Template talk:Paid contributions

Make talk page discussion mandatory when this template is used
The documentation of COI includes (emphasis in original):

"Like the other neutrality-related tags, if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article . If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning. Be careful not to violate the policy against WP:OUTING users who have not publicly self-disclosed their identities on the English Wikipedia."

I propose to add the same to the documentation of this template. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * After seeing this template used as a drive-by at Embarcadero Technologies and Idera, Inc. I'm of the opinion something more needs to be done to keep this template from being abused. The initial editor (same in both instances) did not make the required talk page section, and after reverting and finally beginning the discussion, did not provide any detail on what part or who contributed the allegedly paid contributions. In other words: I can't try and fix what I don't know is wrong. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've gone through the WhatLinksHere for this template and am into the G's now, so far I've removed almost every single instance of this template as there was either no talk page discussion created to resolve the issue that this template exposes, or in one instance, it was added by someone who had already redacted copyrighted material. I'll continue this later. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm borderline tempted to add a required variable that links to the specific talk page section (or is a diff) that would hide this template if it is not present. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Someday someone is going to have to explain to me how our paid edit behaviors wash with WP:AGF... I'm literally finding articles where this banner has been slapped on with the talk page being blank or just headers... —Locke Cole • t • c 01:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Stop right now. You have removed templates legitimately added. In some cases talk page discussions are not appropriate, or the discussion is on the user's talk page, or it is in OTRS where it is private. While a talk page discussion is desirable, it is not a necessary condition for the presence of that template. I am in mind to revert every one of your changes rather than temporarily block you to cease this disruption. Templates should be removed on a case-by-case basis. At the very least, you should contact the editor who added the template before removing it. Generally if the template exists in an article, it does so for good reason. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:47, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Negative Ghost Rider, the pattern is full: "If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning.". Further, I've left it on a handful of appropriate articles where it seems there was an actual discussion started or in progress near the time it was added... —Locke Cole • t • c 01:49, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you even read my comment? A talk page discussion is not a requirement for the presence of the template. The absence of a discussion is grounds for removal, but does not require removal. You appear to be misinterpreting the words as instructions to remove; they are not. And the discussion may not be taking place on the talk page, for good reason. Furthermore, in many cases the template should be Undisclosed paid but this template was put there in error. As I said, these should be examined on a case by case basis, not simply applying a crude litmus test for mass-blanking, as you are doing. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Verbiage
So the template, as it is, is something that an editor would naturally want to get removed by fixing whatever issues the placing editor sees in the article at the time they place this template. It's been discussed on my talk page that perhaps this should be a strictly informational template informing readers that an article with this template placed on it has been contributed to by paid editors. To that end, I propose the following wording:


 * This article contains paid contributions.

And switch out the image for the image used at UPD. No commentary on neutral point of view, no invitation to cleanup the article to get the template removed, and no suggestion that discussion is necessary. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I would be satisfied if the middle sentence ("It may require cleanup...") were removed. It's fine to encourage talk page discussion, so the last sentence should stay.
 * My chief concern is the documentation. I would prefer the yellow highlighted text to say "if you place this tag, you should start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain why you tagged the article." It still demands an explanation but removes the context of neutrality.
 * I object to the sentence about removing the tag as written, as it leads to misunderstandings as illustrated by the section above. I would replace it with "If you remove this tag after you have performed due diligence that any paid contributions in the article history have been removed or replaced, and the article content is neutral, then leave a note on the talk page explaining your reasoning, or leave a courtesy message on the user talk page of the editor who placed the tag."
 * The changes above encourage commenting on the talk page for both adding and removing the template. Generally when this template is added, it is added for good reason. The reasoning may not be on the talk page, or it may be in the talk page archives, or it may be in an edit summary. The editor who removes it should do so after examining how the tag came to be there in the first place. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:28, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think there's confusion about what this template is: the folks adding it appear to be adding it as a means of communicating to readers that the article has/had contributions by paid contributors. The actual use of this template is to point out issues (or potential issues) of neutrality in the article because of paid contributions.
 * The reason there is a requirement to start a discussion is precisely because this template should be temporary until the perceived concerns have either been addressed or discussion has resulted in them being dismissed. My proposal is to turn it into a scarlet letter of sorts once paid contributions have been identified. We presently only have these types of templates on the talk page for articles, but as there appears to be some community interest in an article tag, this is where my proposal is going. I'm neither for/against this concept, I just know the current situation of a NPOV template being misused is untenable and inappropriate when we have other templates that communicate NPOV concerns with more precision and more clarity (peacock, NPOV, advert, etc). As it's an article tag, discussion in private, on user talk pages, and elsewhere are not appropriate for resolving the article concerns. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The intended purpose of this template, according to Templates for discussion/Log/2014 March 19, is to comply with an EU directive. While WP:NODISCLAIMERS prohibits this template being used as a permanent scarlet letter (and it shouldn't be used for that purpose), it is required to notify others of a possible need to clean up.
 * The problem with this template is the incomplete and invalid instructions.
 * Regardless of whether there is a talk page discussion, removal must require due diligence. Before removing the template, all of these questions should have a negative answer:
 * Is there a talk page discussion in the archives?
 * Was there a rationale given in the edit summary when the template was placed?
 * Does the article seem biased or non-neutral in any way?
 * If the answer to any one of those is "yes" then the template must not be removed. In some cases, there absolutely cannot be talk page discussion if off-wiki evidence risks violating WP:OUTING.
 * Bottom line: Lack of a talk page discussion is not a basis for removal. The wording should be changed to reflect that reality. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with ,but the primary purpose of this template is to follow WP policy (it's also required by the EU, but WP is not directly subject to the EU's directives) (and for that matter, its I think also require by the US FTC, but their rule is apparently not being enforced). Even if the EU and the US didn't have their rules, we do.  . The template needs to remain to alert the reader and maintain our standard of NPOV.  Personally, I'd prefer that our policy require that the template always remain at the head of the article, but that's not the current consensus.  DGG ( talk ) 06:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I also agree with, especially in that I may not be able to identify what is non-neutral about the article, but see a need for the article to be checkd for compliance with content policies anyway. This is especially the case with medical articles that are the result of paid contributions - I do not have the expertise to evaluate them, but the risk entailed by medical articles containing problematic content is high, so while I cannot personally identify the issues I still wish to flag the possibility so that someone who does have expertise can evaluate the content. Can we have some consensus on an initial small change per Anachronist, from "if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article" to "if you place this tag, you should start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain why you tagged the article"? - Bilby (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've decided just to be bold and make the change per the above discussion. My concern is that neutrality is only one of many problems that are created by paid editing - the use of unreliable sources, fake sources, misrepresented sources that fail verification, and unbalanced coverage are all concerns. Because of the breadth of potential issues, simply assuming that the problem must be a matter of neutrality is incorrect. - Bilby (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)