User talk:Jimbo Wales/Paid Advocacy FAQ

Page move

(I moved the actual page to User:Jimbo Wales/Paid Advocacy FAQ.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Questions

Q:You say that the reason people should listen to you, despite the fact that paid advocates do edit, is that it earns the respect of the community. Why should this mean no paid editing, rather than paid editing that otherwise is in accordance with Wikipedia policies (unless you believe the policies do not express the will of the community)?

Q:Wouldn't all the same arguments apply to editing a BLP about yourself? Being paid by X to edit an article about X has a similar COI to being X and editing an article about X. Yet while editing your own BLP is discouraged, it is not outright prohibited. If anything, there's more need for paid editors to edit articles about the company they work for, since we don't have special "biographies of companies" protections like we do for BLP. (Also note that BRIGHTLINE applies to BLPs as well, since it applies whenever there is a COI and the subject has a COI.)

Q:If the paid advocate sees something genuinely wrong with an article--unsourced statement that the company's product contains ground-up babies, bad WP:UNDUE problem, or whatever--the paid advocate uses the talk page or other channels, and nobody fixes the article, must the company endure the bad article forever? If not, is there some time limit after which the paid advocate may edit the article since the rest of Wikipedia has shown itself to fail in properly maintaining it? (And if you say "Wikipedia never fails to maintain an article," I'll laugh.) Ken Arromdee (talk) 18:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Your second two questions are good. The first one is a bit muddled. I think the reason people should listen to me is that this is going to become policy in the near future, I believe. Hard policy. So it's worth paying attention to now.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

My first question was referring to this:

Q: Yeah, that's nice, but I see so many paid advocates advocating freely. Why should I listen to anything you say?

A: Because it is in your best interests to do so. If you want to be successful as a paid advocate, you must obtain the respect of the community.

Also it looks like you added my other two questions and then someone else deleted one....

Ken Arromdee (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Per "I think the reason people should listen to me is that this is going to become policy in the near future, I believe. Hard policy." - I haven't seen the slightest indication that the extreme so-called "Bright LIne" principle has significant traction in any of the numerous prior debates on COI editing, such as, for example, the vast array of proposals vetted at the recent failed RFC on COI editing launched by ArbCom. I fail to see how this is to become "hard policy" short of being rammed through by WMF fiat, which will inevitably result in a circus that makes the ill-fated flagged revisions and image filter proposals look tame. I would respectfully advise another approach more in tune with the political realities of the situation. There seems to be little stomach for "editor-based" COI policy versus "edit-based" COI policy — that is, it is not a question of who is doing the writing, but what is being written. There is absolutely no way to police a so-called "bright line" short of mandatory registration and Sign-In-To-Edit. As long as WP is anonymous by design and so-called "outing" not only frowned upon, but sanctionable, it boggles how such a policy could possibly be enforced.

What IS needed is a set of realistic "best practices" — mandatory declaration of COI on the talk page, mandatory adherence to NPOV, strong suggestion to avoid controversial editing, and invitation of scrutiny. There would be traction for something like this. Beyond that, I don't see the votes, so to speak... Carrite (talk) 23:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Q: What consequences would a confirmed or suspected paid advocate face if found editing article mainspace against Bright line guidelines? SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 01:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

In that they are adding non-neutral information into an article? I would think we should follow the normal practice and warnings and then blocks if it continues, just like we would any other user who broke the rules. Silverseren^C 16:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo is concerned with all non-trivial article edits by paid advocates, not just clear non-NPOV edits, he even seems to be for talk page engagement by paid advocates for these trivial edits. Warnings & blocks for any edit then a ban for repeat offenders, is that the case? SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 02:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

self disclosure needs a reason

This approach provides no reason for which people would self-identify as paid editors. First, I do not disagree that we need controls on paid editing and stricter controls on paid advocacy. But blanketly banning somebody from editing an article to which they want to monitor/edit? Why on earth would anybody self identify to that? Because Jimbo says it would garner trust from the community? Really? Are we that niave? Would anybody self-identify to a restriction that has no benefit when there is little to no means to regulate/identify?

If we want people to self-identify, then we need to incenticize doing so and/or lessen the consequences of doing so. If we want people to self-identify, then there needs to be a reason for them to do. Self identifying to face strict limitation? Not gonna happen.

I think a much better approach would be to require paid editors to identify whom/where they work and what they are being paid to do---and their real life identity. Let our OTRS system verify that. Once so verified, they would be recognized as paid editors for the specified institution. This would mean that the people would know that they might have special/more knowledge than the general public; but also that they might have a specific POV/BIAS. As a recognized employee of a company, their behavior/actions now reflect their employer. John Smith of the AMCE Corp is going to go out of his way to adhere to our guidelines, because the last thing John Smith wants to happens is that he gets taken to ANI/ArbCOM and drags the ACME Corp name with him---where his supervisors will see it. John Smith would be much more willing to disclose his identity if A) it was policy that he did so, B) it was not wikicide for him to do so, C) there were advantages for him to do so. As is, there is no reason to do so. Let John Smith, paid employee of Acme, develop a reputation as either a advocate or a person who is trying to improve the articles. As an anonymous user, there is less personal stake in being taken to ANI/ArbCOM, even if observed by management, it won't reflect as much on John Smith specifically. Plus, if John Smith of Acme corp ever wants to get a job at Acme's competitors, he might be more willing to mind his P&Qs here if his real life identity were known! If Obama/Romney's state X campaign manager says something outrageous on WP, it will suddenly be picked up as such... thus creating a built in control.

We can also create rules/guidelines surrounding the use of personal accounts. John Smith might be a paid editor on Acme, but wants to use his personal account when editing his personal area of interest---ornithology.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 22:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

May I phrase this as a question: "What incentives does your position offer to people who are paid advocates to self-identify and follow the rules?" That's a valid question, and I have a very good answer. I also note that your position on requiring real name identification is even more extreme than mine, so I'm a bit confused based on your other remarks as to what your position is. Is it your position that people will be ethical enough to go through an identification procedure, but too unethical to restrict themselves to an appropriate edit-suggestion process? --Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

You mean your policy about being barred from editing the articles directly while they attempt to earn the respect of the community after casting themselves as second rate citizens? That is not going to encourage people to self identify. My position offers several reasons: 1) It becomes a means for which people can advance themselves directly. John Smith for the Acme Corp can in fact develop a reputation here and then carry that with him to future employers. 2) It affords them a position of being Subject Matter Experts. 3) It allows them to edit articles directly. 4) It affords PR people an opportunity to put their names out there and develop a reputation---which is something many PR people want. And yes, I do believe people in PR roles would be willing to self-identify to comply with the rules and let them edit their relative articles BEFORE they would self identify to be banned from doing so. Corporate PR people are used to putting their names to publications/statements. Thus, doing so here, would not be a big deal... they would undoubtably have anonymous accounts for their personal editing.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 02:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've had a read of the proposal, and it seems to me to be a practical compromise between the ideal of nobody ever advocating anything for material gain, and the practicality that it does happen. And I can see why honest paid advocates would self-identify (and I have an actual example). Or to put it another way, those who want to stay hidden and do their advocacy are going to try to stay hidden anyway, regardless of any new policies, so anything that encourages honest paid advocates to self-identify has to be good, I think. On to my example. In real life, I work freelance in my chosen business, and a client, knowing I'm a Wikipedia admin, recently asked me what they should do to make an article relating to their company more acceptable in terms of Wikipedia policies and therefore more likely to be kept. I told them about RS, NPOV and all that, and when I checked the article later, I found they had removed some slightly flowery wording, made it read neutrally and factually, and last I heard they were looking for better sources. That's the kind of advocate who I think would be happy to have a self-identified account, and to use that account to ask for changes on Talk pages and generally ask for help in making an article more acceptable to Wikipedia. The unprincipled PR people out there won't, but we already have that problem anyway. Now, I don't know if I'm being naive here and expecting too much from the marketing departments of this world, but I'm all for starting with the AGF approach, which I think this proposal embodies. (And for the avoidance of doubt, I have never made any edits on behalf of clients, and never would). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Exactly. A good PR person would have no problem self identifying and they are the type we should encourage to edit the articles... as they are more likely to try to adhere to the policies.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 02:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
• Brightline enforcement is impossible without real name registration and sign-in-to-edit. I'm actually in favor of those things, mind you, but they don't have a chance in hell of gaining even simple majority support, let alone the super-majority needed for consensus at WP. Ergo, anonymous editing, AGF, and sanctioning of those who "out" anonymous editors will remain — and brightline enforcement won't be workable. Dismiss the idea and think outside the box. From WP's perspective: the problem isn't necessarily who is doing the writing, it is what is being written, bad POV positive content. From Pro PR's standpoint: the need isn't to do the writing themselves, it is to make sure bad POV negative content doesn't stand. Both sides have a common interest, I note, in NPOV content. That's where the solution lies: how do we make sure that articles maintain NPOV? What mechanism is there to remove bad negative POV content to avoid manipulations by those who may, intentionally or accidentally, whitewash things with bad positive POV content? That's the fundamental solution: devising a mechanism for the improvement and maintenance of NPOV business articles. Carrite (talk) 00:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree... brightline is a dream.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 02:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• I too like Balloonman's proposal: real-name identification to the Foundation and on the user talk page, and preferably also within the user account name, naming the relevant company or employer, with the right to edit the article in line with policy. Such people will edit with their real name on the line, which is more than most Wikipedians do, and will no doubt be subject to scrutiny. Plus we can be clear that we will throw the book at anyone, whether it's a newbie or a respected admin, found surreptitiously editing articles related to their business customers or employer. Topic ban, site ban, whatever. We can declare an amnesty for past COI edits, give people time to declare their hitherto unacknowledged conflicts of interest, and after that, the game is played for keeps. You want to make COI edits: you declare your COI. --JN466 02:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Yuppers, paid editing occurs, the recent ANI thread relative to the Admin who opposed paid editing but appeared to have been a paid editor shows it happens. The 'crat who lost his priviledges shows it has been happening for a while. Paid editing occurs. We aren't going to stop it and a "brightline" that asks people to self identify to undergo severe limitations is not going to work. The only way that we will get people to self identify is to give them a reason to do... gaining Jimbo's respect isn't going to do it.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 03:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Pandoras Box?

Please explain what is the "huge" difference between paid editing and paid advocacy...I really do fail to see much distinction and I also fail to see how your example at the FAQ suffices as an excellent example. Yes, there may be completely neutral editors such as the exampled university professor, that has it in his/her blood to produce (while being paid) a completely neutral, fact based and authoritative article...but my better judgement believes that this will not be the norm. If someone pays a Wikipedian to edit an article, it seems preposterous that the payee isn't going to be expecting (advocating) a certain outcome (FA or at least GA) and bias/slant. I think you're being way too generous to the entire issue of paid editing and this is not the way to support our NPOV policy. I'm not attacking you here but I want you to help me better understand your position...I am fully willing to be convinced I am wrong.--MONGO 00:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: "If someone pays a Wikipedian to edit an article, it seems preposterous that the payee isn't going to be expecting (advocating) a certain outcome (FA or at least GA) and bias/slant" - As I understand it, Jimbo is indeed including such editors in the category of paid advocates. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Mongo, can you walk me through your thinking here? Let me flesh out for you the example of the University professor. I meet a lot of university professors and a lot of university administrators. University professors are most often given a wide scope of academic freedom to engage with the public and other academics in a variety of ways, and schools often make community service an explicit part of desired behavior by professors. Many professors approach Wikipedia in this fashion, and their Universities are supportive of it. It reflects well on them. My specific example is of a history professor editing articles about history, but I've seen many examples of math professors editing history articles, etc. While the employers in this case are supportive of the work (they don't ban it, restrict it to lunch hours, etc., they do praise it, support it as a valuable community service, etc.) they aren't asking for or receiving any advocacy as a result.

Now, it is not hard to imagine a University also paying staff for communications work. Asking that history professor to edit the article about the school itself to make the school look better (minimize controversies, emphasize good stuff, etc.) is advocacy. But that's a pretty obvious difference. Are you imagining that Universities won't support professors editing unless they are pitching on behalf of the school? I know of no reason to think that's true.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I think one reason the professor example might not be a good one is that some academics end up doing advocacy for ideological reasons; i.e. promoting pet theories and so forth. The topic areas of biblical history and climate change being prime examples. If I follow your reasoning through, you chose academics on the basis that academia has higher standards of objectivity (so in theory a professor should be capable of objectivity). In practice I find that is not always true. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo...I understand your position and applaud your ability to assume good faith on this issue. I would also assume that the professor would be more duty-bound to adhere to the scientific principles of neutrality. I would have little trouble with an editor posting on their userpage that they are professor or a well published expert in their field and that they edit Wikipedia articles in their field of knowledge "on the clock"...my issue is not so much them than people posting that they are "for hire" to edit articles here and post such advertisements here on our website. It is in this latter aspect of paid editing that I can't find much distinction between paid advocacy...if someone is "for hire", then the employer is going to expect an outcome...MONGO 15:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

But here we have the issue. Many in academia have a perspective on their subject which is open to interpretation. They have a POV and a COI in articulating their specific perspective. In my area there are a range of approaches. Some, I feel are a bit twee and form part of the WP description. I am employed to be an expert in the field. Is that not also true of many company employees? Both the academic and the employee have a COI taken at its Kantian extreme. But should users be deprived of the most informed view because of a few bad (corporate or academic) apples? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.101.106 (talk) 11:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Example

See [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t809859-9/#post10057604], [1]. Now I momentarily toyed with the idea of leaving an IP post on that article's talk page pretending that I represent Vodacom and would like the article fixed ... and reporting back after half a year or so to say that this paragraph was still in the article. I think there would have been very little risk of anyone actually replying to such a talk page comment. The talk page was last edited in November 2008.

The point I am making is that the article talk page is not the right place. Either we widen the scope of the BLP noticeboard to include such issues or we need a new noticeboard PR professionals can use in cases like this. JN466 01:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure the example you give is the best one, because the controversy in question for Vodafone is a real one and should be in the article. The text that the ip inserted is not very good, of course, but my point is that I think we have much worse examples which support your point! I do agree though that there are cases where posting on the talk page isn't sufficient, and that we need to have clearer means to escalate. I don't think a new noticeboard is necessary, but would be supportive of giving one a try to see if it is useful.

My point is that if you know what you are doing, there already exist plenty of well-functioning avenues for escalation. So the problem is not that we need to build yet another path for escalation, but that people don't know what they are doing in many cases. Post to the talk page, contact other editors who are active and who have edited the same page in the past, find an admin, post to a relevant Wikiproject, post to BLPN, post to COIN, post on Jimbo's talk page, email OTRS, post to ANI, etc. There are many ways to get help, but a lot of people outside the community don't know what to do. But we can fix that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The main problem with the paragraph was the wording "Many have called this racism" when the only mainstream source the user cited said "Vodacom’s R7,5bn blacks-only empowerment deal is causing white supremacists to see red". Wikipedia presented the white supremacist position as the mainstream position. What it also illustrates well is how Wikipedia articles come to suffer from undue weight. The use of a separate subsection, which will show up in the table of contents, is a standard technique that people adopt quite naturally to highlight their addition. In that respect the Stormfront poster's advice reflects a widespread practice. Does this content belong in the article? Not at present, given the present content, and given that the section on this "racial scandal" represented about a quarter of the entire body text, which is grossly undue. Yes, in an 8,000-word featured article there ought to be room for a measured discussion of Vodacom's effort to balance the racial composition of their shareholder population, but we cannot write decent articles using what I call WP:ADAM, the anonymous dirt accretion method. WP:Eventualism, i.e. the idea that one day someone will come who will assemble all the collected POV bits into a decent, neutral article, is not an option any more when articles are years old and the work in progress is a top Google link for the individual or company. We have said as much for BLPs; we need to say the same for companies.

I still remember what arriving at Wikipedia was like. I only looked at articles and article talk pages at first and was quite reluctant to look "under the bonnet"; it took me months or years to get something approaching an overview of the important policy pages and noticeboards. Wikipedia's internal structure is labyrinthine and arcane. Its processes and social rules are unlike any people are likely to recognise from their work environment. Of course there are lots of noticeboards that a PR professional could post to if they don't get any response on the talk page. But this takes time. It involves checking the talk page every day, and seeing that there is still no response yet, while there is some outrageous clanger in the article on your company, and the Edit tab is beckoning. Even posting to a noticeboard does not always generate a prompt answer (and that is even more true for WikiProjects, many of which are only semiactive). I have had posts to the BLP noticeboard ignored, archived without ever receiving a response. The fact that the BLP noticeboard functions today at all is largely due to one editor, Youreallycan (Off2riorob); before he adopted it three years ago or so, it had tumbleweeds blowing across it. Should he ever leave, we may be back to that state of affairs, as he still makes far more edits there than anyone else; and while BLPN and RSN are reasonably certain to deliver a satisfactory response to a pressing matter, other noticeboards seem less so. So if we point PR people to noticeboards and WikiProjects in general when they do not get a satisfactory response on the article talk page we may only end up sending them from one place where they are ignored to another. Hence the idea for a single place, which can also be communicated fairly succinctly to the outside world. We can call it the company help desk, or whatever. I could see a board like that attracting a healthy mix of contributors with different types of expertise. --JN466 11:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Yep, the one-stop shop is the way to go, whatever the official policy is towards paid editing/advocacy. Make it easy for these people to be honest and engage with the community, not hard, as now. Adequate staffing by volunteers will be the problem. A WMF summer fellow to kick things off might be a good idea. Tony (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I am hopeful that the CREWE people would help staff such a board. And if that includes actual PR professionals, then I don't think we will have to worry about participation levels. Lots of Wikipedians will make it their business to keep an eye on them. I predict a steep but fruitful learning curve for everyone involved, and a large likelihood of an arbitration case within the first year. --JN466 21:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

History merge

I've just history merged the FAQ with this talk page to fix Jimbo's cut-and-paste move, so all the attribution is in the right place. Graham87 02:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I realized after I did it that it wasn't the best way but wasn't sure what to do.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Questions from ErrantX

As I was invited to add possible questions here:

1. What are the differences between an advocate who is paid, and one who is driven by ideological motive? Why does the former require specific policy?
2. How well does Wikipedia protect the neutrality of articles about companies?
3. How quickly are talk page requests answered?
4. What (specifically) is Wikipedia doing to help improve the protection that company articles receive from both vandalism and non-neutral editing?
5. How will you incentivize current "under the radar" paid advocates to comply with this new policy?
6. How do you propose to catch and stop paid advocates who continue to violate this new policy?

There may be more ideas later. --Errant ^(chat!) 05:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, these are good. Some of them are empirical questions ("How quickly are talk page requests answered?") for which I think we don't have an easy quick way to get good data on, so we/I may want to modify them. I think that question in particular has no one single answer, but rather "it depends" - and I think what the question is really driving at is: what if someone engages on the talk page and no one answers for a long time, then what?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeh absolutely, that was kinda what I was aiming at. But also I'd suggest that for us to develop a policy that paid advocates want to comply with (i.e. the carrot to go with the stick) we need to know how effective we actually are engaging with talk page requests on company articles - real numbers. It is all very well saying these individuals must stick to talk pages, but if that gets them nowhere then there is little incentive for them to bother. I think that for this policy to actually interest paid advocates we have to demonstrate an understanding of any associated problems with our processes and show how we are willing to address those issues. Is this a policy for us or for them (i.e. does it give us a platform to block or ban, or them a platform for engagement). --Errant ^(chat!) 07:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

To be successful, it has to be both. To the extent that their problems are legitimate, they are also our problems. Just by the way, one of their problems is that they are editing article space and therefore risking a bad headline about their company. I know of one example that I won't mention right now (not important) so as not to risk some reporter reading this discussion and writing that bad headline, of a company whose paid representative has been great about engaging on the talk page, but with little or no response there, and then reluctantly (as shown on the talk page) making edits. The downside of this is that he's the #1 editor on the page by far, and there's an easy headline to write screaming that this company is controlling their Wikipedia entry. It'd be better if he'd known how to escalate, and if we'd responded better. One of the issues is that many company articles are quite properly boring, and people don't have them as a hobby so there are few of them on watchlists.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely; I know of multiple examples of such a situation. One idea I had was for a "noticeboard" to deal with company articles - rather like BLP/N (but I envision something a lot more "newbie" friendly). But with lots of links and information about Paid Advocacy and what steps to take. And then we can go round and slap a talk page notice on all the company articles pointing at that new location. It doesn't solve the problem of finding volunteers to do unsexy work, but it does at least help push it to a central clearing house. I also wondered whether it would be possible to customise "Articles for Creation" to focus on how to create company articles for review. Just some random ideas. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like you and I, and JN466 above, and a few others are converging on the same sorts of ideas. Progress! Much better than grumping at each other like we were last night. :) Sorry about that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Heh, yeh well same here :) --Errant ^(chat!) 13:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the two questions relating to companies since they're not specific to paid advocacy. There are two points worth noting here. (1) Protection of information about companies is a general wikipedia issue and, if it is necessary, needs to be addressed whether we have paid advocates or not. (2) Paid advocacy is not just about companies. I put up a pointy offer of paid advocacy and, though that was not my intention, got two queries, one of which had nothing to do with organizations of any sort. I suggest the questions either be worded differently or that they stay removed (though, of course, I'm not going to edit war if anyone wants to add them back as is!). --regentspark (comment) 13:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Fair point; most of the engagement I have had over these issues are with PR firms who, for the most part, represent companies. But your objection is valid. How about:

1. How well does Wikipedia protect the neutrality of common types of articles associated with paid advocacy (i.e. companies, products and individuals)?
2. What (specifically) is Wikipedia doing to help improve the protection that such articles receive from both vandalism and non-neutral editing?

I do think these are important questions to answer a) for ourselves (to see where we need to improve) and b) to show we take paid advocates concerns seriously. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Sounds fair. Though, perhaps they can be combined into a single question. --regentspark (comment) 14:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that works; one is talking about metrics (intended more for us than paid advocates) and the other is talking about processes (more for paid advocates than us) --Errant ^(chat!) 14:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Just to follow up on your answers on the page, regentspark. I think by combining the "under the radar" and the "catch" questions you answer the latter, but don't address the former - the point was to try and explain what is being specifically done to incentivize existing paid advocates to meet the new scrutiny. And the answer to the "How quickly are talk page requests answered?" question seems mostly fluff (rather "PR" :P). I think it is better to admit we don't know, but that in some cases it might be "never". Rather than couch it. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

paid advocates vs ideological advocates

Your first question is an excellent question, and provides an excellent rebuttal to one of the arguments often seen in the RfC/COI. In that RfC, people make the argument that people who are paid won't change their stance and will argue a point because they are getting paid to do so. Well, first, I think this threat is diminished if we can actually get paid editors to self-identify. But second, I would much rather argue with a paid advocate than with a ideological advocate. A paid advocate may be there because they are getting paid to advance a point, but they are generally going to be rationale. If they see the tide is against them, they may back down and pick another debate---or they may not really believe a point they are arguing and thus back down. An ideological advocate, however, believes what they are saying and is very unlikely to back down. They hold the stance not because they are paid, but rather because they truly believe it. Paid advocates are much more likely to bend on issues in the hopes/belief that it will garner them credibility elsewhere. Ideological ones, generally won't. That being said, advocacy of any type needs to be curtailed. I just think the brightline approach is incredibly niave.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 14:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

A Complex case

User:Eclipsed' s Coi declaration presents a complex case we might want to consider. What do we recommend to users who sometimes are paid and sometimes not. His page also states that he is in no way an advocate - nonetheless it seems that he is sometimes hired to do PR kinds of work, i.e. he edits articles about those who pay him. This does seem close to what we might call advocacy. He also states that he strives towards a neutral journalistic viewpoint. Do we take his word for this? Do we encourage him to have one account when he edits for payment and one when he edits pro-bono? ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

A note: the use of the term "advocate" was added, I think, in January 2011[2] Since then there's been much more discussion that helps clarify definitions. The declaration is under construction, so all comments welcome. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 13:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Tough one. On the one hand, we don't know whether a particular article edit was under the paid hat or not (and it is unreasonable for Eclipsed to have to qualify every edit). On the other hand, maintaining two accounts is not easy either (no clue how socks manage to do switch between accounts seamlessly!). Plus, I assume that a paid advocate would want to use his/her record on unpaid edits as a selling point (not unreasonable either). Imo, the best thing is to let declared paid editors police themselves (i.e., use talk pages on article that they're being paid for and edit articles when they're not being paid). If they get detected doing bad things, ban them. For a paid editor, particularly one who has built a reputation on Wikipedia as well as amongst his/her clients, a ban can be extremely expensive so there's an inbuilt incentive to be good. --regentspark (comment) 14:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

This would be a case where I'd call for two user IDs. One is a labelled user ID that is intended to be paid, the other is the users personal account. If he is being paid to work on an article, the changes should be from the one that is so labelled so that people could monitor those edits more closely. Those that are from his personal account, would be treated like any other non-paid account.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 14:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm the same way, but I don't see it as being particularly problematic. My COIs are listed on my user page. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 22:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

How quickly are talk page requests answered?

Can Template:Request_edit please be mentioned in the answer? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

What is a "bright line"?

A bright-line rule is a simple rule of thumb sometimes used in administrative law. If a paid advocate complies with the bright line rule, in this case to never edit in the article or template namespace, they are safe from administrative discretion exercised in the context of complex, unpredictable, hard to understand Wikipedia policy and practice regarding conflict of interest. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bright_Line&dir=prev&action=history – Eclipsed didn't have any right to entitle his or her essay "Bright Line". It's a misleading title for an essay that isn't accepted by everyone. Perhaps I should make an essay called "The only rule that fucking matters" and pass that off as authoritative. Eclipsed's essay should be renamed. Give an essay an authoritative title and suddenly some people are pushing it as an actual rule. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

My FAQ answer does not link to that essay. A bright line rule, whatever it is, is a tried and true response to a situation like Wikipedia where a great deal of discretion is involved in interpreting and applying complex rules that people are in the habit of evading. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jimbo_Wales/Paid_Advocacy_FAQ&oldid=491458871 – Earlier versions of Jimbo's FAQ linked to Eclipsed's essay. It was in that context that I was interpreting your answer. Sorry. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

As it was deleted today, discussion of the essay in relation to this FAQ is now moot. We should concentrate on issues directly relating to this FAQ in its current form. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 19:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, actually it was moved to my userspace, but still moot on current discussion. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 19:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Your essay, which I did not examine well, has been deleted but the suggested policy is a bright line rule, thus a brief discussion of it belongs in the FAQ whether it is called a bright line rule or not. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that was the intent of my message: essay is moot, continue discussing bright-line rule article/definition as it directly relates to this FAQ in its current form. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 15:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Clarification of meaning of Paid Advocacy vs Paid Editing

The FAQ states:

"Q. What constitutes paid advocacy?"

"A. Receiving a payment to promote the interests of a client or employer, as happens in the public relations industry and in the communications departments of many kinds of organizations, is a form of paid advocacy."

What if the client's interest is to have a NPOV article that cites verifiable, authoritative sources. What would be objectionable about receiving a payment for time spent to edit a clients article according to the Wikipedia policies and guidelines? 144.189.100.27 (talk) 21:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Our experience with the most aggressive paid advocates is that while claiming to conform to NPOV and quoting all manner of Wikipedia policies and guidelines they aggressively spin the article to suit their client's interest. The consequences of engaging, or seeming to engage, in such questionable complex behavior and possibly being banned can be avoided by conforming to the simple rule proposed, never edit in the article or template namespace if you have a conflict of interest. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to address the question very well. It's like if someone asked about wikipedia in general and your reply started out by talking about your experience with "the most aggressive wikipedians" - well we can probably all agree that the most aggressive one are, by definition, not representative of the whole. Agreed? In fact the whole sentence adapts remarkably well to aggressive wikipedians of whatever motivation "Our experience with the most aggressive wikipedians is that while claiming to conform to NPOV and quoting all manner of Wikipedia policies and guidelines they aggressively spin the article to suit..." 178.16.5.70 (talk) 23:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Bottom line, we need a bright line rule. Lip service by paid advocates to NPOV is meaningless when it is nearly always backed up by aggressive editing in the service of their client. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

We may need a bright line rule, but such a rule is impossible, both to follow (except, for paid "advocates" not to edit Wikipedia at all [not just restricted to their areas of advocacy]), and to enforce. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Lead

This is a neat idea.

Should the lead be written from a third-person perspective? For example: "This document outlines Jimmy Wales' position on "paid advocates" such as communications and marketing professionals. Jimmy Wales is oppose to allowing paid advocates to edit in article space at all,..." ("Jimmy Wales" instead of "I am")

I've also seen a few times now where we're narrowing in on PR professionals, because they have a Facebook group, but SEO professionals are at least as active on Wikipedia. Then there's digital marketing, reputation management and others. Maybe just "marketing professionals" or "company representatives" would be more inclusive.

For me personally this is informative, because I didn't know if Jimbo supported the type of work I do, which is usually a complete article overhaul. The Q&A specifically says we can make contributions of any length and sophistication. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 23:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

My concern is that paid political operatives get left out of the conversation. I prefer "influenced by pay" editors. "This document outlines Jimmy Wales' position on "influenced by pay editors" such as communications and marketing professionals or political operatives. ````Buster Seven Talk 03:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

We could add publicists and campaign managers, but these are types of PR people / marketing professionals who happen to work in the political sector. I would imagine non-profits and special interest groups would qualify too. Maybe we should start a list of specific examples that count as a paid advocate. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 14:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

List of paid advocate examples?

I work as an above-board COI editor and PR is rarely even the department I work with. SEO is at least as advanced and often more sinister in their editing. My suggestion would be not to be focused on PR people exclusively as paid advocates, just because they have a Facebook group.

Per the discussion above, it might be helpful to include a list of examples of paid advocates:

• Public relations professionals
• SEO professionals
• Other marketing professionals
• Campaign managers or publicists
• Special interest groups
• Non-profits when editing their own article

More? Less? Do others think a list of example paid advocates would be helpful? User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 14:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the fact that this acknowledges that the issue is much, much broader than "PR people." --Philgomes (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• Political campaign staff. ```Buster Seven Talk 11:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Lets give Jimbo a chance to answer

Regarding Questions submitted on the User Page: I think it would be appropriate to wait a reasonable time and give the creator of this page, Jimbo, a chance to answer. I want to know what Jimbo's answer is. Not what another editors answer is. The questions can sit, unanswered for awhile. There is no rush. With this in mind, I am going to undo the answer posted recently to the question about paid political operatives. No harm meant.It's just that I think waiting for Jimbo's answer is the intended purpose of this page. Buster Seven Talk 23:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I have re-instated User:Fred Bauer's uninvited response to my question to Jimbo on the FAQ page. I should not have deleted his response. I over-reacted. Instead, I remind all that questions seem to be intended for Wales, not for general response. Like it or not, don't we all want to know more of Jimbo's thoughts on this issue?

Plus, initial answers are getting muddled by subsequent editing. So the answer becomes a composite mess with no relationship to Wales. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo can revise any answers he disagrees with. The purpose of the page is to create a FAQ which anyone can contribute questions and answers too. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It is my understanding as well that anyone can answer any question. But, let's see what Jimbo says. Meanwhile, there is other stuff to do. Including RL stuff - we're not, as yet, paid to edit here :) --regentspark (comment) 14:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

@Bauder. JW at his Talk: "I want to make a nice concise page of Q&A about my position so that people can get to up to speed quickly. While I think this page should ultimately reflect my position (it's a subpage of my user talk page), I'd like us to work on it collaboratively, since many people understand my position quite well, and I want even those who disagree with my opinion to have the opportunity to pose legitimate questions there (which I'll likely reword to make more general)." I interpreted this rightly or wrongly as an invitation for editors to pose "legitimate" questions which JW himself would answer, the idea being to build a handy guide to his "position". If other editors post questions and the answers, I don't see how they clarify JW's position. Writegeist (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I count myself among the "many people understand my position quite well" I'll keep editing the page. We do collaborate editing here and have been practicing. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure that in your long tenure as a WP editor you have acquired the ability to "understand his position" and you feel quite competent in answering in his place. But. without any intended aversion, I initially read this article and thought the answers were coming from Jimbo. I'm sure future editors will do the same. It was only with some continued digging that I realized that very few of the answers were Jimbo's. I know what collaborative editing looks like and where it belongs.

The more I think about this situation the more it mirrors the "influenced-by-pay editor" situation. That is...I, the reader, think I am reading one thing from a certain source, when, in fact, the source is someone else (proxy editing). You can justify your edits by including some type of note for editors that are reading this page BEFORE Jimbos revisions. This would add clarity to the misty "who answered this question" quality that the apage now has. ```Buster Seven Talk 21:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC).

Emergency edits example

Is this[3] a valid example of an emergency edit due to vandalism? -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 11:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Adding "charlie is kool" to an article is routine kiddie vandalism. An emergency edit would be one that reverted clear issues with WP:V or WP:LIBEL. Provided that the edit would be considered uncontroversial by a neutral editor, there should be no problem with reverting it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I assume you mean there's no problem with reverting the vandalism, not no problem with reverting the deletion of the vandalism by the paid advocate (which would be silly). But if there's no problem with reverting the vandalism, yet doing so is not an emergency edit, you just conceded that it's okay for the paid advocate to make a non-emergency edit.

Frankly, I think it's absurd that paid advocates should only be permitted to make "emergency edits" when removing some vandalism doesn't count as an emergency edit. Ken Arromdee (talk) 14:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I would not regard a paid advocate making an edit like that to be a blockable offense, though I would still recommend against it. A better approach would be to leave it there, go to a busy forum (BLPN for example) and point it out, and ask that the article be semi-protected. I support a very liberal policy of semi-protecting articles when there is any history of nonsense like that. The result would be better for the article subject and better for Wikipedia, without raising any conflict of interest issues. The main reason not to ban edits like this is that some of them will be serious emergencies - libel. The main reason to discourage edits like this is that a COI editor is likely to take a much too broad view of what constitutes an 'emergency', thus leaving a loophole that gets us right back into the nonsense of allowing POV pushing paid edit warriors wikilawyer every little detail forever, until it rises to the level of an ArbCom case or - more likely - until good editors just give up and let them whitewash with impunity.

Notice the broader philosophical point I'm making here, which is against what I think of as extreme deductive rationalism about rules. Examples like this are borderline, and trying to force people to come down hard on one side or the other is erroneous.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Review

Jimbo, this "bright line rule" about talk pages does not work. I'd like you to review the recent conduct of User:Hamilton83, a paid advocate for Strayer University, and his proposed edit to Jack Welch, which was shopped to WP:BLPN (the last refuge of scoundrels, to quote someone), and then put in the article uncritically. The promotional material was unsupported by sources, but it was still placed in the article - and now Hamilton83 is busy wasting volunteer editors time by trying to argue that his sources did, in fact, support his PR copy. I'm not being paid to defend articles against for-profit college PR agents. This FAQ is not enough. When paid advocates are caught doing anything wrong, including even the most minor source distortion/misuse, they need to be banned, and their paid-advocacy articles need to be reverted, tagged or fixed. Hipocrite (talk) 12:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, you mean the thread you use to soapbox about your dislike of paid editors? He got an apparent plagiarism sorted out and offered several other reasonable improvements - one sentence of which you object to. There is definitely a problem in that interaction, unfortunately it doesn't appear to be Hamilton83. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Hamilton83 fixed a lot of the article - but then, buried in his fixes, was his unsourced PR. Hipocrite (talk) 13:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the sort of material any old editor might throw together. But there is no problem, because you caught the issue. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

This does bring up the issue of volunteers becoming slaves to the paid editor. For the purposes of this FAQ, it would be interesting if Jimbo had an opinion on his expectations of a paid editor. Can we expect them to read and understand basic policies like verification? What if a paid editor is pushing hard for an article re-write, but does not have the skills, or seem willing to learn the skills, needed to make meaningful contributions. They basically go around harassing volunteers to write the article for him/her. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 14:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Proxy, or slave, editing is a problem especially at political articles dealing with campaigns for elected office. Since the campaign worker is precluded from editing the article (assumming they have self-identified) the talk page becomes the conduit for editing requests which, if not discussed in a timely fashion, are implemented and edited into the article by jackels waiting for instructions. Unless there are volunteer editors in place, the article becomes tainted and no more than a campaign pitch. ```Buster Seven Talk 21:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Question: What other expectations do you have for the conduct of both paid editors and volunteers in their collaboration? Could cover a broad swath of things as far as should volunteers feel obligated to help, that volunteers should follow usual rules for consensus, maintain AGF, but be extra diligent, and whether we should be able to expect paid editors to make decent contributions, etc. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 13:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The speed at which some edit requests are implemented can be surprising. 8 minutes from request to inclusion is not unheard of. No time is taken for discussion or consensus building. No time is taken for checking of the factual verifiable nature of the request. No time is taken to get fellow editors input and thoughts. The proxy response seems to be "If it comes from the Campaign it must be true and be important. I better get it into the article ASAP". The most important expectation is that the requestor, the influenced by pay editor, CLEARLY state, as a part of his requested edit, that the request is not to be implemented until some modicum of consensus is achieved. Instuctions to the resident slave editors should be first and foremost. They should not be an afterthought.```Buster Seven Talk 21:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I would also kindly request that AGF and civility be mentioned. These help support disclosure and bright line. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 00:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

French debate

Dear all, following this discussion there is a debate taking place on the Bistro (the French Village Pump) : fr:Wikipédia:Le Bistro/10 mai 2012#Payé; it can be interesting for French-speaking editors. Wiki yours. Xavxav (talk) 13:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Response to me...

Q:If the paid advocate sees something genuinely wrong with an article--unsourced statement that the company's product contains ground-up babies, bad WP:UNDUE problem, or whatever--the paid advocate uses the talk page or other channels, and nobody fixes the article, must the company endure the bad article forever? If not, is there some time limit after which the paid advocate may edit the article since the rest of Wikipedia has shown itself to fail in properly maintaining it? (And if you say "Wikipedia never fails to maintain an article," I'll laugh.)

A: There are enough mechanisms to ensure that any obviously wrong or defamatory material can be removed from a Wikipedia article quickly. It is a straw man to use the ground-up babies argument to justify paid advocacy, which is usually about promoting or defining the image of a client. Any non-urgent message on a talk page should receive a reply within 24 hours, if not, the issue can be raised at the Adminstrator's Noticeboard.

Is this the point where I begin to laugh? Seriously, you're going to tell me that Wikipedia always keeps articles well-maintained?

And it's not a straw man argument. The proposed policy is to always limit the paid advocate. It's overbroad--it's not limited to only when the advocate is "promoting or defining the image of a client". If it was limited to such things I wouldn't have such a problem with it. If those are not situations that you intend the rule to cover, then you should exclude them from the rule. As long as they are included in the rule, complaining about them is not attacking a straw man, even if they are not the main focus of the rule--saying "the rule isn't about those situations" is pointless since the rule is about those situations.

As it is, the rule covers more things than your justification justifies.

(And of course, someone with enough of a bone to pick with a company could claim that removing vandalism is still about promoting the image of the client--after all, it doesn't say "unjustifiably promoting the image of the client".) Ken Arromdee (talk) 14:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

It is a straw man to claim that obviously wrong or defamatory material would stay in an article once it had been discovered. The real worry is that it would go unnoticed. There is nothing to prevent paid advocates from monitoring their articles and flagging unacceptable material, but they should not pretend that being paid gives them a unique insight into editing Wikipedia that is denied to unpaid volunteers.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

It may not give them special insight, but it gives them special willingness to fix it--a willingness that may be otherwise absent. It's exactly the same issue as with BLP subjects, except companies have fewer protections.

And you're moving the goalposts. What I replied to asserted that it was a straw man because the rule is about promoting the image of a client and not about the scenario I described. To which of course the answer is that the rule covers more than promoting the image of the client--it covers everything. Ken Arromdee (talk) 14:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Ian, it's not so. I recall a case a few weeks ago where a BLP subject removed improperly sourced and very negative material – whose presence was a clear violation of multiple policies– from her biography, and it was twice restored by experienced Wikipedians. She on the other hand was warned for COI editing. If you look at the history of arbitration, it is easy to find evidence of articles having been in a non-compliant state for long periods of time. --JN466 14:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you tell us that example, with diff's?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo, I am sure you remember the Eric Ely article. I do. I remember how patiently and eloquently you explained what the undue weight issue was, and how long it took for that message to sink in, and for the article eventually to be deleted. The editors responsible for the state of that article were and are Wikipedia administrators. The same thing can and does happen here to articles on companies large and small.

One problem is that the person who writes a slanted article has first mover advantage. All the editors who are called to a dispute, and who want to understand more about the article subject, first of all read the Wikipedia article. If that article places undue weight on an issue, as the Ely article did, then our editors will have that and no other information in their minds. You get the absurd situation where a subject or their representative might complain, Your article makes us look like crooks, and the people at ANI reply, Well, according to our article on you, you are crooks! And now you want us to whitewash your article on top of it! The culture here is that editors tend to trust the Wikipedia article more than the non-Wikipedian, or out-group member, who is complaining. There are group dynamics and defence instincts involved that hinder a neutral assessment. --JN466 14:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Pointers to those working on articles with Advocates

Non-professionals tend to go over the top, using peacock words and general fluff. It's obvious. Professionals won't lie, but will try to subtly put the focus on the positive rather than the negative. They'll leave things out, both facts and sources. At the same time, they'll provide enough detail on any particular issue that a cursory glance will likely make editors (and readers) think a particular issue is well-covered in a balanced fashion. It's a cherry-picking exercise for them. If there's a well-known negative issue which can't be ignored, they'll leave out whatever they think they can get away with. Working with them is fine, and you can trust them to do an outstanding job on the positive things, but be sure do your own independent research on the negative things even if it "appears" they've covered them. Make sure ALL the best and most reliables sources are included in their entirety, not just those "less worse" than others. All commentary is by its nature subjective. That's why we have Further reading and External links to help our readers get more in-depth information if they wish. Those who find excuses to remove such are, imo, waving a red flag. Beware, and be aware. 76.192.41.20 (talk) 18:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it takes a senior editor to work well with a COI editor and I'm concerned about the idea of paid editors building relationships with volunteers, finding overly trusting editors, or just shopping around until they find a newbie. PR agencies use relationships with the media to obtain favorable and more frequent media coverage, so applying the same principles to Wikipedia could institute similar bias. A very minor issue compared to the current state of affairs, but I wonder if Jimmy would suggest heavy use of third opinions and independent assessments by volunteers collaborating with a COI, especially on controversial content. Or if he might have three basic steps for a volunteer to go through to check for missing controversy, check sources, etc. I think the volunteer community has as many questions as paid editors. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 05:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

A helping hand

The current wording of the Why should unpaid volunteers help question might be better with a different tone, and a split into two questions:

Q: Why should unpaid volunteers help ethical paid advocates with their work?

Q: Why should ethical paid advocates help unpaid volunteers with their work?

(as in, the general Wikipedian work the volunteers do normally)

Thanks. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 14:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Paid to help others

It might be good to have a question something like: Where do you stand on individuals who are paid to consult on the processes of wikipedia (no direct editing)?, similar to issue raised here: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Paid_consulting_for_a_deletion_review. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

This is an important distinction. In fact, for all of the talk about PR people being "paid editors", the fact is that most in a senior capacity take on a counselor role. Personally, it's more important to help a client find his/her voice in online communities than it is to be a mere ghostwriter. (A "teach-a-man-to-fish" kind of thing.) --Philgomes (talk) 16:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Question

Should paid advocates be required to disclose their COI? If so, to what extent must they disclose?

For example, I would feel more comfortable if my identity were anonymous, but I disclose my real-life identity as a form of full disclosure. This also prevents me from reporting unethical editing I become informed of in-real-life. On the other hand, one could reasonably look at the current FAQ and do all kinds of misdeeds from the Talk page, such as sockpuppets, pretending to be a volunteer with an unbias opinion or other forms of astroturfing. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 01:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Q: Why should unpaid volunteers help deal with the flood of non-neutral, non-encyclopedic advocacy that advocates are being paid to overwhelm them with?

The market for shills knows no lower bound in terms of the willingness of organisations to hire poor quality advocates. On wikipedia I give skills to colleagues who volunteer, on a voluntary basis—this is my main motivation to engage here. Paid editors who do not comprehend basic elements of scholarly and professional literacy, such as plagiarism, are not only seeking to change the content of the encyclopaedia; they are seeking education from the community. And I am not willing to volunteer expert skills, skills I have to exert under direction IRL, in order for some wage slave or petits bourgeois contractor to get paid. I'm happy to help skill up volunteers of the most irreconcileable interests, views and politics. I'm willing to teach a volunteer why he can cite one music magazine, and not another, and how to do so. I'm willing to teach a volunteer how not to plagiarise by close paraphrase a notable neo-con opinion, and how instead to re-express the fundamental point or quote as appropriate. But I volunteer for that very feeling of not working under the direction of management, but along side other free volunteers.

I don't maintain an understanding of our reliable sources policy to teach paid shills who can't be bothered reading core policy documents they should have read themselves. Nor do I maintain a capacity for spotting plagiarism such that I can teach a paid shill the core of proper attribution and re-expression. There is no lower bound in price or standard of conduct to limit the shill (already employed, or working on contract) from attempting to edit, whether live or through COI assistance programmes.

Volunteers get forgiven a multitude of sins, because they come here to give me something I can't give myself: working along side other free people on an encyclopaedia. Shillery, in particular shills who lack the capacity to author or edit encyclopaedic content, come here to steal my gift and get paid. Unlike commercialisers of our eventual content, shills intrude on my immediate experience of editing. And shills have no capacity to claim the collegiality I give freely—they bring nothing collegial to the encyclopaedia.

So I am very interested in this FAQ question, and its unanswered status. I don't believe we should answer it, because I don't believe we should accept the fundamentally non-collegial and unencyclopaedic nature of the shill's "involvement" in our community of encyclopaedists. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi I've come along because Fifelfoo posted on my talk page, and I'm happy to do so. I generally agree with Fifelfoo's comments. But what I would really like to do is to propose that a short questionnaire should be sent to all the WikiProjects, asking if they experience significant volumes of paid advocacy/COI, and for views on what can be done about it. WikiProject Universities, for example, has advisory text on "academic boosterism", and still we get the PR people coming along to add content that is usually really bad, and does nothing to enhance the institution's reputation. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

First off, can you please stop using the word shills? It's essentially a personal attack against a number of editors and you're certainly using it that way. Oh, and let me also add that those editors with the "irreconcileable interests, views and politics" would also be shills, if you understood what the term meant.

Second, you have to explain this "lack of collegiality" thing to me, Fifelfoo. Paid editors have just as much of a shared responsibility to improving the articles they come across and most of them try to do so in the proper ways, far, far more than the fan boy or the political hardliner. There are very, very few editors that would actually fall under your definition of encyclopaedists. Almost everyone here is here to have their own interests be exemplified and, many, are here to make sure their viewpoint is the one that is being presented. I would hazard even saying that a number of what would be considered our "top" editors edit in regards to articles showing their own viewpoint on matters. As for paid editing, it is going to invariably crop up in Wikiproject Companies and maybe a few other areas, but that's where the interest is, so I don't see your suggestion as going to be particularly fruitful, Itsmejudith. And i'm quite sure that "they come here to give me something I can't give myself" directly applies to paid editors too, Fifelfoo.

Might you have a story, Fifelfoo, to explain why this intense dislike for paid editing? It has to be based on something, because there's been numerous examples of paid editing that has been done properly and there is a push now for all paid editors, within that very community, to edit Wikipedia properly and you seem to be against that. Silverseren^C 17:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

As I noted, my story is that wikipedia is a relief from acting as a wage slave, and in a context of wage slavery. Unpaid boosters bring themselves to the encyclopaedia, I may dislike them, but they bring something unique. Shills bring the maximisation of shareholder value, and attempt to reduce my encyclopaedic involvement to the maximisation of their shareholder's value. They come here to steal, to appropriate, and they bring no gift—they bring chains. Perhaps you don't find it deeply offensive to be reduced to the value form, the wide variety of human experience means that every form of bondage has its voluntary adherents, but quite frankly it offends my being for reasons ably restated since the 19th century. The difference between users who are here to expand content that interests them for free, and a shill, is monetary gain; the reason why the first is not offensive, and the latter is deeply offensive is that the first seeks to expand the encyclopaedia as it exists in whatever misguided way they can, the latter seeks to convert us in to an information commodity in the very process of producing knowledge. The incompetence of the first is a pedagogical problem, the incompetence (including in wikipedia governance) of the latter is a demand for unpaid professional services and the conversion of a community into an externality. Frankly, I am not here to be enclosed by incompetents. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Almost every single thing you say here could be said about people editing their own BLPs. (Of course, they are not paid to advance someone's interests--instead, they are directly advancing their own interests.)

We still don't have a categorical ban on people editing their own BLPs. We discourage it, but we don't ban it.

There's a good reason for this. Wikipedia is terrible at keeping articles with real life implications maintained, especially when they're of low notability. Sometimes the only person who cares enough to remove inaccurate information about someone is them. Until every Wikipedia article becomes well-maintained, there needs to be room for people--and companies, via their employees--to edit articles about themselves. Ken Arromdee (talk) 02:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Quite so. Above, I mentioned the Vodacom #Example. The content in question was reinserted after I took it out, by an account whose editing history looks like this: [4]. I've just mentioned it on the CREWE Facebook page, and as a result it has now been fixed by a CREWE member. We have thousands and thousands of articles like that which are wide open to abuse. JN466 17:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• I am generally in agreement with Fifelfoo here. I would just note that the word shill suggests to me that it is about covert paid advocates, (who by definition we don't know who is), but I think the problem also applies to overt and explicit paid advocates, i.e. not shills but simply paid lobbyists. Yes I think that if I am supposed to be using my time finding the non-neutral content written by with people who are paid to be non-neutral, and then spend time arguing with them about how to neutralize their non-neutral content, then the project is simply turned into channel of communication for financial interests. I wouldn't like to be a part of that.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Silverseren, your comment has proved the value of my suggestion. There are different things at stake in different topic areas. In the case of universities, the PR departments are a real drag, but keen undergrads can waste a lot of time too. And if we give free rein to the paid staff of private colleges and diploma mills, then we can say goodbye to WP being anything other than a business directory. As for business articles generally, I don't know whether it is a real problem or not and would like to hear the views of people who edit a lot in that area. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Itsmejudith's suggestion for a COI survey, I made a similar suggestion at Village Pump[5] User:King4057 08:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Another question to consider answering in the FAQ

Q: Can a paid advocate contribute freely to areas in which they are not being paid to advocate? My proposed answer: Yes. Even if you are being paid to advocate elsewhere, you are the same as any other editor in areas unrelated to your paid advocacy. However, if you're not sure whether an area is related to your paid advocacy, err on the side of caution and assume that it is. Obviously needs reworking, but something like this needs to be in there. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 13:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure that I agree. Certainly not from the same account, but probably this is something to be avoided completely.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

My proposed answer was just a starting point. The question should be answered, though. If you disagree, what would you suggest? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Huh, I am a paid editor, but do about as much volunteer work as paid from my account. While I don't want to have two accounts, it would prevent a lot of potential speculation if I had an anonymous account for volunteer work. User:King4057 00:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

In a similar vein, I'm aware of two editors who have a business that advises companies on how to game Wikipedia articles to promote their companies. They make no secret of who they are on Wikipedia and do not edit their customers pages but are prolific editors in other articles. This COI (teaching others how to edit in bad faith with tips on how to avoid getting caught) has always bothered me as one is an admin, how should this be treated? Wayne (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment...

One of the questions answered in the user page is "Does this policy apply to paid members of the Wikimedia Foundation, particularly when acting in a communications role?", with the answer "Yes, especially so. It would be deeply inappropriate for paid staff of the Foundation to engage in advocacy in Wikipedia articles about Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation." As an example of why this becomes difficult, have a look at User:Victorgrigas's edits to the Wikimedia Foundation article this year. They are (in my opinion) uncontroversial and entirely reasonable. The user, however, declares themselves to be a Storyteller for the Wikimedia Foundation, which, according to the advert, is a position employed to promote the work of the Foundation, tell the Foundation's story, convince readers to become editors and donors and conduct much of the creative work behind Wikimedia Foundation's annual fundraiser. This seems like advocacy to me - albeit advocacy in a cause I'm in favour of! We need to be careful that the rules we propose creating don't unintentionally prevent advocacy for causes (like this) that we might approve of, as well as less pleasant causes we don't. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Whose answers are these?

Most of the questions in this FAQ are not answered by Jimbo. The normal assumption would (and should) be that the answers given on the User page ARE answers provided, directly, by User:Jimbo Wales. Since this is NOT the case would it not be informative to differentiate those answered by Jimbo himself from those answered by editors interpreting what they think Jimbo might say? ```Buster Seven Talk 13:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Others were invited to participate; this has not worked out well due to this attitude that only contributions by Jimbo are to be taken seriously. As a result the productive collaborative nature of this effort has suffered. It is to be assumed that Jimbo can read, modify, or remove material he doesn't agree with and dialogue about issues raised. There is no need for others to censor the page based on "not Jimbo." User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

In time, let's say mid-2013, this User page will be used as the authoritive voice for Jimbo's opinions on the subject of Paid Advocacy. Assuming that every answer has the Jimbo Seal of Approval is not workable. For instance, your answer to my question (Q: Since paid political operatives are rarely mentioned as part of the paid advocate debate, is everything you state about paid advocacy the same as your position on paid political operatives?) about Paid Political Operatives is off-target and not explanatory in the direction that the question was asked. That is not meant as a critique of your answer...only as an example that Jimbo may have responded with a completely different intent. I don't question the seriousness of your answer. I question whether it is the same answer Jimbo would give. But since you answered, he doesn't need to. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

He does need to answer if I misunderstood the question or gave a wrong answer. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

By the way, there is a good source for that answer, "a paid advocate, or staff person, for a national political candidate can cause massive damage to their candidate's chances if they are detected editing the candidate's Wikipedia article. Such damage results from national media coverage rather than any action by Wikipedia volunteers." "Gingrich Camp Criticized for Editing Wikipedia Pages" User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Fred, it is true that Jimbo could "read, modify, or remove material he doesn't agree with and dialogue about issues raised." However, he does not, and only edits this page when prodded heavily. Hipocrite (talk) 15:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo has not somehow degenerated into a worthless cypher. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales recently commented on his Talk page[6] that he was busy with other things, but would return to finish this page. He also commented previously that it should not be considered to reflect his views, until such a time that he finalizes and approves it. Just some context. He's busy. User:King4057 22:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The Fox and the Grapes

I agree with this policy, but I am a firm believer that policies such as these should not just say what should not be done and why, but should also give examples of alternatives to doing such prohibited activities. Or at least discussion should be started on the topic and linked to. The solution to Wikipedia's problem, in the current policy form, just becomes an unsolved problem for the paid editor, with not even mention of solutions for them. I think this is a sub-optimal solution.

It just fits with my opinion (in the context of article space) that readers should be given an easy "way out" of the article as quickly as possible. A good article IMO is one that includes the information desired right in the introduction such that readers end up in a very specific, deeply located article very quickly by "linking out" of the article quickly and efficiently if they kinda already know what they want. This gets them to the "nitty gritty" as soon as possible. I think disregarding my argument that the information be in the introduction and instead letting it be somewhere in the body is basically the crux of Wikipedia.

In the context of this policy, I don't think editors should be left with a big frown on their face or this feeling of helplessness, but should be given a "way out" in the form of suggestions about what to do. IOW I think we should minimize the cognitive dissonance resulting from this policy. I think alternatives should be suggested (or even recommended) such as telling them to publish primary sources for example, and should be given a significant place in the policy. And be as easy and quickly reachable as possible, keeping in line with my opinion that they should be able to link out to something, and hence lead to a solution, as quickly as possible. Int21h (talk) 23:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Offering of re-writes

Although I see this page is no longer active, I came across it again when someone asked me for a link to something that explains the Bright Line and I noticed the "What types of edits should not be made by Paid Advocates" says "in some cases, paid advocates may find it helpful to offer an entirely new version of an article". There has been some controversy around this due to how challenging it can be in some cases to compare and evaluate extensive re-writes.

I wonder if Jimbo would support adding something like "if editors feel it is difficult to evaluate the draft, they should ask the paid advocate to offer their suggestions in whatever format they would find most convenient."

Respectfully, a "paid advocate"

CorporateM (Talk) 18:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

As an editor who has worked with CorporateM and others in his/her situation, I prefer to be informed of a concern about an article and directed to possible sources which I can use to create new content (or to modify existing content) Personally, I don't feel comfortable signing off on a significant amount of text that's been created by someone other than myself. It puts a lot of pressure on a single editor. We also saw the potential for blow back when the content submitted and approved by the BP PR person, Arturo (?), on the BP oil spill article was criticized in both the press and in WP forums. My understanding is Arturo followed all the rules but later was criticized for doing so. He, along with WP editors, who placed Arturo's content directly in to the article were the recipients of criticism. In light of this I think the text cited by Corporate M above needs some further consideration and a rewrite.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

In my volunteer editing - I have a similar approach as Keithbob in most cases. However, in many cases offering a re-write is the only practical way to improve an article volunteers don't have an interest in. In my view, there is no need to establish consensus for a consistent process - rather editors should just tell the PR agent in a straightforward manner how they prefer to collaborate. That preference will vary depending on the editor, the situation and the sensitivity of the content. Some editors will choose not to help PR contributors at all, and they are under no obligation to. CorporateM (Talk) 22:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Editors are under no obligation to help anybody, but they decidedly should not discriminate on the basis that another editor – equal to them in all aspects – is under contract or otherwise employed as a writer. Just my opinion, and I've BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

A cartel of paid editors on the purpose of keeping their paid articles listed: A myth or fact?

I have encountered a few editors in the past few months being on wikipedia. I once submitted an article for a company then in a matter of minutes it was in the proposed to be deleted. I decided that it is not in the best interests to keep this article so I did a speedy deletion, and moved the article somewhere it would be appreciated. My article was all about specific topic, and when it got nominated. I decided to a few speedy deletion on a few spammy articles that were in the lines of self promotion, a few editors reverted my decision almost instantly. The next day i tried with proposed deletion, but got caught up in crossfire, with being reported in the incident board for nominated WP:Pointy deletions. These editors did as much possible to save such an article from a company that using wikipedia has a way to enhance their companies position with Google. Since I involved a friend in the deletion process, also was nominated for Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry, I did not contested it, and I eventually banned for two days. I have not edited on wikipedia, I have been outraged why an article of self promotion, got nothing to do with with development of a certain product shall remain. All of the companies article consists of awards it has won over the past few years, poorly written article, and the article has nothing to do with the development of the product the company sells, and the article has been that way for years. Even the editor who nominated my article for deletion, also voted in favour of keeping the article on the grounds that it winning a high prestige award. Does an article that consists of winning awards, with very little notable references outside winning awards to remain on wikipedia, or are there a cartel of editors (possibly paid) abusing their editorial powers in order to keep an article that should not be here going. Simon161388 (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I find it interesting that, less than an hour before posting the above, you deleted everything on your talk page concerning why you were blocked. The pre-deletion version is here.

Also see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive832#Possible pointy addition of speedy delete tags and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Simon161388/Archive. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:07, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Move to mainspace

If this is now an essay, shouldn't this be moved to mainspace? Coretheapple (talk) 15:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

No. Mainspace essays are subject to the usual rules of consensus. Userspace essays are ultimately owned and controlled by the user. Take a look at WP:1AM. That page is my personal advice. Edits by others to 1AM are very much welcome, but if someone inserts something there that goes completely against my philosophy I want the authority to remove it. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

OK. Glad I asked before hitting the move button. Coretheapple (talk) 23:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)