William Pietri wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
On 11/03/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
A rule against paid conflict-of-interest editing means that we can explain very clearly why something isn't allowed. We can have a nice FAQ, a clear WP:NOPAY redirect, a simple decision flow chart. We can explain it to the media, to editors, to companies. We can make it an electric fence that people fear to touch.
Please write this up on a page as simply, clearly and unambiguously as you can. I'm just forwarding your email to the comcom list as an excellent example of just what we need.
Are we, so to speak, on the same page here?
Do we all agree that the Almeda sitaution is one we want to avoid? Hopefully.
But can we be realistic here? Paid editing is not inherently bad. At worst, it can hit on the same COI issues we already run into - the best edits we don't notice, and some need to be dealt with.
We handled MyWikiBiz badly. We fumbled horribly on the Microsoft one. Why can't we simply make a clear, concise statement on the matter and let it be:
Paid editing is highly discouraged by the community, we understand that there's no way we can realistically stop it, so paid edits are simply handled like any other, and cannot be guaranteed by Wikipedia to exist in the same way they were submitted.
Either we can stop pretending or continue to sweep issues like this under the rug. At some point, the rug gets a big bulge, and people start asking questions.
-Jeff