Expertise as a "Conflict of Interest"

[Aleta Curry]

You know presenting sources is one thing, but presenting relevant sources that are credible is another.  ...  Sometimes sources that are presented only appear credible, but upon examination are no better than "because I say so".  ... So a newpaper article is linked or some other "credible" source.  The point is, just because someone wrote something for a magazine or journal doesn't make it correct.  I'd speculate that there are more non-peer reviewed sources than peer reviewed sources used on the Internet.

I don't think that the debate between Editor A and Editor B is always cut and dry.  Editor A is not always right even when it appears so.

Hi Bryan

I would agree.  I think in the example above we were presuming a credible source, and I think most CZers have demonstrated that they know the difference.

Would you be kind enough to link to your CZ user page in your signature?  Thanks!

[Harald van Lintel]

The concept of conflict of interest in WP is deeply flawed, and can never be fixed because it is an expression of anti-expert bias in the system. In fact, invoking COI is the best way to remove an expert from the system.

Consider this case:
[...]
WP COI policy is an extension of anti-expert groupthink, in that it attacks the person editing text, not the text itself.
[...]
Given CZ's inclusion of experts,  it seems there should be no necessity for a COI policy.

Two comments:
1. From the above account I got the impression that Wikipedia's policy is way off.
However, I checked out Wikipedia's "COI policy" on this, and found the following *guideline* (not exactly policy):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wp:COI

It clarifies such things as:
 "Merely participating in or having professional expertise in a subject is not, by itself, a conflict of interest."
and
 "Editors who may have a conflict of interest are not barred from participating in articles and discussion of articles where they have a conflict of interest, but must be careful when editing in mainspace."

That's quite reasonable I'd say! Thus, the reason someone is banned from editing an article in Wikipedia is not (or, at least, 'should' not!) be due to his/her expertise.

Please note: the negative opinions higher up in this thread relate to older versions of that guideline.

2. Given CZ's emphasis on the use of individual experts who have the final say in the function of editor, a guideline on how to deal with possible conflict of interest in CZ is probably *essential* for CZ. It's just the professional thing to do.

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Harald_van_Lintel
(How can I automatically sign here? )

[Aleta Curry]

(How can I automatically sign here? )

By editing your "signature"
Find News: POSTING RULES above;  the PROFILE tab is in a row of deep blue tabs just below that. Click there; now go to "modify profile" (in the vertical boxes to the left).  Then find  "forum profile information" 

[Harald van Lintel]

(How can I automatically sign here? )

By editing your "signature"
Find News: POSTING RULES above;  the PROFILE tab is in a row of deep blue tabs just below that. Click there; now go to "modify profile" (in the vertical boxes to the left).  Then find  "forum profile information" 

Oh of course, I had not noticed half of it 
Thanks, now it should be OK!

[Aleta Curry]

Sweet!

I actually think that needs to be easier to find, but the tech boys have too much to do already, without listening me complaining about minor stuff!

[Harald van Lintel]

Sorry for the distraction! In order to not loose focus, I like to re-state my opinion:

Given CZ's emphasis on the use of individual experts who have the final say in the function of editor, a guideline - similar to the improved one of Wikipedia - on how to deal with possible conflict of interest in CZ is probably *essential* for CZ. It's just the professional thing to do.

Harald

[Martin Baldwin-Edwards]

I dislike being told that something is "professional" without a proper argument about why it should be done. Many professional things are quite appalling, so the argument is basically wrong.

What sort of conflict of interest is supposedly handled better on WP than is done with editorial policy on CZ? I have not seen a single problem of this sort, and I am very sensitive to conflict of interest issues. So, I want to know what problem we are supposedly addressing?

[Harald van Lintel]

I dislike being told that something is "professional" without a proper argument about why it should be done. Many professional things are quite appalling, so the argument is basically wrong.

What sort of conflict of interest is supposedly handled better on WP than is done with editorial policy on CZ? I have not seen a single problem of this sort, and I am very sensitive to conflict of interest issues. So, I want to know what problem we are supposedly addressing?

- No, I did not make any claim that conflict of interest is "handled better on WP"; and I have not seen *any* editorial policy or guideline of CZ concerning conflict of interest.

- Conflict of interest endangers the neutrality of articles, while such a neutrality is one of the hallmarks of Citizendium.

For example, in Switzerland there was a scandal about scientific studies that minimized health effects due to cigarette smoking; as it turned out, the investigators received funding by a cigarette company. Generally in science as well as in politics, any conflict of interest is regarded as disqualifying the individual concerned. I call such correct prevention of probable bias professional - it's a basic rule that is generally followed by people and organizations that are perceived as "professional".
Similarly, an author of many books and articles that strongly push a certain opinion can not be expected to be a reliable expert for judging information about opinions that are conflict with the opinions in which he/she has heavily invested with time and reputation.

Frankly, I'm astonished to see such a question being posed on this forum, together with an attack on the professionalism that CZ subscribes to. 

Some good examples in the *guideline* of Wikipedia, taken from two recent versions   (an older, bad example is cited in the original post of this thread):

"A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the purpose of Wikipedia to produce a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia, and the potential motivations of an individual editor."
"Merely participating in or having professional expertise in a subject is not, by itself, 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."

With more redactional power in the hands of fewer people, the danger of bias for Citizendium is greater than for Wikipedia *if* it is not countered by means of a few effective rules, which can be very straightforward. Such rules will make readers as well as authors confident about the reliability and neutrality of the contents of approved articles.

Harald

[Martin Baldwin-Edwards]

I do not think asking fundamental questions about policy should surprise you. I am remain unconvinced about this concept of professionalism: it is a modern myth and potentially harmful.

Accusing any of our editors of bias would be a serious problem. I can imagine a situation where I might argue with another editor that his position is his opinion, and not the only one, but that is a normal debate between academics. Nobody here has a monopoly over knowledge and the CZ neutrality policy is supposed to give a clear voice to alternative views.

I do not think there are simple rules to be followed which will guide expert editors. I also do not think it is normal for experts who have a particular view to deny the validity of competing views. Certainly, I regard it as the hallmark of expertise to be aware of all competing views, regardless of one's own positioning in the field. It is an approach that is increasingly undervalued within academia, but I have not seen any evidence of its demise amongst CZ editors.

[RJensen]

To have strong views on a topic is a warning sign for Wikipedia because those folks do not understand expertise, and actively distrust it. Experts are aware of all the views of their topic, but they also hold very strong views of their own. It's the ill-informed amateur who has weak views because of weak understanding--and these amateurs can be swayed this way or that by a little rhetoric.

[Harald van Lintel]

I do not think asking fundamental questions about policy should surprise you. I am remain unconvinced about this concept of professionalism: it is a modern myth and potentially harmful.

I have no problem with your rejection of CZ's demand for professionalism; that's between you and the guys in charge here.

Accusing any of our editors of bias would be a serious problem. I can imagine a situation where I might argue with another editor that his position is his opinion, and not the only one, but that is a normal debate between academics. Nobody here has a monopoly over knowledge and the CZ neutrality policy is supposed to give a clear voice to alternative views.

I know of no serious (or, professional  ) conflict of interest policy that accuses people of bias - thus that's irrelevant. The risk appears when only one or two editors are involved who both may have a similar conflict of interest.

I do not think there are simple rules to be followed which will guide expert editors. I also do not think it is normal for experts who have a particular view to deny the validity of competing views. Certainly, I regard it as the hallmark of expertise to be aware of all competing views, regardless of one's own positioning in the field. It is an approach that is increasingly undervalued within academia, but I have not seen any evidence of its demise amongst CZ editors.

This isn't about simple bias. Moreover, I already *cited* such simple rules from Wikipedia.
By chance I today came across similar simple rules from an IOP journal for which I do a review:

 "Peer Review Policy
 -----------------
 [...]
 Conflict of interest
 ------------------
 Please contact us if you are asked to referee an article in the following instances:

 you are in direct competition with the authors
 you are a co-worker or collaborator with one of the authors
 you are in a position to exploit the authors' work (commercially or otherwise)
 you are in a position which prevents you from giving an objective opinion of the work.

 We will then select an alternative referee."

Harald

[Martin Baldwin-Edwards]

you are in direct competition with the authors
 you are a co-worker or collaborator with one of the authors
 you are in a position to exploit the authors' work (commercially or otherwise)
 you are in a position which prevents you from giving an objective opinion of the work.

Although I tend to follow that practice personally, if it were applied across the board there would be almost no refereeing done. As things stand, journals cannot get enough good referees and frequently resort to recent graduates for refereeing of senior academics' work.

INsofar as professionalism is concerned, I subscribe completely to the policy of CZ which is about standards of behaviour rather than substantive content issues. I was objecting to your idea of professionalism which you seem to think should be CZ policy. It would be wise to conduct a more careful debate on these issues.

[Harald van Lintel]

you are in direct competition with the authors
 you are a co-worker or collaborator with one of the authors
 you are in a position to exploit the authors' work (commercially or otherwise)
 you are in a position which prevents you from giving an objective opinion of the work.

Although I tend to follow that practice personally, if it were applied across the board there would be almost no refereeing done. As things stand, journals cannot get enough good referees and frequently resort to recent graduates for refereeing of senior academics' work.

That's IOP's rule. I did not suggest that CZ should simply copy the rules of Wikipedia's and IOP - they are even different!
The topic of this thread is that expertise should not in itself be seen as causing a "conflict of interest", and I pointed out that this is generally agreed upon - currently also in Wikipedia.

Conflict of interest rules are commonly used for safeguarding correct editorial review, which is important for the quality of the published contents.
However, this thread appeared to suggest that the existence of a poor guideline implies that such rules are a bad idea and unprofessional. It's not clear if that was intentional, but I hope to have clarified :

- that such safeguards are commonly used and with good reason, and
 
- that it will be good for CZ's credibility to have a "conflict of interest" rule of its own.

Regards,
Harald

[Warren Schudy]

[IOP journal conflict of interest policy]:

 "you are in direct competition with the authors
 you are a co-worker or collaborator with one of the authors
 you are in a position to exploit the authors' work (commercially or otherwise)
 you are in a position which prevents you from giving an objective opinion of the work."

The last of the four criteria is the critical one in my opinion. The first three are nice to have, but need to be traded off against finding reviewers who know enough related work to make a competent review.

[Aleta Curry]

I'm sorry--suffering with headache--brain working very slowly, when it does work at all.

Who are IOP again?