[WikiEN-l] RFC on paid editing

[Andrew Gray]

2009/6/10 AGK <wikiagk at googlemail.com>:

> In practice, however, it would be exceedingly rare for that type of editing
> to not be problematic to some degree; the nature of the business world is
> such that paid editing would almost certainly not adhere to Wikipedia's NPOV
> policies. Consider this: if a client commissions a Wikipedia article's
> creation, would the client be satisfied with an article that did not reflect
> a stance that was at least a smidgen flattering? I wouldn't imagine so. On
> that basis, I think a blanket discouragement from editing for payment to be
> the most sensible approach to the issue.

This only really applies to one type of paid editing, doesn't it?
Commercial or quasi-commercial, ones where the client has a definite
stake in the "message" of the article.

You can easily have paid editing where this isn't the case at all - an
educational group, for example, which pays people to produce content
about a specific field without presupposing the tone of that content.
In many cases, it may just be that the topic is one where it's hard to
put the "sponsor's" slant in - mathematics, for example, would be a
lot more resilient than alternative medicines!

We've already had a very limited form of this - the project on Commons
which pays for the creation of images - and there's no doubt that, if
done carefully, this could be extended to article-writing without the
danger of producing editorial slant in the end product. This is pretty
much the traditional encyclopedia model, in fact - paid generalist or
specialist editors, who may well bring their own prejudices to the
text but aren't expected to comply with the "central editorial slant"
on each.

I agree entirely paid editing can be a bad thing - but so can unpaid
editing for a topic you hold dear. Likewise, both can be forces for
good. I'm not sure it's wise to completely throw away the opportunity
for a powerful tool which we haven't used much yet, due to short-term
fears about commercial interests.

(In short: regulate, sure. Don't forbid; it'll bite us in the long run.)

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk