[WikiEN-l] Almeda University paying for positive Wikipedia edits

[Jeff Raymond]

William Pietri wrote:
> David Gerard wrote:
>> On 11/03/07, William Pietri <william at scissor.com> wrote:
>>
>>   
>>> 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.
>>>     
>>
>> Please write this up on a page as simply, clearly and unambiguously as
>> you can. I'm just forwarding your email to the comcom list as an
>> excellent example of just what we need.
 >
> 
> Are we, so to speak, on the same page here?

Do we all agree that the Almeda sitaution is one we want to avoid? 
Hopefully.

But can we be realistic here?  Paid editing is not inherently bad.  At 
worst, it can hit on the same COI issues we already run into - the best 
edits we don't notice, and some need to be dealt with.

We handled MyWikiBiz badly.  We fumbled horribly on the Microsoft one. 
Why can't we simply make a clear, concise statement on the matter and 
let it be:

Paid editing is highly discouraged by the community, we understand that 
there's no way we can realistically stop it, so paid edits are simply 
handled like any other, and cannot be guaranteed by Wikipedia to exist 
in the same way they were submitted.

Either we can stop pretending or continue to sweep issues like this 
under the rug.  At some point, the rug gets a big bulge, and people 
start asking questions.

-Jeff

-- 
Name: Jeff Raymond
E-mail: jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com
WWW: http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com
IM: badlydrawnjeff
Quote: "I was always a fan of Lisa Loeb, particularly
	because you kind of get the impression she
	sang every song either about or to her cats.
	They seem to be the driving force in most of
	her creative process."     - Chuck Klosterman