[Foundation-l] Paid editing comes of age

[Risker]

On 18 November 2010 10:42, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at fairpoint.net> wrote:

> > On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 14:09, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 18 November 2010 11:30, Â <wiki-list at phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Any one signed up yet?
> >> > http://www.ereleases.com/pr/visibility-wikipedia-easier-43135
> >
> > I could find anything wrong in their code of ethics
> > http://www.wikipediaexperts.com/codeofethics.html
> >
> > --
> > Amir E. Aharoni
> >
>
> Neither do I, which bodes problems for the business. They hire you to
> break Wikipedia rules, not follow them. The question remains: is paid
> editing which does conform to Wikipedia policies and guidelines
> acceptable, even welcome?
>

My teeth grate when I think that some people are getting paid to do what so
many of us do simply for the joy of sharing.  Having said that, I can
certainly understand why some article subjects have tired of depending on
our rather inefficient methods of ensuring that articles on notable subjects
are accurate, unbiased, well-sourced and relatively complete.  I have
increasing difficulty rationalizing the deprecation of "paid" editing when a
goodly number of what are assumed to be "paid-for" articles conform more
closely to our policies and guidelines than what volunteer editors have
created - or never got around to creating, for that matter. (I'll note this
holds true for more than just English Wikipedia, as I have heard reports
that there's significant bias on other Wikipedias as well.)  Anyone who's
tried to rebalance an article that gives undue weight to negative issues, or
to remove salacious trivia about a BLP subject, knows how incredibly
frustrating it can be to bring articles into line with policy.

Risker/Anne