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

[Ray Saintonge]

William Pietri wrote:

>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>  
>
>>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.
>>    
>>
>This is true, but paid editing opens up a can of worms that I don't 
>think we have near the resources to deal with. In the US, PR is a $4 
>billion industry, growing at 9% annually. And that's a tiny fraction of 
>the $500 billion that will be spent on advertising and marketing this 
>year in the US.
>
Sure.  But I think that the PR industry is most successful when it can 
control the message, and when nobody is so openly disagreeing with them 
as happens here.

>I know many editors feel like we are an unstoppable legion, and when I 
>look at what has been accomplished, I feel that way too. But I think we 
>would be wise to avoid assuming that we can overmatch that kind of 
>money. Indeed, the decision to turn on nofollow is an admission that we 
>can't even keep out those bottom-feeders of the marketing world, the 
>link spammers.
>
That they can overmatch us with their superior funding only works when 
we accept that as a criterion.  It's much easier to demand 
substantiation for a company's claims here than by putting up picket 
lines to block entrance into the company's headquarters.

>>In the Almeda case, would the edits somehow have 
>>been any better if they were by an unpaid person? 
>>    
>>
>I'm sure there will be fewer of them.
>
Sure, but that's still only one article.  Were they involved in any 
other articles?  Sooner or later the company has to arrive at the 
conclusion that such a tactic is not cost-effective.  The smart ones 
will find more collaborative ways of dealing with us.

>It is the very rare editor who will turn up daily to push for POV 
>distortion. But as anybody who has ever talked to a telemarketer knows, 
>people will do all sorts of things for money that they would never do on 
>their own. Suddenly they're "just doing their job". Sure, it makes them 
>miserable, and it makes the people they deal with miserable. But when 
>you're two months behind on the car payment and your kid needs new 
>shoes, you can learn to live with that.
>
>We do not need those people editing on Wikipedia.
>
I suppose I do telemarketers a favour by dealing with them abruptly; 
that gives them an opportunity to get at other victims more quickly.  
Perhaps the socially responsible thing should be to keep them on the 
line longer talking about anything but their product. :-)

True enough that we don't need those who would edit out of desparation, 
but I still see these as a small minority.

>>It discourages people from 
>>declaring their conflicts, and has them looking for ways to circumvent 
>>Wikipedia policy.  
>>    
>>
>Any scrutiny at all does that. By making it clear that reputable editors 
>and reputable companies should stay well away from conflict-of-interest 
>for-pay editing, I believe many fewer people will even try, keeping the 
>number of bad edits that slip through lower than if we have a gray area.
>
The reputable companies are less likely to go too far because they 
understand the consequences.  Almeda's success does not depend on being 
reputable.  Some companies could very easily provide indirect payment to 
an employee by letting go home an hour early so that he can edit the 
company's Wikipedia article from his home computer.

We can only control internal processes and rules.  I can't see how 
attempts to establish criteria based on a person's outside life can ever 
get anywhere.  We have had a thread on the verification of a person's 
credentials.  One can at least see a potential benefit to claiming 
certain credentials; that benefit can be a motivation for verifying 
those credentials.  By contrast, what apparent benefit is there to 
expressing a conflict of interest.

>>In the long run there is benefit to be derived from paid editing.  Take 
>>this example which may be more suited to Wikibooks.  [...]
>>    
>>
>If I thought we were lacking for edits on topics of commercial interest, 
>I'd find this more persuasive. But I don't think our coverage of, say, 
>companies or products or bands is lacking in raw contributions. 
>Wikibooks is welcome to make up their own rules, naturally.
>
My example of software manuals was only the first thing to leap to mind.

>>There is no benefit to be derived for anyone from maintaining perpetual 
>>confrontation with the for-profit sector.
>>    
>>
>I don't think we need to make it a perpetual confrontation.
>
>If we tell people paid editing is forbidden, most people will get this. 
>PR people already get that with journalists just fine. Lobbyists and 
>political contributors get it less, but I think that's precisely because 
>the fuzzier rules allow plenty of room for the amoral or cash-hungry to 
>justify it to themselves. Continuously arguing with full-time paid PR 
>people over exactly how distorted they can get away with being, that's 
>perpetual confrontation.
>
I'm far more partial to finding accomodations than blindly saying "No!"  
I'm perhaps more concerned about cutting off positive opportunities.

Ec