Cookywook
Please feel free to respond on the RfC on whether to say in the UPE template that the payer isn't necessarily the subject of the article
editThe idea is add the words, "The payer for the editing is not necessarily the subject of the article." to what is already there in the template.
Before:
 | This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies. |
After:
| | This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies. The payer for the editing is not necessarily the subject of the article. |
I saw the discussion between you and Blablubbs at User_talk:Blablubbs/Archive_5#Undisclosed_paid_tag_on_Monzo_page regarding the undisclosed paid editing tag applied to the article on Monzo.
My understanding is that even though you are an employee of Monzo, and you've been making edits to pages only on a kind of incidental basis, you still are entitled to offer your thoughts on how this ought to be, and in actuality I think your input and your perspective along with that of Monzo in general could be very relevant in terms of what ought to be done.
My view is that this is just one additional sentence and provides helpful information to readers about what the situation is (based on how editors are using that template, say for example in sockpuppet investigations).
Praxidicae has said that it's silly and unnecessary, and may elaborate further on that.
As of this writing a number of editors have said Oppose for the change; however, it is also true that one editor suggested just simply deleting the template in its entirety.
Please feel free to offer any thoughts on it at the RfC.
Also, if you aren't inclined to respond there, just feel free to offer any thoughts at all here on this talk page.
Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 21:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- Hey Jjjjjjjjjj, I'm generally in favour of that change. Not just for us but as a general change for use of that template. Thanks! Cookywook (talk) 08:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)