Wikipedia talk:Paid editing (guideline)/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Wikipedia:Paid editing/Alternative text

I've tried everything that I know of to break the impasse. For now I will not edit WP:Paid editing - what's the use? everything I submit gets reverted anyway. Over the next 4 or 5 days I will try to make Wikipedia:Paid editing/Alternative text into a more complete page covering more issues, etc. I invite everybody who wishes to write this according to a consensus of editors to join me on that page. Let's at least follow an informal WP:1RR rule. The only issue I can see popping up is that the 2 pages share the same talk page and I hope nobody will interfere with the talk page. I think that a notice should be on the top of the page Wikipedia:Paid editing about the alternative page, but its previously been reverted, so I won't add it. At some point, if say 5 editors are collaboratively editing that page and this page stays as it is with only 1 editor allowed to edit it, the pages should be switched. Nevertheless, I'm predicting that won't be accepted, but we can find a way to deal with that as well. Smallbones (talk) 00:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I looked over Benjiboi's edits to the main page from yesterday. I think he knew he did not have consensus for them, since many had been specifically discussed and rejected. Adding content as a dare to revert is poor editing, and I believe disruptive. I have my doubts if he can refrain from being disruptive on the alternative text page. I welcome the attempt, however. --TeaDrinker (talk) 15:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to build just about any content you wish in your user page but pages in user space do not share talkpages with mainspace pages. Also the page is currently a subpage to this one which I think convenes consensus building, my hunch is that you should userfy it just as other users have userfied theirs.
TeaDrinker I will ask you nicely to stop making any more judgments, personal attacks and disparaging comments about me. I have acted in good faith and have been treated quite poorly for my efforts to keep this page accurate. -- Banjeboi 04:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Lets not focus on where the page is, but let's discuss its merits or drawbacks instead. Personally, I couldn't care less whether it is on a subpage, a userpage or a talkpage... --Reinoutr (talk) 08:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I must say I prefer the alternative text, because it is way more clear then the current one. I added one example to the list of possible allowed edits, though:

• "An employee of an organisation or company corrects a factual mistake, which is not subject to any POV, in the article about his employer"

--Reinoutr (talk) 07:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The issues are the same for Wikipedia:Paid editing/Alternative text and Wikipedia:Paid editing so I think it makes sense to talk about either project here - they are just variants of the same project. From a practical point of view, we need to let all editors, who wish to edit some page on paid editing but are not allowed to on the "non-alternative page," where they can contribute in a more friendly environment. I thank all the editors who are currently contributing there.

I'm making my first revert on that page, but think that it is due to a simple mis-understanding. I noted that the definition of paid editing includes editing talk pages, and that not all paid editing is unacceptable. "Talk page" was then deleted from the definition because an editor didn't think it should be banned, but I'll add it back because I think that is the perfect example of paid editing that is acceptable. I may have some difficulty adding more examples of acceptable paid editing, but invite everybody who accepts (in principle at least) a WP:1RR rule, to add more.

BB, please don't interfere with the talk page again. Smallbones (talk) 11:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Please user my proper user name if you wish to address me at all, it's not that long as to warrant abbreviating. And as that entire page seems a waste of energy I'm quite happy to simply voice my opinion and let you all do what you feel is right with it. When it is no longer needed we should archive it IMHO rather than keep it as a subpage here. I still think it's existence as a subpage is problematic but similar to paid editing - if there is nothing that forbids it I guess it must be allowed. -- Banjeboi 12:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Related discussion

See User talk:Jimbo Wales#Opinions/advice please for a related discussion (and note Jimbo's strong statement). Johnuniq (talk) 04:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Please note that is to find the best language regarding paid admining; there is also is misstep as well not noting that this page is stated to some up current policies and guidelines as opposed to proposing new policies. -- Banjeboi 05:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Payment for editing policy

I propose the following for consensus:

Editors who have a financial interest in the outcome of this policy, explicitly including those who are editing for pay under any username, must disclose that fact or not discuss policy changes.

I should think this follows directly from WP:COI, but it is worth making it explicit. Please limit your comments to the comments section. --TeaDrinker (talk) 04:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. TeaDrinker (talk) 04:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Smallbones (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
3.   Will Beback  talk  19:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
4. Dcoetzee 22:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
5. That isn't, literally, what WP:COI is all about. —Finell (Talk) 00:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Ridiculous, this violates our WP:Civility policy on Assuming good faith. -- Banjeboi 22:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
3. What's next, excluding Administrators from discussing the blocking policy? --Reinoutr (talk) 16:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Fine in theory but completely pointless in practice because it cannot be monitored or enforced. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

True there's no explicit enforcement mechanism, but I read WP:AGF to mean we should first trust people to follow the rules. --TeaDrinker (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• "A Lecture Upon the Benefits of Universal Suffrage, and the Development of Greater Fellowship of Mankind, Shall Be Held in the Municipal Meeting Rooms Next Saturday at 7 pm. Entrance Free. No Women, No Blacks, No Irish - Other Inferior Peoples May Attend If Vouched For." LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Everyone is welcome to participate in this page. But hidden agendas and secret financial dealings are incompatible with open and transparent policy writing.   Will Beback  talk  21:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • To be clear, do you think WP:COI does not apply here or do you disagree with it as a guideline? --TeaDrinker (talk) 03:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
    • That's a nice piece of "when did you stop beating your wife" rhetoric - but there is, of course, a third alternative. Maybe LessHeard vanU does not agree with your claim that your statement follows from WP:COI. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Ah, I can see what you're getting at with my phrasing. My intention was an honest question. My question was intended between this not following from WP:COI, which was indicated, and if LessHeard vanU simply disagreed with it as a guideline. I apologize for the lack of clarity and can certainly see how my question was unclear. --TeaDrinker (talk) 18:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
    • To be clear - COI does not apply here. Take elections of Presidents or Governments, suffrage is for all and not those who intend to vote for the incumbents and major opposition parties/individuals that support the current system. In the matter of paid editing, it is the arguments derived from those (very few, presently) participants that need to be reviewed and measured and not why they are making them - by excluding those who are not within the "permissable" range of views presently regarded as consensus you have no access for viable options for change. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
      • You don't think there should even be any disclosure? In other words, do you think that it's best for Wikipedia if paid editing is kept secret?   Will Beback  talk  22:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
        • The current policy as it stands pretty much ensures that it will be kept secret, of course. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
        • This is about creating or revising policy, not the editing of articles (I voted for allowing paid editing, with full disclosure, in the RfC re article writing) - I think it would constrain the discussion if all available options were not permitted to be aired, even if it were from those who would both gain financially if those suggestions were adopted and were aware the suggestions would be thrown out without consideration if they made their allegiances known. When dealing with governance (which is what policy discussions ultimately are) every viewpoint including that which is to be countered by the effects of that policy should be examined to see if the conclusions reflect and effect the greater number of contributors.
        • In short, policy discussion - even if the aim is exclusive - must be inclusive to cover all possiblities. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
          • Not to pester, but that didn't address my question. This isn't about excluding anyone. It's about having editors who are engaged in paid editing disclose that fact if they're going to edit this policy. IT's not a violation of AGF to assume that those who are profiting from a lack of a clear policy would seek to prevent their activities from being limited. On the contrary, it's an assumption of bad faith to assert that suggestions from paid editors would be discarded without consideration.   Will Beback  talk  23:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
            • Sorry, it is not my experience that the latter is bad faith - it is fact, in my opinion. However, again I am not referring to the individual editorship but the ideas that an editor may have and which may derive a financial benefit to them but is nevertheless one that might improve the encyclopedia. A discussion on policy should only be that which argues if the project is improved, and not if and who benefits from the amendment outside of the projects interest. I have been racking my brains for a scenario, and this is the only one that I can come up with; A discussion whether should very professional and accredited bodies (lawfirms, and suchlike) be permitted to use their own credentials (since they have passed nationally recognised standards to be allowed to practice) be permitted to be used to establish their standing within their field. The discussion needs to be whether such accredition suffices for Wikipedia's purposes, and not whether some proponents are employees or agents for said lawfirms. I suggest it is not important to determine whether there are legal companies paid editors proposing or arguing than seeing the strength of argument used - and I can assure you that if an editor admitted that they were being paid to present their comments then their views would be greeted with cries of "WP:COI!" and "WP:NPOV" (at least presently) - but that if such bodies convey a degree of trustworthiness that means WP does not require other third party sources. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
              • Your basic argument, that people's views would be discounted if they disclosed their interests, could be applied to any and all COIs. "If I told you I was the subject of this article then you'd just say I saw deleting criticism because of COI! Please assume good faith even though I'm hiding my identity." Regarding the hypothetical (?) discussion over setting credential standards, if an accreditation body was going to form a committee to evaluate and set policy it would start by carefully looking at the credentials of the committee members.
              • It's probably with mentioning that paid editing COI is qualitatively different from other COIs. When someone is advocating for a cause they believe in they will usually do so consistently across different articles. But a paid editor could be advocating for a proposed law one day and for a brand of dog food another. If there is no disclosure, it is that much harder for other editors to even realize they are dealing with a paid advocate. And if that paid advocate then goes and edits the policy to make sure he doesn't have to make any discloures, then it puts the regular editors at a significant disadvantage.   Will Beback  talk  00:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
                • LessHeard, doesn't your argument apply equally well to all conflicts of interest? I don't believe you're advocating the elimination of WP:COI, but I fail to see the distinction. --TeaDrinker (talk) 05:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
                  • No. COI (declared or otherwise, paid or otherwise) within articles dictates how bias' are presented to the reader because it appears in the "front page" - COI as regards discussing policy only relates to the viewpoints presented; if they are good ideas then they will be adopted and if they are bad they will not. Ultimately, even a "paid for" bad change in policy will fail because it will be seen to be invalid by the community in attempting to impose it. The process of decision making negates most of the ill effects of paid advocacy within policy making - it is only the "anyone can edit" article contributing process that needs careful reviewing to ensure it is kept clear of undue bias (again, whether or not the bias is introduced for reward). LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to take a fresh stab at why this particular issue might be important. It's true that in some cases, the argument is the important thing, more than the person making it. However, there are times when the motivations are important to understanding the dynamics of the discussion. I think this is most apparent when someone is not forthcoming about the true reasons they're supporting something. Let me paint a (maybe rather clumsy) picture to illustrate.

Suppose there was a policy discussion where somebody was seeking to establish that the subject of an article should be entitled to replace the lead image on their article, when one already exists. Suppose Freddy argues strongly in favor of this, basing his entire argument on the concept that a poor image could damage someone's career, and that many of the images on articles are blurry or otherwise low quality.

As soon as the policy is instituted, Freddy -- who had not disclosed his paid work -- promptly uploads 500 images on behalf of his clients, who are models, and places them in the relevant infoboxes. The images are all freely licensed, and they are high quality from the perspective of a modeling agency (which might be slightly different than the perspective of an encyclopedia). In addition, each one has an embedded URL at the bottom of the image, and the name of the modeling agency.

There are a number of problems with Freddy's behavior, but I think one of them is this: people participating in the policy discussion would rightly feel they were engaged in a disingenuous, sham discussion. If Freddy had disclosed his business relationship with models, and disclosed that he was planning to do a mass upload if the policy were changed, it might have changed the course of the discussion.

I think it's important to require a general disclosure. As I said above, I do NOT think the policy should require disclosing specific clients in all cases, though that may be the best course of action in some cases. -Pete (talk) 02:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to be extra-clear, the scenario I'm trying to illustrate above is where the person's stated reasons for changing the policy vary significantly from the actual reasons they are seeking to change the policy. A good-faith participant in a discussion should be forthcoming about facts that might influence the decisions of other participants; I think it's entirely appropriate that a policy on paid editing should explicitly draw this point out. -Pete (talk) 02:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

While a good comment, I should note that the above proposal is narrowly focused to the editing this policy. --TeaDrinker (talk) 04:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I can see from the surrounding discussion that I have waded into something unpleasant and personal. I'm removing my !vote above, and will let you guys figure out how to handle this. I can see that there are good people on all sides of this, but it appears that nerves have worn rather thin all around. Best of luck getting through this. The work you've been doing is important, and I hope there's some ready resolution to the more personal stuff. -24.21.143.116 (talk) 05:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot to log in. That was me, immediately above, and removing my !vote. -Pete (talk) 05:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources

If this is supposed to reflect existing policies and practices then we need precise footnotes, not things like "some say" or "it was felt by those at the NY meetup". I'll comment out such assertions unless we can get quotations or diffs.   Will Beback  talk  06:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Just adding cites needed tags is sufficient. I think I've covered everything so far. -- Banjeboi 07:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

2 important topics, Jimbo's edit

Jimbo's edit on WP:Paid editing/Alternative text and comment at WT:Paid editing/Alternative text seems to raise this from a proposed guideline (... is strongly discouraged) to a proposed policy (... is forbidden....will be blocked) I'm not against this; he is not insisting on this (see edit summary); but in any case it should be discussed. Contrary to the comment above, Jimbo's edit and talk page comment suggest to me that he is not focusing on a narrow sub-topic, but has strong views on the whole topic.

I've also put in a section on "Exceptions and safe harbors", most importantly "If an editor wishes to help individuals or organizations create neutral point of view articles, without giving up his or her independent editorial judgement, while accepting payment he or she may strictly follow these rules:

• I have no idea how this would work, but many editors have said this is possible. Please fill us in."

I'm not joking on this. People do insist that this can happen, and I'd love to see it if this loophole is not abused. I just don't see how it could work, so I'm asking others to put in their ideas. Smallbones (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Pleas keep talk regarding the subpage with that page, this is exactly why it should be its very own essay or proposed policy page than a subpage of this one. It's diverting away from what this page is purporting to be about and that's fine. If the editors there wish to work on proposed policy changes then great. Untangle from this effort which isn't doing that. -- Banjeboi 19:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I supposed that I'm used to the fact that I completely disagree with you on most things. Please grow up. You've gained WP:Ownership of this page simply by reverting everything that anybody else contributes. Are you now going to take ownership of the talk page by reverting everything you don't like on it? Smallbones (talk) 21:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Please stop making accusations and attacks. One more crack and I'll ask for more eyes to look at your comments towards me. I have made good faith efforts to improve this page and any objective view will bear that out. You may never extend good faith to me but I certainly have done so to everyone else despite comments like these. You might not be hearing this but really, that page should be its own separate page with the two pages linking to each other (in "See also" if nothing else). You likely won't take my advice as constructive but I have actually researched and read several years' worth of threads on this topic, your proposed policy will fail as currently caged, if you instead tweak it to focus on paid advocacy and expand from there it may have a chance. regretably I don't see it succeeding otherwise. -- Banjeboi 22:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Wales's veto comment

Given that Jimbo has said that he would veto the current version [1] "This is why I object and will veto (yes, veto) and purported policy that says something as wishy-washy as this." where "this" is the current version, wouldn't it cause less drama if we simply started over? Smallbones (talk) 16:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I concur.   Will Beback  talk  17:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there anyone besides Benjiboi who is still interested in editing his text? --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a gross misrepresentation of Wales comment; he was directly answering a request for feedback, from me, regarding a more accurate paid admining statement. I'm sorry you feel frustration with pushing ideas that are not only in conflict with current policy but also against community consensus. I also respect that you are quite passionate about your opinions. In hindsight you might see that unrelenting pursuit coupled with personalizing these issues against other editors has driven away other editors who were trying to spell this out. Once the heat dies down hopefully more editors will be willing to rejoin. Meanwhile I applaud your efforts to find forward movement on the alternative text in hopes something in there can manifest as a proposed guideline or policy. -- Banjeboi 02:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

We need to take TeaDrinker's question seriously. I'll suggest switching versions of WP:Paid editing with WP:Paid editing/Alternative text in 2 days if 2 people other than Benjiboi don't state that they want to edit the current text. As far as me giving "a gross misrepresentation of Wales comment" I don't think Jimbo could have been clearer. His edit strengthening WP:Paid editing/Alternative text was quite clear as well. Feel free to ask Jimbo if he disagrees with my characterization. Smallbones (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Please don't make ultimatums like this, that is not how we work collaboratively with one another. With due respect you likely should rename and refocus WP:Paid editing/Alternative text to something that might be a reasonable proposed guideline or policy. If you want to keep it on paid editing maybe WP:No paid editors or similar. In this way the alt page is no longer a subpage in any way of this one; they are simply two pages with differing views with one aiming to effect a guideline/policy and the this one attempting to summarize current situation. IMHO, there have been some healthy suggestions in other venues on paid editing for ways to move policies forward. If this page is done right a summary of those suggestions could be a part of a summary of community views. It doesn't have to be include but it may help guide editors such as yourselves who do want to see policy directly addressing these issues. -- Banjeboi 15:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

No ultimatum, just a suggested way forward when only 1 editor thinks the current version is worth editing. The proposals are on exactly the same topic. This idea that the current version is just an essay is troubling. It has been labeled at the top as a proposed policy or guideline (up until you removed it 2 days ago) from its creation, and then again when you reinstered that label on the top in June, and then again when you cast the first !vote on the Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Paid_editing to keep "this is now the early stages of a guideline how to address the issues raised whether this becomes policy or whatever.." Let's try to be consistent and also allow other editors to edit this.Smallbones (talk) 17:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

"switching versions of WP:Paid editing with WP:Paid editing/Alternative text in 2 days if 2 people other than Benjiboi don't state that they want to edit the current text" is an ultimatum and continues a battleground mentality which is counter to consensus-building.
I removed the proposed policy/guideline tag as it has remained a sticking point that editors are not looking to the very next tag which states it's a summary of policy, not a proposed policy; I agreed with the statement that the tags were contradictory. Meanwhile there is work on another page which hopes to be policy so I would think having just one page asserting it is going to be policy would favor those interested in such having focus on only one page toward that goal.
I didn't add the essay tag but at least two editors felt it was appropriate, I'm not sure if it makes sense to remove it or not so I'd rather have consensus based in sound logic to remove it. The note that this is a policy summary has been in place since the first day. No one has prevented anyone from editing and everyone is welcome to edit here. -- Banjeboi 19:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Encouraging other editors to discuss

I would love to hear some ideas for how to encourage other editors to comment and discuss this content. We used to have quite a number of people here, with a range of opinions. I have been of the view that the sheer volume of edits on this page have kept people from participating: spending an hour or two a day reading and responding on this page, every day, seems like a lot to ask of volunteers when so few of us comprise such a disproportionate number of edits. I had suggested the two of us who are the "worst offenders" so to speak cap the number of comments at one per day. I would be interested to hear what other people suggest. --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The one comment per day per editor cap seems constructive to me. It would be good to try it here with the possibility of extending it to other talk pages if it works out well. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Time to rename and launch Wikipedia:Paid editing/Alternative text?

We don't have WP:COI and WP:COI/Alternative text for very good reasons.

I suggest renaming and moving Wikipedia:Paid editing/Alternative text to something that is distinct and can be treated on its own merit rather than a subpage of this page. I will start a discussion thread at Wikipedia talk:Paid editing/Alternative text#Time to rename and launch? -- Banjeboi 16:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Status?

Is this actually a proposal? I was just wondering about the essay tag. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The status is "resting" after a protracted disagreement, namely, is this a description of existing policy, or is it a proposal for a new policy? Some editors aiming for the latter have started on WP:Paid editing/Alternative text. It's not terribly clear, and is definitely unusual, but my suggestion is that those who want to restrict paid editing should work on the "alternative", while anyone else should work on WP:Paid. Johnuniq (talk) 10:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks John. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Location to report paid editing?

Where's the best place? Here? Somewhere else?

WMUK received an email pointing to this page offering money for a Wikipedia editor, which may be of interest to some here. Mike Peel (talk) 19:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it is useful to list this type of information somewhere, and this is a good place because I'm fairly sure there is nothing better. If it were more recent (seems to be two months old) or more specific I would consider posting to User talk:Jimbo Wales because that is where the attention for this topic arose and where it would be most noticed. Actually, User:Brumski (formerly Ha!) has an excellent analysis of a few cases at User:Brumski/paid editing adverts, and if we get some more examples, it may be good to see about adding them there. Johnuniq (talk) 23:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Restart

I've boldly switched the text that was here with the alternative text, as it has become increasingly clear that the leading editor of the old text had a very poor understanding of WP:Conflict of interest. Everybody should feel free to edit either version, or even both versions, but I think most editors will have a better start by editing what's on this page. Smallbones (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Editing workplace articles

Hi all. Smallbones (talk · contribs) recently posted the following on my talk page:

[..] I noticed on your user page that you might have edited articles related to your workplace. As the proposed policy is currently written, you might be required to post on your user page that you are a paid editor! [...] Smallbones (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I find this curious. In this situation, my workplace is very notable - it's Jodrell Bank Observatory. I'm "employed" (if you can call it that) as a postgraduate student there. I became very interested in the rich history of the observatory, and began researching it. The Wikipedia articles were the obvious place for me to put the fruits of my research. I've received no direct benefits from my actions, although there have been unintentional side-effects (e.g. I'm often asked for help on wiki-related activities). I don't think there was a conflict of interest.

I find it interesting that this proposal could be read as my editing being paid - according to the second sentence, "This includes inserting or deleting content to the advantage of the editor's employer into or from an article, talk page, or policy." Linked with "Paid editing by Wikipedia administrators or bureaucrats is incompatible with the duties these people have freely accepted", the proposal would dictate that I should be de-admined as a result. I think that's unintentional, but it might be considered to be a conflict of interest if I directly changed it. ;-)

Incidentally, I think that the whole of this proposal is actually redundant to WP:COI. "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." It doesn't matter if they're paid or not; someone could be paid without a conflict of interest (e.g. Encyclopaedia Britannica editors), or they can find that getting paid counts as "advancing outside interests". While I'm not opposed to guidelines that state the convention more explicitly, does it really need to be policy? (implied by the heading and right-hand navigation) Mike Peel (talk) 18:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I certainly didn't intend any offense, nor do I suggest that Mike Peel has done anything wrong. My apologies if it was taken as such. This certainly does point out the complexities of writing a policy like this. As far as "but it might be considered to be a conflict of interest if I directly changed it. ;-)" I'll ask him to directly change it, so that editors like him are not affected by the proposed policy, but editors like the ones on the list above that he posted here, are.

There is a question of whether this proposed policy is redundant to WP:COI, but does WP:COI prevent the advertising of editing services (like the list above)? Also there was an editor on this page who argued that all paid editing was acceptable, as long as WP:NPOV, WP:COI, etc. were complied with. So there seems to be quite a difference of opinion on what WP:COI, etc. means regarding Paid editing. The purpose of this proposed policy is to clear up any confusion. Smallbones (talk) 19:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

No offence was taken. Note the ";-)" at the end of my CoI comment. :)

COI doesn't prevent advertising editing services - but it does say that an editor shouldn't be writing an article where they are forced to have a certain point of view. Money is a way that can induct a point of view into the person's writing, e.g. it can lead to the editor omitting negative aspects of an article. It's not the only way, and it's possibly not even the most effective way. It also depends on what the money is for ("write an article on this" vs. "write an article on this with this perspective"). Guidelines should exist to assist, but it should be in the hands of individual editors to decide whether a specific case is a COI, and the community to agree/disagree for specific cases. Mike Peel (talk) 23:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not consider this paid editing. A great many people in such situations edit articles about people or institutions they are associated with, and most of them do it quite well. The problem is when a PR person from the institution edits. (or when the edit is not a good one--but that can happen also without COI.) I do not even consider such a situation genuine COI, any more than if I edit articles about places in Brooklyn. I would not leave any sort of notice in a case like this except in there were problems with the articles. The policy should be, in effect " if you edit articles about places you are connected with, be sure to edit according to our policies. " We have real problems with commercial and non-commercial spam and true paid editing, and we need to concentrate on the actual problems. DGG ( talk ) 15:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the no advertising clause

The policy is shaping up and most of it looks fine, but I continue to disagree strongly with the "no advertising" clause ("Advertising for paid editing services are prohibited. This includes advertising services as a Wikipedia editor [...]"). While most of this paragraph is just fine with me, I believe advertising one's services as a Wikipedia editor is permissible and even valuable, notwithstanding Jimbo's unenforceable decree to the contrary. An open market that allows employers to find experienced Wikipedians who can write high-quality articles adhering to our policies is more likely to prevent problems than to cause them. I propose the following revision:

Advertising for paid editing services is strictly limited to simple article editing in compliance with policies. Advertising for any other service is prohibited. This includes:

• advertising services as a Wikipedia administrator or bureaucrat,
• bidding on advertised jobs to advocate for the benefit of the employer, or
• actively seeking payment for taking on a particular position in any editorial decision, or policy dispute.

Any of these activities may result in a block.

Something like that. Dcoetzee 19:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a clear, well-stated alternative, and it's likely to be a controversial one. Thanks for the input, and I think we should wait for some reaction.

One type of advertising that I would not be against is out-in-the-open notices on user pages; e.g. "This user edits at the Reward Board, specializing in articles in men's fashion, bicycle mechanics, and sunglasses. Examples of my work there include .... I am also available to write freely licensed articles off-Wiki."

Would this type of thing help? Smallbones (talk) 20:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Suspicious activity

I have listed some at Wikipedia:Paid editing/Noticeboard. Help with investigation is appreciated. Triplestop x3 00:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, the prices are pretty nice! I like the one where they will check the article with the plagiarism checking software. I'm slightly concerned with putting up current ads on Wikipedia (at least for the long-term), and how other editors might view it. But for the time being, this is great stuff! Smallbones (talk) 01:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This is interesting, the prices offered at Elance are usually higher than the sites listed. Triplestop x3 02:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I checked out one bidder with a link to their business. To quote:

"Samples of Wikipedia Articles/Edits We've Done:

• Jack Gulick
• Still I Rise: A Graphic History of African Americans
• The New Yorker Hotel
• Collaborative divorce"

A quick read suggests that the 1st and 3rd articles are not terrible (but by no means great), borderline notable. The 2nd and 4th look like messes. All four have taken up lots of editor/admin time. At least one of the original editors have been blocked as a sockpuppet.

The New Yorker Hotel article is interesting. I guess the broader philosophical question is whether Wikipedia should be skewed by commercial considerations, so that Hotel A gets an article and the equally notable Hotel B does not. It's a bit like travel stores in newspapers, and whether it is OK to run them if the writer was paid by the hotels and cruise lines he's writing about.--Stetsonharry (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I have done some editing for Still I rise, and more is needed. The book is notable, but the article was written pre-publication or just at the time of publication. Reviews were used that were unpublished, or blurbs. There is real material to be found, though. As for Collaborative Divorce, now incorporated into Collaborative law, it certainly does need fixing, but I'm not the best person for it. Gullick contains much unsourced material and many peacock terms, and the original paid version was done in ignorance of Wikipedia conventions for cross references. --again, I'm not the best person to work on it . These articles illustrates the danger of resorting to editing by commercial editors. DGG ( talk ) 16:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing some fix up. The real danger of paid editing is not so much that we get badly written non-notable articles - after all we can delete these - but the amount of editor time involved in fixing up a lot of borderline notable badly written articles. It can be even worse if the paid editor fights changes or deletions. A paid editor who is well versed in Wikipedia procedure can drag out needed changes forever, making Wikipedia an extremely unpleasant place at times.

Part of the solution to the amount of editor time taken up by paid articles is probably going to be to realize that we can't totally eliminate paid editing, but that we have to channel it in the proper direction. This is probably going to be the most controversial part of this proposed policy. What's now in the PP reflects the principle that "A regular editor has to do the actual writing of the article" e.g. through the reward board or through posting a properly licensed article from another source onto Wikipedia. Are there better ways to do this? Will this work as written? Smallbones (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Added two from Elance. Yikes, that user "Tayzen" is still at it. Didn't a ban for him go through at AN? See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive198#Proposed_ban_for_Elance_user_Tayzen Triplestop x3 22:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)