Pete F.
I'm glad we agree so much on what the problems are, but your proposed solutions are pretty wishy-washy. Just navel-gazing really. Something needs to be done now. Smallbones(smalltalk) 05:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Smallbones states the following: "no paid editing of articles by businesses". If we are going to have such a rule, then we need to be able to enforce it. How can that be done with anonymous editors? I have no idea of who Smallbones is, maybe he is paid by one of our competitors to work for keeping paid edits out of Wikipedia so they do not loose market share? It seems to me that we already have various rules that cover this problem, what we need is not more rules, but more voluntary contributors. Ulflarsen (talk) 09:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That's incorrect, Smallbones. It will be the editor violating the TOU, not the company. It will be the editor who will be banned, not the company. And remember that lots of people who will fall into the "paid editing" category will be article subjects and those representing BLP subjects, who clearly have an interest in what the article says. There's this massively incorrect perception that this will affect only articles about companies, but that's dead wrong. Of course, those accused of being paid editors (it will be a great way of silencing opponents) will be unable to prove they aren't receiving some benefit. What motivation will there be in having neutral editors go into battlefield articles? Ah well, I'm sure you'll all work it out. Risker (talk) 06:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- i am ready to declare my smithsonian tie, saylor beer, national archives chocolate (since there is no consensus about de minimus); where would i do that ? 198.24.31.118 (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually there is broad consensus about de minimus. Please don't make up problems where they don't exist. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- actually, i'm kinda with you, and i look forward to your enforcement of de minimus against the more than one editor who expressed a zero tolerance. but where do the ip's declare their interest? by having a policy that can't be complied with, are you not escalating the drama? 198.24.31.118 (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There are 3 places where disclosure can be made, according to the ToU amendment: 1) in the edit summary, 2) on the article talk page, and 3) on their User page. This seems a bit too loose for me - somebody determined to hide his paid edits could make it real difficult to track by spreading them around on different edits, I'll suggest the first 2 then. Of course, unless that was a $100 tie, you wouldn't need to disclose anything (just ask at WP:COIN if there is something you consider iffy). You might even consider getting a User account so you can disclose in all three places! Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
← Back to Forum