Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Herostratus/Wikiproject Paid Editing Watch/Editor Registry

User:Herostratus/Wikiproject Paid Editing Watch/Editor Registry

The page appears to be used to target contributors for harassment for reasons that have nothing to do with policy. It does not assume good faith, nor demonstrate problems. It is part of a project not in line with Wikipedia policy. LauraHale (talk) 08:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a list of self identified paid editors this seems to be OK, however recently it seems to have a few added outside that category, such as socks and media people. I don't think this is harming John Vandenberg. The page should not pretend to be part of a wikiproject if it is not officially a part. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If a Wikipedia project maintaining a list of self identified paid editors is OK, then I suggest better instructions are written that clearly state the list is acceptable with regards to WP:NOTADVERTISING policy, and to what extend paid editors are allowed (or even encouraged) to publicize and market themselves as being listed on the Editor Registry. Thanks. Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 11:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Similar lists of editors on user pages have been deleted in the past. If it is part of a project then it should be in a project space. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The project isn't in project-space would be the issue. Silverseren^C 20:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think there's a way to fix this page so that it doesn't effectively serve to advertise paid editing services regardless of the language used describing the lists intended purpose. Rklawton (talk) 02:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, I think that deleting the page is not called for, and at any rate warrants quite a bit of discussion. I think a couple of key questions that we need to ask first are:
- Should paid agents declare their status?
- If yes, then how, and how is this information maintained?

As to the first, I think that a lot of people would would say "yes, that's a good idea". A lot of people of people would say "no, what for?" too, and AFAIK paid agents aren't required to do so. WP:PAY, which is a policy, says "it is advised" (not required) to do so. WP:PEW is only an essay, but is informed by and distills some results of various earlier discussions; it says "It is however been made by consensus that editors who are paid represent a clear conflict-of-interest and are strongly encouraged to state this on WP:COIN what articles they are being paid to edit and declare whom they are working for before doing so", with the phrase "strongly encouraged" in boldface. So the question is at least up in the air, I think, and unless and until we can get a clear consensus to write something like "paid agents need not and indeed probably should not disclose their status as such" written into a clear policy, then it's reasonable for at least some editors to desire and request that at least some paid agents self-declare.

As to the second, if paid agents are to self-declare, how is this to be done, and how is this information to be maintained and made available? Having thought about this a bit, some of the ways to do this are:

To oneself. That is, one must merely utter the phrase "I am a paid agent" to oneself while sitting at the keyboard and this would be sufficient. I would find this not very helpful and I expect many editors would agree.
Anywhere, at at any time, at least once. Following this criterion, self-declaring in an edit summary in 2004 would be full and sufficient declaration for all future edits. Reasonable people could support this I suppose, but of course getting the information would require each individual editor to sift through the entire edit history of the editor in question, which seems unnecessarily time consuming.
Secretly, to the Foundation. What good this would do for us editors is not clear, and anyway no mechanism for implementing this now exists or is likely to.
On their userpage. This is reasonable, and if the nominator is suggesting this she should say so. The problem with this is that is requires going to the person's userpage, and doesn't allow for any central listing (assuming that this is desirazble, discussed below). Of course "on one's userpage" can mean "buried on one's userpage" also as we're not going to police userpages for clarity. So I dunno. Maybe.
Via an icon or other marker attached to one's signature. The advantage is that one would know at once with whom one is dealing. The disadvantage is that there is no central store of this data -- no way of knowing, for instance, if there are currently four or hundred paid agents, what they are working on, and so forth. This could probably be taken care of with a bot that gathers the info into a list somewhere, so this alternative would be possibly OK, but 1) there is no such icon, and 2) anyway this does not address the objections outlined in the MfD, and 3) also annotation is not possible, see below.
Using a Category. But this is essentially similar to the current scheme, and does not address the objections outlined in the MfD. This would possibly be OK, but the problem with categories is that they don't allow for any annotation. One might wish for annotations such as "now retired" or "has worked on such-and-such articles" or any number of other things (including pointing to the evidence that the person is a paid agent, as the list currently allows for). And anyway there is no such category at present.

So, it'd be fine to talk about some alternative and work positively here, but just deleting the list, ah, I'm not sure that the nominator has thought this through. Herostratus (talk) 04:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the current COI RFC would be a good place to further discuss most of the points you raised. As for this specific case of listing Wikipedians, what about something in support of the "bright line" idea wherein editors recuse themselves from editing articles directly? Thanks. Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 10:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion The basic premise of this Misc for Deletion is erroneous. In no way does the page target contributors for harrassment. To say it does is an enormous assumption and stretch by the deletion requestor. Some paid editors, paid advocates and paid operatives have self-identified...to their credit. It is hoped that many more will chose to wear a Name Tag as they edit the articles pertaining to their field. Please provide diffs for instances of harrassment. Assuming good faith is also not an issue. AGF is not an anchor to prevent this type of list. Upon further thought, it could easily be said that this deletion request has the smell of Non-AGF. This page is one small aspect of a "bubbling" conversation that is taking place all over Wikipedia. It is not intended to harass: it should not be deleted. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Based on material on her userpage, it appears that the proposer, User:LauraHale, is editing under her real name (Laura Hale) and a quick search on that leads one to conclude that "reputation management" is an area of activity for her. I asked her (nicely!) if she might have a personal financial interest in this list not existing; no reply was given but she deleted the question, so I think that "yes" may be inferred. Assuming that's the case, we then have a situation where a person is involving themselves in Wikipedia governance issues in areas where they have a financial interest. I personally find this problematic and I'd like to see a wider discussion of whether this is even legitimate. It's one thing for an entity to hire people to 'manage their reputation' regarding individual articles; for better or worse this is considered acceptable. But for a entity to say (for instance) "Well, various newspapers have done exposés on my clients, therefore I will hire a number of persons to go on the Wikipedia and argue to change policy such that newspapers are not to be considered reliable sources anymore" would be step further, a step we are going down here, since this MfD is a governance issue. Would this be OK? I hope not, but if the community is OK with that then fine, but we need a clear consensus on this before moving further down this path, I think. Herostratus (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is appropriate for you to go looking up personal information on a Wikipedian to use in a discussion, regardless of them editing under their real name. Silverseren^C 15:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Laura was right to remove your comments without answering, as it is obvious trolling. If you wish to troll people, there are better ways of doing so. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 15:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Refusal to feed a troll should not be taken as an affirmative answer. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't agree, and I stand by and again raise my original question: is it OK for persons to attempt to affect Wikipedia governance (not articles) for reasons of personal financial gain (as appears to be the case here), or not? It's a simple question. Herostratus (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your assertion, couched only by "as appears to be the case here", is unproven and is an example of the problems that result when contributors (and their edits) are branded based on an assumption on their motivation, or broad generalisations, especially when that assumption is based on information obtained off Wikipedia. Please read user:LauraHale; look at the articles she has created or expanded. Find a problem with her edits before accusing her of misusing Wikipedia. By their edits, ye shall know them. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's see. Since "reputation management" is a big part of her professional skillset, I think it's reasonable to ask if this has anything to do with this nomination, which after all would have the effect of considerably smoothing the path for persons interested in pursuing a lucrative "reputation management" business right here at the Wikipedia. So I asked her. And I asked her nicely, to the effect of "I assume that this is not true, if you would just do the formality of confirming this that would be helpful." And she refused to answer. Well, I mean, what the heck are we supposed to infer from that? Do we have to pretend to be blind idiots in order to edit the Wikipedia? I'm not willing to do that and don't find it helpful.

And while I'm willing to grant that the editor has many good contributions, nobody gets a free pass to be corrupt or to deliberately corrupt Wikipedia governance for their own pecuniary or professional benefit, period. PERIOD. I don't, you don't, and she doesn't, and if she wants to deny that she's doing this let her do so. So far she hasn't.

All this secondary to the main question, which is whether the nomination has any merit. So far I haven't seen anything that indicates that it does. I'm willing to continue on this side issue if you like, but it doesn't help the main point. Herostratus (talk) 04:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the primary question. To what extent will editors be harassed and attacked by you by the existence of this list? That question is now answered. If you repeat such things about editors again, I'll report you myself and ask for a block. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 09:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to the extent that they're corrupt, I guess. No more, but no less. That's reasonable, right? Anyway, look, chilling threats aren't helpful here. We need to be able to at least discuss these issues. Right? The question on the table -- again, peripheral to the merits of the MfD, but interesting in its own right -- is very simple: should editors have standing to attempt to affect Wikipedia governance for their own personal professional/pecuniary benefit, or not? I get that your opinion is "yes, of course", but I don't see the matter is being settled, so it's something that we need to be able to discuss, I think. Herostratus (talk) 17:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]