User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Bright Line Rule: self-COI exception?

Jimbo, since you are an expert at the Bright Line Rule and presumably User:Guy Macon is not, could you speak to Macon's claim that the Bright Line Rule does not apply to User:28bytes' authoring a Wikipedia article about a software product that he was also marketing for sale to the public? Does the Bright Line Rule really only apply to "paid advocates", while those with a personal and direct financial conflict of interest are exempt? - 2001:558:1400:10:60BE:E938:FAFA:1EC7 (talk) 14:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I was quoting one of the multiple occasions where Jimbo has made it crystal clear what his bright line rule is and is not.

"The Bright Line Rule is about paid advocacy editing - i.e. someone who is being paid to write on behalf of a client or employer. Nothing even remotely similar to that is involved here. While the edit might be legitimately be debated on other grounds, the Bright Line Rule as a best practice has nothing whatsoever to do with this kind of case."[1] -- Jimbo Wales, 5 December 2013 (Emphasis Added)

I would also point out that the consensus of the Wikipedia community on this is also crystal clear:

Wikipedia:No paid advocacy

Wikipedia:Paid editing policy proposal

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest limit

For the record, I fully agree with the advice found in our Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Guy Macon, you have selected one instance where there was no financial conflict of interest (the spouse of a spouse's client), and then used it to try to apply to this instance where there was a financial conflict of interest. At best, you're being naive; at worst, disingenuous. Let's wait for Jimmy Wales to respond; obviously, the intent of the question was not to gain your opinion about your opinion. - 2001:558:1400:10:60BE:E938:FAFA:1EC7 (talk) 19:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Rather than speaking to the specific example, about which I know too little to comment, I would say that in principle there is no material difference between being paid to write on behalf of a client or employer just because one is self-employed. I wouldn't regard that as an exception at all.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

That's what I thought you would say, Jimmy, and I agree. Thank you for confirming my belief that Guy Macon was off base in his assessment of the Bright Line Rule. - 2001:558:1400:10:60BE:E938:FAFA:1EC7 (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Every time I add an image to Commons, and in particular Wikipedia, I am in deliberately raising my exposure, which in turn may raise sales of my images. Should I stop? Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

No. Every Wikipedian who does good work may impress someone somewhere and in some way improve their financial situation as a result. That isn't the point. As a side note, I have not given much thought to COI at Commons but it strikes me that because commons functions as a repository, the issues become somewhat different.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

If the bright line rule applies to the self-employed, then it's even closer to conflicting with BLP than I thought. People are normally allowed to edit articles about themselves under certain circumstances. If editing an article about your employer is prohibited, and that applies to cases where your employer is yourself, that would seem to prohibit you from editing an article about yourself.

(Note that it is no answer to say "you're only prohibited if there's a financial interest"--the whole point of saying that you count as your own employer is to state that your personal interest is equivalent to the employee's financial interest. If being self-employed is like being paid, and being paid means you can't edit an article with the wrong birthdate for your boss, then you can't edit an article with the wrong birthdate for yourself either.) Ken Arromdee (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The BLP emergency exceptions trump everything. Even in BLP situations, best practice under the bright line rule is not to edit about yourself to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. But of course exceptions for emergency situations are valid. There is no conflict at all between the Bright Line Rule and BLP - they are 100% consistent and while there may be some interesting borderline cases (1) I can't think of any and (2) they will be borderline cases just as all rules have borderline cases and therefore not valid objections to the general principle.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

If there are exceptions for any reasons, even BLP emergencies, then the rule isn't so bright line any more, is it?

Furthermore, if there are exceptions, wouldn't the argument for having such exceptions work in reverse? That is, if you normally can't edit an article about yourself but you can under the BLP emergency exception, why wouldn't there be a BLP emergency exception letting you edit an article about your boss, with a similar justification? Sure, the latter is different because you could always phone up your boss and ask him to make the change himself, but I doubt that that's what you're suggesting. Ken Arromdee (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

If Wikipedia takes action against a PR person for removing clear defamation about his company, we're going to have a PR problem ourselves. WP:IAR means that there are no "bright line rules" without exception, except the one about trying to improve the encyclopedia. Wnt (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I've also already pointed out that IAR and bright line rules don't mix.

I'd also argue that improving the encyclopedia isn't a bright line rule either (and, of course, that IAR is wrongly phrased when it invokes improving the encyclopedia). I've heard, more than once, the argument that we shouldn't remove information based on respecting a subject's privacy or other personal concerns, because that benefits the subject personally but makes the encyclopedia less useful for people who want to find the deleted information, and that's the opposite of improving the encyclopedia. My reaction in this situation is improving the encyclopedia be damned, at some point improving the encyclopedia at the cost of harming someone isn't worth it.

(You could define "improving the encyclopedia" such that by definition an encyclopedia that harms someone has not been improved, but that's cheating. By that reasoning "improving the encyclopedia" means nothing at all.) Ken Arromdee (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales: and @Guy Macon:, any consensus of the Wikipedia community on PAE (Paid Advocacy Editing) at the links Guy mentions DOES NOT have much relevance; it is trumped by a)policy and b)the law. Because PAE is flat out illegal. If User:28bytes authored a Wikipedia article about a software product that he was also marketing for sale to the public, and didn't prominently disclose it, that user has broken the law (provided the law was in force at the time when the user did so, which it looks like it was NOT). FTC regulations bar PAE, and they apply to any edits to wikipedia. "All editors are expected to follow United States law on undisclosed advertising, which is described by the Federal Trade Commission at…" - and that is from an actual wikipedia policy guideline. Is ancient behavior cause to go after an otherwise good user? No, not IMO. --Elvey (talk) 01:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Elvey, I'm with you up to the point that you said that WP:COI is "actual Wikipedia policy." It isn't, which has been a source of frustration for many of us. I just had a PAE rub that in my face very recently. It isn't, and it isn't going to be. Coretheapple (talk) 01:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

May I have a reference to an actual law or court ruling supporting the claim that "PAE is flat out illegal" in the US please? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has lawyers and any Wikipedia policy based on legal concerns ought to be sent by them first. You really have no business proposing a change in policy on the grounds that something is illegal, when you're a layman with no legal training. Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

...a layman who went strangely silent when i asked for a reference to an actual law or court ruling supporting the claim that "PAE is flat out illegal" in the US. I call shenanigans. No such US law exists. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

FTC 16 CFR Part 255 is relevant.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo, if you haven't gotten an opinion from the WMF which says that FTC 16 CFR Part 255 is relevant, how do you know that it is? It may sound like it would be relevant if you interpret words in a certain way, but it would take a lawyer to know whether that's the interpretation that the law would accept. And you're not a lawyer. Ken Arromdee (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually not. That rule (255) specifies "advertisements" and as everyone knows or ought to know, Wikipedia articles are not, per se, advertisements. Any overt ad in an article may be readily deleted or emended by any editor, so the FTC rule does not apply. The examples presented in that section (255) clearly bear no resemblance at all to Wikipedia's status. 255.5 presents some examples which might impact Wikipedia if Wikipedia allowed "commentary from editors" to remain in articles (their personal opinions or views on a product or service for which they are compensated). As long as editors can not cite their own work concerning a product or service for which they are compensated, the Wikipedia articles do not compare with any examples. I am amused, moreover, that it is clear that book reviewers under 255.5 must declare that they got the book for free -- since pretty much everyone knows that review copies are sent out from publishers. And, technically, the FTC should require film reviewers to pay for tickets -- but again, people who do not know that reviewers in general get "free stuff" are disingenuous. Since Wikipedia does not allow such "ownership of edits" (others do not alter the reviewer's comments in a newspaper, etc.), the issue does not arise here. IANAL, but I strongly suspect the WMF legal team would agree. Collect (talk) 14:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

If, as Jimbo claims, FTC 16 CFR Part 255 is relevant, one can only wonder why the WMF sent a cease and desist letter to WikiPR[2] (which cites violating our terms of use and our trademarks, but does not cite any specific law or regulation, and which mentions potential future litigation, not prosecution) instead of contacting the FTC and seeking prosecution.

I think that what is going on here is pretty clear. The quote "any consensus of the Wikipedia community on PAE (Paid Advocacy Editing) at the links Guy mentions DOES NOT have much relevance" says it all. Somebody doesn't like the community decision (I don't much like it myself, but I follow consensus even when I don't agree with it) and is grasping at straws in an attempt to ignore that decision. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I suppose I'll comment here as a COI contributor who has studied the legal issue. I think because Wikipedia is different than other crowd-sourced websites, the exact application of the law is ambiguous. For example, on other websites each piece of content has a distinct author and often their comments represent personal opinions. We don't disclose any authorship information to readers at all, which makes it difficult to disclose when an author has a financial connection.

Rather than citing exact passages from the law, I would look to its basic principles. It's intended to prevent covert advertising and corporate interests that purport to be part of a grassroots movement. CorporateM (Talk) 23:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

A bit of a correction/clarification. I thought a specific passage was being cited, but it appears it was the entire document. I would take it for granted that the document is relevant, the question being to what extent and in which circumstances. CorporateM (Talk) 02:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I, err…, apologize for having a life; I've been AFK for a couple wonderful days. I have little expectation a reasonable debate with Guy Macon partly because, I just realized, I have seen Guy make edits on behalf of the powerful credit reporting agency Moody's that I think only a paid advocate would make, that is, I strongly suspect I've witnessed Guy's involvement in criminal activity. The FTC stated (in March 2013) that the Guides

"apply to “any advertising message . . . that consumers are likely to believe reflects the opinions, beliefs, findings, or experience of a party other than the sponsoring advertiser . . . .” ⁹ The Guides refer to advertising without limiting the media in which it is disseminated.:⁹ 16 C.F.R. § 255.0(b)."

So, the Wikipedia article edits Guy made are advertisements, and everyone ought to know that such edits are advertisements. My reading of the Guides is that the FTC indicates that a paid editor would be considered an endorser and liable for any false statements she made on wikipedia. Furthermore, the seller is also liable for misrepresentations made through the endorsement. (See Examples 3 and 5 on page 4 at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2009/10/091005revisedendorsementguides.pdf.)

Furthermore, per § 255.5, (page 10): The paid position of the editor must be fully disclosed, because it might materially affect the weight or credibility of the endorsement (i.e., the connection is not reasonably expected by the audience), so such CoI disclosure in the CRA article as long as it contains such advertising is a legal requirement, but there is no such disclosure. (See Examples 7, 8, and 9 on page 12 at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2009/10/091005revisedendorsementguides.pdf.)

So, reading passages from the law is the way to go, IMO, rather than looking at what a pseudonymous Wikipedian has to say. The opposition's arguments are so weak that it turned (above) to the dirty tricks of accusing me of running away (I hadn't) and resorting to shenanigans (Jimbo's answer is quite sufficient, despite the bluster that attempts to discredit it.) and demanding I provide something I'd already provided in my initial post. Sad, really. And predictable. Because the idea that Guy and Collect are advancing - that 16 C.F.R. § 255 is not relevant - is not just wrong, it is preposterous. Furthermore, IMO, the consensus of the Wikipedia community is against PAE; due to various shenanigans, there is a manipulation that makes it appear that there is opposition. There was a non-admin closure of Wikipedia_talk:No_paid_advocacy - it was not diligent either, and I had specifically called for closure by an experienced admin, and called out the divide-and-conquer/distract shenanigans inherent in, e.g. a competing proposal created by a user who argued against <sic> banning paid advocacy, etc. --Elvey (talk) 11:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Were Wikipedia to be a repository of "opinions, beliefs, findings, or experience" of its editors, then it would fit more nicely into the FTC's regulations. One problem is that often editors make COI edits by proxy, but in other cases the community makes it overly difficult to remove overt BLP violations. So you'd have to look at different circumstances:

1. If a COI editor produces an advertisement, which a volunteer places into article-space by proxy, would the corporation be accountable for it? The FTC usually holds the corporation accountable for the actions of "agents"
2. What if a COI editor produces bias content, that is still more neutral than a borderline attack-piece that was there previously?
3. What if the content is promotional (only slightly), but the PR rep didn't realize it?

One thing I heard a lot from lawyers at an annual marketing conference was that in a lot of areas, the interpretation of disclosure laws is not always clear and it's not always clean-cut. The bar is whether the communication is misleading in a way that influences readers unfairly and that bar must be interpreted for each circumstance individually.

I think we could promote more consistency by creating either

• A policy about promotion, which helps define it and attack it with the same fervor as copyvio
• A policy about company articles, similar to BLP, but completely different, that merely defines the application of NPOV to corporate pages

Either would help create more consistency and compliance with community norms and both have been kicked around on and off.

CorporateM (Talk) 15:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

A brief note on FTC rules. Does Wikipedia contain the "opinions, beliefs, findings, or experience" of its editors? It obviously contains the "findings", and in most cases, even where the articles do not look like pure promotion it will reflect the opinions, beliefs, and experience of the editors. So yes, edits to Wikipedia articles can be considered as endorsements and are subject to FTC rules. If you are not clear what an endorsement is in the context of Wikipedia you can pose the question directly to the FTC at endorsements@ftc.gov .

See also http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/audio-video/video/endorsement-guides

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not so complicated. Either there is a Bright Line Rule or there isn't. Right now there is what Elvey calls a test case: an article that he has offered for deletion on the legal grounds that he states above. It is a clearcut example of an article that was created at the behest of the subject and in return for payment. So let's see if there is a Bright Line Rule or if this company gets away with it. Either the article is deleted on that grounds, and there is a Bright Line Rule, or as seems more likely it survives deletion, in which case there is no such thing as a Bright Line Rule and, in that case, I'd respectfully ask Jimbo to stop talking about something that doesn't exist. Coretheapple (talk) 16:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I think if we all can get past the notion that there is such a thing and that the approach of Total Annihilation of paid editing has been rejected, it will be quicker for us to get down to solving the real problem, which is the creation of commercially-driven, POV content — which we all agree is out of bounds. COI editing needs to be declared (without repercussions) and the contributions of COI editors supervised (without malice). Carrite (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

It is difficult to obtain clear community consensus from a diverse group of people about anything. The lack of overwhelming consensus, which doesn't exist anywhere, does not mean the rule does not exist, nor does it mean that it does or that Jimbo should stop talking about it. IMO, it is a useful message to communicate that the volunteer community owns Wikipedia and PR reps are cautious guests whos top priority is to avoid the appearance of impropriety while improving articles. It should not be interpreted technically-speaking; meaning I don't see the community banning PR reps who correct grammar through direct editing. It is the right message for "the masses" who do not have the experience or knowledge to show good judgement for each situation and therefor the right message for a spokesperson to communicate. CorporateM (Talk) 18:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

One thing I find amusing is how various Wikipedians dither about with no demonstrated legal experience or credentials on this matter, yet they claim to have special personal insight into how exactly the FTC guidelines are (or would be) enforced. Meanwhile, over two years ago, a notorious banned Wikipedian had the foresight to engage in a conversation with Betsy Lordan of the FTC's Office of Public Affairs. Her response to the specific question of a paid editor creating or modifying content on Wikipedia (without disclosure) ranged from a sort of 'no comment' reply, to it being a problem only if the action constituted "an endorsement for a product in advertising". Elsewhere, Lordan is quoted as saying, "The [FTC]’s revised Guides governing endorsements and testimonials are guidance. They are not rules or regulations, so there are no monetary penalties, or penalties of any kind, associated with them." It would appear that User:Elvey and User:Jimbo Wales would be coming dangerously close to violating Wikipedia's "no legal threats" policy, except that their legal musings are about as reliable as this car. - I'm not that crazy (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

See this edit and this talk page discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Tara Harwood - paid editor?

Jimbo, Tara Harwood was the WMF's Head of Administrative Services for nine months between 2010 and 2011. There is a "Tara H." advertising on Elance their "ethical" Wikipedia editing services. It would appear to represent Harwood, but you never know if it is a "joe job" account. Looks like the Elancer never received a paying project via that platform, but nonetheless, if this is an actual former WMF head employee, doesn't this account sort of look bad for your Bright Line Rule? The Elance listing clearly says, "I can create or edit Wikipedia articles", not "I can create or edit the Wikipedia Talk pages associated with articles". Maybe someone at the WMF could reach out to Harwood, currently a data analyst at SumOfUs, and ask her to delete or modify the Elance profile (if it is hers)? - I'm not that crazy (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Can someone explain what is 'your Bright Line Rule'? I'm assuming it's different from WP:PAY and WP:NOPAY? Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 15:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The "Bright Line Rule" is (as might be expected) a bright-line rule intended to reliably prevent issues with conflicts of interest; the rule is that paid editors or representatives for any given organization should not edit the article directly, instead limiting themselves to requesting changes on the talk page of the article, or similar avenues. It's simple and effective, but unattractive and restrictive, as there are many direct edits an editor with a conflict of interest can legitimately make, and slow response times for indirect edits. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 17:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Is Bright-line rule a particularly American legal phrase, then? I'd don't recall encountering it, until reading it in a Wikipedia context. AnonNep (talk) 18:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know; now I'm curious, too. :) {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 18:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know where the phrase originated, but I am pretty sure that it was first popularized when it was used in a US supreme court case. In 1948, in the case of Wilkerson v. McCarthy[3], Justice Frankfurter's wrote the following in a concurring opinion:

"When a plaintiff claims that an injury which he has suffered is attributable to a defendant's negligence -- want of care in the discharge of a duty which the defendant owed to him -- it is the trial judge's function to determine whether the evidence in its entirety would rationally support a verdict for the plaintiff, assuming that the jury took, as it would be entitled to take, a view of the evidence most favorable to the plaintiff. If there were a bright line dividing negligence from non-negligence, there would be no problem. Only an incompetent or a willful judge would take a case from the jury when the issue should be left to the jury. But, since questions of negligence are questions of degree, often very nice differences of degree, judges of competence and conscience have in the past, and will in the future, disagree whether proof in a case is sufficient to demand submission to the jury."

It is such a useful concept that you see it appearing in a fair number of legal cases after 1949. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that! It makes more sense in terms of Duty of care, as that 'bright line dividing negligence from non-negligence'. (Although, still a bit unsure on how/why its been adapted for Wikipedia.) AnonNep (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The term "bright line" has become part of the vernacular and is used more widely than in the strictly legal sense, so it wasn't really adapted just for Wikipedia. "Slippery slope" is another term used in constitutional law that has become part of common language, and thus is commonly used here. While not exactly opposites, you often see the terms used in the same argument, as in "we need a bright line to prevent a slippery slope". First Light (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

We actually have a Wikipedia article on Bright-line rule, which states it is "a clearly defined rule or standard, generally used in law, composed of objective factors which leaves little or no room for varying interpretation." CorporateM (Talk) 01:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Critics and critiques

Hi Jimbo. Happy New Year. I'm curious about your position on sites like Wikipedia Review and Wikipediocracy. I believe I have read comments from you that were derogatory about these external sites, but again and again it has been outside pressure that has resulted in the unmasking of abusers here and that has exposed improprieties here, often resulting in various reforms and cleanup.

It also strikes me that Wikipedia hasn't managed to develop healthy internal controls and review; instead attacking, banning, berating, and browbeating those who seek reform from within. Certainly the external sites mentioned have their own problems with bullies and abusive characters, but hasn't Wikipedia's own lack of systemic oversight and its own failure to deal with bullying, harassment (in various forms), and dishonesty (in various forms) created the need for external supervision and oversight? Thank you for your kind consideration. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has been saving lives again

I thought this was a quite interesting example of one way Wikipedia helps people. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)