[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia:Paid editing

Tue Mar 13 05:49:11 UTC 2007

Hi, folks. Thanks for the many interesting comments on this. 
Unfortunately I just got pulled into a new client project, so I don't 
have time to reply to them all in the detail they deserve, but I'm going 
to try to address the broad themes. Apologies in advance for the monster 
post, but I'm hoping that putting it all together is less irksome than 6 
or 8 semi-overlapping replies in various threads.

My basic notion is that rather than being open to paid editing and see 
where it goes (which is the general spirit of Wikipedia) we should 
forbid it generally and make specific exceptions where we see a clear 
need to let it happen. For you router geeks, it's "default deny" rather 
than "default allow". I know this is the opposite of the way we normally 
do things, but I think there are important reasons to go against the grain.

The first one is that for-pay editing will introduce a new sort of 
systemic bias. We're already biased toward the kinds of things that 
first-world, computer-savvy people are interested in. Allowing paid 
editing will introduce a new bias, which is toward information that 
people can profit from having the public believe. Given that 
advertising, marketing, and PR account for $500 billion annually in the 
US alone, there is a lot of information like that.

The second is that I believe it will be a substantial net loss of 
volunteer time. We already spend a fair bit of time cleaning up after 
vandals and spammers, and a lot of energy is wasted on arguing with 
kooks. Any information or resources that commercial interests have to 
offer can happily be put on the talk page, where a neutral editor can 
use it to fashion an article. I think any additional value gained from 
paid conflict-of-interest edits will be outweighed by the cleanup and 
eternal argument that professional PR and advertising people will generate.

Third, even the suspicion of distorted coverage will harm Wikipedia's 
image. This is a lesson that journalists, academics, and politicians all 
get to learn on a regular basis, one scandal at a time. We should take a 
page from their books and adopt firm rules to forbid even the appearance 
of systematic distortion of our articles.

Fourth, we have a one-time opportunity to prevent the emergence of 
people who make a full-time living from spamming Wikipedia. All of the 
major Internet-borne waves of spam only really took off when people 
started to do it professionally. Once they had a foothold, they had a 
platform that let them stay just far enough in ahead in the arms race to 
survive and keep up their Porche payments. By adopting a firm stance 
against paid editing now, we remove the gray area that will spawn our 
own Sanford Wallace or Scott Richter.

Fifth, eliminating the gray area will save a lot of headache for all 
concerned. That $500 billion a year is spent on professional POV 
warriors. The good ones are just as tenacious and tricky as lawyers, 
except they aren't constrained by any certifying body or serious 
professional code of ethics. I say this with no disrespect; I have 
friends who do sales, PR, and marketing for a living, and it's amazing 
to watch them work. But they will not get what we are about here, not 
when they are being paid not to get it. Any gray area will be room for 
endless argument and struggle.

And the biggest reason I have a bee in my bonnet about this is that that 
given modest funding, I believe I could successfully game the system 
sufficiently to justify high client fees. Per WP:BEANS, I'll keep quiet 
about how, but as somebody who does a fair bit of vandal patrol and 
keeps an eye on contentious articles, I'm pretty sure it's doable and 
sustainable. This is the only way I can think of to keep the market 
small enough to avoid that.

Now I know people have a few specific objections, all very reasonable. 
Let me quickly reply to them:

 From charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com: "We need to get corporations on 
our side, not to be in a perpetual state of war with them."

I don't think it has to be war. Most companies understand and respect 
the ethical barriers that constrain journalists. If we draw a similar 
line while providing them with similar opportunities to give us 
information so that we can tell their side of the story fairly, they 
will accept that. There will be exceptions, and we will deal with them 
like we do with other transgressors: first with velvet, then with steel.

 From Steve Bennett: "There is a world of difference between someone 
attempting to expand or improve a subject field, for remuneration, and 
someone repeatedly working on the perceived bias of one particular article."

I agree, and I think that if we are especially clever, we can find 
specific exemptions that allow the former while forbidding the latter 
without any room for gaming. The mechanism I proposed is having all 
money go through the Wikimedia Foundation, letting them serve as what 
journalists call the Chinese Wall, preventing conflict of interest from 
flowing along with the money.

 From Jeff Raymond: "Right, so why be so firm about trying to discourage 
[paid editing]?"

For the same reason that journalistic codes of ethics forbid anything 
that might hint of a conflict of interest, even when it is innocently 
given and innocently received. Because it is the top edge of a very 
slippery slope, and because even the appearance of a potential problem 
reduces public trust.

 From Steve Bennett again: "The only people who will be affected will be 
those who bothered to have a conscience and find out that there even was 
a rule."

I disagree. I think that's a false dichotomy.

On one end of the spectrum, we have people who have a solid 
understanding of fairness and NPOV, people who are incorruptibly 
scrupulous about avoiding conflicts of interest. On the other end, we 
have the bottom-feeders and scoundrels. You're right that a no-pay rule 
harms the first set (because they could be trusted anyhow) and doesn't 
have much effect on the second set (because they are irredeemably bad).

But this is really aimed at the vast number of people in the middle. 
They come in all sorts: people who haven't thought it through; people 
who could use a few bucks; people who could be fooled by an Almeda 
University into seeing us as the POV warriors; people who will fool 
themselves if there's money to be made; people who think something is ok 
as long as there isn't a rule against it; and especially, people who 
tell themselves, "I'm just doing my job."

By consulting at a variety of companies and meeting people at 
conferences, I get to talk to a lot of people about why they do what 
they do. I'm convinced that most people fall into that middle. I don't 
want them to have to wrestle with the subtleties of NPOV and COI when 
somebody is paying them to not worry about it. I want them to have a 
clear, easy-to-understand rule: don't do it. And I want it just as clear 
for the people tempted to pay them.

And from a few people: "I don't like X about your proposal."

Then please do fix it! Even if you don't like the idea much, it's in all 
of our interests to have the best possible proposals on each side. I'll 
certainly be helping on both sides, and I'd love to see as much input as 
possible both on the no-pay one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Paid_editing

and on the pay-is-ok one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Paid_editors

Thanks,

William

P.S. My sincere thanks to the people who waded all the way through this.

-- 
William Pietri <william at scissor.com>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri