Steve Bennett wrote:
On 3/12/07, William Pietri <william(a)scissor.com>
wrote:
This sort of willful refusal to understand what
we are trying to do is a
bad enough problem now when we have to beat back each individual
partisan. Unless we make it clear that any sort of paid
conflict-of-interest editing is strictly forbidden, we will open a door
to endless trouble. Spam email was a problem when people did it
Well, I don't agree with the logical connection you're making there.
Would outlawing transparent, regulated, paid Wikipedia editing have
any effect on this kind of insidious behaviour? I don't see why it
should. Quite clearly, Almeda was attempting to work behind closed
doors here. They also knew that what they wanted to do would not be
tolerated. How would any rule or policy against paid editing have had
any effect at all?
Yes, it would have a big effect.
The problem here is that any rules we create to filter the good
conflict-of-interest edits from the bad ones will have to be subtle,
requiring balanced judgment. For many people though, if their income
depends on having warped judgment, they will have it all the live-long
day. Self-deception isn't just a universal human flaw. In many
industries, it's a vital resource.
A rule against paid conflict-of-interest editing means that we can
explain very clearly why something isn't allowed. We can have a nice
FAQ, a clear WP:NOPAY redirect, a simple decision flow chart. We can
explain it to the media, to editors, to companies. We can make it an
electric fence that people fear to touch.
By doing that we eliminate the vast amount of Wikilawyering that will go
on. We keep out all of the starving writers and underpaid English majors
who might be fooled by the self-justification of an Almeda University,
or the PR machine of a tobacco company. And most importantly, we prevent
the emergence of a cottage industry that specializes in slipping things
past us.
If we make a clear, impossible-to-misunderstand rule, then we will still
have problems. But if there is ambiguity or room for doubt, we increase
our problems tenfold. Or if the rise of spam in other media is any
parallel, much more than that.
William
--
William Pietri <william(a)scissor.com>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri