User talk:CorporateM

Hi

Thanks for the input. Any ideas for a title? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 12:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Oof, I am never very good with titles. Let me stew on it and see if I can come up with something. CorporateM (Talk) 13:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

What about something along the lines of Wikipedia being more neutral than any one source? This is somewhat controversial, because many of us believe sources are the holy grail, but we tone down media sensationalism both regarding epic tales and sensational controversies through writing style, presentation and by balancing multiple sources. I constantly hear PR people say "but that's a fact, it's sourced" regarding the 20+ awards they've won. We don't add everything that's sourced. A while back I remember Jimbo saying something like "we are editors" regarding a certain leeway for use to exercise judgement. Sources are not that different from Wikipedians, some are axe-grinders, some are fanboys and some are focused on a specific angle.

Something like "Wikipedia is more neutral than its sources." CorporateM (Talk) 22:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

RfC/U

I closed that RfC. My usual rate is $100 an hour; RfC/Us are a pain in the ass and I charge twice as much. I figure this took about four hours, over two days, and I accept PayPal but you'll have to take care of their fees. [Note to the stalkers: this is intended as somewhat humorous. Not the pain in the ass part--that's not funny.] Drmies (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I hear PR editors have no sense of humor. We also have green blood and breed by injecting harmful ideas into otherwise helpful editor-cells like a virus. This is why it's so important we get shunned off the site before the virus takes hold. But we don't sparkle in the sun, that's just a rumor spread by Twilight. I contest your fees; it's akin to an Egyptian slave demanding payment from their whipping master, because paid editors own Wikipedia and volunteers are just here to do our bidding. (my attempt at counter-jokes, but I'm not as skilled in sarcasm as Drmies).

In all seriousness, I wonder how practical it is that it takes 20-50 hours of total editor time just to shirk off a troll. Or that it takes 10 reverts before we block spammers, etc. Then we wonder why we have a hard time keeping productive editors. CorporateM (Talk) 21:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Some thoughts

So here's an idea I've had. I haven't worked it out, so I'm just thinking out loud.

The problem with paid editing is not Wikipedians accepting money; on the contrary, if editors can find a way to monetize their Wikipedia skills and experience, good luck to them. The problem with paid editing is threefold: (a) neutrality – that even with the best will in the world, an editor being paid by X will be nicer about X, consciously or otherwise, than she would have been if not being paid by X; (b) that paid editors who aren't already Wikipedians don't understand the way articles need to be written; and (c) that it's unfair and in the long term unsustainable to ask unpaid editors to monitor and clean up after paid ones.

So here's the idea. It could be done in one of two ways:

(1) All companies paying an editor of their choice to write an article must also pay an uninvolved Wikipedian – who would be chosen by others – to clean up the article and make it comply with the policies;

or (this would be cheaper)

(2) They must pay a Wikipedian to write the article in the first place, and that Wikipedian will be chosen by an agreed process, not by the company.

What would such a process look like? Ideally it would be administered by the Foundation, but they would probably not want to do it, in case it made them look like publishers. But regardless of who would manage it, a body would be created that would retain a list of Wikipedians who were good writers and researchers, and who would offer to write articles for customers for an agreed rate (no trying to undermine each other). To get on that list, you would need a track record of excellent contributions.

We would then have a page for editing requests, and companies would post to it (we want an article about X to be created, or we want article X to be changed in some way, or we have already employed a contractor to write the article, so we have to employ a Wikipedian to check it). Editors on the approved list would then submit their names to signal that they want the contract. And the independent body that administered the page would choose which assignment to give to which editor.

The companies would pay this independent body, and that body would take a percentage and pass the rest to the Wikipedian. Companies would have no say over who is given assignments, so that editors did not feel they had to comply with the company's wishes for fear of never being given another one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)