Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-03-04/Interview



← Back to Interview

Discuss this story

Fascinating! I wonder how many folks like Fergus are lurking around, just trying to supplement their income.--Milowent • hasspoken 21:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I carefully estimate that there are about 40 people on Earth who, in the past 2 years, have earned more than $200 specifically for writing content for Wikipedia and/or publishing content on Wikipedia, where that was not "already" a tacit part of a wider job (such as a Communications Director for an organization or a PR firm touching up a client's article). There are probably 500 people who have edited Wikipedia with an undisclosed financial conflict of interest of some kind, just in the past month -- it's just that they weren't specifically paid for those edits. - 2601:B:BB80:61D:54CB:8780:9667:BB31 (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC) (banned paid editor) (Smallbones, feel free to delete this, if you feel that need to silence useful information, just because it came from a banned editor)[reply]
The problem that a paid advocate has when he openly edits is that his readers realize that he will lie when it suits his wallet. The problem that a banned editor has when he edits openly is that his readers know that he is lying every time he edits. ("Who me? I'm following the rules" he might say.) So nobody will believe him. 40 paid editors on Wikipedia in the last two years? Aren't you afraid that people will think you are lying for your own benefit? See below. Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's boll. I have User:AlexNewArtBot/PolandSearchResult on my watchlist and routinely there pop up articles about some minor companies by a red-colore user name which are carefully crafted with dozens of references which take long time to verify they are mostly press-release fluff plus occasional mentions in lists. "I carefully estimate that there is" no way a newbie is capable of going thru pains of crafting an AfD-survivable article from a piece of crap. Normally newbies just cut and paste the "about" piece of their fav business. So "I carefully estimate" that both paid editing and paid consultancy is alive and kicking. And if you put a hook on "wikipedia" in the news, you will be notice lots of adverts of wikipedia handymen. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Its a black market of sorts so it's not easy to determine how big it is. Surely people at companies are tasked every day with getting an article created on their company. As for the 40 number, we have no idea how he came up with that, so its not worth much.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • For sure, hundreds at least are looking for clients: it's easy to see them, just count applicants and offers on freelancer websites. Then there are probably thousands who do some editing as part of other work and are untraceable. Judging from the publicly visible portion of this demimonde, which is just the tip of the iceberg, the terms of use didn't change anything. It's harder to judge the impact on those we don't know, like cultural institutions' employees; those tend to be more shy, so I'd expect they were deterred (every new rule deters a good faith contributor). --Nemo 06:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • And their number is growing. This is Capitalism, dude. Every minute a sucker is born. I am am wondering if anybody going to publish an investigative report about the feature which allowed creating book from collection of wikipedia articles. Suddenly Google Books search was flooded with wikipedia imprints 10 bucks apiece, with dozens of micropublishers. It may mean off-topic, but it is to my point that people never cease to make a buck off your free work. of Red Hat Linux didn't teach you a lesson how Capitalists feed of naive Altruists. Still, IMO paid advocacy is kindergarten games. Just you wait for WikiWorldWar 1.0 when all major governments realize the opportunities for subversion. A thou or so admins and a dozen of Arbcom will be choked with investigations of disruption. All wikipedia articles on politics will be edit-protected. A mighty cabal of sleeper admins will rise to rule wikipedia... How about a nice dystopia novel with this plot? Staszek Lem (talk) 22:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a freelancer specialized in MediaWiki, I get invited to paid editing jobs every month, sometimes every week. I always reject them with a link to WP:COI. I did once a paid article, but years later I felt bad about it, reported it, and eventually someone deleted it ha. Paid editing is probably very common, but I can't think of a solution other than tracking existing freelance jobs, which no one is about to do, and clients don't usually post information that may lead to their article in the job descriptions. --Felipe (talk) 12:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hugely distasteful that the Signpost gives a stage for paid shills to attack the editors who opposed their undisclosed advocacy. As a fully paid-up member of the WP:MED cabal (there is no cabal), I despair of the amount of time I have sometimes had to spend defending a basic Wikipedia principle like finding and using only the best quality sources. Many Wikimedians know me off-wiki and would confirm that the very thought that I could have a COI regarding the edits I make to medical articles is beyond laughable.

Of course the POV-pushers and SPAs want to exclude "their" articles from WP:MEDRS because it's so much easier to shove their insidious bias into articles if they can cherry-pick poor quality sources to bolster their views. The truth is that MEDRS is only what RS would be if every topic area had such a wealth of sources that medicine has. And anybody who believes that articles making health claims (like e-cigs) shouldn't be held to the same high standards as other medicine-related articles deserves an encyclopedia run by the POV-pushers and paid advocates. --RexxS (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

re: "to exclude "their" articles from WP:MEDRS" - you probably meant "to exclude "their" articles from the control of WP:MEDRS guideline " or smth., otherwise the phrase reads weird. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He means from the "scope" of MEDRS. I entirely agree with RexxS, and in many issues, such as e-cigs, there is diversity of views within the "cabal", reflecting the global medical/health sources, reflecting the emerging body of research. But we are agreed that medical claims need medical sources. Johnbod (talk) 16:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any summary or research on the extent of paid editing (including advocacy) and disclosure rates? The 2014 wmf:Terms of Use prohibit undisclosed paid editing. Culturally, we have WP:COI, and specifically WP:AGF & WP:OUTING combined with a lack of tools and appetite. This appears a clash of cultures that currently only WMF can navigate. RexxS is right that MED is the exception to this due to WP:MEDRS. To add my WP:OR to the IP's above, I've seen hundreds of suspected undisclosed paid editing accounts - some unaware of the need to disclose. Should this corrosive, long-term issue be buried in the smallprint? Widefox; talk 01:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've watched out for paid editor disclosures fairly carefully since last June when the new Terms of Use went into effect. There have been at least 5 disclosures (not counting GLAM folks who are pretty much exempt). There may be others, but it is clear that the vast majority of paid editors are not disclosing. They should know now that they are intentionally breaking the rules if they don't disclose. We should make absolutely sure that they know the disclosure rule, but it is not a secret that disclosure is required.
    • I agree with Widefox that the WMF needs to step up and help out here. There are some things that they can do that individual editors cannot. For example they can use their own PR apparatus to let those newspapers and bloggers, who give advice on how to get away with paid editing, know that that is against our rules. They can also let those sites that advertise paid editing services know that those efforts are not appreciated. But admins need to do lots more also. Strict enforcement of our rules against promotion, marketing, PR, and advertising would help a lot. That's what paid editors do promotion, marketing, PR, and advertising. Enforce those rules and there will be lots less paid advocacy to handle. And when an obvious case of paid advocacy comes up, nobody needs to insist that we have absolutely incontrovertible DNA and fingerprint evidence. A "duck test" should do as well here as with many other rules we have to deal with - the weight of the evidence should be enough.
    • Arbs need to enforce the rules as well. In the Wifione case the arbs set out a principle stating that they did not have a mandate to enforce the ToU, our paid editing policy. Make no mistake, the ToU is an English Wikipedia policy, and Arbcom has a mandate to enforce Wikipedia policies. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that MyWikiBiz has devised a business plan ( mywikibiz.com/Directory:MyWikiBiz/Paid_editing) (NB: This link had to be converted to plaintext due to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist jp×g 09:54, 3 December 2022 (UTC)) that exempts them from the WMF Terms of Use clause about disclosure of paid contributions. They get paid for advice, research, and writing of content, all off-Wikipedia. Once they're paid for that, they'll post content to Wikipedia as a personal courtesy to the client, and no refund or rebate is given should the content be removed from Wikipedia. - 2601:B:BB80:61D:941:882B:E0BA:CAF2 (talk) 03:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So pretending to fool yourself - i.e. lying - is part of your business plan. I'm sure your customers know that both you and they are covered by the terms of use. So it looks like you are asking for action to be taken against you and your customers. There should be no complaints then when it comes. Smallbones(smalltalk) 05:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paid advocacy is of course not only putting positive things into articles. Sometimes it is also a case of keeping positive things out, like on Organic food where the use of MEDRS is completely illogical - and to my opinion - misused. The Banner talk 10:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is it illogical to insist that the Organic food article only uses the best sources? Or that claims concerning the putative health benefits of particular foodstuffs shouldn't meet the agreed Wikipedia standards for sourcing such medical/health claims? --RexxS (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have had good success when we request other websites to take down accounts that infringe upon our terms of use. Now if we can get the WMF to enforce / help enforce our terms of use we might be able to make a dent in the problem. Would be good to be a little more proactive. How often is this happening? Not that often within medicine but there are hundreds of accounts in other areas. I have a list but it is unclear if these details are allowed on WP per [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • And you had me going there until you mentioned a "cabal". Yep, those sinister medical editors, seeking to insure that articles are "scientifically accurate". How dare they! I do think that FergusM1970 sounds quite reasonable here. However, I read a lot of FergusM1970's comments at ANI and elsewhere when I was editing Doc James's op-ed on this subject of paid editing, and FergusM1970 wasn't making an effort to sound like a reasonable, cooperative person with those remarks. Gamaliel (talk) 05:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did editing for pay when it was still okay to do so, and I fired more than one client for trying to get me to shove non-notable crap through. A look through my edit history will never reveal where those paid edits went, because they were all good edits. In fact, I spent have spent a lot more time gutting crappy business articles than I ever did beefing anything up for money. The problem with banning paid editing is that crap edits will still happen, whether for pay or not. The problem with requiring paid editors to disclose their arrangement is that editors develop biases against paid editors and refuse to evaluate edits against Wikipedia standards, but that happens all the time anyway. The result of taking the moral high ground is that good editors, like myself, decide it's not worth the trouble, and paid editing is relegated to people with sock farms and no regard for improving the encyclopedia. I can't fathom a more struthious policy decision.--~TPW 23:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]