On 3/12/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
I really don't like this. The only people who will be affected will be those who bothered to have a conscience and find out that there even was a rule. These rampant PR companies that we're apparently so worried about will simply disregard it - if they even know it exists.
I think one reason I don't like it is because it blatantly breaks "Assume Good Faith". Rather than assuming that people will behave responsibly when money and editing are combined, we assume that they will attempt harm.
This goes way too far: "This includes any editing of any Wikipedia article done for pay, gifts, favors, fees, donations, barter, promises of anything of value, or the chance to win anything of value." For starters, I've already broken it on several occasions. I edited [[Safe Speed]] as an exchange with Guy (JzG). I edit as a favour to Wikipedia and to future generations. I created [[Kate McTell]] in exchange for a promised reward of $20 (never paid, but that's another story...)
This is wrong too: "You should be contributing to Wikipedia because you have an interest in the topic, not because you have an interest in the outcome" - I don't edit because I have "an interest in the topic", I edit because I like editing. And everyone breaks this rule all the time anyway.
Here are some examples of editing which you have effectively banned: - A university history department paying a staffer or outsider to improve coverage of some aspect of history - A PhD student paying a researcher to research a field of interest and write up the results as a Wikipedia article. They might still do the work, but we don't benefit. - A philanthropist who wants to improve coverage of some of our most needed topics, but, only having 24 hours in the day, "outsources" by paying others to work for him.
And conversely, you're saying it's ok for people to write articles about their employers, blatantly in contradiction to WP:COI.
Steve