On 8/22/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I said "when we detect them." When we
don't, they do us harm.
Logically, more secretive activity means more harm. Furthermore, there
is always the risk of false positives and unfair accusations.
Lets look at the possibilities:
-In a world we where tell PR Firms not to edit:
* PR firm follows the rules, doesn't edit.
**Pool of editing people decreased
**Harm of biased insertions avoided
or
* PR firm ignores the rules, secretly inserts biased material.
**We detect it: Harm is mitigated.
**We fail to detect it: harm remains.
-In a world where we invite PR firms to edit after jumping through hoops:
*PR firm follows the rules, edits (with boiler plates and notices)
**Editing community size increased by the addition of editors driven
by monetary interests in certain POVs.
**Rightfully distrustful users overscrutnize every word, things we
would normally accept are rejected
**Worst of the bias removed, their ability to use Wikipedia for PR
mostly suppressed.
**Still some bias and POV leak through, but now through a blessed channel
**Patient and well funded PR firms are able to wikilawyer to game the
system, because we have no blanket prohibition.
* PR firm ignores the rules, secretly inserts biased material.
**Feel justified because we've permitted them to edit, but not allowed
them to actually accomplish their goal.
**We detect it: Harm is mitigated.
**We fail to detect it: harm remains.
To me it seems like a simple question: Is it in the project's interest
to invite a group of editors who for the purpose of enabling their
outside agenda? If our agendas coincide, they can just edit as
individuals... it's only in the case that they differ that we must
consider here.
To me it seems obvious that any successful system of inviting edits by
PR people would ultimately permit them to only make the same edits
they could make as normal editors (and likely a bit less due to
community paranoia). The PR firms that wish to insert bias will
quickly learn to do it in secret, so we've gained nothing... and we
lose the high-ground position of a blanket rejection policy.
We have an
existing framework where anyone can 'achieve their aims',
so long as they are aligned with the aims of the project.
That would suggest that we should try to incorporate neutral, factual
information that they provide.
We accept neutral and factual edits from any person.
[snip]
We do not accommodate "sock puppets", but we
accommodate users whose
behavior is slightly harmful (rather than being completely harmful,
such as vandals) by trying to integrate them into the community and
providing a safe framework of interaction (as well as a clear record
of their past activities). This reduces the risk of turning them
_into_ sock puppets, and thus, the risk of more harmful activity
within our community.
Do we have any data to back up the position that use of hard
enforcement typically turns a slightly harmful user into willy on
wheels? As far as I'm aware, this position is just speculation. I
won't argue that being soft may allow a slightly harmful person to go
on contributing while remaining slightly harmful, but I'm not aware of
any solid evidence that being hard makes them into something worse,
and I'm aware of fairly little evidence of slightly harmful folks
becoming unharmful.
Analogously, the WP:COI process suggests encouraging
PR organizations
whose behavior we consider _slightly_ harmful to work "within the
system" in a fair and responsible manner, rather than turning them
towards secrecy and disruption in ways which are _more_ harmful
because they, like sock puppetry, breed an atmosphere of suspicion and
are generally harder to trace and detect.
[merge]
I should also add that, once a user has decided to
"become a sock
puppet", they will then also often feel no longer any obligation to
follow _any_ rules or processes of the community, except in the
interest of avoiding detection and punishment. A user who, in
Gregory's words, is branded a "criminal" does not have much respect
for policy.
Should we really expect the same behavior from bored 13 year old boys
in London, and judgement proof nationalist trying to do their part in
their nations wars via Wikipedia, as highly funded US corporations
with substantial liability and a reputation to protect?
PR firms can't effectively completely change their identity twice a
week... doing so would substantially obstruct their ability to obtain
and maintain customer relationships.
On the other hand, if we allow someone like MyWikiBiz
to submit
articles through an open process, it will be hard for them to cry foul
when a fluff piece is turned into a factual article incorporating
criticism.
It's hard for them to cry foul when their business is outright
prohibited as well.
Wikipedia has a tradition of soft responses to slightly
harmful
behavior, which I believe to be the only appropriate strategy in a
technically open environment.
No one has proposed a depature from soft responses to editors.
In fact, I'm arguing that our handling of editors works well enough
that we don't have to create a special "permission to promote"
compromise in order to reduce the amount of secret editing that will
happen.
Our wiki's were an interesting target for spammers long before they
were an interesting target for press agencies. We did not respond to
this activity by creating permission to spam and "This page has been
edited by an identified spammer". We've addressed it with diligent
editors, a few technical measures, cooperation with others (like
google), and by showing respect for our project by having little
tolerance. ... and I believe (and can substantiate with data) that
our efforts with basic SEO and spammers have been remarkably
effective.
I have seen no evidence why PR firms would be less responsive to a
similar handling. If anything they should be more willing to accept
that no means no.