User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Am I out of line on this? It makes me sick to my stomach, and I think it's violative of our ToS as well

Could you have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Cla68 advertising his services as a paid Wikipedia editor? As is often the case, your name is being invoked. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a pretty effective troll to me. Par for the course for this particular editor.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

There are comments there regarding comments you made at some point on this issue, not on Cla68 himself, but on the issue itself...I am sure if you're bothering, you can read it. I am vehemently in opposition to paid editing. We all know it goes on, but under no circumstances is it to be tolerated if we know about it. Next thing we'll have is paid supports...at Rfa, at FAC and elsewhere. Paid editing leads to graft...and the ruination of this website.--MONGO 22:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I do hereby declare that for $500 I will support an RfA ;-) but no seriously? Paid editing occurs... fact. The question is putting limits/controls on it. The first step is to have people who are paid to edit, to declare such and to start to define criteria surrounding paid editors. E.g. declaring who is paying them and/or what they are being asked to write. This is only going to become more common place in the future. Hell, I saw on another page that the Smithsonian now has a Wikipedian in Residence. Undoubtably other large organizations have employees whose job it is to monitor articles and/or edit them. Do you doubt that Romney/Obama don't have people editing their articles and pushing their agendas? Wouldn't it be nice to know whom? As for Cla doing this as a business... more power to him. A short note on his page that he will work for money is acceptable, although I do object to his listing prices. THAT is advertising, but would you be opposed to my putting in my bio my company and what I do? Would you be opposed to my mentioniing that I am an independent consultant in the audit industry and then linking my page? No. That is par for the course. The question is not what he says, but how he says it.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 01:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, am prepared to commit to writing a policy which prohibits paid editing...the enforcement of such will be impractical, but if in stone, all will know where the website falls on this matter.--MONGO 22:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you should wait till the COI RFC is closed before undertaking to write such a policy... Monty₈₄₅ 23:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Have fun. I don't see that ever reaching community consensus. Just from observation, it looks like most of the community, who have weighed in thus far, fall on the "it's how you're editing, not why you're editing that matters" side. Silverseren^C 00:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that's a wild misinterpretation of the evidence. A handful of noisy editors, mainly conflicted themselves, are in favor. Most editors are opposed, but don't bother stalking and killing every discussion about it. When we get to a proper project-wide vote, the correct answer will be reached.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

And, like I said, I don't believe the community is going to be on your side. The majority understands that everyone has a COI, some more than others, and that it is through their actions on-wiki that determines whether they are allowed to edit, not their COI. We have plenty of editors who have a strong COI that are able to edit quite neutrally without issue. And if one bans paid editing, it raises the question about anyone else who has a strong COI, and whether we should be allowed them to edit. Then those with a slightly less COI and those with slightly less than that, until you end up with nobody being allowed to edit, because they all have a COI, as, in most cases, they wouldn't be editing an article subject unless they were personally interested in it and have an opinion on it.

Luckily, most editors understand that it is for these very reasons that COI is largely irrelevant and only acts as a caution, but not as a wall. All that matters is whether an editor is making neutral contributions. If they are, then it doesn't matter if they have a strong positive or negative opinion on the subject. If they're editing neutrally, who cares? Silverseren^C 00:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

This fallacious line of argument has been dealt with many times. Well, no sense in you going on and on about it. You are in the extreme minority here and I can't possibly convince you.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I am in the extreme minority on your talk page, yes, that's obvious. That's because your talk page is, often, an echo chamber for your opinions. That doesn't mean it is at all representative of the actual community opinion on a subject. Silverseren^C 00:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that I can convince Silverseren, because I think he's an advocate for an extreme position. So this is for those who might be naively taken in by his misreading of community consensus and who find his argument up above tempting to believe. I have just one simple thought experiment for you. Right now there is a big lawsuit going on between Google and Oracle. The judge in the case is Judge William Alsup. All of Judge Alsup's work in the case is public, he's in a public courtroom, and when he publishes his opinion in the case, that will be made public too. It will be subject to a lot of scrutiny. What would you think if you found out that Judge Alsup has a part-time job on the weekends advising Oracle on their patent litigation strategy for say $50,000 a year, much less than his salary as a judge, but a nice boost. Would you say "It isn't his motives for coming to a conclusion in the case, it's how he judges" and argue that Judges ought to be able to accept payments from litigants, as long as - somehow - they remain neutral?

It's frankly absurd, and it is equally absurd to take the position that someone can be a paid advocate (don't fall for the other fallacy, which is conflating the question of ALL paid editing with that of paid advocacy) and that as long as they are neutral it will not harm the reputation of Wikipedia. It is transparently obvious that if we welcome this kind of corruption, it will destroy the reputation of Wikipedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The thought experiment surprisingly has a simple answer, R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy which I knew about because I remember it being used in this DRV. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

From a brief read of the ANI discussion, his position doesn't seem to be extreme. In fact, a lot of the comments fall on the "well, so what?" end of the issue.

The Judge Alsup analogy would only apply if the person in charge of FA were a paid advocate, if you think about it a little more. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 09:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I might start by saying that, if something is going to destroy the reputation of Wikipedia, there are a significant number of other issues that are actually damaging the encyclopedia that will destroy its reputation long before the allowance of paid editing would have any effect. But to respond more directly to that, the media's reception to an idea is largely dependant on how the idea is represented before them. If this paid editing issue causes a rift in the community, you can be sure that there will be press coverage of the conflict and it will not be good for Wikipedia (just like past conflicts have been bad). And a complete banning of paid editing would just lead to media complaints of hypocrisy that paid editors are banned, but those editors with extreme COI issues (often high ranking Wikipedia members as well) are allowed to roam free. On the other hand, if a direct guideline was laid out that welcomed paid editing, but explained specifically what is and is now acceptable and also offered them various direct avenues to have their suggested improvements be looked at, then I sincerely doubt there would be much, if any, bad press over those actions. Silverseren^C 00:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Can we get back to the original complaint? Paid editing being good or bad is likely to go on forever. Should users be able to advertise their services on Wikipedia or not? --Onorem♠Dil 00:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I would say no. Silverseren^C 00:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, we do have some agreement then. :-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

[clear violation of POLICY "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages." (as well as WP:POINT removed.]

• • Last time I checked, blatantly promoting a product (FA article in this case) was not acceptable by policy or culture. Could you explain why this is different? --Onorem♠Dil 01:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm quite certain that this is all an attempt by Cla to be extremely sarcastic. Though i'm also sure he wouldn't mind if someone took him up on the offer, but the sarcasm does come first. Regardless though, sarcasm has its place and this isn' it. Silverseren^C 01:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Actually, you can find Cla's reasoning right here. Silverseren^C 01:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
      • So...massive "Point" made. Good for Cla. Are we done with this stupidity yet? --Onorem♠Dil 01:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Looks pretty flawed frankly...bottom line is paid advocacy is intertwined with paid editing...they are almost inseparable. IF someone is paying another to edit, then they expect an outcome...surely one that favors their POV. It's ludicrous to think anyone would pay and not expect something in return.--MONGO 01:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
        • They expect an improved article. An improved article, rather than a stub, would be better for the person. And, if we're talking companies, updated company stats would also be helpful. It really doesn't have to do with POV-slanting an article at all. Silverseren^C 01:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

          but...but...but...that is where they then say, gee thanks for updating our "stats" now how much is it going to cost us (to seasoned well thought of editor) to add THIS'? One leads to another for sure. I'll not be swayed by the motivations of corporate hacks to whitewash the facts...we already have enough of that going on with corporate ownership of the news...WE are supposed to be above all that.--MONGO 02:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

          • MONGO, several years ago I assisted a paid editor (for free) to take an article to FA. This was the article. The primary editor was an employee of the university. The article is fine. What you are really saying is that you don't trust Wikipedia's administrative or FA processes to enforce NPOV. After such a long time as you have participated in this project, doesn't that disappoint you? Cla68 (talk) 02:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

            • that article looks fine...but is it fine? It has two sections with left hand margin image placement at beginning of the section...MOS recommends right hand alignment with text left unless there is a paragraph of text first (example)...another section has text sandwiched between two images...where is the controversy section? Just touching the tip of the berg here...want more? I looked and saw nary an edit to that article by Cla68...I did see your support at FAC...it was a half sentence...so what are you trying to tell us? That your idea of assisting a paid editor should consist of a support vote for their enterprise? In consideration though, I didn't check the talkpage archives and did see other more well rounded supports...but I'm responding to your summary of "assistance".--MONGO 03:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

            • Are you declaring your intentions or advertising your services? What is your point in saying that you want 1000 for an article? --Onorem♠Dil 02:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
              • I will accept $1000 to take an article to FA-level quality. Cla68 (talk) 02:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
                • You nicely avoid answering but sure make yourself sound like a whore. --Onorem♠Dil 02:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Chill out with the personal attacks.VolunteerMarek 02:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Just an observation. Do you have a better way to describe it? --Onorem♠Dil 02:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

If a business will pay $1000 for a featured article, imagine how much it will pay for a successful AfD. Wnt (talk) 02:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

In terms of deleting or keeping an article? Either way, there's a significant difference between paid editing and what you're talking about. The former just involves (ideally) improving specific articles within our rules and guidelines. The latter would be breaking Wikipedia's rules to get a desired outcome. Of course, I don't even see how the latter could happen at all. Are you referring to an admin being paid off to close an AfD with a certain outcome? But then that would also mean that they would have to have a method of getting the AfD discussion to go their way, because it's otherwise be overturned at DRV. I just don't see paid AfD closing working at all without paying off everyone involved and, if that happens, it'll either be canvassing with a bunch of new accounts which we already know how to deal with or it'll be paying off a bunch of established users and I find it extremely unlikely, if not impossible, that none of them will come out and explain what's going on. Silverseren^C 02:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I've heard tell that sometimes people disagree about whether policy supports a deletion or not. Some articles might be deleted if someone puts in extra effort to make policy arguments; more so if two or three are hired... Wnt (talk) 02:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, if the policy arguments are actually based in policy and stand up to scrutiny...then ostensibly, there wouldn't be an issue in the first place, paid or not. Silverseren^C 02:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Entrepreneur---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 02:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

<-- Yeah, ok, we got to nip this false analogy, which unfortunately was stated by Jimbo above, in the butt. Comparing being paid for bringing an article to an FA status to a judge in charge of a case who is also employed by one of the litigants is obviously - obviously, as in a few seconds of reflection should make one realize it - incorrect and misleading. A more appropriate analogy would be to one of the parties in a case ... horror of horrors!, hiring a lawyer. Which, I'm told, happens all the time.

Likewise, bringing AfD closures of AfDs or whatever into it is an obvious red herring. That's not what we're talking about.

The judge analogy fails because there is an intrinsic issue of power there. So yes, an admin who takes money to close an AfD a particular way, or to block someone etc. is acting unethically. And that should be prohibited. However, there's nothing intrinsically unethical about being paid to make edits - which can be reverted at any time - to an article. In fact, being paid to make quality legitimate edits to an article nicely aligns social and private incentives.

So basically, paid editing Yes, paid adminin', reviewin', Afd-closin', and other forms of constabulatin', No. THOSE are the people with the real conflict of interest. Being worried about the fact that some lowly joe schmoe is getting some compensation for improving the encyclopedia, is so far down the list of legitimate concerns that it exposes the (faux?) outrage here and on AN/I as the unintentionally hilarious sanctimonious piece of self-mocking twaddle that it is.VolunteerMarek 02:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. But I would also add, being paid to present a certain side of the story would be equally offensive... but we have those people and there is no way to get rid of them. The question here, is can a person be hired to edit objectively with the intent of getting a FA---which includes by definition being Neutral and Unbiased. There is a difference between this and paid advocacy.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 03:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Ugh analogies; a traditionally poor rhetoric. It's intellectually underhand to try that avenue (this is not the first time you have done it) as is the attempt to cast elements here as an extremist (seriously?) minority (based on some unseen super-majority who don't contribute to discussions). I have just read the COI RFC (what a disaster) where a huge number of people commented - more than most community "votes". But, if you are that confident of a community !vote process opposing this sort of activity then I fully support you going ahead and making one... --Errant ^(chat!) 08:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

In fact, you know, your obnoxious approach to this has annoyed me (sorry) so I'm going to insist on finally getting some answers to these questions (which you have consistently avoided when brought up):

• I wrote Digital forensics (currently a good article) on company time, does this mean I am a paid editor? Should I AFD it?
• How does your viewpoint fit with the WMF sanctioned Wikipedian in Residence - some of whom have been employed to edit Wikipedia articles.

Your answers here are critical, because I feel it highlights how the situation isn't as cut-and-dried as you wish to cast it. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It isn't clear if you are asking me or some of the other participants in the discussion. I can't imagine that you are asking me because I have answered questions like this directly many times. I draw a strong distinction between paid advocacy and other types of editing which may be compensated. I don't see that as a complicated distinction at all. Regarding Digital forensics, I will take a look at it and give you an opinion on the ethics of you editing it if you like. Regarding Wikipedian in Residence, I think it crucial that people in such positions never edit to promote the institutions where they are in residence - and think it is a bannable offense if they do.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to check the article. I have noted you consistently use the word "advocacy" - which I agree with entirely - a word that refers to motive... but it is not clear whether you view all paid editing in general as primo-facto advocacy (the implication in your reply here is that you do not). Wikipedians in Residence often edit their home institutions article; is that over the line into editing to promote? I argue that motivation is the key here, and money is just one factor. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

errrrrrrmmmm ... ummmmmmm .... I'm not quite sure how to put this one, Jimbo .... but how does this tie in with this? Pesky (talk) 11:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I guess it's an example of what he intended when he wrote last month "I intend to host general philosophical and policy discussions on my page from time to time, and I intend to enforce a higher standard of civility than you may be comfortable with. If you don't like it, that's fine with me, it really is. Just don't participate if you can't do so while behaving in a respectful manner to others." (emphasis mine). Fram (talk) 13:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

That's not making it any more clear to me. It may because I'm HFA. On the other hand, it could actually be a total contradiction. What I'm having trouble with is understanding how referring to another editor as a troll, and saying it's par for the course for that editor, is in line with the policy; let alone in line with "a higher standard of civility". To whom does this "higher standard" apply? Is there a list? Is there an answer? Pesky (talk) 14:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I think Fram is sarcastically pointing out that Jimbo violated his own stated civility position. Thus, Fram was agreeing with you, Pesky. (Correct me if i'm wrong, Fram) Silverseren^C 16:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Aha! I fort so! What I would appreciate, though, would be a reply from Jimbo. I know the correct procedure, if one's concerned about possible violations of WP:CIVIL, is to bring it up with a politely worded message on the user's talk page ... but I have to admit I'm not entirely sure what the "official next step" is supposed to be if the matter is ignored. Pesky (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo writes, I think it crucial that people in such positions never edit to promote the institutions where they are in residence - and think it is a bannable offense if they do. So, it is ok for them to write on subjects for which they are familiar/exposed to, just so long as they "never edit to promote?" E.g. they write neutrally and in line with our other policies? But how would we know? How do you know who is "the wikipedian in residence" at Cornell Univerisity? At Sears? At McDonald's? The Republican/Democratic party? I'm certain that most universities and larger corporations have professional writers/employees monitoring and editing their articles. Right now, we don't know who they are---unless they explicitly tell us. Which I'd rather have than a secret paid editor pushing an agenda.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I think Baloonman is absolutely right. One is reminded of this ! Martinevans123 (talk) 15:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I feel a need to second this statement as well. Being an editable and incredibly popular site means that we will inevitably have people around with some bias or intent to further their own goals. As Balloonman already stated it is extremely likely that larger institutions monitor or influence their own page - didn't one editor write a tool that confirmed that used IP addresses on some article's belong to the corporations in question? And how many of the smaller, less knowns companies only have an article since they started it?

Point is case is that we cannot know who a contributer is. If Cla68 has improved an article to FA status in exchange for money, and he wouldn't have mentioned it would we have detected it in the first place? Also, if we cannot detect it, how could we even act against it or justify acting against it? I am all to happy to hammer shady companies that try to whitewash or promote others, but an editor who earned his spurs is another matter. And what of the hypothetical case where a charitable organization decides to invest in public knowledge and therefor hires a biologist/chemist or two to go over our animal/chemistry related pages? There are simply to many shades of grey in this matter to have a hard-set policy on this. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Just because a desirable rule is difficult to completely enforce, and requires people to be honorable, doesn't mean that the rule is faulty. The principle is sound. To allow paid editing because people "disclose" is the height of cynicism and will measurably hurt Wikipedia.

Frankly I'm getting bored with this discussion. If Wikipedia wants to commit hari-kiri it won't interrupt my life. Go to it and have fun. Jay Tepper (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Why is "money" special?

Jimbo, I ask in all sincerity: why do you seem to believe that money is somehow more poisonous to the project than other motivations that might cause a person to edit non-neutrally? I really, truly don’t understand why someone who gets $1000 to edit an article is more inclined to violate our policies (WP:NPOV, etc.) than someone who is a “true fan” committed to showing the world how great their favorite team/singer/restaurant, or someone who is absolutely certain that Ethnic group X is better than Ethnic group Y. I don’t understand why we want or need a special policy to deal with one specific form of motivation, when we have a perfectly good set of policies that govern all forms of biased and improper editing behavior. For instance, I think the current insanity at WP:MMA, including strong evidence of off-wiki threats and canvassing, is a much better example of disruptive editing that is damaging Wikipedia than the polite, cooperative editors at WP:WikiProject Cooperation/Paid Editor Help. Heck, I think the debacle that was WP: India Education Project was significantly more disruptive and potentially damaging to Wikipedia (since it results in large scale copyright violations) than paid editing, and that was a WMF directed project. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You are positing a competition between two things that are completely different. Apples and oranges. Yes, a person who is a "true fan" (in the negative sense) is a problem. The person of a particular religious (or other) viewpoint who comes to Wikipedia with an axe to grind is someone who has to be dealt with, and we do it every day. A paid advocate is also a problem, but a different problem, as the incentives before them and the motivations are different. It simply isn't the case that "one size fits all" - we should adapt policy and solutions in a way that works, to deal with each problem in the best possible way - false analogies to other problems will mislead.

The truth is that paid advocacy is significantly deterrable through a thoughtful set of policies that forbids direct article editing and encourages appropriate interaction with the community. There really are ethical communications professionals who understand that I will crucify their clients in the media if they do not do the right thing. And there are those who do NOT get it, and banning them is the fastest and easiest thing to do. It's really quite simple: follow a bright-line rule - no paid advocacy in article space - come to the discussion page.

Similarly with the India project. Was it a debacle? Yes, of course it was. But that provides no argument for not solving other problems as well. We don't have to choose to EITHER improve projects like that OR deal with the scourge of paid advocates. We must do both.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

My two cents:

• Payment influences decisions. In a study of the peer-reviewed scientific literature, studies where the author was funded by a drug company were four times more likely to find results favorable to that company than those funded independently.
• Payment does not eliminate meatpuppet prohibitions. If I can't ask my friend to support my views in discussions, I shouldn't be able to pay him to do it.
• It is not compelling to say Y is not a problem, because X, Y, and Z are all problems and we can't do anything about X or Z. If paid editing distracts or detracts from the project, it should be prohibited. Even if there are other things which are harder to deal with, we should not avoid dealing with the easier problems.

But, of course, I don't speak for Jimbo. --TeaDrinker (talk) 03:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Another point against paid editing is you get someone that is a slick practiced expert in dispute resolution that can easily "beat down" the volunteers that are trying to improve the encyclopedia because they like the idea of a free encyclopedia built by volunteers. My view is that paid editing would be a poison that would eventually destroy the original intent of Wikipedia and chase away many volunteers. There are frequently complaints about SPA's pushing their own POV. The SPA's are usually crude violate the rules and end up getting blocked. A paid editor that knows the rules and especially knows how to manipulate the dispute resolution process would be a menace to WP:NPOV. Money is special because it buys time and influence. If it was also allowed to buy Wikipedians with knowledge and experience it would likely destroy Wikipedia or change it into something that I'll guess that most volunteers will not be interested in being part of. Bill Huffman (talk) 05:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

And you don't think this doesn't already occur?

(ec)Re point 1: Yes, payment influences decisions. So which is better to read a study knowing who funded the study or to read a study not knowing who funded it? I'd like to know that McDonald's paid for that study about the nutrional value of a big mac. By knowing who is being paid, it opens avenues for oversight, that don't exist if we don't know.

Re point 2: Again, Cla's "advertisement" was to get an article to FA status. I think everybody agrees that being paid to advocate a stance is questionable (but we also know paid editors exist.) The key isn't to bury our heads and pretend that all is well in the world and that paid editing doesn't occur, but rather to regulate/monitor them in an appropriate manner.

Re point 3: Yes, because prohibition worked so well. The war on drugs worked so well. The situation exists and will continue to exist. Let's deal with it rather than pretend it doesn't happen.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 06:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Balloonman, but I find your points are missing a major point: $1000 is a laughably small amount of money. Paid editors that get results - control content to the satisfaction of the client - will get paid in the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars...easy. You think a civil POV pushing volunteer is a nightmare? Think what one making $80000 a year would be like? ...with five paid co-workers? Game over. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, Balloonman, as far as I can tell, you either agree with me, or you are positing a straw man. It is precisely my argument that we need to "eal with it rather than pretend it doesn't happen". The best way I know of to NOT deal with it is to continue to entertain lunatic arguments that it doesn't matter. The best way I know of to deal with it is channel it into appropriate channels (talk pages, primarily) and to be extremely firm that paid advocacy in article space is unwelcome, will not be tolerated. We need to offer a path for paid advocates to deal with us responsibly - allowing them to take over Wikipedia is absolutely not an option... that option would be burying our heads in the sand.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Bluntly, this already exists, and more or less de-facto permitted for professional photographers who put some of their work on Wikipedia. Why shouldn't similar tolerance be allowed for our writers? I do not ascribe this position to you, but I'm seeing remnants of Avery Brundage's belief in the "gifted amateur" as ideal. His vision did not survive the entry of money into the Olympic movement. Did it harm the Olympics? Well, try finding tickets for this year's Olympics, and athletes no longer have to live in the ghetto until after the games. Frankly, I doubt if there's much money in this—I am reminded of a "The Far Side" cartoon showing classified ads seeking those good at playing arcade games for big money—but I'd be willing to talk to a company offering sponsorship which includes access to databases and resources as well as my expenses. Unfortunately, when requests to the Foundation for resources get little heed or are hijacked, editors turn elsewhere.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Influenced by Pay editing is a poison that, even in small un-noticible doses, will eventually kill any reliablity we now have. We need to improve our trust level with the general public not allow it to continue its slide toward wholesale MIS-trust. ```Buster Seven Talk 12:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC).

Many editors are influenced in their editing by their nationality and religion. Isn't that a far more serious poison?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it's self-evident (that money is "special"), and that it's ridiculous to posit otherwise. Given the indecision and dithering of the so-called "community," I think that it's incumbent on Mr. Wales to show some leadership in this area and personally take action against paid editing. He seems to have the power and he should use it. If he doesn't, this online encyclopedia will be swamped by public relations professionals plying their trade. It already is to some extent. Just look at the articles p.r. people write about themselves. He knows it, and whether others do or don't is beside the point. Jay Tepper (talk) 12:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Given time and attention, National and Religiouslly "poisoned" editng become obvious and can be dealt with. Influenced by Pay editing is hidden, unknown, out of sight. Requiring that Paid Operatives self-identify removes the subversive flavor from the mix. The fact that the Communications Director for the Gingrich campaign finally self-identified created a workable collaborative effort in article creation. not perfect, just workable. At the very least, concerned editors could be alert for biased and slanted editing that only favored the candidate. WP is a major site for information dispersal. From now on, EVERY campaign for Major political offices will have a person, or a room of persons, whose job it will be to orchestrate what exists, or doesnt exist, in the Campaign article. Our readers need to be aware of that fact. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You can also place a permanent tag on articles to which paid editors have contributed, saying prominently "This article has been editors by persons paid by the subject of the article." Then you'd have two classes of articles, but the reader would receive disclosure. A better idea is to simply ban paid editing. Jay Tepper (talk) 13:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course money is special. It creates a culture where money becomes the end and everything else is just the means. And, you may not realize this, but a wikipedia page has a great deal of financial value because it is the first place people go looking for information. A small consulting firm, a university professor looking for consulting, small businesses, none notable in their own right would all love to have a nice wikipedia article of their own. Preferably with negative information left out. Tourist departments would be happy to pay to have their latest sites featured on wikipedia. A few dollars to reorder a list, what's the harm in that? Many dollars to add the sentence "access to the island from Liberty State Park is easier", no problem. On the flip side, editors would have an incentive to overlook that negative information being left out, the lack of notability, the reordering of lists or information, because they too would be pushing their own pet paid businesses and who wants to rock the boat. That's what happens all the time in the business world. And, the unpaid editors who are left would either be demotivated (thought experiment: How likely would you be to work for free in an environment where many people are getting paid for the same work?), or swamped. It's hard enough dealing with nationalist pov pushers but money is entirely a different ball game. --regentspark (comment) 13:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. You've raised a number of good points, especially about the demoralizing effect on unpaid editors. This issue is vital to Wikipedia, and its amazing to me that so many editors seem blithely unaware of the corrosive effects of allowing openly paid editors. Many focus instead on disclosure as a panacea. That may help from an internal Wikipedia standpoint, but it affords no advantage whatever to the millions of casual readers who would have no idea that an article they are reading may or may not be a direct product of a public relations professional. It amazes me the extent to which so many members of the "community" have their heads wedged up their posteriors on conflicts of interest and public relations poisoning of Wikipedia. Jay Tepper (talk) 13:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

And notice that there is a very simple and clean way to resolve this all ethically and practically - disclosure and engaging solely on the talk pages, noticeboards, wikiprojects, etc. If you can write good quality text that is actually neutral, and offer it up on the talk page, there is no need whatsoever to go to editing the article space directly. This is a simple plan that resolves all the serious concerns quite neatly. I have never seen a single valid argument against it. (Almost none of the paid advocates ever even try to engage this argument directly, instead throwing up a lot of obfuscation and presenting my position in a straw-man way.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense. I agree that we can't keep paid editing out, the wikipedia product is too valuable for that and money always finds a way in. Restricting paid editors to talk pages would help by creating a moat around article space. Moats don't always keep marauders out, but they do act as a deterrent. We also need a policy that bans editors from being paid for anything other than writing text. For example, we don't want editors being paid to !vote on deletion, move or FA discussions. --regentspark (comment) 14:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually that issue has been addressed, Jimbo, several times. The problem there is that talk pages can often be low traffic - so all your suggestions could easily sit there for days/weeks/months/years without any attention. To get the advocates to agree to that wholly logical approach requires us to improve our reaction to contributions of that sort as well. And I think we have to make the first move, it being our house. This whole paid advocacy problem has been mishandled from the get go - with us sat here going "go to the talk page, you underhand advocate!" and them going "stop printing lies, naughty Wikipedia!". It's a lot like an echo chamber - having conversed with both sides.. you're all as bad as each other. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

What do you think of a policy-cum-noticeboard, as we have for BLP? The situations are quite similar in some respects. JN466 20:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• Why is money special? That's easy to answer. Think about the situation where Company X is paying Cla68 $1000 to write a FA about Company X. Company X has made some good products and has done some good things, but they also once made a malfunctioning product that seriously injured someone. The incident wasn't headline news, but it did get reported in several newspapers around the world. As the article gets closer to FA, another editor joins in and writes a short section about the malfunctioning product incident. Company X calls up Cla68 and says, "What is this bullshit? We're paying you $1000 to write an article about us, and you include information that makes us look bad? You better take that out or we're not paying you a dime!" Cla68 tries to explain that he didn't include it in the article, some other editor did. But, Company X doesn't care, they want it out of the article or no payday.

Now Cla68 is faced with a (quite plausible) dilemma. Protect the neutrality of the article and get paid nothing for all the work he put into it, or try to appease Company X by arguing for the removal of the section about the incident. Which do you think he would do? What would you do in this situation? What if the payment for writing the article was $10,000? $50,000? Where is your limit? How much would you have to be paid to bend the rules and write something that's not entirely neutral?

Radix malorum est cupiditas. Allowing payment for writing an article (especially if it's about the organization who is paying you, which in most cases, it will be) gives some measure of control to that organization, unless they are forced to pay up front (to which I highly doubt any intelligent person would agree). This invites non-neutrality. We're better off not allowing it. But, back to the topic at hand, which is not whether we should allow paid editing, but whether we should allow editors to advertise their paid editing services on their user page. I think this is a clear cut "No", and if WP:UP needs to be updated to state this clearly, then so be it. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 14:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, one argument against it might be this. If other editors know, or get to know, that a talk page proposal has been paid for, won't there simply be a battle between those who wish to add it because it's fair (plus those who wish to add it because they have been paid to write it and/or wish to promote the principle of paid editing) and those who wish to keep it out simply because it has been paid for. Or would it be forbidden to show that a proposal had been paid for? Or perhaps Admins would know, but not ordinary editors? How would that particlar battle ground be policed? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo, I largely agree with your position on paid editing, but I take issue with how you have responded to Cla68's action. You state that we must "be extremely firm that paid advocacy in article space is unwelcome, will not be tolerated" but the truth is that no firm stance has been taken and paid editors have not only been tolerated but, of late, aided and abetted. This issue has been building for years now and the community has been unwilling to have serious discussion about it. Or set any firm rules or guidelines. I was only too happy to point out paid editors to those who claimed they would block on sight (including yourself and a former ArmCom member) yet no blocks ever happened. Meanwhile, advocates of paid editing first subverted the proposed guidelines, then formed welcoming committees. It is far too late to pretend that Cla68 is responsible for the current ruckus. His provocation was only possible thanks to years of studied inattention. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

That's not 100% true... 3 years ago [1], a person with several "prestigious" hats on wikipedia was stripped of all his hats and had an account blocked for paid editing. But beyond that, you are correct. The concern has been more centered around COI and and preserving proper weighting/balance/neutrality. I'd rather know who the paid editors are so they could be better monitored and if they can't/don't write in an objective/neutral manner, then we can address those situations better. If Editor X is hired by 3M to take the 3M article to FA status, wouldn't it be advantageous to know that Editor X is paid by 3M? It would bring down additional scrutiny. Also, if we know that Editor X is a paid editor, then violations of UNDUE/POV/ETC become easier to prove and officiate. There is a distinct difference between Paid-Editor X working on a controversial article and putting in POV edits and non-paid editor Y putting in the same edits. My tolerance for the paid editor is going to be a lot less. Thus, I want to know who the paid contributors are.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I was referring specifically to the paid editors that I had identified. Of those, I believe some did end up getting blocked for sockpuppetry, but not for paid editing. In the case that you cite, Nichalp was not blocked. Their alternate account was and they were stripped of their privileges because they failed to respond to ArbCom's emails. We could read between the lines, but those are the facts as presented. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Just because you're unaware of it (paid editing), doesn't mean it isn't happening. And just because someone doesn't advertise their services, doesn't mean those services aren't available. In this case, ignorance is not bliss, and if it is expressly prohibited, then the only thing we incentivize is that ignorance, when the correct incentives belong with quality material.ℱorƬheℒoveofℬacon ✉ • ✍ 21:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

We get distracted when we say "There really are ethical communications professionals who understand that I will crucify their clients in the media if they do not do the right thing." (Makes them sound scared rather than ethical, but let that pass.) The key point is disclosure, the whole idea behind an open editing ethos is that we know editors by their reputation, based on their actual edits. Disclosure is good, in a healthy community, because we can say "hang on, that's not quite right, do you think you are being biased there?" In an unhealthy community, where being a paid editor is treated as a badge of shame, it will be "back on the talk page you!" or submarine paid editng. I am fairly certain that the way forward is with the standard COI advice - declare potential conflicts of interest, and be very careful around these areas, in order to maintain a GF environment conducive to healthy editing. Common sense and human decency should prevail in these matters, as in all else. Rich Farmbrough, 18:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC).

Ironic side note

Having watched the ongoing RfC on Images in Mohammed, I have to ask where all the editors are that simply chimed in, "NOT CENSORED?" No seriously? This is a complete aside from the Paid Editing debate, but rather an illuminating point on my problem with WP:NOTCENSORED. We have people here, including Jimbo, who want to ban (e.g. censor) paid editors and nobody has cried NOT CENSORED. I bring this is up not because I want to use it as an argument in favor of paid editing, but rather because I find the use of "NOT CENSORED" as a position to be devoid of value. NOT CENSORED, while a fine ideal, is a weak argument in and of itself. It's a find starting point, but it should never be used to dispell reasoned arguments for the inclusion/exclusion/movement of materials.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 14:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

If that's your strongest argument for allowing paid editors, then I'd suggest that you have no argument whatsoever. Jay Tepper (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Balloonman, do note that Jimbo has not said we should ban paid editors. Rather, we need to manage them. See his comments on how paid editing can work above. --regentspark (comment) 14:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he did. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

That's not what he's saying now. [2] --regentspark (comment) 15:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

it is a bannable offense if they do and banning them is the fastest and easiest thing to do. It's really quite simple: follow a bright-line rule - no paid advocacy in article space are from today.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo is clearly distinguishing between paid editors and paid advocates. The l;atter should be banned the former not. I agree with that.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

And I'm opposed to paid advocacy as well... but where do we draw the line? How do we draw the line if we equate paid editing with paid advocacy? In order to have a disctinction, we need to draw a distinction and we need to make it so that paid editors can be identified. That way we can start to tell if that person who is a little too persistent on including a specific fact is doing so because they are a paid advocate or just stubborn. Identifying the motives is the first step.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 17:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

And where is the distinction between paid editor and paid advocate defined? If it isnt defined, they are the same thing, and the atmosphere will be unfriendly to newbies who will run into this constantly. Some admins will block, others will unblock, and it will go to Arbcom – mark my words. Newbies will be forced watch public debates about whether they are paid editing or paid advocates. At the WMAU/SLQ training workshops last week, many of the participants wrote articles which they have a COI with. e.g. Pinnacles Gallery. All openly declared; some participants even started with usernames which broke the username policy. Some of these participants and articles were what I would consider to be advocacy. No worries; easily fixed by editing according to content policies. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it would be beneficial to establish criteria for what is advocacy and what isn't. I think advocacy in general should be more frowned upon than it is - but particularly paid advocacy. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Balloonman, banning paid editors in article space while allowing them to use the talk page for advocating their points of view or suggesting the text they would like to see in the article is hardly the same thing as censorship or even banning them outright from wikipedia. I think Jimbo's proposal is a reasonable starting point on how to deal with paid editors so that they have a voice but the downside is minimized. --regentspark (comment) 16:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Jay, did you read my post? No it is not "my strongest argument" in favor of paid editing---in fact, I explicitly state that This is a complete aside from the Paid Editing debate. In fact, I consider NOT CENSORED to be a worthless argument when it is simply presented by itself. YET whenever we have debates of IMAGES on Mohammed or a nude in the lead of the pregnancy article or what have you, slews of people come out chiming in "NOT CENSORED" without regard for why the issue is being raised or whether or not the question being raised has merit. IMHO, NOT CENSORED is a meaningless platatude on its own... and I think this debate is showing how pathetic that phrase is. So, Jay, in reality, I agree 100%. If "NOT CENSORED" is the "strongest argument" for any issue, the "I'd suggest [whomever uses it has] no argument whatsoever."---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that our opposition to censorship is very important and relevant - it's the reason why we're having this debate; indeed, it's the reason why we're allowed to have this debate instead of just having Jimbo settle the point five years ago and move on. This is the boat and "NOTCENSORED" is the ocean. Nonetheless, we have not in the past extended this principle to advertising businesses on user pages or introducing POV in certain ways, as there are other important pillars we're trying to uphold at the same time. Wnt (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Opposition to censorship is important, but this whole argument belies the notion that simply citing "NOTCENSORED" is sufficeint in and of itself. Censorship occurs on Wikipedia... UNDUE/NPOV/RS/V/etc. The question is why? If the entirety of one's argument is NOT CENSORED, which we often see in various debates, then I contend that it often is not sufficeint---especially when rationale reasons have been presented for moving/removing/editing etc.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 17:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Paid editing vs. rewarded editing

First I wish to make clear that I am not an advocate of paid editing. I think there are a lot of areas of WP that currently rely on volunteer activity alone could profit from paid advocacy (such as WikiProject management, crosswiki bot maintenance, recruiting and retention programs, image.article improvement, copyright enforcement, etc.) but I think that in the case of article developement its best left to volunteers. To allow editing of articles for profit puts us on a slippery slope that would undoubtedly only get worse over time and would encourage users to demand payment for their services rather than voluneer.

With that said I do believe that the problem exists and there are likely more editors writing for profit than any of us know and we should try and bring those to light as much as possible. I think if its determined that paid editing should be allowed in some form we could draft some policies that limit this activity to certain areas or with controls in place that force them into the light more. It is my opinion that there are some "professional" organizations that, if we allowed them, would follow any rules we put in place to be allowed to edit. I also think that if an article is promoted in this way it should be visible on the article (possibly the talk page) and the article be ineligible for display on the main page.

I also want to clarify how I perceive the difference (and I could be wildly wrong here I admit) between paid editing and rewarded editing before its made into an issue. There are several programs in place by the organization such as students editing for classes that one could argue are merely paid editing in disguise because the individual is still "profiting" from the editing. I agree these editors are "rewarded" for their efforts in the form of degrees or even status, we hand out barnstars and things as rewards and we promote editors in wiki status by bestowing upon them additional rights such as administrator, beaurocrat, arbitrator, etc. but although these "rewards" help the wiki, improve morale and encourage a little good spirited competition in some cases no one is getting "paid". I think there are a lot of ways that editors, businesses and those interested in improving articles could be rewarded without stooping to the level of paying an editor to get their article promoted. For example, I do not think it would be wrong if "WP" accepted a sum to improve articles on a given topic (Call it a bounty or whatever even if the individual or might somehow be improved by it) as long as the sum is not directly attributed to that topic. Kumioko (talk) 17:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Valid point, but it still relegates articles and editors deemed professionals to second-class status. No one settles for being tolerated when equality should be on the table. What you are doing is adding an asterisk to achievement. That would not be acceptable. And I would not be amenable to WMF getting money for my editing.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

"relegates"? That's not a neutral term. I'd say the old, "We already established that; now we're just haggling about price" principle applies. If you're doing this for money for anybody but the Wikimedia movement itself, you're a pro; by definition you've forfeited any credible claim to lack of COI or (in my view) NPOV; and of course you have no place acting as an admin or in any other administrative capacity. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it does and should mean relegating paid editors to non-editing status. That is correct. Jay Tepper (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo spoke of a global community vote, a better question is: will an admin action against a paid editor stand? Unless the answer to that is "yes", isn't this just whistling in the wind?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think following COI guidelines makes us second class citizens any more than a volunteer editor who does the same for different COI reasons. Only when Civility and AGF are broken do we become so mistreated. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 21:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Paid editing versus paid advocacy

I want to emphasize a point that Jimbo made earlier: the problem is not really paid editing, it is paid advocacy, and we must be careful to recognize the difference. For example, the US National Institutes of Health sometimes awards grant money for community outreach, and one type of outreach it has funded is addition of material to Wikipedia. The people receiving those funds are doing paid editing, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with that -- this approach ought to be encouraged rather than discouraged. Whatever we do, we need to keep this distinction in mind. Looie496 (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

No, the problem is paid editing not paid "advocacy," whatever that means. It means paying somebody to edit Wikipedia for the purpose of placing or removing specific content from the encyclopedia. That's all it means. Jay Tepper (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think the problem is being paid - whether you are paid to advocate or paid to just write. The problem is whether or not your interests in editing Wikipedia are in conflict with the interests of Wikipedia as a whole. I've been looking at articles written by paid (freelance) editors over the last few weeks, and the problems that stand out are occasionally related to advocacy, which is a problem, but equally I find copyright violations, spam, falsified references, the creation of articles about non-notable subjects, and deliberate misrepresentations of the editor's relationship with the subject when questions are raised about the articles. (Not all those problems are equally serious, of course, but copyvio and falsified references I hold at least on a par with POV editing). At the same time, there are also cases where the interests of WP and those of the author haven't been in conflict, and the results have been good, solid encyclopedic articles in spite of money being involved. I wish there was a neat fix, and some nice way to distinguish between them, but it is a messy problem. - Bilby (talk) 18:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

This is one instance where the community is divided against itself. Jimbo has been on record against paid advocacy on any number of occasions, and has confined his efforts to dealing with inappropriate attempts to influence content against our existing policies. But the battle lines are drawn between those who advocate "anything goes, as long as our policies are followed" and "paid editing of any sort inherently corrupts Wikipedia". Either of these extreme positions is unlikely to ever achieve consensus, but the loudest voices in the argument are those on the fringes. Jclemens (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

All paid editing is advocacy of some sort, for some reason. Wikimedians-in-Residence are merely engaging people well versed in policy in order that the advocacy is kept within acceptable levels. Even non-profits have objectives, and they are required by law to ensure all their activities work towards those goals. As far as I know, there are no Wikimedia chapters that have "build Wikipedia content" as one of their objectives. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

That is not true. If somebody paid me a salary to edit wikipedia like I used to without posing any criteria about what i should and shouldn't edit then it wouldn't be advocacy - they would just do wikipedia the favor of having more contributions by me ;) .·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

From Wikimedia UK Constitution: "We exist to help collect, develop and distribute freely licensed knowledge (and other educational, cultural and historic content) ..." – arguably that would encompass "build Wikipedia content" with much of a stretch of the imagination. The problem we're faced with here is not so much editors receiving remuneration whilst editing, but outside interests paying to buy undue influence in given articles. The former may be unproblematic in some circumstances; the latter is always going to be anathema to the spirit of our project. --RexxS (talk) 01:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

John, saying "all paid editing is advocacy of some sort" isn't really helpful either. It's entirely possible for an entity to pick an editor and say "Keep doing what you're doing. No strings, here's a few bucks to reward your contribution to knowledge". Which, I suppose, would be advocacy for Wikipedia's own core principles. If you get to that point, I think that "advocacy" has been watered down to meaninglessness. Paid advocacy, at least as I use the term, means being an agent for some entity, to do their bidding and improperly influence Wikipedia processes. Further complicating the picture is that there is all sorts of other advocacy going on throughout Wikipedia--you and I have both seen it in terms of cases before the arbitration committee, but I suspect we both understand that those are the tip of the iceberg. Paid or unpaid, there are tons of editors who are not interested in NPOV, and I have yet to see how money is a fundamentally different motivator than nationalism, ethnic pride, or religion. Jclemens (talk) 01:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

It is different because money = time. If i were paid to advocate in favor of X topic I would be able to dedicate more time to it than if i weren't and consequently I'd be a couple of steps ahead of the volunteers trying to keep wikipedia neutral. if i was just advocating my own point of view I could be expected to dedicate the same amount of efforts as the volunteers trying to neutralize it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

What I'm finding, in many cases, is the opposite. If you are paid $100 to write an article, it seems many people will want to do the minimum amount of work to earn that in order to make it cost-effective. And that means not looking into WP's policies, not researching the topic in any depth, copying the client's text without modification or directly from their website, and not finding references that properly support the text. (Again, I should clarify that sometimes they do it properly as well). This isn't the case with a full-time PR person working on an article, but it is interesting that we have the two extremes - someone paid to spend a lot of time looking after the company's WP profile, and someone paid to get it on to WP only. - Bilby (talk) 02:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

but that is exactly the difference between advocacy and editing. If i were paid to put in a specific phrase in favor of X viewpoint then I could do so sloppily (most advocates also edit sloppily, edit warring to insert POV material etc. but some adept advocates (WP:CPUSH) of course know how to use the processes in their favor) - but if i was simply paid to do good editing like I usually do then I could make the effort.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

True. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the paid editing vs paid advocacy distinction is complex and somewhat artificial. Problems and benefits sit on both sides, but they tend to be different problems and benefits. The more I look at the problem, the more complex it seems to get. - Bilby (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

So yes, money can buy time. But I challenge you to look into some of the religious, ethnic, or nationalistic issues that have cropped up on Wikipedia and articulate how anyone being a paid advocate could have made any of them worse than they already were. That is, the editors involved have already made time, based on their own values system, and paying them to do anything at all would be likely to reduce their intransigence and fervency. Jclemens (talk) 02:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious why Jimbo is always portrayed as being "against" paid editing. I have only seen him advocate for the Bright Line, which in itself seems to imply he's not oppose to paid editing. Meanwhile he's been supportive of Joe Desantos, who has followed the bright line. In response to my blog post, which described treating Wikipedia like a PR person would any independent news and information source, he said he agreed with my approach. Maybe I'm missing something? It seems to me that he supports paid editing, so long as we follow a single basic rule. Yet in an effort to change his mind, he's constantly portrayed as having an extreme point of view that's different than his actual statements or behavior. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 21:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Probably because in the past he's made statements that all paid editors, once identified, should be banned. That's the extreme camp that he is considered to be in. Silverseren^C 21:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Taking notice that there are technically a half-dozen exceptions to the Bright Line such as non-controversial edits, blatant defamation, etc. (Jimbo may disagree) I have a difficult time finding a sensible argument against it. It isn't that different from what the COI guideline already encourages. Wikipedia will have better content, a happier community and more credibility because of it.

Eclipsed and I - both paid editors - support it. And why wouldn't we? There is no situation where it actually prevents a marketing professional from improving an article with confidence that they are doing right by Wikipedia. There are dozens of situations where it provides more confidence/credibility, less potential issues or conflicts, and so on. I realize what Jimbo said years ago, but that was a long time ago. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 23:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

May I suggest that you use more caution when declaring the support of other editors. In this case, for me only, it would be more accurate to say that I support any editor who wishes to follow the Bright Line. It would also be more accurate to say that I am a freelance editor that sometimes works for payment, and sometimes works for free. Please be more careful with your wordings. Thanks. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 10:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Apologies for over-reaching. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 03:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why we shouldn't just go with the current practice of don't edit directly, unless you're making a Non controversial edit. That's the current practice and it's fine. Silverseren^C 19:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... I have to imagine that Jimbo doesn't have an issue with fixing apostrophe's with a COI, but rather how such a message could be construed. The moment he mentions exceptions to the bright line, a crow bar will be taken to that crack, and we go down a rabit hole of defining those exceptions. In practice I'm confident he has better things to do than police paid editors for grammar. :-D User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 06:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

rabbit hole ;) -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 11:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:RfC/COI

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/COI. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for comments

FYI - For those of you involved in the discussion above, I have started a request for comments on the issue. If you're interested in contributing, please see Wikipedia talk:User pages#Request for comment - Advertising on user pages. Thanks. ‑Scottywong| express _ 20:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Paid editing should pay its way

I suggest that if there is to be paid editing, these editors should be registered as paid editors and contribute a % levy to Wikipedia to pay for costs incured in providing them with the means of earning an income. Unregistered paid editors if found out could be banned. This levy would be additional to the regular fundraising efforts and could help with technology costs. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 23:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like a form of extortion and flies in the face of our logo there on the top left of your page that reads "The Free Encyclopedia". Silverseren^C 05:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Good luck on that one, SkyMachine! When the Foundation does a better job getting editors resources, we'll talk taxes, OK?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Relies on ethical practise of professional paid editors doing the right thing and self reporting earned income. It is only fair that if they hunt fat geese on the King's commons that they pay tribute to the King to maintain the commons. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 05:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

If we don't charge people for using our content, it seems pretty small of us to charge people for generating it.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Strictly speaking it would be the person or corporation who pays the paid editor for their services that is charged the levy by Wikipedia. They can not complain about being charged because they are already paying for what they have deamed as a useful commercial service. They could always do it themselves for free. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 06:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Good luck on your proposal.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I have an unfinished proposal for something somewhat similar. Esetzer (talk) 05:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Well go get your patent on that and then go see Mark Zuckerberg for your billion dollars. I guess the web is going to head in that direction at some point as advertizers lose their old publishing venues, and competitors arise to try and compete with what google's got. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 08:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

You can be sure that I cannot patent it since most of the text has been publicly available at that URL for more than a year. I am just trying to do what I can to get the web to that point as soon as possible since trying to make a living within the current monopolized-yet-schizophrenic web economy is very unpleasant (trying to charge patent royalties would cause significant delay). Esetzer (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Well I'm an atheist but I'll quote a bit in the gospels about this I think describes my feelings about the idea. ""Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also". I think it is a very bad idea. Dmcq (talk) 08:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure if we looked at some Scientology or Confucian text it would lend some mumbo jumbo wisdom support to the side of my idea too. If the tax idea is giving you the skeevies then how about some community expectation to oblige paid editors to make a public disclosure of having made some (voluntary) donation in proportion to the proceeds they have skimmed from their work. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 09:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Do not bind the mouths of the kine that treadth the grain. And there is not a word in there about rendering unto Jimbo.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

SkyMachine, then charge a levy to anyone who reproduces the content of a WMF project. Same thing. Tony (talk) 11:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia has less control over end user consumption. Editors with accounts are subject to community scrutiny, and are expected to abide by the rules set by the community. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 21:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Paid editing as a version of BLP

It seems to me that paid editing is often very similar to when a BLP subject tries editing their own biography. In one case, someone edits an article about themself. In another case, you have a company basically doing the same thing, but companies don't act on their own, they act by paying employees to do it. Someone who is paid by X can be biased in favor of X, but no more than someone who *is* X can be biased in favor of X.

And for BLP subjects, we discourage editing, but we don't prohibit it. We recognize that categorically prohibiting someone from editing their own article is a bad idea even if it can often lead to problems, so we allow them to make straightforward changes and remove unsourced information. We don't ban people just for editing their own article, nor do we say "when can you edit your own article? NEVER!" And we don't *automatically* assume that someone editing their own article must be up to no good unless we can point to a specific policy that they have violated other than just the one about editing your own article.

Also, companies pay people to edit articles about themselves for similar reasons to why individuals directly edit articles about themselves. They may be trying to promote themselves or make themselves look good--but they may also be concerned about misinformation, or that the article was written by someone who hates them and thus has undue weight problems.

This is why I can't completely oppose paid editing of your own company's article. Like editing your BLP, it's often bad, but also like editing your BLP, it's often necessary, and it's the most necessary when Wikipedia has already failed the subject. If anything, paid editing is more necessary than editing your own BLP because there are special BLP rules that are meant to prevent bad BLPs, while this safety net is absent for articles about companies. Ken Arromdee (talk) 04:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Silverseren^C 05:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Ken. I sometimes think we are treating PR professionals like pedophiles, as that is literally the only other category of people whom we tell that they must not edit Wikipedia in their own interest. Everyone else is welcome. That does an injustice to the PR profession. We are treating them like lepers, and I am sometimes at a loss to explain just where this quite extraordinary level of hostility stems from.

Now I understand that PR professionals have made atrocious edits; but frankly so have people disliking individuals and companies. I understand that Wikipedia's reputation is on the line; but Wikipedia's reputation should be as much on the line when someone writes a hatchet job about a company as it is when someone abuses Wikipedia for advertising and/or whitewashing. I see no indication that that is the case. An article can be an outright hatchet job, containing poorly sourced, unsourced, undue, unfair, or even outright defamatory material: yet when a PR professional deletes any part of it, all that the press will report is that "A PR company deleted negative material". They will not report that the Wikipedia article was grossly unfair to begin with. My personal preference – see #Proposal:_Write_a_policy_for_company_articles below – is to have a clear policy on Company articles, and that self-identified PR staff, who give their real names on their user page, along with their employer, company position and any companies and individuals whose PR they or their employer handle,

1. should be allowed to make certain well-circumscribed edits in articles for their company or its clients, such as correcting a typo or updating the name of the CEO (but I won't insist on this).
2. should be allowed, like any other editor, to participate as ordinary Wikipedians at discussions at a Companies noticeboard, and implement changes on articles for companies that they have no professional linkage to.

Any concerns about apparent abuses, such as improper tag teaming between PR professionals, should go to an RfC/U and arbcom. I think this will offer the best of both worlds:

• there will be scrutiny from the wider community at such a Company noticeboard,
• PR professionals are not anonymous, but have their real name and reputation as well as that of their employers on the line,
• a policy identifying article requirements and potential failure modes, along with an associated noticeboard, provides a fair and more responsive mechanism to legitimate concerns, one that I believe PR professionals who come here in good faith would use in preference to making surreptitious edits under false pretences. --JN466 15:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Somebody had to have the balls

I have nominated his userpage for deletion (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:POINT. Carrite (talk) 00:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Bwilkins, you are aware that there is a RfC on this very topic. What can be gained by having two separate discussions and potentially two separate consensus outcomes on the same issue? In addition, Ed17 placed page protection on the User page for Cla68, which you overrode in order to place your tag. This would seem to constitute a type of wheel-warring, since as an WP:INVOLVED editor, you overrode the protection using tools to place your deletion discussion on it. I would politely ask that you permit your nomination to be closed and withdraw any further nominations until such time as the RfC on this has closed with some type of consensus. -- Avanu (talk) 00:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

How am I "involved"? Do you actually understand anything about the project? You're making comments that lack any basis in reality, and your disgusting lack of WP:AGF is horrific (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's an idea....

Why doesn't the foundation take some of the money it spends on various "studies" and "social" events and instead pay Cla68 to write featured articles? Perhaps from WP:VA. $1,000 an article is a bargain! 75.23.43.229 (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

New userbox for paid editors

• I have created a new userbox for those editors who would like to declare that they are available to edit for pay. Cla68 (talk) 11:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Advertising

Wikipedia is not the place to advertise. Even to advertise yourself.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, look, if you don't run edit for the love of the game Jimbo the encyclopedia, you don't belong in the Olympics on Wikipedia.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that's a non sequitur, but a seemingly common one. We all agree Cla68 can run a nail salon, for instance, if he wants to. However if he puts up his price list, suggests people email him to make appointments, we take it down. --TeaDrinker (talk) 12:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, there is no consensus for that. And so you are faced with a "rule" that was never intended for this situation, and which you can't enforce.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

We seem to be talking past each other. Cla68 doesn't need consensus to run a nail salon and we have consensus to delete a nail salon ad from a userpage. My point was the validity of the enterprise and the ability to advertise it on the project are separate concerns. --TeaDrinker (talk) 12:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

There's no consensus for removing advertisements? Where the hell did you get that idea? We've been doing it for years without complaint...but now that people want to push to allow it in their quest for paid editing, there's no consensus? Take a look at NPP and how many userpages are deleted as adverts. I guess it makes sense. It's like civility. The rules don't apply as long as you've contributed enough to make the right friends. --Onorem♠Dil 19:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm bottom lining it, I suppose. If a dispute arises over his inclusion of the ad, you can't make your removal stick, is what I was getting at.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that addresses the logical fallacy in your argument. One of the recurring themes of this whole discussion has been editors standing in the way of forming consensus with the argument "you don't have consensus." It seems counter-productive. --TeaDrinker (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you count yourself as one of those doing this? Or do you feel that a. you don't deny that those disagreeing with you have consensus support or b. that you do so in a manner that doesn't stand in the way of consensus forming? 178.16.5.70 (talk) 18:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Since the community cannot make up its collective mind

I've added myself as a paid editor. Let's be clear about this. A paid editor's primary duty is toward his or her client and wikipedia's policies and guidelines are only secondary in nature. In the interests of transparency, since that appears to be the primary concern of most wikipedians, I've made this clear to both the community as well as the client on my user page. (I think I'll also ask for a user name change to something like 1111111.) If this is the future the community wants, then so be it. --regentspark (comment) 16:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

This continued posturing is just getting annoying and isn't really making any sort of point. Silverseren^C 19:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

One key to solving chronic problems

This article makes some points which pertain to all of us.

• "Drop The Banana!" - Foundations Magazine

—Wavelength (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure Mr. Wales' talk page is an appropriate area for depositing random little pearls of knowledge. NickCT (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I had this same problem just this morning. The key is to turn the banana sideways. Bus stop (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

re "I had this same problem just this morning." - Sorta makes me wonder why the trappers would be after you Bus stop. NickCT (talk) 17:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

They apparently feel my humanlike behavior needs further study. Bus stop (talk) 18:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

This talk page seems to be an appropriate area for this topic, because Wikipedia has chronic problems, just as the world has chronic problems.

• Effective World Government Will Be Needed to Stave Off Climate Catastrophe | Observations, Scientific American Blog Network

—Wavelength (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I welcome here general philosophical discussion of strategies and tactics towards the improvement of Wikipedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Protest IT Act in India

The new IT Act law in India is worse than SOPA or PIPA. An MP is raising a motion to annul the law. Please protest Indian Internet Censorship the way you did with SOPA & PIPA by blacking out. We desperately need awareness in India and many people use Wikipedia. The law directly affects wikipedia. You will have to take down any material that is 'objectionable' to someone without any trial or opportunity to present your case.

http://www.legallyindia.com/Social-lawyers/mps-to-be-taught-draconian-it-act-rules-as-indianet-support-galvanises-for-annul-motion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.152.39 (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Can they remove content held on servers outside India, especially in the US, where WMF servers are?--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 19:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone in India been punished for reading or contributing to Wikipedia? It will be easier to get people to rally around this if we know we're defending our own. Wnt (talk) 22:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I asked Wnt's question last year, when the India maps dispute arose and there were also arguments being put forward by various Hindutva-oriented contributors that it was illegal to write or speak the term shudra. No-one involved in promoting those arguments provided any evidence of even one arrest for reading or contributing to Wikipedia. Ironically, there were some arrests of people protesting against Wikipedia at the Wikiconference in Mumbai. - Sitush (talk) 01:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not my intention to cast aspersions on the Indian protest; it's merely that to outsiders (and sometimes to natives!) it can be unclear how serious such laws are in a country. For example the U.S. passed a similarly infamous law dubbed the "Communications Decency Act", but as it was unconstitutional and everyone knew it, it didn't lead to actual prosecutions. Even so, the protests against it were worthwhile. Wnt (talk) 07:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Huh, at best there's probably support for it in a committee of one house of the Indian parliament, because there's little support for it in the upper house or with the president, and the bill has little chance of passage we should do nothing ... oh wait ... darn those precedents!--Wehwalt (talk) 07:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

More information on Indian ITA: (see also meta:Legal and Community Advocacy/Censorship#India and Internet censorship in India) --Atlasowa (talk) 07:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• In April 2011, new "IT Rules 2011" (NOTIFICATION, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (Department of Information Technology) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA, 11th April, 2011) were adopted as a supplement to the 2000 Information Technology Act (ITA) as amended by the 2008 Information Technology (Amendment) Act. Before the amendment, section 79 of the IT Act shielded intermediaries such as Google, Facebook and Twitter from any liability for user generated content [3]. The new "Intermediary Guidelines" make it necessary for the intermediaries to observe "due diligence" and not to host information that is blasphemous, grossly harmful, harassing, invasive of another's privacy, racially, ethnically objectionable, disparaging, belongs to another person and harm minors in any way [4]. The rules enable any individual or public or private institution to get content removed from websites in 36 hours, in most cases simply by notifying the website owners or intermediaries such as Google, Yahoo and others. Takedown requests can be based on any of 15 vaguely drafted parameters, without stating any reasons or requiring any judicial or quasi-judicial order in support [5].
  • October 2011 the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) carried out an undercover investigation into the “chilling effects”, with six out of seven major websites removing innocent content online without proper investigation, after a CIS researcher had sent “fraudulent” takedown letters to seven internet companies making claims without providing any evidence that certain third-party content violated provisions under the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules [6]. Report: Intermediary Liability in India: Chilling Effects on Free Expression on the Internet 2011
  • In January 2012, a Delhi Court issues summons to Google, Facebook headquarters for objectionable content [7].
  • March 2012 Kerala-based advocate Shojan Jacob filed the first ever writ challenging the rules in the Kerala High Court [8] [9].
  • April 24, 2012: P Rajeeve, Member of Parliament has tabled a motion to annul the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) rules, 2011 and told ET that the Left parties are "more or less" in support of the motion and that it has been accepted for discussion [10].

Sounds serious. Based on the SOPA precedent, I'm sure Jimbo will lock out editors for at least a week. Just reuse the game plan: Bring in hundreds of people who have never edited Wikipedia in their lives, swamp the usual editors, and do your will.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Ethical Paid Editing Idea

Main Concerns About Paid Editing (please add more if I left some out)

1. Ethical treatment of content
2. Paid advocacy
3. Paid sock/meat puppeting
4. Commercialized atmosphere on Wikipedia

Ideas for addessing those concerns

Do you think a uniform and templated userbox that is only allowed on the User Page that describes the editor in third person, a brief history, along with suggested contact information might be a useful solution? For example:

Paid Editor Notice for Golding Bird Ethical Disclosure: This editor is interested in paid editing opportunities. The editor's contribution history includes: 5 Featured Articles, 2 Good articles, and the creation of 14 new articles. This editor also participates in the WikiProject Medicine/Nephrology task force. You may contact this editor via email (click here). This notice does not constitute endorsement of this editor by Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation. All edits and content added or removed from Wikipedia shall be done in a ethical manner and in compliance with the Neutral Point of View policy. Advocacy or promotional material is forbidden.

Paid Editor Notice for Golding Bird Ethical Disclosure: This editor has confirmed their current status as an employee of "Rube Goldberg Machines, Inc." as commisioned for the purpose of editing on Wikpedia. The editor's contribution history includes: 5 Featured Articles, 2 Good articles, and the creation of 14 new articles. This editor also participates in the WikiProject Medicine/Nephrology task force. You may contact this editor via email (click here). This notice does not constitute endorsement of this editor by Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation. All edits and content added or removed from Wikipedia shall be done in a ethical manner and in compliance with the Neutral Point of View policy. Advocacy or promotional material is forbidden.

Would a userbox formatted with these conditions seem to meet people's concerns and if strictly limited to such userboxes, encourage a modest tone and neutral approach to an editor promoting their own skill in editing? Does this just create another problem to solve? Ideas? Comments? -- Avanu (talk) 01:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Throwing userboxes at the problem is not going to change the essential nature of paid editing. Paid editing is a business with a customer. The customer is the entity that is paying for the editing. To be successful, a good paid editor has to have a set of happy customers. No amount of userboxes is going to change the fact that the needs of the client come ahead of the needs of wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Userboxes with words like "ethical" and "compliance" will have about as much effect as they do on Wall Street. --regentspark (comment) 01:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem with that stance is that it assumes an adversarial relationship between wikipedia and a paid editor. That the two would have contradictory objectives. Now in some cases, particularly paid advocacy, this will undoubtably exist. But it doesn't have to. There are undoubtably companies, schools, and even wealthy individuals whose objective would simply be to improve the Encyclopedia. Now they might be interested in doing so in certain silos, but I have zero doubt that given the opportunity, there are people who will be paid who can do so objectively within the confines of wiki-policy.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 01:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

You're right that there are benefits to advocate editors (paid or unpaid) and that the relationship doesn't have to be adversarial. But, assuming that paid editors and unpaid editors will act in the same way is naive (with apologies). Money has its own logic and an unfortunate reality of life is that we humans like to get our hands on as much of it as possible. Every paid editor will act in a way that is beneficial to the client but not necessarily to wikipedia because those repeat consulting contracts will only come from happy clients. An "ethical" paid editor can, for example, keep within policies through the sin of omission rather than that of commission or by actively pushing policies at the margins, or by simply following a 'you scratch my back and I'll scratch your back' policy with other paid editors. Unethical paid editors will simply delete negative information and leave it to the community to detect and add it back in again. We can't just assume that a userbox and a disclosure or two is going to make this conflict of interest go away. Instead, we need to think about how to make this work in a way that allows paid editing to be done in the open but with minimal damage to the free spirited ethos that we have here. Jimbo's suggestion of restricting paid editors to the talk page is one such idea since every edit will then be appropriately whetted. That doesn't mean that underhand paid editing will disappear but that we'll have the tools, and the right, to deal with it if it is detected. --regentspark (comment) 02:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

This looks like a very useful suggestion, per reasons expressed here. Also, because per COI there should be some way of indicating an editor accepts pay. There should also be a place, in the userbox or somewhere, where an editor can share a list of articles which they have been/are being paid to edit, as shown, since this is the information most relevant to the community. But the contact link may be too much. B^e——C_ritical 02:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

It would be rather easy to put in a pull down list with a show link. We can do that manually with our current coding anyways. Silverseren^C 02:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Paid editors should be restricted to the talkpages. They can argue their case and if they are good at that they will get their edits included. But the hard part is changing the policy to reflect any choice we as editors make. It's been a while since I registered but I would assume that during the registration process there would be a number of direct questions all in regards to paid editing and advocacy to filter out those that are specifically being paid to edit by a specific company and there will probably need to be some way to discourage the misuse to both the editor and the company hiring, perhaps even a task force and a notice board to deal directly with reporting specific behavior similar to 3RR. I agree with RegentsPark however, we need the tools to deal with it and I don't see a box being the answer. I think Wikipedia may have to add a new user lever like "users", "Autoconfirmed Users" and now perhaps - "Confirmedpaid users". Perhaps this is something that only the company itself would be able to register for as the "payer for" and not allow the individual to do. In fact this would allow the company to even make a direct donation to the Wikimedia Foundation and I think rightly so.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

FYI: I changed the style of the box just a little bit, changed the icon also. -- Avanu (talk) 03:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

"This editor is interested in paid editing opportunities" is not a disclaimer...its a classified ad. It sounds like a request becuase you worded it as a simple "interest". Something you would see on a userbox, but being paid is a "professional" decision and therefore the disclaimer would be more along the lines of "This editor has been confirmed as an employee of "Company name" as commisioned for the purpose of editing on Wikpedia".--Amadscientist (talk) 05:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I would assume that it might say "interested" if you are not being paid by anyone yet, and your "confirmed" text or something if they were actually being paid. -- Avanu (talk) 05:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

That would not be allowed as promotional in itself. Are you serious...? You want people to declare they are just INTERESTED in getting paid to edit? And you think that will be acceptable?--Amadscientist (talk) 05:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't particularly care or want any specific outcome, but the idea that they might declare such an intent seems to be one of the possibilities being discussed, so I made that example to demonstrate such a possibility. -- Avanu (talk) 05:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

By the way, the fictional company named above, Rube Goldberg Machines, Inc., has a fantastic fictional motto: "Accomplishing simple things through complex means since 1914." I'd love to see how Wikipedia might adopt some of Rube's fantastical approaches to getting a task done. Seemed to fit considering how the debate on this has gone so far. Hope you don't mind me interjecting a bit a lame humor. :) -- Avanu (talk) 06:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

It is probable that paid editors will eventually be made to declare such. I just do not believe an infobox is the answer as it only appears on the user page. The user should also be a seperate user level and be green linked like a red linked user with no userpage and be limited to discussion on the talk page.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm completely following you. My thought was that this would be front and center on their User page (especially if they ARE being paid). I'm not quite following the 'separate user level' comment and the red link, green link part. -- 06:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

He's essentially saying that we should make paid editors a different class of user in terms of actual abilities with their accounts and that are exhibited by green usernames, thus marking them forever as a lower class of editor on Wikipedia. Silverseren^C 06:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Surely each company time edit made by a paid editor can be marked as such in some way so that it can recieve extra scrutiny for NPOV. Like edits marked minor (m) paid editors' edits could be marked with p, linking to the wikipedia's policy page on paid editing. Their paid editing should be part of a COI statement, with no solicitation for email enquiries. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 06:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Then we need to do that for everyone else who has a COI and add a little "c" next to their edits. Since everyone has a COI with only a very small amount of exceptions, we should probably take the necessary steps to just have the little c implemented for all user accounts. Silverseren^C 07:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The trouble is that money talks just about louder than anything else, even pride & ethics. Only reputation is as powerful an influence on our behaviour, which is why there is a market for paid editing in the first place. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 07:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, I don't agree with that. If you are being paid, you are being paid to get your content onto Wikipedia and to make sure the content stays there. It being deleted kinda ruins the point and just upsets the client. Therefore, the best way to make sure the content stays is to actually follow the rules. Thus, paid editors are much more likely to follow the rules of Wikipedia than other people who have other kinds of COI are. The zealous fan only cares about getting their way in an article and don't care if the content is removed, they'll just put it back in. And it's the zealous fans that turn into the sockpuppeteers. Silverseren^C 07:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

While it is great if professionals can follow the rules, it is even greater if they can follow an even more thorough rule set designed to mitigate foreseen problematic ethical dilemmas they may face. If a p marked edit is deleted for poor reasons it can be restored by pointing out the poor reason and outlining good reasons to keep it. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 07:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

What would be the point of marking content that is often not an issue? We would be much better off marking users who are actually a problem to the encyclopedia, like most of the users who edit in the Arbcom sanctioned areas. Silverseren^C 07:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

People are more likely to act ethically if under social pressure to do so and if they are likely to be found out if they have done wrong. They are more likely to act unethically if it is unlikely their behaviour will be discovered for what it is. Marking the edits fulfils this transparency role. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 08:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, you're relying on people to state that they are paid editors. And that admission, in itself, would imply acting ethically and would, thus, be entirely useless for stopping or deterring the unethical ones. It would be much easier to just stick with the current process we have, which is talk page usage, though paid editors are allowed to make uncontroversial edits, such as grammar fixes. Silverseren^C 08:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, not happening. No talk page restriction, no badge of shame. That's not the policy, nor is it the practice, nor likely to be. Not that if you can't even get an ad off Cla's page, you are very unlikely to get people to go along with your proposition that at present paid editors are restricted to talk pages.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of pre-making the templates to cite certain statistics. The FA game can be tough enough already without making it a tangible financial asset of paid editors according to an enforced rating scheme. I think that there's already a certain amount of cliquishness in terms of people working together to get certain sorts of articles through, and if this sets in ... it's going to be a very political "you scratch my back I scratch yours" sort of process for groups of paid editors looking to increase their banner stats. This only makes it worse. There's a real risk that the FA status, and therefore, Main Page content, will become more or less property of paid editing groups, guarded jealously. Wnt (talk) 07:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems like a good idea to get paid editors on board with a branding kind of concept - wearing a scarlett letter, if you will, that indicates exactly what they are. Some may like it, some may not - the whole point is to get paid editors on board with our culture and our policies. I don't think the "marking all edits with a p" is at all feasible or even likely, so there's no point in talking about that. At least there would be a category attached to the template which would list all paid editors as such.-Stevertigo (t | c) 08:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

As I said, badge of shame. Nonstarter. What I think you are not getting is that there's really no incentive for paid editors to compromise and allow restrictions when the Cla68 userpage dramah has shown the paid editing police have no guns.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Though it would admittedly be amusing to see the crucifixion Wikipedia would get in the media for fabricating its own Star of David. Silverseren^C 08:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

mixing your metaphors there. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 09:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Somewhat purposefully. Silverseren^C 09:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

"You shall not press down upon the brow of editors this crown of thorns; you shall not crucify Wikipedia upon a cross of gold." That's self promotion, that is. Advertising.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Marking the Nazis might be prudent though, so that you can know them when you see them. As for the media you don't really need to gift them a headline, they can always just go and make one up. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 09:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Let me be clear on this. Anyone making the argument that requiring disclosure of paid advocacy is somehow equivalent to the racist practices of the Nazi Germans cannot ever be taken seriously. Such argumentation is a disgusting insult to people who have real concerns about this issue. I think more than anything else, this kind of desperate rhetoric shows how weak the support is, and the total lack of coherent arguments in favor of allowing paid advocacy.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo, you can't disallow paid editing any more than the government can disallow drugs or file sharing. The choice is to let the community know who's a paid editor, or to disallow such knowledge. B^e——C_ritical 13:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I never ever said that requiring disclosure is the same, I fully support disclosure. I said that marking them in some way (adding a p to their edits in this case) and making them use a user account that has less actual priviledges than a normal account is similar to the practices of a badge of shame like the yellow badge. Quite a bit of difference there. Silverseren^C 14:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

As I say, this is an absolutely morallly reprehensible statement - disgusting. You should be ashamed, and you are hereby formally invited to stay off my talk page until you apologize.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Quite a bit. Anyway, it's not going to happen. Considering the level of revulsion toward paid editing, very few paid editors, if rational, would declare themselves. But disallowing such a declaration by the few honest ones (who should be congratulated) is just burying the communal head in the sand. B^e——C_ritical 14:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't be a badge of shame but a badge of begrudging tolerance. We would rather they not be here, but they are, and you can not control them if they remain underground. Create a realm of tolerance where they declare their COI in a highly visable way so that they are under scrutiny of the community to ensure proper professional ethics and core wiki policies are maintained. There needn't be any tolerance for paid editors outside this monitored realm, the rules are the rules. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 15:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

And they are somehow breaking some ephemeral, non-existent rule by merely existing, I presume? Silverseren^C 16:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that the idea of engaging constructively with paid editors should be explored further, but carefully. For example, as I said above, I'm concerned about paid editors accumulating FA count as a tangible asset. That said, there are tangible assets paid editors could accumulate that would not be so disruptive - i.e., a portfolio of the actual paid editing work that they've done. Since a company presumably is less interested in the ability of an editor to work on an easily featured topic than on his ability to do the sort of paid work they're hiring him for, I think a portfolio would make a better asset, and it happens to have the advantage that it doesn't require the paid editor to try to win games that were meant to be good-natured competititons among volunteer editors. Wnt (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

My concern is that this is being seen in terms of the editor and not the company using cold, hard cash to WRITE any information into a Wikipedia article. Not just influence or advocate NPOV. This issue has brought up a few other issues such a COI, advocacy, blocking policy and implementation as well as POV, OR, and synthesis concerns etc.. I can't help but wonder if this is REALLY NOT about editors alone and that we are not addressing the other half of the situation. The Company. Right now we only have a discussion of concerns but I see few major problems. The barbarians are not at the gates...the gates are open as they have always been and any control of content has been through the application of policy, guidelines and any applicable brightline rules. Clearly there are some who want some kind of change to policy but we need to discuss the current policy as written and how, or if it is a roadbloack at all to advancing the discussion so that concerns can be addressed. We have paid editors. We need to define as a community what a confirmed paid editor is. We may or may nor need to adjust the prose in a particular guideline but the question of whether a fundamental change such as "Greenlinking" JUST the user name. That wouldn't mark their contribution IF the community agreed that confirmed paid editors are restricted to arguing their cases on the talk page. Actual information going into the article would be done as a reguest. Greenlinked users would essentualy be blocked from contributions to article space, etc. and also limited or excluded from policy consensus. Now this is just the editor as I said, perhaps the suggestion of even allowing a company to register with Wikipedia may be controversial and I am not sure if it could even be implimented, but yes....the Company WOULD have to register themselves AND the editor they are paying for and individual editors would NOT be allowed to register themselves to avoid BLP issues of false claims of payment from any named company that isn't doing so. If this sort of thing (or something similar) could be implemented with current policy it could be a discouragement to companies to do this without full disclosure, by editing in the open as restricted by whatever community consensus.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I can see the point if the point is cash paid to "manage" a WP article and delete unfavorable information. But let's say the Baseball Hall of Fame, concerned at how few HOFers have FA, decides to hire a noted FA writer with experience in sports articles to get 5 HOFers to FA for, say, $10,000. Problem with that? What if they are called HOF Wikipedian in residence and get to go to Cooperstown for their annual baseball history conference in May and get a photo pass for the big ceremony in August? What if they have to repay any portion of the salary, oh, let's call it stipend, that they fall short on? Short of a bright line no cash for editing nohow (and, I think, that fortress has fallen), the endless nuances of a situation makes it impossible to draw a bright line. The editor is certainly entitled to trumpet it on his userpage, and perhaps to link to stories. In the final analysis, I think people will avoid or evade any restrictions on paid editing or the advertisement thereof, and we may as well accept it's going to happen and start working on managing the very real effects that will have on Wikipedia.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

You speak of writing to "get to FA" as if it were purely a quality issue, but I think there is a lot of politics involved. Long, highly encyclopedic topics on broad scientific issues tend to fail because there is always something to add or argue about. What succeeded, for a long time, were articles about specific video games, usually related in some way to a game about to be released on the market. The argument being that because every last scrap of data possibly available about the game had been wrung from the industry magazines and game designers' comments (playing it, that is - Wikipedia never expects people to understand how to make or market one), the article was comprehensive. It got to the point where video games were one of the major categories of Wikipedia features. During all this time, editors who don't otherwise believe in the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy were entirely willing to believe that these were being written by devoted fans. Now, you can say that the video game articles really were Wikipedia's best work, but I don't believe it - I think the goalposts were moved to make them FA quality, and I think the same will happen whenever people are paid to bring things to FA. But what really makes me wonder is --- anyone see video game articles featured on the front page recently? What happened to all those "fans"? Wnt (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you which is why I will not tread that path until it is worn smooth by the slippers of other pilgrims.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Trivial hatnotes guideline proposal

Per the earlier discussion about the trivial hatnote at Johnny Cash, ( archive) I have proposed a formalization at the appropriate WP page: Wikipedia_talk:Hatnote#Trivial_hatnote_links. The main issue with my proposal is that I support two-term disambiguation pages over leaving trivial hatnote links in place. This contradicts the general idea that disambiguation pages need at least three terms to disambiguate, but I think my case is straightforward, and, given a little time, most two-term disambiguation pages tend to gather one or more links anyway. Cheers everyone, -Stevertigo (t | c) 07:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Again, data confirms hatnotes are not clicked much: The hatnote links are just not a problem. As discussed here last week, the pageviews of song article "Johnny Cash (song)" were not coming due to imagined "unfair" hatnote promotion in the singer's article, where April pageviews remained at 27.4 per day (78%), extremely high, compared to March's average of 35 per day. The imagined fears of that famous song being commonly viewed, only due to mention in the singer article, were soundly refuted by the April pageview data (song-stats-201204). For article "Johnny Cash" the pageview stats (singer-stats-201204) showed that only 1-in-1500 people were clicking the song-hatnote link. It is difficult to prove that people even notice the hatnote when they view an article to check the singer's famous songs, birthdate, hometown, or career events. In fact, for the new dab page, "Johnny Cash (disambiguation)" the pageview stats (disambig-stats-201204) showed only 1 extra person viewing that page on 30 April, when pageviews of the singer soared by 9,098 that day, from 14,898 to 23,996 views on 30 April. The hatnote links are just not a problem, and cross-links between 2 articles should continue to be made by hatnote links, in 2 articles with same-name titles, without creating a 3rd, disambiguation page to list just 2 articles. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
• Hi, can we please continue this discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:Hatnote#Trivial_hatnote_links. Jimbo you would be welcome to join us.--KarlB (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Blocked!

why was I blocked from using wikipedia just because my user name is admarkroundsquare. making assumptions about the username. I am the marketing and advancement assistant for Round Square so I think I have every right to amend the Round Square page as an employee of the organisation (which happens to be a charity). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.42.10 (talk) 07:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Your status as a paid employee affords you no particular status here, nor with regard to that article in particular. So, you seem to be laboring under at least that one misconception. Secondly, blocks are not made because of a chosen username, they are made for inappropriate behavior. Hence if editors have asked you to change your manner of conduct, you can get the block lifted if you simply comply with those requests. -Stevertigo (t | c) 07:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

He wasn't blocked for inappropriate behavior though, he was blocked by Orange Mike because of his username, the block which was, I might say, in violation of WP:ORGNAME. Silverseren^C 07:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Have to also make mention of that. The block was not issued based on behavior at all. It was solely based on the username choice. The user was not notified in a civil manner and given a chance to change the username before the block was issued; he was summarily blocked. Please see this diff for information. -- Avanu (talk) 08:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, I took a look at Orange Mike's contribution history. He seems to stay on the New Pages Patrol and looks like this was just the latest rapid fire block action. He blocked 6 new users within 17 minutes and seems to do a lot of regular blocking.

14:19, 26 April 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+3,381)‎ . . N User talk:HollywoodCaperEntertainment ‎ (blocked for obvious reasons)

14:15, 26 April 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+3,383)‎ . . User talk:Submarinengineering ‎ (blocked for obvious reasons) (top) [rollback]

14:14, 26 April 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+3,383)‎ . . User talk:Hitwise us ‎ (blocked for obvious reasons) (top) [rollback]

14:12, 26 April 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+3,383)‎ . . User talk:Rugpijnweg ‎ (blocked for obvious reasons) (top) [rollback]

14:07, 26 April 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+3,381)‎ . . N User talk:Admarkroundsquare ‎ (advertising and marketing of Round Square is what we're trying to avoid)

14:04, 26 April 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+657)‎ . . Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard ‎ (→‎Ministry for Primary Industries (New Zealand): new section)

14:02, 26 April 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+3,381)‎ . . N User talk:MAFNZ ‎ (should have been blocked long ago) (top)

I can't say whether this is the best approach or not, but I would think such a shotgun approach would regularly hit otherwise innocent new users. -- Avanu (talk) 08:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Most of those cases pretty obviously require a name change, that's not the problem here. The problem is they're being blocked without preliminary explanatory discussion as prescribed by WP:ORGNAME. This fairly normal admin behaviour is being civilly discussed at WP:AN and Wikipedia_talk:Username_policy#WP:ORGNAME. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I think this is the root of the problem. Administrators are routinely not following WP:ORGNAME. Frankly I think an administrator who consistently behaves in that way, as Orange Mike seems to be doing, should be excluded from carrying out username administration. Quite honestly, it's blatant maladministration. Prioryman (talk) 17:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Yep. The user declared their COI and asked for help updating the article on the charity at the help desk, having made no edits to the page and no problematic edits, and was summarily blocked. The user was transparent; something we appreciate, and obviously willing to cooperate, and our response was to hard block them. I emailed the user a couple of hours ago to advise them they can now create a new name, and pointed them to this discussion and the WP:AN discussion. I didn't, but should have pointed them to their talk page.

Admarkroundsquare, the simplest way forward would be for you to create a new account, something like "Joe at Round Square" would be fine. Then familiarise yourself with WP:COI, and go ahead and edit. Although there is nothing specifically preventing you from editing the article directly, in the current environment the (again) simplest way forward would be for you to post suggestions on the article's talk page. (Could talk page stalkers please consider watchlisting Round Square so that the editor's requests can be addressed without undue delay?) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

"Joe at Round Square" sounds like it would also be forbidden because it contains the existing organization name? IRWolfie- (talk) 10:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing in policy that says you can't include an organisation name in your username. You might consider joining the discussion at Wikipedia:AN#Orange_Mike or Wikipedia_talk:Username_policy#WP:ORGNAME rather than split the same discussion into three forums. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

It's an advertising and marketing account with the explicit intention of wiping and replacing the current round square page with promotional material: How do I delete a page from Wikipedia that was produced ages ago. I need to replace the whole page with up to date information and new logo.. The editors name is explicitly forbidden when a new account is created: Username policy prohibits usernames which are promotional, misleading, or offensive: promotional usernames: containing existing company, organization, group, or website names (including non-profit organizations). IRWolfie- (talk) 10:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

If it's apparent they're a paid advocate, or have any kind of conflict of interest, what you do is point them to WP:N and WP:COI. What you don't do is summarily block them.

Of course, if, once they're aware of the relevant polices, they edit problematically, deal with them accordingly.

"Promotional usernames are used to promote an existing company, organization, group (including non-profit organizations), website, or product on Wikipedia. "Admarkroundsquare" is not promoting or defaming Round Square. It's neutral. It's just making clear the editor is affiliated with the organisation, and very clear they have a CoI. That's transparency. That's a good thing. User:Round Sqhare Will Save You Money; that's a promotional username. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. This idea that a name in itself is promotional is verging on some kind of paranoia. It's sick. I suppose if Barack Obama registered User:Barack Obama and we had a White House confirmation that it was indeed him, we would still hard-block him because he's advertising himself by plastering his name all over our edit histories? Really? --JN466 14:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

No, in the real world we have a clearcut exception that says if your username is your real name, you're fine; just as we have the "Mark at Alcoa" precedent, which would have covered the RoundSquare person if their chosen username had not trumpeted (and they themselves have admitted) that they were there for the purpose of Advertising and marketing Round Square. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Umm. Yes. She's the organisation's marketing person so she's identifying herself as such. She's being transparent. As the marketing person, she has an interest in seeing the article is accurate and up to date. What makes you think she's going to be a problem? And the username is not promotional. It's transparent. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I see this as a borderline case. We could accept the name provided that it is clear that it is the username of a person who happens to be associated with RoundSquare and does advertising and marketing, but not if it, say, the advertising and marketing division of Round Square (I know nothing about the company or whether it has one). For their protection and ours, we should not have companies taking responsibility for Wikipedia edits, but individuals. Wnt (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I've had an email from her. She's it, the sole user of the account. But we've moved on. She's created another account and I'll mentor her. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

That's great. Thank you. --JN466 00:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll join Jayen in thanking you, Anthony.

I will, however, be blunt (speaking truth to power and all that): "advertising" and "marketing" departments, with rare exceptions, are in my opinion just euphemisms for groups of people paid to lie, mislead and/or exaggerate beyond the limits of decency, for the sake of someone's gain (regardless of the cost to society) and to the great detriment of public discourse. I will begrudgingly consent to the consensus here that spamming (including SEO) is not technically vandalism; but I consider it very little short of vandalism, and refuse to yield to anybody's demand that I "respect" this profession. I will add in many cases (albeit not all) "public relations" is the same damned thing, but with the added contemptible purpose of attempting to mislead or distract the press in pursuit of their masters' goals and (again) to the detriment of the public discourse. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I might point out that User:Barack Obama is indeed hard-blocked... Prioryman (talk) 17:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Except it was a vandal account, so it really doesn't apply to this discussion. The name was just being used as an example. Silverseren^C 17:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Reply #2

Hi! Welcome to Wikipedia. It can be a bit confusing at first, don't you think? One confusing thing is the username stuff. Wikipedia needs every account to be only for 1 person. If a username is similar to a company or organization name, it is confusing because we don't know if it's just 1 person, or a group of people. It's also confusing if a username is similar to a company or organization name, because people may think the account is going to be used for promotion. But no worry, it's easy to request a new username. Maybe first take a look at Wikipedia:Username policy (it even has a video you can watch), then goto WP:RENAME and read the instructions. May I suggest you also take a look at WikiProject Cooperation? There are folks there that can help you with learning all the guidelines and policies that are important to know for people working in marketing. Cheers. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 11:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

That's more like it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course just an example of tone. And actually in this case the user couldn't do WP:RENAME due to the hard block. But seems things are getting worked out anyways. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 11:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Trying something with COI usernames

I'm currently working around some ideas about moving forward that address a bunch of the issues that have been raised here, and on both WP:AN and WP:ANI recently. The concepts would require some minor edits to some Wikipedia policies, some new templates, and would definitely require advertising to the entire Admin crew if they were acceptable. I know this isn't the best place to gain consensus for them, but discussion on the ideas would be beneficial.

As I have said before, as someone who handles a lot of unblock requests, and as the person who designed the original {{coiq}} template that gets used a heck of a lot, I would like to think I have pretty extensive experience with both the good and bad COI users. If the goal is to bring them on board, let's do so the right way.

Comments would be appreciated before I bring this to different fora for further discussion - after all, the idea is in its early stages (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Bwilkins, I think you meant "forum". Crampyoldman (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I see you conflating problem user names with problem behaviours but can't see the need for that conflation. There seem to be three types of problem uses of organisation names in usernames. (1) When the user name is the same as the organisation name. (2) When the username appears to represent a role account. (3) When the username is promotional. The inappropriateness of the first is fairly well agreed by everyone, I think, especially when it's being used to edit content related to the organisation. The second is a function of the use of the account, rather than the name, and can be clarified with dialig. Just what (3) a "promotional" username is needs clarifying, though. Most will agree that User:Coke tastes better is a promotional username. But a number of admins read User:Mark at Alcoa as promotional, whereas others just think Mark is being nice and transparent. That difference of opinion needs to be resolved and I think it will be in the current discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Username_policy#WP:ORGNAME.

The behaviour issue is, what to do when such usernames come to our attention? Again, that seems to be being addressed at Wikipedia_talk:Username_policy#WP:ORGNAME. The other behavioural aspect, problematical editing by COI editors, surely needs to be constantly honed, but isn't that independent of the username issues? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, WP:ORGNAME is not the only policy that would need amending, so focusing the attention there will lead us to the same problems we have: there's a ream of inter-related policies and guidelines (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Whatever we decide will affect several policies/guidelines; or, at least, how they're interpreted. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The daftest thing about the current 'shoot first, ask questions later' blocking practice is that many of the same people come back to make the same edits under another user name. This does not help at all. At least if it's User:MyCOI we have transparency. All this practice does is teach people that they have to be sneaky to be Wikipedians. Here is an example of an account with a visible COI being hard-blocked and having their -- entirely innocent and helpful -- edits reverted, and then another account appearing shortly after under a less conspicuous name and making the same (still innocent) edits: [11], [12], [13]. So their first Wikipedia lesson was that they have to be sneaky to get things done here. Sneakipedia. If you are prepared to sneak, you can be one of us. JN466 13:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Another example: Special:Contributions/GGSoccerFoundation. I can't see any reason why that account needed hard-blocking so they can't register another account from that IP. This is just vicious behaviour. (For reference, this is what the article looked like before the account's edits, and this is what it looks like now, after the account's edits.) --JN466 14:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

That whole section of the Davidson College article is promotional and frothy as hell, JayEn, and you are partially to blame for it. You appear to think that most COI editors are "innocent and helpful" fluffybunnies, but I refuse to apologize for attempting in good faith to maintain our standards. As to the "GGSoccerFoundation": that was a shameless role account, making edits to the article about Grover Gibson, the same guy who funds that foundation. How much more COI can you get, for goodness sake????

I didn't know until recently that you were involved with one of the "hate Wikipedia" sites, but I can't pretend I'm surprised, in view of the vendetta you seem to have taken out on me and my efforts to be a constructive editor and admin here. Don't bother to post any pictures with guns and gunbattle fantasies, though; I'm a Quaker, so the haters already know I won't shoot back. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, does the Grover Gibson article look better or worse after their edits? The Davidson College article looks whatever it looked like before those edits by User:TheNuances12. All that account did was to update information. And I'm not aware of having contributed to the state of that article one way or the other. You're punishing people for having a COI. --JN466 14:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

We need to stop right here... THIS IS NOT A PERSONAL ATTACK ON ORANGE MIKE. This is an attempt to promote the following of policy and a civil attitude among ALL editors. OrangeMike, this comment "the vendetta you seem to have taken out on me" is not right. We (at least me) are not here to tell the world that OrangeMike is the worst admin ever. We're discussing a problem and trying to come up with ways to let you do what you do best and avoid having to come back and give explanations. One suggestion I have that might help is being able to mark an account in such a way that it is still able to edit and then automatically blocks after a given period of time. That way, you could notify people that their account is in violation of policy, but since they aren't a bad actor in Wikipedia, they can still communicate with others to ask for help in transitioning to a new account. Another idea might be a forced rename to a random sequence, but the account is marked in such a way that the user can rename themselves and come into compliance. Possibly, we could combine both of these ideas. Or maybe they're both lame. Point is, let's stay on focus here. Which is fixing and improving Wikipedia, and avoid personally attacking. If we need personal improvement and can diplomatically tell one another, that's great, but just because we bring up something for discussion doesn't mean we are blaming you. -- Avanu (talk) 14:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

If Jayen hasn't made a single edit to the Davidson College article [14], how is he "partially to blame" for a secton of it being "promotional and frothy as hell"? Softlavender (talk) 15:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I was unclear. The point I was trying to make, is that efforts like this by JayEn and others, to facilitate COI edits and enable COI editors, lead to situations like the current one, where the a cappella groups at an obscure college are competing to fluff up the Wikipedia coverage of a capella at Davidson in general, and their own groups in particular, to a promotional extent, and to an extent grossly violative of WP:UNDUE. JayEn is not individually to blame for the state of the Davidson article, and I'm sorry if I conveyed that impression. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Apology accepted. A far better solution for situations like this would be pending changes. COI accounts could suggest edits to their heart's content, and a proper editor could approve or reject them according to their merits. --JN466 00:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that Mike has the best interests of the encyclopedia in mind, informing his behaviour towards COI accounts. I don't think anyone doubts that. And the way Mike is treating COI accounts seems to be pretty much standard treatment among a group of admins. So, this isn't about Mike's behaviour in particular, it's about a norm that prevails among a few editors. I and quite a few other editors take issue with that norm. We see it as being in clear breach of policy and working against the best interests of the project (notwithstanding the good intentions of Mike and the others).

Mike, above you assert User GGSoccerFoundation (talk · contribs) was a shameless role account. WP:ROLE says an account with a username that implies it is a role account or is being shared is permitted only if the account information is forever limited to one individual. Did you ask the editor if the account was being used by more than one editor before you blocked it as a role account? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Hell, no!!!! Why should I? Look at their edit history. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact! --Orange Mike | Talk 15:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I did look at their history and I can't tell the account is being used by more than one person. What am I missing? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Apparently I'm being unclear, and the specific link WP:ROLE has become a red herring. This account in the name of a corporate entity was being used only to edit the article about the jock whose name it advertises, including an edit which added an advertisement about the Foundation to the jock's article. If Grover Gibson himself had an account in his name, then we wouldn't be having this conversation; but the corporate name puts it beyond the pale, by my reading of our username rules. The bizarrely unrealistic idea that we should ask every account in a corporate name to assure us that "it's okay, nobody here but us chickens" before blocking turns AGF into a suicide pact. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Which part of that policy are they violating that, by your reading, justifies a hard block, exactly? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

We have to have policy that matches blocking behavior - people feel like they've done something wrong when they're blocked, and I'd suppose that if you get the company name blocked people think you've made the company look bad. That shouldn't happen without fair warning. But on consideration, I'm starting to wonder if we should change policy to allow hard blocks, rather than stopping the blocks. It is clear that we don't want accounts in the name of companies, and telling someone "change your username" isn't that confusing that they need to post to every noticeboard on Wikipedia. For one thing that comes to mind, if companies can make edits, then companies can be liable for edits - and if there are corporate-scale deep pockets on the table, Wikipedia is going to get the bejeezus sued out of it by gold diggers hoping for a lucky verdict. (For example, imagine User:IBM were a formal corporate account and someone used it to post that a certain peripheral was incompatible, but it actually was) True, IANAL, but if I'm right, then there should be clear policy that people make edits, solely in their role as individuals, and if someone wants to prove that the person was acting as someone's agent, they'll have to make do with off-Wikipedia evidence.

That said, we should have some nicer way to mark accounts that have been blocked than "01:11, 1 May 2012 Orangemike (talk | contribs) blocked GGSoccerFoundation (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ({{spamusernameblock}})" in a big red box when you look up the entity. We should try to make a template or other notation that looks respectful and dignified and indicate simply that the company name can't be used for editing, providing a place on the user page for people to affiliate themselves unofficially with it so that if you search the company name you can find those people. We could even suggest right on the template that if you have a company name you can submit it to have it blocked to prevent it from being abused. Wnt (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, policy reflects community consensus; behaviour conforms to policy. The view that a username shouldn't exactly match an organisation name, especially if the account is editing content related to the organisation, is pretty much held unanimously. The nature of a COI user name and how best to deal with it is being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Username_policy#WP:ORGNAME. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps unsurprisingly, I'm pretty much in agreement with Orange Mike on this issue; there are so many of these corporate accounts with no intention of doing anything but spam about themselves that the very few who are actually interested in being constructive can be asked to change their usernames. It's not really fair to ask the relatively few people who watch the new user log and deal with spam all the time to watch these types of accounts until they inevitably start making COI edits; if they want to change their usernames and resume editing the articles, then we'll just have to deal with it through our normal channels. The vast majority give up and either leave or do something constructive once they realize we're not an advertising service anyways, and it's best to hasten that as possible; if we block and ask them to change their usernames, that stands a much better chance of getting their attention. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

You're entitled to your view. But blocking just on the basis that their username incorporates an organisation name, or just because they have a coi, or just because their initial edits are promotional, is diametrically against policy as it stands. Someone has just proposed at Wikipedia_talk:Username_policy#WP:ORGNAME that policy should be changed to reflect your point of view. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that two different issues - multi-user accounts and promotion/advertising - are being confused here. They should be entirely unrelated issues. Wnt (talk) 00:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

We need help on MMA topic!

Hello, I was wondering if you may help us in sorting out the mess that is plaguing the mixed martial arts topic at this time. For years there has been an agreed system by all users on the topic to create single pages for UFC events as well as other promotions that are highly regarded.

Recently users like TreyGeek and Mtking have been causing issues to this, placing AfDs on each UFC event, and after a while of failing to successfully delete a page, or enough time past for the page to be remake with more references to support its notability, they were talking to an admin called Beeblebrox, who remained out of the AfDs debates in MMA at the time, who they were clearly getting along with really well during the time, then during one case, which clearly had a strong case to keep, Beeblebrox was the closing admin and voting 'no consensus' in which he added to his decision that ALL UFC events should be put onto same pages based on year. Then all of a sudden TreyGeek worked like a machine from the moment 'GO' to create the 2012 in UFC events, in which it has become a disaster.

The page is way too long, its too easy to get lost in the page and no-one who is interested in MMA likes it, so this has received a major backlash in which the page has been on TWO AfDs and both was resulted as 'Speedy Keep' by the exact same user, so again I'm thinking foul play. There is a deletion review on at this time which can be found on the 2012 in UFC events page if you want to check it out.

I find it incredibly odd, however, that the largest reason that these users were voting delete on the AfDs on single event pages was because 'the sources/references were from MMA websites only, which means they are not allowed', however, by looking at the references at the bottom of the 2012 in UFC events page, nearly every single one of the 105 references are all from MMA websites, all of which are from the same pages as they are trying to get deleted at this time. Because of this they are making it confusing for all of us who actually care about the topic. What they are saying it is okay for a Omnibus page like that to have what they describe as 'poor' sources as long as there are loads of them on the same page? They also said that there are not enough references for the single event pages to support it either. Again this don't make sense as there is no such number that all pages must meet, besides I believe that 15 references (which an average UFC event has on Wikipedia) is enough to support notability.

I do hope you look into this, we really need someone outside the topic really to give the best formula to fix this problem, there has been too much vote fixing, too much inaccurate decisions made by Admins, too much ignorance and just too much mess for anyone to continue working on the topic anymore. Thank you for reading. 109.151.225.151 (talk) 10:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Seems reasonable to have 30 UFC-event articles per year: The long-term tradition appears to be workable, to have separate articles for each of the UFC events, especially considering there are only about 30 major events per year. Obviously, there will be enough news sources for each sporting event, and with only 30 per year, then later reports will often re-mention the earlier events to strengthen their notability for separate articles. The added yearly article ("2012 in UFC events") would be workable if kept condensed, with links to the larger, separate UFC-event articles. This situation is similar to hurricane articles, where some people have questioned the notability of each storm, and if a hurricane stayed out at sea (and only a few islands or ships were affected), then deletionists have tried to ax the separate pages, in favor of the yearly article, such as "2005 Atlantic hurricane season" listing 28 tropical storms and 15 hurricanes for year 2005, where the major storms included Hurricane Katrina (August), Hurricane Rita (September), and Hurricane Wilma (October), but also the July storms Hurricane Emily (2005) and Hurricane Dennis were considered to be powerful storms. Try not to be upset about people being obsessed with deleting articles, but also remember that having a yearly article (such as "2012 in UFC events") does not mean the separate UFC-event articles must be deleted. Both the separate and yearly UFC articles can be kept, as with each year's hurricane articles. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Interesting article about a 'paid' advocate

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/post/sarah-phillips-espns-alleged-scam-artist-admits-making-poor-choices

Talks about an ESPN reporter using her position to potentially manipulate coverage.

-- Avanu (talk) 15:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

That link takes me to something different?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Hardlink to the blog post here. Doesn't look like it involves Wikipedia though. WilliamH (talk) 16:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Be more watchful!

Hi Jimbo, I want to ask of you to be more watchful in the future. There are things happening where you dont participate or refuse to to due to fearness. A person in particular is threatening many of your admins annd if you don't act there will be very few of them left! Scanning my contribs. you can find him. Lastly, please do not reply with some snarky comment. I will also not read any replies for fear of bashing. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crampyoldman (talk • contribs) 16:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to talk at the University of Bristol - part of big speaker event to the City of Bristol.

Dear Jimmy,

Unfortunately I am one of the many Bristolians who missed your talk when you came to speak in Bristol. However, I wanted to inform you about an event in Bristol run entirely by the student body and completely non-profit (in line with Wikipedia's motives). It will be an incredible CEO and founder speaker event designed to be the biggest event on the Bristol calendar.

I am a second year student at the University of Bristol and also the chairman of this committee and I would absolutely love for you to be involved. We are currently talking to some incredibly interesting people (obviously with whom we have connections) including Sir David Attenborough, founders of Rockstar Games (Dan and Sam Houser), CEO of Pieminister (Jon Simon), Co-founders of Innocent Smoothies and many more. We also are speaking to David Walliams, Matt Lucas and James Blunt (all alumni of the University of Bristol) about hosting/ providing entertainment at the event. Clearly it is not necessary to mention the potential publicity around the event.

However, an event without the founder of Wikipedia is not a complete event at all in my eyes. The event will also be an opportunity, aside from promoting Wikipedia to the Bristol community, for entrepreneurs at the University of Bristol to pitch their businesses alongside people they can only dream of one day becoming.

It will be a fantastic opportunity and I would love to arrange an appointment.

Kind regards,

James Levine (jl0339bris.ac.uk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.14.106 (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)