Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
Paid editing is a necessary part of the future of Wikipedia and I want to encourage it. I inserted some text to move this essay in a different direction. If anyone has any comments on this please post them. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
If "It is not currently prohibited on Wikipedia" why was User:MyWikiBiz banned few years ago? I thought it was because he was an editor-for-hire. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 04:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Users interested in this page may also be interested in this: User:Herostratus/Wikiproject Paid Editing Watch. Herostratus ( talk) 21:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I've made some additions. Changes of note:
There is an issue of language: "paid editors" carries with it a heap of baggage and preconceptions. One clarification Jimbo Wales made is "paid advocacy", which helps, and makes the process of evaluation and disposition much clearer. But there is this giant class of paid editors which is still nebulous, and hard to wrangle as a concept. Comments, edits, are welcome! -- Lexein ( talk) 21:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
(Moved here from my talk page --Lexein)
I have never before come across any suggestion that citing references is necessary in an "essay", as you suggested here. Where do you get that idea from? Indeed, I'm not even sure offhand that I can ever remember seeing a reference in an "essay", nor can I see that it would make sense to do impose such a requirement, since an "essay" by its nature merely expresses the opinions of its author(s). Also, this revert does not seem to conform to the spirit of bold, revert, discuss. JamesBWatson ( talk) 09:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
The discussion with Cordless Larry at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Kathleen Conway brought this essay page to my attention. The essay currently states:
editors who are paid represent a clear conflict-of-interest and are strongly encouraged to state this on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard what articles they are being paid to edit and declare whom they are working for before doing so
However, none of the other guides for COI editors say this: WP:COI, WP:PSCOI, WP:PCD, {{ uw-coi}}, etc. They only say that a notice should be placed on the user page, article's talk page and edit summary.
I believe such inconsistent advice is a bad thing. Should we remove this statement from this essay, or at least tone it down? Or add it to the other pages? -- intgr [talk] 13:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, I restored section that you removed because it was actually in response to KDS4444's complaint that he was unaware of the backlash he might face (and I referenced it to the conversation about it). If you think there is a better way of phrasing it, please feel free to edit it, but I do think that adding a line to the essay letting people know that it is controversial even if there is no consensus on it is fair. KDS4444 appears to have felt blindsided to the backlash. Letting people know that these sentiments do exist within the community I think is fair, especially since this is just an essay and not policy. TonyBallioni ( talk) 17:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I've written Wikipedia:Yes, it is promotion because I'm getting tired of pointing out that calling promotion by some other name doesn't change the fact that it's still promotion. Y'all cool with me (or anyone else) linking it in the See Also section? Ian.thomson ( talk) 22:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
...and I can't believe the profound impact of what I originally wrote it has last couple of years. I've been out of touch as I've been homeless for a couple years but I'm happy this artical brought attention to a particular weakness that Wikipedia has had plaguing it for years. Sadly, I think that this article has not see much love since it was last edited and it seems my original opinion on the matter feels... warped. Some examples of things I pointed out have been removed as used as a background such things in topic of Scientology and others. If anyone else would like to chime in please let me know. Phearson ( talk)
I just added to this article a list of five different companies that I saw as "Ads" as the first items in Google searches I've done so far this month.
What is the Wikimedia Foundation doing to monitor companies like these for violations of Wikipedia and Wikimedia Foundation policies? What should people concerned about this be doing?
I suggest the following:
Beyond this, has there been a discussion about paying Wikimedians in residence to recruit, train and manage volunteers concerned about contentious issues to create and edit articles of concern to them, subject to the standard Wikimedia rules of writing from a neutral point of view, citing credible sources, and treating others with respect?
June 24, 2021, I'm scheduled to discuss a proposed " International Conflict Observatory" at the 89th Military Operations Research Society Symposium. My current plan is to recommend in that presentation that research and advocacy organizations concerned with honesty be encouraged to hire Wikimedians in residence to combat the deceit, disinformation and propaganda disseminated by psychological warfare units and the generally biased reporting in the mainstream media consumed by virtually all parties to conflict: Media organizations everywhere have conflicts of interest in disseminating information that maight offend someone who controls a substantive portion of their funding. [1] The world needs something that provides more balanced analyses of contentious issues. Wikipedia already has a well-earned reputation for getting people to negotiate a narrative that all sides can more or less live with; that contrasts sharply with the echo chambers found in most online fora. [2]
Comments? Thanks, DavidMCEddy ( talk) 21:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
References
Hi, I am the original author of this essay. I really do not think that a list of companies in this essay belongs here. Seems to kinda point people where to go to get services as a way of advertising. I intend to remove it if there is no objection. Phearson ( talk) 15:00, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Since there has been no objection for over a month I removed it. Phearson ( talk) 15:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
Paid editing is a necessary part of the future of Wikipedia and I want to encourage it. I inserted some text to move this essay in a different direction. If anyone has any comments on this please post them. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
If "It is not currently prohibited on Wikipedia" why was User:MyWikiBiz banned few years ago? I thought it was because he was an editor-for-hire. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 04:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Users interested in this page may also be interested in this: User:Herostratus/Wikiproject Paid Editing Watch. Herostratus ( talk) 21:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I've made some additions. Changes of note:
There is an issue of language: "paid editors" carries with it a heap of baggage and preconceptions. One clarification Jimbo Wales made is "paid advocacy", which helps, and makes the process of evaluation and disposition much clearer. But there is this giant class of paid editors which is still nebulous, and hard to wrangle as a concept. Comments, edits, are welcome! -- Lexein ( talk) 21:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
(Moved here from my talk page --Lexein)
I have never before come across any suggestion that citing references is necessary in an "essay", as you suggested here. Where do you get that idea from? Indeed, I'm not even sure offhand that I can ever remember seeing a reference in an "essay", nor can I see that it would make sense to do impose such a requirement, since an "essay" by its nature merely expresses the opinions of its author(s). Also, this revert does not seem to conform to the spirit of bold, revert, discuss. JamesBWatson ( talk) 09:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
The discussion with Cordless Larry at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Kathleen Conway brought this essay page to my attention. The essay currently states:
editors who are paid represent a clear conflict-of-interest and are strongly encouraged to state this on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard what articles they are being paid to edit and declare whom they are working for before doing so
However, none of the other guides for COI editors say this: WP:COI, WP:PSCOI, WP:PCD, {{ uw-coi}}, etc. They only say that a notice should be placed on the user page, article's talk page and edit summary.
I believe such inconsistent advice is a bad thing. Should we remove this statement from this essay, or at least tone it down? Or add it to the other pages? -- intgr [talk] 13:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, I restored section that you removed because it was actually in response to KDS4444's complaint that he was unaware of the backlash he might face (and I referenced it to the conversation about it). If you think there is a better way of phrasing it, please feel free to edit it, but I do think that adding a line to the essay letting people know that it is controversial even if there is no consensus on it is fair. KDS4444 appears to have felt blindsided to the backlash. Letting people know that these sentiments do exist within the community I think is fair, especially since this is just an essay and not policy. TonyBallioni ( talk) 17:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I've written Wikipedia:Yes, it is promotion because I'm getting tired of pointing out that calling promotion by some other name doesn't change the fact that it's still promotion. Y'all cool with me (or anyone else) linking it in the See Also section? Ian.thomson ( talk) 22:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
...and I can't believe the profound impact of what I originally wrote it has last couple of years. I've been out of touch as I've been homeless for a couple years but I'm happy this artical brought attention to a particular weakness that Wikipedia has had plaguing it for years. Sadly, I think that this article has not see much love since it was last edited and it seems my original opinion on the matter feels... warped. Some examples of things I pointed out have been removed as used as a background such things in topic of Scientology and others. If anyone else would like to chime in please let me know. Phearson ( talk)
I just added to this article a list of five different companies that I saw as "Ads" as the first items in Google searches I've done so far this month.
What is the Wikimedia Foundation doing to monitor companies like these for violations of Wikipedia and Wikimedia Foundation policies? What should people concerned about this be doing?
I suggest the following:
Beyond this, has there been a discussion about paying Wikimedians in residence to recruit, train and manage volunteers concerned about contentious issues to create and edit articles of concern to them, subject to the standard Wikimedia rules of writing from a neutral point of view, citing credible sources, and treating others with respect?
June 24, 2021, I'm scheduled to discuss a proposed " International Conflict Observatory" at the 89th Military Operations Research Society Symposium. My current plan is to recommend in that presentation that research and advocacy organizations concerned with honesty be encouraged to hire Wikimedians in residence to combat the deceit, disinformation and propaganda disseminated by psychological warfare units and the generally biased reporting in the mainstream media consumed by virtually all parties to conflict: Media organizations everywhere have conflicts of interest in disseminating information that maight offend someone who controls a substantive portion of their funding. [1] The world needs something that provides more balanced analyses of contentious issues. Wikipedia already has a well-earned reputation for getting people to negotiate a narrative that all sides can more or less live with; that contrasts sharply with the echo chambers found in most online fora. [2]
Comments? Thanks, DavidMCEddy ( talk) 21:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
References
Hi, I am the original author of this essay. I really do not think that a list of companies in this essay belongs here. Seems to kinda point people where to go to get services as a way of advertising. I intend to remove it if there is no objection. Phearson ( talk) 15:00, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Since there has been no objection for over a month I removed it. Phearson ( talk) 15:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC)