[WikiEN-l] RFC on paid editing

[Sam Korn]

On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 11:35 PM, Andrew Gray<andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk> wrote:
> 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.)

These are all excellent points.

I would like to see the guideline state something along the lines of
"You are not required to state that you are being paid to edit.
However, if it is later discovered that you have been doing so and you
did not state this openly, people will be very suspicious about your
motivations.  If you are open, honest and neutral, people are more
likely to trust you."

Also, I would like to see the end of COIN and direct its traffic to
the NPOV noticeboard -- it is highly misleading to suggest that the
conflict of interests is the problem; it is the lack of neutrality
that is the problem.

Sam

-- 
Sam
PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key