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