Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Paid-contribution disclosure/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Self-revert of COI disclosure

If an editor adds a COI declaration to their userpage, then removes it a minute later, have they really made the declaration required by the TOU? I've seen a couple of case like this (which apparently I can't name here) and it looks to me like an attempt to WP:GAME the system. Should I take this to WP:COIN? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 04:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd say you're justified in restoring the declaration in accordance with WP:PAID, although if there is ever any question, a link to the disclosure diff is proof enough. I really don't see what a discussion on WP:COIN would accomplish, because the COI is already established by the disclosure, however brief it was. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I thought that the purpose of the disclosure was to encourage other editors to apply extra scrutiny to the user's edits. If that scrutiny only comes from those who remember dig through the userpage history, there doesn't seem to be much of a point. Regarding restoring the disclosure myself, is there some policy page which explicitly says it's fine to edit another person's userpage like that? I expect I'd soon be reverted by the user, and I'd like something to point to if that happens. WP:PAID only says they "must do this on their main user page or..." but doesn't seem to prohibit removing it later, or allow others to restore it. WP:COI does say that they "are expected to maintain a clearly visible list on your user page of your paid contributions" but that's only a guideline page and I expect that these people stand a good chance of being WP:WIKILAWYERs who will ignore everything that isn't policy. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 16:42, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
@Suffusion of Yellow:
The paid editing disclosure on the user page or article talk page must to visible at least during the duration of the paid editing assignment. Otherwise each paid edit must be disclosed individually, per the ToU: "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." That is for every contribution that is paid. That is the plain meaning of the text, and if anybody challenges that we just need to clarify it in the body of the policy. Declaring every contribution is a bit onerous, so we allow paid editors to just declare once on their user page, but that is not a license to declare for just 1 second.
2 pretty easy things to do.
  • Ask the 1-second declarers on their talk page if they meant for the declaration to apply to other time periods. And firmly but politely let them know that you don't think they are complying with the letter or the spirit of the declaration requirement. While you're on their talk page, you might as well let them know that you're reporting them at WP:COIN
  • At COIN just let all editors there know what has happened, report the declaration diff and the user name. Let other editors review your observation - after all there is a chance you missed something. But in all likelihood, they'll see the same things you saw, and bring the hammer down, one way or another. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • My 2¢: add {{connected contributor (paid)}} to the article's talk page and diff their disclosure. If it's part of a pattern of seemingly attempting to avoid scrutiny, discuss on COIN. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 14:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
    {{connected contributor (paid)}} should always be placed on articles where the PE only disclosed elsewhere. The PE may not be required to do it but disclosure is of no use if editors must check each user to see if they are a PE. The 'user page or article talk' requirement is poorly conceived to say the least. Each serves a different purpose: The article disclosure lets other editors know there is a PE at the article without needing to check each editor; The user page disclosure allows one to see what articles the PE is engaged on without having to dredge their contributions for individual article talk disclosures. Both are needed to adequately police paid editing. Jbh Talk 14:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Junk the disjunct

It should be as easy as possible for members of the community to become to be aware of paid editing. I suggest that in –

Editors who are or expect to be compensated for their contributions must disclose their employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any paid contributions. They must do this on their main user page, or on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or in edit summaries.

– the ors be changed to ands. I started to write out exactly kind of disclosure would be required in each locale, but got lost in the somewhat meandering text of the current requirements. My general idea is that user page and article talk page should have a full disclosure, and every article or talk page edit summary should carry a permalink pointer to one of those. Thoughts? EEng 21:38, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

  • I support this 100%. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait, I'm gonna add to this: how about if there's a fourth requirement: the user's sig is required to be of the form XXXXX (paid editor) (talk), where XXXXX is the user name (and no fun signatures, either: the XXXXX has to be exactly the account name appearing in edit summaries). EEng 21:52, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Certainly it should be on the user talk page and any effected article talk pages. Requiring it in every single edit summary might be over the top. What if they make many edits in a row, or only ever edit a single page? I'm also not sure that the signature thing is practical. Paid editors don't have to disclose their COI on unrelated pages, and it could very easily lead to confusion over which pages have been edited for pay. I understand the intention but if we make these rules too onerous people are less likely to actually follow them. – Joe (talk) 08:08, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Edit summaries: I'm merely suggesting that, for edits that count as paid, the edit summary start with e.g. ([[Special:Diff/845269226#Paid contributor declaration|Paid edit]]) (rendering as (Paid edit)), so that when you click you're taken directly to the paid-editor declaration (and it'a permalink). I don't think this is too much to ask, it's easily pasted in to the ES (and again, only for those edits that count as paid) and this way any editor looking at his watchlist can immediately identify any paid edit, and click through to the declaration if desired.
  • Maybe you're right about the sig. I still want some way for those reading a thread on an article Talk page to see immediately who's paid; in this case declaring in the edit summary isn't enough, since those aren't seen when reading a discussion thread. I guess as an alternative to my sig sugg we could require that every talk post be prefaced with exactly the same thing I just suggested for edit summaries. I don't see why we shouldn't require this. Someone might suggest changing that from every discussion post by the paid contributor to the first post to a given discussion thread by the paid contributor but honestly I don't see why we should complicate things (um, does a ===-level subthread count as a new thread?). What I'm suggesting is compact and makes it easy to see at a glance – no matter where you pick up the conversation – where someone stands.
EEng 17:16, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
There was a previous discussion of this at Wikipedia talk:Paid-contribution disclosure/Archive 4#and or or. (Alternatively, we could change "editors" to "editands".) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Yes. I have always thought the "or" to be open to gaming. Each method provides information in a different context. The talk page disclosure allows editors to know if there is a paid editor involved with the article without checking each editor or edit. The user page disclosure allows monitoring of a paid editor without needing to go digging through all their edits and articles to figure out what they are doing and if their edits are policy compliant. The edit summary disclosure, in my opinion the one most open to gaming/hiding, allows editors who are interacting with a paid editor to know if their edits outside of an article are related to their employment. (I would support requiring edit summary disclosure only for WP/WT/File space to reduce the burden of tagging everything.) None of these disclosures readily substitute for one another.
    I do not think the signature requirement – too 'Scarlet Letter' for my taste. Paid editors should be required to disclose whenever they are editing something related to a contract or their status as a paid editor. The current mechanism for that would be edit summary but the idea of making an explicit disclosure in relevant threads would be better, particularly since once a thread is archived it is very inconvenient, bordering on impossible, to search the history to see if anyone was a paid editor. Jbh Talk 18:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm convinced that the sig idea is too much. But I disagree with your idea that the ES tag should be only for WP:/WT:/File:. I think it should be for article edits and Talk: edits too, so that it's immediately obvious in watchlists and histories. What do you think about the idea of directly tagging Talk: posts directly in the post itself (not just the ES). Someone being paid can afford to keep a little Notepad window open to copy-paste from. EEng 18:41, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Hmmm... the problem with per edit tagging is, in my opinion, threefold: First, if we make the disclosure requirements too arduous then compliance will decrease; Second, it opens up a can of drama based on what is a paid edit vs what is not; Third, it will lead to otherwise compliant paid editors being penalized for the first two reasons. I think it would be beneficial overall but there is does not seem to be a collective will within the community at large to enforce, and penalize no-compliance with, the disclosure requirements we already have.
Personally, I think paid_editor should be recorded as a user right. If one wants to edit for pay then one requests the flag and does non-paid edits from a disclosed alternate account. Non-flagged accounts would be treated as UPE. This would allow the software to flag edits using something similar to User:Bellezzasolo/Scripts/adminhighlighter.js. It would also be easy (I think) to run weekly bot which compares articles in a user page disclosure template against article/talk pages edited by a paid_editor account. I doubt there would ever be consensus for such but I think it would make things much clearer and easier to deal with.
Something similar might be possible using the template tracking categories but without the requirement to segregate paid/non-paid editing accounts it would be much less useful. Both from a technical point of view and from a social/management point. Jbh Talk 19:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

"Almost paid editors" should be required to declare COI

This relates to a case I've seen on an editor placing a clear PR sentence or two into the article of their employers. I've asked the editor to declare his paid editing status, and separately to declare his COI. His argument (not clearly stated) seems to be that he wasn't specifically paid to edit the article so he doesn't need to declare paid editing status, and that WP:COI is only a guideline so it doesn't need to be complied with. I've never bought the line that WP:COI doesn't need to be complied with - there are lots of guidelines that are strictly enforced, and in any case deviations from guidelines need to be justified, especially when questioned.

In short it strikes me as just a lame excuse and we can easily clarify this policy to require COI disclosure in "borderline" cases.

Perhaps something like

Editors who edit an article about their employers must always declare either their paid editing status or a conflict of interest on their user page.
A paid editing disclosure is required if the editor
  • expects to receive compensation in return for the edit, or
  • works in the public relations, marketing, sales, or legal departments, or otherwise engages in representing his employer in sales, marketing, PR or legal situations, or
  • is a major shareholder, owner, officer or executive of the company or works directly as supporting staff of these people, e.g. as a secretary or assistant.
A Conflict of Interest disclosure is required if the editor editing an article about his employer does not meet any of the above conditions.

Comments? Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

The changes that were made as a result of the discussion in Wikipedia talk:Paid-contribution disclosure#Clarification of indirect paid editing cover any PR efforts. This page covers the paid-contribution disclosure requirement from the Wikimedia Foundation terms of use, so trying to extend it to cover conflict of interest more generally gets us back to this long conversation on changing this page (which resumes a conversation from two years before that...). I appreciate the awkwardness, but I think it's better to keep all of the conflict of interest guidance on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. isaacl (talk) 06:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
We don't need to limit what we can put in this policy, except to the extent that the terms of use require a special procedure if the terms of use section is to be weakened or fully replaced. We've tightened up this policy multiple times in response to the usual wikilawyering that people affected by the policy attempt. I just want to tighten up the case where an employee of the company says "but I wasn't paid to edit the article." If we let that type of excuse run wild pretty soon this policy will be meaningless.
So perhaps we can simplify my suggestion above and just put in something like:
Employees of a business who edit articles about that business or its products, but who are not specifically paid to edit the article, must fill out the {{connected contributor}} template and place it on the article talk page.
I really don't see how anybody can object to that, and it doesn't matter what policy page we put that on. But the obvious policy is right here. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, I think it may be desirable to strike a balance, as employees are often most tuned into the news for a company, and large companies are involved in many different areas. Someone working for Apple, for example, would be required to declare as a connected contributor when editing a photography-related article, an article related to media streaming, and an article on car entertainment and control technology, to name a few, even if they did not work in any of these areas. isaacl (talk) 15:06, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Other areas with which Apple is involved are compilers, programming languages, application frameworks, colour management, fonts and typography, home automation, ... a lot of high-tech fields would be affected. isaacl (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
You misunderstood when you wrote that an Apple employee would be required to make a COI disclosure on "a photography-related article, an article related to media streaming, and an article on car entertainment and control technology, to name a few, even if they did not work in any of these areas." The only requirement I propose is that the make a COI disclosure when they edit the Apple Inc. article or articles on Apple products, e.g. iPhone, iPod, Powerbook, etc. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Sure, this subsequent edit is helpful. Personally I think it may still be unduly restrictive (someone working in the camera hardware division would have to declare themselves as a connected contributor when editing the article on Xcode, for instance; and good-faith corrections and updates to purely factual matters would also not be possible without a disclosure), but it's more feasible to manage when the scope is restricted to the company and its products, rather than any article related to them. isaacl (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@Jbhunley, Anachronist, Tryptofish, DESiegel, Smartse, Doc James, SmokeyJoe, and TonyBallioni: Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I disagree that a paid-contribution disclosure should be required for any random employee of a company who makes a good-faith correction or adds useful information to the article about that company. The employee isn't being paid for public relations or marketing. At the most, the employee should declare a COI. An Apple engineer who improves or expands on a technical point in an article isn't a paid editor. The context matters though. Obvious whitewashing may merit a paid declaration. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
@Anachronist: I'm not asking for all employees to make a paid editing disclosure, only that they be required to make a COI disclosure for articles about the company or its products. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with Isaacl that the edits that came out of Wikipedia talk:Paid-contribution disclosure#Clarification of indirect paid editing have this covered. At some point, we reach the stage where someone who wikilawyers as the user described above did, should just be taken to the appropriate noticeboard and be told that wikilawyering doesn't cut it. No need to cater to a tendentious wikilawyer, and I don't think we need to revise anything here. Also, I agree with the editors above that we should not be extending the reach too much. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:03, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • PR department is paid. Other employees is a COI which ideally would be declared, but that’s tough to enforce without outing concerns and then you also have the issue that no one reads the COI guideline before updating the annual revenue as an IP from their home. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Note that I am not proposing anything radical here. WP:COI at WP:FCOI already states that
"An editor has a financial conflict of interest when they write about a topic with which they have a close financial relationship. This includes being an owner, employee, contractor, investor or other stakeholder."
and in the section above that
"Editors with a COI should follow Wikipedia policies and best practices scrupulously:
you should disclose your COI when involved with affected articles;"
The difference between "scrupulously...you should disclose your COI" and "you must declare a COI" is minimal.
I agree with @Tryptofish: that the edits that came out of Wikipedia talk:Paid-contribution disclosure#Clarification of indirect paid editing more or less have this covered. But I want to emphasize my first sentence in this section "This relates to a case I've seen on an editor placing a clear PR sentence or two into the article of their employers." I reported that case to the powers-that-be on Wikipedia, together with 100% solid evidence of the employee relationship, 100% solid evidence of the editor knowingly quoting a press release as if it were news, other evidence of paid editing, and evidence of other conflict of interest editing. Given the requirements of showing 100% solid evidence of the employee relationship, I can't say very much about the specifics of this particular case here.
As a result the editor was judged only to have a conflict of interest (my jaw dropped when I read this) and was not required to post a conflict of interest disclosure (my jaw hit the floor).
Needless to say I don't want this type of thing to happen again and tightening up just a bit - from "you should disclose your COI" to "you must declare a COI" for employees is likely the least intrusive method.
Note that I don't want to apply anything here to the past actions of the editor mentioned above. But in the future nothing like this should ever occur again. Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:33, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Editor in question here. I don't think I've ever argued that WP:COI is only a guideline so it doesn't need to be complied with. I did make several edits to the article of Xinyuan Real Estate, my employer, without having disclosed my affiliation to them, one of which included a poorly chosen and PR-sourced statement. After Smallbones took it to Arbcom, I apologized for my poor judgment in editing with an undeclared COI, and reverted that particular addition. I also agreed not to edit the Xinyuan article in the future, which is why (I presume) Arbcom didn't require me to make a COI disclosure (though I've just gone ahead and done so - why not?). Λυδαcιτγ 10:35, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for finally declaring your COI. And thank you for the apology - I hadn't heard or seen it before (correct me if I'm wrong and it is not directed to me). As far as your reason for not declaring your COI, I could only go by the short and unclear message I got from ArbCom so perhaps I was reading something into it. BTW, what was your reason for not declaring your COI earlier? Your only punishment from me for matters covered by the ArbCom case will be to quote from one of your edits to Xinyuan Real Estate
In 2018, Xinyuan announced its intention to become an "international technology-driven property ecosystem", with a greater focus on property management, real estate technology and industrial real estate in addition to its traditional core business of residential real estate.
Somebody should revert the paragraph above if they consider it to be cruel and unusual punishment. We should move on to deciding how we prevent this type of thing from happening again, but I'll finish by saying that editing like the above done by an administrator is absolutely deplorable.
Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
It was directed to Arbcom. I didn't declare my COI after that since I wasn't planning to edit the article. "Deplorable" is a pretty dramatic choice of words and I'd ask you to WP:AGF. While quoting PR sources is far from ideal, "Non-independent sources may be used to source content for articles, but the connection of the source to the topic must be clearly identified." Λυδαcιτγ 02:07, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
That's "absolutely deplorable" when "done by an administrator." And that's the gentlest way I can put it. Your excuse for not declaring a COI when asked to, "I wasn't planning to edit the article" (again, that is) is just nonsense. Who ever said that COI edits shouldn't be declared unless you plan to repeat them?
I'd rather not waste any more space on this page discussing the arbcom case, though you are Exhibit A on why we need to tighten the rules. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
One doesn't need to declare a COI with regards to articles that one doesn't edit. Λυδαcιτγ 07:07, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Broad strong agreement with the OP. I suggest modifying the suggested text to:
Editors who edit an article in which their employer has an interest have a derived conflict of interest (COI). If their employer in any way encourages their editing of the article or its talk page, they are deemed a paid editor and must adhere to this policy, Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.
--SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

break 1

  • I agree, but I would make it broader. Any employee who edits a page relating to his employer should be assumed to be a paid editor as defined by policy. It's not always possible to discern from afar whether someone is functioning in a p.r. capacity at an organization or simply being a good soldier. The effect is the same. Theoretically, a p.r. employee could ask a fellow employee who is a Wikipedia editor to make a desired edit. That editor I think should be subject to the paid editing stricture. Coretheapple (talk) 12:49, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Core, that would mean a professor at Yale would have to declare herself a paid editor if she were to edit a page about the university. Or, using Smallbones' words, she'd be a paid editor if she were to edit a page in which Yale has an interest. SarahSV (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Sarah, I'll let Core speak for himself but I haven't said anything in this section (or likely elsewhere) about all employees making paid editing disclosures, only about making COI disclosures, as is now (almost) required by WP:COI. I suppose if the Yale prof was to edit an article about a specific course offering, the football team, or other "product" produced by Yale a paid editing disclosure might be required depending on the situation, but that's already in the policy now. My proposal will be solely about employees making COI disclosures. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:28, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Smallbones, re: "but that's already in the policy now". Can you point out where? This policy is "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." A Yale professor would have a COI if she were to edit about her own course, and might have one if editing about related courses, but if she were to write more broadly about the university's history, etc, there would be no COI. (And this policy isn't about general COI.) SarahSV (talk) 16:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Sarah, actually it's in the ToU FAQ and it shows a fairly loose requirement for paid editing disclosure for profs and other cultural professionals. Most of the cases discussed in this subthread are presumably allowed or right in the middle of what's allowed or what's not, "required depending on the situation" as I said above.
I'm getting ready to make a more formal proposal about employees making a COI declaration (rather than a Paid editing declaration). Working through this with other editors' reactions helps me identify misunderstandings of certain wording, so this is really a big help. The obvious improvement would be to include the usual exclusions (does not apply to employees of the WMF or its affiliates editing in the course of their duties, Wikimedians-in Residence and other cultural professionals, and (add) university professors and researchers not specifically paid to edit." I get tired of adding those to various proposals. Is there a place in the policy we can add it so that it applies in all situations covered? Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:20, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that's correct, university employees would not be exempt. Why should they be? Articles on universities are as prone to COI editing as much as any institution. If I am an employee of the Yale Cafeteria, which just won an award for its excellent meatloaf, I need to not write about it. Coretheapple (talk) 15:35, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Re: the meatloaf, perhaps a COI, but it wouldn't be paid editing unless (a) someone was going to pay you to make the edit or (b) you were employed in a PR capacity and were expected to do things like that as part of your job. SarahSV (talk) 16:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Currently, yes. But I think that a strengthening of the policy would be warranted so that we include all employees. Differentiating between different types of employees and their motivations and internal marching orders is not something Wikipedia can do. Simplest and best to say "if you are an employee you are considered a paid editor if you edit an article about your employer." Coretheapple (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
But it could be someone criticizing their employer. That's why I used a university as an example; academics are often willing to criticize their university in a way they couldn't if they worked for, say, BP. It would therefore be odd to call them paid editors. SarahSV (talk) 18:17, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't think that's any better. A negative conflict of interest (having an axe to grind against one's employer) is no better than a desire to puff it up and bootlick, in my opinion. Let's say I don't like the way Coretheapple Institute of Technology is overemphasizing the study of pachyderms, which is a fascination of the college president. So I edit to over-weight the article on CIT to get into that controversy. No better than generating puffery on that point. But I think generally it will be puffery. Coretheapple (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree, but it's not paid editing. General and financial COI are conceptually quite different from paid editing, even though paid editing is a form of COI. Paid editing will always reflect the payer's interests; if, to comply with NPOV, it contains criticism of the payer, it's likely that the criticism will be minimal. But COI editing could be entirely negative about the other interest. It could even be neutral. SarahSV (talk) 21:46, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
In fact, speaking of Yale, and on a more serious note, we certainly don't want Yale employees contributing to or editing articles about the culture of drinking or fraternity that spawned Brett Kavanaugh. I have no idea if that is an issue in the Yale article, but that comes to mind. Yale professors and employees should clear out of that whole area, and I think that extending paid editing strictures to all of them would be reasonable. Coretheapple (talk) 15:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I've seen several cases of university employees (albeit usually administrative staff) writing about their institutions, and it's as problematic as any other form of COI/paid editing. I certainly wouldn't edit the article about my own university – yes I'm free to criticise it, but I'm far from unbiased. I don't understand why the distinction is even being made. We want academics to write about their subjects, not their employers. – Joe (talk) 18:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
So the argument is that if academics who work for Yale, and who did their degrees there, write on Wikipedia about the drinking culture at Yale in the 1980s, relying on good sources, then (a) they have a COI, and (b) they are paid editors. SarahSV (talk) 18:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, if the Yale profs were writing from official Yale investigations or about events that occurred mainly on-campus - they should declare a COI. But if they were writing about a general culture among Yale and other nearby university students without the events occurring on campus, then I'd be glad if they declared a COI, but it needn't be required.
Just to bring it back to the soon-to-be-unveiled proposal (probably tomorrow), it won't be about making a paid editing disclosure, it will be about making a COI disclosure in the borderline cases where many people would normally assume - since you're being paid by your employer - that a financial conflict of interest or worse exists. And note (from below) that the employer needn't be identified. Folks can assume you've just got a general run-of-the-mill COI. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:54, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • A professor at Yale is not inherently different from a teacher in a small college. If the professor chooses to edit Yale topics, he should declare himself associated with Yale. A declaration should be required. It should be easy to formulate a disclosure of association through outright conflict if interest without disclosing personal identity.
There is a continuum of conflict, from being paid outright to do specific edits, to mere conflict of interest, to mere association with. A paid editor will write what the client wants with a big disconnect between the real author their understanding of Wikipedia. A conflict of interest probably means biased editing. An association may be an editor who did a course there.
What is required is a declaration of interests, not rigidly defined, and short of revealing personal identity. Erring on the side of asking for this sort of declaration is the way to go. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:29, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
But that runs counter to the aforementioned FAQ--"However, if that professor is simply paid a salary for teaching and conducting research, and is only encouraged by their university to contribute generally without more specific instruction, that professor does not need to disclose their affiliation with the university." Never mind the case (the much more frequent case, I suppose) where the professor isn't even encouraged to do anything with Wikipedia whatsoever. And if such an unencouraged professor--hypothetically speaking!--turns a puff piece about their institution's chancellor into a halfway decent article, surely that's a good thing for Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 03:35, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Break 2

Question. Let's say I'm a warehouse employee of MegaWidget Co. and I happen to notice the infobox on the company's Wikipedia article is 10 years out of date, so I update the number of employees. Under this new proposal, would I be required to "out" myself as an employee by adding my username to a {{connected contributor}} template on the article's talk page? Peacock (talk) 15:04, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

PCock, I would say not, but as you can see above, others might disagree. Best to be on the safe side and either disclose or don't make the edit. SarahSV (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
PCock, it's not about outing. If you check out the example given at {{connected contributor}} of Talk:Assurant you can see both the {{connected contributor}} and {{connected contributor (paid)}} templates in action. Or you can look at the COI template provided by Audacity. The COI template does not require an employer disclosure, or anything beyond a user name for that matter, the (paid) template requires much more. The COI template only serves to warn other editors that there might be a problem. If you then see text like "Wikipedia is an international technically advanced sponsor-friendly encyclopedic ecosystem" you can draw your own conclusions. Would you like me to include wording like "these employees are not required to disclose their employers in the template"? Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Would the person in this example be expected to reveal their employer if another editor asked about the nature of their COI? (To be clear, I'm not necessarily objecting to the proposal as it stands, just trying to understand the potential implications.) Peacock (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Of course anybody is allowed to politely ask about COIs, but that's not what you asked. I haven't seen anything on-Wiki about COI details being required. Failing to give them when asked might raise some suspicions at times (I'm not talking about the 5th amendment here), but why not just go all-in here and add wording like "The employees are not required to disclose their employers, clients, or other affiliations unless they are paid editors." Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I see COI editors updating routine infobox information all the time, and I think it's a good thing unless the obvious intent is to burnish the image of the organization in question. Such as showing a nice increase in the organization's Alexa rating if it's a website. I know a COI editor who does that frequently, or did that when its Alexa ratings were getting better. They've gotten worse lately, so she doesn't update it much. Coretheapple (talk) 21:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm increasingly unpersuaded of the need to do anything here. The language already on the page really does already cover anything related to this discussion that I would want to classify as paid editing. And I oppose extending this so broadly that a university student who is paid as a teaching assistant in a course has to make a declaration if they correct a typo on the page about that university. If there is a formal proposal on the way, I will want to see a clear rationale that (1) it adds something that is not already on the page, and (2) that there is a need for it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

A more formal proposal

Thanks for your patience while I've tried to formulate this proposal as simply as possible, and for the feedback so far. I'm a bit rushed today so I may not finish this completely. I do suspect that there will be more feedback, so there may be additional changes later.

Proposal (in a new section titled "Other employees")

Employees of businesses or other organizations, who edit Wikipedia pages about that organization or its products, are not required to declare their paid editing status unless they are paid or expect to be paid for their Wikipedia contributions. Nevertheless, they must declare a conflict of interest by filling out the {{connected contributor}} template and posting it on the affected talk page. They need not declare the details of their conflict of interest.

The following groups of editors are exempt from this requirement as long as they not paid for their contributions.

  • academics, professors and other researchers
  • cultural professionals such as museum curators writing within their field of expertise
  • Wikipedians-in-residence who have already identified the institution where they work
  • employees of the Wikimedia Foundation and its affiliated organizations editing in the course of their duties for these organizations

Why we need this new section

Paid editors often don't report their paid status. When caught their arguments are along the lines of "the rules are too complicated. I didn't know that I was a paid editor and I don't need to declare that I have a COI," or just a denial that they are being paid to edit, knowing that it can be very difficult to establish that their employment includes being paid to edit Wikipedia." The penalty for violating WP:COI can be essentially nil.

We need some rule in between (essentially) "You are automatically banned for undisclosed paid editing," and "if you edit your employer's page without declaring a COI, we'll ask you very, very strongly to declare it."

Too many conflicted and/or paid editors ignore the WP:COI statement

"Editors with a COI should follow Wikipedia policies and best practices scrupulously:

you should disclose your COI when involved with affected articles; ..."

The difference between WP:COI's "scrupulously...you should disclose your COI" for company employees and the proposal's "(you) must declare a conflict of interest" seems minimal. Indeed Sarah argues below that the proposal is redundant.

It's not redundant though since paid editors/employees (and even a long time administrator) do not respect WP:COI and don't believe that it can be enforced. WP:Paid can be enforced even if the current policy is fairly complicated. The proposal simplifies it immensely at one non-threatening level - if you're an employee declare a COI. At a higher level the penalties for paid editing remain the same.

Good faith newbies who can't figure out if they are paid editors can declare a COI and can receive guidance on their status without a problem. Newbies know who their employers are. The real problem paid editors will at a minimum get some supervision of their edits if they declare a COI. If they don't declare a COI they risk sure enforcement based on facts that can be very easy to prove.

(copyedited and added a detailed explanation for including it Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Smallbones, two points. (a) This is redundant; the people you describe have an arguable financial COI (depending on the job and the edits) and the guideline already says anyone with a COI should disclose. (b) If you feel that isn't stressed enough in the guideline, you should propose something on WT:COI, because it's about COI not paid editing. SarahSV (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps the solution is to put the described classes of persons under the general aegis of paid editors. Coretheapple (talk) 19:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I also think that since this change is about conflict-of-interest editors, it should be a proposal to change Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and discussed on its talk page. isaacl (talk) 20:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
The proposal is about paid editing, e.g. "borderline" paid editing cases, how to deal with goodfaith newbie paid editors who don't know the rules, and how to best enforce this policy. Since WP:COI can have very lax enforcement, it's best to include it here, where it can have strict enforcement when needed. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I've looked very carefully, and I cannot for the life of me see what loophole this would close. If the concern is over the difference between the "connected contributor" and "connected contributor (paid)" templates, that can be easily explained by adding a sentence after the sentence that describes the "paid" template. If the problem is that WP:COI says "should" where it ought to say "must", that's a proposal for there, not here. Here, "must" is used everywhere; I checked. As for creating a section to describe users who do not need to declare, that would only make things more complicated, not less. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Employees of businesses or other organizations, who edit Wikipedia pages about that organization or its products, are not required to declare their paid editing status..." An employee who edits a Wikipedia page about their organization is not a paid editor; an employee who is paid to edit a Wikipedia page about their organization is a paid editor. While I do respect WP:COI and believe that it can be enforced, mixing the COI and paid editing policies together will not aid in doing so. Λυδαcιτγ 10:19, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

At COI we are discussing whether competitors or others who have negative views on an article's subject should declare a COI. IMHO it's obvious that they do. But "competitors" suggests that Paid editing may apply as well.

I suggest that at the end of "contributions" we add:

"Paid contributions include editing about an employer's or client's competitors, as well as inserting or deleting negative or positive information about an employer's or client's company, competitors, or their executives or products."

That should clarify that paid editing extends beyond "positive comments" Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Can you clarify to which "end of 'contributions'" you are referring? In general because the policy focuses solely on whether or not you are compensated for an edit, it applies to positive and negative edits. I'm not sure if we should start adding examples that may lead people to think only certain kind of paid edits are covered by the policy. isaacl (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Under "The meaning of employer, client, and affiliates" the entire bullet point "contributions" should read:
  • Contribution: any text or file added to Wikipedia, including talk-page and sandbox contributions, and material added to articles by others at the behest of paid editors. "Paid contributions include editing about an employer's or client's competitors, as well as inserting or deleting negative or positive information about an employer's or client's company, competitors, or their executives or products."
with my proposed addition being inside the quotation marks. Since it says "includes" it doesn't exclude anything. Perhaps you might want "includes, but is not limited to," but to me that doesn't add anything. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
As your proposed addition is already covered by the blanket statement "any text or file added to Wikipedia", I don't really favour providing examples here. It feels like the general statement is being qualified. Perhaps some more examples can be added to the ones immediately below the bullet list? isaacl (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
As far as 'already covered by the blanket statement "any text or file added to Wikipedia"' I'd technically agree if ", or deleted from," were added after "added". But the "examples" do clear up much of what is being discussed at WT:COI. I'll add the ", or deleted from, as well as the "examples" below the bullet points tomorrow if nobody objects. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Agreed it was an omission not to include content being removed from Wikipedia, and a good thing to fix for precision. Thanks! isaacl (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I've added ", or deleted from," the text below the bullet points currently is:

"For example, if Smith PR pays an editor to work on Wikipedia content about Acme Widgets, then Smith PR is that editor's employer with respect to those contributions, while Acme Widgets is the client. If you have been hired by a public-relations firm to edit Wikipedia, you must disclose both the firm and the firm's client.[1] Often the employer and client are the same entity. If Acme Widgets pays an editor directly to write about that company, then Acme Widgets is both the employer and client.

Interns are considered employees for this purpose. If they are directed or expected to edit Wikipedia as part of an internship, they must disclose."

I'll change it later to:

"Example 1: If Smith PR pays an editor to work on Wikipedia content about Acme Widgets, then Smith PR is that editor's employer with respect to those contributions, while Acme Widgets is the client. If you have been hired by a public-relations firm to edit Wikipedia, you must disclose both the firm and the firm's client.[1]

Example 2: Often the employer and client are the same entity. If Acme Widgets pays an editor directly to write about that company, then Acme Widgets is both the employer and client.

Example 3: If an intern, who is rewarded by experience and industry contacts, is directed or expected to edit Wikipedia as part of the internship, they must disclose.

Example 4: If an editor is paid and edits an article on their employer's or client's competitor (or the competitor's products or executives), the editor must disclose for these articles as well."

if nobody objects. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

  • I like the two edits that the two of you already made, thanks for doing that. On the other hand, I'm having trouble seeing the rationale for making the list of examples. What is the problem that the list is intended to fix? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
    • The first example has been there forever and was definitely needed - the wording above it is a bit abstract and an example can work wonders. Somehow that example got extended to 2 examples in the same paragraph. The 2nd is probably needed as well, but they should be separated for clarity. The sentence about interns has also been here a long time, but I think it's always been slightly different or out of place. It probably works just as well as an example. My new example illustrates the new "add or delete" wording above by simply using the word "edit" without expansion. The inclusion of "competitor" reflects the concern about "positive or negative" information in the discussion at WY:COI. Really, the "positive or negative" is already implied over there, as it is here, but an example mentioning it does help to clarify. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Although I am a fan of concision and avoiding redundancy, I do think in this case some concrete examples can help readers better understand the definitions and how to apply them in practice. Regarding the examples, I suggest the following text:
      Sample scenarios where a paid-contribution disclosure is required:
      • If Smith PR pays you to work on Wikipedia content related to Acme Widgets, or competitors of Acme Widgets, then Smith PR is your employer with respect to those contributions, and Acme Widgets is the client.
      • If Acme Widgets pays you directly to edit Wikipedia, then Acme Widgets is both the employer and client.
      • If you are an intern who edits Wikipedia as part of your internship, then you are deemed a paid editor by virtue of the benefits you receive from your employment.
    • isaacl (talk) 05:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
      • Thanks, I think I was confused because I was looking only for add-versus-delete. Sure, I agree that examples can help make things clear, and I don't have any strong opinions about the various versions the two of you are considering. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference FAQ was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Meaning of "employer, client, and affiliation"

Due to concerns of gaming the system, I'm proposing further clarification.

Presently: Payment or compensation: money, goods or services. Users who are compensated for any publicity efforts related to the subject of their Wikipedia contributions are deemed to be paid editors, regardless of whether they were compensated specifically to edit Wikipedia.

Proposed: Payment or compensation: Receiving of consideration of any kind, including but not limited to money, goods or services. Users who are compensated for any publicity efforts related to the subject of their Wikipedia contributions are deemed to be paid editors, regardless of whether they were compensated specifically to edit Wikipedia.

Graywalls (talk) 19:45, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can think of, that sounds OK. I certainly agree with "including but not limited to". Can editors think of any downsides to "Receiving of consideration of any kind"? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Specifically, this change doesn't weaken or substantially change the meaning of the existing rule but avoid problems for good faith editors by making it clear and at the same time reduce willful ignorance or semantics argument by professional editors. In a recently surfaced concern, User_talk:Etherweave#Username/Conflict_of_Interest/Paid_Editing the editor who edits on subjects where they have a professional connection described clients as "friends". The phrasing "accepting consideration" would wrap around to include exchanging favors, citing each other as references, connections, "hooking them up" with one thing or another and an endless list of things that would be argued as "not a payment". Graywalls (talk) 17:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Looks good, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I'll add "consideration of any kind" if I don't hear any objection in the next few days... Graywalls (talk) 20:47, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I think it might be better not to. (My "looks good" comment was about the revision you already made. I apologize for not being clearer.) I just don't think that it adds much. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I suggest in future leaving the discussion open a bit longer before making a change... The key issue, as I mentioned previously, is that the meaning of compensation is defined in the FAQ on paid contributions without disclosure as follows: As used in this provision, "compensation" means an exchange of money, goods, or services. After your update, the meaning is left open-ended, as it includes "money, goods or services", but no scope is given to define what else is covered.
For the case you raise, if the client is being provided publicity services, then this is covered by the deemed paid editor provision. Otherwise, I don't think the paid contributor disclosure policy is a good fit, as people meet in all sorts of ways and help each other out. The conflict of interest policy may still apply, though. isaacl (talk) 01:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

From the WMF FAQ, it reads: "One small caution: some projects have conflict of interest policies that are different from (and stronger than) this provision in the terms of use. These policies might prevent you from certain forms of volunteer editing, for example, contributing to articles about yourself." and "This means the person or organization that is paying you compensation – money, goods, or services – with respect to any contribution to a Wikimedia project.". A situation I am dealing with now has resulted in a COI which provides marketing services to clients say they're editing clients pages as a "free" service. Under the WMF policy, they slip through the technical gap even though it goes against the spirit. The English Wikipedia policy which says "Users who are compensated for any publicity efforts related to the subject of their Wikipedia contributions are deemed to be paid editors, regardless of whether they were compensated specifically to edit Wikipedia" which goes beyond WMF standard addresses this loophole. A graffitist who did graffiti art work for Facebook ( https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/07/how-facebook-graffiti-artist-david-choe-earned-200-million.html ) would have been considered not having received compensation or payment per the letter of the current WMF phrasing, because shares are not tangible goods, money or services. Using the term "consideration" and "including, but not limited to" gives some level of wiggle room to avoid such exploitation. "consideration" broadens it to include anything that is to be received or expected for promoting subject which may include Wikipedia participating within the purview of their relationship with their client. Facebook shares given to the graffitist don't fall within money, services of goods, but it would be a consideration accepted in exchange for doing the art work. Graywalls (talk) 04:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I proposed the original draft of the sentence regarding deemed paid editors, so I am aware of the underlying intent. It was not intended to redefine the meaning of payment as defined by the Wikimedia Foundation, but to avoid arguments on whether or not someone was being paid specifically to edit Wikipedia for publicity purposes. From an English Wikipedia policy point of view, I think it is fairly plain that any form of compensatory benefit qualifies, and anyone trying to argue otherwise isn't going to be deterred by broader language. Nonetheless, rather than "consideration", which has a specific legal meaning in contract law, I would prefer saying something like Compensation: any received benefit, including, but not limited to, money, goods, or services.
Regarding the graffiti artist, although shares are not literal cash, I think they clearly fall within the same purview. But since the artist was compensated for creating artwork, personally I do not think the artist would have to declare as a paid contributor. If the artist continues to hold a sizeable mount of shares, though, then a conflict of interest may exist. isaacl (talk) 06:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
"although shares are not literal cash, I think they clearly" this is a perfect example of things that would be covered under "including but not limited to" wording and I can see it especially effective on tech startups where cash strapped entrepreneurs offer shares for digital influencing and publicity effort to public relations and marketing professionals. Consideration would be the appropriate term when there's an expectancy by the doer of public relations and digital influencer for their effort in doing these things for the client. Even if Wikipedia isn't included, it can be reasonably construed that its something that was would be done at the discretion of the digital influencer, advertisement, marketing and public relations professional, in connection to their contractual relationship with the (person, company, organization). It also makes it harder for them to go against the spirit of the rules and play "we were abiding by the rules" cards to save their face quoting the specific consideration (like implicitly or explicitly agreed upon exchange of favors or giving of shares) wasn't without within the definition of a triggering event. I'll let more people weigh in for a while longer and see if anyone has something to say.Graywalls (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
My suggestion is based on my preference to refer to any in-kind benefit, whether or not it is a contractual exchange of items of value. But as I alluded to, I don't think either wording will have much practical effect (though it would avoid the dangling scope issue with the current text). No good-faith contributor can reasonably distinguish between direct financial payment and an accrued benefit with financial value. isaacl (talk) 20:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Clarification needed - employee of an expert company in the field, making generalised and positive contributions?

Tektronix is one of the world's most respected makers of electronic test equipment. They do not need WP to promote them.

A disclosed employee of theirs, Laurendevera (talk · contribs), has been trying to improve some of our articles on such topics (Multimeter, oscilloscope, signal generator), with the aid of information published by their employer. Refs, ELs and (initially) some pasted content, which unfortunately we can't use because of our usual need for freely licensed content. I've discussed some of this with them and owing to lack of my own time directed them to the Teahouse, which unfortunately doesn't seem to have been able to help much.

Since then, MrOllie has now taken a rather opposite view and is issuing dire warnings about COI and paid-editing.

  • I see this as utterly outside our problem area of paid editing. I know MrOllie from many instances of patrolling and reverting real problem edits, so thanks for that. This is not the spam we are looking for.
  • Conversations with Lauren so far have been entirely GF, and the response of (yet another) GF editor who is unfamiliar with WP's habits and is receiving an undeserved roasting as a result.

As I have no time to make promises with, can I please get some further eyeballs involved in this, and hopefully a friendly mentor? Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 16:58, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Please also take a look at User:DataAndDonuts, who I assume is one of Laurendevera's colleagues. - MrOllie (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
I know nothing about DataAndDonuts, I haven't had any sort of conversation with them. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
I looked at the editor's user page (red) and talk page, and I do not see the required disclosure. I also really do not see anything wrong with MrOllie's message. This policy talk page really isn't the best place to ask for help for an individual editor. It would be more effective to take this to WP:COIN. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
  • But where is the conflict of interest? I see none.
Back when this was an encyclopedia, we would welcome an editor from a knowledge domain, such as someone working for a major tech company, especially one which was being at all generous in publishing web resources. I see these edits in just the same way: they are taking content from a corporate and using it to build and extend WP, in a way from which WP directly benefits. This is the opposite of our spam / COI problems, which use the prominence of WP to benefit the corporate. There's none of that here. There's no COI to disclose. My post here is because I want to clarify this: that our spam-hunting enthusiasm is outside its scope here, and that we need to stop BITEing our new editors. If these edits should happen to be within the "paid contribution" net, then we need to fix that, before it causes any more harm. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:11, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
It's possible to welcome content experts and still require transparency at the same time. I'm pretty sure that the current consensus is that when someone works for an employer and adds content about that employer, then WP:COI and sometimes also WP:PAID applies to them. In the specific case here, I would consider content about how an oscilloscope works to be non-COI unless it is written with a POV favoring how Tektronix designs oscilloscopes, but content about the company and company-branded products would be subject to COI. Asking editors who are content experts to follow the same policies and guidelines as everyone else is not BITEy unless one communicates with them in an incivil manner. If you disagree with any of that, feel free to start an RfC about changing the guideline. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I looked at what this user is doing and these are not unambiguously neutral efforts. I would call it a neutral effort if a person was editing the body of Wikipedia articles with a mix of citations to various expert sources including sometimes their own organization. For electronics sometimes a big company will be the best source of information, and sometimes it will be some industry manual which everyone knows as the authoritative reference for the mundane in the field. This user seems to not be editing like a typical wiki editor, but is mostly adding external links to their company. This behavior happens with all kinds of people, but it is rare with typical Wiki editors and very common with COI problematic editors. The more completely someone attracts evaluation by Wikipedia:The duck test, the quicker they should start doing the disclosure we expect from people who look like ducks. The copyright issues are another issue which is a wiki community labor sink to correct.
This person is invited to share content in wiki and engage, and I appreciate that among COI editors they are well within the top 1% for sharing useful and relevant external links to actually good source content. The part about their contributions that I like the most is their editing the text of Wikipedia articles with fundamental information about electronics with citations their their company publications. Wikipedia really needs this highly boring and mundane content because subject matter experts already know this stuff and rarely will add it. Getting this kind of content into Wikipedia is very interesting and very useful to our typical readers who are in the encyclopedia because they are not already experts, and that kind of reader and similar beginning editors have a lot of difficulty finding sources for such basic information. Do the disclosure but yes, encourage these edits also. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:25, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey!

I couldn’t understand what my page (Dan Tepper) was declined. It’s says that i have a conflict of interest , but that’s not true. I’m not getting paid to publish and edit this page, i am doing it for him, and he is the best handball player in Israel, and needs to be on Wikipedia. Can you please help me, and tell me what to do in order to publish this page? Thank a lot, Yoel Tepper4141 (talk) 12:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for more guidance on conflicts of interest. You do not have to be paid in order to have a conflict of interest. Additionally, please follow the advice that was given to you on your user talk page. isaacl (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Also, see WP:FORUMSHOP and WP:MULTI. Ordinarily we follow WP:DONTBITE but you have to show us you're trying to act on prior help, as Isaacl gently implied. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

unpaid worker and on-loan staff

Following a discussion at WT:Conflict of interest, I have modified the section on the meaning of "employer" to extend the definition of deemed employees to cover unpaid workers such as volunteers, and on-loan staff. Any discussion on the change is welcome. isaacl (talk) 21:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Just an fyi, the original order of the listed persons was chosen with paid staff first, then interns who could be paid or not paid, and then unpaid staff, to parallel the spectrum being spanned. It's not a big deal, just one of those subliminal reinforcement cues. isaacl (talk) 22:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@Isaacl: Given that this is a subject matter that is extremely susceptible to gaming the system, I think it might be useful to expand the definition of "paid" to say something along the line of "definition of payment means implicit or explicit expectations of consideration, including, but not limited to time credit, references and exchange of favors." I'd further add something to make inclusive into "paid" category when making edits that benefit specific organization or people as acceptable use of company/volunteer shift time, or academic study hall time when random web surfing is not. If a student athlete is given study hall credit for writing something favorable on staff member (gathering sources that talk favorably on the coach's wife's business, for example) or the institution, it would be "paid", but if the credit is given for editing wikipedia for the sake of writing and copy editing skills, then it wouldn't be... thoughts? Graywalls (talk) 01:36, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
The definition of compensation is set by the Wikimedia Foundation terms of use and the accompanying FAQ on paid contributions without disclosure. There is no provision for exceptions, so the reason for the paid edit doesn't matter. My personal preference would be not to further expand on the meaning of "compensation" on this page and to just rely on the deemed employee status as one of the triggering criteria for a paid-contribution disclosure. isaacl (talk) 03:57, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
fyi, see Wikipedia:Notifications § Triggering events for the conditions required for a echo notification to be generated. The easiest way to try to ping a single person without writing a new line with a timestamp is to put a link to the user name in the edit summary. isaacl (talk) 04:00, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Regarding editing Wikipedia for course credit: my understanding is that it has not been treated as paid editing but has fallen under the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Education and Wikipedia:Education noticeboard (feedback from someone who is active in this area is welcome, though). Best practices are described at Wikipedia:Student assignments. isaacl (talk) 04:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
The rules on English Wikipedia are more stringent than the WMF TOU and the TOU allows it to be. On TOU, it says disclosure is only required if you're paid for editing Wikipedia while the English Wikipedia goes above and beyond that and requires disclosure for anyone maintaining a role of publicity for the subject, whether or not Wikipedia related services are mentioned. This gives an additional defense from marketing and public relationship professionals that game the system through "buy one and get this free" phrasing, which is actually happening in a recent case. Graywalls (talk) 03:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I was involved in writing the sentence in question. It does not change what is considered to be payment; it clarifies that being paid to publicize a client is sufficient to meet the criteria of being paid to edit Wikipedia. There hasn't been any consensus agreements reached on imposing stricter rules for paid disclosure that what is stated in the WMF terms of use. isaacl (talk) 06:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

The page currently reads "...unpaid workers, including volunteers, are deemed to be employees." This won't do because there is a big difference in law between a volunteer and and employee and this is important for minimum-wage legislation, say. For example, Wikipedia editors are typically unpaid volunteers and, by definition, they are expected to edit Wikipedia. Do they have to make a paid-editor declaration when they edit a page about Wikipedia like this one? Does everyone attending an editathon have to make such a declaration because they have volunteered to write about a set list of topics? Do all Wikipedia editors have to list all their charitable activities and volunteer work? To me, the idea that you should declare that you're being paid when you're not is nonsensical. Andrew D. (talk) 09:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

That's a good point. How about: "Interns, on-loan staff, and unpaid workers, including volunteers, are subject to this policy as if they were employees."?
I think that the sentence that comes after it, "If they are directed or expected to edit Wikipedia as part of their tasks, they must make a paid-contribution disclosure.", provides the intended context. In other words, you don't have to declare your charitable contributions unless you were asked by the charity to edit Wikipedia about the charity. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I think that unpaid interns should be equivalent to paid employees. However, we should be careful and distinguish English Wikipedia guidelines from Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use. --MarioGom (talk) 22:14, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
The idea is that a company's staff members gain experience that is of value, even if they are unpaid, and so for the purposes of this policy are considered to be receiving compensation, making this policy applicable. Perhaps the sentence in question (with Tryptofish's proposed changes) can be modified to say "unpaid staff" instead of workers. This would exclude volunteer participation by the public during events. isaacl (talk) 23:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
"Staff" in place of "workers" is fine with me. Either way. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Account required?

In this recent Teahouse edit an experienced admin told an IP editor who wrote of editing for a client: Since you are a paid editor, you must create an account and make the mandatory Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. This is your first step and is non-negotiable.. This seems reasonable -- how can an IP editor disclose on his or her "main user page" -- but is not explicitly stated in the policy as far as I can see. Should we ad it to the policy here to nail this down? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I suggest keeping the details on how to disclose one's paid contributions at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § Paid editors. isaacl (talk) 06:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Bands

Notwithstanding the suitability of an article to be an article (in terms of avoiding CSD/AfD grounds)

Is a member of a band (a professional one, paid for performances etc) who edits their article classifiable as a paid editor? Nosebagbear (talk) 17:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to say "yes" insofar as they are acting professionally on behalf of the PR of their business. What is absolutely unambiguous, though, is that they have a significant WP:COI, and they need to disclose either as PAID or as COI, whereas it isn't a big deal which one of those they choose. (Sometimes people just make gnomish or BLP-related corrections under such situations, and it may not be worth it to pursue any action about it, but if they are editing content in a manner that has POV implications, then they need to follow the rules.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:03, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
I'd started writing a response setting out COI (it's a full draft, so more than the big enough), but paused when I realised that PAID might apply and thought I'd check Nosebagbear (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

How does WP:TENDENTIOUS interact with paid editing?

By my reading of WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, those policies apply to paid contributors just like everyone else; that is to say, the fact that they're being paid to represent a particular position on a page doesn't free them from the general prohibition against participating on a talk page with the sole intent of pushing the corresponding page towards a particular perspective. They can have a perspective, of course, like all editors do - even a very strong perspective - but only as long as they're capable of looking past it to edit neutrally. If they're only on a page to remove criticism of the subject, or to otherwise push one particular point of view, then they're in violation of WP:TENDENTIOUS and are subject to a topic-ban for disruptive editing. --Aquillion (talk) 09:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

If it's just a case of pushing a particular point of view, then the key policy in question is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Tendentious editing is more of a set of uncollaborative behaviours, where editors fail to engage co-operatively and place unreasonable demands, like insisting they need to be convinced before any changes can be made. Being paid doesn't absolve someone of the responsibility of working well with the community. Generally, though, it's easier to make a case for non-neutral edits, which can be based on an analysis of the edits in question, and has an easy remedy of removing inappropriate edits. As tendentious editing is a behavioural issue, topic bans or blocks are the applicable remedies, and thus in practice the problem needs to be at a significantly high level in order for the community to agree upon such an action. isaacl (talk) 19:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Paid editors can easily fall afoul of TENDENTIOUS because of their conflict of interest, and are more likely to be blocked or banned because of it.
COI editors are cautioned on editing articles directly (WP:COIADVICE, WP:COIEDIT), and cautioned on the use of article talk pages (WP:COITALK). --Ronz (talk) 20:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Disclosure in userboxes

I came across this user's paid editing disclosure on their user page, but the two disclosures are in userboxes. Is this OK? It seems to me as a bit of an attempt to hide the paid disclosure. Would it make sense to add hte word "clearly" to the requirement to disclose on one's user page?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

This page and Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide both say that the {{paid}} template can be used to disclose your paid editor status (Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Paid editors does not mention disclosures on a user/user talk page). So I think it would be more appropriate to review the {{paid}} template for its suitability. isaacl (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on updating the paid editor page in the Article Wizard

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Article_wizard#Updating_Paid_COI_page_of_the_wizard. Sdkb (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposed change to wording

Since there seems to be no strong opposition and a reasonable degree of support, I have amended the wording of the policy. Yunshui 雲水 07:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

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.

Recent discussion at User talk:E-Stylus suggests that the current wording is not sufficiently clear when it comes to requiring disclosure of off-wiki freelancer accounts. The current wording states:

Paid editors must also provide links on their Wikipedia user page to all active accounts at websites where they advertise paid Wikipedia-editing services. If an advertisement is removed, any corresponding links on the Wikipedia user page must remain visible for at least one week.

The use of the word "advertise" is the root of the problem, since technically speaking, a private Upwork (or Freelancer, etc.) account is not "advertising" the freelancer's services. However, the reason for this requirement is to allow communication between us and these platforms to avoid account impersonation and to ensure that the policies (of both sites) are being followed. To that end, I propose we amend the wording of this policy to the following:

Paid editors must also provide links on their Wikipedia user page to all active accounts at websites where they advertise, solicit or obtain paid Wikipedia-editing services. If such an account is deleted or removed, any corresponding links on the Wikipedia user page must remain visible for at least one week.

Happy to entertain alternative wording if people have any better ideas. Yunshui 雲水 06:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Support - The current wording of this policy is weak and I have seen many paid users taking advantage of the weakness so, I feel these changes will work as a booster and give us more strength to deal with paid editors. GSS 💬 03:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Looking at the E-Stylus discussion, there is a confusion about the distinction between advertising and just having a profile. However, the core problem there is what to do if the profile is not public. Changing the wording won't fix that particular problem, as there is currently nothing to link to. So I can't see the change in wording having an impact there, although it might reduce arguing over the nature of advertising. - Bilby (talk) 13:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support the wording change for the shake of clarity, but as Bilby points out, it won't change anything in this case. We cannot prove whether an Upwork profile is used for Wikipedia editing. Some Wikipedia users may use Upwork for other purposes (e.g. copywriting elsewhere, design, programming). --MarioGom (talk) 14:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support as a positive clarification of the underlying intent. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:20, 27 April 2020 (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.

Disclosure of indirect paid editing

In relation to a COIN case I looked into some specific wording of WP:DISCLOSEPAY: It makes no difference if the paid editor writes the content off-site or in userspace and then another editor moves the material into mainspace on their behalf. Both editors are required to make a disclosure. This change was added in Special:Diff/820204561 as a result of this talk discussion. Pinging participants: SlimVirgin, Tryptofish, DGG, Smallbones, Jytdog, isaacl

I think this has some substantial issues in its present form, many of which SlimVirgin pointed out in 2018, and hence should've been subject to a wider community consultation before the change was made. It also seems broadly worded, and in its present form literally states anyone who moves an article into mainspace, by a connected contributor, must also display a connected contributor notice (hence, the mover in the linked COIN discussion should be displaying a notice, which in that case I'd agree with). Not to mention the literal and possibly legal issues of the statement, should it be policy. Should it not be policy, as I don't believe it is, I'm not really sure what its purpose on the page is, as it states 'requirements' which don't seem to exist.

Should this be policy, meta:Alternative paid contribution disclosure policies should likely also be amended to include the English Wikipedia having a policy different to the standard WMF one; this change would likely be substantial enough to make it different, as acknowledged in the original discussion.

I do agree with the intention of the statement personally, but I think it should be discussed and better worded as to its limitations and practical concerns, and should be subject to a community-wide consultation. Otherwise, we've got a statement on the policy page that strays far from actual policy and consensus. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, It seems to me that as drafted, the current policy requires any editor who makes an edit on behalf of another edit who has been paid, to display a paid notice. I'm not sure this is the intended consequence. If Bob raises a COI template edit request, and Alan picks it up without having had any prior involvement with Bob, Alan clearly should not be treat as a paid contributor.
I agree that we may well be deviating from the WFM stance so should be displayed at the meta paid policies page.
As a starter to get people's thoughts brewing, I would suggest we swap the offending line out with wording similar to Editors must not seek to conceal their paid editing, including by asking privately for another (unpaid) editor to make the change on their behalf. Editors who make edits on behalf of another individual should clearly attribute said individual, in order to prevent both undisclosed paid editing and copyright violations. If an individual refuses to allow you to attribute them, you must not process the edit. Darren-M talk 16:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
I support the idea that an otherwise uninvolved editor can become compromised by implementing a paid editor's request through off wiki communication. However, we need to write this carefully because OTRS is a community endorsed process where people with COI, including paid editors, can seek redress. Many times they're told "sorry nothing we can do to help you" but sometimes they are making reasonable requests and OTRS editors make the changes. I think Darren's wording needs adjusting for that and other transparent, community endorsed, processes (which come with relative levels of transparency and checks and balances). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, Makes sense and happy to tweak - but before I do, for my own understanding, would we not expect an OTRS helper to document publicly that they'd made the edit on behalf of a COI editor? They presumably wouldn't try to pass it off as an edit off their own bat? Darren-M talk 21:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Depends on the circumstances. In many cases yes but there are some circumstances (e.g. BLP violations) where we would not link it to the ticket. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
As I said during the previous discussion, I think the existing policy on proxy editing and inappropriate use of alternate accounts adequately provides a basis for sanctioning editors, and so the addition was not necessary for that purpose. With regards to trying to make it evident to violators that their actions were against policy, I also think it was unnecessary: no one agreed with the disputing editor in the scenario from the last discussion. I do think there may be a reasonable case for trying to attribute a change that was made by one editor on the basis of a talk page thread or other discussion back to its original contributors. However it will be an uphill battle to alter community habits. Currently we have lots of talk page discussions where wording is hashed out, and one editor makes an update with an edit summary "per talk page" without a link. Making everyone who modifies text based on a discussion post a disclosure notice is, I think, going to be difficult to gain acceptance. isaacl (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

*I'm going to step in before this goes any further. No payment of any kind was made for this article. The comment I made to Alpha3031 was a "sarcastic joking comment" and I marked it twice as such. ProcrastinatingReader, you need to read what is written, not just what you want to read. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:34 on June 26, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome • #BlackLivesMatter

  • This discussion isn't about your case; that belongs on the COIN noticeboard, where it is currently. This discussion is about specific wording in the PAID policy. Your case is only relevant to the extent that I didn't notice the cause of the current PAID wording until your case fell foul of it, and the discussion is provided as an example of situations where the reworded policy should be clear on if such cases should be within the scope. You're welcome to add your thoughts, of course, but it'd be appreciated if you could read the topic of discussion here, and the context of the matter (past discussions on the topic are linked). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I noticed my case and "paid edited" and wanted to make it clear there was no connection. I did read the entire thread before replying. Though, apologizes are in order. Striking. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:46 on June 26, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome • #BlackLivesMatter

Further issues

SlimVirgin and others seem to have mentioned these in Archive 2, in the Disclosure contradiction and Terms of use sections, but this policy is stricter than the WMF TOU, and makes interpretations of the policy which notably strengthen the policy, and uses 'must' in several places which are beyond the WMF TOU, all without RfC or following the proper procedure to amend this policy. This isn't really WP:Wikilawyering, the terms do state An alternative paid contribution policy will only supersede these requirements if it is approved by the relevant Project community and listed in the alternative disclosure policy page. It's not really fair, or correct, to strengthen the policy at enwiki without following the correct process to do so. Editors over the years seem to have turned small local discussions into PAID policy without following the correct process. This should be fixed - ideally with an actual RfC to approve the changes and listing of the English Wikipedia on the alternative PAID policy page on meta.

Also, the changing this policy section is not consistent with the WMF TOU, or the discussion on Meta. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: The section on "Changing this Policy" is exactly what is in the Terms of Use (one detail is in the FAQ)

From the TOU:

"[C]ommunity and Foundation policies and guidelines, such as those addressing conflicts of interest, may further limit paid contributions or require more detailed disclosure."

"A Wikimedia Project community may adopt an alternative paid contribution disclosure policy. If a Project adopts an alternative disclosure policy, you may comply with that policy instead of the requirements in this section when contributing to that Project. An alternative paid contribution policy will only supersede these requirements if it is approved by the relevant Project community and listed in the alternative disclosure policy page."

The first paragraph says that the community can "further limit paid contributions" it doesn't say how or where. It's in the same way that any policies can be made "further limiting" anything, i.e. in any policy or guideline or in a new one.
The second paragraph was added at the end of the approval process, to accommodate projects like MediWiki and others who just didn't have a problem with paid editing. I asked when it was proposed and Stephen at WMF Legal said it did not change the meaning of the above paragraph, then he added that this method of changing the TOU version had to be approved in a manner consistent with changing core policies (such as on Wikipedia by an RfC). That last part is in the FAQs.
The net effect is that it is fairly easy to change the policy to make it tougher than the TOU. Policies are changed all the time - a sentence here and there - approved after a week or so of discussion. That method applies as long as it doesn't make the policy weaker than the TOU. Remember "[C]ommunity ... may further limit paid contributions." It's not entirely one way, rather the TOU is a floor. It says that the community can make the policy less limiting than the TOU, only if the method in the 2nd paragraph is used.
Using that second paragraph the community *could* make the new policy more or less limiting that the TOU. But why would anybody who supports making it more limiting use this method? That would in effect revoke the special protection against making the policy less limiting. The special protection is that a very serious RfC would have to be held to institute the new policy, like having an RfC to revoke WP:NPOV, WP:V, or WP:BLP and other core polcies.
So please don't attempt to change the section on "How to change this policy". For one thing it would be very, very difficult to do so. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Smallbones, so please don't attempt to change the section just to be clear, I haven't made any bold edits to WP:PAID. I've only started this discussion on talk.
I see your point, and defer to your insight surrounding the discussion at the time. Your reasoning seems solid, but I'm still not entirely sure the second paragraph only addresses limiting the paid contribution policy. The Wikimedia FAQ doesn't give any process for adjustments, simply stating the community consensus methods should be followed and a listing made on meta.
It does say this: Nonetheless, individual projects may create an alternative disclosure policy when their projects or communities have particular needs to either strengthen or reduce the requirements. (emphasis mine), then After creating such a policy, projects must include their policy on the list of alternative disclosure policies.
I may be misreading this, of course, but I read "alternative policy" as any adjustments to it, and the FAQ stating "strengthen or reduce" seems to confirm that. The WMF FAQ doesn't state they can veto any changes, just states that alternate policies should be listed on meta. Do you not believe that the English Wikipedia should be listed there? Other projects are listed there for having stronger policies, not softer, e.g. the French Wikipedia and the Italian Wikipedia. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
You found the FAQ faster than I did! I'll just add the parts I think you left out (it is rather long!)

The provision gives communities discretion to adjust the rules set out in the Terms of Use to their specific project after following the project's standard consensus-based process for establishing core policies.

which says that this is a different method of changing policy than the usual. Yes, we can make it tougher or weaker than the TOU, but it should be easy to see that anybody who wants to make it tougher would not want to use this method. BTW I think you misstated what you meant when you wrote "I'm still not entirely sure the second paragraph only addresses limiting the paid contribution policy." Instead of "limiting" I think you meant "weakening", but you're right - it can be used for both. But it doesn't have to be used for strengthening the policy (further limiting paid editing).
It's clear in the first paragraph that we can make rules "further limiting" paid editing - with no special requirements. Also in the FAQ section Does this provision mean that paid contributions are always allowed as long as they are disclosed?No. Users must also comply with each Wikimedia project’s additional policies and guidelines, as well as any applicable laws." So, again, we're allowed to have additional rules, and there are no special rules on how we establish these rules if they don't contradict the TOU. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
It's been 6 years now! since the passage of the ToU change, so I thought I better check what happened with that last paragraph. With more than a thousand edits and editors, the discussion format by this time became rather messy. The !votes seem to be in this section. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment#Discussion_for_Optional_Change with the !votes being 2 supports (including the proposer) and 2 opposes. I did not vote, IIRC becasue I didn't want to vote to weaken the overall text change, but that I thought it was harmless and in some ways even beneficial to the TOU change (as I've explained above). To put this vote total into context, the !votes on the full change were
  • 42 Abstain
  • 790 Support
  • 266 Support, but should be stronger
  • 47 Support, and should NOT be any stronger
  • 286 Oppose
    • Not counting the abstains at all the percentages are 57%, 19%, 3% (making 79% total supports) and 21% oppose.
I think, other than 5-10 !votes all of them were before the "option" paragraph was even listed for consideration. In short, there no way that the last paragraph was intended to change the meaning of the paragaph above it, and even if it were, the !vote for that idea would have had no legitimacy. Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
One thing I'll agree with (and which has been discussed on this talk page before) is that the number of people participating in discussions on this page is very low, and I wouldn't consider them to be a fair evaluation of the community's consensus view. Significant changes should be discussed in a more visible venue.
The page has a complicated history; it started as a place within English Wikipedia to hold a description of the paid-contribution disclosure requirement from the Terms of Usage, and then a lot of other bits were added from various guidelines and policies described on other pages in Wikipedia. (There is only a very small amount of original content on this page.) So the consensus support for almost everything other than the content from the Terms of Usage was established elsewhere. isaacl (talk) 22:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

List of individual ideas to combat Undisclosed Paid Editing

I've created a summary list of various ideas to combat UPE that have been proposed, mooted, rejected and so-on.

It's currently at an add-on/idea stage, more details on which can be seen at the page. Please feel free to add your own, tweak the summaries or leave an initial comment on the idea (any that are universally panned will be filtered out before taking forward to RfC).

Many of the proposals are deliberately not fully formed, to avoid submitting an unwieldly large amount of policy thoughts all at once. Proposals passed by the community that need further details (such as a "mystery-shopper" counter-UPE method) would be expanded by those interested and resubmitted on its own.

Please invite anyone you think might be interested. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Examples of payment

This is following up to a previous discussion Wikipedia_talk:Paid-contribution_disclosure/Archive_7#unpaid_worker_and_on-loan_staff

I would like to see something in plain language that's to the point to specifically say accumulation of volunteer time by the volunteers towards their volunteering experience expectations of their school or community service requirements constitute a payment.

In the very bottom of the section "Meaning of "employer, client, and affiliation", it reads "Interns, on-loan staff, and unpaid workers, including volunteers, are deemed to be employees. If they are directed or expected to edit Wikipedia as part of their tasks, they must make a paid-contribution disclosure." but I don't feel that this is to the point about earning of volunteer experience time needed by the volunteer as "indirect payment". Graywalls (talk) 02:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Should it be a requirement that WP:PAID editors "must" use the WP:AFC process to publish articles?

Please see Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Should it be a requirement that WP:PAID editors "must" use the WP:AFC process to publish articles? and comment. –xenotalk 12:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Requiring disclosure on User Page and article Talk Pages

To make it easier to identify paid editors, I propose the following change to the second sentence of the How To Disclose section: "They must do this on their main user page and on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions."

The key word is the "and" instead of "or". Also, I think that removing the Edit Summaries option would be an improvement, because these disclosures can get lost in the revision history even if the edit in question remains in the article. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 00:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi ThatMontrealIP. Here is the Talk page proposal I referred to. Is this not the correct way to make revisions? Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 02:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes this is the beginning of the discussion. I reverted your change to the guideline as there had been no discussion. A discussion for a siginifigant change needs to reach consensus before a change is implemented. The absence of participation in a discussion does not equal consensus. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks ThatMontrealIP. What should I do next to progress this? 1292simon (talk) 07:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi ThatMontrealIP. A reminder about my request for help above please. I am not familiar with any special processes used here and would appreciate your help. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 08:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Is the owner of a website a paid editor?

The owner of Guido Fawkes (website) has edited that article and his biography. I've warned him about COI, but I'd like to see something specific about owners. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I've been having a similar problem with this policy. Is a business owner editing their own business article considered a paid editor? I would think so (they indirectly are making money off of promoting their business, or they have a salary, even if they create their own salary and are the ones choosing/assigning their own tasks for that salary). If volunteers and unpaid workers are included in this, I assume business owners should as well. But I feel like this policy is stated vaguely in this regard.
Can we add something more specific to the policy, stating one way or the other, like "owners or other business executives are considered employees or indirectly paid editors" or "are not considered", just to clarify? - Whisperjanes (talk) 22:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't think so - they're just a bog-standard COI editor. SmartSE (talk) 10:17, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

public relations editor who don't disclose properly

While they reveal they're an employee in edit summary whey they make DIRECT EDITS with injecting poorly sourced advertorial language, they don't do so in user page. Should these examples be considered undisclosed paid editing? Special:Diff/771687705 Graywalls (talk) 19:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

One of the methods of disclosure specified in the terms of use is in the edit summary for the contribution. Best practice is for the user page to also include a disclosure, but since the editor is only required in the terms of use to follow one of the listed methods, using the edit summary is sufficient to be deemed a disclosed paid editor. isaacl (talk) 22:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Changes to this policy discussed at the village pump

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 65#Volunteers must declare that they are paid? about Pigsonthewing's recent edit to restore the April 2019 version of Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure#Meaning of "employer, client, and affiliation". – Joe (talk) 05:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion is in fact about the edit I reverted, which made a change to this policy, such that it asserted that "volunteers are deemed to be employees". I did not "restore the April 2019 version" of the page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
The link is to a section, Andy, which you did indeed restore to the version prior to April 2019 [1]. The change you reverted was made then – as you well know. – Joe (talk) 09:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I did not restore the section to the version prior to April 2019; as your diff shows. Indeed, I took particular care to ensure that, while reverting a single edit, I did not change other intermediate editing in that section. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
"volunteers are deemed to be compensated" would be better wording. Regardless of wording, there's nothing in the long standing policy saying volunteers are excluded. The US DOL FLSA says "Individuals may volunteer time to religious, charitable, civic, humanitarian, or similar non- profit organizations as a public service and not be covered by the FLSA." A non-profit soup kitchen's volunteer desk staff making edits on the organization's Wikipedia page is really no different from a for-profit hotel's administrative assistant (whom by FLSA can not be not paid money) making similar promotional edits. Graywalls (talk) 13:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Volunteers are not "deemed to be compensated". Wikipedia is not governded by the "US DOL FLSA", whatever that is. And please keep the discussion in one place; I have already just replied to your other post, in the linked dicussison. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:54, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@Graywalls, Andrew Davidson, and 331dot: You seem to have got caught in a renewed edit war about this. If you're not aware of it, please note the ongoing village pump discussion above. – Joe (talk) 11:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Is there a consensus that paid editing is merely tolerated, but rarely desired even if all the rules are followed?

Doing a straw poll here. If there is such a consensus, I'll write up an essay that can be referred to by various "welcome-coi"-type templates used to welcome new users.

I say "rarely" because things like "Wikipedia in residence" editors are arguably paid editors, and I don't want to quibble over whether they are wanted or not for the purposes of this essay proposal. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 14:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@Davidwr: I drafted Wikipedia:Measuring conflict of interest editing on Wikipedia where I make a claim and request further data that a certain kind of editing is approximately 100% bad with no significant case studies demonstrating otherwise.
I also do a lot of the maintenance for meta:Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Work as well as meta:Wikimedian in Residence documentation elsewhere. In the wiki in residence world, many of us do not use the term "paid editing". Instead we talk about editing for marketing, branding, and promotion, which is the source of problems. The alternative to that is editing with intent to share general encyclopedia information which readers want. There is almost never overlap of these categories of content and no cases where wiki editors could not distinguish the two. Practically all unwelcome paid editors are promoting organizations, people, and products. Among the millions of so-called paid editors which Wikipedia editors have scolded for misconduct, I am unaware of even a single identified case of "paid editors" contributing content which had more value as public benefit than as marketing and promotion. Wikimedians in Residence do edit for public benefit, as do the "paid editors" who are university professors paid by their schools to support students in editing Wikipedia content. I fail to see the value in the term "paid editing" because to me there are obviously two kinds of editing which are easy to distinguish, with one good and one unwelcome. I do agree that everyone getting money should disclose but calling everything as "paid editing" blocks many desired institutional partnerships with universities and similar knowledge centers.
If you feel like writing an essay then consider also going further and writing for The Signpost. Everyone loves getting excited for this topic and yes, I agree with the minority and understated position you are describing.
Consumer Reports paid me as Wikimedian in Residence from 2012-18 and I have been paid as Wikimedian in Residence at the University of Virginia from 2018 to present. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:53, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll be sure to make the distinction between "promotional paid editing" and call out the other kinds you mentioned.
I did run across a paid editor a month or two back who, once he was told the rules, seems to "get it." Since then, his edits to drafts have been "quality" edits to likely-notable topics even when there is a declared COI/PAID relationship. I can't remember what is username is off the top of my head though. It was a very pleasant surprise. He may be the exception that proves the rule though, *sigh*.
I am an avid reader of The Signpost. I guess that means I have a conflict of interest in contributing to it. On a serious note, I will consider it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:35, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
"There [are] no cases where wiki editors could not distinguish the two." I wish that were true; failure to distinguish the two types is increasingly seen. One current example is at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#‎Brigham Young University. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  • “merely tolerated, but rarely desired”. I think this well worded. Paid editing is tolerated, by the community, but guarded, not happily, by most. Some defend it, most are uneasy with it. Very few, even defenders, desire it. Instead, the recognise it as a reality that is difficult to manage. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:17, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Bigger nut, larger shell?

The terse nutshell doesn't seem to me to sell the big two points here:

  • You need to disclose your actions on Wikipedia (in one of three prescribed ways).
  • You need to disclose (every one of) your account(s) when soliciting requests on other websites and via email or any other communication.

Would anyone object to a brief mention in the nutshell that disclosure is needed both on-wiki and when advertising, soliciting and arranging? Wording suggestions welcome. — Bilorv (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Specific disclosure of paid edits

Hello - general question. If a paid editor makes a general declaration that he/she edits for pay on behalf of a media company that contracts with other clients, does that editor need to specify who those clients are (i.e., which specific people/organizations are asking for this media company to make paid Wikipedia contributions)? It's not clear to me from this guideline whether "client", in this case, merely means the company that employs you to make paid edits, rather than the subjects of that editing that are doing the actual paying to the company that you work for. So, does the declaration have to be, "I am paid by Foo Company to make edits on Wikipedia", or "Foo Company pays me to make edits on behalf of the following people: A, B, and C."? Chubbles (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The purpose is transparency. If it doesn't mean "I'm writing about X on behalf of A, Y on behalf of B, and Z on behalf of C", it should. If that means having an RFC to make this clear, then have an RFC.
The unfortunate reality is that some paid editors may not know who the actual upstream client may be. You may have Joe who works for Jim's PR Emporium, who takes money from Alice, Bob, and Charlie. Jim's PR Emporium doesn't know that Charlie is a front company for another PR firm that doesn't want to have their name associated with "paid editing on Wikipedia." Do we sanction Joe, the man behind the paid-editing keyboard, who had every reason to think Charlie was the "actual client" and said so? Do we allow ourselves to be hoodwinked by Joe's co-worker Sam who is "in the know" and is fully aware that Charlie is a front, but who lied and said Charlie was the actual client?
What about independent editors who THINK they are being asked by Charlie to edit, but in reality Charlie is a middleman? What about independent editors who know or who turn a blind eye to the obvious and say their client is Charlie when they know or should know he's just a middleman? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
As described in the meta:Terms of use/FAQ on paid contributions without disclosure: If you are editing an article on Wikipedia on behalf of your employer, for example, you must disclose your employer's details. If you have been hired by a public relations firm to edit Wikipedia, you must disclose both the firm and the firm's client. As further detailed on this paid-contribution disclosure page: Client: the person or organization on whose behalf the edits are made; the client is often the subject of the article. isaacl (talk) 01:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Standard of evidence needed to tag article for suspected UPE

The template documentation at Template:Undisclosed_paid says go ahead and tag the article as UPE if it appears the article may have been the subject of undisclosed paid editing. If we set the burden of evidence too high, it will just foster an environment favorable to covert public relations and professional editing. I tagged the article Luke Hughes (furniture designer) but an IP contributor out of nowhere started removing the tag. After reviewing edit pattern of article and that of several accounts used, based on my experience, there's a reasonable suspicion of UPE, such as edits by several single purpose accounts and an account that adds a lot of very similar pattern resume like edits. Graywalls (talk) 12:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Graywalls: I am not going to comment on this specific situation, but in general in a case like this, WP:BRD applies along with WP:AGF until it's evident that the other editor is not editing in good faith. The polite thing to do would be to open a discussion, present your case for keeping the tag, then if there was no justification for removing it after at least 24 hours, restore it. If there is reasonable discussion, then keep discussing, and try to see things from the other person's point of view. If it is reverted again without any discussion or the only discussion is unconstructive, then consider asking for a WP:THIRD opinion or a dispute resolution forum. If the editor himself is not willing to engage or the only engagement is clearly non-constructive, then WP:AN/I or a similar noticeboard may be in order. The key thing to keep in mind is: "I might be wrong." A little humility throughout will go a long way if this winds up at WP:AN/I or any other forum where WP:BOOMERANG is a possibility. By the way, I had a recent experience with a pair of disclosed-PAID editors on another article. That slow-motion edit war went on for months before both editors were eventually blocked when it became abundantly clear they were WP:NOTHERE. Had I reacted more strongly initially, I might have been facing sanctions myself for uncivil behavior. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
@Davidwr: Thank you for your reasonable and rational input here. As a bit of a Wikipedia amateur, it is greatly appreciated. I seem to have been bombarded and hounded recently by this editor and one of his kronies for daring to stick up for my edits. Yes, I have made honest mistakes in the past but I feel like this person is going out of their way to destroy anything that I have ever created. Always happy and willing to have a fair and honest discussion, but I shouldn't have to answer to constant and unfounded accusations. I'd genuinely appreciate any help or input from editors like yourself who are clearly just trying to do a good job. This character is deleting pretty much all of my profiles and engaging other Wikipedia bullies to do so. Bamberini8/(talk) 23:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
@Bamberini8: Please stop using undefined nebulous accusations like "...other Wikipedia bullies...". If you have specific accusations to make about specific users, make them that way. You are labelling everyone who has ever edited any article you have worked on as a bully. If you have specific bullying claims, report them and they will be dealt with, but don't throw all encompassing, general accusations around. - X201 (talk) 08:56, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
There's no public criteria documented for WP:BEANS reasons. Any objective criteria will be gamed by spammers. MER-C 12:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
@MER-C:, I think some sort of guidance that provides recommended practices would be useful though to reduce suppositions of over zealous tagging. this one here got a bit hairy. The creator acknowledged that they were an employee, and also that they were employed by the article subject at the time it was created, but that "they were not being paid to edit Wikipedia" and disputed the "connected contributor (paid)" and UPE tag. Basically, we don't want to tag article UPE for someone who actually weren't editing it to advance public relations and advertising interest, but we also don't want to let board members get out of UPE tag by claiming "I'm a VOLUNTEER board member...." and like. Graywalls (talk) 23:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
User:MER-C, I think there is a method, which need not be a secret, for allowing to a suspected UPE to prove that they are not a serial UPE using throwaway accounts. Ask them questions, and encourage them to talk. Encourage them to talk by asking more questions until you understand how they came to be interested in the articles they are writing. Ask any questions, ask about their day, or the weather. Be sure to do this on a persisting page, such as their User_talk, not a talk page that is likely to be deleted under G8. I suggest that you should NOT be quick to block as you did with Bamberini8 (talk · contribs), but to instead let them keep talking. Let the guilty dig their hole deep, providing more and more evidence for detecting the same style in the next throwaway account. It is very hard to maintain different sockpuppets in mutual secrecy if they each engage in personable conversation.
If an account continues to behave like a UPE, continues to edit, but fails to answer user_talk questions, then block, but leave user_talk access. Maybe they are just shy, but probably UPE, because innocent people tend to answer even if shy.
I think mere COI should not be lumped in with UPE. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
I suggest you read Bamberini's denial of COI and Possibly's question on the COIN thread again. The most probable answers to it (by a long way, they cover >99% of the instances where this has happened) imply that the editor lied at some point. MER-C 18:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
You mean User_talk:Bamberini8#February_2021_2 and Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Luke_Hughes_and_Company_Limited? I don’t dispute that you are correct on reading that Bamberini has a COI and is lying. I think that you are missing my point, that by being quick to block you have caused him to abandon this account before we have leant much of his conversation style. You have taught him a number of definite things that he can do differently to not be caught so easily next time. I suggest pretending to believe his story, and pretending to be personable, and asking him on his usertalk page questions that are easily answered. Some of what he said I believe, he hadn’t been paid, (yet), and maybe he has never been paid as this was his first clumsy attempt. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
If anything, it clarified that simply claiming "I'm not getting paid" is not an affirmative defense. @SmokeyJoe:, something you will see if you look at the article in question on that particular COI/N entry is that the article was stuffed with false citations that do not support the claims made which I think is enough to revoke assumption of good faith. Graywalls (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
That’s not my point. My point is that heavy handed response to poorly concealed COI editing is not long term effective, and that a soft response will make it harder for long term serial UPEs. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
We're discussing burden of evidence. Feel free to start your own discussion at Village Pump if you think you have a better approach. Graywalls (talk) 02:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
“Standard of evidence needed to tag article for suspected UPE”. Quite right. I agree the evidence was easily sufficient to tag the article, and then to block the user for removing the tag. I don’t agree that it is OK to block the editor for lying about COI, but that the conversation should have continued on his talk page, following a block for edit warring on the tag. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Contradictory advice

The PAID editing policy gives contradictory advice:

Under the heading "Promotion and advertising by paid editors", it says "Paid editors may not advertise or promote their services on Wikipedia. The disclosures required by the terms of use and this policy are not regarded as advertisements or promotion."
Under "How to Disclose", it says "Paid editors must also provide links on their Wikipedia user page to all active accounts at websites where they advertise, solicit or obtain paid Wikipedia-editing services."

Providing a link to their services is advertising, more or less.--- Possibly (talk) 18:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

It’s a permissible use per the second sentence of your first quote. –xenotalk 19:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

RfC on new disclosure requirements for freelance paid editors

An RfC proposing an amendment to this policy is live at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC on new disclosure requirements for freelance paid editors. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: Having been passed by consensus, the archived discussion can be found here. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Indirect payments

Let's say there is a Research Assistant for a Professor who has a point of view. That RA could be pushing that POV on Wikipedia, even though they are not directly paid for Wikipedia editing but paid for their research work. Does the policy take into account such scenarios? Puck42 (talk) 09:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

It is more likely to be a conflict of interest. Paid editing is a type of conflict of interest, but COIs can exist without payment. - Bilby (talk) 09:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
WP:COI and WP:PAID both deal with relationships, i.e. if your hypothetical RA was writing about the professor (their boss). There's a broad consensus that editing about your professional field of interest isn't in itself a conflict of interest, and there's a long-standing exception to COI that allows subject-matter experts to cite their own published work, within reason. That's not to say that such edits can't be problematic in other ways, but usually content policies like WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:FRINGE are more relevant than COI/PAID. – Joe (talk) 10:06, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Receiving payment by means of being a business owner

I have long felt this page fails to offer any effective guidance to those editors who own or run their own businesses, and who write about topics relating to their work. They don't get 'paid' by someone else, and yet they benefit financially. But they aren't mentioned here. So, I propose that we simply copy/paste the sentence shown in italics below from WP:COI into the start of this section, and insert the word business, too.

An editor has a financial conflict of interest when they write about a topic with which they have a close financial relationship. This includes being an owner, employee, contractor, investor or other stakeholder. This would make the section read as follows:

Meaning of "employer, client, and affiliation"

Further reading: Terms of use/FAQ on paid contributions without disclosure
An editor has a financial conflict of interest when they write about a topic with which they have a close financial relationship. This includes being an owner, employee, contractor, investor or other stakeholder.
Editors must disclose their business, employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any paid contribution to Wikipedia.
  • Employer: the person or organization that pays, either directly or through intermediaries, a user to contribute to Wikipedia. This includes cases where the employer has hired the user as an employee, has engaged the user under a freelance contract, is compensating the user without a contract, or is compensating the user through the user's employment by another organization.

As this change doesn't alter the policy, it doesn't seem to merit an RfC, though it seemed appropriate to post here first so as to seek other opinions before making the above changes. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The current wording is based on the linked FAQ. For better or worse, it is focused specifically on payment, presumably because it provides a clear-cut delineation. I think it would be better to update the conflict of interest guidance to strengthen its guidance on disclosure for owners, rather than introduce changes here that diverge from the terms of use. isaacl (talk) 13:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Also note that adding "business" would essentially require paid independent contractors to identify themselves on Wikipedia. Although I believe there are some editors who would support this, it's not clear to me that it's a consensus view. (The requirement to disclose one's user account in communications to the client and external web sites, of course, does hamper the ability for an independent contractor to remain anonymous on Wikipedia.) isaacl (talk) 13:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
I could also see such an argument requiring editors to disclose their investment portfolio holdings. –xenotalk 13:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure which argument you're referring to? I don't feel that the proposed addition of "business" would require editors to disclose their personal investment holdings. (I agree that arguments for strengthening disclosure requirements for editors with conflicts of interest could lead to this.) isaacl (talk) 14:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Likely many editors taking paid that not disclose it

On linkedIn one can find many profiles from people and even companies that say they create new pages on wikipedia, that they make and edit pages for prominent people etc. Wikipedia has a policy that one must disclose if one are a paid editor, but as editors can have anonymous profiles how is this monitored? On wikipedia one can be anonymous so is it not naive to think that many of these indeed not declare they are paid, that even make them more valuable for many clients that wants to promote ideas, or attack their critics on wikipedia. Have wikipedia done any attempt to look into the loads of linkedin profiles telling they are making pages, editing pages etc for pay ? One possibility would be that to wikipedia, not to the public wikipedia, editors had to register with name etc. Then wikipedia could monitor more easily if these paid editors have disclosed it. Sure there are always ways around, but to advertise ones firm and people as wikipedia editors for pay on linkedin for example could be monitored to see if the same names disclosed their for pay editing. ChrisCalif (talk) 11:12, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@ChrisCalif: You're absolutely right. Many (maybe most) paid editors do not disclose it, although probably a large proportion of the profiles on external websites you have seen are either lying, scammers and/or already banned from Wikipedia. As with everything on Wikipedia, investigation of undisclosed paid editing and covert advertising is done by volunteers, often coordinated at the conflict of interest noticeboard. – Joe (talk) 11:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Paid-contribution_disclosure/Archive_7&oldid=1123884078"