Wikipedia talk:Paid editing (guideline)

Archive of old discussion

Opposition

Per Jimbo, the use of pay for article editing is now specifically barred as a matter of WP policy. Absent any consensus to the contrary, that policy remains in force. Placing any essay of proposed policy into WP-speace is therefore quite unhelpful, as it might lead some to misconstrue the vigor of Jimbo's position. When and if a "paypedia" is established, then such an essay might have some utility. "It is not ok with me that anyone ever set up a service selling their services as a Wikipedia editor, administrator, bureaucrat, etc. I will personally block any cases that I am shown. There are of course some possibly interesting alternatives, not particularly relevant here, but the idea that we should ever accept paid advocates directly editing Wikipedia is not ever going to be ok. Consider this to be policy as of right now." seems on its face to be rather dispositive of the ill-named "paid editing." Collect (talk) 15:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The lengthy discussion at Wikipedia:RFC/PAID certainly showed no consensus for encouraging paid editing, or for a new how-to guidebook for paid editors. This page should be deleted and discussion continued at Wikipedia:RFC/PAID until there is consensus for a change (not likely at this point). Priyanath ^talk 17:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo specifically distinguishes paid advocacy from paid editing, as does this page. This page is intended to represent the status quo, not any change in policy; merely an informational summary of existing policy. If you believe the page misrepresents the status quo in some way, or is not "vigorous" enough, I invite you to modify it. Dcoetzee 17:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Advocacy, paid or otherwise, remains a no-no. However I've see quite a few cases of people whose bosses told them to "fix the slander". I also invite you to consider that forbidding someone to be paid to edit is rather unenforcible unless they tell you or you find out. And even then I think you need to look at it as to what are the actual contributions. If you want to step another bit into the theoretical Wikipedia is quite classist in who even has the opportunity to read, let alone edit. P.S. Dcoetzee, maybe add the bounty board to this mess - I've never liked it as to officially endorse hand-picked articles being rewarded, that seems a tad elitist as well. -- Banjeboi 17:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most violations of anything are "unenforceable" if they remain latent (heck -- even including murder for that matter). The issue, however, is whether any page presenting itself as a potential policy ought to be contrary to what is the now-stated policy of WP. I suggest that it is not wise to do so. Collect (talk) 19:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may be overlooking the salient point that Jimbo decreed a pox on paid advocacy which is only one form of paid writing. I'm sure many confuse the two so as mentioned in the thread below that may need to be clearly defined that advocacy of any kind is taboo. And frankly if Jimbo wants to say paid writing of any kind is forbidden I think we'd all have to think about how is that realistically going to work. I've seen many instances of it already. Personally I applaud the rough sentiment but still feel that no matter what policies are enacted there will be ways around policies found and exploited. For instance, it is perfectly within policy for a company to research and pay for the history of a product, the Foofidget, history of, developement of, etc.; post it to their website and give away permission via OTRS for wikipedia to have and in turn giveaway. Tada, existing policy thwarted with no evil intent whatsoever. I think it's much more imprtant to educate why it can be a flawed thing to do and offer assistance to avoid problems with ultimately getting better articles for our readers, who, after all, largely don't care who writes the stuff. -- Banjeboi 19:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"It is not ok with me that anyone ever set up a service selling their services as a Wikipedia editor, administrator, bureaucrat, etc. I will personally block any cases that I am shown." appears to be more than just "paid advocacy" as a matter of fact. It does not, to me, to be as a limited a ban as you seem to view it. Collect (talk) 19:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, that too however leaves wiggle room as someone might not be setting up a "service" per se but simply being compensated for essentially the same thing, no matter the circumstance. It should be clarified and since it's now being questioned also policified - we do write policies down presumably and not just remember what Jimbo said. This also doesn't solve any of the innumerable other issues of how to address that that aren't otherwise causing any problems except they are technically getting paid to volunteer here. What will happen to anyone who is already editing for compensation? Etc. -- Banjeboi 21:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Per Jimbo is deprecated - there is this little policy called WP:Consensus that even God-kings need to adhere to. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paid advocacy

That part probably needs some re-wording, since any advocacy that violates NPOV (regardless of motive) is of course inappropriate. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 17:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about that. Advocacy can mean so very many things. When we debate paid editing, for instance, some of us advocate one position while others advocate for another. If a non-profit believes that an article in its area of expertise violates Wikipedia's standards of inclusion, why should they be prevented from presenting their case in an AFD? They might be the most informed party in the discussion, and as long as they follow relevant policies and guidelines, I'd say they should be permitted to advocate to their heart's content. Yes, even paid employees in the course of their work. The encyclopedia would be the better for it.

Courts strive to high standards, much like Wikipedia; given complex situations, they try to determine factual truth, and determine reasonable outcomes. There is a clear role for paid advocates in a courtroom, but they are understood not to be the final decision-makers; that falls to a judge or a jury. The advocates' allegiance is known and fully transparent, but as officers of the court, they are also expected to adhere to a certain code of ethics. Isn't a model like that worthy of consideration? -Pete (talk) 03:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To that analogy there is an inherant inequality but no more than all the other stated weighted issues and allegiances. At an XfD everyone states their opinion and a concensus hopefully emerges. It would be good then to point out that editors paid to give opinions seems liek a really bad idea but likely should be permitted as long as there is no gaming going on. For instance, if a paid editor, whether anyone knows they are paid or not is the primary author of an AfD'd article we want them to participate so teh discussion is productive. Anyone meatpuppeting, however, will be blocked. -- Banjeboi 06:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Premature

This is, obviously, a controversial issue, so it is important that we get it right before we publish it. I suggest that this page be built in user space. It is premature to put it in Wikipedia project space because editors could mistake it for policy. The Nutshell box at the top substantially increases the likelihood of that mistake. An alternative is to label it an essay, which later could be promoted to a policy or guideline if it is adopted as such. Finell (talk) 20:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say label it a work in progress in some ways. Userfying seems counter-productive when clearly the time is come to formalize guidelines for those asking questions whatever the answers ultimately are. -- Banjeboi 21:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty much agree with the opposition, but on the RFC talk page encouraged this as a way to formulate a possible change in policy. The pro-paid side here is clearly asking for a change in policy, and they should have a place to formulate it with wide input. Maybe they should just be clearer at the top of the page that his is just a possible suggested policy change in progress.

Good luck in coming up with something that will be acceptable to a large majority of editors, but I doubt that it will happen. Smallbones (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Based on the RfC, there is nothing approaching consensus for the policy that's currently being proposed. But this apparently has to run its course. Priyanath ^talk 00:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've labelled it proposed to clarify it's not official. I'd also like to point out that whatever is ultimately decided or not this same guidelines can reflect NPOV. If it's policy not to then we state that; if there is no set policy one way or another, we state that. -- Banjeboi 06:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Economic Inequality?

What on earth does the "see also" Economic inequality have to do with paid editing? If nobody gives a satisfactory answer, I'll remove it within a reasonable time. Erich Mendacio (talk) 06:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is an underlying issue of classism here. Ths issue of paid editing should also address the systematic bias that there is economic disparity on who can even access Wikipedia let alone edit here. Economic inequality speaks to that reality. -- Banjeboi 07:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can edit here. The only barriers to entry are a computer and internet connection. Are you saying that sponsors will not only pay others to edit wikipedia but also will purchase the means to do so (computer/internet connection) for them? That evokes an image of a Chinese sweatshop with people laboring for 18 hours a day in a cramped room, all editing Wikipedia for their masters -- which indeed is not a good way to remedy economic inequality! Erich Mendacio (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]