For those wondering why allowing paid editing might not be such a good idea, take a look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Almeda_University#Paying_freelancers_to_re...
It's a long-term contract for a 7-days-a-week effort to replace negative edits with positive ones. Full marks to [[User:Randywombat]] for finding this.
Note in particular the endless self-justification in the Almeda approach. I think that will undermine any attempt to find clever rules that allow paid editing where there is even the slightest possibility of conflict of interest. I'm sure any of us could rewrite that job description to make full use of Wikipedia jargon. And if somebody's income depends on them not getting the essential meaning behind our words, they may be able to keep it up for quite a while.
William
They're basically paying someone to revert vandalism on their entry, which is probably a good thing. Unfortunately, it looks like their definition of vandalism doesn't quite match ours... If there was some way to ensure it was done in Wikipedia's interest, paid watchlisting (which is what this is) could be an excellent idea. I'm not sure there is some way to ensure it's not done for POV reasons.
On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 23:17:16 +0000, "Thomas Dalton" thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
They're basically paying someone to revert vandalism on their entry, which is probably a good thing. Unfortunately, it looks like their definition of vandalism doesn't quite match ours...
Almeda "University", ah yes, I remember that one. I assume good faith of unaccredited universities, up to the point where it becomes obvious that they are diploma mills working really *really* hard to ensure that nobody realises they are diploma mills. And this is one of them.
Guy (JzG)
On 10/03/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Note in particular the endless self-justification in the Almeda approach. I think that will undermine any attempt to find clever rules that allow paid editing where there is even the slightest possibility of conflict of interest. I'm sure any of us could rewrite that job description to make full use of Wikipedia jargon. And if somebody's income depends on them not getting the essential meaning behind our words, they may be able to keep it up for quite a while.
One problem I have with this kind of paid editing is that those who can afford to pay will have more NPOV, better written articles. Do we want the quality of parts of Wikipedia to be determined by who's paying for what?
Other than that, I think an institution paying for vandalism revision and nothing else, is fair enough. What's the difference between them paying a Wikipedian to do it or paying a secretary to do it? The former is more transparent.
On the other hand, I'm not sure that paying someone to take a look at an article occassionally will make much difference. Our anti-vandalism mechanisms are quite robust.
Oldak Quill wrote:
Other than that, I think an institution paying for vandalism revision and nothing else, is fair enough. What's the difference between them paying a Wikipedian to do it or paying a secretary to do it? The former is more transparent.
Hmmm... I think I should have provided more context.
Almeda University is an unaccredited degree-by-mail "university" that grants degrees for "life experience". They are run from Florida via an Idaho PO Box on behalf of a corporation registered in the island nation of Nevis (a place notable mainly for its lack of corporate transparency). In most of the US, it's illegal to use their degrees for anything more than a place mat. They have been repeatedly ordered to stop operating in various states, and they once gave a degree to a dog.
What they are paying for isn't vandalism reversion. It's for someone else to do the blatant POV manipulation that they have so far failed to achieve themselves under a variety of accounts. And they want it done 365 days a year. This isn't about preventing vandalism; it's about paying somebody to distort a reference work so that their $3 million/year "novelty degree" business isn't harmed by people actually getting a factual, NPOV description of what's going on.
With that background, I find their work solicitation pretty sinister, sinister precisely because they can make such a reasonable-sounding case for it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Almeda_University#Paying_freelancers_to_re...
This sort of willful refusal to understand what we are trying to do is a bad enough problem now when we have to beat back each individual partisan. Unless we make it clear that any sort of paid conflict-of-interest editing is strictly forbidden, we will open a door to endless trouble. Spam email was a problem when people did it themselves. But it only really became a monster when the legal and moral ambiguity allowed professional spammers to set up shop.
William
On 3/12/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
This sort of willful refusal to understand what we are trying to do is a bad enough problem now when we have to beat back each individual partisan. Unless we make it clear that any sort of paid conflict-of-interest editing is strictly forbidden, we will open a door to endless trouble. Spam email was a problem when people did it
Well, I don't agree with the logical connection you're making there. Would outlawing transparent, regulated, paid Wikipedia editing have any effect on this kind of insidious behaviour? I don't see why it should. Quite clearly, Almeda was attempting to work behind closed doors here. They also knew that what they wanted to do would not be tolerated. How would any rule or policy against paid editing have had any effect at all?
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 3/12/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
This sort of willful refusal to understand what we are trying to do is a bad enough problem now when we have to beat back each individual partisan. Unless we make it clear that any sort of paid conflict-of-interest editing is strictly forbidden, we will open a door to endless trouble. Spam email was a problem when people did it
Well, I don't agree with the logical connection you're making there. Would outlawing transparent, regulated, paid Wikipedia editing have any effect on this kind of insidious behaviour? I don't see why it should. Quite clearly, Almeda was attempting to work behind closed doors here. They also knew that what they wanted to do would not be tolerated. How would any rule or policy against paid editing have had any effect at all?
Yes, it would have a big effect.
The problem here is that any rules we create to filter the good conflict-of-interest edits from the bad ones will have to be subtle, requiring balanced judgment. For many people though, if their income depends on having warped judgment, they will have it all the live-long day. Self-deception isn't just a universal human flaw. In many industries, it's a vital resource.
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.
By doing that we eliminate the vast amount of Wikilawyering that will go on. We keep out all of the starving writers and underpaid English majors who might be fooled by the self-justification of an Almeda University, or the PR machine of a tobacco company. And most importantly, we prevent the emergence of a cottage industry that specializes in slipping things past us.
If we make a clear, impossible-to-misunderstand rule, then we will still have problems. But if there is ambiguity or room for doubt, we increase our problems tenfold. Or if the rise of spam in other media is any parallel, much more than that.
William
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.
- d.
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.
Glad to. Glad to start it, anyhow. I was just handwaving there, but if I think about it, I guess we're talking about something done under the "proposed policy or guideline" banner that would go something like this:
Wikipedia:Paid Editing
(shortcuts WP:PAY, WP:NOPAY)
On Wikipedia editing for pay is, in most cases, strictly forbidden. The only exception is for [insert exceptions we absolutely can't live without here].
1. Background and principles 2. Paid editing is generally forbidden 3. Specific exceptions 4. What to do instead 5. What to do if you suspect paid editing 6. Examples 7. Frequently asked questions 8. See also
Are we, so to speak, on the same page here?
William
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
Jeff Raymond wrote:
But can we be realistic here? Paid editing is not inherently bad.
I don't think it's inherently bad. Neither is giving gifts to politicians.
We should forbid paid conflict-of-interest editing for the same reason that I can't just give my congressman a new car out of gratitude for his public service. It's a slippery slope, and one which the vast, vast majority of the money available will be pushing in one direction, a direction that fundamentally conflicts with the purpose of the institution.
William
On 3/11/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
On Wikipedia editing for pay is, in most cases, strictly forbidden. The only exception is for [insert exceptions we absolutely can't live without here].
That would be edits made by foundation employees.
On 3/11/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/11/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
On Wikipedia editing for pay is, in most cases, strictly forbidden. The only exception is for [insert exceptions we absolutely can't live without here].That would be edits made by foundation employees.
And the contests. Don't forget the contests.
For those wondering why allowing paid editing might be a good idea, take a look at this: [[Wikipedia:Danny's contest]]
On 3/12/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
On Wikipedia editing for pay is, in most cases, strictly forbidden.
If this turns out to be true, I will be very disappointed. Wikipedia has succeeded in spite of the fact that its editors are volunteers. We should not make that handicap some badge of honour.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 3/12/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
On Wikipedia editing for pay is, in most cases, strictly forbidden.
If this turns out to be true, I will be very disappointed. Wikipedia has succeeded in spite of the fact that its editors are volunteers. We should not make that handicap some badge of honour.
I agree fully. If I were to somehow arrive at a large pile of money I didn't need, paying people to edit Wikipedia is one of the first things I would use it for (along with paying people to code on a few choice Free Software projects, most likely).
-Mark
On 3/11/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Almeda University is an unaccredited degree-by-mail "university" that grants degrees for "life experience". They are run from Florida via an Idaho PO Box on behalf of a corporation registered in the island nation of Nevis (a place notable mainly for its lack of corporate transparency). In most of the US, it's illegal to use their degrees for anything more than a place mat. They have been repeatedly ordered to stop operating in various states, and they once gave a degree to a dog.
ROFL. Best laugh all day.
I agree this was an excellent find by Randywombat. I think someone should call a newspaper on this one - a case where Wikipedia is reliable, where only the paid marketers dont think so.
-Stevertigo
Salient points:
One of my clients is suffering with a negative Wikipedia review. Attempts to change the Wikipedia write-up have been short lived.
Wikipedia does not require facts to print slanderous comments. Their only "burden of proof" is that someone read it in a newspaper somewhere.
Looking for an individual that can review and the Wikipedia comments on an ongoing basis. You will need to log in once daily to see if somebody reverted to slanderous comments. If they had, you will change them back to valid / positive comments.
The pay for this is $2600/year or $50.00 per week and it's ONGOING.
You may need the ability to log in with different IP addresses and/or different accounts.
And even though Wikipedia has almost crushed Almeda, you should know that Almeda University is a very well-run and consumer-friendly organization.
First, I am getting another editor to change the Almeda write up to a positive one. Once this is accomplished, what I need from you is to continually (daily) look at and update (if needed) the Wikipedia Almeda University review.
On 3/11/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/03/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Note in particular the endless self-justification in the Almeda approach. I think that will undermine any attempt to find clever rules that allow paid editing where there is even the slightest possibility of conflict of interest. I'm sure any of us could rewrite that job description to make full use of Wikipedia jargon. And if somebody's income depends on them not getting the essential meaning behind our words, they may be able to keep it up for quite a while.
One problem I have with this kind of paid editing is that those who can afford to pay will have more NPOV, better written articles. Do we want the quality of parts of Wikipedia to be determined by who's paying for what?
Dirty hippy communist.
On 14/03/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/11/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
One problem I have with this kind of paid editing is that those who can afford to pay will have more NPOV, better written articles. Do we want the quality of parts of Wikipedia to be determined by who's paying for what?
Dirty hippy communist.
I prefer to think of myself as an inequality aversionist ;)
On 3/14/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 14/03/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/11/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
One problem I have with this kind of paid editing is that those who can afford to pay will have more NPOV, better written articles. Do we want the quality of parts of Wikipedia to be determined by who's paying for what?
Dirty hippy communist.
I prefer to think of myself as an inequality aversionist ;)
If it helps, most of our articles on corporations are pretty crappy. Paid edits fixing up those crappy articles would, in the short term, be reducing that inequality.
Steve
On 3/11/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
For those wondering why allowing paid editing might not be such a good idea, take a look at this:
That doesn't have much to do with the issue. We have previously discussed the possibility of groups employing or otherwise paying people to edit Wikipedia within its policies and guidelines. That's a tricky issue with all kinds of potential problems, but also potential benefits.
Quite separate is what to do about companies that blatantly abuse Wikipedia to spam a product or service, or to subvert NPOV. That's black and white: we don't want it, and we'll do all we can to prevent it.
Steve
William Pietri wrote:
For those wondering why allowing paid editing might not be such a good idea, take a look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Almeda_University#Paying_freelancers_to_re...
It's a long-term contract for a 7-days-a-week effort to replace negative edits with positive ones. Full marks to [[User:Randywombat]] for finding this.
Note in particular the endless self-justification in the Almeda approach. I think that will undermine any attempt to find clever rules that allow paid editing where there is even the slightest possibility of conflict of interest. I'm sure any of us could rewrite that job description to make full use of Wikipedia jargon. And if somebody's income depends on them not getting the essential meaning behind our words, they may be able to keep it up for quite a while.
It is not a simple matter that editing for money is wrong. What is wrong is editing to impose a particular point of view, or to insure a favorable article for the paying company. How we treat biased editing should have no connection with the payment arrangements between the company and the editor. Biased editing is wrong whether or not the person is being paid. In the Almeda case, would the edits somehow have been any better if they were by an unpaid person? As a third party we are not bound by the agreement between Almeda and the editor.
We don't need "clever rules" to allow paid editing. All we need to do is remind all editors that their work can be edited mercilessly, and that we are free to ignore whatever payment arrangements may exist. Why should we even need to know about the payment details? General rules should not be guided by our most abusive examples. Requiring a declaration of conflict of interest is perfectly acceptable; it makes us cautious in reviewing the edits that these people make. Using conflicts of interest as an excuse for holding an editor to a higher standard leaves us pushing our collective POV. It discourages people from declaring their conflicts, and has them looking for ways to circumvent Wikipedia policy.
In the long run there is benefit to be derived from paid editing. Take this example which may be more suited to Wikibooks. The writing in software manuals is often abysmal. I could very well see a company that has a great piece of software asking us to host a manual, paying a general editor to keep it organized, and paying us to host it with open wiki style editing. The net result could be a better manual at a fraction of the cost to the company.
There is no benefit to be derived for anyone from maintaining perpetual confrontation with the for-profit sector.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
It is not a simple matter that editing for money is wrong. What is wrong is editing to impose a particular point of view, or to insure a favorable article for the paying company. How we treat biased editing should have no connection with the payment arrangements between the company and the editor. Biased editing is wrong whether or not the person is being paid.
This is true, but paid editing opens up a can of worms that I don't think we have near the resources to deal with. In the US, PR is a $4 billion industry, growing at 9% annually. And that's a tiny fraction of the $500 billion that will be spent on advertising and marketing this year in the US.
I know many editors feel like we are an unstoppable legion, and when I look at what has been accomplished, I feel that way too. But I think we would be wise to avoid assuming that we can overmatch that kind of money. Indeed, the decision to turn on nofollow is an admission that we can't even keep out those bottom-feeders of the marketing world, the link spammers.
In the Almeda case, would the edits somehow have been any better if they were by an unpaid person?
I'm sure there will be fewer of them.
It is the very rare editor who will turn up daily to push for POV distortion. But as anybody who has ever talked to a telemarketer knows, people will do all sorts of things for money that they would never do on their own. Suddenly they're "just doing their job". Sure, it makes them miserable, and it makes the people they deal with miserable. But when you're two months behind on the car payment and your kid needs new shoes, you can learn to live with that.
We do not need those people editing on Wikipedia.
It discourages people from declaring their conflicts, and has them looking for ways to circumvent Wikipedia policy.
Any scrutiny at all does that. By making it clear that reputable editors and reputable companies should stay well away from conflict-of-interest for-pay editing, I believe many fewer people will even try, keeping the number of bad edits that slip through lower than if we have a gray area.
In the long run there is benefit to be derived from paid editing. Take this example which may be more suited to Wikibooks. [...]
If I thought we were lacking for edits on topics of commercial interest, I'd find this more persuasive. But I don't think our coverage of, say, companies or products or bands is lacking in raw contributions. Wikibooks is welcome to make up their own rules, naturally.
There is no benefit to be derived for anyone from maintaining perpetual confrontation with the for-profit sector.
I don't think we need to make it a perpetual confrontation.
If we tell people paid editing is forbidden, most people will get this. PR people already get that with journalists just fine. Lobbyists and political contributors get it less, but I think that's precisely because the fuzzier rules allow plenty of room for the amoral or cash-hungry to justify it to themselves. Continuously arguing with full-time paid PR people over exactly how distorted they can get away with being, that's perpetual confrontation.
William
William Pietri wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
It is not a simple matter that editing for money is wrong. What is wrong is editing to impose a particular point of view, or to insure a favorable article for the paying company. How we treat biased editing should have no connection with the payment arrangements between the company and the editor. Biased editing is wrong whether or not the person is being paid.
This is true, but paid editing opens up a can of worms that I don't think we have near the resources to deal with. In the US, PR is a $4 billion industry, growing at 9% annually. And that's a tiny fraction of the $500 billion that will be spent on advertising and marketing this year in the US.
Sure. But I think that the PR industry is most successful when it can control the message, and when nobody is so openly disagreeing with them as happens here.
I know many editors feel like we are an unstoppable legion, and when I look at what has been accomplished, I feel that way too. But I think we would be wise to avoid assuming that we can overmatch that kind of money. Indeed, the decision to turn on nofollow is an admission that we can't even keep out those bottom-feeders of the marketing world, the link spammers.
That they can overmatch us with their superior funding only works when we accept that as a criterion. It's much easier to demand substantiation for a company's claims here than by putting up picket lines to block entrance into the company's headquarters.
In the Almeda case, would the edits somehow have been any better if they were by an unpaid person?
I'm sure there will be fewer of them.
Sure, but that's still only one article. Were they involved in any other articles? Sooner or later the company has to arrive at the conclusion that such a tactic is not cost-effective. The smart ones will find more collaborative ways of dealing with us.
It is the very rare editor who will turn up daily to push for POV distortion. But as anybody who has ever talked to a telemarketer knows, people will do all sorts of things for money that they would never do on their own. Suddenly they're "just doing their job". Sure, it makes them miserable, and it makes the people they deal with miserable. But when you're two months behind on the car payment and your kid needs new shoes, you can learn to live with that.
We do not need those people editing on Wikipedia.
I suppose I do telemarketers a favour by dealing with them abruptly; that gives them an opportunity to get at other victims more quickly. Perhaps the socially responsible thing should be to keep them on the line longer talking about anything but their product. :-)
True enough that we don't need those who would edit out of desparation, but I still see these as a small minority.
It discourages people from declaring their conflicts, and has them looking for ways to circumvent Wikipedia policy.
Any scrutiny at all does that. By making it clear that reputable editors and reputable companies should stay well away from conflict-of-interest for-pay editing, I believe many fewer people will even try, keeping the number of bad edits that slip through lower than if we have a gray area.
The reputable companies are less likely to go too far because they understand the consequences. Almeda's success does not depend on being reputable. Some companies could very easily provide indirect payment to an employee by letting go home an hour early so that he can edit the company's Wikipedia article from his home computer.
We can only control internal processes and rules. I can't see how attempts to establish criteria based on a person's outside life can ever get anywhere. We have had a thread on the verification of a person's credentials. One can at least see a potential benefit to claiming certain credentials; that benefit can be a motivation for verifying those credentials. By contrast, what apparent benefit is there to expressing a conflict of interest.
In the long run there is benefit to be derived from paid editing. Take this example which may be more suited to Wikibooks. [...]
If I thought we were lacking for edits on topics of commercial interest, I'd find this more persuasive. But I don't think our coverage of, say, companies or products or bands is lacking in raw contributions. Wikibooks is welcome to make up their own rules, naturally.
My example of software manuals was only the first thing to leap to mind.
There is no benefit to be derived for anyone from maintaining perpetual confrontation with the for-profit sector.
I don't think we need to make it a perpetual confrontation.
If we tell people paid editing is forbidden, most people will get this. PR people already get that with journalists just fine. Lobbyists and political contributors get it less, but I think that's precisely because the fuzzier rules allow plenty of room for the amoral or cash-hungry to justify it to themselves. Continuously arguing with full-time paid PR people over exactly how distorted they can get away with being, that's perpetual confrontation.
I'm far more partial to finding accomodations than blindly saying "No!" I'm perhaps more concerned about cutting off positive opportunities.
Ec
On 3/12/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
We do not need those people editing on Wikipedia.
No one has ever suggested we would allow the type of behaviour that Almeda is attempting. There is a world of difference between someone attempting to expand or improve a subject field, for remuneration, and someone repeatedly working on the perceived bias of one particular article.
There are all sorts of ways we could handle this. Like "You can pay someone to edit articles on your behalf. But you have to tell us first, and if we tell you to stop, you have to stop." What's wrong with that?
Steve
On 12/03/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/12/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
We do not need those people editing on Wikipedia.
No one has ever suggested we would allow the type of behaviour that Almeda is attempting. There is a world of difference between someone attempting to expand or improve a subject field, for remuneration, and someone repeatedly working on the perceived bias of one particular article.
It's a big grey continuum and really, in practice they do in fact push it as absolutely far as they can and further. Ask Danny about the sort of calls he gets from aggrieved PR people upset that their on-topic links and exciting accurate content has been removed and they've been blocked ... then he looks and it's spam spam spam spam without even the chips. You're speaking in theory, but the reality is already *horrible*.
There are all sorts of ways we could handle this. Like "You can pay someone to edit articles on your behalf. But you have to tell us first, and if we tell you to stop, you have to stop." What's wrong with that?
They don't stop and they won't stop. I'm guessing here, you understand. But as has been pointed out before in this thread, the whole point of PR is POV-pushing; it's antithetical to Wikipedia.
- d.
On 3/12/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
They don't stop and they won't stop. I'm guessing here, you understand. But as has been pointed out before in this thread, the whole point of PR is POV-pushing; it's antithetical to Wikipedia.
1. Not all paid editing is PR. Do you agree?
2. If people won't stop doing something if we ask them to, then it doesn't matter what rules we create for them. We can focus our attention on people who do want to edit in good faith and work with our community, rather than those who work against it.
Steve
On 12/03/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/12/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
They don't stop and they won't stop. I'm guessing here, you understand. But as has been pointed out before in this thread, the whole point of PR is POV-pushing; it's antithetical to Wikipedia.
- Not all paid editing is PR. Do you agree?
Oh, definitely - I gave an example before, where institutes fund someone to write articles in a language's Wikipedia.
But when a company pays someone to write articles about them, that's PR however you slice it.
It would be nice for companies to fund people just writing stuff. I suspect it would take an intermediary so the financial effect of not writing nice things about the sponsor would be buffered suitably.
- If people won't stop doing something if we ask them to, then it
doesn't matter what rules we create for them. We can focus our attention on people who do want to edit in good faith and work with our community, rather than those who work against it.
I'm viewing this 'no paid editing' article as another way of phrasing existing rules.
On 3/12/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
But when a company pays someone to write articles about them, that's PR however you slice it.
Yes. Now, suppose we made the following rules: 1. You can't create the article yourself - go through AfC. 2. You have to notify us before you edit the article, and tell us which editor will be making the changes. 3. We can and will block that editor if we feel that the changes are not in conformance with our policies.
Would that not reduce the problem?
I'm not necessarily opposed to banning all "PR" editing, but I wonder if it would be more effective to tolerate it and monitor it, rather than forcing it "underground".
It would be nice for companies to fund people just writing stuff. I suspect it would take an intermediary so the financial effect of not writing nice things about the sponsor would be buffered suitably.
Yeah. And to be honest, I don't think a small amount of COI is that major a problem. If Microsoft wants to fund someone to thoroughly document all sorts of parts of Windows that we have scrappy coverage of - and in the process make themselves look good - well, is that so bad? For many companies, a well-written, comprehensive, spell-checked, roughly neutral article about themselves is probably a reward in itself, regardless of whether it meets their PR goals. Currently, if there's a really crappy article about a company, it doesn't sound like there's any real way they can improve it. They can post requests on the talk page, but if no one follows them up?
I'm viewing this 'no paid editing' article as another way of phrasing existing rules.
WP:COI barely touches on paid editing. What other "existing rules" cover this?
Steve
On 12/03/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not necessarily opposed to banning all "PR" editing, but I wonder if it would be more effective to tolerate it and monitor it, rather than forcing it "underground".
That's the idea of pointing them at help desk with article content concerns.
I'm viewing this 'no paid editing' article as another way of phrasing existing rules.
WP:COI barely touches on paid editing. What other "existing rules" cover this?
It has to come from COI (whether that's [[WP:COI]] or the idea of COI itself). In my opinion.
- d.
If we were to tolerate paid editing to any extent, we'd run the risk of having WP:OWN situations developing.
Volunteer editor: Stop inserting that statement about Michael Jackson being a loveable, friendly, fluffy ball of joy. Paid editor: I'm paid to do this. This is my job. STFU. Volunteer editor: Oh, okay. I'll just leave you to it, then.
~Mark Ryan
On 3/11/07, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
If we were to tolerate paid editing to any extent, we'd run the risk of having WP:OWN situations developing.
Volunteer editor: Stop inserting that statement about Michael Jackson being a loveable, friendly, fluffy ball of joy. Paid editor: I'm paid to do this. This is my job. STFU. Volunteer editor: Oh, okay. I'll just leave you to it, then.
But we probably already have paid editors, aside from the Microsoft guy. The issue is whether they conform to our standards, and not those of some other entity. Purely biased editing is easy to spot. Edits which aren't purely biased are... well... neutral.
-Stevertigo
But we probably already have paid editors, aside from the Microsoft guy. The issue is whether they conform to our standards, and not those of some other entity. Purely biased editing is easy to spot. Edits which aren't purely biased are... well... neutral.
I should add that certain policies like the almost defuct WP:RS, (now WP:RSWP) are laced with subjectives ("reliablility") and don't make it any easier for us to tell the difference between someone removing something for a legitimate reason (like outlandish uncorroborated claims) and illegitimate reasons (like misapplying BLP standards to regular articles) .
-Stevertigo
On 3/12/07, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
If we were to tolerate paid editing to any extent, we'd run the risk of having WP:OWN situations developing.
Volunteer editor: Stop inserting that statement about Michael Jackson being a loveable, friendly, fluffy ball of joy. Paid editor: I'm paid to do this. This is my job. STFU. Volunteer editor: Oh, okay. I'll just leave you to it, then.
Volunteer editor: Stop inserting that statement about Michael Jacksonbeing a loveable, friendly, fluffy ball of joy. Paid editor: I'm paid to do this. This is my job. STFU. Volunteer editor: Exactly. See [[WP:PAID]]. I've asked you to stop once. If you continue you may be blocked.
Steve
On 3/11/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/12/07, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
Volunteer editor: Stop inserting that statement about Michael Jackson
being a loveable, friendly, fluffy ball of joy. Paid editor: I'm paid to do this. This is my job. STFU. Volunteer editor: Oh, okay. I'll just leave you to it, then.
Volunteer editor: Stop inserting that statement about Michael Jacksonbeing a loveable, friendly, fluffy ball of joy. Paid editor: I'm paid to do this. This is my job. STFU. Volunteer editor: Exactly. See [[WP:PAID]]. I've asked you to stop once. If you continue you may be blocked.
Volunteer editor: Stop inserting that statement about Michael Jacksonbeing a loveable, friendly, fluffy ball of joy. Paid editor: But it helps balance out the child molestation stuff. Volunteer editor: [[NPOV]] doesnt support that view. Paid editor: But its ATT to his mother. Volunteer editor: Its an opinion by his mother. See [[WP:WWIN]] Paid editor: STFU! Volunteer editor: Exactly. See [[WP:CIVIL]].
-Stevertigo
stevertigo wrote:
On 3/11/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/12/07, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
Volunteer editor: Stop inserting that statement about Michael Jackson
being a loveable, friendly, fluffy ball of joy. Paid editor: I'm paid to do this. This is my job. STFU. Volunteer editor: Oh, okay. I'll just leave you to it, then.
Volunteer editor: Stop inserting that statement about Michael Jacksonbeing a loveable, friendly, fluffy ball of joy. Paid editor: I'm paid to do this. This is my job. STFU. Volunteer editor: Exactly. See [[WP:PAID]]. I've asked you to stop once. If you continue you may be blocked.
Volunteer editor: Stop inserting that statement about Michael Jacksonbeing a loveable, friendly, fluffy ball of joy. Paid editor: But it helps balance out the child molestation stuff. Volunteer editor: [[NPOV]] doesnt support that view. Paid editor: But its ATT to his mother. Volunteer editor: Its an opinion by his mother. See [[WP:WWIN]] Paid editor: STFU! Volunteer editor: Exactly. See [[WP:CIVIL]].
There's plenty to hang these guys with before we even get to the question of their being paid editors.
Ec
On 12/03/07, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
If we were to tolerate paid editing to any extent, we'd run the risk of having WP:OWN situations developing. Volunteer editor: Stop inserting that statement about Michael Jackson being a loveable, friendly, fluffy ball of joy. Paid editor: I'm paid to do this. This is my job. STFU. Volunteer editor: Oh, okay. I'll just leave you to it, then.
Huh. Judging by form to date:
Paid editor: I'm paid to do this. This is my job. STFU. Volunteer editor: FUCKYOUIWON'TDOWHATYOUTELLME *revert* *revert* *research evil things done by company for article*
- d.
My thought is to require a central list, and anyone who's being paid to edit Wikipedia needs to be registered on that list with username, who's paying them to edit, and the reason that they are being paid to do this.
A couple semi-plausible examples: *[[User:LibraryGuy]] - American Library Association - Adding information about books, adding Association for Library Collections & Technical Services suggested classifications to book articles *[[User:TraderMike]] - New York Stock Exchange - Create articles on NYSE-traded companies that lack them, make sure all company articles contain ticker symbol, update stock-related statistics in articles
Of course, any stated objective that's in conflict with our goals is right out, and they should keep pretty strictly to what they say they're going to do. Editing for pay using any account except those listed on the central page ([[WP:Paid editors]]?) would be strictly prohibited, and it should be made clear that even registered ones still are subject to intense scrutiny: the list would have a link to each of their user contributions, so we can just go down the list of them, checking their contribs, and judge what they're up to.
No matter what, people will be paid to edit. The questions is whetehr they'll bother to tell us.... let's make a registration requirement, and ban the hell out of anyone who violates it, and see where that takes us.
-- Jake Nelson [[en:User:Jake Nelson]]
Jake Nelson wrote:
No matter what, people will be paid to edit. The questions is whetehr they'll bother to tell us.... let's make a registration requirement, and ban the hell out of anyone who violates it, and see where that takes us.
This is the best possible solution, I think. Encourage people to be open about it, and we'll run into far fewer problems.
-Jeff
Jeff Raymond wrote:
Jake Nelson wrote:
No matter what, people will be paid to edit. The questions is whetehr they'll bother to tell us.... let's make a registration requirement, and ban the hell out of anyone who violates it, and see where that takes us.
This is the best possible solution, I think. Encourage people to be open about it, and we'll run into far fewer problems.
What's encouraging about it?
The clear need to be cautious about corporate behavioue should not translate into anti-corporate paranoia. Most of the stuff that will come from corporations will probably be fairly middle-of-the-road and informative. We already have plenty of rules for dealing with the bad actors.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
What's encouraging about it?
More, better content? More detailed articles about organizations that may not get written otherwise? A more comprehensive encyclopedia?
The clear need to be cautious about corporate behavioue should not translate into anti-corporate paranoia.
Yet that's mostly where it comes from. Maybe not from you, but it's certainly rooted there.
Most of the stuff that will come from corporations will probably be fairly middle-of-the-road and informative. We already have plenty of rules for dealing with the bad actors.
Right, so why be so firm about trying to discourage it?
-Jeff
Jeff Raymond wrote:
Let me repeat what I was responding to
No matter what, people will be paid to edit. The questions is whetehr
they'll bother to tell us.... let's make a registration requirement, and ban the hell out of anyone who violates it, and see where that takes us.
This is the best possible solution, I think. Encourage people to be open about it, and we'll run into far fewer problems.
Jeff Raymond wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
What's encouraging about it?
More, better content? More detailed articles about organizations that may not get written otherwise? A more comprehensive encyclopedia?
When someone starts from a position of "banning the hell out of anyon" how can that possibly be encouraging? I very much prefer to assume good faith I know that it was Jake's idea and not yours, and please forgive me if I wrongly interpreted your response as a support of that attitude. Your most recent comment is more in line with what I support.
The clear need to be cautious about corporate behavioue should not translate into anti-corporate paranoia.
Yet that's mostly where it comes from. Maybe not from you, but it's certainly rooted there.
Most of the stuff that will
come from corporations will probably be fairly middle-of-the-road and informative. We already have plenty of rules for dealing with the bad actors.
Right, so why be so firm about trying to discourage it?
Discourage? I support reasonable editing from the corporations. A system for knowing where these edits are coming from is fundamentally a good thing. What really bothers me is the desire of some to keep such a tight control over the process. They appear frighteningly intent on rooting out every bit that they consider to be against the rules. Putting these corporate spokespeople constantly under a microscope and treating them like schoolkids does absolutely nothing to build trust between ourselves. It does not motivate them to work with us.
I find it bizarre now that I, an old fart leftist with sympathies for Marxist causes. The whole debate with some of these doctrinaire and utopian libertarians have a peculiar parallel to the issues that Lenin faced with left-wing communists. See http://www.marxists.org/subject/left-wing/ Sometimes these people who take strong anti-corporate, anti-commercial attitudes strike me as though they just haven't thought things through, and I end up defending corporations. :-[
Ec
On 3/13/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote
When someone starts from a position of "banning the hell out of anyon" how can that possibly be encouraging? I very much prefer to assume good faith I know that it was Jake's idea and not yours, and please forgive me if I wrongly interpreted your response as a support of that attitude.
You've got my position completely wrong. I was responding to the argument that states we shouldn't, ever, allow anyone to edit Wikipedia for money. My comment about banning the hell out of people who /don't/ comply was meant as a moderated version of the position that would otherwise suggest doing the same to those who /would/ comply with the simple registration I suggested.
And I'm not talking about some "bureacracy", I'd hate to see that happen. Just talking about a list, that anyone who's being paid to edit should list their user account, who's paying them for it, and a brief statement of why ("[[User:Someoneorother]] - anonymous benefactor - To improve general quality of articles"). No "just these fifty questions, drug test, and a background check" like RFA, no "is the Ottoman Empire really /notable/? I never heard of it before, and I don't like the sound of it... DELETE!" VFD-like arguments... it's not a "candidates to be allowed". I don't think that those three pieces of information are some onerous burden.
Believe me, I'm thoroughly against a red-tape approach... IRL, I have to deal with McCain-Feingold day in, day out... where it can be a crime to talk to a friend in general terms about how your day went, if said friend's day job is with an organization you're banned from coordinating with...
-- Jake Nelson [[en:User:Jake Nelson]]
Hi, Ray. You were speaking about groups, and I'm not sure to what extent you see me as in the groups. But the same issues have come up on the proposal talk page, so I'll take the opportunity to make my position clear.
Ray Saintonge wrote:
What really bothers me is the desire of some to keep such a tight control over the process. They appear frighteningly intent on rooting out every bit that they consider to be against the rules.
In my case, this is not puritanism or process wonkery. It's pragmatic. Journalists have a carefully evolved code of ethics around conflict of interest, and careful mechanisms to separate funding from conflict of interest. I believe we need roughly the same code and equivalent mechanisms, and for basically the same reasons.
[...] Sometimes these people who take strong anti-corporate, anti-commercial attitudes strike me as though they just haven't thought things through, and I end up defending corporations. :-[
For the record, I am neither anti-corporate nor anti-commercial. I've been in business for myself for a decade, and a large fraction of my family runs or has run their own businesses. I make most of my money producing intellectual property for pay, and a portion of that is writing for pay. I have also written for paid publication, and I'm sure I'll do more. I think writing for pay is great. I think people should be able to write on Wikipedia for pay -- as long as that money goes through the Foundation in a way that creates a Chinese wall.
I think we are people who are trying to serve the public. We need to be fair, and we need to be seen as fair. Professionals who depend on that all have rules about who they can take money from. Journalists, who we are most akin to, have very strict rules. We ignore their example at our peril.
William
On 3/13/07, Jake Nelson duskwave@gmail.com wrote:
My thought is to require a central list, and anyone who's being paid to edit Wikipedia needs to be registered on that list with username, who's paying them to edit, and the reason that they are being paid to do this.
I would keep the requirements not too onerous. We *want* them to disclose what they're doing, because they're going to do it anyway. So ask them nicely to register themselves. Then quietly keep on eye on them, and just revert them whenever they violate our policies, politely.
The whole idea here is that when they turn some crappy stub into a longer article, it may certainly be slanted towards their viewpoint. But it's a lot easier to just deslant it, than it would have been to write it from scratch. So we let them build it slanted - and when they're finished, we just gently nudge it upright. They do all the hard work. We get the benefit.
Steve
On 12/03/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
They do all the hard work. We get the benefit.
I like your train of thought :D
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 3/13/07, Jake Nelson duskwave@gmail.com wrote:
My thought is to require a central list, and anyone who's being paid to edit Wikipedia needs to be registered on that list with username, who's paying them to edit, and the reason that they are being paid to do this.
I would keep the requirements not too onerous. We *want* them to disclose what they're doing, because they're going to do it anyway. So ask them nicely to register themselves. Then quietly keep on eye on them, and just revert them whenever they violate our policies, politely.
I've been around too long not to be worried about those of our colleagues who believe that firing squads are a pre-trial solution.
The whole idea here is that when they turn some crappy stub into a longer article, it may certainly be slanted towards their viewpoint. But it's a lot easier to just deslant it, than it would have been to write it from scratch. So we let them build it slanted - and when they're finished, we just gently nudge it upright. They do all the hard work. We get the benefit.
There's a lot of perfectly neutral information that companies can give us: Who's on the Board of Directors, where they have facilities, what they produce, technical specifications of their products, ...
Ec
Jake Nelson wrote:
My thought is to require a central list, and anyone who's being paid to edit Wikipedia needs to be registered on that list with username, who's paying them to edit, and the reason that they are being paid to do this.
Such a proposal is more characteristic of someone who wants building a mind-numbing bureaucracy to be more important than building an encyclopedia.
No matter what, people will be paid to edit. The questions is whetehr they'll bother to tell us.... let's make a registration requirement, and ban the hell out of anyone who violates it, and see where that takes us.
Who would be so damned foolish as to register under those circumstances?
Ec
A discussion about a possible "official policy seal" for our policy pages to replace the green tick mark:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ WP:VPP#Proposal_for_a_new_logo_for_policy_pages
-- Jossi
On 3/12/07, jf_wikipedia jf_wikipedia@mac.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ WP:VPP#Proposal_for_a_new_logo_for_policy_pages
A non wrapped version...