This is not the place to post notices of suspected Paid editing. Please follow Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, and create a report there.

[edit] Request for Comment

Should the current "guideline" page be removed so it can be replaced with a proposed policy page and what weight should be given to the only community-wide request for comment? -- Banjeboi 01:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• I read through this revision of the "guideline" and this revision of the "policy". The major difference seems to be that the "guideline" focuses on whether the editing actually violates COI or other existing policies, while the "policy" criminalizes various types of editing apparently on principle. I guess it all boils down to whether these certain forms of payment have such a low rate of compliance with NPOV and other existing policies that the few that do are lost in the noise (and whether banning it would really make a difference), or whether there are sufficient good edits to justify dealing with the problem-makers. Does anyone actually know, or is it all just random guessing? I sure don't, but my random guess is the latter.
  As for the mess above, what a wonderfully toxic atmosphere. The important point that the only community RFC to date showed no consensus for either banning or specifically allowing paid editing seems to be widely ignored in favor of petty bickering and a "4 against 1 here now wins" mentality. Anomie⚔ 03:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Move "WP:Paid Editing(guideline)" to user space It is an essay, purporting to be a summary of current policy that nobody agrees with. Several editors have asked whether anybody actually supports the proposed guideline, and nobody has answered yes. I plan on taking WP:Paid editing (which was relabeled without consensus "WP:Paid editing (policy)") to a community wide request (by December 1) for comment to see whether it will be accepted as policy. Since "guideline" has no support, it will simply be a source of confusion, an obstruction. It can be brought back, if anybody supports it, if the RfC on the real WP:Paid editing fails. WP:Paid editing (guideline) clearly is not ready for an RfC of its own, so why not get out of the way and let the serious proposal go forward without obstruction? Smallbones (talk) 04:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

See below. Smallbones (talk) 02:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• • What prevents your "serious proposal" from having its RFC at its current title? It would certainly reduce the excess drama I see on this talk page. Anomie⚔ 12:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It would be something like having 2 candidates running for the same office who have the same first and last names, but different middle initials - simply very confusing. Smallbones (talk) 02:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• I completely disagree with the proposed policy (Wikipedia:Paid editing (policy)), and per the previous RfC, so does a large part of the community. --Apoc2400 (talk) 07:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. The RfC produced no consensus to prohibit any or all forms of paid editing, which means that there is no consensus for any policy providing for such a prohibition. This retains the status quo, with which I agree, according to which all content is judged on its own merits and not on any assumed motivations of its creator.  Sandstein  09:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Move This page violates WP:FORKWP:CFORK and as such cannot be left in place. If consensus cannot be obtained to merge elements into WP:Paid editing (policy) then so be it. That's what WP is all about. Ronnotel (talk) 12:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

  Err, did you mean WP:CFORK? At any rate, that seems to apply mainly to articles, and a case could well be made that the "policy" version is actually the fork. Anomie⚔ 12:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

  Yes, thanks, I did mean WP:CFORK and will adjust. Whichever is the fork, it is simply not tenable to allow both pages to exist. The content needs to be merged per consensus, whatever that is. Ronnotel (talk) 12:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment:It seems like this is getting bogged down in technical issues; just merge the pages and get something into place as policy. Every so often on the help desk I see a request that starts out "My boss asked me to write an article about our company for Wikipedia..." That is a ridiculous situation for someone to be in. I know it's more or less implied by conflict of interest etc., but it would be great to have a clear cut statement in 15 words or less that editing Wikipedia as part of your job is against policy.--RDBury (talk) 13:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

  I agree. While I haven't been in that exact situation, it's been close. And it was helpful to have a clear cut policy that I could use to explain why editing such a page was a bad idea. Ronnotel (talk) 13:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

  This sounds interesting but as has been discussed many times it's completely unenforcible and is not supported in policy. Many people who are paid make needed and helpful contributions - and are likely not known because they don't otherwise cause problems. There is also the inherent hypocrisy of Wikipedia simultaneously saying editing Wikipedia as part of your job is against policy when we are soliciting public health officials to edit Wikipedia in the interests of public health. I'm sure other examples exist. As to the help desk question I agree it would be handy to have the guideline page be more clear that the practice is frowned upon but prohibited with the main reasons being NPOV (including Undue) followed by RS. -- Banjeboi 14:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment It is less important which page is considered the official page than that there is only one such page in policyspace. As a specific observation, frankly, neither captures the spirit of the original request for comment. The current page falls miserably short of the proper discouragement of the practice, which the community recognized the need for, and the proposed page is too draconian in its language, making outright prohibitions which the community felt went too far to be practicable. But get either one as the official page to start with, and work with it to make it better. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

  Note that there is in fact no "offical" page at this time, just two different drafts. Anomie⚔ 17:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

  The problem is that having "two different drafts" makes it much hard to arrive at consensus. Whichever draft has consensus should have the other draft merged into it. Ronnotel (talk) 19:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

  If one had consensus, wouldn't it not be just a draft anymore? Anomie⚔ 19:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Suggestion - As a suggestion, userfy the proposed page (there is already precedent for that) and use the userdrafts as drafts, then bring larger suggestions to the main page. In the meantime, obvious noncontroversial improvements to the main page can be made. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I feel there is room for a more draconian policy page but just that it's currently mis-focussed. If it is clear one is the status quo and the other hopes to move toward a more stringent policy can't both be still developed. Obviously this one needs work but given the current atmosphere I have held off. Is there an actual problem with both existing as being in-process as long as it's clear what they are intended for? -- Banjeboi 14:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support : Specifically, I think the current "guideline" page should be userified or amde into a draft page, and the page presently called the "policy" be renamed into a guideline. It can mature as a guideline and may eventually become a policy. There should be only one official page in project space, and the so-called "policy" page is closer to the community view than the page now titled "guideline".   Will Beback  talk  20:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

  I think you are saying move the policy page here and move the current page to Wikipedia:Paid editing (guideline)/Draft? If so that sounds like a reasonable solution. Ronnotel (talk) 21:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

  Yes, exactly.   Will Beback  talk  21:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support as Will Beback specifies as elaborated by Ronnotel above. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support moving the page as many people have suggested. I don't think anything is in final form and ready for the "big time," (that is an RfC on getting it to be policy). I don't think we should be running separate versions, however. I fully support the incorporation of ideas, thoughts, and expressions from the last RfC into the final proposal, as would be obviously necessary if it ever will be a policy or guideline. --TeaDrinker (talk) 01:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support though I'd say the best overall title is simply "WP:Paid editing." Any proposed policy/guideline has to have a goal of going to an RfC sooner or later, but I'll defer to the judgement of others as to when, within any reasonable period (say within a year). Smallbones (talk) 02:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Proposed policy is unnecessarily restrictive. It focuses on personalities of editors without even considering their input (a blank assumption of paid = harmful). "Paid advocacy is prohibited", unpaid advocacy is not - I see a fallacy here (correct me if I'm wrong but, apart from CAMERA and Scientology cases, all other disruptive flamewars did not involve any noticeable paid editing - do these exception justify a summary ruling?). A completely different issue is apparent patchwork shape of the proposed policy - it attempts to nail the culprits with a sledgehammer, yet fails to draw the line. This is prohibited, that is definitely not, in between is a gray area that leaves too much leeway for "random acts of kindness" (of course, unpaid ones :)). NVO (talk) 10:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

As for the second question (re. RFC). The RFC was held in June. The proposed policy attained its shape in August-October. Statements made in June should not be considered an endorsement of a text composed afterwards. NVO (talk) 10:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. The intended purpose of the present "guideline" page is a good one and far more on target with the overall opinions of the community than those pushing for the "proposed policy" page seem to realize. After reading through discussions going back three years the same issues are brought up repeatedly; (i) we have no way of knowing who is or is not actually paid - and we generally don't care about motivations, we care about content; (ii) all paid editing issues are not cut and dry simple, and no proposed policy is actually enforcible unless an editor is proven to be a paid editor and even then - it depends on what they have actually done; (iii) conflating all paid editors as COI, all pr flacks as causing problems etc. have been repeatedly refuted; (iv) Jimmy Wales' own statements were challenged and he later clarified that the public appearance that we accept a paid editing service was a core concern and if all paid editors themselves were pushed underground that would be acceptable. (a Don't Ask, Don't Tell situation); (v) paid editing and building good content are not mutually exclusive, there is a path to work civilly with all editors without either condemning or condoning their motives - which we should likely not bother with unless there is ... an actual problem. For which existing guidelines and policies already exist. I'm also have yet to see an actual reason both proposed pages can't continue to be developed in "policy mainspace" - this one overviews the issues and current status while the policy one proposes a more hardline stance - as long as they are clear both exist and what they are intended for to aid our readers/editors. -- Banjeboi 13:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

While I feel either applying Will Beback's suggestion, or userfying, either page, as a temporary stopgap, is better than spinning our wheels here, I will disagree that the current guideline is closer to the community's position. The proposed (new) page is, only that it's tone is simply too black and white. The discouragement of the practice which the community clearly thought needed is almost absent from the (current) guideline. Indeed if I didn't know better I could even entertain that it was written by people getting ready to set up paid editing services, it falls that short. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a reason to improve the page, not dismiss it outright. And there is no reason not to express those sentiments as long as we remain in keeping with existing policies. The community is split with a slight majority seeing little issue as long as the content is good. We should reflect that. If there is a better way to get across what exactly is discouraged, why and by whom I think it would be welcome, at least by me. The current stagnation is the repeated attempts to have only the sentiments demonstrated in the "policy" page which is counter to roughly half the community - that seems like a bad idea. Just as I don't think that page should be dismissed, I think both can continue to be developed in "policy space" and I don't see any rule against that. If the page does remain I'd love to be able to have you review it after more clean-up and content improvement takes place. -- Banjeboi 15:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The question is whether this page is closer to the community's viewpoint or the policy page. I think it's pretty clear that the policy page is closer and should be the one that is improved. Ronnotel (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually that is part of the issue as is evident by the discussion. Some feel this page is clearly more in line. This issue remains that both pages can exist and are not mutually exclusive. this page can accurately reflect the community RfC, history and exist policies while the "policy" page can make the case and advocate for a more stringent policy of some sort. The RfC was quite split and this page should not give undue weight to one faction over another as there was differing views. -- Banjeboi 15:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely disagree and the very reason we have WP:CFORK. There is no conceivable justification for allowing an old-fashioned content fork, here or anywhere. WP is about consensus, allowing a duplicate page simply side-steps that requirement and guarantees on-going confusion. This distraction needs to end quickly so we can get on with the process of developing consensus. Ronnotel (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Concur (obviously) w/Ron. It is silly to have two contradictory pages in policyspace nominally about the same issue. One should go. Soon. Not necessarily deleted but userfied or to a subpage of the Talkpage for work. Furthermore, let's all acknowledge that saying that one and only one of these pages as written is best, is a flagrant false dichotomy. Both have issues, and the community consensus is best captured in something in some sense between them. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I respect you believe that but I feel that misses the mark - to me it matters if the pages contradict the community RfC or not; and if so, is there a good reason. i think the policy page should be allowed to develop even though it represents sentiments opposed by many in the community. It clearly is to find a more rigorous way to stop what it sees as problems. I think there is value in that. Meanwhile this page should continue to improve to show teh current multiple viewpoints and serve expressly help thos on all sides of the issue find the actual current policies and guidelines, and support pages, to assist running the project. -- Banjeboi 18:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, contrary to what is sometimes suggested, there currently is NO consensus regarding to what extend paid editing is allowed on Wikipedia, which is also evidenced by the length and intensity of all recent discussions regarding this subject. Favoring one opinion (the "proposed policy") over another (the "proposed guideline") is therefore inappropriate. In my view, both should be labeled an "essay" and the status quo retained, with perhaps a short explanation on Wikipedia:Paid editing that different opinions exist regarding paid editing, and indicating one should always be cautious to not violate policy. --Reinoutr (talk) 11:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that the intention was to "favor" one over the other (Benjiboi can clarify, perhaps). The essay suggestion is interesting (at various points, Benjiboi's version was labeled an essay), but seems to be giving up on finding a policy or guideline everyone is happy with. Neither version fully addresses everyone's concerns (as is clear from this RfC). But to me the question is whether we have two versions to work on, eventually to bring to the RfC or just one. If we can't get consensus among the few authors, there's not much point in a wider discussion. --TeaDrinker (talk) 01:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I intepreted it too simple, but if one of the two (either one) is removed, the other one is "favored". But that is semantics, I suppose. The problem here is that the two versions are both supported (and opposed) by a separate group of editors, meaning neither is likely to make it to an official guideline or policy and a merger seems unlikely. A Request for Comments for a wider audience is therefore also unlikely to lead to consensus (at least at this point in time). Therefore, I suggested marking them both an "essay", with a (very) short explanation on WP:PAID. Not ideal, but it might be the maximum that can be achieved at this point. --Reinoutr (talk) 06:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any suggestion of removing one version, but rather moving one to a subpage. The purpose of the RfC is not to determine which version has community support, but rather whether there should be one version of the page under development or two. Would you support moving one version to a subpage? --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually removing the guideline version seems to have been the intent ever since the "proposed policy" page was created as a subpage. Removing neither, both or only one are all options but the rather pointy discussions over the past months have posited that only myself wanted the current page at all. On such an important issue where clear community divide has been evidenced it's more helpful to show if indeed that contention - that the guideline page should be deleted/removed - is indeed supported by consensus. Despite numerous requests to point to what policy that both pages can't be still developed where they are ... nothing has supported that only one can exist. Both pages need to be in compliance with the community RfC; both pages have issues that need to be addressed and both pages have at least some support and some opposition. It would be nice if the two could be merged but there does seem to be some fundamental philosophical disputes. I'm not suggesting that both pages exist indefinitely but I also see no reason why both can't be given a stay of execution for several months or some other similar time-frame to allow them to improve. Another suggestion, of course, is to start an RfC to see what support exists for the proposed policy page. My hunch is that you'll see many of the same views expressed here. It's flawed, needs work, no way as presently written, etc. -- Banjeboi 22:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes I oppose moving either one. Its both, or neither, as otherwise this will only inflame the discussion because it has to be decided which one is moved.... See an alternative (temporary) proposal below under #A proposal. --Reinoutr (talk) 21:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose: 1)Why someone edits on WP is completely irrelevant: what is important is the edit. 2)Policy would be unenforceable: how can you be sure that an editor is being paid if such editor does not disclose? (and no one would, given such a policy, so basically you would have less transparency, not more) 3)There is no consensus at all for the policy. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 00:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • You may have misunderstood the proposal, or the proposal was poorly worded. No one is proposing a policy at this point. Basically, what is at issue here is which page should serve as the basis for further work.   Will Beback  talk  01:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Indeed, I could have misunderstood. However most comments above weren't dissimilar from mine (Sandstein, NVO, et al.). I'd like to understand better what is under discussion therefore. In any case, I don't want this page to be discussed as a potential policy. Policing editors'intentions instead of editors'output is dangerous, impractical nonsense which would only lead to more drama. --Cyclopia^talk 12:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Actually I think they got it right. There is inherent problems with the policy page as is so removing the guideline page thus replacing it with the issues represented only in the proposed policy page would be a step in the wrong direction as there points have outlined. Thus an "oppose" opinion would support not removing this page and allowing that proposed policy page to be the only one represented in policy space. -- Banjeboi 21:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I think this RfC may have been malformed since the question seems to have been phrased as a strawman. The porposals in question are confused and I don't think well be able to derive any useful conclusion from this.   Will Beback  talk  23:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support The guideline actually appears to allow and promote paid editing, a feature which I find wholly incompatible with WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT, and it appears to undermine the better thought-out proposed policy. I say ditch the guideline, as it is not coming at the issue from the right viewpoint, and continue work on the policy, which appears to be coming along nicely. ThemFromSpace 22:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Paid editing is allowed although "promoting" is a tone issue that can cleaned up. -- Banjeboi 22:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Again, I find paid editing, any paid editing, incompatible with our goals and I would support explicitly stating this within our policy. We should not make any exceptions for it. ThemFromSpace 23:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
      • That is your opinion and is completely valid as such, it seems however that a slight majority disagree with your assessment and our job is to represent all the opinions, not just the ones we favor. -- Banjeboi 23:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support eliminating the fork. Oppose in all cases paid editing. I don't really understand the rest of this. The competing page, created it seems to me to muddy the waters, makes any other intelligent discussion on content impossible (for me at least).Bali ultimate (talk) 23:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • These issues have been addressed above and even the policy page concedes that some forms can be acceptable. The bottom line is that there is effectively no way to prevent paid editing and we should be realistic about that. -- Banjeboi 23:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
    • What nonsense ("there is effectively no way to prevent paid editing"). There's no way to effectively prevent sockpuppetry, POV-pushing and assorted game playing. But that isn't an argument to allow sockpuppetry et al. It's an argument to make it clear how corrosive these practices are and be vigilant against them. People that get paid an edit are incentivized to game the system to undermine NPOV and turn the encyclopedia into a promotional vehicle.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Well no. Consider your statement -- first off, multiple accounts ARE allowed, it's when they are used badly (which, granted, they usually are) it's disallowed. POV-Pushing and 'assorted game playing' is actions that users take. 'Paid editing' isn't an action in an of itself. One could be a paid editor and be completely faithful to WP's rules. In general, we only block those disruptive. Someone being a paid editor may be disruptive, but so could a random bored teen. I don't see it as much different than someone, say, being a huge fan of media X that often gets a lot of controversy and backlash, and working on a lot of media X's pages. They COULD very easily be disruptive and try to remove all the negative parts, but they could just as easily help produce a fair and neutral article. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
        • You have no idea what a conflict of interest is, do you? Shouldn't be tolerated, ever. That some theoretical pr man might not be effected by his conflict of interest is, perhaps, possible. The outlines of the paid editing policy are obvious: "No paid editors in main space, subject to indef blocks. Allowed to advocate on BLP issues and other matters of interest in talk space, so long as they declare themselves." No muss, no fuss, conflict of interest dispensed with.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
          • And what, pray tell, makes "paid editing" COI so much worse than "rabid fanboy" COI, or "religious"/"anti-religion" COI, or "nationalist" COI, or "promote my academic views" COI, and so on that we need a special policy just for it instead of letting the existing WP:COI, WP:NPOV, and such cover it? Or do you really propose blocking pretty much everyone for having some COI somewhere? Anomie⚔ 23:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
            • Perhaps Bali isn't thinking this through. Bali, do you object to a schoolteacher cleaning up an article so that her class can use it? That's "paid editing". Will we tell experts at the National Institutes of Health that they are absolutely not allowed to correct outright errors and add reliable sources to articles about cancer and heart disease? (We had a workshop for them a few months ago on how to do this very thing.) That's "paid editing". We've got a long list of busted links from the US Food and Drug Administration (they rearranged their website). Would you ban FDA employees from fixing dead links? That's "paid editing". (We do encounter employees being paid to do basic maintenance tasks like that, e.g. this.) Overall, I suspect that the knee-jerk all-paid-editing-is-evil group is thinking about a highly limited kind of paid editing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
              • • I'm thinking it through plenty. The school teacher isn't paid to edit wikipedia. As for the NIH, it's a borderline issue -- but you know what? Sure, the policy should be that the NIH should be straight up about who they are and what they're doing when they're here. THey're a govt agency, if they want to bring down the "truth" let em do it with their name behind. As for people being paid to to fix broken links? They should be hunted down like dogs (I suspect there are 1000s of them going on with their nefarious link fixing even as we speak already). In reality -- I want anyone paid to push a cause or a POV to prevented from editing main space. If there requests are reasonable and within policy pages, there are lots of people here willing to do that. Perhaps you aren't thinking this through? Bali ultimate (talk) 01:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
                  • In the examples that WhatamIdoing gives, those are all instances of someone whose job does not involve editing Wikipedia deciding to improve the project - that's different from being paid to edit. A government official editing the article about his or her department would fall under the existing COI guidelines.   Will Beback  talk  01:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
                    • Except, of course, that they are getting paid for doing a job, and that job (at least in their own interpretation) results in Wikipedia being edited. Some people will consider this "paid editing"; others won't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] A proposal

• Comment. Scrap them both and start again from scratch, working from the RfC on paid editing rather than editors' personal opinions to create a guideline that summarises community consensus on paid editing. Editors may propose new policies on paid editing elsewhere. Fences&Windows 00:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • That might be the only workable solution, although consensus on a new text is unlikely to develop at the moment, I am afraid. --Reinoutr (talk) 10:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Then we're stuck with Jimbo's statement of policy (Smallbones (talk) 12:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)):

It is not ok with me that anyone ever set up a service selling their services as a Wikipedia editor, administrator, bureaucrat, etc. I will personally block any cases that I am shown.... the idea that we should ever accept paid advocates directly editing Wikipedia is not ever going to be ok. Consider this to be policy as of right now.... Just imagine the disaster for our reputation. Are we free and independent scribes doing our best to record all human knowledge? Or are we paid shills. I know what I choose.

— Jimbo Wales

Lets not, here and now, restart the discussion of how to interpret that statement. Lets try to find a way on how to incorporate the current status (quo) into Wikipedia. This is my suggestion:

• Both current pages (the "proposed policy" and the "proposed guideline") are turned into essays, page names to be decided together with the main authors.
• At Wikipedia:Paid editing we make a short page mentioning that multiple opinions exist (without going into detail, but linking to both essays), and we place there the direct quote from Jimbo Wales above.
• The pages Wikipedia:Paid editing (guideline), Wikipedia:Paid editing (policy) as well as Wikipedia:Paid editing (essay) will link to Wikipedia:Paid editing.
• A broader discussion is initiated, if people think that would be useful, but without the direct generation of any policy or guideline until consensus is reached. This discussion will be held at an appropriate venue (e.g. Village Pump or a new RfC).

--Reinoutr (talk) 14:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo doesn't make policy, he's just another editor. I agree with this above plan. Fences&Windows 01:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Still, his view is valued by many here on Wikipedia, so it makes sense to at least mention his opinion (as a direct quote, no interpretation) on such a page. I would love to hear the opinion of the other people involved in the discussion above on this proposal. --Reinoutr (talk) 07:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The so-called "policy" page was an attempt to restart the drafting process. I don't object to doing so again. As for Wale's continuing influence on the project, his comment about the David Shankbone AfD was quoted repeatedly as a justification for deletion, so his views are still considered relevant.   Will Beback  talk  19:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Some editors respect his views. Others don't. Quote him by all means, but take care not to refer to his views as being policy or being gospel. His views may help inform consensus, but they don't set it. Fences&Windows 23:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

See WP:CONEXCEPT which is policy. Smallbones (talk) 15:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

If that wording is intended to allow Jimmy Wales to override community opinion whenever he sees fit, then that policy is a poor one. It's about time we deposed the monarch. Fences&Windows 02:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough - go get consensus to change the policy there. Until that happens, Jimbo's statement of policy is policy, and a non-consensus or even a consensus here cannot change that. Smallbones (talk) 14:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Is a policy a policy if everyone ignores it? Fences&Windows 23:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the commentator initiated calling this a modest proposal or not .. but it certainly isn't. Having do-over only resets the clock a few months when a group of editors, who favor a more stringent hardline against most if not all forms of paid editing started injecting various POV positions similar to decreeing Wales' disputed and misinterpreted quote above as the new law. They are welcome to believe that all paid editors are bad, reality is not in agreement but they are welcome to believe that to be true. Likewise they are welcome to believe that numerous statements of policy against paid editing exist when they in fact don't. What they are to avoid doing is pillorizing, demonizing and witch-hunt hunting and casting bad faith on those they feel simply must be paid editors. Similar to our COI policy, we do not compromise our civility simply because we feel someone is doing something wrong. For those new to this discussion topic, this is the latest round of several months of trying to remove the guideline page to replace it with the proposed policy page. Any mature reading shows that neither is about to gain wide acceptance and thus both need work. Similarly neither is completely inaccurate. Whereas the guideline page has stressed being within the spirit and letter of the community - although "toothless" by some opinions; the proposed policy page contains numerous flaws which would never gain consensus. A more realistic approach is to allow each to be developed and kept marked as "proposed" for a reasonable time, not one week, but neither is indefinitely helpful. As this page has been RfC'd already, perhaps in a few months the policy page could get more scrutiny to see what acceptance it has. By then hopefully those interested in developing that page will have also cooled off and taken a more "comment on content rather than contributors" approach. -- Banjeboi 22:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't add the heading, "a modest proposal", I don't have that much hubris. I think that was Reinoutr's rhetorical flourish. I favour starting from scratch as I don't think either proposal has achieved the goal of summarising community consensus, though the guideline proposal is closer to that goal. The policy proposal does not summarise consensus but instead attempts to change current practice, as the handful of editors working on it do not recognise the general consensus that banning paid editing is either undesirable or impossible. I agree Reinoutr's proposal as it cuts the Gordian knot. Fences&Windows 23:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

There you go, the "modest" is removed. Now lets focus on options rather than (my perhaps rather silly chosen) semantics. This whole discussion with the two proposals is obviously leading nowhere useful, so I was only trying to find a way out. I understand this means resetting the clock, but keeping both as "proposed" will only garantuee regular edit wars over the "proposed" status on those two pages. Banjeboi, you have to understand that the way you see it ("the proposed policy page contains numerous flaws which would never gain consensus") is the exact opposite of what some others think, showing that consensus on these particular pages will be impossible. --Reinoutr (talk) 23:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate you removing the semantic roadbump, thank you. However I also don't see throwing out both, or realistically either page as helping move things forward. Those few editors opposed to this page hoped for a slam dunk deletion of this page with the RfC, myself and a few editors months ago pointed out out that any RfC would likely remain polarized and given the community's lack of long-term patience for re-hashing issues we unfortunately would be wasting a good opportunity to work out more subtle issues. I'm convinced the policy page will be rejected as a proposal but I also feel those editors need to hear it, again, from other editors. There is some hope for some policy and I encourage that path to continue. Meanwhile I'd like to get back to cleaning up this page. I have suspended working on it and, IMHO, everyone else driven away by the toxic atmosphere. I actually think it holds a lot of promise but that's likely because I see the many missing parts that will help round it out. After more work I think inviting some of the more objective participants to see what is still lacking or flawed here would be productive. Realistically if both pages are wholesale removed what exactly do you think would happen? ... similar POV dueling is my guess. I'd rather keep what we have, try to improve it and allow those pushing for a policy page the space to develop that without interference. In short I think deleting both wouldn't be a hoped for solution and would actually be throwing out the baby with bathwater. Keep both pages for now and set a several-months'-deadline for further review. If other editors could keep an eye on this page to help keep the incivility to a minimum it would also be appreciated. If the proposed policy page is ever accepted it would be correctly summarized here for whatever areas it applied. -- Banjeboi 00:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm ok with starting over, so long as one we have only one version to work on. I'm not in favor of this business of multiple competing forks of the same document, nor am I ok with giving up on trying to get consensus on something. Benjiboi is correct that attempting to get consensus on any new version is likely to be contentious. But that's the nature of the issue. --TeaDrinker (talk) 01:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to get things clear, I am not argueing for deletion of the pages, but for turning them into "essays". Obviously, text can be taken from those essays to be incorporated into a future combined page. You say that you are "convinced the policy page will be rejected", but others feel the same about this page (the "guideline"). Personally, I do not even prefer one page over the other, but do think we need a way forward, rather than going in circles. And yes, getting consensus for a new version will be contentious. But then again, at the moment we have two competing pages, which will never get merged, but of which each one will just be promoted by its supporters. I am not claiming the solution I propose is ideal, but at the very least it is a way out of this split. --Reinoutr (talk) 07:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

To me it would simply be extending the issues. A simple majority - four vs. one - overides what they see as the correct version, that has proven so far to be not in alignment with the community's wishes. What actually may help move things forward is to allow them to have their bery own page to push for a policy while this one can peacefully improve. I simply see it as rewarding bad behaviour to allow the good work here to be derailed because an agenda to degrade all paid editing issues as bad and prohibited has been halted from this page. The issue simply as more complicated than that. If they wish to pursue that reasoning let them do so on a proposed policy page and let that page be subject to a RfC to see how the larger community feels. Meanwhile those interested in a balanced page can be free of the continual bad faith and can try to fix the issues on this one. We need a generalized guideline page, this is why this one was created and what has been sought here the whole time. We already have essays on paid editing, we need something that is based on the entire communities ideas and wishes not just a limited perspective. It seems like a really bad idea to derail this as halting its improvement has already proven to be unproductive. -- Banjeboi 03:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I understand your opposition to having to start from scratch. But personally, I think it is unrealistic to think that the guideline will get consensus and the policy will not. My prediction is that if the community keeps working on two different pages, neither one will achieve consensus and we will be at the same spot in a few months. You keep talking about one version being "right" and the other one being "wrong", but it is a matter of opinions and thus not so simple. --Reinoutr (talk) 10:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I hear you, really, I also however don't feel - or if my statements are seen as such I apologize - that one is right the other wrong. I don't believe that. I do believe however that this page strives to accurately overview all the related issues to help all our editors see the various positions, It doesn't do a great job at that but i certainly feel it should and can. I feel the current policy page has a few obvious errors, which can easily be remedied, and if the focus were re-aimed at the most = shall we say, "despised" - form of paid editing, a "Wikipedia paid editing service" they actually could get some traction. Instead the proposed policy page muddles all the issues beyond helpfulness and I simply can't imagine the current version getting much support. I believe there is room for both and actually a need for both. A good guideline page would correctly help us all see where current gaps in logic and practice exist and be a resource to point to solutions whereas a good policy page would help those dealing with a set of circumstances and show what tools should be used and how. The two are not and likely shouldn't be mutually exclusive. Flushing either page, IMHO, will suppress some rather good intentions to actually help the project as a whole. The issues are old but these pages are quite new and likely should be encouraged to move to the 2.0 and beyond levels. -- Banjeboi 20:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wales' word is law

As Smallbones noted, what Jimmy Wales says is policy is policy, whether we agree or not. So the core of any guideline or policy must be something similar to this restatement of his words:

Fences&Windows 23:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jimbo here and would love for all paid editing, broadly construed, to be banned entirely, but is his word law in this circumstances? He participated in the original RfC as a regular editor. Afterwards he never took action (from what I could tell) to authoritate his own personal view, which wasn't approved of by many editors Now if he would come in here and explicitly state that this is policy than I would agree that it should be recognized as policy, but Jimbo has his own personal opinions about Wikipedia as well, many of which aren't set within policy. I don't think Jimbo's views should be seen as binding until he gives explicit order that they are. ThemFromSpace 00:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Wales' word is laws when he speaks "ex cathedra". However even when he isn't laying down the law, his views on policies tend to be wise and worth paying attention to. I'm not aware of any occasion in which somone has been identified as having been paid to write an article and not faced community response. So Wales may be simply expressing the real view of the community on this issue.   Will Beback  talk  00:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, Jimbo is trying to gradually "retire" from issuing policy statements (but I may be wrong). In the meantime, I think everybody should show a great deal of respect to what he says about policy. User:Fences and windows seems to have done an 180 degree turnaround - am I misreading this?

For the record, he has briefly edited and commented on the WP:Paid editing (policy) page. See diff and note especially his edit summary. Given that, I think that it is fair that we use his stated policy as a jumping off point, fill in the details, and even make a few changes if a consensus is reached and then confirmed by the general community. But lacking consensus on a new policy or guideline, his stated policy stands. Smallbones (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Until we depose the king, this stands as policy: "Consider this to be policy as of right now." Yes, I've done a volte face, as I had missed this particular item of policy, i.e. that what Jimmy Wales says is policy becomes policy. Is my restatement of his policy on this matter accurate? Is there somewhere appropriate like WP:COI where this should be stated as policy? Fences&Windows 02:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo's quote itself is a pretty good summary, but I don't see anything wrong with your summary. Perhaps different people's interpretations may differ, which is I why I think that the community should get together and make sure that everybody's interpretations jibe. One point of my interpretation - the word "service" should be taken very broadly - it's not just another word for "business organization." Also Jimbo himself, a bit further down from the quote said the words "paid editor" were so broad to be almost meaningless, so I think it is up to the community to define the term. In WP:Paid editing (policy), I tried to define it very narrowly. Perhaps we haven't involved the folks at WP:COI enough here or at (policy). I'll suggest thinking everything through, then adding your views at WP:Paid editing (policy); and I do wish that we could get close enough to a consensus that we could get rid of the clumsy name. Smallbones (talk) 03:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. This has been gone through a few times but ... oh well. Jimbo's right to declare policy by fiat has been generally not upheld and even he has been steadily moving away from such patriarchal statements. Even if he hadn't it's rather clear from the discussion on his statement that there wasn't any clear consensus to embrance this new policy which most admitted wasn't worded well. Paid editing is sometimes ok and sometimes not ok. "Paid advocacy in Wikipedia article space" violates policy and always has. Wales position was that these distinctions are often if not usually lost on those outside Wikipedia - the encyclopedia that even paid editors can edit. What remains then is using his statement in context and with due weight. I also would caution going too far down the what Wales states path as a part of the motivation is to show a public disdain for a practice that has also existed underground - that is, we should at least appear to disapprove of paid editing even if there is no way to enforce any policy against the practice. This would be a good basis for pushing a policy about paid editing services which have less support but also some similar issues of identification. -- Banjeboi 01:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I sympathise with your argument, but Wikipedia:CONEXCEPT#Exceptions is policy. So surely we need to frame the rest of our guidelines or policy around this. Fences&Windows 21:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The word "policy" means different things to different people. For some, it's anything that's been written down on a policy or guideline page that reflects something that is almost always decided or done a certain way on Wikipedia (at least after the dust has settled and everyone has had their say). By this definition, "declaring policy" doesn't make any sense, unless you have a mind-ray gun that can make everyone do what you say. OTOH, one of the things policy is good for is letting you know what's likely to happen if you're unfortunate enough to wind up at WP:ANI or Arbcom ... and it's certainly true that at least some kinds of paid editing will get you there in a hurry, and it certainly won't help your case there that Jimbo feels so strongly about it. What makes it so difficult to draw the line between what Foundation people say and what Wikipedians have widely agreed on is that we generally wind up in the same place. Personally, I don't think it's a good idea to try to shout down Jimbo or User:Mike Godwin or anyone from the Foundation when they have something to say they think is important, on the grounds that they "don't speak for us" ... they have an excellent track record. I'm just not sure how best to label it; perhaps we should have a policy subcat called Category:Arbitration Committee policy, reflecting things that for one reason or another are very likely to get you in trouble at Arbcom, even if they aren't things that have a long, stable history as policy. - Dank (push to talk) 22:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• I think that WP:JIMBOSAID is an interesting read in this context, especially the Jimbo quote within. --Cyclopia^talk 14:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but he specifically said that his statement on this topic of paid editing was policy. So there's no interpreting or applying to tenuously connected situations here. Fences&Windows 02:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Fences and Window's (and my) position is certainly upheld by Foundation issues. Moreover, Jimbo edited the (policy) page without objection to what was on there (in fact strengthening it) - though he did say he was not specifically making his changes as policy, they could be changed by others. Given that, the statement at the top of (guideline) is very misleading. It says that (guideline) is an attempt to summarize policy. But without at least something on Jimbo's statement on the matter, it looks more like an attempt to circumvent policy. Smallbones (talk) 15:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo's statement is referenced a few times in the guideline page. IMHO, it is more compelling to show not just that Jimbo is opposed to some forms but that there is widespread disdain for the practice by many editors and why they state opposition. Thus we show it's not just the "CEO" who has issue but a wide swath of editors. It seems best to show what exactly is objected to and why to suss out a path forward, or more accurately, multiple paths forward. -- Banjeboi 02:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Advice to the poor employees

I'd like for our guideline/policy/whatever to try to give advice to the poor employee who is told by their boss to create a page on Wikipedia. Depending on how receptive the boss is, one or more of these arguments might be made. Press releases and pushing content worked great five years ago, because newspapers didn't have the staff to write everything themselves, so they relied heavily on press releases. But readers caught on over time that the apparently neutral-sounding content wasn't really neutral or well-informed, and now 330 million people use Wikipedia every month, while many daily U.S. newspapers are in financial trouble. The best way to get your message out in 2009 is to work with the system rather than fight it. Create wiki-friendly content on your website ... freely licensed, neutral in tone, well-referenced ... and then leave a message on the talk pages of relevant WP wikiprojects and other wikis, letting them know that they're welcome to use all or part of the content your wrote if they want to, and you'll be happy to answer questions. Probably, some Wikipedia editor is going to be attracted to the idea of tackling some articles where most of the work has been done already. - Dank (push to talk) 22:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a reality check here. Although this sounds like a great idea I hunch that it will only work for some users. The vast majority are more likely to simply edit in/out what they see needed on existing articles or create whatever article they feel is needed. If one of my bosses compelled my to write an article I might draft it elsewhere but certainly would post it here and let the chips fall where they may. I agree however that we should offer the option and offer up the most user-friendly links so they can do so if they wish. -- Banjeboi 18:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] reject the entire thing

I think the proposal is not self-consistent. The owner of a business may write an article about it, but only if he does it personally? How does this make sense. The logic behind the cases specified is the effect of financial inducement to write an unreasonably COI article. If an employee has too great of an inducement, even more does the owner. If an employee can do this, how is this different from a paid consultant who does the same work, perhaps in the same office--and how is that different from a PR firm? If anything, the PR firm and the consultant and the employee have more of an inducement to write a good and acceptable article. If their work is so promotional it gets thrown out of Wikipedia, they will be out of a job. If the boss's own work is so bad it gets thrown out, it won;t make much difference to him.

I similarly do not see how using the reward board to advertise for getting an article written is fundamentally different from doing so on an outside web site--unless the principle is intend to be to make sure we know about it so we can watch the result. As is, we're not banning such paid editing, just insisting on a monopoly control over it.

We cannot ban COI, because most of our articles are written by someone who has to some degree a COI or POV about the subject--otherwise why would they bother selecting the topic? Frank honest COI is easier to deal with than covert undisclosed COI. Paid editing is no different from COI.

I also mention we have no way of enforcing the policy, unless someone is so naïve as to confess voluntarily.

I've stayed out of the discussion so far because i had nothing positive to offer: I was trying to find one that banned paid editing But seeing what has been proposed so far, and the failure to agree on it, I've formulated what I think the only consistent and enforceable policy, one that permits and controls it:

all paid editing or COI must be declared on the user page or the article talk page" Paid editors do not have the right to anonymity, and must give the true name and business affiliation of the editor. COI must give enough information that the extent of COI can be judged. One paragraph. DGG ( talk ) 03:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that some of the suggestions above seem to apply a double standard. OTOH, the section below WP:WHYNOT (in the business FAQ) says "the best thing to do is to request that an independent editor create the article" ... so let's either keep our advice in synch with that, or else change the business FAQ. - Dank (push to talk) 04:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow! That's very appealing. I would like to add the point that under no circumstances will an admin accept payment for anything related to Wikipedia. I would call this "bleedin' obvious", but not all editors agree. In anticipation of the "but we can't enforce that" replies, I would say that Wikipedia needs a strongly principled policy regardless of whether it is achievable, and in anticipation of the "but what if a major university wants to pay an editor to add excellently sourced material, but the editor happens to be an admin?", I would say that perhaps there could be a central noticeboard listing rare exceptions (ArbCom?), but I really think the admin should resign first. Johnuniq (talk) 07:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Sound like a very sensible solution, which makes the stand of wikipedia on paid editing both easy to understand and fully consistent with the conflict of interest policy. After a while, one might take it even further and make it part of the COI policy, rather than a page on its own. --Reinoutr (talk) 08:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

COI is a guideline. - Dank (push to talk) 12:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Whatever... Please read "make it part of the COI guideline, rather than a page on its own" instead, when you find it that important. --Reinoutr (talk) 20:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a fundamental problem with this proposal, and it is that, unless the editor explicitly discloses it (by naivety or honesty), it is next to impossible to know if you are a paid editor. The point is simple: Wikipedia editors should be judged on the basis of their edits, not on the basis of why they edit. A paid editor is, at worst, simply a case of POV-pushing editor. At best it can be a productive editor like any other: I would endorse governments to encourage Wikipedia editing, for example, by researchers and scholars. All possible problems that a paid editor may cause (POV violation, COI, shared accounts etc.) are already taken into account by existing policies. The proposal is therefore DOA because it is both unenforceable and moot. --Cyclopia^talk 14:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

We need a response to the growing number of examples like this Craigslist advert:

"We need an Wikipedia editor with Admin access to edit our Wikipedia company list. And maybe put up some additional listings for us. ONLY respond to this ad if you have Wikipedia Administrator credentials!"

Many editors don't care about paid editing, but for those who do, adopting DGG's suggestion would at least establish a clear principle that paid editing introduces a fundamental COI that must be disclosed. Johnuniq (talk) 23:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

the problem about detection and enforceability applies to all proposals on this topic--it's a problem with the entire set of rules on COI. Thinking about it is in fact what led me to my formulation--it provides an incentive for disclosure, instead of for non-disclosure: Disclose your status honestly, and your article will be judged on its merits. Take the chance of non-disclosure, and if we think it looks like COI or see that it's been paid for, then you and it are very likely to be removed from here altogether. (I didn't include the penalties in the proposal--how drastic to be is secondary, & can be discussed to give the right balance.) DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

There's quite a few such postings on Craiglist, which helps remind us why we're discussing this:[1]. Some requests I found: Artist bio in Tempe, Arizona, a national pageant, unspecified, selling services, a Royalty Classic Records band, local band in Fort Myers, artists in Missouri, Starr Labs, a music tech company. Fences&Windows 16:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand that there is a potential problem, but again, it is nothing that we can't deal with our current policies and guidelines. You write a non notable band article? It gets deleted. You write promotional style adverts? They get deleted or reversed. You are a SPA? It becomes discovered quickly soon. "Trivial" paid editing done by clueless guys which get some bucks writing a page for a band gets blocked or reverted regardless of it being paid or not. Skilled paid editing (say, a wealthy organization paying clever guys to skew POV in its direction) will be either regulated under COI or impossible to prove, if they don't disclose (and obviously they won't). So, again, a guideline against paid editing is at best redundant, at worst a drama machine which leads nowhere. --Cyclopia^talk 16:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It is apparent that some editors believe that they can be paid for editing, and not disclose the arrangement, and comply with Wikipedia's procedures, including WP:COI. Sure, we cannot stop that. However, we can clarify that paid editing is a COI, and should be disclosed. Particularly in a volunteer community, it is important that some minimal standards of ethical behavior are mandated. Also, how stupid is Wikipedia going to look if we cannot even agree to adopt DGG's modest proposal given the existence of adverts seeking administrators for paid editing. Johnuniq (talk) 23:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The point is that all what we know and all we should care about an editor usually is the output on these pages. If an editor regularly boils babies alive before editing, that's none of our business: he can -and should be the welcomest of editors if his edits are good. Most paid editing will be non-policy-compliant editing, and as such will be already dealt with current policies. Wikipedia is not about ethical standards: Wikipedia is about building an encyclopedia. If this encyclopedia is built by paid editors, criminals, androids or whatever, it is completely irrelevant as long as the editor interaction in the community and the output of the editor is good. And also, again, no one has explained how such a policy could be conceivably being enforced. Is Wikipedia requiring bank account disclosures from its editors? --Cyclopia^talk 18:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

"Paid editing" however encompasses a lot of ground and some is COI and ... some isn't; some is generally despised while some is discouraged and some is even welcome. The bottom line remains that content is king, we don't care why someone is editing as long as they edits are good and there remains no mind-reading mechanism to know who is being compensated and for what and how to detect and report such cases. Ethical and moral concerns are valid but still unenforcible to a degree, many choose to anonymously vandalize and personally attack in various ways and there remains no sure-fire solution to all these issues. We should be honest with ourselves and each other in what we can and cannot do and offer solutions to well meaning people who want to contribute content and offer solutions to well-meaning editors/admins sorting out abusive editing. In many cases we currently have policies in place that address these issues adequately. -- Banjeboi 02:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

"Editors who disguise their COIs are often exposed, creating a perception that they, and perhaps their employer, are trying to distort Wikipedia." (WP:COI) I think this provides ample justification for guidance that editors disclose paid editing, and that the sanctions for doing otherwise be clear. No mind-reading mechanism is required. Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Any proof of that? How do we know that are "often exposed", if we don't know how many are not exposed? --Cyclopia^talk 18:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

That's more or less our present policy, see what you can get away with. It's only wrong if you get found out. DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

DGG's comment identifies the flaw in any ban of paid editting: it is only enforceable if someone asks or tells -- like being a homosexual in the US armed forces. Existing policies cover almost every problem that might result from paid editting; about the only change I see that should be made is if you violate one of our policies -- edit warring, tendentious editting, etc. -- as part of being an employee, then I could accept that the penalty should be worse. Lastly, any policy based on one of the worst pronouncements of Jimmy Wales (complete with an offensively condescending attitude towards Wikipedia editors) if badly flawed; if you believe that paid editting ought to be banned, I strongly suggest you find another argument. -- llywrch (talk) 05:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, paid editing should be treated like we treat COI, as an inevitable facet of the encyclopedia that should be sactioned once identified, but I don't see this observation as being incompatible with a ban on paid editing. When we find paid editing, we not only need to look at it from the standpoint of our preexisting policies and guidelines, but we also need to codify that paid editing constitutes a breach of our NPOV policy, which should lead to a block if done consistently or disruptively. Even edits that look acceptable need to be scrutinized very closely if they were made by a paid editor, especially the creation of new articles and the addition of external links, two common methods used as means of promotion.

I find any assertion that we do not need a policy/guideline to handle situations like this to be unfounded as paid editing cases do pop up on here and there should be clear guidance as to how they are handled. The way I see it, any proposal that doesn't outright condemn paid editing is one that doesn't go far enough. A lenient policy would only encourage editors to try to get away with abusing our process. For example, I suggest that we have a "delete on sight" policy for articles that have been identified as being solely created and expanded by paid editors. This criteria would applied with a similiar scope (that is, with common sense) as the CSD we have for articles created by banned users. This would send a message that paid editing is not welcome here, while allowing articles that have been "reformed" by other members of the community to remain. ThemFromSpace 06:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

but we also need to codify that paid editing constitutes a breach of our NPOV policy : False. It's not being paid that breaches NPOV, it's edits that breach NPOV. Everyone of us has very specific POVs, regardless of being pushed by money or specific belief. The point is not that one has a POV/COI and why, the point is that the editing is as NPOV as possible.

Even edits that look acceptable need to be scrutinized very closely if they were made by a paid editor : Agree, because they are edits done by someone with a known POV, but that's true for every editor with a known and disclosed POV/COI, not only paid ones.

I find any assertion that we do not need a policy/guideline to handle situations like this to be unfounded as paid editing cases do pop up on here and there should be clear guidance as to how they are handled.: And you gave no foundation to why paid editing shouldn't be treated as any POV-driven editing, or COI, or anything else.

For example, I suggest that we have a "delete on sight" policy for articles that have been identified as being solely created and expanded by paid editors.  : Why? Paid editors might create articles which have perfect sense to exist, even if they will be probably biased and promotional in their first edit. But we can take on the article and edit it to be unbiased and NPOV. --Cyclopia^talk 13:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Many articles created by paid editors would not be here at all if the paid editing did not occur, which is why I advocate deletion if the article hasn't been significantly edited by any neutral parties. Even after POV cleanup, we would need at the least a thorough check for the article's notability since paid editors are adept at adding puffery that makes a subject appear more notable than it really is. The reason why paid editing is different from regular COI editing is that paid editing is a much more abusive form of manipulation. We bill ourselves as an encyclopedia run by volunteers who write articles about subjects which we find notable (in both senses of the word). Paid editing goes against our volunteer spirit. Paid editors are not volunteers but employees from outside companies who seek to undermine our system and present articles that appear to readers as being created and endorsed by the Wikipedia community, and not by outside interests. Paid editing immediatly eliminates any good-faith assumptions that an editor is here to build a neutral encyclopedia, while most standard COI cases are done by volunteers in good faith. ThemFromSpace 16:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Many articles created by paid editors would not be here at all if the paid editing did not occur : So what? An article must be judged on its own merits, not on the intentions of who is creating it.

we would need at the least a thorough check for the article's notability since paid editors are adept at adding puffery that makes a subject appear more notable than it really is. . Right. And this is true for every article, paid or not. So,again, where is the difference?

Paid editing goes against our volunteer spirit. "Volunteer spirit" is irrelevant. Building the encyclopedia is relevant. If someone does a good job by being paid for it, let's go for it.

present articles that appear to readers as being created and endorsed by the Wikipedia community, and not by outside interests. The Wikipedia community is the ensemble of its editors by definition. If you are paid and edit Wikipedia, you are in the Wikipedia community. No contradiction here.

Paid editing immediatly eliminates any good-faith assumptions that an editor is here to build a neutral encyclopedia : There are tons of editors who are not here to build a neutral encyclopedia, paid or not. Again: the problem is that we must not judge what is behind the editor nickname. We have to judge editors on their own merits. If you, for some reason, are paid to do a NPOV, well-sourced, brilliant work, I welcome it. If some philantroper would decide to pay people to properly edit and administer Wikipedia as a full time job, I'd be all for it. For example, the Linux kernel is born as a volunteer hobby, and now most of its development is paid: is this bad by definition? Does it make the Linux kernel run worse or being less free? Conversely, a lot of good-faith edit is hopelessly biased, soapboxing etc. -and no editing is free of bias. The point, again, is simple: this policy wants to regulate not the editing but who is behind it based on the presumption that it will be bad editing -and that should not happen. I am the first to report and ask for blocking of COI editors, after that it is evident that it is hopelessly POV editing. But not before. --Cyclopia^talk 16:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

TFS, look back at the example DGG gives: "The owner of a business may write an article about it, but only if he does it personally? How does this make sense. The logic behind the cases specified is the effect of financial inducement to write an unreasonably COI article." At this very moment there are numerous corporate employees editting Wikipedia due to interest in social media; moreoever, some of these corporations have established detailed guidelines for ethical online behavior. (And not out of altruism, but because an incompetent employee can cause immense damage to a corporation's public image.) Many of these employees are making constructive contributions: would you penalize them just because there are some who are violating Wikipedia guidelines working on their employer's clock? The thinking you are promoting is against the foundation idea that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. What we need to do is to encourage more companies to establish a code of ethics for online behavior, & telling these companies that even with these they are not welcome only leads to making this problem worse, not solving it. -- llywrch (talk) 18:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

No, of course I would not penalize contributers with interests in social media. After all, an interest is not a conflict of interest. Conflicts of interest arise when an editor's proximity to the subject makes inhibits his ability to work within our policies and guidelines (most often NPOV) while discussing it. This is invariably the result of paid editing. I never see offers to build an article which will expose, for example, a corporation's nasty history or reveal that a band has never performed outside of opening acts. All offers for paid editing that I have seen have been for promotional purposes; either to promote a subject which doesn't meet our notability guidelines or to insert a bias into an article in order to make a subject appear more attractive than it is. Many paid editing notices go a step further and promise to keep out material which would damage the subject's reputation. This all is a breach of our COI guidelines and NPOV policy. It shouldn't be news that subjects should not be allowed to dictate what belongs in their articles, with the obvious exceptions dealing with unsourced and negative content.

If a mostly constructive editor devotes some time for corporate puff than the editor needs to stop or risk being blocked. Just like a constructive editor cannot engage in blatant vandalism on the side, a constructive editor cannot sell his services or use them to promote his own interests. I think this is what the community has also felt in past discussions when presented with strong evidence of paid editing, such as here.

I don't think the implementation of blocks for disruptive editing such as this is against the spirit of "anyone can edit". "Anyone can edit" is one of the foundational principles which I admire the most, but just because anyone can edit doesn't mean anyone can post whatever they want. That's where our guidelines and policies come in. Anyone is welcome to edit but if they do so in a manner that does not abide with our other policies, than they can be blocked. Also, "anyone can edit" only applies to individuals, not corporations which are discouraged, rightly I believe, from editing as a collective entity. ThemFromSpace 01:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

This all is a breach of our COI guidelines and NPOV policy. - Exactly. And that's the point: The problems with paid editing are already covered by our existing policies. The problem is not editing being paid, the problem is editing being COI/POV. It's the editing/behaviour on the site that counts, and this is already covered by our policies. --Cyclopia^talk 10:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Almost but not quite. Paid editing issues cover a lot of ground, the "problems" IMHO are mainly covered by existing policies although there may be aspects we're overlooking. Other issues of why there is paid editing are not always so simple - economic inequality being amongst the pitfalls of any such draconian actions - and we may never be able to suss out some way to (i) determine why someone is editing including if they are paid or not, and (ii) prevent someone who "we" want to prevent from editing a site that by it's nature invites all to participate. IMHO, on equal par with problem editing from paid editors is how we treat users who seem more than likely to be newbies who simply don't know the Wikipedia way of doing things. Off our basic civility principles we are in theory to assume these folks mean well but are simply missing the mark in various ways. I would hope that our rather creative community could find a way to welcome those who do mean well and quickly yet politely show them the issues and possible solutions to helping them be a part of the community. We also can be friendly yet clear that POV and advocacy editing is generally not acceptable and offer alternatives for those who are perhaps being compelled by their boss(es) to edit here. -- Banjeboi 19:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Missing the point

I see considerable productive discussion above which touches on several significant things, and many have brought up good points. However, I also clearly see considerable amounts of talking past each other as well. I think I see why this is happening.

Without doubt paid editing is something that, even if unanimously condemned, could not be eliminated by the community without a complete reworking of the participatory nature of the project. So it would be impractical at best for our policies to suggest such a complete universal restriction. However, the argument that it doesn't matter, so long as the editor abides by other policies, does not answer the question of what this policy should say. That argument conditions on here is a otherwise good editor, who has been found to be editing for pay, then asking what should we do?. This is far from the best conditioning argument. It extends only to those who (i) are otherwise good editors who (ii) edit for pay and who (ii) get caught doing (ii). This is not where damage to the project usually comes from.

The most important conditioning argument is, there is a large universe of potential paid editors whose contributions would be problematic (indeed I have participated in areas where I was virtually certain it was already happening). Acknowledging this, what should our policies state to best benefit the project?

Those advocating cracking down on paid editing probably are internalizing the idea that we should not be encouraging paid editing, but are likely phrasing it differently. Those appealing to Content rulz are correct but are missing the fact that the policy will pertain to every potential editor, including all potential problematic ones, not just one preselected good editor. This is what I meant by talking past each other.

The reason why I was so incredulous before about how "lenient" the current guideline is that the major problem is not what to do with otherwise good editors. (The policy should indeed address that too, but that should be relatively easy.) The major problem is how to avoid increasing the burden on the project that problematic paid editors might introduce. This is why the final paid editing policy, whatever it might be, should discourage paid editing, perhaps strongly, not to presume guilt on any one particular editor but to (1) minimize the encouragement to the universe of problematic editors (see WP:BEANS), and to (2) give the community some teeth in it's ability to stop disruption quickly and sans drama when done by an editor whose paid status is subsequently discovered.

We can revisit this from the POV of a new editor who wants to edit for pay. This editor should recognize that what they are doing is frowned upon, but not expressly forbidden. The editor's options thus become

1. disclose. This means they will put themselves under significant scrutiny. That can be a hassle but perhaps it should be documented somewhere that it might also lead to a better article under their care, due to the many eyes intently watching.
2. have second thoughts. For an otherwise good editor this is indeed a loss but it should be notes that many editors under this scope will simply not become good editors. To get rid of a lot of problematic editors and some editors who might be good but are wary of their ability to abide by policy seems a net positive.
3. not disclose but be diligent. But for being paid, these are exactly the kind of editors we want.
4. not disclose but be undiligent/disruptive. These editors will be handled just as other, presumably nonpaid, such editors are. The goal of the policy is to minimize this number. The caveat is, an editor deemed problematic/disruptive by a substantial part of the (involved) community who is then found to have been editing for pay, should be shown an absolute minimum of leniency. A permanent irrevocable topic ban (say) at least. This type of behavior should not be tolerated. Full stop.

One point which is necessary to make this work. Undisclosed paid editing should be deemed (borrowing from US traffic law lingo) a "secondary offense", one that which by itself is not actionable (except for the perhaps uncomfortable consequences of additional scrutiny), but one that when in conjunction with another offense can dramatically change the intervention.

In summary, the policy should lay down an exceptionally bright and clear line in the sand and be crystal clear as to the consequences of crossing it. It should not, indeed really can not, forbid walking up to the line, but should be clear that to do so is to do so at one's own risk. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

However, the argument that it doesn't matter, so long as the editor abides by other policies, does not answer the question of what this policy should say. - It answers. It says that this policy should not exist.

About the rest of your post, I don't understand the point very well. We both agree that most paid editing is disruptive, but again I don't understand why "an editor deemed problematic/disruptive by a substantial part of the (involved) community who is then found to have been editing for pay, should be shown an absolute minimum of leniency." -why should we be more lenient with a disruptive editor which was not paid? --Cyclopia^talk 19:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Now it's my turn not to understand :P. I don't get the first part of your reply. As to the second part, we have a long history of giving second/third/fourth/etc chances to run-of-the-mill disruptive editors; throwing the book at them right away has been deemed overly Draconian, probably because the community believes in second chances. But once an editor has revealed their paid status, it would be hard to put that cat back in the bag, as there would be no way to verify the ceasing of such status. So the trust factor would be forever breached. Remember too that this is designed to benefit the project: demonstrating some teeth will be a good disincentive to other cases where their first priority is not the improvement of the project.

Also, this question is far better viewed the inverse way, it is less lenient on additionally paid for editing editors, that is, the status quo is the baseline against which this policy is measured. To reverse the perspective, to appear to question the enabling of disruptive but pro bono editing is somewhat prejudicial.

Remember, this is something we wish to discourage, not because we should (or can) prevent it, but because the project benefits by discouraging it. Making disruptive paid for editing just another form of disruption does nothing additional to dissuade this disruption, when there is by definition even more incentive to be disruptive in the first place. The dissuasion/discouragement should be accordingly proportional. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 21:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to rephrase my first part :)

You said: "However, the argument that it doesn't matter, so long as the editor abides by other policies, does not answer the question of what this policy should say." It is easy to see what it should say following this argument: Nothing. Or, if you prefer, the policy should consist of a 0-byte file with no name. :P (Seriously, maybe I didn't understand you)

As for the rest, now I understand your points and I say that I mostly agree. But they require no policy, they only require a sensible guideline and application of our current COI policies. See below. --Cyclopia^talk 10:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

In other words, this policy/guideline should make it absolutely clear that the existing NPOV, COI, edit-warring, and other such policies/guidelines must be scrupulously followed, and that paid editing will result in WP:AGF having much less weight in deciding how to handle the person should they break those policies? I could support that. Anomie⚔ 21:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

If all what the policy would say is what Anomie above proposes, I'm all for it. At this point it wouldn't be a policy, but more of a guideline simply giving sensible advice on how to deal with such cases within our policies. --Cyclopia^talk 10:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course a policy isn't needed, because it's longstanding policy that one must edit for a neutral point of view and should not attempt to misrepresent the proportion of verifiable information out there. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and doesn't need redundant policies to protect it from a threat that, if it's even a threat at all, is sufficiently addressed by what other editors are doing already - checking one another's work. A guideline that points this out is a great idea because it makes it easier for any erstwhile paid editors to be pointed to the relevant policies and guidelines, which will make them better editors or keep them from being surprised when they're blocked or banned for behavior which is unacceptable whether or not you're paid to do it.--otherlleft 01:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how a "policy" would be redundant, but at the same time a "guideline" would be a great idea. They are almost the same thing, but with a slightly different status. In general, editors are expected to follow both what is in policy as well as what is in the guidelines.--Reinoutr (talk) 09:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

WP has guidelines that help to explain the application of policies. For example, WP:RS. If WP:RS were a policy then it'd be redundant with WP:V.   Will Beback  talk  21:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

What would we do if an editor banned from Wikipedia for paid editing and contentious behavior then started sub-contracting out the paid editing to other Wikipedians, who then do the dirty work for him, even knowing that he was banned? This may be an example of exactly that. -- Orderly Conductor (talk) 04:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The reward board has been going for a long time, though I don't know how successful it really is. I don't see that anybody is breaking any current or proposed rules here (Is theKoser sp? really completely banned?). At least it is out in the open, done according to a Wikipedia selected method, and can be monitored. BTW the reward board would be a lot more successful if they paid more than $15 per article. Get it up to $100, and I might even participate. Smallbones (talk) 04:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Realistically editors are not banned for being a paid editor but for breaching other policies/guidelines. Ergo a meat or sockpuppet of theirs, once revealed would also be blocked/banned. -- Banjeboi 18:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Request for suggestions

Any ideas about what to do about this article, evidently written because of this offsite request? Stub it down to something neutral? There are more, of course.--chaser (talk) 06:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd put NPOV, unsourced and COI tags, make it as neutral as possible if you feel to, and make the community aware of it and its author on the appropriate noticeboard. --Cyclopia^talk 09:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)