Laura Hale wrote:
I think Rupert's proposal does not go far enough in terms of addressing the potential conflict of interests by contributors because it focuses exclusively on paid edits while failing to address other conflict of interests problems that lead to neutrality issues. While anyone should be free to edit, the edit box should contain a dynamic box at the bottom that includes a potential list of conflicts that create bias problems based on the conflict. The user, before submitting their edit, should click each box verifying what their (potential) advocacy problems are so that their edits may be vetted. This includes gender, religion, nationality, ethnicity, political alignment, Political party membership, academic discipline, level of education, yearly earnings, city you live in, and employer.
So if you are editing an article about Serbian politics, you would be asked if you are a Serb nationalist, a Croatian nationalist, a right wing political party member, a left wing political party member, male, Christian, Muslim, have a PhD, work for the government, work for for a non-profit, if you live in Belgrade, etc. This would increase Wikipedia's transparency and accountability of editors for their actions. It would actively discourage advocacy of all types, including the paid type.
Hmmm, I'm running into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law with this post. I honestly can't tell if you're being serious here.
MZMcBride