Wikipedia talk:No paid advocacy

Paid Editing Proposals

In November 2013, there were three main discussions and votes on paid editing:

No paid advocacy (talk) (closed: opposed)

Paid editing policy proposal (talk) (closed: opposed)

Conflict of interest limit (talk) (closed: opposed)

RfC: Should Wikipedia:No paid advocacy become policy?

Should we promote this proposal (Wikipedia:No paid advocacy), that paid advocacy is not allowed, to policy? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Can the section title please be changed? It isn't about WP:BRIGHTLINE, which is a shortcut that leads to this page at the moment for some possibly not very good reason, but about WP:No paid advocacy. Or would this mess up the RFC system? W. P. Uzer (talk) 11:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I think we should stop using "brightline" altogether regarding this proposal. It's obtuse, confusing, and uninformative. Bright-line rule is, I suppose, rather obscure technical law lingo. I'm a well-read, educated person and I've never seven heard of it until now. Wikipedia needs less jargon amongst editors, not more. Jason Quinn (talk) 22:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree there's confusion. An editor on Jimbo's page referred to a simple "bright line rule." but didn't mean Wikipedia:Bright lines. Instead meant this proposal, which confusingly has a redirect from WP:BRIGHTLINE. I suggest that the redirect be removed, partly due to confusion, and partly because the proposed rule, while it deserves serious consideration, is not a Bright-line rule.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree that a prohibition on editing by paid advocates isn't a bright-line rule NOW. Perhaps it ought to be. However, I see some burgeoning potential issues - such as determining who is a "paid advocate." At present, craigslist abounds with "writing gigs" which are nothing but solicitations to enter positive comments in electronic media on broadcast music (increasing the "buzz" on new music releases for obvious reasons to the marketers of the music) and other commercial ventures. But Wikipedia has enough to cope with without gaining an undeserved reputation as a place where editors can shill for commercial ventures. I'd like to see proven cases of paid advocacy added to the Bright-Lines as a cause for banning an editor. I've changed my mind on that. Unpaid advocacy is a worse problem here and the proposed policy doesn't address it at all. Further, advocacy of any sort as a motive doesn't really address edit quality. Only application of existing Wikipedia guidelines does that.loupgarous (talk) 20:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead a removed WP:BRIGHTLINE as a listed shortcut for the proposal as per these comments and others below here. Jason Quinn (talk) 22:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Survey

• Support I think this would help reduce the view held by some that wikipedia was open to abuse Franko2nd (talk) 17:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support Bilbobag (talk) 16:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support DamSom (talk) 21:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support as nominator. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose The methods that allow someone with a COI to request an edit are broken and backlogged 6+ months, and AFC is a mess too. In the absence of effective ways to work within the proposed rule, making it a policy will just lead COI to violate it, and once they do, why abide by all our other policies if we are going to block them anyway. If anything is to be done, we need to deal with the issue in a comprehensive fashion, dealing both with reducing Bias and other problems that COI editors can introduce, while simultaneously making it more attractive for those COI editors to work with us, not against us. Monty₈₄₅ 17:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

  To be fair, a good one out of five COI editors that pop up on IRC in #wikipedia-en-help are unhelpable due to having a serious conflict of interest; the rest are rather more reasonable or are unhelpable for other reasons beyond their control (i.e. language barriers). Also, the same ratio of COI editors actually read Wikipedia's policies, so even the ones who are helpable often ask why their promo piece has been denied at AfC. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 14:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support This is a very minimalist policy, and I understand why that is. But I think that it may be too minimalist, especially in that it does not address AfCs, fails to take into consideration COI editors on talk pages sometimes functioning as de facto "managing editors" or straw bosses, cracking the whip in their articles. It contains no method of disclosing to readers when articles contain content that originated from the subject of the article. Given the gravity of the situation, and the resistance to even cosmetic change from the "community," I wonder if this really is a situation in which Jimbo Wales or the WMF needs to take the lead. After all, it is their brand whose value that has been harmed by COI editors. Given the utter absence of understanding of this issue by Wikipedia volunteers, I fear that there is really no other recourse as a practical matter. They need to step up to the plate and come out from under their desks. If they don't, then they are the ones harmed, their reputations are hurt, the reputation of their product put in harm's way. As a person who is not paid, as just a hobbyist, I can't see myself getting worked up into a lather when the proprietor of a business, even a nonprofit one, allows his property to be degraded as has happened with Wikipedia and its persistent COI problem. Coretheapple (talk) 17:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support many people claim that our policy regarding public relations on Wikipedia is confusing. This should solve that problem. In reality the Bright Line rule has been accepted for a long time now - practice sometimes outruns actual written policy here - but we just need to officially confirm that this is policy. The content shouldn't be contentious - advocacy is prohibited, so paid advocacy should obviously also be prohibited. This just gives a method that PR firms can use to avoid the problems posed by the already prohibited paid advocacy. I would just like to see a clean up-or-down decision on the Bright Line rule, there should not be anything difficult about it.

(EC) with the comment immediately above. Let's please keep this to one issue at a time. If I read your opinion correctly, I'll suggest you put in "Support" for this and take up other issues later. Let's make this clean and simple. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, I'm leaning to oppose, as this rule, if adopted, would implicitly "legalize" practices that are just as bad as the ones prohibited here. Coretheapple (talk) 19:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Core, I know that the kind of obeying-the-COI-guideline editing that goes on (for example at BP) deeply disturbs you, and that you would like to see it banned. I respect that. But I cannot imagine that you actually oppose Brightline, per se! If you oppose this, it would be a tragic example of an effort "eating itself" (of "the left will eat itself" fame). Getting a core financial COI policy into place is essential for Wikipedia. It would also provide a base camp for your Everest-sized goals. Jytdog (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

They really aren't , compared to the real world. Wikipedia is way behind on COI and, especially, in disclosure to readers that articles contain content suggested or written by the subjects of articles. The second sentence of this proposal is what worries me. If if were removed I wouldn't object to it, but it specifically sanctions practices that can be and are abused. Coretheapple (talk) 19:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Despite my misgivings I've changed this to "support," as plainly the culture here is so welcoming to COI that this very modest proposal hasn't a chance anyway. Coretheapple (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support I think that minimal is probably sufficient, because paid editing per se is not against policy, only subversive paid editing. Accordingly, what seems to be needed immediately is a basic framework, which can be built upon later, as appropriate. As it stands, this joker at Wikiexperts is just acting like he can ride in on a moral high horse and try to misappropriate "the project" for his (and his benefactors) private ends.--Ubikwit ^?? _??/?? 17:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Wikipedia needs a clear, written policy on financial COI, like every other major non-profit. We owe it to to ourselves, and to the public that trusts us, to get this done. The proposed policy is concise and focused on the key issue, and is our practice anyway, and should be accepted as is. Jytdog (talk) 18:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• This is an enormous change, but I think it is one we need to make if Wikipedia is to adjust to the realities of being a Top 10 website. Support. AGK [•] 19:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Very strong support. I actually had a little bit of a difficult time with this at first. But I have to admit that Wikipedia has a number of articles with paid promotional advocacy in very unusual places that, to me, seem rather blatant in their promotional tone and content. We all seem to focus on the major corporations and their marketing firms and departments, but forget that even individuals with smaller monetary gain are at work on Wikipedia. One city article I work on has a major contributor that has managed to stick content about their local theater in almost every single section of the page. Why a city article would need a promotional image of a theatrical production uploaded by the director/writer of the production and executive director of the theatre (as well as it's founder) seems to me to be a valid example of paid advocacy. Attempting to do anything about it becomes nothing but accusations against those that bring up their COI and battleground behavior to keep their promotional content in. As Wikipedians, many of us can recognize in the history of many articles where actors, politicians and even just everyday people, attempt to add content that they have either gained financially from or are attempting to. We have debated the issue of having been an employee verses being currently employed by a company and whether that constitutes paid advocacy and I believe the consensus is that, being paid by a company to work in unrelated areas that are not related to publicity, promotion or PR do not constitute paid advocacy or paid editing. University professors are paid by their college for their expertise, but are not paid to promote the university or themselves by editing on ancient history (using your own reference is a different subject) or other academic subjects and does not constitute paid or advocacy editing. However, being on a politician's campaign staff and editing that persons Wikipedia article does. Aside from the BP controversy, I think this "Brightline" policy is something that would indeed help just by the community putting their foot down and just doing what we know is best for the overall project. I strongly believe this is one very good step forward.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: For the record, this would also remove all professional scholars from editing in their field of expertise. Lawyers who cannot write about laws. Doctors who cannot write about diseases (most of our mental health articles are curated in part by psychiatrists and psychologists). Economists who cannot write about economics. Mathematicians who cannot write about math. As importantly, I do not see any significant difference between paid advocacy and unpaid advocacy: That is, advocacy is advocacy, whether or not there is a dollar value attached. This proposal ignores the advocacy that is much, much more common, and has in fact been the subject of innumerable disputes on this project, far more so than paid advocacy has been. This essentially says "we're gonna write whatever you want about you, Big Company/Major Institution/Famous Person, and there's not a darn thing you can do about it, because we also control the mechanisms through which you could complain." Meanwhile, we fail to actually curate the existing articles and ensure that they are factually accurate and balanced; in fact, when people try to balance them, they are often driven off by those who advocate for their personal position to take primacy. Advocacy is advocacy, and the failure of this policy to address the very entrenched biases that we already know have caused disruption in this project practically since its inception, while worrying about a small number of areas where a better solution would be more stringent notability policies and improved editing overall, guarantees that we've failed to address the issue. Risker (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see how this would "remove all professional scholars from editing in their field of expertise". I myself am a scientist, please explain what in the proposed policy would prevent me from editing physics or astronomy related articles? Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 20:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Risker, the proposal wouldn't prohibit a professional from editing in the area of his/her expertise. It would prohibit a scientist working for Merck from inserting promotional material about Merck's products (for example), but that's a much narrower restriction. Also, let's keep in mind that this proposal isn't intended to be a complete one-stop solution to the problem of inappropriate advocacy. It addresses one very specific and pernicious type of advocacy (paid editing). We still have a lot of work to do on tendentious and agenda-driven editing across the board. But it seems unrealistic to discard this proposal for failing to address all forms of biased editing. MastCell ^Talk 20:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

This proposal assumes that there is a bright line, but there isn't. The line is blury, and many editors will have a hard time understanding where it lies. Moreover, it is very, very unethical to ban somebody from using talk pages to request help for a client. If Wikipedia has diddled a person or a company, the employees of agents of that company have every right to point out errors and request help, and even to make corrections themselves if there is an egregious policy violation (such as vandalism of an article). Jehochman ^Talk 20:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

What is the difference between "promotional material about Merck's products" and "a more recent review article, that happens to be more favorable towards Merck's products than the current sources in the article"? Actually, pharma companies are massively regulated, and many of their legal departments simply forbid directly editing the articles, so let's take a more plausible question: What's the difference between "promotional material about Nike's products" and "a scholarly article about Nike's products, that happens to be more favorable than the current sources in the article"? Or "promotional material about 'my' field of psychology" and "scholarly articles about 'my' field of psychology"?

On the one hand, I admire the concision of this page. On the other hand, a somewhat longer "does not include..." list might be useful. For example, it's not clear whether "representative" means (more or less) official representatives, or if even student interns, editing without permission or even knowledge of their employers, are included. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I actually disagree with you, MastCell. It is very, very difficult to draw the line here. For example: Psychologists charge their clients directly here in Canada (i.e., they are not covered by our government health insurance). It is very easy to make the case that they are writing for their own personal financial benefit if they write about certain theories or treatments in which they are expert. We ourselves use Google Scholar to measure the impact of scholarly works, so working to get one's own studies mentioned on-wiki, whether by modifying or writing the article and adding it directly, or alternately by making it incredibly easy for someone else to add it once the article is up....well, there's at least a reputational benefit, and possibly a financial one if it leads to more grants for further studies. The scholar whose graduate degree depends upon the articles created for Wikipedia, and the students whose Psychology 101 marks are dependent on making xxx edits and adding yyy characters of content have a genuine, financially-based conflict of interest; failing means taking a hit in their longterm career trajectory. Meanwhile, people advocating that company xxx is [insert grossly negative consumer position here, linked to news article, and given same weight as latest financial data] are treated with more respect than people who try to provide balancing factual information because the latter are presumed to be paid advocates.

One of the issues here is our incredibly low notability standards. Much of this would not be an issue if we were to look to ourselves and stop acting as if almost everything is notable simply because it got a mention somewhere online. We wouldn't even need to worry about a huge number of these articles if we had reasonable notability standards and if we didn't have to send those articles through a rigorous and lengthy deletion process. We refuse to deal with non-financial COI and advocacy amongst our own editorship while whining endlessly that Company XX has come here and had the nerve to suggest we've got something wrong. Sorry, but I think we need to clean up our own act before we create policies that will be used primarily to gain advantage against opponents in ideologically-based editing. It looks good on paper, but the actual words don't say what you think they say. Risker (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

This kind of 'nothings perfect, so we should do nothing' is plain Wikipedia nihilism. Financial COI is a well known, well defined concept in every reputable reference source, and profit and non-profit organization, and has been so much longer than Wikipedia has been around. Financial COI does not extend forever. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

This is not the solution, though. A policy against advocacy may be a solution, and advocacy without financial incentive is a much, much more serious problem in this project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Risker (talk • contribs) 17:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't know who wrote this but your statement seems out-of-touch with reality, people regularly pay quite allot for what they want advocated. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Risker for what it is worth, my read is that the proposed policy would also prevent an employee of Greenpeace from editing articles related to global warming. I think your example about an academic scientist writing about his own work and citing his own publication is interesting and difficult. (disclosure, I work at a university). I agree with you, that citing one's own published research on Wikipedia would cross a line. And I am OK with that that behavior would be barred. WIth respect to a psychiatrist (or other professional who has their own shingle out) writing about their field in general or even about an area in which they are a specialist... I have no problem with that, especially if they don't try to edit based on their own authority, but instead follow RS rules etc. and not cite their own work. The chance that somebody living nearby would solicit them is pretty darn low. Of course, using his/her User page or Talk pages to solicit business would be way over the line. And if somebody started trumpeting their Wikipedia work in ads, I guess we would have to come up with some way to deal with that... this is really a simple thing - basic governance that Wikipedia sorely lacks. Another thing - having this policy in place, would dry up Wiki-PR's business in a heartbeat. They would actually have to lie to tell potential clients that what they do is OK. That does not get you far in the business world. Right now, they can honestly say that no policy bars their work. Jytdog (talk) 01:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)(clarify Jytdog (talk) 10:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC))

It wouldn't do a darn thing to Wiki-pr's business, and I have no idea why anyone would think that. As long as a person or organization can see that there's an article about their rival or some other similarly (non)notable organization, there is motivation for them to get someone to write them a Wikipedia article. But this will be used against people trying to edit legitimately (I can already see "obvious PR person, ban" when someone tries to remove negative bias over the objections of someone who's been around longer), and it will chill the editing from people who actually are experts in topic areas, where someone could make a case that they might possibly financially benefit. Many of the "scientific" topics that have articles on Wikipedia have comparatively few qualified practitioners or experts, and the increased respectability of their topic of expertise in itself can have a positive financial impact for them. More concerning to me is the fact that we've long tolerated biased and COI editing from our "amateur" editors, and unless they become so overwhelmingly blatant that they wind up at Arbcom, almost nothing is done about them. I can recall a situation where dozens of articles were created or edited in a biased means simply to harm the reputations of the subjects of the articles, in relation to what is a well-known contentious scientific topic. That occurred years ago, and yet to this day many of those articles remain heavily biased. The editors who created/expanded the articles included longtime administrators; the person who raised the alarm was an academic who didn't know his way around Wikipedia. Guess who got banned? We still see the use of categories to indirectly connect article subjects to subject areas when there is nothing in the article to support such a connection; those are added only by experienced Wikipedians. The basic concept behind this has been used on at least four occasions that I'm aware of to try to remove editors with knowledge and expertise in a topic because it goes against the bias of other editors, to the point that they were actively surfing the web to "prove" that someone might possibly be somehow "making money". This is handing a tool to people who have the time, energy, and tenacity to ride their hobby horses, but will have almost no effect on biased editing for money. Risker (talk) 01:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, can you provide some example where everyday companies (leave your Pfizers and Monsantos out of it for now) spend money in projects that are as blatantly unethical and untenable over the long term - especially PR projects - as paid articles in Wikipedia would be under this policy? It would just be a waste of money and it would harm your reputation. I don't understand your argument. And you didn't touch on what I said, that Wiki-PR would have to lie - in public and continuously- to say that they can deliver what they promise. Under common law they would become liable for fraud, in any case. (I paid you for my article, where is it? Um, it was deleted because I am a paid advocate and that is not allowed in Wikipedia. Oh, so you misrepresented what you could do for me - give me my money back.) They would be out of business in a heartbeat. (btw, I do hear you - very clearly - about the problems with tendentious editors and incompetent editors... and the worst, incompetendentious editors. I've had to deal with some of them myself and it is hard and ugly. But I don't understand why you bring that up, here. This policy is not meant to address that, so why derail this on that account?) Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

We have no way of knowing who is getting paid, who is carrying out their advocacy based on personal philosophy, who is doing it to troll, and who is doing it because they saw something they thought was ridiculous in an article and is trying to fix it, and just becomes subsumed in the wikiculture like the thousands of other editors who came before. Focus on neutrality and notability of content, our core encyclopedic values, and it turns out that money isn't the factor here. It's quality of content. Risker (talk) 17:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Risker. While I appreciate you indenting your reply under mine, you didn't respond to anything I said, but instead brought up new objections. Difficult to have a discussion this way. Jytdog (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Risker is speaking in a very trout-worthy manner, scaring us all. "Mathematicians who cannot write about math." Really? Doc talk 07:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I quite agree. It seems like textbook reductio ad absurdum. AGK [•] 10:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

@Jehochman: I am given to understand that people or organisations affected by this policy would be fully entitled to contribute to the article talk page. AGK [•] 10:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm new to this issue, but so far I've been unpersuaded that the ill (COI editing) is worse than any supposed cure in place or proposed, including this one. WP editing is inherently a collaboration of people with broad variety of interests and biases. Some percentage of those are paid. So what? Yes, it's not ideal, but I believe our policies and guidelines regarding content mitigate any potential significant harm to WP. With proper attention to proper sourcing and notability, it shouldn't matter whether the editors are paid or not, or what their biases may be. As long as the "voice" is the NPOV, we're good. --B2C 19:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support, and I also support elaborating briefly about disclosure by adding "on their user page, and on the talk pages of each article edited" to the end of the lead paragraph. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, largely per Risker above. The quality of Wikipedia is till very poor in so many (especially scientific) areas, that we should welcome scholars and scientists to write about their work, rather than prohibit it. I understand where this proposal is coming from, but ignoring the fact that academics might be the most valuable contributors Wikipedia can have, is not helpful. --Reinoutr (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't follow this reasoning. Paid advocacy is not going to improve the quality of our scientific coverage. This proposal is not going to prohibit scientists in general from contributing. MastCell ^Talk 20:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  • User:Reinoutr I agree with MastCell - how do you get there? Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 01:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
• modified support Support complete policy ban of undisclosed COIs. Explicitly disclosed COIs should be allowed to continue as per current policy. (Disclosed at the user level, and PER ARTICLE where the COI exists) Gaijin42 (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I think that modified support is actually oppose. I agree with with User:Gaijin42. I prefer to start with a requirement that COI is disclosed. Nereocystis (talk) 17:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. I also largely agree with Risker on this. Besides, if such a rule were adopted, you'd just drive underground the few who are willing to disclose a COI, unless the WP:OUTING policy were also changed dramatically (abolished and witch hunts encouraged to root out the undeclared COIs). The editors most affected by this proposed ban are the ethical professionals editing in their own filed, who would indeed cease to contribute any content here. Since this bright line idea came from Jimbo's page where the current topic is now certain brand of nationalism, I really don't see you could draw bright line rule for that, even though it's just damaging to Wikipedia's credibility... No editing for anyone getting a good feeling from their edits? No edits allowed if they improve your country/ethnicity image? I think this site would be turning into Wikipediocracy really fast if this rule were adopted. Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. We can require disclosure of paid editing, but we should not ban it completely. If Wikipedia writes about somebody or some organization, that person or organization has an absolute right to respond, to correct the record, to point out errors, to request help. If Wikipedia has an article about me, but I am handicapped, or don't write well in English, and I need to pay somebody to edit on my behalf to keep my bio free of slander or vandalism that could damage my reputation, would you ban that person? This proposed policy is overly simplistic because it fails to take into account the many possible different situation that could occur. If a company wants to copy edit and format their article (without introducing POV), revert vandalism, report attempts at POV pushing by "haters", why should we prohibit that? Jehochman ^Talk 20:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Existing policies on vandalism, NPOV, etc. already exist and are theoretically followed by all editors. "Hired guns" that offer their services over the internet, promising to protect one's investment for the Google hits their article will generate? A very sordid business. Doc talk 01:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose as written. Although the problem is no doubt real, the proposed phrasing is too broad and runs the risk of driving good faith editors away or underground. Being paid to write an article is one thing. Writing about things you have a financial or other stake in is quite another. We're a community of volunteers and amateurs, not a community of people ignorant of the subject. If I own a comic book I should be entitled to edit the article about the book. If I own a few shares of Apple stock, or used to work for the company (in a non-executive role, and not in PR) I should be able to edit articles about Apple products. If I am a veterinarian I should be able to write about horses. If I went to a college I should be able to edit articles pertaining to the college, even though I have a financial and personal stake in improving the reputation and awareness of that school. The anti-business sentiment that money and career make an editor suspect and corrupt the process, whereas religion, opinion, hobby, belief, or any of the myriad things that draw people to a subject do not (atheists writing articles on atheism, communists writing articles about politics, vegetarians writing about factory farming) is misguided. When a business owner, corporate shill, or other single purpose advocate writes an article out of whole cloth, it's usually obvious and we already have ways to deal with it. The more interesting question regarding what to do about paid writers and company PR departments who actually know how Wikipedia works and game it with otherwise reliably sourced, well written articles does not seem to be a huge problem (yet), but it suggests a narrower, more targeted response. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose for many of the reasons given above. The definitions in the proposed policy are too vague, and even were they not it will often be impossible to determine that advocacy is at play or to enforce the policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. We can require disclosure of paid editing, but we should not ban it completely. It won't work, and trying will make things worse. Oppose the shortcut BRIGHTLINE. The proposal is not about bright lines. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose We can strongly discourage paid editing but not ban it. We should try to work with the COI editors to develop a lasting relationship, not declare all out war. KonveyorBelt 22:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose to "Editors with a financial conflict of interest ... must not edit affected articles directly." I saw a number of scientists who edited pages related to their work, and I am one of them (I did not receive any payment; to the contrary, editing on-wiki damaged my work because I spent too much time here). In most cases, these scientific researchers made reasonable effort to follow all policies. Sometimes, they did not, but it was very easy to fix (here is one of many examples: [1]). My very best wishes (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• I'm not sure I could support the starting line "Paid advocacy is not allowed...". The objective here isn't to categorically forbid a class of editors from participating here at all. However, I think we should focus on the fact that, while no editor is perfectly neutral, paid advocates have an especially strong incentive not to edit neutrally, and may in fact be forbidden to by their clients if they want to be paid. That's why we call it as we do—it's not just a WP:COI, it's a true conflict of interest. I think we should require, rather than suggest, disclosure, but if those principles are followed, it is not forbidden for the paid advocate to edit. Whether they should be forbidden to edit articles where they have a COI, or just strongly discouraged, is an open question, but in either case transparency should be mandatory. That will allow other editors to check up on it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose mostly per SmokeyJoe. I also echo his sentiments about the shortcut, though I think it may be appropriate if this page were to become policy. --BDD (talk) 22:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - As Wikidemon notes, "financial stake" is far too vague. There's also the question of enforcement. If an editor is making positive contributions to an article, then we find out he is a "stakeholder", then what? Policies should generally only prohibit things that are actually damaging. NPOV and other content policies already cover the potential damage. Or on the other hand, how is someone supposed to figure this out? Unless a user admits it, or edits from their work computer with an IP address clearly tied to the company, it's practically unprovable. So in most cases it will be unenforceable and in others we may not want to enforce it. Worse, editors who may have otherwise chosen to declare their COI may choose not to to avoid getting blocked. Mr.Z-man 23:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Moral support - There needs to be a no paid editing policy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first and foremost, not a PR platform. I don't care if they submit a perfect article, we do not need to be seen as allowing people to PR here. However, this is not the policy. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 23:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose (as it stands) The problem is, how do you define "paid editing"? How do you define "PR"? If I am a Care Assistant, would I not be permitted to contribute to articles on nursing the elderly? While it is not the sort of paid editing that we are trying to knock on the head, it could be argued that a person writing anything to do about their work could run afoul of this if the definition of the rule is too vague. Likewise, if a person working for a company discovers an error or omission in an article on something the company does, or has direct experience with, would you rather the person just doesn't bother to improve/correct an article because it might be interpreted by somebody as paid editing? The current definition seems to me to be too vague. HeyRick1973 (talk) 17:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

• Support and Broaden This isn't broad enough. All people whether paid or unpaid should avoid editing articles where they have a conflict of interest. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I've never been paid to edit Wikipedia, but I've been paid to write articles for others to publish on Wikipedia. I then took that article to DYK of my own accord because it was interesting and DYK-worthy (w/o getting paid). If this policy passes, what stops me from being punished? I've never been accused of not being WP:NPOV or posting articles that failed WP:GNG, so why shouldn't I continue to edit the way I do?--v/r - TP 23:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per unenforceable. NE Ent 23:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per SmokyJoe & NE Ent - Unless it would only ban the editors I don't like. GregJackP Boomer! 00:33, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Support - Paid editing corrupts the neutrality of Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support per the fact that paying someone to edit even the most basic encyclopedic article for the greater knowledge of us all is unheard of. Paid editors are here to promote, spin and "protect" the articles they are paid to make "notable". People that engage in this behavior (like MooshiePorkFace (talk · contribs)) are simply here to corrupt this free encyclopedia. Doc talk 01:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose because I've seen several paid editors who have done their best to learn our ways and write articles that comply with our policies, and that's fine. Removing those just because we fear a selected group who doesn't behave that way is not something we should seek. Also, we have bigger problems than this, even when I realize that this RfC comes as a follow-up to the Morning277 drama. — ??S²¹ 02:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• An example of one of those paid editors that you've seen who have changed their ways from promotion to strictly encyclopedic entries might help sway one such as me. I've never seen one that isn't here to puff up notability. But you will hopefully change my mind with an example. Doc talk 02:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• @Doc9871: CorporateM is one of those users, and I have been more than pleased with his attitude towards meeting our standards. — ??S²¹ 01:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support. As much as good faith is necessary, the simple fact is that being paid to edit can not be done in a WP:NPOV manner. If somebody is paying an editor to contribute content, then "the client's wishes" > "neutrality" simply because if the client isn't happy no pay is forthcoming. This is the elephant in the room when it comes to paid editing and paid advocacy, and it's why "edit for pay" is fundamentally and intristically incompatible with Wikipedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

"the simple fact is that being paid to edit can not be done in a WP:NPOV manner" There are some exceptions to that I could see being highly desirable; if large scientific institutes and museums etc hired editors to increase the coverage of science etc, I'd be all in favour of that sort of editing (of course if they edit where they have a COI there is a difference), IRWolfie- (talk) 09:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

...I can sort-of see your point - if, say, the Smithsonian gave a bunch of people $500, a computer, library access, and said "have at it", that would be cool, but that needs to be a "allowed with permission" sort of thing rather than "allowed by default" because, alas, even if that happened the COIPOV paid editors would outnumber them by at least 100:1. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and human nature being what it is, "take out this bad content or I won't pay you what we agreed for your editing" is almost certain to always result in the "bad content" being removed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose It is already policy that advocacy is not acceptable - see WP:NOTADVOCATE. This page is therefore redundant contrary to WP:CREEP. The page seems too obsessed with money rather than the bias which is the real problem for us. If someone can get a gig writing for Wikipedia then this is a good thing, not bad. Per Dr Johnson, "No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money". See also refusing to write for free. Warden (talk) 04:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• "If someone can get a gig writing for Wikipedia then this is a good thing, not bad." Writing what? PR bullshit is what. Doc talk 05:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose for a multitude of reasons. 1: It's often impossible to tell if someone is a paid editor or not. 2: It is perfectly reasonable that a company, knowing it has an employee of good standing here, instructs that editor to update their article. 3: Making this policy would require a fundamental rewrite of several other policies, which discourage paid editing, but don't come close to prohibiting it. 4: It would be much more effective for someone to be required to acknowledge that they engage in paid editing, than to blanket ban it (preferably with a notice on their user and talk pages.) They wouldn't have to disclose their clients, or even if all of their articles are paid-for or not; simply that they engage in the practice. 5: When you get long-term, good-standing editors like TParis who occasionally have, directly or indirectly, received payment for articles, you know this is a daft idea. 6: It would simply drive the smarter paid editors underground, and make them harder to track. 7: We should really deal with any abuses of Wikipedia on a case-by-case basis. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• I'll send you a check for five whole dollars to improve the most viewed yet least-referenced article on the site. What are you gonna do for that five bucks? It better be unbiased and encyclopedic things that most readers would benefit from reading. And... Begin! Doc talk 08:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• Uh... what? I'm not sure what you're trying to imply here at all. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• Well it wasn't anything nefarious directed towards you. No implication on you. Doc talk 14:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't seem necessary to place a blanket ban on paid editing to implement a stronger deterrent against predatory PR operatives. Requiring disclosure and restricting the scope of activity to indirect editing, such as through Talk pages and the request edit template, should suffice. --Ubikwit ^?? _??/?? 08:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Paid editing could actually be turned into an incentive. Articles in most need of improvement in a "drive" situation. A non-profit organization doing a fundraiser. Not a crazy concept. 1st prize gets a virtual Kewpie doll. Doc talk 08:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure there are editors that would love to spend the rest of their lives editing Wikipedia for pay even if it was minimum wage without benefits. It's a worthwhile, though time-consuming, endeavor. Alatari (talk) 09:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Strongest oppose - Wikipedia shouldn't be policing this when it's run by volunteers. It doesn't matter what suspected or announced COI a person has, it's the quality of their additions that matter. We shouldn't deter people being honest about this stuff or you'll quickly see specialist subjects deteriorate and stunted. It will deter editors and tell those with in depth knowledge of a topic that their input is not wanted, or worse, banned. When Wikipedia is already haemorrhaging users this just makes the problem worse and speeds up the decline. There's not a single way this can help Wikipedia except for a smaller AfC cue. Thanks ? Jenova20 ^(email) 09:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Who are the "police" here? Volunteers. Volunteers policing other volunteers. Anarchy is better for some. Doc talk 09:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Paid advocates don't come to wikipedia to edit specialist topics, they come to edit organisation pages and biographies to try and skew them for their clients. Many of Wikipedias best articles are in medical topics, and the star editors in that area edit for free, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Be clear and honest here, this policy change won't eliminate paid editing and COI, it will hide it. It's a deterrent to honesty and a line right through the Wikipedia slogan "The encyclopaedia that anyone can edit". Thanks ? Jenova20 ^(email) 11:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support - paid advocates/editors are, by definition, in opposition to our policies on guidelines regarding neutrality and bias. GiantSnowman 10:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose-- There are already way too many policies. Put a few lines in COI or advocacy or something, no need for yet another policy. Lesion (talk) 10:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is a terrible idea. The pressure for paid advocacy, in particular the amount of money available, is simply enormous. We are not going to make it go away by banning it here. If we try, we will get secretive, fly-by-night paid advocacy, instead of honest, openly declared CoI. It will be far better for Wikipedia to have known advocates so we can check their work and keep it up to standard, than to face endless trickery and corruption from the dishonest end of the market. Disclosure is what we need, not a foolish ban. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm here to contribute to the general knowledge of the millions of readers of the #1 free encyclopedia on the internet. On my free time, free of charge, and always according to the rules that I've learned and that are clearly outlined here. I'm an unpaid idiot, wastefully volunteering his time. My edits can be checked by anyone at any time, free of charge. How much will you pay me to edit your article? Please make it a lot. I like nice things. Doc talk 11:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose As I pointed out in the other vote, you can't get rid of it, all you can do is drive it underground. I'd rather find common ground on regulation.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose because the policy would depend on an editor's motivations, which are usually impossible to prove and possibly irrelevant. We should block and ban users only because of problems they have caused. If someone is doing biased editing and carries on after a warning, then block them. Whether their reason for doing so is money or some other motivation is firstly hard to prove (unless they tell us - and we shouldn't punish for disclosure), and secondly not of much practical concern to Wikipedia - it's the effects that matter. W. P. Uzer (talk) 11:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support First thing what came to my mind after reading about this proposal is that wikipedia will turn into a comfortable lounge for desperate SEOs... And what about 'us', the Volunteers??? Martinian ^{Leave a message!} 11:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

If you oppose paid advocacy then you should support the proposal for the new policy. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support, in theory, as a logical elaboration of WP:COI. How this is enforced is another matter. JNW (talk) 11:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not personally a fan of paid editing, but it's not the big problem. The problem is poorly sourced articles about non-notable topics: these can and should be dealt with in the normal way. We can't close our eyes to the fact that people see a Wikipedia article as an important part of their online presence, and I don't blame people for editing the article about their own business or, if they don't feel competent to do so, employing someone else to do so. This is only a problem when such editing breaches an existing rule, in which case let's deal with it under that rule.--Korruski^Talk 11:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, with the possibility of supporting after we figure out where we're trying to draw the lines. Our copyleft license isn't the noncommercial CC-BY-NC, it's CC-BY-SA ... which means we want people to figure out new ways to spread our material around the web, even if they somehow get money for it. So ... if they make money on text a minute after it's on the page, they're a hero, but if the money comes a minute before it's on the page, they're such a heinous criminal that we need to spend our valuable time hunting them down? As stated, the proposal isn't logically consistent with our copyleft license. - Dank (push to talk) 12:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
  • P.S. Also per what seems to be the general consensus here; Zenswashbuckler below says it well (if with more emotion than I would). Also: I've never made any money from Wikipedia text, nor plan to, nor know anyone else who does ... but since the decision got made in the early days to avoid a noncommercial license, I think we're probably stuck with that at this point. There are plenty of great noncommercial sites out there, and maybe those would be more logical places to be having this conversation. - Dank (push to talk) 18:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Before explaining, I actually thought this practice was already explicitly banned. But since it apparently isn't, I think it's not going to work. While I'm very sympathetic to the desire to keep someone (especially a paid "lobbyist") from pushing a slant, full disclosure is more important and easier to "police". Banning it will just drive it underground, and paid editing will still go on in secret anyway. It won't do anything to solve the problem, it'll just make it worse! Better sunlight than shadow. But thank you SlimVirgin, for bringing up something so very worthy of discussion. Hamamelis (talk) 11:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support, as stated above, the policy is a clear extension of WP:COI. I would insert "ordinarily" into the policy - occasionally editors with COI have a valid point to make. COI-editing is rampant and threatens the reliability of Wikipedia both through through distortion of article content via WP:UNDUE. --Smokefoot (talk) 12:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose If they make edits that are against Wikipedia standards, then remove them and ban them, but we should give everyone the benefit of the doubt.ShotmanMaslo (talk) 11:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, of course. We have policies and guidelines for how articles should be written and developed. We have built up the project to focus on the content not the contributors. This idea is turning that around to imply that no matter how good the content, if the editor has a financial (why financial anyway?) connection to the topic they cannot edit. But editors with less understanding, and emotional POV issues, are free to fiddle ineptly with any articles they wish! In my experience on Wikipedia the worse behaviour conflicts and the worse POV issues involve editors with emotional COI. I don't think there were paid editors involved in article disputes such as Tea Party movement, Falun Gong, The Troubles, etc. COI is often a very personal thing, which sometimes may not even be fully apparent to the individual concerned. Arbitration Committee members are sometimes asked to recuse from a case due to a COI which they weren't conscious of. In addition to a professional COI there are emotional, sexual, familial, racial, etc, and selecting just the professional out of all the potential conflicts seems inappropriate. If it is felt necessary, I would prefer the focus to be on tightening up the policies and guidelines on editing, or polishing our procedures for dealing with editing infringements, rather than looking into the motives of editors. Added to which, this policy would only be enforceable if an editor declared a COI. Unless we are now going to require full and detailed registration for all editors, listing all financial interests, this could only be enforced by the sort of sleuthing that gets the "well meaning / misguided" sleuth banned from the project for invasion of privacy. This is not a good proposal. SilkTork ^{?Tea time} 13:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

This analysis seems quite unserious. Why financial COI? Because every reputable enterprise recognizes the concept, and directly addresses it and because they are not reputable if they don't do so. You are saying, apparently by analogy, that there are other COI's but even if true that would be no reason not to address this well recognized one. Moreover, your concept of emotional COI is rather bizarre. There are people who cannot write neutrally but it is not because they have a conflict of interest as that term is normally used. COI is an objectively recognizable relationship. (e.g. financial, official, familial, sometimes personal-friend/enemy) beyond those it is almost never recognized as a conflcit of interest (rather, it is a belief, an opinion, a like, a dislike, a lack of circumpection, an inability to express onself apporpriately, sometimes a mere association - but not an addressable conflcit of interest). Such objectively recognizable relationships in common understanding make actions as to them when mixed with other responsibilities subject to specific expressly stated rules in the real world. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Alan. Every reputable publishing enterprise has a policy in place to deal with financial conflicts of interest. It's a sine qua non. We don't have such a policy. In the real world, financial conflicts of interest are recognized and treated differently than "emotional, sexual, racial" COIs (whatever the latter are supposed to mean; I'm a little afraid to ask). Finally, I am so sick of the argument that just because not every recent conflict can be boiled down to paid editing, we can therefore ignore the issue. MastCell ^Talk 19:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose as written What about employees of companies with 30,000 employees? What about employees of companies with 3 employees? What about stockholders of major public companies? What about minor stockholders of closely-held companies? Lou Sander (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

It's quite dead as written. "Emotional COI" - wow. What a concept. Doc talk 13:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - The policy is too broad and ambiguously written. Further, it's practically unenforceable unless someone adds content that is obviously and egregiously POV/COI. A good editor would avoid detection with good content rendering such a policy feckless. As a counter, perhaps Wikipedia could put together a guild of approved editors under special identified accounts who are permitted/licensed by the project to add content for compensation by outside firms. Have it centralized, establish a system of oversight, the editor attests to their demonstrated knowledge of relevant POV/COI policies, etc., and if a company or external entity wants content added, they can select from this pool of editors. And Wikipedia could get a cut. On the other hand, if Jimbo and the top brass insist on preventing editors from being paid for focused content, perhaps he should open up that large stock of cash he's been amassing with our donations and reward editors for contributing featured content. I'd love a $100 gift certificate to Applebees for an FA or a little cash--I'd write more of them. Recently, in seeing that my work has been published by a opportunistic firm that does POD books from Wikipedia content and charges for it, it makes me hesitant to contribute seeing that others try to capitalize off my donated knowledge and work. This is why I only contribute for my hobbies, and not the bread-and-butter knowledge relevant to my income-generating work. The material relevant to my occupation on Wikipedia is sorely lacking and for good reason--I get paid by the hour in the real world for that. --ColonelHenry (talk) 13:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as written The draft begins "Paid advocacy is not allowed on Wikipedia." So unpaid advocacy is? Yes, there's a problem. Unfortunately this draft is not the solution. It confuses two issues. Advocacy is utterly against WP's founding principles. COI, whether financial interest, reputational interest or any other kind of interest, is a different matter. It's best dealt with by requiring full disclosure and coming down hard on any case where there hasn't been full disclosure. The problem with the PR firm which started this off was that there was not full disclosure, which would have to include who their client was and that they were being paid to edit on this client's behalf. This is what we should make a policy. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, for essentially the same reasons as Jenova20, SilkTork and Peter coxhead. Advocacy, whether paid or not, is against the content policies, and bad for us; editing in conformance with the content policies, whether paid or not, is good for us. We need to get better at dealing with advocacy, but that means being more skilful and more robust at enforcing the content policies, not mechanical rules restricting who can edit. ("emotional COI" -- great term). --Stfg (talk) 14:08, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose- I oppose this proposed policy, at least as written. The policy attempts to eliminate paid editors who might generate biased articles that create a financial gain for their employers, which I fully understand. Unfortunately, as written, this policy could and I believe would be interpreted to mean that academics and other highly knowledgeable people could not write about the fields that they are the experts in, as others have pointed out (See: Risker above). For the record, I am an academic. With the current conflict of interest rules, I have had numerous colleagues accused of conflict of interest when writing articles about subjects on which they were experts (not about their institutions). I think this proposed policy's wording would make such occurrences even worse. I think the goal of keeping Wikipedia a trusted, neutral source of information is laudable. I just think the particular wording of this proposed policy would have very negative unintended consequences. Stevenmg (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose We should encourage transparency from paid advocates, rather than pushing them underground. I further see this as being unnecessary: less-experienced paid advocates' edits are fairly blatantly promotional, which let us directly invoke WP:NPOV, and generally leave us in the right if it escalates to something like page protection. More experienced paid advocates will not be affected by this, as they already work close to the ground. So what does this really do? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_?'s/ 14:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, I oppose on the grounds that this is a virtually unheard of policy decision on enwiki. This policy decision amounts to a preemptive topic ban of unspecified breadth on paid advocate editors. The only other place where I believe we engage in preemptive administrative action is when a user registers an apparent role account or uses a famous person's name, and even then we allow said user to change his or her username. Everything else I've seen on Wikipedia has been action following harm undertaken to prevent more harm. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_?'s/ 18:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: I prefer disclosing COI, rather than banning contributors or contributions (which will just drive COI editing underground). Quality content can be added to Wikipedia by editors with a COI. For example, I wrote and promoted Music for a Time of War to FA status, disclosing my COI from the start. What makes this so wrong? --Another Believer _(Talk) 14:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• That you are under the impression that this is an attempt to ban COI editing is amusing. How much did you get paid to get that article to FA status? A lot of money? Was it worth the paycheck? COI indeed. Doc talk 14:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose on the basis that not all paid contributors do a poor job. When they do, Wikipedia has existing guidelines and sanctions to deal with the problem. On the other hand there seem to be very few paid contributors who declare their interest and it would certainly be sensible to encourage them to do so. Sionk (talk) 14:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose mainly based on Risker's comments, but also based on reality. We already have paid editors at work, and our current policies don't deter them. How is this supposed to magically make them go away? COI also exists, and we do a damn poor job of keeping up with it now. This won't change anything...except add another layer of stuff and as others have pointed out would drive paid editors and COI deeper underground, soaking up more of our limited resources. No thanks. Intothatdarkness 14:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Any editor that is already "underground" shouldn't be driven further underground. Because those of us above ground need to dig them out, right? They are going to do it anyway, so make it easier for them. Sounds great! Doc talk 14:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think mocking or badgering opposers is a good idea. Intothatdarkness 16:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: The basic idea is sound, but it has unpleasant potential for being used as an excuse to ban random editors from certain articles. And also it might be stretching things a little to insist that people creating give details about their profession. I know people can reveal things about themselves, but shouldn't people have a degree of anonymity on this site? --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• Nope. No anonymity is allowed here, and that's what this is all about. E-mail me your information and we can continue. Doc talk 15:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose as written - while it sounds good, this would only hurt the honest people who are good contributors to the Project. It would prohibit me, for example, from editing virtually all articles dealing with the Democratic Party and my branch of higher education. I hope someday to get more political work and/or a tenured academic position; this policy would drive me and many others out of WP or -- worse -- underground as sockpuppets. I am in favor of mandatory, general disclosure of COI. For example, I have disclosed on my user pages the approximate income that I have received from partisan sources, my relationships with BLPs here, issues that I care about, policies and politicians whom I support, people whom I've known or met or are fans of, and even places and things that I've experienced. Much more beyond that is an invasion of one's right to privacy. FWIW, I am in favor of a complete ban on autobiographies. Bearian (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Rather than ban groups of people we need to go after incorrect behaviour - and we have policies and guidelines for COI and advocacy etc. If the quality of the edit is good then allow it - if it is poor then review it and if it is consistently poor then address the editor. Also I don't see how this policy could be enforced so it would become a way of attacking an editor. We should be worried about what is in Wikipedia not what happens outside it.Antiqueight ^confer 15:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose No offense to the drafters of this essay, but it is still a draft in progress, and has a ways to go before it deserves the status of guideline, much less policy. Three examples: I own share of mutual funds which attempt to hold virtually all public in the world. Millions of others have similar holdings. Every one of us is a stakeholder in every public organization in the world. Which means I should not be allowed to edit any article about any corporation. Second, stakeholder is even broader than that. It includes customers, which broadens the net to cover just about everyone. Third other benefits is a term broad enough to drive a truck through. I'm in favor of having a serious discussion about this issue. This page is a start, but we need to get better organized. Just holding votes on a few essays is a small start, but we need to do more.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Risker, SilkTork, and Jehochman. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support Stop it. Ban it. Put our feet down and slam the door in their faces. Paid editing, of any form should be intolerable and unacceptable across multiple levels. The fact that Wikipedia is going downhill in this regard is part of the reason why I no longer contribute very much here. Somewhere along the way, we have lost a bit of our soul and our integrity. ThemFromSpace 15:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support, as a much-needed step in the right direction; our wooliness about advocate editing flies in the face of WP:NPOV, and is being exploited. Miniapolis 15:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: Unless we are willing to change one of our WP:5 – Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute: Since all editors freely license their work to the public, no editor owns an article and any contributions can and will be mercilessly edited and redistributed. Respect copyright laws, and never plagiarize from sources. Borrowing non-free media is sometimes allowed as fair use, but strive to find free alternatives first. To something like: Wikipedia is free content that anyone (except anyone receiving financial or material benefit broadly construed) can edit, use, modify, and distribute: this type of proposal is just bad business and will cause far more damage to the encyclopedia and community in the long run than good. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. WP:CREEP. Users should declare their conflict of interest, but as long as they are not POV pushing there is absolutely no benefit to restricting their editing. If they are POV pushing then go through the existing channels (probably ANI) and assess topic bans individually - if they have declared a COI then that should be easier to accomplish. --W. D. Graham 15:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Dishonest paid editors will do it anyway, so why punish the honest ones? Or drive them to dishonesty? Considering there are so many editors out there who trash BLPs and organizations (and the paid ones among them are less likely to be honest), and that there is a lack of real sanctions against some of them - (no matter how many times they are taken to noticeboards, the reason I've cut back my editing substantially), plus the fact there is an increasing lack of editors willing to correct even egregious errors whose correction would never be contested, I think it would be destructive to forbid it. Once the COI is announced, editing can be more carefully scrutinized. Support honesty, don't encourage dishonesty. User:Carolmooredc 16:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose for many reasons, but as an example, I am a supporter of the Wikipedia:Education program and I would like to see Wikipedia integrated into classrooms. In doing this, I would like university professors to receive salary while encouraging their students to contribute to Wikipedia. This policy as written would unduly exclude professors from developing course content in the education program because they would be receiving salary while doing outreach for the Wikimedia movement. These case studies would not have happened with enforcement of this policy. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Bluerasberry, I've clarified that the Education Program is exempt from this, and that the policy should not be interpreted to mean that subject-matter experts are discouraged from contributing. Being an expert has nothing in itself to do with having a financial conflict of interest. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not satisfied with a list of exemptions and I remain in opposition. If there is something fundamentally different about the kinds of people exempted then that should be articulated and written into the main policy so that anyone could intuitively understand what kind of behavior is acceptable and what is not. Anyone reading the policy should be able to expect that all these listed exemptions would be outside of the targeting of this policy because of behavior and not their titles. Teachers and Wikipedians in Residence are exempted as were the Google researchers; yet historically all of these have sent a small percentage of troublemakers to Wikipedia. The titles are not the distinction; I want the policy to be about behavior and not special permissions that come inherently with titles. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Well said. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: I'd be happy to think of new wording if I could understand the objection, but I'm not sure I do. We have small numbers of troublemakers from every category of editor, so that's not really the issue. The issue is paid advocacy only. Someone furthering the interests of GLAM, Education Program, etc, is (hopefully, and for the most part) furthering the interests of Wikipedia and education in general – that's the behavioral issue – so I'm not sure why you would see them as included in this. If you can think of a way to tighten the writing, or to explain the issue further so that I can try to do it, that would be great. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I have a series of objections but the primary one is that I do not want good contributors excluded from Wikimedia projects. Exceptions cannot cover all editors and I want good people with good contributions to feel welcome for what they do and not for what their title is. If this policy includes exceptions then to me that smacks of the Citizendium philosophy of giving or withholding privileges on-wiki primarily based on what people do off-wiki, and this strategy has already proven to lead to a lot of problems which transparency and openness circumvent. I do not want to institute a Citizendium model here, and when anyone makes exceptions to policy for certain people holding titles, then that is what is happening.

No, the issue is not paid advocacy/editing. The issue is the problems that result from almost all but not all instances of paid advocacy/editing. Also, no one anywhere on this project has ever clearly defined the differences between "paid editing" and "paid advocacy", and until definitions exist then discussions probably cannot proceed. The working definition is that "paid advocacy" is "paid editing" which does not comply with Wikipedia community guidelines. All discussions on this topic make no sense to anyone outside this movement because advocacy in the Wiktionary sense of the term has nothing to do with its use in this small community on Wikipedia. The reason why GLAM, the Education Program, and the rest should be included in this is because they conduct "paid advocacy" in any normal sense of the term as used in any other place than on Wikipedia.

Neither I nor anyone else who has yet presented seems able to express in writing the idea of "accept good behavior and prohibit bad behavior, regardless of the source". In short - if a contributor's work would be unanimously and uncontroversially welcomed on Wikimedia projects under any scrutiny then that person should feel welcome to contribute here even if they are paid, and if a contributor's work is bad then they should quit doing it here even if they are an educator, non-profit partner like a Wikipedian in Residence, or WMF partner like Google. Titles correlate with the kind of work a person does, and are great and cheap indicators for risk assessment, but are not the authoritative last word on judging whether someone can help the Wikimedia movement. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: Thank you for explaining. I understand the point about us not having clear parameters, but we do have a working idea. For example, I assume you agree (but perhaps not) that the PR manager for a drug company should not write our articles about that company's drugs. That's the classic paid-advocacy model, where we are, in effect, hosting covert advertising. At the other end, we have ancient historians writing about Ancient Rome, because they love it. They may or may not have jobs in universities, but that would make no difference, because there is nothing to be gained but education all round. Are these working definitions (ostensive definitions) not enough to steer us through this? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

No, this is not good enough for me. A PR manager at a drug company who can comply with Wikipedia community guidelines should be allowed to edit. Right now it would be impossible for any PR person to do this because the Wikipedia community needs a lot of infrastructure to empower it to keep COI in check, but in medicine especially, Wikipedia needs a lot of help from somewhere and I think that large-scale contributions from industry when properly funneled through a series of checks could be welcome. The industry should feel especially welcome to drop money into non-profit health organizations like university medical schools and community hospitals and encourage them to address the Wikipedia problem through their respective communities. Especially in the field of medicine the content on Wikipedia needs to be absolutely perfected beyond reproach because Wikipedia's traffic makes it a public health concern. Wikipedia is already far more popular of a source of health information than the NIH, CDC, or WHO, and in the sense that we are navigating the largest and most utilized media organization the world has ever known, I do not take this lightly.

• Houston, Peter (14 October 2013). "Wikipedia is Also a Pharma Marketing Issue". blog.pharmexec.com. Retrieved 15 October 2013.
• Bengtson, Beth (9 October 2013). "Accept It, Wikipedia Is a Public Health Issue. Now Let's Fix It". blog.pharmexec.com. Retrieved 15 October 2013.

I think that the Wikimedia community has an obligation to give to the public a timeline of exactly when the most accessed 5,000 health articles on English Wikipedia will have universal on- and off-wiki consensus to be perfect in every way and also when they will be translated into a minimum of 20 languages each. In estimating this timeline we should account for when this would happen both with and without industry funding and paid advocacy contributions. I also would like to see the Wikimedia community start making demands on humanitarian grounds that corporations donate resources to the movement with no strings attached, and for governments to begin to recognize that the best thing that they can do for public health education and people's rights to seek and find information about their health is to build from what the Wikimedia communities are producing. The current proposal here blocks much of what I want. This movement should stay entirely grassroots. It should also receive good contributions whenever it would be practical to do so. PR people are bad people. There has to be a way to work together. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Bluerasberry I hear your concerns about excluding good contributors. However, without a COI policy that excludes paid advocacy like what Wiki-PR does, Wikipedia is wide open to companies with business models like Wiki-PR that are financially modified produce gobs of articles and are not committed to our goals and standards. If we had a clear policy excluding what they do, their businesses would dry up, as they could no longer represent that what they do complies with Wikipedia policies. Wikipedia is like honey to flies for such businesses and a ton of the resources of our volunteer community has been devoted to dealing with the swarm. (Not to mention the damage to our reputation, that we knowingly leave ourselves open to this) As you oppose this very targeted and concise solution, how would you suggest we close the door to companies like WIki-PR? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 11:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Jytdog - The proposed solution is neither targeted nor concise - it makes no sense in standard English and has a list of odd exceptions. I want the door closed completely to entities like Wiki-PR. I want the door open completely to good editors. Literally thousands of people have been unable to articulate how to do this. I have no suggestions for something better at this time but I do feel that this proposal would make things worse than they are now. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

• Support Wikipedia needs to tighten its rules instead of just letting people do whatever they want, getting surprised when they use Wikipedia for promotional purposes, and then blocking them after the damage has been done. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of reverted edits. Getting paid to edit this site greatly increases the likelihood that you will be violating Wikipedia's policies on advertising. Jinkinson talk to me 17:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
• Indiffrent: After a rethink. --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose SilkTork explains it best. We have policies in place. The vast majority of POV+COI issues, and the most egregious, involve emotional, sexual, familial, racial, etc. fulfillment rather than financial. I would add religious, personal vendetta, nationalism, and political views to that list. First Light (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose After reading more, doing more thinking, I now completely oppose this idea – beyond the fact that it would be hard to enforce. My reasoning has been repeated countless times here, so I need not explain. Support I'm a little confused how one would verify the editor is a paid employee, but these editors almost always show a clear COI editing with promotional tone. If a company or organization is notable enough to warrant an article or section within, there'd be plenty of unaffiliated editors to do the task. I just see this type of COI too much when patrolling. An easy prime example is checking the user creation log, with after some number of edits, it's clear by their username they are working for a company. These users are swiftly blocked, so I deem it appropriate to extend policy to cover such actions of other users. Note while I support this proposal, I do see foresee potentially heated disputes with users defending themselves as non-paid affiliates... — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support. The policy, as worded, is very clear, straightforward and simple and applies only to individuals who are paid directly for their efforts on Wikipedia and only prevents them from directly editing articles. Since advocacy on talk pages is permitted, it is not as if corporations and the like will an avenue to point out mistakes or various monied lobbies won't have a platform at all. They will only be disallowed from directly editing articles, which seems fair. Allowing paid editors to directly work on articles is problematic for two reasons: (1) it skews the knowledge base toward people and entities with money, and (2) it could have a de-motivational effect on the vast numbers of unpaid volunteers who edit here. I do agree with some of the oppose !voters above that this may drive paid editors underground or force them to work through socks, but it is not easy to work underground and socking has the nasty habit of consigning editors to Wiki-purgatory. On the balance, I think we'll be better off pushing paid editors into the fringes rather than allowing them to occupy the mainstream. --regentspark (comment) 18:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)\
• Strong Oppose - with a broad enough definition, I would not be able to edit an article on Taco Bell, because I took a customer satisfaction survey and they gave me a taco. If an individual edits in a reasoned fashion, their edits are not affected by their motivation. I find there are a vast number of individual with strong feelings for and against every entity, practice, thinking... almost ANYTHING. Few of those POV problems are due to financial interest. Most are due to emotional interest. Better to say "you must not edit an article you care about"... which is ridiculous as well.Unfriend13 (talk) 19:08, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. The proposed wording is too broad—and yet too narrow. As is, it is possible to consider employees of a non-governmental organization as ineligible to write on their field of public service—because donations (revenue) are derived from their work in a sector. Similarly, the wording could be read to imply that employees of a company could not edit articles on their industry. Would editing fracking articles be banned by employees of both Greenpeace and shale oil/gas companies? If so, we lose expertise on both sides of an issue. Regardless, an accusation is made in a moment, but a defense in a hearing could take a long time to pursue. And money is a crude tool for judging bias, motivation and results. It seems that implementing WP:BRIGHTLINE (as "No Paid Advocacy") would be using a hammer to nail houseflies: not very effective, and we’d end up damaging a lot of things while trying to get rid of an occasional pesky critter. As others have said: Let’s avoid creep. We already have several means to handle the issue: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest, Wikipedia:Neutral_Point_Of_View, WP:Promotion, Wikipedia:General_notability_guideline and Wikipedia:NOTHERE#Not_being_here_to_build_an_encyclopedia. ~ Desertroadbob (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose: Though most of my arguments against a firm Brightline and/or mandatory COI disclosure can be found here in reply to the current effort to ban a paid editing company for stating explicitly that COI disclosure is not already mandatory and that at this point it is only advised or suggested according to the guidelines, I will add something here as regards this proposal. The policy being proposed here conflates paid advocacy and paid editing. One can be paid to edit, and edit fully within Wikipedia's guidelines. That is what a good paid editor does--they transcend any lack of neutrality and have the ability to explain Wikipedia's rules to the client in such a way that they are happy with Wikipedia-appropriate material and do not insist on promotional material. The good paid editor is, in fact, indistinguishable from any other Wikipedia editor, as they do their jobs perfectly--and that job is not to fool Wikipedians, but to act as a model Wikipedian in adding any information to the site. The only difference is that instead of personal interest driving the editor to edit Wikipedia, the paid editor is paid to edit articles they may not have edited on their own. That paid editor, if not a paid advocate, does not take into account the promotional considerations of the company or person that pays them, and produces a Wikipedia-appropriate article based on independent research. The company pays the editor, because the most beneficial presence for them on Wikipedia is a Wikipedia-appropriate one and not one riddled with promotional errors. Until that difference, and the context it brings, is present in the proposal then we are not close enough to making the guideline a policy. AKonanykhin (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• Strong support - Paid advocates aren't paid to present their clients neutrally, they're paid to put the messages out their clients want the world to hear. That is a fundamental fact which cannot be ignored. While it is certainly possible to write something that has the look and feel of a neutral, unbiased article with citations from reliable sources, what we don't see is what has been left in the file cabinet, the negative things that are left unwritten, because to present them would hurt the advocate's client. This creates a tension between what we require and what paid advocates are paid to do, and it's a tension that cannot be hand-waved away, because the fundamental goals of the two sides cannot be harmonized. Rather than have the onus on us to discover the myriad ways in which advocates can hide or sugar-coat the truth about their clients, we need to place the onus on them by disallowing them access to the project, and banning them when they break that rule and are uncovered. This is a matter of protection for survival which can't be ignored. 20:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyond My Ken (talk • contribs)
• Oppose. Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. How on earth could such a policy be enforced? We only know that editors are COI if they declare it and they are then ususally treated appropriately by other editors. SpinningSpark 21:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose – The various comments above actually demonstrate that the proposed policy is easily misunderstood. That is, editors are commenting as if any "paid editing" is "paid advocacy". Also, the proposed policy is flawed as written. E.g., "other benefits" is unduly vague and broad. (Wikipedians-in-residence (and other volunteers) receive a benefit when they can post their editing accomplishments in a resume.) And what is a "close relationship" or "similar non-promotional work"? Too much of this proposed restriction is shooting the messenger and ignores the good news that the messenger – the editor who is receiving pay for providing edits that comply with guidelines – can bring. As it stands now COI editors can be blocked if they go too far. So, rather than posting a vague and misunderstood policy, we can strengthen existing policy by requiring paid editors to post the {{connected contributor}} template (with clear declarations) on the talk page of those pages they have an interest in. – S. Rich (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support. All my reasons have already been stated by other. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose As Written Disclosed COI's (paid or not) should be allowed to edit without any special permission (however, edits by such parties should be subject to speedy review and reversion, if necessary). Sebastian Garth (talk) 22:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, although I think we need a policy to address problems in this area. The problem is not about being paid, but rather, editing in a disruptive manner as a result of being paid. We should focus on transparency and on adherence to existing policies. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Our guideline on COI editing should be seen as demanding exceptional behavior from anyone with a conflict of interest on a subject, with deviation from acceptable behavior being dealt with more strictly. As long as someone complies with our content policies we should have no objection to them contributing here.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support. However, I have no clue how this could ever be enforced. I support any idea that puts us one inch closer to the end of: "anyone can edit Wikipedia". I think we do an amazing job here considering anyone with a computer can edit articles. "Oh thank goodness for semi protected articles"....it's a start. Made me chuckle when I read the short proposal, because the other day I became curious what the difference was between "Silver Tequila, and "Gold Tequila", and I don't even drink, however, the subject came up in a discussion between friends. I ended up on the "Jose Cuervo" page. I swear, when I started reading the article, I could almost hear a jingle playing in the background...lol. Of course the difference in the colors wasn't in the article because all the manufacturer does (after a few minutes of research) is add Carmel coloring additive to the Silver, and then calls it "Gold". Needless to say, I added and cited a section explaining the difference. Yes, I'm tired of Commercials here, as well as vandals, and will support anything that helps eliminate them. However, again...how in the world with the current "anyone can edit policy" here, are we going to enforce it? Oh...forgot to mention that Jose didn't appreciate the new info to his commercial, and I have had to make reverts or changes to very clever edits daily. The amusement never ends. :) Thanks-Pocketthis (talk) 20:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

To be fair your citation doesn't say that Jose Cuervo only adds caramel or that they don't have different varieties - only that some add caramel and that to properly age it is expensive. I would want to see a real citation to believe either way..Hmm don't know why I came across this...--Antiqueight ^confer 03:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose any major conflicts of interest should be declared. If done correctly then paid editing/advocacy could be good for the project. However declaring that paid advocacy is completely out of bounds is impossible given the ease of creating accounts. Tell paid editors to be upfront and declare their interests, and they will have more respect from me. Those that deny COI should be treated harshly.Martin451 23:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Pocketthis' comment gives rise to Sophocles' admonition: What you cannot enforce, do not command. – S. Rich (talk) 23:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
• Cautiously Support we need a "bright line rule" - paid editors are difficult to catch, so if they are caught they should not get away with a warning, they should be banned. IMHO the bright line can be put differently: it is enough for the users a)properly identify the COI (including a tag on the article if it mostly written by an editor with COI), b) not engage in edit warring over the article (0RR). For me it will be enough, but this should be a bright line rule - those disobeying the rule should be banned if caught Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support* Some above say it would be unenforceable. And that's true, in a sense. COI editors would need to be subtle about it. But having a way to fight back against blatant cases would still be a plus. This proposal is certainly a step in the right direction. Let's take that step. DavidHobby (talk) 00:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per NE Ent and Jehochman. buffbills7701 01:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with the reasons articulated by User:Desertroadbob. The focus should be on NPOV, bias, and advocacy, and tools exist for handling those. That said, when an editor has a COI, they should be obliged to disclose it. Carter (talk) 01:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support as necessary for
  1. maintaining wikipedia as an encyclopedia and not seeing it (further) devolve into the newest avatar of geocities, myspace etc as a venue to promote organizations, individuals, and POVs; and
  2. a community of volunteer editors many of whom will be driven away (in the long term) if their efforts to build a credible educational resource are allowed to be hijacked by advertising and PR professionals. Personally, I will be hesitant to volunteer my time if I see that I am essentially competing against paid professionals who don't share my regard for NPOV, and that any credibility I build for the project by writing well-sourced, high quality articles just contributes to fool readers into trusting other promotional-content-masquerading-as-articles.

Additionally, in many opposes above I see arguments that preventing PR professionals from writing wikipedia articles and trying to police finacial conflicts of interest, will somehow also prohibit professional scholars from editing wikipedia. This IMO is fallacious as almost all reputable research (eg) and educational (eg) institutions manage to have financial conflict of interest guidelines, while relying on those very same scholars and experts for their functioning. In all these policies, and any course on ethics in business or research, financial COI are treated separately and handled more severely than other "natural" biases related to political, religious, ethnic, national etc beliefs and the inevitable presence of the latter class is no excuse to overlook the former. We don't have to reinvent the wheel here. (You won't find any of these organizations arguing "All we care about is good research/education, and don't care what financial arrangement the researcher/professor has on the side". Somehow analogous reasoning seems to carry weight in some of the opposes here).

I do acknowledge that wikipedia will face problems in enforcing any paid advocacy/financial COI prohibition, but don't see that as a reason to not lay down the principle in the first place; and imperfect enforcement is preferable to a laissez faire system. Lastly, I realize that this particular proposal is unlikely to be approved (given the state of current !voting), but hope that the community is eventually able to come up with effective policies in the area for the long-term health of the project. Abecedare (talk) 01:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• Flat out Oppose kicking and screaming and thinking this is one of the worst ideas ever to be presented to Wikipedia. Ideas like this need to be buried nice and deep, but with a big flag saying "don't go here". Not the very least of which is the fact that it will only impact those who are open and honest about any conflict of interest and let the scoundrels who are more likely to be trolls off the hook. Letting other editors know about biases you may have when editing articles is certainly useful (regardless of if you are paid or not), but merely the fact that somebody is getting paid or not should have virtually no significant impact upon the evaluation of the quality of the edits of that person. Since paid editing is already mentioned in this "policy", it already provides plenty of wiggle room for somebody to weasel their way out of any sort of realistic enforcement. I'd like to say simply get back to the idea of this being a wiki that "anybody can edit" and don't get so snooty about who that "anybody" might actually be. If the edit improves the article, keep the edit. If the edit stinks, it should be culled. That should be the standard and not the sort of narrow application that this policy seems to be implying. WP:COI is plenty sufficient at the moment and does not need any sort of gilding of lilies. --Robert Horning (talk) 01:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support, unfortunately. It seems a bright line may be needed these days. Kaldari (talk) 03:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
• Strongest possible oppose This is the worst proposal I've seen related to paid editing. The effect will be to greatly damage the encyclopedia. The redefinition of paid editing and paid advocacy is incorrect. Ryan Vesey 03:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Advocacy is comparable to political lobbying, and historically it's better to register lobbyists and keep an eye on them rather than drive them underground. Also like political lobbyists, paid advocates have a deserved bad rap, but do play in a role in drawing attention to developing issues. Paid advocates can inject life into inadequate articles and inspire editors to set the record straight. They can also spot factual errors and correct pejorative statements. Advocates should definitely by required to declare their conflicts of interest however.... --Sigeng (talk) 03:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose – I have two main concerns about this. Firstly, explicitly banning this won't actually stop people from doing it, but it will stop people from being open about it. If it's going to happen, it's better that as many of them as possible actually admit who they are and why they're here so everyone else can take that into account. The benefit from the, in my opinion, very few who would stop because of this is outweighed by the problems caused by the others going incognito, as it were.

Secondly, if Politican X is running for office, and someone, or a group of someones, is steadfastly scrubbing their article of anything that might be negative, does it really matter if those editors are there because they're X's staffers, or unpaid campaign volunteers, or unaffiliated partisan editors who just really like X and want them to win? That's the sort of thing that's a problem regardless of where it's coming from. I think that a lot more of the contentions on political articles come from random people with very strong opinions rather than people who are paid to be there. Egsan Bacon (talk) 04:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Promotional articles have gradually become a huge problem here, and defining it away by allowing paid advocacy would open the floodgates to a lot more of it. So I believe this is necessary. I wouldn't mind having another bullet in the "acceptable paid editing" section to include being a paid professional in a field which you also edit articles in, and even for the editing to be included in the things one is paid to do, as long as the editing is not promotional in nature. For instance, as an academic, I am mainly paid to teach and research on topics related to my interests here, but my performance evaluations are also based on "service", which could reasonably be interpreted as including my Wikipedia editing activities. I don't think this proposal is intended to address that sort of paid activity, but additional clarity in that respect wouldn't hurt. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Past experiences with Wikipedia policies such as "verifiability, not truth" show that after a little while policies get interpreted literally, so your current belief is wishful thinking. You personally do have a huge conflict of interest in promoting your particular area of computer science research on Wikipedia. Of course you could argue that you more or less promote other areas of computer science or math, but that's just a wider COI as far as this policy proposal is concerned: you have a "some other form of close financial relationship with the subject of the article". Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Oppose, reluctantly. Comments such as yours have convinced me that too many people here are, like you, unwilling to distinguish between experts and advocates. I strongly believe we need expert editors to hold up the technical side of our encyclopedia and prevent it into degenerating into a worthless encyclopedia of celebrities and pop culture. And although I believe the current proposal wasn't aimed at expert editors, you have convinced me that it could easily become aimed at them later The alternative, insisting that those parts can only be edited by people who aren't paid for anything related, will likely lead to the technical articles being edited primarily by student volunteers, giving little or no coverage to topics outside the mainstream undergraduate curriculum, and leading (in my experience editing articles that are in the mainstream curriculum) to amateurishly written articles. We will have to find other means to counter advocacy, I guess focusing more heavily on the actions and less on who does them. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is silly, how would you even know if someone is paid unless they tell you. So if you now make a rule that it isn't allowed it punishes those who are honest about their work while encouraging everyone to go underground. There obviously will always be people paid in one way or another to edit articles so why not make a way for them to do so above board? Sportfan5000 (talk) 06:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Support as an editor of several years I have encountered many single purpose editors who are obviously paid employees or too close a connection. I've complained about WP:COI breaches but the community seems weak to deal with it... with the usual "we'll just watch editor X closely" I've seen legal threats made by paid advocates, one WP subject names on his own personal website WP editors that he wants to name and shame and offers a reward for anyone with personal information on these editors (I'm not naming this real life person which has a WP article) . single purpose editors even if not paid advocacy have no interest in NPOV or building a better encyclopaedia, they simply want to push an agenda. They have zero interest in working on other articles and spend their time monitoring one article on behalf of the article subject. This includes overly positive commentary in articles (often not from reliable third party sources), but worse, removal of well sourced and balanced coverage of controversies. I firmly believe strongly tools are needed to deal with paid advocacy in WP. LibStar (talk) 07:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support the community needs to make it crystal clear COI PR editors are not welcome here in any way, shape, or form. Ethical companies (and their lawyers, and PR advisers) will follow our policies, and those who don't will risk PR backlash or worse if they're found out. That it can be difficult to enforce is a red herring, when they are found out they will be dealt with, same as we enforce bans and block abusive sockpuppets, even though many of those slip through the cracks too. Siawase (talk) 08:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - NPOV and paid advocacy are NOT mutually exclusive. I don't think the system is broken - unreasonable COI edits are usually spotted and corrected pretty quickly. You can be a good editor with a COI. Far better to engage with these editors within a framework. I have and will continue to make edits on subjects and things I am related to, but I always work to the core principles. This is blocking everyone because of a few bad editors - if you want to make a difference on that basis, block IP editing! OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 09:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose As currently written, the policy attempts to distinguish between paid advocacy and paid editing; the former banned, the latter allowed. But advocacy is already banned, so what is this trying to achieve? GoldenRing (talk) 09:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - redundant to Wikipedia:No advocacy, whether paid or unpaid. Thus, just redundant policy which would serve no purpose except to add bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. We're here to write an encyclopaedia, not to play a game of rule enforcement. WilyD 10:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as policy. Advocacy is a large and serious problem, and I cordially invite anyone who doubts this to spend a week doing AfC work, and helping out on IRC help, where in both the fraction of spammers is easily over 80%. The problem I perceive with paid editing is that the paid editors either think they are able to write neutral articles, or they know they can't, but that it can't hurt to try to push through anyway - they know they are not doing the right thing, but hey, free promotion, and it's somebody elses problem. The underlying problem here is that we need people to abide by the spirit of NPOV, and those looking for a loophole don't generally think in terms of the spirit of a policy, the spirit of the project or the right thing to do. But what we need is not a policy - we already have that in NPOV. What we need is to tell them, and keep telling them that what they are doing is doesn't mesh with our project, and they have to stop doing it, without needing a specific policy document that has that exact content. And at some points it does work out. I'm really happy we have Akka (toolkit) now for example, which was written by people with a conflict of interest. We should be open to valuable additions like that. I'm not willing to give articles like that up for a bright line that makes it easier to point spammers to. What we can do is take a less lenient line on what they are doing wrong, and if they are clearly here with the wrong intentions not be afraid to tell them no, and tell them to go away - if necessary with blocks. We don't need a bright line policy to do that. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per SilkTork, Jenova20, W.P.Uzer and especially Martijn Hoekstra. WP:COI is a good guideline and focuses on the edit not the editor. Babakathy (talk) 11:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. In many cases, those with a financial interest in a subject are the only parties interested in keeping an article current. Wikipedia is (unfortunately) full of pages with POV problems, but I would rather a biased updated page than an so-called unbiased page that is so old and out of date that it is of no use whatsoever. I think we can and should build on the proposal below to require disclosure of these types of edits. However, rather than requiring that it be disclosed in the edit summary/signature (which could easily be missed by accident), we should add a yes/no radio button below the edit summary that is not set by default but must be set in order to save the edit. These flags can allow editors to watch for and verify/NPOV pages that have been edited in this way, and would ensure that anyone who misled the community about their interest in the article cannot claim to have done so by mistake. - Nbpolitico (talk) 12:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

@Nbpolitico: See also Wikipedia talk:Paid editing policy proposal? which reflects your opinion. Jehochman ^Talk 12:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose This rule seems both ill-considered as to unintended consequences and unenforceable. Pay isn't the issue, the person isn't the issue, it's NPOV. The focus should not be the editors but the edits. This will not address the underlying NPOV issue it hopes to solve. It should not be adopted. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Forbidding advocacy is already policy WP:NPOV, and I'm with Risker in seeing not much of a difference to religious or nationalist unpaid advocacy. The ethical thing for any editor to do is to disclose any COI. Moreover, to effectively forbid me to edit certain articles is neither going to work (how will you know), nor particularly fair to me: My institution has granted me paid leave to attend Wikimania. Now everybody knows that I'm editing, and it is entirely possible that the odd request comes in, from my boss(es), to improve our institutional article, to write about a conference we host, and so on. I can do it in a non-promotional tone, I'll disclose. But in a way it is still advocacy, because our competitor's articles are in a much weaker state. Do you want to forbid that? --Pgallert (talk) 13:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose It only interferes with COI editing by honest editors and would catch only the most naive COI or pai editors. Paid editors could just not mention the fact that they are paid, and business owners could just choose a username which id not tip you off that they were the proprietor of the business they were writing about. It is as pointless as the loyalty oaths required by the US in the 1950's. I do have qualms about POV pushing by PR firms, but we can fall back on what is in the actual edit and use reversion or blocking if it is not supported by reliable sources and presented in a balanced NPOV way without undue weight. People who teach at a college have a financial interest in the image of the college. Someone who gets a pension from, or has his retirement savings invested in the stock of, some company has a financial interest in that company looking good. Someone who lives in some tourism destination has a financial interest in the article about it being written so that visitors come there. This and like proposals are just "theater," making us feel better about the nonPOV nature of the project without having any real effect except on the rare editor who comes out an states he is editing for pay or to benefit himself financially in some way. Edison (talk) 14:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose For small and medium companies COI editors are often the best placed to edit articles on said companies and will have the best resources and expertise on products. Other editors can inspect cited materials to check for bias.Testem (talk) 14:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose As long as its written according to WP:NOT and is writen in an "objective and unbiased style" and is "free of puffery" then why does it matter who writes it? The beauty of WP is that anyone can edit, keep it that way. Simon Caulton (talk) 14:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree to several opposition comments. I wish to add myself that I did not see how "paid advocacy" is substantially different from paid editing, or even the policy of COI itself. --G(x) (talk) 14:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Earthly incarnation of Platonic pie-in-the-sky ideal. How on earth are we going to enforce this? I should be giving this a militant, borderline-deranged level of support and campaigning, but I just don't see how you can enforce it. I personally believe that the marketing/advertising/lobbying/"communications" industry is just about the most totally morally bankrupt profession on earth (at least a pimp is honest about being a pimp, and does terrible harm to a relatively few people; advertisers are coming close to murdering democracy itself), and I'd put Wikilobbying in the "See Also" section ("When money determines Wikipedia entries, reality has become a commodity."). But - what can we possibly do to enforce this that we don't already do to remove straight-up, ordinary-course POV edits? We already check, to the best of our ability, for promotional / press-release language, for whitewashing, for overweighted reliance on positive sources. If we put paid COI editors through a stricter ringer with no reward for doing so, or worse, totally outlaw them (if we use only a stick and not a carrot), all we'll do is increase the number of unmonitored POV edits, and once they're editing "illegally" anyway, why should they then have any scruples about balance? Without the possibility of good standing for playing by the rules, all you do is guarantee disobedience; and in that situation disobedience quickly becomes self-righteous, i.e. civil disobedience, even where that perception is objectively ludicrous. Pragmatic acceptance and intentional correction will always work better than blundered idealism, whose incompetence quickly spirals. ?.ZenSwashbuckler.? 14:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Self-declaration is certainly more than enough. Again, this is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - If we remove professionals from this equation, then we are essentially removing the one source of editors that are truly unemotional in their editing. Yes, paid editors can be passionate about the subject they edit, but they have their employers and/or clients to answer to as well as the WP community. IMO paid advocates are held to a higher standard than the average editor. Remove the professionals as User:Risker defines it or paid editors who happen to be PR or marketing people and WP loses a significant source of information as well. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose since paid advocacy is (1) almost impossible to determine unless the COI editor reveals it, making it therefore (2) unenforceable. Comment. My sense is there are fewer COI problems on heavily trafficked articles with high daily pageviews (100+/day), since opposing viewpoints cancel each other out, and bias is more easily exposed. The bigger problem comes with single-focus editors editing articles with low pageview counts. I wonder if a bot could paste a warning flag on single-editor articles with meager eyeball traffic, with inadequate references, suggesting bias.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. We're already taking care of COI and spam to the best of our ability. Adding a new rule won't help. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 18:39, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
• Strongest possible support. We've already seen plenty of examples of how people with financial interests in companies, careers and/or products try to further their own interests here on WP, both by adding or removing content from existing articles and by creating new articles about persons/companies what-have-you of dubious notability. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 18:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

We've also seen how many people with new accounts vandalise Wikipedia too. We should definitely enact a policy to ban all editing from new accounts too. And then we can expand it to ban editing from everyone who has ever used bad punctuation in a sentence! Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that "anyone can edit". This policy is a terrible unpolicable idea and it will force people to deny their COI, not be open about it. That's an own goal and will speed up the decline of membership. Thanks ? Jenova20 ^(email) 19:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support and broaden as per Cullen. A disclosure of relationship MUST be built into the policy and readily accessible to other contributors/editors. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Encourages off wiki sleuthing and outing. Not a big enough problem to need a new policy.Greglocock (talk) 21:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Per all above. Way too prescriptive for cases which may radically differ in context and type of editing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 3

• Oppose as patently unenforceable, and as attempting to judge edits by the purity of the edtiors' motives rather than the content of the edits themselves.

This policy is altogether unenforceable. If we've used it to bust User:ManageYourOnlineReputationSolutionsLLC, will they spend an hour in tears and then resolve to find honest work? Not likely. They'll register under new usernames that give nothing away, avoid any mention of their commercial intent on their userpages, and happily propagandize away as before.

We've already got a policy on biased edits, and we already try to enforce it. The proposed policy doesn't add anything useful to it; rather, it declares that biased edits for commercial purposes are somehow more egregious than biased edits made with other motives. Rather than singling out one class of non-NPOV edits for particular opprobrium, we should try to eliminate bias in all forms, regardless of its motive. Ammodramus (talk) 22:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose as per 'Discussion' comment (below). Go after the article not the editors. Add a '$' in the top-right (with lock status & '+'for 'good article etc) or a tag to display front & center for 'Sources on this page may be compromised by an undeclared financial, or tangible benefit, conflict of interest'. Proof for adding the tag would be based on article content not editor witchhunts and could be debated on the talk page as per any other tag & proceed through the thundering bureaucracy as required. AnonNep (talk) 02:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - whatever happened to "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit"? Zach Vega (talk to me) 22:39, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Per many of the arguments of other opponents above. I do not see the problem in having those edits, and I do see problems in not having those edits. SO I oppose not just "as written", rather I oppose the proposal in any form. Debresser (talk) 01:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Judge each edit on its merits and you won't have to worry about who wrote it or why. It's unenforceable anyway. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 03:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Our ultimate goal should be to attempt to document truth, so far as it has been approximated by reliable sources. Receipt of payment or expectation of receipt of payment has an insidious effect on the actions of even the best-intentioned, and typically the effect will be to the detriment of the goal of seeking truth whenever that goal is perceived as being at odds with presenting information that is favorable to the point of view of the payer. So while I might quibble with some of the text in the proposal, I support the general intent. That said, I can't see this rule as being even remotely enforceable. Even if it is promoted to policy level, financial-COI advocacy will continue, perhaps a bit more covertly than at present. Dezastru (talk) 04:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

"Our ultimate goal should be to attempt to document truth": WP:NOTTRUTH

"insidious effect": & WP:AGF

Paradoctor (talk) 04:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

"Truth, so far as it has been approximated by reliable sources". Dezastru (talk) 08:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

So what approximates "insidious effect"? Cooperative editors are not a problem whether they're paid or not. Uncooperative editors ignore policy anyway, and we can already deal with that. Paradoctor (talk) 11:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose This proposal goes against Wikipedia's greatest strength: It can be edited by anyone, instantaneously. --Spannerjam 04:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose This policy doesn't seem to distinguish between edits that are technical and non-controversial in nature and edits that might have an impact on how the article subject is perceived.

I imagine that most of us would have a strong objection if a company unilaterally deleted well-sourced information about a scandal, but would anyone object to a company updating out-of-date revenue figures with the latest results? Consider the following case. An editor works for a large technology company which makes popular mobile devices. Would anyone object to that editor updating his company's section in the article List of displays by pixel density to include specifications for the latest generation of products? Depending on how you interpret "affected articles", this proposal would ban that sort of edit. It seems unnecessarily bureaucratic and against Wikipedia's WP:SOFIXIT spirit to expect that an editor who is interested in making such a change get a third party to do it for them. It also seems unrealistic to expect that volunteers will process minor, technical tweaks in a timely manner.

If this policy is going to be successful, it needs to be more targeted towards banning edits that actually are advocacy, and not just ban all edits to "affected articles" by anyone with a financial COI.GabrielF (talk) 04:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - Jimmy Wales' so-called "Bright Line" is unrealistic. It is impossible to play "Whack-a-Mole" without making the wikicrime of "Outing" vanish, since identification and elimination of violators of the so-called "Bright Line" will require..........identification for their elimination. Moreover, with no real name registration and sign-in-to-edit, the effectiveness of WP's blocking and banning mechanisms will remain a joke — if we get lucky and catch one, they'll just put on a new mask. This won't stop paid editing, it will only drive it underground and make it more difficult to locate and monitor. Carrite (talk) 05:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
• This is clearly well-intentioned, but I can't help but think it's redundant to WP:NOTADVOCATE. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 06:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Y'know, excellent point that's exactly right — the essential core of this matter is already covered in policy. We're just debating an empty slogan, in the final analysis, since its provisions are not enforceable under WP's current structure... Carrite (talk) 16:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - Paid editors can do a good job in writing neutral articles, it is the POV-pushers we should punish and we already have policies against that. If this policy is implemented, Wikipedia would have to change its slogan to "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, unless you are being paid to do so." Mentoz86 (talk) 07:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose for the simple reason that it's unenforcable. We can make it a policy, sure, and then those who want to avoid the rule will simply edit as an anonymous IP. Next to that, we already have policies that should catch blatant advertising or POV/COI editing. Yintan  13:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Focus should be on the edits not the editor and I agree with others that the brilliance of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it. I would oppose anything that creates barriers to participation. But, I’m thinking maybe we need more paid editing not less - meaning, why not raise funds so that experienced and dedicated Wikipedians can be compensated for the work they contribute, including catching and challenging POV or Advocacy edits. ??? Apologies, if that’s been considered a thousand times before…But I think it's an idea worth thinking about since WP is so big and influential …Depthdiver (talk) 16:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose, per User:Risker on two points. First, subject matter experts are not supposed to be able to argue from authority on Wikipedia, but their contributions are nonetheless valuable, and professional SMEs would be banned under this proposal. Second, "paid advocacy" is no worse than unpaid advocacy, and is unworthy of special treatment. RossPatterson (talk) 10:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose as unenforceable and as a guarantee that any paid advocacy that occurs will be kept hush-hush, potentially depriving us of a useful red flag. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose; There are as many people who would like to use Wikipedia for damaging others' reputations, as there are those who would like to use Wikipedia for self-promotion—we already have a policies for this: WP:NPOV/WP:COI. Keep it simple and focused: it is the quality of the output that should be measured. We are asked to consider WP:No paid advocacy#Paid_editing_versus_paid_advocacy where several of the examples are focused around those positions that the Wikimedia Foundation might fund. I would be uncomfortable with the Foundation having an exclusive economic fiefdom over the right to contract improvements to Wikipedia. WP:NOBIGDEAL applies to adminships, and the same no big deal should apply to funding—any invitation should be extended freely, fairly and equally to all contributors and contributing organisations, as long as they abide by the rules on WP:NPOV/WP:N/WP:V/WP:CITE/….

  Remember: the high-level aim here is to build an encyclopedia, not to dream up policies that selectively apply 9–5 weekends and bank holidays excepted (ie. how would we even begin to ascertain if (or how) somebody is being compensated for any edit). My feeling is that policy appears to be trying to impose unworkable technical solutions to social problems, and perhaps misses Wikipedia's central aison d'être (the content). —Sladen (talk) 16:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose as written - I can see perhaps modifying the proposal in certain ways. (1) Paid editors, and firms, disclose their status in some way that makes it generally knowable. I won't specify how. They also establish their credentials in advance of any sort of paid editing by developing one article apparently outside of their field of paid interest and receiving sufficiently favorable reviews to be "approved." (2) They disclose in some prominent way their involvement on the talk page of the relevant article. (3) For every article they develop for which they are paid, they also work to bring another, separate article, outside of that field, up to roughly similar status. There are a lot of significant articles regarding even important topics in various fields which still need lots of work, and having them develop this sometimes neglected or overlooked material would both be beneficial for wikipedia as a whole and also probably improve the paid editors' general reputation here as well. John Carter (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support - COI editors should make a proposal on the talk page and/or approach editors without a COI to add material that they prepare. At a minimum, they should be asked specifically to disclose their COI, abide by a 1-revert rule and avoid all edit warring. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support - yes, it would be difficult to enforce. But if made policy, it would be an important step towards making Wikipedia a more trustworthy source of information than it is at the moment. We need a policy like this, and sooner or later, I hope we'll get one. Robofish (talk) 17:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as unenforceable.--Staberinde (talk) 19:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: Already covered in existing COI guidelines-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Policies are in place that ensure that content is appropriate the encyclopedia. I do not need to know an editor's motivations to judge the edit. Putting such a policy in place also sticks a thumb in the eye of WP:AGF.--~TPW 19:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Support Wikipedia needs this policy. Granted, moderating for conflicts of interest is a vexing issue, but it is emphatically not true that a user's motivations cannot materially affect the quality of an edit. Of course, the policy touches not at all the issue of UNPAID advocacy, which can be just as destructive to WP articles. But this policy does have the virtue of disempowering corporate and major political party flackery here in Wikipedia to a large extent. It's one more tool among many to make sure that Wikipedia articles are objective and factual, not promotional text. I disagree with the argument made above that professionals would never be able to post edits on topics relating to their occupation. WP:PROVEIT is the greatest protection against abuse of "the argument from authority," by requiring professional and lay writer alike to confine statements in an edit to those drawn from acceptable research sources.loupgarous (talk) 20:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• "not true that a user's motivations cannot materially affect the quality of an edit" That's right, and that's why nobody has said it.

Actually, someone upstream DID say it, and was refuted for the reasons I stated. However, I'd like to retreat from that statement because trying to assess motivations for actions gets us into witch-hunting and political litmus tests best avoided. loupgarous (talk) 18:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• "this policy does have the virtue of disempowering" proposal, not "policy". And what kind of disempowering would that be? The kind that WP:BLOCK lacks? It has been stated before on this page, multiple times: We already have policies to deal with problem editors. No evidence has been brought forward that his proposal would improve the situation. And there is good reason to believe that it would harm the community, and therefore the project. Paradoctor (talk)

Agreed, on reflection. I can't think of an implementation of the proposed policy which would help WP on balance. The worst-case scenario would drive a lot of would-be editors away, and leave the very worst ones here. loupgarous (talk) 18:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Strong support - as a first step. I will add that WP:AGF was never meant to be a suicide pact. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• That's right, it's meant to prevent contributors from being unfairly pre-judged. A self-disclosing editor is obviously a cooperative editor. Villains, OTOH, don't announce their evil intentions. So, this proposal punishes cooperative editors, and diverts attention away from the actual targets. Paradoctor (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• A much better alternative to the proposed policy would strongly encourage disclosure of CoIs, leaving it to the reader to discern questions of objectivity not already covered by WP guidelines. loupgarous (talk) 18:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose on grounds of redundancy: advocacy is already prohibited. Policy is already in place concerning editing with COI. This proposal seems to go against WP:AGF by indicating that some editors should be assumed to be editing in bad faith if they have certain external connections. As has already been pointed out, most experts work professionally in their fields of expertise, meaning that many expert editors will have at least some potential conflicts of interest when editing in their fields. What actually matters is the content's point of view and non-promotional, encyclopedic character. Each edit should be judged based on whether it makes the encyclopedia better or worse, not based on the background of its writer. Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Virtually all of our reliable sources were created by "paid advocates." Whether it's a paid journalist from AP or a University professor publishing from a research grant. We paraphrase paid advocates so we might as well let them write what we paraphrase. If neutrality is an issue, we have NPOV. If sock and meatpuppets are an issue, we have that covered as well. It's silly to create a rule that will be breached by the same people that create the issue in the first place and then drive away abiding editors, like journalists or professors, with this policy. If the articles and content are good, why stop them? And if they are crap, a rule like this isn't going to stop them. --DHeyward (talk) 21:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I would make a distinction between a paid writer such as a journalist or researcher and a paid advocate. I try not to paraphrase the latter. But you make some good points. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• modified Support - as per Gaijin42 above. COI editors willing to declare in the edit summary of each edit who was paying them or other financial interest would be welcome. Others not, as per the proposal. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose We should encourage editors who know the subject they are talking about. The question is not whether or not editors are paid. It is whether or not the edit is verifiable and neutral. Apuldram (talk) 22:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."--agr (talk) 00:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - I have no problem whatsoever with an organization, even a very large company, from having an employee who edits Wikipedia on the company's behalf. COI to me is only a problem when the edits are not neutral. We already have all sorts of rules about the behavior of editors. So long as a paid editor is neutral, and following WP's guidelines, why discourage them from adding quality content on a topic they know something about? Personally, I think every major organization should have a Wikipedian-in-residence. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 01:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support Personal and corporate autobiography have been an ongoing issue with WP:AFC submissions, we do need to clearly draw the line. K7L (talk) 01:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• Strongly support

1. 1. This is a simple policy that every other high-profile nonprofit requires of its volunteers. Who is going to come to WP for unbiased information once they find out that big PR firms are paid to write WP articles, and we have no problem with that? It doesn't matter that we can't stop all the abuses, what matters is that we set a clear standard. The current COI guideline does not do that; all it says is "If you have a financial connection to a topic...you are advised to refrain from editing articles directly..."
   2. The proposed policy does not prohibit scientists in industry, or lawyers or psychologists in private practice, from writing about their fields of study. The proposed standard is "You expect to derive monetary or other tangible benefits from editing Wikipedia." That's easy to avoid and still make a contribution.
   3. In spite of what people have said above, this policy will go a long way toward cutting down the paid editing on WP. PR firms may not be ethical, but they care about appearing ethical. Most are not going to offer services that involve lying or misrepresenting themselves on websites, if the website clearly bans them.
   4. I think if we don't implement this, it will have a chilling effect on the hardworking editors doing the thankless task of correcting NPOV abuses. As a volunteer editor, I'm going to get pretty tired of reverting some piece of promotional crap, if I find out that the editors that keep putting it in are a paid team of suits in an office. I think we may see editors getting discouraged and abandoning corporate articles to the flacks. We may even see editors deciding to donate their time, energy, and enthusiasm to other sites, sites that actually care about volunteers.
   5. Anyone who thinks it doesn't introduce bias to have paid lobbyists involved in a process should look at Congress. I love the argument, made ad infinitum above, that we need "experts" with COI to make articles accurate; it's the same argument corporate lobbyists make to Congressmen. "You need us; we've got the inside industry knowledge!" There are plenty of people who have COI-free expertise; I'm one.

--Chetvorno^TALK 03:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• Fence-Sitter [Partially Oppose/Partially Support]: I believe, from reading through more on this subject, that people with a financial COI (in that it is a financial COI only) should have some method to easily identify their financial COI. While a financial COI contributor may be able to edit a Wikipedia article in an unbiased view, allowing them to identify their COI in a relatively easy manner allows other editors to know that their edit may be biased. This would allow for editors who wish to do so, to review the edit and determine whether its biased. Should a financial COI editor make significant, obvious biased edits they should be reported and thus banned from editing either the article or their account banned entirely (if that's possible). "Easily identifiable" to me would be something in the edit summary as I'm somewhat still new to Wikipedia. Other definitions such as "significant, obvious edits" could be determined later since there are three parallel proposals on paid editing. Koi Sekirei (talk) 05:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - Risker and Blue Raspberry said it. petrarchan47tc 09:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose – Focus on the editor not the edits? Spicemix (talk) 15:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Strong support It seems that a lot of people voting on this aren't actually reading the proposal (or at least not reading it fully). It's not saying that COI's cant contribute, its just saying that they should request edits rather than perform them. This seems sensible. I have dealt with quite a lot of COI stuff, and I think a policy like this would be helpful. Benboy00 (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - When I have had a WP:COI, such as for Al-Ma'arri, I made some uncontentious edits adding the research I'd done for my non-WP content; and requested another editor added a link to my content (his only English-language radio bio). They agreed it was justified, and added it. That workable judgement call would, to me, seem to work for WP:PAID as well. Ian McDonald (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose — The proposal links to the COI page, which already has something on paid advocacy. In addition to it being redundant (from my view), the proposal as it stands is a little too sparse and broad for my comfort. I'm also uncomfortable with outright stopping these people from contributing, and would rather see some sort of extra scrutiny on their edits instead. Rnddim (talk) 20:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• Strong support - I've been calling for this for some time; perhaps this is in response.

1. This would of course not be retroactive; we never sanction folks for edits that complied with policy when made, but don't comply with new policy. Some have opposed as if this were not true.
2. Of course the editors and admins who are themselves paid advocates are !voting in support of this; if there's another !vote on this or similar proposed policy, I would urge the proposer to ask that all voters declare whether they have performed editing that this policy proposes to bar. So it's important that we hold the closer to the proper standard when s/he closes this; it's not a count of votes; it's an evaluation of logical arguments. Going through ~2 dozen oppose !votes, I see remarkable quality - many of them hold no weight at all because they are built on a foundation that is a false premise - it's patently absurd (AGK used the term reductio ad absurdum above, and it's apropos) to read this proposal as, barring a doctor from writing about medicine, or similar examples; a doctor couldn't possibly have a "close financial relationship" to the vast majority of medical topics on wikipedia; a doctor certainly could have a "close financial relationship" to one or a few topics - a doctor whose edit would plausibly significantly increase his income would be in violation - such as a doctor who has a patent on medical equipment to treat heart disease and edits article material that discusses using medical equipment to treat heart disease. There is a "close financial relationship" because edits that make such equipment more popular are likely to increase his income, and by an amount that could well be significant. As an indicator of due diligence, I ask that the closer indicate that s/he has read this, Elvey's !vote, and that no one else comment on this sentence.
3. Several of the oppose votes boil down to no argument - e.g. stating that the status quo is fine hardly deserves to be considered a weighty argument. (!votes of KonveyorBelt, Seraphimblade, SmokeyJoe, etc.)
4. The only oppose argument I saw that had weight was NE Ent's 'Oppose per unenforceable', so I'd like to address it. Certainly enforceability is an issue, but then that's the case with several policies; sock policy enforceability is an issue too; surely anyone with intelligence and moderate technical expertise could avoid detection, but I still don't think we should do away with it. Valid con arguments, should be weighed against valid pro ones.
5. Paid editing is largely illegal in the US and EU. As noted here, the FTC has said as much, and there's even wikipedia-specific case law in Germany.

   

   Vicious circle of paid editing

   Just as we tell users what files not to upload for reasons of copyright law, we should tell them that if they are compensated for their editing, there are some edits they must not make for reasons of advertising law. --Elvey (talk) 21:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• First of all, I'd love to see what actual case law you are citing here that suggests paid editing is actually illegal. Furthermore, I think you are misrepresenting the issue of copyright violations, which is something that can cause legal liability issues for the WMF (as the ISP/hosting service for Wikipedia) and the liability that the WMF has with regards to people who avoid disclosure of any conflicts of interest. I don't even see them as remotely comparable. Putting liability issues aside (which is the responsibility of the WMF legal counsel and not a bunch of Wikipedians debating about a new policy), I think you are far too dismissive of the arguments about enforceability. Sock puppets can at least in some cases be detected by IP address, which is why we have CheckUser actions. While not perfect, it is at least an option and there is nothing similar that can be done with identifying people who fail to disclose any conflict of interest voluntarily. --Robert Horning (talk) 05:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Here is the 'wikipedia-specific case law in Germany'. (And, I already pointed toward the US law that makes much of the paid promotional content we're hosting illegal, and that law applies to, for example, German editors editing articles on products or services consumed in the US.) Your assertion that I'm misrepresenting things is a rather strong, especially as it's a sad bald assertion. Your assertion that I'm dismissive is not bald, but you shoot yourself in the foot; paid advocates' edits are certainly in some cases detected by IP address, and even more would be detectable with the use of tools like CheckUser. --Elvey (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 4

• Oppose Redundant with existing policy. - Nellis 22:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Paid editing compromises Wikipedia's integrity and violates WP:NPOV. Gobonobo ^{+ c} 23:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support in strongest possible terms. Paid editors can make good edits, but they will argue relentlessly for their bad edits. They insist on going through every procedure, every talk page, and every policy available to them. Moreover, they are paid to take one position, and thus are not discussing in good faith. They are paid, in essence, to be utterly and totally intransigent. I can speak from experience, that I have dramatically reduced my editing because of frustrations in dealing with paid editors, and this is not an uncommon experience. Fundamentally, paid editors are not entering discussions in good faith, and they have superior resources to outdistance opposing viewpoints. It can not be allowed. --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Excellent point! The editor retention crisis alone makes this a no-brainer. --Elvey (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose as it's completely unenforceable, Unless they admit it - We'd never know. Davey2010T 02:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
• Partially Oppose From experiences volunteering in the help irc channel, some of these editors can genuinely still contribute positively to Wikipedia, as well as spot errors unininvolved editors would miss. The problem here is spotting them (and getting them to admit their COI), guiding them, and rooting out the peacockry inherent in their edits. I believe it would deprive us of a lot if they were forbidden based only on the criteria that they were technically paid to do it.

Most "paid" editors are employees or interns of their respective companies, or agents of respective personalities. And yes, I still would absolutely require all of their edits to be completely neutral and solidly sourced. And be merciless in denying them a page when their subject is not notable. I've succeeded in wrangling out acceptable articles from people like these before on subjects which are notable. Though admittedly it requires constant guidance as most of them are newbies. But most importantly, these articles are articles that no one would otherwise think of making, even though they are notable, because no one simply interested in them (especially for companies or celebrities from non-English speaking countries).

I still agree that the other kind of paid editing however, the "mercenaries" as I call them, should be banned. Those who edit Wikipedia professionally and are more or less unrelated to the companies they make pages on, aside from being hired to do so because of their expertise in Wikipedia rules and how to sidestep them to make promotional pieces. These are far more problematic because they are hard to detect.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 03:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Hm, I'd have to amend that and admit that even "mercenaries" can contribute positively when they follow policies. I guess it all boils down really to a case-by-case basis. I would not want this proposed policy to be used as an excuse to delete on sight a well-crafted neutral article just because it became known that the author was paid to write it. As long as it conforms to our rules and policies, it should not worry us.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 06:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support paid advocacy is a conflict of interest with summarizing truthfully. EllenCT (talk) 02:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose "It is not wise to engineer self managing dynamical system (wikipedia), else it shall have unintended consequences and backfire." I agree with the discussion note by User:Risker stated earlier in this survey and yes as always the original foundation of wikipedia remains "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." I agree that paid advocacy needs to be checked. However continuous and diligent editing is all that is needed to check the WP:COI of paid editing. Restrictions and policing never leads to a peaceful state. It only leads to paranoia and the emergence of a hierarchical and autocratic cabal and clique whose 'informal' COI could never be proved or checked. Restrictions and policing only stifles contribution and ensures erosion of autonomous editing and contributions from one and all. thanks Robin klein (talk) 04:57, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Editing an article in which an editor has a direct financial interest is not the same thing as paid advocacy. “Oppose as written” per Wikidemon above.—Al12si (talk) 06:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support as long as Risker's concerns (about scientist not being able to edit in their fields) are addressed. The section about "Subject-matter experts" should not be removed. FurrySings (talk) 07:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Articles on corporations will become impossible to edit, if there's a weapon like this policy to accuse editors of being a shill. Often unpaid advocacy means that poorly edited text, loaded language or in the worst case, verbatim press releases from Green organizations are the only content added. It must be possible to edit an article neutrally or even in favor of a corporation, and there should be no policy weapons to automatically ban that. I support having a watchlist of articles that are especially prone to being disrupted by concentrated attacks, but that would be possible with existing policy. --vuo (talk) 09:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Instead of barring everyone who has or might have a direct connection with the subject, it's sufficient to require that such editors reveal their potential COI, for example using the edit summary; that way all others can judge whether the edit violated NPOV or another policy/guideline because of COI. But even if they don't do that, it shouldn't be a reason to remove their contributions on sight. As Obsidian Soul points out above, the question is not whether a user is paid to write something or has a connection to the subject but only whether their edit violates our policies and guidelines or not. If the CEO of Example Inc. wants to write a neutral, reliably-sourced, well-written article about his company, then that's great. If he writes a puff piece praising Example Inc., we can still delete (CSD G11) or rewrite it and take action against the user for violating WP:COI. Regards SoWhy 09:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• We need to ban little scumbags like MooshiePorkFace (talk · contribs), who advertise on elance and crap like that. Those that are hired guns to puff up an article in defiance of policy. The proposal is too loosely worded as written. Paid editing-for-hire, advertised off-site and "guaranteeing" positive results, is insipid. That's what a lot of you are not seeing. Doc talk 09:58, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Clear opposition suggests this should be closed already... My two cents already above, but basically, this stifles free speech with no gain. it's largely unenforceable, encourages clandestine editing, may impact on philanthropists paying for people to write, favours one group over another on a basis that intorduces bias, etc etc. Like banning google and IBM from contributing to Linux. Tim bates (talk)

  Stifles "free speech"?! Facepalm. Free speech? See WP:FREESPEECH. A typically uninformed "oppose" "vote". Oich! Doc talk 14:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

  "Typically uninformed," eh? What side of the question are you on? Oh, yeah, I think I know. The minority side. Don't badger people that happen to disagree with you. Carrite (talk) 18:24, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Reading this proposal, I'm surprised to find that it is as momentous as implied by the fact that it is advertised when I open up my watchlist. Didn't we already have a rule against that kind of thing? It seems to be a common-sense idea, and I don't understand the vociferousness of the opposition. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unenforceable, and I have doubts about the logic in distinguishing between a paid professional editing articles relating to an institution (e.g. a Wikipedian-in-Residence writing about their museum's collection to encourage greater visitor numbers), and a public relations professional editing articles relating to an institution (e.g. a public relations specialist writing about their company's product to encourage greater sales). The key for me is not who's writing an article or their motivation, but whether they're helping to build a better encyclopedia and abiding to our policies in the process. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:15, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
• Weak support If the requested edits system moved faster, I would throw my complete weight behind this. I don't believe that 'paid editors', widely construed, should be barred from editing, as for a lot of users their interest areas and employment (ex see WP:AG, where most of the members are also agriculturalists) overlap and they never encounter coi issues. --TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 17:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose I can't see how this can be policed or how it benefits Wikipedia as a policy. If a paid advocate adds NPOV content that is properly referenced, what's the problem? If they add unsourced or non-NPOV content, we have established policies for dealing with it. - Scribble Monkey (talk) 21:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, largely per Risker and SilkTork. Unless I've missed someone, that makes three opposes and no support from the current or former arbitrators commenting in this discussion. Why is that? Not that any of us (and, of course, I speak of my own perspective rather than theirs) want the paid shills to have free rein, but rather that we've all seen the insinuations and OUTING efforts bordering on witch-hunts, and tried to sort out the spectrum of misbehavior from unparallelled vitriol to sneaky machinations that have been the hallmark of the unpaid advocacy cases brought before the committee. Jclemens (talk) 04:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

You missed AGK. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

So I did. Oh well. Jclemens (talk) 07:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose "Comment on content, not on the contributor." This policy leads us down an unproductive path which WP:NPA encourages us to avoid. If there are content issues, we already have mechanisms; if not, why assume bad faith? Celestra (talk) 04:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose This is redundant with existing policy and it violates WP:AGF. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Support with modification. Maybe its too abrupt to go all the way banning COI edits, but I would recommend making disclosure of COI mandatory for involved editors. Transparency is a first step toward dealing with COI. Farmanesh (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Opposes. Imposing this rule on editors who are likely to be bias is pointless, since those who are bias are already breaking a rule, so why would they be any more likely to abide by this one? I think this will simply just reduce to amount of specialist editors. Rob (talk) 23:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. We already have WP:NPOV, which covers the actual problem that people suppose comes from paid editing (although not all paid editing introduces neutrality problems). NPOV also catches a much larger number of other problems - political ranters, fans & haters of specific products/people/whatever, religious, nationalist, and ethnic pov-pushers; and a whole host of other people who carry a burning truth in their heart. Even better, WP:NPOV focuses on actual bad stuff on-wiki, whilst rules against paid editing focus on what happens off-wiki, which suffers from outing specifically, and confirming paid editing more generally. Let's concentrate on getting WP:NPOV right across the board, instead of seeking out special cases which would be very hard to enforce. bobrayner (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment To a rules lawyer, the question of whether an article is "neutral" is merely a matter of opinion. Money changing hands is quantifiable, so prohibiting both POV-pushing *and* paid editing leaves less wiggle room. K7L (talk) 02:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. In the chemical sciences, most of the experts on subjects are industrial chemists. Academics who contribute to these fields are often misinformed or just plain wrong. Over time, fallacies and errors will creep into chemically-related entries. In addition, the biggest source of bias I see in Wikipedia are articles written by members of academia pimping their own theory or graduate advisor. I know of one (living) professor whose page is longer than that of a (deceased) Nobel laureate who worked in the same field. Delmlsfan (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose As being intrinsically impossible to police, an open invitation to people "outing" anyone with any remote possible monetary interest, and not applying to most COI cases where the interest is not monetary in nature. I am opposed to a "paypedia" but this suggestion is not a viable solution at all - sigh. Collect (talk) 01:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. If one is paid to edit a page or pages, and does so in compliance with all other Wikipedia guidelines, I see no reason that they should be prohibited from editing an article solely for the reason that they are paid to do so. As already mentioned by numerous folks, this policy is already covered by existing policies against advocacy, this policy is probably impossible to enforce, and it focuses not on the content of the edit but on the editor. An edit paid for by someone does not automatically mean that it is advocacy, nor does it automatically mean it has a non-NPOV. The content itself is what determines those things. Mdak06 (talk) 03:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Strong support Yes, it would be difficult to police, but that doesn't make it right. Just because you are an expert in a field who is paid for carrying out research does not make it paid advocacy because in principle you are supposed to be objective in carrying out that research (though because you are human, there is a bit subjectivity in everything...including subjectivity in unpaid, non-coi edits). I think that if paid advocacy is allowed there will be no way to keep up with the promotional content. Versions of "paid advocacy" has already undermined mainstream media, democracy, and other institutions. The US is already under siege because corporations own our "representatives." I don't want to condone it on Wikipedia. I have more faith in Wikipedia than other sources at this point. I like that I can check the sources used. I like that disparate views are represented. I like that unfounded promotional-sounding content is deleted. It saves me from having to cut through the crap. I think the fight to keep out paid advocacy is worth it. I also think that if Wikipedia decides to allow paid editors, and problems escalate, there would be no mechanism for reversing the decision. Smm201`0 (talk) 12:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Why would there be no mechanism for reversing the decision? All it would take is consensus unless you expect paid advocates to outnumber volunteers and admins. And which problems that could escalate are not covered by existing policy? Paid or volunteer, anyone can be banned for messing with the articles. The sources would still have to be valid. There would be no one preventing disparate views (and that could be addressed if there were). Unfounded promotional sounding content would still be deleted. I do see the potential for paid advocates having more time and skill to dedicate to articles than volunteers but I suspect most articles have at least a couple of watchers who care about them. We could put in a rule suggesting statements indicating intent to ignore guidelines and policy may be taken into account when reviewing an editor for a ban.-- 🍺 Antiqueight ^confer 14:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: 100% unenforceable, without breaking existing Wikipedia policies. The last time I saw someone attempt to prove someone's identity as someone genuinely disruptive to the project by revealing IRC logs, he was threatened with a block for revealing personal information. How would this proposal be enforced if we are prohibited to dig into private information and share it? Yes, the moral standpoints regarding paid advocacy and conflict of interest are all correct, and I fully agree with them, however it just isn't practical. The current system isn't broken; if someone is editing disruptively, they will be blocked, regardless of whether one can prove that they've been paid or not. In essence, don't fix what isn't broken. --benlisquare_T•C•E 18:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support --Frukko (talk) 20:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 5

• Strong oppose. I can't see how this rule would escape being a provoker of witch hunts and unproven allegations. Red Slash 22:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. I believe that all of Wikipedia's existing policies such as NPOV, NOR, etc. should catch paid advocacy/editing whenever it is problematic (which is most of the time). A blanket ban goes too far. As others have said, everyone on Wiki comes here with interests and biases (personal, political, religious, social, even being a fan of a particular film or author can make you very biased). A financial interest is just one of many which can damage the neutrality of Wikipedia. Gizza^T/C 03:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is a knee-jerk reaction to a problem to which existing policies already apply. The proposal is well-intentioned, but would improve nothing, and add redundancy and ambiguity to WP policy. Sneftel (talk) 08:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose A problematic attempt in a complicated area. North8000 (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's simply unenforceable. --Teukros (talk) 20:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

That's no reason to oppose it. Anu Raj (talk) 11:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Wikipedia feels to me to be at a crossroads. The amateurs, hobbyists, part-timers what ever, going one way and massive market forces going the other way. So this is not a perfect policy. Caspar Buberl was not a perfect article when I posted it and it still is not X years later. You do something then try to make it better. But let us take a stand before it is too late. Let's not rely on hindsight to decide that we do not want to become the information arm of multinational corporations. And yes, I am in favor of having all editors be public about who they are. Anyway, probably no one will read this beyond checking off a Support. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support Retartist (talk) 22:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support Hits the right point. I'll willing to accept declared paid editors with clear lines of who is paying whom for what, but this is also acceptable. Hobit (talk) 01:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose The current policy is that anyone can edit, they do not need to identify themselves or even register an account. If we are going to bar certain people from editing, we would need to change that. Paid writers can be helpful in improving articles and there is no reason to expect they will violate policy. If they do they can be banned. TFD (talk) 06:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support Allowing paid corporate PR people will lead Wikipedia to regenerate into something away from the values that drive the neutral editors spend their time and energy for. They can fight vandalism and are allowed in the talk pages. That's just fine. Anu Raj (talk) 11:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm sympathetic to initiatives to suppress promotional content, but any such initiatives should focus on the content rather than on the user. That's because focusing on users invites all sorts of conflicts with our anonymity rules, and because non-paid advocacy can be just as problematic as paid advocacy.  Sandstein  12:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree non-paid advocacy can be a large problem, but for the most part it doesn't have the potential for large-scale disruption that paid advocacy does. I can only think of one case of an organized group of people trying to dominate a certain part of Wikipedia and getting away with it for a while (that we've found). The potential here to have huge impacts on our governance is quite large. Further, this is a lot more of bright line than "I like soccer" or "I hate Muslims". If we could as clearly distinguish unpaid advocacy from merely strong opinions I'd support doing something there too. I think your argument makes the perfect the enemy of the good. Hobit (talk) 12:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support I've read all the comments, many of them excellent and very well-thought-out, and have come to believe that this is a small step in the right direction. Gandydancer (talk) 13:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support Basically just codifies existing best practice for PR professionals into WP policy - see this Chartered Institute of Public Relations guide. [2] Neljack (talk) 03:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
• Weak opposition: I see the language as too confusing, and far prefer the language at the Paid Editing Proposal. Jeremy112233 (talk) 14:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Really there's a whole lot of words here and I'm not inclined to add more. I've written about this extensively elsewhere. Herostratus (talk) 14:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support, but advocacy should be described more precisely. --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
• I have already supported this measure, but please consider that if we do not do something pretty soon, that this will be the future of wikipedia. Carptrash (talk) 19:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support Paid editing (not just advocacy) is a slippery slope. Miniapolis 22:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose The point is Wikipedia's standards of neutrality and reference-ability. There are many highly biased unpaid editors, and conversely people who write about subjects they are connected to, even client companies and employers, who contribute to balanced articles because of their insight and ability to find relevant material. Should focus on neutrality, regardless of the editor. DiligentDavidG (talk) 01:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Unenforceable. Waste of time and resources. Creates more problems that it solves. It is impossible to eliminate paid editing, so we might as well accept it and try to regulate it as best we can. - thewolfchild 02:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support We need to be written by people who are independent of the subject matter. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
• Strong support We need this, and soon, if we're serious about WP:NPOV WaggersTALK 09:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. I am uneasy with blanket restrictions; I prefer the model where paid editors can submit their work for review instead. Some of their submissions may be helpful. Plus, delegalization never solves the problem, it only drives people underground, in our case it will encourage dishonesty, puppetry and such. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - I agree with Celestra, comment on the content, not the contributor. If paid editors make non-neutral edits, they can be reverted. -DavidSSabb (talk) 13:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

A note to the opposed editors. Many of us are not rules persons and find supporting this difficult, but what chance will we have after folks and more get turned loose on wikipedia? The 47,000 (or whatever the number is) dedicated wikipedia editors will not stand a chance. I don't want to explain to my grandkids (if I ever have some) that I stood by and watched while this great experiment of our was inundated by a tsunami of commercialism. We are at the barricades, let us not back down.You have to decide if I am crying WOLF or, is the wolf at the door, here, now. Carptrash (talk) 16:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - The proposed blanket "no paid advocacy" policy is in contradiction against WP:NPA. The continued improvement of Wikipedia's quality requires continued increase in expert participation. At some level, most specialist editors will have a conflict of interest. I fail to see how the "paid editing versus paid advocacy" section will work in practice without shutting out all future initiatives of expert editor engagement. Deryck C. 16:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose And, unless the user is so silly to outright confess it, how can we prove that someone is being paid, without WP:OUTING? This rule is simply impossible to enforce. Which does not mean that paid advocacy should be allowed: advocacy (paid or not) is not allowed already, with the NPOV policy. See WP:BADIDEA, we don't need to make policies and guidelines for all and each possible circumstance that may arise, if we can deal with them with the already existing rules. Cambalachero (talk) 00:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
• After careful consideration, oppose. I've been between options for some time. Overall, I disagree with Risker's assessment of this policy; I do not think it will bar people who work in a field to edit within that field. However, the argument made by SilkTork is persuasive. We have always been an encyclopaedia that focuses on the quality of the edits, and not the contributor. As written, this article would bar any edits from someone who is paid by that company, or if they expect some sort of benefits by editing their article. This is very vague. One could argue that an increased awareness of what the company does/their history and so on could be described as a benefit. I'm not talking about promoting their products, but on a broader scale, for example, updating financial info, company info that is out of date and so on. The policy is too vague. I would consider a proposal that specifically targets paid promotional editing, but as written I cannot support this proposal. Steven Zhang (talk) 02:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
• Strong support as a result of experiences trying to add objective sourced information about corporations that have been referenced in various media, and finding it an unequal battle against paid PR and promotion. Paid advocacy is quite a different process from, say, fan-written articles, or from passionately different emphases in adding material to a contentious article (say Armenian genocide) where people will add sources to support their own worldview and eventually, after much dispute, end up with a good article. Paid advocacy results in articles that consist solely of favourable statements aligned with a manufactured image, blanking any criticism. I had a cursory look in Medline for any psychological research into effect of monetary inducement on identification, truth-telling and mendacity and couldn't find any, but it's common sense that a financial COI is a major aggravating factor in advocacy. The policy as it stands is clear enough to make an impact on unethical behaviour, and includes appropriate safeguards for constructive paid edits. I suggest it could be improved by referencing WP:NOR, and also by adding appropriate sanctions. There have been media reports of corporate COI edits on Wikipedia, which is one disincentive to paid advocacy (besides the fact it's annoying and unethical). "Naming and shaming" (of organisations rather than individuals) could be formalised. I've commented further at Wikipedia talk:Paid editing policy proposal. --Cedders^tk 11:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support It's harder to encourage people to contribute free if others are doing it paid. Agreed, 'pay' is hard to define but I'm sure that the community can come up with a form of words. asnac (talk) 14:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Support --Shabidoo | Talk 19:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Under what grounds? KonveyorBelt 19:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose It makes no sense to create rules which cannot be policed and enforced. Even more, it will drive all paid advocacy underground, not allowing us to easily determine which edits are acceptable and which are not. We need regulation, clear rules, not prohibition. --FocalPoint (talk) 11:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. If this is the correct direction for Wikipedia, it would make more sense to adopt Wikipedia_talk:Paid_editing_policy_proposal as an intermediate step first. No need to go further right away. I also have some concerns about defining "financial COI" (may be more difficult than you think), enforcement, and the likelihood of an uptick in WP:OUTING. Proxyma (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. One of the most common forms of vandalism that I see is unsourced claims of bad customer service. There's no question that some people make positively biased edits to Wikipedia articles for personal gain, but people also make negatively biased edits to Wikipedia articles to exact revenge when they have a bad experience with a product or service. Everyone who edits Wikipedia has an incentive, which I couldn't care less about as long as their edits are neutral and constructive. I have been paid to create Wikipedia articles, and I created neutral, properly sourced content that followed all of Wikipedia's rules. I would not take a job adding praise to an article, but I would take a job removing unsourced criticisms that violated Wikipedia's NPOV rules; businesses and individuals have a right to protect their reputations from attacks that violate Wikipedia's rules. Edits should be judged on their merits, not their motivations. DOSGuy (talk) 21:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

This raises a great point, which is that paid advocacy isn't the only kind of "advocacy" editing on Wikipedia. I've seen edits by employees promoting their company, but I've also seen hugely biased sections written by disgruntled customers... as of earlier this summer, Adobe_Systems#Criticism_of_Creative_Cloud was a stark example. It goes beyond commerce, too. On controversial topics (political, social, medical, you name it) there are plenty of editors who have a POV and who edit and monitor articles accordingly. That seems like a gray area, and it'd be nice if editors stuck to topics about which they're indifferent, but that's not the world we live in. I haven't been an editor for long, but it seems like the only solution is to focus on the content as described in existing NPOV policies: require sources, POV forks, etc.

If paid PR firms are overwhelming because they have all day to argue and dispute, then it sounds like the problem isn't paid editing per se, but rather that the dispute process is easy to abuse. Perhaps a more targeted response would make it less easy to do so. Proxyma (talk) 02:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Support. The idea of Wikipedia was producing a free encyclopedia built by volunteers to charitably shared their time, expertise, and knowledge. The idea of having a paid advocate is contrary to the fundamental concept of Wikipedia's existence. I acknowledge that judging each edit by itself has merit, but advocates can be hired in the thousands and countless hours to work; we are volunteers with jobs and this participation increases the work and is unnecessary. Stick to our fundamentals. --^StormRider 04:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support - I edit wikipedia at my own cost. If someone else is being paid to do it, I want to be paid too. But more seriously, I don't see how any advocacy, paid or unpaid, is consistent with NPOV, and paid advocacy will always have major implications of axe-grinding. It must be outlawed, at least so tht when discovered it can be quickly removed.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 12:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support because when Someone Famous is caught having their PR person edit their WP article to put them in a favorable light I want it to be unambiguous that that's a violation of the site's rules and merits derision. It's unenforceable on a case-by-case basis but a few major cases coming to light should be discouraging and perhaps the more ethical PR firms will follow the site's rules. Paid editing is by definition biased editing. Even newspapers have liberal or conservative slants. JJL (talk) 01:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Actually, "Oppose Vehemently". Often - possibly even usually - the subjects of products, companies and more are best described by insiders. Although they may not add a NPOV - the information they provide can be the skeleton for others to work from, and provide critical connection information which helps a subject be more understood. No person would know the facts or have access to verifiable information than people who live the subject every day, day in and day out - and use the subject to feed their children. In fact - not letting "insiders" work on a given project will simply prevent WIkipedia from getting correct information quickly enough. And if anything - it may lead to the antithesis of advocacy - it may actually damage the future of the subject (especially in the case of a product or company) - as they are mis or under-represented on Wikipedia as others lack interest. The NPOV is in place. This rule will only force meat and sock puppetry to a new level.--Sean Stephens (talk) 01:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Because the drug war didn't work, and neither will this. We shouldn't give people a(nother) reason to be dishonest about their motivations. Also, to enforce it you have to require official ID, and no IP editing. B^e——C_ritical 02:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support Both sides need to be volunteers. Having one side paid and the other not is unbalanced and thus why we need this policy, at least in some form. When we catch industry we exposure what they are attempting to do. It will get some / most to consider closely if this is something they wish to pursue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

This is a survey. You have 'voted' in this survey more than once. Perhaps, rather than continuing add more votes in the survey portion, you could remove your extra bit and add your further thoughts in the relevant sections in the discussion below. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Striking through duplicate !vote. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. It's MUCH better to know who the paid advocates are, allow them to edit, and provide oversight, than to force them into hiding. NaturaNaturans (talk) 11:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with the "Comment on the edit, not the editor" arguments that others have made. It shouldn't matter whether or not an editor is being paid to, say, improve an organisation's online presence – as long as their edits follow WP:NPOV and WP:V, and they themselves follow WP:CIVIL, then that's (fundamentally) all that should really matter. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support Because something might be difficult or even impossible to enforce, doesn't mean we shouldn't have a policy against it. That sounds perhaps ridiculous, but a policy in place will allow us to enforce the more egregious situations when they are discovered, and it isn't necessary to identify anyone in real life to enforce this policy. Promotional spam isn't generally difficult to spot if it isn't backed by neutral and reliable sources.--MONGO 18:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
• Strongest Possible Oppose This will drive experts aways from wikipedia. It is unenforcable and existing policies are sufficient to deal with this issue. Morgan Leigh | Talk 01:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support - It seems like a no-brainer to prohibit paid editing in any fashion. Paid editing is a slippery slope that will lead to moneyed interests owning the 'pedia, and given the prominence it has achieved in the past decade, that is what is starting to happen. The recent discoveries of massive "sock farms" run by PR outfits is proof of that. The very integrity of Wikipedia is at stake. Jusdafax 10:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Motion to close as "No Consensus"

Consensus has not been shown here. Everybody is descending into a vicious cycle of wikilawyering and it should be nipped in the bud. This doesn't mean the proposal is bad, or that it is good, but just simply that consensus is murky or unclear. This does not have any bearing on whether the proposal can be submitted again or not—rather, this discussion is heading nowhere fast. KonveyorBelt 16:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I count 65 support comments (31%) and 143 oppose comments (69%). How is that no consensus? Note: the last call for closure had 6 in favor and 5 opposed. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia defines consensus as a "process that seeks the consent of all participants." 1/3 to 2/3 (carpmath) is not that. Carptrash (talk) 16:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The policy and guidelines consensus is stricter than most, per WP:PG, which states

If consensus for broad community support has not developed after a reasonable time period, the proposal is considered failed.

Also, tallying doesn't mean consensus. This is not a vote. KonveyorBelt 17:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that there is clearly a consensus against this particular proposal. I don't see any reason to avoid noting that reality, with that clarification. It's not like it is closing the door on the idea in general. North8000 (talk) 17:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it is the wording of this proposal. I don't like the idea of people being able to advertise that they can 'adjust' your Wikipedia presence for a price and then spend time and resources we don't have on ensuring it looks even handed but is actually biased but how we identify them and regulate them has not been well defined. If we could get that right I think many people here would get behind the notion.-- 🍺 Antiqueight ^confer 17:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support as nom. KonveyorBelt 17:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as being factually incorrect. There is a clear consensus so far. Regarding the "tallying doesn't mean consensus" argument, that is why we should wait until the usual 30 days have passed and have an experienced admin close this. Proposing that it be closed early as "No Consensus" is asking the respondents to make an informal tally -- otherwise how can they decide whether to support closing it or oppose closing it? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. We weigh arguments; we don't count votes. Well, at least that's what we're supposed to do. More on this in my OP. Although, given that this has legal ramifications, it arguably should be an office action. (Ditto.)--Elvey (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. As above.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 12:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose There is a concensus and it is oppose. Morgan Leigh | Talk 01:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Consensus has been clearly demonstrated and it is oppose. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Adding that discussion about trying to add this at WP:NOT has been redirected here. The previous discussion, should it matter, is at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Bright_line_rule. --MASEM (t) 17:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Past practice is that factual, non-controversial, edits to articles may be made directly by editors with a COI, especially if a source is provided. For example, if an article about a company lists its officers (or some of them), and one of them retires and a successor is appointed, A business owner, company employee, or paid editor could directly edit to make that change without going through the {{edit request}} mechanism. Also, obvious blatant vandalism may be reverted by such editors. I would like these included in the proposal. Any objections? DES ^(talk) 17:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Would it be reasonable for someone that may be doing paid advocacy to submit an article to AFC as long as they have full disclosure in that submittal? --MASEM (t) 18:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

  That is the current practice. Coretheapple (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

  Then that should be added here, as another route for how such editors can still contribute (assuming, of course, we don't completely shut off paid advocacy per above discussion) --MASEM (t) 18:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

  On the contrary, it's a form of gaming the system that needs to be stopped. It skews the content of the encyclopedia toward articles planted by the subjects of articles and their reps, especially small companies of limited interest, and implicitly exaggerates the importance of subjects that receive such advocacy vs subjects in the same industry and business category that don't pay to have their interests pushed on Wikipedia. Coretheapple (talk) 19:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

  Okay, I see what you meant by "it's current practice" above; however, I postulate that if AFC is doing the right job - not only reviewing the article but doing a cursory check of other mentions of the topic to make sure that there isn't any obvious aspects that are being missed in the candidate, it doesn't make sense to not allow that to go through. Or if anything, have a COI AFC board so that multiple editors can check. --MASEM (t) 19:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

  Diverting volunteers to vetting what paid editors are doing isn't the answer, and would not address the problem of giving excessive attention to companies and persons who pay to plant articles in Wikipedia. Coretheapple (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

  We're talking about an activity that should be happening irregardless of who submits an article to AFC; check to make sure the topic isn't a hoax, that there is balance to the coverage, etc. The only additional aspect here is that if there's an AFC that's attached to an editor that has asserted their COI, the article should be doubled checked for tone in additional to all the other steps a AFC entry should review, which takes at most a few extra minutes. --MASEM (t) 21:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I think it's important to note that much of paid editing is done by experienced Wikipedia Editors, not outside PR firms. And because these Editor are fully aware of WP policies and guidelines, I think their participation is much preferred to newly created accounts and IPs who show up to put out fires.

I have actually seen instances where I know an Editor was paid to be a liaison between a company and those Editors who were actively editing an article and his/her participation led to a better article. In one particular instance, the paid Editor posted suggested edits on the Talk Page that uninvolved Editors were free to accept, reject or ignore (and all of their statements were sourced). I just think it's important to realize that paid editing takes a variety of forms and not all of it is ham-fisted PR companies asserting ownership over articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

P.S. The Editors in question were transparent about their role and COI. They didn't hide what they were doing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Disclosure is sort of a litmus test that separates those paid editors editing in a policy compliant manner and those with an ulterior, advocacy-type motive they seek to conceal in order to circumvent, er, 'guidelines'.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not a very good litmus test, since some disclosing editors make problematic edits to articles, and some nondisclosing editors make good edits to articles. Instead of just picking something arbitrary that's easy to measure, any test should have much better FAR/FRR. bobrayner (talk) 12:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• Question: As worded, would the section entitled Financial Conflicts of Interest apply to academics or researchers who are receiving Grant $$$ on projects related to topics they might be editing, to students who are receiving scholarship $$$ and grades for editing Wikipedia as part of the Wikipedia:Education Program, to individuals that have supported non-profit organizations financially, etc., etc.?? --Mike Cline (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• I would say probably yes, probably not, and no. Grant money is the tricky one, and is a widely recognized source of conflicts of interest. Absent specific facts, its hard to say with certainty, but it would be easy for academic or researcher to allow the grant money to could their neutrality when editing. The education program, afaik, doesn't have them edit anything about the program itself, so as long as they are editing about things unrelated to the source of the funds, and their only incentive is to produce quality work, its not an issue. As for groups you contribute to, we usually ignore non-financial COI, and are only interested in financial COIs to the extent that the person with the conflict would benefit financially. Monty₈₄₅ 20:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Labeling academic researchers who have received grant money as being in COI would mean that most experts of any scientific Wikipedia article would be ineligible to edit them. In a hypothetical where such a policy were imposed outside of Wikipedia, such interpretation would essentially mean that almost all scientific publications and texts would be in violation of COI, and if such a policy were implemented by scientific journals, societies, and textbook publishers, it would empty PubMed's database and college book store shelves. The possibility that some would interpret a Wikipedia COI policy in this way is more than enough reason to strongly oppose implementing such a policy, at least as currently construed. I couldn't imagine anything more damaging to Wikipedia's external credibility than discouraging the contributions of expert editors that have grant funding, particular when the vast majority of it is awarded through a stringently peer-reviewed proposal system. CrazyPaco (talk) 17:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi B2C I am responding to your !vote above down here, so as to avoid cluttering the survey. I am new to the issue of COI policy at Wikipedia too, but not to COI policies in general. I work at a university, where knowledge production is our game, and our name and reputation are our most valuable asset. As industry and universities have come to collaborate more and more, and the isolation of the "ivory tower" has become a thing of the past, a lot of universities have put in hours of thought (much of it based on very difficult lived experience) on crafting COI policies. And pretty much all universities have them now - the core ideas are a) disclosure (daylight as disinfectant) and management of COI, which includes at minimum requiring disclosure, and forbidding some activities. BrightLine has both, as simply as it can be stated. (there are many many elaborations that are possible) I looked at your userpage and see that you are a "bottom up" guy and that you value the products of thoughtful experience. I hope you can hear me, that having things happen like the big sockpuppet network (which we are still living through), and other recent events, damage our good name and dishearten a lot of editors and admins. And it is that much worse, that we don't actually have a COI policy that clearly forbids what happened. We owe it to ourselves and our public to have a core COI policy. It is basic governance. I agree with you, very much, that bad faith editing will out - it was actually a single editor checking the reliability of sources who tugged on the thread that unraveled the sockpuppet network. But that doesn't mean that we have any excuse for not having a core COI policy. I hope that makes sense to you and that you might consider supporting this. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 20:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Hello Jytdog (talk · contribs)! Convincing me (and others, presumably) that COI is a problem on WP is pointless; I'm already convinced about that. What you need to convince me is that policies, guidelines and rules attempting to address the problem of COI on WP are going to have a significant effect on the problem, and that that positive effective will not be outweighed by the negative effect of the accusations, investigations and untold other unintended consequences of such policies, guidelines and rules.

  As to comparing us to other organizations, like universities (or even publishers), that's not very convincing either. Nobody else produces work that is a collaboration of numerous mostly anonymous contributors. Also, our work is also unique in that it is strictly limited to non-original notable content that is supported in reliable sources. That really limits the influence the COI or any bias any one editor has as compared to what that influence could be at universities, newspapers, magazines, etc. --B2C 21:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi B2C thanks for replying! I see, sorry for missing the point. awkward. Let me start at the end of what you wrote - we agree there a lot - the front line (and most important thing) remains content and the policies governing it (no OR/SYN, NPOV, RS, etc) and I would add, how well editors apply them! There is no substitute for that, and they go a long way. I hear you that we are fundamentally different than universities, publishers, etc, with our crazy open and anonymous system of contributors. But there are two key areas of overlap: 1) both WIkipedia and others are vulnerable to people on the "inside" using its resources, made available to them on trust, for their own benefit; 2) both rely on the public's trust. Repeated violations of trust degrade morale and ethics on the inside, and degrade trust from the public. Clear and reasonable COI policies, and clear and reasonable procedures to enforce them, address both. They are the time-honored solution. To the your first and key point -- would it have a significant impact on the problem? With respect to public trust, implementing a policy is the very least we can do. With respect to actually reducing COI behavior... it is hard to predict. But I think having a clearly articulated policy would definitely increase the risk for companies like Wiki-PR - who would hire them, when their activities are clearly against Wikipedia's policies? Wiki-PR would have to outright lie to say that what they do is OK. I think having that business dry up would go a long way. And there is currently confusion among editors - I continually come across people, in all good faith, saying "Of course it is fine for me to edit my company's page" With COI only a guideline and somewhat obscure, there is actually little we can say to them. So yes, I think there would be significant impact. Thanks for talking! Jytdog (talk) 01:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• It should be possible to draft something worded in a manner that provides a narrow scope for addressing the type of corporate PR advocacy threatened by WikiExperts, without sweeping up everyone with a professional interest in a given topic into that policy net.

I don't agree with the "advocacy is advocacy" school of thought, as being paid to advocate creates an incentive to do battle and engage in other WP:NOTHERE behavior to fulfill one's extraneous obligations, whereas holding a professional opinion on a given topic doesn't necessarily entail the encumbrance of being financially compelled to behave irrationally to promote the POV one has been contracted to advocate. This should not result in a policy that countermands WP:YESPOV.

Perhaps an attempt should be made to distinguish between "paid editing" and "paid advocacy". If that were possible, maybe it would be feasible to demand disclosure of the COI in both cases, but restrict only the editing that falls under the "advocacy" category to Talk pages, etc. There is a difference between someone being paid to create an article about a notable topic and someone advocating for commercial or political aims, with the intention of co-opting Wikipedia as a vehicle to promote the commercial or political agenda. One is in line with the informational purposes of an encyclopedia, and the other is at odds with it. So long as paid editing per se is required to be disclosed, the added scrutiny should provide an incentive to be more circumspect in pushing a POV. Corporate PR would seem to be in a completely different category, however.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 00:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Not here to support or oppose a policy, but just to voice my opinion. Echoing some of what was written above, company owners and employees are generally tolerable. The ones who are totally clueless and just here to advertise can be blocked immediately, and they are. The rest can typically be conversed with and convinced to either contribute within the bounds of COI or leave Wikipedia entirely. The truly intolerable editors are the actual paid advocates. This is a distinction in my mind between someone who gains a hypothetical financial benefit from a Wikipedia article (employee of a company), and someone who is being paid to write/edit a Wikipedia article (outside contractor). They care only about getting the job done, however it can be done, so they can get their paycheck. They have no interest in constructive contribution, and no interest in learning the rules except as far as it helps them achieve their goal. They are a subset of WP:NOTHERE. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:No paid advocacy seems inherently contradictory to me. It says that paid editing is allowed, but you may not edit if "you expect to derive monetary or other benefits from editing Wikipedia". The example given is clearly paid advocacy, not paid editing, but the wording of the prohibition would forbid most of the paid editing that is declared acceptable further down. If I'm wrong about this, please let me know why. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

  Follow-up: Recent edits have resolved this issue, and made my concern moot. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment In the light of recent Wiki-PR revelations and to handle that sort of actions in the future I would support making WP:COI a policy instead, which would automatically make WP:NOPAY a policy as well. In this sense the proposed policy looks essentially repetitive and redundant. Brandmeister^talk 13:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
• Minor rewording - Item 2 of the "definition" of financial COI says "you expect to derive monetary or other benefits from editing Wikipedia". This should read
  "you expect to derive monetary or other material benefits from editing Wikipedia"
  and/or
  "... benefits from the subject of the article"
  or similar. If I read it literally, the current definition says I have a financial COI just because I get the "other benefit" of feeling good about fixing a spelling error on the article about my employer - even when I do it anonymously (and my employer is not aware that I'm doing it). Mitch Ames (talk) 13:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
• Comment It seems like it would be unenforceable to me. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
• Comment, as I said in Survey, I think we need a bright line rule that would allow to ban violators when they are caught first time as it is very difficult to prove paid editing. Still I think we could place the line somehow differently. It would be sufficient to a)identify all the possible conflicts of interests including tagging the article if it was mostly written by editors with COI; b) No edit warring if COI. For me it will be sufficient, a) would allow scrutiny of COI-related issues by unbiased editors, b) would make NPOVing of the articles easy. Still it would be more acceptable for people with COI especially different borderline cases Risker was talking about Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Is this the wrong way around? Shouldn't it be less about outing of editors that could have a $ incentive, and rather identifying articles that could be possible $-makers if misused. And tagging the latter in some way for patrol? In other words, develop a policy to flag the potential money making articles rather than witchhunt editors (who, even if paid, are playing by the stated rules)? AnonNep (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• For your consideration, I offer my own Timbo's Rule 15. "There's unnecessary confusion about how a paid Conflict of Interest editor can edit successfully at WP. It's actually as easy as one-two-three... 1. Declare your COI on the talk page. 2. Commit no spam — stick to uncontroversial, sourced content. 3. Invite scrutiny." (April 2012) Carrite (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support I've seen too much advocacy editing in biographies and corporations. Paid advocacy is inherently not neutral. Hekerui (talk) 08:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Neither is unpaid advocacy ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 12:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

In fact neither is any form of editing. Any claim that is not vacuously true cannot possibly be neutral.—Al12si (talk) 06:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. See Wikipedia talk:No paid advocacy#Would this be illegal? for an example of an established Wikipedia editor who intends to directly edit Wikipedia articles for pay. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

An alternative

As an alternative, I would like to see a way to add users, IP addresses or maybe even a block of IP addresses to my watch list, preferably with some automatic expiration time. That way, having encountered suspicious editing from an IP or new account, I could easily monitor if the editor was exhibiting a pattern of abuse. Jackmcbarn pointed out to me elsewhere that "We've wanted that for 9 years, never got it, but never got told no. See bugzilla:470."--agr (talk) 11:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

This and the bugzilla may not be very well expresssed. You already can put users and IP addresses on your watchlist. Is it that you want to put a user's contributions on your watchlist? How many do you want listed? Presumably not just the last one. What I do when I want to know if a vandal or other evildoer has stopped is to put them on my watchlist and then occasionally click View and edit watchlist. This gives a link to their contributions. --Stfg (talk) 12:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I want the user on my watch list, not the user's talk page. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. I want to know when a user makes a new edit. The latest edit will do; an easy way to get the last few would be nice, but there are other ways to get that. What I don't want is to have to keep checking for recent activity. I only have so much time to devote. If I see vandalism or something that looks improper (like removing well sourced criticism) from an IP or new account or if I get a complaint, I want to see if that pattern continues. A watch list tool would make it much easier to find and track accounts engaged in activity that violates our rules. It's something practical that can be done easily, as opposed to an unenforceable No paid advocacy policy that is about to snowball out.--agr (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Any IP-based blocking is inherently misguided, not only because of dynamic IP addresses, but especially since we have long officially run out of IPv4 addresses. Any IP address you happen to block is potentitally shared, possibly by a whole building that happens to be doing nothing but providing free Wi-fi (probably a university, public library, civic centre, or the like).—Al12si (talk) 06:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The proposal wasn't to block specific IPv4 addresses (we already have / have always had that), but to wikistalk IPs which have contributed spam and vandalism in the past to see if the problems continue. That open terminal in the school library often is a source of constant problematic edits; its "potentially shared" status should draw more scrutiny, not less. K7L (talk) 12:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Not just open terminals, but increasingly often free Wi-fi spots. When I get on my school’s wi-fi I often get someone else’s IP old address (obvious from the computer name that gets assigned to me), and in a lot of places wi-fi is the only way for anyone (including professors) to get an IP address at all.—Al12si (talk) 18:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I would recommend making disclosure of COI mandatory for involved editors. Transparency is a first step toward dealing with COI. Farmanesh (talk) 18:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Close per WP:SNOW?

There was already an attempt to mark the proposal as rejected ("No way this will pass with so many opposes registered")[3], but that was reverted ("Your conclusion is a fair one but closing this will stifle the discussion. And discussion is always a good thing.")[4].

It seems to me that everything that needs to be said has been stated multiple times. COI editing is a problem, but efforts to restrict it, beyond enforcing standard content-related polices and guidelines, creates more problems than it resolves. I propose we close the discussion and mark the proposal rejected. --B2C 06:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Close Agree. The discussion has been interesting. It is clear that there is not enough support for this proposal. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Close Freezing my balls off. Paradoctor (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I've almost enough for a snowman... ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 14:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose While it's obvious this isn't going to pass, there continues to be good discussion and new ideas. Since this is such a community-wide issue, let everyone have their say. First Light (talk) 14:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

What new ideas? --B2C 16:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Not ideas so much as comments that put this proposal in perspective. One which I appreciated is yours: "LOL. Yes, and vandals should also be required to identify themselves, preferably in their signatures." It was worth keeping this open long enough to see something that we agree on :-). I'm in the oppose camp here, and think that there can't be too many nails put in the coffin. First Light (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Tagging this proposal as rejected does mean you have to stop discussing, the tag explicitly states "If you want to revive discussion, please use the talk page or initiate a thread at the village pump.". From what I gather, even the supporters do not believe that this proposal has any chance. Time to die. Paradoctor (talk) 21:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Support closure Was going to weigh in but it looks like the weights are all on the scales already as it were and we've got a clear answer. Time to finalize the clear decision. 0x0077BE (talk) 18:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC) Support This proposal has, to put it bluntly, no chance in hell of ever passing. There is no new ideas, just more and more people expressing the same old rehashed consensus. KonveyorBelt 18:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support closure It's over, it's done, my toes are turning black. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support close Clearly dead. Intothatdarkness 16:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Support Paid editing is bad for Wikipedia. There's an enforcement problem, but identifying paid editors usually isn't that hard. Some write obvious promotional material. Some focus on narrow areas of commercial interest. The concern that this will prevent experts in some area from editing is overrated. If an edit has no relevance to a specific product or company, it's probably not going to raise a paid editing issue. I've run into paid editing on Carhartt, Skyy Vodka, Better Place, and Carnival Cruises. In each case, an editor appeared who focused on adding hype and deleting cited negative info, and edited few or no other articles. It's not that hard to see such patterns. John Nagle (talk) 19:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose snow closure as that applies where all the responses to a proposal take the same side (up or down), rendering discussion pointless. Opinion on this proposal appears split. I'd also suggest that users posting "support" or "oppose" for the proposal itself here (and not for the attempt to close discussion) move their comments out of this section into the discussion of the proposal elsewhere on this page. K7L (talk) 12:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose snow closure - Follow process, this is not a snow situation even though the result is apparent. Carrite (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose closure. I'm going to ask on WP:AN/RFC for an uninvolved editor to close this when the time comes. The arguments are important to point a way forward, so the discussion shouldn't be cut short. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose closure. Don't see the benefit of cutting debate short. Farmanesh (talk) 18:16, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Support Close. If this is the correct direction for Wikipedia, it would make more sense to adopt Wikipedia_talk:Paid_editing_policy_proposal as an intermediate step first. No need to go further right away. I also have some concerns about defining "financial COI" (may be more difficult than you think), enforcement, and the likelihood of an uptick in WP:OUTING. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proxyma (talk • contribs) 20:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose There are still nuanced opinions being stated in relation to the matter at hand.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Closure and suggest closing the next dozen or so attempts to bypass the 30-day rule on sight.

From Wikipedia:Snowball clause#What the snowball clause is not:

"An uphill battle is extremely difficult but potentially winnable. In cases of genuine contention in the Wikipedia community, it is best to settle the dispute through discussion and debate. This should not be done merely to assuage complaints that process wasn't followed, but to produce a correct outcome, which often requires that the full process be followed. Allowing a process to continue to its conclusion may allow for a more reasoned discourse, ensures that all arguments are fully examined, and maintains a sense of fairness."

--Guy Macon (talk) 16:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

My apologies to Guy Macon and 連絡 . In a moment of laziness I posted my comments in the WP:SNOW section instead of the general survey section, where they'd have been more appropriate. I'm moving them there now, and striking them here. Proxyma (talk) 17:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Disclosing financial COI in signature

I think it would be good to require an editor with a financial conflict of interest, as defined in this proposal, to disclose that fact in their signature with text that says "(paid)" or "(PAID)", linking to a subpage in their userspace (or a section on their main userpage) that identifies their sponsor(s). This would maximize transparency, so that someone reading a discussion in which that editor participated would be able to weigh that editor's statements and their sponsors' interests accordingly. Thoughts? alanyst 17:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

People may not have a COI about every issue they edit about, so unless it's an SPA we can't ask people to add it to their sigs. I think we need to focus like a laser on producing a very simple policy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Editors can create alternate accounts, which can be used when they have a conflict of interest (or when they don't). This isn't a bad idea. Coretheapple (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Running with that idea (probably way out of scope), what about a special class of account—which might be an alternate, for those who also edit as volunteers—in which names have a distinctive prefix or suffix (say, “$$$”), and that doesn’t get auto-confirmed? One advantage to the paid editor from using such an account: page-histories would be easier to scan for billing purposes. ;) —Odysseus1479 18:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Another better (imo) option would be to incorporate it into MediaWiki - with a usergroup PR personnel with the userrights no-review This person is unable to automatically review edits to pages protected with Pending Changes PR personnel Edits made by this person are listed in [[Special:PR edits]], maybe others if anyone thinks of them. That way it'd be like PC, have a central place to review edits. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 23:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

We could insist that they add an "A" for "Advocate" to their sig, and to avoid confusion with the regular part of the sig, it should be in bold, and red.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I have made this proposed change, which prescribes how a financial conflict of interest must be disclosed. (It also makes a small clarification to exclude intangible benefits, such as an expectation of glory in the afterlife or a feeling of gratification for having informed the world of the plight of the lesser bottle-nosed fruit fly, from those that would trigger the FCOI. That sort of advocacy is also generally undesirable but not the problem this proposed policy aims to address.) I immediately reverted it so we could discuss it without giving the appearance of an edit war.

I appreciate SlimVirgin's desire to keep the proposal minimalist and laser-focused, and I've tried to keep my changes in that vein, but I believe it's important to provide a clear way for an editor to conform to the requirements if they have such a conflict of interest. Simply stating that the editor must disclose their COI does not sufficiently set the expectation for how frequently and prominently it should be made.

Regarding SlimVirgin's other point about people not having a COI about every issue they edit about: I agree, but if an editor does have a financial COI then it's better for their signature to disclose that every place they leave a comment, and let the other readers and participants of those discussions determine for themselves whether the COI is relevant to those particular remarks. That way there's no chance of arguing over whether COI should have been disclosed at a particular discussion when it wasn't. alanyst 18:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot that my proposed change also added proposing new articles at AfC alongside making edit requests. I understand this is opposed by some and didn't mean to slide that in without notice. alanyst 19:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• I do not think this should be built into policy, if for no other reason than that the proposed changes in talk pages will not permit personalized signatures. Risker (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

  I didn't realize that that was one of the ramifications of Flow. Good to know, but that's kind of a shame. alanyst 19:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

  Another reason not to implemety flow, but that is for another page. DES ^(talk) 20:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

  Flow isn't going to support blinking rainbow sigs, but, last I heard, it would still be possible to add plain text sigs that do not match the account name ("Alice Expert" instead of "Aexpert"), so presumably the plain text "Alice Expert (paid)" would be possible, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• I object to these changes. I think blocking AfC and attempting to mandate signature use are booh mistakes. DES ^(talk) 20:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

No COI witch-hunts please. KonveyorBelt 22:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• We could also force them to change their usernames to include a (P) that would always display in red. That'll show 'em! --BDD (talk) 22:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Why stop there? Why not have a bright red (Paid Encyclopedia Fornicator) after their name? Jehochman ^Talk 23:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• The problem with requiring disclosure in a signature is that the most important disclosure is linked to mainspace edits. There is no requirement for any editor to ever sign. If we look for disclosures in signatures, we may not look close enough at mainspace edits. The problem with requiring a alternate account with disclosure in the username, well it might work, but be careful that we might be teaching sock puppetry. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Why stop with labels? Why can't we force every paid editor to put in front of their username this: THIS IS A PAID EDITOR. DO NOT TAKE ANYTHING THIS EDITOR SAID SERIOUSLY, HE IS BEING PAID BY A PR FIRM. BEWARE OF COI. IF YOU SEE THIS EDITOR PLEASE BLOCK HIM/HER Would then you be happy? sarcasm of course KonveyorBelt 00:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps a userbox with the wording, "This user has received [amount] to create articles on Wikipedia" or "This user has created [number] paid articles on Wikipedia"?--Auric talk 15:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• I think it is bad idea, as I identify on my Userpage I am working for Moldflow (a software company that develop software for plastic industry) that is now subsidiary of Autodesk. I never edited Moldflow or Autodesk articles but I did a few edits on plastic and CFD-related articles there I might have a borderline COI. The bulk of my edits are on politics, history and culture of Russia as well as general administrative work. Should I really tell every vandal I have warned or blocked that I am doing it on behalf of my employer? I really do not think so Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I believe signature disclosure, strongly enforced, has worked very well on the German Wikipedia. We are muddling in the sands thinking we can just ban paid advocacy at the stroke of a pen: it's not possible. Exposure and control are the sane way to handle this. Tony (talk) 01:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Can you explain how it works in German wikipedia? Does it mean that everybody should disclose the name of their employer in the signature? Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• This all seems to run counter to the general policy to block anyone that has a signature that suggests they are working for an organization or company! To be honest, these editors are declaring their COI in their signature, but get rapidly blocked. If they come back again, it is under an opaque username and no-one is the wiser. Sionk (talk) 14:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

There is little possibility that either disclosing paid advocacy (more on what this means exactly in a moment), or prohibiting paid advocates, can work. There are pragmatic difficulties with detection, and with the mechanics of disclosure, and evasion attempts, and so on. Those are covered reasonably well above. But the more fundamental problem is definitional and methinks inherent. Here is an examle: I work in the food industry, so I cannot edit any articles related to cooking, ingredients, kitchen equipment, farms, restaurants, or of course foods. I use computers, and drive vehicles, for business and pleasure, plus own stock in electronics and automotive firms -- I can edit nothing about those industries. My parents run a brokerage, so I cannot edit any articles about stocks, bonds, forex, t-bills, investing, inflation, hedging, options, mutual funds, monetary policy. My spouse is currently hospitalized with a chronic disease, so I cannot write anything about health, hospitals, medicine. My fully-grown oldest child is running for office, so I cannot write anything about politics, policy, legislation, bureaus, government. My youngest child is graduating from high school and going on to university, so I cannot write anything about education... and they are in a band, so I cannot edit anything about music, lest I badmouth the competition. As a citizen of my nation, I cannot edit articles related to wars; as a citizen of my planet, I cannot edit articles related to the environment, nor the cosmos. WP:COI is just a subset of WP:NPOV, and there is a very fuzzy line between them. Objectivity means the ability to separate oneself from bias; it is essential for scientists, philosophers, and wikipedians. My sig would have 88 words just to explain my *direct* WP:COI, not counting one-hop indirections like my kid's pop band. I realize the proposal is intended to be narrowly tailored to editing for a formal employer, but the slope is a lot more slippery than that... I would say, inherently slippery. Better to admit we have bias, and in some cases (more than might be apparent at first glance as the list above shows) some feasibly-plausible source of financial incentives to push a particular POV. The trick is to resist, not to regulate. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 09:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Very interesting take, TexanIP. Carrite (talk) 16:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• Another idea that completely misses the point. Focus on the editing, not on the editor. --Stfg (talk) 09:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Adding my voice to others here. Everyone has some sort of COI. I work as an engineer in a reasonably controversial area and you can bet there'd be a stink if someone found I was editing pages related to it. But my employer has never asked me to edit WP and in fact would probably be a bit worried if I was doing so on company time. Do I have a financial COI that I need to declare in my sig? I could certainly benefit financially if WP said nice things about my industry. And everyone is in the same position. Even someone on benefits has a financial COI when editing pages related to welfare policy. Someone who lives on charity handouts has a financial COI when editing pages related to charity funding. For most people, the COI will be very narrow and unrelated to 99% of their edits, so having the COI declared in their sig doesn't help to identify whether their edits are worrying or not GoldenRing (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Totally agreed with GoldenRing above. Editing any useful article will have some direct or indirect financial interest to the editor. I was going to say except vandalism but even vandalism will have some financial interest to some people (e.g., people who are on a mission to say Wikipedia is not a credible source). Passing this as worded will prevent any editing from taking place.—Al12si (talk) 18:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• No. We should not hang leper-bells around people's necks. Focus on problematic edits rather than stigmatising editors. bobrayner (talk) 13:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

No paid advocacy vs. No Personal Attacks

I find it ironic that this proposal shares its initialism with WP:NPA, which states:

Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia.

The entire focus of this proposal, and indeed all efforts to directly address the problem of edits made by editors with a COI, is of the on the contributor variety rather than on content. This entire approach is arguably a violation of at least the spirit of WP:NPA, if not the actual explicit intent.

I'm serious. The whole idea underlying WP:NPA is to put aside WHO is editing and WHY they are editing, and instead focus on the WHAT of the edit itself as objectively as reasonably possible, and comment on that without regard to WHO made the edit, or WHY they made the edit. Trying to ban or even monitor COI editing ignores WP:NPA and instead encourages a Witch-hunt based on the absurd precepts of Thoughtcrime. It's an initiative that moves WP towards pointless bickering, infighting, and, ultimately, implosion.

The problem of COI editing can never be eliminated. But it can be mitigated to a reasonable level along with all biased editing, by focusing on our content-governing policies and guidelines (notability, sourcing, NPOV, etc.) and enforcing those. Let's keep the eye on the ball folks, building and maintaining an outstanding encyclopedia, rather than get distracted by nonsense like trying to address the problem of COI editing directly. It's never going to work, and, if we try, WP will only suffer.

There is only one WP:NPA, and it's a good one. Let's keep it, and ditch this one. The intent is good, but it's wrong-headed. --B2C 22:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

+1 Very well said. Egregious cases of corporate shills are easily detected and easily dealt with. Anyone who's actually going to edit in a partisan, bad-faith manner isn't going to play by the rules being discussed here, whether we call it an essay, policy, or divine law. I've edited articles on organizations that have employed me. Would it have been better if someone with no connection to one of those organizations made the same edits? I guess, maybe, in some abstract way. I'd like to assume most of us are grownups who are aware of our potential conflicts and behave accordingly. When that doesn't happen, we deal with it. If WP:N, WP:REF, and WP:NPOV are being observed, I don't care who's doing the editing. --BDD (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Identifying a paid editor isn't a personal attack, nor does it run contrary to it. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

  <sarcasm> Right. And Yellow badges weren't personal attacks either. </sarcasm> --B2C 00:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• Sarcasm or not, it's a stupid comparison.Niteshift36 (talk) 02:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Godwin. Highly inappropriate comparison. Do not repeat it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Strangely, I think it is an appropriate comparison, because this policy has a potential of a high degree of false positives being used to take a minority group of editors and cast them in extremely negative light with guilt by association. Heck, I've been accused of doing these kind of edits myself simply for starting a new article about a company I thought was interesting. I agree with the parent post of this thread that accusing somebody of paid advocacy when that information isn't volunteered is tantamount to a personal attack on the credibility of the user in question. Just like being called a Jew in Nazi Germany, and the end result by demanding they get banned is almost the same in terms of them being declared "dead to the community". We really need to be much more open and willing to let anybody edit... as is supposedly claimed by this community. --Robert Horning (talk) 18:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• It's not appropriate. If you want to discuss crap like that, go use someone else's comment as the basis. Don't rope me into your idiocy. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anything in your post makes Niteshifts statement it in any way comparable or acceptable. It's a form of guilt by association and Reductio ad Hitlerum, and is inherently fallacious reasoning, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Some COIs are easily verifiable, but pointing them out would, unfortunately, constitute outing under current P&Gs. What distinguishes witch hunts from these cases is evidence, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• Identifying potential COI is a wide-spread practice in democratic societies, it is not a form of personal attack but it helps to decrease the level of hostility. Currently we treat edits by sockpuppets of banned users quite differently from edits by editors in good standing. Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• We have great policies that work pretty well for discussions among editors. Sometimes, people get out of hand, and they will not give it a rest. However paid editors are paid to never give in. They are paid to work through every policy, every medium, every forum to ensure that a lawsuit against their client is not mentioned in the lead of the article, for example. How many volunteers want to spend their time, hours per day, arguing back and forth on the talk page with someone who is paid to never change his or her mind, particularly about topics that are not really that important to the editor? This editor got so frustrated with paid editors he almost stopped editing entirely. Focusing on the contributions, not the contributor is fine, but if the contributions are bad (and they usually are), allowing paid editing condemns volunteers to spending hours arguing with people paid to never change their mind. Paid editing is obnoxious and toxic to a volunteer project. --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
  • TeaDrinker (talk · contribs), we have polices to deal with such behavior, regardless of whether the out-of-hand behavior is motivated by payment. A policy or guideline specifically against no paid advocacy is quintessential WP:CREEP. --B2C 18:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
    • They are, in the view of this editor, not very effective when dealing with someone who has 8 hours per day to argue and is paid to never change their mind. Many hours have been wasted discussing changed with editors who are perfectly happy to go through the motions of dispute resolution, but will never accept that resolution has occurred. Yes, with persistence, they can be banned or other sanctions imposed, but it takes dozens of hours and does not make for a better encyclopedia. I can think of very little more detrimental to a volunteer project than paying one group of editors to make messes and asking the other group to clean it up for free. --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• I could not have put it better. People who are paid eight hours a day to promote a company and/or who have staffers or interns who can spend all day here, have disproportionate time compared to volunteers and therefore disproportionate influence. In such cases where the playing field is not level, it needs an appropriate but definite response to level that field. Second point: The yellow star analogy was grossly inappropriate. We're not Glenn Beck. Let's keep such extreme accusations of Nazi-like behavior out of this discussion, please. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• Is there empirical evidence of the number of paid editors actually working on Wikipedia? Is there any method in place to measure the effects this policy is to regulate? Assuming this is a growing problem of the paid editors tirelessly outpacing the volunteers on edits and gradually shifting the POV of a vast number of articles: Wouldn't the solution be Wikipedia hiring paid watchdogs with the sole intent to patrol for COI and neutrality? Alatari (talk) 10:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

In light of the recent quandries involving two PR companies advertising specifically with respect to Wikipedia as their sole target medium through which to disseminate their PR, the question of empirical evidence would seem to be accounted for.

Why would Wikipedia need to pay people to police paid advocacy when it can be handled through policy measures?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Can they though? Can the policy measures in place, or this new proposal, actually catch all or a majority of underground black-market paid editors with just a volunteer staff doing the policing? I think many are severely underestimating the sociopaths of the world and the growing financial incentive that created these two PR firms. They are just the beginning and with their failures the next generation of this industry will learn a lesson and their tactics more insidious. Alatari (talk) 00:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

CONTEST: worst example of COI editing ever!

So, I wonder. If COI editing is such a serious problem, I wonder if we couldn't have a contest to identify the worst problems ever caused by COI editing. All entries should include:

1. A summary of what happened, including what the problematic edit/s was/were, how long they were in the article before they were identified, how they were identified as problematic, how they were identified as being the product of COI editing, etc.
2. Relevant diffs

On your marks, get set, go! --B2C 22:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The very worst would be in articles now deleted. I know of one in particular, an article created by the subject. Being about a living person, I don't think it's wise or necessary to get into this kind of thing. Coretheapple (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

But articles like that one are usually easily dispensed with per notability. Wasn't that the primary basis for deletion in this case? The point is it doesn't matter WHO posted the inappropriate article, or whether that person had a COI. Regardless of WHO or WHY, the WHAT justified deletion. Right? --B2C 20:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, here's one that doesn't involve BLPs. I posted it on Jimbo's talk page and am copying it below:

This PR Newswire release re "Obamacare" & Wikipedia just came to my attention. It reads in relevant part:

"The Obamacare debate resulted in a legislative impasse and a government shutdown as both parties pour millions into promoting and defending their position. This time, however, the war of words is not limited to Congress and the news media. One of the new battlegrounds is Wikipedia, where every word in the 13,000-word Obamacare article is bitterly fought over." . . . 'This editorial war on Wikipedia is pretty representative of the high impact Wikipedia profiles now play in forming public opinion about political issues, brands, products, corporations. The stakes are often in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and so we find ourselves quite busy helping our clients achieve their objective on Wikipedia, while adhering to Wikipedia's notoriously complex rules and practices,' said Alex Konanykhin, CEO of www.WikiExperts.us, the leading Wikipedia visibility agency."

--Coretheapple (talk) 23:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

If they really are "adhering to Wikipedia's notoriously complex rules and practices," why is it a problem? If they aren't, isn't that the problem, rather than some money changing hands? --BDD (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

It’s certainly in their interest to make that claim, because it’s the principal basis of their pitch to prospective clients. Their website, to their credit IMO, gives high prominence to WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:NOT, and so on, the message being that they can better ensure our standards are met than clients can do on their own. I also note they guarantee only that their articles will survive for a month, not that the content will reflect the client’s wishes. I don’t mean to downplay the issue of disclosure—about which I saw nothing (in an admittedly brief surf through the site)–but otherwise I found their presentation hard to fault. Anyway, I’m inclined to agree with you, and I’m concerned that accusations of paid editing could become a form of ad hominem that’s perceived to have backing in policy.—Odysseus1479 00:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• If their articles will survive for a month? That will not be enough for them If they are deleted, and if the edit history of the paid editor is unavailable, then the client will ask for their money back, will be unlikely to pay again, and will not be recommending the service. If they attempt to keep client money on the basis of an article surviving one month plus one day, then there goes their reputation.

  Having read most others' comments, I am still convinced that paid editing is an issue that can be managed, and that the real problem is undisclosed paid editors using undisclosed disposable accounts, probably one per client, probably with accounts used in successful paid article creation being disclosed in late negotiation for new clients. I suggest a small step, not a knee jerk overreaction, of merely requiring disclosure on each account, under threat of [{WP:CSD#G5]] deletion of all their work, a threat that targets their cash flow.

  When these professional paid editors are disclosed, cataloged, and reviewable, then we can see the extent of the problem. Currently, we are probably suffering an extreme biased view because we catch the worst first. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I doubt any deleted articles will survive a month. I know people who have articles written for school projects deleted in less than 5 minutes for dubious completely bogus notability reasons. Deleted articles have no chance and they cannot count as evidence. (And if this is passed writing/editing Wikipedia articles for school won’t even be allowed. So much for Wikipedia being a “free” encyclopedia…)—Al12si (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Worst I came across IMO was on Brian Engel. The article-subject was a non-notable publicist for oil & gas companies. He had a massive article with 33 citations, but almost everything about the article was misleading. I would rank such deceit as more offensive than just promotional writing, which is often easy to cleanup, or other non-notable articles that are easier to detect. When the article has 33 cites, editors presume it is notable and properly sourced, when it wasn't actually. CorporateM (Talk) 01:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• The whole Aaron Klein affair — he set up a sockpuppet account that had been content for a while to simply self-promote himself on his own article. Later, he engaged in what he later called investigative journalism by edit warring Birther material into the main Obama article until he got himself blocked, then he wrote a misleading third person account about the incident as if he did not know who was operating the account, exposing Wikipedia's supposed pro-Obama bias. The story got picked up by the conservative blogosphere and a few major mainstream sources, who encouraged their minions to come to Wikipedia to set things straight. The articles were overwhelmed for days with angry Republican conspiracy theorists, leading indirectly to a lot more sockpuppets, dozens of blocked accounts, and a botched arbitration case. The COI editing had been going on for months; it took a few days for Wikipedia editors and a few real world journalists to piece together what was going on after the news articles. The conservative press denied the whole thing, despite the fact that it's all in the edit records. Sorry, no diffs, the arbcom case ran to megabytes. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
• A while back I caught (and identified) an employee of American Apparel trying to whitewash Wikipedia's accounts of the CEO's well-documented sex scandals. I had to remind them what happens when well known people get caught gaming their Wikipedia articles, this was an era where that kind of story was news fodder. That worked. Interestingly, I don't think the proposed policy would have stopped either of these. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
• Hayford Peirce is a two-page ad for Hayford Peirce.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
• Ted Cruz might qualify as a case in point here. The single greatest contributor (a Cruz crusader), (one of his/her monikers was "Exclusive Agent") was edit-warring under multiple monikers and IP addresses. Shortly after that person was blocked, a new Wikipedian arose who continually deleted such uncontroversial phrases such as the fact that Canada was Cruz's place of birth and that he was widely seen as bearing some responsible for the 2013 government shutdown. Anyone entering the page to inject a well-documented fact was met with immediate resistance and removal of the material. Despite the fact that one or two editors reversed the new Cruz advocates' revert, the person continually removed the material. A paid political partisan who is engaged in editing as a full time endeavor (particularly working in tandem with his or her own sockpuppet or misguided and passionate supporters) can easily exhaust the average informed person trying to add a few simple facts to the page. In such cases, the whole article is biased. What does one do? You can't prove it but you can smell it. Is it ad hominem to ask about conflicts of interest and if one does, should the editor be required to answer?Scholarlyarticles (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
  • YES, Scholaryarticles (talk · contribs), it is ad hominem to ask about conflicts of interest. The WHO or WHY behind a given edit (or series of edits) should never be relevant. If the WHAT of the edits comply with NPOV, NOTABILITY, WP:IRS, and our other content-related policies and guidelines, then they are fine; if they don't comply, then they need to be reverted or fixed. Our actions to edits should be identical and focused entirely on WHAT regardless of WHO makes the edits and without regard to whether they may be influenced by a COI. --B2C 18:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
• Here's an article detailing some of the recent paid editing problems. Some time ago, YellowMonkey did an investigation of a known paid-for article, and found that it was clean of notable, documented, negative information about the subject. It has been, and continues to be, a problem. --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, TeaDrinker (talk · contribs), it's an WP:NPOV problem. The fact that that particular NPOV problem is caused by a COI issue is irrelevant - the NPOV problem needs to be addressed just the same anyway. --B2C 18:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
    • If we allow one group of editors to cause problems on the project for pay, we can't really expect many volunteers to stick around to clean up those messes for free. We know that money corrupts editorial decisions. We know it causes problems. It was your request that such problems be shown to you, well, quod erat demonstrandum. Of course, if you ask for examples of problematic editing as the consequences of pay, that editing is going to be problematic according to policy, that is what was requested. However we are intelligent people and can deal with causes as well as effects. We can identify, as you have just done, the causative factors behind the problematic edits and make every effort to curtail those factors. --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• Here are more stories from the Wiki-PR debacle. --TeaDrinker (talk) 23:37, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
• Diploma mills tend to be problematic as a group - often they will remove negative information from their own articles and insert unfounded claims that their credentials are valid. There were a few times Concordia College and University was replaced with laudatory text so that the "college" could then link to WP from outside as "evidence" of the institution's bona fides. (The institution, which claims to be accredited by Liberia and operates from a Caribbean island, is best known for conferring a baccalaureate on Fostoria, Ohio police dog "John I. Rocko"). No need to single out one like this, though, most diploma mills WP:COI edit this way. Pick any in the category and view history... K7L (talk) 02:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Tautology, and a better proposal

Wikipedia:Advocacy is already forbidden, so paid advocacy is by default forbidden. Instead, we need to talk about Wikipedia:Paid editing policy proposal, which would require disclosure of all paid editing, regardless of whether the editing is neutral or not. Jehochman ^Talk 23:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The Advocacy essay you link to refers to policy that governs content. The actual text of the proposed BrightLine policy is about contributor, not content and seems to do exactly what you are proposing...Jytdog (talk) 10:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about Advocacy, as that is an essay, but I was not aware of the paid editing policy proposal. That's a good point. It is more specific and seems like a common-sense way to proceed. I don't understand why that's not being discussed. While it may not be adopted, my feeling is that if Wikipedia want to reject a paid editing policy proposal that would be routine and uncontroversial everywhere else, so be it. Coretheapple (talk) 14:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:ADVOCACY is just an essay, the applicable policy is Wikipedia:NOTADVOCATE#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion. This bars attempts at promotion, content that fails to adhere to NPOV. (I am completely in favor of mandatory COI identification, by the way, with a provision that those harassing declared COI editors without due cause should face sanctions for their actions.) Carrite (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

This is an idea that I could get behind (with a bit of modification). Indeed, Wikipedia:NOTADVOCATE is already the governing policy. We don’t need another one. As for COI disclosure, I don’t think mandatory is practical, but strongly encouraging disclosure of financial, scientific, academic, religious, political and nationalist, et. al. COI is a good idea and should be in our COI guideline. I know what Carrite meant by this: with a provision that those harassing declared COI editors without due cause should face sanctions for their actions. but I think there should never be a situation where it is OK (due cause?) to harass an editor who declares a COI. Point blank, we should never sanction harassment of our editors under any circumstance and as Carrite states editors doing so …should face sanctions for their actions. The COI and other appropriate guidelines should be unequivocal about this. We could simplify this Advocacy issue by adopting this approach. --Mike Cline (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

There is already an anti-harassment policy, and that is enough. I edit mostly articles about historical controversies, and there are still people willing to refight old battles. I would hate for a Wikipedia policy to explicitly say that "one must not harass an editor who likes to refight old battles." What you are suggesting give a class of editors, in this case paid editors, an excuse to cry "harassment" when there isn't any. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I am a bit confused by your comments. Indeed we have an anti-harassment policy and a careful reading tells me that any kind of editor harassment should not be tolerated. As you've said, we don't need another policy to say that. Yet with this comment I would hate for a Wikipedia policy to explicitly say that "one must not harass an editor who likes to refight old battles. you imply its OK to harass editors when the situation suits you. Declaring COI (of any sort) has over the years clearly resulted in harassment by other editors. We should encourage declarations of COI so that content contributions can be monitored appropriately, but we shouldn't tolerate any harassment of such editors, no matter how much you might dislike their motivations. As for giving someone an excuse to cry harassment, that's just lame --Mike Cline (talk) 22:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, so leave it in. It won't make any difference no matter what you do. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Disclosure wording

Multiple User's above have said we can/should "require disclosure." I have therefore cribbed this from Protecting our Neutrality (see google archive here [5]) and modified it for Wikipedia.

On their User page, on subject article talk pages, and when commenting on any conflict of interest related policy/guideline discussion page:

• Users must disclose the fact that they have received or will receive anything that could be construed as a payment to the User for favorable coverage or for avoiding unfavorable coverage of article subjects the User is working on. This includes money, gifts, tickets, discounts, reimbursements or other benefits from individuals or organizations covered (or likely to be covered) by the User in a Wikipedia article.

• Users must disclose the fact of payment or compensation (not the amount) of any sort from individuals or organizations (including through intermediaries) who are the subject of coverage (positive, negative, or neutral) the User is to provide, edit, prepare or supervise on Wikipedia.

• The notices given subject to the above must be kept indefinitely in place, even after your work has ended.

Discuss

• I would also like to ask you to review and reflect on this recent comment by @CorporateM: a PR professional and Wikipedian in a similar discussion:[6] -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

  Alan, I'm getting a dead link at the Times website that you cite above. Coretheapple (talk) 23:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

  Strange it works for me. (paste it in your browser?) Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

  I was trying to access this URL: http://www.nytco.com/press/ethics.html#A3. I tried to reach it through Google too, found the PDF, but couldn't access it or the code itself. Odd. Still can't, regardless of browser. Coretheapple (talk) 00:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

  Are you able to access URL: http://www.nytco.com/press/ethics.html and look for "Protecting Our Neutrality"? Or google "nyt protecting our neutrality" and get it that way? Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

  No,I get "oops, page can't be found." Coretheapple (talk) 16:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

  Are you able to view this google archive: [7] or [8] or [9] Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• Disclosure is this - on their userpage, clearly, at the top, set off from the rest of the style. Same on talkpage. Preferably a username with PR in it, or another similar way to determine that. Furthermore, as I proposed above, I support software changes to add userrights that would form a PR personnel group which would include getting autopatrolled, but not having their edits auto-reviewed under PC, as well as putting their mainspace edits on Special:PRedits or similar. Furthermore, their signature should accurately display their username (with the PR part). If the usergroup is added, it's likely that it'd be enough disclosure, and a talkpagepost/signature disclosure would be overboard. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 00:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• The above seems reasonable. It is enough that we know that they are a paid editor. We can then see from there edits what their bias is. There is no need to specifically identify the editor, or the client. The client will in obvious enough.

  I'm thinking that requiring an alternative account suffixed with "(Paid)", or similar, is a good way to go. I would expect that this suffix should be appended to the persons main wikipedia account. I expect that all half rate paid editors and better have main Wikipedia accounts with substantial mainspace edit history. I expect that the clients are often aware of the multiple account use of the paid editor, at least the more successful alternative accounts.

  Accounts should be linked both ways. I expect that a paid editor may create and article and maintain it during employment, but down the track may choose to maintain the article, their past work, as an ordinary unpaid editor. We should not assume a defined line exists between paid edits and unpaid edits. We should not assume that paid editors are not otherwise ethical Wikipedia volunteers. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Marketing guy here as mentioned above. If anyone cares to dig it up, the Federal Trade Commission has some great common sense advice about disclosures. Rather than having prescriptive rules, they say that the disclosure must be "clear and conspicuous". The disclosure's effectiveness is based on whether the average reader (editors in this case) would get its meaning. Smokey is on-target; I contribute about 50% volunteer and 50% COI and I have in some cases maintained articles as a volunteer where any financial incentive was years prior. It is not so easy to separate the two. Also, as I have learned first-hand, any list of COI articles becomes a target list for harassment. I have not seen any COI disclosures that were not sufficient, except those that were not made at all, which I would consider the primary target. On the contrary, sometimes they disclose too much and I want them to get to the point regarding the actual article.CorporateM (Talk) 01:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Excellent point that following the rules about COI identification only makes one a target for harassment. I heard the same thing from a longtime paid COI editor on WPO today. Along with mandatory ID there needs to be an explicit prohibition of harassment of COI editors without due cause. There are some fanatics on this issue and I suspect that a few heads will have to roll... Carrite (talk) 18:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Harassment is already forbidden, but not well-enforced. We should do more to protect editors from harassment project-wide. COIs complain about being harassed, but they are only slightly more likely than any editor to be a target; most volunteers I have talked to have had similar experiences at some point in their editing career. It's just that - if you choose to harass an editor who happens to have a COI, naturally you will focus on that as an obvious hand-hold. Also, the flip side is that PR reps often feel they are being discriminated against, when in actuality their contributions are genuinely problematic, or they are just too tense because they have such a vested interest in the article's content. CorporateM (Talk) 11:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• I'd rather drop the "for favorable coverage or for avoiding unfavorable coverage". Any edit, other than the reversion of blatant vandalism, should probably require the editor to have disclosed a financial COI in regard to that article. I'm worried that it will raise defences along the lines of "I was only hired to make sure it was neutral", which might be better avoided. - Bilby (talk) 01:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The intent of the second independent bullet clause is to cover that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC) I have made that more clear. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC) I have also added a third clause about keeping the notice. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bright lines

I've just started Wikipedia:Bright lines - which is tackling the same idea, but from the other end of the telescope, so we are looking at the editing results, rather than assuming bad motives of some well meaning professionals. This is simply a quick start to get ideas flowing. I'm off out now, so won't be able to get back to it for a bit. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

We don't even have a consensus for what "banned" means. Blocked or site banned? To all those who encourage PR firm editing: a pox on your pet articles! May the paid editors spin them for you against your will. Doc talk 14:08, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

"Banned" means WP:BAN. I don't like the idea of a bright-line banning policy. Banning is an extraordinary remedy, similar to outlawry, whereby the community (or ArbCom, or Jimbo) decides that said person shall not contribute to Wikipedia, and all edits by said person shall be reverted on sight. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

These are the exact opposite of "bright lines". A bright line states incontrovertibly that if you do X, the response shall be Y regardless of the circumstantial nuances. Instead these "bright lines" currently say:

Any user will be banned from the project if, after an appropriate warning,^{What's appropriate? Just one?} they repeatedly^{How many times? Twice? Multiple warnings then?} and deliberately^{How do we distinguish deliberately from accidentally/through ignorance?} edit or amend an article to do any one of these:

And so on. These need to be watertight if they are to be proposed as "bright lines" underlying this proposed policy change Jebus989^✰ 16:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• My comments from WT:Bright lines#Vague and Misleading:

Any user will be banned from the project if, after an appropriate warning, they repeatedly and deliberately edit or amend an article to do any one of these

So what does this mean? What is an appropriate warning?

Insert false information

If someone mistakenly edits the article with a non reliable source, can he be banned?

*Inappropriately disparage the subject of the article without citing appropriate reliable sources, and without ensuring that the article contains any known concerns regarding the nature of the disparagement

• Inappropriately praise the subject of the article without citing appropriate reliable sources, and without ensuring that the article contains any known concerns regarding the nature of the praise

Same concerns as above.

Remove or suppress reliably sourced information that appropriately balances praise or disparagement in an article

Is cleanup discouraged?

Right now they are not bright lines, rather blurred lines. KonveyorBelt 02:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• Let's just get rid of this horrible "bright line" metaphor. Life is grey and this matter is very grey. We need normalization of something that is already covertly happening, and that means mandatory declaration of COI and protection of declared COI accounts from harassment. Carrite (talk) 18:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

No paid advocacy and the GLAM Sector

Forgive me if I cannot always be up to speed with all Wiki rubrics but I read this on the project page "Subject-matter experts

Nothing in this policy should be interpreted to mean that subject-matter experts should not contribute to Wikipedia in their area of expertise. Like all other editors, subject-matter experts should simply make sure that their external financial relationships in the field do not interfere with their primary role on Wikipedia."

I really struggle to get my head around this. Wiki seeks great involvement from GLAM organisations. Almost by definition a curator is hired for their expertise in a subject which they are expected to share. One of the most obvious ways to do this is to generate Wiki content. I don't see it as COI. It only becomes COI in my book when the amount of renumeration you received changes because of a wiki entry. So a £20k p/a curator should be able to write for Wiki with no COI as a subject professional. Only if by writing for Wiki his £20k becomes £22k do I think there would be a COI. IMHO we have to allow curators to do what they are good at so long as they do it not for MORE money and they do it impartially without the i word. If we cannot sort this out you will have the paradox that a volunteer curator could edit wiki and a salaried curator should not. Or that a salaried curator should only edit where there is no subject relation to their employer which is nonsense. In hard terms do you want National Railway Museum curators who know about objects in their care to make properly referenced contributions or not? The example could be repeated a 1000 times.

Perhaps by setting my example about the amount of k beside the first quote I can see a route through because do they not amount to the same thing? Welcome the curator's content so long as in all respects it meet's wiki standards and the person does not gain ADDITIONAL finance through what they wrote. Robertforsythe (talk) 16:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I share Robert's concern here. I am personally aware of academics and librarians that are operating with significant grant $$$ to explore SEO strategies to develop greater exposure to digital collections and digital archives owned by major institutions. Such archives are money making machines for most institutions, so exposure is to their existence and content is essential. One of the avenues being undertaking by the researchers is the creation of or modification of Wikipedia articles that contain content from or reference digital archives. The sole purpose of such Wikipedia work is to explore SEO strategies via DBpedia and such for greater exposure of digital collections and archives. Is this paid advocacy? These researchers and librarians are adding content to Wikipedia that as far as my experience goes has always met WP norms, yet they are being paid, via grant $$ to do just that. Will they be banned under this proposal? --Mike Cline (talk) 19:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

GLAM organisations are just as capable of WP:COI as anyone else. They're usually a bit more articulate in what they write, but do we really need half of our Antique Boat Museum article written by User:AntiqueBoatMuseum, a single-purpose account? I suppose the line should be drawn at the point an editor or organisation is writing about itself or its brand of products. Thomas Edison writing about light bulbs in general (or even light bulb jokes) isn't WP:COI but Thomas Edison writing specifically about General Electric light bulbs is. K7L (talk) 00:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Changing the goalposts without actually addressing the problem

This edit changes the goalposts. It does not, however, address the key issue with this proposed policy. It still is all about the contributor, and not the content; it actually worsens things because of the failure to define "subject matter expert". What constitutes a subject matter expert? Does having worked for a specific advocacy position as a volunteer for 20 years make one an SME? Does it require proof of one's scholarly expertise? What if the SME works for a for-profit company instead of in the scholarly sector? Those who remember back to the Essjay controversy, where a longtime administrator claimed certain scholarly credentials, have to realise that absent some sort of verification process which would by necessity require that individuals publicly identify themselves and link to their real-world identity, there is no way to verify credentials or expertise. Let's not start going for policies that result in a cure worse than the disease. Risker (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it just adds more vagueness to an already vague policy, and could still fail to allow scholars to edit in their subject of expertise. If a researcher is funded by grants, increasing awareness of their field may help them get additional grants in the future. And the section still does not make it clear whether such an "external financial relationship" would be okay or not. Even if it isn't intended to do this, the vagueness leaves it open to some abuse. I can easily predict a scenario:

<Expert> writes balanced, well-sourced article

<Crackpot> adds nonsense conspiracy theory to it

<Expert> reverts

<Crackpot> reverts: "Your career is based on people believing your mainstream 'science', I'm trying to make it NPOV, you're violating WP:PAID"

<Crackpot> starts noticeboard threads ad infinitum accusing <Expert> of paid editing

<Expert> realizes he has better things to do with his time and quits.

-- Mr.Z-man 17:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Who is a better expert on the subject of a particular business than the owner/CEO/Marketing guy? Monty₈₄₅ 17:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

That's a typically Wikipedian debasement of the word "expert". Let's head it off by stipulating that "expert" refers to someone with generally recognized scholarly qualifications in a subject area. MastCell ^Talk 19:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Yet that is not remotely the definition used in Wikipedia Expert--Antiqueight ^confer 19:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Only kidding a bit here, but I'll venture to say my mechanic understands the working of automobiles at least as well as someone with a P.Eng. Which one would be the expert? Risker (talk) 05:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

If you prefer, we could replace "scholarly qualifications" with "scholarly or technical qualifications". In practice, I doubt that anyone would complain about a mechanic editing automotive articles, regardless of what's written in policy. MastCell ^Talk 18:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that would help either. The problem is that many COI editors claim to be experts - and probably are - that's why they started a business in x industry; because they understood that industry at an expert level enough to develop a profitable business. We see this all the time at the Skateboarding WikiProject. Those building new companies or releasing new technologies or promoting some new fad are overwhelmingly subject matter "experts" and many would pass even the loosest definition having won competitions or spent x years as sponsored professionals. Academic expertise should be an applicable "out" in "academic" areas like science. But "technical" expertise is something that almost anyone can claim. I couldn't care less if a PhD student writes an article about a particular frog for which his faculty has received research $$. I have a problem when a guy who skated as a pro in the early 90s uses his "expertise" to spam WP with advertising for his new skateboard. Same for "expert" programmers who make that claim to promo their latest non-notable software distro. I would hope that the WP community has enough sense to differentiate between an academic who might be paid to conduct research and then chooses to share some of that research with WP and a promo-spammer who cries "expert" as an excuse to promote a commercial endeavour.

Beyond that, what qualifies as an appropriate area of expertise? Can someone with a Creative Writing degree spam with impunity from an Elance account because they are a "writing expert" in general? What about an MBA who could claim to be an expert on "business, in general" and spam away? Stalwart111 08:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The answer is application of WP:PROVEIT and the prohibition on original research. It shouldn't make a difference whether a legitimate or self-avowed expert makes an edit on a contentious issue as long as the facts in the edit are traceable to acceptable source material. We already prohibit "facts" from self-published sources, so that CoI is diminished in its significance by proper application of PROVEIT. However, I'd like to support the proposed policy because it removes the issue of legions of paid activists/wonks (whether corporate or political party activists doesn't really matter) swamping WP with unbalanced articles with great reference lists.loupgarous (talk) 21:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

"it removes the issue of legions of paid activists/wonks" How? In other words, kindly PROVEIT, I don't believe it. Paradoctor (talk) 21:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I might have understated the difficulty of identifying who's a paid activist in that last post. But this is just one more tool to deal with a chronic and pervasive problem in Wikipedia - corporately (or activist organization) - employed editors who just type the copy from their press releases verbatim into Wikipedia articles. It doesn't solve every issue, but it could sure help in some cases. You don't throw your hammer away because you can't drill neat little holes with it. You get a drill motor and some bits, and keep your hammer for when you need to drive nails. loupgarous (talk) 03:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

There are already two super-effective tools for dealing with that: WP:CSD#G11 and WP:CSD#G12. This wouldn't prevent it from occurring in the first place, which is really the only hole. WilyD 16:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a hole. It's just the price of business in an open community. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 17:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

A thought experiment on how this proposal will deprecate the outing policy

So, let's say I edit an article on a business, and User:ImPerfect accuses me of obvious bias and accuses me of being a paid editor. Given the fact that I've been around here for a long time, there's a fair chance that everyone will just roll their eyes. But what if it's not me they accuse, but someone who's only been around for a year? Or someone who specialises in editing articles on certain topics that include this business? Or a completely new editor? How do these editors defend themselves when accused of having a financial conflict of interest? And what standard of evidence are we going to require to "let them off"? Will they have to prove, somehow or other, that they don't have a COI? How do they do that? What standard of proof will be required from the accuser?

My concern here is that this policy makes it far, far too easy to launch the accusation based on an edit that someone doesn't agree with (or frankly, that does not agree with the accuser's point of view), and it is nearly impossible to defend against such an accusation. It will encourage sleuthing around off-wiki and actively attempting to link pseudonymous accounts (either by username or IP) to real-world identities, thus essentially washing out our WP:OUTING policy. I can foresee those who want to remove opposition to their editing researching their opponents in other venues and coming up with statements like "Your pension plan owns 500,000 shares of this company! You do so have a conflict!" (For the record: if someone's sleuthing about me, I haven't the funniest notion where my pension plan invests; however, if I successfully ran for any level of government in Canada, I'd have to find out and would have to declare it as part of my financial disclosure. This isn't a far-fetched example.) For the editor accused of COI, there is no way that they can respond without revealing personal information, even if they are completely innocent and are being falsely accused.

This policy is in direct conflict with at least one of our oldest and most strongly defended behavioural policies. Now, there are things to be said in favour of rethinking the outing policy; however, this policy cannot go forward in isolation without a broad community consultation on whether or not we want to retain the outing policy. Risker (talk) 05:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Nicely put. Although I am not greatly in favor of anonymous/pseudonymous editing, I think that is probably a far greater priority for most editors than the few cases of COI, which to be honest seem not to be a major issue. Greglocock (talk) 05:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

{ec}Am I missing something or are you implying that a simple accusation made without any grounds or proof would produce a "guilty until proven innocent" situation in the above scenario. Unless there is evidence produced that requires refuting, it would seem that there would be nothing but a baseless accusation that should be subject to WP:HARASSMENT via WP:BOOMERANG. I don't see where a necessity to reveal personal information on the part of someone subject to a falsely accussation would arise.

The main goal of this initiative would appear to aim at keeping everything above board by promoting transparency through necessitating disclosure, while restricting the scope of participation of those with a COI to prevent the occurrence of related problems.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 06:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Ubikwit, where's the proof coming from? If an editor hasn't posted onwiki info that suggests a COI, then it's going to have to come from off-wiki sleuthing...or it could just be made up out of thin air, for all we know. But how many users who value what little online privacy they have are really going to say to an accuser, "Oh yeah? Prove it!" Nope. They're going to walk away from that article, and quite likely from the project entirely. What would you do if you were confronted with someone accusing you of COI? This is a thought experiment, and I encourage all editors to really think about how they would respond, and how they think the project should deal with such accusations. Risker (talk) 06:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

How is anything proven here? I have sympathy with the view that a rule that is hard to enforce is unworkable, but that is not a reason to have no declaration of intent on whether paid advocacy is welcome. While paid editing does not bother some people who believe they would continue contributing regardless, the idea of working alongside paid PR spinners does bother many other volunteers. Having a policy, even if unworkable in many cases, would at least serve to maintain the volunteer ethic. I don't mind battling a POV pusher because there are generally sufficient good editors available to ensure that eventually there will be a good outcome for the encyclopedia. However, if it is established that paid editing is like apple pie, it would be very unproductive to battle a tag team of new editors who are indistinguishable from paid PR hacks. It's like WP:Child protection—essentially no one cares if a pro-pedophilia activist edits Wikipedia (we don't require a declaration from each new editor), but if there are grounds for thinking that someone is such an activist, they will be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 06:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Johnuniq, how are you, personally, going to deal with a COI accusation if this proposal passes? Today, you can shrug your shoulders and ignore it and keep doing what you're doing. If this passes, you will need to address the issue. It's really that simple. So how do you see yourself doing so? Do you support the idea of sleuthing through the internet figuring out who people are and then using that information to attempt to prove COI? Remember, we banned an admin for doing that, but it would not be possible to stop people doing that very thing, and posting it onwiki, if this is passed. Risker (talk) 07:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

How would I deal with it if accused of paid advocacy? I would ask which of my edits gave that appearance, and whether there is any trend in my edits that led to that conclusion. How would I deal with an editor I suspected of paid advocacy? I'd grind my teeth and wonder why I was volunteering to help them. I do not support the idea of indiscriminate sleuthing, nor of outing, but gathering public information as in the recent wikipr case seems desirable in order to gauge what needs to be done. Johnuniq (talk) 08:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Risker, if someone accused me of having a COI I would inquire as to the basis of the accusation. If, by some obtuse definition of what a COI encompasses I was determined to have a COI, I would thenceforth simply declare that I had a COI.

I wouldn't be editing as a PR hack to begin with, so I would simply point to WP:YESPOV and sources if someone complained on the basis of my POV.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 10:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• Ah, it's apparent that the editors who've tried this so far have never really been accused of editing in a seriously bad way, and so really don't know what a pain it is to defend oneself. Let's be more specific here in the example.
  • You are accused of paid advocacy because you have edited an article about a company. Your intention was to clean it up and reflect current information. The article was 40 paragraphs long when you started, 18 paragraphs of which were in the "Controversies" section. There was no section about employee relations. You have added a section identifying that the company was ranked in the top 500 employers for the last three years, with links to the respected independent body that made that ranking as well as to a respected business magazine that reported this. You have reduced the "controversies" section to four paragraphs, eliminating anecdotal stories sourced to local news sources but expanding the information on the major controversies by improving references to high quality national-level sources and adding well-referenced information on the company's response to those major controversies. You are accused of paid advocacy.
• That is a more specific example. Now, how do you defend yourself? Risker (talk) 11:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
  • You can't. No real wikipediot would spend their time making such edits because they are no fun. Ergo, anyone making such edits is very, very likely someone with a more or less direct financial stake in the company. Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
    • It feels like Wikipedia:Assume bad faith is also going to become policy. You're saying that if somebody takes an interest that you don't understand, it is then fair to jump to the conclusion that they must be a paid editor. Jehochman ^Talk 12:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure where you've been, Jehochman. This happens now, and has been happening since before I was a regular editor. If the target is a new account (aka "SPA") the response ranges from just reverting them (often with the summary "vandalism") or accused of COI, or blocked/banned/checked for socks. If they're more experienced, the community response is more likely to shrug it off, unless the editor making the accusation is an admin or longer term editor. We have to keep in mind that there's good evidence that experienced editors are also working for some of the "edits for hire" organizations, so the good faith that experience once had may no longer be applicable. See also Mike Cline's story below. Risker (talk) 13:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see much of a scope for changing my initial response, because the second scenario still is based on an unsubstantiated accusation. The burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused, correct?

Accordingly, if it is simply a case of a POV dispute, that is where the focus should be shifted, and that is the manner in which I would attempt to channel the dispute. Were there an actual COI involved, again, I would disclose it and abide by the pertinent COI policies that were on the books.

Maybe there should be a two tier COI system implemented, one that has discretionary sanctions for hotly contested articles, restring COI editors to Talk pages, and one that simply requires disclosure and allows editing in article space until a problem arises, at which time the discretionary sanctions version could be applied.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you might be missing my point, Ubikwit. The way that the COI will be "proven" will be sleuthing for your personal information online and through other dimensions, like calling your boss. Speaking as someone who's been through this or seen it happen to others because of my Arbcom role, I can assure you it is not pleasant, and that pretty much everyone can be found and a way to force an editor off an article (if not the entire project) can be found. This proposal encourages exactly that kind of behaviour; after all, it's based on not publicly disclosing one's COI, so that means going after non-public info to prove one's point. Otherwise, why would we even be bothering? Risker (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how that could possibly be a concern. However, if people are worried about witch hunts, then that can be dealt with by inserting strong language prohibiting such behavior. In the longer version of this proposal there is "no investigations" language that, I think, is pretty strong and which I've just strengthened further, to take this off the table. Coretheapple (talk) 17:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

You realise now that you have made the policy unenforceable and unpoliceable by taking that out. This increasingly is coming across as "Something must be done!!! This is Something!!! Therefore We Must Do It!!!" Creating an unenforceable policy is probably the worst thing we can do. Six months from now when it's identified that an IP from somebody's workplace edited the article on that employer, we'll take an even bigger publicity hit than some people think we're getting now. Risker (talk) 20:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Let the policy be unenforceable. It shouldn't be a policy in the first place and it encourages witch hunts at noticeboards. KonveyorBelt 21:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

If we can be more than usually cynical for a moment, an unenforceable (or unenforced) policy has an advantage over a non-existent one: whenever there is a media outcry about someone editing an article, we can say "How dare those horrible people violate our policy!" WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Paid Advocacy (COI) will always trump NPOV and Notability

Risker has it right here and I am living proof of the scenario described. When I first started editing WP in early 2007 of course I started editing on what I knew about—Strategic Planning. As any new editor, I was learning the ropes, the rules, and the norms of the community. Unfortunately, because I worked for a company that consulted in the corporate Strategy arena, my edits about a particular strategy process the company used were immediately attacked as COI with some vicious accusations, especially from a new editor perspective. Despite the fact that I openly conceded the COI, I was evil and proving otherwise wasn’t an option. NPOV or Notability of the topics was no longer relevant despite ample evidence to the contrary. [10] and [11]. I survived the encounter, learned some lessons and became an otherwise productive editor and admin in the WP community. Unfortunately for the encyclopedia, six years later, the great majority of the articles related to strategy are pretty poor and will probably remain so as long as any strategy expert (who probably is employed in some way in the strategic planning business) is considered evil, has a COI, and couldn’t possibly contribute anything on strategy that is well sourced, NPOV and notable. This whole proposal validates my assertion that COI clearly trumps NPOV and Notability policy/guidelines. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

My experience was exactly the same when I started editing search engine optimization. After I got sick and tired of being accused of COI and I stopped editing that article. It used to be featured. Now it's a former featured article.. Jehochman ^Talk 13:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

In that case, it might be a good idea to limit the scope to the Talk pages and use of the {Request edit} template, thereby preventing any hard feelings by eliminating the source of conflict beforehand.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Isn't that what the evil and manipulative BP rep did? Or so we're told on Jimbo's talk page. Clearly that can't be allowed either because there are too many wikipediots who would fall for it. I think the responsibility for approving COI edits should rest only with Jimbo and perhaps the ArbCom. Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh heavens, not ArbCom, ever. Aside from the fact that it's specifically out of scope for Arbcom (we definitively do not deal directly with content), the last thing the committee needs is more work. I speak as someone who's been an arbitrator for 5 years and has been trying to find a way to offload last-chance ban/block appeals for most of that time. And Jimbo, for all of his experience, simply is not available anywhere near enough to do that, and as a WMF Trustee could be perceived to be "approving" edits in a way that could put the WMF's Section 230 immunity at risk.

About 4 years ago, Arbcom tried to create an editorial advisor subcommittee, which was intended to get spun off to be a community-selected group that could review content decisions (kind of the content equivalent of Arbcom), but that got ripped apart pretty quickly. They would be ideal if they existed, but they don't.... I'll try to find some links tonight. Risker (talk) 15:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:ACPD. It was a decent idea which predictably went down in flames at the hands of the community. MastCell ^Talk 18:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I actually think these rules make the kind of concerns raised here either to deal with, because they set forth the narrow circumstances in which COI exists. If you are a former official of XYZ Corp., there is nothing to prohibit your writing about it. In my view, the rules are weak and leave out a lot. Contrary to some of what I've read on this page, they don't sanction vigilantism. Overall I think they are neutral and perhaps even slightly harmful in terms of reducing COI situations, for, yes, they do not cover situations in which a corporate PR person acts as a kind of straw boss, dominating the talk pages of the articles. Yet evidently the idea of any kind of COI prohibition flies in the face of a kind of libertarian ethos prevalent among Wikipedia editors. Coretheapple (talk) 19:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Ironically, I'd be a lot more concerned about the former official editing than I would be the current PR person. The current PR person usually has more of a professional reputation to maintain, and he knows a misstep can hurt the company. Former official? much more likely to edit in revenge in a manner we might not observe. Risker (talk) 23:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The "former employee" usually knows where all of the skeletons are buried in any particular enterprise, which is why companies are very eager to discredit any complaints this person makes. K7L (talk) 01:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Paid editors vs. advocates and experts

Bemused by the oppose !voters above who seem to conflate paid editors with experts, I figured it may be worth discussing the differences a bit. In my mind, there is a world of difference between advocates and experts in general and paid advocates. An advocate or expert is someone who is paid for their work that is not connected to Wikipedia. For example, if someone who is paid by "Motherboards-r-us" to solder circuit boards (or whatever it is they do to circuit boards) and then chooses to write about the process on Wikipedia then it is likely that they're going to have a view point about soldering as well as about Motherboards-r-us and that person is, in some sense, an advocate (for or against) the company and an expert on soldering motherboards. But that's ok because he or she is not being rewarded or punished for whatever they write on Wikipedia. On the other hand, someone who is paid by Motherboards-r-us to write either about their company or about soldering is paid for what they end up writing. If they write unfavorably about the company, forget to mention the importance of Motherboards-r-us in their article on circuit board soldering, or give an honestly held but negative opinion about the company, they would likely be out of a job because that's what they're being paid to do.

To me, these are very different animals because of the purpose behind the payment. All of us have opinions and all of us are advocates for those opinions. Some of us have stronger opinions than others but all of us try to shape articles so that they are in concordance with our beliefs, hunt for sources that support what we say, and try to convince others that what we are adding is balanced and neutral. A paid editor is advocating what someone else wants them to push and their livelihood directly depends on how well they push that viewpoint. An unpaid editor is advocating what they personally believe or think to be correct and their livelihood does not directly depend on what they write out here. That is a world of difference. Money changes everything. --regentspark (comment) 13:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely. It the lengths that some of the comments go to in order to conflate the two, thereby obfuscating the issue and obstructing progress toward addressing the concerns, is curious.

It could be summed up by stating that the money received by paid advocates to influence the reading public through Wikipedia has a direct impact on their disposition toward the ultimate content of the article in question. Money supersedes reason when one's livelihood is based on producing a text that is first and foremost intended to be persuasive in a PR manner, not informative in an encyclopedic manner.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: "is curious"... indeed! They must be stealth advocates for stealth advocacy! I say Jimbo should ban them forthwith! Or the least he can do is expel the ArbCom members who dare oppose him on this bright idea! Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Check this parallel discussion Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#Something_that_should_be_changed_for_such_a_discussion:_Disclosure_for_COI_policy_discussions.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

This kind of distinction is clear only if you don't think about it very much. As a professional astronomer, I'm definitely paid explicitly to inform the public about astronomy - by giving public talks, demonstrations, speaking to reporters, whatnot, which would include things like writing newspaper articles or for Wikipedia. The amount of money made available both by private donors, and the main source of funding, government science agencies (and hell, undergraduate tuition by students enrolled in astronomy/physics programmes) comes directly from public interest in astronomy, generated by things such as quality articles on Wikipedia. When I made this image, I was definitely being paid generally to do so, but, of course, nobody complained because the image is reasonably neutral, and encyclopaedic, and useful (and widely used, even though I didn't add it to a single article). In practice, there's paid editor whose goals align with Wikipedia's, and paid editor whose goals align against Wikipedia's; the problem isn't the person, or whether they're being paid, it's whether they're purpose is to write a neutral encyclopaedia or not. WilyD 14:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I guess the difference between being a paid expert and a promoter. If you were to write about the observatory or whatever it is to work at, then that would be promotion. So would using wikipedia to promote your own book, something some editors have done repeatedly, and, apparently, been banned repeatedly for. It can be a bit of a fuzzy line when, for instance, perhaps someone who is the sole person to recently study a given subject in their book tries to influence the content in our article related to that subject. And, yeah, the rest of you, don't laugh. I know particularly in topics like, for instance, specific religious subjects related to Papua New Guinea and other areas have had reference articles written about them by individuals chosen to do on the basis of their being pretty much the only living academic to have actively studied the subject. In those kinds of areas, it can be a problem. John Carter (talk) 00:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Except, of course, that merely writing about where you work doesn't automagically make it promotion. You could easily write that it's a shithole. And sure, if I were to run around promoting my book (I suppose my Ph.D. thesis is a book, of sorts) - it wouldn't be acceptable. But if you were to run around promoting my book, it would be exactly as unacceptable. When I made the image I used as an example, I used data from Murray and Dermott - I'm not Murray (nor Dermott), but if I were, it would still be appropriate for me to use (because Murray & Dermott is an authoritative text). The New Guinean religion isn't a particularly bizarre example; this article leans really heavily on Donald Smith's book, because it's by far the most in depth and authoritative reference on the subject. The article wouldn't be any worse if it was identical, but I was Donald Smith. Promotion is bad, but focussing on paid promotion ignores ~99% of the problem (and really, legitimises it by suggesting it's getting paid that the bad part of promotion, rather than co-opting Wikipedia and working against our goals. WilyD 08:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't be absurd as in reductio ad absurdum; reputable publishers don't view any of that as adressable conflict of interest, and neither would Wikipedia. But on the other hand, if YOU view it as a personal conflict of interest, that is your own personal ethics that you have to deal with. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Reputable publishers wouldn't view it as a problematic conflict of interest, nor should Wikipedia. You're absolutely correct. That's half of why this is a terrible policy proposal. WilyD 16:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

That's not what I said. I said, "neither would". It is not generally the case that policies are construed and certainly not enforced as absurdities. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I concur with WilyD. I'm an academic, so engaging with the public is part of my job. I may make edits talking about my own work or colleagues at my institution, because that's the work I know about best. Bondegezou (talk) 12:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The lines have been blurred and the wording needs careful crafting. I am 100% opposed to sites like WikiPR and the paid editors they recruit. I also think the very notion of banning a university professor from editing his/her field of expertise simply because they are paid to be a professor is absurd: and it's not written like that anyway. Why is there such a gulf in understanding that a PR hired gun is, as was said above, a different animal? Doc talk 05:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Quite, Doc9871. There's a distinct line of difference between conventional armies and mercenaries (in theory, at least): the most relevant aspect of which is purported accountability to the world community (through the Hague, for example) according to rules of engagement (blatant murder, torture and state sanctioned assassinations, while flouted of late, come to mind as being considered to be somewhat on the illegal side). We're not going to prevent mercenaries from infiltrating but that is not justification for not bothering to put policy in place to actively state that hired guns are not welcome or, if they are going to contribute, there are policies in place which require them to declare themselves and their position. Being an academic by profession is not the equivalent of being hired to push a specific line regardless of whether you believe it to be accurate or not. Why can't the Wikipedia community be trusted to be able to differentiate? Are we only just smart enough to be able to develop and maintain a detailed encyclopaedic resource yet too thick to be able to make less than subtle judgement calls? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Counter proposal - mandatory disclosure and simplified sanctions

Rather than outright banning users with financial interests from editing relevant articles, I believe that a better option would be to allow such editing, but put measures into place to make abuse easier to detect and prevent:

• Editors with financial interests in the field in which they edit with a financial conflict of interest as defined in this proposal, who are editing articles relevant to this conflict of interest should be required to publicly disclose this in some manner decided by the community (e.g. a header/footer/userbox on their user page, something in edit summaries, a technical flag similar to the minor edit flag, etc - I'm not sure what the best approach would be)
• Editors with a COI should be required to adhere to a 1-revert-rule on relevant articles except for reverting edits which are unquestionably vandalism and should be prohibited from restoring reverted edits altogether. This would be enforcible by any administrator blocking and/or topic banning the user.
• If there is evidence of abuse any uninvolved administrator may issue a finite, targeted, topic ban of increasing length per violation, similar to current blocks for vandalism. If stronger sanctions are warranted a community discussion at ANI could establish a wider and/or indefinite topic ban.
• If a user feels an unfair restriction was placed upon them by an individual administrator, they can appeal the topic ban to ANI. Community topic bans could be appealed in the normal manner.

I fully agree that COIs must be declared, but I think there are better alternatives than an outright ban on such edits. --W. D. Graham 16:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

What does "financial interests in the field in which they edit" mean? Does that mean a physician who edits articles about medical topics? An advertiser editing about the magazine or TV station that carries their adverts? A computer programmer who writes about programming topics? A geography student (intending on a career in the field) who edits on geographical topics? A journalist who edits on subjects they get also paid to write about? Who decides on the boundaries, and how are they enforced? This is going to massively increase requirements for people to identify themselves before editing Wikipedia, and many people won't feel comfortable doing this. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, to clarify, I meant by the same definition used in the original proposal - although it might be worth considering extending it to rival organisations. --W. D. Graham 16:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

We do have the {{connected contributor}} template that can be (or should be) posted on talk pages. It is superior. E.g., the language of the template is neutral and assumes good faith. It avoids the value-laden the "paid editor" or "paid advocate" phrasing and recognizes that edits are in fact contributions. – S. Rich (talk) 17:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

So, to clarify, your counter proposal is to eliminate Wikipedia:There is no credential policy, and eliminate pseudoanonymity for expert editors (regardless of how non-promotional their edits may be), and instead put in place an enforced credential policy for these editors? I oppose that. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I think this should not eliminate anonymity even for the COI cases, just a little bit limiting it. If I am an employee of the subject of the article, I do not have to disclose my name and job title but just put (possibly templated notice) on the talk page "I, %username%, has a conflict of interests as an employee of the article's subject" or "I am a contractor receiving money for creating comprehensive article about the subject" or "I know the subject of of the article in real life", etc. I do not think it eliminates anonymity and certainly it does not make an editor an "expert" on the subject - they certainly are still suppose to provide reliable sources and attributions for all their statements. I cannot imagine situation somebody would falsely claim to have a COI but we certainly do not intend verify their claims Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see how such a policy of even requiring disclosure could happen? I agree that it is in the best interest of those who are editing jointly in some article that you can and indeed should be strongly encouraged to disclose biases (regardless of if it is paid, a part of your political or religious beliefs, or even purely cultural differences from other editors) in the interest of trying to write better articles. Somebody who is cooperative *may* make some disclosure about their biases on a voluntary basis and as a result cooperate to be better. Making demands saying they must disclose any COI is simply unworkable. Heck, changing the playing field and change WP:3RR to become WP:1RR is similarly over the top. Note that I've seen religious differences in some articles turn into holy edit wars that would make paid advocates pale in comparison, so this isn't something strictly dealing with somebody getting paid to edit. If an editor is generally well behaved and cooperating with other users with only some occasional brain farts and hot tempers flaring as an exception rather than a rule, they are just being like other ordinary contributors to Wikipedia and should be treated just like... assuming good faith and all of the rest of the pillars of this community. I certainly don't understand why somebody needs to be treated differently other than as a pattern of bad behavior for that individual editor... aka through ArbCom actions or something similar. --Robert Horning (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

We are talking about real significant COI as been the subject of the article or being a PR contractor for the subject or being an employee of the subject, I think in those case 1RR is quite sensible restriction, if the proposal can have unintended consequences like scientists limiting in their ability to edit science-related articles it should be reworded after we agree in principle Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I once saw that freelancer.com site has a special section for wiki editing. People get paid for planting specific information or removing specific information or for resurrection of deleted articles, etc. On one forum somebody claimed that those offers received numerous resumes from administrators and even bureaucrats. I am terrified from a possibility that some administrator would unsalt an article of marginally notable commercial entity for a bribe, etc. The proposal would still allow people to get money for creating wiki content but gives the community some checks and balances Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that "financial interests" is still way too vague. So a grant-funded researcher will be limited to 1RR against crackpot pseudoscience/conspiracy POV pushers who don't have a "financial interest"? And this still has the problem of focusing on the contributor, not the content. Not to mention, as Robert Horning notes, basically throwing AGF out the window. Mr.Z-man 21:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I think I worded the suggestion badly so I've clarified what I meant - I'm not suggesting that the scope of the proposal be expanded in any way, just that the measures taken be reduced. @David, I'm not looking to start a second !vote, just thought an alternative idea might spark some discussion of other options. --W. D. Graham 21:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

You are tweaking the wording but still avoiding how somebody who chooses not to disclose this information would be coerced into making this disclosure, or even how they could be identified independently as having a conflict of interest? The people who volunteer this kind of information are most definitely not the people you need to be worried about (for the most part). If anything, they are usually ignorant of policies but usually teachable and would show a large degree of self-restraint once they have basic standard policies (like WP:FIVE) explained in a sympathetic discussion. In other words, this policy wouldn't even be needed except for people that won't disclose their conflicts of interest, and those users who try to avoid that kind of disclosure would otherwise be hard or impossible to detect except through extraordinary means (like tracing IP address or issuing a subpoena with the backing of a government court or agency to the ISP involved). --Robert Horning (talk) 22:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely right. But the original proposal has exactly the same problem - if they don't disclose the information we've got no way to establish it. By toning it down a few more users might be willing to work within the system. Users who don't disclose will slip through the net either way. --W. D. Graham 23:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the wording can be adjusted to prevent unintended consequences, we need some community agreement in principle to start working on the idea Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I would support something like this. Having a guideline requiring disclosure and making it harder to edit war would encourage many people to abide by it even if it wasn't possible to detect violations in many cases. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

What is the point of adopting a policy that is unenforceable and is acknowledged as such by the supporters before it is even adopted in the first place? It won't make it harder to start any edit wars, and it would strongly discourage people who should be helping Wikipedia from even being involved in the first place. It sounds like trying to make a rule that is there deliberately to smack somebody down once they've been outed... something that is also currently against policy for a very good reason. --Robert Horning (talk) 05:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I am supporting the idea, I think we need something like it Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Hypothetical (but not really all that hypothetical) situations

In adopting an updated policy or guideline on paid or COI editing, we need to make sure that it addresses the types of situation that frequently come up in this area, and does so in a way that accords with how we want these situations to be handled, and with common sense. Below are some hypothetical situations—but mostly derived from actual situations I am aware of over the years—in which an editor could be accused of having a paid interest or COI. How do we want to address them? Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Example 1:

I am an experienced Wikipedia editor, perhaps an administrator. A friend is an author who has published several novels that are still in print. He does not have a Wikipedia article, and would like to have one. Knowing that I'm active on Wikipedia, he asks me to create an article for him, and gives me information about his background and books to include in the article. There is no question in my mind that the author meets the applicable notability guideline.

May I write the article? Do I have to disclose anything if I do write the article? If my friend offers to take me to dinner to thank me for agreeing to write the article, may I accept?

Example 2:

I work at a university library. The library contains archival and manuscript collections of the personal papers of dozens of historical and literary figures, which are of interest to scholars. Our collections are underutilized, and we would like to have more visitors use them. I want to add a short paragraph to the Wikipedia article of each person whose papers our library holds, mentioning that his or her papers are at our facility and providing a link to the online finding aid. May I do so?

Example 3:

I'm the public relations manager for one of two newspapers in a mid-sized city. The other newspaper has a well-written Wikipedia article, which was created several years ago. My newspaper, which has about the same circulation and level of prominence, does not have an article. The owner wishes it did. What are my options?

Example 4:

I'm the mayor of a small city. I have a Wikipedia article, but it's a couple of years old and seriously out of date. I post on the talkpage asking if someone will update my article, and I provide neutral, verifiable information to update it with, but no one does the updating. May I update it myself? If I'm not supposed to but I do anyway, what happens?

Example 5:

I'm in marketing at a large law firm with an existing article. A famous lawyer joins our firm. Can I edit the article to mention this increase in our ranks? What if I am the famous lawyer myself? A member of the lawyer's family? One of the lawyer's clients?

Discussion of examples

These are interesting hypotheticals, thanks for posing them. My feelings are as follows:

Example 1: I don't see the problem here. Eliminating this kind of conduct just goes too far. The Wiki editor has no financial interest.

Example 2: Same. If there's a problem with this I don't see it.

Example 3: Here, the owner of the newspaper wants to use a paid editor to influence the editorial balance of Wikipedia. No, paid editors should not be allowed to do that. Whether an article appears in Wikipedia, and the amount of attention given to each subject, should not be based upon the desire of the subject to publicize his operation. But there's nothing wrong with the owner appearing on the talk page to make suggestions as to updated content.

Example 4. Very much the same as No. 3, I think. Same solution.

Example 5. Same as 3. The lawyer himself or his family? No. Too close; direct financial interest. Client? I don't see the problem.

--Coretheapple (talk) 20:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Your responses to 3 and 4 show how ludicrous the "Champions of an unbiased encyclopedia" are. People like you actively encourage bias and inaccuracy. If two newspapers are notable, they should both have articles, period. I don't care who writes them. If the PR manager writes a non-neutral article, we have a problem, but that deals with a different policy. The same thing goes for the mayor. If the information is outdated, and nobody is willing to correct it, the subject should be allowed to correct it himself if it is neutral and sourced. Ryan Vesey 20:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm OK with throwing out the conflict of interest rules entirely. They're not enforced, and the "community," as I've said before, has its collective head so far up its rectum on this subject that the whole thing is pretty much an exercise in futility. But if Wikipedia is to become, officially, a hotbed of "let's write an article about our beloved company, but cherry-pick our sources so that it seems neutral," we need to provide Wikipedia's readers with an appropriate disclosure visible at the top or bottom of every article. It would need to convey to readers that the article may contain content written in whole or in part by the subject of the article. As we all know, there are businesses out there that make a good living selling such services to the public. Hence I think that we owe to readers, who may not be aware of that, to be cognizant. Don't you agree? Coretheapple (talk) 01:40, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Some excellent examples. My responses:

1. Request from a friend - The approach I would take here is to draft the article in a sandbox first, and then ask others to look at it, including the author in question. I would also (asking the author first) disclose that I know the author and that they had asked for the article to be drafted. depending on the subsequent discussion, I would then move the article to mainspace, and/or make changes as needed. Disclosure is probably not required here, but ethically I think it is (this is a matter of personal ethics, rather than Wikipedia policy and guidelines).
2. Institution employee - This one is simple. Rather than paragraphs in the articles in question, I would explain to the employee that this may give undue weight to that institution and its archives, and that the most that should be added is information in the external links. The account's user pages, and ideally the edit summaries should disclose that the editor is adding information on behalf of an institution. Even more ideally, the institution would in addition use other means to encourage researchers to use their collections, and the researchers would then publish articles and/or books that would then be used as sources for the articles.
3. PR manager for an organisation - Here, the PR manager needs to be absolutely open at all stages. A key step is to work to make sources available (e.g. good history section on their website, current information pages on their website, locate published histories of their organisation (here, a newspaper), and so on). Then make a request (on or off wiki) for a Wikipedia editor willing to write an article. The article creation or creation request (if submitting through AfC) should disclose both who made the request and the work done to open up and make sources available on the history of the organisation. The job of a PR manager in this case is to get material placed in sources that can then be used for the Wikipedia article. Not to have material placed directly in Wikipedia.
4. Biography of a living person. Employ a PR manager (or delegate to an employee with that responsibility) and take the approach above (for number 3). The PR person then posts to the talk page first. If no response then edit article but disclose who you are and why you are editing. If you handle your own PR, that is more difficult, but mostly the same approach.
5. Marketing employee - the marketing employee should ask the company's PR department to deal with this. The famous person should not make the edit. Family member may do so unwittingly, but shouldn't really. Clients? Er, depends how that impacts the client-lawyer relationship.

In practice, of course, all the above does happen (all the time, every day, all across Wikipedia), but ideally the above is what should happen. Being more open and welcoming to those who openly disclose such matters would help. Carcharoth (talk) 22:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that those are good examples, and Cacharoth's suggested approach to each respective situation is sensible.

It seems to me that the WikiExperts scenario is of a different order, however. WikiExperts is attempting to facilitate the injection of corporate money into Wikipedia in a manner that would parallel the unbridled flow of corporate money into American electoral politics with similar results.

Wikipedia is a non-profit, public interest project, and the way I see it, the incursion of undisclosed corporate funding in relation to creating and editing articles associated with a commercial (largely corporate) interest is, by definition, corrosive on the public-interest non-profit status and character of Wikipedia.

That scenario is somewhat outside of the frame of the above-presented more normal examples of a potential COI. It seems to me that mandatory disclosure, at the very least, is necessary to keep the likes of WikiExperts in perpetual check, so to speak, under the watchful eye of those in the community that take an interest in scrutinizing edits made by such entities.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 07:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• If I could add an Example 6 which came up only a few days ago: A previously public facility is obviously notable because of its place as a historical location and as the host location of a number of significant events. However, it was determined that said facility was a drain on the public purse and it was sold off to private interests. The new owners now operate the facility as a commercial venture but the WP article about the facility makes no mention of the sale or the new operation. The new owners notice and would like to update the article with information about the sale, the new venture, some information about renovations to the historic facility since the purchase and a link to the website of the commercial venture that currently operates there (which includes a range of historic photos of the facility provided by the local library). The owners are technical historical restoration "experts" and bought the facility confident that their expertise would allow them to successfully restore it. Should they register an account a go for it? Stalwart111 08:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that these are good examples, and it may be useful to include them on guideline pages. My thought is that, in each case, the overriding principal would be that such editors forego all advocacy. It is a fine line, but where there is any question, it is better for a paid/volunteer/unpaid advocate to back down. That would include such editors recusing from controversies, declining to participate in consensus votes, avoiding anything that remotely smacks of PoV-pushing and adhering to WP:Weight to avoid giving undue prominence to details within an article and relying only on WP:RS to avoid pushing views that could be construed as self-interested. Sticking to "Just the facts, ma'am" is unlikely to be a problem, and relying on citations that are removed from any association with the article's subject is going to go far in tamping down advocacy (as is not objecting to other reliably-sourced information that may not fit the PoV or agenda of the article's subject). • Astynax ^talk 19:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Editors (newbies for example, particularly if they are, say, students doing the editing as a school project and taught by a teacher who do not themself know the editing policies too well) don’t necessarily know what they write will be considered advocacy. Even just insisting on editors to “forego all advocacy” will have unintended consequences.—Al12si (talk) 19:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• All of the above edits are allowed. Simply provide these explanations when editing and let the masses judge the edits. (We must insist on judging the edits, not the editor!) If there is a stronger doubt, make the disclosure then ask for opinions whether you can proceed with editing. The way to cleanse conflicts of interest is to disclose them, and allow other concerned parties to have the same information that you do. Jehochman ^Talk 04:43, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

  I suppose it could be summed up as: we don't (usually) care who you are, but we may want to know why you are making these edits and whether any self-interest or interest of others is involved. The range of reasons can be large, but tends to fall into a few large classes (hobbyist, student, academic sector, museum/library sector, advocacy and promotional, PR and corrections). The problem is that those editing for reasons they don't want to disclose will give bland and innocuous reasons such as "I saw a TV documentary/read a book/saw something on holiday and developed an interest in the topic". It boils down to how believable some of the reasons given are. Anyway, one approach to grant-based paid editing would be to have a central body allocating articles for people to work on, and/or approving applications for funding, matching articles to people's interests and skills and resources. No need to reinvent the wheel there. Whether that will ever happen and whether such a community of editors (which to some extent already exists) can work together with unpaid volunteers and unregulated commercially paid editors is another matter. Carcharoth (talk) 05:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

This proposal in a nutshell

If you have a COI, never edit yourself, ask others.

This is WP:CREEP. We're a wiki, not a bureaucracy. If edits are against the rules, we revert them. If the editor insists on behaving disruptively, we deal with it. I'd support requiring vandals to submit their edits for approval, though. Paradoctor (talk) 21:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a purely bureaucratic rule that would not prevent COI. Shii (tock) 05:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• LOL. Yes, and vandals should also be required to identify themselves, preferably in their signatures. --B2C 06:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• It is absolutely painful to enter into discussions with paid editors. The problem is not that the edits are clearly against the rules and can be reverted, it is that they are reverted, and then you enter into a month-long "discussion" with someone who is paid to never change their mind, and can spend 8 hours a day replying. Anyone with time on the project can relate to such nonsense, whether or not with paid editors, but anything we can do to cut down on the number of such "discussions" is a step in the right direction. This policy allows volunteers to get on with editing. --TeaDrinker (talk) 01:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Great description of working with paid editors. However, it also describes a group I've been editing alongside, and none of them have chosen to disclose their reasons for behaving as if a giant company was paying them. It seems to me this proposal as written would only validate non-disclosed COI editing, and push any potential discussion of exactly how to address it even farther from the horizon. petrarchan47tc 17:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand, it sends a clear signal that companies who sell "image management" on Wikipedia are violating policies. They can not present themselves as legitimate and above board to clients. Any client who buys their service could easily discover that the service is blackhat, and most companies won't deal with blackhat outfits. Some will, so it won't eliminate the problem, but it will lessen it. --TeaDrinker (talk) 04:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

A truly terrible idea

An idea based on the American principal of frontier justice, if we can't actually fix a problem, hang whomever we catch. The problem we are insufficiently determined and skilled to fix is that of bad editing, which arises from a variety of sources--so we pick on one identifiable class, people who are often trying, however ineptly, to do what they think they ought to, and put them in a situation where everything them might rightly want to do is made ridiculously difficult.

Making this a policy is much too prescriptive. Some people with such COI can and do edit perfectly properly, and if they do so openly and above-board with a declaration of their COI, they should not only be permitted, but encouraged to do so--as long as they do it properly, and are prepared to take the possible criticism if they don't. I would never encourage a beginner to try it, because the odds of doing it wrong are much too great, and it can be a very uncomfortable experience. Some of the paid editors I know follow the bright line rule even when they needn't--if they want to be cautious that's fine also. And I always suggest it (or even insist on it) for a promotional editor -- paid or unpaid -- whoi is heaving difficulty writing a nonpromotional article.

This rule as proposed would lead to endless quibbling about what counts as "paid" editing, and would inhibit the excellent work of most of the Wikipedians in Residence, forcing people to double check the work of those editors who are already known to be fully responsible.

Anyway, this misses the point that this sort of editing is only mildly harmful, as compared to the direct harm that can be done by advocacy editing for a cause, of which the very worse examples are those done by volunteers., not paid editors. DGG ( talk ) 23:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. Edits which violate Wikipedia's core policies should be removed or improved, regardless of the reasons they were placed there. If I find bad information, I do not care if the editor got paid to introduce it, did so as a vandal, or is trying to change the conversation by giving undue weight to minor sources . . . I do not care because I assume good faith about all editors, so it's more important to just fix the problem and move on. This is entirely like a nanny state and will not change much; knowing the motivation for an edit does not matter one whit. We have policies aplenty to address this.--~TPW 19:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I concur. A terrible idea. Having said that, however, can anyone point to an issue that has arisen because of paid advocacy?--Nowa (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree. I do not think payment is important. What matters is COI. An important point in these discussions: what is COI, exactly? WP:COI tells: "When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." Yes, I agree, although this is different from real life definition of COI (there are different guidelines for different organizations). One can easily imagine a situation that an experienced wikipedian was paid to create a page about his favorite uncle or about latest work by his boss (no, this is not me), but he knows the rules and care as much about Wikipeda as about his real life business. Does it mean he has at all any COI? No - according to this definition, because advancing the project is as important to him as anything else. He can easily create a page about his uncle per rules if his uncle fits our notability criteria, or tell his uncle: "no, this is terrible idea, you do not fit our notability rules, and the article will be deleted". Or one can easily imagine another editor who is not paid, acts on his own, but has his own outside interest (a political bias) that is hundred times more important to him than advancing goals of the project... Hence he has huge COI. My very best wishes (talk) 20:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

My very best wishes summed up perfectly the reason this RfC is full of bullshit and add my !vote as a big honking OPPOSE. How has this proposal gotten this far? "I had a discussion at a noticeboard, people hated it, I'll do an RfC!"Camelbinky (talk) 23:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, and that's a great analogy comparing it with wild west lynching/hanging. Not all paid editing is necessarily bad. It is paid "Advocacy" to promote POV or untruths on something or COI presenting a colourful picture of themselves/their business which is damaging but even that may radically differ in what actual harm is causes wikipedia. There is a major difference but the boundary between what is paid editing and what is paid advocacy is rather blurred. Wikipedia has undoubtedly benefited from paid editing. I think this is a rather heavy-handed approach that all paid editing is necessarily evil, and if a rule was passed banning all paid editing it would continue to operate anyway and continue to show us up. It's a situation which needs to be strictly monitored and mitigated, not entirely banned for the sake of it. IMO the growth of wikipedia has been greatly stalled because of the fear and resentment certain members here show towards anything with any possible monetary value and if they organized something which was above board I'm sure less "evil" editing would be going on. In fact I'd argue that being paid to write something, as long as the editing is neutral and within guidelines and meets out notability requirements with reliable sourcing, then there's actually a greater chance that they would produce something of higher quality than they would if unpaid. Why shouldn't editors be rewarded for their work every now and then and why should it matter how the article got there if the article itself doesn't have serious issues? Far more harm is generally done by people with personal/political/racial prejudices who insert disinformation and lies into articles and go undetected.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:30, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

After thinking more about this, I have to tell, yes indeed, no paid advocacy. The issue here is not be paid, but advocacy. This is per WP:SOAP which we have already as policy. Actually, I believe all PR companies and individual propagandists must be forbidden simply per WP:SOAP. This is because their openly stated goal is promotion of their clients. My very best wishes (talk) 15:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the problem is advocacy, and it would be better to attack that problem by streamlining enforcement for both advocacy and COI. As of now, it is a huge and ineffective process to stop advocates and COI warriors. We need to allow for those situations in which a person's (a city official correcting a mistake, an academic contributing knowledge in their field) positive contributions and potential contributions would be torpedoed by a ban. Again, I see lack of effective enforcement as the problem, and I would much rather see policy changes aimed at making that easier and more sure than addition of yet another complication to the already complex, burdensome (to get relief) and rarely enforced no-rules rulebook. • Astynax ^talk 17:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• • I agree with DGG. This is a truly terrible proposal. If the issue was merely advocacy, then paid would not be in the title, huh? A simple disclosure policy would work much better for the stated aims of the proposal. Bearian (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Begs the question

This policy begs the question: "Why is unpaid advocacy allowed?" Unless there's a good answer to that, I don't see how this can make any sense. WilyD 09:40, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Unpaid POV advocacy is just as bad. GregJackP Boomer! 11:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

In fact, unpaid POV advocacy may be the bigger problem. Those who do it are motivated by something stronger than money, or they wouldn't be doing it. Those who vandalize are a subset of unpaid POV advocacy. Not getting paid doesn't seem to slow them down, and they can be persistent.~ Desertroadbob (talk) 11:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I also can see unpaid advocacy as an equally serious problem. There are people who are not employees or hires, yet who do benefit indirectly: e.g., franchisees, licensees, volunteers, and others who receive no direct payments or who get other, non-monetary benefits. Members of non-commercial organizations (clubs, religions, trade associations, political parties, etc.) also tend to often wander into PoV-pushing and battling for their causes. We do actually want to hear and get input from such people, but in my opinion this becomes a problem once they and their compatriots cross the line into dominating or thwarting the forging of editor consensus or challenging reliable sources. They should generally excuse themselves from controversies and recuse themselves from responses on RfCs, consensus votes, etc. • Astynax ^talk 18:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The vast majority of edit wars are probably attributable to unpaid advocates. I speak as someone who nearly succumbed to the urge to get into a revert war with another editor who was one of the legion of WP editors sanitizing Wikipedia from unpleasant facts regarding foreign political contributions to and Senatorial nonfeasance of the current occupant of a large white house on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC. I was a relatively new editor at the time, and on being counselled by a wiser editor that reflexive reverts to an edit aren't vandalism, just slunk away from the conflict. I ought to have found a way to get some balance into the articles; consensus is beautiful when it works, and I've seen it happen even in contentious issues here, even helped make it happen. A modest proposal: require that EVERY edit and revert be documented in the Talk page of an article. It provides a valuable basis for formation of consensus among editors and a means for smoking out CoIs without an inflexible bright-line policy.loupgarous (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I, too, agree that non-paid advocacy is a huge problem, but that is one that Wikipedia has to live with as long as there is a lack of will to enhance and enforce the content policies.

When something like a "WikiExperts" shows up, however, such an entity should be capable of being precluded, by policy, from engaging in editing conducted on the basis of explicitly declared aims to commercialize Wikipedia.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Unpaid advocacy is a problem, but so is paid advocacy. That fact that this policy does not address the former does not limit its utility in addressing the latter. People who are advocates go through tremendous mental gymnastics to convince themselves they are not biased. I had one paid editor tell me that being paid to edit an article to achieve a particular outcome for a client is not in violation of the COI guideline, because he might have the same opinion himself. He was eventually blocked, but it took months and multiple editors and administrators. This policy is an objective criteria which is hard to get around, and makes Wikipedia better for volunteers. --TeaDrinker (talk) 01:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that by making it objective, it completely distorts the reason for the COI guideline. COI is essentially a supplement to NPOV. We discourage COI editing to maintain neutrality. This proposal is completely divorced from that concept by focusing more on the payment than the advocacy. Mr.Z-man 16:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

We know they are not paid for the Pedia's interest. They are paid for something else, and whatever it is they are paid for it's not for the Pedia's interest, since the Pedia does not pay for its interest. In every edit there is one judge of NPOV and that is the User that makes the edit. Sure some others may come along and debate it and even revert it, sometimes, but the edit is made and the judge was paid by an interest that is not the Pedia's. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

A paid editor may be editing in their own interest primarily, but it does not automatically follow that it is not in the project's interest too. If their edits are neutral and sourced, then our interests are aligned. We already have a guideline discouraging COI editing. Why do you think this will work to deter people better than WP:COI? More likely a stronger prohibition will simply drive more underground. Rather than disclosing their COI, they will hide it. They're certainly not going to risk getting fired - we already know their own interests come before WP rules. The idea that we can stop people who are willing to break WP's rules by creating another rule is just silly. Mr.Z-man 21:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

It automatically follows that they have a conflict of interest. The number of people that argue COI is just a guideline, so should be ignored is the reason for a policy. The idea that we can produce Wikipedia by having "rules" is why we have policy, (eg., 'Just so you know, do that, don't do that.') Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

COI does not prohibit editing when you have a conflict of interest. It is only "strongly discouraged." People are going to edit Wikipedia for pay. No amount of rules is going to change that no matter whether we call them guidelines, policies, or anything else. So it makes more sense to regulate it in a way that at least some paid editors will be willing to abide by, rather than prohibit it with virtually no way to enforce it. This will be like Wikipedia's version of the War on drugs - lots of people blocked (likely often with no hard evidence, as getting the evidence is itself against policy), lots of time spent, but no real progress made on reducing paid advocacy. Mr.Z-man 01:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Prohibiting directly people editing for pay might discourage companies from hiring blackhat outfits. Yes, there will still be some, but just because there is still vandalism doesn't mean we can't make it against policy. Making a strong, clear statement that any PR firm that markets itself as creating or maintaining articles on Wikipedia is violating policies on the site. It makes it clear that "paid editors" doesn't just apply to other people, even if you are sure that people don't want to read about the lawsuit against your company as much as they would like to read about the new product line (and thus you're just "improving" the article). It helps assure us volunteers that every measure is taken to ensure we're not going to be volunteering our time to clean grammar on a page that someone else is getting money to maintain. It is not perfect, it is not going to keep out every paid editor, but it is going to do more good than harm. --TeaDrinker (talk) 23:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, you've hit the nail on the head.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

No one's going to pay anyone to fix your namesake article. So get at it for the sake of "volunteerism". Doc talk 11:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Shameless plug for an opposing essay

The essay is at Wikipedia:Don't cry COI. It is an alternate viewpoint to this one and I think is the more sensible of the two. Perhaps if this proposal fails it can be submitted as an opposing proposal.Discuss it here or on its talk page. KonveyorBelt 16:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

As it happens...

I was under the impression that this "proposal" was basically already policy. It may not be stated in its own right, but it is definitely spelled out in several other policies which would often overlap the issue. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 07:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is to some extent, although COI is currently just a guideline. I would rather see COI and Edit warring clarified (and COI elevated to Policy) rather than throwing in something that will make policy more difficult for editors to grasp. The real problem is enforcement. Paid and unpaid advocates in pushing their agendas have run roughshod over constructive editors and even admins. They have more resources to throw into edit warring, and constructive editors and admins often throw in the towel rather than commit the time and energy required to resist motivated PoV-pushers. As has already been stated above, part of the solution is to insist that edits ONLY summarize and are cited to reliable sources. Material that is not cited to reliable sources may already be removed (though edit warriors continually reinsert), and where edits are supported by weak sources, better reliable (and independent) references should always carry the day—but I think the frustration behind this proposal is that summarizing what reliable sources say is ignored or resisted by editors with an agenda (whether paid or not) and enforcement is time-consuming and often ineffective. I would rather see the "bright line" drawn at resistance to accepting edits based in reliable, independent sources; with guidelines for enforcement when warriors choose to ignore our encyclopedic purpose of summarizing what reliable sources say. Paid and unpaid advocates can make and likely have contributed constructive input, but it is when they cross into PoV-pushing that they become a problem. I believe it would be better to focus on the behavior, even when it is disguised/subtle but persistent, and better enforcement. • Astynax ^talk 08:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like we are basically in agreement. Rather than write a new policy, we should clarify and enforce existing policies that already spell out the point. Let's see how many others agree with us. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 07:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Bad Idea, Many Technical Articles are better for the knowledge of people involved in the tech article's creation

Bad Idea. For instance, the Internet Explorer article, or more generally, the article on attributes of different web browsers. The Microsoft people can more accurately and more quickly update the IE article or the IE section of the web browser article than the general public. It doesn't follow that their input into the article is evil or bad even if it is self-interested. Many of the technical articles in the wikipedia (for which the wiki is a tremendous resource) would suffer under this directive.

How is Wikipedia to know if a person is financially interested in an article. They don't know much more than the name of the person, they don't know who they work for, and shouldn't.

Endo999 (talk) 15:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia does know if a user is editing in some unusual way which indicates a stake in the matter. If we suppose that User: Dr. I is an eye doctor who stumbles across an article entitled Laser-Assisted in situ Keratomileusis, A few things *could* happen:

1. The doctor posts a reasonable (if a bit overly technical) scientific description of the procedure, results and risks. So far, so good.
2. The doctor posts an opinion downplaying the risks and hyping the benefits of the procedure. No longer WP:NEUTRAL.
3. The doctor cites "Dr I's 20/20 LASIK clinic" as the primary source for otherwise-valid info. Beginning to venture into WP:COI and WP:SELF.
4. The doctor removes an entire validly-sourced section describing the risks of the procedure, soon becoming the centre of an edit war on the merits of blasting away at eyeballs with excimer lasers. Not good.
5. The doctor rewrites the piece as an advertisement touting the procedure and encouraging patients to mortgage their houses in order to pay many thousands of dollars for the procedure. Problematic.
6. The doctor creates Dr I's 20/20 LASIK clinic, a blatant WP:SPAM promoting one clinic over another. Not OK.
7. The doctor pays some fly-by-night "User: Wiki PR" to create Dr I's 20/20 LASIK clinic for a cash payment in response to an ad on craigsfist.org. Clear abuse; this needs to be shut down.

Quite the spectrum, and not one but multiple bright lines need to be drawn to distinguish these edits. Some are constructive, some need to be taken to the talk page or need WP:COI disclosure, some should not be tolerated period (to the point of prohibiting them in the site's terms of use and in policy).

1. is valid.
2. should be taken to the talk page - disclose any WP:COI, explain why the current text is not WP:NEUTRAL and attempt to get a consensus instead of replacing "Darth Vader is going to blow up your eyeballs" with the equally-opinionated "LASIK is the greatest medical miracle in history".
3. needs both WP:COI disclosure and a second opinion as to WP:OR and WP:SELF so as not to give undue weight to one clinic
4. is not ok. Disclosing WP:COI is not enough to excuse or justify removing valid information on the risks of the procedure. Policy needs to be clear in this regard.
5. is WP:SPAM. Again, this goes beyond WP:COI.
6. likewise. WP:SPEEDY.
7. is where we need an explicit WP:No paid advocacy policy that goes beyond the existing COI/SPAM rules. A subject should not be paying the author of a Wikipedia article on that subject, period. Anyone using product placement agency style tactics needs to be shut down and maybe even sued by the WMF - which would require clear policy and clear TOS prohibiting these edits. A Wikipedia:Paid editing (policy) was proposed in 2009 and never implemented; we are now paying the price for that decision. K7L (talk) 18:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

This is an excellent analysis. Couple of questions, though. What happens when you have PR and marketing types essentially placing their product (whether it be a book, invention, celebrity, or business) in various reviews and sources and newspapers, with that promotional material eventually filtering through to more permanent and (supposedly) reliable sources? Do we have to trust that the whole process of sources being reliable acts as a check on this? That eventually the more sober analyses come to dominate, and with time the promotional froth fades into history? Also, what happens when the 'product' being placed is an educational resource such as the various GLAM initiatives (galleries, libraries, archives, museums) where institutions partner with Wikimedia and Wikipedia? Or when a paywall resource gives out free accounts and asks to be 'credited' in the citations? Most of the time, these seem fine, but sometimes lines are crossed and it is not totally clear. Carcharoth (talk) 05:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Press coverage of this issue

Read "Is Wikipedia for Sale"[12]. The story describes "Wiki-PR"[13], a company in the business of paid advocacy on Wikipedia. "Are you being unfairly treated on Wikipedia? Our Crisis Editing team helps you navigate contentious situations. We’ll both directly edit your page using our network of established Wikipedia editors and admins. And we’ll engage on Wikipedia’s back end, so you never have to worry about being libeled on Wikipedia." They specifically mention Priceline and Viacom as using this service. They also have an unhappy customer, Emad Rahim, whose article was deleted.

This is getting to be a big problem. John Nagle (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to see how this is any different than it has been in the past... at least after Wikipedia started to get top ranking for major search engines like Google? That is what these companies are after, and they've been playing games with the search engine companies since practically the day that somebody noticed you could tweak things on the pages in the first place.

Seriously, I don't think this is as much of a problem as you are making it out to be or that this article is sensationalizing it to be. I am concerned about the "Wikipedia admins" claim of this company, who is suggesting that there are admins who are bought and paid for which are watching the back of other editors engaging in edit wars to sanitize articles.... of which this particular proposed policy would have zero impact on keeping under control. Certainly this article does not change my opposition to this policy proposal. --Robert Horning (talk) 14:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Reporting does not make a problem bigger. If there's a slow news week and somebody decides to write a piece about Wikipedia, we do not need to respond by throwing a dramafest. Jehochman ^Talk 15:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

What we should all be able to agree upon

Okay, so much for the "bright line" approach to paid advocacy. Ain't gonna fly this time, same as last time, same as next time... Let's concentrate on some things that we can all agree upon and see if we can build upon that.

1. Maintaining Neutral Point of View is absolutely critical. This is a fundamental policy of the site and I doubt there is a single person here who wants to see it undermined.

2. There are currently Paid COI editors at work on Wikipedia and there have been for a long time. I'm just going to leave that right there, I think we all know this is true.

3. There is a natural tendency for Paid COI editors to undermine NPOV if left completely to their own devices. Paid editors are given the job of creating an article and often assigned to maintain that article. This implies more than just maintenance of neutrality, but rather to provide a positive benefit to the Employer/Article Subject. It is human nature to attempt to provide value for one's current employer in the hopes of gaining a share of that value through raises and future employment at the task. In short: close supervision is necessary.

4. There is currently no way to identify Paid COI editors at a glance. We use anonymous registration, multiple accounts are simple, and those Paid COI editors who attempt to use a "promotional" user name are blocked at the gate. Something needs to be done to identify these edits so they may be scrutinized.

5. Those following the Identify-Your-COI-On-The-Talkpage "strong suggestion" open themselves to harassment. As the father of paid editing at WP phrased it in a recent WPO thread, identifying COI on a talk page is like taping a "Kick Me" sign to your back. There needs to be some sort of protection for those who try to follow the rules (NPOV, identification of COI) from harassment.

The answer seems obvious, does it not? Carrite (talk) 19:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• Would that be some required disclosure and no Wikipedia:Harassment? Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
• I'd dispute 3 as being too generic. A lot do, but you're assuming all act like that, and they don't all. Other than that, it all seems pretty accurate. I can remember a case I was involved in, where a guy was being ridiculously overzealous in defending an article they'd been payed all of £30 to write; that guy eventually got indeffed. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree specifically with Carrite's #4 above. I was once trying to edit a country's articles (you don't want to know!  :) and discovered an entirely too knowledgeable editor. There was no way (he had a volunteer support staff who voted en masse against you) you were going to ever edit anything, no matter how WP:RS (NY Times, Washington Post), that made the Maximum Leader look bad. I don't see how anyone would have been able to check out his source of income. Student7 (talk) 18:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

In regard to 5 - no, I don;t think declaring a COI is akin to a kick me sign. :) But the problem, as things stand, is that it is still better for the editor to hide their COI (and avoid any risk of harassment) than it is to declare it openly. The fix is to change the balance - make it better to declare a COI than to hide it. - Bilby (talk) 04:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Carrite (talk) 05:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments

I've been watching with interest, uncertain as to whether I should comment, being a PR rep myself. However, my other comments seem to be appreciated, so I thought I would give it a run.

My point-of-view has changed. The BrightLine does not prevent a COI editor from making COI edits by proxy. Additionally, those proxies have a difficult time assessing whether the content is neutral, or at least, whether it is written the way they would do it. Finally, it creates the impression of adding legitimacy and entitlement to editors that insist we provide them customer service and do exactly as they say, as if following it gives them some special privileges or protection from criticisms (it does not). Also, the BrightLine is often abandoned anyway when the editor does not get their way. It is easier to revert in article-space.

I find wisdom in how COI was communicated all along. Those with a conflict of interest are discouraged from authoring articles where they have a conflict of interest, because they are unlikely to be neutral. Whether from Talk or in article-space, we are still discouraged. However, not prohibited, for the various reasons already discussed on this page.

The Verification policy is a good precedence to follow here. The appropriate source depends on the circumstance. So does appropriate COI behavior. A PR rep should not be editing controversial areas where they have a financial connection - they should even be careful to avoid lobbying and micro-management. They are encouraged to point out factual errors, correct grammar and fill-in citations. They should seek input and gain unambiguous community support before making changes, if they make them themselves. And so on. Also, each volunteer editor will manage COI a bit differently and there is no reason to stamp out that difference, so long as they are acting in a manner that is supported by consensus within reason. CorporateM (Talk) 06:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

If every PR person "got it" as well as you, the current system would work fine. And since by default (decision-making stalemate) the current system is what we've got, all of us are going to have to work hard to make sure the PR community all "gets it" as well as you. Thanks for your thoughts. Carrite (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

...that anyone can edit

Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. If someone paid/with COI edits, there is no lack of measures to counter any undesirable consequences, if need be.

The need to disclose advocacy does not warrant any paid editor disclosing his/her being paid for edits. Although, such editors may be encouraged to discuss before editing, it must not be a precondition.

So, WP:SNOW. Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 15:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Although I've said it before: Until the community decides to change pillars three and four of the WP:5, the COI bashing this proposal advocates is a non-starter IMHO. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

WikiExperts is appealing its ban

Folks interested in this policy may well be interested in this - WikiExperts, a firm like WIki-PR, is appealing its ban. Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

They're a firm like Wiki-PR in that they are a PR firm writing and editing articles for money without declaring their COI but I've seen no evidence of them crating puff-pieces on non-notables or anyone else or any other tendentious editing. (They've agreed to declare their COI in future.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Case Study: Light bulbs

So lets work through a simple case study. Lets say that I work for a light bulb company, and I included pictures of my companies product ... to act as advertising/sales promotion ... how is the community going to tell that this is paid advocacy?? Or reverse, that I removed/replaced pictures from a rival company to reduce their sales/advertising ... how would you know?

Let's take this further ... should wikipedia have articles on companies (like apple, microsoft etc.) as it could be construed as helping to promote their products?? I think this "No paid advocacy" is almost unenforcable ... because I can do anything from my home computer under the guise of work. Bhtpbank (talk) 17:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement from the Wikimedia Foundation about paid advocacy

It's worth noting here that Sue Gardner has released a statement calling paid advocacy a "black hat" practice that "violates the core principles that have made Wikipedia so valuable for so many people." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that this whole issues comes under a proposal to review pillar 3 and to only permit registered users to edit the encyclopedia ... something which I strongly support. Bhtpbank (talk) 17:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

If we ban paid advocacy, anonymous editors like SlimVirgin should also be banned. We don't know who an anonymous editor is, and have no way to tell if they are paid or not. Let's have a big helping of transparency, and apply it equally to all editors. It is unfair to penalize editors who disclose their identity while giving a free pass to anonymous editors to do whatever they want. This is a very unfair proposal. Jehochman ^Talk 17:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Your conclusion doesn't follow. Registered but anonymous editors can be tracked. If it is discovered that they have consistently added biassed material to an article or articles all their edits can be reviewed. They can be sanctioned or banned. IP editors are a different matter altogether.

When I first started editing Wikipedia, I didn't understand why so many editors choose to register under nicknames. Now that I have seen and experienced the volume of aggression generated by some editors, I've changed my mind. In particular, I would, sadly, never advise a female editor to allow her real identity to be exposed on Wikipedia. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Why not, precisely? 86.31.65.145 (talk) 20:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Because of the obscene, violent, sexist language I have seen directed against editors who were known to be female and who had edited in a way some aggressive editor (virtually certainly male based on the comments) didn't like. Wikipedia is unfortunately no different from Twitter in this respect. I'm not going to be more precise for what are hopefully obvious reasons. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, men really are the pits, aren't they. World would be a better place without them. 86.31.65.145 (talk) 20:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)What does anonymity have to do with the press release? Let's focus on the press release, which also includes the statement

Being deceptive in your editing by using sockpuppets or misrepresenting your affiliation with a company is against Wikipedia policy and is prohibited by our Terms of Use. We urge companies to conduct themselves ethically, to be transparent about what they're doing on Wikipedia, and to adhere to all site policies and practices.

Anonymity, incidentally, is not against policy. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

It does follow. I edit under my real name and endure a constant barrage of assumptions of bad faith because of my profession. I'm sick and tired of it. If we ban paid editing, we then need to know each editor's name and employment so we can verify. Otherwise, the rule is only going to punish people who operate in good faith. Jehochman ^Talk 18:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I do understand what you are saying. I edit under my real name because I think it would be better if most editors did this (there are however valid reasons not to do so in some countries). But there is still an important difference between registered and unregistered editors, and registering, even under a nickname, is still better than editing as an IP. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I think your reductio ad absurdum is absurd. Wikipedia:Sock puppetry does not require every person to disclose their identity so that we can verify they are not a sock. A requirement to disclose conflicts of interest does not end anonymous editing for everyone. --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

But it makes no sense to say that an IP editor should disclose conflicts of interest. They don't have a user page to use for this purpose; they will often have different IP's each time they edit. So there is a conflict between allowing IP editing and requiring disclosure of COI. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Reading from the beginning of the thread to here, it's clear that it's gone way off on tangental things. Doc talk 21:19, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

It more or less can't follow, because paid advocacy is already banned. Only paid non-advocacy is allowed. The only dispute is from those trying to confuse the two. WilyD 15:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

And non-paid advocacy is banned also. All advocacy is banned, under the core principle of NPOV. Without NPOV, we wouldn't be an encyclopedia, or at least not an encyclopedia anyone would have any reason to use rather than going to the open web and seeing what organizations and people say about themselves. DGG ( talk ) 18:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, exactly that. And that's why this policy is a step in exactly the wrong direction: Gardner's statement notes she wants university professors to be able to edit articles where they're experts, and yet the only difference this policy would make would be to ban that sort of thing. WilyD 15:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Why are you obfuscating the emphatic and distinct contrast drawn the press release between "paid advocacy" and "a university professor editing Wikipedia articles in their area of expertise"?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Because we're discussing this specific policy proposal, which also draws no distinction between the two, by ignoring the issue of advocacy, and instead focussing on the non-issue of whether people are getting paid. WilyD 16:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

WilyD, can you elaborate on why you think this proposal would mean academic experts couldn't edit in their field? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

For instance, I'm a paid academic expert. One of the things I'm paid to do is communicate my science, and the general science of my field, to the public at large. Although it doesn't explicitly cover Wikipedia, improving Wikipedia articles definitely falls within this realm; it's no different than giving public talks, or demonstrations, something I also do in the course of my job. This falls afoul of point 1. Probably, even doing anything to encourage public interest in my science/science in general falls afoul of point 2, since I work in a field almost entirely funded by government grants/private grants driven almost entirely by pubic interest in the subject (astronomy). Any time spent doing public outreach is putting money directly into our coffers (indeed, a point made again and again whenever people talk about the need to do outreach). As far as I can see, any attempt to focus on whether people are being paid, rather than whether they're co-opting Wikipedia to engage in advocacy, is always going to sweep up academics. I only get paid because the public is interested in the universe. Every good article in Wikipedia about planets, stars, or galaxies makes it easier for me to get funding. 16:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I respect your academic field and pursuits, but frankly, if you are unable to discriminate between the problematic nature of the difference between PR people editing Wikipedia with the ultimate aim of promoting an entity that is trying to sell a product or service, not related to higher education, and the benign nature of experts in academia contributing to Wikipedia in their respective fields, it is difficult to discuss the issues being raised here.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

PR people editing Wikipedia with the ultimate aim of promoting a product or service are already being banned when they're discovered, because they're violating policies like WP:NPOV and WP:SOCK, flagrantly and repeatedly. It's a problem, but not one that can be solved by a policy forbidding it, because it's already forbidden by policy. All this proposed policy does is add the kind of editors you seem to consider benign. I can differentiate them perfectly well, which is why I don't like a policy like this, which only serves to bundle them together. WilyD 17:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Conflict of interest is about having secondary relationships that interfere with your primary relationship, and the primary relationship is with Wikipedia while you're editing it. Being paid to teach history or science, then writing about history or science on Wikipedia, doesn't involve competing relationships, so it doesn't represent a COI. That is, there's no conflict between you qua science educator and you qua Wikipedian.

If you were being paid by a drug company to tell the public that their drugs are great, then your relationship with the drug company would interfere with your relationship with Wikipedia. Wikipedia wants you to tell the public everything that good sources write about this drug, whereas the company is paying you to tell people only that the drug is a good thing. So you qua drug company rep would directly undermine you qua Wikipedian.

It's only the second kind of example that the proposal addresses. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that that explanation is exactly backwards. It's only the first kind of example the proposal actually addresses - indeed, I think it's only the first kind of example that this proposal can ever address, because the second kind of example is already prohibited. Advocating in a way that's against Wikipedia's interests is banned by WP:NPOV, and paid advocates engaging in the second kind of behaviour have been clandestine since the days of WikiMyBiz, for precisely this reason. The only thing this policy has the potential to do is lump paid advocates of the first kind in with paid advocates of the second kind. 17:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

That's the thing I'm having difficulty seeing. Can you say which words in the policy you see as addressing the first kind of editing? I'm asking because we can use the oppose arguments to rewrite the proposal, so it's important to know which part(s) you see as problematic. There are editors who don't want to stop the second kind of example, but for those that do, it would be good if we could find different words. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

There is, I think, a fundamental flaw in the design of the policy, because it addresses who the person is, not what they're doing. If you want to prohibit a certain kind of behaviour, you have to prohibit the behaviour (a tautology, yes, but it is the point here). To discriminate in editors who are paid to disseminate information in a way that congruent with Wikipedia's goals, and editors who are paid to disseminate information that's incongruent with Wikipedia's goals, you can only discriminate them based on how they're editing, not whether they're being paid. (And in that case, the policy/policies already exist - mostly WP:NPOV). If you're really only interested in dealing with the second kind of case, new policy proposals are probably a waste of time. The second kind of case is already prohibited. Re-prohibiting it isn't going to change anything. There might be room for a noticeboard/Wikiproject/working group/?other initiative?, but I can't see how you can merely reword it when the premise is inherently flawed. WilyD 09:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Advocacy is OK if supported by ref.

We are here to get INFO. If someone wants to add support for a product or person, (business is called unnatural person under the Law.) then who cares as long as they add references and are factually accurate. I don't want the practice of replacing one company's photos with a competing brand. But all companies have the ability and equal access to post their product. Perhaps if there is a flurry of edits from rival Members, then the page should become Semi-locked and require review before alterations are made to the page that Users see. This seems a pretty reasonable solution. ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whiterussian1974 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Verifiability isn't the only thing that matters. Advocacy runs afoul of WP:NPOV, which is a problem. It's just not less of a problem if the advocate is doing it for free. WilyD 08:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Advocacy means putting a positive slant on something, and is not NPOV. It is different from giving positive information, and is never OK. For example, recording that an actor won some Oscars is OK (with citations), but that is not advocacy, it's factual. Saying that an actor is one of the greatest ever to tread the boards is not OK, however many sources say that. All sources are not equal. --Stfg (talk) 09:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with User:Stfg. All facts are not the same. Stating in advance that there may be a COI or that you've been hired/contracted/engaged by an entity is helpful, however it doesnt resolve the NPOV issue. Such an individual is paid to develop and present a story or picture. To ensure that this story or picture is presented they often have to determine which master to serve - objectivity or their benefactor. Thus we have articles in which "spin" as been added to the sources/references/facts so as to tell the (often, less than objective) story. Bilbobag (talk) 16:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

But this is a WP:NPOV problem in general, not exclusive to paid advocacy. Spinning or cherry picking sources can (and does) happen even if someone doesn't have a WP:COI. It's dealt with by reverts or future edits. I have (and disclose) my COI regarding asphalt and concrete pavements, but in reading those articles I have seen and edited thinly sourced claims. Because I to try to uphold NPOV, I have improved citations for some statements that are not beneficial to asphalt, but I have also added balancing material, all sourced to WP:RS material. I firmly believe I am acting to improving the NPOV in these articles. Again, it all goes to editor's intent and their adherence to Wikipedia's mission. Carter (talk) 17:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Carter - overall I agree. I just think it happens (or is more likely to happen) when one is a paid advocate. 67.86.191.179 (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Paid advocacy rarely affects the core articles of the encyclopedia. Unpaid advocacy from zealots does affect them. As individuals advocating a personal cause will always want to contribute, and whether or not we permit anonymous editing will still leave most of them perfectly willing to do it under their true name, the only defense for NPOV is to watch the articles, and to the extent WP succeeds in this, it is because of the benfit of crowd editing. The key problem with the typical articles from paid advocates is that they are likely to be articles that nobody else is watching. DGG ( talk ) 18:42, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Financial COI is an issue, but activist COI is pernicious.

I agree with those above who support edits by people in the profession or company affected by the article, who are notionally paid and edit in their area of expertise. Excluding professional expertise in the area because they get a salary would be silly.

I see far worse advocacy problems in politically contentious topics. If the community jumps on WP:NPOV violations, it can treat equally the editing excesses of the paid political staffer AND the unchained activist.

ChrisPer (talk) 04:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Interesting take there. How, precisely, did you come to the conclusion that a profession or company is NOT a political entity? Could you, perhaps, draw up some guidelines as to how to distinguish between vested economic interests and vested economic interests? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

You might read that point again before trying to undermine it. The political office obvious does have a vested economic interest, but if the editor in question isn't a member of the office, but merely of the political movement, it doesn't make their advocacy less problematic. This unpaid advocacy appears to be the dominant problem on Wikipedia, as it's political, nationalist, and religious advocacy where advocacy is at its worst - not corporate interests. WilyD 13:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Doubtful, since so much financial COI produces so much banality, but banality sucks more and also misleads, stupifies, and makes disreputable. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest that it is you, Wily, who should read the comment and my response again with care. You're simply reiterating the simplistic categorization applied by ChrisPer. Take a look at the article Alanscottwalker has suggested and you might elicit some insight into the complexity of the issue. I'd assume that you're aware of the series of documentaries called, "The Corporation"? Attempting to parse contributors into groups which, according to you, translate into "... political, nationalist and religious advocacy ..." (sic) as being divorced from what you would probably construe as being transparent 'paid' advocacy is a serious mistake. As irritating as the interest groups may be (and I predominantly work on Slavic pages so am acutely aware of the war of words being waged), at least it keeps Wikipedians on their toes regarding POV as opposed to the insidious nature of corporate interests. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Which only shows that you still haven't read what Chris wrote. If I write flattering copy on Rhinoceros Party of Canada because I want people to vote for them, but I'm not a candidate or office staffer and don't stand to make any money off them being elected - I merely want people to elect them because I want to see British Columbia renamed to La La Land - that doesn't make it magically okay. It's not worse than doing it because the party pays me, but neither is it better. Most anti-abortion activists (say) have no financial stake in the issue. It doesn't make their advocacy more acceptable than some staffer paid to advocate for them. The organisation being advocated for might stand to make money of it, but that's not what we're discussing. Only whether the editor stands to make money off it. WilyD 08:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Another attempt at bad analogies and oversimplification. Your great copy for the Rhinoceros Party of Canada will, in theory, be carefully parsed by people who want the opposition to win or are suspicious of their policies for x and y reasons. Other sources will be introduced, citations asked for regarding anything suggested that is not reliably sourced and, perhaps, there will be edit wars breaking out at regular intervals. That's how articles are developed and it is only reasonable to expect that people with other preferences and rationales for their preferences will act as a method for checking and balancing your POV lauding of the party. The same is true of articles on abortion whether you are pro or anti... etc., etc., ad nauseum. The balance is lost when paid advocates for one or the other side, who come armed with prepared reams of documentation, research, are trained and hired specifically for their wordsmithery skills, and are salaried in order to enable them to work full time on the article in question are brought into the equation. That's not balance: it's an ability to wear the opposition down by time rather than by validity of the arguments brought to the table. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Not all paid advocates are full-time Wikipedia editors. In fact, from what I've seen, I'd guess that most of them spend only an hour or two a day onwiki, which is just like the typical experienced editor.

I have, on the other hand, seen some remarkably prolific editors who spend entire days pushing POVs that nobody could possibly make any money off of, like the exact definition of special education or whether academic field #1 is a complete or partial subset of academic field #2. We've had activists on all sides of every sex-related subject you can think of. And then there was the woman who spent weeks trying to tell the world that a particular surgery ought to be illegal, complete with links to her extensive website on the subject. Have you ever followed any of the serious psychiatric articles? They attract activists with no financial incentives, e.g., one person who actually put "Personal experience" in the references at Involuntary commitment. How about the man who wanted to re-write an article about a historical disease as a WP:COATRACK for his new theory that standing up straight was a good idea? Two of us spent months dealing with him; he eventually was banned.

We get all sorts of retired, disabled, and unemployed people here, and a small proportion of them are enormous time sinks. Compared to the people who are trying to save the world, I'd honestly prefer to deal with the handful of paid professionals I've encountered, who have generally been polite and grasped the concept of reliable sources. So I don't really think that "paid professionals waste our time (more than the kooks and unpaid POV pushers)" is an argument that holds water. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

As Iryna Harpy said, there's a loss of balance with paid advocacy. This loss not only takes time in the way that casual vandalism or pushing a pet theory does, but I find often lies undetected for months precisely because it doesn't involve a POV dispute, meaning a lot of badly-written, hopelessly partisan puff pieces, often related to particular corporations, brands or their ostensible USPs become part of Wikipedia. Have you moderated a web forum protected solely by Captcha recently? People are paid $1 for hundreds of spam comments or edits. Without the monetary incentive, the problem would be manageable without resorting to IP reputation. Similarly with Wikipedia, and it will get worse unless a straightforward explanation to potential editors like WP:PAID is adopted. --Cedders^tk 09:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

How much "Paid Advocacy" does the Wikipedia Foundation estimate occurs?

It occurs to me that I have no idea on how much this happens in order to judge how big of a problem it is. Can someone please point to where I can find this information.

Is is such a big issue given how much edit warring occurs on pages that are likely to be sensitive to this issue. In other words, do we need such a policy if WP:NPOV already covers 99% of the activity that this new policy appears to be aimed at? Bhtpbank (talk) 16:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, good question. If we had metrics for how much paid editing was going on...Oh, wait, it is impossible to identify a stealth paid editor. this entire discussion has been for naught. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Companies spend millions to improve their search engine rankings, improve their company image, and advertise their products. Since Wikipedia is at the top or near the top for most searches by most people for many companies, it is absolutely unsurprising that they will take an active interest in their Wikipedia page. Almost a quarter million people looked at the Microsoft article last month. If they had an opportunity to reach a quarter million people a month with a positive message about their company, I suspect they would jump at the chance. We don't have any hard data, but I think it is safe to say many PR people salivate at the opportunity to reach people that Wikipedia potentially provides. --TeaDrinker (talk) 23:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that it would be fascinating to quantify the corporate input... 'mebeh' if we ask them nicely? After all, they're the ones who'd spend a 'lot'^x10 on data mining for themselves and checking on their competition. I think it can be agreed that a lot = a really, really, really BIG quantity = average CEO wage probably more than the running of Wikipedia. Let's not forget that millions are also spent on giving themselves a 'humanitarian' face (from educational grants to influential NGOs), all of which they do NOT do for personal satisfaction but for the accolades. Rest assured that the generosity of their philanthropic ventures wouldn't make much of a dint in the budget supplied for advertising how generous they are.

One example - Volkswagen gives out hundreds of thousands in research grant funds for Endangered Languages in the tertiary education sector every year. It's a pittance to them but how does it translate in 'good guy' points? Take a look at Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. If we checked through articles which, on face value, wouldn't appear to have any connection with multinationals, I wonder how many companies are doing a more thorough job on developing Wikipedia pages to really get a bang out of their less obtrusively spent buck? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

This is why I say Wikipedia is going to need to up their security game or lose volunteers to the stress of competing against paid editors for hours on end. Or change tactics and allow companies to maintain a section in their article that is blatantly labeled What the firm has to say. There is the thought that Wikipedia can never win this "drug-war" and build their own paid editing bureau. Wikipedia is always underfunded and these companies are not going away. I think Wikipedia is or will be facing the same crisis as PBS when they finally had to allow small commercials from corporate sponsors. *waits for the flaming* I'm just following my business sense down a most probable path for this dilemma. Alatari (talk) 01:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• I cannot say that I know how much paid advocacy editing takes place. What I can say is that I did some review of this issue several years ago, and found evidence pointing to paid advocacy at least by 2003. By the time of my first direct encounter with it in 2007 (the article involved is probably still in my top-10 edited articles), it was already rampant in certain areas of the project. There are also areas where true-believer advocacy has been rampant almost since the inception of the project. I'd suggest looking at specialized notability criteria that seem to be particularly weak (e.g., would article subjects otherwise meet GNG if not for the specialized criteria?) to find topic areas where paid advocacy is particularly strong. Risker (talk) 01:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

You're not going to be flamed by me, Alatari. And, yes, I agree entirely with your take on specialized notability criteria, Risker.

I'm fairly certain that this entire subsection can be summarized as a vote of disenchantment with the lack of serious policy in place and an inability to do anything about it out for fear of being accused of alienating new contributors. So much WMF time, energy and budget has been thrown at the 'agile programming' rolling out of VE in order to make Wikipedia more 'intuitive' and 'user friendly', while vital fundamentals surrounding policy have been submerged. Indeed, it's reached a critical point where a whole new set of corruption-specific templates need to be developed.

How about starting with a generic, "Wikipedia Disclaimer: None of the content or citations within the body of this article should be understood to be neutral, relevant or even notable as the authors and sources may or may not be paid by interest groups and advocates involved directly or indirectly with the subject or may be working as lobbyists for the same. As a principle, Wikipedia objects to disclosure of contributor affiliations therefore relies on your ability to discern between paid promotion and NPOV representation. We suggest that you visit this page (insert link to paying corporate sponsor or relevant interest group forum) for the unredacted version of this article (assuming that it has been redacted in any shape or form)." --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

A crazy idea, but it just might work

I have been thinking about the many comments on this and related pages observing how difficult it is to detect any but the most clueless stealth paid editors. I was thinking that perhaps we could get their former customers to help.

Imagine yourself working for a corporation and unwittingly hiring a firm that turns out to have violated Wikipedia guidelines, and then later, when you realized what was happening, switching to an ethical firm that follows our Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Of course we here at Wikipedia should do everything we can to advertise the many advantages of doing that.

What if the person who chose the wrong firm had an easy, highly-visible way to privately email someone here at Wikipedia and tell us that a stealth paid editor had worked on their Wikipedia page? Needless to say, we wouldn't just take the word of an anonymous tipster for it, but we could scrutinize the editor(s) who worked on that page at that time and possibly find other pages edited by the same stealth paid editor.

Also, when such a company hires an ethical firm, they are likely to reveal that they tried the stealth paid editor first. It would be in the ethical firms best interest to let us know about that. If we set up such a thing, we should assure the whistleblower that we are not going to out him or his company. This is the sort of thing that someone writing a magazine article about this would love to include. This is a bit of a crazy idea, but it just might work. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Would this be illegal?

I had just made up my mind about minor paid editing. I have put down my ideas User:The Banner/Workpage28. Would this suddenly be illegal? The Banner talk 23:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The question is not whether you can convince yourself that you're assiduously following policy and guidelines, but rather whether other people would agree. Moreover, is it valuable and reasonable to ask volunteers to spend their time checking over the work that you're getting paid to do? Your idea has more grey in it than black and white, but the fundamental issue remains present. --TeaDrinker (talk) 02:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

TeaDrinker: yes, it would be reasonable to ask volunteers to spend their time checking over the work that you are getting paid to do. I am one such volunteer, but only for those paid editors who commit to following our plain and simple conflict of interest guide. When there is money to be made doing something, policing can not stop it (see Drugs, War On...). What we can do is give ethical paid editors a way to cooperate with us. It is easy to think that the alternative is "no paid editing", but, like "nobody doing drugs", that isn't one of the options available.

The Banner: I have been following these various proposals, and making paid editing by ethical paid editors who follow our plain and simple conflict of interest guide "illegal" is not going to happen. All the proposals involve firms that refuse to follow the rules. I would advise you to place such a commitment right at the top of your page. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

And my plans are to follow the rules at all times and make it clear when an article is ordered. The Banner talk 08:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I would still like to see User:The Banner/Workpage28 explicitly state that you will follow Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide --Guy Macon (talk) 14:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I have suggested that The Banner delete the page for the time being, since it seems clear that the page is intended to be developed into an actual advertisement for a Wikipedia editing service. It seems clear that the basic approach is in conflict with the conflict of interest guideline. Further its presence as an advertisement on Wikipedia's userspace seems to indicate that such is acceptable (even encouraged) by the project. Neither seems to be true given the above discussion. --TeaDrinker (talk) 23:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

And I refuse your threat to remove it. The Banner talk 00:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Ultimately, if it isn't illegal, it's certainly highly unethical. I wouldn't want to have my Wikipedia contributions associated with this behaviour, nor Wikipedia being perceived in this light (quid pro quo is a user pays service regardless of what kind of payments are being asked for). What do you add as your next option: an offshore account? Be aware that a few of us watching your page with disdain and I'm certainly not reading any of the suggestions being made above as being threatening. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I don't want to come across as unfriendly or threatening in any way. However I do think the page is inappropriate, as such I think it is worth a discussion on MfD and will nominate it for such. My viewpoint entering that discussion is that it should be deleted, but I hope it is not viewed as a criticism of you, merely as an effort to make a better encyclopedia. In my view, soliciting clients to post articles for pay in userspace is not reasonable. I have added the nomination (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:The Banner/Workpage28). --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The "threat" is not here, but on my talk page: I'd be somewhat inclined to nominate it for MfD if you're resolute about keeping it, (...). And a quick look on this is good enough that mr. Teadrinker is, to put a mildly, strongly opposed. The Banner talk 08:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Nothing in TeaDrinker's comments above or at User talk:The Banner#User:The Banner/Workpage28 resembles a threat. If you really want to do this, you will need to be very thick-skinned and ignore a lot of harsh comments. Instead you are treating gentle suggestions as if they were threats. Also, TeaDrinker does not have the power to remove the page. All he can do is to nominate it for deletion and let the community decide. I think he makes a good enough case that if he doesn't nominate it, I will. It also does not bode well that you ignored my request instead of adding a note to User:The Banner/Workpage28 explicitly stating that you will follow our Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. One has to wonder why. Do you have a problem with following WP:PSCOI? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with WP:PSCOI, except that is just an essay and that it adds nothing to what is already in my draft. The Banner talk 08:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I am sure that The Banner has his reasoning (and I look forward to hearing it on the MfD page). He is a fine and reasonable editor by all that I have seen, and so I am sure is was no more his intent to stir up drama than it was mine. The issue is clearly something that the community needs to decide, and an MfD will facilitate that discussion. --TeaDrinker (talk) 01:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I have no doubt that this is just one of those internal disputes that is being blown out of proportion and can be resolved in a reasonable and amicable manner, TeaDrinker. The Banner quite evidently embarked on this with good intentions months ago and, in reading the commentary on the relevant talk page certainly elicited the sense of mixed responses of unambiguous support and unambiguous opposition. No doubt he felt this to be an appropriate venue in which to test the waters but did not factor in the already heated nature of the debate, nor anticipate the overflow of extremes in sentiment spilling over into his proposal/query. It's ended up as a bit of a Lemony Snicket's series of unfortunate events. Whatever the outcome of the discussion by the community, by no means should it seen as a tarnish on a good reputation. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I was aware of the heated debate, that is indeed why I wanted to test the water here. A non-friendly environment is sometimes the best place for sharpening the wits. But I had hoped for a discussion, not for an attack (the MfD-page) nor for being pushed to using an essay that add nothing to what is already on the page. So, for the moment I go not left, nor right, nor backwards or ahead, I just sit, wait and read. It is a draft-page for a reason! The Banner talk 09:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The rather aggressive debate on the essay page (which, to your credit, you were not engaged in) is precisely what I was referring to. Hopefully, tempers have cooled a little. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, I am capable of differentiating between different editors and reacting to what they actually write rather than automatically treating them the same as some unrelated editors elsewhere on the page. A couple of the above comments dismiss my legitimate concerns with phrases such as "non-friendly environment", "blown out of proportion" and "rather aggressive debate". Whether you like it or not, I have a reasonable objection based not on emotion but on observed behavior, and whether you address it or not, it will come up as other editors observe the same behavior. I suspect that this is moving towards the rather shopworn "they were mean to me so I withdraw my proposal with a few snarky last words" reaction, but I would much rather have a calm, reasoned discussion about my concerns without a bunch of amateur psychoanalyzing concerning why I have those concerns. To that end, I am going to outdent this, make a fresh start, and express my concerns again. You can refuse to address those concerns if you want, but please don't patronize me. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I am sure that The Banner is a thoughtful editor and a fine human being, but he is also discussing the possibility of becoming a paid editor, and thus his stated plans are naturally going to be scrutinized. If you look at my posting history you will see that I am a strong supporter of allowing ethical paid editors to participate and have personally worked with several of them to get their edits into the encyclopedia. An anti-paid-editor (and there are many) is going to be far less friendly about the possibility of an established Wikipedia editor accepting pay, and the WP:AGF shield is very thin in the case of paid editors.

I find that the two reasons The Banner gives for refusing to commit to following our plain and simple conflict of interest guide simply do not make sense. The stated reasons are (direct quotes) "It is just an essay" and "It adds nothing to what is already in my draft" (referring to User:The Banner/Workpage28).

"It is just an essay"
The fact that The Banner is being asked to make a commitment to voluntarily follow an essay that dozens of other paid editors have agreed to follow is rather the point. I wouldn't ask him to make a commitment to voluntarily follow a policy or guideline such as WP:COI because he, like all of us. has no choice -- you either follow the rules of you get blocked. The problem is that every paid editor, including those who were later banned, claims that they are following the letter of WP:COI, which they interpret (and sometimes twist) to be as permissive as possible. And agreeing to follow another set of rules that they created is a signature move for those paid editors.

Meanwhile, those paid editors who want to work together with us have pretty much all explicitly agreed to follow the advice in that particular essay. As I said before, one has to wonder why they all agreed but The Banner does not.

"It adds nothing to what is already in my draft"

This is demonstrably, factually incorrect. The draft has nothing faintly resembling "Do not directly edit articles about yourself, your organization, your clients, or your competitors" and "Post suggestions and sources on the article's talk page, or in your user space". Instead it says things like "I will only write about people", "When I have decided to write the article", and "When the article is ready, I will duly launch it on Wikipedia". Any reasonable person would conclude that The Banner is planning on directly editing Wikipedia articles for pay, and that his refusal to commit to following our plain and simple conflict of interest guide is that he plans on directly editing Wikipedia articles for pay. I would very much like to discuss those apparent plans in a calm, civil manner. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

1) After giving me sources, the one who requests the article will have no further influence. I decide about notability, I decide about the content of the article, the community decides if the article survives the AfD (assuming that each and every article of which I declare that it is written on request/a WP:COI will be send to AfD); 2) I can put down hollow phrases like that essay on the draft, but it will be the facts that make or break the editing. I am willing to follow a Guideline, not an essay that can be altered or ignored at will. The Banner talk 13:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

"Can be ignored at will" is red herring. You are the one who chooses whether to ignore it or not. As for "can be altered at will", if you are concerned about alterations, simply say that agree to it as written on a particular date.

Why don't you just admit that you won't agree because you plan on directly editing Wikipedia articles for pay? That is a decision that, according to current Wikipedia guidelines, you are free to make (at least until Wikipedia:No paid advocacy becomes a policy), and directly editing Wikipedia articles for pay is your declared intent, so why pretend otherwise? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

It is very difficult for me to image that an “advertisement" as poorly written and proofed as the Banner’s and as Byzantine and Kafkaesque in its guidelines drawing any clients, but it does open the specter of thousands of such sites, professionally executed, both on and off Wikipedia and that concerns me. The Banner will quickly be left in the dust, but a dusty stampeed it will be. I can see giant billboards vying with the attorney ambulance chasers all around the Big I , for example, shouting out, “ NEED A WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE? Not happy with how you or your venture are portrayed there? Visit wikieditors.com and talk to us about your needs.” Is that your vision of the future of Wikipedia? Because it is not mine. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The Banner, you've declared that, "... I am capable of differentiating between different editors and reacting to what they actually write rather than automatically treating them the same as some unrelated editors elsewhere on the page." (sic) No, you aren't and have, unfortunately, proved it here with continued attacks on TeaDrinker and myself who were trying to diffuse the tension. If you're incapable of seeing that and continue to misconstrue olive branches as condescension, it doesn't say much for your analytical abilities. I would have preferred to have stated that which Carptrash has now stated, but saw that you were in a defensive state of mind. There is no headway to be made in a discussion with someone who flatly refuses to concede anything other than their own overinflated estimation of their abilities.

I am, now, going to be scathingly, unambiguously honest with you. If you're not prepared to accept that you are working (volunteering) within the confines of an institution whose premises are based on ideologies antithetical to your own, and that you are proposing to set a precedent that will open the sluice gates for those who do possess the requisite skills (which you lack) to be recruited for pay by companies looking for professional wordsmiths with impressive analytical and behavioural credentials, you need someone to hold a mirror up for you in order that you reflect on your skewed comprehension of reality (I won't apologise for the bad pun). With all due respect, m'dear, your literacy alone begins and ends with coding. As Carptrash has so aptly expressed it, you will be left trampled in the dusty stampede without so much as a look-in.

P.S. The fact that you imagined that this was a good venue in which to bring up your ad (er, essay) attests to the fact that you must be right off your bonce. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

One small correction: I am the one who wrote "I am capable of differentiating between different editors and reacting to what they actually write rather than automatically treating them the same as some unrelated editors elsewhere on the page". I caused the misattribution above by making an error in my signature which I have since corrected. (Note to self: next time, smoke crack after editing Wikipedia...) Otherwise I am in complete agreement with the above. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

"the above" meaning . . . . ..........?Carptrash (talk) 23:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy mistakenly stated that The Banner wrote the words starting with "I am capable of". I, Guy Macon, actually wrote them. The mistake was actually my fault, because I, though a simple one-character typo, signed my post in a confusing way. I have fixed the sig, and I apologize for any confusion that I caused. Sorry about that. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

(Note to self: next time, smoke crack before editing Wikipedia...) Well, that does explain how The Banner suddenly became articulate towards the end of his diatribe. I thought he might be an a-typical loony who becomes more lucid as he descends into the depths of delusion. Well, I won't bother with trying to work out what to strike through as my blurb is still accurate. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

As long is everybody is rolling over each other, I just do nothing. I leave the draft page as it in and wait till the dust settles. By now, I feel I have ended up in a grinder between the Enforcer of the Green Corner at one side and the Enforcer of the Yellow Corner on the other side. Lads and lasses, figure out first what becomes the guideline. I am a strange guys: the more hammering you do, the more sceptical and critical I become. The Banner talk 10:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. I wrote "I suspect that this is moving towards the rather shopworn 'they were mean to me so I withdraw my proposal with a few snarky last words' reaction" yesterday, and here it is, just as I predicted! Perhaps I should quit my engineering job and become a paid psychic.

I can see it now; "Are you unsatisfied with your Wikipedia page? Unhappy with the results your are getting from trying to buy edits? Call the WikiPsychicHotline and we will use our psychic powers to reveal what the problem is!" Then I could just cut-and-paste the actual advice I give out from our Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide page... --Guy Macon (talk) 11:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

If he's doing good quality work and it's neutral and adheres to policy, does it really matter if he's being paid? We already have the reward board to prostitute ourselves for barnstars. At least this guy is smart enough to make money (or charitable donations) from it. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 12:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

"At least this guy is smart enough to make money". An interesting thing to say to say to a bunch of volunteers. Makes me pretty stupid, doesn't it? Giving al that time and effort away for nothing? Carptrash (talk) 16:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Wait...what? We don't get paid? I figured Jimbo was just seven years late with my paycheck... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 18:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Only Americans will not be paid. All others have to be creative and deserve their payments. The Banner talk 13:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC) And to mention your MfD: the page will be back asap after removal. There are no official gagging orders, only WP:IDONTLIKEIT

Oh, goody! I'm Australian. Who do I forward my request for a pay cheque to? So, according to your theory, The Banner, corporations are exclusively US entities and the only people capable of writing copy for corporations and various other business interests are Americans? Gosh, I wonder what the multinational corporations would make of it. Whoops, pardon. Have to go. I'm in conference with my buddy, Gina Rinehart. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I would like to remind those who have been following this -- on both sides of the issue -- about Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:The Banner/Workpage28 There are currently only four keep/delete comments. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Bitcoins

Are bitcoins "monetary or other tangible benefits"? If not, the text should be rewritten to include them as benefits that mean financial conflict of interest. --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Some may argue that bitcoins are not money, but no reasonable person thinks that they are not a tangible benefit. This will remain true until you can no longer buy things with them. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

NaBUru38: Again, this is missing the point. The currency most used on Wikipedia is kudos. Form of 'benefit' is barking up the wrong tree; one cannot know… —Sladen (talk) 10:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Newbie Theory

To be clear, the theory that is being presented is not meant to be taken as an accusation. Please try to keep an open-mind and not take offense, as there is none intended. The first thought that entered the mind was that it appears as though those who are in adamant opposition of the idea/action of paid editing, are the same as those getting paid to edit. If it is not obvious why the two are thought to be one in the same, then here are things that stand out to a newcomer; anyone getting paid to edit is getting paid top dollar. Why? Well, because it is not accepted, making it difficult and leaving very few who offer the service. It is "illegal", so to speak, therefore one not only expects to pay the high price, but also has no choice. Now, if the policy were to change making the practice acceptable, even under strict guidelines, this will open the door for anyone to have the opportunity (provided they follow policy and meet certain criteria) to offer a fee based service, and in turn create what is known simply as competition. What would competition do to those who have been defying the system all along? It would force them to lower prices, spend what was once profit on advertising expenses, produce a more quality product in order to win a sale, and so forth. To be honest, this did sound a little far fetched until reading the arguments, and while there is no evidence to the fact, something that is perceived as such may e just as damaging as if it were to be a reality. Further, if the theory is far from truth, it does not take away the fact that by making the policy as rigid as it seems, those breaking the the rules are actually the only real benefactors. Seems foolish to me to oppose something that by doing so, there is no control. The only real way to monitor, control, and ensure guidelines are adhered to is take control. This will raise the bar on the quality of the content just by adding the competition factor. The consumer, given a choice, will likely hire soon realize with whom to spend their money. In turn alleviating much of the time spent on the chore of policing the situation, so the time can be better spent on other matters often left to lie in wait. An example, perhaps it would allow admin to take more time reviewing Articles for Submission therefore lessening the time from three weeks to only one. Face the fact that there is no way to stop it, but there is a way to moderate and take control, so then why not do so? Please before everyone slays me on this, I openly admit to not knowing all the facts, this is just as I see it from where I stand.SHurley619 (talk) 03:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

"...it appears as though those who are in adamant opposition of the idea/action of paid editing, are the same as those getting paid to edit." You totally lost me after that. Doc talk 03:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

That would be where "open-minded" would come into play, many people have difficulties with that, thanks for your feedbackSHurley619 (talk) 03:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I have no difficulty being open-minded. I have difficulty believing that you are a "newbie", however. Doc talk 22:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

If one had two acquaintances; one (a) whom did not engage with Wikipedia, so frequently had their edits reverted; and (b) one whom had been working on Wikipedia for five years, and researching lots of articles. …You would be more likely to ask the one with a reputation for guidance. If you noticed a particular area and suggested that it could do with some {{refimprove}} you would naturally ask a more experience person to assist with any research, writing and citing to improve the encyclopedia. I don't see where payment (in kind or otherwise) would come into such a decision about whom to ask—one would simply tend to prefer advice and assistance from those perceived as knowledgeable and trustworthy (ie. with kudos). —Sladen (talk) 08:32, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

"Consumers"; "... more time reviewing Articles for Submission therefore lessening the time from three weeks to only one."? I do understand that you are a 'newbie' and that you are being courageous in 'openly admitting to not knowing all of the facts', but would suggest that you acquaint yourself with the fundamental principles, policy and guidelines behind Wikipedia before assuming that it is a happy little corporate affair providing a user-pays service to clients (whoever you may imagine the staff to be and whoever you imagine the clients to be). I'm not certain as to what you believe we should be open-minded about as you've evidently mistaken Wikipedia for the antithesis of what it actually is. I'm with Doc on this one, although I'm compelled to qualify that your comment lost us simply because you entered having made up your own plot. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

"having made up my own plot," is not the case at all. I did not make it up. One thing, I do need to apologize and correct myself on, is I misspoke when I said those against are the one's getting paid. I should have been careful to say that their are some who are taking a stand against and getting paid all the while...a few bad apples, not a corporate conspiracy. The majority, I assume acts in good faith. I overgeneralized and see how that would make the idea sound "made up". Should I expose exactly how these people are going undetected, I thought it would be unnecessary, and a discussion would be enough, guess not...SHurley619 (talk) 14:03, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, i am doing my best to help the situation, by pointing us in the right direction, without having to say too much, but it is obvious that no one is willing to put their critical thinking hat on, and discuss the possibility. I am acting in good faith in an attempt to help, and since it is real, I have undeniable proof, I will explain in full detail, with proof and when I am done I will provide the link. I guess I will use a talk page or something, I will protect any and names, companies, ect. and if someone feels the need to ban me, than so be it. Those of you who are a little nervous, do not worry, my intention is to bring light to the issue not to you, you have your own karma to deal with. at least at this point anyways.SHurley619 (talk) 14:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Umm... what are you talking about? You have some bombshell "Wikileaks"-type thing to present that could make some editors "nervous"? Lay it on us, by all means. Doc talk 21:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Karma issues are very, very important to the development of Wikipedia. Do I need to realign my chakra in order to deal with your revelations? Incidentally, apologies to Sladen who has been working on realigning the thread/s in order to make some sort of sense of the entries here. SHurley619, could you please familiarize yourself with talk page protocols? I've encountered difficulties in following whether you are responding to anyone in particular or starting new comments from scratch. See Wikipedia:Tutorial/Talk_pages as a starting point. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

(Apologies for reverting part of the discussion here: it was unintentional) Barte (talk) 00:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

If I had a dime for every time I've accidentally reverted something... I'd have a shitload of dimes! No worries :) Doc talk 00:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem, Barte. While you're here, do you know of any good cryptologists who could help decipher SHurley's missive? Nah, forget the cryptologists. I think we need scatologists on the case! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I suppose we have to go the AGF route now. SHurley619, is this your first named account? Or did you edit with IPs until you learned the ropes? Because I do not believe that you are a newbie at all. Doc talk 01:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I find that I have to agree that I'm not convinced that SHurley619 is a 'newbie' in the true sense of the concept. Acerbic jibes aside, the boldness with which this proposal was approached and the allusions to, "I know various secret somethings none of you do." sits somewhat awry with me. I am not in a position to make accusations (don't you just love disclaimers?), yet this all smacks of being thought through and presented by someone far more familiar with Wikipedia than one would expect of someone who only started an account just over a month ago and has not been involved with anything outside of developing an article for PCN Technology Inc. And so, SHurley619, don't be shy: we all have our 'critical thinking caps on' so please don't concern yourself with outing the 'bad apples' for fear of besmirching the reputations of 'the innocent'. We're all anxious to hear any salient reliable, verifiable information you have. Don't forget that the majority here (and working on developing Wikipedia in general) are volunteers who get paid in that simplest of currencies known as satisfaction. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The "theory" is just garbage. This is a waste of time. Doc talk 06:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

If I say what I think at this point, I'm risking a serious increase in my karmic load . Especially now that Mercury is retrograde. Carptrash (talk) 14:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

WOW! scatologist? Really? Some of you are quite full of yourselves around here, not to mention RUDE! To set the record straight, I did NOT "edit IPs", and this IS my first experience editing on Wikipedia. Further, while memorable, it has been one with the most unpleasant group of people I have ever worked with. Does the "talk protocol" allow for using words like "shitload" and stating that someone's post needs a professional who studies fecal excrement, or a scatologist?

I am writing a TRUE account of my Wikipedia experience on User:SHurley619, I will keep it free of personal opinion, by only documenting the facts, and I would appreciate it if you refrain from attacking me any further, just as I am refraining from using a few choice words about some of your inappropriate comments. If only I had known what I know now, when I began this venture, I surely would have approached it differently.SHurley619 (talk) 01:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

problems connected

with this topic are editors who can refer to online or printed articles which constitute advocacy or lobbying, in media which are otherwise more or less reliable sources; and editors whose work on wikipedia constitutes advocacy without being paid by someone, out of ideological reasons, sometimes those are one-topic-editors.--Severino (talk) 14:12, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

This issue is getting public press

There is a radio broadcast about Wikipedia paid advocacy on CBC Radio HERE, in which Simon Owens was interviewed in response to his article in The Daily Dot, which may be of interest to this thread. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, being in Australia, I can't access the CBC interviews. The Daily Dot made for interesting but, frankly, sadly unsurprising reading. To my mind, however, it does underline the importance of having as many policies in place regarding advocacy as possible. Noting that one of the themes in the article addressed the 'guilty until you prove yourself to be innocent' legal ramifications, all I can say is it simply doesn't wash with me. If any non-advocacy articles are deleted, they can be appealed and reinstated. The fact that everything Wikipedia is a slow process is just a by-product of needing to be cautious. At least I feel justified in being anal about double-checking citations, particularly as most of the articles I'm involved with use non-English sources and I've caught out mistranslations, as well as distinct cherry picking. We know paid advocacy exists and will continue: but that's not a legitimate excuse to throw our hands up in the air and declare it open season for commercial interests. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. We should focus on content, not on WHO is editing or WHY they are editing as they are. We need to double-check citations (and other acts of due diligence) regardless of whether there may or may not be advocacy-inspired edits. Let's keep our focus on WHAT, instead of on time- and labor-consuming pointless witch hunts regarding WHO and WHY. --B2C 05:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

It's actually your comments which are "nonsense". Obviously you think that WP:COI should be totally ignored. Anglicanus (talk) 05:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Born2cycle, it occurs to me that the last bastion of someone who actually doesn't have a solid and rational argument is resorting to emotive contentious labels. "Witch hunts" (sic) seems to be a favourite on RfC pages for those who oppose proposals but don't have have anything of substance to support their objection. How, precisely, does WP:COI metamorphise into a 'witch hunt'? WHO and WHY is inevitably going to impact on the WHAT and will, ultimately, end up being far more time-consuming and complex to police. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Anglicanus (talk · contribs), I think WP:COI has no place on WP and should be deleted because...

Iryna Harpy (talk · contribs), point taken on invoking the term "witch hunt", but I'm sorry I still disagree with your main point. It's figuring out whether WHO has a COI and WHY they are editing that is "far more time-consuming and complex to police" than simply reviewing the WHAT for compliance with our content-specific polices and guidelines (NPOV, RS, NOTABILITY, etc.). In fact, reviewing for compliance with content policy is relatively cost-free since we have to it anyway regardless of WHO or WHY. --B2C 22:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

There's no need to apologise for disagreeing with me.

I don't find your argument about the WHO and WHY being irrelevant to be convincing. I would hazard a guess that the majority of us, when deliberating over the content of articles, check talk pages and follow breadcrumbs left by major contributors all the way from their user pages to their contributions in order to get a sense of whether they may have POV allegiances and, if so, to establish whether they're nationalists, fundamentalists or any other form of 'ist'. Doing so is simply a matter of empirical sense. Elaborating on the policies already in place is merely supplementary information reinforcing that paid advocacy is not tolerated. Contrary to your opinion, WP:COI is regarded as a fundamental WP cornerstone. Without it, WP loses all credibility as an encyclopaedic resource and becomes an op ed free-for-all. We can't all have specialist knowledge of every field represented in WP. How, exactly, will eliminating the WHO and WHY from the equation make articles easier to police? I didn't realise that NPOV, RS, NOTABILITY are self-evident without editors running checks on the veracity of an article. Are we to assume that, because it is there, it must meet all of these criteria? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Iryna (talk · contribs) doragaya, the WHO and WHY is irrelevant because only content matters. If an editor edits an article either their edit is compliant with content-governing guidance and policy, or it is not. It's not like NOTABILITY or NPOV applies differently to a given sentence depending on WHO inserted that sentence, or WHY. The CEO of General Motors, or someone he pays, can just as competently make a substantive and valid change to General Motors as can a college student studying engineering. And that same student can make unsupported statement without citation just as easily as can the CEO or his COI agent. In all cases what matters is the content, not WHO or WHY.

Of course you are free to ignore AGF and try to figure out if a given editor is some kind of -ist, but in the end all that matters is whether the edits are compliant with content-governing policy and guidelines. Trying to figure out, much less prove, that their edits are inappropriate due to a COI is all but impossible and ultimately a violation of AGF, NPA, etc.

Focus on content, not on the editor. --B2C 21:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Born2cycle (talk · contribs), this is a project built on trust (with verification). If a user is known to have an interest which they put ahead of the encyclopedia, that trust is violated. We, of course, do not rely on trust alone. But we must do what we can to foster trust among editors. A paid advocate for a company does put the needs of the company first--that is what they are paid to do. We will continue to verify each other, but we start with the reasonable assumption that everyone, no matter their opinion, is working for the betterment of the encyclopedia. That is not a reasonable starting assumption for a paid advocate. --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

One of the things that was mentioned in the CBC interview is that a certain company offers, for an extra fee, to write articles about your company, submit them to online publications without disclosing COI, and then cite them in Wikipedia. How are we to spot these? —Anne Delong (talk) 23:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

It is safe to say that these blackhat outfits will always be around. The best we can do is make it clear to their customers that the outfits are doing something prohibited on the project. Most companies will not hire blackhat PR firms, if only for the risk of negative exposure. Further, the regular finding of no consensus on paid editing policies is regularly being pointed to by experienced editors as evidence that it is de facto permitted. This is simply not the case, but the confusion is understandable. --TeaDrinker (talk) 23:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

TeaDrinker (talk · contribs), the notion that "this is a project built on trust (with verification)" is meaningless. At least I don't know what it means. Equally meaningless is having "an interest which they put ahead of the encyclopedia".

We do give editors the benefit of the doubt, but I wouldn't say we trust them. Semantics aside, ultimately we judge the content of their edits (not the editors). What makes our articles surprisingly good and balanced is precisely because we allow anyone to edit. Republicans and Democrats edit Rand Paul and Barack Obama. COI paid shills (I presume) as well as corporate-hating environmentalists edit Monsanto. That's what produces such good articles, the tug of war between people with COIs from all sides. Everybody is biased. Sometimes we edit articles where our biases are irrelevant. Sometimes we edit articles where our biases do influence us. So what? Others with opposite biases are editing too. And we watch each other to make sure everyone's edits are compliant with content-focused policy and guidelines. Pretend you have a COI, and edit an article accordingly. Whether your edit gets questioned, reverted, or left alone will likely depend entirely on whether you allowed your pretend COI to create an inappropriate edit, which is all that ultimately matters. We work it out, and the result is usually excellent. I see no reason, certainly not expressed in this discussion, to exclude people with paid COIs from this remarkably balanced system. --B2C 23:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

B2C, I agree that content is what matters, and that this is what we should focus on. However, your argument above only works for articles which are watched and worked on by a significant number of editors, so that the content is actively and regularly checked. In reality, whether your edit gets questioned, reverted, or left alone will likely depend entirely on how many competent editors are watching that page; the number of pages in the English Wikipedia greatly exceeds the number of reasonably experienced editors. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Wikipedia is not a battleground, nor is it an adversarial environment like a courtroom. It is not the grand arena where the verifiable truth emerges from competing interests. It was not, at least, written that way. If you are proposing a change, you're welcome to do so, but at present, we cooperate. We do not allow anyone to edit, we allow "anyone" to edit, with plenty of provisos and limitations. We demand that editing be done with the best interest of the encyclopedia first. We do not allow vandals to edit, we do not allow tendentious editors to edit, we do not allow advocates of any sort to edit. Trust is essential, because we can not verify everything done by everyone. A person who can not edit with the interest of the encyclopedia first in their minds has no business editing at all. The format you propose of conflicting editors battling it out is quite contrary to what has been the traditional ideal, if not always the practice. --TeaDrinker (talk) 23:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, Peter coxhead (talk · contribs), that's a "hole" in the integrity of WP. But COI editing (as well as vandalism and all kinds of problems) is going to occur on poorly watched articles just as much whether we have rules against it or not. And it's going to get caught just as well on watched articles whether we have the rules against it or not. So what's the point? I call WP:CREEP. --B2C 23:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I've said elsewhere that I don't think this proposed policy is useful, partly for the reasons you've given. However, we do need to be sure that we can act decisively if paid advocacy is discovered on a little-watched article, so it may be that some limited strengthening of policy would be useful. For example, when major plagiarism is suspected, the whole article is put off-line until it is sorted. It could be useful to be able to do that when major paid advocacy is suspected. This would certainly be a deterrent. Also perhaps a long-lasting hatnote warning that this article has been subject to bias through paid advocacY in the past. The wrong action in response to the problem isn't helpful, but no action isn't either. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Peter coxhead (talk · contribs), plagiarism is inherently problematic and, when suspected for good reason, justifies putting the whole article off-line until it is sorted out. Paid advocacy is not like that. Paid advocacy does not necessarily create problems at all. A paid advocate might write an article that is fair, balanced, NPOV, notable, etc., or at least is not all that bad.

The bulk of a paid advocates work is likely to be fine. In this respect a paid advocate is really no different than any other editor, because no editor is perfect. All contributors contribute positively as well as make contributions that others have to fix or improve (some leave more room for improvement than others...). The errors or imperfections a paid advocate is more likely to contribute might be of a different nature than that of an unpaid contributor, but I don't understand why that's an issue that needs separate attention, at all.

Why discourage paid advocacy at all? Even if paid advocates contribute only half of a balanced view in a given article, we're still better off with them than without them, because with them the rest of us only have to provide the other half of the balanced view, rather than both halves. --B2C 17:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Where we disagree seems to be this. You think that a balanced view comes from combining two unbalanced but opposite views. I don't. A truly NPOV comes from an entire article being written in a neutral way, reporting, but never advocating, all notable views. Read WP:IMPARTIAL. Advocacy of any kind is bad for Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is supposedly "cancelled" by advocacy for the opposite view. Paid advocacy is not worse than unpaid advocacy except that paid advocates have the time and energy to grind down volunteer editors. However, you are surely right that the focus should be relentlessly on content. Editors should be sanctioned based entirely on evidence that the content they added consistently violates Wikipedia's principles and guidelines, and not on whether they were paid to add this content. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

NPOV

Wikipedia articles must be neutral. Therefore, any type advocacy is not allowed, paid or not. Why do we need this new rule? Wikfr (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• I agree we don't need the new rule, largely because of NPOV. But this is not because advocacy is not allowed. You can advocate all you want, paid or not, just as long the article content generated by your finger tips is consistent with NPOV and our other content policies and guidelines (WP:IRS, WP:NOTABILITY, etc.). --B2C 04:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  • B2C, it seems you have a basic misunderstanding here: YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO ADVOCATE anything in wikipedia: you are here to write encyclopedia. If someone's goal is to advocate something, they usually run into all kinds of quarrels and either start gaming the system or got kicked out. NPOV per se does not prohibit advocacy. It is because NPOV is achieved by co-operation of many editors with different views, experiences, expertise, etc. Advocacy may be unintentional, since people are entitled to their views and not obliged to study opposite views to an encyclopedic, "wikipediable" degree. Opposite views are OK to be delivered by your colleague. But if you declare your goal to be advocacy in wikipedia, I will declare my goal to topic-ban you. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Staszek Lem (talk · contribs), I do not misunderstand the prohibition on advocacy; I disagree with it. Liberals subconsciously if not overtly advocate liberal values in their comments and edits; conservatives subconsciously if not overtly advocate conservative values in their comments and edits. That's just the way it is. The key to WP's success is allowing anyone to edit (the prohibition on advocacy practically has no teeth or influence), thus ultimately leading to a balanced presentation of the topics at issue.

      NPOV is not about not having a bias; it's about not expressing that bias in one's editing. People who have a bias because they're paid can do that at least as well as anyone with a bias for any other reason. At least if your bias exists because you're paid to have it you're aware of it, which is much easier to deal with than subconscious bias (which is prevalent in everyone).

      The reason I'm so passionately against WP:CREEP in this area (and even favor reversing practically all editor-targeted rules) is because I feel the heart of WP, and its success, largely lies in the focus on content, not on the contributor principle. In fact, I also believe most of WP's troubles and drawbacks stem from rules that violate this principle. Success and effectiveness in life is not coincidentally also largely like that. Trying to govern and control supposed bias or COI directly is inherently ad hominem, contentious, and ultimately harmful to the project. The more we all focus on content, and whether content is consistent with rules about notability, neutrality, proper sourcing, etc., and stopped trying to identify and dole out consequences to "bad guys", the better off this project would be. Simply blocking or banning someone for advocacy is moving in the wrong direction. If they repeatedly add inappropriate content (because of their advocacy or any other reason, identified or not), then block or ban them for that, not for WHO they are, or WHY you believe they are adding that inappropriate content. That's more than enough. Plenty. Adding rules about advocacy, COI, etc., is just WP:CREEP, disruptive, and harmful to the project. --B2C 23:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

New draft

I've started with this proposal, adjusted it based on comments and on the competing proposal I copied out of WP:COI, and have produced a new draft: Wikipedia:Paid editing policy proposal/2nd draft. Please review and comment. Jehochman ^Talk 02:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Intel agencies

Is this paid editing? Is there any evidence Intel agencies edit (paid employees = Paid editing ?) to push their agenda i.e Syria to influence public opinion? i.e. Obama wanting to intercede in Syria after Ghouta chemical attack, but he started losing public congressional and UK Govt support. I guess if they POV edit it would lead to problems. Should they self declare? Blade-of-the-South talk 09:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no small amount of obvious 'spin doctoring' in favor of, for instance, the US government. It does need to be addressed, and this is an interesting question. But if they self-declare, their work to 'spin' pages would be nearly impossible, so I highly doubt this will happen. Wikipedia does need to find a way to address this (known) problem, regardless of whether one can point to some proven exchange of cash. petrarchan47tc 06:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

It is an interesting one isnt it. When you think how Wikipedia is first or on the first page of most search engines, you can see why Intel agencies would assign people to edit WP for as you say 'spin' to try to mould opinion. Im certain they are here on the issues deemed sensitive. Snowden, Syria, Iran, NSA itself. How to spot them? Almost myopic focus, no give, like a supervisor will review their work. Should they declare openly? Maybe Snowden will do it for them. LOL. But seriously, I think its detracting from WP in general that they are clearly 'playing the system'. Blade-of-the-South talk 07:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Every point you've raised is valid for the "paid/advocacy/commercial" editing problem too. Special/commercial interests are attracted for the same reasons, and it is inevitable they will try to spin certain articles. Because we are anonymous, they have no compunction to edit according to the rules. A 'new' editor can pop up and take over if needed. With regard to government, an IP made an edit to Snowden, calling him a traitor, and that edit was traced to an office within, I believe, the Senate building. Less obvious POV editing has continued.

It is most certainly detracting from WP. Dealing with what amounts to dishonesty steals precious time away from those here to update and maintain articles. Because spin-doctoring can - and should - be expected here, we should have a way to address it, and a method for stopping it once recognized - one that doesn't require much time (ie, the editor who spots the problem would not be required to file a noticeboard and find all the required diffs). Your description of behaviours is spot on: they're easy to recognize, and therefore could be easy to stop. Wikipedia does not yet have language with which to address this. And any mention of POV prompts accusations of not AGF. petrarchan47tc 09:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Coundn't agree more with what you wrote. Scenario: Here are a few anonymous, hopefully neutral editors, trying to better an article and along comes a staggered group of paid intel editors, (some involved some drop ins) supposedly unknown to each other, who over time morph the article to a POV view. Its dishonest, less than but similar to NSA lying to and outraging people. Its also a long term plan. Accounts may be new or old. WP needs to have a look at this. Blade-of-the-South talk 01:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

As an editor of various military articles I can confirm that the US military at least on occasion edits articles. As an example, look at Volkel Air Base. In the history of the article you will find that information on nuclear weapons has been removed on several occasions. Tracing the IPs will reveal that the edits originate from US Air Force computers (153.29.60.60 -> proxy01.maab.afcent.af.mil). There's nothing subtle about these edits though so they're easily caught.BabyNuke (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Good example. Blade-of-the-South talk 01:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

It is fairly well-known that the CIA and MI6 attempt to control as many prominent media outlets as possible, attempting to thereby control the tone of the public discourse and render irrelevant any media outlets publishing countervailing views. The extent to which they are involved in such endeavors overseas would stagger the imagination. I have been dealing with it first hand for about ten years. Here is a link to a scholar that wrote on some related activity in the 1970-80s [14].--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 23:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Very interesting. Thanks I will look into that. Blade-of-the-South talk 01:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The Israeli IDF is quite open and very proud about its program to train young people, particularly from the US, in online pro-Israel propaganda. I don't know the numbers, but one gets the sense they have thousands of college kids getting paid for this stuff. Mondoweiss is a site that discusses Zionism and Israeli apartheid mostly from a US Jewish viewpoint and they have these Israeli spin-trolls popping up constantly. It would be almost funny if it wasn't. And there's nothing funny about turning WP into a propaganda machine. BabelBoy (talk) 05:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd be just as concerned, perhaps more, about Chinese and Russian intel agencies editing here. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe, but I don't know whether they would be so presumptuous to try to assume that mantle here, but maybe on articles where there is some nationalistic POV portraying them in a negative light. Editing sensitive political articles with a blatant POV requires a fairly high degree of sophistication, not only in the language, but in the ability to engage native English speaking American (and UK sphere) Wikipedians on the Talk pages directly in the respective local idiom. Only the CIA and MI6 (+ UK sphere,including Canada) could pull that off, in my opinion.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Many Russians and Chinese nationals have excellent language skills in English, including knowledge of idioms -- to ascribe all evil to the CIA and MI6 seems a trifle conspiracy-theory-ish to me at that point. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

There certainly are those that do have such language skills, so I suppose my emphasis was misplaced. Basically, I don't see them having much of a calling here on Wikipedia. Russia and China are not generally using their intelligence agencies to support their corporations attempts to capture and occupy markets abroad, or to influence elections and the like in other countries to create a corporate friendly environment. Such activities require the amount of spin in the media and other informational outlets to mask them.

There would only be a fraction of the number of corresponding articles, more about domestic politics and human rights in Russia and China than overseas activities.

Of course, the recent scandals with the NSA have exposed extensive civil rights violations in the USA as well as abroad, so maybe such Russian and Chinese agents would be infiltrating Wikipedia to defame the NSA <g>?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 06:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, dear. I couldn't help but put in my 2 cents worth with all the to-ing and fro-ing on this subject. It seems that everyone is busy underestimating the sophistication of intel agencies and their agendas. John le Carré's novels don't hold a candle to the reality of the intricacies. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

What would be he implications of asking an editor if they are paid employees of an intel agency? Blade-of-the-South talk 23:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Related discussions: Bounty Board and Reward Board MfDs

Editors interested in this discussion may also want to comment on the MfD nominations for the Bounty Board and Reward Board. --BDD (talk) 18:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

a couple requests for clarification (must precise nature of COI be disclosed? would CheckUser ever be used?)

I've been following both related proposals for a while, and while I'm generally opposed to the specific proposals, I'm staying open to the overall idea. I have a couple of honest (and I think important) questions for clarification:

1. When requesting an edit, would it be necessary to disclose the precise nature of COI, or merely the existence of COI? For example, for an article about a business, would you have to identify yourself by name as the business owner, or could you merely say using IP/pseudonym "I have a COI and I'd like to request the following edit"?

(I think the latter would accomplish the required scrutiny/distance without having the chilling effect of eliminating anonymity/pseudonymity.)

2. Would Wikipedia:CheckUser ever be used to enforce this policy, such as identifying users logging on from known PR firms?

Thanks, Proxyma (talk) 01:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Checkusers have broad authority to check anybody anytime to help control disruption. On the English Wikipedia we have a tradition that checkusering is done sparingly, only when there is evidence of sock puppetry or a need to quickly ID somebody who is threatening harm to themselves or somebody else, so that the IP can be given to police. I think any adjustments to checkuser policy are beyond the scope of this discussion, but would be taken up separately after this policy, or one of the other drafts gets approved.

I think that the nature of the COI should be disclosed. There is no requirement that anybody identify themselves. If somebody has a financial COI, they can just keep quiet and not make any requests. If they want to make a request, presumably there is a commercial advantage to be had, and they will have to reveal their connection to the topic. What level of detail they need to reveal can be determined by common sense, or by the WP:COI guideline. I don't think that level of detail should be specified here. Jehochman ^Talk 02:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Good explanation of why financial COI should be opposed

This post from Atethnekos is a very articulate account of why paid-advocacy editing should be rejected. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

This text may be a base of a section in the future policy, similar to section "Wikipedia's position" in WP:COI page. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Section "Subject-matter experts"

IMO the last phrase in the section is weak.

Something must be said to the and that subject-matter experts are prohibited from direct or indirect advocacy in favor of a business or an organization the expert associated with, as well as a product, a theory, or a belief put forth by the said business or organization. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

You mean a physicist should be precluded from putting forth the Theory of Relativity? I think that the implications and potential for Wikilawyering need to be considered. The policy we eventually enact should make clear that experts are welcome, and that it is not a conflict to write about the topics of one's expertise. Jehochman ^Talk 14:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. Jehochman, if you'd bothered to read comments on the three initial proposals, you might have picked up on the fact that this same old chestnut has been brought up time and time again. The Theory of Relativity is not a commercial product. There is a distinct line of difference between, for example, paid spin doctors employed by MacDonald's to push the nutritional value of their burgers (citing a database of 'proof' provided by their employer) as opposed to physicists developing the article on the Theory of Relativity. I, for one, am not going to choose a MacDonald's burger over a slice of pizza based on The Theory of Relativity. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

To me this goes back to an old drum I've been beating for a long while, the need to differentiate between a conflict of interest, and damaging actions resulting from a conflict of interest. Unlike many here, I acknowledge that the physicist probably does have a conflict of interest. Considering that subject area, the conflict of interest is less likely to cause problematic editing (but still could, if the physicist promotes their pet theories above more widely accepted ones). We've too long viewed "conflict of interest" with negative connotations, when in reality the existence of a conflict of interest is more often benign. Most everyone here has potential conflicts of interest in one area or another. As long as we conflate problematic biased editing with the concept of conflict of interest, we aren't going to be able to have very good conversations or policies on the topic. Gigs (talk) 15:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I do see your point, Gigs, and was aware of it when responding to Jehochman but simply didn't want to compound the issue of bad analogies. For example, the Big Bang is specialised area with very little being dedicated to serious research into alternative theories/variants on the theory (no, I'm not talking about religious pseudo-theory). I haven't been through the multitude of talk page archives but would have no doubt that 'fringe' would have been brought up more than once. While I doubt that there can be articles without COI on virtually any subject matter, as you've pointed out, there are degrees and degrees. I certainly have pet subjects but have avoided them completely thus far.

While I wouldn't go as far as to characterise a large portion of the instances as being benign, I still feel that the two proposals for a policy on 'paid editing' are leaps of faith bound backfire simply because assumptions about the rudimentaries of forms of advocacy have not been properly illustrated. I don't believe that an abstract concept of 'paid advocacy' can even pretend to address the complexity of the issue unless it begins with a list of identified forms of paid advocacy and which forms are out of bounds for the editing of Wikipedia. Thus far, everything seems to have been developed on the premise that we all somehow intuitively know what is and isn't paid COI advocacy. I'm extremely simple-minded and would like to see a definitive no-no list with a reasonably comprehensive elaboration of convolutions of each form of no-no. What I am seeing, instead, is a lot of "oppose"'s apparently based on the 'fact' that there are enough policies already dealing with/capable of dealing with the flouting of COI, notability, suspect POV, etc. What I see is that those policies are scattered all over the place and could do with being pulled together on a dedicated policy page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

This policy, as written, would definitely prohibit a professional physicist from editing theory of relativity, which is why it later attempts to hand-wave away this fact. Iryna Harpy's identification of Relativity as "not a commercial product" only reveals her to not be a physicist; anyone familiar with the professional practice of physics would know otherwise. The press releases here read exactly like other commercial press releases because Stanford is selling interest in GR and so they act the same as anyone else selling anything else. WilyD 09:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Wily, if you look at my response to Gigs here, plus my further elaboration on the subject on the Paid editing policy proposal/2nd draft, you may note that I further qualified this point (which I concur was overly simplistic) and will paste here for your edification:

"Per my response to Jehochman on the original proposal, the concept of 'academic'/'scholar' is being treated as an unrealistic abstraction, and I can't accept simplistic analogies (such as the Theory of relativity) suggesting that academic skill sets are clear cut. Having worked for a university for many years, I know for a fact that academics are heavily influenced by funding. Drug companies (er, I mean the Pharmaceutical industry) hand out vast sums in grant monies in order to establish cheap research and development units (and that is precisely the extent of their interest). 'Academics'/'scholars' contributing to articles surrounding pharmaceuticals must declare the full extent of any potential COI. If Roche is sinking money into their institution, it is not going to serve the academic's interests to bad mouth the company's practices. Neither can one expect NPOV contributions to the article on generic drugs. The same can be said of statisticians, biochemists, GE propagation, ad nauseum. Being retired, I can declare that I have no financial or other interests to declare. There! It's all on my user page. That's not so difficult, is it? Should the situation change, I wouldn't hesitate to declare any employment by any company or institution which could compromise my neutrality. Ultimately, the concept of academic neutrality has to be elaborated on, so I'd probably prefer clause 3 to be expanded on. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)"

This is why I am pursuing the identification and qualification of various COI areas as the preliminary step before cobbling together a dubious and ambiguous policy. Hence a physicist whose funding is primarily gleaned from private corporate grants must identify each corporation and the research areas being funded on their user page. That's a clear method by which to identify any potential COI. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but that still entirely ignores the reality of how academics work. My funding comes entirely from governmental sources, but of course I still have a strong financial COI on any article relating to astronomy; those government sources provide funding mostly because of the public interest (although there're a few military applications which bring money into astronomy). The same is less true in more applied academics, but then (as your example notes, the gap gets filled by private funding, which is probably less significant (since they're less dependent on venues like this), but still runs afoul of the rules being bandied about. And every scientist working on drugs (to use your example) is going to have used drug company funding in the past, in the present, and/or want some in the future (which given the way grants work, is where the COI would be highest). Every academic would have to acknowledge a COI on every article relating to their field (and which this policy says, then, would be prohibited for editing any article in an area in which they're an expert). The problem is the assumption that having a private financial interest automagically puts you into conflict. It doesn't. I have a paid, private interest to create good articles about astronomical topics that spark public interest. I also have a Wikipedian interest to create good articles on astronomical topics that cater to public interest. There's no conflict between my two interests, which is why nobody sees it as a problem, and why the write a policy that says it's a problem, and then say "But that's not what I meant".

As far as I can see, there's nothing extra that needs policy to address it, but actual work of finding where advocacy is taking place, cleaning up the mess, fixing/banning the offenders, etc. But that's harder work than writing policy, so instead people are writing policies which do nothing new except ban professionals from editing in areas they're knowledgeable in. WilyD 09:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Extent of COI

How does the policy apply to Wikipedia editors who are paid by companies to advise them on how to "game" Wikipedia to exclude negative information and produce a positive article on their company or product? Wayne (talk) 07:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there's much we can do about that. Even without "gaming" the system, just being aware of how things are done around here is a major boost to someone who wants to introduce their own spin on things. We've put up an artificial barrier to entry with our bureaucracy, if that backfires on us because savvy editors can game it then that's really our problem more than it is a problem caused by someone teaching the uninitiated how to navigate. I guess the best solution is to not rely on bureaucracy as a barrier to entry. Gigs (talk) 15:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with editors paid to advise on how to edit and navigate WP policies, it is only when they advise on how to manipulate WP in bad faith. Admittedly it is not a widespread problem but it can lead to significant bias in a large number of articles. In the case I'm familiar with the company was instructed on how to use Talk to get opponents blocked and get relevant negative information removed etc. Basically, how to effectively use Schopenhauer style strategies without getting blocked themselves. Editors who go this far should at least be warned as this is exactly the type of behavior the NPA policy is trying to negate. Wayne (talk) 17:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

A Big NO! to No Paid Advocacy

I strongly support paid editing in most articles.
The articles which should be exempted from paid edits would be GAs (Good Article), High and Mid importance articles (as rated by a project) and other articles which receive high page views.
The majority of articles, especially the stub and mid importance ones, badly requires editing. Since these articles are also less frequently patrolled or reviewed by admins, it would be difficult for Wikipedia to enforce that rule.
Clearly a biased or stub article is better than no article.
Wikipedia still has a long was to go when it comes to building up is non-English portfolio as well as simple english arm.
We have to keep in mind that a law or a rule cannot make gravity illegal. Likewise, in a far off country, these rules against paid editing won't be effective.
Besides, whats so evil about making money by editing articles? If a social science university professor can castigate his opponent's theories in Wikipedia (by providing appropriate citations), why can't a businessman castigate the quality of his competitor's (by providing appropriate citations)?
Yes, it does matter when that businessman happens to be Bill Gates or Steve Allen. But for the vast majority of the cases, it would be more judicious to let people be paid for writing an article where there is no such article in the first place.
Once, that article, initially edited (by the greedy) paid editors, and, rated as 'stub', gets elevated to a much higher quality or importance, the Wikipedia admins can kick in and prevent it from being edited by paid folks.
I know that this won't transpire in most of the case (because most articles won't get elevated, even the work of a paid editor) but it surely will be much better than a corporate website, that a visitor will visit.
The great thing about a company's Wikipedia article is that anybody can change it, even its employees. If an employee has discovered shady practices, and got her story reported in the press, which didn't receive any traction, then, if the employer or businessman, both of whom started the article to extol its virtue; gets rewritten (with citations) highlighting its misdeeds.
Then comes an admin who reviews it and make minor alterations if as so desired.
This, compared to the alternative; as with the case of the reader visiting a corporate website, where it extols its virtues and never mentions the expose news story.
This is the loose-loose-loose-loose sitituation.

• The reader is unhappy with the outcome.
• The admins are unhappy partly because the readers are unhappy, and, there are fewer articles.
• The paid editor is unhappy because he can't make money by writing good articles.
• The honest businessman is unhappy because he can't relay his company's legitimate virtues (even by providing citations).
• The activist employee is unhappy because, despite being able to publish a news story, she still can't bring about much change in business practices.

I hope sanity prevails in Wikipedia. Xyn1 (talk) 15:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Clearly a biased ... article is better than no article. No, no, no! No article is far better than a biased one. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Read Britannica and keep wiki articles in padlock state. Also, delete all the controvertial articals such as global warming, the recent financial crises, the invention of telephone, abortion, and half the articles under social science.Xyn1 (talk) 00:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

What do activist employees (whistleblowers) have to do with paid advocacy? Are you saying they are all paid by the ..er.. Pinkies? Staszek Lem (talk) 00:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, some people see that edits by activist employees are same as edits by competing businessmen. Essentially, conflict of interest. I deem there really is no difference between financial conflict of interest and some ideological conflict of interest. Xyn1 (talk) 00:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Delete half the articles under social science? Which half? Xyn1, this is not a forum for your ramblings. It's now become tiresome, and even slightly cruel, to respond seriously to what you're saying. Move along, please. Doc talk 09:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

My experiment

Hello all,

Forgive me first off, I am putting my thoughts here. There are three-four parallel discussions on this topic and I don't have the energy to follow replies to my post on five different pages.

The issue of paid editing has interested me for a little while, ever since a throw-away comment by a colleague of mine that said "I hate Wikipedia, you have to pay to edit that now." However I didn't like the idea of commenting on something I knew little about, so I set myself a little experiment: I wanted to see if I could take on a bounty at the rewards board, and still write a referenced, neutral, encyclopedic article on a notable, sound subject matter, and thus evidence that a paid editing request can still result in a positive contribution to Wiki-society.

The article I wrote was Silgan Holdings. The reward was 75 US Dollars, which I've had donated to the Rabbit Welfare Association. And after observing the article, and the discussions that resulted around the place (which included some comments from Jimbo) I've a couple of thoughts.

• It is a highly contentious issue, I did not have the article up for five minutes before someone was posting on my talk page.
• Though the response was a mix of positive and critical, absolutely none of it was rude, argumentative, or anything other than rational and well thought out.
• At least fifty percent of feedback suggested that the article evidenced a positive side of 'paid editing'.
• I felt no pressure from the 'sponsor', did not have a single message from them other than a thank you email and an email about how to get the funds given to the aforementioned charity. The user did not provide me with sources, nor did they try to provide their own content. As far as I can see they have not touched the article, nor has anyone else other than one user.
• The article is (modesty aside) reasonably well written, neutral and the subject matter's notability is evidenced.
• I was able to create the article with 95% third-party sources.
• It appears that the article would likely have passed all threshold tests for inclusion regardless of the means by which it was created, with the only factor seemingly the time an editor took out to make the thing.
• It seems advantageous to me that I a) have never, ever heard of the company before, and couldn't care less what it does and b) am an experienced user who knows COI when he sees it. I felt quite well equipped to take on this challenge and have found the response very interesting. I suspect a newbie editor would, however, fall into several obvious traps.
• I did also feel an uncomfortable sensation about it, and for some reason felt the need to publicly state that the money has gone to charity. Which is weird: it's not really anyone's business is it?

At the end of the day, I (I think) have written a neutral, suitable article. And if rabbits benefitted by 75 bucks they I'm not going to quibble. But I certainly hope that the experiment may yield more discussion on this topic.

And, I praise all editors involved, I've not seen one ounce of 'negative' argument or rudeness anywhere.

Regards, --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)