Wikipedia talk:Contract Editing Review

Important notes

Of course, everything we are discussing here is pending the general consensus at the RfC. Nothing is official yet.

This comes out from the suggestion of Jimmy Wales in his statement and a middle ground between the positions of all RfC participants.

The general idea is that there is no way to publish a contracted article on-wiki without going through this page for review. This page will be the obligatory passing point for all contracted editing. Any contracted article which gets published without being approved here has to be deleted. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You're fast

You beat me to the idea I was crafting in my head and that I was going to propose to Jimmy. rootology (C)(T) 00:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Cool. It is also better to come from an opposer ;) -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

"Independent" would, to me, mean "not a part of Wikipedia". I suspect Jimmy also means this, but he would have to be asked. I continue to think this is a bad concept to legitimize, especially as it creates yet another Wikipedia bureaucracy, and yet another (is this the third or fourth concurrent discussion?) node on the topic // BL \\ (talk) 01:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, though it is preferable it to be very transparent in front of everyone. But fair enough, I'll leave a note at Jimmy's talk page before moving on. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The instructions being... where? :) Can you draft a few below, and lets see what you think they'd look like. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The main purpose behind creating it is to have a place to discuss the instructions here at the talk page :) -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

What's next?

[WP:Contract Editing] as a policy? No guideline as that would be easy to be taken as many other guidelines and easy to game and wikilawyer with. But let's go slowly. I've just left a note at Jimmy's talk page. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't even worry about that bit yet. Better to hash out a simple mechanic first (and it'd be honestly pretty simple: "Is this worth including?" "Not really," or "Yeah") and then move from there to see what if anything has legs. rootology (C)(T) 01:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe it is a good idea to start with the doors before the foundations. Rules should be made clear beforehand. I believe we can start from gathering all the ideas discussed at the RfC first.

As an example, rules on how to offer your services should be discussed (i.e. no promotional words like in e-stores and stuff like that, etc...). -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, certainly. I mean specifically that it would be better to hash out it in one spot and here is as good as any before it's even launched as a policy proposal. We can probably come up with 100 bad ways to go about it, so how about this as a possible starting point for a hypothetical right way? rootology (C)(T) 02:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Opposition

I continue to strongly oppose pre-emptive contribution mentoring and review. Just because Jimbo said it doesn't make it a good idea. It assumes bad faith and creates a considerably higher barrier to entry for responsible contributors. I support mentoring of editors with problematic editing patterns, but no one should be mentored merely because they have a conflict of interest. I move for the repurposing of this new project for contribution mentoring of problematic editors as a rehabilitation measure only.

Alternatively, I would be happy to see this project repurposed to review contributions in article space of editors with a conflict of interest.

Besides that, I simply didn't observe consensus support for this measure in the RFC discussion. Raising barriers to contributions of editors with no editing history has never been done before, what makes this case so exceptionally important that it overpowers our foundational principles? I'd like to work for a more appropriate solution, but failing that I can only call for this novel project to be dismantled. Dcoetzee 01:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I may agree with you since I am more leaning to your position than that of the pro-paid editing. All what I did is try to find a middle ground. What we can do now is to see the reaction of everyone to this page and decide what to do next. Keep it or dismantle it. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Bad idea

I understand that this project was well intentioned, but it is a bad idea. The premise of the project is that it is OK for paid advocates to edit and create content on Wikipedia: We even have a project to help get sponsored articles get into Wikipedia after review. I don't want to review it, I want to stop it if I find it, but, most of all, I don't want Wikipedia to endorse or condone it. I'm tempted to create a shortcut redirect to the project page. WP:$$HILL perhaps? It is bad enough that there are already too many promo pieces all over Wikipedia to ever edit into neutral, encyclopedic articles (I'm talking about companies with sufficient notability, not candidates for deletion). The line that we are crossing here, and if the RfC becomes policy, is legitimizing the process, and in the process delegitimizing Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Jimbo is right that paid advocacy in Wikipedia is already against policy. We aren't the IRS code, and we don't need a specific rule for every conceivable act that is against policy, as reasonably interpreted. Finell (Talk) 04:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Obviously there are people who disagree with you - I for one think paid advocates creating and editing content on Wikipedia is desirable and will function effectively as a component in the process of building a more complete and accurate encyclopedia. I dislike Contract Editing Review for the opposite reason, that it places undue restrictions on those editors. Dcoetzee 07:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Contract editing is very likely to violate WP:COI and WP:NPOV. Those are two core policies of wikipedia and therefore i would say we should not simply ignore the risk of wikipedia being used for advertising. I believe that this page could prove to be a neutral middle ground between the "Always Accept paid editing" and the "Always forbid paid editing" side. Seeing the current state of the debate i assume we will not exactly reach a consensus for either side. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 07:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Why speculate? I see no reason why pre-emptive correction is necessary in this case, and not for (say) vandalism, or verifiability. What's wrong with our usual approach of reacting to users who edit with a bias by imposing sanctions on them? Dcoetzee 07:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    • When you get down to it, all of Wikipedia rests on a simple presumption of good faith: we must assume that whatever biases every editor has, their top priority is improving Wikipedia. This can hold true for normal biased editors as much as unbiased ones. Even a biased editor may be ultimately subject to an appeal to the importance of the Wikipedia project (editors for whom this isn't true may ultimately get blocked). The first priority of a paid editor, on the other hand, is to get paid. They have an essential allegiance that is higher than Wikipedia when they edit. They break the underlying commitment to a better encyclopedia that we all must trust other editors to have in order to function. We cannot endorse even the slightest infringement against this principle, or else our entire structure crumbles. Locke9k (talk) 20:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

How does one stop disclosure templates from being ads?

A template on the talk page that loudly (or discretely) announces that "User:blah created/written/copy-edited [permalink] version of this article for a fee" is a straight-out ad for the editor-for-hire. I'm very uncomfortable about that. Every underemployed anglophone editor will flock here and want to promote themselves thus. What's to stop their writing a "signature" article themselves as a promotional tool? Tony (talk) 07:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The same thing that stops them now: The entire battery of policies we already have in place. See WP:COI, WP:Advert, WP:SPAM, WP:Npov, WP:G11 and so on and on. We already have people flocking to wikipedia to make article's about themselves and their company, and we subsequently remove them. This page could allow an editor who writes a CoI article to have it reviewed before posting it, which allows it to be improved. Lets be realistic: We already receive masses of article's about companies so small that they are almost certainly COI articles. At least this page could offer a notch of regulation or advice to COI editors. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 07:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hungry editor-for-pay gets her friend, a WPian, to start a stub on a quite legitimate, notable company (or on the Norwegian black squirrel, whatever). Editor-for-pay creates shining article, gets friend to post template saying that editor-for-pay has done it for a fee. It's advertising and you can't detect it. Tony (talk) 07:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Aren't you creating a paradox here? If we cannot detect it as a bad article, how can we say it is one? I started Primavera Systems some time ago as it was the only software vendor i had to research for a project which was not covered on Wikipedia. While doing this i found enough evidence it was notable, so i decided to write the article myself. Technically i had almost no COI when creating this article; Yet if a representative would have created this article in the same shape as i did, should that be a reason to scream advertising?

At the same time we can be certain that there are enough editors around here that are CoI. I am pretty certain any large company article has been edited by its employees, for whatever reason they have to do so (Be it spam, espressing annoyance or simply adding relevant information). If they are not blatant and we cannot detect them violating rules, why would we try to start a witch hunt just so we can catch any editor who has a CoI? As stated before: articles about christianity likely have editors who believe in that religion. Articles about atheism likely have editors that support that viewpoint. I agree that paid editing with promotional intent should be completely forbidden (As it is already), but paid edits with no CoI or at least no visible CoI should be allowed. All in all, whats the difference with the current situation in the first place? Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 08:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's use this article as a possible example: Pike Place Fish Market

Pike Place Fish Market, a small business article, was a redirect to Pike Place Market until I came along:

1. March 17, 2007: It's a redirect.
2. May 28, 2008: I do 20 edits to create the article.
3. Final version where I was basically "done". I believe that version of the article is as close as anyone for an article of that size can get to WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:N.
4. I later went back in October 2008 and got it to WP:GA with a few nudges.

I was not paid to do this article. I do walk by these guys almost daily some weeks and rarely shop there. Aside from picking out an order, I don't think I've said more than 10 words to the staff there in the past 4 years. But, if I was paid, this is a textbook example of someone just "banging out" a corporate article. 99% of corporate articles, especially the small business ones that I think people are worried about, or that end up being deleted as spam, are about this size or smaller.

Request

I am asking everyone--Jimmy, Fayasslf, Alex, anyone else reading this--take everything aside, I mean, literally everything, and read this version on this link.

If you came across that article, would it honestly matter why it was written, so long as it had been? Please tell me your thoughts, and the why's behind them. If you want extra discussion points, here is another local small business article that I wrote 99.9% of the new content on, and it's on track when I have time for FA. Clearly, there was a need for these articles as well, based on the page views:

http://stats.grok.se/en/200905/Pike%20Place%20Fish%20Market

1,403 views per month

http://stats.grok.se/en/200905/Beecher%27s%20Handmade%20Cheese

231 views per month

I wasn't paid there either. But given the content, would it really have mattered, given the specific content I created? Why? rootology (C)(T) 13:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This is what you get, Root:

===Pros===

• Very good presentation;
• Good editing skills - it could be better without a bit of prose
• Very good use and diversification of reliable sources;
• Sentences like At times, Beecher's has encountered challenges in maintaining this uniform standard. For example, when flooding affected one farm, the cows there produced enzymes in their milk that helped their calves to fight off bacteria, but changed the flavor of the milk.[13] have a good encyclopedic value with an acceptable source.
• Beecher's Handmade Cheese is a former FA; (though I don't know if having a company article as a FA is a good idea unless the company has a very special particularity - see also below)

===Cons===

Intro

• Four years later, they were featured repeatedly in the national media and television shows.[ref]" The store is now a popular...

What do you think about the bold weasel words particularly when used together. Do you really believe the sentences convey a neutral point of view? Now, try replacing the name of the subject with a notable big firm. Would you include sentences such as the above? They all started someday to appear repeatedly on TV and newspapers and they are now big. Is that right? If you'd ask me how I see it I'd say that with the two sentences put together, the first sentence serves as a preparatory stage to conflate before pushing the reader into the second which serves to emphasize and confirm a "hidden" bias. That's a good writing technique but is deemed biased according to Wikipedia's standards. This is how I would have put it, no more, no less; there is no need for a first sentence (someone else may still keep the first sentence by getting rid of the weasel words):

The store is a popular tourist destination in Seattle, attracting up to 10,000 daily visitors, and is often billed as world-famous.[3][2]"

• Unlike most artisan cheese makers, Beecher's mainly uses pasteurized milk and operates a high-volume modern production facility, with multiple farms supplying milk. This is an extraordinary claim which goes unsourced (hint: unlike, high volume... I don't see how this is different from dozens of cheese makers with high-volume modern production facility, with multiple farms supplying milk?). I don't see it referenced anywhere in the article. I don't know how could this slip through the net to get the FA status.

History sections

Prior to the meeting, during the meeting, after the meething. We all got it ;)

I could go on but now I have a question... would these customers be happy if the articles were conceived according to the tight Wikipedia NPOV norms? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

That's an issue for the client and editor, not for us: WP:DEADLINE: other editors can come along and fix any (admittedly small) NPOV problems, or other issues in the articles. -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 17:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean to ask that question in that direction. This is what I meant... which direction would you choose, satisfying the client or abiding by Wikipedia rules?

Who would fix them (Dec 06, Sept. 08)? And do you believe that the articles Root submitted here are the worst examples when you say 'small NPOV problems'? In this particular case, do you believe that Root is the worst biased editor over here? Please let's leave essays (WP:TIND) out of this serious discussion... that particular essay doesn't touch any NPOV issue in any possible way. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a false dichotomy. If you ask for a Wikipedia article, you've already opened Pandora's box, since anybody can come along and add negative facts to it. It would be senseless to refuse to pay the paid author if they happen to be the first one to do so - to the contrary, the best critic is a sympathetic one. As for who would fix them - the issue of bias is not a new one, and we deal with it the way we always have, regardless of motivation, with editing and user sanctions. What's special about paid editing here? Dcoetzee 20:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The main issue seems to be PR related. There are arguments that allowing paid editors would cause a media outburst that could label wikipedia as an untrustworthy source for information as you can pay to have it edited within the rules. Technically taken this entire discussion is a bit of a non-issue since we already have this problem. We just didn't create a policy or consensus that deals with it. Regardless of what we decide it will be mostly moot - if we can't detect CoI and Spam editors now we won't detect them adterwards regardless of what we write down. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe my point still stands even if WP:TIND isn't "serious" enough for this discussion. Editors who write NPOV can and will be blocked under NPOV policy, and User:Example can come along and fix the article. It's a win for Wikipedia. I do have to agree that the issue is mainly one of PR... I believe the best way forward is to introduce no new policy. Ruling out paid editing will mean Wikipedia will lose some genuine content and will have more egg on its proverbial face when El Reg decides to run a piece about how the 'pedia fails to uphold its own policy. Explicitly endorsing paid editing means the media will effectively have a license to run a piece saying we're all shills. Doing nothing will maintain the status quo, and that's fine in my opinion as we already have policy to deal with the issues paid editing brings. -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 08:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Questions about assumptions here

For the sake of argument, let's assume paid editing is permitted. If so, what are the conditions we should allow it to operate under? From reading the comments as of last night, my sense of the consensus is that, in as few words as possible, it is this:

As long as the editor follows all established guidelines and procedures, she/he may be paid for his edits. However, violation of these norms will result with the editor being subjected to harsher penalties than for an unpaid or volunteer editor.

(Okay, the second sentence might be an addition on my part, but it attempts to address some of the concerns of the anti-pay group.)

Can we start with this statement (or something close to it) as being what we all agree with? -- llywrch (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty extreme of the pro-paid editing end of the scale, but I would support that statement. Part of what a paid editor is being paid for is responsible editing and preservation of the employer's and encyclopedia's reputation. I'd also add that, as with any conflict of interest, it is important to openly declare any COI beforehand, which in this case amounts to specifically describing the work you've been hired for on your user page. Dcoetzee 20:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say keep it as is - silently tolerate it unless we can detect CoI and Advert issues. If we say we accept it it could cause PR issues along with editors assuming they have much more freedom to do this - which could result in a lot more work banning and discussing. If we say we do not tolerate it, this form of editing would not stop anyway. As i said before: If it does not violate notability, verifiability and reliable sources, Does not show any CoI, and does not seem to be promotional we can call it a Duck Good article, no matter who wrote it for whatever purpose. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Questions

1. How long before this joins WP:BACKLOG because we suddenly become aware of how rife such contracts are?
2. What is the incentive of revealing yourself as being under contract and posting here? Do you want to identify, waste time and risk your article's deletion or just not bother and not tell anyone?
3. Why isn't this a subsidiary of peer review, as it seems to do pretty much the same job?

You're trying to solve a battle that you can't really win. The decent contract editors will post here, because they're honest and care about what they're doing. But all their articles are fine. The ones who won't post here are those who haven't written decent articles because they don't want to draw attention to this fact.

These are all good points. I wish we were having a discussion about "potential COI editing" rather than paid or contract editing, both of which are both more rare and less interesting. Right now there is disincentive for good editors to reveal potential conflicts. We should reverse that somehow, because revealing affiliations (and effectively asking for active review of any related contributions) should be a way to improve and not harm reputation. +sj+ 11:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

This all just seems to be bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy. "Hey, we've got an issue." "Well, before finishing the RfC and getting a consensus, let's go and start creating committees and stuff to organise this better." I'm aware you're being bold and I give you kudos for that. But this is less bold and more premature. Sorry if I sound like a bore, but you're really getting ahead of yourselves by planning this over here whilst there's still a discussion going on back out in the wilds. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 04:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

I like the idea, but isn't this just a fork of COIN? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Any idea of the stats?

I don't expect hard stats, but does anyone have a vague idea of how many users are paid for editing, what type of articles they work on, who's doing the paying, whether there's a possible COI, what the standard of editing is like? There must be some evidence of the practice for this page to exist.

Any guesses? Otherwise, we're in the dark. Tony (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The only measure I could possibly think of is the number of deletion log summaries referencing Wikipedia:CSD#G11 and the number of block logs referencing Spam / advertising. MBisanz ^talk 15:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)