 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
With the advent of User:MyWikiBiz and continuing discussion on Wikipedia:Conflicts_of_interest, it has emerged that the absence of any form of rules or policy for editing that has been directly or indirectly paid for is a issue that needs to be resolved. What follows are the personal thoughts and solution of myself and other contributors to this article. It is presented in the manner of classical motions for debate.
It is known that…
edit- The Wikimedia Foundation Inc. is a non-profit organisation [1]
- The Wikimedia Foundation incurs significant costs in running its child projects [2]
- The continued growth of each of the Wikimedia projects is dependent mostly on donations [1]
- Wikipedia is a child project of the Wikimedia Foundation
- Wikipedia aims to ensure a neutral point of view in all articles, and this is "absolute and non-negotiable." [3]
- Wikipedia is not a directory listing or an advertisement service [4]
- All articles on wikipedia have to be verifiable [5]
- Wikipedia's official slogan is "the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit" [6]
- A wiki is not limited by size constraints in a similar manner to a paper encyclopaedia[7]
- Wikipedia must use secondary sources to ensure factual correctness [8]
- Wikipedia has attracted at least enough attention in the public relations (PR) community that the Public Relations Society of America has an article on their web site related to how PR people may and may not ethically edit Wikipedia. [9]
It is believed that…
edit- Companies and non-profit organisations will want to maximise the value of any investment made
- Contributions that are paid-for result in a conflict of interest on behalf of the editor
- Wikipedia has been criticised for a lack of verification within many articles
- Those with an interest in creating a good article will suitably verify the article
- Notoriety is seen by many as a good guideline for what should and should not be included in wikipedia
- It takes time for an editor to learn how to edit wikipedia effectively and follow the manual of style
- A greater income to the Wikimedia Foundation would be of great use to its projects
- It may be impossible to completely prevent paid editing via banning of accounts and IP addresses
- It may be impossible to spot paid editing of articles if it is done to match Wikipedia's guidelines and policies
- Many areas on wikipedia are poorly detailed
- The GFDL licence for images is preferable to copyrighted with fair use allowance
- Many people see making a profit from a free service and not giving back in return as unethical
- Community consensus of agreement on a paid-for article can grant it regular article status
- Vandalism, test editing, and the insertion of speculation does happen
- Damage to a company or person's article can be damaging and potentially result in legal action
- Paying upfront for a service that may not succeed is not desirable
It shall be required that…
edit- Paid-for editing be allowed
- Companies charging for Wikipedia editing must pay an amount of the costs to the Wikimedia Foundation
- Companies must register their paid-for editing with the Wikimedia Foundation
- Articles created or edited by paid-for editors must receive consensus from the community before the removal of paid-for notices or moving into main article space
- All images added to support the article must be released under the GFDL
- Paid-for editors enforce strict standards of verification and notoriety checks
- Paid-for editors follow the manual of style
- The Wikipedia community creates watertight rules to determine the acceptability of paid-for articles, especially with respect to notability and reliable sources
It shall be suggested that…
edit- Paid-for editors never create stubs, always expanding out to a full detailed article
- Paid-for editors create contracts with their clients, receiving a deposit for the work. Full costs payable on article acceptance by community consensus. Deposit repayable to client if the article is not accepted by the community
- Paid-for editors monitor their client's articles for vandalism, unsupported conjecture and test editing for 3 months after community approval. After this period, they may charge their clients a maintenance fee.