(I moved the actual page to User:Jimbo Wales/Paid Advocacy FAQ.)-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 14:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. J N 466 01:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
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. Graham 87 02:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
As I was invited to add possible questions here:
There may be more ideas later. -- Errant ( chat!) 05:44, 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)
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)
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)
Can Template:Request_edit please be mentioned in the answer? -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 14:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
Is this [3] a valid example of an emergency edit due to vandalism? -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 11:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. -- J N 466 14:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
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)
The current wording of the Why should unpaid volunteers help question might be better with a different tone, and a split into two questions:
Thanks. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 14:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
If this is now an essay, shouldn't this be moved to mainspace? Coretheapple ( talk) 15:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
(I moved the actual page to User:Jimbo Wales/Paid Advocacy FAQ.)-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 14:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. J N 466 01:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
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. Graham 87 02:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
As I was invited to add possible questions here:
There may be more ideas later. -- Errant ( chat!) 05:44, 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)
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)
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)
Can Template:Request_edit please be mentioned in the answer? -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 14:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
Is this [3] a valid example of an emergency edit due to vandalism? -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 11:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. -- J N 466 14:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
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)
The current wording of the Why should unpaid volunteers help question might be better with a different tone, and a split into two questions:
Thanks. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 14:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
If this is now an essay, shouldn't this be moved to mainspace? Coretheapple ( talk) 15:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)