Wikipedia talk:Paid-contribution disclosure

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure was copied or moved into Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure/sandbox with this edit on August 10, 2021. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 8 sections are present.

Paid participation:
poetic perspectives

I won't argue for fun,
I won't argue for free,
with someone who's paid
to argue with me.
–Levivich

I'll argue all day,
I'll fight 'til I'm tired.
At least if I lose
I won't get fired.
–Bradv ^[1]

Suggested addition

I want to suggest linking from this page to:

I got this idea from the recent drama over Jimmy Wales being fooled by someone who had been scammed by such a website into thinking that a respected editor here was an undisclosed paid editor. That made me think that it would be useful to make more users aware of the issue of such scams. This could be in the form of "see also" or "further information" at the top of a section. I'm open to discussion as to which section. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a good fit for this page, other than possibly in a "See also" section at the bottom. It's targeted at paid editors and is an elaboration of the relevant section in the terms of use. Although I don't know how to get the target audience of business owners or other self-promoting people to read it, I think a page whose message is specifically focused on them is a better choice. isaacl (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with a see also section for them. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added them, as a See also section. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want to ensure that I'm fully disclosing my paid contributor status. (apologies if this is a duplicate topic)

It is a bit confusing, and I believe that I've correctly added my paid contributor status on my User page, but I want to ensure that I do everything properly & in accordance with Wikipedia Paid-contribution disclosure processes. At this time, the main focus of my contributions will to make substantial updates to our GunBroker.com page that has outdated information and is lacking several key details. I will ensure that, wherever possible, external citations such as SEC filings & other reputable sources are used. Can anyone help fill me in if I need to follow more steps? Also, how do I ensure that my source edits are properly attributed as paid-disclosed? Thank you in advance. LoVeloDogs (talk) 20:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being conscientious in making this disclosure! What you should do, going forward, is to not edit GunBroker.com directly. Instead, make postings at Talk:GunBroker.com, where you should say explicitly that you are a paid editor, and describe exactly what edits you would like to make. Then, other editors can make the actual edits for you. If your proposed edits are factual and well-sourced, there should be no problem. If other editors have any issues about your sourcing or anything else, they will tell you, and you can discuss it with them. (Maybe I'm leaving something out, and others watching here will add to what I've said.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your timely & concise reply! This information is exactly what I was looking for. LoVeloDogs (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Required disclosure for admin paid advising

There is a proposal at the village pump to add a new disclosure requirement to this policy. Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Required disclosure for admin paid advising. – Joe (talk) 11:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org question

Do only checkusers have access to the email or do admins have access as well? S0091 (talk) 15:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines for crowdfunding?

I've been looking through Wikipedia policy guidelines, including this one, to see if there's anything about crowdfunding/recurrent donations platforms (e.g. Patreon, Liberapay, etc.). If I've missed it, please direct me to where it is, but I'm currently left thinking that this represents a pretty substantial gap in our policy on paid contributions. This model of monetisation has become indispensable for many online creators and it's one that works in a different, almost opposite, way to the other forms of paid contribution outlined here. I.e. instead of being commissioned to write an article about a specific thing, it would effectively involve people that already contribute to certain articles and subject areas openly requesting financial support for continuing to do so. (Really it would function similarly to how the WMF requests donations to keep Wikipedia up and running)

Figuring out a policy guideline for crowdfunded work would bring its own share of challenges, like how to declare such a payment on-wiki. But I also think it could be a potential benefit for many editors, as it would open up a route for people to sustain more contributions to the platform. (I wonder how many more people would edit on a part- or full-time basis if this were an option?) It also may not present the same potentially negative influences that other forms of paid contribution can bring. Is a policy on this something the Wikipedia community has considered or would be willing to consider? --Grnrchst (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The same guidance applies for all paid editors. This page describes and links to key guidance, including Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, and English Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline. Offhand, I can't think of what additional guidance is required; do you have something in mind? (OK, there's one thing: describing your employer might be tricky with a rotating cast of supporters. The best way I can think of at the moment is to maintain a subpage of your user page with the supporter information.) isaacl (talk) 23:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

meta:Crowdfunding Bluerasberry (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Isaacl; @Bluerasberry: Full disclosure, I have just set up a crowdfunder for recurrent donations, following on from this post. My user page now includes a COI disclosure, in order to be up front and open about what it is I'm doing. If there is anything I've missed in this, please do ping me about what else I need to make sure I include and if there's any precautions I should take going forward. Thanks for the help with checking against the paid-contribution guidance and for linking to the WMF's page on crowdfunding. --Grnrchst (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Getting paid

Hi,

I am completely unaware of paid funding and I don't even know that contributing to Wikipedia can be paid. I only contribute out of my passion. If there is any policy like this and I can receive funds for it, please guide me.

Thank you. AK4393 (talk) 10:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AK4393 You misunderstand. Wikipedia does not pay editors. If you choose as an individual to offer Wikipedia editing as a service to others to be paid by them, you must disclose who is paying you, that is a Terms of Use requirement. If you are content to edit Wikipedia due to your passion, then you should continue to do so. Paid editing, though permitted, is often looked upon negatively by the community who is largely here as volunteers. 331dot (talk) 10:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Found this - don't know where else to post it. Anything we can do about it?

https://www.entrepreneur.com/en-in/technology/the-hidden-world-of-wikipedia-page-creation-services/476484 MaskedSinger (talk) 11:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:COIN#The Hidden World of Wikipedia Page Creation Services. – Joe (talk) 12:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Joe Roe! MaskedSinger (talk) 07:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exemptions

Please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Request to give Kseni-kam a leeway. --Altenmann >talk 00:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]