Steve Bennett wrote:
I find it difficult to understand how the conflict of interest *matters*[1].
Take a look at the professions where we depend on their correct and unbiased handling of information. Journalism, law, medicine, academics, accounting, and law enforcement are all good examples. And all of them have strong codes of ethics to deal with conflicts of interest.
Now look at examples in those professions where conflicts of interest get out of control. Advertorial journalism and paid propaganda. The distortion of medical practice by pharmaceutical companies. Biased academic research. Arthur Andersen and Enron. Crooked cops.
Then look at industries where conflicts of interest are endemic, or essential. Advertising. PR. Lobbying. To a lesser extent, American national politics.
My bet is that saying that we are ok with conflicts of interest will shift us down that spectrum rapidly. We can't even keep fancruft in check, and nobody is paying them to spend 2500 hours a year trying to get maximally favorable articles into Wikipedia.
However, adding well-copywritten, non-copyright-violating, vaguely NPOV, useful text, even if done with a blatant COI - I don't see the problem.
I think the problem is that you won't be able to create a set of rules that filter for only those paid edits.
[1] The acknowledged *perception* of COI aside...
Isn't that enough to stop it right there?
William