Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-05-02/News and notes

The first thing we should always ask about paid editors is whether they are following our rules. It's nice to see that they declared their paid status pretty much in line with the Terms of Service. Certainly they followed the spirit of the rules there, but they could use the proper templates "suggested" at WP:COI

Of course when you declare the paid for articles, we get to check whether they are up to snuff. There are only 5 articles declared (they can't be getting rich off of this!), but IMHO at least 2 should be deleted - the main sources are the companies involved. The prose is a bit flowery, closer to PR speak than to the usual Wikipedia fare. So we see once again why paid editing needs to be reviewed.

The presence of paid editors on chapter boards is AFAIK not against the rules, but probably should be. There's bound to be an actual conflict of interest sooner or later, and there is an appearance of a COI now. I think the board could make this clear - no money from the WMF - if you have paid editors working for commercial organization on the board or in the employ of a chapter. I write "for commercial organizations" because that is where the usual problems are, and to make clear that the usual exemptions apply, e.g. Wikipedians in Residence.

They should also check Swiss law. If it's anything like German law, they have to declare the paid editing *in the article itself* But we can't allow companies to make such a declaration in the article, or to assert the article ownership that would entail, so they wouldn't be able to do any paid editing for Swiss companies in this case. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point; could you cite your sources regarding German law requiring paid editors to add a disclaimer in the article itself? --Beat Estermann (talk) 07:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just copy the relevant section from WP:COI, the German case is in the footnote.

European fair-trading law

In 2012 the Munich Oberlandesgericht court ruled that if a company or its agents edit Wikipedia with the aim of influencing customers, the edits constitute covert advertising, and as such are a violation of European fair-trading law. The ruling stated that readers cannot be expected to seek out user and talk pages to find editors' disclosures about their corporate affiliation.^{[Smallbones1 1]}

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Smallbones is absolutely correct. The reason for declaration of interest is twofold, firstly to protect the declaree from allegations of deceptive practices, and secondly to enable checking for concious or unconscious bias.

The un-resolved issue is that there is a backlog of unchecked contributions.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

• Well, it's a rare day that Smallbones and I see eye-to-eye on these issues, but I find little to quarrel with in his comment. I run a Wikipedia training and consulting business, and in 2015, I put my name forward as a candidate for the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation. (I later withdrew that bid.) In that context, I thought carefully about the issues raised in this news piece. (I answered a relevant question here.) In my particular case, I felt there was no overriding conflict that would prevent me from serving on the Board (though I would have welcomed more pointed questions and deliberation on the matter). But there are two significant differences here (and in the case of Wikimedia UK board members):
  1. My firm explicitly avoids making edits to Wikipedia on behalf of our clients. We do this specifically because we believe any blurring between our reputation on Wikipedia, and that of our client, is inappropriate (whether positive or negative). Instead, we guide our clients in working openly and in accordance with Wikipedia's rules and social norms. I can see from question #3 that the Swiss board members have made an effort to prevent that kind of blurring, as well; but it strikes me as problematic in their case, because other Wikipedians may have a legitimate interest in knowing that the editor with whom they are engaging is both a paid consultant, and a chapter board member.
  2. The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees is more distant from content issues than most chapters. Chapters frequently directly sponsor such activities as edit-a-thons, conferences, and outreach to cultural institutions. The Wikimedia Foundation board does none of these things (though such things may happen occasionally within the organization, at a more operational level). But these are among the things a paid consulting firm might do, as well. So there is an additional kind of conflict of interest, beyond the content of the encyclopedia: are these individuals benefiting from information they get as board members, when organizations contact the non-profit chapter seeking help? Such lines can get very blurry as well. -Pete (talk) 20:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• One other point, on the German ruling: It seems to me (noting, I'm neither a lawyer nor a German) that, as described, the court ruling is based on a basic misunderstanding of how Wikipedia operates. Two things:
  1. Organizations have many different wishes relating to Wikipedia content. "The aim of influencing customers" is one of many; and sometimes there are multiple aims. Companies also care about (for instance) the value of their brand, the outcomes of lawsuits, public or professional comprehension of their market niche, perceptions of shareholders, prospective investors or partners, the goodwill of the Wikipedia community, etc. etc. I don't know how a German court might determine what the central aim is, but this ruling would seem to ignore vast swathes of the instances where somebody is paid to edit Wikipedia. (This is not a mere theoretical claim; our clients have brought up concerns like those I listed.)
  2. It seems rather straightforward for firms like Racosch Sàrl to add a note to the bottom of a Wikipedia article when saving their edits. Another Wikipedia editor could then remove it. There could even be a bot that automatically reverts such statements, and adds the article to a queue that needs review. I don't know for sure that such an approach would satisfy the court, but it seems like the most straightforward approach from my reading of the ruling. -Pete (talk) 01:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]