This is an
essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
I am opposed to allowing paid advocates to edit in article space at all, but am extremely supportive of them being given other helpful paths to assist us in our efforts to be comprehensive, accurate and authoritative.
This is a very simple rule that constitutes best practice: do not edit Wikipedia articles directly if you are a paid advocate. Instead, contribute proposed edits to the talk page, and escalate to appropriate venues on Wikipedia if you are having trouble getting people's attention.
Q: What constitutes paid advocacy?
Q: Why should there be a ban on accepting payments for advocating in Wikipedia articles?
Q: Under the updated policy what types of edits can be made by paid advocates?
Q: What types of edits should not be made by paid advocates?
Q: The terms "paid editor" and "paid advocate" are used a lot in discussions. How are they different? How are they the same?
Q: Should any editor be allowed to make uncontroversial edits to articles, such as removing obvious vandalism?
Q: Would this strategy make it harder to remove disruptive material from articles quickly?
Q: Yeah, that's nice, but I see so many paid advocates advocating freely. Why should I listen to anything you say?
Q: Wouldn't all the same arguments apply to editing a Wikipedia biography 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.
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.)
Q: Should administrators and bureaucrats be allowed to function as paid advocates?
Q: 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?
Q: How quickly are talk page requests answered?
Q: How do you propose to catch and stop paid advocates who continue to violate this new policy? What about current "under the radar" paid advocates?
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?
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?
Q: Does this policy apply to paid members of the Wikimedia Foundation, particularly when acting in a communications role?
Q: You once stated, "[P]eople who are acting as paid advocates do not make good editors. They insert puffery and spin. That's what they do because that it is what paid advocates do." Do you still feel as strongly?
Q: Where do you stand on individuals who are paid to consult on the processes of wikipedia (no direct editing)?
Q: Do you consider this to be inherently in conflict with the idea that " Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute"?
Q: If someone writes a well-balanced article, including criticism of the company they are working for, and the article was vetted by veteran Wikipedians, would they be considered a paid advocate? How would you be able to tell, and would anyone find out about it?
Q: If someone was not aware of this policy against paid editing, how would you go about informing them? Would you use the standard user template warnings? Would they be immediately blocked or banned on the spot, then perhaps unblocked on condition they promise to abide by the policy?
This is an
essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
I am opposed to allowing paid advocates to edit in article space at all, but am extremely supportive of them being given other helpful paths to assist us in our efforts to be comprehensive, accurate and authoritative.
This is a very simple rule that constitutes best practice: do not edit Wikipedia articles directly if you are a paid advocate. Instead, contribute proposed edits to the talk page, and escalate to appropriate venues on Wikipedia if you are having trouble getting people's attention.
Q: What constitutes paid advocacy?
Q: Why should there be a ban on accepting payments for advocating in Wikipedia articles?
Q: Under the updated policy what types of edits can be made by paid advocates?
Q: What types of edits should not be made by paid advocates?
Q: The terms "paid editor" and "paid advocate" are used a lot in discussions. How are they different? How are they the same?
Q: Should any editor be allowed to make uncontroversial edits to articles, such as removing obvious vandalism?
Q: Would this strategy make it harder to remove disruptive material from articles quickly?
Q: Yeah, that's nice, but I see so many paid advocates advocating freely. Why should I listen to anything you say?
Q: Wouldn't all the same arguments apply to editing a Wikipedia biography 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.
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.)
Q: Should administrators and bureaucrats be allowed to function as paid advocates?
Q: 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?
Q: How quickly are talk page requests answered?
Q: How do you propose to catch and stop paid advocates who continue to violate this new policy? What about current "under the radar" paid advocates?
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?
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?
Q: Does this policy apply to paid members of the Wikimedia Foundation, particularly when acting in a communications role?
Q: You once stated, "[P]eople who are acting as paid advocates do not make good editors. They insert puffery and spin. That's what they do because that it is what paid advocates do." Do you still feel as strongly?
Q: Where do you stand on individuals who are paid to consult on the processes of wikipedia (no direct editing)?
Q: Do you consider this to be inherently in conflict with the idea that " Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute"?
Q: If someone writes a well-balanced article, including criticism of the company they are working for, and the article was vetted by veteran Wikipedians, would they be considered a paid advocate? How would you be able to tell, and would anyone find out about it?
Q: If someone was not aware of this policy against paid editing, how would you go about informing them? Would you use the standard user template warnings? Would they be immediately blocked or banned on the spot, then perhaps unblocked on condition they promise to abide by the policy?