Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 148

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 145Archive 146Archive 147Archive 148Archive 149Archive 150→Archive 155

Could this help in our paid article editing problem?

What if the WMF were to create a new project, don't know what to call it other than Wikibusiness. But basically something like TripAdvisor and Angie's List... a business can edit its article puts promotional material or whatever it wanted as long as it was verifiable for example- cant say "#1 camel dealership in Timbuctu! Unless there's a source that shows it is number 1, such as ratings on cameldealers.com, and I hope that's a fake domain name. Requirements for "reliable source" would be relaxed. Editors can add "Reviews" where anyone can edit and add their personal experience with that company, with certain restrictions on profanity and a corporate equivalent of BLP and definitely BLP requirements would stay to protect staff and management personally from being libeled. If we had a place these PR groups could edit "legally" then they might stay off Wikipedia, or at least we'd have a place to direct them to.Camelbinky (talk) 00:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Such a business wiki has existed since about 2006. But Greg Kohs never got much cooperation from the WMF in directing businesses to register there. →StaniStani  05:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
This has been proposed before in several variations. The usual name given to it is PRpedia, with the other encyclopedia, where PR editors are not allowed called NoPRpedia. There would be several steps needed to even try to make it work
  • Register the editors so that we know who the companies are. It would be an absolute fiasco if somebody spoofed being, say, IBM, and wrote falsehoods in their name. Actually, that could happen now.
  • Have them pay for the site and the administration - you just can't take charitable donations and give them to for-profit companies. This, of course brings up the question of having ads (where the WMF gets paid and the ads are disclosed, rather than the situation we have now, where the WMF doesn't get anything and the ads are not disclosed). The WMF has long said no ads allowed, but I'd go along with this as long if it worked and keeps the undisclosed ads off NoPRpedia.
  • The major problem would be that people want to read an unbiased encyclopedia. Nobody would read PRpedia (do you like reading your junk mail?)
  • Since nobody would read PRpedia, nobody would edit there either. It would be dead the first day.
  • NoPRpedia would be the only game in town, so the paid editors would just go back to sneaking things in on NoPRpedia.
If you agree that this is the likely result, you can see that the advertisers are really just stealing from Wikipedia and its readers. They are stealing ads now, by not accepting that they are not allowed to place ads here, not taking no for an answer, they are just stealing the undisclosed ads that they place here. They are stealing our credibility. They are stealing from our readers who are expecting unbiased articles, but might find that they make badly informed decisions because of our hidden ads. Smallbones(smalltalk) 05:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I think there would be a better way of setting up "PRpedia" or whatever you want to call it, that would encourage editors and encourage companies to edit it, and most importantly encourage people to READ it. Let's compare TripAdvisor's model so I can show where PRpedia went wrong. One of my businesses is a hotel, so I'll use my own example for TripAdvisor, but TripAdvisor does restaurants, shops, museums, attractions and more. I have complete and sole control on TripAdvisor's "profile" of my hotel to write description, list amenities, add pictures, and "manage my business account". Guests can then write reviews, and rate the hotel. I can respond with "write a management response". Responses are monitored and can get rejected if they violate TripAdvisor's guidelines (I have had one get rejected when I went off on a guest who wrote a response I felt was racist about one of my Asian employees, after I know he was racist in person during his stay). I can also dispute a guest's review and have it pulled if it violates the guidelines, for such as- posted to wrong hotel, is profane, I can report a review on another hotel's "profile" if I believe that hotel paid someone to write the review or offered something to them in return. There is a TripAdvisor staff constantly monitoring and reviewing what is written, and they will even come to the hotel and make sure what I put on my "profile" is an accurate representation of what I have at the hotel (I almost got slammed with a penalty when my bocce pits were not quite done when I already advertised I had them, and TripAdvisor found out, luckily I proved we were done in two more days). Thanks to Wyndham Worldwide's support TripAdvisor has pretty much monopolized the hotel reviewing market, much as Google monopolizes search the request market. Wikipedia's support of a PRpedia (and for the love of G-d change that name please) would instantly give PRpedia a definite edge that Yelp, Google reviews, etc etc don't have.Camelbinky (talk) 16:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Doesn't all of this miss the point that Wikipedia is a non-profit site, whereas TripAdvisor and the like are--I presume--for profit sites? Why should Wikipedia provide resources for company PR? What is the logic for such a proposal?--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
As I commented just above at the site about towns in India and Pakistan, we should have a clear mechanism whereby individuals can contribute self-published work under a CC license. We'd want some sense of a project scope to keep out the most inane gibberish and spam, and in many cases we would want to accept works from people who are not editors on WMF projects, or do not wish to be identified as such, in favor of identifying themselves as named individuals living in a certain place or doing a certain job. But it should provide a place for people to:
  • Describe the story of how their village in Pakistan got its name, who some of the foremost people in town are, how it is laid out and so forth.
  • Contribute polished Wikitext, which they hope to see reused in an article, describing the hotel they manage, how many rooms it has, what facilities it has.
  • Describe their proposal for a new subatomic particle.
  • Provide their real birthday and point out that what was published in a magazine was inaccurate.
For obvious reasons, these contributed primary sources shouldn't carry a very high profile, and we would want significant verification before mentioning them for disputed facts (such as birthdays) and we would never use them for negative BLP information or to completely expunge a birthday given in a reliable source from the article. Nonetheless, they would be the penumbra of Wikipedia, our furthest effort to reach into the vast undocumented space of contemporary life.
Material of this type might be hosted in a special namespace in Wikimedia Commons or Wikisource. Wnt (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
This is not a very good idea. The reason we have WP:V is precisely because we can't rely on what any one contributor thinks is the the true story. For example, anyone could write a story about their village which aggrandizes a particular family or, in the Indian context, caste through the story of a villages origin or through the principal characters of a village. The story may not even be true but we would have no way of determining its veracity. No, we're better off sticking with less information that is verifiable than more information that is not. --regentspark (comment) 01:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC))
Yep. This idea is so far off the wall than when I saw in mentioned in the "villages" thread above I assumed that it was a joke of some sort & didn't bother to respond. For example, it would turn the hellhole that comprise our present articles on caste into a complete free for all. - Sitush (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

2014 Winter Olympics

"How many days are left until the Olympic Games?"

In advance of the 2014 Winter Olympic Games in Sochi, some editors may wish to polish some of the articles expected to receive many page views.

Also, some editors may wish to study the Russian language.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

How many people want to read, let alone polish articles on Russian hotels and shopping malls? Now if we can get LGBT rights in Russia up to Featured status and run it on the day of the opening ceremonies, that would be something. Wnt (talk) 23:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Very nice Wnt! Completely agree. That's the first comment on Wikipedia that made me say "Damn I wish Wikipedia had a "like" button for comments!"97.85.208.225 (talk) 01:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, it kind of does if you're logged in. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

In re: Mr Wales monetary appeals (Archive 146)

The small handful of responses to the original question of the effectiveness of mass appeals to the overall, sustained financial health of Wikipedia, now in Archive 146, were appreciated.

Question: Where can one go to review the current, formal business plan for sustaining Wikipedia (through the mass appeals and other funding streams)? [This is a sincere question, in anticipation of brief directive answer (link).]

Pending that further information, I would only note that a funding campaign be perceived, internally, as successful, and may indeed be so in the short run, but utterly fail in contributing substantially to a reliable overall solution, for the long term. Though generally very successfully, fiscally, public radio experiences a form of "primary donor fatigue", as committed supporters become less inclined to increase support are they are regularly denied such staples as news programming during mass appeals. (This particular irritation is largely irrelevant here, but the notion of hidden deleterious impacts during mass appeals is, rather, the point and does obtain.) As well, any level of dependence on an organizational leader to walk away from a Davos-type context with substantial donations that contribute to regular operations—this is the "stuff" of the entrepreneurial phase of an organization, rather than of a successful, mature charitable enterprise (in this manager/scholar's ho).

As for Mr Wales concern that perception of his livelihood and pursuits are being formed based on a single citation (in this case, the single Chozick NYT story), he can rest assured, they are not, at least in this contributor's case. With humour I would note that the one easily traced reference that was given (granted, in non-standard format) amounts to as many or more citations as some long-tagged wikipedia article sections. In those cases, there appears little hope for content correction or clarification, as Mr Wales accomplished regarding the Chozick citation, in his thoughtful reply. Cheers. LeProf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.9.222 (talk) 01:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you want m:Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan/2013-14#Revenue, Expenses, and Staffing and wmf:2013-2014 Annual Plan Questions and Answers#How did 2012-13 play out from a fundraising perspective?. Donor fatigue has never been a problem. Fundraising growth has always very closely tracked total page views, which have risen exponentially. 210.13.83.18 (talk) 03:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom election - Electoral Commission RfC close by 9 Nov

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)

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

British, English, Scottish or Irish being used inconsistently

I cannot help notice that there is a widespread Inconstancy with how famous people, particularly actors and musicians are being described as either British, Scottish, English, Welsh or Irish. I feel that these inaccurate and contradictory descriptions of the British nationality are being fuelled by, and are fuelling, particularly american ignorance about the British Nationality. Its commonplace to find English people, described as British and British people who were Born in Wales or Scotland to be described not as British, but as Welsh or Scottish. However there is extremely few people described as English? So my point is to you, either have everyone born in England, Scotland, Wales or N. Ireland must be described as British or do not describe anyone as British at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.185.46 (talk) 12:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll ignore your "ultimatum" and simply encourage you to word your requests better next time. We run on consensus, not demands. There is no reason we cant call people British and then mention "born in xxx". On YouTube there are great videos done by CP Grey (I think I got the name correct, could be wrong) that explain the complications and intricacies of the relationship within the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland, and between the UK and its dependencies such as Isle of Mann, the Channel Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibralter [Gilbraltar], etc.Camelbinky (talk) 14:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Huh... and if that is not confusing enough, then consider the term "British English" :-). Well, it might be the case how some Americans think "English" is a language, while "British" is a heritage, and not so many know when England became Great Britain. Also, there are many people who are describing "Scottish" as "Scotch" (while not even drinking it), and the use of Scotch Tape (brand name), packaged in a Scottish plaid, for which Wikipedia did not even have an entry yet, is also quite confusing.... However, thank you for reminding us of the issues. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
As an aside, my experience is that most of the contortions regarding this have come from conflicting pronouncements from participants in the eternal the range war on the eastern side of the pond. North8000 (talk) 14:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I love C.G.P. Grey´s videos, they´re awesome! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
On 'describing "Scottish" as "Scotch"'... isn't it Scot or Scots with no 'ish' about it? ;) AnonNep (talk) 15:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
England didn't "become" Great Britain in that it stills exists, and a Scotsman would be very confused at you referring his tartan kilt as "Scottish plaid". The whole situation is ridiculously complicated and not many natives could give you a decent explanation of the nuances of GB, UK, Britain, England, British Isles…ISO needs to step in Jebus989✰ 15:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
There are reasons for the inconsistency. For many British people their connections with a particular part of Britain are unknown, and some would think it inappropriate to be associated with a particular part of Britain (based on what?), but for people like Sean Connery, who is a strong supporter of the Scottish National Party and has apparently said he will not return to Scotland (from the Bahamas) until it becomes independent, it seems appropriate to give his nationality as Scottish write that he is Scottish (rather than British) [changed to avoid confusion with citizenship etc. --23:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)]. See also the essay Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom. --Boson (talk) 15:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
British is a nationality - i.e. an adjective describing a person's legal status as a citizen of the UK (there is no such thing as English, Scottish or Welsh citizenship). English, Welsh and Scottish, are ethnicities. Being born in in Scotland is neither sufficient nor necessary to assign Scottish ethnicity to a person. Ethnicity is about descent and cultural heritage and affinity. Great Britain is the name of an island which contains most of the land area of England, Wales and Scotland - some parts are on other islands. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I mean Kingdom of Great Britain, formed 1 May 1707. -Wikid77 00:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
For clarity- Great Britain is an island, not the name of the nation-state. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the name of the sovereign nation, United Kingdom or UK for short. Great Britain does not even encompass all of England, Scotland, and Wales, as each of those countries have islands (Isle of Wright, Orkney Islands, Shetland Islands) It is incorrect to use Great Britain for the name of the nation for the same reason it would be incorrect to call the USA by the name Alaska. (Yes, there is a "Lesser Britain" by the way, it is the Brittany region in France).97.85.208.225 (talk) 16:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
That is all very interesting and may well be technically correct — albeit utterly ahistorical. "United Kingdom" is a 20th Century construct. In previous years the country was known as "Great Britain" or (even more incorrectly) as "England." Carrite (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, I was referring to people born in the Kingdom of Great Britain, formed 1 May 1707, by the Treaty of Union between Scotland and England (which included Wales), before becoming the UK in 1801. -Wikid77 00:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
As a fictional character played by Harrison Ford was quite rightly told, "you be careful out there, among those English". E&OE for the exact phrasing, as per usual with my quotes. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
That sounds like Witness (1985 film). -Wikid77 00:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Another complication is Scotch-Irish American, who are essentially an Ulster Scots, or other Irish protestant, who moved to America. If you believe our article (looks ok to me), "Scotch-Irish" is a very old, but forgotten, term in England which was occasionally used in America rather than just "Irish" until Catholic Irish started coming en masse, when the protestants began using "Scotch-Irish" more often. Historically, this ethnic/religious group is very important in the US, e.g. during the Revolution, on the frontier, many, many presidents. If they use "Scotch-Irish" for themselves, I don't think we can outlaw it here. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Nationality and ethnicity are conflated on WP continually. There's little point in debating the matter here or anywhere, the question won't be resolved no matter how many millions of characters of text are expended. Carrite (talk) 19:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC) /// Addenda: @FiddleFaddle. I 100% disagree with your perspective, just so you know. We are what we are. Carrite (talk) 19:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I assume the person who started this thread was talking about the opening paragraph of many biographies ". . .is a British/English/Scottish . . .", which is a matter of identity rather than what it is in your passport. However we define the terms, I would expect Vidiadhar Surajprasad Naipaul to be identified as a British writer, Stephen Jones to be identified as a Welsh rugby player and Rabbie Burns to be identified as a Scottish poet. One definition of nationality in The Chambers Dictionary (a Scottish dictionary , I believe) is "a national group (often one of several) forming a political state". Normal usage may differ between the US and the UK (and possibly between common parlance and official usage). The UK is a state that comprises several countries; the USA is a country that comprises many states (e.g. Texas and California).--Boson (talk) 23:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
And a person from the USA is an "American" from North America, but not everyone from the Americas is an American; so we can create more confusion. -Wikid77 00:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Great joke about Rand Paul and Wikipedia I read today

"Senator Rand Paul said he'd resign his office for plagiarism but he cant find a resignation speech on Wikipedia"Camelbinky (talk) 14:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC) Perhaps we should all help write one and see if he uses it?Camelbinky (talk) 14:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

See File:Nixon resignation audio with buzz removed.ogg Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Resignation speech. ;-)--Mark Miller (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Great joke I read about on Wikipedia today: Rand Paul. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Pending changes on BLPs

I'm a little confused at how a brand new editor managed to insert a change to a BLP article, with no review required: [1]. In this case, the insertion is borderline OK, although the accusation made about wasting parliamentary time is not mentioned in the source cited, and is clearly not established fact so some rewording was needed. However, more generally, I thought the whole point of pending changes is that this kind of potentially libelous material can't end up live on the wiki in the first place. Does this rule only apply to selected BLPs? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Despite 60% support for it, PendingChanges is not in general use. It's a long story.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Which finance topics to add

Jimbo, I am wondering which articles we need to add about finance. We have a general article on "Moving average" (with weighted moving average), but long ago, you had mentioned "trailing moving average" and we also need to explain similar issues for a "leading moving average". We still need an article to explain how interest is typically computed daily for a "commercial loan". What other finance articles could be added? -Wikid77 13:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Wiki-PR and admins

"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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)

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,[2] "to use the words or ideas of another person as if they were your own words or ideas" by Merriam-Webster,[3] "the practice of taking someone else’s work or ideas and passing them off as one’s own." by Oxford Dictionaries,[4] 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,[5] 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)

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

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)

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

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)


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)
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: [6][7] (Author has a COI, publisher does not) [8][9]. 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)
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)

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)

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)
@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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)

"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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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." [10] 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". [11] 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." [12] 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." [13]
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)
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)
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 [14]. 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." [15] --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 01:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 [16] [17] [18] [19]. 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
  • 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)
    • 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
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)
You've quoted from Jimbo, so allow me to do the same.[20] "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)"
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)
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)
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)
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)

(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."[21] 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)
"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)
"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)

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)

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)
  • 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)
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)
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)
  • 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)

Ramtha's School of Enlightenment

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Message on mail

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)

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)

A barnstar for you!

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)

Mike Ghouse

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)

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)

URBLP Backlog at 1387

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)

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)
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)
  • 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)
  • 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:
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)
  • 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)
  • Many or most of the articles in the category do in fact cite sources. Unsourced article tags are frequently misused for articles that need more sources, need better quality sources or need better source formatting, issues for which there are separate tags. Sometimes sources have been added by an editor who didn't remove the tag. Hut 8.5 08:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom election - Electoral Commission RfC close by 9 Nov

Inaccurate time stamp is preventing this from being archived. But it long since out of date!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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)

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

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

It's a fair criticism.--v/r - TP 15:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
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)
We already have heavy-hitters engaged in such exploitation, in two widely-publicized cases involving multinational oil companies. Staffers of the public affairs departments of those two companies became major contributors to the talk pages of those articles, and the article itself for one company. That was what sparked my interest. But you raise a good point. The job market being what it is, I can see cash-starved college students selling themselves as paid editors, and who can blame them? Given the juvenile character of some of the defenses I've seen of paid editing, I'd wager that a lot of what we're seeing are teenage paid editors venting their spleens. But since there is no disclosure requirement whatsoever, we can only guess. Coretheapple (talk) 16:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)
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)
(@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)
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)
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 [22] 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

(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)

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)
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.[23]) 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 [24] and the post at the top of [25]. Coretheapple (talk) 17:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
Anecdotal at best.--v/r - TP 19:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
We're here to discuss policy on paid editing. It's not about you. We already discussed your paid editing above[26], 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)
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)
That's helpful. Thanks. Coretheapple (talk) 19:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
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)
(sigh) You're probably right. Coretheapple (talk) 20:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
  • 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)
"I don't know why I even participated." Wasn't it to vigorously defend paid editing? Coretheapple (talk) 14:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  • 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)
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)
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)
Jehochman, sorry if this is off topic, but you bring up a subject that is of interest to me, i.e. the opinions of new editors. Off hand would you happen to know of any threads (current or archived) where I could look at discussions involving or relating to that topic? No problem if you don't. Thanks. -- Jodon | Talk 15:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
Wow. Now I've seen it all. Putting words in a Wikipedia editor's mouth now runs concurrent with putting words in Wikipedia's mouth (i.e. paid editing). Next you'll be charging Coretheapple for ghostwriting his edits. -- Jodon | Talk 16:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Judging from the volume of sheer garbage that gets into Wikipedia, including blatant advertising that is allowed 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)
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)
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)
Then nothing SHOULD happen. If the Community is that divided then nothing should be done at all. It is ridiculous of you to believe that if you cant get others to agree with you then the WMF should step in and enforce your point of view. Well, I'm going to go around to every policy, pump, noticeboard, and discussion page and if people don't agree with me that you should shut up I'm going to start ranting that the Foundation should unilaterally shut you up. How would you feel about that? How about you stop with this and let everyone go their own ways and worry about the next drama. You are wasting valuable resources and people's time.Camelbinky (talk) 13:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Sure, I'll snap my fingers and immediately put a stop to the four? five? six? (and counting) paid editing proposals now underway. As for the Foundation: as I've said before, ultimately it's Wikipedia as an institution that is harmed by the hundreds of paid editors who are swarming over the project with the tacit and even explicit approval of the Wikipedia community. Obviously the community has failed to protect Wikipedia's franchise and brand name from that cancer, so if the Foundation has any sense of self-preservation it will abolish paid editing. But ultimately that's their responsibility and not the community's problem. They don't need me to tell them that.
I think that the community is acting very logically by leaving the door open to paid editing. If paid editing is allowed by the rules and is even practiced by administrators, why should anyone edit here for free? Clearly some experienced editors have a sense of entitlement, a feeling that they've worked long and hard and deserve a little gravy as compensation for all the tedious work they've put in. You can't really blame them, and if it means that Wikipedia gets several thousand more advertorials, and large corporations get hired helpmates, administrators included, to push their POV, so be it. Coretheapple (talk) 14:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  • @Core. Re: "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..." - You are starting to get it. Paid editing is here, it has always been here (at least in the Years After Kohs, 2004 or whatever that was), and it always will be here as long as WP is important on the internet... The key thing isn't the editors, per se, it's what they are doing, it's the edits. The contributions of paid editors need to be watched and bad actors removed. If they all (good and bad) are being chased down by administrators with flamethrowers, they will just hide and their contributions will be more difficult to watch. We need to make them easier to watch and that means there needs to be — simultaneously — (1) a demand made that they identify themselves; and (2) a mechanism for easy identification of their edits in the edit history, a little "COI" notation next to their signature, activated by their checking a box like the THIS IS A MINOR EDIT box in the edit window or some such; with (3) real anti-stalking protection for those identify themselves and adhering to NPOV so that self-identification doesn't mean self-immolation. Real regulation of the content changes made by paid COI editors is going to require a move by the community to ultra-realism. Failing that, we have the status quo... Carrite (talk) 04:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I think that it has merit to identify COI edits, which at this point are not disclosed at all (though I notice that there is vociferous opposition to identifying COI edits as you suggest; I've seen paid editors and their defenders refer to such disclosure as "badge of shame"). But remember that you're talking about internal disclosure, to other editors. There would still be nondisclosure to readers, which is the only disclosure that really counts. Readers would continue to see articles that they think are created by volunteer editors but are actually created by agents of the subject.
I disagree strongly with the notion that paid editors being here is a kind of permanent condition like syphilis that has to be accepted and controlled. Paid editors are here because there are no rules against it, because of cynical, selfish abuse of the "focus on contributions and not contributor" principle, and because the COI guideline is a joke. It has got to be the most ridiculous COI guideline anywhere. It makes COI a subjective issue, existing completely in the mind of the editor rather than an objective fact cause by financial or other circumstances that are an objective reality. Under Wikipedia's cockamamie guideline, COI exists "when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia." I have yet to meet a COI or paid editor who didn't insist on a stack of bibles that he places Wikipedia above all else.
There are currently two forms of paid editors: the stupid ones and the smart ones. The stupid ones create user names like User:Acme Finance Company and create articles on the Acme Finance Company. The smart ones are experienced editors who create advertorials on behalf of clients and are able to stay within the rules while doing so. Passing a rule against paid editing will effectively eliminate the smart paid editors, and you'll be left with the dumb ones, who are already out there and are never going to go away no matter what rule you pass. But I do think even the dumb ones will be deterred if Wikipedia passes a rule against paid editing and then publicizes it, and places a notice on Wikipedia in a place where it can be seen. Remember that even the dumb ones are not prohibited by policy but only discouraged by a guideline.
Lastly, you talk about "real regulation of the content changes made by paid COI editors." That's precisely the problem. Volunteers are currently wasting thousands of hours because of paid editing, in either cleaning up their messes, chasing after the crap they write, or figuring out how to curb them, It is an enormous time suck and burden on the rest of the community, and demoralizing for editors who aren't on the gravy train and who resent the ones who are, especially when they are experienced editors who exude entitlement, or who want to leave open the door to doing a little moonlighting in the future. It's hard to expect unpaid volunteers, especially academics and others who are familiar with real-world COI, to stay if you have this paid editing problem, addressed only by a clownish COI guideline, and won't fix it. Coretheapple (talk) 14:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
One practical issue with disclosure to the readers on the article page itself, is that articles change over time and any single edit or series of edits can be obliterated by later edits. Do you propose that a single edit by a COI editor to an article would require a disclosure to be maintained on the article page for perpetuity, regardless of the actual persistence of that change to the text? If you would not advocate something that extreme, do you see a realistic way to assess when disclosure would no longer be required (or, indeed, meaningful) for the article? alanyst 20:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
What got me interested in this subject in the first place was corporate p.r. people authoring entire segments of an article, and that was placed within the text by other editors. Then it became apparent articles are written by the subjects and placed in Wikipedia through the Articles for Creation Process. I think that you need to either abandon such practices or make a disclosure. None of the current proposals address those situations. Coretheapple (talk) 20:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Why would paid editors engage with such hostility?

Above, Corey describes paid editing with the following terminology liberally sprinkled throughout:

  • "like syphilis"
  • "cynical, selfish abuse"
  • "editors who create advertorials"
  • "their messes"
  • "the crap they write"
  • "an enormous time suck and burden"
  • "demoralizing"

All of this venom is being leveled by someone who has never even created a single Wikipedia article from scratch. Tell me, why would any successful and talented paid editor even bother trying to engage someone like Corey, when there's so much hatred to chisel through before you even get to having a thoughtful discussion? - 2001:558:1400:10:74CC:4937:25F3:2294 (talk) 18:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh please. These are paid operatives, not blushing magnolia flowers. They're here for the buck not for accolades. But rest assured that their POV contributions very often do get accolades from naive editors, and that people concerned about their activities in the past have been hauled before various Wikipedia tribunals, for daring to not "assume good faith" of paid editors.
Speaking of editing records, what is yours? Why are you hiding your editing record by not logging in? What are you hiding? Coretheapple (talk) 19:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
If you want to have transparency at Wikipedia, it starts first thing in the morning when you look in the mirror. Who are you? Until you answer that, you've got no room to throw stones about others playing hide-and-seek... —Tim Davenport, Corvallis, OR /// Carrite (talk) 02:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I'll respond to your points in a few days after I log out to hide my previous contributions. Coretheapple (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
The painfully obvious answer is that they wouldn't, and won't, engage with Wikipedia as long as they see such a welcome mat rolled out—they will continue to try and edit anonymously like nearly every other editor here. Until there is a strong WikiProject that proactively and positively engages with paid editors, they will remain underground.
The one time I ever engaged with an editor who was obviously an employee of a non-profit article that I was watching, I suggested just that: learn Wikipedia policies, edit neutrally, use reliable sources, and don't reveal yourself. I've never edited for pay, but do sympathize with the frustration that individuals and companies must feel when they see incorrect or purely negative attack/hate pieces in their subject's articles. I honestly hope that some day I can I can invite an obviously employed/paid editor to engage with editors here. First Light (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
They do, and happily, to the present day. While their unpaid and paid defenders clog the various boards where this practice is discussed, dominating the discussion as usually happens whenever the subject is raised, they are doing their job and smiling on their way to the bank. I have to admit, though, that whenever IP editors arise in righteous indignation to defend this loathsome practice, I have to smile. Coretheapple (talk) 20:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation exists to work with paid editors, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Integrity exists to keep a watchful eye on them. isaacl (talk) 01:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  • It is my fervent hope that paid editors - or at least the bigger outfits - will deal with the hostility some members of the community have against them, because if they continue to operate as they have been operating, WMF will eventually bring litigation against them for egregious violations of the ToU. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Ramtha's School of Enlightenment

Hi Jimbo! Looks like our first thread was archived. I see that you reviewed my draft and the current version. I left you a message about a couple of comments you made on the discussion page. Hope you can pop back over there soon. Calstarry (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

10% off sale in the Wikimedia Shop!

This is the ad at the top of my screen right now. It doesn't look to be a part of the fundraising campaign and it looks like tasteless spam. Aren't we better than "10 percent off this week only!!!!" forms of advertisement? ThemFromSpace 18:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. - Ypnypn (talk) 19:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Agreed - either you're donating or you're not. If you want to drum up business, get a bigger product line. I mean, last election I looked briefly into some rubber bracelet sites, and for something like $30 you get to the lowest prices for any design you can think up; they're really cheap for flat multi colored arbitrary print-out designs, etc. You don't offer those. You don't offer coffee table books with high quality printouts of Wikimedia Commons featured images. (You don't offer junior science experiment gift kits with bundled Wikiversity instructions either, but I guess I'm a step ahead there) Also, since I had scripts off I never saw the ad until I read this. Wnt (talk) 20:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I haven't seen the ad or the shop, but I did want to suggest that suggestions for improvements on it wouldn't best be placed with me, as I'm not directly involved with such things at all!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Buying shirts from the gift shop isn't a way to raise a lot of money on Wikipedia. T-shirts, bookbags, are dual tools: 1) they promote the product, and 2) they offer the wearer a sense of pride - kind of an "I edit Wikipedia regularly, and I even bought this f-ing t-shirt". So, for those who WANT to show their pride, it's a good day to buy a 10%-off, 100% cotton, 100%-pride-inducing piece of clothing ES&L 12:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia jobs advertised

From my Yahoo search for jobs wiki, I found the following pages.

(They have jobs and seek editors, but, conversely, WikiExperts.us and Wiki-PR and http://wikipediawriters.com and http://hireprowriters.com/2011/05/wikipedia-writer/ and http://www.thewritersforhire.com/services/web-social/wikipedia/ have editors seeking jobs.)
Both functions are advertised at http://hirewiki.wordpress.com.
—Wavelength (talk) 21:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you reach Sir Richard Branson?

Hi Jimbo, I want to thank you for your help a few weeks ago and ask another favor. I've recently learned that you likely know how to reach Richard Branson. If so, would you please let him know that the "Distributed Generation working group on LinkedIn" mentioned on [27] is not presently connected to anything? I have been trying to reach him but have been unsuccessful, and in the past on a similar issue, his staff was very dismissive. I have very many things I would like to recommend to him and his colleagues, and I hope you will please ask him to send me a Wikipedia email if at all possible, or perhaps if he approves you might send me an email with his most appropriate contact information for such topics. Thank you for any help you may be able to provide. Tim AFS (talk) 01:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Sir Richard himself is the most convenient person to report a broken link to, but as it turns out I have a contact at the Carbon War Room and so I passed along the information about the broken link to her. However, this is someone I met nearly 3 years ago, not someone I know well, so I don't know if she's the right person or will be able to reach the right person nor indeed if she still works there, even.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
My contact says "Thx" so presumably the link will be fixed soon.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, sir! I hope I am able to join that LinkedIn group. If it still doesn't exist in a month or two, I hope it's okay to ping through again then. Cheers! Tim AFS (talk) 06:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
You might be able to find it by searching directly on LinkedIn - I think the problem is just a bad link on the page you originally referenced.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Can WMF help sweatshop laborers avoid predatory job brokers?

I was utterly disgusted by [28], 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)

You might find something of interest at User:Wavelength/About society/Ethical options.
—Wavelength (talk) 20:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I'm not sure that a wiki is the best tool for this sort of directory, nor am I sure that the Wikimedia Foundation is the best organization to run it, if it is. At the same time, I think that raising awareness of this issue is of critical importance. I would suggest that the best way we might be able to help is to make sure that our articles on this and related topics are up to date and comprehensive and neutral.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
At least in the case of Apple and the iPhone they are already beginning to shift production, especially of the chip wafers, to the USA (mostly for fear of corporate espionage, but I'd bet sweat shops play into their decision). Everyone should be politically aware, write letters to Congressmen, Senators, state legislatures, governors, mayors, along with corporate heads and major stock holders; make them aware WE are aware. The US corporations may have their factories overseas but they ultimately are headquartered in the US and responsible to American law, American stockholders, and American consumers (the US remains the purchaser of last resort, giving us a huge economic voice). We cant, and shouldn't, try to pull all US company owned factories into the US, but we can make sure those that are overseas live up to common decency and standards. It all begins with not being quiet.Camelbinky (talk) 14:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree there's a lot of simple education to be done, which I need myself. It seems incomprehensible that people in Nepal are so bad off they'll put up with all that just to get a job in Malaysia. I look at these countries, and ... at least on average, people have land, they have houses and streets, they have animals and crops, why doesn't all that add up to money? How does a global economy manufacture such desperation out of a world where we have ample resources for everyone and we don't even need the labor we have? But I feel like there should be some way that educational wikis can help people directly also. Wnt (talk) 14:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
There's a pretty sad irony that while the smart phone revolution allows for people to connect and organize and demand change, many of the people who make the components are being left out of that very revolution because the phones they make are too expensive for them to buy. From the article: "He earns less than $90 per month and owes about $300 in interest annually." The cheapest unlocked iPhone 4s that I see on apple's website right now is $450.
I wonder also whether or not a Kiva-style site where people can loan money to people trapped in these "indentured servitude" contracts at greatly reduced interest rates would be helpful. I know it might be very popular if managed well. If I'm reading this correctly, Dhong owes $1000 and this generates interest charges of $300 per year. If someone could loan him the $1000 at a more reasonable rate (even 10%) it'd made a substantial difference to his situation. Cutting his annual bill by $200 when he earns $90 per month would be a great relief.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Note that the interest rates charged by Kiva (organization) range around 30%, according to the article. The contributors who visit the site reduce the lender's risk, but don't receive any of that money. (I noticed though it does describe a "Kiva Zip" introduced in 2012 that seems different - those loans are direct,[29] and I'm reading that the trustees aren't allowed to charge fees[30]) Honesty is a scarce commodity, and at Wikipedia we should realize that, for all our problems, we have some ability to manufacture it. Wnt (talk) 15:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Much of that 30% are the fixed setup costs for the loan. So you could agree to pay the setup costs of 5 loans or whatever. Then the loan cost to recipient will reduce massively. John lilburne (talk) 16:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Does the article say that? If so you should update with your source, because I don't see so much as the word "setup" in all those statistics.
To a degree, I suppose we have a double standard about these things. Apple has said it has a policy against employees paying fees to get a job, and they're being vilified, even though they're the source of the jobs these people seem so desperate to get. If people donate to Kiva Zip, and it turns out that some of the trustees aren't actually recommending the best projects they hear about, but the people who pay the most for the opportunity, would we vilify them? My feeling though is that in either case, if we could find a way to have the donor and the recipient of the funds on the to and from lines of the same email, without any mandatory middlemen, things would be more efficient; and if a Wiki could make it possible for people to do that and at the same time have some confidence about what is really on the other end, it might be safer also. Wnt (talk) 19:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I have no idea who wrote the WP article and what their particular spin is. If I want information on this sort of thing I'll go to these reporters, who have been pretty good reporting on development issues for the last 40 years, and were reporting on microfinance back in the mid 1980s. John lilburne (talk) 19:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I found the following wikis, but they do not necessarily emphasize ethics.
I also found the following wiki, about non-profit organizations.
The following website is apparently not a wiki.
—Wavelength (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I have admitted that this is beyond my expertise. The question: does a set of small, disjointed, niche sites with low readership mean that there is no way that a general wiki can become really popular, or does it provide evidence that a well-launched wiki by a reputable organization serving the whole world could really take off and become a major resource? Wnt (talk) 01:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I am more inclined toward believing the second interpretation.
—Wavelength (talk) 01:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
The Foundation could get involved in anything that is within its tax-exempt purpose. If there's some way it could do that (which is questionable) it would be a fine thing to do and a source of positive publicity. Coretheapple (talk) 02:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
The proposed web address (jobs.wikimedia.org) should not be confused with any of the following.
The web address https://www.wikijobs.org might be better, if it is available.
—Wavelength (talk) 17:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I actually checked that one idea before I even started this, but it is under GoDaddy domain squatters as expected. (Of course there are lots of obvious variations, but anything you would name would be owned by someone else before you went to register it. You have to seize the name before you mention it, but first, you have to be serious, so in general it's best to ignore naming ideas unless it's already reservable (like jobs.wikimedia.org) Wnt (talk) 20:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Modern slavery is widespread and has been called "a well-kept secret". Statistics are available at the following website.
—Wavelength (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
The Polaris Project discusses the 2013 historical drama film 12 Years a Slave and modern slavery at the following page.
—Wavelength (talk) 17:23, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedians commended

Martin Poulter, at the University of Bristol, has commended Wikipedians for their contributions.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

That's User:MartinPoulter. William Avery (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Interesting, after reading the article its obvious they've never edited. Its like eating sausage...it can be delicious as long as you don't ask many questions about the process, once you are familiar with how its made though....disgusting. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 21:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
And yet, you keep coming back for more. Resolute 02:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm pretty much done with this place but I may still stick my head in every once in a while. I'm not allowed to work on stuff I want to work on (that need the help) so there's no point in staying. If the community can't trust me at this point they never will. Its especially disappointing since there are so many abusive admins with the tools already. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 17:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I came across a page via RfC and have been watching for a while: new edits are routinely reversed with little explanation, while discussion, on the talk page, is dismissive and regularly becomes abusive. The only explanation given is that this was once a 'Featured Article' therefore info that doesn't have "high quality" reputable sources (not just WP:RS but 'high quality)' will be deleted - or, as one put it 'go write a book, then we'll quote it'. At what point is keeping Wikipedia FA status allowed to prevent an article from being encyclopedic? AnonNep (talk) 17:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Is this about Guy Fawkes Night? In any case, sourcing policies apply to all articles, but it makes sense to be particularly alert to them in articles that are advertised as being of the highest possible quality. Looie496 (talk) 18:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes. And, I'd agree, in general, but I tried suggesting a FAQ, as per pages where regular questions have been settled by consensus, but there's no clear consensus in the archives (not that the loudest, regular voices, responded anyway). And, more lately, the replies to any question (because, to some, its a FA & unquestionable) have got to the 'fuck off' stage. Its a car crash in slow motion because the badge of 'FA status' rules over everything else. I didn't think Wikipedia was designed that way. Is this a glitch in the system or a policy flaw? AnonNep (talk) 18:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
This isn't any kind of policy. I notice a couple of exasperating editors over there in that discussion. That's not to say that it isn't good to keep a close eye on changes to featured articles, but the scrutiny is in making sure that sources aren't misrepresented or below the general standard, not that they meet some nonexistent "higher" standard. I should note that on a few occasions I've waded into articles on the very day they were featured and fixed some fairly serious problems - the status is by no means equal to perfection. There are some that very few people care about and some that a lot of people care about, and I don't know which is worse. :) Wnt (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
That issue of should a Featured Article freeze like a museum piece until it shrivels into irrelevancy still bugs me. But thank you, at least I'm not the only one who cares, or sees exasperating behaviour! :) AnonNep (talk) 20:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
You are not acknowledging how exasperating it is for content builders who create and maintain featured articles because (particularly for popular topics such as Guy Fawkes Night) there is a never-ending stream of new editors who want to make some adjustment, with the vast majority of proposals being misguided, and each requiring a page of explanation. If featured articles were like a community noticeboard where anyone could paste another note over the top, the articles would quickly turn into incoherent junk yards. Johnuniq (talk) 08:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Articles shouldn't be bulletin boards where everyone posts another note over the top - they should be boards where everyone can always find more space around the edges. They should continually be growing and dividing. Wikipedia is not 1% complete, and indeed this article is not 1% complete when you count all the specialized subtopics it should cover. When someone knows by living in a place that the experience of a day is different than it says, and goes out and finds a source that agrees, it's a good idea to let him add that data, and when the article gets big enough, you look for some natural line of cleavage, like Pope Day, and branch off content in WP:Summary style. Wnt (talk) 08:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
That's an excellect summation of the way I thought content developed here. But, sadly, isn't allowed to, in some quiet (or 'turn a blind eye') corners. AnonNep (talk) 16:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Example of spin

Good discussion here, but really it's mostly about a specific article and should take place at the talk page of that article. I will say this, though: phrases like "most known for" and even "known for" are often original research and even when not, they invite abuse in terms of being WP:UNDUE. "Joe Doe is an astrophysicist best known for..." is generally much better written "Joe Doe is an astrophysicist who". The additional assertion of what the person is notable for is likely unnecessary.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi Jimbo, hope you are well, and so forth.

One of my major concerns about Wikipedia is, the way it can 'spin' any old BLP. I think you care about that too and please, don't worry - I'm not "on a mission" here;

<Frankly, I don't give a toss about the specific subject matter>

Andrew_Gilligan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This guy is an English journalist - political, commentary stuff. But, he did get involved in the Leveson Inquiry stuff - ie, they asked for his input, and he gave it.

Why is this relevant to Wikipedia?

Because for years, people have read that "Andrew Gilligan is a journalist for the BBC, and was the reporter involved in the story of weapons expert David Kelly" [31].

I know you understand the importance of neutrality in BLP articles - if Wikipedia says someone is 'known' for an event for years, that can have a huge impact on their career.

Sorry to bother you with 'just one BLP'. but... well. yeah. 88.104.4.74 (talk) 22:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Is this discussion going to be different from the one ongoing on ANI? Why not just link to it? ES&L 22:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Can you link to it? Or someone? It does seem wiser to point interested readers here to important discussions elsewhere. This is a good place to raise such question, as this is a good place to discuss broader philosophical issues. But of course any actual action needs to go through the appropriate channels, which is generally not here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
It's right here ES&L 23:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for not linking; the discussion is in Talk:Andrew_Gilligan#Introduction_and_Leveson. 88.104.4.74 (talk) 09:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm really not trying to push for one specific article, but my point here was broader, using it as an example.

Fact is, you can google "andrew gilligan" "best known" and find dozens of websites saying that he is "best known for a 2003 report on BBC Radio 4's The Today Programme" (and small variations) - which is almost copy-paste from the Wikipedia article, and was almost certainly copied from it, or from another copy of it.

If you search 'Google News', it's a very different story; he is introduced as e.g. "the journalist who became the London mayor's cycling commissioner in January", "senior reporter at the Daily and Sunday Telegraph", or similar.

The Leveson inquiry was one small part of his career - it probably does deserve a mention in the body, but I don't think it should be prominently in the lead section; after all, we wouldn't start the Britney Spears article with "...an American singer known for shaving off all her hair".

We know that, in reality, a great many sources get their 'facts' from Wikipedia - that means, if we boldly declare in the start of a BLP that someone is known for one specific thing, it can have a real-life impact - almost a self-fulfilling claim, because they then become "that person known for x". 88.104.4.74 (talk) 10:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

---

Hello again,

Mr Wales, I've used you as an example in a shortish rant about my BLP concerns here.

I know you're a very busy chap, but I hope you might have the time to look at that, and put in your ha-pence worth.

What Wikipedia says about living people, especially in the leader section of articles, has very 'real world' consequences - as I am sure you are aware.

If Wikipedia says "Gilligan is best-known for xxx scandal", then other websites assume we've done our appropriate checks, and he *becomes* "that guy known for xxx".

Again I emphasize, I'm not posting here because of that specific case - it just serves as an example.

I hope Wikipedia will take extra-super-special care about leaders in BLPs. 88.104.4.74 (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Mirror sites tend to encase one revision of pages

The tendency for the Wikipedia-mirror websites to post only one revision of a page, and rarely update with broader text, is an unfortunate problem with many mirror websites. Perhaps we should create more journalist (or celebrity) articles through wp:AFC and try to balance controversial aspects of their lives before release as main-space article pages. I can confirm dozens of cases where an old revision of page becomes mirrored, parroted, in perhaps 30 other websites, and so people complaining of outdated text, or unbalanced spin, is a valid concern. Fortunately, the more notable a person, the more likely for broader sources, plus the Wikipedia page, to be listed during the first 50 search-result entries (vast majority of users view 10 results-per-page), long before mirror web entries repeat the old-revision text, over and over, from dozens of mirror webpages. One fix-it solution would to ensure the current Wikipedia revision mentions a person's most-notable connections first, and perhaps emphasizes the relative low-concern of whatever issue seems to overrun the mirror webpages. People tend to trust Wikipedia, especially for relatively current information, and so a properly balanced current WP revision can set the tone to downplay, or counter-spin, any excessive emphasis on wp:UNDUE text in the mirror copies. However, I do wish the King of the Earth would mandate all mirror websites to update periodically with current text, but we need to deal with the search-engine reality of mirror websites showing only one revision of a page, locked in stone for years to come. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikisource

If you would have any sort of ideas yourself regarding maybe some things which could be done at Wikisource, please feel free to mention them at wikisource:Wikisource:Scriptorium#Goals for 2014. John Carter (talk) 01:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Removals

User:Haldraper has three times removed reliably sourced content.

He also misrpresents the consensus on the talk page. which was to remove it from the first sentence, not from the entire introduction. I left a message on his talk page but he did not reply. Whats the best way forward? Pass a Method talk 11:24, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

See WP:Dispute Resolution for the various options. Start with the least serious options. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The similarity between a resume′ writer and a paid to edit editor

Jimbo. Let's assume I wanted to hire someone to write a resume′. I would want someone who is an experienced wordsmith, adept at the subtleties of manipulating words. Someone who is able to hide the truthful embarrassing facts of my frailties and flaws. Someone who can make the sun shine during a rainstorm. I would want my resume′ to highlight only the good points of my life and to barely, if at all, mention the low points. If my terrible grades as a freshman are mentioned, they might be explained as Freshman Adjustment. The sordid event and arrest resulting from the Sorority Incident could be easily passed off as a "childish prank". Since my lawyer promised that the record was expunged, there is no real need to even mention the event. The fact that I attended maybe 10% of my classes is slander and anyway, how is that pertinent, and who is gonna prove it!. I got my degree did I not. What I want, what I am paying the resume′ writer to do, is to make me look like a $10000 tuxedo. The fact that I usually run around in sandals and shorts is unimportant. He gets paid to make me look good, even if I'm a shlub. He is paid to hide my blemishes, my warts, my scars. His job is to get me THE job. Not to worry about following the Rules. And, I'm certainly not paying him to worry about the reader of the resume′. The reader is completely unimportant except for how the reader can be manipulated by my resume′ writer. ```Buster Seven Talk 07:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Precisely.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
That's one of the best descriptions of paid editing I've ever seen. Coretheapple (talk) 14:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
It also sounds a lot like WP:BLP... Wnt (talk) 14:58, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
It was also written by someone reprimanded today for a blatant copyright violation, who issued a flippant response when asked to remove the copyvio. Not exactly someone to be lecturing us on ethics. Little surprise that he takes such a dim view of the ethical accountability of someone who would like a resume written, and of the ethics of someone paid to do so. Little surprise that Wales would instantly agree with such a dim and unfair viewpoint. - 2001:558:1400:10:C4BC:BB5A:F1CC:8EDE (talk) 15:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
1) It wasn't blatant. It was innocent.
2) I wasn't asked to remove it. It was more a "remove it or else" demand.
3) I answered in the manner that the "reprimand" was given. A more collaborative request would have achieved a more collaborative response. ```Buster Seven Talk 17:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
You know, I really don't understand why the paid editing peanut gallery, both the long-established apologists for the practice and their non-logged-in clones - both of whom resort to remarkably similar personal attacks and fallacious arguments - have their knickers in a twist over this discussion. It's plain that they're going to win. It's plain that nothing is going to be done. But when you're making bucks off Wikipedia, cynically exploiting the vulnerabilities of this website and its porous rules and joke-like COI policy, any threat to the gravy train seems to be met with shrill hostility. Coretheapple (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
No, Coretheapple, they've already lost, they just don't realize it yet.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
No kidding? Well, they're not the only ones. Coretheapple (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Paid advocates have already lost, and everyone realises it. That behaviour has been banned for a decade. They realise it, which is why they operate in secret, as does everybody else, which is why they end up getting banned when they're discovered. But this is old news. Paid editors are probably not in any trouble, given the general opposition to cracking down on academics, librarians, and other non-advocate paid editors. (Or perhaps I just don't realise that my ban is coming for being paid to do public outreach?) WilyD 09:00, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Advocacy of all kinds is prohibited. We're talking about paid editing - taking cash for edits, whether they seem neutral or not. As you correctly point out, they are probably not in any trouble. This is why I don't understand Jimbo Wales' comment that "they have already lost." Perhaps he would be kind enough to elaborate. Coretheapple (talk) 14:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
The example that started this thread was of a paid advocate, of course, not a generic paid editor. Replace the example with a math professor trying to make Hermite polynomials more accessible to the layperson, and see how much support there really is for banning paid editors who aren't advocates. It's much smaller. WilyD 16:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
And a math prof who is editing Wikipedia isn't an advocate (for more accessible math)? I think the wikitalibans who advocate in this area all day long have formed their own jargon and don't even recognize anymore that their narrow use of words isn't what most other editors find reprehensible, which usually is PR for companies, but sometimes for individuals as well. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I think most people are capable of understanding the difference between a math professor and a corporate PR department. I think we could learn a lot from the ways in which reputable publishers have addressed conflicts of interest and handled such distinctions. It's like we're trying to reinvent the wheel here. MastCell Talk 17:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Understand the difference? Yes. Agree on the significance? Maybe. Discuss things on Wikipedia in a way that makes the difference clear? Not at all. A lot of the dispute seems to arise from the fact that people aren't drawing a distinction in what they say/write, and assuming everyone understands/means what they mean, when that's not the case. But paid advocates are already banned when they're discovered. Who is Coretheapple et al. looking to ban, if not math professors et al.? WilyD 17:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh come on now. Please don't put words in my mouth. I have yet to encounter a "math professor" innocently editing an article and hounded to suicide. But I have seen dozens of PR men and corporate reps (400 counted in that off-wiki website), and specifically was alerted to this argument by PR staffers dominating two articles on multinational companies. This "math profs" thing is just a ridiculous straw man. Coretheapple (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @WilyD: I don't think paid advocates are banned. User:Arturo at BP isn't banned; quite the opposite, people have gone out of their way to shower him with barnstars of integrity. Few or none of the accounts affiliated with the Transcendental Meditation movement are banned. There's some pretty low-hanging fruit we can talk about before we get into the math professors. MastCell Talk 18:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Paid advocates have "already lost, they just don't realize it yet." I believe you Jimmy, please let all of us non-paid editors know what we can do to support this outcome. How long do you think it is going to take? All the best, Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The reason he isn't banned is because he follows the behaviour standard Jimbo has advocated: [35]. Basically - he ain't an editor. Which makes it impossible for him to be a paid editor. Which brings us back to the same point: Wiki-PR, et al. got banned because they were editing articles as paid advocates. They did so in secret because they knew the practice was already banned. So who else is Coretheapple et al. looking to ban? He denies that it's math professors, librarians, and so on, but can't give any examples of who it is. I can only conclude that it is math profs et al., based on what's being written (here, and at the multitude of proposed policies). WilyD 09:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to echo that. Those of us, the distinct minority of people in this discussion, who are opposed to paid editing are of course encouraged by the support of the founder, but more concrete action would of course be welcome. Coretheapple (talk) 21:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I fear I may sound rude here, Coretheapple, but do you do a lot of editing of the encyclopedia? Which parts of your editing of the encyclopedia (which I'm very pleased you do for free, just like I do) are you most proud of? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Not at all. I'm proudest of my effort to fight the scourge of paid editing. Coretheapple (talk) 22:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Right, let me put that more gently. Which encyclopedia article have you improved the most? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Coretheapple (talk · contribs), I would encourage you not to answer that, and Demiurge1000 (talk · contribs) I would encourage you retract your question. No good can come from such contests of "who is more valuable" among volunteers (see also WP:CHOICE). I think the best thing we can all do is focus on the issue at hand. --TeaDrinker (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree, and I think that in general this conversation has deteriorated, and has disconnected from reality, to the point that it has become pointless. This is Jimbo's page. Unless there are some other points that he thinks need to be covered that haven't already, I'd suggest that he put a moratorium on further discussion of this subject. If the Foundation wants to act, if paid editors have "already lost," then let's see that happen. Otherwise let's move on. Clearly a consensus to derail the gravy train is structurally impossible, as there are already a multitude of paid editors out there who will oppose any restrictions on paid editing. Wikipedia is so permeated with paid editors, paid editing is such a part of the culture of Wikipedia that either it is accepted, with all that flows from it in terms of demoralization and undermining of Wikipedia's integrity and reputation, or the Foundation has to ban it. Coretheapple (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Breathlessly awaiting more details.... petrarchan47tc 21:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

To those of us who are concerned by paid editing and conflicts of interest, recent history here is extremely depressing. To take two high-profile examples, our coverage of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was substantially drafted by BP's public-relations department. And our coverage of the purported medical benefits of Transcendental Meditation is dominated by employees and affiliates of the TM movement. Neither of those scenarios developed stealthily—the former was ratified by the community, and the latter by ArbCom. We seem to feel no obligation to disclose these massive conflicts of interest to the unsuspecting reader, nor do we have any mechanism of disclosure even if we had the will. I can understand the sense of incredulity expressed above in response to the idea that paid editing has "lost", because all of the evidence to which I have access suggests the opposite. MastCell Talk 22:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Tiny point: it was actually the entire BP article that was substantially drafted by the BP PR department (40%).petrarchan47tc 03:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
[Re-adding earlier comment that I removed, but now think it's pretty relevant:] "On that note, Coretheapple made substantial contributions to the Deepwater section, bringing it to the neutral, informative state we have presently. Core hasn't popped up from nowhere simply to bitch at everyone." Most of you probably know Core from these talk pages, but I know Core from the BP article. After working at the page for a good ten months, Coretheapple showed up and pretty much saved the day. Core's use of bold edits and good arguments turned the anemic coverage of the BP oil spill into a fully flushed-out, healthy section (here) that stood the test of 3 RfCs meant to either delete or reduce it to 2-3 paragraphs (like this). petrarchan47tc 20:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
But one of the happiest side effects of participating in the discussion of the subject is all the flattering attention my editing record has received, all the scrutiny, all the helpful advice (such as "shut up") that I've received from the Paid Editing Lobby, both the experienced editors and the ones that say they are experienced but won't log on (but say that if they did log on we'd be blown away by their contributions). Just to be 1000% clear, I was not referring to Demiurge1000's question aboveCoretheapple (talk) 22:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Late to the party, but the copyright violation, mentioned way up above, contains a revealing section (quoted here, ahem, in part, as per fair use under the copyright act): "Of course, we all know what this means -- the anonymous competitors and critics of a company are free to edit in defamatory content about their target, all to their heart's content. However, the subject of the article is forbidden to engage directly and have the right of response within the content battle." Compelling argument for a anti 'Puff & Snark' policy that focuses on (edit, revert & delete of) content not (block and ban) of users (and which could still, quite reasonably, restrict the directly concerned from, well, direct edits). AnonNep (talk) 16:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

That is almost as absurd a straw man as "persecuted math profs" straw man. The reality is puff and text with negative inferences omitted, not defamation-hungry anti-corporate zealots running amok while harassisng decent PR people. In the BP article that several people have mentioned (I haven't, you'll notice), a PR person dominated the talk page and was repeatedly given back-slaps for his courtesy and good manners, while persons seeking to clean up after him were greeted with open hostility. That only petered out after the page received widespread publicity. Coretheapple (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
The PR person not only dominated the BP talk page but was a frequent visitor to the talk pages of BP-supportive editors with suggested changes. These changes would then almost immediately attempted (within 5 minutes) to be implemented. Had concerned editors, such as Coretheapple, not been safeguarding the BP article these change would have been in place without any concern for consensus or vetting of the information or discussion by fellow collaborators. and our reader would never have known that BP was editing the article. ```Buster Seven Talk 19:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC).
Sorry. Dare not reply. Just got bitch-slapped in the edit summary of a section removal by the talk page user. 'Rules' are really odd here, and I deal with enough abuse offline not to need it. Back to content editing. AnonNep (talk) 20:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
A personal attack is not needed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Indeed, we wouldn't want anyone to think that you're running scared of my questions about your contribution to the encyclopedia.
You do know we're trying to build an encyclopedia, right? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Sheesh. If it will keep you from sidetracking the discussion, then please know that I share Coretheapple's concerns, and I've made plenty of contributions to the project over the years. Really, this is the most dispiriting thing: every time this topic is raised, there's a concerted effort to attack or discredit the messenger instead of dealing with the actual substance of the concern. Running scared indeed. MastCell Talk 01:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I, like some others, like to know who we're talking to. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
So who are you? Eric Corbett 02:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Not a person who suddenly pops up from no-where with a hatred for particular sets of editors and no backstory ... and a firm belief that paid editors have "won" which rather reminds one of a certain person's talking ... and nothing to bring to the encyclopedia. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
That's not really an answer though, as your own backstory is nothing to shout about. So who are you? Eric Corbett 02:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
You may think what you like, but your credibility is rather limited these days. I read this recently, which said, inter alia, "the committee released a statement linking controversial user Malleus Fatuorum's sock puppet account, George Ponderevo, to his main account". Ring any bells? Certainly an interesting backstory. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Demiurge1000 has his bluff called and is speechless, beyond personal attacks. Just to be sure I understand what Demiurge was saying (a propo of nothing), he supports paid editing (or was he saying that he's a paid editor), and says that he's made a bunch of edits -38% of them in article space. So therefore Coreapple, who has made fewer edits, must be wrong on paid editing (did I miss some logic here?) If Demiurge is boasting about his contributions to Wikipedia, then I'd recommend he check MastCell's and Eric Corbett's edits. I'll add my own contributions here, though they may be more modest. But we've never decided important questions on Wikipedia by comparing the length of our "contributions". So I'll add one question to Eric's 1) Demiurge - what is your point? as well as 2) Demiurge, who are you? Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Personal attacks? I think that's what your comment boils down to. It really puzzles me that you and one or two others are so rabid on the topic of paid editing, and (apparently) believe all other editors are involved in paid editing, to the extent you undermine your own credibility to such a degree. Some of us have been editing Wikipedia for nothing for years, and intend to continue doing so. Lies and slurs won't stop us. Ask Eric if he thinks paid advocacy should be banned - if he thinks anyone being paid to edit or with a conflict of interest should not touch mainspace at all. I think that. Maybe you should ask him, before you jump in. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
1) Demiurge - what is your point? 2) Demiurge, who are you? Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
1) If you're not able to understand it, I doubt I can help you much now. 2) Who are you? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
The question is who are you? Eric Corbett 03:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Edits by Vice-Chairman of Wikimedia Norway

[Note: Because the anonymous ip seems constitutionally incapable of asking questions in a civil manner (having tried twice and failed miserably) I am going to write the legitimate questions and answers myself, as an illustration of how to do it.)

Hi Jimbo! In my ongoing exploration of the question of conflict of interest edits in Wikipedia, I found some that I thought worthy of calling to your attention, given your strong position on the issue.

What do you think of these edits to the article about Telenor, from June 2013? Of course we know that not every employee of every corporation is going to be familiar with your "Bright Line Rule" that forbids paid advocates from ever directly modifying a Wikipedia article about their own employer or client. However, shouldn't we expect someone who self-identifies as vice chairman of Wikimedia Norway and as Vice President of Telenor Group to be a little more knowledgeable about best practices at Wikipedia? He also created the Wikipedia article Uninor, which is an India-based joint venture of Telenor Group. It seems particularly problematic and potentially embarrassing since the Wikimedia Foundation has formed an alliance with Telenor to bring Wikipedia free to people in the developing world? This edit also strikes me as problematic since it is an article about a competitor of his employer, in a section about a "dispute" between his company and the competitor. I'd love to hear your comments on this matter. - An anonymous user, you can call me "Greg" if you want a nickname for me.

Thanks for calling this to my attention. The creation of the Uninor article seems to have happened in 2009, well before my formulation and promotion of the best practice of "bright line rule", so I think we can forgive that. But the other more recent edits are indeed highly problematic from the perspective of avoiding even the appearance of impropriety. I will immediately send an email expressing my concerns and inviting him to come here and explain, and I will urge him to pledge not to do anything like this again.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
It is well known that Erlend Bjørtvedt works for Telenor and he has also been a very active contributor to Wikipedia for some years. If there is a problem regarding the above article and business articles in general, it is that they are not well covered. Seems much more attractive to write about movie stars, soccer teams & players than issues that actually are central to our lives. If more contributors did so, then there simply would be less need for contributions from people that work at such companies. I have done so myself from my own workplace, and probably hundreds of others only within the Wikipedia version in Bokmål/Riksmål. If we had not made the contributions, useful articles would in most cases be lacking. Ulflarsen (talk) 21:23, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I have noted the comments and questions here about editing an article over a company for which I am employed. The Uninor article was created way back before these questions really came to the table for discussion. As for the editing on Telenor, from what I can see in the links above, these have been about correcting purely factual things like financial numbers or ownership in companies. I am serious about following community rules and also golden rules, but I must admit I have difficulties in seeing it as problematic that a Telenor employee corrects a purely factual ownership figure, in this instance when a company moves from for example 43% to 51% ownership in a subsidy, or when a company's gross revenue increases from 10 bn dollars to 11 billion dollars, etc. I am aware of this more recent bright line rule, but I will need someone to inform and explain to me if it is not proper to any of our employees to do such purely factual corrections. I am not a frequent contributor to English Wikipedia, and we practice more liberal rules at our smaller language versions where it is rather the rule than the exception that one can edit facts about your own organization, institution or company. But still, if I as an employee of a company is not allowed to do even the most factual and neutral corrections, like fixing an errenous financial number, than please inform me of what applies and where to find those rules. Kind regards, Bjoertvedt (talk) 22:57, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Best practice is to suggest edits on the talk page with full disclosure of your conflict of interest, and then to escalate if you don't get a response. The main problem with even very neutral and boring factual edits is that they can give rise to an appearance of conflict of interest, and of course bad actors will always claim that their edits are simply neutral and boring factual edits. It's best to avoid the question altogether, particularly when in a position of some responsibility at a chapter!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok! Best regards, Bjoertvedt (talk) 23:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Mr. Bjørtvedt says that the Uninor article was created "way back before these questions really came to the table for discussion". I beg to differ. The Uninor article was created in November 2009. In June 2009, Jimmy Wales was quoted in the media as saying, "the idea that we should ever accept paid advocates directly editing Wikipedia is not ever going to be ok. Consider this to be policy as of right now." How much more on the table for discussion could it be than that? Regardless of that timeline, surely since Bjørtvedt became a director of Wikimedia Norway in 2010, he should have been exposed to the extensive media coverage of the Bell Pottinger incidents of 2011, along with the UK Parliament and Gibraltarpedia scandals of 2012. Yet still, Bjørtvedt went ahead and continued to edit Wikipedia where he had a conflict of interest, deep into 2013, and even plugging in an external link (in 2012) to his company's website on an article about (frankly) a very non-notable Telenor Culture Award of which you can barely find three mentions (that aren't press releases) in all of Google News archives. Regardless of when it was authored, the real problem is Bjørtvedt's content. He describes it as "factual and neutral corrections"; but, if that is the case, why do we get results like this from Bjørtvedt's keyboard:
  • The operational model is low-cost with a gradual network-build up, infrastructure sharing, GSM equipment at competitive cost, full-scale IT-outsourcing and a long term cost and capex efficiency.
That's not encyclopedia content, it's a corporate investor relations statement to shareholders. And he didn't even attempt to source it. There have been numerous advocates on this page over the past week or so (yes, I have been reading) who cry out in anguish about paid advocacy editing on Wikipedia. Well, now that a Wikimedia chapter insider is caught clearly having done it, where is the wailing and gnashing of teeth? Other than Jimbo's short reprimand, nobody else seems to care that Bjørtvedt has shaped his company's image on Wikipedia and turned a blind eye to his fellow (obvious) corporate editors like User:Telenor Info, User:Uninor (yes, same user name as the company itself), or single-purpose IPs owned by Telenor, such as User:88.89.28.34. With such a brazen disregard for years-old guidelines against COI editing, why am I not surprised that Bjørtvedt would take such a dismissive tone when called on the mat about it. This cheapens Wikipedia's reputation, and if we're going to ever get a handle on paid advocacy editors, we should be starting with those who are also trustees of Wikimedia charities that are taking money from the unsuspecting public who have no idea that those very trustees on Wikipedia are padding the image of the company at the top of their paychecks. -- Stylecustom (talk) 00:53, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with every single thing that you have said here except that "nobody else seems to care". I think a great many people care a great deal.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't think the evident facts matter much here, the spin is far more important. Eric Corbett 01:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
He did a foolish thing. Hopefully he has learned. Note that working for a company and admiring it, is not the same as being paid to do PR for that company, though. I'm very passionate about the firm I work for - actually I typically go nowhere near any content related to it, but I did correct some errors in the articles on my previous firm. Best practice: if you're going to edit articles where you have a potential conflict of interest, be open about it, even if you edit the article directly you should drop a note on the talk page saying why you made that edit rather than leaving it to someone else (for example, uncontroversial facts, citing the latest annual returns or whatever). Wikipedians are only human, after all. Most important thing: if you do make an edit that in hindsight you probably should not have made, nobody died, put your hands up and accept the judgment of the community. That way lies respect and transparency. Digging in causes drama and never makes anyone look good. Guy (Help!) 12:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
An anonymous user who apparently goes by "Greg" from time to time asked me to ask you to breakfast (with him) on Tuesday, since you'll be in town. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 00:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Let him know that if I see him, I'll call the police. But thanks for the heads up - I'll print out a variety of his past messages so that the police will understand the gravity of the situation.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 Done --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 14:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Jimbo, could you please post here a variety of his past messages so that the community will understand the gravity of the situation? 69.181.41.73 (talk) 16:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
A few weeks ago a helpful admin pointed me to WP:EMAILPOST, which implies that he shouldn't. But you know that already. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, I think that every decent person understands that not only publishing private emails, but sharing them with other people and even reading private emails that aren't addressed to him is as dirty as it gets, but looks that you required "a helpful admin" to point it out to you. Oh well... In this particular situation I don't think that under "past messages" Jimbo meant private emails. 69.181.41.73 (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
At Greggs? ;-) 88.104.4.74 (talk) 10:38, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
There are levels and levels of "working for" a company. Some employees - it should be all! - have the right to go out on Twitter and say their work sucks, even under their own name. Some would be afraid to make even a slightly critical comment anywhere that could be traced back to them. A few luckless slaves would face sanction if they failed to hawk their wares to friends and family. Among these rankings, my suspicion is that a Vice President has more freedom than some, but less than others. Similarly, a union employee may feel assured of an equal income despite small changes in a company's sales, an owner would feel every rise and dip in proportion, but someone paid in stock options or relying on bonuses might stand to make or lose a fortune. (I have no information on that) Wnt (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

A user brought this to my attention, and asked for my input. My input is in the form of a question: what policy change, if any, would the person who raised this issue like to institute? Is he or she in favor of restricting paid editing? Or does he or she have another objective in raising this issue? I ask because this does not appear to be one of the situations that I feel are problematic and widespread: editors hired by companies to edit articles, or employees of companies assigned to edit or create articles. I may be mistaken. But whether or not I am, I'm curious to know what the point is of raising this, and what solution is being advocated here. Coretheapple (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say that the user in question is not opposed to paid editing. His point is just to somehow try to make me look bad or inconsistent - it's a meme he's been pushing with zero success for quite a long time. The idea is that I'm a hypocrite - I am opposed to paid advocacy editing unless it's done by my friends or similar. This is wrong: I condemn it everywhere and in all cases, uniformly. Erlend should not have done this - it is embarrassing and wrong and a real shame. Again, to be clear, the only purpose for this banned users continued harassment and intimidation of me and others is NOT to opposed paid advocacy editing. It's a smear campaign, and not only does he know it, everyone who knows about him knows it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
No surprise. Coretheapple (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
The question you consistently fail to address though is the distinction between paid advocacy and paid editing. The former is clearly unacceptable, but the latter maybe not. Is your jumbling of the terms simply an error? Eric Corbett 22:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I think I've been very consistent about the difference. It is paid advocacy that is the problem. When I said "the user in question is not opposed to paid editing" I was directly answering the question I was asked - with precision. I don't see how you can possibly say that I "consistently fail to address" the question when I've been perhaps the leading advocate for making the distinction loud and clear. One of the biggest problems we have in getting people who are new to the debate to understand the issue is that advocates turn up to confuse and muddy the waters by pretending that the two are the same thing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
So what's the difference between paid advocacy and unpaid advocacy? Aren't the two equally abhorrent? Eric Corbett 22:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Of course it is. But if I hate sunlamps, and make a pest of myself in Sunlamps, I'll soon be known as the Guy Who Hates Sunlamps and I can and should and probably will be curbed. But if the Acme Sunlamp Company hires me to write an article on that company, or edit Sunlamps so that I use every excuse in the book to remove stuff on the dangers of skin cancer or whatever from that and other related articles, I'm a considerably more pernicious danger to the project for a number of reasons. One of them is that I can be replaced, if I get "hot," and another and possibly more experienced editor retained to push the Acme and Sunlamp cause. Coretheapple (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
The difference is that one is paid, and one is not. And "degree of abhorrence" is not the correct question to ask when we ask whether we can alter policy to deal with a problem. Unpaid advocacy is a problem, a serious one, and one which will require different solutions, although of course solutions that help with paid advocacy should be considered if they can in part help deal with unpaid advocacy. One key difference is that unpaid advocacy involves people who have a particular set of core beliefs or a world view that makes it hard for them to accept the notion of neutrality. Paid advocacy involves people who have a job to do, a job which need not be inherently unethical, and a job which requires them not to embarrass their clients/employers. I think that we can prevent most undisclosed paid advocacy editing by making clear that there is a better way - open, honest discussion with the community. And we can raise the price of paid advocacy editing by clarifying what is wrong with it and that we forbid it. Paid advocacy editing is amenable to incentives in a way that passionate ideology may not be.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
The profit motive isn't necessarily worse or better than other motives people might bring to their contributions. Ideally, the crowdsourcing effect would even things out: the POV of the supporters of an entity or person (paid or otherwise) would be counterbalanced by the POV of the critics. Personally I think a lot of the problem stems from the bar of notability being set a bit too low, so that relatively obscure topics (such as small private schools, romote villages, etc.) tend to get articles written about them by people who are motivated to do so because of a beef or a desire to plug.
The trouble is that there's not always someone on the other side to create balance, and there simply isn't the volunteer manpower to cover the 3 million plus articles. Worse: with every story in the press about a company's representatives editing their own Wikipedia articles, the more people will start to say "so what? don't they all do that?" Equally, as stories come out about grudge editors, negative information becomes suspect as well. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 14:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Re crowdsourcing: that's an interesting point. Yes, ordinarily over time you will get a kind of equlibrium through the crowdsourcing process. But paid advocates can skew the crowdsourcing equation by literally "buying" advocates. That is especially dangerous for fringe areas in which the editor pool is lacking in terms of interest. Also, there is a tendency to look at paid editing (and I've been guilty of this) as being payment for positive information. But our current lack-of-policies in this area makes paid editing against particular products, brands, organizations and people just as likely. This is a particular danger in controversial areas and in political controversies in which money flows in both directions. Editors here are constantly complaining about unpaid zealots. Do we really need paid zealots on one or another or both sides of an issue/company/brand/person? Coretheapple (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
In fact, come to think of it, negative input from paid advocates was an issue in the BP article. A few months ago, the BP publicist stationed on the talk page took exception to the way a particular analyst critical of the company was utilized as a source in the article.[36]. Inter alia, he pointed out as follows: "I was curious and looked at [the analyst's] Wikipedia article, as it seems the description came from there, then I noticed that she seems to have added this description herself. I am aware there is no rule specifically against editing articles where you have a COI (it is my preference not to do so here) but it does seem that there is a neutrality issue here of using a description word-for-word in this article that [the analyst] wrote in her own article. Would someone be able to update the 'Alternative energy' section to provide a clearer, more NPOV description of [the analyst]?" His request was not granted, but as a result of this BP input there substantial edits to the article on the analyst. I for one am not comfortable with corporations sharing their "opposition research" with Wikipedia editors, as a way of skewing and spinning articles about themselves and their real or perceived critics, and others not towing the corporate line. The analyst herself did not reciprocate, to her credit, and may not have been aware of the entire controversy. If this had leaked out tot he press, there might have been yet another black eye for Wikipedia, as well as a "battleground" type situation if the analyst had fought fire-with-fire. This exemplifies one of the dangers of paid advocates aggressively pushing their POV on talk pages. Coretheapple (talk) 17:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Consider: Person A is paid by a company to edit Wikipedia, with a brief to make their article look good. Person B is given time by an employer t edit Wikipedia with no formal brief. The user alluded to above, does A and tries to assert that because B is superficially similar in some regards, and is tolerated and even potentially endorsed, then there is an inconsistency. There isn't. If you are given money, by anybody, to edit Wikipedia with a brief, even a vague one, to promote the interests of the person paying the bill, then you are in trouble. Everyone knows hwo he is, frankly, he's not here to help and never was. His agenda is personal benefit, financial or reputational.
If you edit an article whose context has a direct bearing on your income, you have a problem.
If you are n Israeli editing about Palestine, you have no problem other than achieving consensus for you edits.
If you work as a marketing manager for Ford, you should not edit the article on either Ford or GM. This is not hard to understand unless you are determined to engage in rules-lawyering. In which case, ping me a message and I will block you to save everyone's time :-) Guy (Help!) 00:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
As the user under scrutiny by this discussion thread, this discussion has been both useful and illuminating. I fully understand that editing on my employer's articles has raised concern and I will fully adhere to the golden rule of rather proposing change at the talk pages. Around 2009, when I was still a freshman editor without any affiliation with Wikipedia Norway or the Wikipedia movement, I was indeed caught by that enthusiasm which user Guy describes, I was highly passionate about editing the Wikipedia and determined to contribute every way I could. Since I could, as a Telenor employee, easily see many errors in several relevant articles concerning the company, I eagerly fixed and added both facts and more thorough descriptions. In 2010, I joined the Wikimedia movement and became board member that year, vice chairman the next. The debates which I gradually became a part of at Wikimedia mailing lists, made me realize that there were limits to engagement and potential COI situations, so I continued by mainly editing things that were purely trivial facts (correcting numbers, etc).
The user Stylecustom writes about my editing, that especially after 2010 he should have been exposed to the extensive media coverage of the Bell Pottinger incidents of 2011, along with the UK Parliament and Gibraltarpedia scandals of 2012. I am sorry, but the answer is "no". I have never heard of Bell Pottinger, I am unsure as to which parliament scandal he refers, and I have just briefly noted that there has been something on Gibraltarpedia but not seen details. I once took part in a Wikimedia Foundation e-mail discussion thread on editing among politicians and political employees, referring to the scandinavian setting. The british debate, however, I must admit is of no concern to me. These issues have never been in the media, up here. I also doubt that my Colleague (?) Uninor has noted those scandals in The Hindu or in the Deccan News. Guidelines must be communicated through the Wikipedia, not through medias that 4% of the world population read.
I am not a frequent contributor to the English Wikipedia, when I edit here it is almost always translations of what I have done at one of the Scandinavian language versions. My context is Scandinavia, and I contribute to both Norsk I and II, Saami, and Danish, when time allows. The COI guidelines of these language versions are very easy to sum up: they don't have any COI guildelines. If you look for the COI guidelines for any of the Norwegian Wikipedia versions or the Danish, you will search in vain. Only the Swedish Wikipedia has one, it says that you should consider COI, you should make your affiliation known, and: There are, however, no absolute prohibition against writing about the topics in which one has a personal interest, as long as one has good intentions and one demonstrates that one can keep neutral in the topic. As apart from other editors, those who choose to write with a conflict of interest are advised not to be bold, but rather to be careful. Corrections of typos, addition of trustworthy sources, non-controversial corrections of facts, and uploading of free images are such things that are generally encourages even if one has conflict of interest. [Det finns emellertid inget absolut förbud mot att skriva om ämnen man har personligt intresse i, så länge som man har goda avsikter och man visar att man kan förhålla sig neutral till ämnet. Till skillnad från andra användare uppmanas den som ändå väljer att skriva med intressekonflikt inte att vara djärv, utan att vara försiktig. Rättning av språkfel, tillhandahållande av trovärdiga källor, icke-kontroversiella rättelser av faktauppgifter och uppladdning av fria bilder är sådant som i allmänhet uppskattas trots intressekonflikt]. The reason why we Scandinavians have been so clearly liberal on this, I believe is threefold: 1) There is a high general level of trust in society. 2) We are so few that we would not have had a local Wikipedia if we enforced more strict rules. 3) Experience with substantial COI editing is probably fairly good all over, maybe based on some unconscious cost-benefit reasoning among admins. From my own experience, I have some dispute with communications officers who have edited "their" topics, but all over the judgment is astonishingly good. Very few people have bad intentions, as far as we can see in the scandinavian setting.
This is not to excuse, only to explain how it occured that I committed the failure to bring these more liberal rules with me to the English Wikipedia. I should have understood that editing here follows by the rules here. In the local Norwegian setting, I have supported the broadly accepted, more liberal stance. We allow employers to write about their university, museum, or company, as long as they have good intensions, stick to the five pillars, and make known their affiliation in the article or on their user page (Swedish Wikipedia specifically names user page for that). Altogether, I have probably done more than 90.000 edits, of which I estimate that less than 0,2% of these edits are on issues related to my employer. When user Stylecustom cited some of my earlier wordings in articles, they now appear as "embarrassing", to cite this talk page's owner. I had forgotten them, and it was useful to be reminded. To make the picture more complete, I have also uploaded 13.300 photos to Commons, of which probably 2.000 have been taken while on paid service for my employer. Some of my colleagues have also donated photos. Some photos exhibit equipment or installations of my employer, without anyone questioning that. No one have asked me to shoot photos or write on my employer's topics, I don't work for marketing or communication, and I don't know or control what my other 35.000 colleagues do. Most probably, many of them write for Wikipedia if they're geeks like me. We have seen above that some user named Uninor has edited the topic Uninor - that might well be a colleague in India. I don't think they've followed detailed media discussions about Wiki PR, so they probably just stick to the five pillars and the user guidelines that are visible in here. In one's local setting, one might not find a COI guideline at all, as we have seen.
I look forward to keep supporting even the English version of Wikipedia, with the best of intensions. Best regards, Bjoertvedt (talk) 22:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Mainland Europe differs from English-speaking countries in the choice of a decimal mark. Hence, your "0,2" corresponds to "0.2", whereas "90.000" and "2.000" and "13.300" correspond to "90,000" and "2,000" and "13,300".
—Wavelength (talk) 23:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate User:Bjoertvedt's explanation. You know, back in mid-2006 on English Wikipedia, it could be pretty much described as having "no absolute prohibition against writing about the topics in which one has a personal interest, as long as one has good intentions and one demonstrates that one can keep neutral in the topic". Then a new paid editing (not paid advocacy editing, but paid editing) firm called MyWikiBiz launched onto the scene. Jimmy Wales had something of a fit about it, and (in my opinion) the English Wikipedia's approach to paid editing has ever since been a mess of contradiction and hypocrisy. More than two years later, Wales would apologize for how he handled MyWikiBiz. But we seem to have a relapse now, as I understand (if we're to conclude that "Greg" mentioned on this page is the founder of MyWikiBiz) that Mr. Wales will "call the police" if the founder of MyWikiBiz should ever come within eyesight of Wales, even in Greg's own city when Wales is there as a visitor. I think the Scandinavian way of trusting people who want to do well by doing good, would have worked out much more peacefully and productively on the English Wikipedia. Too late for that, though. Wales seems dug in now more than ever. He says that he can't find a case of a conflicted editor who didn't get satisfaction from engaging exclusively on Talk pages and other noticeboards, but what about this matter that didn't seem to resolve in the conflicted editor's favor? -- Stylecustom (talk) 00:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Well that's interesting. Thanks for the background. I went over to MyWikiBiz and found an article in the Chronicle for Higher Education,[37] which concludes as follows: "If the encyclopedia is serious about gaining acceptance from academe, surely it has a vested interest in dissuading companies from paying to improve their presence on the site." I'd really like to put the past behind us for a moment and focus on the issue that we've been discussing. Stylecustom, you're a new editor like me, though I may be a bit less new than you, and I'm really interested in hearing your opinion in answer to the question that I posed below: What is the downside of a ban on paid advocacy editing? Coretheapple (talk) 00:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate user names

Where does one report what may be an inappropriate or offensive user name?Camelbinky (talk) 21:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

See WP:BADNAME. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Actually WP:UAA is the place to report, but only for blatant violations which merit blocks without warning. For others, simply leave the appropriate templated warning or an untemplated note on the user talk page. Please do NOT do both, as the warning invites discussion and change of username, and the report is a request for a block which would prevent this. Do read the advice linked above before taking any action. DES (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you both. I did leave a template warning and will see how it goes from there.Camelbinky (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
DESiegel, would you be able to update WP:BADNAME to make the options (and things to avoid) clearer? It would be nice to be able to link to things quickly and easily, without possible confusions like the one you mention. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Just curious - why did you ask this one user, out of the 20 million that are on Wikipedia?
Next time, you might wanna use {{helpme}} or something instead. 88.104.4.74 (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Just curious - why do you object? It's a perfectly fine place to ask.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I will look at it. Demiurge1000, was there any particular part you found hard to understand or confusing? DES (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! No, actually your initial comment "Actually WP:UAA is the place to report" made me think you were implying that WP:BADNAME was not the right answer. If WP:BADNAME is already perfect, that's fine. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
WP:BADNAME describes several options on handling a dubious username. It includes a link to WP:UAA. But it wasn't strictly speaking the answer to your question "where do I report...?" I have modified WP:BADNAME slightly to mention that a user should not both discuss with the user whose name seems inappropriate, and report, mirroring the instructions at WP:UAA (which I patrol sometimes) where such dual reports are sometimes a problem. DES (talk) 14:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

J, I didn't object, I just wondered why they'd asked here. 88.104.4.74 (talk) 00:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I asked here because of the high number of very intelligent and wiki-policy knowledgeable editors who watch this page and I knew I'd get the best answer here, and quickly. Frankly I believe this page does, and should, act as a help desk, as long as Jimbo is ok with it of course; with no offence to the many good contributors who work hard over there at the real help desk answering questions and getting things done for people.Camelbinky (talk) 13:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
For people interested the results of my template asking User:Corpse-ManoftheObamaclypse can be found on my talk page. I for one don't want further arguing with another Wikipedia editor with a battleground mentality, it is getting old; I had hoped using the template would get the point across that he/she should use some personal reflection, but that didn't work. If others could comment, I don't mind my talk page being used to discuss this issue. An admin User:Drmies has already pointed out that the name is indeed combative/disruptive; other opinions of any persuasion are welcome. If someone wants to set up an RfC, that would be even better and get this resolved quickly. I on the other hand am tired of the arguing, and that user has made it clear it will be a drawn out battle with "snarky" comments; I for one don't want to be insulted anymore.Camelbinky (talk) 13:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Jimbo, I regret that issues regarding my username are taking up space on your talk page. However, some comments have been made here that I wish to clear up. Camelbinky, your comment that you "don't want to be insulted anymore" necessarily implies that I have insulted you. What are you talking about? I do not believe that I have done that. I have simply expressed disagreement with you about this issue. You also indicated that you are "tired of the arguing." I have posted a total of two (2) comments about this issue on your user page--one in response to your template message, and one in response to comments from another user. That's not much of an argument. I would remind you that I was happily editing on Wikipedia in peace for several months before you began making an issue of my username, and that I am not the one who started this argument in the first place. Corpse-ManoftheObamaclypse (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps "Corpse-ManoftheObamaclypse" is a rearrangement of the letters in the name of a flower, however there is the unfortunate reality that the vast majority of editors would interpret "Corpse" as referring to a dead person, and "Obamaclypse" as a strong political statement, namely that Obama's Presidency is a disaster. WP:IU covers the situation—avoid names that are "likely to offend other contributors" or "seem intended to provoke emotional reaction", although Wikipedia is not bound by a set of rules, and no regulation is needed to point out that it would be unhelpful for some editors to use "Obamaclypse" in their name, while others have a slogan deriding Republicans. Please ask for your user name to be changed to something neutral (see WP:CHU) so we can avoid wasting time to debating the obvious. Johnuniq (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I think en.wikipedia outsmarts itself trying to ban these names. We're better off letting people wear their hearts on their sleeves so that when problem editing happens their bias is obvious, than making them take on bland names and prepare Wikilawyering smokescreens for their POV. Wnt (talk) 08:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. I probably would not have blocked this editor for their username alone, but when combined with problematic editing, as was the case here (see diffs on their talk page, and their contribution list that is not long), I decided to block them indefinitely until there is a discussion with them about how to properly edit Wikipedia and an agreement to choose a username that is not threatening, baiting or offending anybody. Corpse + Some Identifiable Living Person is a really bad idea for a username. Jehochman Talk 13:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I am going to review those diffs, but my initial inclination is to oppose this block. DES (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Do you have admin access? One of the diffs is a pretty bad BLP violation. I'm considering whether to rev delete it or get it oversighted. Jehochman Talk 17:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
First to Corpse- Wasn't talking about the arguing or insults with you. Lots of those who read this page know I have been in some bitter discussions in the past and it has burned me out and I am not looking forward to another one, because you have stated that any discussion about your name would result in "snarky" comments being thrown back and forth, your battleground mentality has made me not want to engage you further, when you read and realize our policies on how to discuss, I'll be happy to discuss with you. But when you think discussions are going to devolve into name-calling there is no reason for me to engage you, it is futile.
To everyone else- I believe a legitimate argument can be made that the name itself is a BLP violation incorporating a living person's name (that is not your own) into the word apocalypse and the entire name implies that a "corpse" is a "man of the" Obama Apocalypse... that death and dead people are the result of President Obama's actions/policies which result in an apocalypse. User names that imply such about a living person, politician or not, are a BLP violation.
As per the editor's contributions, some are very useful and good, he/she has contributed a bit on articles I created from scratch or largely re-wrote, and that is how I stumbled upon the name. I encourage the user to get a new user name, and join the NYCD wikiproject as well. I do hope an admin checks to make sure this user is not a banned user under a new name, the sophistication of the edits are quite above brand new editor. A person with conservative or Republican leanings can easily get in POV-pushing trouble in an with so many Democrats elected today and in history (and vice versa a Democrat-leaning editor on conservative articles! I'm living in Missouri now and I stay well away from the Republican politicians articles of this area on Wikipedia because as a NY Democrat I can not be impartial) so I do encourage the editor to be as impartial and always double check with either another editor or with the wording of NPOV and RS before editing politically based articles. A tendency some new editors fall into as a trap is a want to "neutralize" an article they believe is too "liberal" (or "conservative") and that it needs to be "balanced". A lot of times this results in POV-pushing, though unintended. Do I think this user is a "bad" editor? No. But the name has to be changed, it will bring undue scrutiny to the editor and a lack of AGF when editing certain topics. As Wnt points out, certain names bring attention to those who have a POV or will be a disruption; though this particular editor may not have the intention of disruption or POV-pushing, the name will bring attention and possible conflicts or offense to other editors. Imagine if Corpse were in a discussion about whether xy info should be on a liberal politician's article... a closing admin in an RfC might not take Corpse's legitimate points and views in to as high a consideration as they should otherwise have been taken because of a perceived bias or take the name as that of someone who has a POV-pushing agenda and is there to disrupt, and an RfC might swing one way or the other based on that admin's view of Corpse's name without even being consciously aware of it.Camelbinky (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Please be advised that Corpse was previously identified as the editor who created User:Barack Obama DA PREZ and check out that editor's response on the talk page with statements such as "I will be back" and "I will plague you forever". User:I am One of Many put this together back in July. I am sad no one did anything about Corpse after that information was revealed.Camelbinky (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Data on paid advocacy editing?

Hi, Jimbo and watchers. Is anybody here aware of any data on the extent of paid advocacy editing in Wikipedia? I'm asking because there are lots of hand-wavy arguments on both sides of the COI debate ("it's not really a problem" vs "it is huge and extensive problem") and there is nothing like data to help ground discussions in reality. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jytdog (talk • contribs) 16:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that paid advocacy editing is rarely flaunted, so data is not easy to come by. Can you suggest an experimental design that would give useful information? Looie496 (talk) 16:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I have no idea; I am not a data scientist and don't know what datamining tools exist nor how they could be used. Looie496, apparently you are not aware of any such data; thanks for letting me know. Am just looking for a "yes, you can find it at X" or "I don't know" or "it doesn't exist". Anybody else? thanks in advance!Jytdog (talk) 16:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Not to be too obvious, but there's some (incomplete) date here: Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia. WilyD 17:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, that is a good collection of anecdotes. Not data... what would be really compelling would be something like; "Y% of edits in a given day are tendentious, and X% of the tendentious edits made on a given day are made by paid advocates" with a brief description of how those numbers were reached. Knowing that Bell Pottinger accounts made ~1000 edits is pretty meaningless without having a sense of how extensive those edits were (adding a comma or deleting an article section?), what percentage of all edits that is over the time those edits were made, how long they persisted before they were corrected, etc. We have no COI policy and there are lots of people opposed to any new COI policy; If we want to get consensus to build something it would be very helpful to be able to bring credible evidence that paid advocacy is a significant problem, worth our time and worth compromising the fundamental principle of open-ness (which I think is what troubles most opponents of having a policy). It data doesn't exist, so be it. Jytdog (talk) 17:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
There was a study conducted between September 2012 and April 2013 that analyzed 100 randomly-selected Wikipedia articles about businesses. The research sought to determine if the creator of the article had a conflict of interest, and whether the article's heaviest contributor had a conflict of interest. (In many cases, the article creator was also its heaviest contributor.) I am sure that this study would be of great use to the Wikipedia community for review and critique purposes; however, the study was organized by a community-banned editor of English Wikipedia. Also, the highly granular results of the analysis did in fact "out" the real-life identities of many editors who did not publicly disclose themselves on Wikipedia. Therefore, how could this data possibly be shared on Wikipedia, when doing so would violate at least two policies (WP:BAN and WP:OUTING)? Which is more important to the Wikipedia community? Factual information, or adherence to rules that protect the Wikipedia groupthink? - 2001:558:1400:10:4024:ACA8:5451:B4BC (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Maybe the banned-editor could get the article published somewhere respectable and without outing anybody, so that the research could be of use to the community. Although, since the author got banned it is less likely that the analysis will be widely believed. Of course we need usable data - my question is very practical. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 18:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
There is a two-page PowerPoint topline summary of the results of the research located on MyWikiBiz, which is respectable enough that it has its own Wikipedia article. The topline summary contains no information that outs editors. The author is a rather respected researcher -- he is a director of research at a Fortune 50 corporation. Whether Wikipedians can "widely believe" the objective analysis is really their problem, not his. - 2001:558:1400:10:4024:ACA8:5451:B4BC (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! That is interesting. Not strong (pretty small N and not published in a reliable source) but more than anybody has brought so far. Thank you. Anybody else?? Jytdog (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

(EC) I don't think we have good data on anything involving paid editing or conflicts on Wikipedia, our data gathering systems have just not been set up for that. Paid editors don't volunteer this information and remain in the shadows, not because they've been forced there, but because they know it is wrong to put adverts into an encyclopedia that doesn't accept adverts. We've got a similar lack of data on many potential problems.

I'll suggest looking in certain categories, e.g. Category:Foreign exchange companies, where it looks to me like about half of the articles are poorly sourced and on subjects that are at best of marginal notability. While the writing style usually does not scream out "This is an advert" it also is not our usual encyclopedic style, and there is seldom any less-than-complimentary info included. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I once asked if there was a list of paid editors, and I was referred to the Wikipediocracy website and a list of over 400 paid editors. I was immediately advised that the linking to the list was not favored because of supposed outing concerns. As I've previously opined when this quantification subject has been raised elsewhere, I do not think that such data is available for the reasons Smallbones explains above. Coretheapple (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
The data is available. It's just that with Wikipedia's strict rules that protect anonymous, unpaid POV zealots as equally as inadvertent, paid POV editors, the research and discussion has to be done "off site". And even then, I suspect many Wikipedians would open the database only with their hands covering their eyes, except for just a thin slice of light between two fingers, repeatedly uttering Psalm 23 (or maybe the Creative Commons Notice) to protect their souls from what they are about to do -- GASP! -- expose themselves to publicly-available information about other human beings! The HORROR! - 2001:558:1400:10:4024:ACA8:5451:B4BC (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, still just looking for "yes, here"; "no"; "i don't know" as to whether there is data. "i've looked hard and found nothing" is a great answer too. if there is really no data and nobody has any idea how big or small of a problem this is, then we all should make our arguments a bit more carefully, and should respect those who say things like "there is no evidence that this is worth my time". i currently have no answer for that, which is a bummer. Still very interested in hearing what folks know! Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Not having structured data on a question is far from "nobody has any idea" on the extent of the problem. I'll give another example, Category:Investment management companies of the United States, this one looks better than the FX category I noted above, but it looks like about 30% of the articles in the category are for pretty questionable companies with very little real info given on them beyond hand-waving and feel-good statements. So if somebody wants to check info on an investment manager (perhaps to deal with their life savings), the info they get here is likely to be positively dangerous. Do we want that?
The argument about "is this worth our time?" works better in the other direction. It may not be worth any editor's time, as an individual to seek out good information on these hidden advertisers, so the best use of our time collectively is to just say something like "We can't properly check information on small investment managers and non-listed companies, so we just won't have articles on them anymore. No big loss to anybody." Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
More anecdotes. Everybody can bring anecdotes and everybody can make handwavy arguments. Not helpful, unless you are singing to the choir. If you want to gain consensus (which is necessary to make a change; no consensus to change means the status quo stays), then you have to sing to the congregation. No, you need to try to really speak with folks on the other side of the issue. And you cannot bring handwavy bullshit to that conversation. You can argue from facts, and you can argue from principles. Bullshit (speech intended to persuade, without regard for truth) gets you nowhere with folks who think differently, other than into a stupid screaming match. Hence my request for data. For information, reliably sourced. You know what I mean. My sense is that there is no data. I have looked, and found none, by the way. Thanks everybody who replied! 21:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
That's a somewhat nasty way of responding. Look, you asked for data, there plainly is no data, and then you get huffy when people point that out and try in good faith to respond to your question best they can. Not helpful, not at all, not constructive, not in the slightest. There was nothing in Smallbones' response (or anybody's response) that was "bullshit" or "handwavy,' whatever that means. Totally unecessary to use that kind of language. Coretheapple (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I am ignorant. I asked for information. I got bullshit. Said thanks anyway, and meant it, as it was a well-intentioned offering of bullshit. I am sorry you cannot recognize it; the road to hell is paved with that stuff.Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
And I'll add one more time that there is data. When it was offered directly to Jytdog, his response was "I'm not a data guy". Please stop saying there is no data, when you haven't even looked at the data offered. - 2001:558:1400:10:4024:ACA8:5451:B4BC (talk) 22:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Dear unhappy numerical editor. I want something we all can rely on in this discussion about paid advocacy. Something usable. So the data (and analysis) needs to be published in a reliable source. I also noted that this data set is not published and the N is pretty small. It is weak. I wouldn't use it to source content in Wikipedia and I sure as hell will not rely on it much in a discussion about \ changing policy, in which we all want to be certain we are looking at reality as best we can, as we talk. I did thank you and noted this is the best thing yet.Jytdog (talk) 23:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Uh no. I don't think you are ignorant, and I don't see how you can be even the slightest bit surprised by the kind of responses that you received. Using inflammatory words like "bullshit" and other derogatory expressions in such a situation strikes me as needlessly, even deliberately inflammatory. As a matter of fact, you invited me into this conversation[38], even though I had previously told you in another discussion that there was no data and that no such data was possible.[39] Did you think that I had pulled some data out of my hat in the five days since I had previously addressed this topic? Coretheapple (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
"Ignorant" is not a curse word - it just means you don't know stuff. Everybody is ignorant about some things; there is no end to learning. I am waaaaaaaaaay ignorant on data analysis in Wikipedia which is why I came here and opened a thread, which I have never done before. On the other thing: "bullshit", Core, is "speech intended to persuade, without regard for truth" It's an important category. Why can people just not say "I don't know" when that is the truth, and why instead do they try to fill the void with handwavy bullshit? I don't know, that is for sure.Jytdog (talk) 22:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Just really inappropriate and disruptive to use that kind of language with people who have grappled with a very real issue. Saying that they are spewing "bullshit" because they don't have "data" to back them up is indeed an incredibly ignorant statement, so I'll agree with you to that extent. Coretheapple (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
@Jytdog. In RL, if you and I were talking and you started to call my participation in the discussion "hand-wavy bullshit" and "ignorant" we would have a problem. Most likely, I would turn away and not have any further discussion with you. Not now...on this subject...and not later on any other subject. Ive seen this happen to you before where your intentions are good and forwarding but your language choices suck. I don't expect to persuade you nor do I want to discuss this further. I'm only trying to inform you of how it appears. ```Buster Seven Talk 23:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
On the one hand that is very kind of you to give me advice. Thank you; I can be too harsh. On the other hand, there is way too much bullshit flying around here. And finally, the only person i called "ignorant" was me. Thank you again for your kind advice. I do need to be sweeter! Jytdog (talk) 23:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I've been collecting data on the actions of paid advocates, but extent is a different issue. As a general rule, you can't tell if an editor is paid or not - there are giveaways in some cases, but if you pick 100 random editors there is no means of telling with confidence which of those editors are not paid advocates. So any study looking at quantity or extent is going to be impossible.
What you can do is work in the other direction - identify job ads, and then follow the edits made by paid advocates. This I've done. The problem is that it limits the research to a subset of paid advocates - those who are hired through the online freelancer sites. Full-time PR professionals fall outside of the scope, because they won't be answering the job ads. It does, however, provide reasonable data on types of articles, edits, and what happens to the edits over time. - Bilby (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh! Thanks!! This is very interesting. What are you going to do (or what have you done?) with this data?? Please say you are going to publish it somewhere so it can be used as a reliable source!Jytdog (talk) 22:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I've delayed writing it up, as I only ran a pilot. I have to get back to this - now that the teaching year is (finally) over I might be able to do something on-wiki, at least. Otherwise, what I should probably do is run a full study. - Bilby (talk) 23:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
This would be useful information, but more for enforcement and oversight purposes than ascertaining the extent of paid editing. It will not help in filling in the blanks of what you say at the top: "Y% of edits in a given day are tendentious, and X% of the tendentious edits made on a given day are made by paid advocates". That information is simply not available, as this is a nondisclosed practice. Coretheapple (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
The most we can do is say that of X articles created over a period, Y% have been identified as being by paid advocates. This isn't completely useless, but the figures will be substantially lower than the actual numbers. From my end, what it did was provide a model for tracking paid advocates, which, as you say, is best for enforcement, but it can give meaningful quantifiable data on types of edits and editing practices. - Bilby (talk) 23:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
You might want to check with the developers of WP:STiki, which is an online tool that does a very good job of rooting out COI edits. However, what that tool locates are "apparent" COI edits, based on the language they use in creating the articles. Very few editors openly identify themselves as having a COI in creating articles. That can be surmised sometimes by the identity of the user creating the article. For instance User:AcmeFinanceCompany creating Acme Finance Company. I guess that would fall under the category of "paid editor" in a broad sense. But doing so as a proxy for paid editing is going to result in a substantial underestimate. We've seen situations in which experienced editors are paid to edit or create articles, and they do not disclose it. And no, pointing this out is not "bullshit," it is the reality of paid editing and is the problem that the Foundation will be addressing, according to Jimbo's recent post. Coretheapple (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Just saw this. VERY helpful to point out STiki; thank you. asking them now. Jytdog (talk) 23:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I asked at STiki and they basically said, "go away". bummer. Jytdog (talk) 14:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
STiki just referred me to the COIbot, where I have also posted an inquiry. Jytdog (talk) 16:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I was actually addressing that comment to Bilby, as I think that if he contacts the developer of STiki it might help him in his research. Perhaps, if they work together, and if that interests them, they can come up with a tool or a methodology to detect paid editing. But the purpose would be just to pluck the low-hanging fruit. Current policy permits nondisclosed paid editing, which is inherently undetectable. Coretheapple (talk) 18:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think everybody should calm down, but it is very clear that Jtydog is not a "data guy" because he is asking for data that is very unlikely to exist in solid form and then trying to draw conclusions from that. Simply not possible to draw any conclusions here from or about non-existent data. Consider data on "unreported rapes." You can actually get estimates on this and probably have been able to get these estimates for the last 40 or 50 years, but you have to understand that they are just people's best guesses. If you want a national report of documented cases of unreported rape, you're just not asking the right questions. Similarly, you might be concerned about the importance of the Higgs Boson because there has only been one probable sighting of one (and it was really tiny!). Well it's obvious that statistics don't mean very much on this - theory and first principles matter here.

The lack of data on important questions is nothing new - it happens all the time. The first things to do are to 1) figure out why the data would be important; 2) come up with some rough estimates to enable you to consider whether the problem is important; 3) come up with some theory or model that would allow you to collect relevant data and test some hypothesis (we've probably not gotten this far); and finally 4) collect the data and test the hypothesis. This isn't always easy, and just as you can't always make decisions based on hard facts, you can't always decide questions based on good statistics. Sometimes you have to go with first principles, sometimes you have to go with rough estimates. I've given you first principles - advertising in Wikipedia is lying to our readers and stealing from the Foundation. I've given you some rough estimates - about 50% of our articles on FX companies are advertising and about 30% or our articles on Investment management companies are advertising. Now please tell me what kind of data do you need to make a decision, how we can gather it, and how long you want to wait before making a decision. Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Bilby please do let us know what you plan to do with the data. Thanks! Smallbones, you misunderstand me. As I started out saying, some say "this is a huge problem - paid advocacy is rampant and everywhere" and others say "this is not a widespread problem" and this all reeks of bullshit and so I came here asking about facts; does anybody know the extent? I have learned one thing. Nobody who has commented yet is aware of any data on the extent or impact of paid advocacy that we (the community) can use; that is published in a reliable source. That is it. It seems reasonable that it doesn't exist due to the difficulty of getting data, as you all have said. It seems most likely that everybody who talks about the extent or lack thereof are bullshitting. You in particular Smallbones have said you have no data. Your "rough estimates" have no value in any discussion; they are bullshit. Nobody has a reason to believe they are in ballpark of the right answer, or are on the moon. Yes of course, lacking data we argue from principle, as I mentioned away above. Now, for what it is worth, I wish you, Smallbones, and Core, would pipe down and let other people answer who may have new information. Neither of you have said anything except "I don't know", using far too many words, and I at least heard you the first time. Where is Bilby already? Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Nobody is impinging on your effort to obtain the unobtainable, and obviously there isn't a force on this planet that is going to prevent you from calling other people's posts "bullshit" since you seem enamored of the term. But let's be clear on something. The extensiveness or non-extensiveness of paid editing has not been a factor in the discussion of paid editing. Indeed, both sides say that it is widespread. Supporters say "it is widespread so it has to be accepted." Opponent say "it is widespread so it has to be wiped out." This is a red herring, really tangential to this issue. Coretheapple (talk) 23:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Some possible sources worth examining and/or contacting their authors to find out if more data (or access to data) could illuminate this discussion:
I've had a look at the public database that was mentioned above by User:2001:558:1400:10:4024:ACA8:5451:B4BC. It is excellent in its detailed investigative process that (in many cases, easily) uncloaked editors with a self-benefiting conflict-of-interest. It would appear that upwards of 25% or 30% of Wikipedia articles about businesses either had a creator or top contributor with a conflict of interest. N=100 may not be enough data to assert a definitive incidence, but it's certainly enough to say with confidence that the problem affects somewhere between 18% and 33% of Wikipedia articles about businesses, for example. I encourage everyone to explore the database, which was easily found two links deep from this wiki page. - Stylecustom (talk) 23:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
thanks for the published articles! No thanks to your OR, however. That database is poison til somebody publishes a paper on it.Jytdog (talk) 23:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Why is that? We can do in house studies for our own purposes, we just can't write articles based on that. But if we need to find out if welcoming users benefits the project, we can do it, and we can make recommendations based on it. Nothing wrong with studying our problems on the project. original research policy only prohibits inclusion of original research in articles. --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate the posting of those studies, but in perusing the first one I found a serious inaccuracy. It says "Dating back to at least 2006, Wikipedia has had a policy against editing Wikipedia when there is a conflict of interest (COI) such as working in public relations. 'COI editing is strongly discouraged. It risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals and groups being promoted' (Wikipedia:Conflict of interest,2013,para 2)." The author of this article conflates a Wikipedia "policy" with a "guideline." That's an important distinction, one that I would expect to be understood by someone carrying out a study on the subject. This error undermines the entire study. Coretheapple (talk) 00:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi User:TeaDrinker. Interesting point but a) the database is poisoned fruit of a poisoned tree (creating editor was banned for doing it); b) i would guess that projects such as those you discuss are created as part of the Bigger Work of WIkipedia, and the data collection and analysis is gathered by amicable parties working toward some shared goal. on the contrary, the debate over whether to have a paid advocacy policy is heated and there is a lot of smoke getting blown around. I started this thread hoping to obtain some facts, supported by reliable sources, to help ground the debate (at least about extent of the problem). I would reach only for the most reliable, trustworthy-by-all-sides sources to do that - sources everybody could agree reflected reality and were reliable. I don't think this would fly. If somebody else wanted to try, however, more power to them! Jytdog (talk)

There's really no way to come up with solid data on this without knowing (a) who is at the keyboard making x edits to N articles (with N presumably being a number much bigger than 100, since that seems too low for you), and (b) knowing the motivations of those people at the keyboards. With that in mind, perhaps you would be better off directing your inquiry to the NSA, which might perhaps be more likely to know about (a) and (b) than are the casual readers of this page. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 01:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

just looking for information, User:SB_Johnny. Jytdog (talk) 01:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Stylecustom the PR agency survey article is super helpful, thank you thank you! just finished reading it. while i hear Core that there are some boners, overall it is a boatload of data. Great big picture data that both sides can find support in. (reality, as usual, is messy) (for example, PR professionals find Wikipedia's guidance on clear, unclearon how they should behave. part of that is that all we have is a "guideline"; on the other anti-side; PR professionals find it hard to get articles created and found that big factual errors can remain for a long time). Super interesting. Likewise the article from the danish group is cool but not so helpful. But COOL. Especially their website with the database of their results. Core, check out this page on BP! The best thing is the intro section of the article, which cites several reviews that look very helpful. There is stuff here to work with. Most helpful post so far! Need to think about the useful way to use these. Some kind of discussion aiming at understanding what these articles can teach us, and then possibly moving toward what is the most appropriate policy response. Not sure how to do that. But am happy. Jytdog (talk) 01:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC) (fixed typo Jytdog (talk) 02:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC))

I'm just off to a meeting, but quickly - the DiStaso paper was interesting, but suffered from significant problems with the methodology. I found it good as an overview of some of the issues, but the statistical results can't be taken to be particularly meaningful. - Bilby (talk) 02:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Do come back and say what you are doing with your research! Jytdog (talk) 02:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
As a quick summary, I ran an 5 month ethnography collecting job advertisements on the major freelancer websites for Wikipedia editing. Each job was separated into those for which I could identify the target article/s without knowing the account of the editor contracted and by relying only on publicly accessible data, (to avoid biasing the data to contractors who are bad at hiding their identity), and those I could not. I then followed the progress of the advertisements in the first group, noted the person hired (if someone was), and then tracked what happened to the articles. I recorded types of jobs (article creation, addition of links, votes at AfD, etc), status of the article before the job was placed (previously deleted, new article, etc), amount paid, success rate, if the edits were identified as problematic, what happened to the articles after editing, if the editor was identified as a paid editor, and general information about the editor (established or not, auto-confirmed, etc). Then I categorised and evaluated the edits. I ended up with 130 job ads over the five months that fitted the criteria, and about 60 paid editors. Note that the sample is necessarily a very small subset, as the methodology was intended to reduce the impact of selection bias, so the numbers are much lower than what I would have got if I used a more open methodology.
The sample period was intended to be six months, but as it was an ethnography I defined early exit conditions where the interests of WP would outweigh the value of collecting data, and one of those was met a month early. I can't go into the nature of the issue, but it was sent to ArbCom at the time.
I started writing this up, but as this was a pilot to be used to look at a full study, I haven't completed it. A full study would be more exhaustive in identifying advertisements and would use a longer sample period. What I did do was use this to write trial software to assist with tracking paid editing, which I use, but as it has an extremely high risk of outing I'm unable to allow anyone else to access it - I use it to identify the worst problems and address them, but I can't risk the software being used to contravene any of WP's policies. I can speak to the data from the new software, if it has anything useful, but noting that it is a tool for identification of problems rather than a tool to collect research data. - Bilby (talk) 04:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
This is quite mysterious. You've written third-party software that has a high risk of outing WP editors? Are you saying you've found some kind of security hole in the site? It seems to me that your code of ethics has the primary effect of setting yourself up as a permanently indispensable expert, which I suppose puts it squarely in line with what we expect from other such codes as in medicine. Wnt (talk) 07:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
The outing comes from cross-referencing. If you identify accounts on the freelance sites, and then connect those accounts to editors on Wikipedia, (based on publicly available data - you don't need to use anything that is not provided by the sites and Wikipedia), the inherent problem is that you will, by default, also connect editors with personal information about their real-life identities. So because the software cross references clients, jobs, contractors, articles and editors, it allows for the outing of editors. Even without the db and software, though, those who follow the job ads will be making the same connections - I presume that the other editors who follow them also make the same connections, and similarly don't release the information here. My concern has been that we can't risk outing editors, as the harassment policy takes precedence over the COI guideline. - Bilby (talk) 10:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks very much Bilby! Is this part of some larger project, that you are working within? Is there someplace in Wikipedia where you can post data and analysis and are you discussing this elsewhere? Thank you for this valuable work and for discussing it here! Jytdog (talk) 13:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Alas, what is being asked for here is data about two groups combined together. The first group follows the rules and is happy to self-identify. The second group breaks the rules and does everything they can to stay hidden. Every estimate of the size of the latter group only identifies those who are bad at hiding. Nobody has come up with a methodology for estimating how many are good at hiding. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in! Just trying to find out what we know and what we don't, to try to cut through all the BS about "extent of the problem" that both sides throw around.Jytdog (talk)

Well, you have a variety of data now. Bilby had no problem finding a fairly large sample of paid editors to study. Marcia W. DiStaso, despite her obvious biases, working with CREWE and the PR industry and surveying PR professionals who are highly likely to want to make the PR business look good, gives several revealing numbers:

  • "I feel that it’s common public relations/communications practice to edit a company or client’s Wikipedia articles." 61.1% of her biased sample agree or strongly agree with this statement, vs. only 15.1% who disagree or strongly disagree. While it is only an opinion survey, I think we can conclude that PR people commonly edit a company's article.
  • 28% of respondents say that their company's or client's articles were started by the company (or hired hands), and 2% went through articles for creation. 71% didn't know. The 28% looks like a very solid minimum number - why would anybody say that they started an article on their company, when they didn't or didn't know? It also doesn't consider how manye PR folks edit after the articles are created.
  • "during a crisis 45% of respondents indicated they monitored Wikipedia daily (n=194) and 23% monitored it hourly (n=97)." That is, when bad news hits the company (a crisis) 68% of PR professionals are watching their Wikipedia article at least daily. They are highly unlikely to be exaggerating this behavior, because it suggests that they might be changing the article, or hectoring on the talk page, or other ownership-type behavior.

You've got my estimates on the number of ads in 2 categories (30-50%) - which you so rudely dismissed as bullshit.

There are other important numbers you should consider as well:

  • 1 - the number of administrators who proudly proclaimed on this page last week that they don't see any problem with being a paid editor at the same time they are Wikipedia administrators
  • 2 - the number of Wikipedia-PR firms (Wiki-PR and WikiExperts) who have been community banned recently, who are still advertising that they can place articles into Wikipedia while still following all of our rules. (Bizarre, but true)
  • Every 3-6 months, how often a major scandal appears in the newspapers on another company breaking our COI rules.

Given these numbers, and just a touch of judgement on your part, there is no way that you can conclude that commercial/PR/COI editing is not a serious problem. Ignorance is nothing to be ashamed of, but intentional ignorance is. Smallbones(smalltalk) 05:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Smallbones, Thank you for gathering the results so far. That is very useful. Why are those actual numbers not part of the conversation (I note that your category "the number of administrators who proudly proclaimed..." is lacking an actual number - there are 1,424 admins (from Wikipedia:Statistics) - what percentage is that?) (also for the category, number of WIkipedia-PR firms.. do you happen to know how many there are that have not gotten into trouble (yet)?)
I am sorry you were offended by my describing your number of ads in 2 categories (30-50%) as bullshit. Let me spell it out more... You have been very active in trying to get a COI policy in place (for which efforts I am grateful). Your description of your methodology - saying you looked at some articles and judged them as advertisements - makes it look pretty subjective. That, on top of your advocacy on this subject, makes it appear to me that anybody on the "oppose" side is not going to find your numbers very compelling. I want a COI policy, and I don't find it compelling. (by the way, it would have more productive of me to ask you more about your methods and the actual numbers; I will do so below so you have space to lay it out, if you like.)
If we want to make arguments that COI editing is indeed widespread and having a serious impact on WIkipedia, we need strong data. Data that even opponents find compelling. Can you not see that your values are coloring your descriptions? Above you write 'Bilby had no problem finding a fairly large sample of paid editors to study." "fairly large"? He found 60. Is that "large" or "small"? There are 126,744 active, registered users (from Wikipedia:Statistics). 60 is .05% of active, registered users. I didn't know this before this morning. But this is the kind of data i came here looking for. Now one can argue that .05% is still way too extensive, but do you see how the argument changes now?
What percentage of the articles, edits, users, and content, is created by paid advocates? What percentage is created by tendentious editors, and what percentage of tendentious edits are by paid advocates? Another important set of numbers -- what is the perception of Wikipedia's reliability in the public and among those who fund us? How are those perceptions changed by breaking stories of paid advocacy? How enduring are those changes?
I still think these are the key statistics that anybody would find useful for understanding the extent of the problem. Lacking such numbers, perception of extent is the product of values and ideology. People who believe paid advocating is a bad bad thing see it is pervasive and important; people who do believe it is not a bad bad thing see it is not so pervasive - they see other problems (the ones they value) as being much more pervasive. But as far as I can see - even after inquiring here - strong statements about extent are bullshit - speech intended to persuade without regard for truth -- driven first by values and ideology - not by a solid grasp of reality. To be super clear, a philosopher named Harry Frankfurt wrote a great little book called "On Bullshit" that defines bullshit as I used it above; he had noted that our society is awash in it, and made an inquiry into what it is and how it functions. He then wrote a companion book called "On Truth". His bottom line -- if you want to make the world a better place, see it clearly first. Describe it clearly. Then decide what is needed to fix it. Then do it. I have written many times in the discussions on policy proposals and on my userpage that we need a COI policy and it is crazy that we don't have one. My reasoning for that is based on principles; I have never made arguments based on "extent" and I have been troubled by the arguments about extent on both sides. What I self-stated I am ignorant about, is quantitative information about extent and impact. I have said "thank you" several times on this page to all those who have posted here. I am still trying to get my head around "extent". I still think it is mostly true that nobody knows the extent of the problem. I think therefore that arguments for and against having a COI policy based on extent are - please hear me now - very unproductive at this time with respect to the goal of getting a COI policy in place. As I wrote above, I am thinking of starting a project of editors for and against a COI policy to study what literature there is, to try to understand together what we can about extent-of-the-problem, and produce some high-level numbers that can be relied on in a conversation about what policy we need. Thanks again, everybody. Jytdog (talk) 13:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Smallbones, can you please lay out more information on your claim that "about 50% of our articles on FX companies are advertising and about 30% or our articles on Investment management companies are advertising"? Can you please make it as quantitative as possible? Thank you. I am sorry I didn't ask for more detail earlier. Jytdog (talk) 13:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I posted my initial question in response to a question from someone who opposes putting a COI policy in place. The question was basically (I am paraphrasing): "A COI policy that bans paid advocates from directly editing articles runs counter to our fundamental values of allowing anyone to edit, and focusing on content, not contributor. Please show me that the problem of paid advocacy is important enough - pervasive enough - to justify putting a policy in place that is counter to those two fundamental values. Is it is a real problem, or is it a problem only in the minds of the policy's proponents?" This was posed to me as a real question and I believe it is asked, and importantly can be asked, from a good faith, principled stance. I think this is really the core, gut stance of good faith opponents. I don't have a good answer. I wish I did. I can argue and am arguing based on principle, but that doesn't actually answer the question. Jytdog (talk) 14:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
You are really getting tiresome on this nonsense. Your original post seemed to be aiming at making the completely fallacious argument that we don't have perfect data from paid editors on their paid editing, so we can't make a rational decision. If it will take a census of undeclared paid editors to convince you that there is a problem with PR/paid editors here then you are just asking us to wait forever to take any action. Pure sophistry - or to put it in your terms, bullshit. At best, you appear not to know anything about the use of data and statistics. I'll just end by repeating 2 numbers from above that should convince anybody that there is a problem:
  • 28% of DiStaso's PR industry respondents say that their company's or client's articles were started by the company (or hired hands), and 2% went through articles for creation. 71% didn't know. The 28% looks like a very solid minimum number - why would anybody say that they started an article on their company, when they didn't or didn't know? It also doesn't consider how many PR folks edit after the articles are created.
  • Every 3-6 months a major scandal appears in the newspapers on another company breaking our COI rules.
I'm sure you've heard the definition "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result." If we don't change what we do regarding PR/commercial/paid editors, we're going to get the same results. That's a problem. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I am 100% with you there. We have also failed (apparently for 8 years now, despite repeated attempts) to get a COI policy in place. Which suggests that we need to think about new ways to try to reach consensus.Jytdog (talk) 20:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Give us a break

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Does anyone else detect an ulterior motive in Jytdog's manhandling this discussion? Calling responses 'BS' and telling others to "pipe down" when they're trying to respond to his equivocations... I can't quite tell if he's that obtuse and socially awkward so as not to recognize how offensive his comments above are, or if he's intentionally dismissing others' efforts explaining why the initial question is more complicated than yes, no or i dont know. Full disclosure: I have some experience with his odd conversational practices at Monsanto/GMO articles, where he often comes across variously as a PR shill or naive intern. (fwiw I think he's somewhere in the middle, working for a university which gets funding from Monsanto.) Maybe it's more than one person. El duderino (abides) 06:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

This is really ugly.Jytdog (talk) 13:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
And I just want to point here, the danger of sloppy thinking and, well, cruelty, around COI. I have been harassed in the past over accusations of COI. After posting his remarks above User:El_duderino canvassed some of those who accused me and some others: Difs: this and this and this and this. Really, really ugly. Jytdog (talk) 13:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
The obviously intentional and repeated use of the 'BS' term in the thread does stand out as seeming defacto WP:BAIT. Last July and August I had interactions on my Talk page with Jytdog that I found deeply unpleasant. Indeed, I walked away from a couple comments rather than continue to parse their wording. The politely confrontational yet aggressively disputatious nature of this person seemed clear to me at the time. What motive there can be for gratuitously tossing expletives around on the high profile venue here, the Founder's Talk page, is not so clear. Your theories El Duderino are as good as any, and I'd concur that their "odd conversational practices" at the Montsanto/GMO articles are of still further interest. Jusdafax 07:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
This is just ugly. Jytdog (talk) 13:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, your behaviour has indeed been "ugly" as you call it. How do you intend to change this ugliness into something beneficial to the project and its editors? ES&L 13:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I am sorry you see it that way. I came here to trying to get solid information on the extent of paid advocacy - real data would indeed benefit the project. Bullshit does not. That's all. Jytdog (talk) 13:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the previous editors that while there's some value in looking at the pervasiveness of paid editing (however defined), it is almost impossible to measure definitively, and that your approach to this has been needlessly aggressive, insulting, and disruptive. Having encountered similar tactics on your part in other articles, however, I am not at all surprised. Coretheapple (talk) 15:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Another editor took this to the Administrator's Noticeboard yesterday, after an insulting comment directed at me and another editor, and I stepped in to ask that it be dropped. I'm still not in favor of letting his disruptive acts result in yet more drama, but his repeated and deliberate baiting and insults is starting to cross the line. He needs to stop. Coretheapple (talk) 15:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
If this discussion were a horse, we'd have to shoot it. On the other hand, that might not stop the horse flogging. Nobody's making anybody participate, so any angst suffered here by continuing it is self-inflicted. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree that this entire "data" discussion has been a waste of time, a red herring based on the false premise that there are people arguing that "there isn't much paid editing going on so it isn't a problem." I haven't heard anyone make that point. On the contrary, even supporters of paid editing say it is widespread, and use it as a reason for arguing in favor of acceptance of it rather than banning. Opponents believe it should be banned no matter how widespread or infrequent it is. In short, this is an utter waste of time, and if this entire section is hatted it would not be a bad idea at all. Coretheapple (talk) 17:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Core you are not listening to opponents. Here are some samples, from people who !voted "oppose" on the actual discussions:
  • "This proposal ignores the advocacy that is much, much more common, and has in fact been the subject of innumerable disputes on this project, far more so than paid advocacy has been."
  • "Also, we have bigger problems than this, even when I realize that this RfC comes as a follow-up to the Morning277 drama."
  • "Not personally a fan of paid editing, but it's not the big problem. The problem is poorly sourced articles about non-notable topics"
  • "The vast majority of POV+COI issues, and the most egregious, involve emotional, sexual, familial, racial, etc. fulfillment rather than financial."
  • "I find there are a vast number of individual with strong feelings for and against every entity, practice, thinking... almost ANYTHING. Few of those POV problems are due to financial interest. Most are due to emotional interest."

There are many more, this was just a quick grab. Lots of opposers do not see paid advocacy as a significant problem; they see other problems (usually advocacy in general) as more extensive and pervasive. They don't know this is true (nobody knows, as we have no data). Their opposition on that basis is handwavy BS; just as support on the basis that paid advocacy is an extensive problem is handwavy BS. Jytdog (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

It is true that these measures keep getting shouted down, but we don't really know how much influence the non-disclosed paid editors and groups have in that, though then again others argue that the people complaining are the small focus group. This is the kind of question I would like to see put to a random jury to get a non-self-selected sense of overall community opinion. Wnt (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
@Jytdog: What you're doing is embarking on a "mission" that is bound to fail, with a built-in and fallacious assumption that the presence or absence of data on prevalence is important, and that "if the data does not exist, the whole problem may not be as bad as people say it is." In other words, you're using a strawman argument with a preordained conclusion - that paid editing is not a serious problem - because you know perfectly well that there is no data illustrating the pervasiveness of paid editing because it is not disclosed. Indeed, the lack of disclosure, which makes it impossible to measure, is part of the problem. When you throw in the "bullshit" rhetoric and insults that have characterized your whole approach, the sum total is disruptive and unconstructive.Coretheapple (talk) 19:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Core. I am sorry you don't understand my question. If you ask me I would be happy to explain. I don't understand why you are saying I am being disruptive; I have no intention to be disruptive and do not believe I am. I am also not sure, what you think I am disrupting, exactly. Would you please explain? thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Several editors have explained how you're wasting everybody's time, and I just did for at least the second time. This really is tiresome. Coretheapple (talk) 19:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
If you feel your time is wasted interacting with me, I am sorry about that. I came here to try to get some information and I appreciate your efforts to provide some. Some of the interactions here have been fruitful, and I am grateful for that. You asked why some of the answers were not useful and I tried to answer. I don't believe you understand the problems I am trying to address. That is unfortunate. Jytdog (talk) 19:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
OK, forget about what I've said. Here is what SBJohnny said in response to your query: "There's really no way to come up with solid data on this without knowing (a) who is at the keyboard making x edits to N articles (with N presumably being a number much bigger than 100, since that seems too low for you), and (b) knowing the motivations of those people at the keyboards. With that in mind, perhaps you would be better off directing your inquiry to the NSA, which might perhaps be more likely to know about (a) and (b) than are the casual readers of this page." Variations on this basic point has been repeatedly pointed out to you. Coretheapple (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_148&oldid=1091516054"