User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

WebCite

WebCite has become an important tool of choice in sustainable citations for Wikipedia, but it seems to be underfunded, and threatening to shut down. Anyone know how their fundraising is really doing, and whether shutdown is truly being considered? If they are in danger of failing, might it be a good idea to absorb WebCite into WMF? Dovid (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The question has been much discussed here. I'm not the right person to ask, but I support the idea of WebCite asking the WMF for a grant to fund their ongoing operations. Perhaps a matching grant to encourage them to build a sustainable donor base. I do not know if they have been in contact with the Foundation about this, and if they have, I of course also don't know the outcome.

It doesn't seem very efficient to me for the WMF to absorb it - it's a completely different kind of service, different software, etc.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I still think the best option is for an entity such as Google to do it right, not just create a haphazard list of entries that misses more than it hits. I wrote to Google and Jimbo about this, unfortunately got responses from neither (which, of course, could mean that it is such a bad idea it isn't worth a response.) I think it would be easy for Google to create a service that would allow you to look up in an internet for any given day. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:15, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I really like Jimbo's suggestion. The idea should be, not to absorb the entity, but help them to become self sustainable. Isn't there a discussion on how to spend WMF monies, or has that ended. Could it be suggested in that discussion?--Mark Miller (talk) 20:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there is a discussion about how to spend WMF Monies. It has five more days to run. It is too late to add new proposals, but there is still time to comment on existing proposals.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

To try and "build the web" of what's going on: m:Talk:WebCite#Proposal_superseded links to active work being done by Internet Archive that is superseding the focus on WebCite, in my opinion. User:Sj, also on the board, is mentioned in the blog post, and there is also a related thread here. Where this goes, I'm not sure. But preventing/fixing linkrot would be awesome. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 18:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• I'll be having a meeting with someone from the Internet Archive later this week to talk about our linkrot problem. I don't want to give away the ending in advance, but am expecting some rather exciting news. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Good luck! Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 18:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

    Yes, I worked with the Internet Archive on their linkrot vaccine. They've added new servers dedicated to preserving cited links, and are checking en:wp articles daily for new external links, and taking snapshots of them. Hopefully this will soon extend to all Wikimedia wikis. The Wayback Machine supports timestamped links to URLs, which fits smoothly with {{cite web}}'s notion of "archivedate" and "archiveurl". Legoktm is helping them figure out how bots could help fix deadlinks that fail.

    Kevin: Glad to hear it, do share an update (and crosspost to wm:Archived Pages). As for WebCite, their software and service is similar to IA's, so it may make sense for those to merge now that IA has focused on this work. Perhaps a WMF grant could help support such a migration. – SJ + 21:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I have to ask...are we overthinking this?

Paid advocacy has been a topic of conversation in many places on Wikipedia. Many proposals, suggestions and ideas have been bounced around to combat the issue.

Is it possible that we are over thinking how to handle this? Is it possible that a simple WikiProject could be the very way to begin? We would gather all of our current policies, guidelines and procedures together and allow these editors to join willingly and see what happens. Or am I am under thinking here? --Mark Miller (talk) 05:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

You mean the Wikiproject that I already created? Silverseren^C 06:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think Silver seren's initiative or something similar is the way forward. The ovewhelming consensus so far in the discussions has been that while (paid) advocacy is a bad thing, you can't keep people with a COI out because editors are given the right to be anonymous and any attempts to find out their identity against their will and use that information on Wikipedia amounts to harrassment.

An analogy. Money is to Wikipedia what oxygen is to life. It is potentially destructive; if we don't deal with this properly, we'll be doomed. The best way to deal with this is to allow it to be used properly, instead of trying to create an environment that is totally isolated from it. The latter would be similar to being anaerobic archea, the former would be like becoming modern animals. Count Iblis (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Count Iblis, you're actually raising a point I hadn't considered, but it is such an important an obvious one that I feel like a dunderhead that it hadn't dawned on me: the affect on donors of PR influence on Wikipedia. I assure you that that influence is emphatically not positive, unless the donors are themselves corporations with a PR presence on Wikipedia. I know of no evidence that they are. Coretheapple (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

So, how is the project going? Could you link to it please? What effects, if any, has it had on the current situations of PR firms etc.?--Mark Miller (talk) 19:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Mark, the project is here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation. WikiProject Cooperation advises that a company seeking a new article on Wikipedia should make the request at Articles for creation or Requested articles. One of the problems with this is that only about one in four "Articles for creation" ever becomes an article, and the Requested articles about Companies is probably not much more successful, considering that the line-wrapping on the page isn't even formatted correctly (when it was screwed up by this edit over a year ago). - 2001:558:1400:10:D4F8:5823:CB76:A438 (talk) 16:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

That's true. I really wish more editors would help out in those areas. I would push more for them to use WP:PAIDHELP instead, but that still has the same issue of not enough people helping out with the requests. I'm not sure what the best method is to deal with this. Silverseren^C 21:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Uhm...why was my post deleted?--Mark Miller (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what was wrong with that post for it to have been removed. If this was just a mistake, of course I'm fine with it, but if there was a reason, I would like to avoid it in the future.[1]--Mark Miller (talk) 03:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Mark, judging by the time stamp on your post followed very quickly by Jimmy's post (in the next minute on the clock), I would suspect that there was an edit conflict. Most editors who encounter an edit conflict notice take the time to ensure that their post will not erase the previous editor's post, but apparently Jimmy wasn't doing that yesterday. (It happened to another editor, too.) - 2001:558:1400:10:A49C:C990:CD35:6D1 (talk) 13:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Accenture breaking Bright Line Rule

Jimbo, you'll see here that just a couple of months ago, an Accenture IP address (170.251.91.70) directly modified the Wikipedia article about Accenture, to change the headcount of Indian employees from 80,000 to 87,000. The reliable source was not updated, so Wikipedia now says "87,000", while the source says 80,000. This is an example of how Wikipedia is degraded by those who would directly edit articles about their employer, without following our rules for reliable sourcing. This should have been handled on the Talk page, according to the Bright Line Rule! Accenture is a "Diamond sponsor" of the upcoming Alfresco summit, where you will be delivering a keynote speech. Will you maybe mention in your talk that Accenture should strive to adhere to your Bright Line Rule, rather than directly editing the Wikipedia article about their company? - 2001:558:1400:10:3461:A128:3088:D6A7 (talk) 14:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the IP is being sarcastic. Which number is accurate? Right is right and wrong is wrong, which is the number one most important thing always. By the way, there is no such thing as a "Bright Line Rule" — it is a rejected idea. Carrite (talk) 15:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course there is such a thing as the "Bright Line Rule" and it is in no way a "rejected idea". What it is, is a best practice. It is what companies should do.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Seeing that this is from a Comcast account in New Jersey, I'm guessing this is a trolling attempt... Carrite (talk) 15:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

"Comcast Cable serves more than 1.37 million customers in New Jersey", so it's a trolling attempt? - 2001:558:1400:10:3461:A128:3088:D6A7 (talk) 16:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

No, it's a trolling attempt because it is a trolling attempt. That it comes from that location just gives a reasonable indication as to who it is. My advocacy of the bright line rule is well known. As my speech at the Alfresco Summit is not about public relations, and as the audience will be IT professionals rather than corporate comms people, beating up on a particular company with 275,000 employees worldwide would be rather odd. Let's just confront what our troll repeatedly comes here to imply: I speak strongly against conflict of interest editing but (in his view, albeit with no evidence of any kind - it's just a smear) I am hypocritical about it. It's stupid and not gaining any traction so keep it up. My favorite thing is to let you waste your time.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't get it. If the bright line rule prohibits any editing on a subject where your company is involved, it would seem to prohibit even "innocuous" edits such as changing a number. After all, it's a bright line--you don't get to argue that you can violate it as long as your violation is innocuous. If so, doesn't this violate the rule, and therefore, if you support the bright line rule you must be against it? Ken Arromdee (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm strongly against it. The discussion about trolling has to do with the tone and the rather silly suggestion that if I think someone has done something wrong in Wikipedia, I should shame them in a speech at a conference they are sponsoring. This is a pattern for our ip friend.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

It's quite a contrast how Jimmy was able to take "Accenture should strive to adhere" and twist it into "shame them in a speech". Nothing was suggested about "shaming" until Jimmy characterized it that way. Whatever the case, the facts shall remain: (1) money will be accepted by Jimmy in exchange for talking about Wikipedia; (2) the money will have come from companies that have not followed his Bright Line Rule on Wikipedia; and (3) during his paid speech, Jimmy will not mention the fact that the companies have not followed his Bright Line Rule on Wikipedia. If everyone is comfortable with that, then there's nothing to worry about! - 2001:558:1400:10:D4F8:5823:CB76:A438 (talk) 16:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment from editor previously working with Accenture

I'd like to weigh in here, since I previously worked on behalf of Accenture to make some updates to their article. I'd like to make it clear, first and foremost, that I followed the "bright line" rule in my work with them. You can see the changes that I proposed on Talk:Accenture (in several rounds: 1, 2, 3, 4) along with detailed discussions about said changes with editors lasting more than two months. (You'll also note, for what it's worth, that not all of the changes that Accenture hoped to make were implemented, due to consensus among other editors.)

Although Accenture's communications department is on board with addressing Wikipedia properly, and following the bright line rule, they are a very large international company with employees in many offices around the world. They can't ensure that no employee will ever make an edit to their article.

I think it is pretty clear, given that the IP edits on Accenture's page are one-offs—not to mention that they hired me as a declared COI editor, as clearly indicated at Talk:Accenture—that these edits don't represent Accenture attempting to circumvent Wikipedia's policies and procedures; they're simply an employee who saw something inaccurate, who doesn't fully understand how Wikipedia works, and who went ahead and changed it to what they think is correct.

I'm going to reply about the specific edit in question over at Talk:Accenture, but briefly—if the change is made by an IP editor, who would seem to have a COI, and the material isn't properly supported by the source, it seems to me that it should be undone. Cheers, ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 22:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I haven't investigated this in any detail, but if things are as you say, then this is the way things should be done.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Just to complicate matters, the sentence in question was copied directly from the source in this edit. It really should read what the source says, but we should not be in the habit of retaining plagiarism. As such, I have re-written the sentence and stuck in the number from the source. --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Major modern organisations order staff to follow bright line rule

I can't speak for Accenture (I have never worked there and know little about them), but some modern organisations of a similar size actually specifically forbid their staff from correcting incorrect information about the organisation that they may find on Wikipedia. They have mandatory training telling staff so, which includes an amusing "should I edit Wikipedia to correct the mistake?" case study question, to which one has to click the correct answer ("no") to proceed.

To me, this may indicate two things. First, it means large organisations are capable of understanding the bright line rule and why it might be a good idea for them. (Even if their motivations for that, are, naturally, fairly narrow-minded.)

Second, it indicates that the Accenture edit above may well be the random edit of an employee who either had not taken the training, had not remembered the training, or just was a little off base after an unhappy lunchtime or somesuch. Or that Accenture doesn't have such policy/training yet, but might have in the future.

I don't think we should declare that an entire company "has not followed the bright line rule" just because one of 275,000 people happened to be inadequate in such a way. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Rand Paul plagarized Wikipedia

Thought you might find this interesting: "Rachel Maddow: Rand Paul ripped off Wikipedia". GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, it's not the first time. "Rand Paul Has Given Speeches Plagarized From Wikipedia Before" GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Interesting story! It happens fairly regularly. remember this one? and this one? Pretty bad idea to plagiarize from Wikipedia since basically everybody reads Wikipedia and will notice. :-)

I was once in a breakfast meeting in which Shimon Peres was being introduced by Yossi Vardi (who is known to be a very funny guy!). In his introduction he said "I think I should just ask Jimmy Wales to speak instead, since anything the President says was written by his aides, and anything his aides write was looked up in Wikipedia." Ok, that sounds negative towards Peres if you don't know Yossi, but it was just good humor.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

That's interesting, but don't they have some sort of legal obligation to cite Wikipedia as a source, since I assume that the transcripts of those speeches end up getting attributed to them, and not us? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, keep in mind it was just a joke. And presumably responsible speech writers might use Wikipedia for some background research, which would not require them to give us attribution. (And of course, to avoid risk of embarrassing errors, they should also have multiple sources for any factual claims, especially controversial ones!)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I was referring to Rand Paul, not Yossi. If Paul is using prose written by Wikipedia editors, then shouldn't he attribute those text-strings to us in accordance with Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer but ideally, yes, people who reuse our work should attribute.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Copying a few lines, even a few paragraphs, without attribution is a huge academic faux pas, but it's no different legally from properly attributed Fair Use quotes of the same size from copyrighted sources. At least Rand Paul can say that he is speaking for the people... :) Wnt (talk) 21:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I remember a skit on SNL about the Greek Gods about a year or so ago that seemed to have entire passages lifted from our articles. I laughed until I was crying.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

First let's realize- Plagiarism itself is NOT illegal, copyright infringement is illegal, plagiarism CAN also be copyright infringement however, but not all plagiarism is.[2] Plagiarizing Wikipedia would fall under civil, not criminal laws anyways, and IMO probably would be hard for the WMF to sue for as it might require getting all the relevant editors who worked on the plagiarized piece to agree, and they could derail the lawsuit if they didn't on grounds of who had proper standing. There is also the fact- Unless Rand Paul received compensation for what was plagiarized, and the WMF could prove it caused irreparable harm and/or monetary loss (both of which I don't see possible) WMF might not have standing for a civil lawsuit anyways.Camelbinky (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

See also here. Count Iblis (talk) 00:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

It gets even more bizarre re: "Rand Paul Has Given Speeches Plagarized From Wikipedia Before" with text from our article on the movie Stand and Deliver underlined, right by the text of a Paul speech. Our article is plagiarized from IMDB. See this edit [3] and IMDB synopsis Now if anybody can tell me who "The Numerators" is/are, I'll be able to tell you who can sue for copyright infringement. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, it seems IMDB's synopsis for Gattaca is copy-pasted from Wikipedia without attribution.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Some people pay to get in Wikipedia without getting credit for doing so, while other people take out of Wikipedia with similar failure to disclose. Sort of balances out. Coretheapple (talk) 02:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

In other words, when you plagiarize from somebody, you plagiarize from everybody they've plagiarized from, and everyone those people have plagiarized from... :) Wnt (talk) 15:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Rand Paul responded: "Rand Paul rips Maddow over Wikipedia questions: 'She's been spreading hate on me for three years now'" GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  • His response does not even acknowledge that Wikipedia exists, let alone that he ought to have credited our volunteers. In his view, his failings are all the fault of the person who pointed them out. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Obligatory Ayn Rand fanfic

Roarke strode past the members of the House Agriculture Committee, his aides shoving invitations to campaign breakfasts into the hands of anyone who looked like they might hint at objecting to his presence on the floor of the pursestring-holding chamber.

"Mr. Paul, I presume?" Roarke looked harried and proud, as a man who labors rightly in the towers of industry must when dealing with the hippies who had infiltrated the establishment.

"Howard Roarke? What an unexpected pleasure, sir!" Paul was filled with the delight of knowing that his reelection was almost guaranteed with the hoped-for favor of the world's first fully licensed asteroid miner. Prospecting had been arduous, but both the press and the congressman's aides had made it clear that Roarke's ability to corner the world's platinum markets had insured his ability to finally deal the needed political death blow to Pelosi and her conspirators.

"Dispense with the pleasantries, Paul, I don't want to hear any more of that Christian claptrap. Do you know what your Science Committee chair has been doing to the human resources department of my vaccine division? If we were in a less civilized time...."

Paul was stunned. He stood straight up, his tiny ego suspended in time awaiting his benefactor's next words.

"You know me, Paul, I get to the point. I don't mince words. You listen up and you listen well. If you don't one, re-instate Eisenhower's top tax bracket two, get your cronies in the Senate to stop filibustering Paul Krugman and three, let RoarkePharma sell the 100-hour morning after pill over the counter, then by the very values of reason, purpose, and self esteem, I swear to you Paul, I promise you I will personally see Reid take you back to Kentucky on his shoulders. Do you hear me? On his shoulders!"

[to be continued] EllenCT (talk) 02:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't Ayn Rand have asserted that our Wikipedia editors have the right to blow up the building to protest the terrible injustice of the misuse of their creative prose? :) Wnt (talk) 15:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:WORKINPROGRESS and anti-engineering graphic in Sustainable development

Does this attractive diagram bias the Sustainability and Sustainable development articles against the engineering of emerging technologies?

Hi Jimbo, I thought about asking about this at the teahouse or noticeboards, but after trying my best to assume good faith, the extent to which bad actors may be at play convinced me to try to err on the side of an abundance of caution. Would you please comment on Talk:Sustainability#Engineering emerging technologies with reference to [4]? I am particularly bothered by the diagram at right, which while attractive and certainly filled with informative words and lists, omits engineering. I am told not to attribute to malice what can be explained by insufficiently advanced editing, so I will spare you my theories about how this diagram was produced by fossil and nuclear fuel interests to exclude their more recent competition. I understand that there is some way to create a request for comments, by adding some template, and I hope you or one of your readers might do that if they know how, so that these questions might see a greater breadth of opinion on whether short WP:WORKINPROGRESS sections are correct on high-visibility articles pertinent to their subject matter. Thank you. Yours sincerely, Tim AFS (talk) 23:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we don't even need to reach that determination. It's a bad graphic anyway. It appears to be original research, for one thing. (One may argue that it was published elsewhere as well, but I'm not persuaded that the original publication was really third party.) The axes are not labelled so we have no way of knowing what is being measured nor how. I think it could be used in the Circles of Sustainability article itself, because it is an illustration of how the method is used, but it is not clear to me (but I am not an expert in this area) that Circles of Sustainability is really something that should be featured as prominently as we feature it, anyway. I have no opinion about bias for or against engineering, etc. I'm just responding to the graph in and of itself - it is not a very good illustration.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

There's something really strange about that: according to the image, it looks like Melbourne has "satisfactory" labor and welfare and wealth and distribution, but "critical" waste and emissions and "bad" water and air. (Assuming it's top to bottom and not clockwise or something) Is Melbourne that city in China with the smog index of 1000? Otherwise, I suspect if you went there and talked to the locals they might express different priorities. According to the image description, it is "based on a template that I developed for the UN Global Compact Cities Programme, I did an assessment of the city of Melbourne, and then designed and constructed the diagram to best show Melbourne's sustainability." I'm not clear on whether this is sourced or just WP:OR in fine clothing. Wnt (talk) 16:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

That's where I came down. It's just not very good, and that's reason enough to get rid of it in my view.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Out of interest, what headings would you put in the "Engineering" tab that aren't already in the "ecology" section? Materials & Energy, Constructions & Settlements, and Emission & Waste would seem to cover most of the points (and I hardly think a person with a non-renewable fuel COI would rate all the factors that changing to renewables would affect as "highly unsatisfactory" or lower). MChesterMC (talk) 16:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

For me, I don't think it's really right that we should, as Wikipedians, discuss what the "Circles of Sustainability" methodology should really be like. The question is whether or not this particular methodology is important enough to be prominently featured in the main articles (I have no opinion, but the sources will tell the story) and whether or not this particular example/chart approach is original research.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Taipei Times article regarding the Chinese Wikipedia

Today, Taipei Times released this editorial:

• 2013-10-30, Grace Tsoi, Wikipedia China: frontline for regional tolerance, Taipei Times

It discusses a few recent issues regarding the Chinese Wikipedia (which it erroneously refers to as "Wikipedia China"). What does the one and only Jimbo think about the political faultlines on the Chinese language Wikipedia, and how that particular Wikipedia project is moving forward in general? Do you have any concerns regarding how the Chinese Wikipedia has turned out? --benlisquare_T•C•E 03:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it is great. Of course like any language version they've got their issues and problems. But what is great is how by keeping the community together, people have to confront people of different viewpoints and find a way to reach NPOV together. One of my big regrets is that we have a separate Croatian and Serbian Wikipedia, because it allows bias on issues where the two groups tend to disagree to fester for longer than it should.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Would you still say that it's too late for a Serbian/Croatian merger? After all, the Chinese Wikipedia began as two separate projects, zh-hans and zh-hant, each with their own completely different local content, before they were merged and the automatic script converter was adopted. --benlisquare_T•C•E 14:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. You ask a very good question. Of course it is not up to me. And it's politically (not in the sense of governments, but in the sense of the internal politics of the two communities) quite difficult. I would like to see as a first step continued and increased cooperation between the communities, including as much face-to-face visiting as possible.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Fixing up BLP article in exchange for a charitable donation?

Jimbo, do you believe it's OK to fix up a BLP article in exchange for a charitable donation by the subject? Under "charitable donation" I mean donation to any charitable organization, not necessarily the WMF. 24.4.37.209 (talk) 05:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

My bet is he does not believe that. Really not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Especially not to the WMF.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, your senior administrator user:Jehochman who himself works in the areas of Internet Marketing, SEO, PPC, Web Development, and ho started his Wikipedia career with writing an advertisement believes that such activities are perfectly alright. "Once in a while I might introduce them to an editor who is willing to fix up their article in exchange for a charitable donation. My feeling is that if Wikipedia gets a better article, the business receives value and pays for it, and the editor is happy that some charity benefited, then it is ethical." He doesn't even exclude the WMF, he's simply talking about "some charity". 24.4.37.209 (talk) 13:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like you'd be better off asking him than me, then. In any event, I think this sort of thing is not ideal. But I particularly think it extremely unwise to solicit or accept donations for the Wikimedia Foundation that appear in any way to be tied to donations. It has the feel of a protection racket or something, it's just not right. If I were approached with something like this, I would decline saying "I'm happy to help improve Wikipedia, and if you'd like to donate to charity then please know that it is unnecessary in terms of Wikipedia. If you want to donate, donate for your own reasons, not as an exchange for editing favors."

But let's be clear that while I think this is not ideal, I don't think it is nearly as bad as being paid to engage in undisclosed paid advocacy editing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. Just like to mention that asking Jehochman is useless. In the best case scenario you'd get something like that: "Violations of WP:AGF and dull posts are removed" 24.4.37.209 (talk) 15:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

IP, could you please login and use your real account? Perhaps you can't because it's blocked. Jehochman ^Talk 17:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Jehochman, I could have used your language to respond to you, something like "Violations of WP:AGF and dull posts are not allowed", but instead I'd like to quote another person, a person who quit Wikipedia because he has seen too many admins become "Self-righteous, arrogant, self-centered, conceited... jerks" just as yourself, Jehochman. So here's the quote "I've seen the way accusations of "sockpuppet" have become a way of life in content disputes, and I've see how the admins on wikipedia do absolutely nothing about it. Too many despicable pov warriors spend their time accusing anyone they disagree with on one article or another of being a "sockpuppet", and never does a CheckUser come back innocent." 24.4.37.209 (talk) 21:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Jimmy, it is really unfair for you to jump to assumptions. No donation was solicited for WMF. That's not on the table. Who is the IP that posted here, trashed my name, and didn't even bother to notify me? I am a named person. I don't like being forced to respond to trolls by what could be a banned user. Finally, Jimmy, would you please point to the paid editing policy? Oh wait, we don't have one. The community is extremely divided on the issue. It's not ideal to hold people to a non-existent standard.

• There is a broader issued called The Right to Respond. Wikipedia is a user-generated content site. We don't have professional writers or editors. There is no assurance that an article about a subject includes that subjects explanations, unlike any professional newspaper, magazine or encyclopedia article. It is very unfair to talk about somebody, such as an article subject, without giving them a chance to respond. Until we have a clear policy on how this works, we need to be careful not to trample on The Right to Respond while chasing off obnoxious, unhelpful paid editors. Jehochman ^Talk 17:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• I've been thinking about this for a long time. If there is a poor-quality Wikipedia article about a business, that can damage the business's reputation, they have every right to take steps to improve that article. If making suggestions on the article talk page is not sufficient to get the job done, why can't a business transparently edit their article or offer compensation for somebody else to do so? In my view offering a donation to an unrelated third party (such as EFF or Rotary's polio eradication campaign) to compensate the value received, is better than corrupting the editor with payment. This may not be ideal, but it is also not ideal to damage a business' reputation by presenting them in a false light, due to an incomplete or outdated article. Sometimes we have to choose among the lesser evils. This is a very interesting topic worth discussion. Though I dislike the non-neutral presentation above, but I am happy to discuss the issue if framed fairly. Jehochman ^Talk 17:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

It is virtually impossible to find a case where a business has tried to do things correctly and failed to get good results. There is no need to directly edit the article, and it is a very poor approach to the issue and something that should never be suggested. Instead businesses who have a concern should be told where and how to escalate beyond the talk page - up to and including coming to me directly with their concerns (I'm here every day answering questions and there is plenty of capacity for concerned volunteers.) You see, this idea that businesses should be able to edit Wikipedia directly because they have no choice if they want to correct an error is simply false - and a fig leaf for very bad behavior.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

You don't know what you don't know. There is lots of discontent in the business community, and very little guidance for them on how to get help from Wikipedia. Please point me to the page that provides a clear list of steps that a business can take to get help. Jehochman ^Talk 19:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Contact_us - Subjects. If you are asking if this page can be improved and expanded, then I will agree with you. But it's pretty darn good and it is easy to find.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I have a client who is very unhappy with their Wikipedia presence and has had a horrible experience trying to get it corrected. I'm helping them with other things and have thus far done nothing to their article. I will refer them to that page and we'll test how it works. I'll get you feedback. Okay? In addition to what's on the page, there should be a statement to the effect: "If your article has been damaged by obvious vandalism or slander, please feel free to fix it yourself without delay and then (notify us | post a note at WP:COIN to request review of your actions)." Last I looked, WP:COI includes an exception allowing COI editors to fix obvious vandalism and BLP violations. Jehochman ^Talk 19:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you at liberty to discuss the example in more detail? We can do it by email if that's helpful. I want to explore solutions to any problems that people are having - solutions which don't involve destroying the integrity of our model.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll email when I get a chance. Jehochman ^Talk 20:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I've often compared paid editing to BLP editing. In this case it's even more appropriate because the article is a BLP anyway.

Yes, of course it's perfectly true that someone who is paid has a conflict of interest and there are all sorts of bad things he might do, and which people like him really have done.

But it's also true that someone who is the subject rather than being paid by the subject, would do exactly the same bad things. He has as bad a conflict of interest, is unlikely to respond to anything contrary to his interest, is as likely to insert something promotional, etc.

And yet we permit the subject to edit his own article. It's discouraged, and is often bad, but we don't categorically prohibit it, because we know that Wikipedia's system often breaks down and the only person with a motive to fix it may be the subject.

If we can permit subjects to edit their own articles, despite of the weight of all the horrors of COI being against it, shouldn't we allow similar types of paid editing? Jimbo just claimed "It is virtually impossible to find a case where a business has tried to do things correctly and failed to get good results." Would we ever tell a BLP subject trying to edit his own article "It is virtually impossible to find a case where a BLP subject has tried to get Wikipedia to fix his article and failed to get good resilts"? Ken Arromdee (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The IP made a good point. If you're driving across the great state of Joebobia, and a cop pulls you over and says you were speeding, and you ask is there anything you can do, and he says, you can give a donation to the Fraternal Order of Porkers, a lot of people are going to take that as a request for a bribe that's not a request for a bribe, since there are a lot of officials in the world who make a business of getting paid and not all that many who say they take bribes. So it is indeed best to avoid any confusion in this regard, even if your intent isn't to request a bribe. And asking who the IP is is not a useful thing to do; it's just an ad hominem attack frustrated by the lack of a hominem. Wnt (talk) 22:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Somebody emailed me the identity the IP. They are banned, and even had talk page and email access removed by an ArbCom member. As for the charity for edits, it's a thought. If people don't like it, then it won't happen. Jehochman ^Talk 23:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Some people have active imaginations, but they don't know me and they're wrong if they think they do. 24.4.37.209 (talk) 14:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem with saying "well, it turned out to be an abuser" is, again, that that reasoning is not accepted for normal BLPs. If someone tried to edit their biography, and it turned out to be a banned user and they were editing their own biography to whitewash something they did or some other nefarious reason, you might say "good riddance" to that one person, but you would never say that that is a reason to prohibit all cases where someone edits their own BLP.

Just like "that BLP editor is an abuser" is not a good reason to ban all cases of editing your own BLP, "that paid editor is an abuser" is not a good reason to ban all paid editors. Ken Arromdee (talk) 02:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Re "If we can permit subjects to edit their own articles, despite of the weight of all the horrors of COI being against it, shouldn't we allow similar types of paid editing?" No. No, we shouldn't. Does that answer your question?

Re "I have a client who is very unhappy with their Wikipedia presence and has had a horrible experience trying to get it corrected". Hmmm. Maybe I have a client who is very unhappy with the article about them in the Economist. Image the trouble I have when I ask the Economist for permission to edit the article source! You have it easy! It's already so much easier to fix things in the Wikipedia. It's a wiki! All you have to do is convince the other editors.

Re "If there is a Wikipedia article about a business, that can damage the business's reputation, they have every right to take steps to change that article." No they don't. Of course they don't. "If making suggestions on the article talk page is not sufficient to get the job done" shows a profound misunderstanding of what we're about here and what kinds of "jobs" we're trying to get "done". Didn't you have to pass some kind of test or something to become an administrator? I thought there was a test. We don't make suggestions on talk pages and then, when the other editors say "that's a bad idea", go ahead and do it anyway. Was this not explained to you at some point?

Now if there's unsourced and untrue info in your client's articles, that's different of course. But you're not saying that. You're not saying that because you know that everyone knows that it's easy to remove unsourced passages from any Wikipedia article. You're saying "can damage the business's reputation". That's a different thing. You're saying "my client thinks that the whole deal with the price-fixing and the waste-dumping and the politician-bribing and so on should be downplayed and replaced with more info about their products, but I can't get the other Wikipedia editors to agree." That's a different thing.

Sometimes corporations do things that damage their reputation. Here's a tip you could pass on to them: "Let's not do those things" might be a better strategy than "Let's edit these things out of our Wikipedia article". I'm just saying.

I'll tell you what Jehochman. When Britannica adopts the policy "corporate subjects of our articles are welcome to come in and change them", then we'll consider doing that too. Deal? Herostratus (talk) 05:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

"Does that answer your question?"

Of course it doesn't. In a discussion, it's implicit that people will provide reasoning; just saying "no" is non-responsive. Exactly why is it that

• all these problems can happen with people editing their own BLPs
• yet, that is not a reason to prevent people from editing their own BLPs
• yet, basically the same thing is considered a reason to prevent paid editing?

(And about Britannica: Britannica doesn't have a policy of "anyone can come in and make a random malicious change to a company's article", so it doesn't need a policy that lets someone from the company come in and fix them.) Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but there needs to be a better solution to people vandalizing articles and adding malicious content than "Just let the subject edit the article directly or pay someone else to do it for them." You're essentially proposing giving the subject a veto over anything they don't want in their article. There cannot and should not be any sort of assumption that such edits will be neutral and NPOV (Which isn't to say they can't be). As Mr. Wales says, there is a process for subjects with concerns about things in articles about them and I must assume both Wikipedia as a whole and the WMF would be open to suggestions on how to improve it. Simple Sarah (talk) 16:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you're confused over what I'm arguing. I didn't propose anything for the BLP case--what I describe is already existing policy. Allowing editing means giving the subject a veto? Existing policy allows the subject to edit and it doesn't amount to giving the subject a veto. Edits by subjects are non-neutral and POV? Well, existing policy allows edits by BLP subjects and we seem to be able to handle non-neutral and POV edits.

All the things you describe are not problems when it comes to BLPs--at least not such big problems that we categorically prohibit BLP subjects from editing their own articles, ever. Why do we need to categorically prohibit paid editing in order to solve the exact same problems that are solved without a categorical prohibition for BLP editing? Ken Arromdee (talk) 17:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it's clear that there are things that are important enough that they trump ordinary enforcement. If somebody edits Jimbo's article to say he's an ax-murderer, and the worst banned user of the lot uses an IP to fix it, we're not going to revert the edit just because he's banned. And if he goes on to tell ANI that somebody just posted kiddie porn to our article on SpongeBob, we're not going to cite WP:DENY and ignore him. I'm perfectly happy to let him "get away with it" both times, and not even have any process afterward by which somebody adds half a year to his lifetime ban. The same should be true for paid editors: if they fix something that was clearly intolerable, we should just forget about it. Do we expect them to get out of control and start "fixing" the facts to please them? Of course! But I'd prefer we wait until they're in the wrong before we slap them down. Wnt (talk) 19:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:COS makes it clear that there is an exception to the general guideline of not editing your own article for extreme cases of problematic content, but it also makes clear that you must then bring it up either with WP:OTRS or on WP:BLPN. In other words, any such edit is supposed to be specifically brought forward for special and specific scrutiny. This is vastly different from saying they can edit the articles to remove major issues without any additional special oversight. And anything that doesn't actually require immediate action should go through established channels. Simple Sarah (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Bridgespan Group has an interesting origin

Jimmy, are you familiar with the Bridgespan Group? Apparently, they have done a lot of strategy work with the Wikimedia Foundation. Indeed, the WMF's Senior Manager of Global Learning & Evaluation, Jessie Wild, came to the WMF from Bridgespan. Wondering what you think of the provenance of Wikipedia's article about Bridgespan Group. It would appear to have been created by a user with a highly-focused agenda on Wikipedia. Then, the article got some follow-up editing by User:Linqink, who is "an employee of The Bridgespan Group". Do you think that you or the WMF leadership might discuss with Bridgespan Group your Bright Line Rule, so that in the future they might strive to adhere to it? Or, would that be shaming the Bridgespan Group? - 2001:558:1400:10:D4F8:5823:CB76:A438 (talk) 17:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know anyone at Bridgespan. You'd best speak to Jessie WIld if you'd like to know who to speak to at Bridgespan. You could also leave a note for Linqink.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

This claim seemed odd to me, because I could have sworn I remembered Bridgespan Group being pretty closely tied in (to the tune of $720,000) with the Wikimedia Foundation board. So, I looked up "Bridgespan" and "Jimmy Wales" on Google. Are you sure you don't know anyone at Bridgespan? Laura Lanzerotti is a manager with Bridgespan, and you and she attended the same WMF board meeting in Argentina in August 2009. Maybe you stepped out when she was introduced. You were together again at another meeting in February 2010. Maybe you forgot, since that was more than three years ago. But then there is Libbie Landles-Dowling, a case leader at Bridgespan, who attended a board meeting with you as recently as March 2012. Three board meetings with multiple personnel from Bridgespan present, but you don't know anyone at Bridgespan? That's kind of weird, Jimbo. Memory loss? - I'm not that crazy (talk) 21:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing inconsistent between the links presented and the statement "I don't know anyone at Bridgespan". Johnuniq (talk) 22:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Translating

Santtu37 from Finland here hello! I saw that you don't have a user page translated to Finnish Wikipedia, so I want to ask do you want that I will translate for you a user page there? I don't know are you able to understand Finnish language, but if you are not, I can help you with my translating skills. :) Santtu37 (talk) 18:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

That sounds wonderful, thank you.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

That was very nice. Cool.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I can translate Finnish version from your English user page tomorrow, because I don't have enough time to do It today. But anyway, I'm doing It for you of course. ;) Santtu37 (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

And that Finnish user page for you is finally ready. You can check Its present situation from there. Santtu37 (talk) 17:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Thoughts on paid advocacy

Hi Jimbo, and whoever else may be interested,

First, I wanted to thank you, Jimbo, for your concerns with paid advocacy. I think you've taken a very helpful stance. I just wanted to follow with some thoughts; I'm sure others have written all this before, but anyway:

In academic publishing, if the author of a paper has received or will receive tangible benefits from someone who has a financial interest in the subject of the paper, this conflict of interest is supposed to be noted clearly within the paper. Not to do so is academic fraud. For encyclopedias this is not even an issue: Authors of entries are always supposed to be independent of conflict of interest for the subject of their entries. This is because encyclopedias are not supposed to be position or argumentative papers, but general, neutral accounts. Conflicts of interest have always been recognized in the academic world as undermining this neutrality to such an extent that it is rigorously avoided. For example, if it was discovered that Robert Duce accepted money from the aerosol industry in order to write the entry "Aerosols" in the Springer Encyclopedia of World Climatology, he would be rightly scandalized, and his department at Texas A&M would try to remove him as best as they could. We should keep this encyclopedia at the same high standard.

Paid advocacy editors have responded that Wikipedia already has policies to keep things neutral and that their edits— or those of the responsible ones among them at least —are kept within these policies. This response is a non-starter. Every academic encyclopedia has neutrality as an editorial standard, but their editors still do not accept authors with a conflict of interest. We should not fail to learn from the best practices of the academic world.

Paid advocacy editors cannot produce even a single example where an effective paid editor has produced an overall negative impression for the firm or a client of the firm which pays this editor. Of course this is the case: If such a paid editor is going to produce a negative impression of the benefactor, then the benefactor has no interest in paying out money for such a service. Overall unbiased editing from such paid editors is a contradiction. A necessary condition for the continued practice of paying editors to produce content about oneself or one's clients is that there be a systemic bias in the production of content. Neutral editors have no effective mechanism for dealing with this biased production apart from banning it: Neutral editors are volunteers who can only act in their free time, the paid editors have as much time as their pay can afford them.

Claims that the community here is divided on whether to maintain the high standards of academic publishing are suspicious. The community is that body of neutral editors who are here to write an encyclopedia collaboratively. The editors who are paid to produce content concerning a benefactor, insofar as they take that role, are not part of this community. As such they are not here to work collaboratively, but are rather here to benefit themselves. What percentage of those who want to allow, and indeed expand the number of, encyclopedia articles written with a conflict of interest are actually part of the community, and what percentage are themselves paid editors? That is hard to answer. Instead of counting votes on what practices to take up, we should look to the academic world, which has soundly rejected conflict-of-interest writing. Thanks for reading. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. This is all completely wonderful. The analogy is a very useful and helpful one.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

No academic journal allows anonymous editors to vandalize articles after publication. We are not the same. Jehochman ^Talk 19:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

It's an analogy, a very valid one. I'm sure you aren't suggesting that the solution to vandalism is to allow undisclosed paid advocacy editing by pr flacks. That doesn't even begin to make sense.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I did not assert that undisclosed paid advocacy editing should be allowed. It is manifest bad faith by you to falsely attribute things to me. Please let me speak for myself. Jehochman ^Talk 19:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't falsely attribute anything to you.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

If Wikipedia has a page about me, but I am only semi-notable, and very few people watch my page, vandalism to my page might go unnoticed for a long time. If I see that somebody has inserted malicious content into my page, I can fix it in 10 seconds myself. Are you suggesting I should go through a time consuming bureaucracy instead? No, Jimmy, your assertion that Wikipedia is a site where anybody can post slander and the subject (and only the subject) cannot respond, is what makes no sense. Jehochman ^Talk 19:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Your analogy is completely broken. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia with a paid editorial staff that ensures accuracy and article quality. Britanica does not put out half baked articles about people, businesses and organizations the way we do. If a person, business or organization is harmed by one of our half baked articles, they have every right to self-help, as long as they are transparent, respectful, and helpful. We need to define what steps they can take to help themselves. Jehochman ^Talk 19:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point of the analogy if you think he is arguing that we should not allow people the "right to self-help". Or that you think he is not saying that we should define what steps they can take to help themselves. The point is that we can and should define those steps in such a way that people aren't forced into very risky (for their reputations and ours) paid advocacy editing. As it turns out, this is quite easy - the cries that we have to allow this kind of nonsense because there is nothing else to be done about it flies in the face of the reality of how we work every day.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Three is nothing risky about reverting vandalism to one's own page. So, some editing is allowed. You are mixing up paid advocacy with paid editing. The two are not equivalent. Jehochman ^Talk 19:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not mixing up paid advocacy with paid editing. Indeed, for a while I have been leading the charge for people to stop talking about paid editing or using the term because it really really confuses the issue.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Above you agreed that for an employee to change a description of the company from 80,000 employees to 87,000 employees should be prohibited. This might be considered paid editing, but to call it paid advocacy is to stretch the concept beyond all useful meaning. Ken Arromdee (talk) 21:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Okay, I think we have each clarified our positions and understood each other. Why don't we have a "no paid editing of articles" policy? What about all the edge cases, such as scholarships? The lack of a page I can point to makes it very hard to educate interested parties about the proper way to do things. I can live with any policy, but what is difficult is trying to abide by an amorphous standard. Jehochman ^Talk 20:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I feel like, and just said this in email, you're a bit behind on the discussions. Scholarships are not edge cases but perfectly acceptable. "Paid editing" is not the appropriate term to use because it mixes up too many different things. The preferred term is "paid advocacy editing"

- "paid" to clarify that we are narrowing the discussion to a particular type of conflict of interest (there can be others, but that's not what we are talking about.

-"advocacy" to clarify that we aren't talking about people who are being paid to improve articles in their field of expertise, etc.

-"editing" to clarify that we aren't talking about engaging with us on talk pages, by OTRS, etc. but editing the articles directly

By narrowing the conversation to this, we can make clear that we aren't at this time concerned with questions about scholarships, or questions about POV pushing partisans of other kinds, etc. We are talking about one particular problem only, a real one, and one which we have the opportunity to do something useful about.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

"Paid advocacy editing" is your preferred term, Jimmy, and while I think your preference for it is absolutely sensible, the complicated nuances that you're trying to capture by using it are exactly the problem. No offense, but it's hard not to get the impression that you're not entirely sure what you're campaigning against. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 23:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

No, I am being very clear and precise about what I'm campaigning against. Precise language and clear definitions solve problems of ambiguity. I am asking people to stop using vague terms like "paid editing" that clump different kinds of things together and focus on a single, specific, and very precise problem: paid advocacy editing, as I have explained it up above. Does that clear things up for you?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't actually need anything cleared up for my own part. I just don't think your ever-more-specific neologisms are getting your message across very effectively. Someone smarter than me might come up with a good sound-bitish word that says "don't edit wikipedia to polish your image ("you" referring to either an actual person or the "corporate person" we talk about these days). --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 23:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Atethnekos makes a comparison to academic journals and traditional encyclopedias, which usually have clearly identified editors (granted, some encyclopedias withheld author names from the public). Authors of Wikipedia are mostly anonymous, editing under pen names or as IPs. There are good reasons for Wikipedia editors to seek anonymity, such as to avoid harassment from those who disagree with their edits or their actions. The only way to sanction or limit the work of a paid editor is if the editor deliberately or inadvertently discloses his real identity, or if someone violates WP:OUTING via off-wiki sleuthing, based on facts the editor let slip. A ban on paid editing may inspire a warm fuzzy feeling in the belief that it preserves the purity of the encyclopedia, but it seems inconsistent with allowing anonymous editing. It will hamper only the very honest or the very naive conflict-of-interest editor or paid editor. The only benefit I see of a "No paid editing" policy is that it would prevent anyone from advertising as a writer-for- hire his Wikipedia credentials, such as having a large number of featured articles and good articles, and thousands of edits, and positions of responsibility such as being an administrator. Edison (talk) 20:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The main problem with the comparison to academic publishing is that in academic publishing there are checks and balances that keep the journal from just throwing in a couple of random falsehoods or misleading statements about someone. Mostly, the fact that the journal knows that it or the writers it publishes will be held responsible for them. In Wikipedia anyone can toss in a random fake fact on a page and have it sit there for months when the subject is of marginal interest and the page is not watched very heavily. Journals won't do that, even online ones, so there's no need for subjects to edit in order to fix it. Ken Arromdee (talk) 21:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

If we cannot prevent such conflict of interest editors from creating content on Wikipedia pages (as is done in other encyclopedias), then at least we can clearly disclose the conflict of interest in the article (as is done in other academic publications): Here's a template which can be placed on the top of such articles:

Really, the inclusion of such a notice is the minimum we should do if the article is being created with a conflict of interest. Merely placing a disclosure on a user page which the average reader of an article will never see, is pointless. I do hope however that people will agree that including such a notice is worse than just not allowing such editing in the first place. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of templates - mostly they just sit there for years and uglify the page. I also don't think it would work as far as making the ads on article pages legal - e.g. in the "clear and conspicuous" part of the Dot Com Disclosure rules of the FTC, they go on about how scrolling the page to get to a disclosure is bad (if not outright banned),that the disclosure has to be in close proximity to the claim (edit) and that the disclosure has to be clear and conspicuous on all platforms used, e.g. on mobile phones. Pretty hard to do on Wikipedia.

Somebody is bound to say here that Wikipedia doesn't allow ads, so this situation couldn't possibly come up. To the contrary - the FTC is very broad in its definition of ads, and there are thousands of Wikipedia articles that have ads in them by the FTC definition.

It's also very unclear how a disclosure would work on a Wikipedia page. For example, say an endorser wrote "XXX corp's products all meet industry safety standards," (clearly an ad by FTC standards if the editor is paid) then a non-paid editor adds "applicable" after "meet," and then another editor writes "according to a November 2009 study." Is the disclosure still going to be accurate? How about after 3 years of additional edits - both pro and con?

BTW, there is situation here that you might not expect. According to the way most editors here understand WP:NPOV, this sentence would be NPOV if there is a citation, say to a NY Times article, that discusses the study. Not so with the FTC, if the study was paid for by XXX corp, that must be disclosed "clearly and conspicuously" and in close proximity to the claim.

FWIW, my reading of how the minimum disclosure according to FTC rules would read on Wikipedia would be something like this, (Advert), where the link goes to a page that lists the advertiser and the editor and explains that he's been paid. I don't think any true Wikipedian wants something like that in an article. Phil Gomes above, thinks that if the disclosure "craps up" the user experience, then the paid advocate can rely on edit summaries, talk page disclosures, etc. to be the proper disclosure. That clearly is not the case, the FTC says if proper disclosures can't be made, that the ad can't be included. In short, we'd have to jump through a lot of hoops to make Wikipedia safe for advertisers. I certainly don't want to do that. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I think I would agree with all of this. The legal issues are beyond me. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 17:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

(ec reply to Atethnekos) The idea of paid editors staying to the talk page is that a neutral editor will then come along and review the work, making any necessary corrections ("Sure, updating the number of employees is fine; no, we can't say that Example Corp. is a great place to work and makes the best widgets in the world. We can give a more neutral presentation of those two awards you put in sources for though..."). At that point, it's that reviewing editor who's ultimately responsible for what goes in the article, and we don't need a warning template on the article. The trouble comes when Example Corp. edits the article directly, and decides the mention of those two highly-publicized product liability lawsuits isn't really necessary, is it? That's where COI editing causes trouble. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I would only suggest using the notice when such a editor actually writes part of the article. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 17:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

You're re-inventing the wheel a little, as there is already Template:COI.

One of the interesting thing about that template is that it regularly has paid advocates running to multiple Wikipedia helpdesks to ask how to get it removed from "their" article. There's nothing that gets paid advocates' attention so quickly as something that might be perceived as bad publicity for their client/themselves (e.g. a huge orange COI template at the top of the article).

Having said that, once the COI issues are resolved - which means an independent editor not just checking the language and structure and emphasis for neutrality, but also checking the sources provided do support the statements made, and also doing a bit of internet searching to look for encyclopedicly acceptable negative points of view that may have been omitted - then the COI template should be removed.

That's why I suggested earlier that there should be a template making clearer, that a COI-infested article needs such an independent review, and suggesting places to look for it. Like I said, paid advocates move to talk pages very quickly when upset in this way. And once they do so, they can also be told, "and now that it's fixed, you should stay off the article itself."

Just to add, mainly for User:Atethnekos, the essay Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing is one that I've always found a particularly powerful and relevant exposition of why people/organisations should think twice before COI editing. Although its title suggests that it's mainly about articles about people, there's also a fair bit of focus an entire section later in it that's on companies. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

YGM!

Hello, Jimbo Wales. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Please, check in your spam folder, just in case. Thank you. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 19:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Just another curiousity, non-controversial fun question for Jimbo

I like to give these questions for Jimbo as it gives us all a break from the drama and the policy discussions, so I hope he in particular does not mind. So here's my question- Jimbo, given the success of The Social Network (a movie about Zuckerman's founding of Facebook), has anyone ever approached you regarding a movie based on you and Wikipedia's founding? If so, any word that this could be in someone's pipeline?Camelbinky (talk) 00:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

A movie about that would be great. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 12:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Julian Assange was apparently not keen on The Fifth Estate. The big question is, who would play Jimbo?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Hugh Jackman, no question. Seattle (talk) 13:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I was going to say the same. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 13:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Out of interest, is Jimbo mentioned in The Fifth Estate at all? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

See Category:Films about Wikipedia.—Wavelength (talk) 16:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• Combine intrigue as art film with other-language wikipedias: Indeed the story behind Wikipedia is so broad and multi-faceted, with the tension between Nupedia's slow 7-step approval versus rapid wiki-collaboration of open articles, the growth of the user base, expansion into hundreds of languages and typesetting glitches, the rise and fall of wp:WikiProjects, fundraising milestones, the Wikimania conferences, the verifiability-not-truth debate, the spamming of navboxes, million-article counts, the Lua-speed revolution, the VisualEditor shootout, site-banning of editors, etc. It could become a fascinating film, balancing the intellectual challenges (re copyvios, BLP rules, Bot mania, wp:data hoarding/templates, or Britannica) with the drama of vandalism, topic-bans, blocks, Islamic images, nude photos, German Wikipedia mandates, and the Italian and SOPA blackouts. I would offset the slow period of Nupedia with an overview of wiki technology and background of Jimbo leading to approval of 22 Nupedia articles, before Jimbo created the wiki website, then show a rapid progress of events afterward. A clever director could make it all blend together, for multiple audiences, to cover 15 progressive years. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

And directed by Christopher Nolan or Spielberg. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 18:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you User:Wikid77, that was interesting and led me to read about Nupedia and Bomis. Amazing that one could argue that porn actually paid the way for Wikipedia to be born (much like Bayer's profits from heroin paid for the development of Aspirin after the govt decided heroin should be illegal). So, I do have some questions though perhaps you or Jimbo or someone could answer- the article on Bomis says the server hardware was not transferred to the WMF... does the WMF own the servers today, if so when/how did that happen? Also- who currently owns the nupedia.com and bomis.com domains?Camelbinky (talk) 19:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• Somewhere in the dim and dusty parts of my memory, I think there was also a very short film (or perhaps it was a photo-montage style cartoon? see how dim my memory is?) made by, and starring, Jimbo and some other notable people at some get-together somewhere. Apologies to Jimbo and all other notable people if this memory is incorrect. The brief exercise in question was also, of course, not a film about Wikipedia. In other Jimbo/films crossover trivia, Jimbo has served on the jury of the Tribeca Film Festival, according to Wikipedia. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

"not about living persons or scandals"

I have been "invited" to assist in presenting a glossy version of my country, i.e. "not about living persons or scandals". In such a version there is no room for unathorized proliferation of nucler technology to other nations; transnational investigations involving FBI agents presenting themselves during interrogation in a non-US embassy in Brussel; investigations by parliamentary oversight committee. (The above are links to diffs before the last round of apparent revisionism sets in.) Does the request sit well with you? --Boreumo (talk) 09:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate you linking to your little gem of an edit summary “introducing positives about him helping his billionaire buddy and later beating parliament's charges about partiality”. One thing that might interest Wales and should concern him is that after reverting several edits to the article made by this user, as well as removing undue negative stuff introduced by another now indeffed user, I stopped reverting for fear of being blocked for edit warring. Instead I brought the article to the BLP Noticeboard and voiced my concern there. However, despite the article being an obvious BLP violation of a leading Norwegian politician, nobody reacted, even though I insisted on something being done. Only when I filed a successful sockpuppet report was the case resolved. I can say generally that there have been and partly still are significant BLP problems with several politic-related Norway article; maybe in particular Labour politicans. This has not gone unnoticed in political circles in Norway. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 10:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

And I appreciate your gem, which follows this edit [5], where you remove the entire section about the parliamentary hearing, in your words justified by "Cleaning up article to remove undue weight to criticism, per WP:BLP, see talk page". Now that there is no mention about the parliamentary hearing about that politician's actions—has that "gone unnoticed in political circles in Norway" where you are privy, according to your hint? I intend to revert your "balancing" act in that article. --Boreumo (talk) 12:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Boreumo, you should improve the tone of your edit summaries. The third one about the "billionaire buddies" seemed to have little to do with the edit, which seemed more modest. However, any large deletion of sourced material like the one you list should indeed come with an explanation of either (a) why the sources are not valid reliable sources, or (b) listing a more relevant place where the section is going (and it should arrive there). Wnt (talk) 18:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Belgian analogue wikipedia

Hi Mr Wales,

this is the Belgian "paper wikipedia" from 1920 that I was talking about during our interview at the Brussels University last week:

Mundaneum

The dream of the founder: "that one day, somehow, all the information he collected could be accessed by people from the comfort of their own homes." must sound quite familiar to you :-)

The building and the collection still exist here in Belgium and can be visited. If you were to visit Belgium again some day, and would like to visit the mundaneum, just let me know and I'll make the arrangements.

Greets, and thanks again for the interview, Mushlack (talk) 11:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC) aka Lieven Scheire

Commercial editing

Jimmy, I have thought about this some more, and the main problem is one of terminology. Paid advocacy editing is the wrong neologism because there is lots of opposition in the form of, "This policy is unnecessary because all advocacy is forbidden on Wikipedia."

What we really mean to ban is Commercial editing. This nicely distinguishes from scholarly editing, which also might be paid, but is allowed. Commercial editing also encompasses situations where the editing is not being paid, but instead is intending to profit from their edits. If you look at the definition of commercial, lines 3 and 4 really hit the nail on the head.

What do you think of this Wikipedia:Paid editing policy proposal/2nd draft? Jehochman ^Talk 13:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!

Trick or Treat! Happy Halloween Jimbo Wales! I hope you have a great day and remember to be safe if you go trick-or-treating tonight with friends, family or loved ones. Happy Halloween! —  dainomite   15:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC) Help spread Wikilove by adding {{subst:User:Dainomite/HappyHalloween}} to other users' talk pages whether they be friends, acquaintances or random folks.

	Hello Jimbo Wales, Mark Miller has given you an lovely bat, to wish you a Happy Halloween! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a lovely bat! Enjoy!
	Spread the goodness of a lovely bat by adding {{subst:User:Miss Bono/Halloween}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Happy Halloween Jimbo

	Hello Jimbo Wales, Miss Bono has given you an lovely bat, to wish you a Happy Halloween! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a lovely bat! Enjoy!
	Spread the goodness of a lovely bat by adding {{subst:User:Miss Bono/Halloween}} to their talk page with a friendly message.