Wikipedia talk:Commercial editing/archive

Paid Editing Proposals

In November 2013, there were three main discussions and votes on paid editing:

No paid advocacy (talk) (closed: opposed)

Paid editing policy proposal (talk) (closed: opposed)

Conflict of interest limit (talk) (closed: opposed)

Welcome

Please leave a comment. Jehochman ^Talk 13:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• I oppose opening yet another Talk thread here, from scratch. Lots of people have taken the time to come and comment - we have three sprawling discussions on the three main proposals (the fourth proposal on Wikipedia:Sock puppetry/Employees has not gotten any traction and should be removed from the list to the right). To honor the time people have given to comment, and to actually move things forward, I suggest (again, as I just proposed this on the former Talk page) that User:SlimVirgin and User:Jehochman a) collaborate to make another proposal addressing as much as possible themes that have emerged on both sides; b) withdraw and close down the three (and now four?) discussions that are currently going; c) on the Talk page of the unified proposal, tee up the discussion by summarizing the key "pro" and "con" arguments from these three sprawling discussions, and ask readers to carefully consider those arguments and to refer to them while commenting. This would help a lot. If the two of you cannot come to consensus it is very unlikely the whole community will be able to. I would be happy to help, especially with c), if you like, but as the proposers I think it needs to come from you, especially withdrawal of the current competing proposals. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Jehochman you are reading this page as you have commented below - I would very much appreciate a response. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:07, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree. It's duplicative and confusing. Coretheapple (talk) 15:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Has this guideline been adopted? How did that come to pass? Also, I want to point out that the shortcuts (WP:PAID and NPAID) go to another page than this one. Coretheapple (talk) 14:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Changed header to Proposal to reflect what this really is. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:07, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course, now there're three nearly identical proposals, which seems redundant. I wonder if this one could be used, though, to rewrite the real problem, section one, which seems to be the real problem (given that section two and three are immediately dedicated to refuting section one). WilyD 15:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• Stop this please. This fifth simultaneous proposal is forum shopping for something that has, so far, not demonstrated itself to have consenus (or anything approaching it). Please, concentrate discussion in one location. →—Sladen (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I concur. --118.93nzp (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I also agree with this. Do we have to keep expressing our opposition to the same proposals for all the same reasons, with all the previous discussions hidden away on the other page names? This is getting ridiculous. It's long past time that these were all marked as failed proposals. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed that this should Stop now. For starters, the page is full of unsubstantiated claims, or as I call them, "lies". We shouldn't base guidelines, much lest policies, on the basis of falsehoods. I would go into all of the false claims, one by one, but it just isn't worth the time, since this is just another failed proposal in the making. - 2001:558:1400:10:E1C7:8438:5E48:3232 (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree with either you or User:David Eppstein that any proposal has failed (in the sense that we should walk away). There is a great deal of concern about paid editing and likewise, a great concern that efforts to address problems with paid editing would make bigger problems. My hope is that people ~try~ to work toward consensus instead of making this a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Claiming that a proposal if full of lies is just not very helpful. In any case we need to move forward, not laterally. Jytdog (talk) 17:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

But supporters of paid editing have a point. No matter how you slice it, they have majority opinion on their side. The way Wikipedia is set up, that pretty much making a curb on paid editing impossible. That passes the baton over to the Wikimedia Foundation, which has it within its power to amend its terms of service as a matter of self-preservation. NPOV is a Foundation policy, and does not depend upon the consent of Wikipedia editors. Even if a majority decided to rise up against NPOV, my understanding is that NPOV would remain regardless. We can argue forever but the maximum result would seem to be a rule that would just enshrine the status quo. If that were to happen, the Foundation may just shrug its shoulders and say "the community has spoken." I think that's the worst of all possible outcomes. Coretheapple (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Would the Wikimedia Foundation have the legal ability to define a terms of service that prohibits one class of editor (paid editors) on a non-profit, tax-exempt project with the official mission "to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally"? Nothing there says that the content must originate from volunteer, unpaid editors. To enact such a discriminatory policy on "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" would likely open up a sort of false advertising vulnerability for the Foundation. Could you imagine if the Red Cross said people over the age of 60 -- regardless of their health -- were prohibited from donating blood, or if ProLiteracy said that non-native English speakers -- regardless of their fluency -- could not tutor non-English speakers in reading English? You can't just ban an entire class of people from a non-profit educational mission, just because of imaginary beliefs about their suitability toward fulfilling the organizational mission. Do paid editors help "collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain"? Yes, virtually all of them do; with many of them doing a better job of it than their non-paid volunteer counterparts. For example, here is a crappy stub that was authored by (presumably) volunteer editors, and here it was after expansion by several editors who (presumably) had conflicts of interest. Granted, the second version is full of marketing fluff and some disparaging content, too. But, which one more effectively collected and developed educational content under a free license? Certainly the second version reflects a better fulfillment of the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation. And, of course, eventually through the cooperative efforts of both volunteer and paid editing, the article becomes rather kick-ass. Why would you want to make Wikipedia less kick-ass, by having the Foundation (probably illegally) ban a class of some of the best contributors to the organizational mission? - 2001:558:1400:10:E1C7:8438:5E48:3232 (talk) 20:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I checked in with them. They are considering options but the Wikipedia community is really on its own here - we govern ourselves and need to come up with a way to deal with this. It is on us. I for one don't have a lot of patience for the pissing match going on here.Jytdog (talk) 21:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Would the Wikimedia Foundation prefer to do nothing? Yes. Could the Wikimedia Foundation ban paid editing? Same answer. Coretheapple (talk) 21:07, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Coretheapple: May I draw your attention to requirements 5 and requirement 6 of The Open Source Definition. If one is seeking to restrict based on endeavour or specific groups, (rather than actions); then a licence would be non-free. You may feel that it may, or may not, be directly relevant but it should give you a quick check as to what types of actions or discrimination are generally acceptable in forming the policy surrounding libre projects and who can contribute. —Sladen (talk) 21:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Paid editors can continue to edit Wikipedia until their fingers fall off. They just can't charge for it. I think that a ban on child pornography would fall into that general category. Coretheapple (talk) 22:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I should point out that I am very much not a "supporter of paid editing", meaning people or companies whose business model is to write Wikipedia articles on behalf of subjects who want to have Wikipedia articles written about them. But despite some half-hearted language about it in the last couple of drafts, the supporters of these proposals have failed to distinguish those sorts of editing from other types of editing that are not advocacy but also happen to be paid (e.g. expert editing), and have failed to show how requirements to identify yourself as a paid editor will be enforced or will have a positive effect on the scourge that is promotional editing. Rather than addressing these issues they seem to be making cosmetic changes, changing the name of the proposal, and hoping that the people who complained about the flaws in their previous proposals will just go away. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't really thinking about you specifically, as there are a lot of people who support, ideologically or otherwise, paid editing. I think that objections concerning expert editing are not and should not be an obstacle as there is no sentiment for curbing it. That falls under the category of "collateral damage" and it can be dealt with, as nobody wants experts to not edit Wikipedia. Personally I think it is not a genuine issue and that there is not going to be any impact on experts editing Wikipedia, but that is neither here nor there because, one way or the other, there is not going to be any progress on this issue. Coretheapple (talk) 18:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Coretheapple: I support the creation of a libre encyclopedia that is balanced (WP:NPOV), unbiased (WP:ADVOCACY), reliable (WP:RS) and cited (WP:CITE). Reading the previous four pages of discussion, the majority of contributors appear to share that goal too—and like them, I don't feel a need to evaluate apparent motivation for a contribution meeting those shared pillars. Desiring a libre encyclopedia does not make people either pro, or anti any particular mechanism of achieving it. —Sladen (talk) 21:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

But your reasoning omits the reader, who is left in the dark about whether a major contributor has a conflict of interest as long as the article does not read like a puff piece or hatchet job. Only in Wikipedia is contributor COI viewed as inconsequential, offensive to discuss, rejected as a relevant factor and not to be disclosed to readers and only grudgingly, if at all, to other editors. Coretheapple (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• Please stop forking. Support closing this page in favor of the lively dialogue already taking place here. That dialogue needs to be respected and continue. Proxyma (talk) 22:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Attempting to force this through by persistent spamming is disruptive. Warden (talk) 23:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. What a massive pile of misdirected angst. This presumes that people who volunteer are all doing so for good reasons and with the best interests of Wikipedia - which is obviously not true - and assumes anyone, including the many approved paid enterprises, are against the best interests which is also obviously not true. What remains is a truth somewhere in the middle where there are both valid and unscrupulous people who edit, and some of each actually get some payment. This will not solve this, just sets up a witch hunt for anyone accused of being paid. Notice there is no equal effort to find out and reveal who is both paid and making valid edits? Likely because they did so without going against Wikipedia rules. Instead of focusing on the cash, focus on the actual problem editing which is against the rules of sourcing, being unbiased, etc.Saltybone (talk) 00:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
• Conditionally Oppose I agree with much of the content of this proposal, but I disagree with how these 5 proposals have been advanced. We cannot keep opening new proposals, especially when 3 of 5 proposals are extremely similar. All 5 proposals need to be closed, and we need to approach this this in a different manner, perhaps a Wikiproject. DavidinNJ (talk) 01:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I support the idea of a WikiProject to address this type of issue. Proxyma (talk) 01:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Paid editors here

I don't doubt that much opposition stems from paid editors trying to protect their income. Please disclose when commenting if you accept pay for edits Jehochman ^Talk 18:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow, WP:AGF much? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you think people paid to edit would just ignore this conversation, rather than lobbying to get their way? Jehochman ^Talk 20:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Why would paid editors worry about any of these failed and failing proposals? Those that already abide by the Bright Line Rule will not be affected. Those that carry out their paid editing without disclosing will also not be affected. Jehochman, please disclose when commenting if you write advertisements suitable for Wikipedia. - 2001:558:1400:10:E1C7:8438:5E48:3232 (talk) 20:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

It's reasonable to ask that editors disclose if they accept pay for edits when discussing rule changes affecting paid editing. It is an indication of how lax the current practices now are, how accepting of COI, that such a disclosure is not required. Nor would it be required if this rule or guideline is adopted. Coretheapple (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

It's also reasonable to ask that editors disclose if they have an unusual bias against being paid to edit when discussing rule changes affecting paid editing. It is an indication of how silly the current practices now are, how dysfunctional is the view of COI, that such a disclosure is not required. Nor would it be required if this rule or guideline fails like all those before it. - 2001:558:1400:10:E1C7:8438:5E48:3232 (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Only in the Bizarro World. Coretheapple (talk) 21:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

As a professional astronomer employed by a university, I'm paid to reach out to the public and educate them about astronomy. That includes writing Wikipedia articles, yes. WilyD 21:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Nobody wants to stop that kind of activity. But if you work for the Acme Rocket Company, which wants to blast off a capsule of chimps to the the next galaxy, you should not be allowed to write an article about the Acme Rocket Company. I think this kind of thing has been addressed multiple times. Coretheapple (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Failing to see why you wouldn't want someone highly familiar with the Acme Rocket Company writing educational content about the Acme Rocket Company. I suppose Coretheapple would prefer to have the chimp editing Wikipedia. - 2001:558:1400:10:E1C7:8438:5E48:3232 (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible that Coretheapple's lengthy work on topics like Monsanto, BP, and the Twilight Zone helicopter accident reveals an agenda that predisposes him as anti-paid editing? It's reasonable to ask. - 2001:558:1400:10:E1C7:8438:5E48:3232 (talk) 21:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, I am beginning to feel like a fool for not getting my own clients, as you purport to have, though I'm not clear if your talk page post was joking or not. Seriously, what is the point of working for nothing? Paid editors make fools of us all. Coretheapple (talk) 21:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

this is really self-indulgent you guys. 21:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

No, while I don't agree with the IP, he's making an argument that is not unknown on these pages, as am I. If you want more scintillating conversation, you've chosen the wrong place. This is, I believe, the 300th proposal on paid editing to surface in the last two days. Coretheapple (talk) 21:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

If nobody wants to stop that kind of activity, why do we keep seeing proposal after proposal that attempts to regulate this kind of activity (e.g. look at all the restrictions on expert editing within the "Experts and editing at work" section of this proposal). Why can't we just have a blanket statement that these are not the people the policy applies to? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea. Since the entire process is broken, I don't expect that it will get anything right, including that part. Coretheapple (talk) 22:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I keep hearing that nobody wants to restrict that, then reading policies written to only restrict that. The question I keep asking, that nobody can seem to answer is "What behaviour is currently allowed that needs to be disallowed?". WilyD 06:50, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm paid in kudos. Are you? —Sladen (talk) 21:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Kudos don't pay the rent. While I disagree with paid editing and don't believe it is correct, I can't blame paid editors for taking advantage of the opportunities Wikipedia offers for them to corrupt the process for their own monetary gain. Coretheapple (talk) 21:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

We are going about this the wrong way.

When the options are finite and reasonable well-defined—which color should be paint the new shed, it is perfectly appropriate to list the options and take a vote. This is not limited to "small" issues–choice of the next American President is not a small issue, yet ultimately, there will be a simple vote.

Somewhat more complex issues can be addressed with the standard way of decision making on Wikipedia. Someone floats a draft, there's a discussion period, with tweaks and modifications to the draft, and then we call for a consensus, and the draft is adopted, or not.

That model works for a surprisingly broad range of situations. It even works, maybe a bit creakily, for what are termed large and complicated ArbCom cases. I don't mean to dismiss the complexity of those cases, some are very complex, but the good news is that the decisions boil down to a relatively small finite number of options. Admonish Users X and Y, topic ban user Z, etc.

The approach can even work when the options are almost unlimited, but the community is largely on the same page. We all agree that articles need to be supported by Reliable Sources, and while the exact wording of the policies has involved hours of wrangling, it has usually been about the details, not the fundamentals. It is plausible to write a rough draft and get to a consensus.

The approach breaks down when it comes to issues where the community is not all on the same page.

Examples:

• Civility Guidelines
• Userbox policy
• RfA reforms

and now, paid editing.

The problem is that we are trying to use the same model - throw up a rough draft, and tweak it. When the first one fails, try another. And another, and another.

If we "succeed" it will only be a triumph of exhaustion over reason.

We need to stop throwing up draft guidelines and have a serious brainstorming session to identify the issues, and potential solutions. We need moderated discussions to sort out all the issues, and come up with some proposed guidelines that will work.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Has anything like that ever happened? Coretheapple (talk) 22:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Sphilbrick I love this and agree we need moderated discussion - how do we do that? I have been asking Slim and J to step up and do that but they are not biting. Not clear to me how to move forward. Very happy to help but I am process-ignorant. 22:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

This should be moderated by someone not previously involved in the discussion. Jimbo himself, if he is up to it, or perhaps somebody from the Foundation. Coretheapple (talk) 23:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I like this idea a lot. Proxyma (talk) 00:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

This is a great idea, S Philbrick, and a fair classification of the types of issues where such facilitation is needed. We should find outside moderation -- and should develop and honor that skill in our community. Since it is needed in depth a few times a year (if not more) on any major project. Any topic worth this sort of facilitation could be supported with a wikiproject, which tries to clarify points of agreement and departure, as David suggests below. And Core, in the short run, your suggestion is an option. – SJ + 10:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that the best way to go forward is evaluate the different sections of the proposal individually as part of a Wikiproject. We can list a specific idea or hypothetical situation, and get feedback about how editors feel about it. I think there are a lot of areas where there is broad consensus, and once we determine what those areas are, they can be part of a future proposal. To make this work, there must be people with differing perspectives participating in the Wikiproject, and there must be a consensus reached before a new proposal is put forth. DavidinNJ (talk) 01:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree DavidinNJ I proposed such a Wikiproject for RfA here. Almost no response. We'll survive if don't reform RfA. Paid editing is a more serious problem, and I'm tempted to take that proposal for an RFA wikiproject, and mutatis mutandes for a Paid Editing Wikiproject. However, that other one went over so poorly, so I'd like to see some support before trying it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Dank previously led a discussion on options for improving the request for adminship process; I've asked him if he would be interested in leading a discussion on this topic. isaacl (talk) 02:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

RFA is a good example of a process that is subject to perennial reform proposals that never go anywhere. I think we need to keep trying to generate a consensus a while longer. Though it might not succeed, we must still try. Jehochman ^Talk 12:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I think there's a chance that if the occasional editor throws together some proposal, that someday, something will catch the fancy of enough respondents to stick. However, I think we could do better if we got organized.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that discussion should not be closed down and that the interested parties should keep trying to develop a consensus. I also agree with those who feel that having multiple drafts of the same proposal under discussion simultaneously across multiple talk pages makes it difficult to work towards a common agreement. Thus I think having someone take a more active role in shaping discussion will make it more effective, versus everyone simply lobbing in supports and opposes. isaacl (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite. I agree that the usual approach with RfCs doesn't work for some protracted disputes ... but this dispute isn't protracted (yet), so I don't think the way forward is clear. What would you guys like to do? - Dank (push to talk) 04:37, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Aside: +1 on having a similar facilitation for RfA reform. – SJ + 10:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Sj. It wasn't successful, but it did calm things down a little, and maybe things we learned along the way will be helpful here. - Dank (push to talk) 12:55, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Merging talk pages

The histori of this and the (2nd draft) page are confusing. Can we please merge the talk pages in a sane way, to reflect that Wikipedia:Paid editing policy proposal/2nd_draft now redurects to Wikipedia:Commercial editing? – SJ + 21:37, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

What does anyone think about removing the redirect, to try to help clarify matters? isaacl (talk) 21:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)