Wikipedia talk:Paid editing (guideline)/Archive 7
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Benjiboi in topic Administrator tools statement
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Paid editing and policy drafting
I assume it's obvious that anyone who has engaged in paid editing would have a significant conflict of interest regarding this policy, and should not participate in drafting it, or at least should start by disclosing that activity. This is a concern now, and in the future. An editor removed the prohibition on participating in policy editing by paid editors, leaving it only a general ban on disruption. That is much weaker and would allow those who wish to profit from paid editing to alter this to make it easier to do so. Those who've engaged in paid editing can still participate on the talk page, but should not edit the (proposed) policy itself. Any objections to that? Will Beback talk 10:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I've stated above but will reiterate, that it violates our guideline on assuming good faith. We don't disallow certain community members from participating and really by doing so it only weakens the project by pushing away other viewpoints. If you want anything that will actually work you want everyone's input. Only banned editors are prohibited from taking part in certain discussions. -- Banjeboi 10:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Do you even disagree with requesting that people who participate in drafting this policy disclose whether they've engaged in paid editing? Will Beback talk 10:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Requesting disclosure - fine in my book, but obviously not enforceable, and requesting disclosure from a specific editor is more or less the same as saying you suspect they have engaged in paid editing. Prohibiting anyone who has engaged in paid editing from editing this policy proposal even though they are not being disruptive - not fine in my book. No one here is neutral (otherwise we wouldn't even bother participating in this discussion) and it is unfair to discriminate against those who may have one particular POV (assuming they are promoting it civilly and non-disruptively). Gandalf61 (talk) 11:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Do you even disagree with requesting that people who participate in drafting this policy disclose whether they've engaged in paid editing? Will Beback talk 10:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I simply see no reason to even bring it up. If someone is actually being disruptive that is the concern, I don't care if they are being paid to do so or not. All are treated equally as being valid contributors and as been stated this seems like its a moral objection of some sort. That may account for the passion. Really even our own COI policies don't require disclosure, likely because few would bother to care or even read them, our articles and even the policy pages have to stand on their own as documents. Editors long since departed started articles and many others have mercilessly edited them, it's an organic process and even "problem" editors make some good edits. Even if we ban someone we don't auto-rollback all their work. It's very much a case-by-case process. Similarly i think we can't be so terribly rigid on a page devoted to the subject that has varying opinions from the larger community. We need to respect the larger consensus that there is no agreement to enact blocks, no agreement to forbid paid editing, no set definition of what paid editing is or isn't. Start with the most obvious problems and spiral in from there. No witch hunts are called for or encouraged. -- Banjeboi 11:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd earlier contributed this quote, but it has been deleted. Smallbones (talk) 13:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.
— Upton Sinclair
- If somebody is accepting money for editing, talk page discussions, discussing policy, admin work, etc. it will be very difficult to engage in a productive dialog with him/her. That is exactly what this policy and this thread are all about. Smallbones (talk) 14:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- If there are editors who are secretly engaged in paid editing, then it is highly inappropriate for them to be editing a policy that has a direct financial impact on them. If necessary, we can bring this question to the community. Will Beback talk 15:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- If somebody is accepting money for editing, talk page discussions, discussing policy, admin work, etc. it will be very difficult to engage in a productive dialog with him/her. That is exactly what this policy and this thread are all about. Smallbones (talk) 14:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Who is this "somebody" ? Who are these "editors" ? Do you think that someone contributing to this policy proposal and participating in this discussion is a paid editor ? If so, who ? Gandalf61 (talk) 16:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- If anybody has engaged in paid editing who is active on this page, I would expect them to disclose that fact rather than requiring us to conduct an investigation. It is simply dishonest and unethical for someone who has a direct fincancial stake in this policy to be editing it without disclosing that fact. This is on a different level than arguing over the size of infoboxes, or date linking. Will Beback talk 16:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Okay - enough of the vague insinuations and innuendo. Who exactly are you accusing of being a paid editor here ? If you feel the need to "conduct an investigation" then by all means go ahead - I, for one, have nothing to hide. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- That's the kind of simple disclosure that everyone here should make. I, too, have never engaged in any form of paid editing, with this or any account. Will Beback talk 16:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Okay - enough of the vague insinuations and innuendo. Who exactly are you accusing of being a paid editor here ? If you feel the need to "conduct an investigation" then by all means go ahead - I, for one, have nothing to hide. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- If anybody has engaged in paid editing who is active on this page, I would expect them to disclose that fact rather than requiring us to conduct an investigation. It is simply dishonest and unethical for someone who has a direct fincancial stake in this policy to be editing it without disclosing that fact. This is on a different level than arguing over the size of infoboxes, or date linking. Will Beback talk 16:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- No, I am not a paid editor. Smallbones (talk) 01:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Who is this "somebody" ? Who are these "editors" ? Do you think that someone contributing to this policy proposal and participating in this discussion is a paid editor ? If so, who ? Gandalf61 (talk) 16:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Are there any other editors here who can say that they haven't done paid editing? Will Beback talk 03:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Give me a break, this is exactly the point that Will and Smallbones seem to be missing, that unless someone discloses if they are a paid editor we completely don't care and our mandate is to assume good faith, period. If someone is editing poorly or mis-behaving then we deal with those issues, really the getting paid part is red herring that they their actions or work is somehow more suspect. I'll give you a hint here, out of the thousands of editors we could have 2, 20, 200 or 2000 paid editors but no one will likely ever know. By assuming someone has an immediate COI you don't reveal their bias as much as other issues. -- Banjeboi 03:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, we do care. And anyone who has engaged in secret paid editing should absolutely not be involved in setting policies covering paid editing. Benjiboi, you keep saying that paid editing is benign, and yet no one will admit to it. I can only presume it's because they are afraid of receiving any scrutiny, or even of being banned. Isf so, it's probably a legitimate concern. I would request a ban on any paid editor I discovered editing this policy because doing so would be a gross violation of community trust that palces the paid editor's interests ahead of the project's. If you'd like to see evidence that such folks will be blocked then let's see what happens when such a case is found. Will Beback talk 03:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- I have never been paid a plug nickel for any of my edits (nor any other form of compensation, besides the wonder and admiration it brings when I bring my Wikipedia editing up in a social setting). But I do care about editors who edit for pay and especially about those who do so in secret. It is unequivocal in WP:COI that paid editors, whatever else they do, should declare their conflict of interest before editing this page. Banjiboi, I think you confuse undetected problems with acceptance. Would you say sneaky vandalism is ok, since it often slips by undetected? --TeaDrinker (talk) 04:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Undetected problems are still problems as your vandalism example states. You seem be implying that being paid is itself a problem when consensus seems to indicate that it's the advocacy and violating policies. We have no policies against paid editing - paid editing itself is not the problem, reactions against editors perceived to be paid editors maybe an issue but just being paid is not equate one as a problem editor. -- Banjeboi 02:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you may have the wrong end of the stick there. Even a cursory read of this page will indicate that there's no consensus that some forms of paid editing are not a priori conflicts of interest. I would argue WP:COI is easily applicable to many instances of paid editing. Frankly I don't understand your opposition to the simple step of telling people to note when they have a conflict of interest. --TeaDrinker (talk) 04:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Undetected problems are still problems as your vandalism example states. You seem be implying that being paid is itself a problem when consensus seems to indicate that it's the advocacy and violating policies. We have no policies against paid editing - paid editing itself is not the problem, reactions against editors perceived to be paid editors maybe an issue but just being paid is not equate one as a problem editor. -- Banjeboi 02:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- I have never been paid a plug nickel for any of my edits (nor any other form of compensation, besides the wonder and admiration it brings when I bring my Wikipedia editing up in a social setting). But I do care about editors who edit for pay and especially about those who do so in secret. It is unequivocal in WP:COI that paid editors, whatever else they do, should declare their conflict of interest before editing this page. Banjiboi, I think you confuse undetected problems with acceptance. Would you say sneaky vandalism is ok, since it often slips by undetected? --TeaDrinker (talk) 04:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, we do care. And anyone who has engaged in secret paid editing should absolutely not be involved in setting policies covering paid editing. Benjiboi, you keep saying that paid editing is benign, and yet no one will admit to it. I can only presume it's because they are afraid of receiving any scrutiny, or even of being banned. Isf so, it's probably a legitimate concern. I would request a ban on any paid editor I discovered editing this policy because doing so would be a gross violation of community trust that palces the paid editor's interests ahead of the project's. If you'd like to see evidence that such folks will be blocked then let's see what happens when such a case is found. Will Beback talk 03:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- As a more serious counterpoint to my comment above, I must say that there is an important point missing here: being paid for Wikipedia editing is only one form of bias-inducement. Of equal or greater concern should be editors who participate here with a persistent and obvious idealogical bias, whatever it may be. I must say, in my relatively brief experience here, they are rife -- biases about religion, nationalism, and political affiliation. I see these biases as no less harmful to the process of writing an encyclopedia than paid editing -- in fact, I think they are far worse. So, I don't really see what the problem is -- I don't think zealots of any kind should be allowed here, but there seems no way to stop them. The same would seem to be true of paid editors. Iosefina (talk) 05:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- It's true that other forms of "bias-inducement" are a problem. But this page only concerns one of them. While various affiliations or sympathies may lead to bias, there is nothing quite like money. Paid editing is qualitatively different from religious bias, for example. We ban zealots all of the time. While it may not stop them it reduces their influence to allow NPOV. We need to provide strong measure to prevent paid editing from ruining the project too. While some aspects of paid editing may be acceptable, having folks who engage in secret paid editing changing the policy on paid editing is obviously problematic. Will Beback talk 06:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Not really, we want to castigate paid editors as inherently problematic except when they are "secret paid editors" then we really let them have it? And again this smells like a pile of bad faith assumptions, if there are paid editors who wish to add to this page then they are welcome to just as any other editor is welcome to contribute here per policies, we are to be welcoming, work toward consensus and extend good faith. -- Banjeboi 02:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how someone can be a paid editor, editing a policy on paid editing, not reveal their payments to anyone, and not be in conflict of interest. To be clear, Wikipedia does not welcome editors who have a hidden conflict of interest in their editing. --TeaDrinker (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- It's the same correlate that has been used repeatedly - we don't presume someone who is a paid editor is by default a COI editor. With the hostility expressed on this page alone I would expect any reasonable editor to avoid revealing they are in any way considered a paid editor. We cannot presume someone who is a paid editor is a COI editor, that is both illogical and against our civility policies on assuming good faith. If you honestly feel that any editor wishing to edit this page - which is not a policy or guideline - then please ask on an admin board how we should go about that process to determine such and enforce it. If nothing else on this matter then perhaps we should look to how to constructively move forward? -- Banjeboi 10:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- WP:AGF does not mean "suspend all critical faculties". Johnuniq (talk) 11:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed, it certainly is not a suicide pact. However it is rather uncivil and unproductive to walk into the page and simply assume someone is COI because they don't agree with you. Building consensus isn't always pretty or easy but it does require a willingness to work with others, no matter their POV. -- Banjeboi 11:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- WP:AGF does not mean "suspend all critical faculties". Johnuniq (talk) 11:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- It's the same correlate that has been used repeatedly - we don't presume someone who is a paid editor is by default a COI editor. With the hostility expressed on this page alone I would expect any reasonable editor to avoid revealing they are in any way considered a paid editor. We cannot presume someone who is a paid editor is a COI editor, that is both illogical and against our civility policies on assuming good faith. If you honestly feel that any editor wishing to edit this page - which is not a policy or guideline - then please ask on an admin board how we should go about that process to determine such and enforce it. If nothing else on this matter then perhaps we should look to how to constructively move forward? -- Banjeboi 10:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how someone can be a paid editor, editing a policy on paid editing, not reveal their payments to anyone, and not be in conflict of interest. To be clear, Wikipedia does not welcome editors who have a hidden conflict of interest in their editing. --TeaDrinker (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Not really, we want to castigate paid editors as inherently problematic except when they are "secret paid editors" then we really let them have it? And again this smells like a pile of bad faith assumptions, if there are paid editors who wish to add to this page then they are welcome to just as any other editor is welcome to contribute here per policies, we are to be welcoming, work toward consensus and extend good faith. -- Banjeboi 02:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- It's true that other forms of "bias-inducement" are a problem. But this page only concerns one of them. While various affiliations or sympathies may lead to bias, there is nothing quite like money. Paid editing is qualitatively different from religious bias, for example. We ban zealots all of the time. While it may not stop them it reduces their influence to allow NPOV. We need to provide strong measure to prevent paid editing from ruining the project too. While some aspects of paid editing may be acceptable, having folks who engage in secret paid editing changing the policy on paid editing is obviously problematic. Will Beback talk 06:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- As a more serious counterpoint to my comment above, I must say that there is an important point missing here: being paid for Wikipedia editing is only one form of bias-inducement. Of equal or greater concern should be editors who participate here with a persistent and obvious idealogical bias, whatever it may be. I must say, in my relatively brief experience here, they are rife -- biases about religion, nationalism, and political affiliation. I see these biases as no less harmful to the process of writing an encyclopedia than paid editing -- in fact, I think they are far worse. So, I don't really see what the problem is -- I don't think zealots of any kind should be allowed here, but there seems no way to stop them. The same would seem to be true of paid editors. Iosefina (talk) 05:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Benjiboi, are you saying a financial reward for having a page turn out in a particular manner does not constitute a conflict of interest? --TeaDrinker (talk) 14:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- It might but I also think that being a paid editor doesn't always equal that and certainly all paid editors might not be even thinking their goal is to have a particular page turn out in any particular way. I just don't think it's as simply as A + B = C. -- Banjeboi 18:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- That sounds very much like an argument against having a conflict of interest policy at all. If we can't say getting money directly from a specific discussion outcome is a conflict of interest in that discussion, what is a conflict of interest? --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- You can check out conflict of interest and WP:COI for definitions. There seems no consensus to state that all paid editors are inherently COI. -- Banjeboi 14:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- Umm, yes there is, if you're using "paid editors" in the sense above. It is right there in Wikipedia:COI#Financial. --TeaDrinker (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- That's the point, we're not using your definition. -- Banjeboi 20:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- I believe the policy is quite clear. You're simply wrong. --TeaDrinker (talk) 16:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for sharing your opinion, luckily we use consensus and there is no consensus that paid editing equals paid advocacy; also there is no consensus that paid editing equals COI. A lot of people may feel that way but are also likely conflating paid editing with advocy as you have done. -- Banjeboi 03:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- I believe the policy is quite clear. You're simply wrong. --TeaDrinker (talk) 16:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- That's the point, we're not using your definition. -- Banjeboi 20:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- Umm, yes there is, if you're using "paid editors" in the sense above. It is right there in Wikipedia:COI#Financial. --TeaDrinker (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- You can check out conflict of interest and WP:COI for definitions. There seems no consensus to state that all paid editors are inherently COI. -- Banjeboi 14:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- That sounds very much like an argument against having a conflict of interest policy at all. If we can't say getting money directly from a specific discussion outcome is a conflict of interest in that discussion, what is a conflict of interest? --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
There must be some limit
As I understand it, based on reversions, and discussions on this page, one editor insists that:
- PR firms are allowed to edit articles on their clients.
- Administrators, bureaucrats are allowed to accept pay for their work on Wikipedia.
- Editors are allowed to accept pay for work on policy pages and this page in particular.
- Jimbo's stated policy on this matter is not Wikipedia policy; and that
- BB is allowed to revert anybody else's edits whenever he pleases, however many times he pleases, without any support or consensus, based on the essay WP:BRD (I suggest he actually read this essay).
Benjiboi, please tell me I'm wrong about this!
I'll suggest we come up with a method (straw poll or any method!) where we come to an agreement on at least 3, but hopefully all, of these points.
If we can't do this, I suggest that we give up on this entirely, and make this page a redirect to WP:COI
Smallbones (talk) 01:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Let's not provoke Benjiboi - he has strong opinions on the matter but I hope that he will be willing to make sacrifices to encourage adoption of an effective compromise policy. I agree with only two points above, that PR firms should be allowed to edit articles on their clients (as long as they adhere to existing policies), and that Jimbo's bold decree is not Wikipedia policy (on the basis that Jimbo cannot and should not create policy, and has no ability to enforce his decree).
- I think the most important thing to come out of this policy when it is approved should be that users can edit articles for payment. I'm willing to concede to any reasonable set of restrictions on their behaviour to make other people happy. On the other hand, I'm not willing to concede to restrictions on the identity of the editor themselves, as this should be immaterial. There's a reason that to this day we have never banned, for example, people writing articles about themselves; the same logic applies here. Dcoetzee 01:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- This is yet another attempt to entrench rather than discuss, and that's unfortunate as some progress has been made despite these antagonistic steps. If you feel you can constructively and civilly engage here then great, if not you might need to take a break and stop focusing on editor(s) you disagree with. -- Banjeboi 03:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Folks keep saying that the appropriate standard is "disruption". I think there is evidence of disruption here. Will Beback talk 03:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Smallbones - most of your post is taunting and baiting of Benjeboi, which is a clear infringement of WP:CIVIL. If you cannot contribute politely and civilly to this discussion then you should seriously consider taking some time out to focus on other things. However, I agree with your final suggestion - we should make this page a redirect to WP:COI. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Benjiboi is simply reverting everything I and several others contribute here. He has spurned my offer of mediation or any other form of dispute resolution. He has is advocating a very extreme policy on paid editing - apparently including that administrators may accept payment for their work. I repeat my offer: let's go to mediation, or select any other dispute resolution format that you want. How about it Benjiboi? Smallbones (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Smallbones you are again mischaracterizing my edits and contributions here. Looking through the page history it's quite clear that I'm hardly the only one who has reverted and everyone else has tried to work through sticking points without singling each other out. Most of the other editors here have worked to try to understand these issues and develop a page that actually help rather than misrepresents. There is a world of difference between stating that admins are forbidden from getting paid versus discouraged from it and either statement should be backed up in policy so admins can actually look at said policy. I'm not advocating anything except that we base this page in reality leaning on the community-wide RfC on the matter. Personally I see less and less value in entertaining your continued bad faith accusations; I however will continue to act responsibly on constructively developing this page. I hope you'll dial down the heat and focus on building consensus. -- Banjeboi 02:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Benjiboi is simply reverting everything I and several others contribute here. He has spurned my offer of mediation or any other form of dispute resolution. He has is advocating a very extreme policy on paid editing - apparently including that administrators may accept payment for their work. I repeat my offer: let's go to mediation, or select any other dispute resolution format that you want. How about it Benjiboi? Smallbones (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- I take this to mean that you do not want to do mediation or any other sort of dispute resolution, that you do not disagree with any of the 5 points above, and that you do not recognize that it is a problem that you've reverted everything I (and others) contribute to this page. What would happen if we did this to you? Please do not accuse me of bad faith accusations, but I simply cannot understand how you think Wikipedia can work when you do not allow other editors to contribute. I'll ask you again, for the third time, to go into mediation. Smallbones (talk) 03:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- I do not see a need for dispute resolution here, there are always disagreements, especially on proposed guideline/policy pages. I've stated why I thin entering into a formal process doesn't make the most sense at this time and unfortunately you seem determined to derail otherwise constructive discussion. You seem to want to cast me as advocating an extreme position when clearly that is not true, meanwhile you are trying to enter your preferred policy ideas onto the page when their yet exists no policy to do so. In answer to the points presented:
- I take this to mean that you do not want to do mediation or any other sort of dispute resolution, that you do not disagree with any of the 5 points above, and that you do not recognize that it is a problem that you've reverted everything I (and others) contribute to this page. What would happen if we did this to you? Please do not accuse me of bad faith accusations, but I simply cannot understand how you think Wikipedia can work when you do not allow other editors to contribute. I'll ask you again, for the third time, to go into mediation. Smallbones (talk) 03:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
1.PR firms are allowed to edit articles on their clients. A:There exists no policy prohibiting editors based on motivations or profession. If they are advocating it doesn't matter if they are paid or not. 2.Administrators, bureaucrats are allowed to accept pay for their work on Wikipedia. A:Until there is a stated policy against this, which may make sense, there is likely no need or basis to even digress into this area. This doesn't seem to be an issue and theoretically there may be good reasons why this could be allowed. 3.Editors are allowed to accept pay for work on policy pages and this page in particular. A:All editors are welcome and encouraged to participate in all aspects of Wikipedia, there exists no sound reason to exclude editors, paid or otherwise, who are otherwise following policies. 4.Jimbo's stated policy on this matter is not Wikipedia policy; and that A:Jimmy Wales' statement was immediately questioned as being valid and enforcible, certainly there was no consensus to make it policy so we should treat it with due weight; since that statement he has voluntarily given up his blocking ability forever and at least one other community RfC on Wales' role in dictating policy in this manner has started to look at these issues. 5.BB is allowed to revert anybody else's edits whenever he pleases, however many times he pleases, without any support or consensus, based on the essay WP:BRD (I suggest he actually read this essay). A:That is a gross and misleading mythologizing of events that does nothing but try to cast me in the worst light possible. And WP:BRD is about someone being BOLD (Smallbones in this case), the edit(s) being REVERTED and DISCUSSION to find consensus on how to go forward. I could also complain that despite no consensus you have continued to try to insert disparaging statements against paid editors which is disruptive. I have continued to make good faith efforts to understand the passions evident here and have continued to respond to questions and examples. -- Banjeboi 03:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Based on the number of reverts, there is apparently a dispute here. Will Beback talk 03:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- I concur, this should go to dispute resolution in some form. --TeaDrinker (talk) 05:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Based on the number of reverts, there is apparently a dispute here. Will Beback talk 03:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- The page just seems to be churning, and the reverts aren't bringing us closer to consensus. I suggest protecting the page and going to mediation. Will Beback talk 22:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- I for one and getting rather frustrated with the obstacles to overcome here. Mediation is great for working out content problems, which is for me the heart of the matter. If someone has another option, however, I would love to hear it. Otherwise are there any objections to requesting mediation? --TeaDrinker (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- As was discussed prior a RfC or mediation could be utilized but likely would be a rather big time suck and waste the opportunity for when we really need the community to help settle some major sticking point. Every revert, by myself at least, has been accompanied by well-reasoned and civil discussion as why this page is better off without the proposed changes. I would expect the same from anyone else. We can disagree without being disagreeable. Frankly, this thread was muddled by rebundling issues and conflating them against one user - myself. That is almost never a great way to have meaningful discussion. I think many of our threads have been quite helpful and I must state I'm in no rush here, I'd rather get it right then quickly. If there is some deadline, what is it? Failing that let's keep trying to write a good page which serves our editors on all sides of these issues. -- Banjeboi 10:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC) -- Banjeboi 10:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- Mediation won't get involved in non-civil, behavioral disputes. Their scope is content disputes. To be clear, you would participate in a mediation? At present we can't seem to even get the goals of this page (policy, guideline, summary of existing policy, the rules as enforced, etc.), or basic instructions for editing this document clear. Maybe this is one step to getting something resolved, but this is an indication something is needed. --TeaDrinker (talk) 14:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- Personally I am not interested and I don't see the need. We are effectively hearing one another, to a degree, and thoughtful changes are being made. I see the recent thread on the nature of this page as being helpful and personally i would hate for this to simply devolve into a redirect to COI as I think that misses the mark. We are discussing big and little changes simultaneously and even though some heated comments are evident I think everyone is operating from a sincere interest. -- Banjeboi 10:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- Mediation won't get involved in non-civil, behavioral disputes. Their scope is content disputes. To be clear, you would participate in a mediation? At present we can't seem to even get the goals of this page (policy, guideline, summary of existing policy, the rules as enforced, etc.), or basic instructions for editing this document clear. Maybe this is one step to getting something resolved, but this is an indication something is needed. --TeaDrinker (talk) 14:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- As was discussed prior a RfC or mediation could be utilized but likely would be a rather big time suck and waste the opportunity for when we really need the community to help settle some major sticking point. Every revert, by myself at least, has been accompanied by well-reasoned and civil discussion as why this page is better off without the proposed changes. I would expect the same from anyone else. We can disagree without being disagreeable. Frankly, this thread was muddled by rebundling issues and conflating them against one user - myself. That is almost never a great way to have meaningful discussion. I think many of our threads have been quite helpful and I must state I'm in no rush here, I'd rather get it right then quickly. If there is some deadline, what is it? Failing that let's keep trying to write a good page which serves our editors on all sides of these issues. -- Banjeboi 10:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC) -- Banjeboi 10:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- I for one and getting rather frustrated with the obstacles to overcome here. Mediation is great for working out content problems, which is for me the heart of the matter. If someone has another option, however, I would love to hear it. Otherwise are there any objections to requesting mediation? --TeaDrinker (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I think it needed, as do several other users. As a sign of good faith, would you participate even if you don't think it will be helpful? --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- I've already answered this a number of times and other editors have also agreed that it would likely not be as productive as you seem to suggest it must be. If you and Smallbones insist on pushing in that direction it would likely make more sense to pre-emptively find some basic understanding as other threads have worked to do. IMHO dispute resolution really should be saved for the bigger wider discussions presuming the page eventually is headed to being a guideline. I do appreciate what you have contributed here, however, at the heat against paid editing is going I can guarantee you this will soon be marked as a failed proposal based on the trajectory you seem to working. You might as well try to enact a policy against all people who edit while at work. It will go down in flames as ridiculous and unenforcible. -- Banjeboi 14:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- It certainly won't be helpful if it is not tried. I agree the content currently on the page is a failed proposal and I see no signs you're interested in working productively toward a resolution. --TeaDrinker (talk) 16:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- That's leap of bad faith on your part unfortunately. Any reasonable person could quickly see that I have remained discussing these issues despite all the accusations and bad faith assumptions and have also contributed positively to the page itself. In the absence of evidence asked from others editors to support various dubous assertions I've done the research as well. No, your resolution is unlikely to ever come to pass but that is not my concern, I'm here to improve this page to accurately reflect these issues based on the community's feedback including the community-wide RfC on the issue. We have a wealth of material to work with and despite the heat I will work with whomever is willing to constructively contribute to the page. -- Banjeboi 03:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- It certainly won't be helpful if it is not tried. I agree the content currently on the page is a failed proposal and I see no signs you're interested in working productively toward a resolution. --TeaDrinker (talk) 16:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Removed these examples as well, similar issues as before
Under the heading Examples of prohibited editing
| “ | 1. An editor writes or edits an article about about an organisation in exchange for a fee from that organisation, even if disclosure of this arrangement is made and no guarantee of success is made. 2. An editor writes or edits an article as a result of being hired by a political consulting firm to promote a particular point of view. |
” |
I've removed both these examples and they are perfect examples of what we should not use as an example. The first one is not based in policy, there is no indication that that editor has done anything wrong at all, just that they were paid. If their editing is otherwise up to our standards there seems to be nothings prohibiting them from being a Wikipedian.
In the second example we describe WP:Advocacy which was just explained toward the top of the page as being prohibited whether paid or not, ergo it is redundant and unneeded. -- Banjeboi 22:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Earlier you said the first was was redundant, as it was already prohibited. Now it you say it is not based in policy. You can, I hope, see how developing consensus under such circumstances would be frustrating. --TeaDrinker (talk) 15:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- I may have misspoke or mis-attributed my comments at the earlier thread. My over-arching point on using examples is that they are likely unneeded, unhelpful, and likely to actuall cause unintended problems. In my experience they are used by folks who want to violate the spirit of a policy as their exact case didn't match some example; they are also misused by those who wish to target people they feel are violating some policy. Then the examples are removed or nitpicked over to try to find a NPOV wording. IMHO, we should leave these out until there is agreement that a particular example set apart from the text would be illuminating beyond the text itself. -- Banjeboi 10:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- Again, can you point to an example where this has occured? I think examples are helpful, and they are certainly found in a wide range of policy pages. --TeaDrinker (talk) 13:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- Again I'd rather see a case where an example is actually needed beyond what we already have in the text. If we write a clear page examples like this are probably unneeded. Is there some point that we aren't clear on? We should likely improve the actual text rather than find an example. -- Banjeboi 18:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, plenty of examples in WP:NPOV. Policy wouldn't be the same if the examples were removed. --TeaDrinker (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not disputing examples may help on other pages, the issue is if they actually are needed here. It might be premature to some more basic theoretical and structural issues. -- Banjeboi 10:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well since you simply repeat that examples won't help here and will lead to wikilawyering and confusion, I imagine you don't think they are needed here. The question to you then is why is this page different from bulk of other policy pages (it might well be all of them, I haven't checked) where they have been found to be useful and don't lead to confusion/dogs and cats living together? --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think the basic difference is that those are community established and tested policies where this is a page in formation. It seems to me that simply stating what on this page needs to be clarified is more helpful. That process has generally resulted in positive changes. -- Banjeboi 14:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well since you simply repeat that examples won't help here and will lead to wikilawyering and confusion, I imagine you don't think they are needed here. The question to you then is why is this page different from bulk of other policy pages (it might well be all of them, I haven't checked) where they have been found to be useful and don't lead to confusion/dogs and cats living together? --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not disputing examples may help on other pages, the issue is if they actually are needed here. It might be premature to some more basic theoretical and structural issues. -- Banjeboi 10:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, plenty of examples in WP:NPOV. Policy wouldn't be the same if the examples were removed. --TeaDrinker (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- Again I'd rather see a case where an example is actually needed beyond what we already have in the text. If we write a clear page examples like this are probably unneeded. Is there some point that we aren't clear on? We should likely improve the actual text rather than find an example. -- Banjeboi 18:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- Again, can you point to an example where this has occured? I think examples are helpful, and they are certainly found in a wide range of policy pages. --TeaDrinker (talk) 13:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- I may have misspoke or mis-attributed my comments at the earlier thread. My over-arching point on using examples is that they are likely unneeded, unhelpful, and likely to actuall cause unintended problems. In my experience they are used by folks who want to violate the spirit of a policy as their exact case didn't match some example; they are also misused by those who wish to target people they feel are violating some policy. Then the examples are removed or nitpicked over to try to find a NPOV wording. IMHO, we should leave these out until there is agreement that a particular example set apart from the text would be illuminating beyond the text itself. -- Banjeboi 10:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) But you agree that examples don't generally lead to disastrous consequences? We haven't talked about specific examples in a while, so I think our present conflict has roots elsewhere. I really don't see your reasoning behind leaving examples off the page, other than we have not agreed to specific examples here. --TeaDrinker (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think using examples on this page at this time is simply premature. Putting energy into sussing out examples that are likely unneeded seems like a really bad idea. Spending time to discuss how helpful examples are on other pages also seems like it's diverting from actually making improvements here. Instead of finding creative innuendo to imply I'm compromised in some way it would be more constructive to simply based everything that sounds like a policy or guideline in existing policies and guidelines. Once we clear out a few of the more easy bits we can see where there is actually any sticking points that would warrant extra eyes. -- Banjeboi 21:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- I have already addressed these points. You've responded but not replied to them. I see no benefit to restating what I have already said. --TeaDrinker (talk) 17:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Clarify Wales blocked statement please
Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has previously blocked editors; what information do we have on this? It's given prominence and IMHO it implies he blocked several editors just for being paid, that seems dubious so maybe we should ensure we're accurately reflecting why he blocked those folks and if the blocks were contested, upheld, etc. -- Banjeboi 12:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- MyWikiBiz. I have the sneaking suspicion that your response is going to be some questioning of whether he was actually blocked for paid editing and not violations of some other community standard. Let me submit Jimbo's position on paid editing is abundantly clear, that paid editing in some forms is blockable. He calls that policy. --TeaDrinker (talk) 13:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- Can you link to where Wales stated where someone involved with MyWikiBiz was blocked for paid editing; also where Wales stated paid editing in some forms is blockable? -- Banjeboi 19:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- Certainly. Jimbo stated, on Oct 5, 2006, he was blocking User:MyWikiBiz for setting up a service wherein a client gets an article in Wikipedia in exchange for payment to the company. Unfortunately the content was deleted, along with the rest of the page. I am admittedly somewhat startled by your second question, since you've discussed the very quote at length. Of course, Jimbo's statement at the rfc does indicate both paid advocacy is blockable, as is setting up a service. --TeaDrinker (talk) 16:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- This might be a good example to use, can you share the actual diff or the thread? Also the RfC bits are already on the page, advocacy remains forbidden, no news there, and setting up a service is covered so i guess thats what MyWikiBiz was doing. I guess i should rephrase the question ... besides the setting up an offsite editing service has Wales stated other forms of paid editing are blockable? Diffs and/or threads? -- Banjeboi 10:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- I don't immediately see any problems with it, but I will check with the deleting admin to be sure. --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well Jimbo apparently stated regarding User:MyWikiBiz - For the record, having reviewed the situation, I think that I acted harshly and hastily; I would not do the same today. I believe that my actions got Gregory off on the wrong foot in the community, and that tensions which he feels today have their roots in my action. I hope that in some small way my apology is helpful to him, and to the rest of the community, in looking for a resolution of longstanding conflicts. The user was doing a number of things so this may not be a good example after all. -- Banjeboi 15:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- Although more recently he said he would block anyone who set up a service to edit Wikipedia. What is the origin of your quote? --TeaDrinker (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- [1]. -- Banjeboi 21:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks --TeaDrinker (talk) 17:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- [1]. -- Banjeboi 21:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- Although more recently he said he would block anyone who set up a service to edit Wikipedia. What is the origin of your quote? --TeaDrinker (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well Jimbo apparently stated regarding User:MyWikiBiz - For the record, having reviewed the situation, I think that I acted harshly and hastily; I would not do the same today. I believe that my actions got Gregory off on the wrong foot in the community, and that tensions which he feels today have their roots in my action. I hope that in some small way my apology is helpful to him, and to the rest of the community, in looking for a resolution of longstanding conflicts. The user was doing a number of things so this may not be a good example after all. -- Banjeboi 15:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- I don't immediately see any problems with it, but I will check with the deleting admin to be sure. --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- This might be a good example to use, can you share the actual diff or the thread? Also the RfC bits are already on the page, advocacy remains forbidden, no news there, and setting up a service is covered so i guess thats what MyWikiBiz was doing. I guess i should rephrase the question ... besides the setting up an offsite editing service has Wales stated other forms of paid editing are blockable? Diffs and/or threads? -- Banjeboi 10:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- Certainly. Jimbo stated, on Oct 5, 2006, he was blocking User:MyWikiBiz for setting up a service wherein a client gets an article in Wikipedia in exchange for payment to the company. Unfortunately the content was deleted, along with the rest of the page. I am admittedly somewhat startled by your second question, since you've discussed the very quote at length. Of course, Jimbo's statement at the rfc does indicate both paid advocacy is blockable, as is setting up a service. --TeaDrinker (talk) 16:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- Can you link to where Wales stated where someone involved with MyWikiBiz was blocked for paid editing; also where Wales stated paid editing in some forms is blockable? -- Banjeboi 19:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Administrator tools statement
Using administrator tools for compensation of any kind is strictly forbidden. Is there anything in policy that supports this? Jimmy Wales' own statement was that "It is not ok with me that anyone ever set up a service selling their services as a Wikipedia editor, administrator, bureaucrat, etc." That is different than what we are stating. Is their a better way to word this to make it accurate and helpful or is it even needed? -- Banjeboi 12:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, WP:ADMIN. Paid adminning is certainly a gross breach of trust. To forstall my guess at your response, "no it isn't," don't think that just because it is not listed specifically the person's adminship would not be removed. Posting off wiki in a manner which calls into question your work as an admin can get your adminship removed. Sure's shooting adminning for pay is going to as well. --TeaDrinker (talk) 13:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- Just so we all understand your assertion, what exactly on that page actually confers this? I'm fine if there is consensus in the community that any paid admining by default is a "gross breach of trust" but I doubt that consensus exists. We might be able to inject something along these lines but, again, is this really the issue that gets an admin into trouble? Really? Is this really needed? -- Banjeboi 19:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think it clear that almost everyone who has participated in a discussion of this from arbcom down, has agreed that paid admin work, is intrinsically a breech of trust. I doubt someone would be deadminned for an isolated trivial violation, but I think they could and should be for anything more than that. Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. DGG ( talk ) 21:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- I tend to agree; the point however is that we can't state something is forbidden if it's not. The solution may be to leave it out if it's presumed yet unneeded, otherwise we should word it in plain language that it is assumed to be a bad idea but ask at WP:AN if the need arises. Where is the arbcom opinion on this? That likely would solve the issue. -- Banjeboi 22:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think we need to mandate all text here be strictly in a logical entailment from text of another policy. We have the policy, even if this case specifically is not covered in text, it is pretty clearly covered in the penumbra and spirit of the policy. Remember, we're not here to be lawyers, we're here to write an encyclopedia. --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think we do need to mandate that all text be accurate. We can't declare all paid editing is wrong, because it's not. We also can't declare most forms of paid editing are acceptable because we have no idea how much or who are paid editors. We're still trying to understand what constitutes the category. Frankly I don't care if it is policy or not, I just want whatever we put to be accurate. If Arbcom has published something on this that likely would be seen as definitive. -- Banjeboi 01:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- I missed your point. I agree all text should be accurate? What's inaccurate in saying a person can't use admin tools for pay? --TeaDrinker (talk) 15:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- There is simply no policy to support this, at all. Similar to paid editing, it's impossible to know if someone is paid unless it is revealed. Then the issue is did they get paid to perform some admin action. Any cases that arise involving this more l;ikely will focus on what they actually did rathr than why although why will also be considered. If the actual admin action is seen as valid but possibly COI they simply will be admonished but at best we should cage it accurately that Paid admining is generally considered a really bad idea and likely COI; get an uninvolved admin to assist. Then add in footnote information to spell out anything else. If your account is enabled with admin tools I think it's fair to say one does some admin actions without blinking an eye likely because they are boring and uncontroversial. Higher up in the page I think we need to raise the reasons paid editing is an issue from Wales' perspective, one of the main ones being public perception. Paid admining is similar in that the perception that someone could be doing something wrong is valid concern. I think these will help explain why paid admining is more of an issue even if there remains no policy against it. -- Banjeboi 03:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- I missed your point. I agree all text should be accurate? What's inaccurate in saying a person can't use admin tools for pay? --TeaDrinker (talk) 15:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think we do need to mandate that all text be accurate. We can't declare all paid editing is wrong, because it's not. We also can't declare most forms of paid editing are acceptable because we have no idea how much or who are paid editors. We're still trying to understand what constitutes the category. Frankly I don't care if it is policy or not, I just want whatever we put to be accurate. If Arbcom has published something on this that likely would be seen as definitive. -- Banjeboi 01:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think we need to mandate all text here be strictly in a logical entailment from text of another policy. We have the policy, even if this case specifically is not covered in text, it is pretty clearly covered in the penumbra and spirit of the policy. Remember, we're not here to be lawyers, we're here to write an encyclopedia. --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- I tend to agree; the point however is that we can't state something is forbidden if it's not. The solution may be to leave it out if it's presumed yet unneeded, otherwise we should word it in plain language that it is assumed to be a bad idea but ask at WP:AN if the need arises. Where is the arbcom opinion on this? That likely would solve the issue. -- Banjeboi 22:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think it clear that almost everyone who has participated in a discussion of this from arbcom down, has agreed that paid admin work, is intrinsically a breech of trust. I doubt someone would be deadminned for an isolated trivial violation, but I think they could and should be for anything more than that. Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. DGG ( talk ) 21:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)