Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-04-16/Paid editing


 * Does Wikipedia Pay? is an ongoing Signpost series seeking to illuminate paid editing and paid advocacy, for-profit Wikipedia consultants, editing public relations professionals, Conflict of Interest guidelines in practice, and the Wikipedians who work on these issues—by speaking openly with the people involved.

The Conflict of Interest Request for Comment is in full swing, various scandals are just settling in the news (including Portland Communications and Bell Pottinger, whose editing problems came under scrutiny as early as December last year), and the topic of paid editing raises its head regularly on Jimbo Wales' talk page. The idea of someone editing Wikipedia for financial gain remains highly controversial. As with any major conflict, it can be easy for participants to become entrenched in their views, to see things in extremes, and to substitute vague impressions for real people and their experiences. The goal of this series is to put a face to paid editing and to bring the discussion forward, without assumptions or hyperbole: to look at what is actually going on and illuminate one of the dark corners of Wikipedia.

The story so far
The history of paid editing traces back to MyWikiBiz, a commercial enterprise run by editor Thekohser, who was blocked and ultimately banned after selling his services as an article writer (in addition to sockpuppetry and violating his [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Thekohser unblock] conditions). Paid editing is part of the broader issue of conflict of interest (COI) editing, a topic which has roots in Wikipedia's 2004 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest&oldid=3429918 guideline on vanity pages]. In 2006, after US congressional staffers were revealed to be editing articles on behalf of their congressmen, the vanity guideline [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest&oldid=83851993 was quickly merged] into WP:Conflict of Interest. Since then the guideline has evolved; fairly consistently, however, its stance has been that editing by COI editors is "strongly discouraged" and that using Wikipedia to promote one's interests (or those of one's employer or organization) is expressly forbidden.

In 2007 a computer science graduate student named Virgil Griffith unveiled WikiScanner, a tool which linked editor IP addresses with a database of corporate information. The result was a torrent of embarrassment, as everyone from the FBI to the Vatican was caught editing articles related to themselves. Recent scandals in the news have had the same "gotcha" quality, although there are also the beginnings of a change in tone. After years of being viewed as enemies, the public relations industry is starting to pursue a more collaborative relationship with Wikipedia and to argue that it has a rightful place and beneficial role to play in the encyclopedia. Both the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) and the Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR), the US and UK's leading industry groups, are publishing guidance for their members about working on Wikipedia, and Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement (CREWE) and WikiProject Cooperation have brought PR editors and Wikipedia editors together to collaborate in this new direction. Where these efforts will lead, and whether they will result in changes to policy, perception, or practice is still in the ether&mdash;but it is surely interesting to watch either way.

Interview
''To kick off the series, The Signpost interviewed Wikipedia editor Silver seren, creator of WikiProject Cooperation.

'''Tell us about your background as a Wikipedian. When did you get started? What were your first edits and first impressions? What got you hooked?'''

That's going pretty far back, all the way to high school in 2006. I'd often used Wikipedia for my own interests, or for a school project here and there, pretty much all the way back to 2003. I don't quite remember why it was that I first got involved on Wikipedia, but looking back, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colonization_of_the_Moon&diff=prev&oldid=60173038 this] was my first edit. It was a Flash game I had been playing at the time. Wikipedia was something I really took to, I think, not having much trouble with the wikicode, as I parsed how to do it from edits other editors made. Of course, my editing back then was rather erratic and infrequent, Wikipedia not being something I was rather devoted to yet.

What got me truly involved was likely a combination of both my love for science and everything related to it and the rapport I established with my early friends on-wiki, such as my once upon a time adopter Chrishy man. But, as I became more engaged in adding content and making new articles, I became dedicated to the people I knew and the articles I had made, like my early efforts with Biosocial theory and Albert Oppel.

'''You've garnered a reputation as a bit of a muckraker. Where do think that instinct to root out and sometime stir up controversy comes from?'''

Let's just say that I've long been the type of person who both tries to find the truth about subjects and who tries to make the world a better place, whether that be through spreading information or by more direct forms of help. I have a deep-felt opposition to secrecy that leads to people being harmed in any way, so I also have a natural desire to expose such secrets. It's this, I guess, that leads to what would be called "stirring up controversy". I see it as pushing for the answers they don't want you to know.

'''You're one of the minority of Wikipedians whose real name is known. Has it had positive or negative ramifications in your on-Wikipedia work? How about your off-Wikipedia life?'''

It hasn't really affected my on-Wiki work or my off-Wiki life at all, beyond the fact that I'm no longer bothering at all to try to hide the connection between my username and my real name. It works better that way regardless as I'm working through WikiProject Cooperation with people in a semi-official capacity.

What was your inspiration for starting WikiProject Cooperation?

My creation of WikiProject Cooperation came about after the proposal by Herostratus of WikiProject Paid Advocacy Watch in a discussion on Jimbo's talk page. I was (and am) personally opposed to the idea of automatic blocking of paid editors, and other methods of locking out companies from being a part of Wikipedia. I feel that this would only lead to more controversy and, as a whole, a worse encyclopedia. So I thought up WikiProject Cooperation as an alternative that would instead work together with such users for both their benefit and the benefit of Wikipedia from their knowledge.

How does WikiProject Cooperation deal with conflicts of interest?

WikiProject Cooperation has a specific process called Paid Editor Help that has those users in a conflict of interest related to paid editing list what additions they wish to be made to an article, with reliable sources linked if it's a content addition. This also includes the proposal of new articles. Then, one or two (or more) members of the WikiProject go through the request, checking it for neutrality, and then enact it if they feel it is proper and within policy to do so.

We've already had more than twenty requests and a fair amount of proposed new articles from a variety of different people and organizations. For the most part, other than some necessary changes, the requests have all been for things that are within policy and on notable topics.

'''There's a long list of scandals dating back to MyWikiBiz through WikiScanner and Bell Pottinger, in which COI editors have been exposed, blocked, or embarrassed. Do you see that trend improving or getting worse? Are we facing more of those controversies, or are we just more informed about them?'''

I would say the trend is rather constant. Sure, the amount has increased, but that is probably a combination of Wikipedia's growth over the years and the increasing focus in the media world on such incidents. I think the frequency of such incidents has stayed pretty relative to Wikipedia's own growth. Of course, I also don't see such scandals going away any time soon. There's always going to be those that try to get in the easy way or don't want to bother with doing something ethically. We can pre-emptively dissuade some of this activity by working more directly with corporations and giving them more clear avenues of access so they can request and discuss the changes they would like, but there will still always be the few bad apples. And we'll just have to live with them and remain vigilant in our protection of the encyclopedia.

'''What do you think of recent efforts to improve relations between the PR industry/paid editors, and Wikipedia? I'm thinking of CREWE and WikiProject Cooperation in particular.'''

I'm glad that, in terms of CREWE, PR people have finally stepped forward in order to try and work out ways to be collaborative with Wikipedia, rather than antagonistic as in the past. I truly think that the best way to improve Wikipedia is to work together with others. And it's a two-way street. We have to work toward helping others, such as paid editors, but they also have to put in the effort to work with us, by following the system we've set up here for building an encyclopedia. Our job is just to make that system as simple and open as possible, a goal that the Wikimedia Foundation has had since day one. WikiProject Cooperation is one such step toward having more options and openness for the PR community.

'''Jimmy Wales has taken strong stance against direct editing of articles by COI editors. Do you think editors should ever edit articles directly if they are paid for their work?'''

I fully understand Jimbo's stance, considering his (and Wikipedia's) past interactions with paid editors, from the now widely known Bell Pottinger scandal to a number of other incidents in the past listed in Conflict of interest editing on Wikipedia. However, as can be seen from WikiProject Cooperation's success and from the groups that want to work with Wikipedia, like CREWE, there are a vast number of paid editors who want to work properly with Wikipedia to improve its coverage of corporation related topics and to fix inaccuracies.

The question on whether such editors should be directly editing isn't as clear cut as that. To splice it into two parts, I do not believe paid editors or those editors with a strong COI like them should be making major content additions or content changes to articles. However, I believe grammatical changes, the addition of references and images, and updates to financial information are all proper activities for paid editors to do in articlespace, as outlined in the COI guideline.

'''Which do you think is a bigger problem; paid editing, or unpaid advocacy? Do you think it's unfair that paid editors have a target painted on them while unpaid advocates can civilly push their point of view without consequence?'''

Unpaid advocacy, clearly. Advocacy, by definition, means the additions will be of a POV nature. Paid editing does not necessarily mean this at all. Often, paid editing merely means the update of financial information or more info on the history of the subject.

Yes, I do, but I also understand why such a target exists, as do practically all paid editors. The actions of unethical paid editors in the past has caused an atmosphere of inherent mistrust for the entire subject. Which is why I'm glad that Public Relations professionals and other paid editors are now stepping forward to do things properly, to show that paid editing can be done within Wikipedia's rules.

'''Do you think WP:COI needs to be updated, promoted to policy, or demoted to essay status? Should policy prohibit direct editing by paid editors?'''

I think WP:COI is perfectly fine as the guideline it is. Though I do think its wording needs to be updated, to be more clear and to also more properly explain what kind of editing is and is not proper within the COI rules.

No, it should not. As I stated elsewhere, there are a number of kinds of edits that paid editors can do comfortably, whether it is fixing grammar and sentence structure or adding references or uploading images. All of these things, and the rest outlined here are perfectly fine for paid editors to do. As long as the editors themselves are upfront about their COI and make sure to have support from other editors for any major changes, I don't see any issues with letting paid editors do the edits I just pointed out.

Should COI disclosures be required for paid editors?

Yes, of course. Just like anyone else who has a sufficiently large COI, whether they be the subject of an article, related to the subject, having been involved directly (sometimes even indirectly) in the creation of the subject, or whether they have been paid to improve the article. All of these should have a statement on the talk page, via Connected contributor, that they are involved.

'''Is the encyclopedia failing in some way? By not cracking down on paid editors more harshly, or by leaving gaps and inaccuracies about living people and corporations that paid editors have an interest in fixing?'''

No and no. We already have the processes in place to deal with unethical paid editors and dealing with them "more harshly" would likely only result in collateral damage, whether that be to articles or to the blocking of innocent editors. Neither of those are things any of us want to do and I think that we already have the situation of unethical paid editing already well in hand. There's some that sneaks through, sure, but I don't think it's possible to catch every last person doing something wrong on Wikipedia, just like it isn't possible to immediately root out all subtle vandalism. These are both things that, through our already established methods, will sort themselves out over time.

As for the second, just by the fact that we are now working with such editors to fix those inaccuracies shows that we're taking steps to mitigate it. Articles aren't perfect when they're first made or ever and inaccuracies can enter in over time, whether that be from other editors or just from things changing in the world for that subject. All we should focus on is doing our best to fix the problems that we're presented with now and do our best to lessen the amount of such inaccuracies. But I don't think its possible to stop them from ever occurring. If we wanted to do that, then the best method would be to not let anyone edit ever again.

'''What has surprised you about working with COI or paid editors? What is the most common misunderstanding they hold about Wikipedia?'''

The misunderstandings tend to fall on one of two polarized viewpoints. The first belief is that they are never allowed to touch any article ever, which is clearly not true, per our own COI guideline. And believe me, none of us want to be bogged down with Request Edit tags for some sort of minor correction.

The other extreme is the belief that, since they are trying to improve the article, it's okay that they just go ahead and jump right in and start doing stuff. While I can completely understand this viewpoint, as we allow COIs of various degrees to edit articles in the first place without anyone saying it's wrong (which inevitably leads to some sort of ARBCOM sanction for the entire topic area). For the most part, what they are trying to add is perfectly fine. The issues come in with the fact that such users are often new users and don't know how to use the interface properly, nor do they know how to write in the language we generally couch our articles in.

What has surprised me the most is probably just how vast the number of paid editors are that want to edit Wikipedia properly and by following our rules, but the rules are either not clearly defined or they don't know how to edit properly. Paid editing is definitely an area that we can get a lot of worthwhile content out of, but it's also an area where we run across common problems, problems that things like the WYSIWYG editor (What You See Is What You Get) will hopefully fix, and misunderstandings on how to properly go about editing within Wikipedia's rules. If we can make things more simple and straightforward, along with providing methods of assisting such editors, we'll all benefit in the end.

'''You do yeoman's work at WikiProject Cooperation's Paid Editor Help board. Do you ever feel like you're doing other people's work for them, that they're being compensated for and you're not?

Of course not. Being able to help other editors and improve Wikipedia is the exact point of all of this. If it really comes down to something like getting "credit" for my actions, I could say that increased edit count is one such benefit. Also, for new articles proposed by paid editors, I try my best to get them submitted to DYK if they meet the requirements therein, so I also get the compensation of a DYK nom. But as long as the process helps improves articles, that's all that really matters in the end.

'''Are you 'pro' paid editing? How would you respond to the potential charge that you are enabling, condoning, or inviting more paid and COI editing by helping facilitate it? Do you think helping some paid editors follow the project's policies could mask deeper problems with those who do not, or who provide cover to them—a gloss of reassurance where we would otherwise be more vigilant or less tolerant?'''

It depends on what you mean by "pro". I think it would be better if paid editing didn't exist, so we wouldn't have to deal with all of the complicated situations that arise from it, but I equally know that the world isn't like that and there's nothing we can do to change it. So, if you're asking about whether I support its existence, then the answer would be no, but if you're asking whether I support our working with it for our benefit and their benefit, then the answer is yes.

I don't believe the existence of WikiProject Cooperation is affecting the amount of paid editing at all. I would like to believe that it is making some of those who would otherwise be editing unethically instead are choosing to work through the WikiProject and our other processes. I see it like this: paid editing is always going to exist no matter what we do. So long as we're covering subjects, such as corporations and living people, whose livelihood depends at least partially on their image, we're going to end up getting either the subjects editing here or paid editors editing here. If we try to just shut it out by, say, blocking any subject or paid editor we come across, they're just going to be ever more subtle about it to the extent that no one would know it's happening. And that doesn't benefit us at all.

Instead, if we work together with such groups and people, by setting up easy and simple processes that they can use to get the proper changes made to articles, then everyone wins in the end. It's really the better option all around.

As for it masking the unethical paid editors, I suppose that depends on us, the main content editors and patrollers. Just because we are working toward getting these mutually beneficial systems in place, that doesn't mean that vigilance should be slackened. We still have vandals to deal with and the unethical paid editors will still be out there. We still have to do our best to protect the integrity of the project as we always have.

'''Have you ever been accused of having a COI? If so, how did you deal with it?'''

A few times. Most of them were just for my involvement in an article, where an editor I'm in a dispute with accused me of having such and such involvement in the subject, when it wasn't true. Those sorts of accusations I just shrugged off and explained how they weren't true and how they couldn't be true. As far as I can remember, the one time where I was accused of having a COI and it was at least partly relevant was my editing of the Encyclopedia Dramatica article. In response to my editing the article, a negative ED page was made on me. After that, I was accused of having a COI whenever I got into a dispute with an ED-related account on the article. In those cases I explained that my opinion and, more or less, lack of COI was the same as before the ED article has been made on me. It didn't change anything in my mind or my actions on the article and I followed talk page consensus regardless. I also explained that if something like that was going to fly, then they would just make articles on anyone working against them in the article, a loophole in COI that we really couldn't let fly. But I digress, a complicated situation without an easy explanation. Regardless, in all cases, I just stated my opinion in regards to the articles and otherwise followed any consensus that arose about the articles.

'''What article or project are you most proud of on Wikipedia? What article or project was most controversial or unsuccessful? What did you learn from it?'''

For an article I worked on individually, I'm most proud of my Good article Life at the Bottom: The Worldview That Makes the Underclass. I'm not really the type to have an eye for the details needed to finish writing a Good or Featured article, most of the time, so I am rather proud for having made that one.

Another article that I'm proud of and that is likely to be and has been decently controversial is Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, which is currently undergoing a Featured Article Candidacy. It's an article that was written largely by WWB Too, who was paid in the past to work on it, and myself. WWB made sure to stay out of any conversations regarding the controversies section, because of his COI, and I fielded most of that. By working together with other editors, we were able to reach a compromise about the state of the article and its coverage of various things.

I learned that the best way to deal with a dispute is to make a reasonable compromise that takes both sides into account and satisfies both of them. That's not to say doing as such is easy. But it can immediately fix the issue if you do it right, so it's worth it to try.

Finally, what's your favorite quote or piece of advice about Wikipedia?

Remember that we're building an encyclopedia.

Too many editors get bogged down in the details or get caught up in the perpetual dramas that occur on Wikipedia and lose sight of why we're all here in the first place. We're here because we want to make the best encyclopedia in the world, the most comprehensive, the most accurate. Anything not working toward that is largely irrelevant. If all of the people caught up in drama on ANI, AN, and elsewhere focused on building content for just one day, just think of how much would be accomplished in those 24 hours. Each of us has our own skill sets, sure, but we should all remember that, in the end, we want to be making edits that improve the encyclopedia, not anything else.