Wikipedia talk:Paid editing (guideline)

Encouraging other editors to discuss

I would love to hear some ideas for how to encourage other editors to comment and discuss this content. We used to have quite a number of people here, with a range of opinions. I have been of the view that the sheer volume of edits on this page have kept people from participating: spending an hour or two a day reading and responding on this page, every day, seems like a lot to ask of volunteers when so few of us comprise such a disproportionate number of edits. I had suggested the two of us who are the "worst offenders" so to speak cap the number of comments at one per day. I would be interested to hear what other people suggest. --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The one comment per day per editor cap seems constructive to me. It would be good to try it here with the possibility of extending it to other talk pages if it works out well. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Time to rename and launch Wikipedia:Paid editing/Alternative text?

We don't have WP:COI and WP:COI/Alternative text for very good reasons.

I suggest renaming and moving Wikipedia:Paid editing/Alternative text to something that is distinct and can be treated on its own merit rather than a subpage of this page. I will start a discussion thread at Wikipedia talk:Paid editing/Alternative text#Time to rename and launch? -- Banjeboi 16:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Status?

Is this actually a proposal? I was just wondering about the essay tag. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The status is "resting" after a protracted disagreement, namely, is this a description of existing policy, or is it a proposal for a new policy? Some editors aiming for the latter have started on WP:Paid editing/Alternative text. It's not terribly clear, and is definitely unusual, but my suggestion is that those who want to restrict paid editing should work on the "alternative", while anyone else should work on WP:Paid. Johnuniq (talk) 10:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks John. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Location to report paid editing?

Where's the best place? Here? Somewhere else?

WMUK received an email pointing to this page offering money for a Wikipedia editor, which may be of interest to some here. Mike Peel (talk) 19:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it is useful to list this type of information somewhere, and this is a good place because I'm fairly sure there is nothing better. If it were more recent (seems to be two months old) or more specific I would consider posting to User talk:Jimbo Wales because that is where the attention for this topic arose and where it would be most noticed. Actually, User:Brumski (formerly Ha!) has an excellent analysis of a few cases at User:Brumski/paid editing adverts, and if we get some more examples, it may be good to see about adding them there. Johnuniq (talk) 23:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Restart

I've boldly switched the text that was here with the alternative text, as it has become increasingly clear that the leading editor of the old text had a very poor understanding of WP:Conflict of interest. Everybody should feel free to edit either version, or even both versions, but I think most editors will have a better start by editing what's on this page. Smallbones (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Editing workplace articles

Hi all. Smallbones (talk · contribs) recently posted the following on my talk page:

[..] I noticed on your user page that you might have edited articles related to your workplace. As the proposed policy is currently written, you might be required to post on your user page that you are a paid editor! [...] Smallbones (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I find this curious. In this situation, my workplace is very notable - it's Jodrell Bank Observatory. I'm "employed" (if you can call it that) as a postgraduate student there. I became very interested in the rich history of the observatory, and began researching it. The Wikipedia articles were the obvious place for me to put the fruits of my research. I've received no direct benefits from my actions, although there have been unintentional side-effects (e.g. I'm often asked for help on wiki-related activities). I don't think there was a conflict of interest.

I find it interesting that this proposal could be read as my editing being paid - according to the second sentence, "This includes inserting or deleting content to the advantage of the editor's employer into or from an article, talk page, or policy." Linked with "Paid editing by Wikipedia administrators or bureaucrats is incompatible with the duties these people have freely accepted", the proposal would dictate that I should be de-admined as a result. I think that's unintentional, but it might be considered to be a conflict of interest if I directly changed it. ;-)

Incidentally, I think that the whole of this proposal is actually redundant to WP:COI. "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." It doesn't matter if they're paid or not; someone could be paid without a conflict of interest (e.g. Encyclopaedia Britannica editors), or they can find that getting paid counts as "advancing outside interests". While I'm not opposed to guidelines that state the convention more explicitly, does it really need to be policy? (implied by the heading and right-hand navigation) Mike Peel (talk) 18:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I certainly didn't intend any offense, nor do I suggest that Mike Peel has done anything wrong. My apologies if it was taken as such. This certainly does point out the complexities of writing a policy like this. As far as "but it might be considered to be a conflict of interest if I directly changed it. ;-)" I'll ask him to directly change it, so that editors like him are not affected by the proposed policy, but editors like the ones on the list above that he posted here, are.

There is a question of whether this proposed policy is redundant to WP:COI, but does WP:COI prevent the advertising of editing services (like the list above)? Also there was an editor on this page who argued that all paid editing was acceptable, as long as WP:NPOV, WP:COI, etc. were complied with. So there seems to be quite a difference of opinion on what WP:COI, etc. means regarding Paid editing. The purpose of this proposed policy is to clear up any confusion. Smallbones (talk) 19:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

No offence was taken. Note the ";-)" at the end of my CoI comment. :)

COI doesn't prevent advertising editing services - but it does say that an editor shouldn't be writing an article where they are forced to have a certain point of view. Money is a way that can induct a point of view into the person's writing, e.g. it can lead to the editor omitting negative aspects of an article. It's not the only way, and it's possibly not even the most effective way. It also depends on what the money is for ("write an article on this" vs. "write an article on this with this perspective"). Guidelines should exist to assist, but it should be in the hands of individual editors to decide whether a specific case is a COI, and the community to agree/disagree for specific cases. Mike Peel (talk) 23:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not consider this paid editing. A great many people in such situations edit articles about people or institutions they are associated with, and most of them do it quite well. The problem is when a PR person from the institution edits. (or when the edit is not a good one--but that can happen also without COI.) I do not even consider such a situation genuine COI, any more than if I edit articles about places in Brooklyn. I would not leave any sort of notice in a case like this except in there were problems with the articles. The policy should be, in effect " if you edit articles about places you are connected with, be sure to edit according to our policies. " We have real problems with commercial and non-commercial spam and true paid editing, and we need to concentrate on the actual problems. DGG ( talk ) 15:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the no advertising clause

The policy is shaping up and most of it looks fine, but I continue to disagree strongly with the "no advertising" clause ("Advertising for paid editing services are prohibited. This includes advertising services as a Wikipedia editor [...]"). While most of this paragraph is just fine with me, I believe advertising one's services as a Wikipedia editor is permissible and even valuable, notwithstanding Jimbo's unenforceable decree to the contrary. An open market that allows employers to find experienced Wikipedians who can write high-quality articles adhering to our policies is more likely to prevent problems than to cause them. I propose the following revision:

Advertising for paid editing services is strictly limited to simple article editing in compliance with policies. Advertising for any other service is prohibited. This includes:

• advertising services as a Wikipedia administrator or bureaucrat,
• bidding on advertised jobs to advocate for the benefit of the employer, or
• actively seeking payment for taking on a particular position in any editorial decision, or policy dispute.

Any of these activities may result in a block.

Something like that. Dcoetzee 19:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a clear, well-stated alternative, and it's likely to be a controversial one. Thanks for the input, and I think we should wait for some reaction.

One type of advertising that I would not be against is out-in-the-open notices on user pages; e.g. "This user edits at the Reward Board, specializing in articles in men's fashion, bicycle mechanics, and sunglasses. Examples of my work there include .... I am also available to write freely licensed articles off-Wiki."

Would this type of thing help? Smallbones (talk) 20:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Suspicious activity

I have listed some at Wikipedia:Paid editing/Noticeboard. Help with investigation is appreciated. Triplestop x3 00:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, the prices are pretty nice! I like the one where they will check the article with the plagiarism checking software. I'm slightly concerned with putting up current ads on Wikipedia (at least for the long-term), and how other editors might view it. But for the time being, this is great stuff! Smallbones (talk) 01:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This is interesting, the prices offered at Elance are usually higher than the sites listed. Triplestop x3 02:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I checked out one bidder with a link to their business. To quote:

"Samples of Wikipedia Articles/Edits We've Done:

• Jack Gulick
• Still I Rise: A Graphic History of African Americans
• The New Yorker Hotel
• Collaborative divorce"

A quick read suggests that the 1st and 3rd articles are not terrible (but by no means great), borderline notable. The 2nd and 4th look like messes. All four have taken up lots of editor/admin time. At least one of the original editors have been blocked as a sockpuppet.

The New Yorker Hotel article is interesting. I guess the broader philosophical question is whether Wikipedia should be skewed by commercial considerations, so that Hotel A gets an article and the equally notable Hotel B does not. It's a bit like travel stores in newspapers, and whether it is OK to run them if the writer was paid by the hotels and cruise lines he's writing about.--Stetsonharry (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I have done some editing for Still I rise, and more is needed. The book is notable, but the article was written pre-publication or just at the time of publication. Reviews were used that were unpublished, or blurbs. There is real material to be found, though. As for Collaborative Divorce, now incorporated into Collaborative law, it certainly does need fixing, but I'm not the best person for it. Gullick contains much unsourced material and many peacock terms, and the original paid version was done in ignorance of Wikipedia conventions for cross references. --again, I'm not the best person to work on it . These articles illustrates the danger of resorting to editing by commercial editors. DGG ( talk ) 16:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing some fix up. The real danger of paid editing is not so much that we get badly written non-notable articles - after all we can delete these - but the amount of editor time involved in fixing up a lot of borderline notable badly written articles. It can be even worse if the paid editor fights changes or deletions. A paid editor who is well versed in Wikipedia procedure can drag out needed changes forever, making Wikipedia an extremely unpleasant place at times.

Part of the solution to the amount of editor time taken up by paid articles is probably going to be to realize that we can't totally eliminate paid editing, but that we have to channel it in the proper direction. This is probably going to be the most controversial part of this proposed policy. What's now in the PP reflects the principle that "A regular editor has to do the actual writing of the article" e.g. through the reward board or through posting a properly licensed article from another source onto Wikipedia. Are there better ways to do this? Will this work as written? Smallbones (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Added two from Elance. Yikes, that user "Tayzen" is still at it. Didn't a ban for him go through at AN? See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive198#Proposed_ban_for_Elance_user_Tayzen Triplestop x3 22:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

"...and he spoke to them in parables ..."

If I donate blood, I am providing a community service, on a volunteer basis, without any monetary remuneration (although, I must admit, the little sugar cookies the physician gives me afterward is somewhat of a motivation :)

If Sally is offered money by a medical research organization, for donating the same blood, does her receipt of payment discourage me from donating my blood?

Go one step further. Is her blood any less valuable to the one who needs it, than is mine?

Go one step further. Sally needs that money for her blood, for one reason or another. Perhaps she has mouths to feed at home; perhaps her husband told her to do something constructive to bring home money for the household instead of spending all her time volunteering her time for free.

...But the reason Sally accepts payment for her blood is really non-essential.

Take another step. Does Sally's transaction adversely affect my commitment to donating blood? And if it does, what does that say about me? Does her getting paid to donate blood make me wish to donate any less? And would it were, what does that say about me? Do I get less satisfaction from knowing that I've contributed to the "expansion of all human blood", for the betterment of humankind? And if my satisfaction is diminished, what does that say about me?

Take another step. Do not the organizations who offer payment in exchange for blood, actually have a positive effect of producing more - not less - blood for others to use?

Will some people only donate blood out of a "bad" motive? Of course. One will donate his blood, only to get his check and feed his habit. Another donates blood so she can get her check and pay for that college textbook she couldn't afford because she waited too long to fill out her Work-Study application and doesn't dare tell Dad that. A third donates her blood so she can have "Friday night booze money".

But does the motivation really matter, in the end? More importantly: Does the existence of paid-for blood tarnish the integrity of volunteered-blood - or does it degrade the institution of blood donation as a whole?

Understand this parable and you understand why this entire dispute of paid v. non-paid editing misses the point; is ridiculous; won't stop it from happening (short of enforcing the old-Communist-China-type of stranglehold on the Project); is a moot point; isn't worth spending enormous amounts brain cells arguing over ... and is really, IMHO, a reflection of delusion.

Wikipedia isn't the real world. It's a WEBSITE, people! for crying out loud! Lest we forget, Wikipedia is only what it is because of the profit-motive of companies like ... well ... Google, for starters. If it weren't for the Google algorithms which enable Wikipedia to be on page 1 of the most trafficked commercial website in the world for virtually every search term imaginable, few would even know Wikipedia existed. The claim that Wikipedia is only as successful as it is due to the tireless efforts of volunteers isn't wholly accurate and really, truth be told, plays the martyr. Wikipedia is as successful as it is precisely because of the success of for-profit, commercial establishments like the Googles of the Cyberworld.

It thus would not have gotten anywhere close to the reputation it now enjoys, would not have gotten anywhere close to the number of admins, editors, bureaucrats et al it has now, to even have an RFC that could eat up a Meg.

I'm opposed to paid editing. But I'm also a realist and a pragmatist. In our quest to uphold the sanctity of Wikipedia, let's not forget that we live in the real world and that world is governed, in large part, by monied interests and it's just the way it is and absolute, principled resistance to this fact is futile.

Artemis84 (talk) 04:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

In brief, yes, a significant increase in paid editing does matter because it would affect the culture here. Your talk about Google and commerce misses the point: the reason Wikipedia is near the top of most search results is that Wikipedia provides great value as a result of the extraordinary efforts of its volunteers. Sure, some parasitism is inevitable, but if it goes unchecked, volunteers will justly feel exploited and are likely to move elsewhere. Johnuniq (talk) 05:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that's an incorrect parable. Editing Wikipedia articles is not like donating blood. When you donate blood, you simply sit there while somewthing is taken, and then you leave. You have no further involvement in the blood donation, and you do not particiapte in decisions over how the blood will be used.

I think that a better analogy is an amateur sports league, in which the players are the members who also set the league rules. What if a team decides to start hiring professional athletes, and to also use those athlete/members to change the rules to give professionals an advantage over amateurs? If that happened, how long would the volunteer amateurs, who may have limited time for practice, continue to participate? How much integrity would the league be perceived to have if the so-called "amatuers" were actually being paid? Would the games still be seen as fair?   Will Beback  talk  09:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of an analogy myself. A friend of mine is a reporter for the AP. His ethics, when it comes to journalistic practice, are above reproach. If he were to be paid by a party which played a role in a story he were writing (even if they just took him out to dinner), it would be a serious breach of ethics. Of course, those are "professional" ethics, and we're all amateurs, but they are professional in the sense of someone who takes their work seriously (a doctor does not abandon their professional ethics when they volunteer their labor, for example). Professional ethics do not come from being paid, they come from wanting, in the case of the AP, to be taken seriously as a news organization. If we want to be taken seriously as a source of information, we should follow suit.

As for the issue of enforceability, I would make two points. First, a strongly worded policy is a deterrent against more problematic editing. It is not impossible to enforce, it is simply hard to enforce. At present, companies risk bad press if they are caught paying people to edit. They would love an ambiguous policy to point to. Second, there is the issue of trust. There's trust that most editors are going to follow most policies most of the time. Yes, there's going to be the odd vandal, conflict of interest editor, or troublemaker. But a policy should set out clear expectations for what an editor should do, even if some do not follow it.

The Google example is telling. They sell advertising to pay the bills (and make a tidy profit). Google also does not take money to change search rankings. In fact, that was one of the key factors which made Google a success: editorial independence. They refuse to take money to alter search rankings, and will actively delist websites which are trying to manipulate the system [1]. They would make money hand over fist to sell Google ranks, of course, since they are the number one search engine at this point. At least at first. Many search engines have done precisely that, and thereafter failed. What people want from a search engine is websites related to their search term, not just advertisements related to their search term (Google users get those too, of course, but separated and labeled). It is their (independent) search algorithm which brings people back to their Google. They give that up, someone else will take over. Users want a search engine they can trust is not slipping them ads, and they want an encyclopedia that to the best of its ability maintains editorial independence. --TeaDrinker (talk) 01:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

"Paid editor" label

I didn't have the time to read all that was written by now in this talk page and in other related pages, however, from what I saw, it's mostly theory, I couldn't find anything relevant about what is already happening in relation with this subject. Personally, I keep experiencing the tribulations of being labeled " paid editor", although I did not even do this. Two months ago, when the paid editing issue was brought to surface, my account got a "paid editor" label. I detailed then the relation I previously had on non-paid subjects with people accused of "paid editing". And, after some discussions in real life about this issue, I also presented my views on it, in favor of legalizing this kind of editing and treating it as any other kind of editing, hoping for a clear discussion about this issue. However, it looked like I stumbled upon some hardliners with no intention to discuss, even, to my surprise, I was blocked indefinitely for a stupid reason. This, ironically, while those guys that spilled their problem on me, were free to edit. It looked like my blocking was just to shut me up and forestall a real life discussion. Then I presented my problem at wikien-l, I was also covered in an article of a group working in this field. An user run a chekuser, found nothing wrong and unblocked me. In a normal approach, the accusations of suckpuppeting would have been dismissed from the very beginning, even a first glance would have showed that some of "my sockpuppets" have my invite on their talk page. Well, now I have again the sockpuppet suspect tag on my user account, brought by a an user with strong views against paid editing. He did not bring any new developments from the last checkuser, only continuing the bullying. Take a look at this discussion. I'm not sure what was that for, probably trying to play with me both roles of "bad cop" and "good cop".

The question is: is this kind of "extrajudicial" behavior now accepted at Wikipedia when it's about "paid editing" label? Is this area of "paid editing" becoming a safe haven for endorsed bullying, a kind of Guantanamo base of Wikipedia? When I tried to talk about the issue, I was so easily blocked indefinitely for an untrue reason, then changed to a flimsy reason that certainly did not deserve an indefinite block. Now, it's this guy who tells me that paid editing is an "illicit activity" at Wikipedia, who labels the paid work as spam without even seeing it, playing with me the tough guy.

This vacuum of regulation on this issue produces such results; from my point of view, these are the real problems brought by now by this public discussion. In theory, it is required to disclose if it's paid editing or not, in reality, it is impossible to do this, they get their accounts blocked and their work deleted only because it was paid. Plus, the collateral victims, who just get the label and start a brand new extrajudicial life.

See also Gregory Kohs' statement. BTW, if he is allowed to edit for money with undisclosed accounts, then this is a community accepted precedent permitting the others to do the same thing legally, in order to have a fair approach.

Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 11:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

How can we regulate what undisclosed accounts do secretly? The fact that we have difficutly enforcing a rule doesn't mean the rule doesn't exist. I would seek blocks or bans of any editors who are engaged in outright paid editing of the type described in this page.   Will Beback  talk  18:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

(following edit conflict, hi Will)Nobody likes to be labeled, and it looks like some of what you want to do would be perfectly acceptable to many Wikipedians. What's not acceptable to me is folks who want to hide their paid edits, and then fight to the death over any changes to them. The current proposed policy has a couple of safe harbors, could you use those to do the type of editing that you want to do? If not what changes would you suggest?

I should say that the current WP:Reward board doesn't seem to be working very well, or at least not very often. Why doesn't this work so well? I'll suggest 2 reasons: a) potential payers don't know about it, and b) they don't seem to be willing to pay more than $50, whereas on e-lance they are paying $250. If somebody posted a $250 reward on the board, and editors were able to write NPOV articles to get that money, I'd guess the article would be written in a day to very high quality standards.

Can you suggest anything where what you want to do could be fit in with what others want to do here, that would make a Paid Policy work for both groups? I really look forward to an answer to this question. Smallbones (talk) 18:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Both of you present the nondisclosure as a guilt, while its cause is in front of your eyes, that's what Desiphral just wrote. The image of the paid editing review is made by users like Triplestop who consider from the start that this is an illicit activity and all paid editing is spam. The focus in on the reason for editing, no on the edit itself. To my knowledge, in all other contexts of Wikipedia it is emphasized the assumption of good faith, the focus on the edit not on the editor, on who they are, why they edit or what personal opinion they have. This makes possible a certain enforcement of civility and a focus on the quality of the articles. But this is not the case for the context of paid editing. "You are a paid editor" and end of the story. It should be clarified what real role, if any, plays this notion of "paid/not paid" in the evaluation of the edits. At this moment, this user information, unlike other information, is singled out and, if it's on the "yes" side, it casts a question mark upon the edits, permitting questioning the respective edits without objective reasons, circumventing the assumption of good faith and the other rules of civility. This is a loophole that can be safely and legally used at Wikipedia to cast a desired question mark and to attack someone, even in the absence of objective facts. Citing from the proposed policy: "other editors may assign less weight to or discount paid opinions in the same manner they would discount the opinion of a sockpuppet"... One must be an idiot to work in such conditions.

The normal approach would be to consider the "paid editing" variable as a personal information of anecdotal value and to focus on the quality of the edits. Given the labeling and the unfair approach yielded by the "paid editor" anathema, the current normal behavior of the paid editor is to not boast about the "yes" side of this variable (which anyway has no current regulation on Wikipedia, this project page itself has the proposed word in its nutshell), in order to be a normal user benefiting of a normal approach.

Regarding Smallbones's questions about the specific meeting places of supply and demand, my opinion is that they should be left to the will of the free market. Cinagua (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem with Desiphral is the ban evasion and sockpuppeteering. No matter who does it, its still not alright. Triplestop x3 19:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)