VRCWiki talk:Conflicts of interest

The current COI policy is not very interpretable

I have a concern with the current state of the conflicts of interest policy. The documentation on this policy is both lenient and vague, and I feel like this policy needs to be VRChat-ified and also give examples and what may or may not qualify as a conflict.

For instance:

1. "family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships" should remain in the article, but we could also make room to make it more relatable, and pertinent to VRChat. Maybe instead change this to: "VRChat friends, real friends, development teams that you hold a relationship with; clients, employers, among financial and other relationships"
2. "Some VRChat users may be the only source of information for worlds, avatars, and tools. It is acceptable for those users to contribute this information." opens up a gate for content creators to unconditionally work on their own article. I feel like there should be some, but limited exception to this rule, and would rather have to status quo be something similar to: "If there is uncertainty of information, the presence of misinformation, or misrepresentation contained within in article, the primary source may need to be queried for guidance by an editor." rather than personally allowing a COI to occur.
3. Creation of an article, made directly by the world or avatar's author (or team) should never be allowed, and this would break the "Avoid advertising and use neutral language to maintain a neutral point of view (NPOV)." statement within the policy. Creation of an article is giving the content a platform to promote itself, and writing NPOV as the primary source will almost always be impossible; this will be biased.
4. We should also be linking 'good faith', 'be bold' and 'neutral point of view' policies; I recently added a COI Noticebox, and "See also" heading to this article recently. Let's proofread that too.

Thanks! DAG-XR (talk) 00:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I think what's most problematic here is that its a direct copy of Wikipedia's COI page. This should've been changed much earlier to apply to VRCWiki better. Other policies also need significant updates as well for similar reasons I'm noticing. TrixxedHeart (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

The primary source not being able to straight up make a page in the Community: namespace and not being able to edit on it goes against one of the core principles of VRChat. VRChat is driven by user generated content and often the only ones able to talk about this sort of content are the ones who made it.

This applies to any community content, however for worlds and avatars specifically you may only be able to have surface level pages made for the top 0.1% most visited worlds + some stragglers edited from others unaffiliated. We would simply lose out on a lot of valuble contributions, if we put a roadblock for people to share their knowledge here.

I also dislike that having to go through a talk page would mean to be at the mercy of someone else. This would just mean that a few select who would bother to write up the page based on talk page input, have control of what gets added by selecting such requests or ignoring it. I would much rather someone passionate enough to engage with the wiki directly.

Further, a stringent COI policy wont stop anyone somewhat dedicated enough from making the article anyway. Ask a friend to make a barebones page for you to edit, ask a friend to copy paste your edit in, use an alt to make the page. The options are readily available. You would never know it happened. Maybe having people go this route would be better after all, at least then the illusion of the ideal editor remains alive.

Instead of going so hard on COI, focus on ensuring community content submitted follows all proper content guidelines: NPOV, Manual of Style, Notability. That way, you cannot just sidestep some COI gate. Regulating COI, like with the recently added "Biased" noticebox is a good way to signal, that there is no need to cheat the system. It also encourages people to share more. This also means, that the wiki can be more transparent, highlighting that the primary source is the only source and more input is needed. Finally this kind of regulation would make anyone sidestepping COI just to avoid a noticebox look silly to the public. A true transparent approach.

Following this I don't think it is feasible to use this wiki as advertising, with the aforementioned content guidelines in play. Although 1 page out of hundreds still has some impact on how much it is seen I guess. Talking about advertising, having a stringent COI would just mean the top 0.1% most visited worlds benefit here, since those would be the ones most likely to have pages in some form anyway.

VRC Staff has also signaled 2 months ago in our maintainer check-in meeting, that they have no problem with a primary source contributing on the Community side of the wiki, to help expand the wiki. I can see why, given their overall plans for this wiki project mid-term. And of course, since no one owns the page, anyone may edit on it as per usual.

I have also previously shared extensive thoughts on the COI draft here a while back. Maebbie (talk) 01:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

"The primary source not being able to straight up make a page in the Community: namespace and not being able to edit on it goes against one of the core principles of VRChat. VRChat is driven by user generated content and often the only ones able to talk about this sort of content are the ones who made it."

This is a wiki documenting VRChat not VRChat itself. This is an important distinction to make.

We create articles regarding VRChat's aspects as a platform from an informative and (as much as we can) unbiased perspective. World creators making pages for their own world is directly in violation of bias and puts scrutiny on what can and cannot be trusted on the wiki. Should Wikipedia also allow creators to go willy-nilly creating pages for their own work because in the real world, someone who creates something might be the only one able to make an article about it?

Worlds as a whole were never supposed to be part of the wiki in the first place. Still, it was decided to be included to recognize culturally relevant worlds, the scope of what is considered "culturally relevant" is difficult to pinpoint directly without it being on a case-by-case basis. However, not every world is notable, and not every world needs a page. We should know this already given other community-based VRChat wiki attempts, it often bloats up the categories list with pages that end up being 1-2 paragraphs long, only explaining what's in the world, and that's it.

To put it simply, allowing creators to create pages for their own worlds would likely result in many non-notable, redundant, or low-quality pages, leading to unnecessary bloating. This would dilute the wiki's overall quality and would make it more difficult to find relevant information for readers. We should be striving to prioritize content that is culturally or significantly relevant instead of catering to every single creator. Quality over quantity.

"It also encourages people to share more."

Again, while sharing your creations is an important aspect of VRChat, the wiki is about VRChat, not VRChat itself. People who are not familiar with VRChat will be reading these pages on notable worlds to learn more about them. We are not a repository for sharing and indexing worlds.

"Further, a stringent COI policy wont stop anyone somewhat dedicated enough from making the article anyway."

Suggesting that people will simply bypass and find loopholes in policies does NOT justify making them less stringent. Policy is not about rules or magically stopping every case scenario, but defining ethical editing boundaries.

"Following this I don't think it is feasible to use this wiki as advertising, with the aforementioned content guidelines in play. Although 1 page out of hundreds still has some impact on how much it is seen I guess."

Even if only one page in hundreds of pages could be considered advertising, it sets a precedent. Wikis should not act as promotional tools for individual creators, they are meant to be an informative resource. If any creator is allowed to create a page for their worlds, it becomes difficult to draw a line between valuable and informative contributions and self-promotion.

To restate: We are a wiki providing informative resources about VRChat. Not an index for worlds, not a tool for creators to get their content out there, but to provide informative information regarding VRChat and relevant creations inside VRChat. TrixxedHeart (talk) 20:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Notability guidelines are already in place for both Avatars and Worlds, which do apply of course. I just dont see how we are supposed to document community content on vrchat, by leaving out one of the best and most passionate source for it. Not to mention who else would write about it. Of course you can say that "well it just is not worth writing about", but going by that logic I wonder, how it is that we barely get any world pages made as is.

Excluding the 1/3 or so of all world pages I authored, that I could meaningfully contribute to and finished up as best as I could, we got:

• 4 fully featured and finished pages where the creator or those adjacent took part in
• 8 (actual) stubs. Made by other editors, mostly maintainers. actual stubs as in ones that are not just nearly finished.
• 6 game world pages, which mostly focus on the gameplay elements, these are the most comprehensive ones so far.
• The remaining 4 or 5 worlds are very popular worlds in the top 0.1%

So despite this wiki being open and announced for a while now it seems there are not that many people to have something to say about Worlds. Yet given how nearly all of the top 0.1% of worlds have not even gotten a page, one should assume we would find someone other than those involved with it to write about them. Or maybe, I guess we just dont need World and Avatar pages after all.

I am not to say that we have to accommodate creators coming in sharing information about their worlds, but it would most certainly benefit the wiki, if they can abide by the content guidelines. All I want is to provide a way for everyone to contribute, so the community namespace can properly consolidate information that is currently scattered all over the place.

I would also like to add, that I do think the Community: Namespace is a repository for information of sorts, by the community. This includes worlds, that is if they have more value added than what is in their world description in VRC that is.

The reason i brought up the classic "ask a friend to paste in my edit" thing is just to outline that this is a real scenario that can and likely already played out on here. It is a reality that simply cannot be moderated or policed away and that we are better off regulating it in a way, where it is visible to the public if only 1 person took part in the page. I guess you could even filter out such pages from the category pages while it has such a noticebox, should that being there count as "advertising". We would also be rewarding people who like to go against the guidelines, if we start blocking good faith edits of the primary source. Maebbie (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Did you read my reply fully? I responded to various points you made regarding all these issues. Why are you repeating the same thing without anything new or addressing the statements made? TrixxedHeart (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I dont believe I repeated myself, but I can see that the way I wrote my reply it may not have looked like a reply to the new points you have brought up in your reply. I have reformatted some key points you made along with quotes from my reply to it, so that it is easier to correlate what i replied to where. And also to be able to better compare it to my initial reply to this topic. If something still feels off, please let me know though.

"This is a wiki documenting VRChat not VRChat itself. This is an important distinction to make."

"We should know this already given other community-based VRChat wiki attempts, it often bloats up the categories list with pages that end up being 1-2 paragraphs long, only explaining what's in the world, and that's it."

I stated in the first 2 paragraphs, that documenting is not playing out as planned. I also expressed my opionion that counters yours, that I do indeed believe "(...)the Community: Namespace is a repository for information of sorts, by the community" and that the "(...)community namespace can properly consolidate information that is currently scattered all over the place.". Further in regards to empty pages being made, I do believe that if that more quality ocntributions "(...) would most certainly benefit the wiki, if they can abide by the content guidelines."

"However, not every world is notable, and not every world needs a page"

I stated in my reply: "Notability guidelines are already in place for both Avatars and Worlds, which do apply of course."

"Suggesting that people will simply bypass and find loopholes in policies does NOT justify making them less stringent."

I stated in my reply on the last paragraph, that i wanted to "(...)outline that this is a real scenario that can and likely already played out on here. It is a reality that simply cannot be moderated or policed away." Not to disagree with your sentiment, but so reality is taken into account.

"Wikis should not act as promotional tools for individual creators, they are meant to be an informative resource."

I suggested: "...we are better off regulating it in a way, where it is visible to the public if only 1 person took part in the page. I guess you could even filter out such pages from the category pages while it has such a noticebox". In my initial reply I also said: "Regulating COI, like with the recently added "Biased" noticebox is a good way to signal, that there is no need to cheat the system"

Overall my believe is also that the content added should be informative/neutral and that this can be accomplished when the "(...)focus (is) on ensuring community content submitted follows all proper content guidelines: NPOV, Manual of Style, Notability."

I hope this makes my reply more clear as to where i specifically replied to the points you made. Maebbie (talk) 22:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Just want to echo some sentiments expressed here.

- We shouldn't be punishing and/or restricting some of the most knowledgeable and passionate sources of information

- No matter what you do, there MAY be some small amount of people who will advertise/self-promote. You can try and write overly complex policies that as a practical matter - nobody's ever going to read (I want to contribute knowledge not read pages and pages of guidelines - keep it simple !!) OR you can write a very simple and clear policy that just states "don't self promote". Just write a policy that addresses the actual issue.

These policies aren't really pro-active, in an everyday sense they are usually reactive. It's something to point to when a page is removed or moderated or whatever. So rather than say "oh this person kinda knows that guy who worked on the world and it crossed this complicated threshold for COI (even though the page itself is fine)" just say "we don't want self promotion". Clear, simple, concise.

Just an example of the kind of approach I'd rather see. lightbulb4 (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I think there's a big misunderstanding of what policies are for. As stated previously, it's not going to magically stop everyone who breaks the policy. It's to lay the groundwork for ethical editing. To consider it reactive is very reductionary and fails in understanding why we have policies in the first place, fullstop.

"We shouldn't be punishing and/or restricting some of the most knowledgeable and passionate sources of information"

The idea of this being "punishment" is an overreaction, creators would still have input regarding their own creations, however we don't want people to simply create pages willy-nilly for all their creations. That's the issue at hand here. Nobody is being punished for having the most knowledge, it's about being ethical and making sure the wiki is a place people can trust to get objective information from.

Please consider the wiki's goals, it's not a place for creators, it's a place for readers to learn information about specific topics, which is what is meant by Not every world needs a page. Does the three-hundredth and twelve cozy world with a pool table, markers, and mirror wall really need a page? Would this benefit readers?
Sure, I could theoretically make a page for my own world Somewhere Here, I could talk about how my plans for it were to be a Spookality 2021 entry I never finished, the reasons why, the inspiration behind each room, the small little details behind everything. And all of that would absolutely be excellent information for an article.
But... excuse my tone, why the hell would I do that? Why would I as a creator restrict myself to the wiki's style guide when... I could just as easily make a post about it on my Bsky, or Tumblr, or anywhere else where I have significantly more freedom? Then if I really wanted that to be on the wiki, I could easily just ask, "hey would someone like to make a page about this?" or in the case if already had one, just ask for the information to be added, using the post I made as a citation so people know it came from me.

This feels like such a nothing-burger to argue for. in my opinion, there is no real reason for a world creator to create a page for their own creation. Unless they're seeking to advertise it through the wiki. Or use it as trophy points to say: "Hey look my creation is on the official wiki!" Because every point I've seen in this thread so far against COI, hasn't been very convincing, or by those who have violated COI previously and would benefit from it's removal/reduction, which would ironically be a direct COI in itself if you want to be meta about this. TrixxedHeart (talk) 20:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)