Wikipedia talk:No paid advocacy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

No consensus

I do not believe there is a consensus for this page to become a policy. The issue is still being discussed on pages not even linked from here (such as the recent Wikipedia:Requests for comment/COI). I suggest this should be failed, and moved to join the others similar failed proposals (see Wikipedia:Paid editing). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess that is the case. Gigs (talk) 17:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

On further consideration, I think this should stay open a little while longer. I think people are misunderstanding what this really says. The WP:BRIGHTLINE essay, for example. This policy prohibits "paid advocacy" which is not the same thing as "editing in an area that you have a financial conflict of interest in". Our COI vocabulary is abysmal, and I think is causing a lot of confusion. Gigs (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Regardless, there is no consensus for making this a guideline. A discussion should be had first, at minimum, and it definitely shouldn't be done unilaterally by Slimvirgin. Silverseren^C 08:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

What was marked as a guideline is fundamentally different from the bright line prohibition that was proposed here before. This was originally based on Jimbo's rather strong comments that implied he was exercising his discretion to declare policy. It was replaced with a copy/paste of a section of WP:COI regarding paid editing that was already accepted as a guideline. Gigs (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

That's even more confusing then. Why do we need a copy/pasted section out of WP:COI? Just redirect this to the relevant section in COI. Silverseren^C 01:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Guideline status

We have a situation here where, because this page doesn't have policy status, paid advocates are saying there is no consensus against paid advocacy. Therefore, I have copied the financial COI section from WP:COI, which has guideline status, and have given this page corresponding guideline status.

If we want to promote this page to policy, we will need to discuss and hold an RfC. But for now, it is clear that it does at least have guideline status, via WP:COI (specifically the WP:NOPAY section of COI). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you should archive the earlier talk page discussions if the page is going to change that drastically. Gigs (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I've added the bot. I think the problem here is that we want to run before we can walk. First, let's not lose sight of the fact that there has been consensus against paid advocacy for years (for as long as I've been editing). What some people object to is lumping all paid editing into the paid advocacy category, and those people will vote against banning all paid editing. The paid advocates then join forces with those people, and it ends up looking as if we have no consensus for anything.

In the meantime, the COI guideline does oppose paid advocacy, but the guidance got lost amid the wordiness. So the first step is to extract from the COI guideline what it says about paid advocacy; this I have done and I have posted it on this page as a guideline. The second step is to try to streamline the writing of COI without changing the meaning to see what other gems lurk within. Step three, if it's still needed, is to rewrite COI on a draft page, but that might not be needed once we do a good copy edit. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

What we've been working on the draft page is the copy edit. Gigs (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I've tweaked the page to more accurately reflect the spirit of the COI guideline that it is being argued it inherits its guideline status from. The previous version did not adequately distinguish between permissible (but controversial) paid editing, and much more restricted paid advocacy. The language from COI somehow got altered to make the restriction on Paid Advocacy substantially more expansive then is supported by the guideline. While its fair to have this page propose a more expansive version, it cannot both do that and claim to inherit the guideline status of WP:COI. Monty₈₄₅ 03:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Mistake

I just noticed Wikipedia:Paid advocacy and that it had been marked as a guideline.

I think presenting this as a guideline is a big mistake and actually weakens our current prohibition of advocacy of any type.

"Editors acting as paid advocates on Wikipedia are very strongly discouraged..." NO, they are very clearly prohibited by WP:NPOV. It is impossible to be an advocate (Definition "one that pleads the cause of another" or "one that supports or promotes the interests of another" Merriam-Webster) and be in compliance with WP:NPOV which calls for balance, impartiality, neutrality and tells editors "not to promote one particular point of view over another."

Perhaps you're thinking of a paid advocate who doesn't actually advocate on our pages, e.g. it might be possible in theory that a client's lawyer will advocate for him or her off-Wiki but on-Wiki will just present all the fact as the lawyer knows them in as neutral a manner as possible. If so, the "advocate" is then just a "paid editor." Even then the lawyer or a PR person in a similar position would likely be violating his or her ethical commitment to or contract with the client. It would be better to just to state something like "People such as lawyers and PR agents who are paid to advocate for their clients off-Wiki should be extremely careful not to edit Wikipedia articles of interest to their clients. Otherwise they may be presumed to be paid advocates."

Since all advocacy is prohibited on Wikipedia, we should not imply that paid advocacy is only "very strongly discouraged." Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

A possible view is that while articles are required to be neutral, individual editors are not. It is quite possible for a non-neutral editor (and probably every editor is non-neutral in one way or another) to improve the overall neutrality of an article (by adding sources for a hitherto neglected point of view, for example). Victor Yus (talk) 07:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I concur that there are some issues here. This page is going beyond what is stated in WP:COI. The COI guideline says that editors are "very strongly discouraged" from contributing if they are being paid to edit as a representative of the subject they are writing about. By contrast, this page is saying that editors are discouraged from contributing if they are paid advocates. This is very different, because being a paid representative does not always mean that you are being paid to advocate. e.g., my employer could very well pay me to add a bunch of duly significant facts to its article tomorrow. So I think this page is a bit confused about the distinction between paid editing and paid advocacy. Paid editing is allowed (though strongly discouraged), but paid advocacy is never allowed, by the simple logic that an "advocate" is someone who edits in a promotional manner. Note how the wording in WP:COI has changed from this: "If you have a financial interest in a topic..., you are advised to provide full disclosure...", to in this page: "Paid advocates are also asked to provide full disclosure...". Thus, while I believe the material was transferred from WP:COI in the best of good faith, it has happened with a serious change of meaning. NTox · talk 07:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we need to define "paid advocacy" before we can have a reasonable discussion about it. Victor Yus (talk) 08:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

You know how I like definitions, Victor. ;) But I agree it's best that everyone is on the same page—I was going off the definition at WP:COI#Overview: "Paid advocacy, that is, being paid to promote something or someone on Wikipedia...", first paragraph. NTox · talk 08:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I see (so perhaps that definition should be transferred here, if it's correct). Though still, being paid to promote something doesn't necessarily mean you'll edit in what we call a "promotional" manner. If the editor knows what Wikipedia requires, he might be able to combine his aim of promoting the product with Wikipedia's aim of neutrally documenting what reliable sources say about it. Victor Yus (talk) 08:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

While the transfer here was undoubtably done in good faith, I think it has been pretty confused. I'll also point out that the words "advocacy" or "advocate" did not appear in the TEXT of WP:COI until yesterday diff. (The ideas about advocacy might be a different story, but is much less clear).

All advocacy is prohibited by WP:NPOV. WP:SOAP is similar. Let's not in any way reduce these prohibition here. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 12:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like you support what was here before [1], which met some opposition. I think what is in the WP:COI guideline right now is a pretty good documentation of what the widely-accepted consensus is. What's on this page right now is the older version of the section from WP:COI, which I believe does leave something to be desired since it conflates all paid editing with paid advocacy. Gigs (talk) 14:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

(EC below)First I should say that I was technically wrong about the words "advocacy" and "advocate" not appearing in WP:COI until yesterday.

• "Advocacy" did appear 1st - which linked to an essay stating that it is just amplifying WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP and saying, in case of conflict - those 2 policies rule. Clearly nothing repealing the policy prohibition on advocacy here.
• "Advocacy" 2nd - relating only to political campaigns,
• "Advocate" appeared as "Even if the changes they advocate are hopelessly biased, treat them with respect and courtesy," and
• "Advocating" appeared once - "Avoid advocating deletion of articles related to your competitors at deletion discussions"

Still there was nothing like a consensus at WP:COI permitting paid advocacy in any way before yesterday - and I don't think there is a consensus there now! Just 2 editors changing the wording with little or no discussion. Furthermore, even if there were a consensus to allow paid advocacy at WP:COI, it could not overturn the prohibition against advocacy at WP:NPOV. Quoting from WP:NPOV "The principles upon which this policy is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus."

Also quoting from the policy WP:What Wikipedia is not, (the WP:SOAP section)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for:

1. Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.

In case this is not clear enough that all advocacy is prohibited, there are also 2 numbered sections prohibiting Self-promotion and Advertising.

So it should be crystal clear that all advocacy is prohibited and we cannot imply that paid advocacy is simply "very strongly discouraged." I'll remove the "guideline" banner and put back the "proposed" banner. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

My recent edit to the financial COI section of the COI guideline was in no way intended to change its position toward paid advocacy. If you review the old version, it said pretty much the same thing, in a less precise way that conflated all paid editing with paid advocacy. I think separating them out cleanly is the first step to rational discussions on how we should treat the two issues differently. In other words, I think we both have the same goal in mind here, more clarity in our guidelines and policies. Gigs (talk) 17:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Redrafted policy proposal

I've redrafted the policy proposal here: [2].

I really don't think the policy proposed should be controversial. It's just a special case of WP:SOAP, which is already policy. Once I get some feedback from SV, I think we should revert this back to the policy proposal and reopen those conversations. Gigs (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Looking forward to the revert. I'll hold off on any changes until this afternoon. I'll ask that you be very careful about the distinction between "Policy" and "Guideline." As I understand it, a policy (like SOAP) can be enforced directly, but a guideline requires a somewhat subjective determination of whether there has been disruption (and who caused it) before it is enforced. We need something that is crystal clear (like the SOAP passage above) and can be enforced. I'll suggest starting with "All advocacy in Wikipedia articles is prohibited by our policies on Neutral Point of View and What Wikipedia is not. Paid advocacy is often considered to be an especially egregious form of advocacy." Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the line between policy and guideline is that neat. But you are right that policies should be clear statements of policy and practice, while guidelines should offer more guidance to editors on what the best practices are. Gigs (talk) 20:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts

Gigs asked me to comment here.

I agree with the overall format of having a pull-out for this form of COI, because it has many characteristics that are distinct from COI in general and it requires special instructions.

My feedback is similar to what I have been saying in other areas:

• Better language: "editors participating on behalf of an organization or individual that has a potential conflict of interest, such as the subject of the article"
• We need to specifically call out that it is for PR, reputation management, SEM professionals as well as non-profit advocacy groups and representatives of volunteer organizations, etc. Most PR people don't even know what "paid editing" is and are not aware Wikipedia is referring to them when we say "financial COI"
• "Paid Advocacy" should be forbidden not discouraged, because it suggests lobbying Wikipedia for NPOV violations. Editors with a potential COI are expected to do their best to be neutral. We do not accept lobbying here from anyone. This is extremely important that we set this expectation. However, this needs to be used carefully. WP:NPOV says we include all viewpoints and often our anti-corporate culture means we do not include the company's own point-of-view on controversies they're involved in. It is not necessarily a bad thing for a company to ask for their viewpoint to be included and there is a fine line between that and lobbying.
• Same as my comments on the COI guideline on this horrific "financial COI" section ;-)

Probably one of the most important things is that we provide clear, straightforward instructions. Bad-faith COIs will not follow any rule we create anyway, but good faith COIs will follow instructions when they are provided.

instructions

Share sources An editor that shares independent, neutral and credible sources on the Talk page in an organized way and with proper citation templates, substantially improves the chances of Wikipedia's editorial community improving the page. Substantial, corporate-level profile stories written by professional journalists are of the most value. Avoid sharing anything published by the company, such as press releases. Request a factual correction To request a factual correction, describe the error in detail on the Talk page with {{request edit}} at the top of the request. This will put your request in a queue for review by an impartial editor. Be sure to include an independent source where the fact can be verified. Flag an issue of overt bias To flag a more urgent or controversial issue, consider raising the issue on the conflict of interest noticeboard. You may also attempt to re-write the section neutrally using the {{request edit}} process. Create a new article If the organization, product, individual or topic has been the subject of significant media coverage, but no article exists, you may choose to submit one for consideration. You can request the article be written by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested articles or submit an article yourself at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Other content contributions Other content contributions can be made through discussion on the Talk page, by talking to heavy contributors to the article, or through the {{request edit}} system. Substantial re-writes can be submitted for consideration using the {{request edit|R}} template. Non-COI Wikipedia encourages organizations to contribute to Wikipedia in areas where they may not have a conflict of interest. This includes corporate social responsibility programs and donating images under a free license. Many companies want to educate the public on topics they are not motivated to attribute a positive/negative evaluation to. Submitting images to Wikimedia Commmons is one of the most effective ways to distribute images you want used by bloggers, on Wikipedia, by the press, and the internet in general.

Corporate 16:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• CM, thanks, but it's too long and goes off on slight tangents. We need editors to help with this who can write in a very succinct, precise way, and I've seen you do that, so I really welcome that you're here with suggestions. Can you take your draft above and remove all the unnecessary words to see what's left? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• See, if someone is being paid to make an article about a corporation as positive as they can get away with, that is clearly wrong and should be stopped and is already fairly covered by NPOV. The problem is with the shades of gray. COI policies are usually written to address people who are so tied up in the matter that the writers of the policy, in this case the community, feel they cannot help buy be biased. So, for instance, the CEO of a company may have a very different view of what a fair balanced article about their company looks like. What this guideline would say as proposed is that the CEO of the company has such in powerful inherent conflict that we think they cannot edit with a neutral POV and therefor strongly discouraged from editing the article at all.

Though we don't know for a fact that they wouldn't be able to edit neutrally and to community standards, which is why an outright prohibition is wrong. If that CEO (or another covered person) edits in such a way that violates NPOV, it can be reverted, and if it continues they may be blocked, but the imputed bias does not automatically mean any edit in fact violates NPOV. We still need to assume good faith, which is why the guideline should not create an outright prohibition. Monty₈₄₅ 17:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• Corporate, it sounds like we are pulling in two different directions here, but not necessarily in disagreement. The question is whether this page should be:

• A best practices document for editing with a COI, similar to what ocassi is doing with COI+ or,
• A bright line in the sand policy to offer a different sort of guidance for marketing people, a line they can use to gauge their actions to avoid getting into serious trouble here

• I think both kinds of documents are needed. This was was originally the latter, and I think we might want to revisit that and try to forge consensus on it again. This isn't to the exclusion of other documents that offer more guidance and best practices. Gigs (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

@Monty - Still advocacy is prohibited. Except in the abstruse world of Wiki-lawyering, this means that advocates are prohibited. Does anybody really believe that the usual lawyer, PR agent, or Fortune 500 CEO, could remove himself from his real-world ethical and contractual obligations and produce NPOV text for an article? I'll acknowledge the point that some very unusual people in very unusual situations could do this. That is why I think they deserve a realistic warning. Expanding what I wrote above: "People such as lawyers and PR agents who are paid to advocate for their clients off-Wiki should be extremely careful not to edit Wikipedia articles of interest to their clients. Editors writing with a neutral point of view will sometimes write text that in one case appears to favor one point of view, and in another case appears to favor the opposite point of view. Off-Wiki advocates run the risk that they will be presumed to be paid advocates whenever they write text that appears to favor their client's point of view." Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that there are certainly those that can, and that it is not such an insignificant portion that we can disregard it. The broader issue is that there are two important points we need to remember: we should not punish editors for their honesty, and we should always judge editors on the quality of their edits, and not who they are. We should not prohibit an editor from editing an article due to a self disclosed conflict of interest, whether voluntary or inadvertent. Doing so would punish honesty, or in the case of an inadvertent disclosure, punish a new user for not knowing what to keep secret. Nor should we undo a good edit because we feel the editor has conflict of interest, which is what we would be saying if they are fully prohibited from editing the article. We are better off knowing about the conflict, advising them that not editing is best practice, pointing them at resources where they make requests that will be reviewed for neutrality and monitoring their edits, then we would be if we force them into secrecy. Monty₈₄₅ 17:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Also to respond directly on the advocacy point, advocacy can also mean doing all you can to support a position within the rules. Certainly advocacy that moved an article from a POV attack article to NPOV article containing a quantity of positive and negative information representative of reliable source coverage would be consistent with NPOV policy. We should not define being an advocate as a defacto violation of NPOV. Monty₈₄₅ 17:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

"if someone is being paid to make an article about a corporation as positive as they can get away with." Where someone is paid to help a company contribute with a COI, they should always be paid to help them be neutral, not to help them be bias. There is some contention about the idea of an editor like me making money from Wikipedia, but so long as I accept that as my charter, I am offering a very valuable service both to companies and to Wikipedia.

There are instances where an article is so bias, a COI could lobby as hard as they could for the opposing viewpoint and still not move the needle to neutrality. We do generally allow editors with a strong point of view to voice their opinions, but I don't think it's a good idea to encourage paid editors to do the same. There is a need (in most cases) for them to be humble and accept the judgement of impartial editors. Corporate 18:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

RE: "advocacy can also mean doing all you can to support a position within the rules." - actually this can't be allowed, since advocacy of any type is specifically prohibited by the rules, e.g. WP:SOAP. I don't think we should be making up nearly impossible scenarios where exceptions might be made. Rather, we should just clearly state what the rules are. I don't think that there is any argument against clearly stating what the rules are based on "punishing good faith editors." First all editors must know what the rules are. If then they choose to ignore the rules, they do so at their own risk. Perhaps it might be emphasized at this point that in the very long term (e.g. 10 years), any major violation of these rules are likely to come out because of: 1) the difficulty in keeping information secret or consistent, even in the short-term, 2) staff turnover, 3) technical advances (over 10 years!), and 4) the interest in this matter by the press. I think it would only be fair of us to let editors know that violations of these rules are very likely to be exposed. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

As is common, we have banned advocacy without saying what advocacy means. The context at WP:SOAP suggests that the type of advocacy it prohibits is different from what we are talking about here. Advocacy that seeks to take a hit peice, and bring it into compliance with NPOV is certainly not prohibited. Advocacy in the form of crafted articles with the purpose of supporting a cause, rather then providing a fair coverage of the issue is what is prohibited. I think the problem is we don't agree on what advocacy means. Monty₈₄₅ 20:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Monty in that this and WP:SOAP go beyond NPOV. I recently had a case where a user or users were not only making constructive and generally neutrally worded edits in a certain topic area to expand its coverage, but were also using WP:PROD, deletion nominations (using SPA/sock/meat AfD voters to urge deletion of competitors and vote keep on their articles), and using article issue tags to destroy and discredit coverage of competitors. This had gone on for years at a low level, mostly undetected. Nothing they did could be said to directly violate NPOV, but clearly there was advocacy and promotion going on. I think we need to make an unequivocal statement that this sort of thing is not tolerated. Advocacy goes beyond mere COI, and it can go beyond the reaches of our core content policies as well, if it's sophisticated enough. Gigs (talk) 19:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I would argue that doing that intentionally is still a violation of NPOV and we don't need to have separate rules to cover it. Further its subtle and as you point out can go on for a long time without anyone realizing and putting a stop to it. It is incredibly fact specific and necessarily needs to be dealt with on a case by case basis. Trying to cover that by broadly banning advocacy in general, whether positive of negative is a poor match. Maybe we could draft something aimed at that type of case, but the nuances involved would make it very difficult. Monty₈₄₅ 20:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is primarily about tone within articles, or at least it was originally. It was about choosing words that represented facts as facts, and attributed opinions to their holders, "assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves" was a commonly repeated summary of it. It was never really designed to deal with someone attempting to bias our coverage on an encyclopedia-wide level. Sure you could shoehorn some contrived interpretation of NPOV to apply to a lot of paid advocacy situations, but why? Our BLP policy, for example, is nothing more than WP:V with a few additional caveats, and stricter adherence, but it's still an important policy, because it emphasizes a behavior we won't tolerate: defamation of living people. I envision this the same way. Gigs (talk) 21:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to encourage editors with a potential COI to participate in ways that do not require them to be neutral; donating images, sharing citations, requesting factual corrections, answering questions. This should be the natural and presumed role for PR participation.

When it comes to major contributions, most editors I have talked to seem to agree there is a need for urging caution and warnings. It is unnatural for a company to write neutrally on themselves and it's very difficult to achieve. Corporate 22:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, assuming we can come up with the right wording, you did agree that we should prohibit, not just discourage "paid advocacy". Assuming that we do offer encouraging guidance on appropriate ways to contribute elsewhere in a different document, what would you propose this policy to say, if we assume that this page in particular is only going to talk about the prohibition on paid advocacy? Gigs (talk) 23:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I would go about it something like this:

Extended content

This guideline is for editors participating on behalf of an organization or individual with a potential conflict of interest. This includes, but is not limited to, public relations, Wikipedia consultancies, search engine marketing, reputation management and other marketing professionals, as well as non-profit advocacy groups. The Wikipedia community feels these editors may not be neutral and often struggle to comply with our content policies, because they are influenced by outside interests. Additionally, the risks associated with the appearance of impropriety are great and often result in humiliation in the media. (see real-world consequences) These editors are: Encouraged to help Wikipedia improve our coverage in areas they have a vested interest, by supporting our volunteer editors. This can be done by sharing sources in proper citation templates, answering questions on the Talk page, donating images under a free license, requesting factual corrections and making janitorial improvements, like improving citation templates, grammar and formatting. Generally Expected to disclose their conflict of interest and avoid making direct edits to the article, except for in emergencies or for janitorial edits. Cautioned that while making major contributions are possible, in most cases Wikipedia's editorial community feels that content from this group of editors does not comply with our content policies. XX% of Articles for Creation submissions on companies are rejected and YY% of request edits are never accepted. Often many hours are devoted to creating content that is merely deleted by the editorial community as advertising. Editors making major content contributions should carefully read and follow the Expectations set below and take the time to learn our content policies. Expectations <insert section> This is where "paid advocacy" is forbidden goes. This group of editors are expected not to come here to engage in Wikilawyering or advocacy, instead they are expected to do their best to be neutral. insert other expectations Consequences what will get you banned media humiliation contention and vengeful editing what are the consequences for coming here as a lobbyist? <insert section> Instructions <insert section>

Just as the current is too hostile, this is a little too welcoming and needs to be balanced a little to more strongly discourage things we don't want (in most cases). Corporate 14:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Guideline/policy status

Smallbones and Gigs asked on my talk page about this page having guideline status, or whether it should be policy.

The facts at the moment are (a) this page was copied from WP:COI, (b) WP:COI has guideline status, therefore (c) this page has guideline status. The paid advocacy lobby argues that there is no consensus at all about paid advocacy. But they are wrong, because we do at least have this. So we have to be very clear about maintaining it.

I do think we should rewrite it on a draft page, keeping it short and sweet, and that the draft should say paid advocacy is prohibited (i.e. bright line). And then we should ask for community consensus for that draft, via a wiki-wide RfC. But it has to be done carefully, because if it fails, the paid advocates will say there is consensus for paid advocacy. I'm going to try writing something very short on User:SlimVirgin/No paid advocacy. Anyone is welcome to edit it.

Smallbones, please don't confuse paid advocacy with COI and with neutrality violations. They often boil down to the same thing (paid advocacy is one form of COI), but they are not the same thing, and the conflation of those issues allows the paid advocates to say: "We all have COIs. We all have biases. Whether we are paid is not the issue."

What we are dealing with on this page is the narrow issue of paid advocacy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

You just need to make sure that the page makes a distinction between paid advocacy and paid editing. Silverseren^C 01:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. I've also moved this to No paid advocacy to bring it in line with No personal attacks, No original research, No legal attacks, etc. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I specifically don't want to mark what's on there now as policy. I want to propose this as policy. Gigs (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I put the proposal in your userspace draft. Gigs (talk) 02:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. There are two separable steps we could take here: (1) remove the "very strongly discouraged" wording from this guideline and from COI, and just say ouright -- don't edit articles directly if you are a paid advocate. We do already say that, and the "very strongly discourage" words undermine it. And/or (2) propose that wording (i.e. no direct editing) to the community as policy, not a guideline.

We could start with (1) and move to (2), or we could go straight to (2). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I think even for (1), you would need both (a) a reasonably clear definition of "paid advocacy", and (b) evidence of community consensus that it (whatever the definition turns out to be) is to be prohibited. Victor Yus (talk) 11:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Why is this page marked as a guideline until we have that consensus about (a)? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 13:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it's close enough to widely-accepted consensus to remain tagged. WP:COI was marked as a guideline for years, and there's still no real consensus on what the definition of "COI" or "COI editing" is, apparently. So I don't see that as a urgent flaw, but I agree that the subject warrants much further discussion so that we can write something more precise. Gigs (talk) 16:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

It is a guideline because it was taken word for word from COI, which is a guideline. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but only the definition is from the guideline while the actual term paid advocacy is an extremely recent addition to WP:COI and should not be used until we have consensus on its meaning, scope, and the policy implications of such. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

That seems to me to be a distraction. The guideline does say what it means. People who:

• receive monetary or other benefits or considerations to edit Wikipedia as a representative of an organization (whether directly as an employee or contractor of that organization, or indirectly as an employee or contractor of a firm hired by that organization for public relations purposes), or

• expect to derive monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia (for example, by being an owner, officer, or other stakeholder of an organization; or by having some other form of close financial relationship with a topic you wish to write about) ...

Is that description unclear? So long as it's clear, it doesn't really matter what we call it, and as "paid advocacy" is the expression that has caught on, it makes sense to continue using it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

"Paid Advocacy"

First off, I have a potential conflict of interest here (ironically), because I'm drafting a proposal called WP:COI+. SlimVirgin has objected strongly to the COI+ draft, so I'm wary of continuing that dispute to this page, but I'm also concerned that recent changes to WP:COI are injecting a tautology: The recently changed usage of the term "paid advocacy" equates having a corporate/professional/financial conflict of interest with being an advocate. This assumes that those with such a conflict of interest are in fact editing or seeking to edit wikipedia non-neutrally. In past RFCs, many have expressed the view that there is a difference between the person and their edits. While having a COI predisposes one towards a higher risk of being non-neutral, it does not tautologically guarantee it. Also, whether a company tells a representative to "edit Wikipedia" or to "edit Wikipedia to promote a product, client, or company" or to "edit Wikipedia to improve its accuracy, completeness, and neutrality" is unknown to us. The term "paid advocacy"/"paid advocate" confuses or equates the person and their COI with their behavior. Where is the consensus for that assumption? I'm quite open to suggestions and responses, but I do have concerns about this terminology. Also, I agree that all advocacy is already banned by NPOV and WP:NOT. To offer a suggestion, I would be comfortable with: editors with a professional or financial conflict of interest. I've also been using the term corporate/for-profit editors. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 07:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

We should at least temporarily remove the phrase "paid advocate" in this guideline, because it opens up a lot of implications, conflating the person and their actions. Gigs (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason to remove the expression "paid advocacy," because it's already in widespread use. I also can't see the problem with equating the person with their actions, because we are talking here about people who are paid to do a certain type of thing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Everywhere else on Wikipedia, we focus on actions first, and then in rare cases, on the person taking the action, but only in so far as who they are explains their actions and can help sort out a resolution to the problem occurring. We don't want to go back towards witchhunts seeking to out people with COIs or who may be paid advocates. Monty₈₄₅ 21:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

This argument that there is a difference between a person and their edits has been used as a Trojan horse to push the idea that paid advocates might sometimes not be engaging in paid advocacy. We can't allow these bad arguments to continue to cause confusion.

The key is that paid advocates are paid not to be neutral. They are paid to violate NPOV, our most important policy, our "secret sauce," as someone called it. In the case of PR people – especially when writing about contentious issues – if they were to make truly neutral edits they would be sacked. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

First, its a perfectly reasonable aurgument. Second, if you want to define Paid Advocate as those Paid to violate NPOV, then I'm all for prohibiting edits from paid advocates. But the page at least in its current version includes substantially more people into whats covered. For instance, having a close financial interest in the subject matter is a far cry from being directly paid to come violate NPOV. Monty₈₄₅ 21:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Check out the language I put in a collapse segment at the bottom of the Thoughts string above. It is much clearer to identify PR as people editing "on behalf of an organization or individual with a potential conflict of interest." It is very confusing to use language like "paid editing" "paid advocate" and "paid advocacy" when most PR people are not directly reimbursed for any Wikipedia participation and don't know what any of these words mean. It's Wiki-Jargon. Corporate 21:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

paid vs unpaid vs fans

For simplicity, let's talk first about a commercial organization, one making or selling some product or service. Editing might be be done for several sorts of people: a member of their staff, by someone hired for the job, someone who is a fan, someone who dislikes them, someone who expects to receive academic or professional promotion, s someone who has a commercial connection with the geographic area or the general trade, someone with a strong personal affection (or dislike) for the geographic area or the general trade, someone with a personal connection to any of these, a person who seeks prestige--even anonymous prestige--from editing WP, a person wishing to advance the quality of WP for the purposes of public education, or even a person wishing to decrease the quality of Wikipedia. Any of these might edit to provide basic factual information, or a detailed history, or something specific they know or wish to say. Any of them might write neutral fair edits, or basically fair edits slanted a little towards or against the business, or uninformative praise or promotion. For example, people might write about Apple computers simply because they like them--and the results may be indistinguishable from the work of an advertising agency. People do this about personal favorite book or films all the time, and favorite Linux programs also, and they can be just as troublesome as if they were on the staff of the company that sells them. They can be even more troublesome, because they may be so much in love with whatever it is that they are impossible to discourage. Someone working for money will go away if the work is unprofitable.

Non-commercial organizations are even worse. People doing it for pay are usually not quite as skilled as those profit making organizations are able to hire. People doing it for devotion can be so devoted to the work of the organization or its principles that they will regard it as a moral obligation to promote it is ways fair or otherwise to the limit of the abilities; they may make it their life's purpose. I recognize a few of the people involved in discussing this topic at one or another place as having some such cause or hobby that has caused them to have such a strong interest that they have made long series of POV edits. I myself will do everything I can fairly do within the spirit of WP to promote the interests of libraries and higher education, but I hope I have never done it unfairly. Each time I edit a page on a library should I remind people I'm a librarian? Must I say I have a degree in orthodox biomedicine every time i !vote to delete an article on a non-notable alternative medicine practitioner? Yet I know people editing each of those topics with backgrounds similar to mine who do not in fact edit fairly.

What we need to do is judge the edits. A bad edit is a bad edit no matter who made it. Someone writing admiring descriptions of a show they love, can produce work at least as as bad as the show's PR company. Any competent PR agent promoting a product will give a reasonable description. An incompetent PR agent (or a fan, or a new editor who has seen so much PR writing in their life that they do not know better) will put in adjectives of praise, and they need to get removed no matter who inserted them. And anyone who keeps inserting such material needs to be warned, and blocked if they will not stop. The point is to help write a good encyclopedia. those making a positive contribution are valuable. Unlike SV, I think them equally bad regardless of motivation. I will give an example: SV and I once or twice opposed each other on articles about laboratory treatment of animals. She I believe considers lab use of animals unethical; I consider blanket opposition to lab use of animals an unethical danger to public health. If we do it right, as I think we both do, we can between us make a good NPOV article. We could equally well do so were she and I both paid advocates. DGG ( talk ) 22:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

No, I think that misses the essential point. If we are both unpaid, editing in good faith with our respective opinions, expertise and knowledge of policy, we could change each other's minds on certain points (which sources to use, how to use them, which issues to include). It might be hard, but we would AGF of each other that we could get there eventually. But if one of us is paid, there is a third person in the room, an invisible hand, that one of us is obeying. Not just respecting, but obeying. And that jams up the whole process, because there are certain things the invisible hand will always want to see excluded (serious criticism of his own company, for example), and the paid advocate will edit in the interests of this invisible hand.

In addition to that, there is the unethical position of expecting volunteers to use their free time to deal with people who are being paid. It means a lot of unpaid people will just walk away from the discussion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The idea that money is inherently more motivating then any other possible source of conflict is just not true. If anything, those with monetary conflicts can be more open to reason then those who conflicted for other reasons. (think obsessive fans, nationalism issues) Monty₈₄₅ 02:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Slim, some companies I have worked with have an overwhelmingly defensive and unreasonable attitude - others are quite reasonable and will say "yah that is part of our history" or "we can't deny that this criticism is common and well-documented." Whether they can be reasoned with just depends.

I did not mind at all that an editor had a strong opinion about pizza cheese, but if an editor with a COI starts arguing to defend their promotionalism - I have a different reaction. OTOH, in some cases they are correct and I shouldn't necessarily have that kind of response.

I think academically DGG is correct. Philosophically these COIs have an editing behavior that is not that different from fan-boys. However, it does not behoove us to overlook the cultural and business dynamics. Professionals are more likely to follow instructions when offered and the community (and the media) will always be more offended when their edits violate NPOV than when similar non-NPOV edits are made by fan-boys. We need to give them/us good advice on that basis. Corporate 02:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

But CM, look what you wrote: some companies will be reasonable, some not. That's my point exactly. When you edit WP it must be up to you and you alone what you write, so long as it's within policy. You must wear your WP hat at all times. Yes, it might be balancing precariously on top of your fanboy hat, but it's there, and we have to hope that it exerts some influence.

It's the invisible boss, who may or may not be a voice of reason, that I object to, because I (as an editor working alongside a paid advocate), can't see that boss, can't reason with him. And the paid advocate, being paid by the boss, will never off his own bat add something that damages the boss. If he does, he will be sacked. So the whole balance of collaboration and negotiation and mutual trust (sometimes grudging but rarely entirely absent) is thrown off kilter. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

But we can argue with the advocate and the person employing the advocate in the language they understand: we can make their work unprofitable unless they do it right. Nobody will employ a writer who cannot get articles in WP. It's our job to maintain the standards of the articles. If I were advocating something as a job for pay, at some point I would tell my employer I had done as much as I could, and the employer would realize that beyond that point they were wasting their money and true other avenues of promotion. If I were defending it because it was the thing I cared about most in the world, I would keep going until people ejected me, and then come back as a sockpuppet. Or if I advertised myself as willing to write WP articles on books for, say, $500, & if the article ran into stiff resistance, I would give it $500 worth of work, and then cut my losses. Most people who accept money for WP offer to refund the money if the article does not stay in a certain amount of time: I have seen 3 months given as a guarantee period. Our job is to remove the spam quickly, but if they have written a decent article, they've fairly earned the money. DGG ( talk ) 03:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Upgrade it a guideline?

• Support Even though I reverted the upgrading to a guideline on process grounds, I am in favor of conversion to a guideline. Paid advocacy is a clear and narrower term than paid editing, and I think clearly something that should be prohibited. I can't imagine a situation of being a paid advocate editor which is not in conflict with the goals and norms of Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 00:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• It's a guideline already, because that section of COI is a guideline and it says the same thing. I hope we don't get bogged down here in hairsplitting about process and definitions of words. The important issue is do we want to ask the community to promote it to policy, and if so what should that policy say. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

A guideline is a Wikipedia page. A page repeating certain aspects of a guideline does not automatically make the page itself a guideline. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

This section of the COI guideline was getting lost among thousands of words, and because it was getting lost it was being ignored. That allowed paid advocates to argue that there was no consensus about paid advocacy, when there is a consensus, and here it is. So I have copied it from the COI page, and given it the same status, simply to make it more prominent, and also to use it as the basis of moving it forward to become a stand-alone policy.

As things stands, it can't have a different status from the COI page. Words can't be guidelines in place A in project space, while exactly the same words are not guidelines in place B, also in project space. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

It was getting ignored because it had insufficient consensus. So does this as a policy. My current impression is that about 1/3 of editors would ban all paid editing on mainspace, 1/3 would limit it, and 1/3 would accept it if it were OK otherwise. I am not claiming my own view has present consensus, but neither does any other. I am not optimistic about finding a compromise position that will. To be sure, most of the paid editors will accept anything that lets them continue somehow, but that won't apply to most of us. DGG ( talk ) 03:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

While I don't agree with Slim on the process and structure side, I do think that this should be a guideline. Responding to your point, I think that this makes an important distinction (paid advocacy vs. paid editing) which you are conflating. Paid editing is only an indicator of a high risk of improper editing. Paid advocacy is a situation where the editor has explicitly agreed to do improper (advocacy) editing, and/or the act of doing improper editing. North8000 (talk) 11:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be a guideline (although I don't fully agree), but it's not identical to (parts of) WP:COI, so it's not automatically a guideline. And there's no consensus established here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree on the structure side. Slim, I don't even see how you could make the argument that if a page has some material that is contained in a guideline then that page itself is a guideline. Need I really make illustrative examples? If I wrote a page that contains and expounds on something that is in a policy, does that mean that the page that I just wrote is a policy? North8000 (talk) 10:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. We do not need yet another guideline or policy. I would recommend making this an essay and leaving it at that - it can refer to policies and guidelines, but it should not in itself be one. Apteva (talk) 04:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed policy

Just noting that Gigs and I have been working on a proposed policy at User:SlimVirgin/No paid advocacy, which anyone is welcome to help with. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)