User:Jimbo Wales/Paid Advocacy FAQ
This is a preliminary page, in flux, and being edited by multiple people. Please don't take anything on this page as officially being my position until such time as I "freeze" the page and endorse it!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
What I'd like to see here is a concise statement of my position, followed by a series of questions and answers. I'd like these to actually be "frequently asked" questions for the most part, as some of the same arguments come up again and again.
My position is relatively simple: I am opposed to people who are paid advocates being allowed to edit in article space at all, and extremely supportive of paid advocates being given really helpful paths to assist in our work usefully and with honor.
Jimmy Wales' position on paid advocacy
I am opposed to allowing paid advocates to edit in article space at all, and am extremely supportive of them being given really helpful paths to assist us in our efforts to be comprehensive, accurate and authoritative with honor.
This is a very simple ‘bright line’ rule that constitutes best practice: do not edit Wikipedia articles directly if you are a paid advocate. Instead, contribute proposed edits to the talk page, and escalate to appropriate places on Wikipedia if you are having trouble getting people's attention.
FAQ
Q: What constitutes paid advocacy?
- A: Receiving a payment to promote the interests of a client or employer, as happens in the public relations industry and in the communications departments of many kinds of organizations, is a form of paid advocacy. The reason for doing this is generally to maintain a certain point of view about the client in the eyes of the public.
- Paid advocacy in general can be honorable and valid. Our policy should not be construed as a slight against paid advocates everywhere, but rather a ban on unethical forms of advocacy within the Wikipedia context.
Q: Why should there be a ban on accepting payments for advocating in Wikipedia articles?
- A: The vast majority of edits to Wikipedia articles are made by unpaid volunteers. This helps to ensure that Wikipedia can cover a truly encyclopedic range of subjects in a neutral way. In contrast, paid advocates show interest mainly in editing the articles of corporations, organizations or individuals who are able to use their wealth to influence the editing process.
Q: Under the updated policy what types of edits can be made by paid advocates?
- A: Paid advocates will be required to follow the Wikipedia:Bright Line engagement strategy and use article talk pages, noticeboards, WikiProjects, and userspace drafts to discuss topics on which they are acting as an advocate.
Q: What types of edits should not be made by paid advocates?
- A: Paid advocates should never directly edit any article on a topic for which they are an advocate.
Q: The terms "paid editor" and "paid advocate" are used a lot in discussions. How are they different? How are they the same?
- A: There are huge distinctions between the two terms. Imagine a history professor specializing in World War I at a University which recognizes the value of contributions to Wikipedia, who receives flexible time at work to edit articles and who works to improve entries about World War I. Such an editor is not advocating anything. Now imagine a PR representative for a consumer brand whose job is to work online to improve the image of the company and the brand. Such an editor is an advocate.
- It isn't hard to understand this distinction, and I have found quite consistently that those who raise this point are simply paid advocates trying to confuse the issue.
Q: Should any editor be allowed to make uncontroversial edits to articles, such as removing obvious vandalism?
- A: Under existing Conflict of Interest policy, any editor is allowed to make uncontroversial edits, such as removing vandalism or libel. The Bright Line engagement strategy would require all requests by paid advocates to remove material of this kind to be made through channels such as the article talk page or ANI.
Q: Would the Bright Line strategy make it harder to remove disruptive material from articles quickly?
- A: The first port of call for a paid advocate concerned about the general content of a Wikipedia article should be the talk page of the article. Comments and edit requests added to talk pages are usually receive prompt replies. If the material is seriously disruptive, the matter can be raised at the Administrator's Noticeboard, which should produce a response from administrators and experienced editors, often within a few minutes. See also Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.
Q: Yeah, that's nice, but I see so many paid advocates advocating freely. Why should I listen to anything you say?
- A: Because it is in your best interests to do so. If you want to be successful as a paid advocate, you must obtain the respect of the community. If other editors know that you are a paid advocate who respects the boundaries set by Wikipedia, you are more likely to get the co-operation necessary to build good articles, and are less likely to find yourself frequenting ANI, or end up being blocked or banned. If the community respects you, your work on Wikipedia will be of a better quality, you will get more clients and you will be a better compensated paid editor.
Q:Wouldn't all the same arguments apply to editing a Wikipedia biography about yourself? Being paid by X to edit an article about X has a similar COI to being X and editing an article about X. Yet while editing your own BLP is discouraged, it is not outright prohibited.
Q: Should administrators and bureaucrats be allowed to function as paid advocates?
- A: Since there could be a conflict of interest between their roles as administrators and bureaucrats and their duty toward their clients as paid advocates, no editor can be an administrator or bureaucrats and a paid advocate at the same time. Editors may, of course, take up a paid advocacy position after resigning as an admin or bureaucrat, or by requesting the suspension of their sysop tools for the duration of a paid advocacy assignment.