User:PaleoNeonate/OfPaidEditingAndCOI

Of paid editing and conflict of interest
This is a personal understanding of the problem and may not reflect Wikipedia policies or the opinion of all editors.

This is a complex issue. The notability of Wikipedia makes it an attractive advertizing target. The best scenario is when a topic, person, company or organization is so notable already that third party, uninvolved, unpaid, volunteer editors are glad to create the relevant articles and maintain them. This allows articles to be balanced and neutral. Since the topic was already notable enough to merit an article, this does not pollute the encyclopedia but improves it.

Unfortunately, many articles are created by people on themselves, their group or by WP:PAID editors who are hired to write and maintain them. The result is generally articles on non-notable topics written with a promotional tone. A number of those articles will get deleted, some will be recreated and some will survive the WP:AFD process when notability can be demonstrated. Those which survive (escape patrolling or pass AfD) often still remain in bad state with promotional and unverified content. The main reason is that unpaid volunteers are unlikely to spend much effort improving articles on subjects they don't care about, especially when this must be repeated as promotional material is reinserted.

From experience, I seem to encounter more obvious undisclosed WP:COI editors than disclosed ones despite the disclosure policy but must assume good faith WP:AGF when they deny it or ignore disclosure requests. Too many do not get sanctions, a number of promotional articles are not being patrolled correctly then remain in main, draft and user space. Patrolling and pruning promotion from articles are themselves difficult tasks, also done by unpaid volunteers.

These admirable volunteers must not only sacrifice a lot of time doing it, they must constantly face the wrath of COI editors who believe that editing and advertizing on Wikipedia is their right rather than a privilege. When the COI editor's response is civil, it generally is a request for the patroller to work on the article themselves such that it conforms to Wikipedia (something that either requires sacrifice or a firm decline). These volunteers must be bold yet polite, must have a great deal of patience as well as the required evaluation and communication skills.

Some claim that the level of undisclosed paid and conflict of interest editing is increasing because of the disdain volunteers have against it. I consider this disdain natural and an expression of intellectual honesty and integrity. I think that the actual reasons many involved editors don't disclose their conflict of interest are systemic:
 * Their main goal is to advertize, beyond what is acceptable in an encyclopedia.
 * After disclosure, their process would be slowed down (i.e. making edit requests rather than editing directly, presenting sources for review by generally unimpressed volunteers instead of simply spamming them into articles).
 * More risks involved for employees who may risk getting fired for malpractice despite being hired as PR/SEO agents.
 * Simpler to edit using multiple accounts as necessary (for block evasion or consensus gaming).
 * Easier for officials to deny involvement in using Wikipedia for promotion (and accuse third parties of doing so if necessary).
 * Being aware that most fellow editors are unpaid volunteers, it is easier to try to mix-in if possible.

I am not claiming that all groups with intern Wikipedians necessarily do the above. Some very notable and large corporations have disclosed paid editors, per policy and generally manage to keep their articles in high quality encyclopedic state. It however demonstrates how complex the problem is...