Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-04-16/Paid editing
Does Wikipedia Pay? The Facilitator: Silver seren
- Does Wikipedia Pay? is an ongoing Signpost series seeking to illuminate paid editing and paid advocacy, for-profit Wikipedia consultants, editing public relations professionals, Conflict of Interest guidelines in practice, and the Wikipedians who work on these issues—by speaking openly with the people involved.
The Conflict of Interest Request for Comment is in full swing, various scandals are just settling in the news (Portland Communications, Bell Pottinger, etc.), and the topic of paid editing raises its head regularly on Jimbo Wales' talk page. The idea of someone editing Wikipedia for financial gain is so controversial that the Signpost decided it needed to be explored in a tangible, concrete form. As with any major conflict, it can be easy for participants to become entrenched in their views, to see things in extremes, and to substitute vague impressions for real people and their experiences. The goal of this series is to put a face to paid editing and to bring the discussion forward, without assumptions or hyperbole: to look at what is actually going on and illuminate one of the dark corners of Wikipedia.
The story so far
The history of paid editing traces back to MyWikiBiz, a commercial enterprise run by editor Thekohser, who was blocked and ultimately banned after selling his services as an article writer. Paid editing is part of the broader issue of conflict of interest (COI) editing, a topic which has roots in Wikipedia's 2004 guideline on 'Vanity pages'. In 2006, after US congressional staffers were revealed to be editing their congressmens' articles, the vanity guideline changed merged to WP:Conflict of Interest. Since then the guideline has evolved a stance that editing by COI editors is strongly discouraged and using Wikipedia to promoting ones interests (or those of ones employer or organization) explicitly forbidden.
In 2007 a computer science graduate student named Virgil Griffith unleashed WikiScanner, a tool which linked editor IP addresses with a database of corporate information. The result was a torrent of embarrassment, as everyone from the FBI to the Vatican was caught editing articles related to themselves. Recent scandals in the news have had the same gotcha quality, although there are also the beginnings of a change in tone. After years of being viewed as enemies, the public relations industry is starting to pursue a more collaborative relationship with Wikipedia and to argue that it has a rightful place and beneficial role to play in the encyclopedia. The Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) The Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR), Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement (CREWE), and WikiProject Cooperation have all made inroads in this new direction. Where they'll lead, whether they'll result in changes to policy, perception, or practice is still in the ether—but it is interesting to watch.
Interview
To kick off the series, The Signpost interviewed Wikipedia editor Silver seren, creator of WikiProject Cooperation.
Tell us about your background as a Wikipedian. When did you get started? What were your first edits and first impressions? What got you hooked?
That's going pretty far back, all the way to high school in 2006. I'd often used Wikipedia for my own interests, or for a school project here and there, pretty much all the way back to 2003. I don't quite remember why it was that I first got involved on Wikipedia, but looking back, this was my first edit. It was a flash game I had been playing at the time. Wikipedia was something I really took to, I think, not having much trouble with the wikicode, as I parsed how to do it from edits other editors made. Of course, my editing back then was rather erratic and infrequent, Wikipedia not being something I was rather devoted to yet.
What got me truly involved was likely a combination of both my love for science and everything related to it and the rapport I established with my early friends on-wiki, such as my once upon a time adopter Chrishy man. But, as I became more engaged in adding content and making new articles, I became dedicated to the people I knew and the articles I had made, like my early efforts with Biosocial theory and Albert Oppel.
You've garnered a reputation as a bit of a muckracker. Where do think that instinct to root out and sometime stir up controversy comes from?
Let's just say that I've long been the type of person who both tries to find the truth about subjects and who tries to make the world a better place, whether that be through spreading information or by more direct forms of help. I have a deep-felt opposition to secrecy that leads to people being harmed in any way, so I also have a natural desire to expose such secrets. It's this, I guess, that leads to what would be called "stirring up controversy". I see it as pushing for the answers they don't want you to know.
You're one of the minority of Wikipedians whose real name is known. Has it had positive or negative ramifications in you on-Wikipedia work? How about your off-Wikipedia life?
It hasn't really affected my on-Wiki work or my off-Wiki life at all, beyond the fact that I'm no longer bothering at all to try to hide the connection between my username and my real name. It works better that way regardless as I'm working through Wikiproject Cooperation with people in a semi-official capacity.
What was your inspiration for starting Wikiproject Cooperation?
My creation of Wikiproject Cooperation came about after the proposal by Herostratus of Wikiproject Paid Advocacy Watch in a discussion on Jimbo's talk page. I was (and am) personally opposed to the idea of automatic blocking of paid editors, and other methods of locking out companies from being a part of Wikipedia. I feel that this would only lead to more controversy and, as a whole, a worse encyclopedia. So I thought up Wikiproject Cooperation as an alternative that would instead work together with such users for both their benefit and the benefit of Wikipedia from their knowledge.
How does WikiProject Cooperation deal with conflicts of interest?
Wikiproject Cooperation has a specific process called Paid Editor Help that has those users in a conflict of interest related to paid editing list what additions they wish to be made to an article, with reliable sources linked if it's a content addition. This also includes the proposal of new articles. Then, one or two (or more) members of the Wikiproject go through the request, checking it for neutrality, and then enact it if they feel it is proper and within policy to do so.
We've already had more than twenty requests and a fair amount of proposed new articles from a variety of different people and organizations. For the most part, other than some necessary changes, the requests have all been for things that are within policy and on notable topics.
There's a long list of scandals dating back to MyWikiBiz through WikiScanner and Bell Pottinger, in which COI editors have been exposed, blocked, or embarrassed. Do you see that trend improving or getting worse? Are we facing more of those controversies, or are we just more informed about them?
I would say the trend is rather constant. Sure, the amount has increased, but that is probably a combination of Wikipedia's growth over the years and the increasing focus in the media world on such incidents. I think the frequency of such incidents has stayed pretty relative to Wikipedia's own growth. Of course, I also don't see such scandals going away any time soon. There's always going to be those that try to get in the easy way or don't want to bother with doing something ethically. We can pre-emptively dissuade some of this activity by working more directly with corporations and giving them more clear avenues of access so they can request and discuss the changes they would like, but there will still always be the few bad apples. And we'll just have to live with them and remain vigilant in our protection of the encyclopedia.
What do you think of recent efforts to improve relations between the PR industry/paid editors, and Wikipedia? I'm thinking of CREWE and WikiProject Cooperation in particular.
I'm glad that, in terms of CREWE, PR people have finally stepped forward in order to try and work out ways to be collaborative with Wikipedia, rather than antagonistic as in the past. I truly think that the best way to improve Wikipedia is to work together with others. And it's a two-way street. We have to work toward helping others, such as paid editors, but they also have to put in the effort to work with us, by following the system we've set up here for building an encyclopedia. Our job is just to make that system as simple and open as possible, a goal that the Wikimedia Foundation has had since day one. Wikiproject Cooperation is one such step toward having more options and openness for the PR community.
Jimmy Wales has taken strong stance against direct editing of articles by COI editors. Do you think editors should ever edit articles directly if they are paid for their work?
I fully understand Jimbo's stance, considering his (and Wikipedia's) past interactions with paid editors, from the now widely known Bell Pottinger scandal to a number of other incidents in the past listed in Conflict of interest editing on Wikipedia. However, as can be seen from Wikiproject Cooperation's success and from the groups that want to work with Wikipedia, like CREWE, there are a vast number of paid editors who want to work properly with Wikipedia to improve its coverage of corporation related topics and to fix inaccuracies.
The question on whether such editors should be directly editing isn't as clear cut as that. To splice it into two parts, I do not believe paid editors or those editors with a strong COI like them should be making major content additions or content changes to articles. However, I believe grammatical changes, the addition of references and images, and updates to financial information are all proper activities for paid editors to do in articlespace, as outlined in the COI guideline.
Which do you think is a bigger problem; paid editing, or unpaid advocacy? Do you think it's unfair that paid editors have a target painted on them while unpaid advocates can civilly push their point of view without consequence?
Unpaid advocacy, clearly. Advocacy, by definition, means the additions will be of a POV nature. Paid editing does not necessarily mean this at all. Often, paid editing merely means the update of financial information or more info on the history of the subject.
Yes, I do, but I also understand why such a target exists, as do practically all paid editors. The actions of unethical paid editors in the past has caused an atmosphere of inherent mistrust for the entire subject. Which is why I'm glad that Public Relations professionals and other paid editors are now stepping forward to do things properly, to show that paid editing can be done within Wikipedia's rules.
Do you think WP:COI needs to be updated, promoted to policy, or demoted to essay status? Should policy prohibit direct editing by paid editors?
I think WP:COI is perfectly fine as the guideline it is. Though I do think its wording needs to be updated, to be more clear and to also more properly explain what kind of editing is and is not proper within the COI rules.
No, it should not. As I stated elsewhere, there are a number of kinds of edits that paid editors can do comfortably, whether it is fixing grammar and sentence structure or adding references or uploading images. All of these things, and the rest outlined here are perfectly fine for paid editors to do. As long as the editors themselves are upfront about their COI and make sure to have support from other editors for any major changes, I don't see any issues with letting paid editors do the edits I just pointed out.
Should COI disclosures be required for paid editors?
Yes, of course. Just like anyone else who has a sufficiently large COI, whether they be the subject of an article, related to the subject, having been involved directly (sometimes even indirectly) in the creation of the subject, or whether they have been paid to improve the article. All of these should have a statement on the talk page, via {{Connected contributor}}, that they are involved.
Is the encyclopedia failing in some way? By not cracking down on paid editors more harshly, or by leaving gaps and inaccuracies about living people and corporations that paid editors have an interest in fixing?
No and no. We already have the processes in place to deal with unethical paid editors and dealing with them "more harshly" would likely only result in collateral damage, whether that be to articles or to the blocking of innocent editors. Neither of those are things any of us want to do and I think that we already have the situation of unethical paid editing already well in hand. There's some that sneaks through, sure, but I don't think it's possible to catch every last person doing something wrong on Wikipedia, just like it isn't possible to immediately root out all subtle vandalism. These are both things that, through our already established methods, will sort themselves out over time.
As for the second, just by the fact that we are now working with such editors to fix those inaccuracies shows that we're taking steps to mitigate it. Articles aren't perfect when they're first made or ever and inaccuracies can enter in over time, whether that be from other editors or just from things changing in the world for that subject. All we should focus on is doing our best to fix the problems that we're presented with now and do our best to lessen the amount of such inaccuracies. But I don't think its possible to stop them from ever occurring. If we wanted to do that, then the best method would be to not let anyone edit ever again.
How can the constructive paid editors be accommodated while still dealing with the unethical ones?
How we've already been going about it in Wikiproject Cooperation is one of the better methods, I think. We need to provide methods for paid editors to request changes to articles, methods that are more personal and work swifter than just a Request Edit tag, which can sometimes sit for weeks. The unethical ones are, by nature, not going to use the proper methods of editing on Wikipedia, so our actions of watching, tagging, running SPIs, and all the rest have already been shown to be fairly effective. More of the same and increasing vigilance is the best method to deal with the unethical editors.
What has surprised you about working with COI or paid editors? What is the most common misunderstanding they hold about Wikipedia?
The misunderstandings tend to fall on one of two polarized viewpoints. The first belief is that they are never allowed to touch any article ever, which is clearly not true, per our own COI guideline. And believe me, none of us want to be bogged down with Request Edit tags for some sort of minor correction.
The other extreme is the belief that, since they are trying to improve the article, it's okay that they just go ahead and jump right in and start doing stuff. While I can completely understand this viewpoint, as we allow COIs of various degrees to edit articles in the first place without anyone saying it's wrong (which inevitably leads to some sort of ARBCOM sanction for the entire topic area). For the most part, what they are trying to add is perfectly fine. The issues come in with the fact that such users are often new users and don't know how to use the interface properly, nor do they know how to write in the language we generally couch our articles in.
What has surprised me the most is probably just how vast the number of paid editors are that want to edit Wikipedia properly and by following our rules, but the rules are either not clearly defined or they don't know how to edit properly. Paid editing is definitely an area that we can get a lot of worthwhile content out of, but it's also an area where we run across common problems, problems that things like the WYSIWYG editor (What You See Is What You Get) will hopefully fix, and misunderstandings on how to properly go about editing within Wikipedia's rules. If we can make things more simple and straightforward, along with providing methods of assisting such editors, we'll all benefit in the end.
You do yeoman's work at WikiProject Cooperation's Paid Editor Help board. Do you ever feel like you're doing other people's work for them, that they're being compensated for and you're not?
Of course not. Being able to help other editors and improve Wikipedia is the exact point of all of this. If it really comes down to something like getting "credit" for my actions, I could say that increased edit count is one such benefit. Also, for new articles proposed by paid editors, I try my best to get them submitted to DYK if they meet the requirements therein, so I also get the compensation of a DYK nom. But as long as the process helps improves articles, that's all that really matters in the end.
Have you ever been accused of having a COI? If so, how did you deal with it?
A few times. Most of them were just for my involvement in an article, where an editor I'm in a dispute with accused me of having such and such involvement in the subject, when it wasn't true. Those sorts of accusations I just shrugged of and explained how they weren't true and how they couldn't be true. As far as I can remember, the one time where I was accused of having a COI and it was at least partly relevant was my editing of the Encyclopedia Dramatica article. In response to my editing the article, a negative ED page was made on me. After that, I was accused of having a COI whenever I got into a dispute with an ED-related account on the article. In those cases I explained that my opinion and, more or less, lack of COI was the same as before the ED article has been made on me. It didn't change anything in my mind or my actions on the article and I followed talk page consensus regardless. I also explained that if something like that was going to fly, then they would just make articles on anyone working against them in the article, a loophole in COI that we really couldn't let fly. But I digress, a complicated situation without an easy explanation. Regardless, in all cases, I just stated my opinion in regards to the articles and otherwise followed any consensus that arose about the articles.
What article or project are you most proud of on Wikipedia? What article or project was most controversial or unsuccessful? What did you learn from it?
For an article I worked on individually, I'm most proud of my Good article Life at the Bottom: The Worldview That Makes the Underclass. I'm not really the type to have an eye for the details needed to finish writing a Good or Featured article, most of the time, so I am rather proud for having made that one.
Another article that I'm proud of and that is likely to be and has been decently controversial is Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, which is currently undergoing a Featured Article Candidacy. It's an article that was written largely by WWB Too, who was paid in the past to work on it, and myself. WWB made sure to stay out of any conversations regarding the controversies section, because of his COI, and I fielded most of that. By working together with other editors, we were able to reach a compromise about the state of the article and its coverage of various things.
I learned that the best way to deal with a dispute is to make a reasonable compromise that takes both sides into account and satisfies both of them. That's not to say doing as such is easy. But it can immediately fix the issue if you do it right, so it's worth it to try.
Finally, what's your favorite quote or piece of advice about Wikipedia?
Remember that we're building an encyclopedia.
Too many editors get bogged down in the details or get caught up in the perpetual dramas that occur on Wikipedia and lose sight of why we're all here in the first place. We're here because we want to make the best encyclopedia in the world, the most comprehensive, the most accurate. Anything not working toward that is largely irrelevant. If all of the people caught up in drama on ANI, AN, and elsewhere focused on building content for just one day, just think of how much would be accomplished in those 24 hours. Each of us has our own skill sets, sure, but we should all remember that, in the end, we want to be making edits that improve the encyclopedia, not anything else.
Discuss this story
The question "You're one of the minority of Wikipedians whose real name is known. Has it had positive or negative ramifications in you on-Wikipedia work? How about your off-Wikipedia life?" is an interesting one. I also use my real name. In my preferred area of editing (Engineering) this has been a strong positive for me. On multiple occasions someone has phoned me (which I encourage) with interesting questions or news about various engineering topics. One downside is that when I click on the random article link I sometimes see a typo or a place where a citation needed tag is needed and am reluctant to make the edit because I don't want to be associated with that topic.
On several occasions I have been contacted off-wiki and asked to help with a page that someone is having trouble with. While I am open to declaring my potential COI and making the edit, I would only do that in completely noncontroversial cases. Usually I end up explaining to them why Wikipedia won't put up a page for their non-notable business or theory or explaining how to edit with a declared COI. Most people are pretty open to this once you explain the goals of the encyclopedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have a hard time seing this piece as unbiased journalism - if this is supposed to be two pro-paid editing folks pushing their point of view then it should be labeled as a pure opinion piece, not as an interview. I hope we do not see the series on paid editing that was promised in the first paragraph. There have already been at least a couple of pro-paid editing article in the Signpost over the few months, e.g. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-12-05/In the news and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-02-06/In the news. Just to be clear User:Silver seren founded the grossly misnamed WikiProject Cooperation, which is overtly pro-Public Relations editing on Wikipedia. User:Ocaasi joined it in the first month.
Could Ocaasi and Silver seren at least rename their Wikiproject? - What does having Wikipedia volunteers support the PR industry have to do with cooperation? Editors cooperate in every Wikiproject. How is the PR industry cooperating with us? BTW, the link in the article WikiProject Cooperation links to WP:Civility. All the name does is sow confusion.
I particularly think the softball questions have to be avoided, see, e.g.
Which do you think is a bigger problem; paid editing, or unpaid advocacy? Do you think it's unfair that paid editors have a target painted on them while unpaid advocates can civilly push their point of view without consequence?
and
You do yeoman's work at WikiProject Cooperation's Paid Editor Help board. Do you ever feel like you're doing other people's work for them, that they're being compensated for and you're not?
If it ever does come to the point that Wikipedia allows PR firms to edit articles, I just hope that our journalism schools do a better job teaching how to write PR pieces than they apparently have done in teaching how to write straight journalism. Smallbones (talk) 02:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited where I've had a clear COI, but it was a slightly unusual situation and I was very careful:
Never had any complaints. The fact that I'm a longstanding Wikipedia editor with a respectable edit record is relevant - most PR people would struggle if they were in that situation.
Well, now, to be honest, I think a lot of newer editors and even those who have been editing on WP a while have the impression that paid editing is a strong no-no. Until I started looking into it more after seeing this discussion, I had that idea as well. But after looking at WP:COI (specifically WP:NOPAY) I see that it is really frowned upon if it leads to non-neutral editing, but not explicitly prohibited in general (people aren't banned for simply paid editing, I suppose). However, so many times people who are found to be working for a company or paid to edit have their edits reverted for COI and if they continue, sometimes they are temporarily or permanently blocked. I mean, really, the shortcut is NOPAY (of course, WP:PAY goes there too). I have not read the signpost through yet, so I can't really comment on that. Unfortunately, while I see that they are not "automatically banned", it almost seems that way and to claim that you don't know where he got that idea at all seems somewhat specious. Since the ones you generally talk to might support paid editing, you might think most WP do, but I'm sure there are more like me who thought paid editing was not appropriate. I will reserve my judgement completely on it until after I have read the signpost. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 03:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Convenience break
On the other hand, those who call for a ban on paid editing are making the same mistake that the War On Drugs makes - driving the activity underground where no regulations apply, combined with the customers trying to do it themselves. In this case, that often means getting into pitched battles with the Unfair Censors at Wikipedia that are Thwarting Them out of Pure Malice. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am with Silver seren on this one. Consider the following thought experiment: someone creates a perfect Wikipedia article, informative and sourced with no bias or POV issues at all, but he does it for the worst possible -- even evil -- reasons. Do we reject such an article? Only if we stop being an encyclopedia and start being the Thought Police. The answer is not discriminating against those with what some would consider base or mercenary motives but rather to structure Wikipedia in such a way that those same motives lead to good results. Consider the specific example Tony Ahn gave above: reputation management. RM is for those who have had their reputations ruined by an online enemy; one troll can make it so that a Google search on your name or business turns up nothing but bad info. To our credit, Wikipedia has a BLP policy that works against that sort of thing. Reputation management involves hiring someone to make it so that Google's results bring up many positive or neutral items, burying the negative on the 20th page. Obviously, a neutral Wikipedia page would help. If we didn't have any standards, of course every reputation management consultant would be motivated to stuff Wikipedia with junk articles. This is where our policies come in to play. Our general notability guidelines mean that this will only work if the individual is notable and the article belongs in Wikipedia. Whether or not his motives are pure, it is to his advantage to only create the article if it will survive. By having well-thought-out policies and enforcing them, we end up with good articles no matter what the motivation of the article creator is. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Paid editing vs paid advocacy
A theme that comes up sometimes is that people who are paid to edit are not acting in Wikipedia's interests, but in their client's interests. It's not so simple. Jimbo's comment is helpful:
I'd add that someone who works in a field may be doing it because they are interested in that field. I suggested to my employers that their clearly notable institute doesn't have a Wikipedia doesn't have an article about it. I'd be tempted to write about it anyway, but probably wouldn't get around to it - as it is, I get to write about it as part of my contract. Note that I'm doing my edits in userspace and will ask another established editor to move it into mainspace when the time is right. It sounds like maybe I'm Tony Ahn mainly does that too. This kind of behavior isn't necessarily advocacy, especially where a strong attempt (and I would say a good faith attempt) is made to respect NPOV. --Chriswaterguy talk 03:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As to the original point, I favor a total ban on paid editing. That would open up the floodgates for p.r. "flacks" showering Wikipedia with marginal articles on their clients. Paid content would be indistinguishable from unpaid content, even if the editors identified themselves. That would destroy Wikipedia's already tarnished reputation. I can understand why Wales takes such a strong position. I think that we should get behind him on that. To be effective, the prohibition on paid editing should be absolute, with no exceptions.
Will there be undisclosed paid advocates? Sure, just as you currently have dozens of p.r. people writing articles about themselves without disclosing it. They're pretty transparent, just as paid editing will be transparent. Current policies should be able to deal with such situations as arise. Jay Tepper (talk) 12:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Offering my services
If any PR firms are reading this, I offer my services as a paid editor. Check my userpage to see my qualifications. I charge $1000 to take an article to featured status. I am not being sarcastic. If Wikipedia ever wants to be a truly credible encyclopedia, it needs to pay editors so that it will be worth their time to improve articles about stuff they otherwise wouldn't be interested in. My email on my user account is enabled. Cla68 (talk) 04:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]