Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cooperation/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Proposals

I'd like to put forth a set of suggestions for the project and collect comments on whether people support these.

There was unanimous support for the proposal that this project not be a sanctuary for paid editors, but also to identify and root out bad actors, yet the current project page doesn't have anything on that side of the coin. I propose we create a Paid Editing Watch as part of this project (merged from the other) with the goal of identifying paid editors who have not disclosed or who have disclosed but are making poor edits.

For example, it only took me five minutes to look up Waggener Edstrom, find their IP address, and username, etc. They're advertising they do Wikipedia consulting, but their own username has no disclosure and no editing history showing their client work. Something that warrants investigation. Whereas the COI noticeboard is reactive, this is proactive. Many editors enjoy "the hunt" and may wish to participate in this end of things as well.

Discussion

In putting the Examples together (below), I realize many PR agencies actively promote their Wikipedia expertise and advertise it as a service, but their own handles don't show any editing history. This is a major transparency problem.

Please elaborate. Handles? Transparency? What specifically do you mean? (you lost me here) Rklawton (talk) 01:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
For example, Waggener Edstrom Worldwide pubicly advertises their Wikipedia services on their website, however the Waggener employee that updated their own company article doesn't show any edits on behalf of their clients. If someone provides Wikipedia editing services, but has no editing history, then where are all the edits their clients paid them for? Were they done anonymously? With sockpuppets? Undisclosed?
Maybe:
*They're using multiple accounts and we should find out
*They're lying and they don't really provide Wikipedia services
*They're "consulting" their clients on how to edit themselves and we should identify the paid editors their clients are using
*Or it could be something as simple as that employee left and the new agency Wikipedian used a different username
Either way, if someone is pubicly advertising paid Wikipedia services on the internet, it should be possible to investigate who they are on Wikipedia and find out if they are doing so ethically. King4057 (talk) 03:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. I think a journalist would love to investigate this example further! Rklawton (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
A list of suspected undisclosed paid editors by Waggener employees or their clients (probably under their influence)
  • User:Kj8744 has made many edits for Waggener clients, including this one removing the investigation of an executive for a fraud scandal.
All undisclosed with no user profile and unsuspecting usernames. All are edits of the Wikipedia articles on Waggener clients or attempts to plug in a mention of such client. These guys are running quite the racket. King4057 (talk) 04:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Examples

Organizations advertising Wikipedia services, where their usernames on Wikipedia are unknown or where other misconduct is suspected.

Organization Known Usernames Articles Edited Notes Next Steps
Waggener Edstrom Worldwide Gdubya00 Waggener Edstrom Worldwide + TBD Website says they provide Wikipedia consulting, but username shows no editing history besides on their own page. Evaluate the articles on their client list to see if there are obvious COI/POV issues that may have resulted from their "consulting" or be sockpuppets. Their IP address is 65.61.167.240. Is there a way to search for anonymous edits made by that IP address?
The Writers for Hire Unknown Unknown Website says they follow Wikipedia policy. No reason to suspect misconduct. IP address is 216.230.225.3. See if they are editing anonymously.
Text 100 Timdyson is a likely candidate, who was already called out as a clear COI editor, but has no disclosure (as their own website advises as a best practice) Next Fifteen Communications Website provides a guide to PR editing, so presumably they are also involved in this themselves. Check IP address 98.129.64.98

A Mentor Program

For inexperienced, but ethical paid contributors that show potential to follow Wikipedia's policies and make positive contributions. The idea is that just like some editors enjoy finding vandalism or catching bad actors on Wikipedia, some will enjoy working with professional/business COIs to educate, oversee and collaborate with.

  • Paid editors are not guaranteed a mentor.
  • Mentors choose who, when and for how long they support a paid editor
  • Mentors review all content before posted. Editors without a buddy are still encouraged to use Talk pages and Noticeboards
  • Mentors accept the responsibility to investigate content closely before "approving" it.
  • Mentors are encouraged to find paid editors they think have the potential to become certified

Discussion

  • Support Sort of like the Mentor system then? Yeah, I guess that's fine. It's all optional anyways. SilverserenC 04:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Since this is a project and not a policy, we can't actually require anything, but I don't think we should give the impression that it's ok for inexperienced COI editors to jump in without supervision. "Strongly encouraged" maybe, like disclosure. That work? King4057 (talk) 05:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that's fine by me. SilverserenC 06:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I support mentoring, whether we call it that or a buddy (although I prefer the former term, I guess). I've performed this role often enough for people off wiki to see real value in it. - Bilby (talk) 12:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support the concept but not happy with term. "Buddy" is too casual. "Mentor" is better but isn't the right concept.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Fixed to "mentor"King4057 (talk) 17:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree Babakathy (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Both the idea and the term "mentor" seem fine, the guidelines written above about what mentorship entails doesn't seem different from what a mentor would otherwise do on Wikipedia. I've served as a mentor to a couple of editors in the past, and really your job is to give advice and keep an eye out on the other person, and you take a bit of responsibility for their behavior in the process. That's pretty much what this system proposes to do as well. -- Atama 19:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent idea Ocaasi t | c 16:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Certification

Editors who demonstrate a consistent track record of positive collaborations on Wikipedia may eventually become certified by the project. This should not be perceived as an endorsement by Wikipedia or advertised as such, but means that volunteer editors in this project have vouched for the editor's past performance, which is a good indication of future performance. At this point they are still encouraged to use Talk pages, submit articles for review, etc. but their buddy may become less hands-on. Certification can also help Wikipedia direct paid editing clients to editors they know have a track record of also supporting Wikipedia's encyclopedic goals without burdening the community.

Discussion

  • Support This is fine by me, though i'm not quite sure how much credence this will be given as a whole. We'll have to see. SilverserenC 04:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Cannot support as is The concept of certification is an extremely big deal. We have no experience with certification for any of our contributors; I don't see how this will be anything other than a major pain. I have experience with certification in other areas, I'm skeptical that we can do it properly. This is a bigger deal than RfA, which we barely manage.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Query are we only discussing paid editors here? How would certification affect existing policy Babakathy (talk) 12:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Just for paid editors with no effect on policy. Not for Wikipedia editors as a whole. King4057 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC).
  • Vehemently oppose - this will be perceived as an endorsement of paid and other COI edits: a "License to Spam"! I'm already uncomfortable enough with this proposal, but this would totally put it over the top into "put a stake through its heart" territory. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: if existing policy is don't edit article space directly if you are being paid to make the edit (per Jimbo's post) then I do not see how this can work.Babakathy (talk) 14:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This makes me very uneasy. And unnecessary. If a paid editor has a lot of contributions, no blocks, and positive feedback of some sort (barnstars, thank yous on their user talk page, DYK/GA/FA, etc.) then that should be enough to show that they are trustworthy. That kind of thing applies to every editor on Wikipedia, paid or not. I'm not aware of any kind of "super-editor" that enjoys an elevated status over other content editors. It seems odd to create such a thing here. -- Atama 18:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. However, we could very well certify that editors had been through a certain instructional regime and give them a userbox that says so. They could have a required reading list, a COI declaration on their userpage, agree to follow best practices, put a link to their COI declaration in their signature, and agree to have their edits reviewed before posting. Ocaasi t | c 16:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Better to focus on education and outreach instead.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)     09:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Review Board

One-off editors with a professional or business COI (like a corporate PR person) may submit draft articles to the review board. There are already many ways to do this, but most amateur editors aren't aware of them. Curious if folks think this would be helpful. Haven't decided myself and I'm hesitant to support paid editors who lack a long-term commitment to learn the rules.

Discussion

  • Neutral until clarification I don't know if a board is necessary, per se. Not until we become much larger anyways. I would prefer more of an open-ended, COI editors may submit drafts of articles to the Wikiproject as a whole and the project can approve them and insert them into the articles in question. SilverserenC 04:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Why is this different? We had a similar concept covering all editors, called Wikipedia:Requests for feedback. It died because it couldn't be staffed. Why is this different?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose: is it not simpler for them to propose the edits in talk space per current policy? Babakathy (talk) 14:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Better to encourage use of WP:Articles for creation, a very active project with a long record of success.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)     09:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Lightning Round

Insert comments between each statement if you agree/disagree:

This project aims to demonstrate examples of positive encyclopedic contributions of paid editors, but also better prevent bad actors.

  • Agree Though, again, i'd prefer you remove punish and change it to "prevent non-neutral paid editors from editing detrimentally" or something like that, but the overall sentiment is the same, I guess. SilverserenC 04:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Oops, fixed.
  • Agree Babakathy (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree. There's a wide range of edits made by paid editors (or those in the grey area - it can be complex); some are good, some are bad. Automatically labelling them all as bad is deeply unhelpful - we need a nuanced approach in order to get more good content instead of scaring away those paid editors who are keen to follow rules, whilst any bad ones (ie. unwilling to follow our rules) are merely driven underground. bobrayner (talk) 15:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree. This seems to be the fundamental thing drawing us together, in fact. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree. This is very important, that this project isn't perceived as a sanctuary or advocate for any and all paid editors. I think if it was it would be shot down faster than WP:NEWT. Helping paid editors who improve Wikipedia, and discouraging paid editors who harm Wikipedia, that is ultimately in the best interests of the encyclopedia and should not be overly controversial I would hope. -- Atama 19:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

We want editors to report anonymous, covert, bad-faith COI edits by commercial interests to the FTC and similar organizations

  • Disagree At this point in time, I don't think it is our responsibility to uphold this side of the issue. It could definitely be seen as harassment and I feel its just better for us to stop the bad faith editing in general, but not go this far. SilverserenC 04:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Query FTC - who they? Babakathy (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
The Federal Trade Commission in the US, which enforces laws about commerce. King4057 (talk)
  • FTC? Surely we have articles on organisations outside the USA. The world has more than one country in it (and: Not all organisations that might pay an editor are actually businesses - you wouldn't report a government agency or a political party to the FTC, would you?). I don't think it would be helpful to set in stone exactly how we report Really Bad Stuff to the authorities; if anything like that is found, I think it should be dealt with on a more ad-hoc basis (as we do with other kinds of editing that have a criminal element - KP, death threats, &c). bobrayner (talk) 15:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
True, tweaked it. We would need to provide a list of organizations around the globe with links to where and how to report unlawful conduct for the most extreme cases. I see it as upholding our duty to report crime, but clearly there are opportunities for abuse that would especially be harassment. King4057 (talk)
Still oppose Way too complex, legal implications, etc: let us say I edit the article about my employer (there is no such article) today: I would be editting in Zimbabwe, advocating on behalf of an organisation in Botswana, using a satellite web link operated by a UK company and the wikipedia servers are in the US. Where to start? But more importantly, we do have sanctions in place as a community for bad faith behaviour, blatant POV pushing and so on. Babakathy (talk) 06:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Disagree. Wikipedia's sole job is to create and maintain an encyclopedia, not act as a watchdog. If an editor feels the personal compulsion to turn someone in, that's their prerogative, but we shouldn't try to make it an obligation. -- Atama 19:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

We would like editors not to salvage advert written by a paid editor to stop encouraging bad behavior

  • Neutral I'm not entirely sure what this one means. If unaffiliated editors want to work on certain topics, we shouldn't oppose that based on a paid editor having tried to make the same article before. If you mean that we shouldn't have editors use the POV framework from before, I guess that's fine, but we wouldn't allow that anyways, because the prior framework would have already violated the rules. Though the references from the framework might be salvageable. SilverserenC 04:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: if there is salvageable material, let's edit and use it - as we do with any other edit. Babakathy (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I want the encyclopedia to improve. If there is useful content, I want it. If there is crap, I want it out.
  • Disagree. We should probably treat this the same way we do copyvios and edits by banned editors. If there is anything that is worth keeping, we should keep it. Don't cut off your nose to spite your face. -- Atama 19:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Editors who routinely engage in paid editing as a business are encouraged to donate to the Wikimedia Foundation.

  • Disagree What? No. This seems kind of silly. We don't require regular editors to do this and, paid or not, we shouldn't badger them over spending money on the Foundation. The Foundation already has its costs covered with its donation drives anyways. SilverserenC 04:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I feel like people who make a business out of writing Wikipedia articles should have a culture of giving back to the website that makes their business possible. But I'm not sure how/if any specific project/individual/etc. could create/support that culture. Nor would it be kosher for any official Wikipedia group or project to solicit for it. King4057 (talk) 05:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Nice idea but probably impractical. All editors are encouraged to donate - at least until they click away the latest banner ad. It's tempting to underline the importance of donation for those getting a more concrete benefit out of en.wikipedia but that's not qualitatively different to a banner ad. If we took a big extra step towards making it mandatory, that means (a) it's not a donation any more, (b) we get an unwieldy bureaucracy, and (c) it will (not unreasonably) be seen as encouraging organisations to pay for coverage - which is likely to enrage many. I think that big extra step can be ruled out, which leaves us with "please donate... please...". bobrayner (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per Bobrayner. Babakathy (talk) 06:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Disagree. It almost sounds like a bribe, and makes this look less like a "free" encyclopedia. Very dangerous. -- Atama 19:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This would amount to a policy of allowing organizations to hire editors to edit Wikipedia content related to those same organizations, as long as they pay Wikipedia for the privilege. Needless to say, well-funded or profitable organizations would be able to meet this expectation, whereas others would not. -Darouet (talk) 19:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

We need to create barnstars for COI editors who do a particularly fantastic job writing balanced, neutral content.

  • Agree This seems fine to me. It would, perhaps, encourage such editors as well. SilverserenC 04:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree why not Babakathy (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree. As with other editors, we're likely to bring out more of the better behaviour by using both carrot and stick. I take a Napoleonic stance on barnstars. bobrayner (talk) 15:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I almost never give barnstars, but I have no problem if others think these are effective tools. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree. I think this is a good alternative to the "certification" proposal made earlier on this page. Barnstars are completely informal and unregulated, but are also often considered to be a sign that a person has done good work and is trustworthy. And there is a precedent for Wikiprojects to use barnstars as a way to identify editors who have done good work, so this is nothing out of the ordinary. -- Atama 19:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Professional Conflict of Interest

I am not sure what you would consider a "professional Conflict of Interest" - the policy states "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest". This is completely different from the policy against paid editting WP:NOPAY, which your project seems to deal more with? Babakathy (talk) 06:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

"NOPAY" isn't a policy against paid editing. There is no policy against paid editing, if there was then this project couldn't exist. NOPAY is simply one section of the COI guideline. Note that it says that people are "very strongly discouraged" from editing when being paid to do so. But since it isn't disallowed, and it's going to happen, there should be a way to help ensure that paid editors properly contribute to the encyclopedia. Often a paid editor is a person with excellent writing skills and with access to information, and if that person can be shown how to follow our policies and guidelines (and then actually sticks to them) can be a great asset to Wikipedia.
A "professional" COI is one where a person's professional life may directly benefit from their edits. For example, if a person works for Microsoft and starts to edit Microsoft's web page, their employer directly benefits from anything written in that article that improves Microsoft's image, which is to that editor's benefit. Conversely, that same editor who edits the Playstation 3 article to talk about some flaw in the product is helping their employer by making a competitor look bad. That is different from a person who simply has professional expertise in that area. Using that same Microsoft employee as an example, if that person who works at Microsoft is editing an article about personal computing in general, and not mentioning anything about Microsoft or their competitors, we don't discourage that at all. The same way that a dentist editing the article on dentistry isn't considered to have a COI, but editing an article about their own dental clinic would be. -- Atama 19:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the term professional COI has a unique meaning here. Unlike professors or doctors editing in their subject area, PR representatives are being paid explicitly to manage the public reputations of their clients. Maybe the term needs some tweaking to avoid lumping in non-PR folks, but there are indeed professional COIs. Ocaasi t | c 16:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Another variation on this is when someone edits an article and says "I'm an attorney" or "I'm an economist" or "I am the authority", so "you who are not one really should not consider your view/edits/sources better than mine. What I say goes." I've run into that a few times and even had to ask about it at WP:COI talk page once. The response from one editor basically was: The person is just being obnoxious. I quoted that, which helped cool the person's ego. But it's something to keep in mind. CarolMooreDC 20:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Request for exclusion of GLAM and related groups from this project's scope

Per Kaldari above, I have been speaking with User:LauraHale and she is concerned that this Wikiproject would interfere with what GLAM does, which involves essentially the workers for museums and galleries, along with Wikipedians in Residence who are paid and even some paid Wikipedians who work for the Wikimedia Foundation. The GLAM project has been around for years, is specialized, and has a working process for their system that does not warrant any interference from us.

Therefore, I propose that we include a statement in the scope that excludes GLAM and any specialized projects devoted to specific instances of paid editing. Since we already know that we will primarily be working with companies and PR representatives anyways, it should be fine. None of the users included in such projects should be included in any list we make within this project, so make sure you check for that before adding anyone to our list.

Does everyone agree to this? SilverserenC 11:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

This project is for paid editors with a conflict of interest. GLAM is for paid editors without a conflict of interest. I see no problem excluding them, but perhaps we can just tweak our wording a bit rather than create a list of exceptions? Rklawton (talk) 13:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
There is this wording already "but their COI make them especially likely to run afoul of Wikipedia's rules" that we could make more prominent. RE Hounding, having a list of registered paid editors could encourage that behavior. Maybe we can include examples of who are included as well. PR people may not be familiar with the term paid editor or know if this applies to them. King4057 (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Related to that, getting paid isn't the only thing that might cause a conflict of interest. All things considered, we might just focus this group specifically on public relations people rather than use a broader definition. Rklawton (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Also...

I'll make this a separate subsection so you all continue the above discussion there, but speaking of exclusion of related groups, would you be so kind as to remove or blank the "Sister Wikiprojects" section? There's no good reason to include The Department of Fun, Wikiproject Kindness, Wikiproject Classroom coordination, or Wikiproject Community as being in any meaningful way related to this Wikiproject. Or else you need to get a consensus agreement from those groups that they wish to be associated with this Wikiproject. Herostratus (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The above named projects are all related in that they are designed to facilitate participation by specific groups of people. Rklawton (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Meh, I agree with Hero, but never removed because I figured someone put them there for a reason. King4057 (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I've removed the Sister Wikiprojects section.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)     09:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I think it would be very handy to have a list of projects that are dedicated to introducing specific groups of people on the use of Wikipedia. Examples might include students working on class assignments that require them to edit Wikipedia; teachers/professors, librarians, curators, etc. However, I see no compelling reason to include that list in this project. Rklawton (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
It's also often SEO or digital marketing teams that want to edit. In smaller companies it's could be someone chosen at random (that needs to be educated on notability). Or there's paid editors like WBToo, who I don't think is a PR person (far as I know). Tough call. Maybe it could be PR, but with some language about examples of other paid editors the project is also intended for. Since it's not a policy - just a project - it doesn't have to get really wordy in an attempt to be precise. King4057 (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
There's "PR" as a profession, and then there's "pr" as an activity type. Let's do some wordsmithing here to see if we can peg it... Rklawton (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "...for people editing on behalf of their employer or client to promote their interests."
Hopefully this would cover public, private, and individual entities and capture the notion that the editor isn't editing for themselves. Rklawton (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Hmm... I don't know very much about GLAM. Aren't their editors also working to promote the interests of their employers? Just that their employers are museums and cultural institutions. What is the motive of these organizations to edit Wikipedia? I'll chew on this a bit too and try to come up with something more constructive. King4057 (talk) 23:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
RKlawton, check out what I did to the first paragraph and if you like it (or tweak it), I'll mirror throughout the project language (or you can). I think the important part is "opt-in". Right now it sounds like we're going to force paid editors to participate, which we don't have the authority to do and is at odds with GLAM and policy. I'm going to give it a runthrough to change other areas where the project language is overstepping our authority or at odds with policy. King4057 (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm coming to realize PR professionals don't know what "paid editor" means. I wonder if we should change the scope and/or title to actually have PR in it, so they understand this is for them (and so the project pops up in searches) King4057 (talk) 01:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Why not just create a list of examples of conflicts of interest and put PR at the top? Rklawton (talk) 02:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Lead

Here's my draft proposal for the lead. Feel free to edit this draft directly. Rklawton (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The Cooperation Wikiproject facilitates collaboration with editors whose interest in editing Wikipedia is in conflict with Wikipedia's neutrality. Such editors might include:

  • the subject of a biographical article (or fan)
  • public relations, marketing, SEO, or advertising professional editing for an employer or client
  • non-profit advocacy groups

This project is intended to provide oversight and education to those editors who wish to engage Wikipedia in an ethical and transparent manner. This project will help editors who opt-in to meet Wikipedia's encyclopedic goals, serve the public's interest, and avoid the perception of impropriety. Additionally, this project works to identify editors in conflict with these principles in hopes of guiding them to a more productive path before policing, censorship, and community censure become necessary.

This is much better. I added non profit advocacy groups (like Planned Parenthood) - not to be confused with other types of non-profits covered by GLAM. For the first sentence I would suggest "who are interested in editing Wikipedia for a client, their employer or their organization," (or something similar) because many PRs believe their COI doesn't necessarily impact neutrality. King4057 (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Rklawton (talk) 17:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Another Idea

Along these lines of scope and definition, what do people think about an acronym like CAB (companies, advocates and biographies). There are probably a lot of things we can learn from GLAM, who used a similar method. I'm concerned a name like "Wikiproject Cooperation" communicates the project's spirit, but your average company representative won't realize it's for them and it won't pop up in their searches. Of course the specific acronym would need to be honed, but... — Preceding unsigned comment added by King4057 (talkcontribs) 19:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

So, what, Wikiproject CAB, you mean? The only thing i'm concerned about is that that may also find itself in overlap with other Wikiprojects if we're not careful. SilverserenC 19:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, except it would just be called CAB (or something more glamorous). I've been reading more about GLAM and my first-glance response is they've kind of already paved the way for us. I also like their lead "if you are x, y, or z, this project is for you." Their name and lead make it overwhelmingly clear who the project is for. The difference being that non-profits don't have a history of bad behavior and are presumably more trustworthy, etc. Comparatively, this group needs more governance and oversight. King4057 (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's write an article...Paid editing on Wikipedia

I have been throwing around the idea that we should work on an article together. An article on "Paid editing on Wikipedia" is long overdue, would be easy to find high quality sources for, and would fill the gap that currently exists for this subject. I think writing this article is a no-brainer, and at the least, I plan to start it. But I think we could possibly do something more interesting. We could make this article a project for the WikiProject and put it together collaboratively. We could gather resources on a sub-page of the project (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cooperation/Paid_editing_on_Wikipedia), brainstorm key subjects to cover, make an outline, and start fleshing out the article. This would also, potentially, be an opportunity to invite COI editors, CREWE members, and other PR professionals to work with us in a very hands-on way. There are some questions to work out over their role and level of involvement, but I think this idea could be fruitful. The million dollar question, is whether direct editing from COI editors would be appropriate, since this would only be in draftspace. Without challenging policy, we would have an opportunity to basically run a test-case for collaboration. What do you think? Ocaasi t | c 03:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Should we do this as a draft together?

SUPPORT

  • Support. We can get this done without collaboration, but the project might benefit from a team effort. I think it's worth a shot. Ocaasi t | c 03:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Mixed: Just need to be careful to make it an encyclopedic article instead of a guide, which would belong on a Wikiproject. This could be an important milestone for providing neutral, informative information to PR, media, etc. and clear up ubiquitous misinformation on the topic. The downside is if the article gives even the slightest broad, sweeping, endorsement of paid editing, it could potentially open up the crackerjack box so many are fearful of. King4057 (talk) 09:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually it should be a subsection of this wikiproject. CarolMooreDC 20:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

OPPOSE

  • Oppose: I appreciate Ocaasi's enthusiasm but, at the risk of being no fun at all, I suggest that we don't do this. This WikiProject aims to help paid advocates work constructively with volunteer editors; I don't believe such an article assists this process. Nearly all of these past incidents are considered negative, so I can't see why it's helpful to put a spotlight on them—let alone put time toward it.
I also suggest this is an inessential topic, unlike say Wikipedia biography controversy. While specific incidents have received significant coverage (and have their own articles) there's not that much about it as a phenomenon. The circumstances and motivations differ widely, and whatever there is to say about Jimbo's edits from 2005, they certainly weren't paid.
How about a new bullet about Bell Pottinger in History of Wikipedia#Controversies? It received international coverage and elicited off-site action by Jimbo, so I think that fits. WWB Too (talk) 02:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I do think the subject is essential, as it's very much a murky part of Wikipedia's history, and it impacts the perception and credibility of the site directly. The myriad examples of paid/direct conflict of interest editing by individuals and corporations is a controversy, and though it is spread out across seemingly disparate incidents (the majority of which were revealed in 2007 after WikiScanner came out), they speak to a common problem about neutrality and editor motivations. You mention that this won't help the project, and I concede that it might be low on the list of educational opportunities on the one hand--but on the other hand, how can you really know what you're up against if you don't know its history? The fact that so many of these incidents are considered negative is very much why Jimbo and many in the community are so opposed to the idea. That said, the article would also detail more recent developments which reflect a budding change in direction, as epitomized by CREWE, CIPR, and PRSA's involvement in the past months. Either way, I am enjoying writing it so far, and take no offense that you don't like the idea and don't want to edit it. I do, however, hope you read it. Ocaasi t | c 03:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Regardless of the article's essentiality to Wikipedia overall, I believe this WikiProject should be focusing on: improving its own pages, inviting COI editors who don't know about the project to join and, per Silver's comments below, working to improve existing articles on other subjects in order to build credibility for this project. I think that editors involved in this WikiProject already do know the history, at least enough to have joined, and I'm afraid that reminding everyone of the bad actors is unlikely to encourage good ones. WWB Too (talk) 15:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Should we invite COI editors to assist without editing the draft directly?

SUPPORT

  • Support: Probably one of the most valuable opportunities of such an article would be to identify inexperienced paid editors who want to learn ethical best practices, both through implementing those best practices and by learning more about the topic of paid editing. King4057 (talk) 09:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • CarolMooreDC 20:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

OPPOSE

Should we invite COI editors to assist with editing the draft directly?

SUPPORT

OPPOSE

  • Oppose: Since the Wikiproject currently strongly discourages direct editing, as does Jimbo. The COI guideline also forbids it, since the entire article would qualify as "controversial". Paid editing involvement would probably paint a rosy picture of the subject, despite a long, dark, and more widely reported history. That being said, one benefit of media coverage of CREWE is some citable sources with the other side of the coin.
  • CarolMooreDC 20:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

An option I left out is doing this in the mainspace. It wouldn't be impossible, but I think it would limit the options for collaboration with COI editors, or at least increase the controversy of doing so. If anyone thinks we should be that bold, add it as another option. Ocaasi t | c 03:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I could also imagine an article "Examples of Exposed Paid Editing." I've seen a story about Microsoft hiring someone to make factual corrections. It was clear they were trying to do the right thing. Not all of these stories are as bad as people interpret them and many of them are oversimplified by the press and misconstrued by their readers. Did you know that some PR media reported that they didn't know if Bell Pottinger did something unethical or if Wikipedia's rules were just confusing? Whoa! King4057 (talk) 09:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I think those topics are very relevant and would probably be part of the article, since much of the news coverage of the issue has surfaced around specific incidents/scandals. I started working on a bibliography; there's a lot to go on: User:Ocaasi/Paid_editing_on_Wikipedia. Ocaasi t | c 07:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Draft started as well:WP:WikiProject Cooperation/Paid editing on Wikipedia Ocaasi t | c 13:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Ocaasi. I might chip in a bit on this just for fun and enlightenment. My question is, if the article is "paid editing" would that also include GLAM and similar projects? Jimbo has a very valid point on how broad paid editing is. King4057 (talk) 06:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I had a tricky choice to make here. If you focus only on paid editing, you exclude many COI debacles, including Jimmy Wales' own. More important, you lose the political components shared by many scandals. So I went with broader=better, as this is just a draft, and it's easier to cut than expand structurally, and I like the research anyway. I've tried to cover *everything*, and just when I think I've got them all, you go ahead and mention a new one! (Actually, I had just added GLAM to the outline, after seeing it discussed on CREWE's website). I personally think all aspects of paid editing are interesting, especially ones on the outside of the expected area.
For example: Wikipedia has a WP:Reward Board where editors can trade favors, or offer money for completed projects. Really. And in 2007 the WMF received a grant to pay illustrators for images. And most recently GLAM. So I think if we're going to describe paid editing, it has to be the full take on it, including the pieces that don't fit neatly into the paid=bad narrative. Thanks for suggesting it, and if you want to do some research for solid reliable sources, that'd be a great topic to start. You can paste the links in a ===GLAM=== section. And don't worry about formatting, or page placement, I can take spruce it up as we go along. If you're interested in that of course. If not, there's much work to be done in sorting through those sources, copyediting, finding images, etc..
Oh, the incidents are in chronological order. This is not a one-day project, and it'd be cool to have your assistance, at your leisure. I'm not sure if we decided whether you can't edit the draft, but I'll leave that up to you, as long as you give me a reasonable 2nd opinion to check the work (no different than with me, but perhaps we're coming from different levels of experience or COI). Feel free to ask any questions you have about any aspect of the writing process. My real job on Wikipedia is helping new users not just paid users, so I'm glad to help. Ocaasi t | c 07:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I am not sure if you all realize, but there are quite a few paid editors already submitting articles to Articles for Creation. That wasn't the original intent of AfC when it was started, but over the years, users have directed people with COIs to AfC. I'd say the project already handles this quite well. Articles for Creation has been in operation since 2007, and so far, Wikipedia hasn't fallen into disrepute as the result of paid editor submissions. I think banning paid editors from editing the article drafts directly is a mistake. Just telling someone how something should be done isn't going to really help them learn. It would be like telling students in the United States Education Program about our policies, then telling them that they aren't allowed to edit articles. The only way someone is going to learn is through actual editing experience. Over time the paid editors learn policy, and as a result, they learn how to write decent and neutral Wikipedia articles. If a paid editor is writing content in a neutral encyclopedic tone and sourcing the information with reliable third party sources, then there really is no issue. Even if they have been paid to do it, is there really that much of a problem if they are improving the encyclopedia? Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 02:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I think all of us would say no, if they're improving the encyclopedia, then we're good. However, you'll need to change Jimbo's mind and also get WP:COI changed before any headway will be made in that direction. SilverserenC 03:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, that is what AfC has been doing for several years now. Just looking through my user talk archives, you will see a number of discussions with editors that have a strong COI or they are paid editors. On many occasions, the articles I helped them with were moved to mainspace. The many of the articles were moved to mainspace, and many of them are fairly decent articles. Articles for Creation also helps submitters, both paid and unpaid in the IRC channel #wikipedia-en-help. There isn't any headway needed in the area, because we are already well established. Under the Conflicting interest policy, editors are discouraged, but not prohibited, from editing areas where they have a COI. We explain this to them, and we explain what they need to keep in mind if they indeed do work in the area (i.e. WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:RS). Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 03:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
In almost every case though, it's not an article that needs to be created, but a change to an existing article that needs to be made. That's outside of AfC's scope. SilverserenC 03:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
We have {{request edit}}, which has worked fairly well in the past. I like the idea of this project, but I don't like the idea of restricting paid editors from actually editing articles. We allow it at AfC, so why not allow it in mainspace. With a small amount of guidance, their editing would be beneficial. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 04:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
You should check out our Paid Editor Help page. We're pretty much doing exactly how you think it should work. :P
As for editing mainspace, like I said, this Wikiproject was created in part because the community currently doesn't allow to edit mainspace or at least is heavily discouraging it. That's why we're working with them, so we can help get proper changes made, while not breaking any policies. SilverserenC 04:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Somewhere on this Talk Page direct editing was discussed as a black-white scenario, but current policy is more of a grey area. Maybe there is some way to get more granular to give advice on when it's ok and when it's not based on current policy.
  • When in doubt, use request edit
  • Grammar, wikification and reverting vandalism are always ok
  • New articles go to AFC
  • Never directly edit controversial or negative content about your employer
  • Paid editors are encouraged to directly make factual corrections if they know how to properly cite them
  • Substantial contributions should always be peer-reviewed by a neutral, volunteer editor King4057 (talk) 07:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Editing in mainspace will be judged by the results. I'm personally perfectly OK with paid editors putting materials in mainspace IF they say on the article talk p. who they are and what they are doing, place, themselves , a COI tag on the article, and list the article somewhere where it can be looked at. DGG ( talk ) 17:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Silver seren wishes to bar Selina from interacting with this WikiProject

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Topic_ban – Silver seren is proposing a topic ban for Selina. Silver seren appears to be the only active member of this WikiProject advocating this proposed topic ban. I don't believe that Silver seren should be speaking for the entire project, so I would like to hear what the other members of this WikiProject feel about the proposed topic ban. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

If the ethos of this group is to be patient, engaging and helpful to a group of people with a history of misbehavior, should we not also do the same with a user that has a history of emotional outbursts? I explained to Mistress in a civil way why it was inappropriate to go off-topic on the Talk page and she seemed plenty receptive. That's all that was needed to resolve the issue... King4057 (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I am very interested in this project; right now working on beefing up WP:Workshop but will read through everything next week. I've communicated also with Selina and encouraged her to chill and be more constructive, whatever her issues may be (haven't really seen threads, just the general brouhaha). If she does, let by gones be by gones, and give her a second chance. If disruption continues, then appropriate measures must be taken. Having lost my temper more than once, I have to be a little tolerant. smile CarolMooreDC 18:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Major discussion on the future of WP:COI ongoing now

This needs special attention. The future of the guideline and efforts to work helpfully with COI editors may depend on it. Ocaasi t | c 19:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep an eye on it, yes. Get involved in it, no. We already decided a long time ago that we wouldn't get involved with any sort of policy changes. We're here to facilitate editing, nothing more than that. SilverserenC 20:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Ocaasi. I'm dropping by and leaving a few comments now. King4057 (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

A Win/Win strategy

Moved from Talk:Corporate_Representatives_for_Ethical_Wikipedia_Engagement to here where more appropriate:

I myself have been concerned about the quality of many articles on wikipedia, about individuals and organizations especially, but certainly about businesses. WP:Undue criticism or criticism that ignores WP:RS responses is definitely problematic. I think part of the problem might be solved simply by recruiting a lot more editors from the rapidly growing sector of computer savvy, educated and even professional people with lots of time on their hands - i.e., retired and retiring individuals. Many of them may be retirees from various industries who will be interested in furthering accurate knowledge on them; and once they learn editing and collaboration skills, they can bring their skills to bear improving all sorts of other articles they doubtless will find of interest.

Wikimedia DC has been active recruiting and training people and some of us have started beefing up Wikipedia: Workshop which includes a listing of outreach and training resources on Wikimedia and Wikipedia. Once it's more together we will encourage wikiprojects, chapters and meetups to start doing more workshops. It occurs to me some people with skills and a couple bucks for program design and publicity could even make some money creating a fun online course to teach retirees with time and money on their hands how to edit and join the community. [Later note: See fledgling attempt at Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure). smile Like my User page says, Wikipedia needs 20,000 oldsters. So something to think about as one solution to the problem. CarolMooreDC 05:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm going a bit off-topic, but I just read the BLP policy as part of my mentorship and it seems there's an extraordinary amount of protection against slandering individuals that's not afforded to companies. A lot of people looking for paid editing do so because they've been unfairly attacked on their page. If the same care was provided on company articles, there would be less companies feeling compelled to get involved at all. King4057 (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Flowchart for Corporate Communicators Available for Review/Comment/Editing

All,

I've put up a draft of a flowchart on Creately.Com, intended to help PR people navigate Wikipedia processes and community norms.

It's set up such that anyone can edit it so long as you sign up for a free account.

Freeze-date for v1.0 is March 29, 2012. I will present it in whatever shape its in at the Flourish conference in Chicago on March 30 and the PRSA Digital Impact Conference in NYC on April 3.

Please keep your edits focused on processes related to changes on existing entries, rather than requesting that a new entry be made. (That's likely going to be another diagram.

--Philgomes (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Nice chart. Perhaps a bit more flexibility on the timing: "Has request been addressed within 48 hours?" is a very short time span. Wikipedia:Edit_requests#Response_time lists a 2007 study where the average response time was 23 hours, but a lot has changed since then. I'm unsure if any specific waiting time could ever be agreed upon, but it'd at least be measured in weeks instead of hours or days. Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   13:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Free publicity?

Might we discuss if the "Paid Editor Watch" section is within WP:NOTADVERTISING policy? I raised an issue on User_talk:Herostratus/Wikiproject_Paid_Editing_Watch/Editor_Registry concerning creating content that could be construed as providing a community-supported list of editors to contact if one wishes to hire a Professional Wikipedian. Thanks. Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   02:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

BOOMERANG!!! Rklawton (talk) 02:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, well, all irony aside, I've fixed the problem. Just about. Now we just need a few volunteers. Rklawton (talk) 03:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Suggest we also remove the entire Paid editor watch (tentative) section, based on the same reasoning. It's also an unnecessary distraction from the cooperative goals of this project, and I'd rather spend time on education and outreach. Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   10:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. SilverserenC 15:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I've removed the "Paid editor watch (tentative)" section. If anyone wants to continue discussion on this topic, feel free to do so here. Thanks. Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   20:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
There was unanimous support that the Wikiproject not only be cooperative with ethical, disclosing COI editors, but also help address bad actors. That being said, there was no discussion on how exactly to go about doing that. I would like to see some meaningful initiative to improve policing as well as cooperation (carrot & stick). But what that looks like exactly needs more discussion. King4057 (talk) 07:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Also see: Category:Wikipedians who have opted out of direct article editing. Thanks. Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   10:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there a way to add yourself to the list with a disclaimer? I'd add myself to the list, but wouldn't want it to include volunteer editing. King4057 (talk) 07:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
It's just a standard category setup, so no disclaimers or annotations possible. If one wants to cross the "bright line" and mix paid editing with volunteer direct editing to articles, then creating a new (declared) account that is only for volunteer editing might be a good idea. Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   09:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

suggested new lead

Suggestion for new version of lead paragraph:

"The Cooperation Wikiproject facilitates collaboration with editors paid to edit Wikipedia. We provide education and outreach to Public Relations and Marketing professionals, freelance editors, and employees working on assignments from their employers. The project is intended to support ethical, transparent paid editors that opt-in to collaborative efforts to meet Wikipedia's encyclopedic goals, serve the public's interest and avoid even the perception of impropriety."

Thanks. Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   00:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Much more concise, I like it. SilverserenC 02:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Looks great! Just a nit, do we really want the Paid Editor Help page to be an approval factory? I feel like that's what the request edit process is for. King4057 (talk) 07:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
We're making sure the changes are neutral before implementing them. Up til now, it's pretty much just been WWB asking for things and he knows what he's doing in regards to making articles, so there's not much to critique in terms of neutrality or much else. As you can see from the two new people that have shown up on the page, we're asking for a bit more in terms of sourcing and other info, since they appear new to editing. And require some help in the neutrality department. SilverserenC 05:33, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Resources infobox

I created a resources infobox for the project, please feel free to modify it at Template:WikiProject Cooperation Infobox. The infobox can also be added to any page with: {{Template:WikiProject Cooperation Infobox}}

Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   21:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I tweaked it a bit. Feel free to modify if you don't like it. King4057 (talk) 21:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
And more tweaking. Now shows the number of articles in the WP:AFC que, and number of outstanding edit requests. Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   21:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Getting them while they're young: User warning templates for COI and COI username

The following two templates are used to warn editors that they might have a COI or a COI username:

I'll reproduce them here for inspection:

COI username

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the username you have chosen (WikiProject Cooperation) seems to imply that you are editing on behalf of a group, company or website.

There are two issues with this:

  1. It is possible that you have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, you must exercise great caution when editing on topics related to your organization or adding links to its website.
  2. Your account cannot represent a group of people. You may wish to create a new account with a username that represents only you. Alternatively, you may consider changing your username to avoid giving the impression that your personal account is being used for promotional purposes.

Regardless of whether you change your name or create a new account, you are not exempted from the guidelines concerning editing where you have a conflict of interest. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.

COI

Hello WikiProject Cooperation. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about following the reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

  • Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
  • Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
  • Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
  • Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.

Discussion

I think both of these templates are currently a missed opportunity. For one, they suggest caution not guidance. Two, they don't link to our best help material. Three, they say nothing about WikiProject Cooperation or Paid Editor Help. If were were going to try and update these templates (and get consensus to do so) (or write some new ones) what would you want them to say? Ocaasi t | c 18:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Possibly something like this: "There are tools and pages dedicated to helping editors with a conflict of interest collaborate with neutral editors, such as {{request edit}}, the paid editor help page and the conflict of interest noticeboard. King4057 (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
That sounds pretty good. I'd also like to link to WP:PSCOI, rather than the Business FAQ, but I'm biased since I worked on it. Thoughts? Ocaasi t | c 22:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely! It's probably the single best document for "guidance" rather than "caution" I've seen on Wikipedia. I brought it up on my blog post on PR-Squared as one of the valuable instructional documents on Wikipedia that PR people need to read before editing. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 02:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussions of interest

Some active and ongoing discussions that may be of interest to WikiProject Cooperation volunteers:

Long, but interesting readings. Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   14:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The Bright Line

I stub'd a new essay Wikipedia:Bright Line about the engagement strategy of "Do not edit articles directly". Thanks. Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   19:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi all. I have finally finished the massive article on our own very topical subject of Paid Editing. I hope that the draft is comprehensive and balanced. It needs to be reviewed for all of the basics--spelling, grammar, punctuation--as well as more weighty issues of NPOV and Original Research. I tried to keep my own opinions completely absent, but if they crept in inadvertently that needs to be scrubbed. I would love some careful eyes on the article before I move the page live. I'd like it to have the 'approval' of this project as a fair and accurate overview of the subject. It may need major formatting, organization, or summarizing work to be more manageable; right now it's more thorough than accessible. That was intentional as I wanted to include information first, and then only cut it down if necessary. Looking forward to your comments. Cheers! Ocaasi t | c 12:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Article live

After a week of others' careful copyediting, I moved the article live: Paid editing on Wikipedia. Feedback welcome. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 03:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Requested edits status box

Here's a quick draft for a Requested edit status box template, modeled after the AFC status template. User:Eclipsed/Template:Requested edits status

See the code at User:Eclipsed/Template:Requested edits status. The levels currently are:

#requests   level    status
0           0        Clear
1-4         1        Clearing out
5-8         2        Normal
9-16        3        Slight backlog
17-32       4        Backlogged
33-64       5        High backlog
65+         6        Severly backlogged

Feel free to edit away on the template. Thanks. Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   17:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

COI tag status box

Here's another quick draft of a status box for {{coi}} tags. User:Eclipsed/Template:COI tag status

See the code at User:Eclipsed/Template:COI tag status. The levels currently are:

#requests   level    status
0           0        Clear
1-10        1        Clearing out
11-30       2        Normal
31-60       3        Slight backlog
61-100      4        Backlogged
101-150     5        High backlog
150+        6        Severly backlogged
1000+       7        MASSIVE BACKLOG

Feel free to edit away on the template.

And wow, 6000+ {{coi}} tagged articles waiting for review, going all the way back to 2007. The TfD on the coi tag was closed today as keep with the comment: "It is recommended that the backlog of COI articles be cleared first."[1]. Is it time for a COI Cleanup Drive? Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   21:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

New redirect

Just wanted to let people know that I've created a redirect from Wikipedia:Paid Editor Help to Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation/Paid Editor Help - I was continually forgetting the full name of the board, so hopefully this will make things easier for forgetful people like me. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:Connected contributor content review request

Hi folks, I just posted this on the WP:RFC/COI:

This is a draft of an article template intended to be:

  • used by Connected Contributors to raise concerns about article content
  • a "natural progression" after a {{coi}} tag is placed on top of an article


User:Eclipsed/Template:Connected contributor content review request
Thanks. Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   12:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Article Approval?

Hello everyone. I've recently completed an article for a client at User:I'm Tony Ahn/Articles/Rajo Laurel. According to the protocol I've set up and am testing with various stakeholders, I'm asking if an editor with no COI could please evaluate the article and if it passes your review, please move it to mainspace. I invite you all to learn more about this public relations professionals editing process, which is in trial mode. This is the first article to be released under this protocol. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 16:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, just at a first glance, I note that most of the Galas, exhibitions, and collections section is unreferenced. You should probably fix that and really try to reference it with secondary sources and not primarily to his website. SilverserenC 18:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm disappointed with your review criterion. Completely unsourced articles are put up as stubs, and that's okay, because anyone can improve them. The reason that PR professionals can't directly edit is primarily because of WP:NPOV and WP:N concerns. That's what people should be reviewing for. If its notable and neutral, it should be okay to move. Unless the reviewer is a deletionist, I suppose. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 06:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Comprehensive Powerpoint Presentation for COI editors

I've whipped up a nice presentation that could be used for individuals, organizations, or companies. You can check it out here: http://www.mediafire.com/?9ahajgk99519kde. I'd love to get feedback. If you find it useful, feel free to distribute it widely, reuse it, whatever. Cheers! Ocaasi t | c 17:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Drawn a distinction between those who are open and honest about it and the deceptive corporate shills

See here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Paid_Advocacy_Watch/Editor_Registry#Drawn_a_distinction_between_those_who_are_open_and_honest_about_it_and_the_deceptive_corporate_shills

Reply there if you want to so as to keep the discussion together smile I hope this might maybe be a new era of ah, co-op co-operation, maybe, whilst keeping PAIDWATCH independent as well to make sure there's always uninvolved oversight too. smile (I think some of the people in CO-OP have too many vested interests to be truly independent, being members of the corporate representatives group offsite and friends with PR people etc, but I think both can and should try to co-exist rather than fighting each other)

I've tried to help reform some of the more controversial bits of Herostratus' views on Paidwatch and drawn the line better between those who are honest and those who aren't, as well as hopefully trying to encourage more awareness of the people that do not work within the rules (and so affect the people that do it honestly):

(Don't take this the wrong way though, I don't want you to see this as a weakness to exploit or something, I'm genuinely trying to be nice here, that doesn't mean I won't report harassing behaviour when it happens to me or others such as back on 16th Feb when I added Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Websense,_Inc. to the PAIDWATCH wikiproject at 9:23[2], with "bobrayner" then suddenly arriving to talk:Websense at 9:58[3] along with "Bilby" at 11:13[4], both founding members the 5th and 7th respectively of this group and not members of wp:PAIDWATCH but apparently WP:WIKIHOUNDING me)
(Or more recently being followed again onto the Websense page from another page where I was threatened with "reporting to admin" if I reverted changes that were made whilst ignoring attempts at discussion[5](2012-03-24, 10:44) and then when I avoided the arguing and gave up editing, I then got followed over by Socrates2008 apparently trying to start a new argument with me there too instead... [6](2012-03-27, 11:18)[7][8][9]...) --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 18:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Free publicity?

Might we discuss if the "Paid Editor Watch" section is within WP:NOTADVERTISING policy? I raised an issue on User_talk:Herostratus/Wikiproject_Paid_Editing_Watch/Editor_Registry concerning creating content that could be construed as providing a community-supported list of editors to contact if one wishes to hire a Professional Wikipedian. Thanks. Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   02:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

BOOMERANG!!! Rklawton (talk) 02:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, well, all irony aside, I've fixed the problem. Just about. Now we just need a few volunteers. Rklawton (talk) 03:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Suggest we also remove the entire Paid editor watch (tentative) section, based on the same reasoning. It's also an unnecessary distraction from the cooperative goals of this project, and I'd rather spend time on education and outreach. Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   10:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. SilverserenC 15:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I've removed the "Paid editor watch (tentative)" section. If anyone wants to continue discussion on this topic, feel free to do so here. Thanks. Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   20:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
There was unanimous support that the Wikiproject not only be cooperative with ethical, disclosing COI editors, but also help address bad actors. That being said, there was no discussion on how exactly to go about doing that. I would like to see some meaningful initiative to improve policing as well as cooperation (carrot & stick). But what that looks like exactly needs more discussion. King4057 (talk) 07:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Also see: Category:Wikipedians who have opted out of direct article editing. Thanks. Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   10:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there a way to add yourself to the list with a disclaimer? I'd add myself to the list, but wouldn't want it to include volunteer editing. King4057 (talk) 07:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
It's just a standard category setup, so no disclaimers or annotations possible. If one wants to cross the "bright line" and mix paid editing with volunteer direct editing to articles, then creating a new (declared) account that is only for volunteer editing might be a good idea. Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   09:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

suggested new lead

Suggestion for new version of lead paragraph:

"The Cooperation Wikiproject facilitates collaboration with editors paid to edit Wikipedia. We provide education and outreach to Public Relations and Marketing professionals, freelance editors, and employees working on assignments from their employers. The project is intended to support ethical, transparent paid editors that opt-in to collaborative efforts to meet Wikipedia's encyclopedic goals, serve the public's interest and avoid even the perception of impropriety."

Thanks. Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   00:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Much more concise, I like it. SilverserenC 02:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Looks great! Just a nit, do we really want the Paid Editor Help page to be an approval factory? I feel like that's what the request edit process is for. King4057 (talk) 07:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
We're making sure the changes are neutral before implementing them. Up til now, it's pretty much just been WWB asking for things and he knows what he's doing in regards to making articles, so there's not much to critique in terms of neutrality or much else. As you can see from the two new people that have shown up on the page, we're asking for a bit more in terms of sourcing and other info, since they appear new to editing. And require some help in the neutrality department. SilverserenC 05:33, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

A Win/Win strategy

Moved from Talk:Corporate_Representatives_for_Ethical_Wikipedia_Engagement to here where more appropriate:

I myself have been concerned about the quality of many articles on wikipedia, about individuals and organizations especially, but certainly about businesses. WP:Undue criticism or criticism that ignores WP:RS responses is definitely problematic. I think part of the problem might be solved simply by recruiting a lot more editors from the rapidly growing sector of computer savvy, educated and even professional people with lots of time on their hands - i.e., retired and retiring individuals. Many of them may be retirees from various industries who will be interested in furthering accurate knowledge on them; and once they learn editing and collaboration skills, they can bring their skills to bear improving all sorts of other articles they doubtless will find of interest.

Wikimedia DC has been active recruiting and training people and some of us have started beefing up Wikipedia: Workshop which includes a listing of outreach and training resources on Wikimedia and Wikipedia. Once it's more together we will encourage wikiprojects, chapters and meetups to start doing more workshops. It occurs to me some people with skills and a couple bucks for program design and publicity could even make some money creating a fun online course to teach retirees with time and money on their hands how to edit and join the community. [Later note: See fledgling attempt at Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure). smile Like my User page says, Wikipedia needs 20,000 oldsters. So something to think about as one solution to the problem. CarolMooreDC 05:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm going a bit off-topic, but I just read the BLP policy as part of my mentorship and it seems there's an extraordinary amount of protection against slandering individuals that's not afforded to companies. A lot of people looking for paid editing do so because they've been unfairly attacked on their page. If the same care was provided on company articles, there would be less companies feeling compelled to get involved at all. King4057 (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussions of interest

Some active and ongoing discussions that may be of interest to WikiProject Cooperation volunteers:

Long, but interesting readings. Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   14:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Resources infobox

I created a resources infobox for the project, please feel free to modify it at Template:WikiProject Cooperation Infobox. The infobox can also be added to any page with: {{Template:WikiProject Cooperation Infobox}}

Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   21:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I tweaked it a bit. Feel free to modify if you don't like it. King4057 (talk) 21:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
And more tweaking. Now shows the number of articles in the WP:AFC que, and number of outstanding edit requests. Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   21:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Requested edits status box

Here's a quick draft for a Requested edit status box template, modeled after the AFC status template. User:Eclipsed/Template:Requested edits status

See the code at User:Eclipsed/Template:Requested edits status. The levels currently are:

#requests   level    status
0           0        Clear
1-4         1        Clearing out
5-8         2        Normal
9-16        3        Slight backlog
17-32       4        Backlogged
33-64       5        High backlog
65+         6        Severly backlogged

Feel free to edit away on the template. Thanks. Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   17:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

COI tag status box

Here's another quick draft of a status box for {{coi}} tags. User:Eclipsed/Template:COI tag status

See the code at User:Eclipsed/Template:COI tag status. The levels currently are:

#requests   level    status
0           0        Clear
1-10        1        Clearing out
11-30       2        Normal
31-60       3        Slight backlog
61-100      4        Backlogged
101-150     5        High backlog
150+        6        Severly backlogged
1000+       7        MASSIVE BACKLOG

Feel free to edit away on the template.

And wow, 6000+ {{coi}} tagged articles waiting for review, going all the way back to 2007. The TfD on the coi tag was closed today as keep with the comment: "It is recommended that the backlog of COI articles be cleared first."[10]. Is it time for a COI Cleanup Drive? Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   21:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

New redirect

Just wanted to let people know that I've created a redirect from Wikipedia:Paid Editor Help to Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation/Paid Editor Help - I was continually forgetting the full name of the board, so hopefully this will make things easier for forgetful people like me. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi all. I have finally finished the massive article on our own very topical subject of Paid Editing. I hope that the draft is comprehensive and balanced. It needs to be reviewed for all of the basics--spelling, grammar, punctuation--as well as more weighty issues of NPOV and Original Research. I tried to keep my own opinions completely absent, but if they crept in inadvertently that needs to be scrubbed. I would love some careful eyes on the article before I move the page live. I'd like it to have the 'approval' of this project as a fair and accurate overview of the subject. It may need major formatting, organization, or summarizing work to be more manageable; right now it's more thorough than accessible. That was intentional as I wanted to include information first, and then only cut it down if necessary. Looking forward to your comments. Cheers! Ocaasi t | c 12:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Article live

After a week of others' careful copyediting, I moved the article live: Paid editing on Wikipedia. Feedback welcome. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 03:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:Connected contributor content review request

Hi folks, I just posted this on the WP:RFC/COI:

This is a draft of an article template intended to be:

  • used by Connected Contributors to raise concerns about article content
  • a "natural progression" after a {{coi}} tag is placed on top of an article


User:Eclipsed/Template:Connected contributor content review request
Thanks. Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   12:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Comprehensive Powerpoint Presentation for COI editors

I've whipped up a nice presentation that could be used for individuals, organizations, or companies. You can check it out here: http://www.mediafire.com/?9ahajgk99519kde. I'd love to get feedback. If you find it useful, feel free to distribute it widely, reuse it, whatever. Cheers! Ocaasi t | c 17:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Very nice! Covers all the major topics around COI pretty well. Some of the slides are text heavy, but hopefully whoever is presenting can keep the audiences attention ;) Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   22:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! I wanted to include comprehensive quotes, but I agree some of the slides could be trimmed. I have uploaded a pdf version to commons here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Speaking_Different_Languages--Corporate_Communications_and_Wikipedia.pdf Ocaasi t | c 13:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Drawn a distinction between those who are open and honest about it and the deceptive corporate shills

See here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Paid_Advocacy_Watch/Editor_Registry#Drawn_a_distinction_between_those_who_are_open_and_honest_about_it_and_the_deceptive_corporate_shills

Reply there if you want to so as to keep the discussion together smile I hope this might maybe be a new era of ah, co-op co-operation, maybe, whilst keeping PAIDWATCH independent as well to make sure there's always uninvolved oversight too. smile (I think some of the people in CO-OP have too many vested interests to be truly independent, being members of the corporate representatives group offsite and friends with PR people etc, but I think both can and should try to co-exist rather than fighting each other)

I've tried to help reform some of the more controversial bits of Herostratus' views on Paidwatch and drawn the line better between those who are honest and those who aren't, as well as hopefully trying to encourage more awareness of the people that do not work within the rules (and so affect the people that do it honestly):

(Don't take this the wrong way though, I don't want you to see this as a weakness to exploit or something, I'm genuinely trying to be nice here, that doesn't mean I won't report harassing behaviour when it happens to me or others such as back on 16th Feb when I added Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Websense,_Inc. to the PAIDWATCH wikiproject at 9:23[11], with "bobrayner" then suddenly arriving to talk:Websense at 9:58[12] along with "Bilby" at 11:13[13], both founding members the 5th and 7th respectively of this group and not members of wp:PAIDWATCH but apparently WP:WIKIHOUNDING me)
(Or more recently being followed again onto the Websense page from another page where I was threatened with "reporting to admin" if I reverted changes that were made whilst ignoring attempts at discussion[14](2012-03-24, 10:44) and then when I avoided the arguing and gave up editing, I then got followed over by Socrates2008 apparently trying to start a new argument with me there too instead... [15](2012-03-27, 11:18)[16][17][18]...) --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 18:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't think language like 'shills' is useful here. Nor do I think there's a conflict between WikiProject COOPERATION and Herostratus' idea. Editors can join and participate in whichever one they favor and those that attract support will thrive; that's just natural. It's probably not best to keep bringing up old incidents, even those that were frustrating. Better to focus constructively on what we can work on next, together or otherwise. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 21:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
If you read the shill article the definition is ones that are covert, so it wouldn't apply to anyone from this group smile That's what I'm getting at, it's the sneaksy ones that are the bad ones, I know. smile --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 21:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)