Is "Paid Editing" the same as paid editing? I ask because a capitalized phrase doesn't always mean the same thing: some "Good Articles" are pretty horrible. (I see that someone's lowercased the "articles", adding to the ambiguity.) --NE2 19:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC is about if I pay you $100 to write an article. Good? Bad? Neither? rootology (C)(T) 19:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One item to consider (I'm mentioning it here because it's not directly related to the topic under discussion) is that, having given it serious thought, would one want a job writing articles for Wikipedia? My answer is "probably not": we all want to do the best job in any work-for-pay situation, & if I was paid to write an article on a given subject, I'd feel that unless I produced a Featured Article on the subject I was cheating the person paying me. There's too much pressure by adding a paycheck to do a good job on something I currently do for my own satisfaction on my own schedule. -- llywrch (talk) 20:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I wouldn't want the stress either. rootology (C)(T) 20:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was offered money to write the Larry Kramer article when I was just out of law school, behind three months on rent and very, very poor. I turned it down precisely because I didn't want the pressure. The article barely touches on his activism and concentrates on his writing, even though he is known (mostly) for his activism in the 1980's. Arguably, his activism had a far larger societal impact (he is credited with getting the FDA to fast-track approval for promising drugs). I wanted to write it without the "what does my patron think" worries. -->David Shankbone 20:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean to tell me that you needed money, where offered money to write an article, turned down the money, and wrote the article anyway!?!? Where do you people get your logic!? If you were gonna write the article eiher way, you should have at least taken the money!Drew Smith What I've done 09:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem silly on reflection, but at the time it was the absolute right choice for me. -->David Shankbone 14:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside the scope of this RFC so I haven't listed it there, but every argument I've made applies equally to the IMO ridiculous promotional usernames policy. Why is User:MegaTechCorp editing MegaTechCorp bad, but the exact same user renamed User:BritneySpearsFan4653 somehow magically acceptable? – iridescent 20:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? If anything, that's a good argument to NOINDEX user space so that the names are 100% irrelevant in any event. If it's a role account concern, that's even simpler. rootology (C)(T) 20:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree. A lot of people who are just here to correct a mistake gets blocked for this rule. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And another thing

I can't believe nobody's mentioned this yet. Whoever it was who said "the elephant in the room just helps us squash the issues hidden under the rug out of sight" had a point. – iridescent 20:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I didn't even know that existed! Does anybody ever pay up?Drew Smith What I've done 09:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also was never aware of this. But we're talking about people being paid hundreds or thousands of [generic currency] to edit articles, not a $10 cash prize. I suppose this is more about serious paid contributions. Though this is obviously something worth discussing. Wow. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 09:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was equally surprised when I found this - I didn't find this first as I only searched for "reward" on the page. I started a topic below. Smartse (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I pay 5 people to get Starbucks up to featured status and on the main page, and they all vote in the Featured Article nomination, is that meatpuppeting? How is it different if they're all just fans? – Quadell ^(talk) 20:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because FA noms are trivially easy to sabotage--for good or bad purposes--and if "paid editing" in some bizarre ways exposes flaws in the process, that's a good thing. You can also meatpuppet to your heart's content on FA, but if Sandy or Raul don't sign off it's irrelevant. As for the fans vs paid, does it matter ultimate if the content is solid? rootology (C)(T) 20:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just think that if I were the CEO of Starbucks (full disclosure: I am not the CEO of Starbucks), I could get an awful lot of advertising bang for buck if I offered 10 experienced editors $500 a piece to be paid whenever Frappuccino makes it on the front page, paid all or nothing, to everyone or no one, no matter how it got on there. And it would get on there, whether the article deserved it or not. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but that could be happening today, for all we know. Gaming process is separate from adding content, though. It's a wholly separate ball of wax that I didn't touch at least in my statement. My basic contention is that I don't care why you added a 9,000 word article, just that you did. rootology (C)(T) 20:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• At the end of the day, our core policies are our core policies, and collusion--for whatever motivation--to circumvent our core policies is cause for sanctions. I think Root's main point with this RFC is that money is no more odious an incentive than fandom, love, identification or ideology for writing about a subject. -->David Shankbone 20:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You win the prize, David. rootology (C)(T) 20:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But I don't think any company is going to pay someone to write a balanced article that follows Wikipedia policies. They're going to pay for "results" (meaning prominence, such as a front page mention, or lots of links to an article), not accuracy or balance. If you've ever been in advertising, or worked with someone who was, you'll know what I mean. In theory, good content is good content no matter what the motivation is. In practice, money will only motivate people to produce bad (imbalanced, gamed, ad-like) content. Prove me wrong. Give me one example where someone was paid to write something they wouldn't have otherwise written, where what they wrote was any good. I don't think it happens. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but still... if they pay, and it's the level of someone like Starbucks paying, they're not gonna post it on Craigslist. They'll do it as they have the budget in such a way we'd never know unless the author was quite stupid in his activities. And if someone is paid, and writes a "shit" article, good for them. We can delete it. If it's just a generally crappy but notable article, we can clean it per any number of policies. If they edit war to keep "their" version, we have any number of policies to deal with that. My point is simply that paid authors have no more power or authority than any other user. Unless you're suggesting someone like Starbucks will pay off hundreds of editors to sanitize their article? Otherwise, I guess I don't get the level of your concern. They can't game FA unless they buy off Sandy AND Raul. They can't game admin actions, unless they 'buy' a lot of us. They can't reasonably game consensus for normal stuff, because a hivemind cluster, every time it turns up, is usually caught pretty quick. How long did those Camera people last? I don't see what lasting damage they can do, beside to their own corporate reputation when they eventually get caught if they act stupid about it... rootology (C)(T) 20:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The original Arch Coal – which is the one that actually lit this blue touchpaper long ago – may not be going to win any awards, but certainly couldn't be considered spammy. – iridescent 20:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I never understood the point of this, which was clearly a bad delete (I believe he admitted as much later). The original Arch Coal was as generic and "stock" of a stub as we have. rootology (C)(T) 21:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I doubt paid editors are going to start coming forth with "Look at this FA - that was I paid to write!" You raise a good point, though: a Wikipedia article does not often look the way a subject wants it to look. I have a notable friend who wanted his article replaced. He showed me the one that he wrote - it was full of military honors ("X served in the military, and achieved the rank of corporal"), minor achievements and information for which there is no public source. All of it was true. The central problem with paid editing is that the employer often thinks that entitles them to have the article written their way. Ultimately, it's up to the employer/employee to hammer out their expectations and not our problem when they have "paid for the work, and yet is not listed in Wikipedia, and is understandably upset." -->David Shankbone 21:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but that's not a problem specific to paid editors. Watchlist any high profile music article, for example, and see the endless stream of almost-certainly-true facts posted by fans, which need to be reverted as unsourced. I think of "paid editing" as people who happen to be paid in cash, rather than in satisfaction. Pretty much everyone – including you – has desperately tried to get "their" version of an article be accepted as The Right Version at some point. Anything that starts getting high-profile is going to have enough eyes on it to hopefully remove obvious puffery, and puffery added by PR firms is no worse than puffery added by fans. – iridescent 21:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Responding to Quadell above, I'll admit that I am working with people at a major computer industry (but won't say which one) to teach them how to successfully edit Wikipedia, & the biggest challenge I have is to get them to stop thinking like advertising flacks, & write like real humans. (Someone on the corporate payroll actually wrote up a guideline for editting Wikipedia, & it makes a number of sensible points I think everyone here would agree with.) For example, the power of linking articles inside Wikipedia is a new idea to them. :-/ llywrch (talk) 22:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect that if someone tries to edit for pay, to promote a company or product, one of two things will happen. (1) He'll create nothing of value, get reverted, and give up dissatisfied. (2) He'll "get it" and stick around, writing good articles for all the right reasons -- he'll just happen to get paid for some of it as well. (See Raul's 3rd law.) And those who pay him are suckers, since he'd do it for free anyway. I'm not sure whether this is an argument for or against allowing paid editing, but I do think it's how it would play out most of the time. – Quadell ^(talk) 00:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be shocked if Arch Coal actually paid for the Arch Coal article that the paid editor not to be named wrote. It seemed to me to be far more likley to be boundry-pushing trollery. Hipocrite (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? What part of this do you consider "trollery"? – iridescent 21:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Everyone hates me and is going to think everything I do is for pay. You know what would be funny? If I edited an article about a fortune 500 company for nothing and then watched it get deleted and complained a lot about how Wikipedia was this big evil behemoth that would even delete an article about a Fortune 500 company if I wrote it! I can play that tune on wikipediareview for YEARS!" Hipocrite (talk) 21:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One might wish to review the PRSA code of ethics, at

http://www.prsa.org/aboutUs/ethics/preamble_en.html

Have we ever had a paid editor who was actually following this code of ethics, specifically "Reveal the sponsors for causes and interests represented?" and "Avoid deceptive practices?" If so, I'd very much like to see that. Hipocrite (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a minimum requirement if public relations professionals are to be accepted as legitimate editors. Fred Talk 02:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope PR professionals will remain to be accepted on Wikipedia. Most (of us) do stick to the code of ethics. Wikipedia is very different from other media we deal with, but I don't see why we PR folks couldn't follow its rules and guidelines and our code of ethics at the same time (though I admit that my first efforts here violated the former). Journalists accept us as legitimate sources of information; why shouldn't Wikipedians? By all means, scrutinize our contributions very closely, but don't discount then just on the basis we were paid to make them. --Weronix (talk) 22:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the result of this discussion is a consensus-grade level of support for the idea of paid editing, what next? Change the COI guideline? -->David Shankbone 22:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI is a guideline. Any changes to it need to be proposed and dealt with in the usual ways. No one here is proposing a change, and there's no notification of an overhaul. If paid editing is allowed on the same basis as any other editing then that would essentially gut the COI guideline. Is that the intention here?   Will Beback  talk  22:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, my intention wasn't to "gut" COI, it was to let people finally speak out on this. So far we've only ever heard from a tiny minority of the population on this that bothered to speak up, who don't have any authority to decide for the rest of us. Since I saw this coming up more and more often, I figured why not ask everyone to see where the consensus wind was blowing? rootology (C)(T) 22:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't really thought that far ahead to be honest. See my reply to Will just now. Either something like that or a WP:COI change, I guess. I figured cross the bridge when the other side came up in a month or so, and then we'll have a mandate for... whatever we have a mandate for to happen next. rootology (C)(T) 22:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support removing this section altogether. – iridescent 22:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to disagree. I must admit, I've not replied to anything thus far mainly because really I don't see what the big deal is. We have five pillars, one of which is Neutral Point of View. If there is evidence in any post anywhere of something violating that policy, then it's unacceptable, whether intentionally biased or not. It doesn't matter if or how they're getting paid as long as it's non-neutral. I get paid through the pleasure of making what I view as a positive contribution to things I care about. Adding money makes it complicated, sure, but that's on the user side of things. If someone gets paid for a POV edit and it gets reverted, well then their boss is gonna have wasted some money. Not our issue. The financial section of WP:COI is very clear in its explanation - "...we very strongly encourage you to avoid editing Wikipedia in areas where there is a conflict of interest that would make your edits non-neutral (biased)." It's the same policy across the board, they're just providing examples. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 23:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Financial section in COI refers to being paid BY a company (e.g.) to edit the article ABOUT that company. Probably not a good idea to get rid of that part, as that really creates a COI, more so than someone who advertises as a freelance writer who will edit on any article he is paid for. The latter's big concern there lis more likely to make sure the article doesn't get deleted (so he can be paid). The person doing the paying would have the bigger COI in this case, though he is abstracted from the encyclopedia itself... Arakunem^Talk 00:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jah, my point exactly. Money is a means to an interest, not necessarily a conflict. I still say it's a stupid investment. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 05:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David, I don't really understand your question. I've always thought that COI is a pretty good guideline, and I think paid editing is fine if you're willing to disclose what you're doing and put your judgment and reputation on the line. I don't see a conflict. Why would we have to gut WP:COI? Which section do you feel is incompatible with paid editing? -Pete (talk) 02:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• heh- I actually was just throwing it out there as a question, and wasn't proposing anything. COI just came to mind as a probable candidate for adjustment. Otherwise, I was just curious about what others thought. -->David Shankbone 04:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• A suggestion from a PR person (and, therefore, a paid non-expert editor) who unwittingly caused some disruption with clumsy Wikipedia efforts: the COI section was the first one I checked before I started editing, and I tried to follow it, but it wasn't enough. Then I was directed to COI best practices and that was very helpful, but it isn't easy to find. With so many rules and guidelines on so many different pages it is easy for a newcomer to blunder, especially when there is an expectation of quick results. It would be really helpful to establish clear procedure for this prima facie conflict of interest. It is not exactly like other types of COI because it seems to be perceived differently by many Wikipedians: the assumption of good faith doesn't -- and maybe shouldn't -- apply to flacks here. --Weronix (talk) 23:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly see the appeal of a "don't ask don't tell" approach. But I wonder how this would work if applied to motivations beyond the financial. If the Church of Scientology (or Project Chanology) wanted to assign full-time workers to edit articles in such a way as to portray CoS in a positive (or negative) light, would we want to know, or would we want to turn a blind eye? If a pro- or anti-Israeli group organized small teams of paid editors to emphasize the human rights abuses of one side and downplay abuses by the other, would we want to know about such groups, or would we simply attempt to look at each editor in terms of the merits of that person's edits, without regard to the effects of the organized editing as a whole? – Quadell ^(talk) 22:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"You get what you measure for"... it's far better to encourage people to disclose (if necessary, by sanctioning non-disclosure when it's found) than it would be to encourage people not to disclose (which is, defacto kinda how it is now, since if you disclose, sometimes bad things can happen)... ++Lar: t/c 00:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One problematic follow-on from being paid to edit an article up to a certain level, is that the ones hiring are probably not going to like it being tweaked, tuned, pruned, edited mercilessly, pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered (Umm... ignore that last part :)) The result will probably be that the hirer will pay the hire-ee to keep the article in their preferred state. After all, who would want to pay good money to bring an article to their desired state, only to have that state constantly tuned, criticism inserted, etc. Back to a COI between Wikipedia's interests and some real-world interest. Arakunem^Talk 01:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really our problem, though. If some 'client' tries such a thing, they'll learn quickly that they can't have 'their' way, and if 'their' editors don't make it clear that they have zero control over such things... it's again not our problem, and have policies in place to deal with such things already. I'd be against any attempt to give paid editors or the payees one single extra right than other editors have, in regards to policy-compliant content. rootology (C)(T) 01:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, caveat emptor and all. My fear is that officially sanctioning paid editing is likely to result in much more SPA activity hired to keep their pet articles just-so. While we do have policies to handle this, I fear the sheer influx of this type of editor, vs. what can be a somewhat slow response mechanism... look at recent ArbCom cases involving SPA and POV-pushing from whatever angle. Arakunem^Talk 01:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fault of that is totally separate, which is the fact that unlike violates of every other policy under the sun, we don't have firm community-level enforcement of WP:NPOV. Since that's a Foundational issue, that's insane. When is the last time you saw someone blocked for repeated NPOV vios? rootology (C)(T) 01:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spot on again, which is part of my point. Until we do correct the inconsistencies in policy enforcement, especially in the BLP area, opening a further floodgate for a POV deluge is very counter-productive. Arakunem^Talk 01:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothetical conversation #1 between paid editor and client:

OK, got it, thanks for the info on your organization/band/county/agency. Now you know, I'm fully disclosed as a paid editor, and I have to abide by the policies in place that govern paid editing... those include a fundamental one, contributions are irrevocably released and any contributor consents to editing by others. Even merciless editing. So I can do my best to make a factual, neutral, and engaging article, but I can't guarantee it will stay that way. However it should reflect well on your organization that you play by the rules. Do we have a deal?

Hypothetical conversation #2 between paid editor and client:

OK, got it, thanks for the info on your organization/band/county/agency. Now you know, I'm editing on the QT... no one knows I'm a paid editor and I'll just be looking like another interested fan/geek... I should be able to influence matters fairly effectively as long as no one knows it's me. If I have to, I'll sock to defend it... after all, no one will suspect me in particular. Do we have a deal?

Now, an unscrupulous client may well prefer convo #2, although I think, or at least hope, many will prefer #1 more... but which one do WE prefer? Because there IS paid editing, and there will be. The question really is, on our terms? Or not? That's the choice we get. ++Lar: t/c 02:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I've only just come across this thread. Going back to the first question, my belief is that we can ignore anyone's status as a paid editor because any NPOV issues or suchlike should become apparent to the community anyway. We already have, I'm sure, lots of Scientologists and Channers on Wikipedia editing those articles to their point of view. Why would paid editors would be any more of a problem than that? It's not that I want to ignore paid editors, I just want to ignore that they are paid and treat them like anyone else. Is our primary goal to generate good content for the encyclopaedia or protect our interests by taking actions by decent editors who just want a bit of cash for something they enjoy? Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 07:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greg asks "Why would paid editors would be any more of a problem than that?" They wouldn't. The question is, do we want to add to this problem, or do we want to reduce it? – Quadell ^(talk) 12:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying (not very well, I speak naturally and that doesn't come out well in written form!) to get across the idea that paid editors aren't different to anyone else. Some editors come on here with a COI, they're treated accordingly. Some paid editors do the same, and should be treated the same regardless. I'm not saying paid editors actively make any difference to our problems with vandalism, NPOV etc., mainly because they're in a vast minority. Now, if we encourage that, there'll be more of them and we'll have more issues. If we discourage them, we could get rid of some decent editors. So my view is to do nothing. Sure it's something we need to discuss but I personally think we're better off leaving it the way we are. Adding some sort of guideline, for or against paid contributions will have a detrimental effect. Carrying on as is and not bothering would be, as I see, our best policy. I'm not sure that's what you asked but, if not please try me again. Sometimes I just miss the point entirely. The pains of idiocy or something. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 16:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following recent arbcom findings of fact, in the Scientology case, seem relevant. I don't think any of them flatly prohibit paid editing, but they should be taken into account. – Quadell ^(talk) 00:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the encyclopedia to advance personal agendas – such as advocacy or propaganda and philosophical, ideological or religious dispute – or to publish or promote original research is prohibited.

Neutrality and conflicts of interest

2) Wikipedia adopts a neutral point of view, and advocacy for any particular view is prohibited. In particular, Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines strongly discourage editors contributing "in order to promote their own interests." Neutrality is non-negotiable and requires that, whatever their personal feelings, all editors must strive to (i) ensure articles accurately reflect all significant viewpoints published by reliable sources and (ii) give prominence to such viewpoints in proportion to the weight of the source. Editors may contribute to Wikipedia only if they comply with Wikipedia's key policies.

Single purpose accounts

10.1) Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.

Multiple editors with a single voice

11) It is rarely possible to determine with complete certainty whether several editors from the same IP or corporate server are sockpuppets, meat puppets, or acquaintances who happen to edit Wikipedia. In such cases, remedies may be fashioned which are based on the behavior of the user rather than their identity. The Arbitration Committee may determine that editors who edit with the same agenda and make the same types of edits be treated as a single editor.

Good-faith participation welcome

18) Contributors to Wikipedia may benefit the project by participating in a variety of ways. Good-faith participation is welcome whether it comes in the form of editorial contributions, tagging articles for clean-up, initiating or participating in community deletion discussions, or performing of administrative tasks. Editors making any or all of these types of contributions are welcome. The project and progress toward our goals are diminished if we drive away or demoralize a good-faith editor who contributes or has the potential to contribute, while complying with Wikipedia policies, in any or all of these areas.

Something else to consider: Wikipedia's greatest resource by far is the army of volunteer contributors like you and me who contribute just for the fun of it. Anything that decreases that would be a bad idea. And there is evidence that if it were widely believed that some people were paid to edit Wikipedia, fewer people would do it for free. In the 1960s and 1970s, psychologists Edward Deci and Richard deCharms showed that when people are given money for doing things they enjoyed, they lost interest in those things faster than when they were not rewarded. The counter-intuitive finding that paid volunteers work less is backed up it many studies (e.g.) I haven't seen any studies on what happens to volunteer efforts when a few participants are paid but most are not -- I suspect the outcomes of these studies is pretty obvious. Volunteer support would dry up rather quickly. Of course we can't prevent company X from paying people to edit... but we can work to prevent the perception that this commonly happens, and one way is to officially discourage the practice. Thoughts? – Quadell ^(talk) 01:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting flip side thought: what is some university staff like professors get grants (hey, it could happen) to spend time adding quality content? rootology (C)(T) 01:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I read this heading as referring to Will (Beback) and perhaps insinuating that he was being paid to discourage some kind of editing. Clearly, it's time for me to get out and explore the big blue room. Over and out. -Pete (talk) 02:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regular editing by Public Relations professionals will change the atmosphere on Wikipedia into a struggle between those able to afford professional public relations services and the amateur voluntary community which will be overshadowed by the professional expertise public relations professionals will bring to the task. It will be rather like going to court without a lawyer, while the opposition has the best lawyers money can buy. Fred Talk 02:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fred: This is a legitimate concern, but I don't think it's within Wikipedia's power to totally eliminate this dynamic. As it is, there's plenty of paid editing on Wikipedia -- if you don't believe me, just run a couple searches on Craigslist. It's not within our power to prohibit paid editing; we can establish policies, but that will only affect people who abide by policy.

At the same time, I think your argument is a little exaggerated. We have lots of evidence that there are people who are willing and able to make exceptionally good contributions with zero financial incentive. To predict that those folks will be drowned out by professional editors is a bit of a leap of logic.

OK, I'm outta here..and I mean it this time :) -Pete (talk) 02:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To reply to Rootology: It's the same general situation if they have a conflict of interest based on who's paying them. If, say, Jimbo hired someone to improve the "Jimmy Wales" article, it'd be a problem. If he hired someone to improve the thermodynamics article, there'd be much less of a problem—in fact, probably no one would care (unless Jimbo has strong views on thermodynamics that I haven't heard about :) ). The issue is always in the conflict of interest. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 02:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"To predict that those folks will be drowned out by professional editors is a bit of a leap of logic." It's already happening. There are areas of the very long tail of wikipedia articles which core volunteer editors rarely visit, much less those who are willing and able to enforce policy. I have stepped away from areas and articles because I don't have the time or interest to put up to compete with editors with a financial stake. Also, "If a person edits a Wikipedia article, they are almost prime facie "interested" in the topic."[1] but there are subject matters where no one except those with COI has an interest, and these languish. I just don't see that the community will deal with COI; in many cases it's already not dealing. Siawase (talk) 10:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pete says "It's not within our power to prohibit paid editing; we can establish policies, but that will only affect people who abide by policy." That's true, and it's also true of SPAs, edit-warring, sock-puppeting, etc. The question is, do we want to encourage or discourage this behavior? Just because we can't prevent all of it doesn't mean we should change our policies to legitimize it. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your logic is sound, Quadell, and it's a difficult line to traverse. I think the winning rebuttal is that why is money any more odious an incentive than love, fandom, ideology or identification as motivators to write about a subject. I rarely start writing an article on a topic I could care less about. If I'm writing about Larry Kramer because I'm gay and he has done a lot for my community; or if I'm writing about Augusten Burroughs because he's a friend; or if I'm writing about Ecuador because I'm spent three weeks there and had the time of my life - what's the difference? We all have similar motivators; why is money the one line that can't be crossed? Some people find ideology and trying to shape public opinion through knowledge to be far more powerful a motivator than getting $500 to write an article, and people are often far more invested in the outcome. -->David Shankbone 14:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with much of what's been said here:

Siawase, yes, there are certain areas where calm and disinterested editors are reluctant to venture. And yes, that is a significant problem. I totally agree about that. But I don't see it as a problem that will overtake the entire project under any specific conditions. The "leap of logic" I referred to is the idea that some shift in policy or guidelines under consideration here will cause all of Wikipedia to become that way. I just don't think that's true.

Quadell, I agree that it's important to determine what kind of behavior should be encouraged or discouraged. But I disagree that paid editing is the place where the line should be drawn.

I would, however, say this (which is already more or less said at WP:COI): it would difficult in the extreme to comply with the letter and spirit of all Wikipedia policies and guidelines while maintaining a successful relationship with a client. It would require a thorough understanding and affiliation with Wikipedia policy, guidelines, and with the culture here; and also, the social and business ability to lay down the law when your client wants you to do something that would be unacceptable.

So I think that anybody looking to "make a quick buck" editing Wikipedia would (and should) encounter difficulty.

However, keep in mind that there are plenty of conditions where a "conflicted" interest is perfectly aligned with Wikipedia's mission: if an article about a company, for instance, contains information that is verifiably inaccurate, that is something we want anybody to fix. If such an article's talk page is viewed only very infrequently by regular Wikipedians, I'd say it's better to have a paid editor fix the error, and notify related WikiProjects, than to leave a note on the talk page and wait for months for somebody to come along.

Other edits are pretty innocuous: if an employee of a company wants to add its logo to a page, they should be able to do so (complying with WP:NFUR of course) without sparking controversy.

In the end, I guess I believe that this area is better dealt with via guideline than policy (as is already the case with WP:COI), and that it's a good idea for anyone engaging in paid editing to adopt their own policies over and above Wikipedia policy, to which they voluntarily and transparently hold themselves accountable. -Pete (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue that we are supposed to be discussing is "paid editing", that is, edits being made where the editor is being paid for those edits. The issue that many people seem to be discussing is "paid promotional editing", that is, edits being made to promote a view/organisation/person where the editor is being paid for those edits. Generally, if edits promote a particular organisation or person, it is further assumed that that organisation or person is paying for the edits. Brian Jason Drake 03:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of discussion was set forth very clearly & succinctly at the top by Rootology: "The RFC is about if I pay you $100 to write an article. Good? Bad? Neither?" If more information is needed for a consensus to be formed when it might be good, bad or neither, then we need to bring more information into this discussion. -- llywrch (talk) 04:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is important. Company X is never going to pay good money to have an editor write "an article" on their company, without caring whether the article makes them look good or bad. In any real-life edit-for-pay situation, there is going to be an inherent POV-pushing aspect. It may be explicit or implicit, but the deal will always be that "I'm paying you to make us look good on Wikipedia", and that's against policy. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not particularly true. I know people who want to pay people to write simply an accurate article about themselves. It's the William French Anderson problem: a genius and father of gene therapy, who was convicted of pedophilia. It's very likely Anderson would like far more discussed about his gene therapy career, for which he was almost a Time Person of the Year, instead of having half his article about his conviction, and an unhelpful section about his gene therapy work. Yes, he'd probably pay to have someone expand his gene therapy work section so that the pedophilia is not so glaring, knowing it can never be removed. -->David Shankbone 14:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with David again. There's also the not-uncommon case of a business/organization which does meet the notability guidelines, but happens to not yet have an article (or only a one line stub). Watch Special:NewPages for a few minutes and you'll see example after example of articles being deleted as "spam" purely because they were created by a new account with a similar name to the company being written about. I would imagine a lot of companies, community groups, academics etc would welcome the "affirmation" that the existence of a Wikipedia article on them provides, even if said article wasn't particularly flattering to them. – iridescent 14:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure many people would welcome many things, including bad outcomes like this, and be happy to pay for it. Too bad. Wikipedia is not a place for people to pay to have themselves seem famous or important.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Perhaps it doesn't seem like a huge deal for now, but once word gets out, especially in the media, there will be a rapid influx of users who are getting paid to edit/create articles. hmwithτ 19:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with David & Iridescent on this: while some companies obviously want their articles to be white-washed paeans, there are some who understand the idea of an encyclopedia. I'm working with one corporation (yes, it's one you're undoubtedly heard of) at the moment, advising them on how to write an article for Wikipedia on one of their products. (Most of my input has been to copy edit, wikify & teach them not to write like an advertisement copy writer.) The article will be added to Wikipedia whether I help them or not, so I might as well help them write one that is appropriate for Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 19:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The topic that we are supposed to be discussing in the RFC (paid editing) was set forth (not very clearly, in my opinion) by Rootology in the second comment on this page. But the topic that we are actually discussing (which seems to be paid promotional editing) does not appear to be the same one.
The discussion in this section appears to be about whether the two topics are in fact the same. I still don't think they are. Brian Jason Drake 05:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here are two actual ads (found through the WR link on JW's page) :

• Stable Wikipedia Product Placement
  "Expand "carpet cleaning" article and create articles on "carpet dry cleaning" and on major system manufacturers. Competitors will be included but every sourceable and encyclopedic marketing spin will be present. Ongoing stability advocacy is included..."
• wikipedia entry for boosting webtraffic
  "We want to have a page created in Wikipedia about Carpet Dry Cleaning. We have already prepared an extensive content, and need someone to revise and adapt it. The goal is to get listed and have a backlink to our site ..."

The goals seem quite clear. Abecedare (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC) [edited for readability Brian Jason Drake 05:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)][reply]

Even if the goals are quite clear in those cases, it doesn't necessarily mean that all paid editing is biased. Brian Jason Drake 05:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the second article is made with proven notability, and provides a backlink to the website, then where's the issue? If it's not notable and doesn't deserve an article, we'll delete it for those reasons. In either situation, the article will get what it deserves. We know this because we have a tried and tested system which we can enforce. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 07:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the RfC format mightn't be the best suited to this sort of discussion - it doesn't actually seem to encourage folk to read others' views before bunging their own in, and already this page is pretty unwieldy. 20+ views at this point is a lot of noise. Privatemusings (talk) 04:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)yeah yeah, I commented below the 'do not comment below' instruction.... sorry about that - it's sort of my point that the 'instructions' here don't necessarily help much![reply]

I agree. What we need is a pro-and-con kind of article that people can use as a basis for discussion. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 15:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, this format is working for now. After this has run its course, we can start a guideline without an edit-war. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you guys are being a bit naive about this if you think that all you're discussing is a few paid editors who will make $20 an hour writing up the occasional piece which will then become a Good Article and everyone will be the richer. That's not what will happen. What will happen is that, before long, companies will have a wikimedia coordinator, publicity agents will add wikimedia experts to their staff, Barack Obama's Technology guy will hire wikipedia experts. People with articles will be able to pay a small sum of money to small time consultants to watch and monitor their articles. Wikipedia is the single most important source for information on the web and, as anyone who has ever manipulated their parents know, control of information is the most important thing in the world. So why aren't companies doing this now? Because they have to do it sneakily. and doing sneaky stuff backfires badly.(Why else would the crat in question have to do this on the quiet?) Allow declared paid editing and the rules of the ball game change completely.

So, that's not totally a bad thing for the admins and crats currently on the scene. I'm sure many who've contributed extensively to the pedia will be happy with the opportunity to monetize their experience. Not, I'm sure, for making a few dollars but if it immediately adds value to the resume of an admin or crat, why overlook that added value. If the admin gets a job that is partly on the strength of 'wikipedia expertise', who wouldn't willingly resign adminship, declare COI, and keep editing. Over time, adminship, which now carries no monetary value whatsoever, will take on a measurable dollar value. When that happens, the process will immediately be corrupted, if only ever so slightly.

Finally, there is the question of how to deal with paid editing accounts and policy decisions. Will anyone who has ever edited on a paid basis be disqualified from commenting on an RfA or at AN, ANI, XfD etc? Will there be a threshold - one paid article for every ten unpaid ones? Will they have to prove a lack of involvement or will their involvement have to be challenged? What if someone like User:Helenalex decides to take up paid editing after years of unpaid involvement on wikipedia? Will they be disbarred from wikispace completely, partially, not at all? The point is that whatever you do, the moment paid editors are involved in even unrelated areas of wikipedia but definitely on wikispace, policy will start shifting ever so slightly toward their interests. Anyone who has ever brought up children knows that after the tenth convoluted reason for that second piece of chocolate, you give the chocolate and I'm sorry to say, that's what will happen to wikipedia. (I only use User:Helenalex as an example because he/she has both a declared interest in paid editing and also has a long history at wikipedia. No offense intended.) --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 15:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We already have openly paid editing. But the source of the money is clearly neutral and the relationships are disclosed (create images selected by the Foundation, create additioanal article about any encyclopedic subject in the Arabic language wikipedia, $20 to take an existing article to FA status, add to the Wikimedia software whatever is needed to make it easier to edit and to edit non-text,and so on). "Paid editing" is too broad a category to be useful. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RegentsPark: policy is already shifted in favor of the loudest and the baddest. So-called "consensus", refusal to take editorial content decision until it blows up etc... If nice corporate gentlemen will attempt to reverse the mess, they should be warmly commended, should they not? And don't underestimate Obama staffers, please :))

I still don't understand yours and other folks premise that this RFC will change something and open the floodgates. There were no floodgates. Some organizations, as evidenced by COFS arbitrage, were keenly involved in editing. Others, like web brigades, are just allegations. Are, present tense. What makes you feel that they will multiply? NVO (talk) 08:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've worked in large corporations at various levels over many years and know the obsession with image and control over information. Wikipedia is not currently viewed as being a part of the 'media' but rather as what it is - a volunteer based encyclopedia (editing wikipedia is not banned while talking to the media without permission usually is). That will change if corporations feel they can control what goes in here. I, for one, can see several business opportunities if 'paid editing' is officially recognized, and, if I can, I'm sure hundreds of others can see many more such opportunities! My bigger concern is that allowing paid editors will, over time, skew the pedia toward where the money is and away from its encyclopedic mission (Roger II of Sicily is unlikely to have paid advocates!). Unfortunately this has become a bit of a circus so I'm going to see how this plays out from the sidelines. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 16:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under the section entitled "Paid editing okay" I asked what next if it is shown there is consensus for paid editing. I should have added a caveat: Rootology, who initiated this RFC, has pointed out that it is simply for informational purposes and not meant to be instructive. That doesn't mean that what is gleaned from this RFC can't turn into changes in guidelines or policies. But he hasn't set it up that way. It's set up simply to gauge where the community is at with this issue. issues of pro/con formatting, etc., are less relevant in such a circumstance. -->David Shankbone 16:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on the RfC (I got lost around half-way down the page!), but this might be of interest to the debaters here. I guess it could be taken as evidence for either position: "paid editing is bad because this is where it leads"; or "we might as well permit paid editing because those here for nefarious reasons won't disclose themselves anyway". EyeSerene^talk 19:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC) ...aaand, if I'd got to the bottom of the page, I might have noticed my above was unnecessary. <sigh> EyeSerene^talk 19:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:). Another note of that was left at Rootology's talk page. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, well, it's been a long day and I can only monitor so many tabs at once :) I saw you'd already posted it too - for me it confirms my gut feeling that paid editing is not something we want to encourage. EyeSerene^talk 19:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was posted at COIN here but it apparently wasn't the right place. WP:RFAR was suggested - this is an interesting contemporary case in light of this whole discussion. Smartse (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it is of relevance, but I would like those involved to take note of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paid Editing which I am currently in the process of reviewing. Tiptoety ^talk 21:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. When I first come to this discussion, I was confused with the sockpuppet user because of the capitalization of paid editing in some places. That user was blocked by now anyways. And it is not of their relevance, the two are not related in any way. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There hasn't been any mention anywhere yet about the Wikipedia:Reward board. When I found this I couldn't help feeling slightly uneasy about the concept. I was surprised no one has mentioned it yet. Smartse (talk) 00:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, someone else did mention it and they too were surprised that they were, apparently, the first to do so. It's buried in the section #And another thing above. Brian Jason Drake 04:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this in the past and I have a hard time comprehending how we can let it on this site. Returned favors (copyedit jobs or peer reviews) are acceptable "bounty" but monetary rewards are not. ThemFromSpace 04:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some forms of monetary compensation might be ok. The most obvious is contributing to the Foundation money in honor of the person who did so (or contributing to some other charity in the same way). This might be ok even if one takes a strict stand against paid editing. But yes, direct bounty is really problematic. JoshuaZ (talk) 06:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly. The Reward board is open, transparent, and one of the best ways to go about any kind of paid editing. My article writing skills are pretty lame, but I do have the occasional wad of cash that wasn't spent on pizza. If I can pay someone to do something like improve the article about muscle wire (something that has always fascinated me) then I have found a way to contribute to the wiki, despite my poor writing skills. Doing something like banning the Reward board would prevent that, but do nothing for companies who pay people to push POV's on articles for their products. It's like DRM; you're only hurting the people who are being honest/legitimate. -- Ned Scott 08:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There may also be a distinction also where the reward board presumably isn't people paying for topic that they have any connection to. I presume you don't work selling shape memory alloys. JoshuaZ (talk) 13:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think we should prevent people from paying someone to take photographs of 100 species of butterflies and upload them to the Commons? I think we shouldn't; this creates awesome free content that anybody may reuse. Similarly, I think it is great if people are paid to write articles these species of butterflies. More free content is good. Of course, if the photographs are of poor quality, they will be replaced by better photographs, no matter if paid for or not; and if the articles are bad, they will probably be deleted or rewritten. But I don't see a fundamental difference between paid articles and paid images; it is all free content that everyone can use to build upon. Kusma (talk) 10:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not but paying to make articles on fairly obscure topics without mentioning what their motivation is does seem a little iffy (e.g. this. The real issue is what people aim to gain from the articles being made. In the case of companies/products etc. it seems as though it should be strongly forbidden but if a university/library/charity wishes to employee someone to create articles about species or to take photographs of them then I think this should be encouraged. The reward board is hardly used and although I can understand its purpose I don't think that the benefits of it outweigh the possible costs of people doubting the neutrality of WP. Smartse (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also I think it's worth mentioning - is anyone really going to go to all the effort of making an article for $10? If you want to earn money WP isn't really the best place (even for the famous 2 cents an edit that I get :p) Smartse (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We really need to establish better what we mean when we say "paid editing", because various ideas have been floating around that muddy the discussion. Below is a roadmap definition of various types of paid editing and distinctions to be made between them. Feel free to add distinctions, ideas, or dangers to the list, but please sign your additions. I know it's incomplete, but I am typing this on my iPod and it's rather tedious: help and comments would be appreciated. I'll update it when I can; my main keyboard is currently broken. :( {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 16:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC) (iPod edit)[reply]

Payment

All "paid editing involves editors who are receiving some tangible reward as a result of their edits to Wikipedia.

• Posting freely-licensed content for others to scrape is not paid editing
  • Danger: a sockpuppet account being used to scrape content and thereby legitimize it
• The extent of the payment can vary: is a $20 "not so serious" payment better or worse than a $1,000 "exceptional public relations service" one?

Motivation

Why people want to create or edit articles, or to have someone create or edit articles for them, makes a difference.

• Publicity: the simple "any press is good press" mentality. By creating a Wikipedia article, the notability of the organization, person, or product is implied to the viewer, since not everyone has Wikipedia articles.
  • Danger: Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion, so if the entity described in the article isn't notable, there is a problem.
• Promotion: wanting a good review on Wikipedia, which is generally known to at least try for a neutral point of view.
  • Danger: this directly conflicts with NPOV
• Passive promotion: By improving the article neutrally, the subject gets publicity through the channels that good content on Wikipedia already gets. For example, if Wolfram Research sponsored the development of the Mathmatica article to that of a Featured Article, they'd likely eventually benefit from a feature as Today's Featured Article.
  • This is generally good practice, but not perfect.
• Altruism: people might sponsor someone to improve a particular article or set of articles, just wanting them to be excellent encyclopedia articles
  • This is probably commendable.
• Attack: by tearing down something or someone, a third party benefits.
  • This is naturally rather undesirable.

Expectations

(needs to be filled in)

Transparency

Do these paid editors disclose their status, their clients, and their goals, or some subset thereof?

• Complete transparency
  • Most desirable, but potential PR problems for both the client and Wikipedia as part of perceived manipulation
• Partial transparency
  • Less desirable, but better than nothing, potentially lessens PR issues for the client
• No transparency
  • Better that it's admitted that there's paid editing going on (as it's easier for Wikipedians to know to review the user's contributions) but otherwise probably undesirable
• No admission of paid status
  • Status quo; avoids PR problems for Wikipedia but is tricky to manage.
• Active avoidance of transparency
  • Typical of banned users (e.g. MyWikiBiz) and serious POV pushers; undesirable in general

(Arukunem)

Relationship of paid editor to the topic

This relates to the person doing the editing and not the entity paying for the work. This will directly affect the level to which the paid editor has a COI.

• Hired by a company as a Wikipedia "Article Manager"
  • This editor is likely to have the most slanted POV as his job's role is to keep the company happy.
• Hired by a PR firm to improve articles for clients
  • This editor would likely bounce from job to job, but would also likely be called back to an article when other editors change the preferred version, so periodic POV reversions may happen
• Freelance writer who happens to also take Wikipedia jobs
  • For "one and done" work, least POV problems, depending on the level of ownership felt by the author.

(Added Relationship section) Arakunem^Talk 16:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about motivations: I don't want to mess with your list, but consider adding another motivation for paid editing: unfortunately, it is easy and not uncommon for Wikipedia (or most of the rest of the internet) to be misused to defame someone. Unless that person is famous, chances are volunteer editors might overlook pages where this happens. So the person who falls victim to this may hire someone to protect their professional reputation (which is a hard-earned intellectual property), and to remove the source of emotional stress that comes from seeing malicious statements about oneself in an encyclopedia. This is not publicity, promotion or altruism, but it may be a likely motivation. --Weronix (talk) 17:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about relationships: Consider removing the quotation marks from "improve." It implies you believe it is impossible for a PR person to actually make an improvement to an article about their client. The editor may bounce from topic to topic (not necessarily job to job), and monitor topics of interest to the PR firm and its clients. Paid -- yes; COI -- of course; danger -- not if the editor obeys Wikipedia rules and guidelines (imho); benefit to Wikipedia -- possibly, if the editor draws attention to areas overlooked by paid editors. --Weronix (talk) 18:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I separated off the relationship section off and struck it for now as I think it's already covered under motivation; it also presumes that the goal of the paid editor's clients is a slanted article, which isn't necessarily the case. I also removed the quotes from "improve" in that section—you're right that that has a presumption there. Arakunem's addition misses the point in some ways (no offense meant, Arakunem)—my intention is to categorize what "paid editing" encompasses. For example, we can distinguish between the benefits of transparent, altruistic paid editing and the harm of promotional, opaque paid editing. There are upsides to both prohibiting and allowing paid editing: I want to take a closer look at them. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 21:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good point: attacking competitor might be a possible motive for paid editing. But on the flip-side -- and this is what I meant in my comment about motivation -- those attacked may pay an editor to defend themselves (or their business) from such attacks (or attacks made by volunteers with the same effect). I know there are off-line Wikipedia protocols when this concerns living persons, but I am not sure how it would work for companies (trademark violation?) or for those who might want to protect (which is not necessarily the same as "whitewash") the memory of a dead person. It is not unusual for prominent people or companies to have PR firms help them manage reputational issues. --Weronix (talk) 22:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with your edits, and strikeouts, though I don't think your section on Motivation addresses the variety of editors who might get paid. It speaks to the person doing the paying, and why they might want these edits, but not to who the editors themselves are likely to be. (Note, I do a lot of work over at COI/N, so this latter aspect is something I focus on often over there). Your section draws no real distinction between a full-time WP editor for MegaBigCorp.com, and a freelance writer on Craigslist. Those 2 people will have wildly diverse senses of ownership, and as far as COI goes, one will be all about the single check, while the other one's job may be hanging on their article work, so they're more likely to be somewhat aggressive. I just think while we're defining paid editing, this certainly should be factored in, since it speaks to the people actually doing the editing, and not just the paying. Also, the "improve" was simply meant to imply that a PR firm's idea of improvement may sometimes not be consistent with ours. Not necessarily anyone's fault, just a difference based on the way they and WP operate day to day. I can see how it could be read with massive sarcasm quotes, so removing them is appropriate. Arakunem^Talk 01:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can we know if editors are being paid outside of Wikipedia? And if we don't know, what's the point of making a policy that is unenforceable? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but some people may get 'caught'. I dislike using that word but I have no other choice. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one has made any policy here or can yet. The matter is very much under discussion. As it is, Jimmy would need to ban apparently one Arb and an Oversighter at the rate we're up to now. But yes, it can't be banned. I have a feeling that we'll end up with a policy where if you're caught out as a paid "advocate" you're done for, but that paid "contribution of policy-compliant content" will end up OK. But thats just my prediction. rootology (C)(T) 17:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Root, why would Jimmy need to ban anyone? You can't ban people because they were not informed of a wrongdoing in advance! -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like we are formalizing a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Policy. We can do better.--Sphilbrick (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, thought I was being original - should have known better, should have searched.--Sphilbrick (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cary Bass told me at this year's Recent Changes Camp that it's an open secret there are people being paid to edit Wikipedia. Then there is this report that Microsoft wanted to hire a consultant to edit OOXML; but I stopped following that event so I have no idea if anything came of it -- however see this. I would guess that Bass's comment was based (to use a metaphor) that we can tell that there are noises & spoor in the woods, but no one has seen bears or other wild carnivores there. Yet. Better to prepare our plans now, & not after the wolves have come into the fold & killed our livestock. -- llywrch (talk) 17:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are two different issues - and unfortunately, some of the preceding discussion conflates the two:

1. Should we allow paid editing? This is like debating whether we should allow gays in the military, or 20 years olds to drink beer. To the extent that people are debating issue 1, they are wasting time.
2. What position should WP take regarding paid editing? This includes a wide spectrum of possibilities, including the useless "ban it", and "encourage it", as well as more sensible middle options.--Sphilbrick (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   It is rather "ban it" vs "make it official/accept it". I choose "discourage it" as it has been the case for a long time. I don't see the need for any policy. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, keep in mind that we have a lot of trouble enforcing restrictions against sockpuppeting. That doesn't mean we're going to get rid of our rules against that. (And similar remarks apply to returning banned users). Difficult to enforce is not by itself a good argument against trying to enforce something. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2009

People currently have to feel ashamed doing it and have to keep it behind closed doors. I can't fathom what would happened if they longer had to do it in the shadows. hmwithτ 19:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not actually planning on doing this, since it's not like I'd even have the time (nor the interest). What if this appeared on Craigslist or a website?

I am a seasoned Wikipedia editor that knows how to write "Good Articles". Do you think something should be in in Wikipedia?

If so, please e-mail to xxxx@xxxx.com with information on the subject topic, along with a minimum of TEN links to "independent reporting" or sources about your subject. Independent means 100% separate from the subject itself. If I feel the subject can 'work' as a Wikipedia article, I will let you know, and how many hours it will likely take to get it written. Research time is $20 USD/hour. The writing fee is $30 USD/hour. Both are payable via Paypal; the fee must be paid ahead of time before the work begins and a time length is agreed upon for writing, copyediting, and research. Given the requirements on Wikipedia of strict neutrality in writing, you will not have approval over the article text and contents.

Once the article is posted to Wikipedia, I will assume no further maintenance on the article in any way, shape or form. The article text will not be subject to your approval, and must comply with all Wikipedia policies, such as "Notability", "Neutrality", and if I become aware of negative information about the subject matter in question, I reserve the right to add such information if it is reliably and independently sourced (similar, for example, to how responsible newspapers often report the good and the bad on a topic).

My services offer zero guarantee that 1) the article will remain forever on Wikipedia; 2) will remain in any way near to the form in which I posted it. I guarantee no on-going maintenance of the article after I post it, but you are free to do anything within Wikipedia's policies with the article, independent of me. Should the article come up for any "internal" Wikipedia discussions involving it's fate, such as a request by a user to "delete" it, I will not participate in such a debate. Upon posting on Wikipedia, you will receive a confirmation e-mail which will contain a detailed series of links to relevant policy pages and noticeboards on Wikipedia where you can receive assistance with the article going forward.

If you are interested, please e-mail. Click here: xyz for samples of my previous work on Wikipedia.

Would this get someone in trouble? My statement, the first on the RFC, is based upon the perhaps idealistic notion of people doing things like this hopefully in a responsible fashion. rootology (C)(T) 18:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I ever seriously think about leaving Wikipedia again, I'll just post a version of that on Craig's List. Then we'll see. (It'll advertise my disgruntlement while being far less disruptive than ranting about other users & dropping the f-bomb at every opportunity.) -- llywrch (talk) 05:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Llywrch, you've always been a very patient editor :) By the way, the Register has just published the story. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Register story. That was fast. Cla68 (talk) 05:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a hot story on a topic people will read -- that's why they put it up fast. FWIW, the Register's article could have been worse. -- llywrch (talk) 15:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is offered with tongue-in-cheek; please interpret accordingly:

(BTW, is some silliness allowed on discussion pages? I can't find a guideline for this.)

This morning I heard Jimbo on KCRW, talking about the "White and Nerdy" song and its reference to WP... I happen to be white and geeky myself, but many PR people are not. Perhaps embracing them on WP would lead to a greater diversity of voices and thus a more balanced content and coverage? Yes, we are all supposed to be neutral -- just like justice is supposed to be blind -- but perhaps some "Wise Latina" type of influence might be beneficial? --Weronix (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't see how 'paid editing' might increase diversity on WP. I am not a 'white' person and have been editing WP for years as a volunteer. There are plenty other non-'white' editors over here. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know not all editors are "white and nerdy," that it's just a silly stereotype. Still, editing WP is time-consuming and takes dedication; if it is done mostly by those who are computer-savvy and tend to spend their free-time indoors typing away, then a significant portion of the population is probably under-represented. Paid editors would bring diversity because:

1. they might represent those who are are not computer-savvy (and who can afford to pay... but hey, wealthy Luddites are part of the population);
2. they themselves might have different temperament/lifestyle than most volunteer WP editors, or at least might tend to spend their free-time differently, and thus bring different life-experience.

But really, please don't take this too seriously. I am sure the Wikipedia community covers all age-groups, the whole nerdy/hip spectrum, and most of the non-techy/techy spectrum. It is entirely possible that the only characteristic the volunteer editors have in common is their ability/willingness to regularly spend their free time here as opposed to elsewhere. --Weronix (talk) 20:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing will do the opposite, you certainly did not meditate on it enough. Free editing is what brings diversity so much, because each person has his interest and his opinion. Paid editing will restrain the interest and position of the editors both being influenced by a higher body for which those editors will be working for. There is more individuals in the world than there are organisations, so there is much more potential for diversity when considering each person vs each organisation.

The only sort of monetary gain which should be permitted is on the basis of excellency, have an article (and this regardless of the subject area) to FA and have some sort of compensation. Even this can be problematic but this is the only form which should be tolerated.

And it is futile to claim under the basis that 'it can be beneficial' that it's OK. Decisions are taken by considering the pros and cons, and in this case the cons clearly outweigh the pros. If there is legitimate material without copyright issue outside of Wikipedia, editors are free to use it regardless of if the writer was paid. But on Wikipedia, paid editing should not be welcome. - Fedayee (talk) 18:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Tiptoety said before on this page, please do not confuse this discussion with the blocked sockpuppet Paid Editing. And please don't capitalize "paid editing" when commenting on editing with exchange of a fee. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 22:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree with all those who have said that paid editing, while a very noticable conflict of interest, is perfectly okay as long as that conflict is declared and their contributions are compliant with policy. In fact, I would take this one step further - as long as their contributions improve the state of the encyclopedia in the long run, their contributions are welcome, even if they are biased. For example, writing a new article on a notable topic that happens to be biased is generally better than not having an article on the topic at all - as long as the effort involved in cleaning it up is generally less than the effort involved in rewriting it from scratch. COI editors and neutral editors can achieve effective collaboration.

My one concern though is this: often people who perform a work for hire either contractually or by default under the law assign copyright of their work to their employer. As such, they do not have the right to release it under the GFDL, making their contribution a copyright violation. Although it seems ludicrous to suppose a company may pay someone to write a Wikipedia article and later sue us for including the content, I'm willing to believe it could happen sooner or later (for example, if the article later has criticism of them added, they may invoke this to attempt to suppress the article). To mitigate this problem, I think it's important for us to distribute a "standard form" contract for use by people engaged in this sort of endeavor that will clearly release all work emerging out of the deal under the GFDL. If my legal analysis is faulty someone please tell me. Dcoetzee 23:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow, good point. I would definitely be interested to know whether your analysis is correct. Agradman (talk) 23:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Wales made a better suggestion. Please read his statement.

Now, regardless of the copyright issue, the analysis is mainly based on a personal preference... writing a new article on a notable topic that happens to be biased is generally better than not having an article on the topic at all. Not necessarily. For me, no article is better than a biased article or one full of lies. Also:

1. Important topics do not necessarily need a paid editor to start them. If they are really notable, they are either already created or will be created some day;
2. Instead of hiring someone, contractors have Wikipedia:REQUEST -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • This is nothing but the old debate of eventualism versus immediatism. I think it's better to have a biased article now and a good article later. You think it's better to have no article now and delay (or even prevent) the eventual creation of a good article. Paying someone to write an article will get it written quickly, while merely requesting it or hoping someone will write it will not. Personally I think we should be focusing more on how to efficiently review the contributions of COI editors, rather than prevent them. But that said, I do think that we should ban COI editors whose contributions would require more effort to clean up than to rewrite, since they do us no service on any timescale. Dcoetzee 23:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is what Jimmy has suggested...

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

What do you think? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If all paid edits go to talk pages, and only to talk pages, I'd have little objection. The copyright issue is a serious one. Should we go through and delete all the paid edit articles we have as copyvios? JoshuaZ (talk) 00:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It will be great if we can find a good procedure for the suggestion. I suggest that content gets a review at WP:CER; that is WP:Contract Editing Review (to avoid 'paid') before being published officially. There'd be no chance for an article to be deleted after review. What do you think? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's proceed calmly on the copyright angle. In most cases, the people who paid for these articles want them here and would be happy to release rights to them through OTRS if contacted. Additionally, I'm not yet certain whether my analysis above is correct, or is only correct in limited situations. Dcoetzee 00:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IANAL but I doubt copyright is an issue. Even if we assume for arguments sake that the edit's copyright rests with the employer, the paid editor is editing under his instructions and as his agent; as such the editor would have the right to license the content under GFDL. The copyright of course would continue to be owned by the employer. This scenario is relatively routine when company employees submit academic articles for publication and have to assign the copyright (or license the content) to the journal on behalf of their employer. Abecedare (talk) 00:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to [2], "prior to commencement of work, both parties must expressly agree in a signed document that the work shall be considered a work made for hire". Nothing to see here, move along. --NE2 00:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's still a potential issue here since your link regards US law only, and since we don't know the terms of any contract between the employer and employee. For example, in Australia, rights of a work produced by a photographer for hire automatically are assigned to the client. I still think it would be useful to offer recommended clauses for inclusion in paid editing contracts to ensure that there are no licensing issues. Dcoetzee 00:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for Jimbo's suggestion, I disfavour it and believe that COI editors should be involved in the regular editing process wherever possible. The main reason for this is that we can't expect their edits to always be reviewed and incorporated by interested editors in a timely manner. Contribution mentoring is practised, but this kind of treatment is only appropriate for editors with a history of damaging edits; it's for rehabilitation, not a preventative measure. Dcoetzee 00:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've already acted boldly and created the page. Contracted articles will be reviewed by a committee. Since I am one of the fervent anti-paid editing, I'd have no problem in working in the reviewing committee. If you have any other idea then we can discuss it there at the talk page. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The newborn WP:CER is created. Discussions about mechanisms and procedures are welcome at its talk page. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (Moved my own response to Wikipedia talk:Contract Editing Review)

And that's probably a low figure for some articles or the fees for editors and companies with proven ability (i.e. edit history) to successfully create and maintain a Wikipedia presence that reflects the goals, history, mission of (Whatever). The $100 articles, the ads on Craiglists and the furtive paid writing is not the kind of "paid editing" that we're discussing. What you see (or suspect) now are those willing to violate professional and corporate ethics to edit here. Paid editing will remove that restriction for 99 percent of those willing to pay for access to the articles and influence of Wikipedia and its community. Everyone keeps discussing this like it will just affect individual editors, but it does not. If Wikipedia allows paid editing, then everyone/thing will be able to legitimately edit and openly develop and promote their expertise. Paid editing is ultimately about providing corporate/organization access and influence in a community that was previously reserved for volunteer individuals who agreed to having only one interest. Good, bad, whatever, introducing other interests would fundamentally change Wikipedia. Flowanda | Talk 22:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since when were current editors limited to "one interest", and what do you mean by that? I edit US political articles, musical bands, some historical topics, a few business articles on firms I particularly like, advocate on the backend for improvements in BLP on this site and general oversight of the management of this place, and avoid topics related to any of my business interests simply to keep things compartmentalized. I don't get your "one interest" statement. As for $10,000, if someone wanted to give me $10,000 to get their personal article, corporate article, or article about their favorite flowering tree to WP:FA status, and it had the sourcing, you can click here to start the process, and I'd resign my adminship if I had to, because $10,000USD is $10,000USD. rootology (C)(T) 22:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is basically the point -- that offering you $10,000 would make your interest in their article greater than your interest in improving Wikipedia. That's the perfect description of an unacceptable conflict of interest. That's exactly why COI needs to be given teeth. Dekimasuよ! 02:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that last sentence is quite telling. If someone were to give me that money I wouldn't create an article for them - taking that money seems to me to be at odds with the principles of Wikipedia. Further, given your skills, knowledge and standing at Wikipedia, it would be easy enough for you to add material that doesn't really belong here. I'm not saying you would, just pointing out that this seems to me to be a reason not to have paid editing, rather than to have it. Ha! (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Any user that adds content that is valid, quality, and fine under our existing community-endorsed content policies = OK.
2. Any user that adds content that is against our existing community-endorsed content policies = not OK.
3. Motivation (fiscal or otherwise) of why a user adds content that is valid, quality, and fine under our existing community-endorsed content policies = 100% irrelevant.
4. Blocking of users that add content that turns out to be paid for, but meets the criteria of point #1 = not OK.
5. Blocking of users that add content that meets the criteria of point #2 = very OK.
6. Blocking of any users of any rank or tenure that employ advocacy besides the addition of new content that meets the criteria of point #1 = OK.
7. Blocking of any users that attempt to use, do use, offer to use, or offer to purchase the use of any "tools" or "status" use of anything from Rollbacker to Flagged Revs to Admin to AC = instant perma-ban for all involved operators, with as much information disclosed on the matter that our privacy policies will allow.

That's where I stand. Since we can't stop or control points #1 or #3, I don't see why #4 is unreasonable. Our mission to put out free content that meets our policies for content inclusion. Does it matter if I write a quality article about Mr. Lou's Hawaiin Burger Joint because I had a good burger there, because Lou and I are both practicing members of religion xyz, because I married his daughter, because I saw a red link, because I like the article name, or because Lou flipped me $200, if the net article is quality for our readers? rootology (C)(T) 22:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• My position is that 3. is already happening, so what do we do? Do we turn a blind eye, do we (propose) spending effort - and to what purpose - in determine who is doing it? Or do we permit it, and encourage people to admit to it so we may better ensure that the material is appropriate to the encyclopedia? Those who edit for gain, but fall under criteria 2., are liable to be dealt with as any other, and have their efforts amended, replaced or removed. Simply, and I trust in agreement with Rootology, whether an editor is rewarded by the subject for their contribution is irrelevent providing it is policy compliant (or intended to be so). LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with all the above. In fact, I believe paid editing will vital to the success of the encyclopedia in the long run, by providing better access to expert editors and enabling them to spend more of their time editing.

  That said, it is policy that users with a conflict of interest declare such conflicts openly. This benefits us because users with a COI are more likely to introduce biased material, and so must be subject to greater scrutiny. Ideally, they would published a detailed list of all past and open contracts on their user page, complete with the identity of the employer and their specific request. There is some compromise to be found here, but there is one thing I will not compromise on, and that's pre-emptively punishing users who have not violated our content policies or otherwise disrupted the project, on the assumption that they will do so. Dcoetzee 00:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• How is seven separate points an "only point"? ☺

  You haven't read what others are saying if you assert point #3. Others are saying that the motivation is very relevant. It has both direct and indirect effects. Directly, it determines what content people write. (What paid editor is going to write something factual but negative about any subject, when MediaWiki makes that editor's edit history available for all potential future customers to see?) Indirectly, knowledge of the monetary incentives for others drives unpaid volunteers away from the project. (This is what happens in the real world. I've even seen it happen myself. Jimbo probably has, too, which is possibly why he so strongly advocates not going down this road. My advice is to listen to the voices of experience.) Uncle G (talk) 02:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Quite understandable. "Why should my volunteer work monitoring recent changes for vandalism be used to lend legitimacy to that paid article?" "Why should I look for a reference for free when he's getting paid to do it?" People talk about the unreliability of Wikipedia all the time, but when editors are getting paid for editing here, they are really cashing in on everyone's work. If it wasn't for the unpaid editors, Wikipedia would be a pile of blog comments and attack pages, not one of the top ten sites on the Internet. Dekimasuよ! 02:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've refuted some of these arguments elsewhere. Anyone who seeks coverage on Wikipedia ought to be going in with the knowledge that anyone can edit their article and possibly add negative things. As such, it's senseless to refuse payment to a paid editor because they happen to be the first to include negative facts - a sympathetic critic is the best kind. If they wanted advertising, they'd hire a copywriter, not a Wikipedia editor - one of them makes you look good, the other writes content that is less likely to be deleted, which is really what the employer is paying for.

    As for paid editors leading to decreased motivation for unpaid editors, I simply don't buy it. Some editors may leave, sure, but what ultimately motivates Wikipedia editors (according to studies) is factors like personal interest, community feedback, wide impact, and so on. It's demeaning to suggest we do it merely because nobody is being paid to do it. Dcoetzee 08:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I reiterate my advice to listen to the voices of experience. In the real world the introduction of factors such as the perception that altruism is no longer part of the game drives volunteers away, and no amount of whinging that "It's demeaning" to point this out changes what happens, and has happened, in reality. If one doesn't want to listen to the voices of Wikipedia editors with experience, one can listen to the voices of others who've seen this, too. Here's a reading list that will start one off on learning about this:
      • John Amis, Trevor Slack, & Tim Berrett (1995). "The structural antecedents of conflict in voluntary sport organizations". Leisure Studies. 14 (1): 1–16. doi:10.1080/02614369500390011.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
      • John McKnight (1996). "Professionalism". The careless society: community and its counterfeits. BasicBooks. ISBN 0465091261. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |isbn13= ignored (help)
      • Jeni Warburton and Allyson Much (2000). "Volunteer Resources". In Jeni Warburton and Melanie Oppenheimer (ed.). Volunteers and Volunteering. Federation Press. ISBN 1862873763. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |isbn13= ignored (help)
      • Mark Lyons and Susan Hocking (2000). "Australia's Highly Committed Volunteers". In Jeni Warburton and Melanie Oppenheimer (ed.). Volunteers and Volunteering. Federation Press. ISBN 1862873763. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |isbn13= ignored (help)
      • Elaine V. Backman and Steven Rathgeb Smith (2003-07-14). "Healthy Organizations, Unhealthy Communities?". Nonprofit Management and Leadership. 10 (4). Wiley Periodicals, Inc.: 355–373. doi:10.1002/nml.10402.
      • J. Gregory Dees and Beth Battle Anderson (2004). "Sector-bending: Blurring the Lines Between Nonprofit and For-Profit". In Peter Frumkin and Jonathan B. Imber (ed.). In search of the nonprofit sector. Transaction Publishers. ISBN 0765805189. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |isbn13= ignored (help)
    • Consider your refutations, whatever they may have been, to be themselves refuted by the voices of experience, and by quite a lot of expert study of this matter.

      The only small ray of light that you have is Tracy Daniel Connors:

      • Tracy Daniel Connors (1993). The Nonprofit management handbook: operating policies and procedures. J. Wiley. p. 262. ISBN 0471537020. Successful volunteer participation cannot be measured by volunteer numbers alone. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |isbn13= ignored (help)
    • And whilst I'm here providing examples from the real world to read about and learn from, consider a particularly enlightening study of what happens to end products. Titmuss famously contrasted the transfusion blood supply organizations in the United States and the United Kingdom in the 1960s, and noted that in the U.S. system, where blood was sold by the people giving it, there was a chronic problem of hepatitis, whereas no such problem existed in the U.K. system, where blood was donated voluntarily. Titmuss directly attributed this to unsuitable suppliers coming forward in the U.S., to be paid for a bad product, because they were motivated by the money, not motivated by altruism. People were motivated to lie about the quality of their blood. This causal relationship was echoed by the 1973 announcement by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare of its revised National Blood Policy. The parallel to people motivated to produce poor encyclopaedia article content because they are serving the interests of an article's subject, should be apparent.
      • Richard Titmuss (1970). The Gift Relationship: From Human Blood to Social Policy. London: Allen and Unwin.
    • Uncle G (talk) 11:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further to Uncle G's excellent information, an abstract starts "Most economic models are based on the self-interest hypothesis that assumes that material self-interest exclusively motivates all people. Experimental economists have gathered overwhelming evidence in recent years, however, that systematically refutes the self-interest hypothesis, suggesting that concerns for altruism, fairness, and reciprocity strongly motivate many people."

We are discussing a complex topic which, of course, has no simple rule that applies without exception. However, given that we cannot actually stop subtle paid advocacy, all we can do is discuss our policy reaction. My own view is that while there may be a need to list exceptions, we should start with a clear paid advocacy is not allowed policy.

Particularly for puff-piece promos of individuals and organizations, a rise of paid advocacy would drive out many volunteers who would be motivated to move to areas where greater fairness is apparent. Johnuniq (talk) 02:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I don't argue that some contributors may perceive unfairness in paid editing and so be less motivated to participate. I only argue that the effect would be small, and the overall benefit to the project of allowing paid editing would be positive. One batch of hepatitis in the blood supply is a big problem - one bad editor among hundreds, who can be rooted out and disciplined, is not. This is something that needs to be regulated and monitored, not pre-emptively banned. I can name countless scenarios in which paid editing is appropriate. What about charities that want to hire people to expand Wikipedia in their general area of interest? What about expanding small foreign language Wikipedias by hiring native speakers? Not every piece for hire is a promotional piece. We strip ourselves of innumerable methods of invaluable growth by outlawing this practice. Dcoetzee 02:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hypotheticals and proposals — There are quite a few of those here. Reality is somewhat different, and we haven't given proper consideration to the more predominant form of this problem. In addition to the concrete examples put forward at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Paid editing#Statement by Ha!, here are two further concrete examples of what the reality here is, exemplifying some of the cases that Ha!'s examples don't cover:

• Artezinteractive (talk · contribs), an editor whose account name telegraphs a conflict of interest, repeatedly (1 2) removes {{coi}} from Artez Interactive, and writes an article sourced entirely to press releases and to the company's own autobiography.

  I suggest that people opining various positions on editors clearly identifying their monetary conflicts of interest comment on how they themselves would actually put their opinions into practice for this case.

• Whitney Wyatt-Kovar, a self-identified PR person for Mr. Rooter Corporation, edits the Mr. Rooter (AfD discussion) article three times, under two accounts (1, 2, 3). In one of the edits xe replaces sourced information with unsourced contradictory information. In another of the edits xe replaces a specific statement of franchise numbers in separate countries with less-specific information. In all three edits, xe adds text, written in the first person, that exhorts the reader to come to the company's own WWW site. Later, StacyTasha, who does not similarly declare a conflict of interest, and who uses a mis-leading edit summary, appends a marketing brochure, written in the first person and exhorting the reader in the second person, to the article.

  Again, I suggest that those opining on self-identification of conflicts of interest consider what their opinions would lead them to do in practice in this and similar cases.

As a few editors with Recent Changes Patrol or Cleanup Patrol experience will no doubt attest, these are the norm, not the exceptions, when it comes to such editing. Such cases also far outnumber the instances of freelance-writer-for-hire editing, such as those that have sparked this discussion. (Consider that Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/COIReports/2009, Jun 10, for example, is just one day's worth of edits, and contains several instances of such editing.) And as can be seen from the edits themselves, the idea upon which several arguments here are based, that editors with monetary conflicts of interest will generally make neutral content, verifiable from independent sources, that improves the encyclopaedia, is not wholly borne out by what already happens in reality.

You want to know the answer to your question about what the community thinks, Rootology. It's simple, and it is shown by the fact that the community has created, and actively maintains, such things as the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest noticeboard and Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam, and has endorsed speedy deletion criterion #G11. These and others demonstrate what the community thinks. To put it in the form of your points above: "Editing Wikipedia with the lining of one's own pockets being the intended consequence of one's edits = not OK". Uncle G (talk) 03:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Are paid editors more likely to introduce material that does not follow our content policies than volunteer editors? On average, yes. Similarly, high school students are more likely to vandalize than non-high school students. The obvious solution: ban all high school students. I'm speaking in hyperbole, but the point here is not to prejudge somebody based on factors such as these, however useful they may be, but rather use them as the basis of determining where to place our scrutiny and impose sanctions, which is exactly the purpose of the COI noticeboard and G11. Dcoetzee 08:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • See above. Take heed of the voices of experience, and of reality. Uncle G (talk) 11:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was responding directly to your message above. I am taking heed of the voice of experience. I believe the most prudent course is increased scrutiny, rather than pre-emptive action. Is that so terribly unreasonable? You also didn't respond to my argument at all. Dcoetzee 02:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the reality is important and easy to overlook. Currently on RC patrol it's easy enough, with the right tools, to spot people trying to add stuff that shouldn't be on Wikipedia. I'm talking about the semi-legitimate looking material rather than the vandalism. The reason it's easy enough to spot it is because the people adding it are mostly idiots. They're naive high school kids adding stuff about their favourite band, wannabe entrepreneurs that want to add themselves/their business or businesses that have delegated to some junior techie that knows something about Wikipedia to add their business. In other words, they're people that are not skilled in what I call the "art" of Wikipedia; they don't understand how important the appearance of respectability is, how important the mutual reinforcement of sources and material is, how important it is to know the rules and play by them and be able to negotiate their wording to bypass their spirit, how important alliances and compromise with other editors are. The problem with sanctioning any form of paid editing is that the idiots aren't going to be the ones getting paid to edit; the skilled and experienced Wikipedia editors are going to be the ones getting paid to edit. These people (probably you if you're reading this) do know how to get stuff on to Wikipedia. If you're an experienced and knowledgeable editor, ask yourself this, "if I was determined enough, right now, to add material (permanently) that I know shouldn't really be on here, would I be able to do so?" The answer is yes, you would. By sanctioning any form of paid editing you're giving the green light to it. Once you do you will significantly increase the number of skilled people doing it and the ease with which they can do it (they will have a policy to point to and say "look, I'm allowed to do this"). This in turn will make it much harder to patrol material that shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Ha! (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious. How can you be sure that this isn't already happening on a large scale ? How do you know that skilled and experienced Wikipedia editors are not already being secretly paid for contributing well written, unexceptional, reliably sourced, NPOV articles ? And if there is no objective difference between a policy-compliant paid edit and a policy-compliant unpaid edit, how exactly is paid editing harming Wikipedia ? Gandalf61 (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot stop it altogether, but we can do our best to stop it when we can, as well as force people to be ashamed and do it behind closed doors. In response to Nihiltres claiming that, if the content meets our guidelines, Wikipedia gains from paid editing, I claimed here that "if it tarnishes our public image and people no longer trust us, we lose from it. What's the point of Wikipedia existing if no one trusts it or wants to use it?" hmwithτ 19:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't exactly make that claim, and I specifically responded to your comment here. I agree with you! Don't take chunks of my opinion out of context, please. My basic agreement with Rootology's main point does not mean that I take all of his views. My overall view of paid editing is somewhat critical—I merely don't dismiss it without careful consideration. If it were as simple as "content meeting guidelines == good" then we wouldn't be having this debate in the first place. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 04:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't buy that argument either. People judge an encyclopedia based on its content, not its authors. What reason do they have to trust anonymous volunteer contributors? Wikipedia is built to correct for bias in the system, regardless of the source. Dcoetzee 02:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Dcoetzee I read your point is an excellent one as to why paid writing should not be accepted. At the moment our encyclopedia is "helped" by the fact that it is judged somewhat negatively on the fact that its authors are unpaid volunteers. This fact brings other volunteers who think/know they can do better - so that the 'pedia is in a state of constant flux - never quite trusted (which is good) and always being improved. Sanctioning paid editing adds an unreal legitimacy and would, in my view, probably drive editors away from wikipedia, and would be far more likely to do so where paid editors stamped the page with their sanctioned action.--VS ^talk 03:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]