's website, I find lots of good value reports and fact sheets there related to CCS, which in some cases would be valuable to add to a Wikipedia article. I'm not sure whether to clutter every corresponding talk page with a note about my COI. I'm inclined to just link this COI statement from my user page, add the links with great discretion, mention the COI in edit summaries, and rethink this approach if there are objections. (I'm also adding other links - and updating and formatting links sections - so it's not just adding links from my own organization.)
I'm also working on an article on the Global CCS Institute (definitely a notable subject) which I'll put in my userspace, and will ask someone else to move it to article space when ready.
See also edit
- WP:No paid advocacy - proposed Wikipedia policy.
- WP:COI+ - "a voluntary protocol, a set of agreements about ethical principles and practices for COI editors."
- Does Wikipedia Pay? The Founder: Jimmy Wales - Interview with Jimmy Wales re COI and the "bright line".