Wikipedia talk:Paid editing (guideline)

WP:COMPENSATION

We need to point out that other models of compensation have been accepted and even embraced by the Wikipedia community in the past and are likely to in the future. These have included modest prizes associated with article improvement drives, Wikipedia-Takes-Manhattan, etc. I think making this guideline/proposal a bit broader and discussing these aspects is important too. Consider making a WP:COMPENSATION proposal that discusses this issue more broadly.

ScienceApologist (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Sample situation: what's this guideline going to say about it?

A college intern was hired at a moderately successful PR firm in New York City to do various tasks. One of the tasks she was charged with was to rewrite the Wikipedia article on the firm. At the time, the article was a stub and included a few strange sentences while omitting major points that the company would like the public and potential clients to read about in the article (which is, incidentally, in the Google-top-ten for searches for the company).

She had never edited Wikipedia before in her life and so had a steep learning curve. She started a user account and edited the article haphazardly at first. After a few bruises with Wikipedia brass she learned the ins-and-outs of sourcing, NPOV, etc. Soon she had created an article as the prime contributor that she and other (presumably uncompensated volunteer) editors agreed was acceptable. Her employer was also pleased with her work. Note that she was compensated for doing this work as part of her paid internship. Of course, her work is subject to WP:COI concerns explicitly, but since everyone is happy with her collaboration, there has been no fallout from this activity. The article remains in roughly the same state that she left it in when she left the position some two years ago. No one is the wiser.

ScienceApologist (talk) 17:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

An apt example - the problematic behaviours were addressed and the content is what we look for at the end of the day. -- Banjeboi 01:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sample situation II

I have helped fix some of the issues with MAACO. One of the public relations officers for the company out of King of Prussia, Pennsylvania had been adding content that was definitely promotionally biased. He was doing this as an anonymous account. However, there was no problem as we cleaned up the article, removed the promotional bits, and added sources. He didn't complain. The article is in pretty much the same state as I left it last. Obviously, the person who edited the article was doing this during working hours and was likely doing this as part of his job. Paid advocacy? Acceptable compensation? What do you think?

ScienceApologist (talk) 17:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Likely but who cares what we call it? The issue was promotional tone and peacocking the article which was corrected. We also don't often know if someone is who they say they are or if they even work for a company so we have to go by the content as led by reliable sourcing. -- Banjeboi 01:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed replacement text

Jimbo's statement, like it or not, is enforceable. No one is going to get away with wheel warring a Jimbo block or get him banned from the project for overstepping his authority. This is not the place to debate Jimbo's role in governance. For the time being, Jimbo's statement is policy because it can be enforced. Everything written here should reflect that understanding, as it is hardly reasonable to write a policy which contradicts Jimbo's statement, leading to blocks of people following stated policy.

I suggest then rewording to say strongly that most payment for editing is prohibited, since that brings to mind paid advocacy more readily than anything, and then carve out exceptions. Make it clear that these exceptions merely may be acceptable, and that users are advised to use caution when accepting any sort of remuneration for their work. Follow that with examples of what is almost certainly prohibited: Mywikibiz type of stuff, bidding on contracts to create articles for companies, etc. (If you don't believe that this stuff would result in a block if discovered, we can check with Jimbo.) Trying to disambiguate Jimbo's statement, I propose the following complete replacement for the text:

No editor should attempt to gain payment for their work on Wikipedia. Instances of editors receiving payment for selling Wikipedia editing services should be blocked. Payment which is received incidentally such as prizes awarded without the appearance of creating a conflict of interest may be acceptable, although they should be accepted only with great caution. Editors should avoid instances where a payment might appear to be a conflict of interest. Disagreement over the appropriateness of a particular instance of remuneration should be referred to Jimbo Wales. Certain activities are never acceptable:

• failing to disclose any payment or prize,
• seeking payment or receiving for taking on a particular position in any editorial decision, policy dispute, or other issue arising in Wikipedia,
• advertising services as a Wikipedia editor, administrator, bureaucrat, or any other role in Wikipedia, or
• bidding on advertised jobs to edit on behalf of, advocate for, or for the benefit of the employer.

Any of these activities will result in a block.

Examples

Prohibited examples

1. An editor advertises article creation or maintenance of articles about a corporation for a fee, even if disclosure of this arrangement is made and no guarantee of success is made.
2. An editor is obliged to make edits in the article namespace on behalf of his or her employer as part of his or her job description or duties.
3. A bounty or prize is awarded to an editor who fails to disclose the receipt of that prize on Wikipedia.
4. An editor responds to a freelance jobs board posting to write and submit content on Wikipedia.
5. A political consulting firm hires an editor to forward a particular point of view, or to watch pages for negative information being added.

Possibly acceptable examples

1. A non-governmental organization without specific financial interest in the content rewards an editor with a prize for creating a high quality web resource.
2. An editor responds to an on-Wikipedia bounty board request for article improvement (currently the bounty board only permits donations to the Wikimedia foundation, not editor compensation).
3. An employee of a company notices something incorrect on an article in which his or her company has an interest and brings it up on the article talk page, or contacts another user or administrator to request the content be examined.
4. An editor adds Wikipedia editing as a line on his or her resume or curriculum vita as an indication of writing skills or public service.

My goal with this is to make this policy reflect and clarify Jimbo's statement, not determine whether Jimbo's views are the best, nor determine his role in governance. My belief is that following policy should not result in a block (even an Jimbo block), but as the proposal is currently written, an editor might be mislead in that direction. Thus there are two questions I put to other editors for their thoughts: 1. Should policy be written to reflect editing reality (Jimbo's blocks being possible), and 2. Does this view accurately and reasonably unambiguously reflect Jimbo's statement? Thoughts? --TeaDrinker (talk) 15:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm rather opposed to all of this as unneeded and misdirected. First off the almighty Jimbo card is being questioned in at least three different community discussions likely because we do shoot for consensus, he's sometimes wrong and we shoot for consensus. I think many agree with the spirit of what he's getting at but reality and people are a lot more complex than set black or white stark ideals. Nothing yet has convinced me we should punish employees for constructively editing here. You may also want to check out Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-07-27/Wikipedia Academy - "The aim of the academy was not only to teach NIH employees and scientists about the value of contributing to Wikipedia but also how to do so." There are numerous other examples so I believe we should stay focussed on overviewing the situation giving NPOV deference to Jimbo and then emphasize the problem behaviours to be wary of and what to do about them. -- Banjeboi 01:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The page as it currently stands is nonsense - pretending to state current policy in parts, and trying to create new policy in other parts. TeaDrinker's summary is much better than the current page. It does reflect current policy - some minor points might be discussed and adjusted, but this looks to me like current policy. On the other hand, I have to say that Benjiboi wants to change current policy, come up with a new consensus, but that can't happen if we don't first identify current policy and get it approved as a guideline. It won't get approved if we write that paid editing is a borderline infraction that can be circumvented. Please remember - on this page we could not come to a consensus that a PR firm or a legal firm writing for a client was against policy. We have to be realistic about current policy. And this is not the place to question Jimbo's role. He has clearly stated policy in the role that he has traditionally occupied, and as far as I'm concerned only the foundation board can say that he is overstepping his authority. Please fight that battle somewhere else. Smallbones (talk) 04:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

As I note, I am happy to come back to this when Jimbo's status in governance is settled, but we don't need multiple discussions about it. As it stands now, if MyWikiBiz-part II comes around, that user will be blocked. A quick search of job boards finds multiple people offering or requesting Wikipedia editing or Wikipedia-related SEO. These folks, if discovered, will be blocked as well. Do you agree that is the present state of affairs? If so, is there any reason not to document that fact? --TeaDrinker (talk) 05:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Um, no, there is no policy that states that someone can't be compensated in some way for editing on Wikipedia, and no, Jimbo's admonishment against paid advocacy is not a new policy we can use to jump on someone we feel is breaking a policy that doesn't exist. Again, there is no current policy but a loose set of policies that speak to the behaviours to avoid, we cannot extrapolate that to read that all paid/compensated editors are violating some policy as that simply is not true. And no, policies are put together from practice and consensus so Jimbo is a well-respected elder here but not the first and final judge of anything. Again, he gets things wrong and his decrees are misinterpreted so let's not add to that morass but work towards solutions. As for editors or employers challenging what many in the community object to? So what? See if it actually causes any problems that don't already have means of redress. Let's not invent layers of rules and redtape when we already have policies in place to address these concerns. At the end of the day we really don't care if someone is motivated by a paycheck/something else if their contributions are policy compliant. And frankly, unless someone is causing a problem we likely wouldn't even know. -- Banjeboi 09:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

If I read you correctly, you're saying that no, if MyWikiBiz came along today ze would not be blocked. I can only say you're mistaken. I would block such a user, Jimbo has carried out that block before and said he would do so again. Merely setting up to sell services as a Wikipedia editor is de facto blockable. It's fine if you see this is somehow the penumbra cast by other policies or if this is new policy, I don't see that it changes the way things are carried out. I agree that not all paid editing would garner a block, which is precisely why I think we need to have a clear document outlining this fact. If you see something in my text which is not demonstrable in Jimbo's statement, great, let's discuss it. If it is that you don't like Jimbo's statement or the current status quo of blocking for paid advocacy, I respectfully submit that it will nevertheless be enforced. We should I think make that clear. --TeaDrinker (talk) 12:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Um, no, paid advocacy blocking is not the same as all paid editing is bad. This is in part why we need to get it right. The RfC nutshell needs to be rewritten for starters as it means well but really doesn't empahsize there really is no solid consensus in any direction except that advocacy is bad, and that's not a new thing. Advocacy editing has always been discouraged. -- Banjeboi 03:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's go with the proposed text, and make any modifications after discussion about the fine points. But I do not see any benefit in discussing whether this is the general outline. The not-quite-as-good alternative is just to say that this proposed guideline has failed to reach anything like a consensus, at even the initial stage, and close it down Smallbones (talk) 22:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry that's not helpful to rewrite and encourage an edit war, that's why we're discussing here. I'm strongly opposed to this as written and see nothing that really needs to be added to what we currently have. It's simply emphasizing that some people really don't like the idea, so what? Some people are open to editors who don't cause problems and the above is only demonizing all paid editors which isn't helpful. As a suggestion the RfC nutshell needs to be re-written. That may help our efforts here. -- Banjeboi 03:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Please do not accuse me of starting an edit war - your actions are more along that line. There are only 3 editors working on this now. Please do not revert the text support by two of us! Smallbones (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. The policy proposal currently on the page was written in the midst of a larger discussion which did not get resolved. I proposed my draft text because I thought it was important to not simply reject policy currently on the page (there's certainly no consensus to keep it) and leave us without anything, but instead at the very least describe the situation as it exists. There are parts of the existing proposal that do this--the first bullet point in the advice section, for example--but much of it has problems insofar as it does not accurately describe the current state of affairs. I can get into specifics if you'd like, but my main problem is that the description seems to leave open some things which may get a user blocked, while simultaneously failing to note the specific interpretations of policy which are used in current practice. It was proposed policy, so naturally it has some parts which are new and presently have no consensus to adopt. I suggest we need to start fresh with the goal of reflecting current practice, which I have attempted. I will ask you to point out the parts of my proposal which do not reflect current practice. Thanks for the continued discussion. --TeaDrinker (talk) 07:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. First off I would suggest dialing down the idea "doing X will get you blocked" as that seems unneeded, perhaps just spelling out "doing X is considered disruptive" and make it clear elsewhere that users who persist in causing problems may be banned or blocked. Both banning and blocking are handled unevenly so let's just stick to what are problems to avoid and what to do if you're dealing with those problems. I think since the RfC is still fresh looking at fixing that summary nutshell over there is the first logical step. It's pretty messy and needs more clarity. It really should be concise and helpful to anyone who doesn't want to wade through the lengthy bits (and it's all lengthy). I wasn't looking to take that on but it seems clear that to have a meaningful overview here we need a clear overview of that RfC over there. As for the advice bullet points, yes, they are hardly perfect but they seem somewhat reasonable for the moment. One that RfC summary is sussed out I think it will inform the salient issues that we may be missing here or other points that need to be clarified. -- Banjeboi 10:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as wording goes, I can see where you're going; does the wording "doing X is considered disruptive and may result in a block" seem more reasonable to you? Of course, no one is suggesting that blocks should be enacted blindly. What about "Instances of editors receiving payment for selling Wikipedia editing services will not be tolerated" (taken from WP:VAND) in the second sentence? I'm not too concerned with editing the RfC nutshell; I've tried twice to come up with statements that would likely have consensus there with no luck, and the page is already marked as no consensus. Until we have a clear consensus policy-wise, I suggest that it is in everyone's best interest to simply record what is being currently done. --TeaDrinker (talk) 13:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

"doing X is considered disruptive and may result in a block", IMHO, is too specific. In that we need to clean-up what we have and then include a blanket statement towards the top of the advice section that "X, Y, Z, W AND Q are seen as disruptive and should be avoided." Then we put ourselves in the shoes of those who may on the precipice of such things and offer them places to read up on how to handle situations and how/where to ask for help. Our goal here is to help all these editors become better Wikipedians. In a perfect world no one would have to work for anyone but would simply do what they love and everything would be free, until then we are going to have various shades of people who are not simply donating their time as an uncompensated volunteer. But I digress. Then we dig in to how to deal with problem editors and where to escalate if the situation continues including the aforementioned blanket statement "editors unwilling or unable to adhere to Wikipedia standards may be subject to bans and blocks". p.s. I hear you on the RfC nutshell, it may have to wait a bit. -- Banjeboi 15:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Are you ok with saying, up front, "Paid advocacy on behalf of a client, or offering services as a Wikipedia editor for hire is not permitted. Editing in this manner may result in blocks or banning from Wikipedia." I am ok with this wording replacing the first two sentences of my above proposal. As in most policy documents, the policy starts with the strong claim using terms which are refined further in the document. It is, I think, reasonably clear that both paid advocacy and offering services are prohibited. The rest of the document should I think make it clear what those terms mean. --TeaDrinker (talk) 18:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we have to quickly differentiate between paid editing issues vs any advocacy and point out that all advocating is forbidden and send folks away to the most salient page that addresses just that issue. If someone is advocating, the paid part is a red herring and we don't want to confuse or conflate but simply state "advocacy bad, don't do it". -- Banjeboi 03:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

As many people have already pointed out, Jimbo's original statement referred only to paid advocacy; as Benjiboi emphasises, it is not paid advocacy that is forbidden in particular, but advocacy in general, because of its conflict with NPOV. People who advertise to edit for money should not be blocked - a conflict of interest is not grounds for a block. People who cannot put aside their biases, should be, as is already practised. Dcoetzee 04:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

@Banjoi: Well, I don't feel we need to recreate WP:NPOV. The point of this page is to make it clear that certain payment arrangements are considered problematic and will result in being blocked. This is true regardless of the content of the edits; this is the "setting up a service..." issue. A page on the issues surrounding paid editing should be narrowly constructed to address only paid editing, not be a list of general policies with the instruction to follow them. I would encourage you to look over the examples I list, and see if you agree the outcome described is likely (not, of course, whether you agree with them). Do you have more to examples to add or think critical details are missing? @Dcoetzee: As a point of fact, Jimbo forbade "...set[ing] up a service selling their services as a Wikipedia editor..." --TeaDrinker (talk) 04:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I hear what your saying but also feel you may be over-simplifying it; a firm that does pr work that then hires an editor to write a FA-level wikipedia article? We likely wouldn't turn it down or block anyone involved. There are many gradations on what being paid is and what could be acceptable or not. Rather than sidetrack into those many nuances - which are, endless - we should stick to what are the behaviours that are not acceptable. Frankly if someone is paid, any you never know that, then I can't really see what you could even do about it. There really is no need to go on any witch hunt when we all have more important things to do. Being morally/theoretically upset is different than addressing actual Wikipedia problems. -- Banjeboi 05:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note as always. You bring up two issues here: first is an example you hold to be acceptable, the second is an issue of enforcement. I disagree with the conclusion on the example, chances are the user involved would be blocked or severely admonished. Of course we could come up with bizarre scenarios where PR firms are funding editors to write about topics unrelated to their business interests; those might get some discussion (but even there, a block is still possible). But I think it is abundantly clear that PR firms are ordinarily advocates for their clients, and as such, prohibited from editing. Your point that scenarios provided as examples need to be plausible, however, is well taken. The second issue you raise is enforcement. Wikipedia operates first and foremost on the honor system and an assumption of good faith. We simply expect people to follow them (and most of the time, people do). We can talk about detection and countermeasures, but none of that changes what's acceptable or that blocks may result if the problematic arrangements are detected. I pose the question again (to everyone), which of my examples do you (i) disagree about the likely outcome, (ii) think lack critical details, or (iii) are so improbable that they need not be included? --TeaDrinker (talk)

@TeaDrinker: Jimbo did in fact explicitly say "setting up a service selling their services as a Wikipedia editor." I simply reject that part. Jimbo has been wrong before, as with his implementation of CSD T1 which was later overturned by consensus. Perhaps Jimbo can block whoever he wants for dubious reasons and get away with it - but no other administrator should be advised to emulate him on this point. Dcoetzee 06:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Has an admin ever been overridden, admonished, or desysopped for blocking a paid editor? I'm not aware of any but it's hard to keep track of everything around here.   Will Beback  talk  06:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

@Dcoetzee I realize a great many editors may disagree with Jimbo's view. But there was not consensus on another policy, and I have no doubts that Jimbo's view is what will be enforced. My goal in restarting this discussion was to lay out the current state of affairs, not determine the ideal (for which there is currently no consensus). @Will, I have not heard of that either. And of course, if it is Jimbo who does the block, heaven help the admin who wheel-wars that decision. --TeaDrinker (talk) 06:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Hypothetical question

What if someone was offered payment to make a biographical article more NPOV? What if the editor divulged their potential COI in talk? What would the current consensus be on this? --91.135.14.165 (talk) 23:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The current consensus is mixed and so would the reaction likely be with some vilifying such efforts and others like myself skeptically optimistic. IMHO you should not divulge information unless absolutely needed and then only to admins on their talkpages so they are aware the editor is working to avoid COI. If the edits are indeed improving the article there really should be little problem. stick to policies on NPOV and reliable sourcing and all should go well. -- Banjeboi 01:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that we can't allow only certain types paid editing and not others. Who draws the line of what's "good" and "bad"? hmwithτ 16:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

That's kind of the crux of the whole issue; why spend time nit-picking who thinks what is paid-editing or not when it is already going on in various forms and only those editors who are causing problems are really the concern? We should focus on behaviours to avoid while explaining some of the pitfalls of paid editing. I think we have a good start on that as of yet. -- Banjeboi 03:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Certainly "problem editors" may include activities which go undetected as well. Anyone, for instance, who replies to an advert on elance or similar website for services to add content to Wikipedia is in violation of policy as presently practiced. They may be sneaky and get away with it, of course, but such behavior is unquestionably going to get the user blocked (by Jimbo, if no one else) if discovered. I would put such editors in the "problem editor" category, even (or especially) if they go undetected. --TeaDrinker (talk) 07:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Activities that don't happen on Wikipedia generally have no issues with being for or against policy, one exception is cyberstalking but that is not part of this concern. So, no, responding to an ad has nothing to do with Wikipedia and would nt be against any policies. What we are solely concerned with is problem behaviours on Wikipedia and no, we cannot clump all paid editors together as being problematic, that is over-simplyfying complex and overlapping issues. What remains the "problem editors" are those who are editing in a bias manner and otherwise disrupting consensus editing. We can't say that all paid editors are doing this any more than we can say all editors younger than twenty years old are causing problems. It's simply not true, not provable, the opposite can be proven if even one editor isn't a "problem editor", etc. We need to take the focus off the type of editor and look to the behaviours instead. -- Banjeboi 10:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm thinking here of someone who actually edits Wikipedia in order to fulfil a contract for money, not someone who merely writes text in wikimarkup. In such a case, I am having a hard time thinking of a case which would not immediately result in the user being blocked (if the user was likely to continue making these paid edits). I personally would feel perfectly comfortable enacting such a block. If folks felt I was overstepping my admin authority, I would happily send it to Jimbo. I would bet dollars to donuts that would also carry out a block. That is pretty clearly "...set[ing] up a service selling their services as a Wikipedia editor..." I don't see any wiggle room on this one, it is simply forbidden. --TeaDrinker (talk) 13:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

There are numerous variations on this theme and frankly this ends up being wikilawyering - "did they have a contract", "were they hired to edit on Wikipedia or was that after other work", "is this part of a campaign which included Wikipedia", "Did they contact the company or did they answer an ad", "did they actually set up a service for Wikipedia or as an editor with Wikipedia as an example and said 'yes' when asked", etc etc. IMHO, I don't really care on the specifics of why someone edits as long as the content is good and the related behaviours are acceptable. For example, and person decides to bring their POV on race relations to Wikipedia to promote that white people are indeed the master race - this is their intention - but their edits are stunningly acceptable. They only edit in that subject area and only edit biographies they they think shows their POV is correct. Upon review their edits hold up and they cover their subjects NPOV. So, I have to say that's fine. Similar to someone who is making a living editing and includes Wikipedia work. Am I suspicious, yes. Do I feel that's blockable, not on principle alone but luckily I don't have to answer that. I'd rather just ensure the actual editing and collaboration remains acceptable. To me the whole "Setting up a service as a Wikipedian-for-hire" is an extreme example that distracts from the multitudes of nuances that should be looked on the basis of how does the editor behave, interact and edit and quite frankly - in fairness - does not judge someone for how they make a living. I've seen too many editors here making good edits who were obviously doing so for a "boss" of one sort or another. Frankly they were improving the encyclopedia and should not be lumped together with actual problems. Theoretically, if the edits are fine and the editor plays well with others I'm not sure I really see the problem, I feel it's just a more obviously compensated person who motivations we're casting aspersions on thus violating our assume good faith policy. -- Banjeboi 15:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course, no policy is going to remove all judgement. Wikilayering comes about when folks think the specifics of the wording are more important than the intent. Prevention of wikilawyering comes after the policy/guideline/process/etc exists, and if someone gets too wrapped up in the details, we ignore all rules and do what best serves the encyclopedia. That said, I have trouble coming up with answers to your questions which might make someone editing Wikipedia in response to a posted request on elance acceptable. In my example (i) there is a contract, (ii) they are hired to edit Wikipedia, (iii) the reasons for the company's desire to edit are not disclosed, (iv) they answered an ad placed by the company, and (v) the editor makes changes to the main article space at the request of the company. The editor argues nothing prohibits this and plans to continue taking such jobs, the case is sent to Jimbo, what do you think he would do? That editor would be blocked. I realize you may not like that outcome, but we can't pretend that it would not be the outcome. If you think this example is unrealistic, search elance for "Wikipedia" and you will find precisely this scenario playing out already. The question is not whether you like that this is blockable, the point is, at present, it is blockable. --TeaDrinker (talk) 17:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

To me this gets to a core issue of classism, by default the present editors on Wikipedia are privileged and amongst, believe it or not, the richest people in the world who have the luxury to sit around and determine what should be considered human knowledge. The reality is the someone desperate to work will take opportunities that others will or would not ethics be damned. If I'm working to keep a roof over my head and put food on the table for my children I will do what I must to survive. If that rankles some !@#$ wonk at whatever this Wikipedia thing is who cares? In short we have to think more long-term here and look more at the contributions than the motivations of the contributor (or who may be motivating them). Problem editing, like bias coverage of an issue, and any problematic behaviours, like edit-warring to keep negative information off an article, whether paid or not is still problematic. I'll take a whack at drafting something. -- Banjeboi 03:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I suggest that is an argument to change present practice, not a description of present practice. Valid or invalid, there's no consensus to change present practice. Present practice is to block users who are editing on behalf of or at the behest of employers. --TeaDrinker (talk) 04:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

If there's no consensus to allow paid editing in the just-closed RfC then we shouldn't be writing a policy allowing paid editing. Policies should reflect, as much as possible, the current views of the community. Regarding Benjiboi's point above, this is an amateur project. Allowing professional advocates to edit articles and policies freely and perhaps without disclosure would permanently damage Wikipedia's internal and external integrity.   Will Beback  talk  05:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Um, no actually. We welcome professionals in all fields to help ensure our articles are the best possible. In another thread I just posted how we are recruiting health professionals to encourage their involvement. We don't lift certain editors above or lower them below others based on if they have a doctorate or certain level of education and we don't make people check in at the door to state their intention of editing here. We assume good faith to all until we are forced to do otherwise. You are mixing advocacy with paid editing - they are separate but interrelated issues only in that paid editors like anyone else can fall into advocacy. The RfC neither condoned nor condemned paid-editing and this page should reflect that. There remains no policy forbidding paid editing while advocacy of any kind is disallowed. No one is suggesting that advocacy of any kind should no get a green light. And we cannot assume that a paid editor is a advocacy editor. -- Banjeboi 06:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Your point is interesting. Of course even if we separate advocacy from paid editing, setting up a Wikipedia editing service is forbidden as well as advocacy. I think your NIH example is a great one of acceptable behavior--someone who is a paid professional and edits in the field. Since no payment is exchanged for the edit, I don't think it could be read as setting up a service. I would be happy to add that to the "acceptable" list. --TeaDrinker (talk) 16:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

So, here's a non-hypothetical question. I am acquainted with a notable author (met him once, occasionally correspond by snail mail). I'm a great fan of his and have worked on his article here. The only one time I met him he bought me several beers. Is this a COI that I should have declared in working on the article? If not, about where would the line lie? --John (talk) 01:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

You should certainly share the beer with other editors of the page. ;) I think one omportant distinction is that you apparently made the edits our of interest in the subject and with no expectation of a reward. It's not clear from your account if he bought the beers out of gratitude for your work or just because he was pleased to talk with a fan. Perhaps a bigger concerns is what could be called "laid editing", in other words, edits made in expectation of sex. I beleive Jimbo Wales has been accused of that, and I'd have the same solution there - any rewards should be shared with all editors...   Will Beback  talk  01:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh, no comment on the JW comparison, though I appreciate it. In fact, Banks bought me the beers in 2000, but he did also implant secrit nanobot technology that predisposed me to later edit Wikipedia in his favour, when it was invented. He was a futurist even back then. But, joking apart, where should the COI line lie? In two (now three, since I 'fessed up about Iain Banks) biographies that I edit, I have made a point of stating on the talk page that the subject of the article has corresponded with me. Is this good practice? Over-strict? Enforcable? --John (talk) 01:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that more disclosure is never bad. That way, if a reader comes along and thinks to himself, "What a bunch of baloney! Has anyone else realized how biased ths material is?" he can go to the talk page and see the reason. It also means that other editors can judge your editing in a clearer light.   Will Beback  talk  02:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Remove "Who is a paid advocate?" section?

This section seems unneeded. We already cover that paid advocacy is forbidden and explain it. Isn't this a rehash and redundant? -- Banjeboi 15:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I of course advocate my own text, but the line Any form of advocacy is forbidden by WP:NPOV. Paid advocacy, which is any contribution or edit to Wikipedia content that advocates for your employer's point of view, or is likely to benefit your employer's business interests, is considered to be an especially egregious form of advocacy. defines the term reasonably well for me. We should give this more prominence. I am fine deleting the "Who is" section. I suggest that instead of deleting it, however, a few examples of this might be good to replace it. --TeaDrinker (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'll bite the bullet and start drafting something, I'd caution generally about using examples as those who look to wikilawyering, as you say, will avoid the spirit of avoiding disruption and use examples as technically blah blah blah". I think we agree however on many of the core concerns so likely starting with where there is agreement would be helpful. -- Banjeboi 03:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course you're welcome to write your own text, but I am still unclear what part of mine does not reflect present practice. --TeaDrinker (talk) 04:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't even get past the first sentence - No editor should attempt to gain payment for their work on Wikipedia. This is completely unenforcible, you might as well say no blue-eyed editors are allowed; how would you ever know unless they tell you or it it otherwise revealed. And no, that is not a policy currently nor will it ever be approved as one. We;d have to drill into a pointless digression of all the nuances of who considers what paid editing and guess what, unless someone tells you they were paid in some fashion you likely wouldn't know. And we do encourage various forms of paid editing already. Students get paid with a grade to edit here by their teachers - and we welcome that; various organizations pay their employees to maintain public image so as part of that they clear off false and misleading information on BLPs and company articles, we welcome that too. I think we will save everyone a lot of headaches to focus on what are the disruptive behaviours and content and how to suss that out. If someone is causing problems we don't really care if they are paid or not; if someone isn't causing problems we likely don't care either. We also have no way of determining which of the thousands of editors here are already doing this and I can't envision that changing in any way. -- Banjeboi 06:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

So let's clarify the first two lines. How about Paid advocacy on behalf of a client, or offering services as a Wikipedia editor for hire is not permitted. Editing in this manner may result in blocks or banning from Wikipedia.? --TeaDrinker (talk) 15:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Charity?

All of these assume that people are being paid to advocate for something.

What if some charity wants to recompensate editors simply for doing their duties as wikipedia editors. Would that be as much of a problem?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

You mean they would simply give money to editors without asking them to modify any particular articles or advance any position? This situation sounds a bit like the MacArthur Foundation which gives "genius grants" to allow talented people to do what they do best. Is this a real situation or a hypothetical? Many charities have distinct or even fringe viewpoints, so their involvement in Wikipedia content wouldn't necessarily be benign or neutral.   Will Beback  talk  20:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Traditionally, our first editor was paid in that way, of course. :-)

Next to that, I can imagine -for instance- an academic-run organisation hiring someone to write a bot to update all articles on genes with data from uniprot. I wonder if I could write a grant proposal for that?

I'm also pondering whether it might be useful to hire people to do some article writing.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 20:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

So that wouldn't be pay to editors for simply doing their duties: it'd be pay for making specific edits. The latter example is a straight case of paid editing. The former case, of writing a bot, is more complicated. There have been payments, if I understand correctly, for programming work on Wikimedia. I'd say offhand that it's more similar to that than to editing in a conventional sense. An important issue is the decision of whether the community wants to have a mass creation or updating of articles by a bot in that fashion. There was a recent controversy about just such a bot effort. So the best process would probably start with getting a consensus that these edits are desirable.   Will Beback  talk  20:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I think present practice permits prizes, at least of a content neutral nature. For instance Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-05-18/Multilingual_contests, and there was another editor, if I recall correctly, who won a prize from a Nynorsk organization for writing a bunch of articles in Nynorsk (thus promoting the language). I haven't found the details of the latter, however. Neither on en.WP, of course, but I think they received a positive response here. I put an example of prizes under "possibly acceptable" in my proposed text since that was my sense of acceptable practice. I think it would come down differently, however, if say the Heritage Foundation offered prizes to editors who promoted a conservative viewpoint in articles. That would be clearly improper (although to the best of my knowledge, it has never happened). --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia and many other friendly organizations hire multiple FTE's to work on the Mediawiki software, yes. :-)

Since you switch to "obtain consensus first", I take it that it is (now) your insight that it is ok for people to be paid, provided they are paid in a neutral fashion.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 20:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I just meant that anyone considering writing a bot to create thousands of articles should seek wide coinsensus first. I wasn't addressig the paid aspect, so I guess that part of my comment was off-topic.   Will Beback  talk  20:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the prizes, it's not clear if the prize involved money or just a plaque or medallion. It also occured in the Estonian Wikiepedia which is run independently of the English Wikipedia. More broadly, what if the Isaeli Embassy sponsored a prize for writing articles about the Jewish settlements in the West Bank? What if the Chamber of Commerce sponsored a contest to write articles about government regulation? I can imagine all kinds of unhelpful contests.   Will Beback  talk  20:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

So the actual issue is: How do we make sure such activities ARE helpful. I mean, people can do unhelpful things, even if not for pay. But how do we define what is helpful, for pay, or not for pay? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I think it seems reasonable, on a discussion of paid editing policy, to restrict ourselves to what is and is not acceptable in relation to getting paid. I suggest that present practice prohibits paid advocacy on behalf of a client, or setting up a service to edit for pay (which to some is subsumed into the first as a priori advocacy). There are plenty of interesting cases on the side, prizes being one of them, but that should not distract us into thinking there is no enforced rule. --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I get the impression that any kind of payment immediately carries the assumption of bad faith. Like it is never possible to pay someone to act in good faith. Am I getting this correctly? --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a good analogy is sex. There are all kinds of sex, but there is a fairly bright line in this culture between paid and unpaid sex. (that line gets blurry where nice dinners and jewelry are concerned.) At the moment, everyone who edits Wikipedia does so out of love, not for money. Money changes everything. Does the fact that a prostitute expects money mean she isn't having sex with me out of love? That's a good assumption. But getting back to the issue at hand, if I learned that someone had been paid to write or maintain an article then I'd be inclined to block them until they agreed to stop accepting such work.   Will Beback  talk  00:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Kim's earlier question: "how do we define what is helpful, for pay, or not for pay?" - We have dozens of policies and guidelines which define unacceptable behaviors.   Will Beback  talk  01:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a lot more motivations at play on Wikipedia currently that counter "everyone who edits Wikipedia does so out of love, not for money. Money changes everything." The sex example is interesting but will also be misleading as a premise. Plenty of people have sex for non-monetary compensation including Karen Walker who did so for jewelry, furs and Manhattan properties. -- Banjeboi 01:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Football players usually don't need much inducement to have sex, but I suppose that depends on who the other party is.   Will Beback  talk  02:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

If someone is paid to edit wikipedia, but follows basic policy and consensus, they are then free to do so without issue? --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Basic policies include no advocacy. What is that they are being paid to do if not advocate?   Will Beback  talk  18:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The first wikipedia editor edited for money, and did so for quite some time. You consider this to be a problem?

The issue is one of time and money. If we want people to spend more than their regular free time on maintaining the wiki; or even work on it full time, we need to somehow pay their rent/mortgage in the mean time.

I wonder what happens to your bright line when it comes to marriage?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 11:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

"If we want people to spend more than their regular free time on maintaining the wiki; or even work on it full time,..." Where has this been identified as a goal?   Will Beback  talk  19:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Time to get serious

This discussion has gone around in circles for a long time.

I think rather than waste everybody's time, it's best to put some text in that a) reflects current policy and b) has a chance of being accepted by a consensus of editors (which is perhaps the same thing as a)). The minority opinion here wants to outline where paid editing is acceptable, which is not just writing down the current policy in a clear statement, but trying to change current policy.

Is there a reason that the project page does not reflect the majority view? The proposed wording above seems like a very good place to start. Smallbones (talk) 03:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Disagree discussion has gone in circles although the heat has cooled a bit which is good. To clarify, could you link to which policy you think isn't already covered? Advocacy is addressed with due weight and there seems no policy about Paid editing itself. -- Banjeboi 04:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Paid_editing#Proposed_replacement_text and Jimbo's statement on the matter. Smallbones (talk) 13:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not ok with me that anyone ever set up a service selling their services as a Wikipedia editor, administrator, bureaucrat, etc. I will personally block any cases that I am shown.... the idea that we should ever accept paid advocates directly editing Wikipedia is not ever going to be ok. Consider this to be policy as of right now.... Just imagine the disaster for our reputation. Are we free and independent scribes doing our best to record all human knowledge? Or are we paid shills. I know what I choose. Jimbo Wales

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.

— Upton Sinclair

I've also put in the quote from Upton Sinclair on why discussion with paid editors can be very frustrating. IMHO we should generally keep them off the talk pages. Smallbones (talk) 13:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you just proved my point, there is still no policy forbidding paid editing. Just in case you wish to gloss over it again ... Jimbo's statement is not a new defacto policy and it simply doesn't cover this issue the way in which you seem to suggest. And Sinclair's quote is interesting but I could toss in a few dozen that would calso confuse the issue and not build consensus so let's steer away from that. -- Banjeboi 13:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a consensus system. We respect both majority and minority views. Be very careful before you disenfranchise either view.

If we want to change the world so that free/open content becomes more common, we are going to need to find a working payment model. Not just for a free encyclopedia, but for free music, free movies, free books, etc...

So that's the very good reason why some people want to allow paid editing. The conflict of interest examples and paid advocacy examples are all very nice, but to some extent they act as strawmen when discussing the above. I'm not talking about paid advocacy. I'm talking about recompensing regular editing.

There are a large number of scenarios that allow paid editing that do not involve conflict of interest. If I had a million dollars, and I wanted to help wikipedia, I might want to pay several people to go full-time on wikipedia, for instance.

If we can agree on some base rules, the WMF might even be able to obtain that kind of money. But as it stands, where the community might reject recompense for editing sight unseen, I think that that plan is going to remain shelved for a while longer.

And my dreams of wiki-world domination shall have to remain dreams for now. --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Good points actually, I hadn't even thought of some of these issues. -- Banjeboi 13:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

While we work on such a model, doesn't it make sense to write down what is currently being practiced? Right now there are several admins, including Jimbo, who will block users for paid editing of some sorts (well encapsulated in Jimbo's post). It seems like there is a public benefit to writing this down somewhere. The text I proposed above (I should probably move it to a subpage) is intended to reflect current practice, which there is currently no consensus to change. (That's the intent, at least, I would invite criticism indicating where I fall short of that goal.) --TeaDrinker (talk) 13:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You have a point that it is a current practice. But at the same time, some people vandalize wikipedia too. That's also a current practice. ;-) Just not a best practice.

I think it would be a good idea to sit around the table with those people who would block out of hand. --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and created a page for the alternative text at Wikipedia:Paid editing/Alternative text, incorporating two suggested changes from the version above. I welcome further revision, of course. I don't think we should get into the role of Jimbo in Wikipedia's governance. At present, he has the ability to block users and no one can reverse them. Per Will's point above, we've never come up with an instance of any admin blocking a user for paid editing of some sort, only to have the block reversed. That being the case, we need to make sure new editors know what this de facto policy. It also gives us a starting place for a discussion of policy change. I would encourage you to take a look at the current text and see if there's something in it you don't think is an accurate portrayal of the current situation (I realize you disagree with the current situation). Thanks, --TeaDrinker (talk) 14:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo's role is being questioned formally in a few venues. These are thoughtful discussions but it doesn't help anything to put him as the omniscience blocker of some sort. IMHO, better to not invoke that as it's likely just not needed, and this is a very new concept for most people so we also don't need to be in a rush on this. Disagree that this is the defacto policy, I could just as easily point out that paid editing has been going on on in various forms without those editors ever being blocked - I don't think that's policy either. And yes, some are quite likely admins, who are, after all, just editors with more tools. -- Banjeboi 15:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I know Jimbo's role is questioned by many (although I doubt even he would describe himself as "omniscience." Maybe omnipotent...). If we can sidestep the issue, all the better. It is currently the case that he has de facto authority; to deny this is to simply not be in tune with reality. If we write a document which does not reflect this reality, the document will be meaningless. As far as people currently editing for pay, please point them out. --TeaDrinker (talk) 15:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I cannot deny that which is de-facto policy, no matter how much it pains me. I would be denying my own philiosophy if I opposed someone writing it down. Just write it down, put a policy tag on, and stab a knife through my heart while you're at it :-( I'll support you all the way.

At most we can mention that this current policy is under discussion at this point in time. --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I would have similar feelings if I held similar views. Nevertheless, I would ask if you think Wikipedia:Paid editing/Alternative text is a reasonable reflection of current practice. I think, if nothing else, current practice makes a good starting place for discussions of change. --TeaDrinker (talk) 15:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Limited goals

I would ask if we have consensus on each of the following points:

1. This is not a referendum on Jimbo's role in governance. At present he has at least the ability to enforce his statement and there is no consensus to oppose it. Anything we write here needs to reflect that.
2. Absent consensus from the RfC and considering Jimbo's statement which is taken by some to have the force of policy, our immediate goal should be to establish a policy which reflects current practice.
3. The current text does not reflect current practice.
4. The same text does not reflect the consensus of editors.

Do we all agree on these points? --TeaDrinker (talk) 14:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No - I don't agree with point 2. A policy should document current practice that we believe is best practice, not just any old current practice - see WP:POLICY. Current practice that is not generally agreed to be best practice should not be given the force of policy. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

(i) Do you agree with the other points and (ii) would agree to point 2 if the words "establish a policy" were replaced by "establish a document"? --TeaDrinker (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I am happy with the other points as descriptive statements of fact. I think the problem with point 2 is that you are trying to prescribe what the goals of this process should be - and I see no consensus emerging on either goals or approach. I certainly see no point in having a goal of simply documenting the current muddle and confusion. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You make a very good point. Would it be appropriate to have a page, marked "Descriptive of present practice" or some such term? I didn't mean to imply the long term goal of this process was not to develop a policy rooted in consensus. But I think a description of present practice would provide a good starting place for that discussion, and it would provide guidance to editors who are trying, in good faith, to be good editors. It would be unfortunate to have someone, for instance, take a contract with a company to work on their behalf, then get blocked for their trouble. Is there a harm in writing down the present practice (and marking it as such)? --TeaDrinker (talk) 19:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I really am opposed to these statements and generally bristling at what seems to be a powermove to enforce one POV versus all others. IMHO, when there is sharp disagreements we work to find common ground as that's more likely to stick anyway. Who cares if one wins some temporary battle if everything is rewritten and refocused in a month? Is there some pressing concern of pillagers at the gates just beating our doors to get a job editing here? The RfC was pretty clear that there isn't a consensus and the summary of that RfC itself is a mess. If this page is to reflect community consensus and there isn't even a clear summary of that then if think it's fair to say we have to consider multiple viewpoints and do so with care. If an overwhelming majority agreed upon anything we would have less ambiguity as to what direction to take. As I see it our job is to help those seeking clarity find it. Ergo we must seek that clarity ourselves on an issue that only has so much of it. -- Banjeboi 15:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it point 2 that you bristle at, or all four? I had thought you'd go along with 3 and 4 since you had the notion of rewriting original proposal yourself, at one point. It's fine if you oppose all four of course, but I just wanted to be clear (if we can get some consensus on something, it would make everyone all sorts of happy, I'm sure). --TeaDrinker (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the four points - we might be able to go a bit further and put in some ideas of what the policy should be, but only after a description of the current policy. I'll ask Banjeboi to look at his own actions. Who is trying to "enforce one POV versus all others?" Who has refused to modify his views and move toward consensus? Who is trying to change policy via this process? Smallbones (talk) 16:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

All policies are documents. ;-) Jimbo overrides all others; so while not strictly consensus (WP:CONEXCEPT), I agree that what you have been stating is current de-facto policy as practiced. But describe and attribute it correctly, as if writing an NPOV article: "Jimbo and several admins currently block for this practice. Others are not so happy with such blocking, but we would strongly recommend you don't actually try to do paid editing at the moment" - but then appropriately boringized and with less weasel-words, perhaps.

Incidentally, I predict that the current de-facto policy may well provoke an actual substantial fork in the not-too-distant future, if left unchanged. --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC) and no, I shan't be the forker. Don't look at me like that!';

Everybody except Banjeboi seems to agree with points 3 and 4 - that the current text on the page does not reflect current practice or consensus. I object to his multiple reversions [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] of the revisions of myself and others. Consensus does not mean that we can only agree with his preferred version - it means that everybody gets to contribute! In particular it means "Consensus is one of a range of policies regarding how editors work with each other, and part of the fourth pillar of the Wikipedia code of conduct. Editors typically reach a consensus as a natural outcome of wiki-editing. Someone makes a change to a page, then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to leave it as it is, or change it." Why is it that only Banjeboi is allowed to change it (or else be reverted by Banjeboi)? Please stand back and let others contribute - if not on the actual project page, then at least on an alternative page that is linked to the project page. Smallbones (talk) 03:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

No one is stopping drafting of proposed versions and such. We don't slap a link to the alternative version on the top of the page however nor do we usually include it at all. We link to it from the discussion - which I think has already happened and actually discuss changes. Trying to single me out as the lone holdout of some sort is also unhelpful to collaborative editing. You seem to believe that a policy exists when it really doesn't and others are working on a NPOV way to try to word what the actual current status is - at some point I thin we'll have to lean on other community discussions to see a best practices wording for Jimbo's current role and what due weight to put on his statement. Meanwhile, as evident in the RfC on this issue the community is divided, we should fairly and accurately reflect the various viewpoints without blame or demonizing editors who either engage in or oppose the concept of paid editing. The strong-arming shows you have a passion about this - fine. Personally I don't care that much except I don't want good editors driven away. I'm utterly convinced that someone who is a paid editor who causes no actual problems is in fact causing no problems. Unless this information is revealed in some way we likely would never know. To me this is analogous to imposing a policy that no green-eyed editors are allowed here; it pushes people who have green eyes but still want to contribute into a closet needlessly. The core concern with this issue, IMHO, is that being a paid editor can easily lend itself to advocacy and cause problems for these editors from editors likel yourself who can't seem to understand that a paid editor may easily be causing no problems ergo may cause problems for them without due cause. I think we should keep all parties in mind here and encourage best practices as opposed to leaps of bad faith and ominous "you'll be banned/blocked" statements without proper context. If everyone else feels I'm misinterpreting things or am the sole voice of these concerns fighting an overwhelming consensus I'm happy to walk away. Let me know as I have been crafting a draft but if my input is that off-base i probably shouldn't waste everyone's time and energy. -- Banjeboi 04:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Just don't try to impose your ideas by multiple reversions. Either let me and others edit, or walk away - it's your choice. Smallbones (talk) 04:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I think a dispassionate and objective look at the various reversions, which is after all still red herrings to the actual issues here, would show I was pushing for discussion via the WP:BRD process. In any case we have a talkpage so let's work on utilizing that to find common ground for moving forward. -- Banjeboi 04:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Trying to reconcile RfC with current page

“ This page in a nutshell: This was a Request for comment on paid editing. No clear consensus emerged from the discussion.

Rootology's opening view was that motivation for editing is not important, it is the end result of that editing - the content - that matters. They asserted that if the content is policy compliant, there shouldn't be a problem, and this viewpoint received 102 support votes, the most of any statement. While there were few other statements directly in favour of paid editing, iridescent felt allowing it would be a net positive because a declaration of intent would reveal potential bias; pfctdayelise pointed out that the German Wikipedia had allowed paid editing; David Shankbone said that existing policies take care of conflict of interest issues; LessHeard vanU felt that we all have an inclination toward bias which the shared editing process would hopefully amalgamate to a neutral point of view, and expressed a common view that editors should reveal any potential bias, such as a relationship with the subject, or a financial gain. Thekohser asserted that most experienced paid content editors are likely producing higher-quality, more compliant content than volunteer editors.

The majority of those that offered their own opinion statements felt that paid editing was a conflict of interest which should be discouraged or controlled in some way - Jimbo Wales stated that he would block any user selling their services as a Wikipedia editor, and that he considered it policy not to accept paid advocates directly editing Wikipedia. Some 66 support votes were cast for this view, the highest among any statement criticizing paid editing. FayssalF suggested a template to identify articles which had been edited by paid editors; YellowMonkey gave an example of a known paid article on a businessman which did not contain details of lawsuits for fraud against the businessman; Fred Bauder felt that endorsement of paid advocacy opened the door to influencing Wikipedia content.

”

The above is the nutshell from the RfC; while I personally would wish it be a bit less personality driven it does seem to fairly summarize the RfC itself.

1. I think our current page does include these points although certainly could be improved. I wonder if we should look to this as the actually community consensus on the various concerns and issues and

help guide what we present here.

2. I'm not convinced that we should include the statement that Jimmy Wales stated he would block any editor selling their services and paid advocates. The discussion there was quick to point out that didn't seem to align with consensus, he might have the authority to declare a policy as such, respected admins and editors outed themselves as paid editors (and had done so previously) and didn't appreciate having a potential block hanging over their heads and any unwarranted block likely would be reversed as a bad block anyway, etc. According to Wikipedia:Role of Jimmy Wales, as a general principle, he has been unwilling to act in contravention of community consensus. In this case there is no consensus but somewhat contradictory statements.

3. Jimbo's statement also seemed to advised that interested paid editors should write under open license like we do here and post it elsewhere for other Wikipedians to use as they see fit in whole or part - if it's quality work we likely will use it.

4. Jimbo's statement also says that paid advocates should use the talkpages to express their interests

There are other issues but these seem to be the main sticking points as I see them. -- Banjeboi 07:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow entirely. What was it from the RfC that you felt had consensus (the points included in the current page)? As far as Jimbo's statement, he seems perfectly happy to block at the present. He has done so in the past and has said he will do so again. To avoid stating this would be misleading. It is another question what he will do if faced with a consensus of editors who oppose his policy, but that is not the case presently (although he lacks consensus support). I agree with points three and four. --TeaDrinker (talk) 15:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)