Wikipedia talk:Paid editing (guideline)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Paid advocacy

That part probably needs some re-wording, since any advocacy that violates NPOV (regardless of motive) is of course inappropriate. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 17:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about that. Advocacy can mean so very many things. When we debate paid editing, for instance, some of us advocate one position while others advocate for another. If a non-profit believes that an article in its area of expertise violates Wikipedia's standards of inclusion, why should they be prevented from presenting their case in an AFD? They might be the most informed party in the discussion, and as long as they follow relevant policies and guidelines, I'd say they should be permitted to advocate to their heart's content. Yes, even paid employees in the course of their work. The encyclopedia would be the better for it.

Courts strive to high standards, much like Wikipedia; given complex situations, they try to determine factual truth, and determine reasonable outcomes. There is a clear role for paid advocates in a courtroom, but they are understood not to be the final decision-makers; that falls to a judge or a jury. The advocates' allegiance is known and fully transparent, but as officers of the court, they are also expected to adhere to a certain code of ethics. Isn't a model like that worthy of consideration? -Pete (talk) 03:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

To that analogy there is an inherant inequality but no more than all the other stated weighted issues and allegiances. At an XfD everyone states their opinion and a concensus hopefully emerges. It would be good then to point out that editors paid to give opinions seems liek a really bad idea but likely should be permitted as long as there is no gaming going on. For instance, if a paid editor, whether anyone knows they are paid or not is the primary author of an AfD'd article we want them to participate so teh discussion is productive. Anyone meatpuppeting, however, will be blocked. -- Banjeboi 06:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Banjeboi -- I agree with what you say here. There are most definitely areas of good-faith discourse covered by numerous other Wikipedia policies and guidelines that would apply, meatpuppeting being one of the major ones. -Pete (talk) 17:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Premature

This is, obviously, a controversial issue, so it is important that we get it right before we publish it. I suggest that this page be built in user space. It is premature to put it in Wikipedia project space because editors could mistake it for policy. The Nutshell box at the top substantially increases the likelihood of that mistake. An alternative is to label it an essay, which later could be promoted to a policy or guideline if it is adopted as such. Finell (talk) 20:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd say label it a work in progress in some ways. Userfying seems counter-productive when clearly the time is come to formalize guidelines for those asking questions whatever the answers ultimately are. -- Banjeboi 21:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with the opposition, but on the RFC talk page encouraged this as a way to formulate a possible change in policy. The pro-paid side here is clearly asking for a change in policy, and they should have a place to formulate it with wide input. Maybe they should just be clearer at the top of the page that his is just a possible suggested policy change in progress.

Good luck in coming up with something that will be acceptable to a large majority of editors, but I doubt that it will happen. Smallbones (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Based on the RfC, there is nothing approaching consensus for the policy that's currently being proposed. But this apparently has to run its course. Priyanath ^talk 00:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I've labelled it proposed to clarify it's not official. I'd also like to point out that whatever is ultimately decided or not this same guidelines can reflect NPOV. If it's policy not to then we state that; if there is no set policy one way or another, we state that. -- Banjeboi 06:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

That's the right course for now. If it doesn't receive community consensus, then it joins other Category:Wikipedia rejected proposals. —Priyanath ^talk 19:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm kind of frustrated about the proposed tag. This is not a proposed change in policy - this page is supposed to represent nothing but a list of relevant existing policies that should be adhered to, a purely informational page. There is, apparently, no tag for this. The only function of consensus here should be fact-checking that the advice correctly reflects the policy it cites. I'm going to try to elaborate on the first point which seems to be the most controversial bit. Dcoetzee 19:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Even if you believe that this is just a listing of relevant policies that already exist, it would still be a policy or guideline page if it's in the Wikipedia space. At least by my reading of WP:Policy. So it seems that there will still need to be consensus to keep the finished product in Wikipedia space. I'm not a wikilawyer, so I stand to be corrected. Priyanath ^talk 21:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

This isn't really true - there are many things in the project namespace that are either user essays or even intended to be humorous. But it is still true that if this page purports to represent policy, it should do so accurately, and it's on that point that I invite your feedback. Dcoetzee 22:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

If this page purports to represent policy, then it is (or will be) a policy page, and needs to have community consensus in the end. Priyanath ^talk 23:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Describing and being policy are not the same thing. This is what the term "non-normative" is meant to distinguish. Dcoetzee 23:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Economic Inequality?

Boldly hatting banned user thread that I was the only other participant. -- Banjeboi 02:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What on earth does the "see also" Economic inequality have to do with paid editing? If nobody gives a satisfactory answer, I'll remove it within a reasonable time. Erich Mendacio (talk) 06:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC) There is an underlying issue of classism here. Ths issue of paid editing should also address the systematic bias that there is economic disparity on who can even access Wikipedia let alone edit here. Economic inequality speaks to that reality. -- Banjeboi 07:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC) Anyone can edit here. The only barriers to entry are a computer and internet connection. Are you saying that sponsors will not only pay others to edit wikipedia but also will purchase the means to do so (computer/internet connection) for them? That evokes an image of a Chinese sweatshop with people laboring for 18 hours a day in a cramped room, all editing Wikipedia for their masters -- which indeed is not a good way to remedy economic inequality! Erich Mendacio (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Rescue template inapplicable

Boldly hatting section that is now obsolete, as deletion debate has been closed "speedy keep." -Pete (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
{{Rescue}} is intended for articles that are nominated for deletion, but that may be "rescued" by additional research and sources. Its language to "help improve the article meet Wikipedia's inclusion and notability criteria. Please edit this article to add reliable sources and address other concerns raised in the discussion. (Find sources: google, news, books, scholar)" is inapplicable to this project page. I deleted this once with the following edit summary: "Delete inapplicable Rescue template: this has nothing to do with finding reliable sources or establishing notability", but Benjiboi reverted me. I still believe that this particular template is inapplicable to this project page. Unless good reason to retain it is raised below, I intend to delete the template again. Finell (talk) 04:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC) The rescue tag is applied to content not just articles. You are correct that the template wording should be customized for this template but that is a template fix that hasn't happenned yet in part because the ARS project is backlogged. That shouldn't penalize content that can, in fact, be rescued but does heighten that the issue should be addressed. And rescuing in this case would involve specifically addressing fixing perceived POV concerns and offering how this content serves the encyclopedia and therefore our readers. People active in rescuing items, IMHO, tend to look at bigger issues of how to treat items not based on personal attachments but in policies and practice. Sometimes what is best is to merge, move and even delete. The MfD itself will determine if this item can be rescued or not. -- Banjeboi 05:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Start with quote from Jimbo

Above people seem to be saying that this page is meant to summarize current policy. If so we must start with current policy as stated by Jimbo. Some above and on the RFC seem to say that Jimbo does not have the right anymore to dictate policy in such a way. Historically he has, he seems to believe he has, and the Foundation Board does know about this. It's my belief that IF Jimbo is overstepping his authority, only the Foundation Board has the right to correct him. Absent a statement by the Board, the quote I put at the top of the page IS policy. About the only thing this page can do is sort out and interpret this policy, seeing how it relates to WP:COI, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM, WP:V, WP:NPOV, current practice, etc. I'll suggest that the material on the reward board and the bonus board be expanded. If people want to get coverage on Wikipedia, there are accepted ways of doing this. We are perhaps at fault for not letting them know how to properly do this, see WP:Bite.

Smallbones (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll find differing opinions on WP:Jimbo's statement as decreed policy. -- Banjeboi 18:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This really isn't a case where opinions or even consensus matter. Does Jimbo have the right to declare policy in this case? As far as I can see, he does; but if the Board of the Foundation cares to state otherwise, I'll believe them. It perhaps goes a bit further. If Jimbo declares that he has the right to make policy like this, and the Board acquiesces, then it is in effect confirming that he does have the right. No mere editor has anything relevant to say about this. Smallbones (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe the point has been effectively made that as of a couple years ago, Jimbo no longer has the ability to decree policy (somewhere in the discussion on the RFC). Even aside from that, Jimbo's phrasing is incoherent; even if we were to call it policy, that wouldn't change the fact that we don't know what the heck he said. In the first paragraph, he refers to someone "selling their services as an editor..." and "advocacy" as if they are inseparably the same thing. That's just crazy-talk, and does nothing to promote a clear understanding of what we're supposed to do. -Pete (talk) 18:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see that pronouncement. A lot depends on who said it, and the exact wording of what was said. Until then I'll assume that when Jimbo says "This is policy" then it should be taken very seriously. I'll certainly agree with Pete that what he said wasn't detailed and that some people may not think it is clear. I view the role of this page being to clear up any misunderstanding, get community input on borderline issues, and put a bright line around what is a surprisingly contentious topic. Smallbones (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Rather than digging up that bit of discussion, I went to WP:JIMBO. I don't see anything in there that establishes his ability to unilaterally write policy. Jimbo seemed to indicate in the quote in question that he was merely describing something that he felt was de facto policy, rather than establishing something new. Though even that was unclear in what he said; maybe he did intend to be establishing a new policy. I just don't know. -Pete (talk) 21:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I trimmed it back a bit and removed:

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.

— Upton Sinclair

which seems to be POV and otherwise unneeded. -- Banjeboi 18:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this exactly the point that needs to be made? Smallbones (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

That quote may work for you but we should simply state that in a NPOV way if that is indeed the point that needs to be made. -- Banjeboi 19:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

NPOV refers to articles and encyclopedic content "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view" I think that all policies inherently have a POV, hopefully the POV of the community. Smallbones (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

We write all content to be NPOV for a reason. Policy pages are included within that spirit. -- Banjeboi 21:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad that both sides are participating in the editing, and the quote from Jimbo is okay, but I'd like to strike the part reading "consider this policy as of right now", because it gives the false impression that Jimbo actually wields the power to do that. Jimbo's opinion carries great weight, and is worth quoting in this context, but let's not give legitimacy to his delusions of dictatorship. Dcoetzee 05:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm mixed on it - he is not the only one deluded that he can decree as such. ____ is a policy, I have spoken. -- Banjeboi 08:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

"Historically he has" ended awhile back. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Drop the Jimbo quote. If it agrees with the proposed policy then it is unnecessary - policy is policy by consensus, not because Jimbo agrees with it. If it contradicts the proposed policy then it is confusing. And if it is so open to different readings that you could attach any one of several different nuanced interpretations to it (which is my personal opinion) then it is muddled and unclear and does not belong in a policy anyway. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I've removed:

“ Jimbo Wales, in a community discussion on the issue in June 2009 stated "It is not ok with me that anyone ever set up a service [...] as a Wikipedia editor, administrator, bureaucrat, etc. I will personally block any cases that I am shown [...] the idea that we should ever accept paid advocates directly editing Wikipedia is not ever going to be ok. [...] ”

It may cause more problems and there is sharp disagreement on giving his statements extra weight in this way. -- Banjeboi 14:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Who is a paid advocate?

This section is likely to be controversial, but I think it is needed if this proposed (guideline?) is ever going to go anywhere. All input is welcomed. Smallbones (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

We're presuming that vast swaths of editors are likely problematic or likely non-problematic so although I think this section holds promise I also think it invites people to find a way around the spirit of the issues. There likely is a better way to approach this but let's see if there are other comments first. -- Banjeboi 21:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The structure of that section begs the entire fundamental question. My whole point in this series of discussions is that there are ethical and unethical ways for managers, PR firms, etc. to behave relating to Wikipedia; THAT is the important distinction to make.

If we just say "no PR firm or management should ever seek to influence Wikipedia content," we're just sticking our heads in the sand and letting a bad problem get worse. -Pete (talk) 21:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree to a point. To me it also invites wikilawyering or gaming so technically I'm not ____ but instead I should be considered ____. I don't care persnally as long as the content isn't compromised. -- Banjeboi 23:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll agree with Benjiboi that this section invites wikilawyering, but actually any guideline will do the same. It's ultimately impossible to draw an absolute clear bright line that can't be wikilawyered. If we allow PR firms, or firm's lawyers to contribute, I'm afraid that the guideline will never get a majority of support from the community, and we ought to give up on this right now. Who else would the words "paid advocate" apply to if not them? Smallbones (talk) 23:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that wikilawyering will always be a factor, and that potential wikilawyering isn't a really compelling argument to avoid any given course of action.

As for bright lines, in my view the one kind of bright line we could, and should, draw is that certain kinds of editors (PR firms, internal communications departments, etc.) must disclose their potential conflict of interest, and what is the minimal form that disclosure must take. Maybe there are others, but I think that's the important one.

Of course some will disregard the rule, but they'll do so at the peril of getting found out and suffering a blow to their reputation.

But here's the deeper issue, that I don't think has been adequately addressed in any of the discussion I've seen to date: what guidelines should we have in place to complement the bright line(s) we draw? Suppose that there has been consensus on a certain bright line rule (or collection of bright line rules). For the sake of this scenario, let's just suppose that bright line is "no edits to article space by PR professionals to articles that relate to their clients in any way."

No matter what the bright line is, there will still be good faith PR firms that take an interest in Wikipedia content relating to their clients, and wish to make the occasional change. What kind of helpful advice can we offer them, that acknowledges and honors their good intentions?

What should they do when they find a typo? What if their client wants to see their logo on the article, in a way which is in complete compliance with style guidelines and copyright policies? What if they discover slanderous and uncited material on the article?

We've heard a zillion doomsday theories about what such a PR firm should not do. Fine.

What should these potentially valuable allies in the project of assembling the sum total of human knowledge do?

I ask this because this describes actual people I know, in actual situations that have actually arisen. What should we tell them? "Don't put beans in your nose, and stop asking so many questions?" That's just not sufficient. -Pete (talk) 23:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Smallbones, I'd like to apologize in advance if my exasperation is showing through, or appears to reflect directly on you. I'm just a bit disappointed overall that these sorts of questions have not been discussed more. I guess I feel as though the entire topic has been approached, by Jimmy Wales and many others, in a way that utterly fails to assume good faith on the part of the many professionals that are already, or desire to, edit Wikipedia as part of their paid work, in areas where their clients' interests and Wikipedia's mission are uncontroversially aligned. I'm gonna go get away from the computer for a bit, but I'll be back later -- I'm interested to know if either of you see it the same way. -Pete (talk) 00:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

All the cases cited seem pretty clear to me:

What should they do when they find a typo?

Fix it. I don't think anybody would seriously object if it was just a typo. The only reason not to put that in the guideline is that if you give some people an inch, they take a mile. Or just say it could be a slippery slope, that we don't need to deal with.

What if their client wants to see their logo on the article, in a way which is in complete compliance with style guidelines and copyright policies?

Put an invitation to use it on the talk page. Piece of cake.

What if they discover slanderous material on the article?

WP:BLP trumps anything we do here. I'd say a minimal fix, with a note on the talk page and a post to WP:BLPN

What if they discover uncited material on the article?

Talk page

Hope this helps, Smallbones (talk) 00:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

That does help but isn't apparent from the current ____ people should not here tone. It may make ense to convert this to spell out instead - perhaps using these examples - what works and what doesn't. It would also help to spell out what disclosure is usually considered accepted. FWIW, I'm fine with something on their userpage - I help oil corporation with PR work and occasionally correct articles when they are pointed out to me. Couple that with a statement that if any problems arise all edits may be reviewed. -- Banjeboi 03:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes Smallbones, that does help -- quite a bit actually. I'm heartened to see that we're in fairly close alignment on the specific examples (though not perfect alignment).

Also, I had another thought. After I wrote that, I started thinking about a longstanding bright line rule we have on Wikipedia: the three revert rule. 3RR lays out a very clear line, but even so, it has a thoughtful "exceptions" section which breaks down the kind of scenarios where it does not apply. In both theory and in practice, I think this works very well; in the occasional instance that a well-established editor must repeat a reversion of a piece of vandalism 5 times in a day, she does so knowing that 3RR will not be invoked to censure her behavior.

So, looking at the first instance, a typo correction: your suggestion is similar to Jimbo's statement that certain violations by long-standing editors will be "forgiven." But that's not OK. We're going to forgive someone, or not object, to their fixing a typo??? No, we want people to fix typos! Saying someone may be "forgiven" for what any reasonable person can see is desirable behavior is a really nasty kind of mixed message.

So I think the way to do go is to include an "exceptions" section in this policy, that clearly states what kinds of behavior may constitute exceptions. Will there be grey areas, and subjective considerations? Yes! But we don't always uniformly agree on what constitutes vandalism, either.

In short, I think we need elements of both a bright line test and a balancing rule to have an effective policy.

As a side note: I've never found the slippery slope argument compelling. The argument always arises in the context of a detailed deliberation. What makes us think that there will not be detailed deliberations in the future? If our policy's language properly reflects our shared values, I don't see it being used in the future to corrupt the project. -Pete (talk) 04:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Coming to this thread late, Smallbones, I want to point out one problem. What if a PR person posts something on the talk page of an article, but no one responds? Silence does not always means no on Wikipedia: there are a great many talk pages which are only read once a month -- or once every 6 months. When can a PR person assume that no one is interested, & can then be bold & make the change? -- llywrch (talk) 17:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The main point that needs clarification here is how this section would be useful to someone who wants to participate in paid editing. The way I currently read this section is something like "if you're one of these people, you might have a bias... so be extra careful"? I don't really get it. Dcoetzee 06:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Paid advocates usually do not include:
• Editors who are hired by a government (e.g. the German Government), a non-profit foundation, or other neutral party, via an open public process, to write Wikipedia articles, within a broad group of articles, that are consistent with the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View Policy. WP:NPOV must be judged by the Wikipedia community, not by the employer.

Why would we exclude these editors? What makes them different from other paid editors? Many non-profits and governments are anything but neutral. Would it be OK for the Israeli government to hire someone to write articles on the treatment of Jews in Iran, for example? (Or the Iranian government to hire writers to create articles about the treatment of Muslims in Israel?) Would it be OK for someone hired by a non-profit manufacturers association to create articles on their products, without being considered a paid editor? I don't understand the point of this exclusion.   Will Beback  talk  21:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• • I agree and this aligns with what I wrote above. To ease the concerns of wikilawyering in every direction I think we should reverse engineer and focus on the actual editing rather than the profession. I could care less who is being compensated or how. What matters is the content integrity and this seems to degrade from that point. Paid advocates professions shoudl be replaced with Signs of advocacy editing include:. This is a art of our civility credo of focussing on the contribution rather than the contributor. -- Banjeboi 00:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I've removed the clause. If there's a good reaon for it I'd be interested, As for Benjiboi's suggestion on a restart, I agree. It's better to focus on signs of inappropriate advocacy, paid or unpaid. Maybe strengthening the COI guideline and turning it into a policy would be more useful.   Will Beback  talk  01:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Paid editing (not advocacy) should be allowed as long as its disclosed

I've been contributing to Wikipedia for years, mostly without logging in. As Wikipedia has grown in popularity I've occasionally noticed articles that I suspected were being edited by someone with a vested interest in the topic (Wal-Mart was an early example). I couldn't prove my opinion beyond the occasional suspicion about an IP address. Even if I thought I could prove it, I wasn't sure if I could do so based simply on policies and guidelines such as the one on conflict of interest. I was sure I didn't have the interest in spending the time to do so.

With those biases in mind, my suggestion is to simply require paid editors to be logged in, with a user page that discloses their status as a paid editor. I think Peteforsyth mentions this approach elsewhere in this talk page. It goes without saying that paid editors should be required to meet all the guidelines and policies that we all have to meet. I could envision a simple template that a paid editor should be required to include on their user page that reflects their status. In particular, I'd suggest a broad definition of "paid", though exactly how broad I leave to proper members of the community of editors. Anyone who works for a large company or has a professional reputation to maintain has an incentive to voluntarily acknowledge that they are paid editors.

Perhaps more controversially:

• I'd allow editors to have a separate account, legitimately, for their paid work. But that's me. When I've edited something in an Internet café while I'm on the road I have sometimes wondered if my new IP address technically makes me a sockpuppet if I don't log in.
• Someone proficient in one or more dialects of wikimarkup should be encouraged to turn that knowledge into a marketable skill. Wikipedia's popularity makes familiarity with MediaWiki possibly the most marketable of all wikimarkup skills, so maybe paid editorship should be seen as a badge of honor, worthy of a barnstar (again, as long as they meet all the guidelines and policies that we all have to meet). I have stumbled into some fervent fanboys while editing an article, and thought it was be a contribution to society if their energy could be channeled into an article outside of the pop culture ones they enjoy watching. :-)

In short, concentrate on the voluntary disclosure aspects of paid editorship, rather than trying to make it illegal. 67.100.125.8 (talk) 00:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC).

You bring up the valid point, among others, that many will simply never have an account so we have to write this for different audiences. I'd hold off on the barnstar for the moment. LOL! -- Banjeboi 03:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Most of this discussion is more appropriate for the RFC - there is the issue of alternate accounts for paid editors to consider discussing here, but I'd like to get the less controversial aspects settled first. Dcoetzee 05:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The RfC, IMHO, is a bit heated but hopefully some cooler heads will wade in and attempt a summary that will be agreed upon and then we can look to reconciling it with what we have going on here. My hunch is that we will be closer than not to each other. -- Banjeboi 02:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Consensus

Wikipedia operates by consensus. How will paid editors interact with the rest of the community regarding talk page discussions? While consensus theoretically cannot override core policies, in fact it determines the local interpretations. It's one thing for a paid editor to simply contribute text to an article. But what happens when their edits are altered or deleted? Can they hire others to come and join them to help the arguments go in their direction? Would consensus be determined by whoever is willing to pay for it?   Will Beback  talk  00:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

This suggests there isn't already paid editors already among the general population - y'know, watching us. I don't see a reason they should be held to any other standards than anyone else as likewise those who have conflict with someone who is a paid editor. -- Banjeboi 01:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Meatpuppeting has always been a no-no. I'm sure we don't always catch it now, and I'm sure we won't always catch it in the future; but often, we do. Nobody is proposing that we change any policies relating to meatpuppets. -Pete (talk) 08:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

My point, I guess I have one, is WP:Beans et al. We could add all sorts of things here but it may be best to keep it more concise. If meatpuppeting is the issue let's add a statement that sums it up and point to the relevant page ala Wikipedia:Sock puppetry is a form of gaming Wikipedia's policies and discussions. Recruiting other people, here or elsewhere is prohibited. -- Banjeboi 11:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep. My point was meant for Will, not you. On this point, I think we're all on the same page about what's permissible...only differing on how to express it in policy. Is that right? -Pete (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that a restriction on sock and meatpuppetry needs to be made explicit. But on the other point, this proposed policy says that all paid editing must be disclosed, so I'm not talking about undisclosed paid editing. Let's say I get a contract to write an article about "Acme Home Rockets". I write an article offline and post it, disclosing my status as a paid editor. Then another editor comes along and adds text about an embarrassing industrial accident that I've been paid to keep out. A discussion starts on the talk page, between the free editor and the paid editor. I'd have a monetary interest in keeping that material out, while the other editor has only a passing interest. I'd insist that the derogatory information can't be added without consensus, I'd insist that the other editor's sources are inadequate, etc. Unless the other editor is committed enough to bring in further resources, or escalate to dispute resolution, then I'd succeed in creating a favorable article that suppresses information. If we did go to mediation, would paid and unpaid editors be treated equally? Would my !vote count equally at AfD? All of this seems like throwing a nerd and a football player into a ring, and telling them to fight it out to see who's right. I propose that paid editors should be excluded from forming consensus on an article they'd written or edited, including AfDs. They should also be excluded from editing policies, to prevent them from molding them to their benefit. Some of this is suggested by the COI guideline, but it should be made a requirement here.   Will Beback  talk  19:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a very difficult question to determine to what extent paid editors should be permitted to be involved in discussions regarding their own contributions. Intuitively, editors may be paid to edit, but not to manipulate consensus, but it's often hard to distinguish manipulation from reasonable discussion. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to set up some kind of special mediation process for disputes involving paid editors. Dcoetzee 20:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

This will need to be resolved before this can become a guideline or policy. Otherwise even this proposal itself could end up being modified by paid editors in order to reduce restrictions.   Will Beback  talk  21:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, this page already describes one important restriction - that paid editors should only be able to participate in discussions regarding their own contributions. This is a bit stricter than necessarily, but it does effectively rule out them trying to influence general policy as well as many meatpuppet scenarios. Dcoetzee 21:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That's good, though it would be better if it weren't under the weak heading "Advice".   Will Beback  talk  21:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hold up. I am opposed to suggesting that paid editors, remember here many will not self-identify, are now relegated to some caste system where they are not permitted to participate in any discussion, policy or otherwise. Even paid editors can fully participate as long as they follow the same community guidelines everyone else does. I am opposed to suggesting otherwise hjust as I'm opposed to suggesting that people with green eyes are somehow restricted. Or that editors only of a certain age range are welcome. That seems counter to core philosophy. -- Banjeboi 02:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The point is not that paid editors cannot participate in any discussion they want - they just can't do so for money. This is obviously against our existing position regarding meatpuppets. Dcoetzee 21:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you're defining that but on the surface I think I disagree. If someone is a meatpuppet it doesn't matter if they are paid or not. Paid editors who participate in a discussion of any kind are not by default meatpuppets. If we have to define a bit what meatpuppeting is for paid editors to help ensure they steer away from that fine but let's not conflate paid editing with being a puppet. -- Banjeboi 22:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Nutshell

Resolved

 – Nutshell removed for now

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I removed the "nutshell" summary for two reasons: first, it implied that paid editing is currently tolerated. Second, the page is still in flux and it'd be better to wait until it's stable to summarize it. As the text in the intro says, right now the page is just an "effort to explore these issues."   Will Beback  talk  23:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC) I've removed the "effort to explore these issues" text - the RFC was for "exploring the issue", we've done plenty of that as it is, and that's absolutely not what this page is for. The point of the page is that it's directed at paid editors. I don't care about the nutshell though. The page may be a "work in progress", which is fine. Dcoetzee 02:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC) I've restored the nutshell, paid editing is "tolerated", a POV term that. It may make sense to reword the statement but a nutshell is to help summaraize the most salient point(s). -- Banjeboi 02:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Disagree with Dcoetzee that "The point of the page is that it's directed at paid editors" - it's directed at anyone who wants to understand the current status of the related issues. This concerns those who are doing so as well as those tryingto sort out how to address perceieved problems. The RfC was a cacophony of concern and, IMHO, this page is a way forward to spell out what appropriate guidelines/policies apply to this issue. Just like WP:COI isn't written for editors who have a COI, it is written for all to understand the issue and how to address problems associated with it. -- Banjeboi 02:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC) That's a better way of putting it, yes. What I don't want is forum-style opinions and discussion of the issues - it should summarize the current position and the things we agree on, much like policy pages, rather than expound upon the diversity of opposed viewpoints. Dcoetzee 02:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Is paid editing tolerated? IIRC, Jimbo has said he'd block anyone found doing it. The RFC hasn't come out in favor of it. Before this page was redirected as redundant it said "On Wikipedia editing articles for pay is, in most cases, strictly forbidden." Has there been a demonstrable consensus to change that?   Will Beback  talk  04:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC) The answer to both of your questions is a clear "No". That's why I also continue to find this page puzzling. Priyanath talk 04:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Hold the phone there ... the almighty Jimbo wrote "It is not ok with me that anyone ever set up a service selling their services as a Wikipedia editor, administrator, bureaucrat, etc. I will personally block any cases that I am shown." It's a bit quibbly but certainly relative that certainly not all paid editors are people who have done this. The situation I continue to encounter is people who are employed elsewhere sent to edit here - often to fix errors but also to do regular editing. They are defacto paid editors - they are being paid to edit here and if they were not compelled to do so likely would not. Ergo, paid editing is "tolerated" although hardly encouraged. I think if you really examine the issue the reality is there are many many people who have and likely will continue to edit here and because of teh heat of the discussion will likely never "confess" to being paid to edit here. Absent of self-disclosure we must rely on our formidable and open-minded editing and conduct policies to address problematic behaviours and editing instead. Paid editing is an issue with lots of hazy issues that may never be resolved. The main job presently, IMHO, is to neither condone nor condemn but show the light for what are the main concerns and where can editors turn for insight if they are having problems - either as a paid editor or with a paid editor. -- Banjeboi 04:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Comment. I've tweaked the nutshell: “ When editing for compensation of any kind follow Wikipedia's policies to maintain neutrality and avoid gaming the system which disrupts consensus. ” I removed the "do so openly" bit. I don't see anything that requires someone to disclose being a paid editor and would pounce on it personally as preceding a thoughtful discussion on what paid editing constitutes as I've expressed above. -- Banjeboi 04:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC) This is simply what the conflict of interest guideline states. Any editor with an actual or perceived conflict of interest should discuss their motivations on their user page. I can assert with complete confidence that there is strong consensus against secret paid editing, and including this is vital to a complete representation of the consensus position. Dcoetzee 05:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC) I think we're going from bad to worse. I don't see a consensus for removing "do so openly", and i think that goes against the views of the community. I'm afraid this proposal is sinking. Strengthening the COI would seem like a better exercise.   Will Beback  talk  05:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC) I've trimmed off "When editing for compensation of any kind...", because it implies that paid eidting is acceptable, which still hasn't been determined. Let's make sure there's a consensus for compensated editing first before we say that it's OK.   Will Beback  talk  05:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC) To Dcoetzee, paid editing does not equal COI - although arguably some counter it always does. My hunch is that it sometimes does and when that happens it's a COI issue not purely a paid editing one. COI does not require disclosure but strongly encourages it. So we are running counter to our COI policy in two ways by insisting that paid editors self-disclose; (i) there remains no policy that paid editing equals COI, likely because it doesn't always do so and (ii) even COI editors are not required to be open about their COI. In addition you state "there is strong consensus against secret paid editing." I don't think there is because the issue is clouded by conflating paid editing with various forms of spamming and advocacy which are inherently against policy. Ther eare many forms of paid editing which have gone on in the past, and continue to occur which remain policy-complaint in both the letter and spirit. To Will Beback, paid editing that doesn't cause any concern because it aligns with Wikipedia's mission has been occuring and continues to do so. We really don't care if someone is compensated in some way, it's a red herring, what we care about is what content do they as a volunteer here contribute. -- Banjeboi 15:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC) WP:COI is a guideline, not a policy. There is nothing there to prevent us here from requiring disclosure of paid editing. How does Benjiboi know that there is paid editing going on and that's it's compatible with Wikipedia's norms?   Will Beback  talk  21:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC) I agree completely that there is are types of paid editing that do not present a conflict of interest, and do not necessitate disclosure. However, my objective here is not to impose the most reasonable limitations on a case-by-case basis, but to come up with something that the fierce opponents of paid editing will accept. If a compromise is not reached, they will push for a policy that forbids paid editing altogether. Promoting disclosure is just a necessary concession, and frankly a harmless one - I can't imagine a good reason not to disclose their motivation. Dcoetzee 21:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC) I doubt any form of forced disclosure will ever fly likely because it's unenforcible, same with the idea that all forms - or even most forms - will somehow be prohibited. Sorry, it just won't happen. And the damage or harm? It sets up a class of editors as being somehow less deserving of full good faith credit and makes them into targets. I've been accused of being so many people and representing so many companies that I've written about. Incidentally I've only felt compelled to deny one - Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity), who gets daily death threats - sorry I'm not willing to die because of mistaken identity. Hence my adding closeted to the see also list. By demonizing paid editing we're pushing people into the closet who are otherwise following the rules. Likewise people who want to be paid editors, that is people who need to earn a living (hello, countering systematic bias calling), may want to abide by the rules but have to hide this aspect of themselves. I know it's going on as I've seen it and seen well-meaning editors treated uncivilly when instead we want them to stay and give good content. Shagy grey areas can be handled similar to COI approach if someone is unsure. Our assume good faith says unless we suspect otherwise we should ... assume good faith. We have to focus on the editing and behaviours of those who engage in paid editing and I suppose those who are bothered by the idea. Our rules don't favor special treatment or castigation. -- Banjeboi 22:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC) People who need to earn a living should find a job besides participating in a volunteer project. I'll repeat my question about your assertions above: how do you know that there is paid editing going on and that this existing paid editing is compatible with Wikipedia's policies and norms?   Will Beback  talk  23:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC) That may work for you and those who you deal with regularly but I can guarantee you that there are many folks who do not have the luxury of choosing what they do and need to pay bills or put food on the table. We have to deal with the realities not just our ideals. How do I know? As I stated above - I know it's going on as I've seen it and seen well-meaning editors treated uncivilly when instead we want them to stay and give good content. -- Banjeboi 01:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC) Folks that need to put food on the table shold go get a real job. Imagine this were a volunteer softball league - would we say that it's OK for the sponsor of one team to pay professional athletes to compete, because those athletes don't have other jobs? No, because that would severely distort the playing field. There are plenty of writing jobs out there, Wikipedia should't be one of them. There is no obvious consensus to approve of paid editing on the RFC with dozens of participatns, so we shouldn't presume that there is one here, among just three editors.   Will Beback  talk  00:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC) I'm sure you don't realize how callous that sounds. For someone struggling to find and keep a job they may or may not draw the line with their boss about editing a wikipedia article. We should avoid shaming and demonizing here. I see a broad swath of various editors who technically would be paid editors and many more who are otherwise compensated. I don't think I've ever see someone "set up shop" as an editor but it wouldn't shock me to see a "consultant" who is "Wikipedia-friendly". Editing is a skill and readily transferable. If someone posts a job and the description includes being able to write a company profile on Wikipedia I think we should be concerned but not terribly surprised. Ideally no one would be a paid editor because everyone would have enough and share and no one would ever want for anything - but that is not the world Wikipedia operates in. There is no obvious consensus on the RfC about ... anything. At best the community could be said to be divided. -- Banjeboi 01:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC) We seem to be unable to agree in the nutshell, so I'm going to delete it again. Let's resolve the differences on this talk page and once we have a consensus we can add it back. Since this is still an proposal that is being actively drafted there's no need to jump the gun and summarize what we haven't agreed upon.   Will Beback  talk  00:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC) That feels like an all or nothing compromise to me. Just as there is nothing that says folks cannot do paid editing there is also nothing that says they must "do so openly". I don't see why the nutshell summary has to be deleted simply because that clause isn't there. Mind you, if we did have a policy requiring people must disclose all their bias' somewhere I think we should make that clear as well. -- Banjeboi 01:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC) Whatever goes into the nutshell, let's decide it on this page and put it up once there's a consensus. Just editing it back and forth won't solve anything. I suggest that we start by distilling the most popular or significant ideas from the RFC, then writing the proposal, and finally writing the nutshell rather than the reverse order.   Will Beback  talk  01:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC) I agree about leaving the nutshell out for now - perhaps the essence of the page is too complex to distill into a nutshell. I must emphasize though that I think emphasizing disclosure is very important - not just for paid editors but for all editors. That doesn't mean revealing your real-life identity, but it does mean describing your motivation for editing, whatever it is. One the main purposes of user pages is to inform each other about any important biases or conflicts of interest we might have. Dcoetzee 06:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC) Fine about the nutshell, I guess. Everyone disclosing their biases? Good luck with that proposal, would seem to cause more issues than it solves. I think we should stay focussed on the problems that are likely to arise and where to look for help. -- Banjeboi 10:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)