Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Paid editing: Difference between revisions

This page in a nutshell: Request for comments on Paid Editing, and what your views on it are. There has been no real community consensus on this previously.

An RFC on the notion of paid editing.

NOTE: Today, as of the launch time of this RFC, this is not a blockable offense under any policy, or to my knowledge against any explicit policy, but dances around WP:COI in some ways. rootology (C)(T) 18:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Is Paid Editing a problem? Is it fine? Is it against policy? What policy? What should be the response?

Desired outcome

A start toward consensus on what the community view actually is on the matter of "paid editing".

Summary: Why you write content is irrelevant--is the content free to Wikipedia itself, and policy compliant?

My view on this is pretty basic. I don't care why someone writes free content for us, as long as it's compliant with WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:BLP, WP:N, and all the other associated content policies for inclusion in Wikipedia. Did you write the article because you thought it was interesting as a subject? Because you're a fan of the place/person/business? A patron? An employee? Because they paid you? Once you release and post the content to the encyclopedia, you have no control over it--it's live. Your paying sponsor, if you had one, paid you--not Wikipedia. They have no claim or control over the content we have here. We have a host of policies to deal with content, and editing by users. Does it really matter why they wrote the content, if it's quality? If not, we have the options in-process of WP:Speedy Deletion and WP:Articles for Deletion for content that doesn't qualify. That's all we need. More to the point, if someone does something crazy like pay a person to write a featured article about them, their company, or product, do we care? We get another Featured Article out of the deal.

Speaking as myself, I've written a featured article because I'm a fan and I've met them several times, they're tremendously nice people, and chat with one member periodically; wrote a good article for the same reasons, plus I've had a couple of drinks with the band; have one featured article bubbling in development because I'm a patron and their staff are some of the nicest guys I've ever encountered; two future FAs because I'm a fan of the place and a shopper there, and know at least two individuals in passing involved in various degrees with the administration of the overall facility; and have a nascent project to which I have actually given them money, and have multiple friends who are a part of the orginization. Any one of them could have paid me in theory $100 to write this content--they didn't--but if they had, so what? We'd have more good articles out of the deal.

I am wholly ambivalent about the motivation of why someone writes free content, so long as they do, we get it for free, it's policy-compliant, and they understand and accept (or don't, since their acceptance of policy is irrelevant in the end) they and their client has zero right nor claim of ownership of it from the moment it's posted. The "Why" doesn't matter; only the free content does, and there is nothing about the motivations of why someone writes that has anything to do with our "free culture". That "free culture" thing applies to us giving it away free to our readers, not "you must write it for free".

If someone wrote a stunning and neutral Featured Article on Topic X-Y-Z with 100+ sources, as their sole contribution, and then admitted immediately after it's promotion to FA status that they were paid $500 to do so by the subject so that they would get the massive "Google Juice" or exposure, would we block the author and depromote the article on principle, and run it through WP:AFD? Nonsense, any admin (any admin) doing so on grounds of "paid editing" would be grossly out of bounds. The FA cost us nothing but the time to review it. rootology (C)(T) 19:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. rootology (C)(T) 19:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. >David Shankbone 19:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4.  – iridescent 19:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Ironholds (talk) 19:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. The ends justify the means. Bsimmons666 (talk) 19:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Reinoutr (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. As someone who is paid to edit articles, I ensure that the additions that I conduct towards WP are compliant within the existing policies and guidelines. seicer | talk | contribs 19:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Basically the correct view. Why people write content is completely outside our "jurisdiction", we just judge whether they follow the rules. If they do, noone should care, why they do it. Regards SoWhy 19:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Brianreading (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Agreed, so long as the editor follows Wikis guidelines and policies, their being compensated is irrelevant. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Yes; dispassionately, there are very many reasons why people contribute and doing so for financial reward should not be one of the few that is looked upon poorly - as long as the content satisfies the criteria then it should be allowed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. The reason that people write for is immaterial, as long as their content follows our guidelines. We are about content, and if that's up to snuff then I don't see why were should have a problem with it. --Falcorian ^(talk) 20:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. I generally agree with this. If content that meets our standards comes about as a result of paid editing, that's a positive factor. I do have serious concerns about other side-effects, though, which I'll outline below. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 20:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. That is pretty much my view. There is a slight concern over perceptions of COI (actual COI isn't really a problem, we can fix whitewashed articles), but that's all. I don't think it is a major concern, though, it can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. --Tango (talk) 20:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. I think there are reasons why motive matters, more in terms of maintaining the health of the community than creating quality content, but I don't think it's something we either can or should regulate formally. In general I endorse this statement.--ragesoss (talk) 21:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. Agree. As long as the content is good and adheres to all policies and guidelines, I don't care how it got here. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. Content is the key. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. I think it is much harder to avoid bias from political opinions or being a fan of the subject, than being paid. There will be paid editors that misbehave of course, but let's deal with it on a case by case basis. I think Greg Kohs was greatly mistreated when he started open paid editing. As I understand, he is now banned because of other things he has done later, and I cannot comment on that. Allowing company employees to edit the article about the company may actually be beneficial in countering the unhappy customers and ex-employees that often add unreferenced crap. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21. I agree nearly 99%; full disclosure should be needed. Computerjoe's talk 22:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22. I agree. I'm thinking of offering paid editing myself, some time in the near future. I will, of course, scrupulously adhere to all the relevant policies when doing so. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23. Endorse, as long as any paid editors are willing to acknowledge that in the end, it is the Wikipedia community that decides, based solely on Wikipedia's policies, whether an article is suitable. If you are being paid to write an article about a (by Wikipedia's standards) non-notable company, and your article is deleted, that's just too bad. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
24. Endorse. Getting something out there that articulates current policy, and lays out expectations for all parties to avoid confusion or missteps, would be a good followon. If we can, with that in place, right some past wrongs, so much the better. ++Lar: t/c 23:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
25. Endorse. Paid editing is just one step on a long continuum of Conflicts of Interest that motivate many editors - from "I know and like the guy/band" to "I used to be a member of that org./church and hate them" to "I am a member and they are being treated unfairly" to "I hate/love X country/person/religion/organization", etc. The defining/bolded statement at WP:COI covers all of these: Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest. Needless to say, some savvy POV pushers I've run into fail that litmus test and are still allowed to edit with impunity. Should a paid editor who much more closely follows WP policies be penalized more harshly? No, imo. Priyanath ^talk 23:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
26. Endorse. Sure, why not? If paid editors are made to follow the same rules as everyone else why should we stand in the way of someone's livelihood? At best, we'll get some nice articles and at worst, we'll have to block some miscreants, which isn't any different than usual. Multixfer (talk) 23:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
27. Endorse and point out (not for rootology's sake but for others) that this describes MyWikiBiz? Viridae^Talk 00:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
28. If someone offered me $500 to write an FA about their organization my first question would be, when do you want it done by? As long as paid editors follow the rules and don't get any special treatment I don't see anything wrong with paid editing. Would someone please make this clear in the policies? Cla68 (talk) 01:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
29. Strongly Agree - saying that "bad" motivations always lead to bad articles is a logical fallacy. All contributions should be judged on their own merits, not on the contributors motivations. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
30. As long as the edits are WP:NPOV and everything, I see no problem. Same goes for any other possible COI, really. Anomie⚔ 02:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
31. Endorse, provided the COI is acknowledged. I;d rather know than guess, and its fairer to everyone. working with the article. DGG (talk) 03:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
32. I don't mind this explicit statement. Where it can lead could be problematic, but this exact concept is alright. MBisanz ^talk 03:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
33. Don't really care why someone adds biased, non-neutral, or non-notable information to Wikipedia. If someone volunatarily adds this stuff it can be dealt with the same way as if they were paid to add it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
34. As long as it is neutral and unbiased, well sourced, etc then I find that paid editing acceptable. Basket of Puppies 04:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support in principle, but the majority of paid edits I come across are spam. MER-C 05:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
36. Well said. -- Ned Scott 05:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
37. Totally agree. Killiondude (talk) 07:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
38. pfctdayelise (talk) 07:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
39. Well stated - We have a mass of guidelines on CoI and Content that can deal with inappropriate articles, as well as enough means to delete bad articles. If we cannot see the difference between paid and not paid, it must simply be a good article. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 07:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
40. On Wikipedia, it doesn't matter who you are or why you contribute, but what you contribute. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 09:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
41. Totally agree. The quality of the article should be what counts, not the motivation. There's no reason why writing for cash is any worse than writing out of fandom. Paid editors would probably even be more careful since their income depends on not being blocked. --Helenalex (talk) 09:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
42. Agreed.  Sandstein  10:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
43. Ensorse, though it probably should be mandatory to declare such (or indeed, any) conflicts. -- samj _in^out 10:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
44. Any NPOV free content is fine, no matter how it was generated. The usual problem we have with COI editors is not that they have a COI, it is that they don't write NPOV (as MER-C says). I don't see paid editing as different from any other form of editing-with-a-preexisting-bias. Comment on content, not the contributor, and judge what they write, not why they do it. Kusma (talk) 11:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
45. Agree. Judge the content, not the person. NVO (talk) 11:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
46. My feelings exactly. لennavecia 13:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
47. Largely agree, though I share Fred Bauder's concern about giving a green light to those able to focus a huge PR budget on an article.--MoreThings (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Talking about transparency, would you accept placing the below template at the top of the article? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 07:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been edited by user:Example in exchange of a fee.

I sincerely hope you're joking. Killiondude (talk) 07:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That seems kind of vindictive to me. Like you're making Example a target. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 07:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I were you, I'd have rather assumed good faith, Greg. Killiondude, I am not joking. Do you say that because of the wording and the Dollar sign or because of the whole notion of the template? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 07:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In all due honesty i initially chuckled at this, thinking it was a rather good joke - i assume it is the combination of the dollar sign and the text that causes that. More template specific, is such a template really necessary? Being paid to edit is not a problem per se; if it is compliant to our policies i don't see a reason to mark a page with a specific username - it is actually rather vindicative towards other editors. Also, wouldn't this be rather redundant to the CoI template? Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 07:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excirial, you are approaching the issue as if the whole world know about this issue of paid editing. What people around the world know is that Wikipedia is being edited by volunteers. Failing to mention to them that article X is not being edited by a volunteer is unfair and lacks transparency. You say there is no problem per se but observers and readers may not believe so. Another point, why not promote expert editing instead? We have a history of treating experts not nicely. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps something more along the lines of:

This article has been edited by one or more paid editors.

This doesn't target a specific user, nor draw too much attention to a dollar symbol, but it gets across the idea that someone is there. Also, I'd rather put it in talk, as it's not a maintenance issue. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 08:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be on the article, because templates at the top of articles are meant to be temporary. Perhaps on the talk page. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point now, Greg. Placing it on the talk page would serve for little (being very transparent with our readers who don't bother reading talk pages). How many readers read them? My whole point revolves around transparency. Stifle, transparency is much more important than our less important guidelines. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see what you mean but, as Stifle says above, maintenance tags are supposed to be temporary. Articles shouldn't really have them on. And when do you propose to take them off? Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 08:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines are not set in stones, Greg. We are here debating a much more important issue. You are discussing it here as if it were a routine case. Mind the media. That said, if we are going to accept paid editing then I see no reason why we can't place a template at the article forever. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to have templates like that, how about ones saying "This article has been edited by one or more (ex-)members/supporters/employees/... of the political/religious/commercial/artistic/... group/organization/... concerned and/or one or more of its rivals"? Peter jackson (talk) 09:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, let's not compare advocate editors with 'paid editors'. The whole world knows about the formers but not the latter group. We are talking about a new business model here. I feel that we are not assessing the media reaction right. If people want to disregard it and put the reputation of Wikipedia at risk then let them go ahead; I am not a associated with that. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 09:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But why is it inherently different? If I'm a member of the Church of Scientology and think they're the greatest thing ever (or an ex-member and think they're evil) how are my edits any less suspect than someone the Church has hired? --Helenalex (talk) 09:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can convince the readers and the media with this argument then I'd agree. As I said in my statement below, the media do not dig into the pros' arguments. Readers follow what the media says. "Wikipedia allows paid editing" alone is enough to prompt harsh reactions. We are acting here as if Wikipedia has already won the hearts of observers. Other soft headlines would include "What is the difference between Wikipedia and Mahalo?", etc... This RfC would probably be better held in universities I believe to get the right feedback. What we are doing here is that we are thinking of paid editors more than readers and observers. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 09:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no need for this template. Such templates are for pointing out problems with articles. --Apoc2400 (talk) 09:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say I see a problem not mentioning it. Would you buy a product without knowing from where it comes and who made it? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 09:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since when did we allow the media to dictate policy? A few years ago practically every media article on Wikipedia said that because anyone could edit it, Wikipedia was fundamentally unreliable and hopelessly inaccurate. That doesn't seem to have harmed us much. And people already read and trust Wikipedia having no idea who wrote it. --Helenalex (talk) 10:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The media dictates people's minds in a sense. And you must put 'having no idea who wrote it' in contrast with 'an article is written by a paid editor'. Just to give you an idea about what I am talking about --> read the 'Best Answer - Chosen by Voters'-- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:DISCLAIM. It says "no" to your idea. If that policy is changed, I have no problem with such a banner at the top of articles it applies to... along with banners disclosing all the other sorts of potential CoI (Catholic, Tarantino fan, Pokemon hater, latin nomenclature advocate, etc. etc. etc.) of every editor who worked on the article... paid editing is just one kind of CoI of many. ++Lar: t/c 11:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are changing the core of Wikipedia with this novel paid editing idea and bringing in a mere guideline to show that my idea is terrible? Ok, I have a policy for you :) -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea. Gimme money than slap it all over my contribs. Then slap the rest of wikipedia with "This article was, shall we say, edited by uninvolved drive-by volunteers who won't get paid for it, ever". NVO (talk) 11:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• To FayssalF -- I wouldn't object to some kind of footnote template, but not header template, which said "This article has been edited by one or more paid editors," and which then linked back to the talk page header which detailed whom, and whom the client was. I would absolutely object to such a template being put up without evidence. rootology (C)(T) 13:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd be probably gone by the time this whole issue gets a formal status. You'd be free to choose any template or none at all. As I said in my statement below... if I had known that someday we'll arrive to this point I'd have not bothered with contributing the first day. Good luck to all. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

• Can you Please clarify on your summary?Are you talking only about editors or also saying that Admins and crats can also do paid editing and this RFC is being in the context of for spam and Particular cratoffering his services for paid editing through I assume Assume good Faith and wait for an explanation from the concerned crat.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• My statement is pretty basic. User = anyone that is paid a fee to drop new content into Wikipedia, which I don't consider inherently good nor evil. Do we get free content for readers out of the deal? If it's good content that complies with policy, then great. If not, we can remove the content, and the if the users violate actual policies, we can deal with them under those. That's what my statement is. rootology (C)(T) 13:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Rootology says above, if the community judges it to be good content, then what's the problem? If the community doesn't judge it to be good content, it gets taken care of the way any other article does, and a clueless company has wasted their money. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. rootology (C)(T) 19:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. seicer | talk | contribs 19:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. >David Shankbone 20:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5.  – iridescent 20:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Falcorian ^(talk) 20:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Multixfer (talk) 00:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. --Helenalex (talk) 10:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. لennavecia 13:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

I think that what you and User:Rootology are missing is that the constitution of this 'community' that judges content will change and therefore so will wikipedia. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 10:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any tips on what, when and how will be changed? Some secret revelations? NVO (talk) 11:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have always supported paid editing if you can get that work. Unfortunately, in the past the person/people most associated with paid editing are unpleasant and disliked; thus, the issue has been paired with them. It's time to review the idea outside of the past, and ask why our other policies and guidelines will not take care of perceived WP:COI issues. They would. Paid editing happens; only diligent review of material for NPOV, V and OR will circumvent problems with any of our material, paid or unpaid. -->David Shankbone 19:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. rootology (C)(T) 19:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Not something I'm accustomed to saying, but David Shankbone is absolutely right. – iridescent 19:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. I would prefer to see some degree of acknowledgment of the status--which of course can only be expected once such editing is explicitly permitted. For some of the subjects I work with its easier enough to guess, but I always feel a little silly with some of the circumlocutions I need to go to because i cannot straight out say," as a representative of the ccomnpany, can;t you find some better press comments about it and the published financial figures?" DGG (talk) 03:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. -- Ned Scott 06:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. pfctdayelise (talk) 07:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. --Helenalex (talk) 09:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. What Iridescent said. لennavecia 13:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. I think realpolitik dictates that we have to accept that paid editing will happen, so we may as well make the best of it. I'd like to see declaration of COI become mandatory and included in policy, rather than remain optional and included in a guideline.--MoreThings (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing leads to paid nutters - you know who I mean - with an inherent POV to push and a monetary reason for pushing it. By all means, commonsense should be applied rather than a blanket ban, but third-party payment for editing of any subject for commercial or POV gains should be sanctionable if proven.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris}
2. Not all paid editing is beneficial, editors oftentimes defend actions against our policies and guidelines if it makes them a buck. ThemFromSpace 20:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Cirt (talk) 06:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Third-party payments = POV. Johnuniq (talk) 09:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Why would anyone hire a nutter to edit Wikipedia for them? Surely if anyone is going to hand over their money it will be to someone sensible and professional who can edit without aggravating the rest of the Wikipedia community. Like you say, common sense should be applied rathe than a blanket ban. In response to ThemFromSpace, you might have noticed that lots of people defend actions against policies and guidelines if it means they get the article version they want. Obviously a paid editor would have a real incentive, but unlike the people who believe that they alone know the truth and want the article to reflect that, they also have a financial incentive not to get blocked. --Helenalex (talk) 09:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we did proscribe paid editing, how on earth would we ever prove that it had occurred? Since it is impossible to prove that money has changed hands, and it is highly unlikely that people will admit to paid editing, we need to judge content on the basis of what it says, rather than making guesses about the motivations of the people who contribute it. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Functionally yes, but what if anything to do with folks who admit it? rootology (C)(T) 19:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. One of the first things I did when I got seriously involved here was state my biases and conflicts of interest. I'd much rather deal with someone on a known basis than on a speculative one. Outlaw paid editing and only outlaws will edit for pay. And that's bad... and that's what it has to do with folks who admit it. Encourage admission instead of playing games trying to detect and prevent. ++Lar: t/c 23:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Cla68 (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. -- Ned Scott 06:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. pfctdayelise (talk) 07:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. There are paid editors out there - we just don't know who they are because they have every incentive to be sneaky about it. Allowing it would increase their numbers, but we would know who they are and could keep a proper eye on them. --Helenalex (talk) 09:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As those with long memories may recall me arguing during the MyWikiBiz brouhaha, I think allowing paid editors to edit openly is a net positive. At least part of the material on every band article is written by fans; on every corporate article is written by employees; on every politician article is written by supporters… Yes, a paid editor isn't going to be neutral – but someone openly admitting that they're editing for profit is someone making their prejudice clear. I don't see how, for example, allowing paid editors to write about a corporation is any different in terms of the impact on Wikipedia than, for instance allowing a user who identifies as a gay-rights advocate on their userpage to edit sexuality-related articles, or an active church member to edit religious articles. Ten thousand active editors hopefully provides a bulwark against bias.

Besides, I would far rather have users able unambiguously to edit with their potential bias in the opening, than the current poor compromise, in which editors feel the need actively to hide their particular points of view. And everyone in the world has a point of view on any subject they're likely to care enough about to write an article. As long as we have people willing to keep an eye on their edits to make sure they don't step over the line into advertising, we should give an amnesty to all the existing "paid editor" blocks – yes Greg, even you – and start again with a clean slate. – iridescent 19:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1.  – iridescent 19:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Modified support, case by case on the latter paragraph, if they're interested. rootology (C)(T) 19:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Endorse first paragraph; not the second. For some people who have been banned for paid editing, they have exhibited problematic behavior and/or downright antipathy toward us, that they have pretty much destroyed any goodwill that an amnesty would symbolize. -->David Shankbone 20:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Endorse first, but "all the existing PE blocks" could be problematic.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. I support the point I think Iridescent is making. Fanatics who edit Wikipedia to promote their political, social, or religious agenda are far more dangerous than someone paid to edit. Those in the last category will quit their job, even if it is their primary source of income, far more quickly than those in the first category will change their beliefs. -- llywrch (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. This is consistent with best ethical practices in the PR world. Hipocrite (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. --Gwern (contribs) 23:04 9 June 2009 (GMT)
9. Per my endorse of Tim V, just above. BOTH paragraphs, not just one. Give amnesty, and if the users DS refers to veer off the path again, so be it. Costs little to be generous in this, and doing so has a potentially huge return in good will. ++Lar: t/c 23:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Cla68 (talk) 01:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. -- Ned Scott 06:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support both parts. Greg Kohs was a bit of a [nuisance], but only after he was shafted by Wikipedia. --Helenalex (talk) 09:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The above altered by me to remove WP:NPA violation. The policy still applies to comments about banned editors. BLP, too. لennavecia 13:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

13. Agree. NVO (talk) 11:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This pretty much sums up my views, and, by the last paragraph, I'm assuming iridescent means anyone who was blocked just for paid editing, not a combination of that and other issues, including civility. hmwithτ 11:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Going through this page, I changed my mind. hmwithτ 12:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

14. Support all of this. لennavecia 13:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support. Any editor that would get paid for editing will likely be familiar enough with Wikipedia to evade most forms of detection while creating an article. Biased information is added from IP's, registered users and who knows what else, we already get tons of that every day. Simply blocking the top of the iceberg we find won't stop the somewhat less obvious people - In other words: Can't eliminate? Then regulate. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 14:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone, and I mean anyone, who has an ulterior motivation in contributing should note their interest on their userpage - be it editing for financial gain, a relationship with the subject, or other factor potentially effecting their bias. As regards bias, it is recognised that we all have one and it is by the amalgamating of differing bias' that we hope to achieve NPOV; being a paid editor should only be an extension of that consideration, among others also disposed toward a certain viewpoint.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Arakunem^Talk 20:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC) - I always consider a COI-affected editor who declares his connection to be demonstrating good faith in his intent to improve the encyclopedia[reply]
2. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Sensible. rootology (C)(T) 20:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. This is consistent with best ethical practices in the PR world. Hipocrite (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Yes. Let's switch from avoid disclosing to avoid uproar to disclose to avoid uproar Maybe even sanction for NOT disclosing? ++Lar: t/c 00:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support full disclosure of all COI that might cause a non-neutral POV. Priyanath ^talk 04:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. MBisanz ^talk 04:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Yes. MER-C 04:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. What Lar said. Sanctioning nondisclosure is a good way to minimize COI. +sj+ 06:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. -- Ned Scott 06:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Not sure where this would end - 'user is female, heterosexual, from country X, has this level of education, of Asian descent, hates celery...' but it would be good to encourage honesty. --Helenalex (talk) 09:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Absolutely. "Soulful eyed puppies, cute ducklings..." count as well. NVO (talk) 11:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

1. Can you Please clarify on your summary?Are you talking only about editors or also saying that Admins and crats can also do paid editing and this RFC is being in the context of for spam and Particular cratoffering his services for paid editing through I assume Assume good Faith and wait for an explanation from the concerned crat.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Admins and 'Crats, when they are contributing content, are editors - so disclosure of potential COI is on that basis. If this were to pass and paid editing were permitted, then disclosure of potential bias by those with access to buttons should be strongly encouraged. I had no person in mind when I wrote my summary. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's simple, really: paid editing automatically creates a COI. A known COI does not prevent editing but greatly reduces the requirement to assume good faith for any edits that have an appearance of non-neutrality.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. ThemFromSpace 20:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris}
3. Cirt (talk) 23:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. By definition, yes. Arakunem^Talk 00:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Yes, and this is why we should encourage people with COIs (financial or otherwise) to be open about them. --Helenalex (talk) 09:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Johnuniq (talk) 09:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing is like editing without a username (an IP edit) - it should not be banned, but it is a red flag. Who is paying is more important than who is being paid - what are they expecting for their money? WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Yes... except for the IP bit. I like IP editors. They do good work in the background. But otherwise, very good point. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 20:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Cirt (talk) 23:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. ThemFromSpace 00:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I largely agree with Rootology's points above, at least as far as the end product is concerned. If an article can go through the review processes and become featured, in the end it doesn't matter what the motivations were of the person who wrote it -- whether out of nationalist pride, personal fulfillment, a vendetta, or the prospect of income.

However, I think paid editing should only be allowed under certain conditions because of its impact on the process of developing an article (or otherwise influencing WP content):

• All on-wiki activity done for pay (article writing, commentary, dispute resolution, votes and !votes, etc.) must be done by a separate, disclosed sock account.
• The paid sock account must disclose on its user page:
  • The identity of the client
  • The aim of the edits or activity
  • Any self-imposed or negotiated restrictions (e.g., "This account will only edit articles having to do with 19th-century advances in chemistry, and will not participate in the project namespace unless compelled by the dispute resolution processes.")

Such disclosure would be mandatory but enforced via the honor system. It's pretty much impossible to prove that someone was paid for their edits unless they admit it themselves at some point -- so the aim of these rules is not to catch underhanded behavior, but to provide a standard way for good-faith editors to regulate their edits and to be clear about what they are trying to accomplish on behalf of their client and how they will respect WP policies in doing so. Clarity upfront should help avoid suspicions and misunderstandings down the road.

If someone is found to be editing for pay and they haven't followed these rules (and knew or should have known about them), they would be subject to trouting or other sanctions depending on the egregiousness of the behavior.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. alanyst ^/talk/ 20:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. This sounds like a good idea. People setting themselves up as professional editors should use the one account though, rather than a new one for each client. This will make them easier to monitor and avoid the reasons why sock puppets are usually banned. --Helenalex (talk) 09:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who edits for pay has a conflict of interest and should follow WP:COI. That guideline calls on editors with a COI to declare their conflict and to only edit the article talk pages, not the article text. If they do so then there is no problem with being paid.   Will Beback  talk  20:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Fair enough. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris}
2. Yep. It's a GREAT BIG GLOW IN THE DARK COI. Reveal your interest and edit accordingly. - David Gerard (talk) 21:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. This is, by far, the most succinct way of stating the matter. Anyone who is paid to edit has a financial stake in the state of an article, and is by definition in conflict of interest. Iff they follow WP:COI, then that is not a problem. — Coren ^(talk) 21:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. This is consistent with best ethical practices in the PR world. Hipocrite (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Logical. What if they drop a new article live right off, though, that is 100% policy compliant, and then stick to talk? I don't think I'd have a problem with that. rootology (C)(T) 21:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm not sure how one creates an article without having edited it. My take is that creating an article is a form of editing and the WP:COI guideline would still apply.   Will Beback  talk  21:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   By your logic we need a sanctioned place like a Wikipedia:Paid article submissions for openly paid users to drop off content that they would like to see used, and whomever decides to move it live is then responsible for that First Edit. Is that what you mean, in theory? Going rigidly by the implied rule of WP:COI on the question of paid editing (which has never had a consensus review, before this very RFC) would preclude any paid users from ever starting a new article, and only modifying existing ones. I guess my point is that there has never been a review of this practice, so we can't (till this RFC closes) say that policy is "for" or "against" the practice, but if the RFC consensus eventually aligns with the present COI wording, it still doesn't preclude paid editing outright--just puts it in a tidy bubble, in which case we'd need something like a submissions page for new articles. Or am I misunderstanding your point? rootology (C)(T) 22:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   "A GFDL-compliant section, which could then be scraped by non-paid, independent editors into Wikipedia", you mean? – iridescent 22:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Or CC compliant, I suppose, but yeah. Is that what you mean, Will? rootology (C)(T) 22:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   To coin a phrase, "A nice mutually beneficial ground would be for them to charge customers for writing high quality NPOV articles about their companies, with sources and verifiability, but for them to work with well known and respected wikipedians who are NOT being financially compensated to actually enter the articles into Wikipedia upon their own independent judgment" – iridescent 22:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6. Cirt (talk) 23:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. ThemFromSpace 00:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Agree, but with the comment that currently, COI-affected editors may still edit the article itself, they just need to be extra careful to stay neutral, and they should expect many more critical eyes on their edits than they would otherwise have as a normal editor. Arakunem^Talk 00:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. If no one except those with an express COI care enough to see material added to an article, then let it stay out. I also don't see a problem with simply disallowing those with COI to start new articles either. Again, if no volunteers care, then it's probably best left out. Siawase (talk) 11:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Will's position is inaccurate. COI does not call upon editors with a COI to refrain entirely from editing talk pages; in fact, it has an entire section on non-controversial edits. Furthermore, remember that WP:COI is merely a guideline. Its language is not proscriptive; it offers some words of wisdom, not rules. -Pete (talk) 01:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and further the whole "post on the talk page for someone else to put in the article" idea doesn't work so well if no one else is interested enough in the article to do it. Anomie⚔ 02:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Declare their interest certainly, but write only on the article talk page is ridiculous. Let them write out in open where everyone will pay them the usual critical attention. If someone wants to do a talk page first and ask an opinion that's not wrong, any more than from any other editor, but there is no reason for to be required. The only thing I would still like to insist be put on the talk page first, is external links to the organization from other articles. (of course, they're easy to spot anyway, and I certainly have no trouble identifying and removing them, whether or not there's a coi declaration.) Some of the articles I have contributed to are those to which I have some degree of COI, and this is probably true of almost all active editors. DGG (talk) 03:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

agree with DGG's position on the article talk restriction mentioned above - it's silly. Privatemusings (talk) 04:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also agree with DGG. It would be hopelessly impractical. We've all seen good suggestions languish on talk pages because no one can be bothered following them up. --Helenalex (talk) 09:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also agree with DGG that this is an unreasonable restriction.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Writing on the talk page is problematic for many reasons (it creates second class citizens and more work for the first class citizens, it discourages editing, it introduces unnecessary lag, edits are often lost, it's not real time, etc.) - once the conflict is declared (which should probably be required btw) the regulars will monitor it. -- samj _in^out 10:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Beback, are you ready to stay aside from editing any articles you ever had interest in editing? Welcome to the brave new world. Now you will still be able to edit articles that you don't care at all but once you do it once... catch-22. NVO (talk) 11:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Remember, as of today the guideline says "There are no firm criteria to determine whether a conflict of interest exists", so anything the editors writes (or deletes) can be interpreted against the editor. NVO (talk) 11:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If a paid editor is going to be editing, they should be following the PRSA code of ethics, located at [1], specifically the parts about avoiding deceptive practices and revealing the sponsors for causes and interests represented.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Hipocrite (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. I have absolutely no problem with this, especially disclosing the "client" if called upon. rootology (C)(T) 21:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Cirt (talk) 23:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Fred Talk 02:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Perhaps not those exact words (although why not, they seem good to me... but there is copyright to consider I think) but certainly in spirit. Good point. ++Lar: t/c 02:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support full disclosure of who is sponsoring the editing, or be blocked. Priyanath ^talk 04:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   hmmm.. well I'd like to think we could point at wiki's very own code of ethics, with specific and particular discussion on best practices, standards etc. etc. - this, and other perrenail issues would be good to address... in the abscence of such a thing, yeah - the PRSA thing is pretty good :-) Privatemusings (talk) 04:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   This is Wikipedia, not wiki. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7. Mostly endorse. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find paid editing inherently problematic. As Rootology mentions above, if paid editing results in content that meets our guidelines, we gain from it. I do think that explicitly allowing paid editing would open a Pandora's box of issues, though. The question of paid editing concerns not only the content produced but the methods used. For an obvious example, what happens when a paid editor participates in an AfD on his paid content?

We can't look just at content, but at behaviour. If we allow paid editing, we implicitly allow the promotional advocacy that will come with it, that will use rules-lawyering and our own openness to attempt to push a particular version of "the Truth™" on us. While I'm confident that we know how to deal with spam, can we—and more importantly, would we—deal appropriately with behaviour that's promotional as well as content that's promotional? In the longer term, would the paid contributors burn out any of the volunteers? Would the advocacy result in arbitration cases and corrosive, endless disputes? Would it be detrimental to the health of the community?

The easy counter-argument that people can currently do paid editing without disclosure is not relevant: paid editing that can hide well enough that it isn't noticed isn't a huge problem, and people will always be able to edit under the radar as long as we have effective anonymity or pseudonymity. I see the problem not so much in paid editing itself but in the endorsement of paid editing (through any explicit allowance for paid editing). Wikipedia always needs to make a strong stand for its neutrality, and such an endorsement of advocacy is dangerous to that cause.

I don't mean to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt: if there are solid answers to the questions I ask, I'm willing to support paid editing. As a user experienced with Wikipedia, I might even stand to gain from it—I've already been offered the opportunity more than once (but politely declined each time). What I emphasize is not so much evils inherent in paid editing but dangers associated with them. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 21:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC), modified slightly at 22:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 21:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Talk 02:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. An excellent description of the problem. While it's nice to imagine philanthropists dropping wisdom into the encyclopedia, in practice we would get promotions of individuals and organizations. One paid editor and two sockpuppets (or two other paid editors) would be enough to get almost any puff-piece article kept at AFD. The article would have to read well, but that would be easy because it is a promotion. The issue is is the subject notable?, and it's easy for a tiny number of editors to achieve a "keep" by simply asserting notability with a few positive-sounding words. These would be paid editors and they would learn to say what it takes so articles are kept. Johnuniq (talk) 10:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• I agree with most of this, but I'm not convinced we shouldn't explicitly make provisions (and guidelines) for paid editing. A culture of "promotional behavior", as opposed to promotional editing, is something we should try to avoid. One imagines userpages that act as flyers for paid editing services: "I wrote X (and charged $N), Y (and charged $M), and got Z featured (and charged $P). Need some editing done? Contact me for quotes." And that would seriously erode the existing voluntary collaborative culture.--ragesoss (talk) 02:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree that these are all dangers of paid editing, but its also all behaviour which we're all familiar with, because lots of unpaid editors do it. Editors should be judged on their behaviour, not their motivation. --Helenalex (talk) 09:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We need a best practices policy/guideline, so that we can separate the good from the bad versus just tossing all paid editing into the DONTWANTIT bin. Some paid editing is good, such as when you can't distinguish between it and everything else here. Some paid editing isn't, such as when you can't distinguish between it and a press release. WP should make it clear what the rights/responsibilities are of both the editors and the clients that pay them.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. I'll admit right now that I'd take a paid gig editing WP in a second. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 21:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Everything but the last sentence. "Clients" have no rights beyond what they would have if they signed up for non-role accounts. rootology (C)(T) 21:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   IMO, clients have the right to know what they can or can't reasonably expect for their money. If an editor is paid, that does not mean that the community can't take the article to AFD, and the client should know that in advance. But that's my opinion... Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 21:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3. I agree with this. As Dori points out, anyone promising to write an article on any topic which will not be deleted is, frankly, a liar. If someone is paid to write an article about a subject that falls into the grey area of notability, all one can do is wikify it, make it as encyclopedic as possible, & hope for the best. Actually, that is all one can do with any article. -- llywrch (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Agreed about clients. We should word our rules so potential clients of paid editors know what to expect, and thus discourage charlatans. DGG (talk) 03:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Agreed. I investigated doing this earlier this year, and the main thing that put me off - apart form the ambiguous policy on paid editing - was the lawyers' fees for drawing up a contract that wouldn't get me sued if the article I'd edited got turned into a hatchet job by someone else. --Helenalex (talk) 09:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Endorse. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing is a PR disaster waiting to happen. Neither academia nor journalism are going to accept the argument that "everyone has biases ergo financially induced bias isn't an issue either". While it is true that paid editing can be very hard (if not impossible) to police, unless wikipedia does (and is seen to do) its utmost to be vigilant against such activities and bars them unambiguously, the project's credibility will suffer. Imperfect enforceability should not limit our ideals, else we may as well discard NPOV as an unachievable and naive goal too.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Abecedare (talk) 21:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. I agree with this, but I must note that we shouldn't let public relations rule our actions. For example, Wikipedia would get better press if we stopped allowing open editing—there'd be no more "Look, Wikipedia is vandalized!" stories—but open editing is key to our success. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 23:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. ThemFromSpace 00:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Fred Talk 02:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Per Nihiltres, it's probably true that it is a modest PR disaster waiting to happen, but that shouldn't trump more basic principles.--ragesoss (talk) 02:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Absolutely. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Cirt (talk) 06:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Just imagine what Britannica would look like if it invited entities to write their own entries, even subject to 'editorial oversight'.--RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 10:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You mean as they already do? – iridescent 13:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Now I know why I like wikipedia better:-) Britannica isn't inviting paid editors (though I bet they're reading this page!) and their oversight model (they pay their own editors) is not workable on wikipedia. (Unless admins start getting a salary - now that's a proposal I'll support!!)--RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 14:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

12. We can't stop paid editing, but we don't have to shoot ourselves in the foot by saying anything less than it's a bad idea. The wiki fairy might bring great paid editors, but we have to plan for what's likely. Johnuniq (talk) 10:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. AdjustShift (talk) 13:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I personally feel this is one of those things is best to take an "I can't see you" approach to. Some paid editors are decent editors trying to earn their way. If you're a long time Wikipedia contributor and get offered cash for doing what you enjoy, fair enough. Other paid editors aren't good editors, write poor articles and lower the 'pedia's standards. They should be treated like anyone else.

In my view, we should ignore whether people are paid or not. That's their business and not ours. The only thing that's important is whether they're adhering to our policy and creating good content. A featured article is a featured article, whether the author was paid or not. Similarly, vandalism is just that, whether the author was pushed to do so or not. Paid editors should be treated no differently to anyone else, and their status as such should plainly be ignored. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 21:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User who endorse this summary:

1.  – iridescent 21:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. rootology (C)(T) 22:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. --Helenalex (talk) 09:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia welcomes positive contributions from anyone regardless of their personal motivations. However, experience has shown that when an editor's primary motivation is to promote a given organisation or cause, that editor is more likely to cause harm to the project. A glance through the arbitration logs confirms this. Widespread editing for financial gain can be expected to lead to problems such as single-purpose accounts, POV-pushing, edit-warring, and other policy violations, just as the motivations of religious fervor and nationalist pride have done so often in the past. Such ulterior motivations are difficult to square with our primary objective of building a neutral encyclopedia. The acceptance or legitimization of paid editing is likely to lead, in practice, to acceptance and legitimization of behavior that harms Wikipedia.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. – Quadell ^(talk) 22:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC) (as the creator of this statement)[reply]
2. Cirt (talk) 23:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 23:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. – // BL \\ (talk) 23:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC) How WP would police this, I don't know, but any permission, tacit or overt, that encourages a sense of ownership of a page cannot be good for the encyclopedia in either the short or the long run.[reply]
5. ThemFromSpace 00:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Abecedare (talk) 03:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. You forgot spamming. Most of the paid editors I have encountered were spammers (two very recent examples: [2] and [3]). MER-C 05:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 10:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Johnuniq (talk) 10:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. AdjustShift (talk) 14:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The logical outcome of your argument is that we also ban nationalists and the religiously fervent. Like you say, they cause the same problems as paid editors would. --Helenalex (talk) 09:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We already do that (see, e.g. WP:ARBMAC, WP:ARBAA2, WP:ARBPIA, WP:ARBSCI). MER-C 11:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you write an article on Wikipedia, your only concern should be to improve the encyclopedia. If you're getting any real world benefit from an article appearing a certain way (or appearing at all), then your interests are divided between WP and "something else". This is a COI any way you look at it.

Yes, paid editing happens more often than we are likely happy to admit. However, I would hazard a guess that Souckpuppetry also happens more often than we'd like. I don't think we should adjust our principles as a result though. We may not be able to stop either, but we can react when we discover them. Arakunem^Talk 01:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Cirt (talk) 06:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 10:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Johnuniq (talk) 10:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If a person edits a Wikipedia article, they are almost prime facie "interested" in the topic. (Some edits, like reversion of vandalism, may constitute exceptions to this generalization.) At the most general level, I believe an editor's interest derives from a simple desire to help others learn what one has learned oneself. But "what one has learned" is a grey area.

In mathematics, what an editor adds may be simple factual knowledge. But in other topic areas, an editor may have developed a more subjective view. When one gets into areas like same-sex marriage or assisted suicide or pedophilia, just to name a few random examples, it is simply impossible to write in a way that doesn't betray a certain point of view; every term one can use carries some cultural baggage, and some pre-packaged assumptions.

Such articles often become very good, when editors of differing points of view enter into good faith discussions, and find a way to incorporate both (or multiple) points of view into the article, permitting the reader to make his or her own judgments.

The idea of a "conflict of interest" is an attempt to draw a clear line where the reality is shades of grey. All Wikipedia editing is done by contributors who have an interest in the subject at hand. Drawing a clean line at paid editing is an ill-fated attempt to find a simple solution to a complex situation.

At the core, no policy or guideline can resolve such shades of grey; rather, the solution lies in the quality of our editors, and their ability to discuss topics from a framework outside their own personal views. This has been shown to work on some articles, but as a community, we still have some growing to do, and there are always more editors to help grow into this style of collaboration.

So, I oppose having any firm prohibition on paid editing. However, we must remain concerned about paid editing; I'm not advising we stick our heads in the sand.

I believe the solution lies in encouraging transparency, as WP:COI suggests. Editors who are closely connected to an article -- whether through payment, close personal associations, emotional attachment, or other ways -- should be encouraged to disclose this fact; and if they are regular contributors, they should find ways to do so (maybe repeatedly) so that other regular contributors are genuinely made aware of the conflict. Also, the principle that individuals, not organizations, have Wikipedia accounts is an important one to enforce.

There is one thing I strongly believe we should reconsider, which is this: currently, when making a new account, an editor is greeted with the following text:

You should strongly consider choosing a username that is not connected to you. All edits to the encyclopedia are permanently recorded and publicly visible in the history of any page that you edit, as well as on discussion pages. If you use your real name or a username that you go by elsewhere, people seeking information about you online may see your username and others' comments on your editing. If your editing happens to cause concern, there may be discussion linked to your username.

I believe this should be rewritten. Certainly, some words of guidance are appropriate, as the choice of a username can have lasting implications. However, the way it is currently worded sets new editors off on a path that discourages individual accountability; it almost assumes that an editor will be making edits that he or she would not want attached to his/her name. This does not set the right tone for the kind of collegial environment that we should be striving to maintain.

-Pete (talk) 01:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of...er, disclosure of COI...I have been exploring a business plan that would include paid Wikipedia editing.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. I haven't been exploring any business plans, but I endorse the rest of it. Real names encouraged would be a positive step, in my view.--ragesoss (talk) 02:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Well said. Encouraging transparency is the solution. "Outlawing" paid editing will only hurt the wiki in the end, because then more of it will be done in secret instead of in the open. -- Ned Scott 06:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. --Helenalex (talk) 09:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with paid editing is that it opens the door to professional public relations firms being paid to craft and monitor Wikipedia articles for their clients. A firm or individual being paid $100,000 or more annually to ensure favorable treatment for their client in the media can significantly impact the content of a Wikipedia article. Now, such public relations operatives are forced to sneak around and run the risk of exposure and embarrassment to their clients. Endorsement of paid advocacy editing opens the door to massive influence on Wikipedia content by those interests who are able to afford professional public relations work of this nature.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Fred Talk 02:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. When the Wikiscanner results became public the persons and companies involved were shamed by the media for being underhanded, and that certainly discouraged public firms from (openly) indulging in such conduct. Why would we want to legitimize paid editing now and effectively invite PR firms to openly bid to write company and biographical articles ? Abecedare (talk) 03:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. I work a lot with such people in some particular subject areas, following Durova's suggestions at WP:BF. Almost all of them are not very good at WP style at the first, and rather easy to spot. there are three groups, about equal in size: 1/3 who ware willing to learn the rules and do, and write acceptable articles, 1/3 who are not willing or able to learn--who are too ingrained in their style of writing to learn a neutral encyclopedic one,and unless someone rewrites the material for them --which I have been known to do-- the article gets deleted, and 1/3 who see it is more than they bargained for and go away, and again, the company or organization , however worthy of one, does not get an article unless someone takes up the job from them. But even in the acceptable articles, there is sometimes a certain recognizable monotony of style, too great to be just imitation. There is clearly someone making a business of doing a series of entries of an number of related subjects. I would much rather deal with these peoples frankly. As is , I leave them alone unless the material is impossibly bad, because there is so much that really is impossible & thus of higher priority. I do try to leave them a hint, by deleting some of the puffery and leaving a clear edit summary, but unless the article is challenged, they usually do not learn. We d need a proper way of working with them. We found a proper way of working with class groups, we can do this also. DGG (talk) 03:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Cirt (talk) 06:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Wikipedia has become an important source of information on the net and, if paid editing is permitted, what's to prevent entities out there (corporations, celebrities, governments, military juntas) from hiring 'wikipedia consulting firms' to monitor and manage articles that affect them? These entities already spend billions on lobbyists and this would be a clear no-brainer and impossible to manage or control.--RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 10:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Excellent point. Have a look at any day on the AFD page – there should be ten or more independent editors giving careful consideration to each proposed delete. However, there are simply too many articles: a very small number of paid editors could overwhelm an attempt to delete an article on a non-notable individual or organization by simply asserting notability. Johnuniq (talk) 10:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. AdjustShift (talk) 12:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. // BL \\ (talk) 14:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any form of acceptance of 'paid editing' on wikipedia should be actively discouraged. The reasons for this are:

1. Inequity is always a turn-off Wikipedia functions the way it does because no one is being paid for their efforts. Allow people to be paid and you'll soon have an army of editors doing nothing but 'paid editing'. This will slowly, but surely, drive off all the unpaid editors. As an analogy, consider how likely you are to work for free for a soup kitchen which selectively allows volunteers to be paid by outside sponsors. Most people will either gravitate toward other soup kitchens or will seek a sponsor. To put it bluntly, why would User:X slave away half the nights editing Arab-Norman culture for nothing when User:Z is getting a couple of hundred bucks editing Fair and Lovely from the company's latest press releases?
2. The market will take over If paid editing is permitted, more and more admins/bureaucrats/overseers/arbs/experienced editors will seek to monetize their expertise and experience. That is the first law of markets - if you can make a buck, you'll make a buck. Or, why would User:X slave away half the nights editing Arab-Norman culture for nothing when he/she can make a couple of hundred bucks editing Fair and Lovely?
3. The encyclopedia will lose integrity POV is the bane of an encyclopedia and neutrality is a battle that is hard enough without paid editors throwing the reliable sources book at us. Several editors seem to feel that if an article can be a FA then who cares how it got there but I've seen articles in the FAR process that have reliable sources as long as the line for sponsored soup kitchen volunteers would be (see #1), but which are entirely, from title to text, original research that should have no place in any encyclopedia. It is hard enough to catch these ones, and bad enough that a few get through the net, but where would we be as a trusted source (of sorts!) if paid editors were allowed by policy. (And there'll be plenty of them. We all need money as much as the next guy.)

Unfortunately, money is the ultimate killer of any voluntary enterprise. There is nothing worse than the cheated feeling you get when you discover what other people are making for the same amount of work, there is nothing as attractive as getting paid for what you are good at, and there is nothing less reliable than the paid press releases put out by corporations, government bodies, individuals, just anybody.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Agree. And these are just some of the pitfalls. Abecedare (talk) 02:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Cirt (talk) 06:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Strongly agree. If paid editing is allowed, then why not to pay all the editors who contribute to this encyclopedia? AdjustShift (talk) 09:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 09:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Precisely. If you're paid and I'm not, I'm going to end up resentful. Not at first, but after a while I'll think "well if Wikipedia has a policy to allow paid editing, why should I try to oppose the promotional puff-piece articles that result?". The motto will become "the encyclopedia anyone can pay to have edited", and any claim of integrity will be lost. Johnuniq (talk) 10:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No.

1. Automatic COI;
2. extremely hard to police and manage;
3. GA and FA status can be reached with or without 'paid editing';
4. the media won't mention the pro-arguments in details. Talking about the media —and in an unrelated note—, please have a look at this. Expect to read stuff such as 'Wikipedia paid editors have been making the politician's Wikipedia paid entry looks great", etc...;
5. We've already been there somehow. ArbCom has been dealing with advocating groups. They were sanctioned for a reason (read MBisanz's post at WR);
6. Mahalo.com or Knol would be the right places for people who edit for money. Taking advantage of the notoriety of Wikipedia to make money is unethical;
7. WMF should be approached before taking any action;
8. It could be the end of the 'reliability and neutrality of Wikipedia' dream. Wikipedia will lose a great deal of respect from observers and readers;
9. If I had known that Wikipedia will accept paid editing one day I'd have decided the first day not to join and contribute;
10. I'd leave Wikipedia the day paid editing gets formally accepted/approved. I don't want to be associated with a project that would not be based on voluntarism anymore.

-- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. There is more to lose than to gain. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Cirt (talk) 06:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. A "no payment" rule may prevent a philanthropist from improving, for example, our botanical articles, but it is necessary to protect the integrity of Wikipedia. We can't prevent payments, but we can say they are not permitted. Johnuniq (talk) 08:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Paid editing will damage the project. There should be no paid editing. AdjustShift (talk) 09:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 09:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think paid editing would be a problem. First of all, if paid editing was in the project rather than free editing, there would be lots of committment issues within. Why? Some editor would be saying and thinking things like "why ain't I getting paid for helping", "if you don't pay me, I'll leave", "if I don't receive compensation for my edits, I will file a lawsuit", "oh, I get paid, this is the perfect job for me", "if you don't give me ${number} or more, I'll leave", and "I want money". Paid editing would destroy an editors abbility to be true and loyal to the project, and instead, they would only be loyal to themselves.

We don't get paid for our contributions to Wikipedia, and the lack of payment actually benefits us, because the editors as of now are true to the project, and are not like "give me money, give me money, give me money". If you're only here for money, you don't belong here, and should be kicked out to the farthest distance possible. Editors who are really here to help and not for money are the editors that belong here. They aren't here so they can gain an extra dollar, they're here so they can help make the encyclopedia better, which is why we are here.

To a certain extent, we editors do get something in return already. 1) The enjoyment of editing and 2) Our learning from other articles as a result of the writing of other editors.

It's not like the project tells you "if you help Wikipedia, we'll pay you this cash". It doesn't and shouldn't go that way. Instead, it goes "your help to this project would be appreciated by many readers, and your help and commitment will be accepted".

Why should I be paid for any edit I have made? Why should I be here for the cash and not the commitment to help? Why should anybody be paid? Why should Wikipedia pay you?

With that said, paid editing would destroy the integrity, purpose, commitment, hopefulness, and everything it possibly can, and will not help us in any way, period.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Cirt (talk) 06:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 07:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. AdjustShift (talk) 09:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 09:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Johnuniq (talk) 10:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A point that hasn't been brought up and is worth mentioning:

We should probably distinguish users who are paid to edit, but disclose the fact and edit honestly (in the wiki sense) from those who try to promote by the back door - spurious links, mentions in other articles, "not here to write an encyclopedia", etc.

A code for commercial or paid editors, or those with a personal interest in the topic, would be a good idea. We'd still get abuse from those who would mis-edit anyway, but my sense is that as of 2009, a lot of the wider PR and business world recognizes the PR disaster of "we edited our own Wikipedia article" and if given a policy to follow, they would do so. In brief, subject to consensus on a suitable policy, there is possibly no need to tar all such editors with the same brush.

A possible outline of such a policy is at User:FT2/Commercial and paid editing to give some idea of the requirements we might make for a genuine commercial editor.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Conditional agree. I'm not not sure, however, that the guideline should be limited to a thin circle of "genuine commercial editors". Consider, for example, recent arbcom sentence on Scientology IP nodes. COI? definitely. Paid for edit? No evidence. NVO (talk)
2. I haven't read the outline, so this is just a general endorse.SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For those who hear "paid editing" and think "MyWikiBiz debacle" or "Microsoft stooges", I would like you to keep in mind other projects like LINGUIST List paying an intern to improve linguistics articles (see also User:Linguistlist). The Germany government has also paid to improve German Wikipedia articles in particular areas, see German_Wikipedia#Subsidies_from_the_German_government. Paid editing need not only be a force for evil!

Users who endorse this summary:

1. pfctdayelise (talk) 07:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. cab (talk) 08:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Thanks for reminding us of community endorsed paid editing that has occurred in the past. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. --Helenalex (talk) 10:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. In the immediate context where it being stated that a crat is doing this and is doing paid editing through I assume Assume Good Faith as I would like to see the explanation from the concerned crat. I would like to say that No Admin or Crat should be allowed to do paid editing.
2. Admins and crats should not be allowed to do as allowing them is very dangerous as they will come under intense pressure to use there tools to protect,unprotect articles or even block,delete articles under pressure from those who pay them.It would destroy neutality and led to open bias .
3. Paid Editing is Automatically COI and led to POV pushing.
4. Further it could like to ownership of pages and edit wars as a Paid editor will be inclined to defend his editing as if another user changes it and be prepared to engage in revert waring even in content issues.Further if a Company hires more than one editor and if company hires 5 to 10 editors it can mean total ownership and team tagging.
5. Further it could led to negative editing a company may ask the paid editors to ensure that articles of rival companies or persons highlights more negative points than positive one.
6. Every Editor has a POV and even in normal circumstances we see content disputes and socks this would only aggravate it.
7. In general one should not allow Paid editing but for Admins and crats never.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Johnuniq (talk) 10:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Endorse with the caveat that not allowing admins and crats is not going to solve the problem. How many admins will stay admins if they can sell their expertise in the marketplace? I, for one, love the smell of fresh greenbacks as much as the next guy and am already designing my advertisement. "Article deleted? No worries. RegentsPark, former WIKIPEDIA ADMINISTRATOR, has inside knowledge on how to game the system. You won't be disappointed and he won't be undersold! CALL NOW 1-800-WIKI-MAN" The ranks of admins will be decimated. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 14:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest editing is strongly discouraged because it is incompatible with the aim of producing a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia. In particular, an editor who receives a payment for their work is known to have a conflict of interest, and is strongly advised to comply with the relevant guideline by declaring their interest on their user page and on the talk page of any article they edit. In addition, such editors should restrict their comments in the articles for deletion process to brief statements of fact, for example by providing a reference regarding a disputed assertion. Only editors with no conflict of interest should debate whether an article is to be retained or deleted or merged.

Establishing whether a particular editor has a conflict of interest may not be possible, or even necessary. What counts is whether the editor displays a pattern of appearing to promote individuals or organizations. Such behavior is incompatible with the aim of producing a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia.

The community should deal with editors who may have a conflict of interest in a prompt fashion. If a pattern of promoting individuals or organizations is suspected, the editor should be restricted from creating any further articles or redirects other than those pre-approved by a mentor. Johnuniq (talk) 08:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Johnuniq (talk) 08:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A positive argument:

So far most of the pro-paid editing arguments have essentially been 'it won't be any worse than some of the stuff we get already' and 'we can't stop it so we should encourage people to be honest'. While these are both good arguments, I think paid editing could actually benefit Wikipedia.

The first point is that the number of articles affected would probably be fairly small. Corporations will pay for their articles, cities, countries etc will pay people to keep an eye on their pages and try and remove unduly negative material, agents will hire people to work on their clients' pages (musicians, actors etc) and political parties will be very interested. But generally speaking no one is going to pay money for someone to edit a page on a species of tree, or a dead composer, or a movie that came out in the 1960s or any one of thousands of other topics. Earlier this year I investigated setting up an editing business but decided against it when I realised that the number of pages which anyone had a financial interest in is actually pretty small. So Wikipedia will not be engulfed in a horde of PR people messing with every article. They will edit a limited number of articles, almost entirely in areas like politics and current events which tend to need close policing anyway. I think the strongest affected area would be politics, but since all parties would end up hiring editors, they would hopefully cancel each other out. For example if a Republican-paid editor put a puff-piece article up, a Democratic-paid editor would be in there to un-puff it. This is not really an argument in favour of editing, just that the impact would be far less than most people would think.

There seems to be an assumption that paid editors will inevitably behave badly. People are forgetting that paid editors would have a major financial interest in not being blocked, not having their every edit reverted, and not having the entire community distrust and dislike them. This would far outweigh the financial benefit of giving into a client who insists that their page have no negative material on it. In short, paid editors could not afford to piss people off, and would therefore be more conscientious than the average editor about abiding by policy, giving way to community consensus etc.

The majority of paid editing we know about is done by PR hacks who have no idea how Wikipedia works. Consequently their edits are awful. Enabling people who know what they're doing to offer their services will stop these people from trying to do something they don't know how to do - why would they when they can hire a professional who does? So rather than increasing the amount of PR fluff and so forth, this could actually reduce it as the clueless are replaced by the experienced.

Currently people who choose to edit for money are encouraged to be secretive about what they are doing. The current policy does not prevent paid editing, it simply drives it underground. Encouraging people to be honest about what they are up to means bias will be easier to spot and deal with. Plenty of biased editing looks fine at first glance; if we know that an editor has been paid and by who we can look a bit more closely and see whether we can trust them or not. Basically it would mean that paid editors would be scrutinised more than the average user, who may well be biased through personal prejudice, political or religous beliefs, nationality etc.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --Helenalex (talk) 10:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree. Too many articles on corporations are in such a sorry state... apparently no one there even knows of wikipedia. The scope of paid corporate editing (which is sort of easy to detect, but not prove) is very narrow. Nationalist/religious editwarring is a far larger problem, and seldom traceable to anything. NVO (talk) 12:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Excellent summary - the consequences of transparent paid editing will likely result in a net bonus. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to reliability, Wikipedia already has a poor reputation as it is, and this would only further harm its public image. Paid editing is something that Wikipedia should neither encourage nor condone.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. hmwithτ 13:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 14:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. The least that can be said. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some things are not policy simply because it's never been necessary to make it policy. It is not ok with me that anyone ever set up a service selling their services as a Wikipedia editor, administrator, bureaucrat, etc. I will personally block any cases that I am shown. There are of course some possibly interesting alternatives, not particularly relevant here, but the idea that we should ever accept paid advocates directly editing Wikipedia is not every going to be ok. Consider this to be policy as of right now.

I think the opening statement on this page is a red herring. Would we block a good editor if we found out after the fact is a very different question. We have traditions of forgiveness and working with people to improve their behavior and ours whenever we can - things are never so simple. Of course it is possible to imagine a situation where someone can and should be forgiven... because that's very common.

That's not the same as saying that it would ever be ok, as a matter of policy. Just imagine the disaster for our reputation. Are we free and independent scribes doing our best to record all human knowledge? Or are we paid shills. I know what I choose.

Now, could it be perfectly fine for someone to set up an independent writing service for GFDL / CC BY / CC BY-SA content, to be posted somewhere else, and for completely independent wikipedians to find it useful in some way? Of course. But that's very different from setting up shop to sell one's services as an advocate editing articles? We have ways for advocates to participate in Wikipedia - the talk page serves perfectly well for this.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add your statement, leave one copy of the section at the bottom.

Users who endorse this summary:

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.