Paid editing is a problem that never seems to go away on Wikipedia. Paid editors have long made it clear that they will violate our rules and insert advertising and other POV material into our articles, see e.g. [1], [2], [3]. After the largest and most one-sided RfC in history [4], the Wikimedia Foundation instituted a new rule in the Terms of Use that paid editors must disclose their clients, their affiliation, and their paid status, but this policy is widely ignored. How many self-disclosures of paid editing have you seen? The Arbitration Committee has said that they can't or won't enforce this policy.
Although they are outnumbered by something like 10 to 1 on Wikipedia, paid editing advocates have several advantages in continuing their fight for paid editing.
- Many of them may be paid, so these editors will take all the time needed to thwart reasonable rules
- Paid editing businesses, like most other businesses, are usually highly organized both
- internally - each business works closely with all its employees, and
- externally - businesses often work with similar businesses. While legitimate businesses might use trade associations or the Chamber of Commerce for this type of cooperation, underground businesses know how to do it as well.
To counter those advantages, ordinary unpaid editors should also be organized. Whenever somebody tries to change a policy that works against paid editing, you should know about it. The dozen or so paid editing advocates have made a mess out of our rules and their enforcement. A few dozen informed unpaid editors should be able to easily counteract their influence.
If you would like to help fight paid editing and need to stay informed when new paid editing issues arise, please sign below with 3 tildas ~~~ and we'll keep you informed on your talk page. If you are *not* interested in helping to fight paid editing, feel free to leave a message on the talk page.
Paid editing is a problem that never seems to go away on Wikipedia. Paid editors have long made it clear that they will violate our rules and insert advertising and other POV material into our articles, see e.g. [1], [2], [3]. After the largest and most one-sided RfC in history [4], the Wikimedia Foundation instituted a new rule in the Terms of Use that paid editors must disclose their clients, their affiliation, and their paid status, but this policy is widely ignored. How many self-disclosures of paid editing have you seen? The Arbitration Committee has said that they can't or won't enforce this policy.
Although they are outnumbered by something like 10 to 1 on Wikipedia, paid editing advocates have several advantages in continuing their fight for paid editing.
- Many of them may be paid, so these editors will take all the time needed to thwart reasonable rules
- Paid editing businesses, like most other businesses, are usually highly organized both
- internally - each business works closely with all its employees, and
- externally - businesses often work with similar businesses. While legitimate businesses might use trade associations or the Chamber of Commerce for this type of cooperation, underground businesses know how to do it as well.
To counter those advantages, ordinary unpaid editors should also be organized. Whenever somebody tries to change a policy that works against paid editing, you should know about it. The dozen or so paid editing advocates have made a mess out of our rules and their enforcement. A few dozen informed unpaid editors should be able to easily counteract their influence.
If you would like to help fight paid editing and need to stay informed when new paid editing issues arise, please sign below with 3 tildas ~~~ and we'll keep you informed on your talk page. If you are *not* interested in helping to fight paid editing, feel free to leave a message on the talk page.