Wikipedia talk:Commercial editing/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

New draft

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've taken SlimVirgin's proposed text and made some tweaks based on the extensive feedback. I can support this proposal. The main change is to eliminate the reference to "paid advocacy" which is confusing to some people because all advocacy is forbidden on Wikipedia. I've tried to be more literal by referring to paid editing of articles. Jehochman ^Talk 22:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support: I like this so much more than all previous proposals. It is clean and points to how paid editors should behave and can participate in a simple fashion, rather than completely forbidding the possibility of constructive participation. This still leaves scholars who may be employees of academic institutions or publishing concerns in a gray area (and perhaps that is OK). I still believe that we need to hammer out more effective ways of addressing the problem of non-paid fans and other PoV-pushers (including paid editors, licensees, volunteers and others who choose not to reveal their advocacy). • Astynax ^talk 02:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose: I would prefer a zero paid editing policy, and this feels like it can open the door for weaker rules against it. I would rather not see some talk pages will turn into an order book, i.e. placing orders for edits. If one editor agrees with the edit request, and another disagrees, is it settled in the same way as normal conflicts? Still would like to hear opinions from advocates for the policy though. Esoxid^{talk•contribs} 03:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - This is still in the draft phase and needs a rewrite, so supports and opposes are premature. I think I know what you mean in the "Subject-matter experts" section, but it is written so loosely, you could drive a truck through it. What's a subject-matter expert? What does it mean to " simply make sure that their external financial relationships in the field do not interfere with their primary role on Wikipedia."? Just need to tighten it up. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
• Especially with the phrasing "must not edit affected articles directly", this proposal seems concerned with edits to existing articles, remaining silent about the creation of new ones, which is a major activity of hired writers. Should it be allowed in the main space, user space, the incubator, Articles for Creation, or not at all? The phrasing "paid Wikipedia article writing services [...] violate Wikipedia's policies" implies article creation is not to be allowed at all; if that was intended, it could be said explicitly. —rybec 04:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I do not believe an anti paid editing policy to be necessary or desirable. Note that our most virulent POV hawks, religious and nationalistic matters, are certainly not paid. All this will do is drive it underground. Far better to find an agreed path forward with the paid editing firms. Far more effective.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

There is always going to be a suspicion that paid editors have a built-in bias and/or agenda that may conflict with the encyclopedic purpose. That is not always the case, though it does occur, and this proposal is less drastic than the complete ban being sought by many. Since the real problem is advocacy, I'm wondering if the community would be satisfied if there were an automatic review process for contributions by paid editors, rather than banning their edits completely or having them submit a request that another editor insert information or corrections? As people seem to think that an outright ban would lessen the problem of paid advocacy, resources would be freed (from addressing PoV and CoI disputes) for handling such reviews. Regardless of which, if any, proposal advances, the greater problem of the sheer frustration and wasted time posed by all advocacy (paid and unpaid) will still be with us and need to be addressed separately. • Astynax ^talk 08:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I think a lot of trouble can be avoided by setting a standard that prohibits paid editing. While some paid editors might be able to edit just fine, it is a slippery slope. All concerned would be better off to set up a "fence" some distance back from the problem that we wish to avoid. The flip side of preventing commercial editing is that Wikipedia needs to be very responsible to requests by article subjects related to the fairness of our coverage. If we don't let them edit, we need to fix bona fide problems when they are reported. Jehochman ^Talk 13:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - this draft seems to focus on the status of the editor rather than the content of the edits. I don't think that paid representatives should be banned from making uncontroversial, technical changes. For instance, a company should be allowed to update outdated revenue figures with more recent numbers. I'm concerned that if routine, noncontroversial edits must be requested, these edits will just not be made in a timely fashion. I'm also concerned that we're undermining our WP:SOFIXIT culture. I'd like to see a proposal that says that editors should not make changes that might provide them with a tangible benefit rather than a proposal that says they "must not edit affected articles directly". GabrielF (talk) 07:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems like a significant segment of the community is fed up with persistent advocacy that seems to continually worsen, and see paid/COI editing as the source for much of that. Some of CoI edits occur in little-watched articles, so advocacy slips through and may remain for a very long time before detected. Few Wikipedians enjoy taking on persistent advocates and that is another reason that advocacy slips through the cracks. The typical volunteer editor would also have less time and energy to expend on tackling advocacy than a paid employee or consultant, so that causes some to avoid disputing advocacy (or drop out of pursuing the byzantine and drawn-out remedies available). Fans, members, and other motivated editors with no direct financial interest can be equally frustrating in advocating and PoV-pushing, but the point has been repeatedly made that addressing a segment of the problem is at least moving in the right direction. I personally think that there should be a mechanism to allow paid editors to contribute the types of noncontroversial and neutral edits which you mentioned, and at least this draft includes ways they may. "Tangible benefit" may not make distinguishing editors with a COI any easier and may confuse people further (tangible how?). I do not see this proposal as doing enough to rectify the underlying problem (advocacy of all kinds), but I also see no reason that this proposal could not be one of a package of policy measures and example guides more clearly and effectively address advocacy (paid or unpaid), make it quicker and less time consuming to address violations, and create a streamlined way for contributions by paid editors or others who may be perceived as having a CoI. • Astynax ^talk 08:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support A balanced well reasoned proposal. Would like to see a bit more about the outing policy not protecting those who are paid editors. If you are the head of marketing of some large firm you should not expect to be able to edit the articles about your products anonymously and not be called on it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I think we need to say the opposite: outing is not allowed ever. The problem is that innocent people can be outed during a hunt for COI editing. This policy will help invalidate the business model of paid editing. It will help when somebody declares that they work for a business. I won't help when people are secretive. In those cases we can refer to WP:NPOV to stop the advocacy. Our policies each provide different protections, and to be comprehensive there must be overlaps at the "seams". What do you think? Jehochman ^Talk 13:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. This may not be perfect, but it is a good starting point and can be improved over time. Jehochman ^Talk 13:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I would like this proposal to explicitly allow using articles for creation. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, while appreciating the attempt. I can think of 6 ways of gaming this policy right now. A non-enforceable policy is useless. Staszek Lem (talk) 15:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support, as an improvement on the first proposal. This is too important to argue to death while nothing is accomplished (SOP here, alas). Miniapolis 16:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose (1) Unnecessary policy that will reduce the volume of constructive edits. (2) The draft as it stands would prohibit paid editors from performing even simple edits like updating statistics or dead links, adding citations, or expanding through constructive research. (3) It only allows paid editors to suggest edits on talk pages, which assumes a plentitude of capable patrolling editors. Sadly, we know there are few such editors compared to the size of wikipedia, and we know that pool is shrinking. (4) Clearly undermines WP:BOLD, which states wikipedia develops faster "when everybody helps to fix problems, correct grammar, add facts, make sure wording is accurate, etc." (5) The goals of this proposed policy are already accomplished through other accepted policies, such as WP:NPOV.--Rawlangs (talk) 17:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: At least this proposal has a vandalism clause, though I don't think it's strong enough, since it doesn't cover correcting non-vandalism errors, such as the equivalent of a wrong birthdate, nor does it cover cases where someone from the company asks Wikipedia to fix an error and Wikipedia just delays forever.

And another thing I've notied, both on Wikipedia and elsewhere, is that when it comes to anti-business political positions, it's very common to see someone accuse the other side of being a corporate shill. If you go to Jimbo's talk page and search for Monsanto, you'll see a case where was a user was accused of being a Monsanto shill to such a degree that he had to open a COI investigation about himself just to clear his name. The worse we treat paid editing, the more we encourage this sort of thing. Ken Arromdee (talk) 18:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - Bias and propaganda should be addressed. It is possible that a user can be accused of paid editing, while their only intent is to get across a neutral point of view. This would leave the door open for opposing pov pushers. Also, there is no sure measure to know if someone is a paid editor (even if it is sometimes obvious). While unlikely, it is possible for a paid editor to contribute neutral and informative content. Biases cause as much trouble as paid editing can, and removing editing capabilities of one allows the other to push their agenda. Non-neutral pov or promotion should be deleted. Editors should be addressed if they abuse guidelines, including those having to do with bias and propaganda. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 18:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
• Weak Support - I frankly prefer the first draft (allowing paid advocates the freedom to edit provided that they weren't violating NPOV and provided that they declared a COI). I think it's often the case that a company will have gained positive RS-based coverage without any negative RS coverage and the paid advocate can quite easily perform advocacy simply by writing an encyclopedic article that covers the activities of the company and the praise it has received from third parties. In other words there are clearly times when advocacy interests and encyclopedic interests can align in the final product. It seems like there should at least be a WP:AFC option available for these editors if they are actually forbidden from editing the articles period. But this has my support for now because something needs to be done about this issue and far too many editors are making the perfect into the enemy of the good here. -Thibbs (talk) 19:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

@Thibbs: I agree that AFC should, and would, be allowed under this proposal. There's a problem if Wikipedia has articles about a company, but has nothing about a competitor of equivalent notability. The missing competitor could complain that Wikipedia was damaging her business reputation by not providing equal coverage. Jehochman ^Talk 19:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

OK I'll strike "weak". I think it gives the wrong impression anyway. I do support this proposal, but I more strongly support the first draft. -Thibbs (talk) 04:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. This proposal is written in pretty arbitrary terms, and lacks a sound theoretical underpinning. For example, the definition of commercial editing may well be tweaked, or have been tweaked, to exclude or include certain things, and it would be hard to tell. It specifically includes two cases which I am very ambivalent about, the reward board and the education program. My feeling is that offering a bounty for an article about a company or individual comes very close to the exact bad sort of paid editing we don't want, and our education program should be Wikiversity or a new MOOC program, not some crusade to get unpaid helpers to increase the value somebody gets when they pay college tuition. I refused to get involved in it when asked because the student needs to submit some kind of token to prove he's part of the course i.e. paid tuition, and that's not Wikipedia, that's just being a chump - an unpaid internship without even the make-believe career prospects. Maybe the perfect is the enemy of the good, but I don't think that starting a policy on this inconsistent basis is going to be productive. Wnt (talk) 19:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I suggest we approve something that goes in the right direction, and then have separate discussions about each detail, such as the reward board, and fix them. I think that if the reward board is obsolete or bad, it can be eliminated by miscellany for deletion. If we try to roll too many different changes into this page, we will not make progress. Jehochman ^Talk 19:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

That's not really the way I see it. We have a pretty strong informal policy about paid editing thanks to Jimbo, dating back a very long way, and the purpose of a formal policy is to improve the explanation of the concept. The possibility of banning a paid editor using the policy is practically irrelevant - he is an absolute nobody, a low-paid hireling who can be replaced tomorrow - rather, it is the potential for the employer to be humiliated in the press, and/or a careful documentation in our article of the whatever facts the company was seeking to suppress, which is the punishment. So we really don't need to formalize this policy next week or next year. We should only do so when it provides clarity of purpose, rather than confusion. Wnt (talk) 20:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I need a write up, endorsed by the community, of whatever this informal policy is. When warning, blocking or banning somebody, I want to point to a document and say, "This is the rule you've broken." If a friend or client asks me to fiddle with their Wikipedia article, I want to have a document I can point to and say, "No, I can't do that myself. Here's how you would go about fixing your article." Writing clarifies thought and helps transfer knowledge. Unwritten conventions are not as effective. Jehochman ^Talk 23:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support. This is a good start and it seems like something we can actually get a consensus on. Concerns about what constitutes "paid editing" are easy to resolve as they're already addressed at WP:COI#Financial. My primary concern is in what constitutes "disclos[ing] their conflict of interest." In past discussions some editors have suggested that simply putting a note on one's user page saying "I engage in [unspecified] paid editing" is sufficient. I disagree; the paid editing COI must be disclosed on the talk page being edited, either at the top or included with the editor's first comment in each discussion. No one should ever be incentivized to put COI disclosures where others might not notice them. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support: See my post on the original proposal. --Elvey (talk) 20:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support This proposal is better than the earlier ones. While the exact limits of its scope will need to be worked out over times, we need to prohibit the most egregious forms of paid editing. DavidinNJ (talk) 05:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. The proposal singles out individuals who are being paid to edit or expect to receive tangible benefits for editing. But what if someone's significant other has a significant stake in the business or organization that he or she wants to edit an article about? (Your significant other, or someone else with whom you have a very close personal relationship – and in the case of a spouse [and possibly a parent], that personal relationship would imply that your own financial well-being is related to your spouse's ties to the business or organization in question.) Dezastru (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd think that sort of thing would (and should) fall outside of the scope of this proposed policy. You're editing and you're receiving a tangible benefit from the its subject, but you're not receiving a tangible benefit "to" edit the article. Hence the appearance of impropriety is lessened. Of course you'd still have a "vanilla" COI under the WP:COI guideline and your editing would be strongly discouraged. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

This is straying away from the specific concern I was raising, but following up on what you're saying: Suppose Simon works for an attorney who is retained by Mr. Jones to protect Mr. Jones' reputation, broadly speaking. Mr. Jones does not directly pay Simon (Mr. Jones' attorney does), and Mr. Jones has never even met Simon personally. Mr. Jones hasn't had any discussions specifically about Wikipedia with the attorney, or with Simon. Would the proposal being discussed here be intended to prevent Simon from editing a Wikipedia article about Mr. Jones? Because I can see editors arguing that since they are not party to any formal agreement that explicitly mentions Wikipedia, their edits are not covered by the proposed policy. Dezastru (talk) 05:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

If we can get the policy's broad contours right, interesting problems like the one you've posed can be addressed down the road. Editing on behalf of a spouse with a financial COI would probably fall within the scope of WP:MEAT. Jehochman ^Talk 23:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I see what you're getting at with WP:MEAT, but as I read that policy, it is the solicitation of editing by the first party that is prohibited, not the editing by the second party itself. A person could be editing an article about their spouse's business, without the spouse being aware the editing is occurring. (I understand that you just want to get consensus on fundamental principles for a policy. I'm just wondering about potential loopholes.) Dezastru (talk) 05:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment I think this is an improvement but it has the following weaknesses.

1. Per Thibbs, I like the idea that paid advocates have to identify themselves – which would lessen the need for the kind of restrictions that Rawlangs is grumbling about.
2. Per the discussion below, “some other form of close financial relationship with the subject” is very vague and needs spelling out in more detail. As worded, it includes all academics writing about their own subject.
3. “similar scholarly work.” Ha – this little statement hints at a significant bias here. Any casual observer of the advice from academia provided on behalf of the foodstuffs industry may have noticed what a parcel of rogues they seem to be, bought and sold on a regular basis. This idea that educators are somehow exempt from bias, whilst anyone with a commercial interest in a topic is by definition PoV pushing is naïve and absurd. A policy of this kind needs to treat the paid employees of a university on an equal basis with the manager of a car factory rather than assume the moral high ground on behalf of one or other cadre.
4. Given the above – better perhaps to ditch clause 2 altogether, which is in any case largely covered by WP:COI? Ben MacDui 09:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• As per Ben, point 3 is the one I'm still grappling with and am still just not sold on (pardon the pun). Per my response to Jehochman on the original proposal, the concept of 'academic'/'scholar' is being treated as an unrealistic abstraction, and I can't accept simplistic analogies (such as the Theory of relativity) suggesting that academic skill sets are clear cut. Having worked for a university for many years, I know for a fact that academics are heavily influenced by funding. Drug companies (er, I mean the Pharmaceutical industry) hand out vast sums in grant monies in order to establish cheap research and development units (and that is precisely the extent of their interest). 'Academics'/'scholars' contributing to articles surrounding pharmaceuticals must declare the full extent of any potential COI. If Roche is sinking money into their institution, it is not going to serve the academic's interests to bad mouth the company's practices. Neither can one expect NPOV contributions to the article on generic drugs. The same can be said of statisticians, biochemists, GE propagation, ad nauseum. Being retired, I can declare that I have no financial or other interests to declare. There! It's all on my user page. That's not so difficult, is it? Should the situation change, I wouldn't hesitate to declare any employment by any company or institution which could compromise my neutrality. Ultimately, the concept of academic neutrality has to be elaborated on, so I'd probably prefer clause 3 to be expanded on. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support - this covers the main points of difficulty we have with commercial editors. I hope that if enacted, this will result in many editors, who would have been tiresome COI-pushers, to engage usefully with the encylopedia. Optimistically, I like to believe most do wish to play by the rules. There is a burden on us as the editing community to make sure that there is a working and efficient system for "white-hat" commercial users to obtain edits that are in theirs and Wikipedia's mutual interest. I would suggest this policy page clearly links to a plain-and-simple guide to engaging with the community to request edits.

This will be difficult to enforce for those insist on ignoring the rules, but hopefully this should be a small proportion of COI editors.

Lastly, if this is enacted, I would suggest we reverse part of the usernames policy such that we allow, and indeed encourage, usernames implying association with a corporate entity, such that good-faith corporate editors can engage with the community openly.

Short version, support, but make sure being a good-faith corporate editor can work. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 11:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - Is this horse not dead yet? This is really focusing on blocking something entirely because of the actions of a few. Good edits are good edits, regardless of who makes them. Bad edits likewise. This is like "stop all editing because some people don't follow the rules". It also doesn't address any of the really important issues like when you are receiving tangible benfit - is an employee editing on their own time, but with a work computer, without specific instruction covered by this? What if they do it at home? What if their boss just says "you're good with computers, can you tidy that up a bit?" The simple fact is that you are not going to prevent COI editing, and this sort of arbitrary rule only serves to undermine constructive editing. Furthermore, just keeping the argument going by starting new proposals strikes me as just trying to wear down the opposition to the point where they can't be bothered to comment on this weeks proposal - this is the 5th one in a month! Drop it, it's dead, move on. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 12:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Once any given proposal has been finalized, a Request for Comments will have to approve it as a policy or guideline, so there will be an opportunity for dissenters to register their opinions then. isaacl (talk) 14:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
    • What was the point of that response? Is this to be helpful, or is this a stall? I suspect that there is a lot more non-paid COI editing than paid editing on Wikipedia. Address the advocacy edits, and not on witch hunting that can be used as a means to promote COI that is not addressed by this proposal. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 00:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
      • The commenter appeared concerned that through attrition of dissenters, a policy would get enacted. All of this discussion, however, is preliminary to an official RfC, and so there will be a chance to voice objections then, without having to object to each individual draft, if the commenter does not wish to. Of course, to craft a stronger proposal, it is always useful to hear new opinions and insight. isaacl (talk) 13:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
        • Ok, sorry. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 17:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Especially because of the last part of the proposal: If you see advertisements offering paid Wikipedia article writing services, know that these services violate Wikipedia's policies. Before hiring any of these services, you should ask yourself: do you really want to hire a rule-breaker and risk the potential embarrassment?. This is a clear failure to adhere to WP:AGF by assuming that someone who is getting paid for editing always breaks the rules. That is not necessarily so. The Banner talk 15:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't see the point of creating this as a new proposal, when it's basically identical to the one Jonathan opposed at WP:BRIGHTLINE. Would it not be better to support that proposal, then make any tweaks if it's accepted as policy? Proposals are never final drafts. Running this as an almost-identical parallel proposal is just causing confusion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

  I felt that BRIGHTLINE did not address all the nuances, and that it used the wrong terminology, which is why I opposed. I am very happy with the current draft here. By having different drafts people can inspect them side by side. Jehochman ^Talk 13:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi User:SlimVirgin and User:Jehochman. May I suggest that the two of you a) collaborate to make another proposal addressing as much as possible themes that have emerged on both sides; b) withdraw and close down the three that are currently going; c) on the Talk page of the unified proposal, tee up the discussion by summarizing the key "pro" and "con" arguments from these three sprawling discussions, and ask readers to carefully consider those arguments and to refer to them while commenting. This would help a lot and if the two of you cannot come to consensus it is very unlikely the whole community will be able to. I would be happy to help if you like but as the proposers I think it needs to come from you, especially withdrawal of the current competing proposals....Jytdog (talk) 12:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I second Jytdog's suggestion that a stop, regroup for a thorough analysis of all responses so far, and then a merged summary proposal is necessary. The support:oppose ratio for all proposals offered so far is staggeringly weighted to the oppose side but I think for all the wrong reasons. Editors seem to be !voting "oppose" in large numbers due to concerns over minor textual ambiguities, misreading of the text as proposed, mere preference for the expansion of an existing policy, or preference for competing proposals. Despite the high number of opposes, I think there exists a general consensus that rules should exist to ensure that Wikipedia does not become a forum for paid promoters and advertisers to sing the praises of their corporate masters. The rules that are currently in place go some distance to prevent this behavior, but these wishy-washy suggestion-style guidelines clearly fail to send a strong message to the paid advocates and the enforcement of these slippery guidelines arrives in the form of ad hoc judgments by individual administrators (usually of a distinctly rouge hue). If the !votes cast so far are scrutinized and summarized, I think we should be able to come up with a decent list of common objections that can then be used to build compromises, identify positional contrasts, and screen fallacious underpinnings. -Thibbs (talk) 16:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support, this seems to address the previous concerns, and though I think the previous proposal could just have been edited, we are where we are. This sets down a good, clear set of rules that will let commercial editors know where they stand and what they are and are not allowed to do. Some may still break the rules, but with this in place, they could no longer claim ambiguity. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as instruction creep at its finest -- any changes should be made to existing policies, and be fully discussed on those appropriate pages. This proposal is a blueprint for witch-hunts, and not likely to actually improve the project. I strongly oppose "Paypedia" but this proposal does not actually appear workable IMHO. I would point out that while edits may show laudatory editors, those who add negative edits may equally be "paid". Collect (talk) 15:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. I'm losing track of the revisions, but this draft looks worse to me than some of the earlier drafts. Flat out forbidding mainspace edits is plain wrong, as if we are simply jealous of anyone who makes money. Although we need a policy about this problem, and it is a real problem, we should permit such edits, but simply require both transparency and adherence to policies and guidelines. The problem with paid advocacy isn't the part about making money. It's the part about violating NPOV in the service of an outside interest, and deceiving other editors about the motivations for doing so. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CREEP. It seems disruptive to be spamming so many identical proposals. Warden (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• They suggested there would be another vote on whichever final proposal. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 18:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• Another vote!? We have to keep voting until "they" are satisfied with the result? See Die Lösung. Warden (talk) 09:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Note no one asked for votes on this page; people just started listing "Support" and "Oppose" because they like doing that. For better or worse, with Wikipedia's collaborative model, the development of a proposal is typically done in the open, with everyone able to chime in. Unfortunately, this requires patience for reaching the propsal's final form, particularly due to the asynchronous nature of the discussions. isaacl (talk) 13:49, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - What about a Wikiproject to address COI editing, instead? To attack the actions of propaganda. To not witch-hunt the editors who may be writing out of enthusiasm over a subject, and not over monetary gains. Sure, address the editor if he/she abuses policies. Accusing someone may be a cheap attack to promote non-neutral opposing pov. Propaganda is or can be a problem, but there are far worse coi problems on wikipedia.- Sidelight12 ^Talk 19:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

It sure can't hurt to have more editors putting eyes onto this problem, and I agree with your formulation about not being a witch-hunt. However, it really wouldn't be that different from having more editors watchlist WP:COIN. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. --Another Believer _(Talk) 02:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - The sheer complexity of this proposal, with its exceptions and clarifications, emphasizes its unworkability. And who will next be banned from editing on the presumption of bad faith: volunteers for political organizations, members of the clergy, global warming deniers, gun control advocates, convicted criminals, officials of evil governments? And what will replace our slogan "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit"?--agr (talk) 03:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose For the same reasons I opposed the previous drafts. First, it is redundant with existing policies and guidelines which already forbid advocacy of any kind. Second, it contradicts WP:AGF and Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, not to mention the fundamental principle that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Third, this is a fool's errand as the worst POV pushing comes not from paid editors, but by unpaid editors who will happily push an agenda for free, and who will do so with far more zeal and gusto. No matter how you slice or dice it, this is a bad idea. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Although this is an improvement. It seems now to be more of a rehash of existing policy statements on the topic. I fail to see why this one category of editor bias is being singled out when clearly other forms of bias can and indeed do exist on Wikipedia that to me are even more problematic than even the paid editing. It still requires voluntary disclosure of conflicts of interest, as anything mandatory is simply impractical and still a violation of WP:OUTING. My largest complaint about this guideline (it really isn't a policy proposal at the moment) is that it still implies a mandatory disclosure even if a strict reading doesn't require such a thing. This is on top of my hesitation about topic bans on editors assuming bad faith, as I do think that an Apple engineer could realistically add some meaningful content to an article about ASP.NET. They ought to be cautious and likely use the talk page much more before they make substantial edits, but I simply disagree even with the restrictions demanded of users in this way. --Robert Horning (talk) 14:59, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support - we need a policy against paid editing and this one seems to be reasonable. I personally would draw the line slightly differently allowing paid edits so far as COI as clearly marked and no edit warring from the paid editors. Still this policy is better than no policy Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with where you'd draw the line. From what you're saying here I think you might be more interested in voting for the 1st draft. That's my preference of the two. This one only has my support as a second best option. -Thibbs (talk) 04:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose It is illogical to assume that paid editing is going away in any way through this proposal. Driving paid editors underground, something they are already doing, is not our goal. A much more nuanced approach must be taken for making paid editors disclose themselves, and get them to work with the community, not against it. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 01:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I'd really prefer is this draft said "paid editing is generally discouraged and not allowed under certain circumstances" rather than stating that it is not allowed from the start. What the first sentence says is not aligned with what the community thinks of paid editing. Paid editing is not a problem. The problem comes from paid editors who deliberately violate our core policies. This draft, although doing a good attempt at solving the issue, does not solve it the way it needs to be solved. We need a soft solution, not a hard solution, given that the problem is not present on all paid editors but on a slice of them. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as unworkable. I can't see anything wrong if editors write articles for a fee provided these comply with our policies. We can't ban people from receiving money for making WP edits, and there can be no guarantee that people will not "forget" to declare their interest or set up sockpuppet accounts. We already have strong policies against spam and NPOV that are used daily to combat blatant commercialism or PR manipulation. There are editors here that are repulsed by the mere thought of someone receiving money for contributing to WP, attacking those who do even when there articles arc compliant. Thus I fear that COI declarations will, pardon the Godwinism, stigmatise like the pink triangles of the past. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 03:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Those who govern the best are those who govern the least. This is certainly the case for Wikis. We already have the necessary tools to remove editors which are more troublesome than helpful. Spannerjam 14:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose on several levels. First, we should focus on the content, not the editor. If the paid editor produces good content, he should be welcome; if not, we have procedures in place to address bad conduct. Second, if we were to define a class of editor to discriminate against, we should ban advocates, regardless of their motivation. I have dealt with financial COI and with unpaid zealots and I find the former to be generally more reasonable. Finally, even if we thought this sort of thing was reasonable, it is impossible to administer. Editors would be acting against their own interests to self-identify and the witch hunts around whether an editor is an undisclosed paid editor will just distract from addressing real issues. Celestra (talk) 15:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. The section about expert editors editing in their area of expertise is an improvement over previous proposals, but is still seriously problematic. In the example given, why is an Apple employee forbidden from editing an article about a Microsoft product but not forbidden from editing an article about an AT&T product (C++)? What distinguishes Microsoft from AT&T as competitors of Apple? Does this mean that university employees are forbidden from contributing to articles on any other university or their employees, because those other universities are competitors? (I.e., no academic can ever write about another academic?) I think the implications of this are far-reaching, bad, and not carefully thought through. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. This appears to prohibit being paid by a college, board of elections, or candidate, and editing those articles at all. It's far too broad a prohibition. I would not be able to edit many articles to which I've already done contributions. I would prefer a policy prohibiting editing with the direct or express purpose of editing in a "peacock" style. Bearian (talk) 21:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC) P.S. I am in favor of a COI tag being posted in such articles. Bearian (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. So I'm automatically tainted by a fictional "conflict of interest" if I write about my university, or the company I work in, or competing companies? Go away, per WP:SNOWBALL. --vuo (talk) 22:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Paid or not, advocacy or not, Wikipedia has clear rules about content which include a neutral point of view, using reliable sources, and not giving any of those sources undue weight. These policies work, and bad info introduced by those who are paid, have a conflict of interest, or are otherwise advocating for a point of view get corrected or rewritten. This would happen regardless of the motives of the editor who introduced the bad stuff. We should always strive to higher-quality content here, but we cannot, and should not, try to legislate the motives of those who introduce that content. I'm sure plenty of excellent edits have been made by all of the above types of editors, and I'd hate to see their edits given undue scrutiny if they stood to make a couple of bucks. Content is king, and motivation is meaningless.--~TPW 23:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Wehwalt put it more eloquently than I could; our nastiest POV problems come from editors who carry a burning Truth in their heart which needs no salary, and continuing to focus on whether or not edits are paid draws more attention away from the real issue - whether or not edits are good. We already have policies like WP:NPOV; let's stick to that. (I'm not going to lean on "The Free Encyclopedia that anyone can edit", because a fundamentalist approach to that slogan is no longer compatible with the modern reality of an encyclopædia which has a complex ecosystem of blocks, bans, various forms of protection, WP:CIR, &c) bobrayner (talk) 23:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
• Strongest Possible Oppose Because (a) This will drive experts away from wikipedia!! (b) it's still totally unenforceable and instituting unenforceable policies just makes one look stupid, and, (c) The issue that needs to be addressed is advocacy, not paid advocacy. We need to work to maintain quality standards and avoid personal points of view dominating. Many editors seem to forget that when it comes to editing articles it is not their opinions that matter but rather good quality, reliably sourced information. Let's work to increase awareness of good editing practise in general rather than running around like chickens with their heads cut off responding to the latest drama that has made the news. Morgan Leigh | Talk 00:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support. I read and commented upon the first proposal. I felt lukewarm, uncertain about it being a neccessity. Then I spent some time thinking about, and information gathering on a different but closely related Wikiproject. I shared my findings and thoughts, and amicably discussed with others. Now I read the new version of this proposal. It is a significant improvement. I agree with Mini. It is important to have something in place, now, despite the legitimate concern regarding enforcement that Staszek Lem mentioned. Without a statement of policy, it is as though Wikipedia has an unclear stance toward paid editing. --FeralOink (talk) 02:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Much too complex, riddled with exceptions that don't seem justifiable (why, say, is the British Museum hiring a Wikipedian-in-residence different to, I dunno, Microsoft hiring a Wikipedian-in-residence?), and ultimately the proposal itself admits that it's pointless since investigating whether someone has a financial COI is against Wikipedia rules. So all it really comes down to is: are their edits problematic? If so, the rules to deal with that already exist. Which is why it's time to drop this nonsense.--Pointism (talk) 03:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Seems like a step in the right direction. Not perfect, but better than existing policies (or lack of them). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - a policy that outlines a position, then exempts a list of times it doesn't apply, which compromises ~99% of the times it might apply, is fundamentally broken. Since it's asked, I'm a professional astronomer, and would definitely be prohibited from editing astronomy-related articles by this policy, as I'd definitely be in violation of (1.), and (2.), and probably (3.) It's true the policy contains the vague phrase "Nothing in this policy should be interpreted to mean that subject-matter experts should not contribute to Wikipedia in their area of expertise." - but since the rest of text is a blaring Experts who work in a field making editors to articles in that field will definitely be banned, I must conclude the former statement is merely a vague platitude that won't have any meaning in practice. WilyD 09:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose; see #The word financial below. This is turning into a rehashing of WP:COI, but with the word "financial" inserted. The reward or motivation for an edit is not something we should (or are allowed (or are able)) to evaluate: Consider OpenStreetMap which is often described as "The Wikipedia of Maps", many, many people are paid to contribute: it's an opportunity that many would love to have. Ditto for the Linux kernel and most open source software. So why, if we are after promoting open culture, are we seeking to turn Wikipedia into something utter different? All of these other projects have written or unwritten policies about conflicts of interest. Thou shall not backdoor the kernel. Thou shall not delete your competitors business premises from the map. Like wikipedia's existing policies, these are based on evaluating the output, and not evaluating the motivation. —Sladen (talk) 10:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC) I get paid in wikt:kudos.
• Support. Paid editing undermines the integrity of our project. For example, User:Bernie44 appears to be a paid Wikipedia editor who has said so in a newspaper and then creates cruft like this with dubious sources like this record company for a music group called Figures of Light with pageviews averaging 10 per day. If the paid editing policy does not reach consensus, then we should think about focusing efforts on articles with (1) minimal pageview traffic (2) single editors which are usually about (3) businesses or (4) people. I would like a Wikipedia resource which automatically flagged dubious sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, this is really classist. Some people will accept any work they can get because they have to feed their children and keep the lights on. From what I've read there has been paid editors for years so it's not like the practice is going away unless people are forced to set up accounts with photo id. And even then they can still lie if they are trying to make a living. So all this does is push the entire practice under the ground so even well-intentioned people are presumed to be against Wikipedia ideals. Saltybone (talk) 02:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Also this assumes that non-paid editors don't cause the same problems which is unlikely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saltybone (talk • contribs) 02:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose a) As I said on the original one or one of the other ones, all you do is drive some editors underground and make them dishonest. The dishonest ones will never admit it. One can only pray they will forget to login and get caught editing from a clearly defined IP. b) Let's face it, Wikipedia won't even deal with editors who proclaim their biases over and over in the most derisive terms, have brought sanctions to whole groups of articles, and are just plain obnoxious pains the butts. (And I'm thinking of several groups of articles, so my current wikihounders don't have to chime in here.) So why in the heck should it be able to detect some paid editor who doesn't disclose it, if they are civil and competent -- not to mention if they act the exact same way? Geeeeez...... User:Carolmooredc talk 07:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose This would only make any problem in this area worse. Drive paid editors underground. Also definitions are badly written; far too wide-ranging. North8000 (talk) 14:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. [Disclosure: I have never been paid to contribute to Wikipedia.] a) Contributions should be evaluated on their merits, not the motives of their contributors. We should not outlaw acceptable contributions simply because their contributor is being paid. How do we determine that the contributor's only motive is money? b) Is there evidence that up-front disclosure of paid status leads to improved scrutiny of a contributor's edits? c) In Real Life™, people paid to do something are sometimes better at doing it than those who are not. d) Presumably organisations that commission contributions will require those contributions to be persistent, which means the contributors (those with a professional approach) will want to stick to our core policies. e) We don't need to legislate against all paid contributors simply because we think some of them aren't very good at it. We have other, better, policies for editors who have poor skills. f) I don't like the idea that "the contributor has been paid for making some edits, so this contribution should be deleted" trumps "this edit is referenced, well-attested, and improved the article"; nor the idea that if I think an edit is obviously constructive then I must somehow "turn a blind eye" to the fact that its very contribution violated policy. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Present policies are sufficient. Trilobitealive (talk) 15:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Present policies are sufficient for content, however, we need to acknowledge and regulate paid editing and COI editing. Highest priority: Disclosure. All paid editors should identify themselves and/or possibly their edits, including all the cases of paid editing, either wikipedian in residence or even people pad by wikipedia as part of projects, or editors who belong to voluntary organizations and write about them. --FocalPoint (talk) 12:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose This idea strikes at the heart of the idea of an encylopedia anyone can edit, moreover it is unenforceable, it will increase accusations of COI, and decrease the civility and good faith of the community. It seems a bad idea to create unenforceable rules and regulations. [I have never been paid to edit anything at Wikipedia.] Capitalismojo (talk) 19:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose It is not who you are but what you write that counts. This is unenforceable and contrary to the basic ethos of WP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose We know and can verify the edits of a user but in most cases we cannot verify whether a user gets paid for editing or has a conflict of interest. The policy as proposed would be giant assume-bad-faith machinery towards new users editing in areas where paid editing with a conflict of interest is common. As before, we should focus on the edits, not the user and where they come from. Existing policy is sufficient to deal with articles that read like advertisements or suffer from biased editing. All this is based on the edits and can be discussed without getting ad personam. The next point is that paid editing is not necessarily a bad thing. It is not uncommon to have paid developers in open source developments (take some of the MediaWiki developers as an example) and why should it be a bad thing when we have a good author who is paid to write excellent articles in an area he or she has expert knowledge? (Yes, the policy tries to excempt such cases but it is overall that ambiguous and fuzzy that there is no clear line what is ok and what not.) Another point is that according to the policy I am possibly not allowed to edit articles about other universities as I am employed by one. I have never edited the article about my own university but why shouldn't I edit other university articles just because other universities could be seen as competitors? Finally, this policy works against all users who honestly reveal their conflict of interest. The real problem are not those who are honest but those who attempt to insert biased content in a subtle manner, possibly with the use of sockpuppets. These users will flatly deny a conflict of interest and consequently this policy will not help in such cases. Overall, this policy would be a new problem for the Wikipedia, not a solution. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Show me the evidence please that the particular class of editors being targeted here have undermined Wikipedia's quality. On the Chinese Wikipedia competitor Baike one can see that there is an obvious problem as articles are consistently slanted in favour of the Chinese Communist Party's official line. This suggests editors are being paid by the party to tilt Baike and that particular encyclopedia needs a policy to deal with the paid editor problem. I see no such evidence of a similar problem here. It appears to instead simply assume that the powers-that-be like large corporations are wielding their nefarious influence. In my experience the fanatic in his mother's basement is a more difficult editor to deal with than paid editors, who tend to be more knowledgeable, professional, and more civil than the average editor.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose We already have policies and guidelines in place to remove edits that promote a particular Point of View by someone with a Conflict of Interest. Those two are actually enforceable, unlike all of these new proposals. We focus on the edits, not the editor. Further, the frequently shouted declaration that anyone opposed to these new rules must be paid to edit Wikipedia is a violation of Assume Good Faith and patently false in most cases, including mine. What we need is a WikiProject that will positively engage with paid editors so they can learn to become productive editors here, much like other editors with various Conflicts of Interest such as: political; religious; racial or ethnic; nationalistic; pro- and anti- free commerce; communists; capitalists; democrats; republicans; pro-LGBT; anti-LBGT; etc. Anyone can edit if their edits are productive and neutral, no matter their beliefs, skin color, ethnicity, etc., and no matter what motivates their editing. First Light (talk) 15:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
• Weak Support It seems that there are actually two issues here: (1) whether one gets something for their work in editing and (2) whether their editing is "flavored" as a result. On the one hand, it has long been seen that the best-quality work (in general) comes from a "professional" (e.g., professional athletes are seen as being better at it than amateurs), and I don't think anybody really wants to see Wikipedia worsened. On the other hand, it's hard to imagine that the fact that one is being paid to write/edit an article (and not by the publisher) will not influence, however subtly, what is written. This is not to say, of course, that there are no biased editors among Wikipedia's millions of unpaid contributors. As the saying goes, the best cure for corruption is sunlight, so perhaps some sort of disclosure might help. The "Wiki-marketplace" could decide if an editor's being paid to work on an article serves as a (dis)qualifier to his or her work. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 20:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. What is this, keep on introducing proposal after proposal until the opposers get tired? I'm certainly tired of typing out my reasoning, go read the other two discussions. SpinningSpark 00:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.