I'd point to WP:MMORPG and ask, regarding CoI editors, what's in it for me? I play this game based upon my chosen strategy to earn points. Sure, the SanFran front office will violate it's own terms of use if there's something in it for them, but where's my opportunity to cash in? The last CoI editor I dealt with followed all the rules and asked nicely on a talk page for some edits. At no point did they offer me anything, which is messed up. I shouldn't have to extort people that ask nicely. The time before that, I had a CoI editor eager to enforce their version of the truth; I pointed to WP:RB and they became indignant from my advice. Everyone wants to score points in this MMORPG but no one is willing to meet me halfway. Chris Troutman (talk)22:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Part of a solution, is when you have a specific topic, you can developed specific writing guides and direct them to it. For example at WP:JOURNALS, we have our writing guide with a specific COI section. We link to this guide from all {{journal-stub}} templates, so it's relatively easy for COI editors that wants to update/create an article on an Academic journal to do so within the rules, and a guide that rather effectively curb-stomps their tendency to add a ton of WP:WEASEL/WP:COPYVIO stuff, not only by telling them what not to add, but also what is the information we are actually interested in. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}22:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the actual discussion about implementing these changes? Be bold and start one! Merging all guides for COI editors and making them more accessible for their intended audience seems like an easy-ish first step that could be started this very moment. Same goes with creating a WikiProject. There’s no time like now, especially if this article sparks some additional interest. Trialpears (talk) 22:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I frequently deal with COI editors, but I find the current system for COI editors to request edits suitable only for trivial corrections or updates; it is a hopelessly confusing way to write or rewrite an article, and leads to interminable negotiating over individual sentences. The only way I can deal effectively with the non trivial requests is to request the editor to propose a draft, and leave it to me to decide what to implement, and then to other non-COI editors to revise in the normal way. The problem is that this takes an inordinate amount of time & concentration on the subject, so I will do it only for subjects that I am personally interested in. Otherwise, it's asking me to do the work I would not otherwise do, so someone else can earn the money. I do not really know a solution, except for a general policy of limiting COI editors to asking for routine updates, and otherwise just suggesting sources on the talk page, and leaving the article alone. The most helpful thing a subject can do is to write a really informative and well referenced website, and give free licenses to appropriate illustrations. They have no right to insist that we work on an article about them. We do not exist as a place where individuals and companies can present information about themselves. If my friend WWB would like to discuss further particulars, I'll be glad to talk with him. DGG ( talk ) 03:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is such a good idea that I very rarely need to do any COI work with articles on academic journals. Part of the reason it works here is not just the formulaic nature of the article, but the very clear standard of notability in those fields, which diminishes the need for puffery. (And also, the very close consensus of the relatively few editors here working in this field on the article standards) The practical problem with such articles is trying to find some way of avoiding copyvio and close paraphrase. I think this would be true for many other situations also where a formulaic article could be written properly by anyone even with COI. . I would agree completely with efforts to expand this to other fields, as you suggested above. DGG ( talk ) 07:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, DGG! You raise a very good point about the current system working well only for simple edits. Alas, I think there is no way around the fact that some pages need more work, and larger changes require more volunteer attention. That said, I agree it is less than ideal for volunteers to make content decisions on topics outside their interest, which is why I hope that a formalized WikiProject could help. Perhaps it could attract subject-matter experts to offer comment, which COI-focused volunteers might help to implemnt.
As to your suggestion that a subject should post a "really informative and well referenced website" off-wiki, can you point to any examples? I believe this was Jimbo's original advice to MyWikiBiz, but it never really became reality, and it raises a whole host of questions, including how to format it, and what CMS to use—which is why I have long used the draft in userspace approach. In any case, there would still need to be a mechanism whereby someone on-wiki brings the issue up for discussion. WWB (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the need for different tools for small versus large suggested updates. There's an example of a large suggested expansion at Talk:Medical Journal of Australia, where I manually went through and looked for eh diffs from the current article so that each sentence could be implemented/rejected individually. There could definitely be a tool to allow something like that of large updates or even complete rewrites. It could also give an opportunity for the original coi-editor to give additional references if a sentence was rejected because of lack of supporting refs. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk01:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Following up on one of your points, it's would certainly help if we were able to get volunteer editors in business fields--I think we've set the practical notability level for businesses perhaps too high, in an (successful) effort to keep out the incompetent paid editors, and this might enable us give us more realistic coverage. But unfortunately there will still be major gaps, as there are with academic faculty, a field where we have many volunteer editors--such gaps do a disservice to those really notable, leading university PR staff or hired editors to write the articles, which they generally do very poorly, not distinguishing between what counts for notability here and what is puffery. This is similarly true even with contemporary artists , musicians, entertainers--in spite of the very large number of interested WP editors in these fields. So there does not seem any real solution unless we end anonymous editing in some fields, which I certainly do not propose. DGG ( talk ) 16:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion would be: better training for writing articles! Imagine a "Wikipedia Article Writing School" supported by the WMF. And if they don't, maybe I will… WWB (talk) 14:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You just took the words out of my mouth, Widefox. With all due respect, perhaps my very good friend DGG forgot about that, while I nevertheless have extreme respect for the dedication he invests (more than most) in quietly (more or less) going about his COI work. And while we're on the subject, something I always meant to ask you: was your shortcut an intended pun on a less polite we Bits have for 'Go away!' ? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good question, and I think Brits may assume there's a message in the name, when there was none intended. It may detract as it was a serious attempt to understand the good faith polarised opinions of dealing with the scale of COI (especially AfDs), and look into the (economic) drivers, so the name just came out naturally. I ended up just considering this a special case of the tragedy of the commons systemic bias, which may be a better name as the bigger topic. I originally liked the focus on the volunteer's choice to be part of a BOGOF offer or not. Garrett Hardin's quote seems apt "Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.". Widefox; talk21:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Widefox, I think BOGOF makes a valuable contribution to the discussion around paid editing, and I certainly recognize the dynamic it describes, i.e. "subsidizing the market" for paid advocacy by throwing good editors after bad. And I'm sympathetic to the idea that if WP:TNT is needed to fix a borderline notable, promotional article, that deletion should be the result more often than it is now. That said, in my reading I find it focuses on enforcement against "unscrupulous, low quality" COI work more than it offers clear suggestions toward encouraging "quality paid editors". I acknowledge the essay is offered as one view, rather than a comprehensive solution. But I wonder, do you think the scenario I describe above is compatible with it? WWB (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hypothetically, high quality COI work is not an article quality problem, but that's by definition. What about in practice, though? Is it even a reality? Let's assume the perfect COI editing...there's a big but...it's still a systemic bias. That bias is multiplied when volunteers are drawn in, taking finite editors away from editing other articles, additionally tilting the balance. All undisclosed paid editing is a problem by definition, per the TOU, and that's more work for volunteers to flag and deal with disclosures and problem accounts. The question of a solution to enable/encourage quality COI editing may or may not be directly related to enabling the tragedy of the commons. At least in theory. My understanding of the economics is rudimentary, but there's been success with overfishing. Maybe there's a solution here Elinor Ostrom was awarded the Nobel Prize in economics for demonstrating exactly this concept in her book Governing the Commons, which included examples of how local communities were able to do this without top-down regulations ? Widefox; talk20:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As to whether high-quality COI editing is a reality or not, you may not be too surprised to hear that I would hold myself out as an example. There are others, although not as many as I would like, and we tend not to edit client articles directly. Naturally, this requires volunteers to facilitate, but I believe the time they put in does more to improve the encyclopedia than COI/N whack-a-mole or BOGOF cleanup after-the-fact. I think there is also a good case to be made that it's more efficient, and helps to avert "tragic" outcomes. All in all, the theory is interesting, but hard data would be more so. Elsewhere I've begun to encourage independent research along these lines, but it may be some time before any of it comes to pass. WWB (talk) 14:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so much interested in the individual merits of one or more editors, edits or articles, more about the collective effect per tragedy of the commonsa shared-resource system where individual users acting independently according to their own self-interest behave contrary to the common good of all users by depleting or spoiling that resource through their collective action. . Is is all about the scale of the systemic bias it introduces IMHO. That's an independent issue to that of lack of bias or NPOV due to a COI, which no doubt is possible to achieve, especially via edit requests or other best practice. It's a systemic bias (see WP:BIAS). Widefox; talk16:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I actually wrote an essay proposing a solution over a year ago. User:Bri/Paid editing Chinese wall would either use existing mechanisms, or create a new paid-editing space for inclusion to the regular enc. by non-paid editors. I think this is the crux of the issue because the instant gratification of high-ranking Google results has tilted the playing field in favor of the low-effort undeclared paid editors and those who hire them. Curious to know what WWB thinks of this. By the way we met in person at the 2017 San Diego wikiconference; one of the unheralded benefits of events like this is bringing together people who might have stood on opposite sides of an issue and prior to which (in my case) had not seen the other party as a real person so much. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:24, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bri, finally getting a chance to catch up after the long weekend. I do remember seeing your essay awhile back. I am skeptical that there will ever be community support to prohibit direct editing by COI contributors; I'm reminded of the 2009 RfC which roundly rejected the idea largely for fear of unintended consequences. And in this era of WiRs and other paid non-COI contributors, the line is too easy to accidentally cross. There is also extreme resistance to changing the infrastructure of the site, cf. the decade-long debate over "pending changes". And while Wikipedia's prominence in Google certainly creates an incentive for instant UPE gratification, that is beyond Wikipedia's control. The one thing that might change this would be raising the requirements for editing across all accounts but I'm sure you'd agree that will never happen, either. Instead, I think about how similar bad behaviors were culled in the past, for instance, illegal file-sharing. First iTunes and then Spotify created a different set of conditions, including a reliability and certainty the peer-to-peer networks could never provide, and which users were willing to pay for. It didn't end all illegal file-sharing, but it did put a huge dent in it. If we are concerned about the tragedy of the commons—and I suppose I'm speaking against interest here—perhaps COI actors should have to pay something to get a fair and timely hearing? WWB (talk) 17:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The ratio of promotional to non-promotional edits seems to be increasing. The proportion of PR money spent on updating public knowledge is growing too. A stable solution should channel some of the desire and funding for such edits into support for tools and editing that monitors the problem, and maintains neutrality and balance. It's good that a bit of that happens via WWB personally, but that's not nearly enough. We need to transform the market for these services by providing an alternative that primarily supports tools for review and CSB, and avoids BOGOF problems. – SJ +15:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]