Wikipedia:Paid Operatives/Sandbox-Jimbo talk

Jimbos Talk Page

User talk:Jimbo wales

Please, keep the bunny/March/15/7:39

The "soft bunny" of happiness and tranquility.

The hijacking of Wikipedia by groups is horrifying to us all.

Forgive me if I'm being presumptuous, but to you, this must be very personal. If I were in your shoes, it would be breaking my heart, and making me very angry too.

If this is what you're going through, I want to acknowledge your feelings. I hope you can find some comfort in knowing that you have the support of millions of us who are on your side. We will work together to protect our dear project. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Rare but difficult to stop: I'll leave space for Jimbo to respond, above, if he has time, but group-control of articles is a difficult problem, in some cases. Part of the problem is that questionable actions of users are typically investigated separately at WP:ANI (rather than as wp:TAGTEAM groups), and if a person is not named as the subject of an incident report, then often several statements of improper actions will go unanswered because that person is not specifically the focus of a separate incident report. A troublesome user can be overlooked due to the technicalities of how incidents are described at WP:ANI. Also, there have been cases at WP:ANI when a person reports someone else, but then the original person becomes the target of several marginal complaints, to totally lose focus on the original incident. In some cases, a person must try to defend against false allegations and inuendos for 3-5 solid days of attacks, because there are no "wiki-public defenders" who could be checking for true evidence ("due process"), while an accused person is at work, sleeping, or away for the weekend. Fortunately, the impact of groups who are POV-pushing is relatively rare, compared to the vast ocean of 3.8 million articles. Even in cases where extreme nitpicking and obstruction was maintained by group tag-teaming, the observers have noted how they had not seen anything that severe in years of work on WP. For that reason, I think that perhaps forming a new WP:WikiProject_Investigation, to carefully investigate for the, relatively rare, group tag-teaming, could be very effective to analyze and defuse any hijacking being done by groups on WP. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

(Bunnies are good, important first point...)

Well, there is wp:PAIDWATCH to keep a track of paid corruption (explained above on #Corporate_Representatives_paid_editing_on_Wikipedia), but it does have a blind spot in that some organised groups are not paid, and is never really going to be effective as the people with money are always going to have more person-hours available to put to work than people volunteering - just a war of attrition. Sites like Wikipedia Review, any watchdogs will not be able to fight the highest bidder in a few years as the technology improves, I am sure of it

The main problem you're getting though, is that this is not just a problem of Wikipedia, but the whole internet, the model itself is increasingly going to become more and more controlled by those who have the most money, persona management / identity management technology[1] is only going to grow cleverer and nastier... It may be a niche[2] thing now, but it's still happening on a wide scale now, which is why Wikipedia in its current form could probably be considered dangerous - because you literally have no way to tell who is working for who, or money trails like political campaign donations have to be for non-internet activities...

The technology, the capabilities, are growing, and being taken very seriously by corporations making investments in literally, attempting to take control of the internet/social media by force: [3][4][5]

The obvious weakness with current illegal astroturfing [6] at the moment is that there's always a good chance to get caught, due to someone having a crisis of conscience and blowing the whistle - but with just a few closely-monitored individuals using automated tools to replicate their work on a wide scale, under non-disclosure agreements and other threats, there's no need for any conspiracies, it's just the same model that more traditional style "psychological warfare" public relations/reputation management groups and private intelligence agencies already use on a daily basis to keep employees quiet about their activities, just put up to a whole different kind of scale by the hydra-like technology that means there's far less of a chance for leaks, and far less of a chance for them to "play their hand" and ever be detected.

That is my prediction, and even if I turn out to be right, I'm obviously not happy about making it because I am not sure how even if you did change Wikipedia hugely, if it can be stopped, if even any massive structural changes can stop this, once bot-assisted identities are able to get to the swaying point where interest groups could easily take control of whole swathes of Wikipedia, let alone their own articles, given that its a system of majority rules generally? That is the way things are going, that "industry" is growing and growing ... and will go on, unless some very bright ideas are came up with, I am not sure if there is anything that can be done to stop it. Unless you do more to tackle the problems of Wikipedia at their root rather than hoping that "the community will sort itself out", you're just going to see this get worse and worse, I wish I had more answers on how you could actually dig a way out of that deepening pit, but does anyone? --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 00:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

My response

• Saying "...Rare but difficult to stop..." gives a ray of hope, doesn't it? Are you saying that only a tiny percentage of political and corporate articles are of interest to these groups? Violin and Albatross are safe, right?

• This seems like honest people allowing baddies into a party with the plan of keeping an eye on them, fixing what they break, prosecuting them, booting them after they're caught, and keeping the door open for more.

• Cheaper and safer is a guard at the door of this tiny percentage of articles. Editing is a privilege, right? So, VIP only. Guests to that party of articles need 10k edits in other areas or something like that. At least then we know who they are, and if they're paid, it will be expensive for them.

• Keeping the door open results is a waste keystrokes on repair, investigations, other backroom stuff, etc. Plus, we get overwhelmed in the end, and lose control of quality, and Wikipedia itself.

• I'm probably being naive, but shouldn't we be as defensive as they are offensive? I don't know. This isn't really my area. I prefer to make pie articles. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Not just at the door but everywhere: To quote from Pogo (comic strip), "We have met the enemy and he is us" because the groups pushing article contents are all around, as long-term registered users and admins. Plus, the issue is not just corporate slanting. Instead, there have been groups who refused to allow text to note, "Hurricane Katrina travelled up the entire state of Mississippi" and refused, "Coastal towns in Mississippi flooded 32 feet (10 m) deep" while omitting the fact, "Downtown New Orleans and the French Quarter did not flood". In fact, the flood waters in Alabama (waves 23 ft or 7 m) were higher than most in New Orleans, but the waters receded the same day, rather than remain 3 ft (1 m) deep for weeks. In reality, casino barges in Biloxi floated onto the roof of 2-storey hotels, and buildings were gutted at the 3rd storey, with seawaves 40 feet (12 m) high. Think about the worst tsunami in recent times and multiply by 10x, but there were no touristy photos because it was raining wet sand and debris as the towns were submerged. Inland emergency command centers, at 30 feet (9 m) elevation in Mississippi, flooded 2 feet deep inside, and the flood pushed boats and refrigerators 6–12 miles (10–19 km) inland. However, some users did not want "Hurricane Katrina" to mention any of these facts in the intro. That slanting was not a problem of paid-editors as pushing a corporate spin. Hence, in general, consider POV-pushing to be a system-wide problem, but it happens in relatively few cases, so a WikiProject could investigate problems and re-balance the text. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:50/14:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Anna, you're not being naive, you're totally right that Wikipedia needs to defend itself - but if anything is going to done it needs to be big, because Wikipedia is currently helpless to organisations that are actually organised, the nature of the way the internet enables anonymity is a strength when writing about things that may endanger people, sure, but it's also its greatest weakness when people can then use run as many "persona" accounts as they want to manipulate the truth... Definitely read through the links I gave, it's all real... Sure, whilst its only in the hands of the government it is not so much of a problem — twitter.com/TomHarrisMP/status/90492249418371072, — but the Internet started off as military too, I am sure this technology will reach the corporate sector soon enough (and that google result I linked shows similar stuff already in wide use on Facebook and Twitter, where there is less scrutiny so bot-assisted human spammers do not need to be act human sophisticated)

There's no point saying "x edits" because persona management technology enables corporations to maintain accounts that on the surface seem like real people, for a long time - making it expensive won't solve anything, because that's the biggest issue really, that Wikipedia will become under the control with the people who have the most money, the best technology...

You're absolutely right though that the current state is:

This seems like honest people allowing baddies into a party with the plan of keeping an eye on them, fixing what they break, prosecuting them, booting them after they're caught, and keeping the door open for more.

*Keeping the door open results is a waste keystrokes on repair, investigations, other backroom stuff, etc. Plus, we get overwhelmed in the end, and lose control of quality, and Wikipedia itself.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Because volunteers will never be able to keep up with people being paid to spend all their time, then with the capacity to run multiple identities easier too, it's just, well, scary what Wikipedia's future will be if nothing is done to change it to prevent that future... --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 17:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

While I think that WP:PAIDWATCH is excessive and one-sided (basically, it and WP:COOP need to merge into something balanced), your last sentence there is the crux of the problem. But see also WP:SPECIALSTYLE. A "group" doesn't even have to be organized, and paid, and have intent to subvert and game the system; it can simply be a self-selecting set of stubborn people who insist on doing things their special way even if it conflicts with all real-world usage outside their little specialty, simply because they're obsessive about it and bring an us vs. them mentality to bear (especially a "super-smart us vs. ignorant and stupid them", holier-than-thou mentality). In bad cases, it has resulted in WP:OWN-level dominance of tens of thousands of articles. Combine something like that with an actual will to "spin" and deceive, and the reliability of the entire project would basically be roadkill. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 20:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I would appreciate a change in tone

I removed your last obnoxious remark from my talk page. I would appreciate a change in tone. The cite to Forbes is to an external contributor's blog post. I do consider that a minor publication. You may disagree. You may not disagree in an obnoxious fashion. Not on my talk page, anyway.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC).......To answer your question - I intend to host general philosophical and policy discussions on my page from time to time, and I intend to enforce a higher standard of civility than you may be comfortable with. If you don't like it, that's fine with me, it really is. Just don't participate if you can't do so while behaving in a respectful manner to others.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Am I out of line on this? It makes me sick to my stomach, and I think it's violative of our ToS as well

Could you have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Cla68 advertising his services as a paid Wikipedia editor? As is often the case, your name is being invoked. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a pretty effective troll to me. Par for the course for this particular editor.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

There are comments there regarding comments you made at some point on this issue, not on Cla68 himself, but on the issue itself...I am sure if you're bothering, you can read it. I am vehemently in opposition to paid editing. We all know it goes on, but under no circumstances is it to be tolerated if we know about it. Next thing we'll have is paid supports...at Rfa, at FAC and elsewhere. Paid editing leads to graft...and the ruination of this website.--MONGO 22:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I do hereby declare that for $500 I will support an RfA ;-) but no seriously? Paid editing occurs... fact. The question is putting limits/controls on it. The first step is to have people who are paid to edit, to declare such and to start to define criteria surrounding paid editors. E.g. declaring who is paying them and/or what they are being asked to write. This is only going to become more common place in the future. Hell, I saw on another page that the Smithsonian now has a Wikipedian in Residence. Undoubtably other large organizations have employees whose job it is to monitor articles and/or edit them. Do you doubt that Romney/Obama don't have people editing their articles and pushing their agendas? Wouldn't it be nice to know whom? As for Cla doing this as a business... more power to him. A short note on his page that he will work for money is acceptable, although I do object to his listing prices. THAT is advertising, but would you be opposed to my putting in my bio my company and what I do? Would you be opposed to my mentioniing that I am an independent consultant in the audit industry and then linking my page? No. That is par for the course. The question is not what he says, but how he says it.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 01:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, am prepared to commit to writing a policy which prohibits paid editing...the enforcement of such will be impractical, but if in stone, all will know where the website falls on this matter.--MONGO 22:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you should wait till the COI RFC is closed before undertaking to write such a policy... Monty₈₄₅ 23:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Have fun. I don't see that ever reaching community consensus. Just from observation, it looks like most of the community, who have weighed in thus far, fall on the "it's how you're editing, not why you're editing that matters" side. Silverseren^C 00:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that's a wild misinterpretation of the evidence. A handful of noisy editors, mainly conflicted themselves, are in favor. Most editors are opposed, but don't bother stalking and killing every discussion about it. When we get to a proper project-wide vote, the correct answer will be reached.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

And, like I said, I don't believe the community is going to be on your side. The majority understands that everyone has a COI, some more than others, and that it is through their actions on-wiki that determines whether they are allowed to edit, not their COI. We have plenty of editors who have a strong COI that are able to edit quite neutrally without issue. And if one bans paid editing, it raises the question about anyone else who has a strong COI, and whether we should be allowed them to edit. Then those with a slightly less COI and those with slightly less than that, until you end up with nobody being allowed to edit, because they all have a COI, as, in most cases, they wouldn't be editing an article subject unless they were personally interested in it and have an opinion on it.

Luckily, most editors understand that it is for these very reasons that COI is largely irrelevant and only acts as a caution, but not as a wall. All that matters is whether an editor is making neutral contributions. If they are, then it doesn't matter if they have a strong positive or negative opinion on the subject. If they're editing neutrally, who cares? Silverseren^C 00:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

This fallacious line of argument has been dealt with many times. Well, no sense in you going on and on about it. You are in the extreme minority here and I can't possibly convince you.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I am in the extreme minority on your talk page, yes, that's obvious. That's because your talk page is, often, an echo chamber for your opinions. That doesn't mean it is at all representative of the actual community opinion on a subject. Silverseren^C 00:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that I can convince Silverseren, because I think he's an advocate for an extreme position. So this is for those who might be naively taken in by his misreading of community consensus and who find his argument up above tempting to believe. I have just one simple thought experiment for you. Right now there is a big lawsuit going on between Google and Oracle. The judge in the case is Judge William Alsup. All of Judge Alsup's work in the case is public, he's in a public courtroom, and when he publishes his opinion in the case, that will be made public too. It will be subject to a lot of scrutiny. What would you think if you found out that Judge Alsup has a part-time job on the weekends advising Oracle on their patent litigation strategy for say $50,000 a year, much less than his salary as a judge, but a nice boost. Would you say "It isn't his motives for coming to a conclusion in the case, it's how he judges" and argue that Judges ought to be able to accept payments from litigants, as long as - somehow - they remain neutral?

It's frankly absurd, and it is equally absurd to take the position that someone can be a paid advocate (don't fall for the other fallacy, which is conflating the question of ALL paid editing with that of paid advocacy) and that as long as they are neutral it will not harm the reputation of Wikipedia. It is transparently obvious that if we welcome this kind of corruption, it will destroy the reputation of Wikipedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

From a brief read of the ANI discussion, his position doesn't seem to be extreme. In fact, a lot of the comments fall on the "well, so what?" end of the issue.

The Judge Alsup analogy would only apply if the person in charge of FA were a paid advocate, if you think about it a little more. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 09:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I might start by saying that, if something is going to destroy the reputation of Wikipedia, there are a significant number of other issues that are actually damaging the encyclopedia that will destroy its reputation long before the allowance of paid editing would have any effect. But to respond more directly to that, the media's reception to an idea is largely dependant on how the idea is represented before them. If this paid editing issue causes a rift in the community, you can be sure that there will be press coverage of the conflict and it will not be good for Wikipedia (just like past conflicts have been bad). And a complete banning of paid editing would just lead to media complaints of hypocrisy that paid editors are banned, but those editors with extreme COI issues (often high ranking Wikipedia members as well) are allowed to roam free. On the other hand, if a direct guideline was laid out that welcomed paid editing, but explained specifically what is and is now acceptable and also offered them various direct avenues to have their suggested improvements be looked at, then I sincerely doubt there would be much, if any, bad press over those actions. Silverseren^C 00:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Can we get back to the original complaint? Paid editing being good or bad is likely to go on forever. Should users be able to advertise their services on Wikipedia or not? --Onorem♠Dil 00:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I would say no. Silverseren^C 00:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, we do have some agreement then. :-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

[clear violation of POLICY "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages." (as well as WP:POINT removed.]

• • Last time I checked, blatantly promoting a product (FA article in this case) was not acceptable by policy or culture. Could you explain why this is different? --Onorem♠Dil 01:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm quite certain that this is all an attempt by Cla to be extremely sarcastic. Though i'm also sure he wouldn't mind if someone took him up on the offer, but the sarcasm does come first. Regardless though, sarcasm has its place and this isn' it. Silverseren^C 01:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Actually, you can find Cla's reasoning right here. Silverseren^C 01:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
      • So...massive "Point" made. Good for Cla. Are we done with this stupidity yet? --Onorem♠Dil 01:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Looks pretty flawed frankly...bottom line is paid advocacy is intertwined with paid editing...they are almost inseparable. IF someone is paying another to edit, then they expect an outcome...surely one that favors their POV. It's ludicrous to think anyone would pay and not expect something in return.--MONGO 01:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
        • They expect an improved article. An improved article, rather than a stub, would be better for the person. And, if we're talking companies, updated company stats would also be helpful. It really doesn't have to do with POV-slanting an article at all. Silverseren^C 01:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

          but...but...but...that is where they then say, gee thanks for updating our "stats" now how much is it going to cost us (to seasoned well thought of editor) to add THIS'? One leads to another for sure. I'll not be swayed by the motivations of corporate hacks to whitewash the facts...we already have enough of that going on with corporate ownership of the news...WE are supposed to be above all that.--MONGO 02:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

          • MONGO, several years ago I assisted a paid editor (for free) to take an article to FA. This was the article. The primary editor was an employee of the university. The article is fine. What you are really saying is that you don't trust Wikipedia's administrative or FA processes to enforce NPOV. After such a long time as you have participated in this project, doesn't that disappoint you? Cla68 (talk) 02:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

            • that article looks fine...but is it fine? It has two sections with left hand margin image placement at beginning of the section...MOS recommends right hand alignment with text left unless there is a paragraph of text first (example)...another section has text sandwiched between two images...where is the controversy section? Just touching the tip of the berg here...want more? I looked and saw nary an edit to that article by Cla68...I did see your support at FAC...it was a half sentence...so what are you trying to tell us? That your idea of assisting a paid editor should consist of a support vote for their enterprise? In consideration though, I didn't check the talkpage archives and did see other more well rounded supports...but I'm responding to your summary of "assistance".--MONGO 03:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

            • Are you declaring your intentions or advertising your services? What is your point in saying that you want 1000 for an article? --Onorem♠Dil 02:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
              • I will accept $1000 to take an article to FA-level quality. Cla68 (talk) 02:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
                • You nicely avoid answering but sure make yourself sound like a whore. --Onorem♠Dil 02:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Chill out with the personal attacks.VolunteerMarek 02:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Just an observation. Do you have a better way to describe it? --Onorem♠Dil 02:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

If a business will pay $1000 for a featured article, imagine how much it will pay for a successful AfD. Wnt (talk) 02:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

In terms of deleting or keeping an article? Either way, there's a significant difference between paid editing and what you're talking about. The former just involves (ideally) improving specific articles within our rules and guidelines. The latter would be breaking Wikipedia's rules to get a desired outcome. Of course, I don't even see how the latter could happen at all. Are you referring to an admin being paid off to close an AfD with a certain outcome? But then that would also mean that they would have to have a method of getting the AfD discussion to go their way, because it's otherwise be overturned at DRV. I just don't see paid AfD closing working at all without paying off everyone involved and, if that happens, it'll either be canvassing with a bunch of new accounts which we already know how to deal with or it'll be paying off a bunch of established users and I find it extremely unlikely, if not impossible, that none of them will come out and explain what's going on. Silverseren^C 02:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I've heard tell that sometimes people disagree about whether policy supports a deletion or not. Some articles might be deleted if someone puts in extra effort to make policy arguments; more so if two or three are hired... Wnt (talk) 02:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, if the policy arguments are actually based in policy and stand up to scrutiny...then ostensibly, there wouldn't be an issue in the first place, paid or not. Silverseren^C 02:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Entrepreneur---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 02:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

<-- Yeah, ok, we got to nip this false analogy, which unfortunately was stated by Jimbo above, in the butt. Comparing being paid for bringing an article to an FA status to a judge in charge of a case who is also employed by one of the litigants is obviously - obviously, as in a few seconds of reflection should make one realize it - incorrect and misleading. A more appropriate analogy would be to one of the parties in a case ... horror of horrors!, hiring a lawyer. Which, I'm told, happens all the time.

Likewise, bringing AfD closures of AfDs or whatever into it is an obvious red herring. That's not what we're talking about.

The judge analogy fails because there is an intrinsic issue of power there. So yes, an admin who takes money to close an AfD a particular way, or to block someone etc. is acting unethically. And that should be prohibited. However, there's nothing intrinsically unethical about being paid to make edits - which can be reverted at any time - to an article. In fact, being paid to make quality legitimate edits to an article nicely aligns social and private incentives.

So basically, paid editing Yes, paid adminin', reviewin', Afd-closin', and other forms of constabulatin', No. THOSE are the people with the real conflict of interest. Being worried about the fact that some lowly joe schmoe is getting some compensation for improving the encyclopedia, is so far down the list of legitimate concerns that it exposes the (faux?) outrage here and on AN/I as the unintentionally hilarious sanctimonious piece of self-mocking twaddle that it is.VolunteerMarek 02:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. But I would also add, being paid to present a certain side of the story would be equally offensive... but we have those people and there is no way to get rid of them. The question here, is can a person be hired to edit objectively with the intent of getting a FA---which includes by definition being Neutral and Unbiased. There is a difference between this and paid advocacy.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 03:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Ugh analogies; a traditionally poor rhetoric. It's intellectually underhand to try that avenue (this is not the first time you have done it) as is the attempt to cast elements here as an extremist (seriously?) minority (based on some unseen super-majority who don't contribute to discussions). I have just read the COI RFC (what a disaster) where a huge number of people commented - more than most community "votes". But, if you are that confident of a community !vote process opposing this sort of activity then I fully support you going ahead and making one... --Errant ^(chat!) 08:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

In fact, you know, your obnoxious approach to this has annoyed me (sorry) so I'm going to insist on finally getting some answers to these questions (which you have consistently avoided when brought up):

• I wrote Digital forensics (currently a good article) on company time, does this mean I am a paid editor? Should I AFD it?
• How does your viewpoint fit with the WMF sanctioned Wikipedian in Residence - some of whom have been employed to edit Wikipedia articles.

Your answers here are critical, because I feel it highlights how the situation isn't as cut-and-dried as you wish to cast it. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It isn't clear if you are asking me or some of the other participants in the discussion. I can't imagine that you are asking me because I have answered questions like this directly many times. I draw a strong distinction between paid advocacy and other types of editing which may be compensated. I don't see that as a complicated distinction at all. Regarding Digital forensics, I will take a look at it and give you an opinion on the ethics of you editing it if you like. Regarding Wikipedian in Residence, I think it crucial that people in such positions never edit to promote the institutions where they are in residence - and think it is a bannable offense if they do.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to check the article. I have noted you consistently use the word "advocacy" - which I agree with entirely - a word that refers to motive... but it is not clear whether you view all paid editing in general as primo-facto advocacy (the implication in your reply here is that you do not). Wikipedians in Residence often edit their home institutions article; is that over the line into editing to promote? I argue that motivation is the key here, and money is just one factor. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

errrrrrrmmmm ... ummmmmmm .... I'm not quite sure how to put this one, Jimbo .... but how does this tie in with this? Pesky (talk) 11:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Why is "money" special?

Jimbo, I ask in all sincerity: why do you seem to believe that money is somehow more poisonous to the project than other motivations that might cause a person to edit non-neutrally? I really, truly don’t understand why someone who gets $1000 to edit an article is more inclined to violate our policies (WP:NPOV, etc.) than someone who is a “true fan” committed to showing the world how great their favorite team/singer/restaurant, or someone who is absolutely certain that Ethnic group X is better than Ethnic group Y. I don’t understand why we want or need a special policy to deal with one specific form of motivation, when we have a perfectly good set of policies that govern all forms of biased and improper editing behavior. For instance, I think the current insanity at WP:MMA, including strong evidence of off-wiki threats and canvassing, is a much better example of disruptive editing that is damaging Wikipedia than the polite, cooperative editors at WP:WikiProject Cooperation/Paid Editor Help. Heck, I think the debacle that was WP: India Education Project was significantly more disruptive and potentially damaging to Wikipedia (since it results in large scale copyright violations) than paid editing, and that was a WMF directed project. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You are positing a competition between two things that are completely different. Apples and oranges. Yes, a person who is a "true fan" (in the negative sense) is a problem. The person of a particular religious (or other) viewpoint who comes to Wikipedia with an axe to grind is someone who has to be dealt with, and we do it every day. A paid advocate is also a problem, but a different problem, as the incentives before them and the motivations are different. It simply isn't the case that "one size fits all" - we should adapt policy and solutions in a way that works, to deal with each problem in the best possible way - false analogies to other problems will mislead.

The truth is that paid advocacy is significantly deterrable through a thoughtful set of policies that forbids direct article editing and encourages appropriate interaction with the community. There really are ethical communications professionals who understand that I will crucify their clients in the media if they do not do the right thing. And there are those who do NOT get it, and banning them is the fastest and easiest thing to do. It's really quite simple: follow a bright-line rule - no paid advocacy in article space - come to the discussion page.

Similarly with the India project. Was it a debacle? Yes, of course it was. But that provides no argument for not solving other problems as well. We don't have to choose to EITHER improve projects like that OR deal with the scourge of paid advocates. We must do both.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

My two cents:

• Payment influences decisions. In a study of the peer-reviewed scientific literature, studies where the author was funded by a drug company were four times more likely to find results favorable to that company than those funded independently.
• Payment does not eliminate meatpuppet prohibitions. If I can't ask my friend to support my views in discussions, I shouldn't be able to pay him to do it.
• It is not compelling to say Y is not a problem, because X, Y, and Z are all problems and we can't do anything about X or Z. If paid editing distracts or detracts from the project, it should be prohibited. Even if there are other things which are harder to deal with, we should not avoid dealing with the easier problems.

But, of course, I don't speak for Jimbo. --TeaDrinker (talk) 03:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Another point against paid editing is you get someone that is a slick practiced expert in dispute resolution that can easily "beat down" the volunteers that are trying to improve the encyclopedia because they like the idea of a free encyclopedia built by volunteers. My view is that paid editing would be a poison that would eventually destroy the original intent of Wikipedia and chase away many volunteers. There are frequently complaints about SPA's pushing their own POV. The SPA's are usually crude violate the rules and end up getting blocked. A paid editor that knows the rules and especially knows how to manipulate the dispute resolution process would be a menace to WP:NPOV. Money is special because it buys time and influence. If it was also allowed to buy Wikipedians with knowledge and experience it would likely destroy Wikipedia or change it into something that I'll guess that most volunteers will not be interested in being part of. Bill Huffman (talk) 05:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

And you don't think this doesn't already occur?

(ec)Re point 1: Yes, payment influences decisions. So which is better to read a study knowing who funded the study or to read a study not knowing who funded it? I'd like to know that McDonald's paid for that study about the nutrional value of a big mac. By knowing who is being paid, it opens avenues for oversight, that don't exist if we don't know.

Re point 2: Again, Cla's "advertisement" was to get an article to FA status. I think everybody agrees that being paid to advocate a stance is questionable (but we also know paid editors exist.) The key isn't to bury our heads and pretend that all is well in the world and that paid editing doesn't occur, but rather to regulate/monitor them in an appropriate manner.

Re point 3: Yes, because prohibition worked so well. The war on drugs worked so well. The situation exists and will continue to exist. Let's deal with it rather than pretend it doesn't happen.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 06:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Balloonman, but I find your points are missing a major point: $1000 is a laughably small amount of money. Paid editors that get results - control content to the satisfaction of the client - will get paid in the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars...easy. You think a civil POV pushing volunteer is a nightmare? Think what one making $80000 a year would be like? ...with five paid co-workers? Game over. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, Balloonman, as far as I can tell, you either agree with me, or you are positing a straw man. It is precisely my argument that we need to "eal with it rather than pretend it doesn't happen". The best way I know of to NOT deal with it is to continue to entertain lunatic arguments that it doesn't matter. The best way I know of to deal with it is channel it into appropriate channels (talk pages, primarily) and to be extremely firm that paid advocacy in article space is unwelcome, will not be tolerated. We need to offer a path for paid advocates to deal with us responsibly - allowing them to take over Wikipedia is absolutely not an option... that option would be burying our heads in the sand.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Bluntly, this already exists, and more or less de-facto permitted for professional photographers who put some of their work on Wikipedia. Why shouldn't similar tolerance be allowed for our writers? I do not ascribe this position to you, but I'm seeing remnants of Avery Brundage's belief in the "gifted amateur" as ideal. His vision did not survive the entry of money into the Olympic movement. Did it harm the Olympics? Well, try finding tickets for this year's Olympics, and athletes no longer have to live in the ghetto until after the games. Frankly, I doubt if there's much money in this—I am reminded of a "The Far Side" cartoon showing classified ads seeking those good at playing arcade games for big money—but I'd be willing to talk to a company offering sponsorship which includes access to databases and resources as well as my expenses. Unfortunately, when requests to the Foundation for resources get little heed or are hijacked, editors turn elsewhere.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Influenced by Pay editing is a poison that, even in small un-noticible doses, will eventually kill any reliablity we now have. We need to improve our trust level with the general public not allow it to continue its slide toward wholesale MIS-trust. ```Buster Seven Talk 12:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC).

Many editors are influenced in their editing by their nationality and religion. Isn't that a far more serious poison?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Given time and attention, national and religious poisoning of an article become obvious and can be dealt with. Influenced by Pay editing is hidden, unknown, out-of-sight. We don't even know its happening unless some warning label is displayed. Influenced by Pay editors need to self-identify, much like the Communications Director for the Gingrich campaign did recently. Knowing the Campaign was directly involved in article creation created a workable editorial collaborative effort. Not perfect, just workable. ```Buster Seven Talk 12:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)