Wikipedia talk:Paid editing (guideline)

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)

I have strong doubts that Jimbo's views will be enforced. His actions may or may not be overturned, but we don't have to construct our policy around his whims. Let's be a little more thoughtful and balanced. Dcoetzee 21:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, do you mean you don't think he would today block a user who sets up MyWikiBiz2 on Wikipedia? What has changed? Who would overturn his block (and get away with it)? --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo can do many things. He can (and has) delete things against consensus. He can (and has) desysop admins without due process. Does this mean we should encourage all admins and bureaucrats to emulate him? Of course not. If Jimbo blocks a user, he'll probably get away with it. But no other admin should block a user who is not acting in violation of our policies. I'm also not arguing that he wouldn't; merely that he might overlook some of these users, his attention being devoted to other things. Dcoetzee 22:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

There is, I think it is safe to say, disagreement on the role of Jimbo in governance. I really don't think we need to make this page another referendum on governance, nor write something on the presumption he's going to be too distracted to issue a block. Do you disagree with either of these points? I will also note that I would feel perfectly comfortable issuing a block, if a case like MyWikiBiz came to my attention (and the user was determined to continue). If another editor unblocked the offending user, I'd send it to Jimbo. I think there are a fair number of editors who would see that sort of thing as already against existing policy and/or take Jimbo's statement to be policy. I don't think we need to pass judgement on this fact here, merely not deny it being a reality. --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me put it this way: say a user creates an account, and that account has zero edits. The same day they put up an advertisement off wiki to sell their services as an editor. Per existing policy, clearly the user is not eligible for a block, as they have done nothing at all on-wiki. Per Jimbo's edict, they would be blockable. Hence, the ability of Jimbo to create policy and his role in governance is very much at issue. If the people who support this type of block feel compelled to redirect every block to Jimbo so that he can use his ability to override policy and consensus to enforce them, they can go ahead - it'll only accelerate his deposition. He only retains this power because he's been smart enough to not so recklessly abuse it. Dcoetzee 21:39, 5 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)

I think the present text was written for another purpose (propose new policy rather than write down current practice), and as such is entirely missing the boat. I have incorporated a small portion of it into my own proposed text, but most of the content I felt was unworkable, unwieldy, or novel. I didn't replace the text entirely, however, since I didn't feel like it had achieved a full enough discussion. I thought providing a link was an adequate compromise; I didn't revert your removal of it, but I am interested to hear what objection you have to merely linking an alternative wording. --TeaDrinker (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

We don't have pages then a link saying - "here's an alt version" - we work to incorporate all veiwpoints. I agree waht we currently have isn't ideal but I feel the proposed version is going to far in another direction. -- Banjeboi 00:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing inconsistent with proposing an alternative view. I'm not suggesting we have two policies, I suggest the present proposal is rejected and the best way to write it is replacement. May I ask what about my proposal you feel does not represent current practice? --TeaDrinker (talk) 12:46, 5 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)

the RfC summary gives an overview of what seems to be several consensus points - certainly there is no consensus that all paid editors should be blocked and that seems to be a sticking point here presently - declaring that to be the practice or policy when neither seems to be true. In short I think we can use the RfC as a guide to what we do here. -- Banjeboi 00:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what points you're seeing consensus on. I agree there is no consensus to block all editors who are paid to edit, although I would claim that there is a current practice (call it policy or not) to block users who engage in certain forms of paid editing. Would you agree with this latter statement? --TeaDrinker (talk) 12:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

My point is that the current consensus is that there is no consensus. The community does not agree on any particular point ergo we represent major views with due weight and dispassionately. -- Banjeboi 00:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there's no undisputed consensus (getting meta with talk about agreement over whether there's agreement). That is why I suggested we compose the page first as a document characterizing the present state of things. Do you agree that current practice does involve blocking some editors who persist in paid editing? --TeaDrinker (talk) 18:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't, advocacy yes but there are many editors who are paid who have outed themselves yet are not blocked so this is automatically unhelpful. It's better to stick with the problems that should be avoided or addressed if they persist. -- Banjeboi 02:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Tendentious editing

I repeat myself. Benjiboi has reverted essentially everything that other editors have added to the project page over the last month or so. [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]

That's during a period when there were about 10 non-Benjiboi edits. What can we do to open this page to non-Benjiboi editors? If only BB gets to edit this page it will go nowhere, stay in its current form and only be a potential source of confusion to editors. Can we at least get it marked as a "failed policy"?

I'll ask every editor who supports Benjiboi's reversions to indicate below. My guess is that only Benjiboi himself supports this non-consensus approach. Smallbones (talk) 16:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Please comment on content and not contributors. Per WP:BRD you were bold, I reverted and now we are discussing. No need to polarize these issues further. -- Banjeboi 00:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with Benjiboi's edits. You were bold with a complete re-write, he reverted - nothing wrong with that. I agree that this policy proposal is not making much progress, but I don't think that is the fault of any single editor - it just reflects the fact that there we are not approaching a consensus on this issue. Being adversarial won't help matters, though. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

That might explain 1 revert, but there are 7 reverts given above - a clear pattern, reverting single lines, phrases, etc., etc. There's a clear problem of WP:Ownership here, and BB should not suggest that it is my fault that I had to point it out to him.

Given that BB will accept that others are allowed to edit without constant reversions, there should be no problem. I will now insert Jimbo's statement of policy on the issue of paid editing from the RFC. This is as clear as statement of policy as we have had on the matter, and it is generally accepted that Jimbo has the right to make policy statements like this. I know that there are some who dispute his right to do this, but there are better places to dispute that than here. Smallbones (talk) 18:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm generally more forgiving of reverts on policy/policy proposal pages since the discussion is more intensive. Of course, there's nothing that should prohibit people from editing. I think we have a consensus that the present page does need work (insert plug for my complete revision here...), so it is not a problem to make bold changes. I do think, however, reverts should be perhaps discussed a bit more here than they are. (I just made a few bold changes myself.) --TeaDrinker (talk) 19:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Non-profit status of Wikimedia foundation

I removed the following from the proposal:

The Wikimedia Foundation is a not-for-profit corporation and allowing any person to use its assets for personal gain may violate Article VI of its bylaws, and threaten its not-for-profit tax status. More importantly, allowing any person to post articles for profit will reduce Wikipedia's credibility, and would likely hurt the foundation's fundraising efforts.

I am not sure that it is legally true that allowing paid editing would potentially hurt its nonprofit status. I would hesitate to make a legal claim based on our own interpretation of the law, but count on the Wikimedia staff attorney to step in if there's a problem that would put the foundation at risk. I agree, however, that the credibility of Wikipedia would be damaged, but think that is evident enough in the remaining text. Thoughts? --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure that letting some paid editing slip by is not going to affect the non-profit status, especially if there is some gain to the project such as better articles. I'm equally sure that there is a level (probably fairly high) of using Wikipedia for any profit making activity which doesn't benefit the foundation's purpose would result in revocation of the non-profit status. That's why it's "may violate." I'd guess the foundation's lawyers would want to stay out of this. But please ask them if you wish. Smallbones (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Better yet, ask User:Newyorkbrad if he is still around. I'm not a lawyer, but have dealt with this on a professional level, and all non-profit directors have to worry about somebody using the foundation's assets for personal profit-making. There's not many times where editors have to deal with the non-profit status of Wikipedia, but when they are dealing with editing for profit, it's time to at least think about it. I don't think that the credibility issue is dealt with enough in the remaining text (except for the Jimbo quote) and the fund raising aspect is not dealt with at all - and it would be a very real problem. Smallbones (talk) 23:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this is covered by You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 and the GFDL. You agree to be credited, at minimum, through a hyperlink or URL when your contributions are reused in any form. See the Terms of Use for details. Non-profits are subject to this for assets they don't freely give away. Am I missing something here? Why is this an issue on this issue? -- Banjeboi 00:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are totally missing the point. Non-profits are not allowed to let people use their assets to make a profit (with some conditions). If they did this is could be viewed as a form of tax evasion, hiding a for-profit enterprise under the veil of a non-taxable non-profit organization. Smallbones (talk) 03:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Likely there is a more clear explanation but this really doesn't seem to bear on paid editing issues at all. There may be more to this but rather than spinning our wheels here perhaps getting a lawyer-ish and official-ish response from the foundation would make the most sense. If we do include anything it should be clear and accurate IMHO. -- Banjeboi 10:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales quote

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

I don't dispute that some mention of this can be helpful somewhere but Wales' role is and even this statement was a source of debate in the RfC, we need to find a NPOV of presenting this. -- Banjeboi 00:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Another revert, but at least you didn't revert everything I included! Wales' role is not really something that should be considered while writing every policy. Please take it to WP:Jimbo or other page that discusses his role in general. Just a small thing as well: WP:NPOV refers to article content, not to policies. Policies should, in my view, reflect the POV of the editing community. Writing about a policy being NPOV, in my view, just doesn't make sense. Could you rephrase with more accurate wording? Smallbones (talk) 00:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Please stop beating the drum of oppression it's not true and is really not helping anything. I'm concerned we are cherry-picking part of his statement as well as giving it more due weight than needed or appropriate. You likely would feel similar if I plopped in a quote that opposed your POV, you'd quite rightly question why should such a thing be so prominent or even used at all. We can fairly summarize his statement where needed without quoting, IMHO. FWIW, we reference his statement three times that I'm aware of without directly quoting, i feel this is fine and we have accurately summarized his view. -- Banjeboi 00:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Examples removed

“
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.
6. A public relations firm or lawyer writes or edits articles that further their employer's interests (other than correcting violations of WP:Biographies of living persons)

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.

”

I've removed these as needlessly causing more drama and wikilawyering; let's keep it simple so anyone reading the page actually reads it and knows whether there is a problem with their case or not and where to go if they're not sure. -- Banjeboi 00:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Well now it looks like you are reverting everything again. The problem with the page as it stands now is that an editor looking at it would not be sure what is forbidden, and what is ok. It looks pretty much like mumbo-jumbo to me, that hints that almost everything is ok, unless you get caught! The policy needs specifics, if only in examples. Smallbones (talk) 00:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, WP:BRD, you were bold and I edited, that's what we do here. You seem to be just as tendentious as anyone else here so let's drop it and discuss improvements, OK? My main concerns are that it needlessly digresses. We should state X, Y, and Z are prohibited. And we do that. Lists of examples on policy pages cause drama, those who are likely causing problems will argue - Wikilawyer - endlessly that example X doesn't ap[ply to them and really is poorly worded so what they are doing is fine. Be concise and clear and let more experienced editors and admins step in if they really are disrupting by gong against consensus or conducting advocacy. We also need to separate out advocacy as I did. All advocacy bad. Full stop, don't quibble on paid advocacy really bad and drill down into examples. Short and simple this is bad, so is this, ___ behaviour is as well - don't do it. Also some of these examples are quite flawed, many people do edit here for their employers, we even encourage it. -- Banjeboi 01:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, you revert almost everything. The page is essentially the same as it was yesterday, and the day before, and the day before, etc. etc. And it is a mess. You have a real problem with WP:Ownership here. Consider this to be your 2nd warning. I'll reinsert the Jimbo quote. You say parts of it can go in in other places. If so do it and it would be nice if you said which parts you don't want in there. But it is relevant and Wikipedia policy, whether you disagree with that policy or not! Just reverting ad infinitum is pure obstrutionism. Smallbones (talk) 01:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It would help to keep discussion organized if you keep the quote topic discussion in that section. And no, I have been discussing here the entire time. Only reverting bold edits that seem to contradict current policies or cause more problems. We're here to help ur editors not find ways to punish them. You really might want to read over the entire RfC instead of just one paragraph of Jimmy Wales' statement. -- Banjeboi 01:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Bringing it back to to the topic of these edits, Banjboi can you show instances where the inclusion of examples causes drama when there was not an otherwise significant issue? --TeaDrinker (talk) 18:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

To stay completely constructive I will simply state that this list has already caused drama but that is really besides the point, likewise it seems a bit wikilawyering to debate where examples help or hurt on other pages. Certainly there are examples of eacj but that too would deflect from simply working to suss out which of these would actually help here. My hunch is that there might be some useful bits in here that can be woven into more helpful text. I simply see most examples as misleading, conflating and confusing. We have examples of admins who have been paid editors who seemingly don't cause problems and are not blocked, do I think we should belabour the point and insert that as an acceptable example? Not really, we could have rather lengthy lists and argue about them endlessly and it's really not adding much. Let's ask ourselves if there is anything useful and not already covered. If we can sat something in 1000 words let's not bother writing 10,000. -- Banjeboi 01:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I entirely follow. I know of no instances where writing a policy with examples has caused drama where none would otherwise exist. If you have clear cases where it has occured, please describe them. I should also point out most policies have examples of one sort or another. Is there any reason you see that this document should be different? As far as your administrators, to be blunt, I don't believe there are administrators openly editing for pay, at least in a manner which would fall into the categories of inappropriate behavior described above. Can you provide any evidence of the veracity of your claim? --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I think again we're veering away from actually helping anyone. It seems pointless to quibble about other pages when we need to see if any examples will actually help here. Likewise discussing admins, I've answered this already and I think discussing it further distracts us from actually improving this page. We could have endless examples of good, bad and questionable paid editing. Lists can be quite useful but in this case i don't see these as helping. I see such examples used by folks who want to do something wrong and instead of following common sense, civility and other policies they use a wobbly example to support their action(s). Lets stick to the basics, Every example so far including the latest - "lawyers" and "public relations" professionals is also flawed. If we emphasize that the issue is the behaviours and editing then examples may be completely unneeded and therefore less likely to confuse the issues. An example should clarify and illustarte and we don't have one yet that seems to do that. -- Banjeboi 22:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to admit, I have trouble imagining scenarios of issues in the grey area if they are well described by these examples. But I welcome suggestions of how to tighten them. If you see a probable scenario which one of the examples above describes, yet the outcome would not be the described conclusion, we should consider what about that case is different. --TeaDrinker (talk) 04:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Well the very first one is redundant, it's already stated as prohibited. The second one isn't prohibited and happens all the time, as long as the edits are policy compliant we really don't care. The third one is false, when did it become a blockable offense not to proclaim one was hoping to earn a bounty? The fourth one is also not prohibited, it depends on the editing actually, again if they adhere to content and behaviour policies there wouldn't seem to be an issue. The next one is redundant as we already state advocating - paid or not - is prohibited. The last in that first series is vague, if they are indeed advocating then they are coached not to and dealt with if they don't stop. -- Banjeboi 10:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) So the heart of the disagreement for you is not examples per se, but these examples specifically. I submit that if you agree 1 and 5, it is perfectly reasonable to include them in the article. Isn't that a reasonable compromise? Who is this "we" you refer to? --TeaDrinker (talk) 05:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Lets address "An editor responds to a freelance jobs board posting to write and submit content on Wikipedia." first. How is this not setting up a service to edit Wikipedia? How is this not prohibited? --TeaDrinker (talk) 06:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

My point is that we likely don't need any examples. Once this becomes a policy page perhaps examples would be helpful as is stated elsewhere. Until then these most likely are used by folks who want to skirt the spirit of policies on both sides; both in advocating and being uncivil to those perceived to be paid editors. Focus on the policy-based problems not the moral issues. The body text should be clear why there are issues, where to go if you think there is cause for concern - because people are blocked for disruption, not getting paid - and offer links to more relevant pages for clarity. -- Banjeboi 22:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Disclosure

Resolved

 – Used text from COI policy

Disclosures shouldn't be obscure. If a reader or another editor are interested in a topic, they shouldn't have to make a dozen clicks and several searches to find out if one of the editors has an acknowledged conflict of interest. So I changed

• Editors with a conflict of interest should disclose this conflict, either on their user page, on the article talk page, or at the WP:Conflict of interest noticeboard.

To

• Editors with a conflict of interest should disclose this conflict on their user page, on the article talk page, and at the WP:Conflict of interest noticeboard.

Though I think a disclosure on the COIN is probably unnecessary unless there are special circumstances.   Will Beback  talk  00:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with:

• Editors with a conflict of interest should disclose this conflict on their user page, and on the article talk page.

but the other is ok too. Smallbones (talk) 00:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I've removed this completely per WP:AGF. It's unneeded and sets up battleground mentality. Unless someone's editing or behaviour is actually causing problems we actually don't care what religion they are, what their political and cultural views are etc. As long as they adhere to NPOV policies the work should be fine. We have no sign at the door that editors must wear a badge of disclosure to all their possible bias. It's also unenforcible, "ADMIN: Are you affiliated with company X?" - "EDITOR: No." So really we go by the edits. If they are poor and bias they should be fixed or removed. If they aren't then likely they can stay - even bias editors can make good edits we don't automatically delete all their work. we keep what works for us. -- Banjeboi 01:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

So that's absolutely everything done today that you've reverted, despite 2 editors who think the wording is fine. You don't like it so it goes. If I understand your logic correctly, we don't need to warn paid editors about their behavior, because we assume good faith. If that's the case we don't need any policies at all. Smallbones (talk) 01:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The WP:COI calls for disclosure and this is just advise anyway. I believe that if paid editing is going to occur it must be transparent. Does anyone think tere is a consensus to allow secret paid editing?   Will Beback  talk  01:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the wording is the issue. I'm afraid every alrtiacle could have a list of COI editors, On heterosexual do we really need a list of every editor who is or isn't? Is that meaningful or helpful? On Martha Stewart do we really benefit from a list of everyone who is connected to her or opposed to her professionally (competitors) listed there? We should only bother raising the flag if we see a problem. editors are not required to disclose COI. Send those interested to COI which states that but also adds "Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over this guideline on conflict of interest." So let's keep it short and simply and discuss the problem behaviours and direct tham to the main articles where we can. -- Banjeboi 01:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

We're not talking about every conceivable COI - we're talking about paid editing. Unless you can show some sign that undisclosed piad editing has community approval I'm going to restore it.   Will Beback  talk  02:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should just delete the entire advise section. It's all stuff made up by editors here, and there are plenty of other policies and guidelines. I don't see why we should suggest that paid editors register a user account, or warn them that their contributiosn may be edited mercilessly - those are already covered in other pages. So are the copyright issues. Why repeat them here?   Will Beback  talk  02:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This page was originally created as an informational summary of existing policy relevant to paid editing. These policies in particular are useful for paid editors to know and remember. I don't see the issue. Dcoetzee 03:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, apparently there's a problem with citing the relevant WP:COI language. If that's not going to be allowed by editor here I'm not sure what criteria is being used to decide which advice to offer paid editors. Why are these tips beibng offered, but not others?   Will Beback  talk  03:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the advice section might need to be reworked and merged appropriately as a few items already have been. I see two main concerns now. Some feel we are advising how to with this section while another issue is that we are over- or under- comprehensive. Would it make more sense to avoid calling it "advice" altogether and find ways to turn it into prose? -- Banjeboi 10:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the COI entry. If we're going to include an advice section it's important.   Will Beback  talk  02:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

You also missed that the same information is covered in teh section preceeding the advice section so I've removed the redundancy. I thin all the advice section should be similarly converted as appropriate. -- Banjeboi 16:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Time

Since everything I've done today has now been reverted twice, without meaningful discussion, and Banjeboi has even accused me of edit warring in his edit summaries, I think it's time we move on to some sort of dispute resolution process, that will actually open up the possibility that BB will let me contribute something to this page and not be immediately reverted. I'll let BB decide which process he want to go through, but I'll ask other editors to comment here. Smallbones (talk) 04:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

BB's reversions of myself and others [15] Today's last reversion

[16] today

[17] today

[18] today, revert labelled "Merging"!

Over the last month (when there were only about 10 non-Banjiboi edits) [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]

I don't know what you think "dispute resolution" will achieve. You believe Jimbo's quote should be included; Banjeboi thinks it shouldn't. You have tried to insert it several times; he has removed it each time. There is no right answer here, and the attitude and approach of both of you is equally confrontational. At the moment, we have no paid editing policy in Wikipedia (apart from the extent to which it is already covered by WP:COI), there is absolutely no sign of consensus emerging here on a paid editing policy, and the lack of wider community involvement shows that most editors don't think a paid editing policy is necessary. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Smallbones is again personalizing and creating a battleground where none is needed. This isn't helpful or constructive and despite their claims meaningful discussion from myself is quite obvious to anyone who bothers to read this page. Most editing here has been constructive and civil from most editors. And no, many of the changes, even the bold ones have not simply been reverted. I'm cautious about starting any RfC until we actually feel we're near a point where it will do some good and be the only one needed as sadly the community at large doesn't seem to have a lot of energy for quibbling on each successive round of nuance. Gandalf61's points are also well-put. I tend to agree that as passionate as it can be at times there is only so much interest in this. IMHO, we should strive so that potential writers and future editors several months from now can look at this page as a quite helpful reference - much like an article - and get a clear explanation and direction where to turn if they then determine they need more help. I'm opposed to demonizing all paid editing and declaring a pox and pending ban on such editors. I'm equally opposed to misrepresenting that there is no issues of concern regarding these activities. we should be clear and dispassionate to shed light on the issues. -- Banjeboi 10:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Would you be be interested in WP:MedCab? I'm sure you know the basic problem - you've taken ownership of the page and revert all edits from anybody other than yourself. I find this unacceptable. Everybody should be allowed to edit - even unpaid editors! Smallbones (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm working toward consensus here and really don't see these efforts as helping as much as entrenching your position that everything I do is bad here. That seems like a really bad opening statement for any dispute. You've advocated for adding some rather undue weight for your position and I have advocated for following the community's stated POV's all be presented with due weight to each accordingly as evident from the RfC on this issue. I trust you mean well but I do think your creating problems when it's not needed. If your goal is to push me away and insert "Paid editing is wrong and those editors will be blocked" what will it get you if that is not accurately reflect the status quo? Will you work to push away the next editor(s) who come along and correctly rewrite everything to be NPOV? It would be better to simply find the commonalities and then see if what we have is lacking. If we come down to one actual question that we simply can't agree then we ask for more opinions to see if consensus can lead to a better decision. -- Banjeboi 01:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Tip: Don't start an RFC unless you are either desperate or insane. ;-)

In the mean time: The most recent point Smallbones and Benjiboi seem to disagree on here was the Quote by Jimbo. Why is that quote important to keep/remove respectively? Would you each care to explain your reasoning? (or link to where your reasoning was presented earlier?)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 01:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree for now on the RfC, I see little good coming from it and i feel we only get one. The main points against quoting Wales' verses citing it are here, I know it's been previously discussed as well. -- Banjeboi 16:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Try again for the introduction

I think that it is important to include something about the Wikimedia Foundation being a non-profit. Non-profits cannot accept donations and then allow those donations to be used, willy-nilly, by others to make a profit.

I'd start with Jimbo's comment - it really is very clear on certain things - and then include something like this:

"The Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., the parent organization of Wikipedia, is a nonprofit charitable organization that accepts donations, to support Wikipedia’s goal of building an encyclopedia that is available to the public free of charge. Editors who put their personal goal of profit making before Wikipedia’s goal undermine the entire effort by reducing the credibility of the encyclopedia and, almost inevitably, by decreasing charitable donations. Paid editors are also more likely to violate Wikipedia policy on WP:Neutral point of view and guidelines such as WP:Conflict of Interest and WP:Spam.

"Paid editors have been blocked for their activities since at least 2006. However all editors who accept money for activities related to Wikipedia are not necessarily considered paid editors, for example those who are paid through the bonus board. Paid editing has been a controversial practice because some editors believe that simply accepting payment does not reduce the quality of an article, and because it is not always clear who is considered a paid editor. This guideline/policy is meant to clarify who is considered to be a paid editor."

Then include categories or examples of who is generally considered to be a paid editor and who is not. This is the meat of the matter, and what my interest is here. The vague generalities that have been included so far are not helpful IMHO.

Then I think we should get rid of most of the "Advice" section. It could be read as advice on how to avoid being caught as a paid editor.

Hope this helps - feel free to include this or your version of it, or just tell me where I'm wrong.

Smallbones (talk) 17:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Including Jimbo quote(s) IMHO isn't needed as I've stated above. If we correctly and NPOV summarize and a quote isn't actually needed then it would seem to add undue weight. The non-profit statement seems a red herring. I'll of course defer to one of the many lawyers to answer this better but the crux is that if someone writes something and publishes it as wikipedia article content then there seems no legal ground to suggest they stole or are profiting; the claim that someone is profiting from Wikipedia accepting and using their work also seems flat as Wikipedia is set up to accept and publish everyone's contributions.
If you include a statement that paid editors have been blocked since 2006 you also have to explain why they were actually blocked as it infers they were blocked for paid editing when that doesn't seem to be accurate. You'd also need to explain paid editors have not been blocked so that whole thing likely should also just be left out. We have Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has previously blocked editors, and stated his support for blocking editors who set up an editing service this seems to cover the history without bothering into unhelpful details and case history. "Paid editors are also more likely to violate Wikipedia policy on WP:Neutral point of view and guidelines such as WP:Conflict of Interest and WP:Spam." I think you'd need to prove this and we've already seen paid editors whose work has not been an issue so this leads to some paid editing ... which is essentially already covered. "Paid editing has been a controversial practice" - actually what we have presently is more NPOV likely because there exists no consensus on what paid editing actually is. "This guideline/policy is meant to clarify who is considered to be a paid editor" - actually it's not as we aren't defining who a paid editor is but instead defining what the issues are, why there is disagreements and where to look if you are dealing with problems related to the issue including an editor POV-pushing or being Wikihounded by someone accusing you of Paid editing. Disagree about categories/examples but we are discussing that above. If we can find something that is helpful and isn't already covered then let's work on it there. "The vague generalities [...] are not helpful IMHO." Maybe plucjk a sentence out you feel is too vague that should be reworked. We need to follow the community's views on this or it will be worthless. The advice section is not there to advise on "how to avoid being caught as a paid editor" as paid editing is not forbidden so there is nothing to "catch" someone doing. This does clarify your interest so I appreciate that however I don't see any actual constructive changes as of yet. I do think the Advice section needs to be converted to prose as it does seem a bit NPOV but the actual information is fine. -- Banjeboi 02:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed "editing by public relations firms and lawyers"

I've reverted this addition of "such as editing by public relations firms and lawyers about people or firms that they represent," as unneeded and unhelpful. This is an example of a bad example. If someone is doing paid editing, and again we would likely not know it, and they are making good edits we don't really care. The issue isn't an editor's profession or pay grade or education or even their political/cultural beliefs and other biases. The issue is their editing. If their editing is acceptable then we don't care - if they are advocating then we don't care if they are paid or not. We want to encourage good editing and good behaviours. Paid editing brings up the issue that editors may have bias but as long as their editing and conduct is fine then there is really no issue. -- Banjeboi 02:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to make sure - you are against paid advocates editing on Wikipedia aren't you? The two examples of PR firms and lawyers editing for their clients are the most straightforward examples I can think of. Lawyers are, and are called, advocates in most countries. That's because they advocate for their clients, and not just in court. Our article on Lawyers uses the word "advocate" 36 times. It's what they are hired to do.

The example of public relations firms should be even more obvious. Their job is not to tell the truth or to write NPOV articles, but to "manage the information flow" about their clients. Most people would probably say their job is to pull the wool over the public's eyes. This is inherently a POV job, and the POV is their clients' POV. I am not "demonizing lawyers and PR firms" as you state in your edit summary, I'm only saying what they do disqualifies them from writing NPOV articles about their clients on Wikipedia. You cannot serve two masters at the same time.

If we can't be clear that some specific people are paid advocates, then all we would be doing is confusing the issue. Please come up with examples of paid advocates that you think are more obvious and replace them into the phrase that I'm putting back into the text. Smallbones (talk) 02:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that these are bad examples, but disagree with the idea that such people should not edit on behalf of their clients - they're people who can modify their behaviour to suit our policy framework, and have to if they don't want to get reverted. But yeah, a better example of a paid editor would be, for example, someone editing on behalf of a professional association with an interest in a certain topic area, such as electrical engineering or plumbing; or someone expanding the content associated with a particular nation, on behalf of their government. Dcoetzee 05:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking about lobbyists? If so, I agree, it's a good example and should be included with the others. If you are talking about an electrical engineer who is a member of a professional association writing about electrical engineering - I disagree. Perhaps an employee of the professional organization, but that's too vague - it depends what they are being paid to do. Lawyers, PR firms, lobbyists - it's pretty clear what they are being paid to do - advocate for their clients. Smallbones (talk) 02:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

If these folks clearly identify themselves as lawyers editing on behalf of their paid client they are very likely to be banned immediately. Another name for lawyers is "advocates". I cna't imagine a less-suitable editing situation.   Will Beback  talk  05:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless there are examples of paid editors who are lawyers who aren't advocating. Such as the ones who are already actively editing. No, singling out any profession is just as problematic. I appreciate this interest here but let's get this clear as it stands now editors are not banned simply for getting paid, they are treated with contempt if someone finds out they are paid and tried to hide that and if they are violating our advocacy, COI and NPOV rules. Perhaps you could answer this: Do you think that someone should be banned/blocked simply for getting paid if their editing is otherwise fine? If so could you explain why those editors who are paid editors either fully or in part have not been banned/blocked even though the community knows of their getting paid? And if we for some reason decide we should ban and block editors only because they are paid, how on Earth can we actually prevent any paid editing if we drive those editors underground into closets? I'll give you hint, paid editing goes on mostly without problems because most editors aren't working to compromise the project but ensure negative information is accurate and non-sensationalized and most bloat is quickly removed if it remains unsourced. -- Banjeboi 16:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

There's a confusion of terminology here. Lawyers are "advocates" for their clients - this points to a potential conflict of interest - but it does not automatically imply that their editing on Wikipedia will be in the form of POV advocacy. There's a reason COI is not bannable. This page should not focus on who is doing the editing but how they are editing. It may be useful to emphasise here ways in which Wikipedia editing differs from other activities that these professionals undertake, such as copywriting or defending, but let's not assign prejudicial guilt to anyone. Dcoetzee 19:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it may make sense to state this on the page perhaps even having a section who is a paid editor that expresses there is not set rule - ergo we focus on behaviours. Do you think that would help? -- Banjeboi 21:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of their own professional ethics, no lawyer should be editing Wikipedia articles related to their client without their client's informed consent. I have trouble imagining a scenario in which the client agrees to pay the lawyer to be totally neutral. A public relations firm is even worse, since their whole profession is to represent their clients in the best possible light. As it stands now, both of these individuals would be blocked if they did not agree to simply eschew any article space edits related to their client. Of course if editors happen to be lawyers/PR professionals, but their work on Wikipedia is unrelated to their client, no one would think twice. --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems bizarre to me to suppose that a public relations firm who is fully aware of our policies would still, like some kind of POV automaton, persist in making edits that they know would get reverted or deleted, get them blocked, and create bad press for their clients. In the context of Wikipedia portraying a client in the "best possible" light means following policies to the best of their ability. Dcoetzee 22:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

People engage in bizarre behavior that gets them blocked every day. NPOV does not mean that editors should portary subjects in the "best possible" light. Anyone who edits with that as their goal is engaged in advocacy and is in violation of Wikipedia policy.   Will Beback  talk  23:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Sigh, ok folks here we restate the mantra - if a lawyer or public relations professional or Martian or anyone else is making constructive edits that adhere to policies and their behaviour is aligned with consensus-building then we really don't care what planet they are from or what profession they ascribe to. We shouldn't bother creating fear in our own minds about all those nasty lawyers conspiring to undermine Wikipedia and instead focus on editors who behaviours go against policies and consensus-building regardless on their motivation and professional affiliations. If someone can't get along or seems unable to adhere to NPOV we helpfully show them the door. We don't care if they are paid or not. By that logic we would trust people that aren't paid more, and we don't. We extend good faith to all until that runs out, being paid does not erase good faith. -- Banjeboi 23:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to name specific professions that are engaged in advocacy. But advocacy, paid or unpaid, is forbidden. It is a natural assumption that anyone who is paid to edit is doing so in order to advocate, and realistically the burden would be on them to show that they are remaining scrupulously neutral.   Will Beback  talk  23:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It may be a natural assumption for you that "anyone who is paid to edit is doing so in order to advocate" but I disagree and so did many on the RfC, this is why paid editors are not assumed to be advocating. Perhaps we need to state that as well. -- Banjeboi 00:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Tell me again what these editors being paid to do? Fix spelling mistakes?   Will Beback  talk  00:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Expand content in an area regarding (or of interest to) their client, mainly. What did you think they'd do, delete anything they find offensive? Dcoetzee 03:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

By "expand" I assume you mean add. Isn't also likely that folks would be paid to delete information of disinterest to a client? What about editing material that's already there? How about arguing with other editors over content? Is there any reason to think that a contract would stop with simply expanding content?   Will Beback  talk  03:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

No, but nor should one suppose the opposite, that their contributions would consist mainly of POV warring. Dcoetzee 04:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we'd have to be pretty naive to think content "added" by paid PR people would be anything but positive for the company. Even if they are "only" expanding content, it is a pretty safe assumption they are not going to be neutral (based entirely in their paid arrangement to be non-neutral). Can you give me a scenario of acceptable paid PR editor behavior? --TeaDrinker (talk) 04:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I think that it is safe to assume that some people would abuse paid editing - putting in only good things about their clients, maybe even taking bad things out, and pushing POVs - as long as nobody tells them that this is a problem. How are they supposed to figure out that this is a problem, when some folks here say it's not a problem, unless they violate NPOV, COI, etc. and then they have to look through all that (and perhaps the collected works of Jimbo Wales) to figure out what they are allowed to do. I think one simple policy laid out in a clear manner - what's against the rules, what's not, who's likely to violate our rules (and who's not) according to what their profession is, and what they are being paid for - would do wonders as far as informing people and cutting down confusion.

Once a clear policy is written - then we can assume good faith by paid editors, in some cases the good faith of not contributing biased information here. Without a clear policy, all we can assume is confusion (perhaps it would be good faith confusion, but in practice confusion is just confusion)! When people are confused, they tend to assume that if they go over the limits, somebody will tell them what the problem is. But we would like to avoid the problem in the first place, and have a place to tell them what the rules are. And do remember, according to Jimbo Wales, there is a policy on this, but even we seem to be confused. (This writer excepted of cource :) ) Smallbones (talk) 04:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

We already have rather clear policies which are WP:NPOV and WP:CIVIL and WP:CONSENSUS. If paid editors are abiding by these policies the only issue that remains is a perceived moral concern of some Wikipedians which doesn't coincide with our guideline on assuming good faith that Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. We can't pretend policies exist where they don't and threaten editors with blocking when that is patently uncalled for. We should accurately and dispassionately report on the issue and help direct people to relevant policies and admin boards if they need more information or help. -- Banjeboi 10:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Amazon Mechanical Turks

I wasn't sure if any of these proposals/discussions specifically address edits made via Amazon Mechanical Turks. Just thought I'd point out that this has been used in the past to drive Wikipedia editing (it may still be in use, but I haven't seen it lately). For example, see [26], [27]. (I had left basically the same message at Talk:Amazon Mechanical Turk some time ago.) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Your question deserves a better answer, but I can only say your links (with just a little bit of digging) show that this is a (fairly common?) practice. Thanks for the heads up! Smallbones (talk) 18:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This does bring up a quite startling reality - paid editors are hardly guaranteed to even an adequate job and may be wasting an employer's money. It may be a much smarter investment to pay a researcher to write good copy adhering to Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines and freely license the work and let experienced Wikipedians do the actual adding of content. -- Banjeboi 10:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo's abdication of blocking

In the course of a recent dispute, Jimbo Wales voluntarily and permanently gave up blocking. While this does not of course invalidate Jimbo's views about paid editing, it does mean that he doesn't have the ability to enforce them unilaterally, which may affect the shaping of this policy. Dcoetzee 05:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I saw that too and added a footnote to this page. -- Banjeboi 13:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Added a note that Jimbo may not be the only one who can block on Wikipedia. --TeaDrinker (talk) 18:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This reminds me: Maybe we should add a section on paid admining. If it's OK to edit for pay I don't see why it should be a problem to block users or delete articles in exchange for payment (assuming all relevant policies are followed, of course). I imagine that many blocked editors would be willing to pay to get unblocked, for example. Any objections?   Will Beback  talk  18:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Arf, arf see below (btw, how much money are you talking about?), and how much would it cost to become an admin? Smallbones (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

We haven't addressed the matter of paying for !votes in an RFA, but it's another logical extension of paid editing. There doesn't appear to be any rule against it.   Will Beback  talk  18:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This is slippery slope nonsense. If there's not a rule regarding paying someone to unblock or to vote in a discussion, we make one. There obviously need to be limits to what an agent can do on behalf of a client to preserve the structure of our system. Dcoetzee 21:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

What limits do you propose?   Will Beback  talk  22:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This page used to say the limits I proposed: "Using administrator tools or participating in policy discussions for compensation of any kind is strictly forbidden". I think this is stronger than it needs to be, but little is lost in making such a restriction. Since then it's been revised into the current "disrupting the consensus processes" language in the Background section. Dcoetzee 00:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like reasonable language. Why was it changed? I don's see any explicit discussion of it.   Will Beback  talk  00:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope nobody took the little joke above seriously or considered it too irreverent. But maybe (a very little) humor on the talk page can loosen things up a bit. I hope that I didn't change the above language on administrators - I certainly support it now. There were 3 sentences in that paragraph, the 1st is great, the 2nd innocuous, and I didn't like the 3rd. "It is okay to share your viewpoint regarding content that you have contributed, but keep Wikipedia's larger goals in mind when doing so." That would seem to say that some of the fairly normal grandstanding, wikilawyering, calling in the calvary tactics (Am I exaggerating?) are ok. I don't think so. But maybe the compulsory COI statement for paid advocates would take some of that away. In short I support the 1st sentence. Smallbones (talk) 03:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The 3rd sentence was added because of this hypothetical scenario: someone writes an article for money and then that article is nominated for deletion. While we don't want any meatpuppets swinging AfDs, presumably we'd want the article's original author to at least be able to comment in that discussion. I think this is a limited and reasonable concession. Dcoetzee 03:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless I hear a good reason for the deletion, I'll restore Dcoetzee's text.   Will Beback  talk  10:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You have two issues smooshed together (i)"Using administrator tools" and (ii) "participating in policy discussions" both labeled as "strictly forbidden". First off, if someone is using administrator tools against policies that is the issue, not if they are paid or not. To me that seems like a solution in search of a problem, I can imagine a few theoretical situations but frankly we don't need to go there. Is this really a problem that needs to be spelled out? If an admin is causing issues the problem isn't the money it's the editing and behaviours. That brings us to policy discussion, and no, we don't threaten, intimidate or "strictly forbid" anyone from fully participating as a Wikipedian. If anyone proves themselves to be disruptive, again it really doesn't matter if they are doing so for free or not. We get a lot of free vandals. Perhaps we need to also ban paid vandalism? Doesn't that seem a bit silly? We have an underlying policy against vandalism which eliminates the need for a redundant statement. -- Banjeboi 10:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that anything which is disruptive is forbidden so there's no need for other policies or details. I disagree and I think others on this page disagree too. I addition, there are numerous policy and guideline pages that explicate just which behaviors are considered disruptive, and that's what we're doing here. I'll restore the material based on what appears to be a consensus of the other editors.   Will Beback  talk  10:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying I strongly object to re-adding anything that is not aligned with current policies as if it were. Is there any policy against admins being paid? If so link to that. Is there any policy that paid editors are strictly forbidden to participate in policy discussions? If so where is it? -- Banjeboi 11:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

@Benjiboi: I view this language as stronger than necessary, but a useful compromise. I would expect most paid editors to be normal users with little interest in Wikipedia policy beyond discussions about articles they have personally edited. The biggest fear of the anti-paid editing crowd is that admins may be paid to abuse their tools, or meatpuppets paid to warp consensus; this broad rule eliminates this concern with little impact on most users, promoting the adoption of the policy. A divisive issue like this needs unpleasant compromises to converge. In the future this language may be weakened once we have more experience with paid editors. Dcoetzee 01:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read this carefully this time and do not revert it. It is policy and you have reverted it at least 4 times now. Claiming that you don't know this policy or "show me the link" is simply disingenuous. Click on Jimbo's name for the link!

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

Smallbones (talk) 13:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You seem to missing the fact that Wikipedia does not write policy simply because Jimmy Wales dictates the rest of us do so and in that same section it is pointed out that he won't go against consensus. There seems no policy about this if you want to try to enact this as a policy please do that first then declare it so here. Our job is not to declare new policies we which to see but to summarize the current situation. -- Banjeboi 03:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, although this page was originally intended to summarise existing policy related to paid editing, I think it's worthwhile to write a normative policy (or at least guideline) on the subject. The division of opinion over what exactly the status quo is indicates a need for clarification that is specific to paid editing. Jimbo's move to give up blocking makes it possible for us to speak of what a good general policy would be without concerning ourselves with vigilantism. Dcoetzee 04:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that drafting some proposed policy is fine, but this is not that page. IMHO, the tremor here won't be seeing any such policy soon. To me it's much more constructive to summarize current practice for those currently dealing with these issues. Reflect RfC community opinions and summarize relevant policies without injecting our personal wish to ban everyone. I think I'll post on AN to get some feedback as well. -- Banjeboi 22:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Cooling down period

Having had a few days off from this page, somehow it's started to look a bit better. I made 2 fairly small changes, which I think might actually put this on the road to completion!

In the Paid advocacy section I put "People who operate as paid advocates in any forum may not write or edit articles on their clients in Wikipedia." and "Paid advocates must declare their conflict of interest."

It seems to me that we have to come up with something in this policy that actually says something concrete to people who are considering paid editing.

If these survive, I think we can say that the Paid Advocacy section actually does something. Other changes I'd like to see before saying this is complete are

1. An introduction that is a bit more complete
2. Cutting down the background section - nobody will be interested in the internal bickering in a few months. It wanders.
3. Blocking policy as declared by Jimbo re: people who go out and advertise, and administrators, bureaucrats, etc.
4. The quote from Jimbo. Benjiboi says that it is redundant, but I don't see this. The quote says to me at a minimum that a) advertising editing services is out, b) paid editing for admins etc. is out c) this is policy and you will be blocked for it, d) paid advocacy is out. (and in his next edit after the quote - that paid editing is almost a meaningless phrase, unless we define it). If all this stuff is in the policy, then we don't need the quote.
5. The advice section should be trimmed, or certainly better organized. As I've said before, it can read like "This is advise for not getting caught doing paid editing."

Smallbones (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Other policies include quotes from Jimbo Wales.   Will Beback  talk  18:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm certainly not against including the quote, and frankly a little redundancy sometimes is good. But I won't object to not including it, as long as everything in it is included in the policy. Smallbones (talk) 21:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you might want to read that whole RfC thread again, there was significant disagreements on most everything except that advocacy is indeed forbidden. And please remember this page is not a policy and will never be if it doesn't align with community views as expressed in the RfC which were quite mixed. I think we agree the advice section should be reworked as causing perception issues if nothing else, I'll take a go at it after re-reading more of the RfC. -- Banjeboi 10:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Paid editing and policy drafting

I assume it's obvious that anyone who has engaged in paid editing would have a significant conflict of interest regarding this policy, and should not participate in drafting it, or at least should start by disclosing that activity. This is a concern now, and in the future. An editor removed the prohibition on participating in policy editing by paid editors, leaving it only a general ban on disruption. That is much weaker and would allow those who wish to profit from paid editing to alter this to make it easier to do so. Those who've engaged in paid editing can still participate on the talk page, but should not edit the (proposed) policy itself. Any objections to that?   Will Beback  talk  10:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've stated above but will reiterate, that it violates our guideline on assuming good faith. We don't disallow certain community members from participating and really by doing so it only weakens the project by pushing away other viewpoints. If you want anything that will actually work you want everyone's input. Only banned editors are prohibited from taking part in certain discussions. -- Banjeboi 10:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you even disagree with requesting that people who participate in drafting this policy disclose whether they've engaged in paid editing?   Will Beback  talk  10:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Requesting disclosure - fine in my book, but obviously not enforceable, and requesting disclosure from a specific editor is more or less the same as saying you suspect they have engaged in paid editing. Prohibiting anyone who has engaged in paid editing from editing this policy proposal even though they are not being disruptive - not fine in my book. No one here is neutral (otherwise we wouldn't even bother participating in this discussion) and it is unfair to discriminate against those who may have one particular POV (assuming they are promoting it civilly and non-disruptively). Gandalf61 (talk) 11:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I simply see no reason to even bring it up. If someone is actually being disruptive that is the concern, I don't care if they are being paid to do so or not. All are treated equally as being valid contributors and as been stated this seems like its a moral objection of some sort. That may account for the passion. Really even our own COI policies don't require disclosure, likely because few would bother to care or even read them, our articles and even the policy pages have to stand on their own as documents. Editors long since departed started articles and many others have mercilessly edited them, it's an organic process and even "problem" editors make some good edits. Even if we ban someone we don't auto-rollback all their work. It's very much a case-by-case process. Similarly i think we can't be so terribly rigid on a page devoted to the subject that has varying opinions from the larger community. We need to respect the larger consensus that there is no agreement to enact blocks, no agreement to forbid paid editing, no set definition of what paid editing is or isn't. Start with the most obvious problems and spiral in from there. No witch hunts are called for or encouraged. -- Banjeboi 11:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd earlier contributed this quote, but it has been deleted. Smallbones (talk) 13:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

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

— Upton Sinclair

Indeed. But the relevance of that quote to this thread is ... what, exactly ? Gandalf61 (talk) 14:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If somebody is accepting money for editing, talk page discussions, discussing policy, admin work, etc. it will be very difficult to engage in a productive dialog with him/her. That is exactly what this policy and this thread are all about. Smallbones (talk) 14:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If there are editors who are secretly engaged in paid editing, then it is highly inappropriate for them to be editing a policy that has a direct financial impact on them. If necessary, we can bring this question to the community.   Will Beback  talk  15:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Who is this "somebody" ? Who are these "editors" ? Do you think that someone contributing to this policy proposal and participating in this discussion is a paid editor ? If so, who ? Gandalf61 (talk) 16:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If anybody has engaged in paid editing who is active on this page, I would expect them to disclose that fact rather than requiring us to conduct an investigation. It is simply dishonest and unethical for someone who has a direct fincancial stake in this policy to be editing it without disclosing that fact. This is on a different level than arguing over the size of infoboxes, or date linking.   Will Beback  talk  16:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay - enough of the vague insinuations and innuendo. Who exactly are you accusing of being a paid editor here ? If you feel the need to "conduct an investigation" then by all means go ahead - I, for one, have nothing to hide. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That's the kind of simple disclosure that everyone here should make. I, too, have never engaged in any form of paid editing, with this or any account.   Will Beback  talk  16:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, I have also never been paid for editing Wikipedia. But if someone offered me money, I'd take it in a heartbeat! :-) Iosefina (talk) 20:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not a paid editor. Smallbones (talk) 01:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Are there any other editors here who can say that they haven't done paid editing?   Will Beback  talk  03:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Give me a break, this is exactly the point that Will and Smallbones seem to be missing, that unless someone discloses if they are a paid editor we completely don't care and our mandate is to assume good faith, period. If someone is editing poorly or mis-behaving then we deal with those issues, really the getting paid part is red herring that they their actions or work is somehow more suspect. I'll give you a hint here, out of the thousands of editors we could have 2, 20, 200 or 2000 paid editors but no one will likely ever know. By assuming someone has an immediate COI you don't reveal their bias as much as other issues. -- Banjeboi 03:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we do care. And anyone who has engaged in secret paid editing should absolutely not be involved in setting policies covering paid editing. Benjiboi, you keep saying that paid editing is benign, and yet no one will admit to it. I can only presume it's because they are afraid of receiving any scrutiny, or even of being banned. Isf so, it's probably a legitimate concern. I would request a ban on any paid editor I discovered editing this policy because doing so would be a gross violation of community trust that palces the paid editor's interests ahead of the project's. If you'd like to see evidence that such folks will be blocked then let's see what happens when such a case is found.   Will Beback  talk  03:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I have never been paid a plug nickel for any of my edits (nor any other form of compensation, besides the wonder and admiration it brings when I bring my Wikipedia editing up in a social setting). But I do care about editors who edit for pay and especially about those who do so in secret. It is unequivocal in WP:COI that paid editors, whatever else they do, should declare their conflict of interest before editing this page. Banjiboi, I think you confuse undetected problems with acceptance. Would you say sneaky vandalism is ok, since it often slips by undetected? --TeaDrinker (talk) 04:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Undetected problems are still problems as your vandalism example states. You seem be implying that being paid is itself a problem when consensus seems to indicate that it's the advocacy and violating policies. We have no policies against paid editing - paid editing itself is not the problem, reactions against editors perceived to be paid editors maybe an issue but just being paid is not equate one as a problem editor. -- Banjeboi 02:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you may have the wrong end of the stick there. Even a cursory read of this page will indicate that there's no consensus that some forms of paid editing are not a priori conflicts of interest. I would argue WP:COI is easily applicable to many instances of paid editing. Frankly I don't understand your opposition to the simple step of telling people to note when they have a conflict of interest. --TeaDrinker (talk) 04:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

As a more serious counterpoint to my comment above, I must say that there is an important point missing here: being paid for Wikipedia editing is only one form of bias-inducement. Of equal or greater concern should be editors who participate here with a persistent and obvious idealogical bias, whatever it may be. I must say, in my relatively brief experience here, they are rife -- biases about religion, nationalism, and political affiliation. I see these biases as no less harmful to the process of writing an encyclopedia than paid editing -- in fact, I think they are far worse. So, I don't really see what the problem is -- I don't think zealots of any kind should be allowed here, but there seems no way to stop them. The same would seem to be true of paid editors. Iosefina (talk) 05:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It's true that other forms of "bias-inducement" are a problem. But this page only concerns one of them. While various affiliations or sympathies may lead to bias, there is nothing quite like money. Paid editing is qualitatively different from religious bias, for example. We ban zealots all of the time. While it may not stop them it reduces their influence to allow NPOV. We need to provide strong measure to prevent paid editing from ruining the project too. While some aspects of paid editing may be acceptable, having folks who engage in secret paid editing changing the policy on paid editing is obviously problematic.   Will Beback  talk  06:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Not really, we want to castigate paid editors as inherently problematic except when they are "secret paid editors" then we really let them have it? And again this smells like a pile of bad faith assumptions, if there are paid editors who wish to add to this page then they are welcome to just as any other editor is welcome to contribute here per policies, we are to be welcoming, work toward consensus and extend good faith. -- Banjeboi 02:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how someone can be a paid editor, editing a policy on paid editing, not reveal their payments to anyone, and not be in conflict of interest. To be clear, Wikipedia does not welcome editors who have a hidden conflict of interest in their editing. --TeaDrinker (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It's the same correlate that has been used repeatedly - we don't presume someone who is a paid editor is by default a COI editor. With the hostility expressed on this page alone I would expect any reasonable editor to avoid revealing they are in any way considered a paid editor. We cannot presume someone who is a paid editor is a COI editor, that is both illogical and against our civility policies on assuming good faith. If you honestly feel that any editor wishing to edit this page - which is not a policy or guideline - then please ask on an admin board how we should go about that process to determine such and enforce it. If nothing else on this matter then perhaps we should look to how to constructively move forward? -- Banjeboi 10:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:AGF does not mean "suspend all critical faculties". Johnuniq (talk) 11:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, it certainly is not a suicide pact. However it is rather uncivil and unproductive to walk into the page and simply assume someone is COI because they don't agree with you. Building consensus isn't always pretty or easy but it does require a willingness to work with others, no matter their POV. -- Banjeboi 11:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Benjiboi, are you saying a financial reward for having a page turn out in a particular manner does not constitute a conflict of interest? --TeaDrinker (talk) 14:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It might but I also think that being a paid editor doesn't always equal that and certainly all paid editors might not be even thinking their goal is to have a particular page turn out in any particular way. I just don't think it's as simply as A + B = C. -- Banjeboi 18:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

There must be some limit

As I understand it, based on reversions, and discussions on this page, one editor insists that:

1. PR firms are allowed to edit articles on their clients.
2. Administrators, bureaucrats are allowed to accept pay for their work on Wikipedia.
3. Editors are allowed to accept pay for work on policy pages and this page in particular.
4. Jimbo's stated policy on this matter is not Wikipedia policy; and that
5. BB is allowed to revert anybody else's edits whenever he pleases, however many times he pleases, without any support or consensus, based on the essay WP:BRD (I suggest he actually read this essay).

Benjiboi, please tell me I'm wrong about this!

I'll suggest we come up with a method (straw poll or any method!) where we come to an agreement on at least 3, but hopefully all, of these points.

If we can't do this, I suggest that we give up on this entirely, and make this page a redirect to WP:COI

Smallbones (talk) 01:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's not provoke Benjiboi - he has strong opinions on the matter but I hope that he will be willing to make sacrifices to encourage adoption of an effective compromise policy. I agree with only two points above, that PR firms should be allowed to edit articles on their clients (as long as they adhere to existing policies), and that Jimbo's bold decree is not Wikipedia policy (on the basis that Jimbo cannot and should not create policy, and has no ability to enforce his decree).

I think the most important thing to come out of this policy when it is approved should be that users can edit articles for payment. I'm willing to concede to any reasonable set of restrictions on their behaviour to make other people happy. On the other hand, I'm not willing to concede to restrictions on the identity of the editor themselves, as this should be immaterial. There's a reason that to this day we have never banned, for example, people writing articles about themselves; the same logic applies here. Dcoetzee 01:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This is yet another attempt to entrench rather than discuss, and that's unfortunate as some progress has been made despite these antagonistic steps. If you feel you can constructively and civilly engage here then great, if not you might need to take a break and stop focusing on editor(s) you disagree with. -- Banjeboi 03:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Folks keep saying that the appropriate standard is "disruption". I think there is evidence of disruption here.   Will Beback  talk  03:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Smallbones - most of your post is taunting and baiting of Benjeboi, which is a clear infringement of WP:CIVIL. If you cannot contribute politely and civilly to this discussion then you should seriously consider taking some time out to focus on other things. However, I agree with your final suggestion - we should make this page a redirect to WP:COI. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Benjiboi is simply reverting everything I and several others contribute here. He has spurned my offer of mediation or any other form of dispute resolution. He has is advocating a very extreme policy on paid editing - apparently including that administrators may accept payment for their work. I repeat my offer: let's go to mediation, or select any other dispute resolution format that you want. How about it Benjiboi? Smallbones (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Smallbones you are again mischaracterizing my edits and contributions here. Looking through the page history it's quite clear that I'm hardly the only one who has reverted and everyone else has tried to work through sticking points without singling each other out. Most of the other editors here have worked to try to understand these issues and develop a page that actually help rather than misrepresents. There is a world of difference between stating that admins are forbidden from getting paid versus discouraged from it and either statement should be backed up in policy so admins can actually look at said policy. I'm not advocating anything except that we base this page in reality leaning on the community-wide RfC on the matter. Personally I see less and less value in entertaining your continued bad faith accusations; I however will continue to act responsibly on constructively developing this page. I hope you'll dial down the heat and focus on building consensus. -- Banjeboi 02:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I take this to mean that you do not want to do mediation or any other sort of dispute resolution, that you do not disagree with any of the 5 points above, and that you do not recognize that it is a problem that you've reverted everything I (and others) contribute to this page. What would happen if we did this to you? Please do not accuse me of bad faith accusations, but I simply cannot understand how you think Wikipedia can work when you do not allow other editors to contribute. I'll ask you again, for the third time, to go into mediation. Smallbones (talk) 03:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not see a need for dispute resolution here, there are always disagreements, especially on proposed guideline/policy pages. I've stated why I thin entering into a formal process doesn't make the most sense at this time and unfortunately you seem determined to derail otherwise constructive discussion. You seem to want to cast me as advocating an extreme position when clearly that is not true, meanwhile you are trying to enter your preferred policy ideas onto the page when their yet exists no policy to do so. In answer to the points presented:

1.PR firms are allowed to edit articles on their clients. A:There exists no policy prohibiting editors based on motivations or profession. If they are advocating it doesn't matter if they are paid or not. 2.Administrators, bureaucrats are allowed to accept pay for their work on Wikipedia. A:Until there is a stated policy against this, which may make sense, there is likely no need or basis to even digress into this area. This doesn't seem to be an issue and theoretically there may be good reasons why this could be allowed. 3.Editors are allowed to accept pay for work on policy pages and this page in particular. A:All editors are welcome and encouraged to participate in all aspects of Wikipedia, there exists no sound reason to exclude editors, paid or otherwise, who are otherwise following policies. 4.Jimbo's stated policy on this matter is not Wikipedia policy; and that A:Jimmy Wales' statement was immediately questioned as being valid and enforcible, certainly there was no consensus to make it policy so we should treat it with due weight; since that statement he has voluntarily given up his blocking ability forever and at least one other community RfC on Wales' role in dictating policy in this manner has started to look at these issues. 5.BB is allowed to revert anybody else's edits whenever he pleases, however many times he pleases, without any support or consensus, based on the essay WP:BRD (I suggest he actually read this essay). A:That is a gross and misleading mythologizing of events that does nothing but try to cast me in the worst light possible. And WP:BRD is about someone being BOLD (Smallbones in this case), the edit(s) being REVERTED and DISCUSSION to find consensus on how to go forward. I could also complain that despite no consensus you have continued to try to insert disparaging statements against paid editors which is disruptive. I have continued to make good faith efforts to understand the passions evident here and have continued to respond to questions and examples. -- Banjeboi 03:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Based on the number of reverts, there is apparently a dispute here.   Will Beback  talk  03:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I concur, this should go to dispute resolution in some form. --TeaDrinker (talk) 05:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The page just seems to be churning, and the reverts aren't bringing us closer to consensus. I suggest protecting the page and going to mediation.   Will Beback  talk  22:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I for one and getting rather frustrated with the obstacles to overcome here. Mediation is great for working out content problems, which is for me the heart of the matter. If someone has another option, however, I would love to hear it. Otherwise are there any objections to requesting mediation? --TeaDrinker (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

As was discussed prior a RfC or mediation could be utilized but likely would be a rather big time suck and waste the opportunity for when we really need the community to help settle some major sticking point. Every revert, by myself at least, has been accompanied by well-reasoned and civil discussion as why this page is better off without the proposed changes. I would expect the same from anyone else. We can disagree without being disagreeable. Frankly, this thread was muddled by rebundling issues and conflating them against one user - myself. That is almost never a great way to have meaningful discussion. I think many of our threads have been quite helpful and I must state I'm in no rush here, I'd rather get it right then quickly. If there is some deadline, what is it? Failing that let's keep trying to write a good page which serves our editors on all sides of these issues. -- Banjeboi 10:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC) -- Banjeboi 10:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Mediation won't get involved in non-civil, behavioral disputes. Their scope is content disputes. To be clear, you would participate in a mediation? At present we can't seem to even get the goals of this page (policy, guideline, summary of existing policy, the rules as enforced, etc.), or basic instructions for editing this document clear. Maybe this is one step to getting something resolved, but this is an indication something is needed. --TeaDrinker (talk) 14:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Payment for editing policy

I propose the following for consensus:

Editors who have a financial interest in the outcome of this policy, explicitly including those who are editing for pay under any username, must disclose that fact or not discuss policy changes.

I should think this follows directly from WP:COI, but it is worth making it explicit. Please limit your comments to the comments section. --TeaDrinker (talk) 04:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. TeaDrinker (talk) 04:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Smallbones (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
3.   Will Beback  talk  19:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
4. Dcoetzee 22:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Ridiculous, this violates our WP:Civility policy on Assuming good faith. -- Banjeboi 22:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
3. What's next, excluding Administrators from discussing the blocking policy? --Reinoutr (talk) 16:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Fine in theory but completely pointless in practice because it cannot be monitored or enforced. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

True there's no explicit enforcement mechanism, but I read WP:AGF to mean we should first trust people to follow the rules. --TeaDrinker (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• "A Lecture Upon the Benefits of Universal Suffrage, and the Development of Greater Fellowship of Mankind, Shall Be Held in the Municipal Meeting Rooms Next Saturday at 7 pm. Entrance Free. No Women, No Blacks, No Irish - Other Inferior Peoples May Attend If Vouched For." LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Everyone is welcome to participate in this page. But hidden agendas and secret financial dealings are incompatible with open and transparent policy writing.   Will Beback  talk  21:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • To be clear, do you think WP:COI does not apply here or do you disagree with it as a guideline? --TeaDrinker (talk) 03:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
    • That's a nice piece of "when did you stop beating your wife" rhetoric - but there is, of course, a third alternative. Maybe LessHeard vanU does not agree with your claim that your statement follows from WP:COI. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Ah, I can see what you're getting at with my phrasing. My intention was an honest question. My question was intended between this not following from WP:COI, which was indicated, and if LessHeard vanU simply disagreed with it as a guideline. I apologize for the lack of clarity and can certainly see how my question was unclear. --TeaDrinker (talk) 18:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
    • To be clear - COI does not apply here. Take elections of Presidents or Governments, suffrage is for all and not those who intend to vote for the incumbents and major opposition parties/individuals that support the current system. In the matter of paid editing, it is the arguments derived from those (very few, presently) participants that need to be reviewed and measured and not why they are making them - by excluding those who are not within the "permissable" range of views presently regarded as consensus you have no access for viable options for change. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
      • You don't think there should even be any disclosure? In other words, do you think that it's best for Wikipedia if paid editing is kept secret?   Will Beback  talk  22:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
        • The current policy as it stands pretty much ensures that it will be kept secret, of course. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
        • This is about creating or revising policy, not the editing of articles (I voted for allowing paid editing, with full disclosure, in the RfC re article writing) - I think it would constrain the discussion if all available options were not permitted to be aired, even if it were from those who would both gain financially if those suggestions were adopted and were aware the suggestions would be thrown out without consideration if they made their allegiances known. When dealing with governance (which is what policy discussions ultimately are) every viewpoint including that which is to be countered by the effects of that policy should be examined to see if the conclusions reflect and effect the greater number of contributors.
        • In short, policy discussion - even if the aim is exclusive - must be inclusive to cover all possiblities. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
          • Not to pester, but that didn't address my question. This isn't about excluding anyone. It's about having editors who are engaged in paid editing disclose that fact if they're going to edit this policy. IT's not a violation of AGF to assume that those who are profiting from a lack of a clear policy would seek to prevent their activities from being limited. On the contrary, it's an assumption of bad faith to assert that suggestions from paid editors would be discarded without consideration.   Will Beback  talk  23:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
            • Sorry, it is not my experience that the latter is bad faith - it is fact, in my opinion. However, again I am not referring to the individual editorship but the ideas that an editor may have and which may derive a financial benefit to them but is nevertheless one that might improve the encyclopedia. A discussion on policy should only be that which argues if the project is improved, and not if and who benefits from the amendment outside of the projects interest. I have been racking my brains for a scenario, and this is the only one that I can come up with; A discussion whether should very professional and accredited bodies (lawfirms, and suchlike) be permitted to use their own credentials (since they have passed nationally recognised standards to be allowed to practice) be permitted to be used to establish their standing within their field. The discussion needs to be whether such accredition suffices for Wikipedia's purposes, and not whether some proponents are employees or agents for said lawfirms. I suggest it is not important to determine whether there are legal companies paid editors proposing or arguing than seeing the strength of argument used - and I can assure you that if an editor admitted that they were being paid to present their comments then their views would be greeted with cries of "WP:COI!" and "WP:NPOV" (at least presently) - but that if such bodies convey a degree of trustworthiness that means WP does not require other third party sources. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
              • Your basic argument, that people's views would be discounted if they disclosed their interests, could be applied to any and all COIs. "If I told you I was the subject of this article then you'd just say I saw deleting criticism because of COI! Please assume good faith even though I'm hiding my identity." Regarding the hypothetical (?) discussion over setting credential standards, if an accreditation body was going to form a committee to evaluate and set policy it would start by carefully looking at the credentials of the committee members.
              • It's probably with mentioning that paid editing COI is qualitatively different from other COIs. When someone is advocating for a cause they believe in they will usually do so consistently across different articles. But a paid editor could be advocating for a proposed law one day and for a brand of dog food another. If there is no disclosure, it is that much harder for other editors to even realize they are dealing with a paid advocate. And if that paid advocate then goes and edits the policy to make sure he doesn't have to make any discloures, then it puts the regular editors at a significant disadvantage.   Will Beback  talk  00:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
                • LessHeard, doesn't your argument apply equally well to all conflicts of interest? I don't believe you're advocating the elimination of WP:COI, but I fail to see the distinction. --TeaDrinker (talk) 05:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to take a fresh stab at why this particular issue might be important. It's true that in some cases, the argument is the important thing, more than the person making it. However, there are times when the motivations are important to understanding the dynamics of the discussion. I think this is most apparent when someone is not forthcoming about the true reasons they're supporting something. Let me paint a (maybe rather clumsy) picture to illustrate.

Suppose there was a policy discussion where somebody was seeking to establish that the subject of an article should be entitled to replace the lead image on their article, when one already exists. Suppose Freddy argues strongly in favor of this, basing his entire argument on the concept that a poor image could damage someone's career, and that many of the images on articles are blurry or otherwise low quality.

As soon as the policy is instituted, Freddy -- who had not disclosed his paid work -- promptly uploads 500 images on behalf of his clients, who are models, and places them in the relevant infoboxes. The images are all freely licensed, and they are high quality from the perspective of a modeling agency (which might be slightly different than the perspective of an encyclopedia). In addition, each one has an embedded URL at the bottom of the image, and the name of the modeling agency.

There are a number of problems with Freddy's behavior, but I think one of them is this: people participating in the policy discussion would rightly feel they were engaged in a disingenuous, sham discussion. If Freddy had disclosed his business relationship with models, and disclosed that he was planning to do a mass upload if the policy were changed, it might have changed the course of the discussion.

I think it's important to require a general disclosure. As I said above, I do NOT think the policy should require disclosing specific clients in all cases, though that may be the best course of action in some cases. -Pete (talk) 02:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to be extra-clear, the scenario I'm trying to illustrate above is where the person's stated reasons for changing the policy vary significantly from the actual reasons they are seeking to change the policy. A good-faith participant in a discussion should be forthcoming about facts that might influence the decisions of other participants; I think it's entirely appropriate that a policy on paid editing should explicitly draw this point out. -Pete (talk) 02:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

While a good comment, I should note that the above proposal is narrowly focused to the editing this policy. --TeaDrinker (talk) 04:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I can see from the surrounding discussion that I have waded into something unpleasant and personal. I'm removing my !vote above, and will let you guys figure out how to handle this. I can see that there are good people on all sides of this, but it appears that nerves have worn rather thin all around. Best of luck getting through this. The work you've been doing is important, and I hope there's some ready resolution to the more personal stuff. -24.21.143.116 (talk) 05:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot to log in. That was me, immediately above, and removing my !vote. -Pete (talk) 05:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed these examples as well, similar issues as before

Under the heading Examples of prohibited editing

“ 1. An editor writes or edits an article about about an organisation in exchange for a fee from that organisation, even if disclosure of this arrangement is made and no guarantee of success is made.

2. An editor writes or edits an article as a result of being hired by a political consulting firm to promote a particular point of view.

”

I've removed both these examples and they are perfect examples of what we should not use as an example. The first one is not based in policy, there is no indication that that editor has done anything wrong at all, just that they were paid. If their editing is otherwise up to our standards there seems to be nothings prohibiting them from being a Wikipedian.
In the second example we describe WP:Advocacy which was just explained toward the top of the page as being prohibited whether paid or not, ergo it is redundant and unneeded. -- Banjeboi 22:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Earlier you said the first was was redundant, as it was already prohibited. Now it you say it is not based in policy. You can, I hope, see how developing consensus under such circumstances would be frustrating. --TeaDrinker (talk) 15:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I may have misspoke or mis-attributed my comments at the earlier thread. My over-arching point on using examples is that they are likely unneeded, unhelpful, and likely to actuall cause unintended problems. In my experience they are used by folks who want to violate the spirit of a policy as their exact case didn't match some example; they are also misused by those who wish to target people they feel are violating some policy. Then the examples are removed or nitpicked over to try to find a NPOV wording. IMHO, we should leave these out until there is agreement that a particular example set apart from the text would be illuminating beyond the text itself. -- Banjeboi 10:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, can you point to an example where this has occured? I think examples are helpful, and they are certainly found in a wide range of policy pages. --TeaDrinker (talk) 13:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Second sentence

I intend to remove the second sentence, which reads " Although there may be some forms of compensation which are generally acceptable, there are other forms which are unacceptable", as this particular thing is not addressed anywhere in the rest of text and it is very unclear what exactly meant now. --Reinoutr (talk) 11:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:COI mentions the Reward board as an example of a situation where an editor may accept compensation for editing tasks. Some items on the board offer financial rewards. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

We are in the process of determining what is acceptable, and what is unacceptable, but I think everybody agrees that some things are, and some things aren't acceptable. If nothing is unacceptable, then there is no reason for a policy on this. If everything is unacceptable then the policy could be very short. Smallbones (talk) 14:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

If it is stated this boldy (yet unspecified) in the lead, clarification should be later on in the same page, not in one of the pages it links to. --Reinoutr (talk) 16:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay - I've added a mention of the reward board to that sentence in the lead. Gandalf61 (talk) 21:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The wording in the intro that some forms of paid editing "might be considered unacceptable" was readded, over "are unacceptable." The "might be considered" language I find just bizarre. I DO CONSIDER many forms of paid editing unacceptable, but that is not the main point: if we can't outline some sort of unacceptable behavior then there is no point in having a policy here - Jimbo's stated policy will just have to do in the minds of most administrators, and people who are wondering what our policy actually is will just have to go searching for Jimbo's statement.

I've noticed a tendency on this page to hint, without directly saying it, that all paid editing is acceptable. Don't fool yourself on this; we can't come up with a policy like that. Three-quarters of our editors would just laugh if somebody tried to put that forward as a policy. That type of "policy" would be dumped within 10 minutes of an RfC. Why bother trying to put that forward? Smallbones (talk) 20:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This page is meant as a guideline/policy to clarify the opinion of english Wikipedia on paid editing, right? If the first paragraph says "some forms of paid editing ARE unacceptable", but it is NOWHERE explained what those forms are, this page (and the policy) are pretty useless to anyone. By adding some nuance to that sentence, it at least becomes clear that while some forms can be considered unacceptable, nobody can present a clear definition (with consensus). --Reinoutr (talk) 06:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Valid concern, I think a NPOV section, after the "Background" section, on what is paid editing that spells out there are different forms may be helpful here. Within it we can include officially sanctioned forms, forms that don't involve actual money but are under the same compensation umbrella and finish with more obvious examples and allude to how the primary concerns with paid editing is quality of editing (including COI and advocacy) as well as our consensus and civility policies towards other editors. Does this seem like it would help address these issues. -- Banjeboi 10:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that would greatly help, yes. I am not asking for lists of "acceptable" and "unacceptable" paid editing, but some guidance should be provided. Now the actual issue is largely circumvented. --Reinoutr (talk) 10:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll see if I can work up something, a lot of my efforts have actually stuck so I think I may be able to strike a nuanced balance. -- Banjeboi 11:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I added "Advocating on behalf of a client is strictly forbidden." I'm sure we can all agree that such is true. --TeaDrinker (talk) 14:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Can we? I am not even sure what that means. What does "advocating" means in this context, editing articles?, defending someones position on Wikipedia in discussions?, arguing for deletion of an article? And is a "client" by definition paying his "advocate", and is that always bad or only if a payement is given in return? If I write an article requested on the "reward board", then I am technically writing an article (advocating?) for a client, who will pay me. This only adds to the confusion in my opinion... --Reinoutr (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Clarify Wales blocked statement please

Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has previously blocked editors; what information do we have on this? It's given prominence and IMHO it implies he blocked several editors just for being paid, that seems dubious so maybe we should ensure we're accurately reflecting why he blocked those folks and if the blocks were contested, upheld, etc. -- Banjeboi 12:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

MyWikiBiz. I have the sneaking suspicion that your response is going to be some questioning of whether he was actually blocked for paid editing and not violations of some other community standard. Let me submit Jimbo's position on paid editing is abundantly clear, that paid editing in some forms is blockable. He calls that policy. --TeaDrinker (talk) 13:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Administrator tools statement

Using administrator tools for compensation of any kind is strictly forbidden. Is there anything in policy that supports this? Jimmy Wales' own statement was that "It is not ok with me that anyone ever set up a service selling their services as a Wikipedia editor, administrator, bureaucrat, etc." That is different than what we are stating. Is their a better way to word this to make it accurate and helpful or is it even needed? -- Banjeboi 12:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, WP:ADMIN. Paid adminning is certainly a gross breach of trust. To forstall my guess at your response, "no it isn't," don't think that just because it is not listed specifically the person's adminship would not be removed. Posting off wiki in a manner which calls into question your work as an admin can get your adminship removed. Sure's shooting adminning for pay is going to as well. --TeaDrinker (talk) 13:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Participating in policy discussions

Participating in policy discussions for compensation of any kind is strictly forbidden. Is there any policy supporting this? Can it be reworded to make it NPOV and accurate or should it be removed? -- Banjeboi 12:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly defensible as both (i) current practice, (ii) in the guidelines and policies currently in existence and (iii) a good idea (to cover my bases as far as what this page represents). --TeaDrinker (talk) 14:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Nature of this page

There seems to be some differences of opinion on whether we are working on a new policy/guideline, summarizing existing policy/guidelines, or (related to the second) describing the present state of affairs. I include the third as different from the second since it does not take on the question of Jimbo's role in governance. Is there a consensus of what this page is intended to represent? --TeaDrinker (talk) 14:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

An excellent observation. I came here initially (way back when) thinking that both were important, but I can see how the confusion has impacted the quality of discussion. I still think both are important. I would suggest that an effort to keep the issues separate on the main page (and perhaps in this discussion) would be helpful. -Pete (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• I had thought of this as a place to summarize and codify existing policy, including Jimbo's statement of policy on this matter, which may include filling in some gaps and smoothing some rough edges. It might even lead to a consensus where existing policy is overturned, but I doubt that wholesale policy changes are possible. I guess that is the second choice offered. Summarizing the current state of affairs is obviously related, but since the current state of affairs is rather confusing and chaotic (as shown on this page) that seems more of an obstacle to be overcome than a goal. A new policy, started from scratch, is an unachievable goal, but we are not prohibited in any way from offering up "something new." See Category:Wikipedia proposals (link below) and WP:How to create policy. I view the efforts here that seem to aim toward saying "paid editing is perfectly acceptable, and we can't say that anything along this line is unacceptable" as attempts to make new, or overturn existing policy. In short, we are here to summarize, fill in in spots, and smooth rough edges. Smallbones (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)