Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cooperation/Paid editor help

Great idea! Please also keep an eye the requests in Category:Requested edits, where COI editors have placed the {{Request edit}} template:

Requested edits

no pages or subcategories

You can add this list to your user or talk page with <categorytree mode=pages>Category:Requested edits</categorytree> Thank you! Selery (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Bit concerned about suggesting mainspace edits

I'm a bit concerned here when volunteers suggest to COI users to do mainspace edits. It is not Best Practice. Even if the volunteer judges the content of the edit to be non-controversial, the fact that a declared COI user will be working in mainspace *IS* controversial. Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   08:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Updating financial information from the company is one type of edit that is specifically defined as being okay for COI editors to do. Because there is no way to introduce bias through those additions (so long as they are accurate, but then, they wouldn't be representing the company at that point). We can't do all of the minor changes to articles, that would overload us in no time. Silverseren^C 17:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

If that is the consensus, then I highly suggest we change the wording in the 2nd lead paragraph, which currently has "the request will be reviewed by a volunteer editors and completed if found to be within the community guidelines", and to clarify and expand on the statement in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cooperation#Paid_editor_help that reads "Paid editors are strongly encouraged not to make direct edits to articles" Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   18:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

We should then, yeah. There's a few things that are fine for COI editors to do, updating generic financial info, uploading images and putting them in articles, correcting grammar and simple sentence structure, stuff like that. Silverseren^C 19:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it may be a more complicated question. The COI guideline allows grammatical edits and there are certain other minor edits that are utterly inconsequential. If a volunteer editor "approves" your content, it seems a mere technicality who posts it and who doesn't. On the other hand, getting that volunteer to post content on your behalf suggests a higher degree of responsibility by the volunteer. There's also issues with who approves it exactly. In talking to Woz2 about an article, he tweeted, we chatted, we discussed in the comments on a blog, he commented on my blog - I feel like we're buddies now. My PR background kicks in and I think about how a PR person would view a relationship like that as currency and use it to get their content posted easier. Finally, getting volunteers to post content on your behalf erodes transparency, because it's harder to see what articles you influenced, unless you keep a list on your user page.

I doubt there would ever be consensus on whether direct editing by paid COIs is ok, but if we're endorsing best practices rather than the bare minimum - and if we want the project to be something everyone can get behind... There was discussion on this early in the group's formation, but no consensus was reached. I wouldn't want to actively encourage direct editing, but on the other hand if someone fixes a template or updates revenue numbers, I'm all for it. It's just a slippery slope. Disclosure: I have a COI with this topic. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 22:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

But considering it's already specified in WP:COI as being okay, there shouldn't be a problem. We can't filter through things like grammar changes or whether they are allowed to upload an image. That would invoke far too much bureaucratic oversight into the process. Silverseren^C 04:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

So this is counter to the WP:BRIGHTLINE (fair warning: I stubbed that essay), and becomes more of a "Mildly Bold Line" like: Do not make substantial direct edits to articles  ? Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   11:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

At least according to current policy, yeah. It might be better to say, do not make edits to the article text that are not grammar-based or statistic corrections. Though that's a bit long for a slogan. Silverseren^C 18:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Another thing that I don't think is actually mentioned in policy, what if someone doesn't change the article text, but just adds references? Silverseren^C 18:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

no policy I'm aware of, but Non-controversial edits section of WP:COI guideline lists "Adding citations, especially when another editor has requested them." Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   18:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The bright line is a great "in a nutshell," which is what 95% of professional communicators need. It could be a great addition to the COI guideline if there isn't something similar already in it. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 13:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems so bizarre, but he's right, a lot of PR people seem incapable of reading text of more than a few paragraphs! ;) I like how that WP:BRIGHTLINE one has a sort of traffic-light system like the traffic light rating systems[1][2] to encourage people who never ever read the ingredients of the stuff they are eating to actually think about what they put in their mouths, it's a similar thing, some PR people are like fat kids with cakes when they see temptation lol!

Stuff needs to be simple, short and to the point, and then have a link to read the rest. It's nice to have detailed policies in some cases to prevent people lawyering their way around things sure, but it's all pointless when nobody actually reads it. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 14:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Drawn a distinction between those who are open and honest about it and the deceptive corporate shills

See here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Paid_Advocacy_Watch/Editor_Registry#Drawn_a_distinction_between_those_who_are_open_and_honest_about_it_and_the_deceptive_corporate_shills

Reply there if you want to so as to keep the discussion together I hope this might maybe be a new era of ah, co-op co-operation, maybe, whilst keeping PAIDWATCH independent as well to make sure there's always uninvolved oversight too. (I think some of the people in CO-OP have too many vested interests to be truly independent, being members of the corporate representatives group offsite and friends with PR people etc, but I think both can and should try to co-exist rather than fighting each other)

I've tried to help reform some of the more controversial bits of Herostratus' views on Paidwatch and drawn the line better between those who are honest and those who aren't, as well as hopefully trying to encourage more awareness of the people that do not work within the rules (and so affect the people that do it honestly):

(Don't take this the wrong way though, I don't want you to see this as a weakness to exploit or something, I'm genuinely trying to be nice here, that doesn't mean I won't report harassing behaviour when it happens to me or others such as back on 16th Feb when I added Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Websense,_Inc. to the PAIDWATCH wikiproject at 9:23[3], with "bobrayner" then suddenly arriving to talk:Websense at 9:58[4] along with "Bilby" at 11:13[5], both founding members the 5th and 7th respectively of this group and not members of wp:PAIDWATCH but apparently WP:WIKIHOUNDING me)

(Or more recently being followed again onto the Websense page from another page where I was threatened with "reporting to admin" if I reverted changes that were made whilst ignoring attempts at discussion[6](2012-03-24, 10:44) and then when I avoided the arguing and gave up editing, I then got followed over by Socrates2008 apparently trying to start a new argument with me there too instead... [7](2012-03-27, 11:18)[8][9][10]...) --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 18:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Not concerned anymore about suggesting mainspace edits

One month ago I posted here about being a "Bit concerned about suggesting mainspace edits". After reading much discussions about the issue all over Wikipedia, observing real-world edit requests and COI issues, I've come to the conclusion that I'm not concerned with this anymore. Doing non-controversial edits has community support, and arguments against allowing non-controversial edits are unconvincing. However, there is much room for improvement in documention and help pages that discuss non-controversial edits. To that end, I started a user page with a very specific list of non-controversial edits in mainspace. Thanks. Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   13:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I've never been a fan of the bright line thing. The contributor's edit history speaks for itself, and it's too much overhead to go through the "Can you please put a space between foobar in the third para. It should read foo bar. Thanks!" thing. Woz2 (talk) 13:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I still think WP:BRIGHTLINE is a good thing to recommend to those new to Wikipedia, and I fully support users who want to refrain from any mainspace edits because of a WP:COI issue. But I agree the overhead can become kinda silly, which is why I've personally decided to return to mainspace editing for non-controversial things. Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   13:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I recused myself from all mainspace edits in January, following some unpleasant interactions, including on Jimbo's Talk page. Since then I have been quite successful working through non-conflicted editors, particularly here at WP:CO-OP, even as there have been occasions where I've spent much more time requesting minor corrections than it would have taken to do myself. I don't care for the "bright line" either, but for now I'm going to stay on this side of it. I'd rather privilege "best practices" over timely action—even if it's no guarantee for avoiding controversy. WWB Too (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I always use analogies with the traditional publishing world. Obviously, the Wall Street Journal wouldn't appreciate it if PR people wrote themselves into their paper. But not many professional journalists would mind if a PR person corrected grammar. On the other hand, Wikipedia's definition of non-controversial edits is very different than the common spoken meaning. It offers a lot of opportunities for loopholes. Instead of using the ambiguous words "non-controversial," I would suggest spelling it out "grammar, formatting and Wikification." I think the bright line is the right message as a rule of thumb and would like to see this project endorse it, but it should be obvious that correcting spaces isn't problematic. User:King4057 23:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Draft best practice guidelines for PR

The Chartered Institute of Public Relations (in the UK) has drafted Guidelines for editting Wikipedia to issue to their members and have posted these on the Wikimedia UK wiki for wikimedians to review. Come and give us your comments. Draft best practice guidelines for PR Talk page filceolaire (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I submitted it for the SignPost and they said they were going to cover it. Nice work. I made some heavy revisions to it as well. User:King4057 18:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Miszabot archiving working?

The automated archiving on the main page doesn't seem to be working. It should be archiving threads that are 30+ days old. Maybe I set it up incorrectly? Current config is:

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 1
|minthreadsleft = 0
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cooperation/Archive %(counter)d
}}

Thanks. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 11:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

MiszaBot doesn't like it when you try to have it archive to anywhere but subpages of the current page, so I think that might've been the problem. If there's a particular reason you want the archives in a specific alternate location, you can request a key from Misza that'll let you put the archives somewhere else, but "there has to be a good reason", as he says. Assuming I'm right about the reason this wasn't working, and this fix works, you can then copy/paste the previous manual archives to the subpages MiszaBot creates. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:30, 5 Jul 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's any particular reason for it to go to one place rather than another. If a subpage of Paid Editor Help would work better, then that would be fine. What needs to be changed to do that? Silverseren^C 21:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I made the changes already. The path in the "archive" parameter just needed to be altered. Give it a day or two to see if it worked. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:37, 5 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Doh! Indeed then was my mistake. I had copied the config code from the main WP:CO-OP page and didn't set the archive param correctly. Thanks for the fix ;) -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 21:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It happens. No problem :) Equazcion ^(talk) 21:48, 5 Jul 2012 (UTC)

New articles: AFC or user draft?

I've been wondering: Is there a preferred way to submit a new article when one is a connected contributor? For example, should an article be submitted via the Articles for creation process, or is it better as a userspace draft with {{request edit}} (and/or notices here and/or on WP:COIN)? Thanks. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 11:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I think AfC is the superior process and is already well-established. My hope in improving the request edit templates is to get us remotely close to AfC for improving pre-existing articles. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 04:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

current wisdom about paid editors?

Hi, it's likely that i am dealing with 1 or more paid editors, and I came looking for what is the current guidance for paid editors, and/or for dealing with them, when one is a non-paid regular volunteer Wikipedian (as I am). I recall some PR companies' initiative on best practices, which I had the impression was completed by some group of PR companies in 2014. In a Talk section above there is this link to a Draft version: Draft best practice guidelines for PR, from back in 2012. What happened since, what is current?

And, whatever it is, perhaps it should probably be linked from {{WikiProject Cooperation Infobox}}, from Wikipedia:Paid editing (essay) and maybe from the failed Wikipedia:Paid editing (guideline) and Wikipedia:Paid editing (policy), none of which have been updated recently. At least this Paid editor Help page seems active, I am glad to see. Thanks in advance for any help. --doncram 01:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I eventually find, at wwww.cipr.uk.co, the following CIPR Wikipedia Best Practice Guidance v2.1 in PDF, which is a finalized version. It must have been issued in 2014, because it includes reference to the 10 June 2014 status of Wikipedia:Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms, then with 11 PR firms signed on, now with numerous more. And with CIPR and other professional groups signed on. This is a live page in Wikipedia. Maybe this latter should be included in the WikiProject Cooperation Infobox? --doncram 05:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Help Request

Hello,

I have been attempting to update the HeinOnline Wikipedia article for several months. I am working on behalf of William S. Hein & Co., Inc. and have declared my COI accordingly. I have followed each and every step recommended by Wikipedia in order to get additional information about HeinOnline and William S. Hein & Co., Inc. added to the article, which currently contains only two short paragraphs, as opposed to the Westlaw page, which is much more robust.

I was criticized for sourcing HeinOnline's own site for factual information, such as number of pages, types of documents, etc. included in the database. I understand this, but noticed that Westlaw's page also sources several West/Thomson sites for its information and I was curious about why it seems to be allowed in one instance, but not another. In response to the criticism, I have provided several resources that provide information about HeinOnline and William S. Hein & Co., Inc. which are unrelated to HeinOnline's own websites. Still, I have not seen much progress.

Please see the HeinOnline Talk page and my "Sandbox" page for all information provided thus far.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:HeinOnline

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tak1335/sandbox

Because it appears that I will be unable to effect any changes, at this time I would like to inquire about the process of obtaining paid editor help. Please let me know the best process for doing so.

Thanks.

Tak1335 (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

OTRS volunteers needed

Hi all. A while back, I posted to WP:AN about our need for OTRS volunteers. At the time, I was focusing mostly on the permissions queues. That recruiting attempt was rather successful, so I've decided to post here to talk about our need for info-en agents. Info-en is the queue that holds all general emails we receive related to the English Wikipedia. The Quality subqueue of info-en hosts relatively high-priority tickets from the subjects of BLPs.

When we ask article subjects to avoid editing articles, we need to provide them an alternative to address actual issues. This is that alternative. This is how we want article subjects to be interacting with Wikipedia, but unfortunately, article subjects regularly wait long periods of time before receiving a response. Currently, the oldest unanswered ticket in the Quality subqueue is over four months old. It's hard to expect an article subject to do nothing when faced with a BLP vio on their article, no idea on how to get it removed, and zero response when they try to reach out to us in the proper way. When the Quality subqueue works more efficiently with small wait times, article subjects don't turn to paid editing.

If you'd be interested in helping out, please check out meta:OTRS/Volunteering. You can read more in my previous call for volunteers at AN, which is located here. I'd also be happy to answer any questions you may have. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit request on the Talk:VERITAS_(spacecraft) page

Hi there! I posted some suggested edits to the Talk:VERITAS_(spacecraft) page back in June. I got some Wikipedia editors' eyes on the request by posting over at the WikiProject Spaceflight talk page. However, to date, the majority of my suggested edits have not been checked/cleared/implemented. There is one editor who has been working on it when they can, but it would be great to have more editors helping out. By the way, to help make it easier for editors, two passes of checking for close paraphrasing was done on my end. The sources I provided as citations were checked. Also used the search engine method mentioned in bullet 2 of Template:Request edit/Instructions § For reviewers. Any additional help would be greatly appreciated! Best, Morgensteorra (talk) 19:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)