| Notes | ||
|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
Wales rejects a proposal to sell advertising on Wikipedia Article which also references Cash for Spam User:FT2/Commercial and paid editing As of yet paid editing is not a blockable offense under any policy
proclamations of policy that have no community backing have no standing. not compatible with being an administrator perception of impropriety, public image of integrity, payola
"Driving it underground is sufficient. What I don't want to see are people advertising their services to clients on the web, and us accepting that. This is totally inconsistent with our values. I will never allow it." --Jimbo Wales
the term "paid editing" - as I have said elsewhere - is too imprecise to allow for a nuanced discussion of the issue - Jimmy Wales
if someone approached me to create a page for them I could do it without notice. It would be balanced, establish notability and cover all the bases, and if my client wanted to spend more money for a positive spin I would explain that they were wasting their time - WP:NODEADLINE means that at some point (next minute, month or year) it would be reverted and balanced. If paid "advocating" is unwanted I believe the exisiting policies and guidelines are robust enough to deal with it, and if someone wants to offer money for editing it will be done, policy or no policy, just as there are undetected sockpuppets, meat puppets and whatnots. As for my function at the university, one of my tasks is to update, periodically, our university's article. I haven't done any clean sweeps nor removals; I only add content or modify content with information that is sourced directly from our publications and web-sites, or from accompanying articles and publications. It's not paid advocacy because thus far I have not advocated for or against anything, and is only to plug in information where none frankly existed. The article sucked and was sorely lacking content, to be honest. That's very different than one running an operation for external clients to purely advocate a certain fringe POV upon a certain and dedicated article, and that's not what I am doing or advocating for. One year later, not one individual has come up against my potential COI because I strive not to have a bias to or against the university. I've authored numerous GA's and have done a lot of work for many articles on WP, and not once has the speckle of COI come up until now -- and after my own admission. I'd like to keep it that way. I know of a university employee who took the article on her university to FA status, i.e. she was being paid to do so. I know because I helped copyedit the artice (for free). I don't see anything wrong with what she was doing because she was following the rules. I think it needs to be made clearer that "I am getting paid by the subject of the article to edit the article (as opposed to making suggestions in the talk page, writing an article on a different website, etc.)" is paid advocacy of the kind in conflict with policy. That's very different from "I have a job as a professor and we are encouraged to contribute to Wikipedia about things that we know about" or "I am participating in a government funded project to improve the quality of Wikipedia entries". There are many subtleties. I think it's pretty easy to know the difference, and hard to write it down precisely.--Jimbo Wales I know it when I see it. The answer, my colleagues, is to judge the edits rather than the editor. Editors should be encouraged to reveal their potential conflicts so that their contributions can be scrutinized appropriately, but the existence of potential conflicts should not be used as mud to throw during arguments Self interest colors one's views. It does not have to be conscious, does not have to involve overt cashing in, does not have to involve conscious manipulations. Self interest often takes the form of people honestly believing certain things and feeling their acting on those beliefs has nothing to do with their self interests. That's just how the human mind works. That's why judges recuse - not because anyone thinks they will deliberately make self-serving decisions. we only catch the ones who flagrantly disregard our editorial policies & guidelines.. As long as Wikipedia sits at the top of the search results, this will not change - no matter how many policies we create to disallow it. de facto policy that paid editing is ok as long as its secret (don't ask, don't tell) it is what an editor does that we should be concerned with, not why they do it. (This is in a a way an extension of "comment on content, not the contributor", part of our civility rules policy creep |
 | Note: This page is not a policy or guideline, it is an attempt to summarize existing policies and guidelines that relate to the general topic of paid editing. |
Paid editing, or editing Wikipedia articles in return for material reward or compensation, raises several concerns. Although there may be some forms of compensation which are generally acceptable, such as the Wikipedia reward board, there are other forms which are considered unacceptable.