[WikiEN-l] RFC on paid editing

[Carcharoth]

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 1:32 AM, Sam Korn<smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

My points, from a post I prepared yesterday (which I may post on-wiki
at some point):

*One point I don't think has been raised is that paid editing mostly
focuses on living people and contemporary organisations. I can't
actually think of examples of paid editing that don't involve
biographies of living people ([[WP:BLP]]) or corporate companies
([[WP:CORP]]), plus a side-serving of political and non-corporate
organisations (e.g. non-governmental organisations and charities) and
I'm sure that is an important point, but maybe someone else could
articulate that? What I'm thinking here is that editing on 'academic'
topics such as history and science (if you ignore paid attempts to
push fringe points of view - such as crackpot, pseudo and fringe
history and science), is largely done either by academics or volunteer
amateurs with interests. The editing on living people articles and
corporations (and music groups) is largely done by fans (volunteers)
or paid editors. But the editing on long-dead people (I've created
several articles on 19th-century scientists) and organisations (think
19th-century independence movements, such as [[Hellenoglosso
Xenodocheio]]). I'm not saying that paid editing is impossible in such
situations, but it does seem that *corporate* and *contemporary* paid
editing is mostly limited to certain areas.

*The final point is that no-one seems to have mentioned the model of
having paid editing done outside Wikipedia under a compatible license,
and then filtered in through a vetting process (with strict disclosure
of amount of money, the authors, and the WP accounts, if any) and
suffrage restrictions in place). It is ironic, considering the history
of that sort of editing in the past, but I think that is a viable
model that should be considered as an alternative to in-house paid
editing.

*Actually, that's not the final thing. The final point I wanted to
make was about paid corporate editing versus individual wealthy
individuals paying for specific requests, versus philanthropists
providing "editorial support" in general (if I had the money, I'd pay
into a fund to support volunteer Wikipedia editors who needed the
money - goodness knows how they would distribute it though), versus
charities and other non-corporate groups paying, versus academic
funding and grants, versus completely altruistic, gratis volunteer
editing. I think that covers the whole spectrum.

Carcharoth