Wikipedia talk:Paid editing (guideline)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Accept, Modify or Reject[edit]

May I request a formal discussion to accept, modify or reject this proposal. As another editor suggested, that discussion should be required before tagging with {{failed}}. Thanks.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     17:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The basic premise of this guideline (not policy) has been stable for a while with only cosmetic changes for many months. One change I think should be discussed is the Paid editing only equals "payment" rather than what was there, "Paid editing is editing Wikipedia in return for material reward or compensation." I think the same issues arise when someone isn't being paid "extra" for updating their company's article but they are indeed considered a bit less objective. There is also the cases of students or volunteers earning recognition for a job well done but technically no money was given. As for the formal discussion I think it would be good but how do we do it?Wroted (talk) 17:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought that it had been so long since this was requested a guideline that Consensus in its favor was not established within a reasonable period of time. So I posted {{failed}}. I don't think there needs to be a formal discussion to reject this proposal, otherwise this would drag on. -- This proposal was first proposed on 11 March 2007. -- Oh, it is dragging on. :) -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 17:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
The page was created on that date but it has been worked on since and I do not see any attempt to formalize it to go to a vote. To me it seems like there are still a few problems to work out, like the redundancy issues and ensuring the admin statement is accurate. The page also could do well to sort out how to deal with potential paid editing situations (focus on the edits and interactions first, witch hunts seems counter-productive, etc and wheer to report problems if not at the COI board.Wroted (talk) 12:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Reject - this proposed guideline could easily be viewed as encouraging paid editing - even as a "how-to" manual on how to squeeze by the rules to do paid editing. It is so far from the consensus on Wikipedia against paid editing, that it will never become an accepted guideline, and thus can serve only as a source of confusion to people who read it. It's time to put this out of its misery. Smallbones (talk) 17:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
    • "Squeeze by the rules to do paid editing"? What rules? What consensus? This is the best we have, and it amounts to don't ask don't tell. I'd prefer a more open system in which paid editing is acknowledged and managed. - hahnchen 22:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes this is clearly Don't ask, don't tell, but that has nothing to do with the current rules. Paid editing is obviously a strong conflict of interest, but don't ask, don't tell does NOT apply to WP:COI. Smallbones (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

As nobody has actually come forward in several weeks to accept this as a guideline - it's very clear that that this should be marked "failed" - I'll do that within a few days. Smallbones (talk) 17:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Marked as failed as no new discussion has come up - certainly nobody has said anything about "accept". Smallbones (talk) 17:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Administrators[edit]

I'd like to suggest that Administrators be expressly forbidden from any and all Paid editing, with defined sanctions and penalties. The WP:COI issues involved would be very risky, and very difficult to mitigate. While this is mentioned now in the drafts, it is not clear enough. We only have the text "Using administrator tools for compensation is strictly forbidden". That doesn't go far enough. Administrators should be strictly forbidden from any and all paid or commercial editing. Period.

It may be fair to have an amnesty period, where current admins can fess up and declare their past COIs without fear of reprisal. If an administrator then wishes to do commercial editing, they must first turn in their admin bit and then redeclare their COI as a normal editor.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     03:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the current wording came from Wikipedia_talk:Paid_editing_(guideline)/Archive_7#Administrator_tools_statement. If I read that correctly it's roughly the same issue as all paid editing in that it's unlikely to know i someone is paid unless they cause problems or reveal themselves. Likewise being paid for a specific action may be a violation of trust but there is nothing "on the books" besides WP:ADMIN which is clear enough that "Administrators are also expected to observe a high standard of conduct.", etc. I don't think there will be support for this as there are examples where an admin could technically break such a rule while not the spirit, paid Wikipedia foundation member or consultant, etc or a paid editor who does non-controversial admin actions. I think the main point is that if an admin is asked to make an edit with the tools that they wouldn't make if they weren't being paid then their judgement is questionable and that's already covered.Wroted (talk) 11:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Unless the edit is merely one of direction. For example there if there is no difference between how they edit an article on Inflation having offered a bounty, and how they edit an article on My favourite software company Inc having been paid, then they are more or less harmless. Rich Farmbrough, 18:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC).

How To Declare a COI[edit]

This proposed guideline currently says "Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit". This is very broad, and leaves much room for different interpretations. A while ago I tried to get some discussion going on User talk:FT2/Commercial and paid editing regarding this. Perhaps it is an idea to move the convo here. Some areas that could use clearing up:

  1. When should you disclose?
  2. How should you disclose?
  3. What must you disclose?
  4. What must you not disclose? (ie: WP:ADVERTISING)
  5. What articles must you disclose your COI on?
  6. What articles must you not disclose your COI on?
  7. What articles may you choose to disclose your COI or not?

etc. Just a start. Thanks.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     14:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that editors with such a COI are likely to fall into one of two categories:
1. SPAs; they just focus on a particular article or group of articles associated with the subject of their COI;
2. Editors who have a normal range of editing apart from a COI on a particular subject - perhaps somebody who felt their experience could earn a few $ at a paid-editing site, or somebody whose employer says "Hey, you know wikipedia don't you? Could you fix our article..?".
In neither case do I believe that there's a net benefit to mandatory disclosure on article talkpages. In the first case, because the COI is obvious from the edit logs; and in the second case because I think there are demarcation problems between COI and non-COI edits, and because we risk stigmatising a contributor to a hundred pages simply because they had a COI on one page.
Userpages seem to be the place where everybody says "This is me! I'm interested in X, I have a career in Y, I like to do Z". Even people who don't think that they have a COI will often put something on their userpage which gives a clue. So, if we are to hang leper-bells round the necks of people who are getting something in return for wikipedia contributions that are otherwise policy-compliant, the userpage would be a perfect place to hang the bells. Why mandate further declarations elsewhere? bobrayner (talk) 20:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
A most interesting metaphor, the leper-bells. Another one: The Scarlet C.
One important issue, that I don't see anyone really discussing yet, is the contradiction between COI declares and WP:ADVERTISING policy. Continued COI declarations on article talk pages will, in effect, be promotion and advertising for the commercial entity doing the declare. The more good, includeable pages the commercial entity creates, the more "forced self-promotion" they will be doing.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     21:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

aloof[edit]

so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.69.52.22 (talk) 21:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

low price[edit]

Thanks very good for report, I follow your blog — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.69.56.182 (talk) 20:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Good post[edit]

Мне очень понравилось. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.68.175.65 (talk) 08:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)