User:Ocaasi/Jimbo

''The goal of these questions is to tell a story, your story. Please feel free to share instinctual answers as well as considered commentary, any tensions you feel about issues, or neat anecdotes that will help another editor see the world through your eyes.''

Group 1
====When was the first time paid editing came onto your radar? When you conceived of Wikipedia, did you ever imagine that editors would be compensated for their work, or that companies would employ people to influence articles?====

For some time editors attempted to license paid articles for reuse on a separate website so they could be ported over to Wikipedia. This arrangement seemed to work for a time; what changed?
====In 2005 you were criticized]] and Corporate Representatives for editing your own article and the article about your prior business, [[Bomis. How do you explain those actions in light of your current stance against paid or COI editing? What did you learn from that early experience?====

You've been the most visible and strident promoter of the "brightline" rule prohibiting direct editing. What influenced your thinking around this practice, and why do you think it is so important?
====In my reading, WP:COI at the least allows uncontroversial or minor changes, and at the maximum allows any non-promotional edits even major ones, although they are "strongly discouraged". Do you agree that the brightline rule is not policy? If so, why do you think the community hasn't implemented it; if not, why do you think it's not widely accepted?====

====From the 2009 paid editing RfC to the 2012 COI RfC, a direct prohibition of paid editing has failed to gain consensus. You've described those who support or tolerate paid editing as an 'extreme minority'. Is it possible that there's not as much opposition to paid editing as you think, or even that your view is in the minority?====

====The Public Relations Journal of the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) published a report by Marcia DiStaso based on a survey of public relations professionals. That study was popularized some media for the result that 60% of pr professionals said the articles about their clients contained errors. What did you think of that result, of the study, and of the attention it received?====

====The Marcia DiStaso study noted that when editors attempted to propose rather than directly make changes, responses were sometimes not received (25%) and others took days or weeks. Do you think promoting brightline makes it easier for PR professionals to blame Wikipedia for the errors that they are presumably not allowed to correct? Do you think a fair corollary to brightline is that Wikipedia improve its responsiveness to PR editor suggestions and edit requests? ====

What role do you think PR organizations such as PRSA and CIPR can play in improving the relationship between their industry and Wikipedia?
====There seems to be a trend, or at least the emergence of one, of experienced editors beginning to offer their services and expertise, as Wikipedia 'consultants'. What do you think of that trend? Is it compatible with a neutral encyclopedia?====

====You once described Wikipedia as a novel economic development where distributed communities of people with time, knowledge, and interest produce content that would otherwise be economically unfeasible. You have also described Wikipedia as a 'cathedral of knowledge', a place free from the detritus of commercial motivations and advertising in particular. Do you think paid editors or even advocates can ever be welcome in that picture?====

In 10 years, what would it meant to you if there was an entire cottage industry of Wikipedia editors who were paid for their work? Do you think the encyclopedia could survive such a development?
====You've identified paid advocacy as a unique problem, but unpaid advocacy is also something the encyclopedia deals with regularly. The worst of those cases result in ArbCom cases, blocks, and bans. As the community has mechanisms to deal with unpaid advocacy, do you think paid editing or even paid advocacy is more of a threat?====

====WP:BLP policy has gone a long way towards recognizing and remedying the real harm that Wikipedia can do to living people. Do you think there is imbalance in the fact that we do not have a corresponding policy protecting corporations from real harm?====

We assume good faith here. Why is it appropriate to assume that a person, just because they are paid, is out to spin rather than improve an article?
====You make a distinction between an employed academic versus a PR professional--the first editing editing in their free time in the area of their expertise, and the second as an inevitable advocate who shouldn't edit directly at all. Does 'advocacy' lie in the person or the person's behavior?====

====One of the challenges of updating COI policy has been the difficulty of codifying who exactly is an advocate versus just an editor, and what types of edits are controversial versus benign. What are your thoughts on the task of making COI policy more detailed, concrete, and effective.====