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

[Ray Saintonge]

William Pietri wrote:

>For those wondering why allowing paid editing might not be such a good 
>idea, take a look at this:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Almeda_University#Paying_freelancers_to_revert_this_article_daily
>
>It's a long-term contract for a 7-days-a-week effort  to replace 
>negative edits with positive ones. Full marks to [[User:Randywombat]] 
>for finding this.
>
>Note in particular the endless self-justification in the Almeda 
>approach. I think that will undermine any attempt to find clever rules 
>that allow paid editing where there is even the slightest possibility of 
>conflict of interest. I'm sure any of us could rewrite that job 
>description to make full use of Wikipedia jargon. And if somebody's 
>income depends on them not getting the essential meaning behind our 
>words, they may be able to keep it up for quite a while.
>
It is not a simple matter that editing for money is wrong.  What is 
wrong is editing to impose a particular point of view, or to insure a 
favorable article for the paying company.  How we treat biased editing 
should have no connection with the payment arrangements between the 
company and the editor.  Biased editing is wrong whether or not the 
person is being paid.  In the Almeda case, would the edits somehow have 
been any better if they were by an unpaid person?  As a third party we 
are not bound by the agreement between Almeda and the editor.

We don't need "clever rules" to allow paid editing.  All we need to do 
is remind all editors that their work can be edited mercilessly, and 
that we are free to ignore whatever payment arrangements may exist.  Why 
should we even need to know about the payment details?  General rules 
should not be guided by our most abusive examples.  Requiring a 
declaration of conflict of interest is perfectly acceptable; it makes us 
cautious in reviewing the edits that these people make.  Using conflicts 
of interest as an excuse for holding an editor to a higher standard 
leaves us pushing our collective POV.  It discourages people from 
declaring their conflicts, and has them looking for ways to circumvent 
Wikipedia policy.

In the long run there is benefit to be derived from paid editing.  Take 
this example which may be more suited to Wikibooks.  The writing in 
software manuals is often abysmal.  I could very well see a company that 
has a great piece of software asking us to host a manual, paying a 
general editor to keep it organized, and paying us to host it with open 
wiki style editing.  The net result could be a better manual at a 
fraction of the cost to the company.

There is no benefit to be derived for anyone from maintaining perpetual 
confrontation with the for-profit sector.

Ec