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

[Ray Saintonge]

Marc Riddell wrote:

>>>On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 "Jaap Vermeulen" wrote:
>>>      
>>>
>>>>I have recently been approached by an organisation to improve articles
>>>>related to the organisation in question (not create new ones). I would
>>>>receive money for doing so.
>>>>        
>>>>
>On 3/4/07, Guy Chapman wrote:
>  
>
>>>Ask them for the sources form which this should be drawn, post them to
>>>the Talk pages, and request that the company donate the money to the
>>>Foundation.  How would that do?
>>>      
>>>
>on 3/4/07 7:24 AM, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
>  
>
>>If they are as aware of the rules as they appear to be, there's little
>>problems, but you have to be very careful with your editing. And yes, do it
>>in full disclosure. I like the idea JzG posted better though. Even good
>>editors can lose their neutrality when money is involved.
>>    
>>
>Huh!?!
>
>How would giving away the money you are paid for doing work make that work
>any more credible? What about the credibility and integrity of the person
>doing that work? Ever hear of trust!?!
>
>As for "good editors losing their neutrality when money is involved" - to
>make this statement work you need to remove the word "good".
>
I agree that giving this earned money to WMF as some kind of Act of 
Contrition is grossly unrealistic.  By and large I find that supporters 
of open access to intellectual property in its various forms have not 
grasped the larger economic environment that would make this work.  The 
people who contribute still to make a living, and the number of those 
contributors that believe in a Marxist paradise where everyone gets what 
he needs are few and far between.  Plese someone, tell me what economic 
model is going to keep this all alive over an extended time.

Conflicts of Interest, and how we deal with corporations seriously need 
an injection of common sense.  Is it really to our advantage to have 
people declare their conflicts of interest only to be put to a series of 
arcane restrictions.  Under those circumstances if I were in that 
position I wouldn't declare my conflict, and just go quietly about my 
work.  If another editor complains that my edits are too favorable to 
the company I would have no problem apologizing quietly, knowing full 
well that my more subtle biases will go by unnoticed.  With the recent 
EssJay case his falsehood went undetected for nearly two years, and that 
only efter he had very effectively climbed the Wikipedia social ladder.  
Would a corporation's representative be more easily discovered if his 
pay depended on playing the game so as not to be discovered?  The 
company could even forbid him from doing anything beyond being an admin.

I really don't think that most corporate representatives who come here 
to edit for their company are here to create a bias.  Most of their work 
will give us uncontroversial   Who's on their board of directors.  Where 
does the company have factories.  What the company produces.  A record 
of the company's share prices.  The additives that a company puts in its 
products.  These are all valuable types of data around which we are 
notably weak.

With the relatively small part of the material that really is 
controversial we will have no shortage of editors who are willing to 
make the discrepancies obvious.  What are we afraid of?

Ec