[WikiEN-l] Is editing for payment a fundamentally problematic conflict of interest?

[Guy Chapman aka JzG]

On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 00:37:03 +1100, "Steve Bennett"
<stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:

>> Yes.  Gregory Kohs also thought it was fine to edit for pay, we banned
>> him because lots of people disagreed, he was arrogant about it, which
>> drove off those who might otherwise have agreed and a review of his
>> edits showed that they were largely PR pieces or directory entries,
>> not serious attempts at creating neutral articles.

>I don't know if that's all true (the one or two articles I looked at
>of his were objectively much better than the void that had existed
>before them), but in any case, bad edits are bad edits - regardless of
>whether anyone was paid to make them. The question is, do good edits
>become bad edits just because they were paid for?

Hmmm.  No, I think the question is, can we assume that paid edits are
good edits.  If there is a paid editor, what we actually have to do is
shadow them to check for subtle bias - if I were paid to write an
article I would not be 100% confident I could write without subtle
bias, especially if sources were spoonfed. How do we know that the
sources have not been carefully selected to present a desired
perspective?  It would be rather naive to believe they had not been so
selected, in fact.

>> I have no doubt that many employees of companies edit their company's
>> articles.  Most of these edits are not really COI, since they are not
>> editing *as representatives of the company* or being paid to edit.

>They're also probably not neutral. Does it matter? If not, would it
>matter if they were paid to make them?

I don't know.  Companies have disgruntled employees and enthusiastic
evangelists.  Would it matter if they were paid to write?  Yes,
because only the evangelists would be paid.

>> Actually I have no problem in principle with people occasionally
>> editing an article where they have some minor conflict of interest,
>Me neither.
>> but edits by the marketing or PR people tend to be uncritical and
>> problematic, and being paid for editing specified content is certainly

>Yes, about as bad as people writing about their own religion, home
>town, favourite basketball team, singer or painter. If only that
>problem was confined to professional editors, Wikipedia would be much
>better off.

No, worse.  I live in Reading, Berkshire.  I feel no particular
loyalty to the town, it's just a place where I live.  What if Reading
paid me to edit their Wikipedia article?  Would I write that it's a
boring drug-riddled self-obsessed town with a terrible shopping centre
and extortionate house prices, or would I write something a little
more flattering?

>> incompatible with Wikipedia's ethos - you have a situation where the
>> company will necessarily demand or expect a certain tone of editing;
>> would they pay up cheerfully if during your researches you found and
>> included a fact which reflected badly on them?  Too many problems down
>> that road, I think.

>Is anyone suggesting that the Wikimedia foundation take money from
>companies and edit on their behalf? If a company pays someone, such as
>an employee, to edit an article on their behalf, then that's an issue
>between them. Our issue is to keep all articles NPOV, whether they
>were written on commission or not.

No articles should be written on commission.  I believe Jimbo Has
Spoken on that issue.

Guy (JzG)
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG