This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
We're not really interested here in arguments in defense of paid editing, and especially not interested in long and contentious digressions on the matter. This Wikiproject is for people who've already made up their minds on the matter, and this talk page is to facilitate the work of the Wikiproject. If you don't agree with the basic goals and principles of this Wikiproject, you're invited to make your own or whatever, but please don't disrupt our work here, thanks. Herostratus ( talk) 19:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, mainly, we can use the Alerts section and this talk page as a noticeboard. That's the main thing right now, I guess. Ideas welcome, and let's see what develops. Herostratus ( talk) 19:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
As it stands, at Wikipedia:Paid editing (essay) and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Declaring an interest editors are basically adjured to declare if they're being paid to edit. I think this is insufficient -- instead, editors should be prohibited from being paid to edit -- but anyway, the suggestions are insufficient in my view. A couple of reforms to consider might be:
None of this should be contentious and paid editors should welcome these reforms as should all Wikipedians, in the interest of transparency. I'm not how to implement these, I would guess through changes to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Declaring an interest. At this time I'm putting the idea of reform up for discussion. Herostratus ( talk) 19:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
We need to find out if it's going to be OK to create a list of avowed paid editors, maybe as a subpage here. I don't see any reason why not. My inclination is to create the page and subject it to an advisory WP:MFD to determine if it's kosher.
It'd be interesting to then pair editors with volunteer watchers who vet their work as a volunteer activity. Normally this would be considered stalking, though, although when you're talking about paid editors a lot of rules such as WP:AGF are not applicable, I would say. Obviously this is pain the butt to have to do, and a waste of our resources, but since paid editors are here this has to be done one way or the other anyway, so I'm looking for ideas on the most effective way to do this. We need to determine if this particular scheme is good and also kosher, though.
I think a a couple of principles that would be good to establish, if they can be established, are:
How these can be established I'm not sure yet. Talk it up for starters, I guess.
Also, down the road, we need to think about covert paid editing. I think maybe a good way to deal with this is to after the source. We can't easily go after editors who are covertly accepting pay for editing except in stone-cold-obvious cases which are rare. Rather, we address the source of the money directly. I'm inclined to leave this aside for now as it's likely to be contentious. We need to determine the best ways to do this that is acceptable under Wikipedia rules (or change the rules if required). Herostratus ( talk) 19:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
A dialogue between the Foundation and the Public Relations Society of America would be possibly useful and perhaps should be suggested to the Foundation. Herostratus ( talk) 21:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I have lots of ideas about the objectives and would like to add a link to the plain and simple COI Essay. I'm a paid/COI editor and have already thought about this issue a lot in writing a draft Signpost op-ed the publication editors suggested and in my pet project (wikipediaethics.org). Is my participation welcome?
After all, nobody is paying me to contribute here ;-) Bad joke. I realize I have a certain point-of-view about paid editing that is not popular among the volunteer community due to their negative experiences with paid/COI editors. I say that Wikipedia can benefit from paid editors, but the reality is that's not how it is today. But I think I have a lot to contribute to this discussion nonetheless from the other side of the pond if you will. King4057 ( talk) 05:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
That is true, but the difficulty is that whilst an article might not be outwardly promotional, it can be written in a way that highlights positive aspects of them and hides away more negative information. I think this is pretty much inevitable if you are working for a client, but the result is that the article will differ from what relatively uninterested community would have written. I don't agree with Nomo's point about ABF, but as an editor who's spent way more time than I would have liked cleaning up after PR firms, I know that it can be difficult to AGF. SmartSE ( talk) 14:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Erm well, it's a complicated issue and no mistake.
One question I have right off for King4057, who said
Wait, you are being paid by an educational foundation or something? Yes, if the Smithsonian or whomever is paying you to create articles on the Wikipedia about Civil War regiments or something, that's entirely different. Of course! I don't think anybody has a problem with that; see the "Project name?" section below, where the case of professors is mentioned, and that's one reason we could change the name of the project to only cover advocacy. (BTW, though, if none of the few remaining copies of your source are available to the general public at some library or whatever, you probably can't use it as a source (not certain about that), but that's a different issue.) I was mainly thinking about companies, politicians, governments and parties, and like that. Your case is entirely different and we need to make the clear, yes.
Anyway, it's a complicated issue. My opinion is that overall paid advocacy editing is a net negative, for a lot of reasons. One of them is the effect on our reputation. Another is the effect on on morale. A third is corruption of our processes. But mainly, no, I don't believe that entities "merely want a neutral Wikipedia article". Because, you know, one man's neutral is another man's whitewashing, and putting money on the table just makes this impossible to fairly determine.
Tell you what. When someone can point me out an instance where the CEO or head of public relations of a company called you up and said "Smith, I just read our Wikipedia article, and it's horrible. There's no mention of our steadily declining market share and profit margins that are sub-par for our industry! What's more, it doesn't even point out that Consumer Reports rated our product as unsafe and that we're under investigation by the SEC. Dammit, Smith, the article makes us look like Mother Theresa for chrissakes! Profits and reputation be damned, our first obligation is to the readers of the Wikipedia, not our damn stockholders! I want accuracy in our Wikipedia article, and I don't care what it costs -- fix it!" When someone can point me to instances of this sort of thing, maybe I'll change my mind. Herostratus ( talk) 06:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
OK! Now that my ANI has run its course, I feel like I can start participating again without fear of backlash. Thanks to everyone who supported me and helped clear my name. In the long run, I am very glad the ANI happened, because it shed so much light on this issue and got so many editors involved. But I do admit it was unpleasant. I had no idea that emotions ran so high on this issue and that so many editors would demand my head on a platter. In any case, it's water under the bridge now. I am ready to join the cause. What can I do? Ebikeguy ( talk) 14:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Jimbo suggested that the project be retitled to "Wikiproject Paid Advocacy Watch" on these grounds: "a hypothetical professor whose University decides to value Wikipedia highly and asks the professors to contribute to Wikipedia on topics where they have expertise, i.e. they are now being paid (in some small part at least) to edit Wikipedia. That's a good thing, generally." I'm a bit of a "dry" on paid editing -- I'm just against it -- but I understand the point. I'm also inclined to take suggestions from Jimbo fairly seriously.
I also understand the where there's inappropriately defamatory material on an entity and so forth, that's very vexing to the entity, and while that'd possibly be fixed eventually anyway money can speed things up. So I don't know what to say about that...
Anyway, would "Wikiproject Paid Advocacy Watch" be a better name? Thoughts? Herostratus ( talk) 11:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Herostratus, I'm interested to know what you might think a constructive volunteer editor / client representative interaction would look like. On Jimbo's Talk page, you recently wrote:
I agree with this wholeheartedly. And do you think that one could substitute "New York Times" for "Wikipedia" and the same would be true? If Wikipedia did not contain a true, guideline-appropriate fact about a client, and a PR rep persuaded an independent editor to help add it, wouldn't that be acceptable? Surely this could not be considered "hacking" the project. Can you explain what you would find to be a successful WP-PR engagement? WWB Too ( talk) 09:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
All, I thought you might be interested in this page I recently found, User:Silver seren/Wikiproject Cooperation. It seems like that proposed Wikiproject has some similar motivations to this one, but approaches things from a significantly different angle. Thoughts? Ebikeguy ( talk) 01:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
It's possible in some ways. For instance we're all in favor of increasing the transparency of overt paid editors as long as there are paid editors, by some scheme such as flagging their sigs and so forth. In other areas, I guess we disagree and the that project has a different point of view than this one. For instance, there's this (at the other project): "This is a list of users who have openly disclosed their conflicts of interest and work actively to improve certain articles" followed by two names, User:WWB Too and User:King4057.
I don't know about User:King4057, but that's surely not a correct characterization of User:WWB Too. I'll give an example below. It's representative, I think it fair to say. Not to perseverate on Cracker Barrel, but I haven't had time to vet a lot of User:WWB Too's work, so I'll stick with that for now. OK, Cracker Barrel had some issues in the past with firing employees for being gay, so it's reasonable for the article to address this. There are versions of the Cracker Barrel " Before" and " After User:WWB Too's changes were implemented, and just taking the section that deals with their assessment by the Human Rights Campaign:
Before Nonetheless, Cracker Barrel, along with Archer Daniels Midland and Nestle Purina Pet Care, achieved the lowest score (15 out of 100) of all rated food and beverage companies in the Human Rights Campaign's 2008 Corporate Equality Index, a measure of gay and lesbian workplace equality. Their score for 2011 had improved to a 55. |
After Cracker Barrel has been listed in the Human Rights Campaign's (HRC) Corporate Equality Index, which ranks companies by comparison of their non-discrimination policies and actions towards lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees and customers. In the 2011 survey, HRC noted that Cracker Barrel had established a non-discrimination policy and had introduced diversity training that included training related to sexual orientation. |
Leaving aside minor issues of wording, the "Before" is much better than the "After". Right? I think that any neutral reviewer would concede that. It's a more accurate summation of the key points of the Human Right's Campaign's findings in 2010 and 2011. (It's not like the "Before" is hatchet job; it says they improved to 55% in 2011 without even noting that the majority of the 600+ surveyed companies scored 100%, so 55% is still well below average.)
That's just one example, and there's tons more, but it'll have to do for now.
So anyway, since the article was better before (and this is typical of User:WWB Too's work, as near as I've had the time to determine so far), you probably shouldn't include User:WWB Too in a list of editors who "work actively to improve certain articles".
Because it's not true.
And since it's not true, why would you want to say it? I'm sincerely asking. What would be your reason for doing that? Herostratus ( talk) 04:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I have a number of thoughts in reply to the post above, but the first one is just this: I see your point. My version did remove a critical viewpoint from the article, and I should have explained the change when I offered up the new draft. This was and is my thought process:
Even if we agree this was a bad call, that is still a different thing than saying I am not working to improve articles. I often focus on articles that are a) poorly developed, and b) overly negative, and I think that was the case here. I certainly disagree with Herostratus that the Cracker Barrel article "was better before"; it was previously short, mostly unreferenced and preoccupied with controversies ( before); my version was better referenced and provided a more complete picture ( after). I was aiming for something that could pass GA, and I based my work on the Companies, corporations and economic information guideline from WikiProject Companies, as well as Good article criteria.
Moreover, I think Herostratus' broad interpretation of my work is very much incorrect. I offer as examples the articles about Dee Dee Myers ( before + after), Richard Stengel ( before + after), C-SPAN ( before + after) and WCSP-FM ( before + after). The latter two have even passed GA review.
That said, I think this issue shows why the wiki model is important generally, and why something like WP:COOPERATION is a good idea specifically. No one editor can make the right judgment call every time, and this is all the more true where COI is involved. I welcome this kind of review, even if it turns out I'm wrong at times. After all, collaboration is what Wikipedia is all about. Best, WWB Too ( talk) 14:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Back. I think that one cogent rebuttal to the lack of paid agents of "the Ralph Nader people or Jobs With Justice or the the Democratic Socialists of America or whomever" is that they're not needed because we have the functional equivalent: plenty of basically business-hating elitist and smarmy jejune schoolboy-lefty types, not even considering the disgruntled ex-employee/customer crowd, investigative-journalist wanabees, and possibly business rival of a given entity, consequently plenty of articles about entities are slanted against those entities.
It'd be a cogent point. How big a problem it is I don't know, but it's surely a problem on some level. I also don't know the answer. I don't think that permitting paid agents of the entities to edit the articles is a good solution, all thing considered. However, a couple of things that might help are formulating a WP:BLP policy for extant corporate entities. I'm not sure I would favor that but I might, and it's reasonable idea.
However, it would be difficult to push that through. But here's something, it's not much but it could help a little maybe. We have {{ advert}}, which says
This article appears to be written like
an advertisement. Please help
improve it by rewriting promotional content from a
neutral point of view and removing any inappropriate
external links. |
But we don't have the converse, something like this:
This article appears to be written like
a hatchet job. Please help
improve it by rewriting derogatory content from a
neutral point of view and removing any inappropriate
external links. |
(We probably want to use a more formal term than "hatchet job" I guess.) How about something like this? I'm willing to propose this. Would this be at all a helpful step to addressing this problem? Herostratus ( talk) 03:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
One of the tasks here is to regulate paid advocates. One of the steps to doing that, I think, would be to create a central registry of paid advocates (there are other ways also). This should be non-controversial I think (although you never know). I've created a page for this, it is here: User:Herostratus/Wikiproject Paid Editing Watch/Editor Registry.
Paid advocates are invited to register, other editors are invited to help out by adding known self-avowed paid agents (be sure to follow the instructions re providing proof), thanks. Herostratus ( talk) 07:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Well gosh. That other project ( Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation) is going great guns with loads of participants and lots of snappy material, and this one isn't, so I dunno. There's some overlap between these two projects. If you imagine a Venn diagram there'd be some overlap. Whether two separate projects is useful I'm not sure. Possibly not.
I guess the thrust of Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation is more or less "Paid editing is a positive good, and what we need to do is help paid agents navigate the various rules and pitfalls so that they can get their material into the Wikipedia" while the intended thrust of this project is more like "Paid editing is very problematic, and ought to be either outright banned or, if not, viewed with extreme skepticism".
Where there's some overlap is the question of controlling paid editors. Participants in both projects agree that, inasmuch as paid agents are currently permitted, they ought be controlled in some ways. But the thrust of this project is "watched with gimlet eye" while the thrust of the other project is more like "encouraged and mentored", I guess. Which is right is a matter of opinion I guess.
I note that something called CREWE (Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement) was formed on Facebook about a week ago and already has over 100 members. These are high-powered full time experienced and subtle and clever PR people, and it's kind of daunting to think about going up against them. Of course if one takes the view that the word "Ethical" in their title constitutes proof of ethical intent, it's not a problem. I suppose that people with that outlook on life must own a lot of ShamWows, but maybe that's OK.
Oh well. It's a complicated issue. If the general philosophy of this Wikiproject does indeed represent a distinct minority view, it arguably shouldn't go forward, as pressing contentious minority views isn't usually a good idea.
We don't have any money to hand out here, but we can make awards! I note that Greg Kohs (of MyWikiBiz), a CREWE participant and I guess sort of the "bad cop" as opposed to the suave "good cops" of the more established organizations represented at CREWE, awarded me "Wikipediot Tool of the Month" for creating this project. But it's not about me; I think all the "mental midgets" (Kohs again) that participate should be able to share this accolade:
Herostratus ( talk) 18:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
If the general philosophy of this Wikiproject does indeed represent a distinct minority view, it arguably shouldn't go forward, as pressing contentious minority views isn't usually a good idea.
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal: Articles about extant corporations. Herostratus ( talk) 18:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I've noticed that the established process for COI editing usually fails when a COI editor makes detailed comments on an article talk page, and then nobody responds in a constructive manner for days to months. So they will get discouraged and start editing the article, and get in trouble for being the most obviously COI editors possible. Then they start socking.
Do we need a template or some other means of communicating directly with COI editors to let them know to put a note for help up on WP:COIN after commenting on an article's talk page unless it's high traffic? Some other kind of WP:COIN-ping instructional outreach? A WP:BOTREQ for prominent notification of {{ Request edit}} uses more than a few days old? Selery ( talk) 18:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Some in-person face-to-face discussions could go a long way in improving the paid editor scenario. RKLawton mentioned to me (on Facebook) submitting a speaker submission to Wikimania. I think a civil panel would be more effective at reaching a balanced and refined outlook that considers varying viewpoints and have suggested a panel here: http://wikimania2012.wikimedia.org/wiki/Paid_Editors
The submissions appear to be openly editable. I'd like to encourage project participants to modify the submission as they see fit and sign their support if they would like to see a discussion on paid editing at the conference. Also, if I mentioned you as a potential speaker, but you don't wish to participate, let me know. If you would like to be a panelist and fit one of the buckets, let me know that too. King4057 ( talk) 03:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
The comments about the CREWE group in the list of links is inappropriate. The "evidence" given to support that CREWE is a pressure group is a comment by King, when King was kicked out of the group for promotion. So I wouldn't call that evidence at all. King and CREWE are completely separate at this point (though i'm working with both), but his comments cannot be attributed to anything related to a statement from CREWE. Silver seren C 03:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I have placed my name as one of the supporters of the project, because I support the basic idea of taking care that content for paid authors be NPOV, and otherwise in accord with our rules. However, I do not support the second goal, to adovcate for forbidding paid editing, and in fact intend to actively oppose any such restrictions. It is normal the Wikiprojects be worded so that anyone who supports the basic goals and existing rules of Wikipedia can join. There are a good many deletionists on the ARS wikiproject, and I am on the Conservatism wikiproject--their intentions, (I assume) and mine, are to see that the projects not go beyond the generally accepted guidelines, and change from "improving coverage" to advocacy--at least by receiving their notices. I do not think the project can enter mainspace with that goal present--it contradicts the foundational principle that anyone can edit. DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Like DGG, I, too, have placed my name on the list for this project, but do not necessarily endorse an outright ban on paid editing, whether it be by freelance paid Wikipedia editing specialists, employees of article subjects, or paid public relations people. I do support a variety of formal and community consensus restrictions on such editing, and understand the concerns of those who favor an outright ban. However, the neutral point of view includes a balanced presentation of all significant points of view about a topic. In the case of a corporation, for example, we want to report on the position of critics of the corporation, if their criticism has received significant coverage in reliable sources. At the same time, we want to report on the corporation's own response to the criticism, and paid spokespeople for the corporation are in the best position to help ensure that the coorporation's own point of view is reflected in our coverage. To allow the anti-corporate activists to edit freely, using only the reliable sources that they select, while denying any input from the corporation's advocates, may tend to skew the point of view of the article. Collaborative editing is proven to be the best assurance of neutrality. I recommend that all paid editors openly declare their COI, and that paid editor participation be limited to article talk pages, project pages and user talk pages of interested but unpaid editors, with the exception of reversion of overt, indisputable vandalism and correction of indisputable errors of fact, such as spelling and date errors as supported by all readily available reliable sources. I support creation of a noticeboard where representatives of corporations can propose changes or report problems with articles, as a backup to stagnant talk pages. I also recommend that editors assume good faith of contributors, until and unless there is strong evidence to the contrary. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I think that in many cases they can and should contribute in article space directly. One of the things a company wants to do is have the public aware of it, and have the basic facts about the business history and products widely visible. One of the things we want to do is have the basic information about notable businesses available in the encyclopedia . There can be a complete match between the two. I think it would be highly desirable if all NYSE companies, for example, made sure they had a page of this sort of Wikipedia--they will get there faster than we will. Now, there is additional information the company would like, to have visible, which is promotionalism. A good PR person can put in the material we want and omit the rest, or, at the worst, put in the material we want and we can delete the rest. (A more difficult problem is factual material written in a promotional way--sometimes this requires complete rewriting. Again , a good PR man can learn to avoid this.) The easiest way for us to edit this material is to make it visible, by knowing whom the authors are. I suggested, and so have others, that all paid editors must use their real name & give their affiliation; this has previously been rejected as opposed to the basic principle of permitting anonymity. I think it needs to be suggested again. When a public entity edits, there is no reason for it to be anonymous. Openness solves many problems. And, imho, part of the problem is the quality of the PR people who have been working here, especially for smaller companies--at the rates that some people are willing to do this work, no wonder we get bad editing. In large companies too, it often seems that Wikipedia is assigned to the least experienced. Using real names would help this immediately. DGG ( talk ) 16:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I read about this controversy on TechDirt. I haven't formed an opinion on paid editing, but I have an interest in public relations and propaganda and will help if I can. I was contributing to Wikipedia a few years ago and my interest dwindled after a while. I may try to help out more if I have time. Jay Tepper ( talk) 21:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
We're not really interested here in arguments in defense of paid editing, and especially not interested in long and contentious digressions on the matter. This Wikiproject is for people who've already made up their minds on the matter, and this talk page is to facilitate the work of the Wikiproject. If you don't agree with the basic goals and principles of this Wikiproject, you're invited to make your own or whatever, but please don't disrupt our work here, thanks. Herostratus ( talk) 19:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, mainly, we can use the Alerts section and this talk page as a noticeboard. That's the main thing right now, I guess. Ideas welcome, and let's see what develops. Herostratus ( talk) 19:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
As it stands, at Wikipedia:Paid editing (essay) and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Declaring an interest editors are basically adjured to declare if they're being paid to edit. I think this is insufficient -- instead, editors should be prohibited from being paid to edit -- but anyway, the suggestions are insufficient in my view. A couple of reforms to consider might be:
None of this should be contentious and paid editors should welcome these reforms as should all Wikipedians, in the interest of transparency. I'm not how to implement these, I would guess through changes to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Declaring an interest. At this time I'm putting the idea of reform up for discussion. Herostratus ( talk) 19:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
We need to find out if it's going to be OK to create a list of avowed paid editors, maybe as a subpage here. I don't see any reason why not. My inclination is to create the page and subject it to an advisory WP:MFD to determine if it's kosher.
It'd be interesting to then pair editors with volunteer watchers who vet their work as a volunteer activity. Normally this would be considered stalking, though, although when you're talking about paid editors a lot of rules such as WP:AGF are not applicable, I would say. Obviously this is pain the butt to have to do, and a waste of our resources, but since paid editors are here this has to be done one way or the other anyway, so I'm looking for ideas on the most effective way to do this. We need to determine if this particular scheme is good and also kosher, though.
I think a a couple of principles that would be good to establish, if they can be established, are:
How these can be established I'm not sure yet. Talk it up for starters, I guess.
Also, down the road, we need to think about covert paid editing. I think maybe a good way to deal with this is to after the source. We can't easily go after editors who are covertly accepting pay for editing except in stone-cold-obvious cases which are rare. Rather, we address the source of the money directly. I'm inclined to leave this aside for now as it's likely to be contentious. We need to determine the best ways to do this that is acceptable under Wikipedia rules (or change the rules if required). Herostratus ( talk) 19:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
A dialogue between the Foundation and the Public Relations Society of America would be possibly useful and perhaps should be suggested to the Foundation. Herostratus ( talk) 21:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I have lots of ideas about the objectives and would like to add a link to the plain and simple COI Essay. I'm a paid/COI editor and have already thought about this issue a lot in writing a draft Signpost op-ed the publication editors suggested and in my pet project (wikipediaethics.org). Is my participation welcome?
After all, nobody is paying me to contribute here ;-) Bad joke. I realize I have a certain point-of-view about paid editing that is not popular among the volunteer community due to their negative experiences with paid/COI editors. I say that Wikipedia can benefit from paid editors, but the reality is that's not how it is today. But I think I have a lot to contribute to this discussion nonetheless from the other side of the pond if you will. King4057 ( talk) 05:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
That is true, but the difficulty is that whilst an article might not be outwardly promotional, it can be written in a way that highlights positive aspects of them and hides away more negative information. I think this is pretty much inevitable if you are working for a client, but the result is that the article will differ from what relatively uninterested community would have written. I don't agree with Nomo's point about ABF, but as an editor who's spent way more time than I would have liked cleaning up after PR firms, I know that it can be difficult to AGF. SmartSE ( talk) 14:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Erm well, it's a complicated issue and no mistake.
One question I have right off for King4057, who said
Wait, you are being paid by an educational foundation or something? Yes, if the Smithsonian or whomever is paying you to create articles on the Wikipedia about Civil War regiments or something, that's entirely different. Of course! I don't think anybody has a problem with that; see the "Project name?" section below, where the case of professors is mentioned, and that's one reason we could change the name of the project to only cover advocacy. (BTW, though, if none of the few remaining copies of your source are available to the general public at some library or whatever, you probably can't use it as a source (not certain about that), but that's a different issue.) I was mainly thinking about companies, politicians, governments and parties, and like that. Your case is entirely different and we need to make the clear, yes.
Anyway, it's a complicated issue. My opinion is that overall paid advocacy editing is a net negative, for a lot of reasons. One of them is the effect on our reputation. Another is the effect on on morale. A third is corruption of our processes. But mainly, no, I don't believe that entities "merely want a neutral Wikipedia article". Because, you know, one man's neutral is another man's whitewashing, and putting money on the table just makes this impossible to fairly determine.
Tell you what. When someone can point me out an instance where the CEO or head of public relations of a company called you up and said "Smith, I just read our Wikipedia article, and it's horrible. There's no mention of our steadily declining market share and profit margins that are sub-par for our industry! What's more, it doesn't even point out that Consumer Reports rated our product as unsafe and that we're under investigation by the SEC. Dammit, Smith, the article makes us look like Mother Theresa for chrissakes! Profits and reputation be damned, our first obligation is to the readers of the Wikipedia, not our damn stockholders! I want accuracy in our Wikipedia article, and I don't care what it costs -- fix it!" When someone can point me to instances of this sort of thing, maybe I'll change my mind. Herostratus ( talk) 06:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
OK! Now that my ANI has run its course, I feel like I can start participating again without fear of backlash. Thanks to everyone who supported me and helped clear my name. In the long run, I am very glad the ANI happened, because it shed so much light on this issue and got so many editors involved. But I do admit it was unpleasant. I had no idea that emotions ran so high on this issue and that so many editors would demand my head on a platter. In any case, it's water under the bridge now. I am ready to join the cause. What can I do? Ebikeguy ( talk) 14:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Jimbo suggested that the project be retitled to "Wikiproject Paid Advocacy Watch" on these grounds: "a hypothetical professor whose University decides to value Wikipedia highly and asks the professors to contribute to Wikipedia on topics where they have expertise, i.e. they are now being paid (in some small part at least) to edit Wikipedia. That's a good thing, generally." I'm a bit of a "dry" on paid editing -- I'm just against it -- but I understand the point. I'm also inclined to take suggestions from Jimbo fairly seriously.
I also understand the where there's inappropriately defamatory material on an entity and so forth, that's very vexing to the entity, and while that'd possibly be fixed eventually anyway money can speed things up. So I don't know what to say about that...
Anyway, would "Wikiproject Paid Advocacy Watch" be a better name? Thoughts? Herostratus ( talk) 11:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Herostratus, I'm interested to know what you might think a constructive volunteer editor / client representative interaction would look like. On Jimbo's Talk page, you recently wrote:
I agree with this wholeheartedly. And do you think that one could substitute "New York Times" for "Wikipedia" and the same would be true? If Wikipedia did not contain a true, guideline-appropriate fact about a client, and a PR rep persuaded an independent editor to help add it, wouldn't that be acceptable? Surely this could not be considered "hacking" the project. Can you explain what you would find to be a successful WP-PR engagement? WWB Too ( talk) 09:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
All, I thought you might be interested in this page I recently found, User:Silver seren/Wikiproject Cooperation. It seems like that proposed Wikiproject has some similar motivations to this one, but approaches things from a significantly different angle. Thoughts? Ebikeguy ( talk) 01:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
It's possible in some ways. For instance we're all in favor of increasing the transparency of overt paid editors as long as there are paid editors, by some scheme such as flagging their sigs and so forth. In other areas, I guess we disagree and the that project has a different point of view than this one. For instance, there's this (at the other project): "This is a list of users who have openly disclosed their conflicts of interest and work actively to improve certain articles" followed by two names, User:WWB Too and User:King4057.
I don't know about User:King4057, but that's surely not a correct characterization of User:WWB Too. I'll give an example below. It's representative, I think it fair to say. Not to perseverate on Cracker Barrel, but I haven't had time to vet a lot of User:WWB Too's work, so I'll stick with that for now. OK, Cracker Barrel had some issues in the past with firing employees for being gay, so it's reasonable for the article to address this. There are versions of the Cracker Barrel " Before" and " After User:WWB Too's changes were implemented, and just taking the section that deals with their assessment by the Human Rights Campaign:
Before Nonetheless, Cracker Barrel, along with Archer Daniels Midland and Nestle Purina Pet Care, achieved the lowest score (15 out of 100) of all rated food and beverage companies in the Human Rights Campaign's 2008 Corporate Equality Index, a measure of gay and lesbian workplace equality. Their score for 2011 had improved to a 55. |
After Cracker Barrel has been listed in the Human Rights Campaign's (HRC) Corporate Equality Index, which ranks companies by comparison of their non-discrimination policies and actions towards lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees and customers. In the 2011 survey, HRC noted that Cracker Barrel had established a non-discrimination policy and had introduced diversity training that included training related to sexual orientation. |
Leaving aside minor issues of wording, the "Before" is much better than the "After". Right? I think that any neutral reviewer would concede that. It's a more accurate summation of the key points of the Human Right's Campaign's findings in 2010 and 2011. (It's not like the "Before" is hatchet job; it says they improved to 55% in 2011 without even noting that the majority of the 600+ surveyed companies scored 100%, so 55% is still well below average.)
That's just one example, and there's tons more, but it'll have to do for now.
So anyway, since the article was better before (and this is typical of User:WWB Too's work, as near as I've had the time to determine so far), you probably shouldn't include User:WWB Too in a list of editors who "work actively to improve certain articles".
Because it's not true.
And since it's not true, why would you want to say it? I'm sincerely asking. What would be your reason for doing that? Herostratus ( talk) 04:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I have a number of thoughts in reply to the post above, but the first one is just this: I see your point. My version did remove a critical viewpoint from the article, and I should have explained the change when I offered up the new draft. This was and is my thought process:
Even if we agree this was a bad call, that is still a different thing than saying I am not working to improve articles. I often focus on articles that are a) poorly developed, and b) overly negative, and I think that was the case here. I certainly disagree with Herostratus that the Cracker Barrel article "was better before"; it was previously short, mostly unreferenced and preoccupied with controversies ( before); my version was better referenced and provided a more complete picture ( after). I was aiming for something that could pass GA, and I based my work on the Companies, corporations and economic information guideline from WikiProject Companies, as well as Good article criteria.
Moreover, I think Herostratus' broad interpretation of my work is very much incorrect. I offer as examples the articles about Dee Dee Myers ( before + after), Richard Stengel ( before + after), C-SPAN ( before + after) and WCSP-FM ( before + after). The latter two have even passed GA review.
That said, I think this issue shows why the wiki model is important generally, and why something like WP:COOPERATION is a good idea specifically. No one editor can make the right judgment call every time, and this is all the more true where COI is involved. I welcome this kind of review, even if it turns out I'm wrong at times. After all, collaboration is what Wikipedia is all about. Best, WWB Too ( talk) 14:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Back. I think that one cogent rebuttal to the lack of paid agents of "the Ralph Nader people or Jobs With Justice or the the Democratic Socialists of America or whomever" is that they're not needed because we have the functional equivalent: plenty of basically business-hating elitist and smarmy jejune schoolboy-lefty types, not even considering the disgruntled ex-employee/customer crowd, investigative-journalist wanabees, and possibly business rival of a given entity, consequently plenty of articles about entities are slanted against those entities.
It'd be a cogent point. How big a problem it is I don't know, but it's surely a problem on some level. I also don't know the answer. I don't think that permitting paid agents of the entities to edit the articles is a good solution, all thing considered. However, a couple of things that might help are formulating a WP:BLP policy for extant corporate entities. I'm not sure I would favor that but I might, and it's reasonable idea.
However, it would be difficult to push that through. But here's something, it's not much but it could help a little maybe. We have {{ advert}}, which says
This article appears to be written like
an advertisement. Please help
improve it by rewriting promotional content from a
neutral point of view and removing any inappropriate
external links. |
But we don't have the converse, something like this:
This article appears to be written like
a hatchet job. Please help
improve it by rewriting derogatory content from a
neutral point of view and removing any inappropriate
external links. |
(We probably want to use a more formal term than "hatchet job" I guess.) How about something like this? I'm willing to propose this. Would this be at all a helpful step to addressing this problem? Herostratus ( talk) 03:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
One of the tasks here is to regulate paid advocates. One of the steps to doing that, I think, would be to create a central registry of paid advocates (there are other ways also). This should be non-controversial I think (although you never know). I've created a page for this, it is here: User:Herostratus/Wikiproject Paid Editing Watch/Editor Registry.
Paid advocates are invited to register, other editors are invited to help out by adding known self-avowed paid agents (be sure to follow the instructions re providing proof), thanks. Herostratus ( talk) 07:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Well gosh. That other project ( Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation) is going great guns with loads of participants and lots of snappy material, and this one isn't, so I dunno. There's some overlap between these two projects. If you imagine a Venn diagram there'd be some overlap. Whether two separate projects is useful I'm not sure. Possibly not.
I guess the thrust of Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation is more or less "Paid editing is a positive good, and what we need to do is help paid agents navigate the various rules and pitfalls so that they can get their material into the Wikipedia" while the intended thrust of this project is more like "Paid editing is very problematic, and ought to be either outright banned or, if not, viewed with extreme skepticism".
Where there's some overlap is the question of controlling paid editors. Participants in both projects agree that, inasmuch as paid agents are currently permitted, they ought be controlled in some ways. But the thrust of this project is "watched with gimlet eye" while the thrust of the other project is more like "encouraged and mentored", I guess. Which is right is a matter of opinion I guess.
I note that something called CREWE (Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement) was formed on Facebook about a week ago and already has over 100 members. These are high-powered full time experienced and subtle and clever PR people, and it's kind of daunting to think about going up against them. Of course if one takes the view that the word "Ethical" in their title constitutes proof of ethical intent, it's not a problem. I suppose that people with that outlook on life must own a lot of ShamWows, but maybe that's OK.
Oh well. It's a complicated issue. If the general philosophy of this Wikiproject does indeed represent a distinct minority view, it arguably shouldn't go forward, as pressing contentious minority views isn't usually a good idea.
We don't have any money to hand out here, but we can make awards! I note that Greg Kohs (of MyWikiBiz), a CREWE participant and I guess sort of the "bad cop" as opposed to the suave "good cops" of the more established organizations represented at CREWE, awarded me "Wikipediot Tool of the Month" for creating this project. But it's not about me; I think all the "mental midgets" (Kohs again) that participate should be able to share this accolade:
Herostratus ( talk) 18:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
If the general philosophy of this Wikiproject does indeed represent a distinct minority view, it arguably shouldn't go forward, as pressing contentious minority views isn't usually a good idea.
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal: Articles about extant corporations. Herostratus ( talk) 18:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I've noticed that the established process for COI editing usually fails when a COI editor makes detailed comments on an article talk page, and then nobody responds in a constructive manner for days to months. So they will get discouraged and start editing the article, and get in trouble for being the most obviously COI editors possible. Then they start socking.
Do we need a template or some other means of communicating directly with COI editors to let them know to put a note for help up on WP:COIN after commenting on an article's talk page unless it's high traffic? Some other kind of WP:COIN-ping instructional outreach? A WP:BOTREQ for prominent notification of {{ Request edit}} uses more than a few days old? Selery ( talk) 18:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Some in-person face-to-face discussions could go a long way in improving the paid editor scenario. RKLawton mentioned to me (on Facebook) submitting a speaker submission to Wikimania. I think a civil panel would be more effective at reaching a balanced and refined outlook that considers varying viewpoints and have suggested a panel here: http://wikimania2012.wikimedia.org/wiki/Paid_Editors
The submissions appear to be openly editable. I'd like to encourage project participants to modify the submission as they see fit and sign their support if they would like to see a discussion on paid editing at the conference. Also, if I mentioned you as a potential speaker, but you don't wish to participate, let me know. If you would like to be a panelist and fit one of the buckets, let me know that too. King4057 ( talk) 03:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
The comments about the CREWE group in the list of links is inappropriate. The "evidence" given to support that CREWE is a pressure group is a comment by King, when King was kicked out of the group for promotion. So I wouldn't call that evidence at all. King and CREWE are completely separate at this point (though i'm working with both), but his comments cannot be attributed to anything related to a statement from CREWE. Silver seren C 03:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I have placed my name as one of the supporters of the project, because I support the basic idea of taking care that content for paid authors be NPOV, and otherwise in accord with our rules. However, I do not support the second goal, to adovcate for forbidding paid editing, and in fact intend to actively oppose any such restrictions. It is normal the Wikiprojects be worded so that anyone who supports the basic goals and existing rules of Wikipedia can join. There are a good many deletionists on the ARS wikiproject, and I am on the Conservatism wikiproject--their intentions, (I assume) and mine, are to see that the projects not go beyond the generally accepted guidelines, and change from "improving coverage" to advocacy--at least by receiving their notices. I do not think the project can enter mainspace with that goal present--it contradicts the foundational principle that anyone can edit. DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Like DGG, I, too, have placed my name on the list for this project, but do not necessarily endorse an outright ban on paid editing, whether it be by freelance paid Wikipedia editing specialists, employees of article subjects, or paid public relations people. I do support a variety of formal and community consensus restrictions on such editing, and understand the concerns of those who favor an outright ban. However, the neutral point of view includes a balanced presentation of all significant points of view about a topic. In the case of a corporation, for example, we want to report on the position of critics of the corporation, if their criticism has received significant coverage in reliable sources. At the same time, we want to report on the corporation's own response to the criticism, and paid spokespeople for the corporation are in the best position to help ensure that the coorporation's own point of view is reflected in our coverage. To allow the anti-corporate activists to edit freely, using only the reliable sources that they select, while denying any input from the corporation's advocates, may tend to skew the point of view of the article. Collaborative editing is proven to be the best assurance of neutrality. I recommend that all paid editors openly declare their COI, and that paid editor participation be limited to article talk pages, project pages and user talk pages of interested but unpaid editors, with the exception of reversion of overt, indisputable vandalism and correction of indisputable errors of fact, such as spelling and date errors as supported by all readily available reliable sources. I support creation of a noticeboard where representatives of corporations can propose changes or report problems with articles, as a backup to stagnant talk pages. I also recommend that editors assume good faith of contributors, until and unless there is strong evidence to the contrary. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I think that in many cases they can and should contribute in article space directly. One of the things a company wants to do is have the public aware of it, and have the basic facts about the business history and products widely visible. One of the things we want to do is have the basic information about notable businesses available in the encyclopedia . There can be a complete match between the two. I think it would be highly desirable if all NYSE companies, for example, made sure they had a page of this sort of Wikipedia--they will get there faster than we will. Now, there is additional information the company would like, to have visible, which is promotionalism. A good PR person can put in the material we want and omit the rest, or, at the worst, put in the material we want and we can delete the rest. (A more difficult problem is factual material written in a promotional way--sometimes this requires complete rewriting. Again , a good PR man can learn to avoid this.) The easiest way for us to edit this material is to make it visible, by knowing whom the authors are. I suggested, and so have others, that all paid editors must use their real name & give their affiliation; this has previously been rejected as opposed to the basic principle of permitting anonymity. I think it needs to be suggested again. When a public entity edits, there is no reason for it to be anonymous. Openness solves many problems. And, imho, part of the problem is the quality of the PR people who have been working here, especially for smaller companies--at the rates that some people are willing to do this work, no wonder we get bad editing. In large companies too, it often seems that Wikipedia is assigned to the least experienced. Using real names would help this immediately. DGG ( talk ) 16:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I read about this controversy on TechDirt. I haven't formed an opinion on paid editing, but I have an interest in public relations and propaganda and will help if I can. I was contributing to Wikipedia a few years ago and my interest dwindled after a while. I may try to help out more if I have time. Jay Tepper ( talk) 21:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)