I really dont think the Whopper comparison is a good one because the change they made was reasonable and at least more consistent with my understanding of the english language as used here with us having distinct difference between what is a sandwich and what is a burger. The Whopper comment does highlight that the differences in the way in which we all use english is a significant failing of the english wikipedia to address.
We also have many editors who are paid to edit content on wikipedia within their role for a number of organisations not only do we condone it but we actively encourage such editors. I have trouble labelling all corporate editors as dishonest in their work didnt we once assume good faith until we had evidence to the contrary. What makes a glam editor more worthy of that assumption, or any other random editor? Paid editors have the ability to update content regularly and provide additional access to information, images and media that can enhance the encyclopaedic content. I'm sure nobody would complain if a paid editor put the original 1800's recipe for coke or 1980's recipe for new coke on wiki source.
What is being argued against isnt paid editting but rather just the dishonest representation of a subject on wikipedia for a fee by persons who believe they have the skills to avoid detection while manipulating the content. Paid editors who endeavour to act in good faith should be engaged with not beaten about with the same stick we use for dishonest editors who charge a fee. It actually be more effective for WMF to find a way engage a group of trusted, experienced editors to be available to address corporate requests for a fee and take the market away from the dishonest third party brokers of content.
On 14 April 2017 at 15:39, Natacha Rault n.rault@me.com wrote:
Hi there, I agree that we should take action and make it real hard for any corporation financially to achieve this result.
Legal action is one thing, but the first thing to be done is to ensure that all affairs of the type are detected and publicly outed, on the very articles if there is large media coverage. I would be in favor of a banner over the article stating the article has been targeted for promotional purposes by the company.
Maybe we should start a whole independent wikipedia project proposing a « conflict of interest rating » just as wikirating does it for financial markets.
James, I dont believe this can be done at chapter level (at the current state of things) : it must be addressed by the WMF and the communities.
Regards (I’ve just added sourced chunks of the controversies on the French wiki by the way, maybe we could ask the community to do it in every language?)
Nattes à chat
Le 14 avr. 2017 à 07:49, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com a écrit :
With respect to Pine's request for more legal support to help deal with undisclosed paid editing issues, to that I strongly agree.
To better address these concerns we need the WMF, communities, and affiliate organizations to collaborate. It is a difficult problem to address.
James
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 11:09 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I tend to think along James' lines more than Risker's.
Responding to Risker:
It seems to me that the key point that you're missing is that Burger
King
altered Wikipedia content in order to execute this campaign. This
wasn't a
simple case of an organization reusing existing Wikipedia content; the organization appears to have altered Wikipedia content to suit their purposes regardless of an obvious conflict of interest with Wikipedia's purpose of being an educational resource rather than an advertising platform.
It seems to me that entities of varying sizes -- from a start-up brand
that
wants to make itself look important by having a Wikipedia article, to
large
corporations and government officials -- will continue to alter
Wikipedia
content in ways that are inappropriate and do a disservice to our
readers
(including advertising, inserting "alternative facts" for medical and political content, and eliminating negative information that certain
people
and organizations find inconvenient) and cost editors' and
administrators'
collective time and attention, until there is a financial price that is
put
on this kind of behavior that is large enough to deter them. I don't see why we should stand idly by as our products' quality and trustworthiness are degraded and our resources are diverted. I'm hoping that WMF's enforcement actions in this domain would more than pay for themselves through financial penalties that WMF extracts from the wrongdoers.
Pine _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe