User talk:Jimbo Wales: Difference between revisions

Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates – he has an open door policy. He holds the founder's seat on the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees. The three trustees elected as community representatives until July 2015 are SJ, Phoebe, and Raystorm. The Wikimedia Foundation Senior Community Liaison is Maggie Dennis.

This is Jimbo Wales's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, Index, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251Auto-archiving period: 24 hours

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Archives

Index –index– October 28, 2001 – April 12, 2004 April 16, 2004 – August 23, 2004 August 28, 2004 – December 8, 2004 December 9, 2004 – March 23, 2005 March 23, 2005 – July 24, 2005 July 26, 2005 – September 9, 2005 September 9, 2005 – September 24, 2005 September – December 2005 January 2006 January – February 2006 February 2006 February 2006, cont. March 2006 April 2006 – late May 2006 May 24 – July 2006 July 2006 – August 2006 August 2006 Most of September 2006 Late September 2006 – Early November 2006 Most of November 2006 Late November 2006 – December 8, 2006 December 9, 2006 – Mid January 2007 From December 22, 2006 blanking Mid January 2007 – Mid February 2007 Mid February 2007– Feb 25, 2007 From March 2, 2007 blanking March 2–5, 2007 March 5–11, 2007 March 11 – April 3, 2007 April 2 – May 2, 2007 May 3 – June 7, 2007 June 9 – July 4, 2007 July 13 – August 17, 2007 August 17 – September 11, 2007 September 14 – October 7, 2007 October 28 – December 1, 2007 December 2 – December 16, 2007 December 15 – January 4, 2008 January 4 – January 30, 2008 January 30 – February 28, 2008 February 28 – March 11, 2008 March 9 – April 18, 2008 April 18 – May 30, 2008 May 30 – July 27, 2008 July 26 – October 4, 2008 October 4 – November 12, 2008 November 10 – December 10, 2008 December 5 – December 25, 2008 December 25 – January 16, 2009 January 15 – January 27, 2009 January 26 – February 10, 2009 February 8 – March 18, 2009 March 18 – May 6, 2009 May 5 – June 9, 2009 June 10 – July 11, 2009 July 12 – August 25, 2009 August 26 – October 3, 2009 October 4 – November 20, 2009 November 20 – December 21, 2009 December 22, 2009 – January 25, 2010 January 22, 2010 – February 22, 2010 February 22, 2010 – March 17, 2010 March 17, 2010 – April 9, 2010 April 11, 2010 – April 24, 2010 April 23, 2010 – May 12, 2010 May 10, 2010 – June 4, 2010 June 4, 2010 – June 26, 2010 June 26, 2010 – July 22, 2010 July 22, 2010 – August 23, 2010 August 4, 2010 – August 28, 2010 August 28, 2010 – September 14, 2010 September 13, 2010 – October 6, 2010 October 6, 2010 – November 8, 2010 November 8, 2010 – November 21, 2010 November 21, 2010 – December 6, 2010 December 6, 2010 – December 22, 2010 December 21, 2010 – January 17, 2011 January 16, 2011 – February 10, 2011 February 6, 2011 – March 19, 2011 March 16, 2011 – March 26, 2011 March 26, 2011 – April 22, 2011 April 22, 2011 – May 16, 2011 May 17, 2011 – June 9, 2011 June 10, 2011 – July 1, 2011 July 1, 2011 – July 15, 2011 July 16, 2011 – July 26, 2011 July 26, 2011 – August 15, 2011 August 14, 2011 – August 23, 2011 August 21, 2011 – August 31, 2011 August 30, 2011 – September 7, 2011 September 4, 2011 – September 25, 2011 September 26, 2011 – October 19, 2011 October 16, 2011 – November 5, 2011 November 4, 2011 – November 12, 2011 November 11, 2011 – November 24, 2011 November 24, 2011 – December 6, 2011 December 3, 2011 – December 14, 2011 December 10, 2011 – December 16, 2011 (RFC about the Stop Online Piracy Act) December 15, 2011 – December 30, 2011 December 27, 2011 – January 9, 2012 January 9, 2012 – January 18, 2012 January 17, 2012 – January 30, 2012 January 28, 2012 – February 12, 2012 February 7, 2012 – February 25, 2012 February 19, 2012 – March 4, 2012 February 27, 2012 – March 18, 2012 March 17, 2012 – April 2, 2012 March 31, 2012 – April 13, 2012 April 12, 2012 – April 18, 2012 April 18, 2012 – April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 – May 6, 2012 May 2, 2012 – May 22, 2012 May 19, 2012 – June 9, 2012 June 4, 2012 – June 20, 2012 June 18, 2012 – June 28, 2012 June 26, 2012 – July 12, 2012 July 3, 2012 – July 22, 2012 July 19, 2012 – July 29, 2012 July 25, 2012 – August 9, 2012 August 7, 2012 – August 30, 2012 August 29, 2012 – September 13, 2012 September 13, 2012 – September 27, 2012 September 26, 2012 – October 5, 2012 September 24, 2012 – October 20, 2012 October 9, 2012 – October 31, 2012 October 29, 2012 – November 19, 2012 November 17, 2012 – December 5, 2012 December 2–15, 2012 December 15–28, 2012 December 24, 2012 – January 12, 2013 January 13–31, 2013 February 1–10, 2013 February 11–28, 2013 March 1–16, 2013 March 17–27, 2013 March 28 – April 6, 2013 April 6–19, 2013 April 19 – May 3, 2013 April 25 – May 8, 2013 May 6–19, 2013 May 18–30, 2013 May 27 – June 16, 2013 June 17–30, 2013 June 27 – July 30, 2013 July 31 – August 4, 2013 August 4–12, 2013 August 13–27, 2013 August 28 – September 4, 2013 September 5–10, 2013 September 11–22, 2013 September 24 – October 6, 2013 October 7–16, 2013 October 17–27, 2103 October 28 – November 6, 2013 November 7–19, 2013 November 20–27, 2013 November 28 – December 5, 2013 December 6–24, 2013 December 25–30, 2013 December 31, 2013 – January 14, 2014 January 15–24, 2014 January 25–29, 2014 January 30 – February 10, 2014 Archives not yet dated: 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 This manual archive index may be out of date. Future archives: 184 185 186

This page has archives. Sections older than 24 hours may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 2 sections are present.

"French says that the firm employs Admins, or high-ranking Wikipedia officers capable of locking pages from being edited, deleting them outright and also banning users and IP addresses from Wikipedia entirely. The site has 1,424 administrators in total, and French calls them an “invaluable resource.”

"According to French, Wiki-PR is in talks with the Wikimedia Foundation to address the complaints and the ban on the firms accounts. Business, he says, is on the uptick since Wiki-PR started appearing in the press."

International Business Times, Wikipedia’s Paid Edits: How To Make Money, The WikiWay, by Thomas Halleck, November 02 2013

French is Wiki-PR’s CEO Jordan French.

I'll just emphasize the obvious: a couple of weeks after the firm is banned from Wikipedia for sockpuppeting the CEO of Wiki-PR is claiming that admins still work for him. And yes, they are still advertising on their website www.wiki-pr.com/services/ that they can still edit Wikipedia directly "using our established network of editors and admins" and will help you "build a page that stands up to the scrutiny of Wikipedia's community rules and guideline."

A serious investigation is needed, followed by some real action. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They also recently stated that they were scrupulously following the rules because they "do paid editing and not paid advocacy." The best way to fight this is a crystal clear statement that admins can not use their tools for pay, and that editors can not edit in the article space for pay. Until such a policy exists, they will pretend that what they are doing is perfectly acceptable. At the very least, making such a policy makes it clear to their clients that their practices are unacceptable (not many businesses would risk hiring a blackhat firm). --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd make that a "crystal clear statement that admins, bureaucrats, and arbs cannot accept pay for anything they do on Wikipedia." Otherwise they are likely to be biased toward other paid editors, or even come up with myths like "the worst POV pushers are not paid editors." (I didn't intentionally quote anybody here, but I've heard it so often from admins and arbs that it might be a direct quote). Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who is an admin and has also done a form of paid editing, I am curious why you can't WP:AGF in my ability to reject a job that couldn't and doesn't meet relevant policies such as WP:GNG and WP:NPOV? I've written neutral articles where I have a WP:COI other than financial without problems and I'm happy to give a list to prove it (you could find such a list on my user page in fact). Your "zero tolerance" approach, frankly, will have the same effectiveness as virtually every other zero tolerance policy. The solution here is to devise a scenario where paid editors can exist openly and maintain Wikipedia's integrity. Such a solution might be tough to find, but it is possible.--v/r - TP 01:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm definitely interested in what you mean by "a form of paid editing" and, yes, please do supply a list of the articles you've been paid to do. I'll then go over them and show you examples of what I think is wrong. The general problem is that "he who pays the piper calls the tune." It's pretty hard to stand up to your boss, say "I can't do that" and turn down a paycheck. As far as "zero tolerance" policies being ineffective, I don't think that is true, nor would it be a reason to get rid of them if it were true. Consider embezzlement, false advertising, bribery, forgery, perjury - crimes that are basically about lying - society has essentially a "zero tolerance policy" for these - they throw you in jail for most of these if you get caught. It doesn't stop everybody, but having those laws on the books is far from ineffective. Paid advocacy is similar - by writing here, you are telling the reader that "I am a disinterested writer, not a shill" and then writing in the interest of your employer. Lying is a nice word for it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"A form of editing" - I wrote it, they posted it. Dennis Lo was written by me and published by someone else who paid me for it. Tops In Blue (version at my last edit), obviously I am affiliated. Medical Education and Training Campus, where I work. Feel free to go through them and "show [me] examples of what [you] think is wrong." (An assumption on your part, one of bad faith) In the meantime, I'll go through your articles and do the same. Let's find out if paid editors make more errors than non-paid editors. Let's find out if the errors your find arn't the average errors of any editor. You're doing a lot of assuming bad faith to think I write in the interest of anybody, let alone my employer. I, like I bet many editors as well, do not feel obligated to take jobs that would compromise my integrity. Your assumption that I'm a liar betrays your position; you're not being objective.--v/r - TP 03:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You may want to strike just about every sentence after your first. Ask yourself, which one of us is closer to a block. Me, for doing some paid editing that doesn't violate any policy, or you for some serious accusations about my character which violates WP:AGF, WP:CIVILITY, and WP:BLP? Likening me to "Consider embezzlement, false advertising, bribery, forgery, perjury" is a quick way to get blocked. And even if I were to accept that as a simple simile, your very last sentence "Lying is a nice word for it." is a pretty blatant personal attack. You definitely need to strike that now.--v/r - TP 03:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)I was, as noted, addressing "The general problem," not you in particular. If you're the type of person who can turn down a paycheck when he needs the money, congratulations, but I don't think that is the general case, nor do I think it proper for an admin to accept money for editing Wikipedia. I'll review the above articles and leave a note on your talk page. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But you have no evidence that there is a general problem. There certainly is a perceived problem, but a demonstrable one hasn't been proven. I expect that most editors who become administrators have the project closer to their heart than a dollar and wouldn't sell their admin bit. I certainly wouldn't. You're essentially saying that you have as much faith in administrators who are paid to edit as random IPs who are paid the edit. You're ignoring that these administrators have a track record that is completely open that we can check (their contributions). How much do you think paid editing gets someone? It certainly isn't going to pay my bills. When I "need the money" is probably when I am doing my least Wikipedia editing because I'm out trying to make a real dollar. You should spend some time getting facts rather than basing your accusations on assumptions. You need to first figure out how many administrators get paid to edit. Then figure out if any of them violate core content policies such as NPOV, GNG, RS and UNDUE. Then after that, find out if any of them have used their admin bit for paid editing. About the only thing that is directly opposed to adminship is the very latter; and we have an actual policy on that: WP:INVOLVED.--v/r - TP 04:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think you are entirely exonerated in this matter TP.—John Cline (talk) 04:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed the three articles I consider myself in COI with and welcomed a review. Feel free to give my work a critical analysis, but I have no need to be "exonerated" until it's proven I've violated a policy.--v/r - TP 04:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you have violated is a measure of community trust; which fundamentally empowers you as an administrator.—John Cline (talk) 05:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I have violated the community's trust, show me the community's consensus on the matter. Demonstrate I have violated the community's trust. Where is the policy or guideline backed by community consensus? Where is the RFC with consensus? You have none. The community hasn't decided if this violates community trust. So no, I haven't violated community trust. That's a personal attack and you need to strike that until there is a policy capable of being violated. Wikipedia does not judge ex post facto. The existing policy is WP:COI for all editors, which I have not violated, and WP:INVOLVED for administrators, which I have also not violated. Those are the community consensus. Those are what the covenant I have with the community. I have not broken them and therefore have not violated any trust with the community. Bottom line: You are not empowered to speak on behalf of the community. You can either demonstrate consensus or swallow your frustration.--v/r - TP 12:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TP, I did not "speak for the community", nor did I represent a consensus. I said "you have violated a measure of community trust", that "measure" being the portion I extended on your behalf; which is now diminished. To clarify further, although diminished, my trust is not exhausted, and I am familiar with the surplus of your good works. I simply lament that deception by omission was a necessary evil in your pursuit of upward mobility.—John Cline (talk) 02:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John - You can say that I've violated your a measure of your trust. You can say that you feel I've violated a measure of the community's trust. But you cannot say that I have violated a measure of the community's trust in non-opinion voice. That's speaking on behalf of the community which requires a consensus. I understand how you feel, though I disagree, and perhaps it's my personality type that sees holes where others believe they arn't legitimate. But I think that your comments earlier speak from a viewpoint that you cannot determine on your own.--v/r - TP 02:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am concerned, each editor that has published a writing that consisted of your words and your ideas; passing them as their own, has committed an act of plagiarism—and you are complicit in that act, if not its chief choreographer, IMO.—John Cline (talk) 04:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"As far as I am concerned" - exactly. As far as you are concerned. That's not the community, that's you. And plagiarism, really? You'll need to explain that one and back it up with some facts. I'm not here for exaggerated rhetoric.--v/r - TP 04:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can not intimidate me! I hope that was not your intent. If something I said is not clear, I will clarify the ambiguous matters when specifically asked. Otherwise, I have had my say; given without charge. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 05:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, John, I have too much respect for you to try to intimidate you. I'm saying that I have no idea where your claim of plagiarism has come from and you should substantiate such claims, or in the case of making such a claim about an editor you need to. By "exaggerated rhetoric", I mean that your using a word with a very negative, very charged, and rightfully so, connotation without explaining it or proving it with diffs.--v/r - TP 05:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand; and agree! The posting of my thoughts said:

As far as I am concerned, each editor that has published a writing that consisted of your words and your ideas; passing them as their own, has committed an act of plagiarism.

I had hoped to convey the following sentiments (shown as italicized parenthetical prose):

As far as I am concerned (was meant to acknowledge a lack of certainty, while allowing a rebuttal which I would embrace if shown to be wrong),

each editor that has published a writing that consisted of your words and your ideas (this eludes to your clients—as you have said: "Dennis Lo was written by me and published by someone else who paid me for it." [User:Biogerontology] )

passing them as their own (by not identifying the true author, and by default, claiming authorship for themselves—consider Biogerontology's creation summary for Dennis Lo—Created the biography page for the scientists, who discovered fetal circulating cell-free nucleic acids in maternal peripheral blood and invented a multibillion industry

has committed an act of plagiarism (because plagiarism is defined as: "the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own." by Google,[1] "to use the words or ideas of another person as if they were your own words or ideas" by Merriam-Webster,[2] "the practice of taking someone else’s work or ideas and passing them off as one’s own." by Oxford Dictionaries,[3] or "plagiarism occurs when a writer deliberately uses someone else’s language, ideas, or other original (not common-knowledge) material without acknowledging its source." by the Council of Writing Program Administrators,[4] amongst others.)

So tell me; why am I wrong for suggesting that you encourage your clients to embrace plagiarism by the publishing arrangement which you contractually require of them?

I hope my elaboration here has explained the mindset which governed my prose, and, at minimum, helped demonstrate a reasonable foundation for my beliefs (regarding plagiarism) even if by my own ignorance I am shown to be wrong.

I have other reservations about advocacy editing which would become complex iterations if I were to proffer them in prose; easily misunderstood—much harder to effectively explain. Although I'll skip writing of my deeper concerns, I will remain a staunch opponent, against tolerance of its (advocacy editing) practice.—John Cline (talk) 09:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John, are you not familiar with Work for hire?--v/r - TP 14:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TP, I am familiar with "works for hire", though I did not know "authorship" was transferable under its tenets. While admitting ignorance of this provision, I do find that the work itself must be listed as a "work for hire", which identifies authorship as "in name only". This precludes the work's "fit" within plagiarism's definition because it is not being "passed off" as their own creation, but rather as a creation they own.

What bothers me regarding your arrangement, is the absence of a disclaimer stipulating it as a "work for hire". I hope you will consider disclaiming this status for your future writings, regardless of whether or not the creative author is named. In my opinion, it should be required by wp:policy as well; just as it is by the US Copyright Office.

Interestingly, a "work for hire" is an exclusive arrangement existing betwixt an employer and an employee; where agency is stipulated by law (see agency law). Considering your declaration of the agreement, you do not qualify as an employee. A commissioned work, which yours appears to be, can only be a "work for hire" if it falls within one of nine specific categories of written works; 1.) as a contribution to a collective work, 2.) as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, 3.) as a translation, 4.) as a supplementary work, 5.) as a compilation, 6.) as an instructional text, 7.) as a test, 8.) as answer material for a test, or 9.) as an atlas. Which of these would you invoke to describe your commissioned works? If they are not one of these, they are not "works for hire", and do not qualify for the exemptions exclusive to this class IIRC. Best regards.—John Cline (talk) 03:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John, that may be so, I'm not a lawyer. However, as I said, releasing it as CC-0, which does not require attribution, is easy enough.--v/r - TP 14:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am fairly certain that "it is so", and equally certain that adherence is proper.—John Cline (talk) 04:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• TParis writes, to John Cline, that John has stated that he (TP) has violated a measure of the community's trust, but that he cannot write that in a non-opinion voice, because that would require a community consensus. I think that I understand the point that TP is trying to make, but I see it as an appeal to a will-o-the-wisp, because the community has already demonstrated that there is no community consensus. An editor who has violated a measure of the trust of other editors has violated a measure of the trust of the community, since the community is the sum of its parts. The trust of the community is the trust of its editors, nothing more, nothing less. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really have no idea how you can possibly acknowledge the community has no consensus on it's feelings on the matter and then say in the very next line that you speak on behalf of the community; or even a 'measure' of the community. You can't quantify that measure so it has no weight. A measure of the community things this whole thing is a load of bad faith. That measure being me. "Measure" is a weasel word that can mean anywhere from 1 - all.--v/r - TP 13:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TP, you are confusing reality by suggesting my talk page comments are governed by wp:mos! Here, I am bound by the talk page guidelines; having great latitude to create my reply (called wp:or if the MOS is invoked). Here, I have artistic liberty to add metaphoric contrast and colorful prose. You are practically out of line to suggest an inkling of bad faith in my writing's to you; but instead, you assert its entirety as "a load of bad faith".

I hope this is perfectly clear: You have lost a measure of the community's trust! That measure, is the difference of the diminished trust I have for you upon learning that your Wikipedia account is "for hire", and the trust I had when supporting your RfA. That is a real measure! It can be quantified, though you would have to ask something of me, it can be ignored, requiring nothing, or it can be discounted, and called "a weasel of no weight".

My prose is not an attack, and it is not modifiable by an administrative decree of policy enforcement. It simply is part of the discussion; itself freely subject to further discussion. My words are me; exercise caution when suggesting I am not welcome here!, for I am not welcome where my prose deserve censure.—John Cline (talk) 04:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• For the record, I also have a COI with 37th Training Wing which I havent done significant editing on. But I did remove this for which I made this declaration and explained my reasoning.--v/r - TP 04:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to discuss it here, just leave it here, otherwise please put it on your talk page. Dennis Lo looks like an ok article. I just want to be sure though, he (or his agent) paid you to write this? I think perhaps you are misconstruing what I mean by a paid editor. If he's a family friend who took you out to dinner, and you said "OK you can pay the bill, but I'll write an article on you for Wikipedia," then I wouldn't say you're a paid editor. A minor COI perhaps.

The next 2 articles Tops in Blue and Medical Education and Training Campus are problematic. There is a lack of independent sources, each seems to have only 1 marginal RS (the radio station and the 2 paragraphs in the San Antonio paper), with the rest being Air Force or military contractors' websites (and a blog). Again, I have to ask, why do you think people would consider you to be a paid editor here? If you are just a student on the campus, I'd say you have only the mildest COI - one seen on all campus articles. But if you are a member of the base PR unit, I would consider you to be a paid advocate, putting advertising in articles.

The 37th Training Wing is difficult for me to figure out. There is stuff that should very well be in an encyclopedia - WWII action, Vietnam, the Stealth bomber - but that seems only to have the slightest connection to the training wing - the number 37. With all the deactivations, changes in mission etc. I don't know if they belong in the same article, but I'd defer to what WP:Military says. Again the article suffers from a lack of independent sources. All in all, I'd say it looks like some newby mistakes, but who the editor is does matter. If you are intentionally writing this with these mistakes as a paid administrator, then it is a problem. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 06:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that you didn't bother to figure out which parts I wrote and which parts were written by someone else. Is this what you call an "investigation"? Tops In Blue meets WP:NMUSIC #6 (4 notable performers, all cited), and #12 (Superbowl performances, all cited). METC, here are some more sources: [5][6] (Author has a COI, publisher does not) [7][8]. So it meets WP:GNG, try it at AFD if you truly believe it's 'problematic'...I dare you. Non-controversial content can come from primary sources so the argument that it lacks independent sources doesn't matter as long as it meets notability guidelines. Dennis Lo - I was paid $100 by a professional acquaintance of his who felt he meet our guidelines. 37th Training Wing should've been your biggest gripe. I linked specifically where I removed negative sourced information. Of course, I had a good reason for it and I disclosed my COI making me in full compliance with WP:COI. Any other questions? I'm impeccably accurate in my COI edits so you'll have to step it up a bit.--v/r - TP 13:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In academia, before a paper is published, it goes through a peer review process. Some authors have a COI and are required to declare that conflict of interest. Every academic paper published goes through the peer review process and several experts generally sign off that the paper is good, solid research with no major holes. Of course implementing such a system here would be cost prohibitive, but it is what we do in professional research. Let me repeat, for emphasis, that before a paper is published (COI author or not), several experts sign off that the research was well done. However, when we examine the papers in aggregate (as has been done many times, citations available on request), we find papers authored by people with conflicts of interest are 3.5-4 times more likely to conclude a result that benefits the sponsor. In some cases, it is possible to point to specific flaws which slipped passed reviewers, but as a whole, it is the aggregated effect of many judgement calls (some explicit in the paper, some hidden in the online supplement, some are totally obscure), all of which favor the sponsor. Even experts can not usually point out the flaws in one paper in particular (although sometimes it is possible), but the aggregate effect is to bias the result. When new graduate students in science are trained, they are told to check the disclosures of conflicts of interest (see for example, How to Read a Paper by Greenhalgh). They are told to take those papers with a grain of salt. Make no mistake, the authors of papers with conflicts of interest generally have the best of intentions, and the research is signed off on by independent experts, but the net effect is to introduce non-neutral results. We don't have as clear-cut statistical data on Wikipedia, but I think the situations are sufficiently similar that we can not ignore the corrupting tendencies that money brings. --TeaDrinker (talk) 14:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience break

I feel pretty much totally comfortable stating they have no admins on their payroll, but they do have active socks still editing. Darius Fisher has asked for a sit down meeting with me, although he's delayed it several times so far. In the interim, I've been compiling a list of Wiki-PR articles and editors that I'll publicly pst and help neutralize once I've heard what Darius has to say (unless he agrees with the ban conditions or something odd like that.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even given that the wp:coi policy/guideline is such a wide ranging self-conflicting mess (other than the masterful definition of a COI at the beginning which everybody seems to ignore) it would take a wild stretch to claim that TP's work is a problem. North8000 (talk) 13:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones: Let's be careful not to over-react. I think the strong reaction to French's statement was the inference that French has employees who will, among other things, "ban users and IP addresses from Wikipedia entirely". I read the statement differently, I think he was saying, we have some employees who hold the position of admin. You probably don't know what that means, so let me explain what an admin is. (Edited for clarity)

I do not say this to mean it can be dismissed. I think we need to know more, but I'd also like to avoid making charges that are not grounded in facts. If Mr. French does have admins in his employ, one thing he might do is ask them what an admin does. No admin can lock a page from being edited. I know what he meant, but an admin reviewing his words would have corrected it. Admins don't ban editors. Maybe a picky point, but it means he either doesn't know what admins do, or didn't bother to have his admins review his statement. That doesn't prove he doesn't have admins on staff, but it does mean there's some misinformation.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:58, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do know what an admin is, there is no need to be patronizing - I started editing here 3 years before your first recorded edit. I don't discount the possibility that French is lying about employing admins, but I can't see any reason why he would do so. As I understand it, Wiki-PR was shown to have used sock/meat puppets and they and all their employees have been community banned for over 2 weeks now. If Wiki-PR does have admin employees - as Wiki-PR has been advertising on their site both before and after the ban, then those admins need to let the community know what's up. Not being shocked by a fairly believable claim that admins are being paid by a completely unethical banned company is the most shocking thing I've seen here. Admins need to try to start cleaning their own house on this, not ignore or try to minimize the obvious problem. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:36, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're misunderstanding. Sphilbrick is saying that French was trying to explain to the readers what an admin is; not you. We're not saying that admins who are editing on behalf of a banned company isn't wrong. It is, and policy (WP:MEAT) covers that. What I'm saying that is your and Tea's comment, "crystal clear statement that admins, bureaucrats, and arbs cannot accept pay for anything they do on Wikipedia", is a zero tolerance sort of policy that clearly is addressing a problem that you haven't proven exists. What has been proven is that Wiki-PR is a problem. What hasn't been proven is that administrators and other vested contributors are incapable of putting the encyclopedia first.--v/r - TP 18:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean by "misunderstanding" When Sphillbrick starts a paragraph "@Smallbones" and ends it "You probably don't know what that means, so let me explain what an admin is." I naturally thought he was talking down to me. I can see now, that he was looking at it from French's pov and using "you" in a very general sort of way. BTW, I think you did the same thing. When I asked "you" for examples, I certainly meant you, TP. But after I explained the general case (not talking about TP anymore), then went on to demolish your "zero tolerance" argument and concluded "Paid advocacy is similar - by writing here, you are telling the reader that "I am a disinterested writer, not a shill" and then writing in the interest of your employer. Lying is a nice word for it." I can see where you might have thought that I was still talking about you, TP. Rest assured that I was not accusing you, TP, of being a liar.

I think your reaction, though, shows why admins should not be paid editors. You, TP, started talking about assuming bad faith, personal attacks, banning, etc. etc. If I were a newby, I think you can see how that would be intimidating. Fortunately, I am not a newby and not that easily intimidated, but if you, TP, cannot diagram out the grammar and talk about paid editing in a calm way then you are likely to come across as very biased in your discussions of paid editing, TP.

Just for the record, I still think that admins doing any paid editing is just terrible, and that your edits on 2 of those articles above were not up to notability standards (I've seen much worse, however). I would have liked to see a direct answer to my indirect question about whether you work on the base's PR unit. I should have limited my response to your "zero tolerance" argument to just saying "You, TP, are arguing that we shouldn't have rules just because some people won't follow them."

And I'm still gobsmacked that 2 admins answering here don't see that paid editing by admins is a problem.

All the best, Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a part of USAF public affairs (at any level). I think I mention that on my user page. I write medical training software and make medical training videos. I'm also not arguing anything about rules. I'm saying a zero tolerance policy won't work, not that rules and structure shouldn't exist. But the rules need to be beneficial to Wikipedia and zero tolerance policies don't help the project (look at the attempts to enforce a zero tolerance kind of civility here). We need rules that encourage paid editors to put Wikipedia first and their employer second. It may sound like a fantasy but it's possible. If paid editors were told that they could get blocked for creating articles that shouldn't get created, or promoting articles, then their opportunity to make a dollar gets lost. It hurts their business to put Wikipedia second. By editing within the rules we have, their business can prosper. Which means, they need to be discriminate in the jobs they take. That may be harder for folks who are literally employed by a company versus contractual jobs, but a little bit of ingenuity and we can come up with something.--v/r - TP 00:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The mindset of anyone who is hired to promote any corporate, government, military or otherwise vested interest is to leverage opportunities to please the paymaster. Wikipedia is one such opportunity, and a big one, even if the only thing the shill can bring to bear is a rudimentary grasp of search engine optimization. I'd hazard a guess—informed by awareness of venality, experience of the PR industry, and a modicum of common sense—that the exploitation by WikiPR is very, very far from unique; that the parasitic practices will grow; and that no paid-to-edit admin will ever admit "paid editing by admins is a problem." Writegeist (talk) 22:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The mindset of anyone who is hired to promote any corporate, government, military or otherwise vested interest is to leverage opportunities to please the paymaster." And you know this how? You've connected mind reading devices to paid editors? Please do not pretend your exaggerated opinions are some kind of...'fact'.--v/r - TP 00:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The lady doth protest too much, methinks. As I said, no paid-to-edit admin will ever admit "paid editing by admins is a problem." Writegeist (talk) 02:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And your argument is lost right there. So, what your saying, is that in the act of defending a group (of which I have no idea who else could be a member), is by itself convict-able? Sorry, that doesn't pass muster. What you've got there is Circular reasoning. To paraphrase, "If an admin won't admit paid editing by admins is a problem, then there is a problem."--v/r - TP 02:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You write a sentence like "So, what your saying, is that in the act of defending a group (of which I have no idea who else could be a member), is by itself convict-able", and you offer the statement "if an admin won't admit paid editing by admins is a problem, then there is a problem" as a paraphrase of "no paid-to-edit admin will ever admit paid editing by admins." Yet you claim you get paid to write and edit an English-language encyclopedia? Can your paymaster(s) really have such low expectations, or are you funnin' with us? What you've got there are distinctly poor writing and comprehension skills. Writegeist (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC) Writegeist (talk) 22:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um -- might someone point out WP:NPA here, and note that accusing an editor of "venality", calling them a "lady", saying they have "poor writing and comprehension" and saying they are "parasitic" might be construed as being out of bounds here, and anywhere on Wikipedia? Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:22, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed) Someone might point out (Personal attack removed) a well-known Shakespeare quote; and further, that "parasitic practices" really rather clearly describes practices, and not any individual editor, as parasitic; and that the words "awareness of venality" do not, in fact, say "User:So-and-so is venal." (Personal attack removed) Writegeist (talk) 21:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC) Writegeist (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC) Writegeist (talk) 20:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing TParis, if I read your statement correctly, you're requesting evidence that paid editing is a problem. I find such a request puzzling since you acknowledge Wiki-PR is a problem. The thread was started by asking what to do about Wiki-PR. I think the best way to deal with them is to have a clear policy tells their customers what they are doing is forbidden and blackhat. Some firms will hire blackhat PR representatives, but most will not. So we explain to the public, in crystal clear language, that they are violating policy--and not just them, anyone who edits for pay. We have to be careful about using terms like "paid advocacy" versus "paid editing," they already exploit these terms. They just claim that they are paid editors, not advocates. So I think the problem is demonstrated. However, if further demonstration is needed, I can suggest there are very real issues that will come up if an admin's paid status is known to the public:

• Wiki-PR could get some great press by saying that Wikipedia's admin are themselves creating and editing articles for pay, but are blocking Wiki-PR to keep out the competition. Any journalist is going to love the "corruption" angle.
• The next guy whose article is deleted may claim that Wikipedia's admins delete articles not created by a service to drum up business for their article creation service. (If your response is "So?" remember we are here to serve the community of editors, not antagonize them unnecessarily.)
• Some volunteers may feel rather silly contributing to, copy-editing, or improving articles which some admin is taking credit and a paycheck for the result. I would be very reticent to contribute to an article when I know someone else is being paid to maintain it, for example.
• The positions experienced editors and admins take in discussions can be called into question on the grounds they are paid--are these editors trying to get me topic banned because the powers that be are paying them to do so? I assume no one here would be so brazen as to take a position in a discussion for monetary gain, but the risk of added drama is there.
• Finally, we exist for our readers. The appearance of impropriety is sufficient to be worrying. Admins are placed in a position of community trust, and we should act like it. People view material coming from a PR person (and like it or not, if you're editing for pay, you're involved in public relations) differently than from an independent observer. Every effort we make towards independence of our editors therefore adds value for our readers.

All of these problems exist even if paid admins actually can separate themselves from their paycheck and edit totally neutrally. The evidence from academia is that they probably can't. The evidence from academic publication is that subtle but substantial bias slips in. I suggest Wikipedia is perhaps the most valuable project ever built by volunteers, and we don't need to make it less valuable to open up a new revenue stream for a few admins. --TeaDrinker (talk) 23:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-PR is a problem but they are not representative of all paid editors and treating them like they are is a logical fallacy. You have one really bad case and so a rotten apple ruins the batch. I'm going to go through your points one by one:

• We get all kinda of corruption claims about Wikipedia, what's new? Wiki-PR was blocked by community consensus, not the administrators. What people could do doesn't concern us.
• Those claims are made against us already. Watch any admin's talk page who works in AFD or CSD.
• You don't know that. You're trying to speak on behalf of the entire community but you haven't been empowered to do so.
• Those questions would be ad hominem. The question should be "Is the argument right" not "is the arguer is biased."
• We do exist for our readers. In the case of Dennis Lo, a legitimate and very interesting person who should've been covered was not being covered. Me being paid to write the article helped our readers.

Finally, all of those problems exist right now, whether or not admins get paid to edit. And they'll continue to happen for the existence of Wikipedia. Advocates will real biases will always see cabals everywhere. That problem is not related to actual paid editing. You really need to think a bit more because paid editing isn't the cause of any of those issues. It's just another logical fallacy.--v/r - TP 00:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the time I've been following paid editing, over the last 18 months, I've focused exclusively on people being hired as short-term contractors. Much of what I've seen is not a major concern - articles being created about marginally notable (or non-notable, as the case may be) people, companies and products. However, also in that time I've seen vote stacking to save articles, vote stacking to have an article deleted, people being hired to remove COI tags, several people hired to have a user banned, article whitewashing, extensive cases of spam links (often very hard to detect if you are unaware of the initial contract), attempts to hire someone to manage dispute resolution in their favour, false referencing to fake notability (in one case by a very established editor), copyright violations, someone hired to insert negative material in competitor's articles, someone hired specifically (as specified in the job description) to make a general article NPOV in the client's favour, articles created on non-notable subjects in order to sneak in links to their subject, people hired to create references to be used to establish notability, and photo-spam of various products. It isn't one bad apple. Wiki-PR is one of the companies, as far as I can tell, who's biggest problem is creating articles on non-notable subjects. There are much bigger problems around.

The real surprise was seeing established editors with good reputations start off with simple, safe contracts, and then (in some cases) move into progressively more problematic editing. Some of those editors, such as yourself and a couple of others I could name, don't - but there does seem to be a slippery slope at work. My major worry hasn't been that established admins will do careful paid work, but that some of the less reputable paid editors will become admins (especially given that many ads specifically prefer administrators), although there is no reason to assume that this hasn't already occurred. - Bilby (talk) 00:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"especially given that many ads specifically prefer administrators" Ironically, being an admin doesn't give anyone more wiki-power. Admins are not to use the tools on behalf of themselves. We can only push the buttons with community consensus. If an admin action cannot be tracked specifically to community consensus (whether by policy or RFC) than it's a bad action. So, being an administrator doesn't help these companies at all.--v/r - TP 00:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would conjecture that the reason why many ads specifically prefer administrators is that the ads are aimed at customers who don't know what the function of Wikipedia administrators is, and who think that Wikipedia has an editorial board of administrators. That is my guess. I still think that paid advocacy editing is (as Coretheapple says) a cancer, or (as Robert McClenon says), an existential threat to the integrity of Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And that's fine. I understand how and why you feel that way. But I disagree and there is no consensus on it.--v/r - TP 03:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting that "being an administrator doesn't help these companies at all" is either candid naivete, or disingenuous misdirection. Regardless of motives, the counsel fosters a false premise. Operating a Wikipedia account that is "for hire" is utterly incompatible with Wikipedia administration; if we do nothing else, we should ban all forms of commingling the two.—John Cline (talk) 06:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The real surprise was seeing established editors with good reputations start off with simple, safe contracts, and then (in some cases) move into progressively more problematic editing" ... I want to hear all about this, Bilby, let's hear it! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The worst case, and the one which really made me think about how to address paid editing, was one where an extremely established editor did some work through one of the freelancer sites. The articles were innocuous to begin with, but a couple of the later contracts were for articles that would have failed the GNG. The articles that were created were accurate, but the sources were all offline and in print, and when I chased them up they turned out to be false - obscure sources with no page numbers used to make it look like the subjects would pass the GNG. I don't think that they put any false information in the articles, just falsified the references. My assumption was that they were established enough on WP to recognise that the articles would be deleted without them, and that we AGF on print sources, so it seemed like a safe thing to try. And, of course, payment was contingent on the articles not being deleted. In another couple of cases the problem was more to do with vote stacking, where people took the occasional contract to write on marginally notable topics, then were offered (occasionally privately) easy money to vote delete or keep at AfDs. I saw a fair bit of vote stacking contracts in the ads earlier this year. In a couple of AfDs I know of, every keep or delete vote was paid for.

That said, I know of one established editor doing paid editing who has remained consistent in turning down contracts if they wouldn't pass the GNG. I don't think that well-meaning editors have to end up breaking policies because they are paid, but it happens. - Bilby (talk) 05:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't want to disclose more details at the moment, but I had an hour long phone call with Darius earlier today about how he could integrate in to Wikipedia's ecosystem in a way that would be ethical and provide mutual benefit for both us and him. I left the call feeling fairly optimistic, but after fact-checking a number of things he had said and having them come up flat, am significantly less so. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's be blunt here. He has made a lot of mistakes. Does he want to fix those mistakes? Or not? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Darius? Is he either Wiki-PR or another vendor of paid advocacy editing? If so, of course he wants us to think that he will fix all of his mistakes, because he wants to encourage those editors who think that paid advocacy editing is acceptable. What he really wants is to make as much money as he can, and if he is advertising that his firm will edit Wikipedia for pay, then he doesn't care about Wikipedia as an Internet resource, only as a cash cow. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Darius FIsher is the COO of Wiki-PR. The more people I check in with about the call, the more pessimistic I become. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:22, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like he and his firm and company are banned, and should stay banned. And any admin who worked with them from now on, would be de-sysopped. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's still the whole problem of the fleet of articles that his firm has written and is still writing to deal with, however. I was hoping something productive would come out of the conversation. (N.b., I actually wrote the text of the cban in the first place.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AfD the lot! What are we waiting for? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well for one thing, finding them. For another... I don't really think AfDing Viacom would be successful. I'm working to compile a list of articles effected by his firm, but have no where near a complete list yet, and no where near complete confirmation of everything that is on my list. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Yeah, I have no sympathy for Wiki-PR, delete the bunch. I'm only defending Wikiexperts.us and freelance paid editing (of which I am arguably the latter, not at all the former).--v/r - TP 02:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To just be totally clear, I'm not kidding about having to AfD Viacom and almost every Viacom subsidiary if we AfD'ed all articles wiki-pr touched, btw. That is why this type of operation is deeply problematic. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin - we can use the WP:CCI format to check each of these articles.--v/r - TP 03:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Something like that might honestly be a decent idea. I'll be away for the next several days, but have at least a couple of hundred definitive articles on my Wiki-PR list, including some rather large ones. Could you (or anyone else) start a discussion somewhere about the appropriateness of using a similar template for this? (I would, but am going camping.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would except I'm pissed off that a particular editor has decided to retaliate against me for not nodding my head with the crowd and has started throwing tags on my articles. So, I'm not in the mood at the moment. He can't beat my reasoning so he's trying to get me to revert his tags so he can slam me for it.--v/r - TP 03:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no evidence the editor's tagging is "retaliation" for anything at all, or that he "can't beat [your] reasoning" or that he's "trying to get [you] to revert his tags so he can slam [you] for it." In fact, in his explanations of his actual reasons for the tagging, the editor has repeatedly asserted to you that this is not the case. The way your narrative frames you as being victimized for having taken money to edit, together with the glaring failure to AGF, are remarkable coming from an administrator who is quick to rail against others' expression of opinion about mindset with such as: "And you know this how? You've connected mind reading devices to paid editors? Please do not pretend your exaggerated opinions are some kind of...'fact'." Writegeist (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Slippery slope

If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny.

What I glean from the above discussion is that while theoretically possible to be paid to wr. iteTHE DISR U PTION IS FRe an article, as the writer becomes more comfortable and lets down his guard, the less neutral the editing can become. This tendency to relax can be counteracted with transparency. Should we restrict paid editing to userspace drafts and talk pages? If the work really is good, would there be a problem to get it reviewed and added to the encyclopedia? Thoughts? Jehochman ^Talk 04:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you have is a whole lot of people's opinions and not a lot of facts. I wouldn't make any judgements, let alone decisions, based off of that.--v/r - TP 04:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My interest is in the short-term freelance contracts, rather than established PR firms, so I can only comment there. But I tend to categorize paid freelance editors into three groups. New editors, who applied for the contract because they thought that WP editing can't be any harder than writing blog posts or the other writing contracts that they have done before. They don't tend to stay, as they articles are generally deleted early. Established editors who are doing a bit of paid editing on the side - they tend to overcharge a bit, so don't always get contracts when they apply, but they are in a sense the most risky with the slippery slope argument, as they know best how to avoid detection if they are inclined to take the less reputable contracts. And dedicated paid editors, who do large amounts of editing, almost all of which is paid, and often for very little per contract. There isn't a slippery slope in that case, as they don't so much slide as jump from end to end. :)

To be honest, I generally want to see transparency over outright banning, although my reasons are a bit messy. But it isn't transparency that is the issue, so much as how hard you hold yourself to your standards. Transparency might help, but as it can't be enforced it doesn't stop the problem as such. - Bilby (talk) 05:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The thread above does look like TParis is being persecuted because he disclosed something. Is that right? I believe that people should be encouraged to be open. If somebody discloses a conflict, or outright wrongdoing, we should be kind and help them get on the right side of our rules. As I've mentioned, I don't see much downside to limiting paid editors to userspace drafts and talk pages where they can openly make a case for admission of their hired content. If their content is good, somebody will use it to make, expand, or update an article. Jehochman ^Talk 12:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors don't think that a paid advocacy editor should be rewarded for disclosing their affiliation. That is because some editors think that paid advocacy editing cannot be made harmless, and that it is much worse when undisclosed but harmful even when disclosed. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TParis, I am struggling to think of an example of where being paid any significant amount to do something does not have the effect of making a person beholden to the person paying. We do not allow public officials to be paid for certain legislative outcomes (and where it does happen skirting the law, it is considered by many to be a scandal and a sign of official corruption). We don't allow reporters for reputable news organizations to take money from people they are reporting on. Food critics do not get to take payments from restaurants. I am struggling to think of an analogous example where money does tend to have a corrupting influence. I think our default assumption should be that, absent evidence from Wikipedia specifically, money will have a corrupting influence. --TeaDrinker (talk) 13:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll layout my mindset when writing Dennis Lo. The employer contacted me because he had previously worked with me on another project unrelated to this. He asked if I could write up an article. I told him I needed 3 days to decide if I would take the job to determine if an article could even be written that was met guidelines. I determined that there was, accepted the job, and wrote it. Now, could the article have been written by anyone without getting paid? Yes. In fact, red links for Dennis Lo already existed in two other articles. I gathered as many sources as I could and wrote what they said. Did that prohibit me from being critical? As seen in the Tops In Blue article, I can be critical of topics I have a COI in (I have a friend who was in TiB at the time I rewrote that article). So what does payment get the employer? Well, he doesn't have to wait for some random disinterested party to get around to writing it. They arn't buying my integrity, it's not for sale. They arn't buying my bit, that's not mine in the first place. As far as I am concerned, me getting paid gets me to write in topic areas I normally wouldn't. That's the only 'effect' it has on me. I'm much more interested in this project than picking up some crappy freelance job that's going to lead to me being asked to leave. My guess is that most established editors feel the same way. I can see where paid editing firms who hire folks who have never touched Wikipedia is a bad thing, but for those of us who have put our hearts into this project, you're making a very offensive claim that we arn't fully committed to the success of this thing.--v/r - TP 13:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus of reliable sources seems to be that even when persons are not conscious of it, conflicts of interest can still affect their judgement. For example, the ICMJE writes that "the potential for conflict of interest can exist regardless of whether an individual believes that the relationship affects his or her scientific judgment." [9] The Journal of Clinical Investigation writes "Authors must disclose all potential conflicts as described below even if they believe their conflict is not germane to the content of the submitted paper". [10] The University of Texas, Dallas Office of Research writes: "The investigator's personal belief that the competing personal interest would not actually bias his or her actions should not be a factor in the investigator's decision whether to disclose the interest under the Policy." [11] The University of Alaska, Fairbanks Office of Research Integrity writes: "Perceived impropriety can result in consequences as damaging as if intentional misconduct had been committed. With increased media, governmental, and public scrutiny, a researcher's reputation, research funding, and employment can depend as much on perceptions of integrity as on integrity itself." The Virgina Commonwealth University Office of Research writes: "A Conflict of Interests can arise in situations in which there exists discord between a primary duty and a secondary interest. While such interests can be either financial or non-financial, they, nevertheless, can yield conscious or subconscious bias in the conduct and/or interpretation of research" and "Accordingly, and whether real or only perceived, all identified conflicts of interests must be addressed." [12]

Do you agree that the consensus among reliable sources is that conflicts of interest must still be dealt with in the normal ways, even when the persons involved aren't conscious of them affecting their judgements? Is there a possibility that the monetary compensation you have received for editing articles has affected your judgement on these matters, even without you being conscious of it? Do you think that maybe the admonition of the guideline WP:COI that "COI editing is strongly discouraged" is in line with the academic consensus and should be followed? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't at all dispute what the academic sources say. What I dispute is that I've given you four articles I have a COI with. Demonstrate, factually, biases in my editing. Keep in mind that it was me who added a controversy section to Tops In Blue, it was me who restored it when someone tried to white wash it. However, my COI with TiB was a friend who was in the band. If you look at where I was actually paid to write (not actually edit but that's not far from it) Dennis Lo, I encourage you to search for sources that are critical of his work. I made a good attempt to find anything and couldn't. If you gave it and try and found something like "Dennis Lo's method isn't peer reviewed" or something in the first page of a google search, well then that would prove me wrong. So I encourage you to give it a try. I've given you an opportunity to put ethical theory and academic opinion to the test. Show facts. Am I editing in a biased manner? Quit trying to prove it's possible and prove it happened.--v/r - TP 00:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to prove that just that is possible. I'm asking about these matters in general, including any voting or other statements concerning conflict of interest and paid editing. Do you think that it is possible that your having received payment to create certain content for Wikipedia has affected your judgement in any such matters, even if unconsciously? I think maybe you have just now said you don't dispute that such is possible (because you say that you don't dispute the academic sources which imply as much), but I'm not sure if that question was understood in the way that I meant it.

If you want negative information concerning Dennis Lo that was not included in the article, I can supply it. I don't think this proves anything about intent or bias, but if you think it would prove you wrong, then you may have it so. For example, there is no mention that Verinata is suing Sequenom, when the action is against Sequenom's use of the patent which they license from Dennis Lo [13]. There is no mention that Lo's procedure for pre-natal diagnosis of genetic conditions has been criticized by scholars for ethical reasons: "Scholars and advocates from various fields argue that NIPD will not only exacerbate current ethical issues in prenatal diagnostic and screening, but it will also create entirely new issues. NIPD, some contend, will erode informed consent, blur the line between medically necessary and non-medical fetal testing, obviate the disability rights movement, undermine disability treatment efforts, and reshape consideration of reproductive freedom. Some scholars have gone so far as to call NIPD a sham and a cover-up for modern-day eugenics." [14] --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 01:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely yes it's a definite possibility and probability in the general sense. But it's not a 100% certainty for all editors. Per WP:NPA, editors should be judged on their edits, not their person. If an editor is advocating, we have a policy for that. As far as those two sources, I wasn't aware of either. However, having now read them I'm not sure why either would be in an article about Dennis Lo. Does the fact that a company that has exclusive license to his patent and is being sued have anything to do with him personally? Perhaps if he has ownership in that company which I have no idea if he does or not. As far as the ethical stuff, I could see a one-liner per WP:UNDUE but the majority of that would belong in an article about NIPD (which it is).--v/r - TP 02:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine a person who has heard a little about genetic screening and thinks that it might be a growth market; maybe she's heard of patent disputes that might affect the market as well though. So she does a little more research on the topic. She reads about a number of different firms and the researchers who license technology to these firms. She is led to the the Dennis Lo article. She reads it and thinks, "Well, Wikipedia is a pretty trustworthy source, there's no disclosure of conflict of interest on the article, and the page is written by volunteers, not by PR-hacks. This article does claim that Lo developed this procedure. You know what, between this and everything else I've read, what the heck, I'll invest in Sequenom, since they license Lo's technology." Now imagine some time later Verinata wins the case against Sequenom, and this person's stock is devalued. This person thinks, "Hmm, I guess I should have done better research." Now imagine after this she finds out that the article on Dennis Lo was not written by an impartial volunteer, but was actually written by an agent of one of Dennis Lo's associates. She is going to feel like her trust in Wikipedia was betrayed. Imagine further that she reads through pages like this and discovers that a person paid by Dennis Lo's licensee tried to prevent people like her from seeing a disclosure of conflict of interest, and tried to prevent people like her from knowing of a patent dispute. She is going to feel wronged and cheated.

No one expects articles on Wikipedia to be perfect and to contain all the information of which one might ever reasonably expect to be told. But as soon as one introduces financial conflicts of interest, any such omission or error can reasonably be suspected as having been caused in some part by this conflict of interest. This destroys trust. This is why the research offices and journals cited are so clear, that even when an author does not believe the conflict of interest affects them, even when there is only an appearance of a conflict of interest, this must dealt with in the normal way. That's why the strong discouragement of COI editing at WP:COI is such good advice: It's just better left to the talk pages. Without readers' trust that articles are not produced in a manner similar to press releases, readers have no adequate reason to read the articles instead of those publications, they have no adequate reason to join and start contributing themselves, and they have no adequate reason to donate to the charitable, educational organization which runs this website. This is why Sue Gardner, Jimbo Wales, and the rest of the Foundation are so rightly concerned about curtailing this practice. Granted, you seem to be rightly sure that you yourself can stand above a conflict of interest in an effective way to produce overall unbiased editing. However, you have no reason to believe that the next editor will be so virtuous, and a precedent that you set by yourself is never set just for yourself. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 11:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you're making assumptions about our readers for which you have no facts. That's anecdotal at best. Discouragement is good advice, outright banning is not. I've already said I oppose zero tolerance policies. The existing policy is a good one. Have I not demonstrated that at every turn I declare any of my COIs? I'm complying with the policy.--v/r - TP 13:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I and anyone else who Googles "Dennis Lo eugenics" or "Dennis Lo ethical" can produce many reliable sources which criticize Dennis Lo for his practices being possibly unethical and tantamount to eugenics, none of which are referenced in the article [15] [16] [17] [18]. Your response and judgement is, and has been from the beginning, that the article as you wrote it, is neutral, meaning that including any such criticism in the article is undue weight. We can produce any number of objective facts, i.e., which reliable sources say what and when, facts which most editors agree are relevant for deciding questions of undue weight. But the final judgement as to whether some mention is undue or not is, in the end, a subjective one. Everyone has her own standard for undue weight, and no appeals to intuition, anecdotes, objective facts, or other argumentation can change one's judgement if one doesn't want them to. If the standard you set for proving to you that there are problems with your form of paid, COI editing is that we have to convince you, on your own criteria, that some specific inclusion of material is not undue weight, you have assigned us an impossible task. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the article in question, but if there is negative information that is omitted, and belongs in the article, then it is not neutral. More to the point, if this article is a product of paid editing, why is that not disclosed to readers? Shouldn't it be? Coretheapple (talk) 23:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a med student, so I googled "Dennis Lo" and those sources didn't come up. I wouldn't have thought to search eugenics but I could've searched on ethical. (My background is computers). I'd argue that one of your sources isn't about Dennis Lo, so to include it would be WP:SYNTH. However, your others are great sources and if you'll save me the "he's trying to cover up his mistakes" then I'll go work on the article myself to include them. However, I've never said you had to convince me. What I've consistently said is that you have to convince the community be obtaining consensus. By the way, my talk page guidelines deal specifically with this. It's not an impossible task to change my mind. Keep in mind, however, that I added criticism to Tops In Blue and it was removed by a disinterested editor. I cover everything I find. Having a medical background would've helped to know what to search for to find the articles you've found. Either way, you're right, I've made a mistake on that article. I'd counter argue that it's not an uncommon one of any editor but it's a mistake and that's what matters. @Coretheapple, we have a {{COI}} template for articles with problems of neutrality. Having an editor with a COI edit it isn't the determining factor in whether to use that tag though. The determining factor is if the contributions by an editor with a COI have significantly affected the neutrality of the article.--v/r - TP 01:04, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand you say that it is not impossible to change your mind. On the other hand you say, speaking of me I presume, "He can't beat my reasoning". If I can't beat your reasoning, then it is impossible for me to change your mind. You have a personal testimony based on introspection that your form of paid, COI editing is non-problematic ("As far as I am concerned, me getting paid gets me to write in topic areas I normally wouldn't. That's the only 'effect' it has on me."). Contradicting your personal testimony, we've seen multiple reliable sources which say that conflicts of interests have problematic effects even when the relevant person is unaware of them, meaning that introspection is insufficient for ruling out effects. You doubt that the academic consensus applies to you and say that we should "put ethical theory and academic opinion to the test." That may be needless original research, but I followed your suggestion willingly nonetheless. And the academic opinion passed your challenge to it: Information critical of Dennis Lo's practices which was not included in the article was found with a simple Google search. With all of this, you have not changed your mind. I believe your assurance that it is possible to change your mind. I don't however believe anymore that it is possible for me to change your mind. I now believe according to your other statement, that you hold that I can't beat your reasoning. Thank you for the discussion. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 10:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In a way, I can understand this user's insistence, in the face of all evidence and plain common sense, that what he did was perfectly OK. If one measures one's conduct not by the standards of society (other encyclopedias and publications) but by the "Wikipedia rulebook," he did absolutely nothing wrong and, justifiably, feels no guilt. I have no reason to doubt this person's good faith. I think he's been upfront here. What I and other critics of paid editing have to appreciate is that a paid editor has come forward and laid it on the line, describing his thought processes honestly and forthrightly. I'm not being sarcastic when I say that he should be commended for doing so, as he has done us a great service. We need to understand and appreciate that Wikipedia marches to a different drummer. Editing for pay is OK here, and efforts to fight it are going to run up against a brick wall of resistance, because Wikipedia rules expressly permit COI editing, including paid editing, as long as certain policies and procedures are followed. Yes, the result is that there are articles, Lord knows how many, that are bought and paid for by the subjects of those articles, and neither the readers nor Wikipedia itself have any way of knowing how many of those articles there are. But ultimately this assault on Wikipedia's integrity is really a problem for the Foundation. Frankly given the mindset here, I am starting to feel like a fool for not cashing in myself. Coretheapple (talk) 12:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In response to TeaDrinker, I would ask, did User:SGGH become beholden to the person paying in this paid contract? - 2001:558:1400:10:D193:379E:43D1:2BD (talk) 18:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know that in the United States, a lawyer is an officer of the court? Lawyers are paid by clients, but still have obligations to the justice system such as not lying. Expert witnesses, although paid by one side or the other, are still considered to be neutral parties. (A smart expert demands full payment before testifying.) Reporters get paid. Writers get paid. What keeps things clean in these situations is that the payment is disclosed, and everybody knows who's being paid by whom. The main source of corruption is the lack of transparency, because when payments are hidden, people can't be skeptical or make the necessary inquiries to account for the potential bias. I think the first goal of our policy is that when people are paid to edit, they need to disclose that fact plainly. A second protection is to require paid edits to be submitted for independent review before inclusion. I believe these two requirements would make the situation much better than it is now. Jehochman ^Talk 13:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S. it has become an everyday platitude that "they have their experts, we have our experts". It is an institution with actually a far worse reputation than Wikipedia, and as a result, science enters the courtroom at a severe disadvantage because no one believes it. Wnt (talk) 15:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite so. The lawyer example is rather unconvincing, since the lawyer is supposed to be biased. The expert witness case is interesting. It perhaps highlights perfectly the danger of paid editing. Lawyers routinely shop for expert witnesses, and pick a lineup of experts who will support their case. And when they do testify, if the jurors know they are highly compensated for their testimony, jurors rely on the testimony less because of the pay. There are even cases where we know that experts biased their testimony for their paymasters. In the Raleigh, NC crime lab scandal, it was revealed that the lab was doctoring reports for the prosecutors and excluding exculpatory evidence, which made sense since the lab's personnel had their performance reviews written by the same prosecutors. I disagree with your conclusion that the problem is one of openness. When a policeman takes money from the mob, the corruption would not go away if it were known. That policeman is not maintaining his independence. A judge is forbidden from taking money from litigants in his court; disclosure does not remove the problem. This is a very common problem. In an adversarial system like law, there is a place for paid advocates. Wikipedia, however, can do with fewer advocates of all sorts, including paid advocates. And make no mistake, pay corrupts and makes advocates out of the most honest of men. --TeaDrinker (talk) 05:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilby I'm with you. A couple of years back, I was involved in 'crowd-sourced' investigations into PR companies 'whitewashing' for clients, wrote it up, and it was mentioned here (I didn't participate in the discussion and, even now, still do not edit related pages - I generally stick to history & other interests). Back then, 'allegedly', a PR company IP edited pages for clients that were identifiable via their website, PR releases & US government mandatory public disclosures. Now? It's (likely to be) that step removed - pay an editor/pay a company that pays editors. I don't think bans, other than for business models that advertise that they can/will circumvent policy, will work. My feelings are messy too. The days when you could catch out (possible) paid editors on IP are long gone. I don't have an answer but I don't think pulling up a theoretical drawbridge and pretending Wikipedia, as it stands, as the 'encyclopedia anyone can edit', can be defend itself using witchhunts and false accusations will work either. Transparency is important, but more important is content. The answer is somewhere in the mess. AnonNep (talk) 19:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been away from this discussion for a few days. I just wanted to make the general comment that the discussion has been diverted into personalities and side issues (does such-and-such a website really employ administrators?) and away from what it should be, which is a discussion of best practices. Opponents and skeptics of paid editing have been told that it hasn't been "proven" that there is harm in paid editing. This demonstrates again how Wikipedia is in the Stone Age when it comes to this subject. Everywhere in the world except Wikipedia, it is accepted as self-evident that financial conflict of interest is problematic, that at a minimum it has to be disclosed to readers, that failure to do so is unacceptable, because readers have a right to know if the content they read is tainted by financial conflicts. It doesn't matter how ostensibly "neutral" an article appears to be. We don't want to put unpaid, unconflicted editors in the position of having to go through paid work product with a fine tooth comb to ascertain if there is a problem with such content. The content needs not to be there in the first place. We need to join the rest of the world and accept that as a starting point that paid editing is a harmful, "black-hat" practice, especially when not disclosed, and move on from there. It is not a question whether "policy has been violated." I think that everyone agrees that paid editing is permitted by policy. I also feel that paid editors should stay out of this discussion. They have a conflict of interest, and their presence here is disruptive, as indicated by the way this discussion has been sidetracked. Best practices in this area need to be determined by people without a vested, financial interest in the Stone Age status quo, who have made money by exploiting their Wikipedia editing. Coretheapple (talk) 18:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coretheapple - The only thing that is disruptive are the constant personal attacks thrown at me. Calling me disruptive is a PA and just because you don't like paid editing doesn't exempt you form WP:NPA. But let's get to the core of your argument. You're saying that paid editors shouldn't be involved in the discussion. Let's put it in a different context. "People who have had abortions shouldn't comment on them." You'll only get a single POV when you single out your opponents and disclude them with ad hominems. It's a pretty simple tactic. eg: Their argument cannot be overcome so let's pick a trait to attack. That's a classic DH1 on Paul Graham's hierarchy of disagreement. My central point is that there are a lot of assumptions. You've given a DH3 Contradiction saying the assumptions are a given. The academic sources about conflicts of interest are clear - that's what is a given. What is not clear, and not a given, is the level of harm done. What we know is that Wiki-PR committed some harm. But many editors are trying to point to Wiki-PR as an example of all paid editors. My question is, have I committed harm? Prove it with diffs. My point is that many folks here are trying to apply a zero tolerance policy without actually addressing whether or not paid editing in it's entirety is a problem. Several examples, including myself, have been put forth. The question that I've asked has been avoided. I've been met with aggressive behaviors, personal attacks, folks tagging my articles, contacting my client offline behind my back, and many other tactics to intimidate me into silence because they'd rather do that than actually have to have an open dialogue. The nice thing about Jimbo is that although Jimbo disagrees with many thing, paid editing included, he values the importance of open dialogue. Those pointing to Jimbo for his comments against paid editing should also remember this quote:

I think that in general better decisions are made in a spirit of open and thoughtful dialogue rather than top-down decree. I think it worthwhile to separate two issues - the issue of a community decision by consensus (which requires discussion and poll-taking) and hate speech that may emerge as a part of that process. We wouldn't actually improve things if we shut down open discussion, just to stop a few people from being obnoxious. Better to simply stop the few people from being obnoxious by banning them from the discussion, refactoring their comments, or other such measures as appropriate.

— Jimmy Wales

• --v/r - TP 20:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the "NPA" stuff. It's crass, it's false. Also, again, I think that you have a conflict, are directly impacted by this discussion, financially, and need to stop. Coretheapple (talk) 20:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've quoted from Jimbo, so allow me to do the same.[19] "I also agree that permissiveness is a big part of the problem, and I think there are two reasons for it. First, many people working in their own little areas don't realize the magnitude of the threat. Second, every discussion that arises brings in paid advocates making lots of noise and engaging in bad argumentation to cloud the issue.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)"[reply]

While I wouldn't go so far as to say that you are "making noise," I do believe it is fair to say that you are "engaging in bad argumentation to cloud the issue." The fact that you are an administrator doing that, and throwing around cavalierly meritless charges of "NPA" makes it all the more important that you step aside and let non-paid editors discuss this issue. Coretheapple (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again circular logic. You called me disruptive, I called you out on it, and that is evidence of my disruption? I hate opening a third ANI thread but ill give you a chance to redact yourself or rephrase. The disruption is caused by those doing the name calling. And ill note you continue to make comments about me personally instead of addressing my argument. Thats the side trscking you are talking about and you are causing it. Not me.--v/r - TP 21:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's get this back on track. When you've engaged in paid editing, what disclosure have you made to readers? Do you feel that Wikipedia readers are entitled to disclosure when you or anyone engages in paid editing? Coretheapple (talk) 21:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for all COI editors, but when I do any kind of editing where I have a COI, paid or otherwise, I seek an outside review by a disinterested person. Since you're curious about paid editing in general, I haven't actually quite crossed that line yet but for argument purposes let's not quibble over technicalities and say that I have. Dennis Lo would be your primary interest then. For that one, I do not feel a disclosure on the main page is necessary because I sought a review at Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Dennis_Lo and disclosed my COI to the reviewer. If I had not done so, then the {{COI}} tag would be an appropriate maintenance tag until someone could come along and do a WP:NPOV check. Per the template documentation, "Do not use this tag unless there are significant or substantial problems with the article's neutrality as a result of the contributor's involvement."--v/r - TP 00:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(restoring indent) Well you see, that's precisely my point. We seem to be having two different conversations, talking past each other, and that has been the general trait of this dialogue all the way up the line. You're talking about how your edits meet the policy, and how they fit within the four walls of Wikipedia's COI practices. But that is not the purpose of this conversation. The purpose is to explore whether the rules and norms of Wikipedia are adequate, and clearly they are not. In fact, while I don't think it's right for a person with a financial conflict of interest to engage in a discussion about a change in the policy on financial conflict of interest, I have to admit that this discussion has been an eye-opener:

1. There is absolutely zero disclosure to readers as long as an article seems NPOV. You refer to a "POV check." But clearly unpaid, volunteer editors, unless they have a deep knowledge of the subject matter, are in no position to determine if an article is complete, and does not omit any material facts, as is required by the NPOV policy. In the Dennis Lo article, for example, as Atethnekos pointed out above, "I and anyone else who Googles 'Dennis Lo eugenics' or 'Dennis Lo ethical' can produce many reliable sources which criticize Dennis Lo for his practices being possibly unethical and tantamount to eugenics, none of which are referenced in the article."[20] You responded that this material does indeed belong in the article. So obviously the "POV check" that was performed was inadequate. This problem would have been avoided, as far as disclosure is concerned, if it was disclosed to readers that this article was purchased by the subject. (I assume that Dr. Lo is the "employer" you refer to above.) Yet if one goes to the talk page, there is none of the disclosure that you have commendably made here (and I say that your disclosure is commendable; your accepting money to write this article is anything but) that this article was bought and paid for by the subject of the article.

2. A "cottage industry" that has sprung up, consisting of independent contractors who put articles in Wikipedia for a price, totally within the four walls of Wikipedia policies and norms. Again, your attitude of righteousness indignation, which I have to admit repelled me at first, is actually something that we should all commend you for, for what you are showing us is just how deeply engrained paid editing is within the Wikipedia culture, and how tough it is to root out. I had always assumed it mainly to consist of employees of corporations who are assigned to edit Wikipedia articles. But now it has become plain that the problem is much more widespread and pernicious.

and last but not least

3. I feel like a damn fool. If established editors, even a Wikipedia administrator, who has the trust of the community and is supposed to know the rules backwards and forwards, can get away with making money for creating Wikipedia articles, and become indignant when your doing so is questioned (and with good reason, as you are in compliance with Wikipedia rules and norms), then why am I not cashing in myself? Wikipedia is indeed for sale. It part of the culture, it is OK as far as the rules are concerned, and those of us who don't get in on the gold rush are just plain damn fools. If an editor can make a hundred bucks creating articles, why can't I make a living doing this? Coretheapple (talk) 12:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"If an editor can make a hundred bucks creating articles, why can't I make a living doing this?" - Well one reason is that very few paid jobs would actually be appropriate for Wikipedia. But also, it seems we have a new guideline as of today.--v/r - TP 14:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Approrpiateness" is a value judgment, strictly a matter of opinion. I am not sure what you mean by a new guidelines. I have noticed WP:Commercial editing and I'm a bit mystified how that came to pass. As I read that guideline, if that's what it is, it would not prevent creation of articles by the Articles for Creation process, and in fact as a behavioral guideline and not a policy it would not prevent editors from doing anything. It would not address disclosures to readers or move Wikipedia into the real world by even an inch. Coretheapple (talk) 14:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC) There is some question as to whether "commercial editing" is actually a guideline. I see that it was just changed to "proposal." Even if adopted, I don't see it affecting paid editing in any meaningful way, because of all the loopholes, so we'd really be back at square one anyway. Coretheapple (talk) 15:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fairness

I think it is wrong to sanction people for violations where there is no definite line explaining what is allowed and what isn't. We've had a devil of a time getting people to agree on a paid editing policy (banning paid editing in article space). We really need to come together and agree on what's allowed and what isn't. Jehochman ^Talk 16:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on a signpost article that is going to touch on this and might light a path to resolving this.--v/r - TP 18:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I do think a non-trivial part of the problem is that we have people who are involved in paid editing heavily involved in creating that definite line. Complaining that there is no line while arguing against any number of meaningful lines is more than a bit self-serving. I'd think the following would be common sense:
  • Admins and functionaries may not engage in paid editing without being approved by some type of ethics committee. This would allow for non-profits to pay people to write articles on (say) English history or some such where there is no modification to include non-notable topics or to white-wash the subject.
  • All paid editors must clearly disclose any COI and carefully describe who pays them and for what. This would be retroactive.
  • All editors who pay others or are otherwise involved in paid editing must clearly disclose that. This too would be retroactive.

Clear disclosure would probably involve a template at the top of a userpage and a link to a statement if the disclosure is complex. These seem really obvious. We can't have admins or other functionaries with a worrisome COI. We need everyone else to disclose clearly and have a low tolerance for COI editors (of any type frankly) who push a POV. Hobit (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a mistake to allow paid editing of any kind, but if there is to be disclosure, there should be some form of disclosure to readers when a paid editor had a role in the editorial process. That would include initiation of the article via the Articles for Creation process, or the article containing text that was proposed by the subject or his agents. This would not have to be a big red "mark of Cain" at the top of the article but might consist simply a disclosure in the article, perhaps footnoted, as in published research. Disclosure within Wikipedia should be completely transparent, and should include the sum that was paid to editors. That is the rule for investment newsletter writers, when they are paid by companies, and I see no reason why Wikipedia should not emulate best practices in disclosure if it is to permit that kind of activity. Coretheapple (talk) 16:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to insert one other point, which is to address two of the frequent fallacious argument that I've seen ad nauseum whenever this subject is raised.

One is that if you ban paid editing you will "drive it underground," and that there needs to be some mechanism to coax out these people into the daylight. It treats paid editors as if they are a societal problem, like drug addicts or illegal immigrants, good intentioned people who have gotten a bad break and are trying to exert their rights. This is utter nonsense. These are businessmen, and if their practice is banned by Wikipedia they will do something else for their clients. If they advertise they risk legal action by the Foundation. Any editors who participate would risk a ban. This won't completely eliminate the problem but it would go a long way toward solving it, and would certainly end the continual public relations black eye.

Another fallacious argument is along the lines of "paid editing is just another form of POV pushing." Most POV issues come from "true believers" and other committed people, whether the issue is historical, political or religious. Paid editors push the POV they are paid to push. When the payment stops, so does the POV pushing. It is by far the easiest kind of advocacy to control. Coretheapple (talk) 15:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Jimmy, as I have said previously here, money and Wikipedia editing of any kind should not mix, period. This policy should be enacted for article space and talk pages alike, at once and permanently, and be enacted from the top down, namely you, Jimmy Wales, and the WMF, and not be up for debate. Repeat corporate violators or other moneyed interests in violation should be taken to court by fearsome top-notch lawyers in both criminal and civil court. Wikipedia is a knowledge base unique in history, imperfect as it is and always will be. Eternal vigilance by dedicated volunteer editors will be required to keep it "fair." For the record: the notion of Wikipedia's admins and other, higher-level functionaries editing for money fills me with disgust and rage. It is all a self-evident conflict of interest and an endless slippery slope. Just say no, Jimbo. And bless you for your expressed concern to date. Jusdafax 10:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs backlog is at 1387. Help would be appreciated cleaning up. Posting this notice per an earlier request by Jimbo that I post here when it gets high. Gigs (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not acceptable! I've mentioned this at Wikipedia talk:Did you know as well (in a slightly biased way, but it's important.) Everyone should set an example by fixing at least one. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone is too busy with the apparently much more important task of arguing about a policy about finding and banning users who get paid. Which will create more bureaucratic nonsense and witchhunts that will cause people to continue to have less time on these things.Camelbinky (talk) 00:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Try to fix 10 each and copy-edit: If each person, who fixes one BLP, could try to fix 10, then I think the 8-month backlog (now below 1,320 pages) could be cleared this month (except perhaps 500 recent additions). As could be expected when lacking sources, the wording in many articles also needs improvement, such as rewording of wp:PEACOCK phrases which exaggerate to elevate the sense of notability, or rewrites of close-paraphrase text from the sources. The problem often goes: (step 1) add sources, (2) compare to sources to reveal copyvio, (3) remove copyvio text, (4) rewrite and re-expand from sources. Lack of sources can be a warning that most text is a copyvio. However, even fixing 10 pages for step 1 is a big step toward improving the situation. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Many footballers, athletes or non-notable: Several articles have been very easy to source, as with recent athletes, such as footballers to link to webpages at Transfermarkt. There might be over 100 athletes in the backlog, such as in:

• Category:Unreferenced_BLPs_from_October_2013 - pages which need sources

Musicians can be sourced to various news reports; however, some people might be borderline non-notable, or should be merged into a related band/group article. -Wikid77 16:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps 300 have External links not References: Although 1,300 unsourced BLP pages is a lot, I have noticed that many of those pages already have source webpages listed under "External links" (such as IMDb.com), so I have moved major webpages under the new References section, as {Reflist} footnotes. However now, I am thinking each editor should try to fix over 30 BLP pages as an easy task, because many of them already link some source webpages, just not as inline footnotes yet. -Wikid77 20:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• IMDb is not a reliable source for biographical information. See also {{BLP IMDb refimprove}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jimbo and anyone else reading this! I'm looking for help on the discussion page for Ramtha's School of Enlightenment.

I have researched the school and written a new version of the page that I would like other editors to consider. I've done this work on behalf of the school, though I am not a member of the school, to address some sourcing and neutrality issues in the current version. l have received some advice from a more experienced Wikipedia editor who has suggested I not make any edits to the page myself. Instead, I've been leaving messages on discussion pages and Wikiprojects for a little over a month now asking for help here, but have had a very hard time finding editors who are willing to read the draft, judge it on its own merits and compare it to what is on the page currently. I have made a little progress with a few editors who took interest in the page, but since November 1st I haven't received any replies.

The first half of the discussion about updating this page contains my notes on what I feel is problematic with the current version and the changes I've made in my draft. Because the conversation got so long and went quiet I prepared a summary of the discussion that explains what has been discussed and done so far. I think it might be a good place for someone new to start reading from.

I'm hoping that I can get help here to update this page. I am more than willing to discuss my draft and make any agreed upon changes. Please let me know if you can help. Thank you. Calstarry (talk) 00:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very good, thank you. I invite other editors interested in the issue of paid advocacy to help me review this page.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jimbo. If anyone has any questions, perhaps it would be best to leave those messages on the Ramtha's discussion page so the conversation is all in one place. Calstarry (talk) 17:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately this points out another reason why the "bright line rule" isn't going to work: interested parties aren't going to want to wait forever. Perhaps User:Silver seren's organizing efforts on that front should be supported a bit better if things are going to improve. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 23:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The bright line rule already works incredibly well. No one needs to "wait forever" - that's just a scare tactic from people who should know better.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How can it be said to be working "incredibly well" when it isn't even policy (or certainly not interpreted as such by the admin corps)?

Otherwise you're right of course, he wasn't waiting "forever". However he would have been waiting for an indefinite period (better?) if he hadn't figured out that posting on your talk page is a good way to flag someone down. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 11:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have had long discussions about paid editing. I have taken the most evolved draft of the paid editing policy proposals and copied it to Wikipedia:Commercial editing, and marked it as a guideline. Please have a look. We may proceed to have a discussion whether to upgrade that page to policy.

Jimmy, your comments would be very helpful to establish consensus. We have a parade of editors who drop by at every proposal and state oppose with fatuous reasoning. If there is a paid editing problem, it is not unreasonable to assume that the paid editors would monitor these discussions and do whatever they could to frustrate consensus. Jehochman ^Talk 13:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in WP:Commercial editing that prevents creation of articles via the Articles for Creation process, and neither does it prevent paid editors from circulating drafts of text for articles and having it incorporated within articles. So I don't think this accomplishes much of anything, other than to put in writing the status quo. Coretheapple (talk) 14:48, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The status quo clearly isn't changing one way or the other on this question, so there's no harm in putting it in writing, eh? Carrite (talk) 16:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now having read the proposal, I find it unacceptable because it focuses upon the editor rather than the edits, prohibiting paid editors by rule; yet at the same time recognizing that real life identification of such paid editors is expressly prohibited under WP rules. This is absolutely unworkable, yet another attempt to move the status quo where it is not going to go. We've got to make a choice: either anonymous editing or a prohibition of paid editing. You can't have them both, it can't work. Failing an end to "outing" rules, concentrate on the edits (NPOV and sourcing rules) not the editors, that's as far as things are going to go... All that a formal ban of paid editing + anonymous editing does is drive the paid editors underground, making their potentially problematic editing harder to locate and supervise. Carrite (talk) 16:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 16:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any rule regulating paid editing, by definition, necessarily focuses on the editor and not the content. The absence of such a focus is the weakness in the status quo, and is the flaw in the current COI rules. It says in boldface: "when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." That makes COI an entirely subjective issue totally existing within the mind of an editor, rather than an objective fact caused by payment or other factors. Anonymity does conflict with this. However, by making paid editing in all its forms a black-hat practice, a prohibition would draw clear lines that transgressors would be unethical to cross, as doing so would violate site policies. Right now, a paid editor can do pretty much anything and it is allowed by the rules. If paid editing is prohibited, a paid editing firm cannot advertise that it can "get you in Wikipedia" without admitting that it engaged in a practice that is violative of Wikipedia rules. Wikipedia can advertise, on its main page, that organizations engaged in such business do so in violation of Wikipedia policy. That would go a long way toward curbing the practice. Obviously unethical and unscrupulous people will evade such a rule, but they would evade any rule. That is not an argument for not having rules. Coretheapple (talk) 17:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you propose are ceremonial and utterly unenforceable rules that will have no effect other than to drive the paid editing that has happened, is happening, and will always happen further underground. What needs to happen is to bring the underground paid editing into the light by recognizing the fact that it is not prohibited under policy and guidelines (which is true) and making it non-punitive for such editors to follow recommended practice of declaring COI and making their work more readily available to scrutiny. To my mind the fundamental defect with WP is the fact that any bozo with a computer can create an account or not create an account and make an unsupervised change to content. That's the problem that needs to be fixed, the fact that paid agents can corrupt the database is a symptom of the illness, not the cause. Vandalism is likewise enabled by our ongoing failure to end the cult of anonymity. —Carrite (logged out due to a WMF server glitch). 24.20.128.148 (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But don't you see? As you point out, paid editing is not prohibited by policy and guidelines yet it is already underground. Editors are already ashamed of it, even though it is permissible, and yes, they will have more reason to be ashamed of it if it is prohibited. But if that happens, the practice of large-scale advertising for Wiki editors, a greatly corrupting influence, would be greatly eroded if not stop, and the WMF may even have legal recourse against firms that conspire to violate its TOS. It would elevate Wikipedia's faltering reputation, as it would mean that Wikipedia has decided to join the rest of the civilized world and would no longer countenance a practice that is considered black-hat, illegitimate, corrupt and sleazy everywhere else. I think the argument that "they'll go underground" presupposes a degree of sleaze on the part of PR people and paid editors that I do not believe they possess. If Wikipedia outlaws paid editing, it will be greatly reduced because only the cretins (rogue firms and rogue editors willing to violate policy) will engage in it, which is something they already do. I don't see legit firms becoming illegit. There are other ways for them to make money off their clients. Getting into Wikipedia is desirable but not the be-all and end-all. No, nothing can be done to prevent the real bad guys from harming Wikipedia, but the solution is not to legitimize what they do, and make it easy for everybody to corrupt Wikipedia. Coretheapple (talk) 20:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remember too that you're dealing with a small group of self-interested businessmen. This is not a societal problem, yet people address it as if it is drug addiction or illegal immigration, using rhetoric similar to "giving illegal aliens a path to citizenship" and "getting them out of the underground economy." This is a black-hat practice that hurts Wikipedia. Ban it. Period. Coretheapple (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing is underground because about 1/3 of the Wikipedia community believes it should be banned and acts as though it already is — harassing and blocking whether backed by actual policy or not. Nasty templating of user pages, blocking of accounts on technicalities... This all is much akin to efforts to stamp out liquor during the 1920s or marijuana in the current era, which is to say: effective only in driving things underground. Now, to your comments: Wikipedia's reputation isn't "faltering," there's no sound data on this, one or two journalists spouting off does not a trend make. My own belief is that WP's content credibility is at a record high. Carrite (talk) 00:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I missed something in this wall of impenetrable text about what's really happening here, but when did paid advocacy transmogrify into paid editing? Who cares if someone's paid to write an article, good luck to them, but that's a far cry from advocacy. Eric Corbett 01:07, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the top of this thread, Jehochman wrote "We have a parade of editors who drop by at every proposal and state oppose with fatuous reasoning." There are reasonable arguments on both sides of this issue, and in addition some proposals are much better or worse than others. Simply dismissing every oppose vote (or every support vote for that matter) as "fatuous reasoning" qualifies for the Not Helping Award. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:29, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Macon's comment is a typical strawman logical fallacy, and attempts to use rhetoric to validate a losing argument. I did not say that there were not legitimate opposes. I said that there are many paid editors who have a strong interest, and who are swaying consensus against the proposal. We need help to generate a consensus that is representative of the entire Wikipedia community, not just the paid editors and a few others who happen to take an interest in the issue. Jehochman ^Talk 12:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there was any strawman here, this is it => "I said that there are many paid editors who have a strong interest, and who are swaying consensus against the proposal." You need diffs to back up the argument that many of them are paid editors.--v/r - TP 15:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing is definitely not underground. As a scientist at a university, I'm paid to do outreach in my area of research, which would include things like writing articles for Wikipedia (as an example of a paid editor being above board). Paid editors who're in violation of WP:NPOV, WP:NOTADVOCATE, and similar things are underground, but they're already acting in violation of policies. WilyD 06:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carrite (talk · contribs), when a company, politician, or other large public institution is caught editing its own Wikipedia page, it is regularly crucified in the press. These sort of expose articles in the press come out pretty regularly, and have been coming out since the mid-2000s, when Wikipedia became large enough to gain public notice. Companies don't worry what Wikipedians think of them--an angry editor or two is hardly worth a second thought. Companies fear being exposed in the press as editing their own page. The present uncertainty in policy also denies them a public defense of "we followed policy." WilyD (talk · contribs), I can understand the distinction you're trying to draw, but Wikipedia needs fewer legalisms and technical terms. When someone says a police officer can't accept gifts, they don't mean departmental bonuses. When we say editors can't accept pay, I think it is pretty clear what we mean, and it does not include an academic who is paid to do research writing in their field of expertise. We can spell it out in policy, but creating the technical terms "paid editing" and "paid advocacy" leads to two outcomes: it makes discussions less accessible to new-comers and it gives outfits like Wiki-PR ammunition to continue their fight to be profitable at Wikipedia's expense. I know a lot of folks have started drawing the distinction, but I would say we should be cautious in inventing new technical terms when the meaning is generally clear without them. --TeaDrinker (talk) 07:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we know what we mean, we should say what we mean. The potential policies say something very different, and it seems either we don't know what we mean, or we don't all mean the same thing. There's dispute over whether what TParis did was a problem, further up this page. You shouldn't assume what you think the problem is is what everybody thinks the problem is. Jimbo asserts, for instance there are people who're compliant with WP:NPOV, WP:NOTADVOCATE, etc, whose behaviour still needs to be curtailed because they're a problem. If that doesn't mean people like me, I can't begin to guess who it does mean. WilyD 09:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It means you and me and anyone who is writing expressly about their employer/benefactor. Have you ever been criticized for a financial conflict of interest? Concepts, like physics, which one may safely write about, assuming one does so appropriately, are not persons or organizations that pay people to write about themselves. And yes, each one of us has to manage our own conflicts of interest. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. That's why I changed the name of my proposal to "Commercial editing" from "Paid editing" because that helps distinguish between the two cases. You can be paid to edit a topic, so long as that topic is not closely related to the people doing the paying (or a competitor). Apple can't pay you to edit iPad, nor Microsoft, but they can pay you to edit any generic topic in computer science. Jehochman ^Talk 12:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TParis may be able to get away with commercial editing because he has really high Wikipedia skills. 98% of editors who attempt commercial editing produce poor quality articles and damage the encyclopedia. We need to lose the 2% good in order to get rid of the 98% bad. All engineering involves a trade off. The argument, "This isn't perfect so we can't do it", does not convince me. TParis, I hope you don't mind me using your situation as an example. Please let me know if you do and I'll revise this comment. Jehochman ^Talk 12:17, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fair criticism.--v/r - TP 15:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of the things that worries me sometimes is in the history of paid editing discussions, from MyWikiBiz to Wiki-PR, the quality of the contributions has been uniformly poor. One explanation is that the folks who try to make a business of Wikipedia editing are, on average, pretty poor writers. An alternative explanation is that the good writers never get noticed, taking pains to fly under the radar (either working through an existing PR firm or advertising freelance without connection to a traceable username). They are not going to spend time working on a client's Wikipedia page, they are going to edit the pages that congressional staff look up when policy discussions use technical terminology. If you want to get the most bang for your buck, edit the pages (with citations) to support the policy objectives you want congress and the public to take. To be clear, I have no evidence that this takes place. But I do know medical students who spend more time looking up material on Wikipedia than in their textbooks (and tend to view Wikipedia as more current). I know lots of educators who check Wikipedia's articles on current discussions in class, in hopes of gaining something that was not included in textbook's perspective. I don't really move in political circles much, but I would put good money that congressional aides check Wikipedia when formulating policy recommendations for their boss. Given that, there is a clear financial incentive to employ good writers to subtly change the perspective of key articles to support policy objectives. Billions of dollars are spent on these lobbying and PR campaigns, and the bang-for-the-buck that any of these firms could have by changing Wikipedia is far more than hiring think tanks to write books. We don't generally see those, but I think the incentives for PR firms being on Wikipedia are so large we have to assume they are here. It is that sort of paid editing that worries me the most--not your occasional contract, not the college kids who build a start-up to copy corporate websites into Wikipedia--but heavy hitters of PR getting involved, exploiting the current grey areas in paid editing. --TeaDrinker (talk) 16:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editor survey

Surprisingly, almost everybody on this thread seems to agree on something - that for big issues, the consensus system doesn't work very well. At a minimum, a discussion among 100 editors is very hard to follow, easily sidetracked, and generally forked. The idea that a small group of editors with a very specific concern can sidetrack a whole discussion and prevent anything from changing on Wikipedia is expressed very often, whether it supposes some sort of evil intention, or just some type of "single purpose editors." This "evil cabal" type thinking has, as far as I can tell, never been tested and might even seem as untestable as the usual conspiracy theory. But actually, the general idea is very testable.

The WMF could have a simple editor survey done. Instead of a self-selected group 100 editors having their opinions considered, in an RfC cacophony, 1000 or more editors could be easily heard and have their opinions compiled in a rational way. The wording of the questions asked, would of course be a key factor, but we could have community members suggest wording to the WMF and have them decide on the final wording. The experiences and opinions of readers could also be included, perhaps in their own survey. Readers are often ignored in Wikipedia and their opinions are really very important here. Admins might have their own survey as well. At the end of say a week-long survey, the WMF could compile the results, come up with 4 or 5 general conclusions, and then go back to the editorship and say "Please come up with policies designed to implement these general principles."

Otherwise, I think we are going to be stuck with a couple of small groups at constant loggerheads who can't do anything to solve a problem that will continue to come up every 3-6 months in outside media, and will continue to destroy Wikipedia's credibility. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can work for big decisions, but it needs to be more structured. Take the 2nd RFC on the Manning naming dispute for instance. If I could make a suggestion, let's plan out an RFC in 6 months. In the meantime, I propose we build a poll on editors opinions on different parts of paid editing. We should also begin building academic opinion and build it all into an RFC that breaks each opinion into it's individual parts. Similar to the Arbcom election RFC.--v/r - TP 15:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The very problem with an RfC as opposed to a discussion on the Village Pump is that an RfC can be daunting to newbies with all the subsections and different issues broken up instead of a straight discussion; and even established users will ignore an RfC of a discussion they JUST had the village pump (and possibly other places simultaneously). The problem is not getting MORE editors involved. It is this- once a topic comes up at a noticeboard, policy talk page, or village pump and a decision is made (or not made) then all parties need to understand that IS IT. Once a decision is made "yes there is a problem at a policy wording, it is going to be changed" it gets done and no one complains- "I wasn't personally involved, call an RfC!" Too much talk goes on Wikipedia and not enough action. If there is consensus at a discussion that nothing should be done, then nothing shall be done, we don't continue discussions until your conclusion is the one that wins; and really that's all that happens around here, everyone keeps working on a topic until they "win".

I don't know where everyone has this idea that "if only we got more people involved" things will be better... democracy is the worst form of government, Winston Churchill said so himself ("except for all the others ever tried" is the rest of the quote) but we ARENT an experiment in democracy or government, except that we are, we are constantly experimenting with how to "govern" ourselves and create new !rules. In an encyclopedic adventure like we are on, democracy is not the best we can do and wanting more people involved is not the way to go. I don't want people just randomly answering questions on a WMF poll or survey. This isn't a popularity contest, decisions are made by who has the strongest case. Wikipedia to an extent is, and should be, an oligarchy, a constantly changing oligarchy for each discussion of those informed in that discussion and able to make a decision. And that decision should be implemented regardless of who was left out.Camelbinky (talk) 15:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except that some editors here are calling for a ban on 'informed' editors if they fall on the wrong side of a line. That way, the only informed editors are those who support their position and will guarantee the outcome they want and expect.--v/r - TP 15:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(@TP) Oh please. This is an endless, fruitless, energy-wasting time suck, and what your suggesting would drag out the process even more. This is an issue for the WMF, which needs to get off its duff and ban paid editing as a core principle. The Foundation needs to take action against the corruption of Wikipedia, especially now that it has become clear that administrators have been editing for money. That's the last straw. No more talk. Time for action by the Foundation, leading from the top. Coretheapple (talk) 15:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Foundation doesn't take action on things that arn't a legal threat. They have consistently waited for the community to develop it's own rules. Jimbo has been advocating against paid editing for years and hasn't made a decree. Waiting for that is going to take you much much longer than what I suggest. What I suggest is how we've historically come to decisions. We did it at the Manning RFC, we did it for the pending changes RFC, we do it every year for Arbcom elections, ect. You can't just open a thread and say "I think BLAH" and expect it to solve a question. RFCs with many participants need structure so ideas are clear. A long list of opinions hardly ever works out. What other reason do you wish the WMF to take a stand other than it's guaranteed to go your way?--v/r - TP 15:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to tell you very frankly that I am not comfortable with an editor such as yourself, who has accepted money for editing in the past, taking such an aggressive stance on this. I appreciate your frank disclosure of your past paid editing (at [21] above), I really do. But I frankly am not interested in hearing your opinion on what the Foundation will or will not do. I'm really not, and I mean that with the greatest respect. I would like to hear such things from the Foundation, directly, not from third parties and not from third parties who have, in the past, engaged in paid editing. Coretheapple (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, buddy. Do you want to know what I'm up to today? I've been writing code to convert the WP:Unblock Ticket Request System from WP:Toolserver to WP:WMFLabs. None of the other developers have time for that. I've been spending hours writing code for Wikipedia when I could be picking up PHP freelancer jobs and getting paid. I have a client paying me $50/hour to work on his website, I should be doing that. Essentially, I'm losing money right now to help Wikipedia when I could be getting paid to work on another website. The toolserver goes down permanently next month, the WMF and WMDE arn't funding it anymore. I was also implementing a new OAuth protocol to make it easier for WP administrators to do review unblock tickets and make the process faster. But apparently I'm not a good enough editor here. My opinion isn't valued. My experience isn't valued. Any all of the time I put into this project behind the scenes isn't valued because I've written an article for pay before. Have I made money off Wikipedia? If you actually look at net profit and loss, I've lost a lot of money. But I care about the project so I feel it isn't any different donating time than donating money. What have you done for this project? Spend some of your 'free time' to edit some articles. Good for you. I've been around this project for a helluva lot longer than you. Whether I am more valued than you or not isn't the point. The point is, I've got a ton more experience than you. When I tell you what the WMF has historically done or not done, that's not my opinion. I'm sharing with you what has and hasn't happened. But go ahead, wait for them to ban this outright. It only serves paid editors if you wait for WMF to finally do something. Tell me, what exactly gives you more right to an opinion than me and the right to express it? Is this private website owned by you?--v/r - TP 16:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking for you to respect my contributions. I'm just saying that I'm not interested in your opinion on the WMF's view of paid editing. I'm also saying that your aggressive stance on this issue makes me uncomfortable because you have accepted money for editing in the past. That's all. Nobody can stop you from opining on this subject or being as aggressive as you have been. I'm just registering my objection. While I'm at it, I think that given the fluid nature of Jimbo's talk page, and the fact that sections are frequently archived, you should voluntarily self-disclose in every new discussion on this subject that you have accepted money for editing. Coretheapple (talk) 16:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've well enough disclosed. A pet peeve of mine is people telling others where they are and are not allowed to give an opinion. With the exception of the WMF, no one has that right here alone. Please do not expect me to respect your requests on Jimbo's talk page. If you want me to stay off yours, that's fine. If he wants me to stay of his, that's fine. But this isn't your space to make those rules. I've politely ignored them in the past. I'm also rather perturbed at your accusations that I am aggressive. I've defended this, I've not aggressively defended it. I can be aggressive, I just was a moment ago. Me arguing with you isn't me being aggressive. If you hear an aggressive voice in your head when reading my comments, that's your voice in your head; not mine. Back off the accusations here buddy. They, and not my defense, are harming open discussion of this issue.--v/r - TP 16:50, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've well enough disclosed. Where? I see no disclosure in this section, only in an early discussion on this very large page that is going to be archived fairly soon, in accordance with the 24-hour practice on Jimbo's page. Coretheapple (talk) 17:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're making an arbitrary rule. It is clear from the context of our discussion. I've already disclosed on this page and others. There is no requirement to disclose in every thread. The next requirement you'll make of me is that I disclose it in every single comment. And then every single edit summary. After that, every 3rd word will need a disclosure in parenthesis. It's silly. I'm following policy, my disclosure is evident.--v/r - TP 17:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm making a reasonable request, one that I think is reasonable for all paid editors. Coretheapple (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find it reasonable, No one here is unaware of who I am. I therefore reject your request as unreasonable. You may seek to change the WP:COI policy on this if you choose.--v/r - TP 17:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I hope that you'll reconsider when paid editing arises on pages in which you have not made a previous disclosure. Please think about it. Also I hope that you'll revise your opinion generally on paid editing, as I would like to see you on the other side of the issue instead of butting heads. Coretheapple (talk) 17:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with TParis participating in this discussion. He's explained that he does some paid editing, so we all know where he stands. The policy would affect him, and he should have a say because of that. TParis, what do you think about having commercial editing restricted to userspace drafts or talk pages, and having to get a neutral editor to review the work before copying it into article space? Could you live with that process? It might be a little burdensome, but if it removed the controversy, and gave you a way to legitimize the activity 100%, would it be worth it? Jehochman ^Talk 16:50, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was a great deal more comfortable with TParis engaged in this discussion until his posts here, when I noticed that he was not disclosing that he is a paid editor, and then aggressively advocating what amounts to a "talk-it-to-death" proposal for paid editing. That made me extremely uncomfortable, and my discomfort is not decreasing. Coretheapple (talk) 17:05, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman - I'm comfortable with whatever the community decides and the policy says. It's a bit difficult finding editors to do a NPOV check and make the edit but if we were to maybe merge the idea into the AfC process or even have something similar to {{editprotected}} then it could work.--v/r - TP 17:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to see TPairs's paid editing participation a bit like they reporter whose lunch was once paid for by a city councilman about whom he was writing a article. Maybe it is an issue, but it such a small amount I don't really anticipate any substantive effect. Part of the problem in the paid editing discussions is we discuss these grey area examples extensively, when it is the clear cut examples which are causing problems. There is no question TParis is a superb editor whose work we would all do well to try to emulate. I, for one, value what he has to say here, regardless of his paid editing status. The concern about paid editors stacking the discussions and advocating for a continued expansion of paid editing is real, but a focus on TParis seems to look on what is at best a supremely minor transgression at the expense of the larger and more pertinent issues. We should indicate that a ban on paid advocacy should include a ban on paid advocacy in policy/guideline discussions, or at least we should determine how to deal with it. --TeaDrinker (talk) 17:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think that a more direct analogy would be to a reporter taking $100 to draft an article that appeared in the publication, if one uses Dennis Lo as an example. Reporters take meals with sources all the time; that's not considered a black-hat practice. I'm not trying to single out TParis here, but he has injected himself into this discussion, in his vigorous defense of paid editing in the previous discussion, and now he is continuing his participation here. I realize that he has a right to participate, but there needs to be transparency and disclosure. Had I not raised the issue, there would not be any in this discussion. To respond to his post above, I think that once per discussion makes sense. When editors are directly impacted, off-wiki, by a policy, that should be disclosed. That goes for all editors, not just him. Coretheapple (talk) 17:19, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most reputable newspapers and magazines have pretty strict rules against reporters accepting even meals from article subjects. Coretheapple, I wonder if you could clarify your position on one thing - and I apologize if you've been clear about this somewhere else and I've missed it. You've been critical, if I have understood you, of paid advocates even editing on talk pages to suggest changes. That seems a step too for me. I think it's ideal if paid advocates come to the talk pages, openly declare their position, and point out errors or request improvements. Banning even that seems precisely the step too far that will lead people, out of desperation and a feeling that there is no legitimate avenue to proceed, to go underground. My view is that we need both the carrot and the stick. The carrot already exists, despite some people's claims that it doesn't - approach us honestly and openly and problems really do get resolved very effectively. We should not make that harder.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(restore indentation) I think that it's OK for subjects of articles to come to talk pages and ask for fixes, updates or improvements in the article. But what we've seen in some articles is that this privilege has been abused. The PR people for large companies have made lengthy drafts of entire swaths of text, posted it on the talk pages and as subpages on their own user pages, and those texts have then been placed within the articles by other editors. That complies with current practices. However, I have three problems with this:

1. Theoretically, editors should thoroughly vet the material posted by the companies. But as a practical matter that doesn't happen, and the result is that the text went into the articles, and the text provided by the companies has been flawed in various ways: mainly by giving short-shrift to negative information.

2. More broadly, this practice breaches the reader's expectation that what appears in Wikipedia is drafted by uninvolved, unpaid editors, not by the company. There is a signficant qualitative and quantitative difference between drafting an entire updated section on a company's ongoing litigation, using sources suggested by and text written by the company, and merely correcting errors or updating numbers.

3. In some instances, corporate employees have become the dominant voice on the talk page of articles, giving them a role in the editorial process that they should not have.

The above is also why I think that paid editors using Articles for Creation is also a bad idea. Coretheapple (talk) 17:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If your gripe is that the reviewers of paid editing arn't qualified to recognize NPOV, then that applies to all editors. In which case, anything that any Wikipedian writes is potentially biased and slanted. And then it's impossible through editing to ever find NPOV because we're not qualified to find it. The root of your problem is that it's premise is a failure on all editors to be able to recognize and write neutrally which means this project has already failed.--v/r - TP 17:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer editors are very good at recognizing blatant examples of imbalance and puffery. But when a skilled PR person or experienced paid editor drafts text, what we see time and time again is that the text seems OK, but is not. Material facts are not included. (See the concerns raised re Dennis Lo in the discussion above this one, in which an NPOV check of an ostensibly neutral paid-for article proved inadequate.[22]) There is also a question of equity. It is not fair to ask unpaid editors to volunteer their time to vet the work of paid editors.

In addition to the above, there is the question of disclosure to readers and the fundamental unreliability of material that is from COI editors. See the discussion of academic practice in [23] and the post at the top of [24]. Coretheapple (talk) 17:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no question that the academic experience with conflicts of interest is that even with extensive expert reviewing, a substantial bias slips into academic articles about purely factual claims when editors have a conflict of interest. New graduate students are trained (or should be trained) to check the conflicts of interest section of papers and discount the conclusions accordingly (see, for example, the advice of Greenhalgh's How to Read a Paper). Wikipedia has a somewhat greater task--non-experts reviewing editorial decisions (as opposed to factual claims) in a haphazard way, with no accessible disclosure to the ultimate reader that the source of the material was coming from someone with a conflict of interest. In that sense, we can say with a good deal of confidence that the talk page only approach will lead to a bias in favor of those who pay. The question is first, whether that is preferable to the alternative of a total ban (which, as noted, might well drive well-intentioned editors underground), and second, whether other actions can be taken to ameliorate the issue. --TeaDrinker (talk) 18:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the result of a badge of shame on the article is, again, paid editing will happen underground. A method needs to be developed that trusts Wikipedians to make a NPOV check and encourages paid editors to be up front and honest.--v/r - TP 18:33, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec - @TeaDrinker) I'm not in favor of a total ban. That wouldn't be fair to subjects of articles when there is factually incorrect or biased material. But there has to be some kind of limit to the use of talk pages by subjects, so that they don't become de facto article authors or lead editors. Re "drive underground": I don't buy that argument for reasons I've indicated previously. Paid editors are rational businessmen, not agenda-driven POV-pushers. If Wikipedia or the Foundation lays down the law and bans paid editing, you won't eliminate it completely but you'll go a long way toward curbing the practice totally. Coretheapple (talk) 18:34, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If paid editing is a huge problem, and the thought of it being driven underground isn't 'bought', then where are all the other paid editors? Why am I the only one open about it? I'll give you a hint, it's because I care more about Wikipedia than paid editing. But what about all the people ont he flipside who care more about getting paid. You think they are open? You think your badge of shame is going to make them come out?--v/r - TP 18:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a few paid editors are open about it, but only a few have the "chutzpah" to aggressively fight for their right to be paid. As for "badge of shame," I have no idea what you're talking about. Coretheapple (talk) 19:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For your information: I became interested in this subject when I edited a corporate page in which a p.r. person was open and active. I was not even aware that there was this "cottage industry" phenomenon until quite recently. Something else you ought to know: every single paid editor I've ever encountered has claimed on a stack of bibles that he places the interests of Wikipedia above his employer, his flag, apple pie and mother. Coretheapple (talk) 19:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anecdotal at best.--v/r - TP 19:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious what kind of evidence you would find convincing. Can you describe the sort of non-anecdotal evidence that would indicate to you paid editors can be a problem? --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:19, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to prove to me that paid editors can be a problem. You have to prove all the other wild accusations. Coretheapple is questioning whether I am a good faith editor or not, by using anecdotal evidence to say he hears the same thing I've said a lot. That's anecdotal. Real evidence would be in the form of diffs (or an RFC/U with diffs) that demonstrate that I'm not here to build an encyclopedia.--v/r - TP 20:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We're here to discuss policy on paid editing. It's not about you. We already discussed your paid editing above[25], when you arrived and aggressively put forward your view that paid editing is not a bad thing. We discussed that in full. We can do so again, but that's not the purpose of this discussion. Coretheapple (talk) 20:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a list of about 400 paid editors informally compiled at Wikipediocracy (basically just obvious paid editors that contributors have stumbled upon). Perhaps it will be of some use in whatever it is you all are trying to do here.Dan Murphy (talk) 18:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's helpful. Thanks. Coretheapple (talk) 19:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Id like to point out that the link to Idiocracy (oops Wikipediocracy I mean) is to a thread that contains some information about editors that if it were directly posted here on Wikipedia it would be in direct violation of the outing policy. I recommend that it be removed. You want to go play over there, that's your problem; but don't take their crap and post it when it violates policy.Camelbinky (talk) 20:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(sigh) You're probably right. Coretheapple (talk) 20:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Camelbinky, how goes the "Remove That Link!" campaign? The link is still there. Also, we note that you call "crap" one of the most important aspects of any serious investigation: the gathering of factual evidence. But, thank you for inadvertently pointing out the basic reason why Wikipedia will never have a serious policy against paid editing -- Wikipedia's "No Outing" policy (and culture) will always be more important than the discovery process required to identify paid editors. - 2001:558:1400:10:A926:471D:C782:8A61 (talk) 16:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is so much paid editing going on that I don't think it takes Sherlock Holmes to find it. I just started using an automated vandalism-fighting tool called STiki, and just today I stumbled upon two articles with blatant COI editing. One article led to a half-dozen obvious paid editors. However, I have to admit that one has to get out of one's little niche to find such things. As I said, I became interested in this by becoming involved in a Wiki article about a large oil company that had a PR person stationed on the talk page, and at the time had no idea that what seemed like a peculiarity in one or two articles was actually a cancer that had metastasized throughout Wikipedia. Every day I'm finding something new. Really interesting! Coretheapple (talk) 22:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaving the thread I'm leaving the thread, and really Jimbo's talk page for the time being. I don't know why I even participated. Ya'all have nothing but anecdotal evidence and indignation on your side. That'll never convince the community. And Jimbo and the WMF will never make a decree. It's not how the WMF operates, it's not how Jimmy operates. Jimmy has always been hands off except on legal issues. It's a core principal of his character to defer to the community and it made Wikipedia what it is. He offers his well thought opinions but he doesn't push it on the community. Change is going to have to be brought by the community and with significantly better arguments than anecdotal evidence, circular reasoning, and 'it should be obvious'. I still think my RFC idea is a good one, structure is what the community needs to solve this, so anyone interested can ping me.--v/r - TP 20:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't know why I even participated." Wasn't it to vigorously defend paid editing? Coretheapple (talk) 14:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The list posted by Dan Murphy appears to be impermissable, but I've just become aware of another location where paid editing is given a forum by Wikipedia, a kind of Paid Editing Marketplace: something called the Reward Board, Wikipedia:Reward board. I had no idea that this existed until now. Amazing. Coretheapple (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that someone who has been editing Wikipedia since at least September 2012, who hadn't yet discovered the Wikipedia:Reward board until November 2013, probably shouldn't be heavily participating in discussions about paid editing on Wikipedia, because they have clearly not done much background research to fully inform themselves of the situation. This is not meant to be a slap in the face; just a basic observation that Coretheapple was until two days ago entirely ignorant of one of the key justifications in favor of paid editing on Wikipedia. (And by "heavily participating", I am talking about the fact that at least 178 of Coretheapple's most recent 500 edits to Wikipedia spaces have centered on paid editing (nearly 36%). Coretheapple would likely benefit from learning more about the problem, saying less.) - 2001:558:1400:10:A926:471D:C782:8A61 (talk) 16:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IPv6, please don't be rude. We are especially interested in the opinions of new editors. How else can Wikipedia continue to attract editors if we do not listed to the ones recently joining? Jehochman ^Talk 16:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we have already listened 177 times, perhaps the 178th breaks the camel's back. - 2001:558:1400:10:A926:471D:C782:8A61 (talk) 16:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IP, you appear to be an experienced editor. What is your user name? You do realize, I presume, it doesn't seem very kosher to not log in to avoid scrutiny. Or is that like paid editing: another unethical practice that is permitted and even encouraged in the Bizarro World of Wikipedia? Coretheapple (talk) 16:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My current User name is User:2001:558:1400:10:A926:471D:C782:8A61. I am not using other named accounts in conjunction with this User name. I have as much right to my privacy as you do, "Coretheapple". Note that I have created dozens of Wikipedia articles before, using other accounts in good standing. You have not created even a single Wikipedia article in over a year's time. Why are you taking a superior attitude toward me, and lecturing on what is "kosher" or not? I help expand the world's knowledge. You hector us about the ethics of paid editing. Which of us is better fulfilling the Wikipedia mission? - 2001:558:1400:10:A926:471D:C782:8A61 (talk) 16:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "hector us," do you mean "hector other IP users with four contributions"? I'd love to see your other articles. Where do I find them? Why are you hiding your Wiki-identity? Coretheapple (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Not only was I ignorant of the Reward Board but so are readers - you know, those irrelevancies. Every time I turn over a rock it seems that another form of paid editing crawls out. Every new day brings yet another discovery of the extent to which this practice has corrupted Wikipedia and has become an institutionalized practice. Originally I thought that paid editing was just the PR people of large oil companies dominating the talk pages of their articles. Over time I have come to see that it is an accepted part of Wikipedia, very much welcomed by large numbers of editors, in which administrators participate and an actual Wikipedia mechanism exists to facilitate paid editing. If this is news to me, imagine how readers feel when they discover that some of the articles they read are in fact advertorials, with the COI not disclosed? Coretheapple (talk) 16:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me help you with your perspective, Corey, with a simple re-write. "Every time I turn over a Wikipedia page it seems that another form of paid editing enlightens us. Every new day brings yet another discovery of the extent to which this practice has enhanced Wikipedia and has become an institutionalized practice. Originally I thought that paid editing was just the PR people of large oil companies dominating the talk pages of their articles. Over time I have come to see that it is an accepted part of Wikipedia, very much welcomed by large numbers of editors, in which administrators participate and an actual Wikipedia mechanism exists to facilitate paid editing. If this is news to me, imagine how readers feel when they discover that some of the articles they read are in fact gems of knowledge, with the COI properly balanced by the paid editor?" Now, go on, good WikiCitizen. Create your first Wikipedia article, and let us know how it feels to be a creator of good, rather than a curmudgeonly monster. - 2001:558:1400:10:A926:471D:C782:8A61 (talk) 16:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The perspective that you envision gives Wikipedia about as much credibility as the Yellow Pages but hey, whatever floats your boat. Coretheapple (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, re "creation of my first Wiki-article": where do I sign up to be paid to create one? I don't want to be a sucker. I want to get on the gravy train like so many others. Coretheapple (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you have to ask, then you're probably not a very good independent researcher, and therefore you wouldn't likely make a very good article writer... paid or otherwise. - 2001:558:1400:10:A926:471D:C782:8A61 (talk) 20:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from the volume of sheer garbage that gets into Wikipedia, including blatant advertising that is allowing to fester for years, I doubt that one has to be an Einstein to get a pretty good paid-editing business up and running and thriving. Coretheapple (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've made an attempt at a proposed policy at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest limit. There is an RfC for it at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest limit. This proposal is supposed to be a minimal limited on some editing when there is a financial conflict of interest. It is meant to be independent of existing or future policies and guidelines. I do not pretend that it prevents all the bad stuff, just some of it. I would encourage you to give your support or, more likely, opposition at the RfC. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my concern about the page is that we already have so many discussions and they all seem to be endless, protracted, and heading nowhere. Without the Foundation acting, clearly nothing will happen. Coretheapple (talk) 14:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jimbo, on November 4, i sent you an e-mail from address dan15i @ yahoo.com. Can you read it please and give me an short response or negative or positive so i know what to do. Thanks XXN (talk) 18:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I sent you an email response, recommending that you study the IEG process. I hope this is helpful!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, do you truly believe that giving the free Internet access to the poor countries is more important than providing them with vaccines and clean water? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.41.73 (talk) 16:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good job, IP. Keep Der Jimbo on the edge of his seat. Sooner or later he needs to take control of Wikipedia to institute a governance system, and on a broader level needs to make the compromises that will allow this encyclopedia—and free knowledge as a whole—to prosper. Wer900 • talk 16:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two editors who are not here to build the encyclopedia. The first one is a troll asking a trick question, to which Jimbo gave a wise answer. The second is pushing an almost incomprehensible governance agenda by means of false statements, and thinks that his governance agenda is so brilliant and memorable that he expects readers of his page to have memorized it. Thank you for giving a wise answer to a trick question, Jimbo. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not think that giving free Internet access to poor countries is more important than providing them with vaccines and clean water. I think precisely the opposite and have said so publicly many times. I am a great admirer of Bill Gates' work particularly on the development of vaccines, but also the work of the Gates Foundation more generally to take a reasoned and well-financed approach to a great many global problems. Bill Gates is a very smart man and almost never wrong about these matters.

At the same time, I think it wrong to think of these things as being "either/or" - the solution to the problems of the very poor is multi-faceted, and people who are interested to help should feel free to do so in whatever way best suits their own talents, abilities, and expertise. Giving people free access to the Internet (or to Wikipedia) will not solve their problems with lack of water and vaccines - but solving their problems with lack of water and vaccines won't automatically give them the tools they need to overcome the tyrannies that have plagued them. Wikipedia volunteers should not drop their work on the grounds that the poorest of the poor need vaccines more - most of us can't meaningfully contribute to that problem. Mobile carriers shouldn't refuse to take positive steps to offer educational/health resources for free in these areas on the grounds that they need vaccines even more.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, emergency assistance is needed in many areas, and there are a lot of organizations working on that. They do good work and should be commended for that. But over the longer term, education may allow these areas to develop the infrastructure and educated population that will render such assistance unnecessary. The Internet is a powerful tool to provide that, and so getting that to underserved populations is an important goal as well. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. "Give a man a fish and feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime." A great old saying, but it does not imply that a starving man should not be given a fish today (to eat while learning to fish!).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth noting, as Jimbo implied, that the world economy and people of good will are capable of working on providing clean water, vaccines and improved internet access simultaneously. And several other good things as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jimbo. Thanks for helping with the ArbCom elections. I expect you're already working on this, but I wanted to leave a friendly reminder. Could you please evaluate the RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Electoral Commission and determine which 3 candidates the community has selected for the Electoral Commission and which candidates will be the reserve members of the commission? We are hoping to have the RfC closed by 23:59 (UTC), 9 November 2013 so that the commission will be in place when the ArbCom nominations open on Sunday, 10 November at 00:01 (UTC). Thanks very much for your support. 64.40.54.198 (talk) 02:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reminder.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very kindly, Jimbo. I really appreciate your help, especially as you were drafted for this role at the last minute. It's very generous of you to support us in this way. Thanks again. 64.40.54.198 (talk) 05:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's hardly last-minute.  :-) Ceremonial/formal things like this have been part of my work in Wikipedia since the beginning.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, before you close this, I want to make you aware that I am a leading candidate by supports in this RFC, however, I've recently made it (more) public that I've been involved in paid editing in the above thread. I'm not sure if those supporters were aware of that when they gave me their support. So I've opened this thread. I wanted to make you aware also of that.--v/r - TP 01:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Unarchive section, as the RfC isn't closed yet. Add future timestamp to prevent archiving. 84.2.211.174 (talk) 11:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Hey Jim, I am a student at Drexel and I saw that you are coming on Tuesday for a discussion. Can't wait to see you there! Zachlp (talk) 02:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article on Mike Ghouse deleted, reason given, "Mr. Ghouse's article was deleted because it seemed to be an advertisement and lacked good sources."

Its no advertisement, it is simply my work on pluralism and my profile. Please consider restoring it.

Thank you

Mike Ghouse — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeGhouse (talk • contribs) 05:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Articles for deletion/Mike Ghouse. Wikipedia does not create an article for every person who might be written about. Instead, each article needs to satisfy notability requirements. Johnuniq (talk) 05:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was utterly disgusted by [26], describing how laborers to make iPhone cameras were first made to borrow and hand over huge (for them) sums of cash to broker after broker before they finally had a chance to be laid off from the Apple subcontractor and go home in debt.

Do you think it's conceivable to set up a jobs.wikimedia.org site to act as a clearinghouse for offers and tips about those sorts of positions, that would somehow work to help the companies looking for workers be able to bypass that whole crooked hierarchy? (I admit, I don't know how to do that, but I think someone does) I suppose some brokers would be inevitable, since the people lack Internet access and doubtless there are officials who need to be paid off, but is it possible for a crowdsourced resource to collapse things to one level of middlemen only? Wnt (talk) 19:05, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might find something of interest at User:Wavelength/About society/Ethical options.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, Wavelength, would your proposal focus on one country/language or be global in scope? I mean, this sounds like a completely new wiki. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, it was Wnt who made a proposal, whereas I provided a link to a page with related information.

—Wavelength (talk) 03:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This would have to be something completely new, since it would presumably contain substantial directory content, possibly including places for individuals and companies to describe themselves, and at least featuring some kind of organization tree of trustworthy intermediaries, if they exist. It's a difficult idea, I admit - what I'd like to see is a genuine way by which employers could meet up with labor without any greedy intermediaries gobbling up half a year's wages in the middle (as described in the link at top). Though in a sense it is a drastic departure from what WMF has done in the past, yet at the same time, we see many educational institutions advertising their outreach and ability to help their graduates actually get jobs. For WMF to match them, they would want to match that function also. Wnt (talk) 05:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SOPA them. htaccess deny all Safari browsers and iOS devices. Of course the WMF won't do that. Its not an important enough issue like defending Google's right to profit from piracy, counterfeiting, and the selling of chemical abortion drugs without prescription. John lilburne (talk) 07:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]