Wikipedia talk:Paid editing (guideline)/Archive 6
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Benjiboi in topic Examples removed
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
Nature of this page
There seems to be some differences of opinion on whether we are working on a new policy/guideline, summarizing existing policy/guidelines, or (related to the second) describing the present state of affairs. I include the third as different from the second since it does not take on the question of Jimbo's role in governance. Is there a consensus of what this page is intended to represent? --TeaDrinker (talk) 14:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- An excellent observation. I came here initially (way back when) thinking that both were important, but I can see how the confusion has impacted the quality of discussion. I still think both are important. I would suggest that an effort to keep the issues separate on the main page (and perhaps in this discussion) would be helpful. -Pete (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- I had thought of this as a place to summarize and codify existing policy, including Jimbo's statement of policy on this matter, which may include filling in some gaps and smoothing some rough edges. It might even lead to a consensus where existing policy is overturned, but I doubt that wholesale policy changes are possible. I guess that is the second choice offered. Summarizing the current state of affairs is obviously related, but since the current state of affairs is rather confusing and chaotic (as shown on this page) that seems more of an obstacle to be overcome than a goal. A new policy, started from scratch, is an unachievable goal, but we are not prohibited in any way from offering up "something new." See Category:Wikipedia proposals (link below) and WP:How to create policy. I view the efforts here that seem to aim toward saying "paid editing is perfectly acceptable, and we can't say that anything along this line is unacceptable" as attempts to make new, or overturn existing policy. In short, we are here to summarize, fill in in spots, and smooth rough edges. Smallbones (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- Category:Wikipedia proposals, is the category, please format in this way or it adds the page to the category itself. -- Banjeboi 19:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- The page has stated it is about summarizing current situation ever since I've been here. If consensus is to turn it into proposed policy I'll wish you well and leave as it will never happen and simply be marked as a failed policy. Efforts to incrementally describe all paid editing as inherently problematic are misguided much as the "Just Say No" to drugs campaign was. We don't want to push editors underground, we want to win them over to being good Wikipedians. An accurate page can help as well as assisting editors working to understand the various issues. -- Banjeboi 19:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- If it is not working toward a proposed policy, what is it? Note that the tag at the top of the page, saying this is a proposed "policy, guideline, or process" has been on here since the first edit in 2007, and again when this was revived and you added it in June[1]
- So just to be clear what you think this is, could you explain in some detail how this fits in with other proposals, guidelines, essays, content or whatever, and do please show me an example of something similar, as I must be slow on the uptake - it looks to me like you are proposing something that is neither fish nor fowl. Smallbones (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- It's a summary page to explain the issues and direct those seeking information to the most relevant policies. If the "proposed policy, guideline, or process" bit at the top is problematic let's replace it. -- Banjeboi 22:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- So please define "summary page" and its place in the wikipedia scheme of things. WP:Policies and guidelines does not describe such a thing; only policies, guidelines, and essays. And do please give me an example of a "summary page" so I can see how these work, what they mean, who makes them, and why. When you change your arguments and positions on the fly like this it is confusing. I know "consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds," but do, please, give those of us with little minds a chance to understand what you are doing. Smallbones (talk) 02:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- I would place it as a summary of status quo on an unrushed path to being a behavioral guideline. I'm afraid I don't share the concern that we have to push this into or pull it out of any particular form as we are still very much trying to ensure we don't misrepresent current policies or guidelines. And this is hardly my page although I can certainly be bold and overhaul it if others wish it so. -- Banjeboi 03:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- So examples of behavioral guidelines, of the type we're ultimately aiming for are WP:Assume good faith, WP:Conflicts of interest, WP:Point, WP:Bite, etc. Obviously people take these things pretty seriously. I'll just point out that guidelines do not have to be strictly a summary of the status quo. Smallbones (talk) 04:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- If there is consensus here to switch from covering the status quo and instead write a guideline then that could certainly happen. As a bit of advice I'd suggest getting this done with civility first to show what actually is the status quo and that will likely point to what, if any, gaps in policies and guidelines may need to address any perceived problems. Guidelines and policies are not to be redundant. The more i read on this the more it seems our current guidelines and policies do address these issues and no blanket policies forbidding paid editing is likely to pass any time soon. If the goal is to write a policy destined to fail then it would seem to be a waste of energy. -- Banjeboi 02:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- So examples of behavioral guidelines, of the type we're ultimately aiming for are WP:Assume good faith, WP:Conflicts of interest, WP:Point, WP:Bite, etc. Obviously people take these things pretty seriously. I'll just point out that guidelines do not have to be strictly a summary of the status quo. Smallbones (talk) 04:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- I would place it as a summary of status quo on an unrushed path to being a behavioral guideline. I'm afraid I don't share the concern that we have to push this into or pull it out of any particular form as we are still very much trying to ensure we don't misrepresent current policies or guidelines. And this is hardly my page although I can certainly be bold and overhaul it if others wish it so. -- Banjeboi 03:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- So please define "summary page" and its place in the wikipedia scheme of things. WP:Policies and guidelines does not describe such a thing; only policies, guidelines, and essays. And do please give me an example of a "summary page" so I can see how these work, what they mean, who makes them, and why. When you change your arguments and positions on the fly like this it is confusing. I know "consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds," but do, please, give those of us with little minds a chance to understand what you are doing. Smallbones (talk) 02:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- It's a summary page to explain the issues and direct those seeking information to the most relevant policies. If the "proposed policy, guideline, or process" bit at the top is problematic let's replace it. -- Banjeboi 22:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of the nature of this page, the effect is that editors who wanted to impede promotional paid editing have been exhausted by the fact that there is no policy to prevent it, other than Jimbo's words (with the normal objection that Jimbo is not different from anyone else). Given the lack of policy, and the hypothetical philanthropist who might pay editors to write excellent articles, it has been easy to deflect any argument from those who want a barrier erected against paid promotion. Johnuniq (talk) 01:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I think some additional structure such as dispute resolution is needed. Wikipedia should not be a position of allowing argument my exhaustion. Dispute resolution is clearly needed. --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- You may have missed a salient point here, I think Johnuniq's first sentence is quite spot-on - editors who wanted to impede promotional paid editing have been exhausted by the fact that there is no policy to prevent it. I don't completely agree with the statement but the essence is still that we can't invent policy to either condone or condemn something based on our wishes. We're attempting to represent the status quo in effect. If the page is to then turn into a proposed guideline then likely we could list a number of proposed ideas to see which ones seems to show promise of community support. Wedging in statements that have no basis likely will be rejected outright. You may also wish to embrace a bit more why we block and ban. We do so to prevent future problems, not to be proscriptive against people without giving them good faith. Assuming all paid editors are inherently problematic is really unhelpful. -- Banjeboi 14:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- An editor expresses frustration at being harangued by paid editors to the point of exhaustion and your response is a paragraph about how that complaint backs up the claims of paid editors? Are you ready for dispute resolution? --TeaDrinker (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- What? What editor has been "harangued by paid editors?" Maybe I'm not seeing what you are? -- Banjeboi 16:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- Benjiboi, everyone can read what Johnuniq said. You may not be seeing what others would. Will once asked if you were a paid editor. Although you refused to answer, I will note that a pernicious effect of pay is to skew what is seen. Generally the recipient of pay is unaware of that effect. Food for thought. --TeaDrinker (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- I see nothing in Johnuniq's statement about being "harangued by paid editors". Could you enlighten me exactly what you're referring to? Also , Will did insinuate and, I guess, accuse me of being a paid editor, something I found uncivil and, of course, unwelcome; I of course told them so. If you are now accusing me of something perhaps WP:AGF is food for thought for you. -- Banjeboi 16:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- What he said is plain. I think people can read it for themselves and decide if he is frustrated with paid editors pushing their agenda or if he is trying to say, as you claim, that paid editors are just fine because of a lack of policy against them. I'm not going to debate the "issue" of what he actually meant, because it is obvious and evident to everyone else reading this page. --TeaDrinker (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- I see nothing in Johnuniq's statement about being "harangued by paid editors". Could you enlighten me exactly what you're referring to? Also , Will did insinuate and, I guess, accuse me of being a paid editor, something I found uncivil and, of course, unwelcome; I of course told them so. If you are now accusing me of something perhaps WP:AGF is food for thought for you. -- Banjeboi 16:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- Benjiboi, everyone can read what Johnuniq said. You may not be seeing what others would. Will once asked if you were a paid editor. Although you refused to answer, I will note that a pernicious effect of pay is to skew what is seen. Generally the recipient of pay is unaware of that effect. Food for thought. --TeaDrinker (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- What? What editor has been "harangued by paid editors?" Maybe I'm not seeing what you are? -- Banjeboi 16:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- An editor expresses frustration at being harangued by paid editors to the point of exhaustion and your response is a paragraph about how that complaint backs up the claims of paid editors? Are you ready for dispute resolution? --TeaDrinker (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- You may have missed a salient point here, I think Johnuniq's first sentence is quite spot-on - editors who wanted to impede promotional paid editing have been exhausted by the fact that there is no policy to prevent it. I don't completely agree with the statement but the essence is still that we can't invent policy to either condone or condemn something based on our wishes. We're attempting to represent the status quo in effect. If the page is to then turn into a proposed guideline then likely we could list a number of proposed ideas to see which ones seems to show promise of community support. Wedging in statements that have no basis likely will be rejected outright. You may also wish to embrace a bit more why we block and ban. We do so to prevent future problems, not to be proscriptive against people without giving them good faith. Assuming all paid editors are inherently problematic is really unhelpful. -- Banjeboi 14:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- At my talk page, Benjiboi invited me to clarify my above comment. I have been intermittently following this issue since it was raised on Jimbo's talk page, and my RFC statement shows my thinking ten weeks ago. The reason I have not participated here (apart from, I think, two comments above and one minor edit) is that I can see no way forward given the situation in my last comment. Benjiboi is quite correct to shoot down all attempts to strengthen an "anti paid editing" sentiment in the project page because, like the spammers, the paid editors are exploiting the openness of Wikipedia which simply has no rules apart from the joyous WP:PILLARS, and the lesser WP:COI and WP:NPOV which can always be ignored to "improve" the encyclopedia.
- The RFC I just mentioned starts with the libertarian view that all edits are good, and if a paid editor makes edits that fail NPOV or whatever, then some wikiangel will fix them. Adding the observation that no policy can actually prevent paid editing, it becomes very difficult to reach a strong anti-paid editing/advocacy consensus.
- I think the "wikiangels will take care of it" views are naive because there is good reason to believe that attempts to exploit Wikipedia will increase in the years ahead. I'd better not take the space here to explain my reasoning (see Domainers and WT:WikiProject Spam for some pointers), but in brief, Wikipedia is a very ripe plum ready to be plucked.
- I believe paid editing has the capacity to drive away the volunteers who have constructed the magnificent core of Wikipedia. Have a look at MyKmart and the unanswered question at the bottom of the AfD. That AfD could easily be swayed by a very small number of accounts with undeclared COI, and a couple of years of that kind of editing would drastically degrade the community. My comment above was not an attempt to express frustration, but instead an attempt to alert like-minded editors here that they are caught in a net, and face exhaustion rather than success because of the way this project was established (to make a summary of existing policy, rather than to make a new policy).
- I would like a "no paid editing except for xxx" policy. The xxx would be a changeable list of approved activities (philanthropic sponsorship etc). In general, enforcement would be impossible, but it would support continued altruism within the community. Johnuniq (talk) 02:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Examples removed
| “ | Prohibited examples
|
” |
I've removed these as needlessly causing more drama and wikilawyering; let's keep it simple so anyone reading the page actually reads it and knows whether there is a problem with their case or not and where to go if they're not sure. -- Banjeboi 00:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well now it looks like you are reverting everything again. The problem with the page as it stands now is that an editor looking at it would not be sure what is forbidden, and what is ok. It looks pretty much like mumbo-jumbo to me, that hints that almost everything is ok, unless you get caught! The policy needs specifics, if only in examples. Smallbones (talk) 00:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- Again, WP:BRD, you were bold and I edited, that's what we do here. You seem to be just as tendentious as anyone else here so let's drop it and discuss improvements, OK? My main concerns are that it needlessly digresses. We should state X, Y, and Z are prohibited. And we do that. Lists of examples on policy pages cause drama, those who are likely causing problems will argue - Wikilawyer - endlessly that example X doesn't ap[ply to them and really is poorly worded so what they are doing is fine. Be concise and clear and let more experienced editors and admins step in if they really are disrupting by gong against consensus or conducting advocacy. We also need to separate out advocacy as I did. All advocacy bad. Full stop, don't quibble on paid advocacy really bad and drill down into examples. Short and simple this is bad, so is this, ___ behaviour is as well - don't do it. Also some of these examples are quite flawed, many people do edit here for their employers, we even encourage it. -- Banjeboi 01:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well now it looks like you are reverting everything again. The problem with the page as it stands now is that an editor looking at it would not be sure what is forbidden, and what is ok. It looks pretty much like mumbo-jumbo to me, that hints that almost everything is ok, unless you get caught! The policy needs specifics, if only in examples. Smallbones (talk) 00:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- Again, you revert almost everything. The page is essentially the same as it was yesterday, and the day before, and the day before, etc. etc. And it is a mess. You have a real problem with WP:Ownership here. Consider this to be your 2nd warning. I'll reinsert the Jimbo quote. You say parts of it can go in in other places. If so do it and it would be nice if you said which parts you don't want in there. But it is relevant and Wikipedia policy, whether you disagree with that policy or not! Just reverting ad infinitum is pure obstrutionism. Smallbones (talk) 01:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- It would help to keep discussion organized if you keep the quote topic discussion in that section. And no, I have been discussing here the entire time. Only reverting bold edits that seem to contradict current policies or cause more problems. We're here to help ur editors not find ways to punish them. You really might want to read over the entire RfC instead of just one paragraph of Jimmy Wales' statement. -- Banjeboi 01:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- Bringing it back to to the topic of these edits, Banjboi can you show instances where the inclusion of examples causes drama when there was not an otherwise significant issue? --TeaDrinker (talk) 18:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- To stay completely constructive I will simply state that this list has already caused drama but that is really besides the point, likewise it seems a bit wikilawyering to debate where examples help or hurt on other pages. Certainly there are examples of eacj but that too would deflect from simply working to suss out which of these would actually help here. My hunch is that there might be some useful bits in here that can be woven into more helpful text. I simply see most examples as misleading, conflating and confusing. We have examples of admins who have been paid editors who seemingly don't cause problems and are not blocked, do I think we should belabour the point and insert that as an acceptable example? Not really, we could have rather lengthy lists and argue about them endlessly and it's really not adding much. Let's ask ourselves if there is anything useful and not already covered. If we can sat something in 1000 words let's not bother writing 10,000. -- Banjeboi 01:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I entirely follow. I know of no instances where writing a policy with examples has caused drama where none would otherwise exist. If you have clear cases where it has occured, please describe them. I should also point out most policies have examples of one sort or another. Is there any reason you see that this document should be different? As far as your administrators, to be blunt, I don't believe there are administrators openly editing for pay, at least in a manner which would fall into the categories of inappropriate behavior described above. Can you provide any evidence of the veracity of your claim? --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think again we're veering away from actually helping anyone. It seems pointless to quibble about other pages when we need to see if any examples will actually help here. Likewise discussing admins, I've answered this already and I think discussing it further distracts us from actually improving this page. We could have endless examples of good, bad and questionable paid editing. Lists can be quite useful but in this case i don't see these as helping. I see such examples used by folks who want to do something wrong and instead of following common sense, civility and other policies they use a wobbly example to support their action(s). Lets stick to the basics, Every example so far including the latest - "lawyers" and "public relations" professionals is also flawed. If we emphasize that the issue is the behaviours and editing then examples may be completely unneeded and therefore less likely to confuse the issues. An example should clarify and illustarte and we don't have one yet that seems to do that. -- Banjeboi 22:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- I have to admit, I have trouble imagining scenarios of issues in the grey area if they are well described by these examples. But I welcome suggestions of how to tighten them. If you see a probable scenario which one of the examples above describes, yet the outcome would not be the described conclusion, we should consider what about that case is different. --TeaDrinker (talk) 04:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well the very first one is redundant, it's already stated as prohibited. The second one isn't prohibited and happens all the time, as long as the edits are policy compliant we really don't care. The third one is false, when did it become a blockable offense not to proclaim one was hoping to earn a bounty? The fourth one is also not prohibited, it depends on the editing actually, again if they adhere to content and behaviour policies there wouldn't seem to be an issue. The next one is redundant as we already state advocating - paid or not - is prohibited. The last in that first series is vague, if they are indeed advocating then they are coached not to and dealt with if they don't stop. -- Banjeboi 10:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I have to admit, I have trouble imagining scenarios of issues in the grey area if they are well described by these examples. But I welcome suggestions of how to tighten them. If you see a probable scenario which one of the examples above describes, yet the outcome would not be the described conclusion, we should consider what about that case is different. --TeaDrinker (talk) 04:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think again we're veering away from actually helping anyone. It seems pointless to quibble about other pages when we need to see if any examples will actually help here. Likewise discussing admins, I've answered this already and I think discussing it further distracts us from actually improving this page. We could have endless examples of good, bad and questionable paid editing. Lists can be quite useful but in this case i don't see these as helping. I see such examples used by folks who want to do something wrong and instead of following common sense, civility and other policies they use a wobbly example to support their action(s). Lets stick to the basics, Every example so far including the latest - "lawyers" and "public relations" professionals is also flawed. If we emphasize that the issue is the behaviours and editing then examples may be completely unneeded and therefore less likely to confuse the issues. An example should clarify and illustarte and we don't have one yet that seems to do that. -- Banjeboi 22:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I entirely follow. I know of no instances where writing a policy with examples has caused drama where none would otherwise exist. If you have clear cases where it has occured, please describe them. I should also point out most policies have examples of one sort or another. Is there any reason you see that this document should be different? As far as your administrators, to be blunt, I don't believe there are administrators openly editing for pay, at least in a manner which would fall into the categories of inappropriate behavior described above. Can you provide any evidence of the veracity of your claim? --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- To stay completely constructive I will simply state that this list has already caused drama but that is really besides the point, likewise it seems a bit wikilawyering to debate where examples help or hurt on other pages. Certainly there are examples of eacj but that too would deflect from simply working to suss out which of these would actually help here. My hunch is that there might be some useful bits in here that can be woven into more helpful text. I simply see most examples as misleading, conflating and confusing. We have examples of admins who have been paid editors who seemingly don't cause problems and are not blocked, do I think we should belabour the point and insert that as an acceptable example? Not really, we could have rather lengthy lists and argue about them endlessly and it's really not adding much. Let's ask ourselves if there is anything useful and not already covered. If we can sat something in 1000 words let's not bother writing 10,000. -- Banjeboi 01:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Again, you revert almost everything. The page is essentially the same as it was yesterday, and the day before, and the day before, etc. etc. And it is a mess. You have a real problem with WP:Ownership here. Consider this to be your 2nd warning. I'll reinsert the Jimbo quote. You say parts of it can go in in other places. If so do it and it would be nice if you said which parts you don't want in there. But it is relevant and Wikipedia policy, whether you disagree with that policy or not! Just reverting ad infinitum is pure obstrutionism. Smallbones (talk) 01:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) So the heart of the disagreement for you is not examples per se, but these examples specifically. I submit that if you agree 1 and 5, it is perfectly reasonable to include them in the article. Isn't that a reasonable compromise? Who is this "we" you refer to? --TeaDrinker (talk) 05:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Lets address "An editor responds to a freelance jobs board posting to write and submit content on Wikipedia." first. How is this not setting up a service to edit Wikipedia? How is this not prohibited? --TeaDrinker (talk) 06:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- My point is that we likely don't need any examples. Once this becomes a policy page perhaps examples would be helpful as is stated elsewhere. Until then these most likely are used by folks who want to skirt the spirit of policies on both sides; both in advocating and being uncivil to those perceived to be paid editors. Focus on the policy-based problems not the moral issues. The body text should be clear why there are issues, where to go if you think there is cause for concern - because people are blocked for disruption, not getting paid - and offer links to more relevant pages for clarity. -- Banjeboi 22:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- At the risk of simply repeating myself, examples are in lots of policy and guidelines. Where are you getting this idea that examples let people skirt issues? On your second point, people are blocked for paid editing. Continually trying to circumvent this, by saying x was blocked for bad editing, and it was merely incidental that ze was paid, is mincing words. You make an interesting note about people's distrust of paid editors. Get into the minds of those who believe this, can you guess where this view might originate? --TeaDrinker (talk) 17:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'll restate my basic concern, examples should help and not dilute - Elaboration & examples and justification & background are sometimes needed. These should be both brief and necessary; if they are not brief they belong in a footnote. Every example so far has been unneeded, if we have one that is it's more likely a sign that the text should be improved not that we should insert an example. I don't agree that all the cases where folks were supposedly blocked were done so for paid editing per se, more likely they were blocked for spamming, disruption, COI, etc - that is actual policies and community guidelines. One would likely have to be proven they actually were a paid editor when more likely we presume they are COI in some way and block for related concerns. -- Banjeboi 01:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm glad you have read WP:POLICY. They're necessary, since certain forms of editing are clearly prohibited and deserve special attention. We need examples to prevent editors from devising mental reservations to avoid following policy. The human capacity for self-deception is astonishing. Let's spell it out clearly and succinctly. --TeaDrinker (talk) 19:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- An we already have examples included in the text, without undue flourish or wikilawyering temptation. As the page develops further likely more examples like MyWikiBiz and the ousted crat will be included in some fashion - likely as precipitating community perceptions. This is not one simple issue but many overlapping ones. We should work to clarify and help direct concerned parties where they can get more help if they feel a situation needs attention. Frankly, after reading through a lot more of teh background it seems quite unlikely this page will ever be a policy but may serve as a great guideline at some point. -- Banjeboi 03:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm glad you have read WP:POLICY. They're necessary, since certain forms of editing are clearly prohibited and deserve special attention. We need examples to prevent editors from devising mental reservations to avoid following policy. The human capacity for self-deception is astonishing. Let's spell it out clearly and succinctly. --TeaDrinker (talk) 19:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'll restate my basic concern, examples should help and not dilute - Elaboration & examples and justification & background are sometimes needed. These should be both brief and necessary; if they are not brief they belong in a footnote. Every example so far has been unneeded, if we have one that is it's more likely a sign that the text should be improved not that we should insert an example. I don't agree that all the cases where folks were supposedly blocked were done so for paid editing per se, more likely they were blocked for spamming, disruption, COI, etc - that is actual policies and community guidelines. One would likely have to be proven they actually were a paid editor when more likely we presume they are COI in some way and block for related concerns. -- Banjeboi 01:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- At the risk of simply repeating myself, examples are in lots of policy and guidelines. Where are you getting this idea that examples let people skirt issues? On your second point, people are blocked for paid editing. Continually trying to circumvent this, by saying x was blocked for bad editing, and it was merely incidental that ze was paid, is mincing words. You make an interesting note about people's distrust of paid editors. Get into the minds of those who believe this, can you guess where this view might originate? --TeaDrinker (talk) 17:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- My point is that we likely don't need any examples. Once this becomes a policy page perhaps examples would be helpful as is stated elsewhere. Until then these most likely are used by folks who want to skirt the spirit of policies on both sides; both in advocating and being uncivil to those perceived to be paid editors. Focus on the policy-based problems not the moral issues. The body text should be clear why there are issues, where to go if you think there is cause for concern - because people are blocked for disruption, not getting paid - and offer links to more relevant pages for clarity. -- Banjeboi 22:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Removed "editing by public relations firms and lawyers"
I've reverted this addition of "such as editing by public relations firms and lawyers about people or firms that they represent," as unneeded and unhelpful. This is an example of a bad example. If someone is doing paid editing, and again we would likely not know it, and they are making good edits we don't really care. The issue isn't an editor's profession or pay grade or education or even their political/cultural beliefs and other biases. The issue is their editing. If their editing is acceptable then we don't care - if they are advocating then we don't care if they are paid or not. We want to encourage good editing and good behaviours. Paid editing brings up the issue that editors may have bias but as long as their editing and conduct is fine then there is really no issue. -- Banjeboi 02:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'd just like to make sure - you are against paid advocates editing on Wikipedia aren't you? The two examples of PR firms and lawyers editing for their clients are the most straightforward examples I can think of. Lawyers are, and are called, advocates in most countries. That's because they advocate for their clients, and not just in court. Our article on Lawyers uses the word "advocate" 36 times. It's what they are hired to do.
- The example of public relations firms should be even more obvious. Their job is not to tell the truth or to write NPOV articles, but to "manage the information flow" about their clients. Most people would probably say their job is to pull the wool over the public's eyes. This is inherently a POV job, and the POV is their clients' POV. I am not "demonizing lawyers and PR firms" as you state in your edit summary, I'm only saying what they do disqualifies them from writing NPOV articles about their clients on Wikipedia. You cannot serve two masters at the same time.
- If we can't be clear that some specific people are paid advocates, then all we would be doing is confusing the issue. Please come up with examples of paid advocates that you think are more obvious and replace them into the phrase that I'm putting back into the text. Smallbones (talk) 02:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that these are bad examples, but disagree with the idea that such people should not edit on behalf of their clients - they're people who can modify their behaviour to suit our policy framework, and have to if they don't want to get reverted. But yeah, a better example of a paid editor would be, for example, someone editing on behalf of a professional association with an interest in a certain topic area, such as electrical engineering or plumbing; or someone expanding the content associated with a particular nation, on behalf of their government. Dcoetzee 05:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Are you talking about lobbyists? If so, I agree, it's a good example and should be included with the others. If you are talking about an electrical engineer who is a member of a professional association writing about electrical engineering - I disagree. Perhaps an employee of the professional organization, but that's too vague - it depends what they are being paid to do. Lawyers, PR firms, lobbyists - it's pretty clear what they are being paid to do - advocate for their clients. Smallbones (talk) 02:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that these are bad examples, but disagree with the idea that such people should not edit on behalf of their clients - they're people who can modify their behaviour to suit our policy framework, and have to if they don't want to get reverted. But yeah, a better example of a paid editor would be, for example, someone editing on behalf of a professional association with an interest in a certain topic area, such as electrical engineering or plumbing; or someone expanding the content associated with a particular nation, on behalf of their government. Dcoetzee 05:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- If these folks clearly identify themselves as lawyers editing on behalf of their paid client they are very likely to be banned immediately. Another name for lawyers is "advocates". I cna't imagine a less-suitable editing situation. Will Beback talk 05:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Unless there are examples of paid editors who are lawyers who aren't advocating. Such as the ones who are already actively editing. No, singling out any profession is just as problematic. I appreciate this interest here but let's get this clear as it stands now editors are not banned simply for getting paid, they are treated with contempt if someone finds out they are paid and tried to hide that and if they are violating our advocacy, COI and NPOV rules. Perhaps you could answer this: Do you think that someone should be banned/blocked simply for getting paid if their editing is otherwise fine? If so could you explain why those editors who are paid editors either fully or in part have not been banned/blocked even though the community knows of their getting paid? And if we for some reason decide we should ban and block editors only because they are paid, how on Earth can we actually prevent any paid editing if we drive those editors underground into closets? I'll give you hint, paid editing goes on mostly without problems because most editors aren't working to compromise the project but ensure negative information is accurate and non-sensationalized and most bloat is quickly removed if it remains unsourced. -- Banjeboi 16:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- There's a confusion of terminology here. Lawyers are "advocates" for their clients - this points to a potential conflict of interest - but it does not automatically imply that their editing on Wikipedia will be in the form of POV advocacy. There's a reason COI is not bannable. This page should not focus on who is doing the editing but how they are editing. It may be useful to emphasise here ways in which Wikipedia editing differs from other activities that these professionals undertake, such as copywriting or defending, but let's not assign prejudicial guilt to anyone. Dcoetzee 19:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think it may make sense to state this on the page perhaps even having a section who is a paid editor that expresses there is not set rule - ergo we focus on behaviours. Do you think that would help? -- Banjeboi 21:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- As a matter of their own professional ethics, no lawyer should be editing Wikipedia articles related to their client without their client's informed consent. I have trouble imagining a scenario in which the client agrees to pay the lawyer to be totally neutral. A public relations firm is even worse, since their whole profession is to represent their clients in the best possible light. As it stands now, both of these individuals would be blocked if they did not agree to simply eschew any article space edits related to their client. Of course if editors happen to be lawyers/PR professionals, but their work on Wikipedia is unrelated to their client, no one would think twice. --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- It seems bizarre to me to suppose that a public relations firm who is fully aware of our policies would still, like some kind of POV automaton, persist in making edits that they know would get reverted or deleted, get them blocked, and create bad press for their clients. In the context of Wikipedia portraying a client in the "best possible" light means following policies to the best of their ability. Dcoetzee 22:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- People engage in bizarre behavior that gets them blocked every day. NPOV does not mean that editors should portary subjects in the "best possible" light. Anyone who edits with that as their goal is engaged in advocacy and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. Will Beback talk 23:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Sigh, ok folks here we restate the mantra - if a lawyer or public relations professional or Martian or anyone else is making constructive edits that adhere to policies and their behaviour is aligned with consensus-building then we really don't care what planet they are from or what profession they ascribe to. We shouldn't bother creating fear in our own minds about all those nasty lawyers conspiring to undermine Wikipedia and instead focus on editors who behaviours go against policies and consensus-building regardless on their motivation and professional affiliations. If someone can't get along or seems unable to adhere to NPOV we helpfully show them the door. We don't care if they are paid or not. By that logic we would trust people that aren't paid more, and we don't. We extend good faith to all until that runs out, being paid does not erase good faith. -- Banjeboi 23:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think it's necessary to name specific professions that are engaged in advocacy. But advocacy, paid or unpaid, is forbidden. It is a natural assumption that anyone who is paid to edit is doing so in order to advocate, and realistically the burden would be on them to show that they are remaining scrupulously neutral. Will Beback talk 23:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- It may be a natural assumption for you that "anyone who is paid to edit is doing so in order to advocate" but I disagree and so did many on the RfC, this is why paid editors are not assumed to be advocating. Perhaps we need to state that as well. -- Banjeboi 00:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Tell me again what these editors being paid to do? Fix spelling mistakes? Will Beback talk 00:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Expand content in an area regarding (or of interest to) their client, mainly. What did you think they'd do, delete anything they find offensive? Dcoetzee 03:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- By "expand" I assume you mean add. Isn't also likely that folks would be paid to delete information of disinterest to a client? What about editing material that's already there? How about arguing with other editors over content? Is there any reason to think that a contract would stop with simply expanding content? Will Beback talk 03:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- No, but nor should one suppose the opposite, that their contributions would consist mainly of POV warring. Dcoetzee 04:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think we'd have to be pretty naive to think content "added" by paid PR people would be anything but positive for the company. Even if they are "only" expanding content, it is a pretty safe assumption they are not going to be neutral (based entirely in their paid arrangement to be non-neutral). Can you give me a scenario of acceptable paid PR editor behavior? --TeaDrinker (talk) 04:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- No, but nor should one suppose the opposite, that their contributions would consist mainly of POV warring. Dcoetzee 04:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- By "expand" I assume you mean add. Isn't also likely that folks would be paid to delete information of disinterest to a client? What about editing material that's already there? How about arguing with other editors over content? Is there any reason to think that a contract would stop with simply expanding content? Will Beback talk 03:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Expand content in an area regarding (or of interest to) their client, mainly. What did you think they'd do, delete anything they find offensive? Dcoetzee 03:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Tell me again what these editors being paid to do? Fix spelling mistakes? Will Beback talk 00:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- It may be a natural assumption for you that "anyone who is paid to edit is doing so in order to advocate" but I disagree and so did many on the RfC, this is why paid editors are not assumed to be advocating. Perhaps we need to state that as well. -- Banjeboi 00:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think it's necessary to name specific professions that are engaged in advocacy. But advocacy, paid or unpaid, is forbidden. It is a natural assumption that anyone who is paid to edit is doing so in order to advocate, and realistically the burden would be on them to show that they are remaining scrupulously neutral. Will Beback talk 23:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- It seems bizarre to me to suppose that a public relations firm who is fully aware of our policies would still, like some kind of POV automaton, persist in making edits that they know would get reverted or deleted, get them blocked, and create bad press for their clients. In the context of Wikipedia portraying a client in the "best possible" light means following policies to the best of their ability. Dcoetzee 22:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- As a matter of their own professional ethics, no lawyer should be editing Wikipedia articles related to their client without their client's informed consent. I have trouble imagining a scenario in which the client agrees to pay the lawyer to be totally neutral. A public relations firm is even worse, since their whole profession is to represent their clients in the best possible light. As it stands now, both of these individuals would be blocked if they did not agree to simply eschew any article space edits related to their client. Of course if editors happen to be lawyers/PR professionals, but their work on Wikipedia is unrelated to their client, no one would think twice. --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think it may make sense to state this on the page perhaps even having a section who is a paid editor that expresses there is not set rule - ergo we focus on behaviours. Do you think that would help? -- Banjeboi 21:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) I think that it is safe to assume that some people would abuse paid editing - putting in only good things about their clients, maybe even taking bad things out, and pushing POVs - as long as nobody tells them that this is a problem. How are they supposed to figure out that this is a problem, when some folks here say it's not a problem, unless they violate NPOV, COI, etc. and then they have to look through all that (and perhaps the collected works of Jimbo Wales) to figure out what they are allowed to do. I think one simple policy laid out in a clear manner - what's against the rules, what's not, who's likely to violate our rules (and who's not) according to what their profession is, and what they are being paid for - would do wonders as far as informing people and cutting down confusion.
Once a clear policy is written - then we can assume good faith by paid editors, in some cases the good faith of not contributing biased information here. Without a clear policy, all we can assume is confusion (perhaps it would be good faith confusion, but in practice confusion is just confusion)! When people are confused, they tend to assume that if they go over the limits, somebody will tell them what the problem is. But we would like to avoid the problem in the first place, and have a place to tell them what the rules are. And do remember, according to Jimbo Wales, there is a policy on this, but even we seem to be confused. (This writer excepted of cource :) ) Smallbones (talk) 04:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- We already have rather clear policies which are WP:NPOV and WP:CIVIL and WP:CONSENSUS. If paid editors are abiding by these policies the only issue that remains is a perceived moral concern of some Wikipedians which doesn't coincide with our guideline on assuming good faith that Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. We can't pretend policies exist where they don't and threaten editors with blocking when that is patently uncalled for. We should accurately and dispassionately report on the issue and help direct people to relevant policies and admin boards if they need more information or help. -- Banjeboi 10:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- It is not a moral concern but a very practical one. Policy forbids editors from causing problems on Wikipedia, using it for their own ends at the expense of the project. Quite clearly, as any number of cases have indicated, pay distorts the perspective of editors creating a pernicious environment of npov and coi violations. I submit paid editors, owing to the very human capacity for self-serving justifications, are often unable to detect their own biases. We clearly have a policy basis for limiting such behavior, wikilawyering about legal terms and textual demonstrability is irrelevant. If their edits are so inevitably great, if they were suggested on the talk page (by an acknowledged paid editor) why would people not immediately adopt them? Why fear scrutiny? --TeaDrinker (talk) 16:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- I obviously don't agree with your assessment. If a paid editor is causing no problems besides being paid I'm not sure how we would even know about it. Likely the only cases that have been discussed are where problems did occur and therefore were discussed. The RfC was reasonably clear that a majority felt getting paid in and of itself wasn't that big of deal if the edits were fine. -- Banjeboi 14:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree factually with your assessment of the RfC. I've already addressed everything else you say. --TeaDrinker (talk) 16:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- I obviously don't agree with your assessment. If a paid editor is causing no problems besides being paid I'm not sure how we would even know about it. Likely the only cases that have been discussed are where problems did occur and therefore were discussed. The RfC was reasonably clear that a majority felt getting paid in and of itself wasn't that big of deal if the edits were fine. -- Banjeboi 14:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- It is not a moral concern but a very practical one. Policy forbids editors from causing problems on Wikipedia, using it for their own ends at the expense of the project. Quite clearly, as any number of cases have indicated, pay distorts the perspective of editors creating a pernicious environment of npov and coi violations. I submit paid editors, owing to the very human capacity for self-serving justifications, are often unable to detect their own biases. We clearly have a policy basis for limiting such behavior, wikilawyering about legal terms and textual demonstrability is irrelevant. If their edits are so inevitably great, if they were suggested on the talk page (by an acknowledged paid editor) why would people not immediately adopt them? Why fear scrutiny? --TeaDrinker (talk) 16:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)