Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-08-12/Forum


 * In this week's Signpost, we've collected a sampling of viewpoints on paid editing. Each contributor discussed the effect they believe paid editing has on the project and how we can handle it better.

Smartse
It is impossible to lump all paid editing together, since it ranges from those deceptively using sockpuppets to evade scrutiny and create promotional articles on non-notable subjects to others who openly disclose and use high quality sources to write neutral content. In my experience though, paid editing is overall a net negative for the project as the few good paid editors are vastly outnumbered by the rest. The net effect is to decrease the neutrality and quality of the project as a whole. It also encourages others to create articles on the basis of other crap existing which leads to a vicious cycle (see for example Tuft & Needle and Casper). A considerable amount of volunteer effort is required to clean up the mess when we could potentially be creating other content.

Paid editing is inevitable so long as anyone can edit. Dealing with it requires the right balance of carrot and stick so as to tolerate and assist those who are open, while taking a hard line with those who are not here to write an encyclopedia. The bright line is good in principle, but there aren't enough volunteers who want to review paid edits, particularly if explaining the problems will take a substantial amount of effort. Further, our current terms of use, policies and guidelines don't provide sufficient punishment for those who fail to disclose or continue to edit mainspace. If we applied the principle of WP:DENY to undisclosed paid editors then it may encourage more to play by the rules. I'd also like to see a bot like cluebot that flagged edits to corporate and BLP articles that could be paid editing. Our methods of detection are inconsistent and haven't improved since I started editing 6 years ago.


 * SmartSE is a Wikipedia administrator and has been an editor since 2008.

SPhilbrick
I support the allowance of paid editing, but only with careful monitoring. All editors have the potential of bias with the possibility that their contributions might be more positive or negative rather than truly neutral. This is a challenge that applies to all edits and all editors. However, in the case of paid editors, we know there is a strong built-in potential for bias. Some paid editors will manage to provide new content, but others even if unconsciously, will lean toward a more favorable coverage of their client. If the position is known, their contributions can be scrutinized by others through that lens, and the resulting article can be a neutral article. Without identification of the status of the editor, it becomes much more difficult to ensure neutrality.

We have the concept of pending changes which applies to articles. Perhaps we should find a way to apply the concept to editors. If all declared editors were subject to a pending change requirement, it might be a useful way of allowing paid content while maintaining strict scrutiny of the content.


 * S Philbrick is a Wikipedia administrator and has been an editor since 2008.

CorporateM (paid editor)
Out of more than 100 assessments I provided to article-subjects, I found that their objectives were aligned with Wikipedia's content policies 30% of the time. I estimate that 10-20% of COI edits are useful, but less than 10% are acting in bad-faith. The majority of article-subjects are well-meaning, but make poor edits, because their motives for editing skew their point-of-view. This is also true of former employees, legal antagonists, etc. Most of the time they can be persuaded to abstain through patient and authoritative consulting, whereas in some cases there are borderline attack pages, factual errors, or other circumstances where their participation is desirable.

There is a lot we can do to improve things. An outreach and education program for article-subjects and their representatives with a focus on abstaining could target the bulk of cases. For a small number of cases (~1%) where there is a persistent and bad-faith violation of the Terms of Use, legal enforcement is needed. All the Wikipedia jargon that has made WP:COI incomprehensible to PR people is another issue and I think requiring a minimum disclosure, rather than an excessive one, would reduce drama, harassment and other nonsense, while promoting a focus on content instead of editors.


 * CorporateM has been a Wikipedia editor since 2009

Timtrent
If the edits are impartial, neutral and do not seek to pervert Wikipedia and its articles and have no WP:OWN connotations, either of edits or of articles, then I applaud all good quality edits and deprecate all poor quality ones, exactly as I do with amateur editing

The challenge is to enforce it. I favour the commercial editor declaring their interest(s) on their user page and their deploying Connected contributor with all parameters filled out on the talk page of each article they contribute to in their commercial persona. I do not support separate accounts for commercial and non commercial use unless they are properly declared on the user pages concerned. I favour strong but not draconian enforcement of declarations as a matter of policy.


 * Timtrent has been a Wikipedia editor since 2006.

FreeRangeFrog
I have no problem in principle with paid editing, as long as it is done honestly and in the open. But we must be more proactive in battling stealth paid editing. The for-hire creation or modification of articles by a person or company who would otherwise be unconnected to the subjects of those articles, without clear previous disclosure, is the type of activity we must endeavor to stop because it undermines the trust readers place on us. There is too much potential for abuse, and we have seen that recently where for-profit "editors" (I use that term lightly here) stoop to blackmail in order to keep the money rolling in. This reflects negatively on Wikipedia because often the victim thinks this is the norm around here, or that it is somehow done with the blessing of the community or the Foundation. The COI guidelines must be revamped and made into a policy with teeth and clear avenues of action for administrators and editors to follow. There are conversations we must have as a community and major changes to be made if we are to remain a truly free and truly neutral source of information that the world trusts.


 * FreeRangeFrog is a Wikipedia administrator and has been an editor since 2009.

Sportsguy17
Ever since I started editing on this site, my views about COI and paid editing have changed dramatically, primarily due to reviewing some GA nominations substantially written by, who has openly admitted to being paid and having a COI. Unfortunately, I at first made the impulsive decision of quick failing one of the nominations simply because this editor was paid and there was a COI. I had made that poor decision because of my own ignorance and stereotyping. However, after requesting that it be re-reviewed, I agreed to look over it again more closely and found that not only was the article in question neutral, but very informative and well-written. From that day on, it made me realize that just because an editor is getting paid and/or has a COI doesn't mean that they are here to harm the encyclopedia (in fact, there are quite a few that are assets to this project). In conclusion, I don't have a problem with paid editors and editors with a COI editing this site as long as the site is being benefitted by their contributions and not harming/disrupting the project in anyway, shape or form. I really hope that this piece can help the community realize that not all paid editors and COI editors are here for their own benefits and be a bit more accepting as a whole.


 * Sportsguy17 has been a Wikipedia editor since 2013.