Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2020-11-29/Opinion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Discuss this story

Thanks for the well-written piece. I've said this before, but I'm still a firm believer that we should ban all editing for pay or other remuneration (even if that would terminate our successful partnerships with other organizations). — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 17:58, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words. I won't go so far as saying that paid GLAM Wikipedians-in-Residence should be banned. Their input is really needed, and there seems to be controls so that W-i-R's don't break the rules. I've never even seen a reasonable dispute about what they do. But commercial paid editors on the other hand = it's hard to remember when I've seen one of their edits that I didn't suspect something was wrong. IMHO we should just limit them to talk pages (not even AFC - nothing else but their own talk pages and article talk pages) where they can point out that a proper press release has been issued. The current system is worse than just quoting press releases. And of course we don't have to quote press releases! Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, the editing patterns and lack of WP:LISTEN of paid editors reminds me of bots. Is there merit in requiring paid editors to edit with a kill switch ? Widefox; talk 19:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Widefox: I won't make any claims about the merits of their edits, but I think there's merit in providing paid editors with some form of a process/policy that governs their activities as contributors. They're definitely going to do it (or attempt to) regardless what we say is banned, or is/isn't permitted. They have zero incentive to observe any such bans, after all. So if we offer a process that provides at least more incentive than that, then we can at least have them here on our terms and under our explicit oversight. Seems better than incentivizing banned editors to come up with increasingly sophisticated methods of making (or arranging for the making of) those same edits, but in a much more clandestine fashion. So we might as well give 'em a little rope. They'll almost certainly end up publicly hanging themselves with it. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 00:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That first cite is worth the click (from within Incognito mode if you aren't a Times subscriber). I'm always up for a good "Hemingway casually being a dick for no reason" tale. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 00:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been involved in dealing with spam and bias in many areas, including corporate, for many years. This is an ongoing problem, but playing the devils' advocate, why do we get upset when COI is involved with money and power, but much less for cultural or religious issues? Is a corporate lapdog on a payroll less biased than someone with strong religious, nationalistic or simply fandom-related views? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is an excellent point that gets lost all the time, especially in response to the first comment here that wants to see a complete ban on paid editing. Paid editing isn't always problematic editing, just as volunteer editing is not always virtuous and neutral editing. We have many times more problematic editors who are unpaid but decrease the quality of Wikipedia – fandom, academic boosters/proud alumni, religion, nationalism, regionalism, fetishism, you name it. So I'd like to see a more sophisticated way of thinking about the broad spectrum of paid vs volunteer editing and conflicted vs unconflicted contributions. The faster we move away from "paid" being always a dirty word, the better. -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Piotrus and Fuzheado: There are a couple problems IMHO with this critique of this article. It comes down to "there's other stuff going on too." I'm sure you've seen discussants at academic conferences critique a paper something like this "It's all fine as far as it goes, but you should have gotten additional data from a, b, or c and considered factors w, x, y, and z and used the methodologies shown in q, r, s, and t." The proper answer to that of course is "Those are my next 10 papers - but you should feel free to write those up yourself." Yes, please feel free to address the problems of biased political, religious, or cultural advocates. Those are all worthy problems, but to a large degree different from commercial advocates. Right-wingers, left-wingers, and other wing-nuts may be editing in good faith with strongly held beliefs, But it's hard for me to see good faith in somebody who calls themself a "good corporate lapdog". I've tried, but the result seems about the same every time I take an in-depth look. There's a problem of volume as well - as soon as we say something like "if you've got sales over $1,000,000 and have been mentioned in two newspapers, then you can post your own press-release on Wikipedia," we'd have several million "articles" on low notability businesses very soon. That's what corporations are supposed to do. Maximize earnings (via free adverts or whatever other resources are available) and that's what they will do if we allow them to. Folks like Wiki-PR will get rich off of Wikipedia, and of course they are not going to allow anybody to make a few rules that will get in their way. When have they followed our rules anyway? They'll end up making the rules if we are not careful. One billionaire could easily take over Wikipedia (not legally, or ethically, but defacto) if we are not careful.
So if you have something to say about the politicians, religious folks, and proud nationalists please do. Submit it here and I'll likely publish it. But please don't use "other stuff is going on" to critique this article. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And the argument that not all problematic editors are paid strikes me as unconvincing whataboutism. Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, sadly @HaeB and Smallbones: you are missing the point and I never raised the language of WP:OTHER or whataboutism, and I fear your use of that shortcut is a blasé dismissal of what are very serious and consistent attacks on the transparent and overwhelmingly productive activities of those who do abide by the rules: Wikimedians in Residence (WiR) and even educators caught in that WP:PAID dragnet. I said "I'd like to see a more sophisticated way of thinking about the broad spectrum" because if you have seen the approach to addressing "paid editing" it is usually a license to assume bad faith by default, and folks who are in fact working transparently and in good faith are getting caught in the dragnet. It is not whataboutism. I am talking about specific, targeted and bad faith proposals to restrict community members in good standing simply because the word "paid" happens to appear. See the recent moves where:
  • The COI policy was unilaterally changed so that PAID editors "must put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly." This was reverted and the resulting pseudo-RfC didn't pass, but resulted in an extended and heated debate. [1].
  • Or the requirement that all paid editors need to disclose their usernames in all correspondence and web sites with no exemptions for Wikimedians in Residence (RfC narrowly passed, with questionable WMF involvement affecting the vote) [2].
  • Or a recent clash on WP:COIN suggesting all paid editors (even WiR) be required to note on the Talk page of every article that they are WP:INVOLVED, with more onerous terms than in the WMF's TOU (after pushback, seems to have settled into a stalemate) [3].
This is the context for the "more sophisticated" comment - the number of editors that automatically assume bad faith when the word "paid" comes up and want to a hobble a class of editors (with no exceptions for WiR, or even educators and students) is alarming. I know for those in the trenches of WP:UPE and vandal fighting, it may be hard to see the nuances of this issue because the bad actors are indeed problematic and dominate the landscape where you operate. I've done my share of vandal fighting and telling corporate shills to keep their hands off Wikipedia, so I'm no stranger to that. But we need a balanced approach where we are not subjecting some of the best people in our community to the friendly fire of WP:PAID crackdowns. Certainly you can understand that sentiment? There is a user group Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network where we have been monitoring these issues within the community, and we may produce a white paper or summary of concerns. It may be useful in the future for Signpost to publish it. -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreeing here with Fuzheado. From what I've seen, the primary difference between paid editors with a COIN vs. problematic editors with a COIN is that those doing it for money reach a point where they give up long before the fanatics do. The first group we had a problem with weren't paid editors, or even religious zealots, but the followers of Lyndon LaRouche. (A former Trotskyist who led a RWNJ cult until his recent alleged death.) And I've noticed that many biographical articles are clearly white-washed: for example, the last version of Winston Churchill barely mentions the man's love of liquor. As long as there are people who want their POV to be the only one the public knows about, they will use money or fanaticism to push it into Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting, I've noticed similar issues with the Reinhard Mohn article, which appears to have been heavily edited by someone employed by Bertelsmann. The article currently fails to mention he was a multi-billionaire, and I suspect there are similar issues with some related articles such as Liz Mohn. LittleDwangs (talk) 13:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A great article about an important topic. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:16, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Language matters: Paid editors or promotional editors[edit]

Hi Smallbones, thanks for a very detailed interesting piece. Thanks too for your kind words about Wikipedians-in-Residence. ("I won't go so far as saying that paid GLAM Wikipedians-in-Residence should be banned. Their input is really needed, and there seems to be controls"). Speaking as a (former) WiR, I feel frustrated that the language used about this issue tends to skew the argument. People use the term "paid editing" but the problem that they oppose might more accurately be described as "promotional editing".

Every WiR I've met would agree that writing with the intent to introduce bias is undesirable. Use of the term "paid editing" lumps together a WiR who adds unbiased high-quality information about a topic (e.g. medicine, fashion) and someone who tries to whitewash or promote a person, company, or product. Yes, they're both paid. No, they aren't (by definition) both promotional.

I see the appeal of thinking in terms of "paid editing" -- Whether or not someone is paid is relatively easy to determine. Whether or not someone is promotional is more difficult to establish, and can involve lots more argument. -- The term "paid editing" makes it easy to oversimplify the issues involved. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 03:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mary Mark Ockerbloom: Well said! Thanks for explaining that so well. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mary Mark Ockerbloom: Sorry, it seems beyond cavil that paid editing is an entire industry damaging to Wikipedia, as this reporting yesterday and the regular reporting like it demonstrate as a matter of fact. As you suggest, distinguishing promotional editing from paid editing is very difficult, so the search for other controls is bound to continue. Not only are WiR's a tiny group so they are a manageable number, but with WiRs there are many controls where assuming they are not being promotional is not what's relied upon - good Wikipedia work is instead required to be actively demonstrated by WiRs (not assumed), and it begins with who and how they are selected and agree to work and the relationships they must maintain with the rest of us, and so as not damage their institution; but such things are either impossible or most-improbable for the 99.99% of the paid rest -- the very real and huge paid-editing industry. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Alanscottwalker: I absolutely agree that there is an entire industry damaging to Wikipedia. I will even go so far as to say that Wikipedia is an important battleground in a war of information and disinformation. My concern is that unless we are specific about what it is that's wrong, the term "paid editing" will be misapplied and overapplied. WiR, library and information professionals, archivists at cultural institutions, educators, and teachers currently engage in activities beneficial to Wikipedia, as part of their work. We need to recognize and support the 'good hats' and be clear that what they do is not the problem, or they are going to be lumped in with the 'bad hats' under the label "paid editing", to everyone's loss. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 19:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Have to disagree, the WiR regime demonstrates not that paid editing is not the problem - paid editing raises real and palpable conflicts of interest, and that it is hidden from our readers. Rather, WiR demonstrates targeted regimes of controls are the least way to manage paid editing. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2020-11-29/Opinion&oldid=992347723"