Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
|
||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Paid Editing Proposals |
In November 2013, there were three main discussions and votes on paid editing: |
No paid advocacy ( talk) (closed: opposed) |
Paid editing policy proposal ( talk) (closed: opposed) |
Conflict of interest limit ( talk) (closed: opposed) |
We can't force paid editors to disclose their status, can't detect them unless they are incompetent, and can't impose any penalty other than forcing them change their email account. Of all the editors trying to push a point, the paid editors are a tiny minority. Saying "We disapprove of editors working for pay" is pointless. Let's stick to policies that say what result is wanted, not how the result should be achieved. Aymatth2 ( talk) 02:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
As a PR person who only very rarely edits Wikipedia on behalf of clients and discloses COI when I do so, you're talking about creating a policy that those of us who do it right already functionally follow and those who do it wrong won't honor.
While I can't speak to other countries, in the US PR professionals who follow the Public Relations Society of America's Code of Ethics are already required to "Be honest and accurate in all communications" and "Reveal sponsors for represented causes and interests." In 2008, PRSA issued Internet-specific guidance on this topic, saying:
The use of deceptive identities or misleading descriptions of goals, causes, tactics, sponsors or participants to further the objectives of any group constitutes improper conduct under the PRSA Member Code of Ethics and should be avoided. PRSA members should not engage in or encourage the practice of misrepresenting organizations and individuals through the use of blogs, viral marketing, social media and/or anonymous Internet postings.
As I've said elsewhere in these discussions, I think we should focus on the quality and neutrality of the content, since that's not only what a legitimate PR person is going to try to create but also the entire point of Wikipedia in the first place. Trying to differentiate financially-motivated sock puppets from religiously-motivated sock puppets (see Scientology) from whatever else is motivating editors who are trying to use Wikipedia as a forum for proselytization distracts us from the real issue, which is protecting the reliability of the encyclopedia from anybody with an ax to grind.
And in the interest of disclosure, I'm a member but not a representative of the PRSA and I'm not being compensated for this, other than in the general sense that I'm writing it from my desk in a PR agency that may some day be asked to make an edit to a client's Wikipedia page. (But I should be doing work for paying clients right now, so my net financial interest is negative.) Jmozena ( talk) 18:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion far greater harm is done to Wikipedia by non-commercial pressure groups than is done by commercial editors. The problem is that any contentious topic attracts groups of editors promoting a particular cause. They often try to use WP as a medium for promoting their cause. Ensuing battles do little to maintain encyclopedic quality. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 11:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion the solution to both problems is to focus on content and not on the editor. We need to rigorously apply the core principles of WP, in particular WP:NPOV and encyclopedic style. My suggestions are:
WP:NPOV should be applied not only to the literal content but to the tone, style, and the prominence of any statement.
Just because it is true does not mean it should go in WP; facts must be presented neutrally and in context and proportion
Just because there is a reliable source does not mean that it should go in WP; due weight must always be given to any sourced fact.
Quotations, event properly attributed, should not be used to circumvent NPOV, however well sourced that they are.
We should all remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, an advertisement, or a propaganda sheet. Everyone should, in my opinion, have a look at one of the well known printed encyclopedias such as Chambers or Britannica before editing here to see what 'encyclopedic style' means. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 11:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
|
||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Paid Editing Proposals |
In November 2013, there were three main discussions and votes on paid editing: |
No paid advocacy ( talk) (closed: opposed) |
Paid editing policy proposal ( talk) (closed: opposed) |
Conflict of interest limit ( talk) (closed: opposed) |
We can't force paid editors to disclose their status, can't detect them unless they are incompetent, and can't impose any penalty other than forcing them change their email account. Of all the editors trying to push a point, the paid editors are a tiny minority. Saying "We disapprove of editors working for pay" is pointless. Let's stick to policies that say what result is wanted, not how the result should be achieved. Aymatth2 ( talk) 02:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
As a PR person who only very rarely edits Wikipedia on behalf of clients and discloses COI when I do so, you're talking about creating a policy that those of us who do it right already functionally follow and those who do it wrong won't honor.
While I can't speak to other countries, in the US PR professionals who follow the Public Relations Society of America's Code of Ethics are already required to "Be honest and accurate in all communications" and "Reveal sponsors for represented causes and interests." In 2008, PRSA issued Internet-specific guidance on this topic, saying:
The use of deceptive identities or misleading descriptions of goals, causes, tactics, sponsors or participants to further the objectives of any group constitutes improper conduct under the PRSA Member Code of Ethics and should be avoided. PRSA members should not engage in or encourage the practice of misrepresenting organizations and individuals through the use of blogs, viral marketing, social media and/or anonymous Internet postings.
As I've said elsewhere in these discussions, I think we should focus on the quality and neutrality of the content, since that's not only what a legitimate PR person is going to try to create but also the entire point of Wikipedia in the first place. Trying to differentiate financially-motivated sock puppets from religiously-motivated sock puppets (see Scientology) from whatever else is motivating editors who are trying to use Wikipedia as a forum for proselytization distracts us from the real issue, which is protecting the reliability of the encyclopedia from anybody with an ax to grind.
And in the interest of disclosure, I'm a member but not a representative of the PRSA and I'm not being compensated for this, other than in the general sense that I'm writing it from my desk in a PR agency that may some day be asked to make an edit to a client's Wikipedia page. (But I should be doing work for paying clients right now, so my net financial interest is negative.) Jmozena ( talk) 18:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion far greater harm is done to Wikipedia by non-commercial pressure groups than is done by commercial editors. The problem is that any contentious topic attracts groups of editors promoting a particular cause. They often try to use WP as a medium for promoting their cause. Ensuing battles do little to maintain encyclopedic quality. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 11:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion the solution to both problems is to focus on content and not on the editor. We need to rigorously apply the core principles of WP, in particular WP:NPOV and encyclopedic style. My suggestions are:
WP:NPOV should be applied not only to the literal content but to the tone, style, and the prominence of any statement.
Just because it is true does not mean it should go in WP; facts must be presented neutrally and in context and proportion
Just because there is a reliable source does not mean that it should go in WP; due weight must always be given to any sourced fact.
Quotations, event properly attributed, should not be used to circumvent NPOV, however well sourced that they are.
We should all remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, an advertisement, or a propaganda sheet. Everyone should, in my opinion, have a look at one of the well known printed encyclopedias such as Chambers or Britannica before editing here to see what 'encyclopedic style' means. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 11:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)