User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Wiki-PR and admins

"French says that the firm employs Admins, or high-ranking Wikipedia officers capable of locking pages from being edited, deleting them outright and also banning users and IP addresses from Wikipedia entirely. The site has 1,424 administrators in total, and French calls them an “invaluable resource.”

"According to French, Wiki-PR is in talks with the Wikimedia Foundation to address the complaints and the ban on the firms accounts. Business, he says, is on the uptick since Wiki-PR started appearing in the press."

International Business Times, Wikipedia’s Paid Edits: How To Make Money, The WikiWay, by Thomas Halleck, November 02 2013

French is Wiki-PR’s CEO Jordan French.

I'll just emphasize the obvious: a couple of weeks after the firm is banned from Wikipedia for sockpuppeting the CEO of Wiki-PR is claiming that admins still work for him. And yes, they are still advertising on their website www.wiki-pr.com/services/ that they can still edit Wikipedia directly "using our established network of editors and admins" and will help you "build a page that stands up to the scrutiny of Wikipedia's community rules and guideline."

A serious investigation is needed, followed by some real action. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

They also recently stated that they were scrupulously following the rules because they "do paid editing and not paid advocacy." The best way to fight this is a crystal clear statement that admins can not use their tools for pay, and that editors can not edit in the article space for pay. Until such a policy exists, they will pretend that what they are doing is perfectly acceptable. At the very least, making such a policy makes it clear to their clients that their practices are unacceptable (not many businesses would risk hiring a blackhat firm). --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd make that a "crystal clear statement that admins, bureaucrats, and arbs cannot accept pay for anything they do on Wikipedia." Otherwise they are likely to be biased toward other paid editors, or even come up with myths like "the worst POV pushers are not paid editors." (I didn't intentionally quote anybody here, but I've heard it so often from admins and arbs that it might be a direct quote). Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

As someone who is an admin and has also done a form of paid editing, I am curious why you can't WP:AGF in my ability to reject a job that couldn't and doesn't meet relevant policies such as WP:GNG and WP:NPOV? I've written neutral articles where I have a WP:COI other than financial without problems and I'm happy to give a list to prove it (you could find such a list on my user page in fact). Your "zero tolerance" approach, frankly, will have the same effectiveness as virtually every other zero tolerance policy. The solution here is to devise a scenario where paid editors can exist openly and maintain Wikipedia's integrity. Such a solution might be tough to find, but it is possible.--v/r - TP 01:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm definitely interested in what you mean by "a form of paid editing" and, yes, please do supply a list of the articles you've been paid to do. I'll then go over them and show you examples of what I think is wrong. The general problem is that "he who pays the piper calls the tune." It's pretty hard to stand up to your boss, say "I can't do that" and turn down a paycheck. As far as "zero tolerance" policies being ineffective, I don't think that is true, nor would it be a reason to get rid of them if it were true. Consider embezzlement, false advertising, bribery, forgery, perjury - crimes that are basically about lying - society has essentially a "zero tolerance policy" for these - they throw you in jail for most of these if you get caught. It doesn't stop everybody, but having those laws on the books is far from ineffective. Paid advocacy is similar - by writing here, you are telling the reader that "I am a disinterested writer, not a shill" and then writing in the interest of your employer. Lying is a nice word for it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

"A form of editing" - I wrote it, they posted it. Dennis Lo was written by me and published by someone else who paid me for it. Tops In Blue (version at my last edit), obviously I am affiliated. Medical Education and Training Campus, where I work. Feel free to go through them and "show [me] examples of what [you] think is wrong." (An assumption on your part, one of bad faith) In the meantime, I'll go through your articles and do the same. Let's find out if paid editors make more errors than non-paid editors. Let's find out if the errors your find arn't the average errors of any editor. You're doing a lot of assuming bad faith to think I write in the interest of anybody, let alone my employer. I, like I bet many editors as well, do not feel obligated to take jobs that would compromise my integrity. Your assumption that I'm a liar betrays your position; you're not being objective.--v/r - TP 03:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

P.S. You may want to strike just about every sentence after your first. Ask yourself, which one of us is closer to a block. Me, for doing some paid editing that doesn't violate any policy, or you for some serious accusations about my character which violates WP:AGF, WP:CIVILITY, and WP:BLP? Likening me to "Consider embezzlement, false advertising, bribery, forgery, perjury" is a quick way to get blocked. And even if I were to accept that as a simple simile, your very last sentence "Lying is a nice word for it." is a pretty blatant personal attack. You definitely need to strike that now.--v/r - TP 03:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

(EC)I was, as noted, addressing "The general problem," not you in particular. If you're the type of person who can turn down a paycheck when he needs the money, congratulations, but I don't think that is the general case, nor do I think it proper for an admin to accept money for editing Wikipedia. I'll review the above articles and leave a note on your talk page. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

But you have no evidence that there is a general problem. There certainly is a perceived problem, but a demonstrable one hasn't been proven. I expect that most editors who become administrators have the project closer to their heart than a dollar and wouldn't sell their admin bit. I certainly wouldn't. You're essentially saying that you have as much faith in administrators who are paid to edit as random IPs who are paid the edit. You're ignoring that these administrators have a track record that is completely open that we can check (their contributions). How much do you think paid editing gets someone? It certainly isn't going to pay my bills. When I "need the money" is probably when I am doing my least Wikipedia editing because I'm out trying to make a real dollar. You should spend some time getting facts rather than basing your accusations on assumptions. You need to first figure out how many administrators get paid to edit. Then figure out if any of them violate core content policies such as NPOV, GNG, RS and UNDUE. Then after that, find out if any of them have used their admin bit for paid editing. About the only thing that is directly opposed to adminship is the very latter; and we have an actual policy on that: WP:INVOLVED.--v/r - TP 04:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think you are entirely exonerated in this matter TP.—John Cline (talk) 04:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I've listed the three articles I consider myself in COI with and welcomed a review. Feel free to give my work a critical analysis, but I have no need to be "exonerated" until it's proven I've violated a policy.--v/r - TP 04:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

What you have violated is a measure of community trust; which fundamentally empowers you as an administrator.—John Cline (talk) 05:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

If I have violated the community's trust, show me the community's consensus on the matter. Demonstrate I have violated the community's trust. Where is the policy or guideline backed by community consensus? Where is the RFC with consensus? You have none. The community hasn't decided if this violates community trust. So no, I haven't violated community trust. That's a personal attack and you need to strike that until there is a policy capable of being violated. Wikipedia does not judge ex post facto. The existing policy is WP:COI for all editors, which I have not violated, and WP:INVOLVED for administrators, which I have also not violated. Those are the community consensus. Those are what the covenant I have with the community. I have not broken them and therefore have not violated any trust with the community. Bottom line: You are not empowered to speak on behalf of the community. You can either demonstrate consensus or swallow your frustration.--v/r - TP 12:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

TP, I did not "speak for the community", nor did I represent a consensus. I said "you have violated a measure of community trust", that "measure" being the portion I extended on your behalf; which is now diminished. To clarify further, although diminished, my trust is not exhausted, and I am familiar with the surplus of your good works. I simply lament that deception by omission was a necessary evil in your pursuit of upward mobility.—John Cline (talk) 02:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

John - You can say that I've violated your a measure of your trust. You can say that you feel I've violated a measure of the community's trust. But you cannot say that I have violated a measure of the community's trust in non-opinion voice. That's speaking on behalf of the community which requires a consensus. I understand how you feel, though I disagree, and perhaps it's my personality type that sees holes where others believe they arn't legitimate. But I think that your comments earlier speak from a viewpoint that you cannot determine on your own.--v/r - TP 02:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, each editor that has published a writing that consisted of your words and your ideas; passing them as their own, has committed an act of plagiarism—and you are complicit in that act, if not its chief choreographer, IMO.—John Cline (talk) 04:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

"As far as I am concerned" - exactly. As far as you are concerned. That's not the community, that's you. And plagiarism, really? You'll need to explain that one and back it up with some facts. I'm not here for exaggerated rhetoric.--v/r - TP 04:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

You can not intimidate me! I hope that was not your intent. If something I said is not clear, I will clarify the ambiguous matters when specifically asked. Otherwise, I have had my say; given without charge. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 05:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

No, John, I have too much respect for you to try to intimidate you. I'm saying that I have no idea where your claim of plagiarism has come from and you should substantiate such claims, or in the case of making such a claim about an editor you need to. By "exaggerated rhetoric", I mean that your using a word with a very negative, very charged, and rightfully so, connotation without explaining it or proving it with diffs.--v/r - TP 05:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I understand; and agree! The posting of my thoughts said:

As far as I am concerned, each editor that has published a writing that consisted of your words and your ideas; passing them as their own, has committed an act of plagiarism.

I had hoped to convey the following sentiments (shown as italicized parenthetical prose):

As far as I am concerned (was meant to acknowledge a lack of certainty, while allowing a rebuttal which I would embrace if shown to be wrong),

each editor that has published a writing that consisted of your words and your ideas (this eludes to your clients—as you have said: "Dennis Lo was written by me and published by someone else who paid me for it." [User:Biogerontology] )

passing them as their own (by not identifying the true author, and by default, claiming authorship for themselves—consider Biogerontology's creation summary for Dennis Lo—Created the biography page for the scientists, who discovered fetal circulating cell-free nucleic acids in maternal peripheral blood and invented a multibillion industry

has committed an act of plagiarism (because plagiarism is defined as: "the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own." by Google,[1] "to use the words or ideas of another person as if they were your own words or ideas" by Merriam-Webster,[2] "the practice of taking someone else’s work or ideas and passing them off as one’s own." by Oxford Dictionaries,[3] or "plagiarism occurs when a writer deliberately uses someone else’s language, ideas, or other original (not common-knowledge) material without acknowledging its source." by the Council of Writing Program Administrators,[4] amongst others.)

So tell me; why am I wrong for suggesting that you encourage your clients to embrace plagiarism by the publishing arrangement which you contractually require of them?

I hope my elaboration here has explained the mindset which governed my prose, and, at minimum, helped demonstrate a reasonable foundation for my beliefs (regarding plagiarism) even if by my own ignorance I am shown to be wrong.

I have other reservations about advocacy editing which would become complex iterations if I were to proffer them in prose; easily misunderstood—much harder to effectively explain. Although I'll skip writing of my deeper concerns, I will remain a staunch opponent, against tolerance of its (advocacy editing) practice.—John Cline (talk) 09:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

John, are you not familiar with Work for hire?--v/r - TP 14:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

TP, I am familiar with "works for hire", though I did not know "authorship" was transferable under its tenets. While admitting ignorance of this provision, I do find that the work itself must be listed as a "work for hire", which identifies authorship as "in name only". This precludes the work's "fit" within plagiarism's definition because it is not being "passed off" as their own creation, but rather as a creation they own.

What bothers me regarding your arrangement, is the absence of a disclaimer stipulating it as a "work for hire". I hope you will consider disclaiming this status for your future writings, regardless of whether or not the creative author is named. In my opinion, it should be required by wp:policy as well; just as it is by the US Copyright Office.

Interestingly, a "work for hire" is an exclusive arrangement existing betwixt an employer and an employee; where agency is stipulated by law (see agency law). Considering your declaration of the agreement, you do not qualify as an employee. A commissioned work, which yours appears to be, can only be a "work for hire" if it falls within one of nine specific categories of written works; 1.) as a contribution to a collective work, 2.) as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, 3.) as a translation, 4.) as a supplementary work, 5.) as a compilation, 6.) as an instructional text, 7.) as a test, 8.) as answer material for a test, or 9.) as an atlas. Which of these would you invoke to describe your commissioned works? If they are not one of these, they are not "works for hire", and do not qualify for the exemptions exclusive to this class IIRC. Best regards.—John Cline (talk) 03:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

John, that may be so, I'm not a lawyer. However, as I said, releasing it as CC-0, which does not require attribution, is easy enough.--v/r - TP 14:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I am fairly certain that "it is so", and equally certain that adherence is proper.—John Cline (talk) 04:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• TParis writes, to John Cline, that John has stated that he (TP) has violated a measure of the community's trust, but that he cannot write that in a non-opinion voice, because that would require a community consensus. I think that I understand the point that TP is trying to make, but I see it as an appeal to a will-o-the-wisp, because the community has already demonstrated that there is no community consensus. An editor who has violated a measure of the trust of other editors has violated a measure of the trust of the community, since the community is the sum of its parts. The trust of the community is the trust of its editors, nothing more, nothing less. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I really have no idea how you can possibly acknowledge the community has no consensus on it's feelings on the matter and then say in the very next line that you speak on behalf of the community; or even a 'measure' of the community. You can't quantify that measure so it has no weight. A measure of the community things this whole thing is a load of bad faith. That measure being me. "Measure" is a weasel word that can mean anywhere from 1 - all.--v/r - TP 13:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

TP, you are confusing reality by suggesting my talk page comments are governed by wp:mos! Here, I am bound by the talk page guidelines; having great latitude to create my reply (called wp:or if the MOS is invoked). Here, I have artistic liberty to add metaphoric contrast and colorful prose. You are practically out of line to suggest an inkling of bad faith in my writing's to you; but instead, you assert its entirety as "a load of bad faith".

I hope this is perfectly clear: You have lost a measure of the community's trust! That measure, is the difference of the diminished trust I have for you upon learning that your Wikipedia account is "for hire", and the trust I had when supporting your RfA. That is a real measure! It can be quantified, though you would have to ask something of me, it can be ignored, requiring nothing, or it can be discounted, and called "a weasel of no weight".

My prose is not an attack, and it is not modifiable by an administrative decree of policy enforcement. It simply is part of the discussion; itself freely subject to further discussion. My words are me; exercise caution when suggesting I am not welcome here!, for I am not welcome where my prose deserve censure.—John Cline (talk) 04:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• For the record, I also have a COI with 37th Training Wing which I havent done significant editing on. But I did remove this for which I made this declaration and explained my reasoning.--v/r - TP 04:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

If you want to discuss it here, just leave it here, otherwise please put it on your talk page. Dennis Lo looks like an ok article. I just want to be sure though, he (or his agent) paid you to write this? I think perhaps you are misconstruing what I mean by a paid editor. If he's a family friend who took you out to dinner, and you said "OK you can pay the bill, but I'll write an article on you for Wikipedia," then I wouldn't say you're a paid editor. A minor COI perhaps.

The next 2 articles Tops in Blue and Medical Education and Training Campus are problematic. There is a lack of independent sources, each seems to have only 1 marginal RS (the radio station and the 2 paragraphs in the San Antonio paper), with the rest being Air Force or military contractors' websites (and a blog). Again, I have to ask, why do you think people would consider you to be a paid editor here? If you are just a student on the campus, I'd say you have only the mildest COI - one seen on all campus articles. But if you are a member of the base PR unit, I would consider you to be a paid advocate, putting advertising in articles.

The 37th Training Wing is difficult for me to figure out. There is stuff that should very well be in an encyclopedia - WWII action, Vietnam, the Stealth bomber - but that seems only to have the slightest connection to the training wing - the number 37. With all the deactivations, changes in mission etc. I don't know if they belong in the same article, but I'd defer to what WP:Military says. Again the article suffers from a lack of independent sources. All in all, I'd say it looks like some newby mistakes, but who the editor is does matter. If you are intentionally writing this with these mistakes as a paid administrator, then it is a problem. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 06:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Interesting that you didn't bother to figure out which parts I wrote and which parts were written by someone else. Is this what you call an "investigation"? Tops In Blue meets WP:NMUSIC #6 (4 notable performers, all cited), and #12 (Superbowl performances, all cited). METC, here are some more sources: [5][6] (Author has a COI, publisher does not) [7][8]. So it meets WP:GNG, try it at AFD if you truly believe it's 'problematic'...I dare you. Non-controversial content can come from primary sources so the argument that it lacks independent sources doesn't matter as long as it meets notability guidelines. Dennis Lo - I was paid $100 by a professional acquaintance of his who felt he meet our guidelines. 37th Training Wing should've been your biggest gripe. I linked specifically where I removed negative sourced information. Of course, I had a good reason for it and I disclosed my COI making me in full compliance with WP:COI. Any other questions? I'm impeccably accurate in my COI edits so you'll have to step it up a bit.--v/r - TP 13:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

In academia, before a paper is published, it goes through a peer review process. Some authors have a COI and are required to declare that conflict of interest. Every academic paper published goes through the peer review process and several experts generally sign off that the paper is good, solid research with no major holes. Of course implementing such a system here would be cost prohibitive, but it is what we do in professional research. Let me repeat, for emphasis, that before a paper is published (COI author or not), several experts sign off that the research was well done. However, when we examine the papers in aggregate (as has been done many times, citations available on request), we find papers authored by people with conflicts of interest are 3.5-4 times more likely to conclude a result that benefits the sponsor. In some cases, it is possible to point to specific flaws which slipped passed reviewers, but as a whole, it is the aggregated effect of many judgement calls (some explicit in the paper, some hidden in the online supplement, some are totally obscure), all of which favor the sponsor. Even experts can not usually point out the flaws in one paper in particular (although sometimes it is possible), but the aggregate effect is to bias the result. When new graduate students in science are trained, they are told to check the disclosures of conflicts of interest (see for example, How to Read a Paper by Greenhalgh). They are told to take those papers with a grain of salt. Make no mistake, the authors of papers with conflicts of interest generally have the best of intentions, and the research is signed off on by independent experts, but the net effect is to introduce non-neutral results. We don't have as clear-cut statistical data on Wikipedia, but I think the situations are sufficiently similar that we can not ignore the corrupting tendencies that money brings. --TeaDrinker (talk) 14:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Convenience break

I feel pretty much totally comfortable stating they have no admins on their payroll, but they do have active socks still editing. Darius Fisher has asked for a sit down meeting with me, although he's delayed it several times so far. In the interim, I've been compiling a list of Wiki-PR articles and editors that I'll publicly pst and help neutralize once I've heard what Darius has to say (unless he agrees with the ban conditions or something odd like that.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Even given that the wp:coi policy/guideline is such a wide ranging self-conflicting mess (other than the masterful definition of a COI at the beginning which everybody seems to ignore) it would take a wild stretch to claim that TP's work is a problem. North8000 (talk) 13:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

@Smallbones: Let's be careful not to over-react. I think the strong reaction to French's statement was the inference that French has employees who will, among other things, "ban users and IP addresses from Wikipedia entirely". I read the statement differently, I think he was saying, we have some employees who hold the position of admin. You probably don't know what that means, so let me explain what an admin is. (Edited for clarity)

I do not say this to mean it can be dismissed. I think we need to know more, but I'd also like to avoid making charges that are not grounded in facts. If Mr. French does have admins in his employ, one thing he might do is ask them what an admin does. No admin can lock a page from being edited. I know what he meant, but an admin reviewing his words would have corrected it. Admins don't ban editors. Maybe a picky point, but it means he either doesn't know what admins do, or didn't bother to have his admins review his statement. That doesn't prove he doesn't have admins on staff, but it does mean there's some misinformation.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:58, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I do know what an admin is, there is no need to be patronizing - I started editing here 3 years before your first recorded edit. I don't discount the possibility that French is lying about employing admins, but I can't see any reason why he would do so. As I understand it, Wiki-PR was shown to have used sock/meat puppets and they and all their employees have been community banned for over 2 weeks now. If Wiki-PR does have admin employees - as Wiki-PR has been advertising on their site both before and after the ban, then those admins need to let the community know what's up. Not being shocked by a fairly believable claim that admins are being paid by a completely unethical banned company is the most shocking thing I've seen here. Admins need to try to start cleaning their own house on this, not ignore or try to minimize the obvious problem. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:36, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding. Sphilbrick is saying that French was trying to explain to the readers what an admin is; not you. We're not saying that admins who are editing on behalf of a banned company isn't wrong. It is, and policy (WP:MEAT) covers that. What I'm saying that is your and Tea's comment, "crystal clear statement that admins, bureaucrats, and arbs cannot accept pay for anything they do on Wikipedia", is a zero tolerance sort of policy that clearly is addressing a problem that you haven't proven exists. What has been proven is that Wiki-PR is a problem. What hasn't been proven is that administrators and other vested contributors are incapable of putting the encyclopedia first.--v/r - TP 18:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I see what you mean by "misunderstanding" When Sphillbrick starts a paragraph "@Smallbones" and ends it "You probably don't know what that means, so let me explain what an admin is." I naturally thought he was talking down to me. I can see now, that he was looking at it from French's pov and using "you" in a very general sort of way. BTW, I think you did the same thing. When I asked "you" for examples, I certainly meant you, TP. But after I explained the general case (not talking about TP anymore), then went on to demolish your "zero tolerance" argument and concluded "Paid advocacy is similar - by writing here, you are telling the reader that "I am a disinterested writer, not a shill" and then writing in the interest of your employer. Lying is a nice word for it." I can see where you might have thought that I was still talking about you, TP. Rest assured that I was not accusing you, TP, of being a liar.

I think your reaction, though, shows why admins should not be paid editors. You, TP, started talking about assuming bad faith, personal attacks, banning, etc. etc. If I were a newby, I think you can see how that would be intimidating. Fortunately, I am not a newby and not that easily intimidated, but if you, TP, cannot diagram out the grammar and talk about paid editing in a calm way then you are likely to come across as very biased in your discussions of paid editing, TP.

Just for the record, I still think that admins doing any paid editing is just terrible, and that your edits on 2 of those articles above were not up to notability standards (I've seen much worse, however). I would have liked to see a direct answer to my indirect question about whether you work on the base's PR unit. I should have limited my response to your "zero tolerance" argument to just saying "You, TP, are arguing that we shouldn't have rules just because some people won't follow them."

And I'm still gobsmacked that 2 admins answering here don't see that paid editing by admins is a problem.

All the best, Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a part of USAF public affairs (at any level). I think I mention that on my user page. I write medical training software and make medical training videos. I'm also not arguing anything about rules. I'm saying a zero tolerance policy won't work, not that rules and structure shouldn't exist. But the rules need to be beneficial to Wikipedia and zero tolerance policies don't help the project (look at the attempts to enforce a zero tolerance kind of civility here). We need rules that encourage paid editors to put Wikipedia first and their employer second. It may sound like a fantasy but it's possible. If paid editors were told that they could get blocked for creating articles that shouldn't get created, or promoting articles, then their opportunity to make a dollar gets lost. It hurts their business to put Wikipedia second. By editing within the rules we have, their business can prosper. Which means, they need to be discriminate in the jobs they take. That may be harder for folks who are literally employed by a company versus contractual jobs, but a little bit of ingenuity and we can come up with something.--v/r - TP 00:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The mindset of anyone who is hired to promote any corporate, government, military or otherwise vested interest is to leverage opportunities to please the paymaster. Wikipedia is one such opportunity, and a big one, even if the only thing the shill can bring to bear is a rudimentary grasp of search engine optimization. I'd hazard a guess—informed by awareness of venality, experience of the PR industry, and a modicum of common sense—that the exploitation by WikiPR is very, very far from unique; that the parasitic practices will grow; and that no paid-to-edit admin will ever admit "paid editing by admins is a problem." Writegeist (talk) 22:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

"The mindset of anyone who is hired to promote any corporate, government, military or otherwise vested interest is to leverage opportunities to please the paymaster." And you know this how? You've connected mind reading devices to paid editors? Please do not pretend your exaggerated opinions are some kind of...'fact'.--v/r - TP 00:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The lady doth protest too much, methinks. As I said, no paid-to-edit admin will ever admit "paid editing by admins is a problem." Writegeist (talk) 02:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

And your argument is lost right there. So, what your saying, is that in the act of defending a group (of which I have no idea who else could be a member), is by itself convict-able? Sorry, that doesn't pass muster. What you've got there is Circular reasoning. To paraphrase, "If an admin won't admit paid editing by admins is a problem, then there is a problem."--v/r - TP 02:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

You write a sentence like "So, what your saying, is that in the act of defending a group (of which I have no idea who else could be a member), is by itself convict-able", and you offer the statement "if an admin won't admit paid editing by admins is a problem, then there is a problem" as a paraphrase of "no paid-to-edit admin will ever admit paid editing by admins." Yet you claim you get paid to write and edit an English-language encyclopedia? Can your paymaster(s) really have such low expectations, or are you funnin' with us? What you've got there are distinctly poor writing and comprehension skills. Writegeist (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC) Writegeist (talk) 22:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Um -- might someone point out WP:NPA here, and note that accusing an editor of "venality", calling them a "lady", saying they have "poor writing and comprehension" and saying they are "parasitic" might be construed as being out of bounds here, and anywhere on Wikipedia? Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:22, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) Someone might point out (Personal attack removed) a well-known Shakespeare quote; and further, that "parasitic practices" really rather clearly describes practices, and not any individual editor, as parasitic; and that the words "awareness of venality" do not, in fact, say "User:So-and-so is venal." (Personal attack removed) Writegeist (talk) 21:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC) Writegeist (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC) Writegeist (talk) 20:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Addressing TParis, if I read your statement correctly, you're requesting evidence that paid editing is a problem. I find such a request puzzling since you acknowledge Wiki-PR is a problem. The thread was started by asking what to do about Wiki-PR. I think the best way to deal with them is to have a clear policy tells their customers what they are doing is forbidden and blackhat. Some firms will hire blackhat PR representatives, but most will not. So we explain to the public, in crystal clear language, that they are violating policy--and not just them, anyone who edits for pay. We have to be careful about using terms like "paid advocacy" versus "paid editing," they already exploit these terms. They just claim that they are paid editors, not advocates. So I think the problem is demonstrated. However, if further demonstration is needed, I can suggest there are very real issues that will come up if an admin's paid status is known to the public:

• Wiki-PR could get some great press by saying that Wikipedia's admin are themselves creating and editing articles for pay, but are blocking Wiki-PR to keep out the competition. Any journalist is going to love the "corruption" angle.
• The next guy whose article is deleted may claim that Wikipedia's admins delete articles not created by a service to drum up business for their article creation service. (If your response is "So?" remember we are here to serve the community of editors, not antagonize them unnecessarily.)
• Some volunteers may feel rather silly contributing to, copy-editing, or improving articles which some admin is taking credit and a paycheck for the result. I would be very reticent to contribute to an article when I know someone else is being paid to maintain it, for example.
• The positions experienced editors and admins take in discussions can be called into question on the grounds they are paid--are these editors trying to get me topic banned because the powers that be are paying them to do so? I assume no one here would be so brazen as to take a position in a discussion for monetary gain, but the risk of added drama is there.
• Finally, we exist for our readers. The appearance of impropriety is sufficient to be worrying. Admins are placed in a position of community trust, and we should act like it. People view material coming from a PR person (and like it or not, if you're editing for pay, you're involved in public relations) differently than from an independent observer. Every effort we make towards independence of our editors therefore adds value for our readers.

All of these problems exist even if paid admins actually can separate themselves from their paycheck and edit totally neutrally. The evidence from academia is that they probably can't. The evidence from academic publication is that subtle but substantial bias slips in. I suggest Wikipedia is perhaps the most valuable project ever built by volunteers, and we don't need to make it less valuable to open up a new revenue stream for a few admins. --TeaDrinker (talk) 23:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Wiki-PR is a problem but they are not representative of all paid editors and treating them like they are is a logical fallacy. You have one really bad case and so a rotten apple ruins the batch. I'm going to go through your points one by one:

• We get all kinda of corruption claims about Wikipedia, what's new? Wiki-PR was blocked by community consensus, not the administrators. What people could do doesn't concern us.
• Those claims are made against us already. Watch any admin's talk page who works in AFD or CSD.
• You don't know that. You're trying to speak on behalf of the entire community but you haven't been empowered to do so.
• Those questions would be ad hominem. The question should be "Is the argument right" not "is the arguer is biased."
• We do exist for our readers. In the case of Dennis Lo, a legitimate and very interesting person who should've been covered was not being covered. Me being paid to write the article helped our readers.

Finally, all of those problems exist right now, whether or not admins get paid to edit. And they'll continue to happen for the existence of Wikipedia. Advocates will real biases will always see cabals everywhere. That problem is not related to actual paid editing. You really need to think a bit more because paid editing isn't the cause of any of those issues. It's just another logical fallacy.--v/r - TP 00:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

In the time I've been following paid editing, over the last 18 months, I've focused exclusively on people being hired as short-term contractors. Much of what I've seen is not a major concern - articles being created about marginally notable (or non-notable, as the case may be) people, companies and products. However, also in that time I've seen vote stacking to save articles, vote stacking to have an article deleted, people being hired to remove COI tags, several people hired to have a user banned, article whitewashing, extensive cases of spam links (often very hard to detect if you are unaware of the initial contract), attempts to hire someone to manage dispute resolution in their favour, false referencing to fake notability (in one case by a very established editor), copyright violations, someone hired to insert negative material in competitor's articles, someone hired specifically (as specified in the job description) to make a general article NPOV in the client's favour, articles created on non-notable subjects in order to sneak in links to their subject, people hired to create references to be used to establish notability, and photo-spam of various products. It isn't one bad apple. Wiki-PR is one of the companies, as far as I can tell, who's biggest problem is creating articles on non-notable subjects. There are much bigger problems around.

The real surprise was seeing established editors with good reputations start off with simple, safe contracts, and then (in some cases) move into progressively more problematic editing. Some of those editors, such as yourself and a couple of others I could name, don't - but there does seem to be a slippery slope at work. My major worry hasn't been that established admins will do careful paid work, but that some of the less reputable paid editors will become admins (especially given that many ads specifically prefer administrators), although there is no reason to assume that this hasn't already occurred. - Bilby (talk) 00:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

"especially given that many ads specifically prefer administrators" Ironically, being an admin doesn't give anyone more wiki-power. Admins are not to use the tools on behalf of themselves. We can only push the buttons with community consensus. If an admin action cannot be tracked specifically to community consensus (whether by policy or RFC) than it's a bad action. So, being an administrator doesn't help these companies at all.--v/r - TP 00:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I would conjecture that the reason why many ads specifically prefer administrators is that the ads are aimed at customers who don't know what the function of Wikipedia administrators is, and who think that Wikipedia has an editorial board of administrators. That is my guess. I still think that paid advocacy editing is (as Coretheapple says) a cancer, or (as Robert McClenon says), an existential threat to the integrity of Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

And that's fine. I understand how and why you feel that way. But I disagree and there is no consensus on it.--v/r - TP 03:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Suggesting that "being an administrator doesn't help these companies at all" is either candid naivete, or disingenuous misdirection. Regardless of motives, the counsel fosters a false premise. Operating a Wikipedia account that is "for hire" is utterly incompatible with Wikipedia administration; if we do nothing else, we should ban all forms of commingling the two.—John Cline (talk) 06:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

"The real surprise was seeing established editors with good reputations start off with simple, safe contracts, and then (in some cases) move into progressively more problematic editing" ... I want to hear all about this, Bilby, let's hear it! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The worst case, and the one which really made me think about how to address paid editing, was one where an extremely established editor did some work through one of the freelancer sites. The articles were innocuous to begin with, but a couple of the later contracts were for articles that would have failed the GNG. The articles that were created were accurate, but the sources were all offline and in print, and when I chased them up they turned out to be false - obscure sources with no page numbers used to make it look like the subjects would pass the GNG. I don't think that they put any false information in the articles, just falsified the references. My assumption was that they were established enough on WP to recognise that the articles would be deleted without them, and that we AGF on print sources, so it seemed like a safe thing to try. And, of course, payment was contingent on the articles not being deleted. In another couple of cases the problem was more to do with vote stacking, where people took the occasional contract to write on marginally notable topics, then were offered (occasionally privately) easy money to vote delete or keep at AfDs. I saw a fair bit of vote stacking contracts in the ads earlier this year. In a couple of AfDs I know of, every keep or delete vote was paid for.

That said, I know of one established editor doing paid editing who has remained consistent in turning down contracts if they wouldn't pass the GNG. I don't think that well-meaning editors have to end up breaking policies because they are paid, but it happens. - Bilby (talk) 05:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

• I don't want to disclose more details at the moment, but I had an hour long phone call with Darius earlier today about how he could integrate in to Wikipedia's ecosystem in a way that would be ethical and provide mutual benefit for both us and him. I left the call feeling fairly optimistic, but after fact-checking a number of things he had said and having them come up flat, am significantly less so. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

• Let's be blunt here. He has made a lot of mistakes. Does he want to fix those mistakes? Or not? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Who is Darius? Is he either Wiki-PR or another vendor of paid advocacy editing? If so, of course he wants us to think that he will fix all of his mistakes, because he wants to encourage those editors who think that paid advocacy editing is acceptable. What he really wants is to make as much money as he can, and if he is advertising that his firm will edit Wikipedia for pay, then he doesn't care about Wikipedia as an Internet resource, only as a cash cow. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Darius FIsher is the COO of Wiki-PR. The more people I check in with about the call, the more pessimistic I become. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:22, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like he and his firm and company are banned, and should stay banned. And any admin who worked with them from now on, would be de-sysopped. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

There's still the whole problem of the fleet of articles that his firm has written and is still writing to deal with, however. I was hoping something productive would come out of the conversation. (N.b., I actually wrote the text of the cban in the first place.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

AfD the lot! What are we waiting for? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Well for one thing, finding them. For another... I don't really think AfDing Viacom would be successful. I'm working to compile a list of articles effected by his firm, but have no where near a complete list yet, and no where near complete confirmation of everything that is on my list. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, I have no sympathy for Wiki-PR, delete the bunch. I'm only defending Wikiexperts.us and freelance paid editing (of which I am arguably the latter, not at all the former).--v/r - TP 02:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

To just be totally clear, I'm not kidding about having to AfD Viacom and almost every Viacom subsidiary if we AfD'ed all articles wiki-pr touched, btw. That is why this type of operation is deeply problematic. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Kevin - we can use the WP:CCI format to check each of these articles.--v/r - TP 03:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Something like that might honestly be a decent idea. I'll be away for the next several days, but have at least a couple of hundred definitive articles on my Wiki-PR list, including some rather large ones. Could you (or anyone else) start a discussion somewhere about the appropriateness of using a similar template for this? (I would, but am going camping.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I would except I'm pissed off that a particular editor has decided to retaliate against me for not nodding my head with the crowd and has started throwing tags on my articles. So, I'm not in the mood at the moment. He can't beat my reasoning so he's trying to get me to revert his tags so he can slam me for it.--v/r - TP 03:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

There is absolutely no evidence the editor's tagging is "retaliation" for anything at all, or that he "can't beat [your] reasoning" or that he's "trying to get [you] to revert his tags so he can slam [you] for it." In fact, in his explanations of his actual reasons for the tagging, the editor has repeatedly asserted to you that this is not the case. The way your narrative frames you as being victimized for having taken money to edit, together with the glaring failure to AGF, are remarkable coming from an administrator who is quick to rail against others' expression of opinion about mindset with such as: "And you know this how? You've connected mind reading devices to paid editors? Please do not pretend your exaggerated opinions are some kind of...'fact'." Writegeist (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Slippery slope

If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny.

What I glean from the above discussion is that while theoretically possible to be paid to wr. iteTHE DISR U PTION IS FRe an article, as the writer becomes more comfortable and lets down his guard, the less neutral the editing can become. This tendency to relax can be counteracted with transparency. Should we restrict paid editing to userspace drafts and talk pages? If the work really is good, would there be a problem to get it reviewed and added to the encyclopedia? Thoughts? Jehochman ^Talk 04:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

What you have is a whole lot of people's opinions and not a lot of facts. I wouldn't make any judgements, let alone decisions, based off of that.--v/r - TP 04:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

My interest is in the short-term freelance contracts, rather than established PR firms, so I can only comment there. But I tend to categorize paid freelance editors into three groups. New editors, who applied for the contract because they thought that WP editing can't be any harder than writing blog posts or the other writing contracts that they have done before. They don't tend to stay, as they articles are generally deleted early. Established editors who are doing a bit of paid editing on the side - they tend to overcharge a bit, so don't always get contracts when they apply, but they are in a sense the most risky with the slippery slope argument, as they know best how to avoid detection if they are inclined to take the less reputable contracts. And dedicated paid editors, who do large amounts of editing, almost all of which is paid, and often for very little per contract. There isn't a slippery slope in that case, as they don't so much slide as jump from end to end. :)

To be honest, I generally want to see transparency over outright banning, although my reasons are a bit messy. But it isn't transparency that is the issue, so much as how hard you hold yourself to your standards. Transparency might help, but as it can't be enforced it doesn't stop the problem as such. - Bilby (talk) 05:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The thread above does look like TParis is being persecuted because he disclosed something. Is that right? I believe that people should be encouraged to be open. If somebody discloses a conflict, or outright wrongdoing, we should be kind and help them get on the right side of our rules. As I've mentioned, I don't see much downside to limiting paid editors to userspace drafts and talk pages where they can openly make a case for admission of their hired content. If their content is good, somebody will use it to make, expand, or update an article. Jehochman ^Talk 12:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Some editors don't think that a paid advocacy editor should be rewarded for disclosing their affiliation. That is because some editors think that paid advocacy editing cannot be made harmless, and that it is much worse when undisclosed but harmful even when disclosed. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

TParis, I am struggling to think of an example of where being paid any significant amount to do something does not have the effect of making a person beholden to the person paying. We do not allow public officials to be paid for certain legislative outcomes (and where it does happen skirting the law, it is considered by many to be a scandal and a sign of official corruption). We don't allow reporters for reputable news organizations to take money from people they are reporting on. Food critics do not get to take payments from restaurants. I am struggling to think of an analogous example where money does tend to have a corrupting influence. I think our default assumption should be that, absent evidence from Wikipedia specifically, money will have a corrupting influence. --TeaDrinker (talk) 13:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll layout my mindset when writing Dennis Lo. The employer contacted me because he had previously worked with me on another project unrelated to this. He asked if I could write up an article. I told him I needed 3 days to decide if I would take the job to determine if an article could even be written that was met guidelines. I determined that there was, accepted the job, and wrote it. Now, could the article have been written by anyone without getting paid? Yes. In fact, red links for Dennis Lo already existed in two other articles. I gathered as many sources as I could and wrote what they said. Did that prohibit me from being critical? As seen in the Tops In Blue article, I can be critical of topics I have a COI in (I have a friend who was in TiB at the time I rewrote that article). So what does payment get the employer? Well, he doesn't have to wait for some random disinterested party to get around to writing it. They arn't buying my integrity, it's not for sale. They arn't buying my bit, that's not mine in the first place. As far as I am concerned, me getting paid gets me to write in topic areas I normally wouldn't. That's the only 'effect' it has on me. I'm much more interested in this project than picking up some crappy freelance job that's going to lead to me being asked to leave. My guess is that most established editors feel the same way. I can see where paid editing firms who hire folks who have never touched Wikipedia is a bad thing, but for those of us who have put our hearts into this project, you're making a very offensive claim that we arn't fully committed to the success of this thing.--v/r - TP 13:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The consensus of reliable sources seems to be that even when persons are not conscious of it, conflicts of interest can still affect their judgement. For example, the ICMJE writes that "the potential for conflict of interest can exist regardless of whether an individual believes that the relationship affects his or her scientific judgment." [9] The Journal of Clinical Investigation writes "Authors must disclose all potential conflicts as described below even if they believe their conflict is not germane to the content of the submitted paper". [10] The University of Texas, Dallas Office of Research writes: "The investigator's personal belief that the competing personal interest would not actually bias his or her actions should not be a factor in the investigator's decision whether to disclose the interest under the Policy." [11] The University of Alaska, Fairbanks Office of Research Integrity writes: "Perceived impropriety can result in consequences as damaging as if intentional misconduct had been committed. With increased media, governmental, and public scrutiny, a researcher's reputation, research funding, and employment can depend as much on perceptions of integrity as on integrity itself." The Virgina Commonwealth University Office of Research writes: "A Conflict of Interests can arise in situations in which there exists discord between a primary duty and a secondary interest. While such interests can be either financial or non-financial, they, nevertheless, can yield conscious or subconscious bias in the conduct and/or interpretation of research" and "Accordingly, and whether real or only perceived, all identified conflicts of interests must be addressed." [12]

Do you agree that the consensus among reliable sources is that conflicts of interest must still be dealt with in the normal ways, even when the persons involved aren't conscious of them affecting their judgements? Is there a possibility that the monetary compensation you have received for editing articles has affected your judgement on these matters, even without you being conscious of it? Do you think that maybe the admonition of the guideline WP:COI that "COI editing is strongly discouraged" is in line with the academic consensus and should be followed? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't at all dispute what the academic sources say. What I dispute is that I've given you four articles I have a COI with. Demonstrate, factually, biases in my editing. Keep in mind that it was me who added a controversy section to Tops In Blue, it was me who restored it when someone tried to white wash it. However, my COI with TiB was a friend who was in the band. If you look at where I was actually paid to write (not actually edit but that's not far from it) Dennis Lo, I encourage you to search for sources that are critical of his work. I made a good attempt to find anything and couldn't. If you gave it and try and found something like "Dennis Lo's method isn't peer reviewed" or something in the first page of a google search, well then that would prove me wrong. So I encourage you to give it a try. I've given you an opportunity to put ethical theory and academic opinion to the test. Show facts. Am I editing in a biased manner? Quit trying to prove it's possible and prove it happened.--v/r - TP 00:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not trying to prove that just that is possible. I'm asking about these matters in general, including any voting or other statements concerning conflict of interest and paid editing. Do you think that it is possible that your having received payment to create certain content for Wikipedia has affected your judgement in any such matters, even if unconsciously? I think maybe you have just now said you don't dispute that such is possible (because you say that you don't dispute the academic sources which imply as much), but I'm not sure if that question was understood in the way that I meant it.

If you want negative information concerning Dennis Lo that was not included in the article, I can supply it. I don't think this proves anything about intent or bias, but if you think it would prove you wrong, then you may have it so. For example, there is no mention that Verinata is suing Sequenom, when the action is against Sequenom's use of the patent which they license from Dennis Lo [13]. There is no mention that Lo's procedure for pre-natal diagnosis of genetic conditions has been criticized by scholars for ethical reasons: "Scholars and advocates from various fields argue that NIPD will not only exacerbate current ethical issues in prenatal diagnostic and screening, but it will also create entirely new issues. NIPD, some contend, will erode informed consent, blur the line between medically necessary and non-medical fetal testing, obviate the disability rights movement, undermine disability treatment efforts, and reshape consideration of reproductive freedom. Some scholars have gone so far as to call NIPD a sham and a cover-up for modern-day eugenics." [14] --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 01:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely yes it's a definite possibility and probability in the general sense. But it's not a 100% certainty for all editors. Per WP:NPA, editors should be judged on their edits, not their person. If an editor is advocating, we have a policy for that. As far as those two sources, I wasn't aware of either. However, having now read them I'm not sure why either would be in an article about Dennis Lo. Does the fact that a company that has exclusive license to his patent and is being sued have anything to do with him personally? Perhaps if he has ownership in that company which I have no idea if he does or not. As far as the ethical stuff, I could see a one-liner per WP:UNDUE but the majority of that would belong in an article about NIPD (which it is).--v/r - TP 02:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Imagine a person who has heard a little about genetic screening and thinks that it might be a growth market; maybe she's heard of patent disputes that might affect the market as well though. So she does a little more research on the topic. She reads about a number of different firms and the researchers who license technology to these firms. She is led to the the Dennis Lo article. She reads it and thinks, "Well, Wikipedia is a pretty trustworthy source, there's no disclosure of conflict of interest on the article, and the page is written by volunteers, not by PR-hacks. This article does claim that Lo developed this procedure. You know what, between this and everything else I've read, what the heck, I'll invest in Sequenom, since they license Lo's technology." Now imagine some time later Verinata wins the case against Sequenom, and this person's stock is devalued. This person thinks, "Hmm, I guess I should have done better research." Now imagine after this she finds out that the article on Dennis Lo was not written by an impartial volunteer, but was actually written by an agent of one of Dennis Lo's associates. She is going to feel like her trust in Wikipedia was betrayed. Imagine further that she reads through pages like this and discovers that a person paid by Dennis Lo's licensee tried to prevent people like her from seeing a disclosure of conflict of interest, and tried to prevent people like her from knowing of a patent dispute. She is going to feel wronged and cheated.

No one expects articles on Wikipedia to be perfect and to contain all the information of which one might ever reasonably expect to be told. But as soon as one introduces financial conflicts of interest, any such omission or error can reasonably be suspected as having been caused in some part by this conflict of interest. This destroys trust. This is why the research offices and journals cited are so clear, that even when an author does not believe the conflict of interest affects them, even when there is only an appearance of a conflict of interest, this must dealt with in the normal way. That's why the strong discouragement of COI editing at WP:COI is such good advice: It's just better left to the talk pages. Without readers' trust that articles are not produced in a manner similar to press releases, readers have no adequate reason to read the articles instead of those publications, they have no adequate reason to join and start contributing themselves, and they have no adequate reason to donate to the charitable, educational organization which runs this website. This is why Sue Gardner, Jimbo Wales, and the rest of the Foundation are so rightly concerned about curtailing this practice. Granted, you seem to be rightly sure that you yourself can stand above a conflict of interest in an effective way to produce overall unbiased editing. However, you have no reason to believe that the next editor will be so virtuous, and a precedent that you set by yourself is never set just for yourself. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 11:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Again, you're making assumptions about our readers for which you have no facts. That's anecdotal at best. Discouragement is good advice, outright banning is not. I've already said I oppose zero tolerance policies. The existing policy is a good one. Have I not demonstrated that at every turn I declare any of my COIs? I'm complying with the policy.--v/r - TP 13:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I and anyone else who Googles "Dennis Lo eugenics" or "Dennis Lo ethical" can produce many reliable sources which criticize Dennis Lo for his practices being possibly unethical and tantamount to eugenics, none of which are referenced in the article [15] [16] [17] [18]. Your response and judgement is, and has been from the beginning, that the article as you wrote it, is neutral, meaning that including any such criticism in the article is undue weight. We can produce any number of objective facts, i.e., which reliable sources say what and when, facts which most editors agree are relevant for deciding questions of undue weight. But the final judgement as to whether some mention is undue or not is, in the end, a subjective one. Everyone has her own standard for undue weight, and no appeals to intuition, anecdotes, objective facts, or other argumentation can change one's judgement if one doesn't want them to. If the standard you set for proving to you that there are problems with your form of paid, COI editing is that we have to convince you, on your own criteria, that some specific inclusion of material is not undue weight, you have assigned us an impossible task. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the article in question, but if there is negative information that is omitted, and belongs in the article, then it is not neutral. More to the point, if this article is a product of paid editing, why is that not disclosed to readers? Shouldn't it be? Coretheapple (talk) 23:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a med student, so I googled "Dennis Lo" and those sources didn't come up. I wouldn't have thought to search eugenics but I could've searched on ethical. (My background is computers). I'd argue that one of your sources isn't about Dennis Lo, so to include it would be WP:SYNTH. However, your others are great sources and if you'll save me the "he's trying to cover up his mistakes" then I'll go work on the article myself to include them. However, I've never said you had to convince me. What I've consistently said is that you have to convince the community be obtaining consensus. By the way, my talk page guidelines deal specifically with this. It's not an impossible task to change my mind. Keep in mind, however, that I added criticism to Tops In Blue and it was removed by a disinterested editor. I cover everything I find. Having a medical background would've helped to know what to search for to find the articles you've found. Either way, you're right, I've made a mistake on that article. I'd counter argue that it's not an uncommon one of any editor but it's a mistake and that's what matters. @Coretheapple, we have a {{COI}} template for articles with problems of neutrality. Having an editor with a COI edit it isn't the determining factor in whether to use that tag though. The determining factor is if the contributions by an editor with a COI have significantly affected the neutrality of the article.--v/r - TP 01:04, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

On the one hand you say that it is not impossible to change your mind. On the other hand you say, speaking of me I presume, "He can't beat my reasoning". If I can't beat your reasoning, then it is impossible for me to change your mind. You have a personal testimony based on introspection that your form of paid, COI editing is non-problematic ("As far as I am concerned, me getting paid gets me to write in topic areas I normally wouldn't. That's the only 'effect' it has on me."). Contradicting your personal testimony, we've seen multiple reliable sources which say that conflicts of interests have problematic effects even when the relevant person is unaware of them, meaning that introspection is insufficient for ruling out effects. You doubt that the academic consensus applies to you and say that we should "put ethical theory and academic opinion to the test." That may be needless original research, but I followed your suggestion willingly nonetheless. And the academic opinion passed your challenge to it: Information critical of Dennis Lo's practices which was not included in the article was found with a simple Google search. With all of this, you have not changed your mind. I believe your assurance that it is possible to change your mind. I don't however believe anymore that it is possible for me to change your mind. I now believe according to your other statement, that you hold that I can't beat your reasoning. Thank you for the discussion. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 10:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

In a way, I can understand this user's insistence, in the face of all evidence and plain common sense, that what he did was perfectly OK. If one measures one's conduct not by the standards of society (other encyclopedias and publications) but by the "Wikipedia rulebook," he did absolutely nothing wrong and, justifiably, feels no guilt. I have no reason to doubt this person's good faith. I think he's been upfront here. What I and other critics of paid editing have to appreciate is that a paid editor has come forward and laid it on the line, describing his thought processes honestly and forthrightly. I'm not being sarcastic when I say that he should be commended for doing so, as he has done us a great service. We need to understand and appreciate that Wikipedia marches to a different drummer. Editing for pay is OK here, and efforts to fight it are going to run up against a brick wall of resistance, because Wikipedia rules expressly permit COI editing, including paid editing, as long as certain policies and procedures are followed. Yes, the result is that there are articles, Lord knows how many, that are bought and paid for by the subjects of those articles, and neither the readers nor Wikipedia itself have any way of knowing how many of those articles there are. But ultimately this assault on Wikipedia's integrity is really a problem for the Foundation. Frankly given the mindset here, I am starting to feel like a fool for not cashing in myself. Coretheapple (talk) 12:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

In response to TeaDrinker, I would ask, did User:SGGH become beholden to the person paying in this paid contract? - 2001:558:1400:10:D193:379E:43D1:2BD (talk) 18:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Did you know that in the United States, a lawyer is an officer of the court? Lawyers are paid by clients, but still have obligations to the justice system such as not lying. Expert witnesses, although paid by one side or the other, are still considered to be neutral parties. (A smart expert demands full payment before testifying.) Reporters get paid. Writers get paid. What keeps things clean in these situations is that the payment is disclosed, and everybody knows who's being paid by whom. The main source of corruption is the lack of transparency, because when payments are hidden, people can't be skeptical or make the necessary inquiries to account for the potential bias. I think the first goal of our policy is that when people are paid to edit, they need to disclose that fact plainly. A second protection is to require paid edits to be submitted for independent review before inclusion. I believe these two requirements would make the situation much better than it is now. Jehochman ^Talk 13:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

In the U.S. it has become an everyday platitude that "they have their experts, we have our experts". It is an institution with actually a far worse reputation than Wikipedia, and as a result, science enters the courtroom at a severe disadvantage because no one believes it. Wnt (talk) 15:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Quite so. The lawyer example is rather unconvincing, since the lawyer is supposed to be biased. The expert witness case is interesting. It perhaps highlights perfectly the danger of paid editing. Lawyers routinely shop for expert witnesses, and pick a lineup of experts who will support their case. And when they do testify, if the jurors know they are highly compensated for their testimony, jurors rely on the testimony less because of the pay. There are even cases where we know that experts biased their testimony for their paymasters. In the Raleigh, NC crime lab scandal, it was revealed that the lab was doctoring reports for the prosecutors and excluding exculpatory evidence, which made sense since the lab's personnel had their performance reviews written by the same prosecutors. I disagree with your conclusion that the problem is one of openness. When a policeman takes money from the mob, the corruption would not go away if it were known. That policeman is not maintaining his independence. A judge is forbidden from taking money from litigants in his court; disclosure does not remove the problem. This is a very common problem. In an adversarial system like law, there is a place for paid advocates. Wikipedia, however, can do with fewer advocates of all sorts, including paid advocates. And make no mistake, pay corrupts and makes advocates out of the most honest of men. --TeaDrinker (talk) 05:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

@Bilby I'm with you. A couple of years back, I was involved in 'crowd-sourced' investigations into PR companies 'whitewashing' for clients, wrote it up, and it was mentioned here (I didn't participate in the discussion and, even now, still do not edit related pages - I generally stick to history & other interests). Back then, 'allegedly', a PR company IP edited pages for clients that were identifiable via their website, PR releases & US government mandatory public disclosures. Now? It's (likely to be) that step removed - pay an editor/pay a company that pays editors. I don't think bans, other than for business models that advertise that they can/will circumvent policy, will work. My feelings are messy too. The days when you could catch out (possible) paid editors on IP are long gone. I don't have an answer but I don't think pulling up a theoretical drawbridge and pretending Wikipedia, as it stands, as the 'encyclopedia anyone can edit', can be defend itself using witchhunts and false accusations will work either. Transparency is important, but more important is content. The answer is somewhere in the mess. AnonNep (talk) 19:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

• I've been away from this discussion for a few days. I just wanted to make the general comment that the discussion has been diverted into personalities and side issues (does such-and-such a website really employ administrators?) and away from what it should be, which is a discussion of best practices. Opponents and skeptics of paid editing have been told that it hasn't been "proven" that there is harm in paid editing. This demonstrates again how Wikipedia is in the Stone Age when it comes to this subject. Everywhere in the world except Wikipedia, it is accepted as self-evident that financial conflict of interest is problematic, that at a minimum it has to be disclosed to readers, that failure to do so is unacceptable, because readers have a right to know if the content they read is tainted by financial conflicts. It doesn't matter how ostensibly "neutral" an article appears to be. We don't want to put unpaid, unconflicted editors in the position of having to go through paid work product with a fine tooth comb to ascertain if there is a problem with such content. The content needs not to be there in the first place. We need to join the rest of the world and accept that as a starting point that paid editing is a harmful, "black-hat" practice, especially when not disclosed, and move on from there. It is not a question whether "policy has been violated." I think that everyone agrees that paid editing is permitted by policy. I also feel that paid editors should stay out of this discussion. They have a conflict of interest, and their presence here is disruptive, as indicated by the way this discussion has been sidetracked. Best practices in this area need to be determined by people without a vested, financial interest in the Stone Age status quo, who have made money by exploiting their Wikipedia editing. Coretheapple (talk) 18:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Coretheapple - The only thing that is disruptive are the constant personal attacks thrown at me. Calling me disruptive is a PA and just because you don't like paid editing doesn't exempt you form WP:NPA. But let's get to the core of your argument. You're saying that paid editors shouldn't be involved in the discussion. Let's put it in a different context. "People who have had abortions shouldn't comment on them." You'll only get a single POV when you single out your opponents and disclude them with ad hominems. It's a pretty simple tactic. eg: Their argument cannot be overcome so let's pick a trait to attack. That's a classic DH1 on Paul Graham's hierarchy of disagreement. My central point is that there are a lot of assumptions. You've given a DH3 Contradiction saying the assumptions are a given. The academic sources about conflicts of interest are clear - that's what is a given. What is not clear, and not a given, is the level of harm done. What we know is that Wiki-PR committed some harm. But many editors are trying to point to Wiki-PR as an example of all paid editors. My question is, have I committed harm? Prove it with diffs. My point is that many folks here are trying to apply a zero tolerance policy without actually addressing whether or not paid editing in it's entirety is a problem. Several examples, including myself, have been put forth. The question that I've asked has been avoided. I've been met with aggressive behaviors, personal attacks, folks tagging my articles, contacting my client offline behind my back, and many other tactics to intimidate me into silence because they'd rather do that than actually have to have an open dialogue. The nice thing about Jimbo is that although Jimbo disagrees with many thing, paid editing included, he values the importance of open dialogue. Those pointing to Jimbo for his comments against paid editing should also remember this quote:

I think that in general better decisions are made in a spirit of open and thoughtful dialogue rather than top-down decree. I think it worthwhile to separate two issues - the issue of a community decision by consensus (which requires discussion and poll-taking) and hate speech that may emerge as a part of that process. We wouldn't actually improve things if we shut down open discussion, just to stop a few people from being obnoxious. Better to simply stop the few people from being obnoxious by banning them from the discussion, refactoring their comments, or other such measures as appropriate.

— Jimmy Wales

• --v/r - TP 20:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Please stop the "NPA" stuff. It's crass, it's false. Also, again, I think that you have a conflict, are directly impacted by this discussion, financially, and need to stop. Coretheapple (talk) 20:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

You've quoted from Jimbo, so allow me to do the same.[19] "I also agree that permissiveness is a big part of the problem, and I think there are two reasons for it. First, many people working in their own little areas don't realize the magnitude of the threat. Second, every discussion that arises brings in paid advocates making lots of noise and engaging in bad argumentation to cloud the issue.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)"

While I wouldn't go so far as to say that you are "making noise," I do believe it is fair to say that you are "engaging in bad argumentation to cloud the issue." The fact that you are an administrator doing that, and throwing around cavalierly meritless charges of "NPA" makes it all the more important that you step aside and let non-paid editors discuss this issue. Coretheapple (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Again circular logic. You called me disruptive, I called you out on it, and that is evidence of my disruption? I hate opening a third ANI thread but ill give you a chance to redact yourself or rephrase. The disruption is caused by those doing the name calling. And ill note you continue to make comments about me personally instead of addressing my argument. Thats the side trscking you are talking about and you are causing it. Not me.--v/r - TP 21:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, let's get this back on track. When you've engaged in paid editing, what disclosure have you made to readers? Do you feel that Wikipedia readers are entitled to disclosure when you or anyone engages in paid editing? Coretheapple (talk) 21:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I can't speak for all COI editors, but when I do any kind of editing where I have a COI, paid or otherwise, I seek an outside review by a disinterested person. Since you're curious about paid editing in general, I haven't actually quite crossed that line yet but for argument purposes let's not quibble over technicalities and say that I have. Dennis Lo would be your primary interest then. For that one, I do not feel a disclosure on the main page is necessary because I sought a review at Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Dennis_Lo and disclosed my COI to the reviewer. If I had not done so, then the {{COI}} tag would be an appropriate maintenance tag until someone could come along and do a WP:NPOV check. Per the template documentation, "Do not use this tag unless there are significant or substantial problems with the article's neutrality as a result of the contributor's involvement."--v/r - TP 00:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

(restoring indent) Well you see, that's precisely my point. We seem to be having two different conversations, talking past each other, and that has been the general trait of this dialogue all the way up the line. You're talking about how your edits meet the policy, and how they fit within the four walls of Wikipedia's COI practices. But that is not the purpose of this conversation. The purpose is to explore whether the rules and norms of Wikipedia are adequate, and clearly they are not. In fact, while I don't think it's right for a person with a financial conflict of interest to engage in a discussion about a change in the policy on financial conflict of interest, I have to admit that this discussion has been an eye-opener:

1. There is absolutely zero disclosure to readers as long as an article seems NPOV. You refer to a "POV check." But clearly unpaid, volunteer editors, unless they have a deep knowledge of the subject matter, are in no position to determine if an article is complete, and does not omit any material facts, as is required by the NPOV policy. In the Dennis Lo article, for example, as Atethnekos pointed out above, "I and anyone else who Googles 'Dennis Lo eugenics' or 'Dennis Lo ethical' can produce many reliable sources which criticize Dennis Lo for his practices being possibly unethical and tantamount to eugenics, none of which are referenced in the article."[20] You responded that this material does indeed belong in the article. So obviously the "POV check" that was performed was inadequate. This problem would have been avoided, as far as disclosure is concerned, if it was disclosed to readers that this article was purchased by the subject. (I assume that Dr. Lo is the "employer" you refer to above.) Yet if one goes to the talk page, there is none of the disclosure that you have commendably made here (and I say that your disclosure is commendable; your accepting money to write this article is anything but) that this article was bought and paid for by the subject of the article.

2. A "cottage industry" that has sprung up, consisting of independent contractors who put articles in Wikipedia for a price, totally within the four walls of Wikipedia policies and norms. Again, your attitude of righteousness indignation, which I have to admit repelled me at first, is actually something that we should all commend you for, for what you are showing us is just how deeply engrained paid editing is within the Wikipedia culture, and how tough it is to root out. I had always assumed it mainly to consist of employees of corporations who are assigned to edit Wikipedia articles. But now it has become plain that the problem is much more widespread and pernicious.

and last but not least

3. I feel like a damn fool. If established editors, even a Wikipedia administrator, who has the trust of the community and is supposed to know the rules backwards and forwards, can get away with making money for creating Wikipedia articles, and become indignant when your doing so is questioned (and with good reason, as you are in compliance with Wikipedia rules and norms), then why am I not cashing in myself? Wikipedia is indeed for sale. It part of the culture, it is OK as far as the rules are concerned, and those of us who don't get in on the gold rush are just plain damn fools. If an editor can make a hundred bucks creating articles, why can't I make a living doing this? Coretheapple (talk) 12:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

"If an editor can make a hundred bucks creating articles, why can't I make a living doing this?" - Well one reason is that very few paid jobs would actually be appropriate for Wikipedia. But also, it seems we have a new guideline as of today.--v/r - TP 14:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

"Approrpiateness" is a value judgment, strictly a matter of opinion. I am not sure what you mean by a new guidelines. I have noticed WP:Commercial editing and I'm a bit mystified how that came to pass. As I read that guideline, if that's what it is, it would not prevent creation of articles by the Articles for Creation process, and in fact as a behavioral guideline and not a policy it would not prevent editors from doing anything. It would not address disclosures to readers or move Wikipedia into the real world by even an inch. Coretheapple (talk) 14:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC) There is some question as to whether "commercial editing" is actually a guideline. I see that it was just changed to "proposal." Even if adopted, I don't see it affecting paid editing in any meaningful way, because of all the loopholes, so we'd really be back at square one anyway. Coretheapple (talk) 15:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Fairness

I think it is wrong to sanction people for violations where there is no definite line explaining what is allowed and what isn't. We've had a devil of a time getting people to agree on a paid editing policy (banning paid editing in article space). We really need to come together and agree on what's allowed and what isn't. Jehochman ^Talk 16:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm working on a signpost article that is going to touch on this and might light a path to resolving this.--v/r - TP 18:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

• I do think a non-trivial part of the problem is that we have people who are involved in paid editing heavily involved in creating that definite line. Complaining that there is no line while arguing against any number of meaningful lines is more than a bit self-serving. I'd think the following would be common sense:
  • Admins and functionaries may not engage in paid editing without being approved by some type of ethics committee. This would allow for non-profits to pay people to write articles on (say) English history or some such where there is no modification to include non-notable topics or to white-wash the subject.
  • All paid editors must clearly disclose any COI and carefully describe who pays them and for what. This would be retroactive.
  • All editors who pay others or are otherwise involved in paid editing must clearly disclose that. This too would be retroactive.

Clear disclosure would probably involve a template at the top of a userpage and a link to a statement if the disclosure is complex. These seem really obvious. We can't have admins or other functionaries with a worrisome COI. We need everyone else to disclose clearly and have a low tolerance for COI editors (of any type frankly) who push a POV. Hobit (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a mistake to allow paid editing of any kind, but if there is to be disclosure, there should be some form of disclosure to readers when a paid editor had a role in the editorial process. That would include initiation of the article via the Articles for Creation process, or the article containing text that was proposed by the subject or his agents. This would not have to be a big red "mark of Cain" at the top of the article but might consist simply a disclosure in the article, perhaps footnoted, as in published research. Disclosure within Wikipedia should be completely transparent, and should include the sum that was paid to editors. That is the rule for investment newsletter writers, when they are paid by companies, and I see no reason why Wikipedia should not emulate best practices in disclosure if it is to permit that kind of activity. Coretheapple (talk) 16:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Could this help in our paid article editing problem?

What if the WMF were to create a new project, don't know what to call it other than Wikibusiness. But basically something like TripAdvisor and Angie's List... a business can edit its article puts promotional material or whatever it wanted as long as it was verifiable for example- cant say "#1 camel dealership in Timbuctu! Unless there's a source that shows it is number 1, such as ratings on cameldealers.com, and I hope that's a fake domain name. Requirements for "reliable source" would be relaxed. Editors can add "Reviews" where anyone can edit and add their personal experience with that company, with certain restrictions on profanity and a corporate equivalent of BLP and definitely BLP requirements would stay to protect staff and management personally from being libeled. If we had a place these PR groups could edit "legally" then they might stay off Wikipedia, or at least we'd have a place to direct them to.Camelbinky (talk) 00:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Such a business wiki has existed since about 2006. But Greg Kohs never got much cooperation from the WMF in directing businesses to register there. →StaniStani  05:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

This has been proposed before in several variations. The usual name given to it is PRpedia, with the other encyclopedia, where PR editors are not allowed called NoPRpedia. There would be several steps needed to even try to make it work

• Register the editors so that we know who the companies are. It would be an absolute fiasco if somebody spoofed being, say, IBM, and wrote falsehoods in their name. Actually, that could happen now.
• Have them pay for the site and the administration - you just can't take charitable donations and give them to for-profit companies. This, of course brings up the question of having ads (where the WMF gets paid and the ads are disclosed, rather than the situation we have now, where the WMF doesn't get anything and the ads are not disclosed). The WMF has long said no ads allowed, but I'd go along with this as long if it worked and keeps the undisclosed ads off NoPRpedia.
• The major problem would be that people want to read an unbiased encyclopedia. Nobody would read PRpedia (do you like reading your junk mail?)
• Since nobody would read PRpedia, nobody would edit there either. It would be dead the first day.
• NoPRpedia would be the only game in town, so the paid editors would just go back to sneaking things in on NoPRpedia.

If you agree that this is the likely result, you can see that the advertisers are really just stealing from Wikipedia and its readers. They are stealing ads now, by not accepting that they are not allowed to place ads here, not taking no for an answer, they are just stealing the undisclosed ads that they place here. They are stealing our credibility. They are stealing from our readers who are expecting unbiased articles, but might find that they make badly informed decisions because of our hidden ads. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 05:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I think there would be a better way of setting up "PRpedia" or whatever you want to call it, that would encourage editors and encourage companies to edit it, and most importantly encourage people to READ it. Let's compare TripAdvisor's model so I can show where PRpedia went wrong. One of my businesses is a hotel, so I'll use my own example for TripAdvisor, but TripAdvisor does restaurants, shops, museums, attractions and more. I have complete and sole control on TripAdvisor's "profile" of my hotel to write description, list amenities, add pictures, and "manage my business account". Guests can then write reviews, and rate the hotel. I can respond with "write a management response". Responses are monitored and can get rejected if they violate TripAdvisor's guidelines (I have had one get rejected when I went off on a guest who wrote a response I felt was racist about one of my Asian employees, after I know he was racist in person during his stay). I can also dispute a guest's review and have it pulled if it violates the guidelines, for such as- posted to wrong hotel, is profane, I can report a review on another hotel's "profile" if I believe that hotel paid someone to write the review or offered something to them in return. There is a TripAdvisor staff constantly monitoring and reviewing what is written, and they will even come to the hotel and make sure what I put on my "profile" is an accurate representation of what I have at the hotel (I almost got slammed with a penalty when my bocce pits were not quite done when I already advertised I had them, and TripAdvisor found out, luckily I proved we were done in two more days). Thanks to Wyndham Worldwide's support TripAdvisor has pretty much monopolized the hotel reviewing market, much as Google monopolizes search the request market. Wikipedia's support of a PRpedia (and for the love of G-d change that name please) would instantly give PRpedia a definite edge that Yelp, Google reviews, etc etc don't have.Camelbinky (talk) 16:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't all of this miss the point that Wikipedia is a non-profit site, whereas TripAdvisor and the like are--I presume--for profit sites? Why should Wikipedia provide resources for company PR? What is the logic for such a proposal?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

As I commented just above at the site about towns in India and Pakistan, we should have a clear mechanism whereby individuals can contribute self-published work under a CC license. We'd want some sense of a project scope to keep out the most inane gibberish and spam, and in many cases we would want to accept works from people who are not editors on WMF projects, or do not wish to be identified as such, in favor of identifying themselves as named individuals living in a certain place or doing a certain job. But it should provide a place for people to:

• Describe the story of how their village in Pakistan got its name, who some of the foremost people in town are, how it is laid out and so forth.
• Contribute polished Wikitext, which they hope to see reused in an article, describing the hotel they manage, how many rooms it has, what facilities it has.
• Describe their proposal for a new subatomic particle.
• Provide their real birthday and point out that what was published in a magazine was inaccurate.

For obvious reasons, these contributed primary sources shouldn't carry a very high profile, and we would want significant verification before mentioning them for disputed facts (such as birthdays) and we would never use them for negative BLP information or to completely expunge a birthday given in a reliable source from the article. Nonetheless, they would be the penumbra of Wikipedia, our furthest effort to reach into the vast undocumented space of contemporary life.

Material of this type might be hosted in a special namespace in Wikimedia Commons or Wikisource. Wnt (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

This is not a very good idea. The reason we have WP:V is precisely because we can't rely on what any one contributor thinks is the the true story. For example, anyone could write a story about their village which aggrandizes a particular family or, in the Indian context, caste through the story of a villages origin or through the principal characters of a village. The story may not even be true but we would have no way of determining its veracity. No, we're better off sticking with less information that is verifiable than more information that is not. --regentspark (comment) 01:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC))

Yep. This idea is so far off the wall than when I saw in mentioned in the "villages" thread above I assumed that it was a joke of some sort & didn't bother to respond. For example, it would turn the hellhole that comprise our present articles on caste into a complete free for all. - Sitush (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

2014 Winter Olympics

"How many days are left until the Olympic Games?"

• http://www.theolympicgamescountdown.com
• Template:Countdown
• 2014 Winter Olympics. has started. (refresh)

In advance of the 2014 Winter Olympic Games in Sochi, some editors may wish to polish some of the articles expected to receive many page views.

• Category:2014 Winter Olympics
• Category:Airlines
• Category:Hotels in Russia
• Category:Restaurants in Russia
• Category:Russian media
• Category:Shopping malls in Russia
• Category:Sochi
• Category:Tourism in Russia

Also, some editors may wish to study the Russian language.

• Russian - YouTube
• User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 119#Russian language: video lessons (November 2012)

—Wavelength (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

How many people want to read, let alone polish articles on Russian hotels and shopping malls? Now if we can get LGBT rights in Russia up to Featured status and run it on the day of the opening ceremonies, that would be something. Wnt (talk) 23:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Very nice Wnt! Completely agree. That's the first comment on Wikipedia that made me say "Damn I wish Wikipedia had a "like" button for comments!"97.85.208.225 (talk) 01:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, it kind of does if you're logged in. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

In re: Mr Wales monetary appeals (Archive 146)

The small handful of responses to the original question of the effectiveness of mass appeals to the overall, sustained financial health of Wikipedia, now in Archive 146, were appreciated.

Question: Where can one go to review the current, formal business plan for sustaining Wikipedia (through the mass appeals and other funding streams)? [This is a sincere question, in anticipation of brief directive answer (link).]

Pending that further information, I would only note that a funding campaign be perceived, internally, as successful, and may indeed be so in the short run, but utterly fail in contributing substantially to a reliable overall solution, for the long term. Though generally very successfully, fiscally, public radio experiences a form of "primary donor fatigue", as committed supporters become less inclined to increase support are they are regularly denied such staples as news programming during mass appeals. (This particular irritation is largely irrelevant here, but the notion of hidden deleterious impacts during mass appeals is, rather, the point and does obtain.) As well, any level of dependence on an organizational leader to walk away from a Davos-type context with substantial donations that contribute to regular operations—this is the "stuff" of the entrepreneurial phase of an organization, rather than of a successful, mature charitable enterprise (in this manager/scholar's ho).

As for Mr Wales concern that perception of his livelihood and pursuits are being formed based on a single citation (in this case, the single Chozick NYT story), he can rest assured, they are not, at least in this contributor's case. With humour I would note that the one easily traced reference that was given (granted, in non-standard format) amounts to as many or more citations as some long-tagged wikipedia article sections. In those cases, there appears little hope for content correction or clarification, as Mr Wales accomplished regarding the Chozick citation, in his thoughtful reply. Cheers. LeProf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.9.222 (talk) 01:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you want m:Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan/2013-14#Revenue, Expenses, and Staffing and wmf:2013-2014 Annual Plan Questions and Answers#How did 2012-13 play out from a fundraising perspective?. Donor fatigue has never been a problem. Fundraising growth has always very closely tracked total page views, which have risen exponentially. 210.13.83.18 (talk) 03:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom election - Electoral Commission RfC close by 9 Nov

Hi Jimbo. Thanks for helping with the ArbCom elections. I expect you're already working on this, but I wanted to leave a friendly reminder. Could you please evaluate the RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Electoral Commission and determine which 3 candidates the community has selected for the Electoral Commission and which candidates will be the reserve members of the commission? We are hoping to have the RfC closed by 23:59 (UTC), 9 November 2013 so that the commission will be in place when the ArbCom nominations open on Sunday, 10 November at 00:01 (UTC). Thanks very much for your support. 64.40.54.198 (talk) 02:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very kindly, Jimbo. I really appreciate your help, especially as you were drafted for this role at the last minute. It's very generous of you to support us in this way. Thanks again. 64.40.54.198 (talk) 05:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's hardly last-minute.  :-) Ceremonial/formal things like this have been part of my work in Wikipedia since the beginning.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, before you close this, I want to make you aware that I am a leading candidate by supports in this RFC, however, I've recently made it (more) public that I've been involved in paid editing in the above thread. I'm not sure if those supporters were aware of that when they gave me their support. So I've opened this thread. I wanted to make you aware also of that.--v/r - TP 01:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

British, English, Scottish or Irish being used inconsistently

I cannot help notice that there is a widespread Inconstancy with how famous people, particularly actors and musicians are being described as either British, Scottish, English, Welsh or Irish. I feel that these inaccurate and contradictory descriptions of the British nationality are being fuelled by, and are fuelling, particularly american ignorance about the British Nationality. Its commonplace to find English people, described as British and British people who were Born in Wales or Scotland to be described not as British, but as Welsh or Scottish. However there is extremely few people described as English? So my point is to you, either have everyone born in England, Scotland, Wales or N. Ireland must be described as British or do not describe anyone as British at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.185.46 (talk) 12:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll ignore your "ultimatum" and simply encourage you to word your requests better next time. We run on consensus, not demands. There is no reason we cant call people British and then mention "born in xxx". On YouTube there are great videos done by CP Grey (I think I got the name correct, could be wrong) that explain the complications and intricacies of the relationship within the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland, and between the UK and its dependencies such as Isle of Mann, the Channel Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibralter [Gilbraltar], etc.Camelbinky (talk) 14:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• Huh... and if that is not confusing enough, then consider the term "British English" :-). Well, it might be the case how some Americans think "English" is a language, while "British" is a heritage, and not so many know when England became Great Britain. Also, there are many people who are describing "Scottish" as "Scotch" (while not even drinking it), and the use of Scotch Tape (brand name), packaged in a Scottish plaid, for which Wikipedia did not even have an entry yet, is also quite confusing.... However, thank you for reminding us of the issues. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

As an aside, my experience is that most of the contortions regarding this have come from conflicting pronouncements from participants in the eternal the range war on the eastern side of the pond. North8000 (talk) 14:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I love C.G.P. Grey´s videos, they´re awesome! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

On 'describing "Scottish" as "Scotch"'... isn't it Scot or Scots with no 'ish' about it? ;) AnonNep (talk) 15:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

England didn't "become" Great Britain in that it stills exists, and a Scotsman would be very confused at you referring his tartan kilt as "Scottish plaid". The whole situation is ridiculously complicated and not many natives could give you a decent explanation of the nuances of GB, UK, Britain, England, British Isles…ISO needs to step in Jebus989^✰ 15:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

There are reasons for the inconsistency. For many British people their connections with a particular part of Britain are unknown, and some would think it inappropriate to be associated with a particular part of Britain (based on what?), but for people like Sean Connery, who is a strong supporter of the Scottish National Party and has apparently said he will not return to Scotland (from the Bahamas) until it becomes independent, it seems appropriate to give his nationality as Scottish write that he is Scottish (rather than British) [changed to avoid confusion with citizenship etc. --23:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)]. See also the essay Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom. --Boson (talk) 15:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

British is a nationality - i.e. an adjective describing a person's legal status as a citizen of the UK (there is no such thing as English, Scottish or Welsh citizenship). English, Welsh and Scottish, are ethnicities. Being born in in Scotland is neither sufficient nor necessary to assign Scottish ethnicity to a person. Ethnicity is about descent and cultural heritage and affinity. Great Britain is the name of an island which contains most of the land area of England, Wales and Scotland - some parts are on other islands. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I mean Kingdom of Great Britain, formed 1 May 1707. -Wikid77 00:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

For clarity- Great Britain is an island, not the name of the nation-state. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the name of the sovereign nation, United Kingdom or UK for short. Great Britain does not even encompass all of England, Scotland, and Wales, as each of those countries have islands (Isle of Wright, Orkney Islands, Shetland Islands) It is incorrect to use Great Britain for the name of the nation for the same reason it would be incorrect to call the USA by the name Alaska. (Yes, there is a "Lesser Britain" by the way, it is the Brittany region in France).97.85.208.225 (talk) 16:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

That is all very interesting and may well be technically correct — albeit utterly ahistorical. "United Kingdom" is a 20th Century construct. In previous years the country was known as "Great Britain" or (even more incorrectly) as "England." Carrite (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, I was referring to people born in the Kingdom of Great Britain, formed 1 May 1707, by the Treaty of Union between Scotland and England (which included Wales), before becoming the UK in 1801. -Wikid77 00:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

As a fictional character played by Harrison Ford was quite rightly told, "you be careful out there, among those English". E&OE for the exact phrasing, as per usual with my quotes. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like Witness (1985 film). -Wikid77 00:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• Another complication is Scotch-Irish American, who are essentially an Ulster Scots, or other Irish protestant, who moved to America. If you believe our article (looks ok to me), "Scotch-Irish" is a very old, but forgotten, term in England which was occasionally used in America rather than just "Irish" until Catholic Irish started coming en masse, when the protestants began using "Scotch-Irish" more often. Historically, this ethnic/religious group is very important in the US, e.g. during the Revolution, on the frontier, many, many presidents. If they use "Scotch-Irish" for themselves, I don't think we can outlaw it here. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• We are what we say we are. I am English. Fiddle Faddle 17:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• Nationality and ethnicity are conflated on WP continually. There's little point in debating the matter here or anywhere, the question won't be resolved no matter how many millions of characters of text are expended. Carrite (talk) 19:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC) /// Addenda: @FiddleFaddle. I 100% disagree with your perspective, just so you know. We are what we are. Carrite (talk) 19:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I assume the person who started this thread was talking about the opening paragraph of many biographies ". . .is a British/English/Scottish . . .", which is a matter of identity rather than what it is in your passport. However we define the terms, I would expect Vidiadhar Surajprasad Naipaul to be identified as a British writer, Stephen Jones to be identified as a Welsh rugby player and Rabbie Burns to be identified as a Scottish poet. One definition of nationality in The Chambers Dictionary (a Scottish dictionary , I believe) is "a national group (often one of several) forming a political state". Normal usage may differ between the US and the UK (and possibly between common parlance and official usage). The UK is a state that comprises several countries; the USA is a country that comprises many states (e.g. Texas and California).--Boson (talk) 23:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

And a person from the USA is an "American" from North America, but not everyone from the Americas is an American; so we can create more confusion. -Wikid77 00:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Great joke about Rand Paul and Wikipedia I read today

"Senator Rand Paul said he'd resign his office for plagiarism but he cant find a resignation speech on Wikipedia"Camelbinky (talk) 14:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC) Perhaps we should all help write one and see if he uses it?Camelbinky (talk) 14:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

See File:Nixon resignation audio with buzz removed.ogg Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Resignation speech. ;-)--Mark Miller (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Great joke I read about on Wikipedia today: Rand Paul. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

URBLP Backlog at 1387

Unreferenced BLPs backlog is at 1387. Help would be appreciated cleaning up. Posting this notice per an earlier request by Jimbo that I post here when it gets high. Gigs (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Not acceptable! I've mentioned this at Wikipedia talk:Did you know as well (in a slightly biased way, but it's important.) Everyone should set an example by fixing at least one. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Ramtha's School of Enlightenment

Hi Jimbo and anyone else reading this! I'm looking for help on the discussion page for Ramtha's School of Enlightenment.

I have researched the school and written a new version of the page that I would like other editors to consider. I've done this work on behalf of the school, though I am not a member of the school, to address some sourcing and neutrality issues in the current version. l have received some advice from a more experienced Wikipedia editor who has suggested I not make any edits to the page myself. Instead, I've been leaving messages on discussion pages and Wikiprojects for a little over a month now asking for help here, but have had a very hard time finding editors who are willing to read the draft, judge it on its own merits and compare it to what is on the page currently. I have made a little progress with a few editors who took interest in the page, but since November 1st I haven't received any replies.

The first half of the discussion about updating this page contains my notes on what I feel is problematic with the current version and the changes I've made in my draft. Because the conversation got so long and went quiet I prepared a summary of the discussion that explains what has been discussed and done so far. I think it might be a good place for someone new to start reading from.

I'm hoping that I can get help here to update this page. I am more than willing to discuss my draft and make any agreed upon changes. Please let me know if you can help. Thank you. Calstarry (talk) 00:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Very good, thank you. I invite other editors interested in the issue of paid advocacy to help me review this page.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Jimbo. If anyone has any questions, perhaps it would be best to leave those messages on the Ramtha's discussion page so the conversation is all in one place. Calstarry (talk) 17:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Pending changes on BLPs

I'm a little confused at how a brand new editor managed to insert a change to a BLP article, with no review required: [21]. In this case, the insertion is borderline OK, although the accusation made about wasting parliamentary time is not mentioned in the source cited, and is clearly not established fact so some rewording was needed. However, more generally, I thought the whole point of pending changes is that this kind of potentially libelous material can't end up live on the wiki in the first place. Does this rule only apply to selected BLPs? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Despite 60% support for it, PendingChanges is not in general use. It's a long story.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• There has also been a tendency to allow many questionable edits to slip past reviewers, such as when scanning through the Special:RecentChanges. -Wikid77 13:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Which finance topics to add

Jimbo, I am wondering which articles we need to add about finance. We have a general article on "Moving average" (with weighted moving average), but long ago, you had mentioned "trailing moving average" and we also need to explain similar issues for a "leading moving average". We still need an article to explain how interest is typically computed daily for a "commercial loan". What other finance articles could be added? -Wikid77 13:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Paid editing

We have had long discussions about paid editing. I have taken the most evolved draft of the paid editing policy proposals and copied it to Wikipedia:Commercial editing, and marked it as a guideline. Please have a look. We may proceed to have a discussion whether to upgrade that page to policy.

Jimmy, your comments would be very helpful to establish consensus. We have a parade of editors who drop by at every proposal and state oppose with fatuous reasoning. If there is a paid editing problem, it is not unreasonable to assume that the paid editors would monitor these discussions and do whatever they could to frustrate consensus. Jehochman ^Talk 13:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing in WP:Commercial editing that prevents creation of articles via the Articles for Creation process, and neither does it prevent paid editors from circulating drafts of text for articles and having it incorporated within articles. So I don't think this accomplishes much of anything, other than to put in writing the status quo. Coretheapple (talk) 14:48, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The status quo clearly isn't changing one way or the other on this question, so there's no harm in putting it in writing, eh? Carrite (talk) 16:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Now having read the proposal, I find it unacceptable because it focuses upon the editor rather than the edits, prohibiting paid editors by rule; yet at the same time recognizing that real life identification of such paid editors is expressly prohibited under WP rules. This is absolutely unworkable, yet another attempt to move the status quo where it is not going to go. We've got to make a choice: either anonymous editing or a prohibition of paid editing. You can't have them both, it can't work. Failing an end to "outing" rules, concentrate on the edits (NPOV and sourcing rules) not the editors, that's as far as things are going to go... All that a formal ban of paid editing + anonymous editing does is drive the paid editors underground, making their potentially problematic editing harder to locate and supervise. Carrite (talk) 16:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 16:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Any rule regulating paid editing, by definition, necessarily focuses on the editor and not the content. The absence of such a focus is the weakness in the status quo, and is the flaw in the current COI rules. It says in boldface: "when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." That makes COI an entirely subjective issue totally existing within the mind of an editor, rather than an objective fact caused by payment or other factors. Anonymity does conflict with this. However, by making paid editing in all its forms a black-hat practice, a prohibition would draw clear lines that transgressors would be unethical to cross, as doing so would violate site policies. Right now, a paid editor can do pretty much anything and it is allowed by the rules. If paid editing is prohibited, a paid editing firm cannot advertise that it can "get you in Wikipedia" without admitting that it engaged in a practice that is violative of Wikipedia rules. Wikipedia can advertise, on its main page, that organizations engaged in such business do so in violation of Wikipedia policy. That would go a long way toward curbing the practice. Obviously unethical and unscrupulous people will evade such a rule, but they would evade any rule. That is not an argument for not having rules. Coretheapple (talk) 17:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

What you propose are ceremonial and utterly unenforceable rules that will have no effect other than to drive the paid editing that has happened, is happening, and will always happen further underground. What needs to happen is to bring the underground paid editing into the light by recognizing the fact that it is not prohibited under policy and guidelines (which is true) and making it non-punitive for such editors to follow recommended practice of declaring COI and making their work more readily available to scrutiny. To my mind the fundamental defect with WP is the fact that any bozo with a computer can create an account or not create an account and make an unsupervised change to content. That's the problem that needs to be fixed, the fact that paid agents can corrupt the database is a symptom of the illness, not the cause. Vandalism is likewise enabled by our ongoing failure to end the cult of anonymity. —Carrite (logged out due to a WMF server glitch). 24.20.128.148 (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Message on mail

Hi Jimbo, on November 4, i sent you an e-mail from address dan15i @ yahoo.com. Can you read it please and give me an short response or negative or positive so i know what to do. Thanks XXN (talk) 18:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)