Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-10-01/Paid editing



← Back to Paid editing

Discuss this story

  • It's high time we had a policy on paid editing. The topic just keeps on coming up, again and again, mostly in situations that cast an unfavorable light on Wikipedia. As Jimbo has pointed out - it is outsiders, mostly the press - that enforces the "rules" against paid editing. Why shouldn't we have our own rules and enforce them ourselves?
I'll suggest the simplest possible policy on paid editing with just 3 parts A. Define paid editing. B. Mandate disclosure, e.g. on the userpage. C. Prohibit paid editors from editing Policy pages, including Policy talkpages, without additional disclosure there. Can anybody realistically disagree with that? Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean "policy pages", or was the intent to refer to pages where they have a COI? - Bilby (talk) 02:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely mean Policy pages - any paid editor has a COI when discussing policy, e.g. "Will this policy affect my earning a living here?" Smallbones(smalltalk) 05:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very uncomfortable with that idea, then, in that as a community I'd be loathe to prohibit anyone from having an equal say in issues such as policy. But I guess that would be an issue for the community to ponder. - Bilby (talk) 07:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really want every corporation in the world to be able to buy a seat (or however many seats they want) at the policy discussion table? That would in effect mean that no individual non-paid editor would have an "equal say" and that corporations could rewrite all Wikipedia policy. We should just tell all paid editors and their employers, point blank and once and for all, that they don't get to make policy. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is where the problems of terminology come into play. I fully agree that it would be a very bad idea if corporate interests determined the direction of our policy, and I'd also hate to see people taking a stance in policy discussions based on what they are told to by those interests. So yes, I fully agree with you there. The problem is that "paid editors" covers everything from the extreme "paid to edit Wikipedia solely to advance the interests of a company" down. And while I agree with you about one end of the spectrum, I think there's this huge grey area that needs to be waded through, which probably encompasses the majority of paid editors. If someone engages in policy discussion as an individual, then that seems like a good thing, whether or not they have conflicts on interests in other parts of Wikipedia. But if they engage in policy discussion as a representative of a company, then that is bad. Yet how do we distinguish the first from second? It just feels like a messy problem. :) So I guess I would rather err on the side of inclusionism, and trust to the consensus process. - Bilby (talk) 11:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's where part A) comes into play. If we define "paid editing" in a reasonable way, most folks will have nothing to worry about, and we'll have eliminated the most common objection to paid editing rules. The definition I'll suggest is a) there has to be monetary pay (or something quite close to it), b) there has to be an employer who has some control over the editing. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Small, I would love to work together with you and other editors to put together a proposed policy or guideline on paid advocacy, however if editors feel uncomfortable about it, I'll just pass. Corporate 18:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to - it might take until next week until I have the time. I'd also like to start this in it's embryo stage with the assumption that contributors are not irrevocably opposed to paid editing rules and would like to keep them as limited as possible. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You tell me when and I'm all over it. I would prefer only to be involved in early discussions and draft space as I have strong opinions and too much involvement from me will be seen as lobbying. It is not unlike how the government consults the private sector before passing regulations - where those commercial entities have a point-of-view that is valuable, but they should not be overly aggressive nor do they write the regulations themselves. A collaboration with someone on my side of things is important, because ultimately the guideline or policy should present a compelling argument for companies to do things the right way. Corporate 19:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "WP:BLP applies to corporations, which are just collections of people." This is wrong. BLP doesn't apply to groups in any meaningful sense. Gigs (talk) 21:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "This policy does not normally apply to edits about corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons, ..." Whatever your view on the concept of "legal person", you cannot disagree that the owners, executives, and employees are people. So that if an article says "Joe Blow, CEO of Blowhardt, Inc, ..." WP:BLP applies there. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Q: Have any paid or COI editors made positive contributions to the project? A: I'm sure some have, but I fail to see any relevance to this question." I usually see eye to eye with Jimmy, but here I have to say "until you see the relevance of this question, you are missing a major issue here." The fact that paid editors can add meaningful content means they should not be shot on sight. It's as simple as that. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is absolutely scandalous to conflate the unnecessary brouhaha over Gibraltarpedia with paid editing as the lede here does. And it is ridiculous to say that ethical, paid consultancy (which I undertake) is incompatible with either good editing or a neutral encyclopedia; and naive in the extreme to imagine that it will not continue to be offered, and sought by organisations wanting to understand Wikipedia. I'm curious how it can be OK to be paid for a year's work as a Wikipedian in a museum, but not a day's. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did find the article introduction misleading, since it implies that Jimmy Wales was going to comment on the particular situation of Roger Bamkin, since it does at least seem like a case that blurs that bright line. Even if in Jimmy's view it does not blur that line, it does at least give the appearance of blurriness. Overall, this was a good chance for Jimmy to explain himself, even if I think his views on this matter differ from the majority of Wikipedians and official Wikipedia policy (I admit that my view of the opinions of the majority of Wikipedians may differ from Jimmy's). Jztinfinity (talk) 22:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can I assume that the co-founder will have a slot in this series too, if he chooses to use it? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a great interview. I agree completely with Jimbo's views here (especially the distinction between paid editing and paid advocacy). Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A paying client has never asked me to edit, and no past client has ever paid me to edit. I have edited several friends' and acquaintances' articles, for free, and have disclosed that potential COI in my user space or a talk page of a pro bono client. However, if and when that time comes, I would disclose that I was editing a paying client's article, and continue editing. Bearian (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...is it just me or did he completely avoid the question about Wikiproject Cooperation and CREWE? Kinda rude. :/ SilverserenC 23:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, so a paid editor who proposes a noncontroversial edit rather than directly making the change and gets no response should take the time to "escalate to the appropriate place". Sounds reasonable. Other than starting with a post to Jimbo's talk page, what would be the appropriate place? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for volunteering your Talk page! But seriously, Jimbo's Talk is the last resort.
  • The best next step is the official {{Edit request}} template which alerts the WP:IRC helpers (in their defence, in my experience, the edit requests that get slow responses are often too long, too complicated, too unsourced, too POV, too angry, or tend to go against local consensus - which means Dispute Resolution should have been engaged instead).
  • After that, the next step is at the Project(s) Talk page(s), since Project level editors might not have a particular article watched, but will watch the Project.
  • I'm a fan of Editing assistance as well, some editors watch there. I think paid editors should follow at least these escalation steps, and should understand that there are volunteers behind the scenes who may be leery of helping a paid editor achieve some goal, even though it seems at the moment benign. So edit requests should be short, NPOV, worded non-promotionally, and sourced independently and reliably, at a minimum. --Lexein (talk) 02:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think 48 hours is too short to wait for a talk page response. If there's no response by then, I don't see what's wrong with then asking at a higher level, aka the relevant noticeboards. And if no response has been had after a month and following all the steps properly...well, then, Wikipedia has failed at that point. But I really don't see it coming to that, not if the steps are done properly. SilverserenC 06:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of the above discussion is about controversial edits, which is worth discussing, but my question concerns completely noncontroversial edits. Let's say you were hired by Acme Corporation (Motto: "We specialize in trapping Road Runners") to edit Wikipedia and you are limiting yourself to talk page comments. Then a vandal replaces the content of the page with "ACMEE PRODUKS IS DEFETCIVE!!!!!" (which, BTW, they clearly are). Do you stay behind that bright line or do you revert? What if you notice that the phone number is listed as 555-1243 followed by a citation giving the correct number (555-1234)? Do you stay behind that bright line or do you correct the obvious error and drop a note on the talk page explaining who you are and what you did? What if the vandalism or error stays up for days or months and nobody responds to your talk page comments? Even our bright-line three-revert rule has exceptions. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Important question - I think that's a legitimate response, but it does potentially give a figleaf to PR people who might want to call something vandalism when it's just something they don't like. To put it another way - it turns the "bright line" into a "fine line", which we'd rather avoid. Is there a useful distinction that doesn't result in instruction creep? (Probably not.) How about (A) some sort of {{help, vandal!}} template that flags the page for immediate attention, similar to {{help me}} on talk pages, and/or (B) allowing reversion of vandalism (once only, no edit warring) if an appropriate template is placed on the talk page (again, one that flags the page for immediate attention). But... I think I've just suggested more instruction creep. *shrug*
My approach where I had a conflict of interest (on the Appropedia article), when no one was responding on the talk page and I didn't know about other options or the "bright line" proposal, was to make the edits myself and explain on the talk page. (That was a case of actually making the article less promotional and more encyclopedic, so I felt it was uncontroversial - I suggested other edits on the talk page where it was less clear-cut. But it wasn't actual vandalism or error, so a {{help, vandal!}} template wouldn't have been appropriate - if I'd known about "appropriate places" to escalate, I would have done so, linking to a userspace page showing the changes I wanted to make.) --Chriswaterguy talk 23:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for help on finding the "appropriate places" (responding to Guy Macon, Lexein, Silver seren). WP:COI+ is a great idea. Jimbo seems to imply that it's not hard for someone to get help, which reminds me of smart IT people who say that Linux is easy.
I think a friendly {{welcome-pr}} template would be very useful for putting on the talk pages of people with a potential COI, letting them know their options and letting them know constructive ways to engage. We could add a link to the standard notice on talk pages - that notice is already TL;DR, but a link for COI issues is important. --Chriswaterguy talk 00:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. We need a bright line. Wikipedia needs to maintain its independence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(To be clear, there are a few people who argue in favor of that, but their arguments are so implausible that it is difficult to take them seriously.)" Similarly, Jimbo's arguments that we should simply disallow people - including those who have shown themselves to be reliable and respected members of our community - from editing in such a situation are so "implausible that it is difficult to take them seriously." Not to mention irrational. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 03:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's a question I'd be curious to hear someone from the anti-paid-editing side answer: any time a highly partisan person edits a Wikipedia article about a controversial political topic - which happens all the time - there's a conflict of interest there, between the person's obligation to improve the article and their desire to have the article reflect their view of things. How is editing an article to make a politician you love look good, or one you hate look bad, different, from either an ethical or pragmatic point of view, from editing for money? In other words, why should politically-involved people be allowed to edit political articles? (Assuming they should.) Yaron K. (talk) 03:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" - Sinclair Lewis. There's hope of having a reasonable discussion with somebody of strong political beliefs. There's little or no hope of having a reasonable discussion with somebody who has to make a particular edit in order to keep his job and make the mortgage payment. Smallbones(smalltalk) 05:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good question, Yaron. But, I've another. Where, exactly, is the Editorial Independence of The Signpost?
      • None is evident. The Signpost gives every indication of being a platform for its editors to push their PoV; to promote the viewpoints and ideology of their on-wiki friends.
        I don't expect an in-house magazine to be unbiased, but I do expect people be granted a right-to-reply. Don't see this being offered to Andy Roger over Gibraltarpedia, as-opposed to an interview with Jimmy where the questions are slanted to condemn the good work Andy's Roger's done. And, I still recall with some animosity the way The Signpost fawned over a fork of Wikinews which is now consigned to the dustbin.
        There's a great deal more people should be concerned with other than people actually putting food on the table whilst working full-time on improving Wikipedia. But, I do have to congratulate the editors of The Signpost on helping to hound a trustee out of a UK-based charity; that Andy Roger stood down is a testament to his moral values; but, the way I, repeatedly, see The Signpost approach issues is one I'm more-used to from The Daily Mail or Murdoch press. --Brian McNeil /talk 04:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're thinking of Roger Bamkin; I've taken the liberty of amending your post accordingly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Where did this attack come from, Brian? I personally feel that we were very even-handed with the Bamkin story; we worked with him while crafting the story and certainly gave a much fairer story than the regular media. In addition, the story was published before he resigned, so we played no part there. I'd need to see much more substantive evidence before taking action here. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The requested edit page would be completely swamped if every company miraculously adhered to the proposed policy. Anyone who has ever worked WP:New page patrol knows this. Wales' offer to personally review every dispute on his talk page is an interesting one but not worthy of the founder's time. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 04:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This "bright line" is impossible to pin down precisely, and paid editing impossible to identify most of the time. While not disagreeing with Smallbones's initial comment, we should bear in mind that the new travel project is going to require some tough policy development and policing. Tony (talk) 08:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recall DMOZ editors listing travel as the second most problematic category (pornographic paysites being the worst) for the same promoters self-servingly creating and submitting multiple versions of the same site. There are a huge number of middlemen selling travel and, for want of better justification of their costly existence, they self-promote incessantly. Certainly, WP:COI is a huge problem already... too often we see User:XYZ Company creating Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/XYZ Company and then complaining to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk that the "article" was declined a week later (the most frequently asked question, 'why was my (non-notable autobiography / corporate self-promotion) rejected as a Wikipedia article'). Our use of WP:WEASEL words like "lacks reliable sources" to establish "notability" (instead of outright "please stop advertising your company on Wikipedia" doesn't help. The templated responses all seem to end with "...but feel free to add more sources and re-submit this ten more times" or an equivalent for fear of biting a contributor, even if these are WP:SPA. The end result is that WP:AFC is backlogged more than a week on average and 80% of submissions are rejected (mostly autobiography or WP:CORP descriptions of non-notable firms). AFC is the tip of the iceberg; the same likely appears on new page patrol in mainspace and in too many existing articles. Telling User:XYZ Company to change to a different username per username policy and keep trying to submit content, with just a token request to add reliable sources to establish notability, is only perpetuating and camouflaging the problem. Keep these where we can see them, sure, but also keep in mind that while we're trying to WP:WEASEL our way out of WP:BITE-ing down on users repeatedly submitting advertising as content, this person's boss is likely telling them (not asking them) to keep submitting this so we need to be just as firm in saying "don't post advertising to Wikipedia" or the message is lost. It may even be necessary to systematically look through all of our existing articles on commercial companies, starting with the least-read and most-obscure ones, and methodically remove any which are solely laudatory, poorly-sourced or of questionable notability. That would be a huge task, but a fair amount of self-serving promotion has slipped under the radar over the years. K7L (talk) 11:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • COI editing doesn't depend on Jimmy's positions, but on much wider social dynamics. It existed, it exists and it will exist. Our only choice is to decide do we want to know for that or not. If we choose to leave it forbidden, paid editing underground will just become bigger, with all of the black market consequences. Oh, and we have the other choice, as well... --millosh (talk (meta:)) 13:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo is entitled to his views. That being said, I find the idea of a man who accepts speaking fees as the public face of Wikipedia suggesting that others not be allowed to make money, if they can, from their involvement in the site deplorable. At least Avery Brundage had the good taste not to accept money for his Olympic involvement while urging amateurism on others.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thoughts: (1) Jimmy Wales' "Bright LIne" is a minority view, not a majority view, as recent RFC debates on paid editing have made clear. His assumption that a "Bright Line" essay page will be elevated to policy strikes me as an incorrect reading of the politics of WP. (2) Adoption of a "Bright Line" rule won't solve the question of paid editing on WP — given the anonymous status of most contributors, it will merely drive it underground. It is wrong to pretend this is some sort of magic bullet. (3) BLP does not apply to corporations, although there are common concerns with both. (4) Mr. Wales contradicts himself at the end when he states that paid COI editing (what he calls "Paid Advocacy") is never permissible in mainspace........... except under emergency situations. Never means never. Clearly, the community would overwhelmingly endorse the notion that it IS permissible in the case of vandalism or libel. So, there IS a line between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" editing, no matter what... This isn't gonna be an issue solved in the "letters to the editor" section here, so I'll stop. Carrite (talk) 15:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a shame that those wishing to damage the movement have had some success with their disinformation campaigns, nonetheless this, like most of the bumps on the road, is minor compared with the success of the project as a whole. As to paid editing, I think the principles of the project will withstand that, and indeed often have, turning it to good, along with the innumerable contributions from others with declared or undeclared COIs. Rich Farmbrough, 00:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]