Wikipedia talk:No paid advocacy/Archive 1

Jimbo's view
Jimbo is Jimbo, and he does have unique insight into the governance and mission of Wikipedia, but he is not the community (and nor is he WP:OFFICE, who may impose policy) and his opinions should not form the basis of policy or guideline creation. I think that advocacy, paid or not, has no place in a neutral encyclopedia - but we already have a "Policy Supplement" for that! LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If Jimbo is going to exercise his right to unilaterally ban people engaging in paid advocacy, then it is policy. This is fundamentally different from "Jimbo said". Gigs (talk) 13:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've remarked this as policy based on the above. Per WP:BAN Jimbo still has unilateral power to ban editors, and if he's going to exercise it for paid advocacy, then this is already policy, we don't need to have any kind of protracted discussion to gauge consensus.  I would not take that to mean that we can't have further discussions and that this policy couldn't be edited, but I think this small kernel of it that is embodied here is already policy.  Further expansion of the definitions beyond what Jimbo is willing to personally ban would of course be subject to discussion and consensus. Gigs (talk) 20:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Jimbo supposedly gave up his right to unilaterally ban people on his impression of what may be policy - I suppose you can point me to the page that indicates that Jimbo reserves the right to create policy by his actions? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Jimbo said he would no longer issue unilateral blocks. His ability to ban is documented at WP:BAN. WP:Child Protection is a another recent example. Gigs (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I would ask how Jimbo might unilaterally ban a person without issuing a block... Regardless, the point I raised was that Jimbo does not the have authority to create policy by his usage of Founder flags via any page that I am aware of. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement with LHvU; although this is not likely all that controversial, we cannot have policy be unilaterally decided like this, even by the founder. There needs to be a proper discussion first and a demonstrable consensus to adopt this policy. I have restored the "proposed" on this basis. --John (talk) 01:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there anything you disagree with in the current version? I re-edited a couple changes.  We need to be careful here.  This only applies for people being paid specifically to edit Wikipedia for purposes of advocacy, not someone who happens to be paid by an organization and edits in articles where they have a conflict of interest. Gigs (talk) 03:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Definition?
Is there already a definition for paid advocacy? Jesanj (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think we have a concise one that isn't bogged down with discussion of other types of paid editing or COI editing. Gigs (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, yes there is. It's called Paid editing. There has been numerous attempts to ban it from the site but has failed do to the failure to gain consensus. Its frowned upon, but not exactly prohibited. see WP:PEW. Phearson (talk) 03:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

NPOV
I removed the bit that said, "thus violating NPOV". The question of whether they violated NPOV or not is irrelevant. What's relevant is that NPOV loses all credibility if we accept submissions from people being compensated specifically to edit Wikipedia for advocacy or promotional purposes. They are violating this policy, not necessarily NPOV. Gigs (talk) 03:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Advocacy/promotion requires violating NPOV. Jesanj (talk) 03:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. It could just mean neutralizing what is arguably a biased article.  It doesn't really matter what edits they make.  The fact that they are compensated for the specific purpose of PR on Wikipedia is the problem, and it's a problem that stands alone, separate from any other content policy violations.  Gigs (talk) 03:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think NPOV editors, by definition, do not have a COI. Do you? Jesanj (talk) 04:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note that on Wikipedia we don't normally use "NPOV" as an adjective to describe human beings (such as "Jesanj is NPOV, HaeB is not NPOV"). Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * If advocacy editing of any variety is not tolerated on Wikipedia, then this notion of 'paid' advocacy being wrong that co-founder Wales accepts is rather redundant. Coleman Trebor (talk) 11:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * @Gigs, If an editor is following NPOV, how can they have a COI? Jesanj (talk) 13:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll take your comment at face value, but I'm finding it harder to believe you aren't being deliberately obtuse. A conflict of interest exists whenever someone has an external investment in a topic they are editing.  This is a large range of gray areas, and a toy shop owner (and toy train enthusiast) editing pages on toy trains that he happens to sell would have a COI, though likely one that we would accept, and even embrace if he made good edits.  This is why our policy on COI isn't hard-line.  If it were too hard-line it would forbid nearly everyone from editing in topics they were experts in.  Run of the mill COI fundamentally different from a PR firm being compensated for the express purpose of editing Wikipedia to shape the client's public image.  Gigs (talk) 13:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you deliberately using a non-Wikipedia definition for COI? "A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor". It seems obvious to me that an editor who obides by our core content policies can not have a COI, by its definition (at least in article space). Jesanj (talk) 14:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Which "non-Wikipedia definition for COI" do you think Gigs is using?
 * "It seems obvious to me that an editor who obides [sic] by our core content policies can not have a COI" - please re-read the Wikipedia COI definition. It is not about actions or content, but about aims.
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Our aims are to have articles that fit within our core content policies. I don't have an interest in WP:AOBF. Jesanj (talk) 02:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You didn't answer the question.
 * If the assumption was correct that everyone's "aims are to have articles that fit within our core content policies", then WP:COI and many other non-content policies/guidelines would indeed be unnecessary, as would be this proposed policy. Unfortunately, this assumption has been proven wrong countless times during the past decade.
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A COI is a disjoint between our aims, "which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor", which could lead to one promoting their "own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups". Someone could be paid to edit Wikipedia (a typical COI) but if they edit here along the lines of our core content policies, then they do not have a wiki-COI. Jesanj (talk) 15:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems you are still conflating aims and actions. Someone could be paid in a way that creates aims that differ from those of Wikipedia (and thus have a COI as defined on WP:COI), but could still in practice "edit here along the lines of our core content policies", for example because they are effectively deterred from doing otherwise by specific auxiliary policies such as the one proposed here.
 * If by "a typical COI" you refer to the everyday usage of conflict of interest, it would depend on who pays. (A judge would not normally considered to be in a conflict of interest because he receives payments from the state to do his work. But he would be if the payments came from one of the parties in a court case.) Thus, not all paid Wikipedia editing would fall under the everyday usage of conflict of interest.
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess in a sense. Our own article on conflict of interest has a much better definition than our guideline. "A conflict of interest (COI) occurs when an individual or organization is involved in multiple interests, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation for an act in the other." (emphasis from original) Gigs (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, for what it's worth, I don't find this proposal very inspiring then. In order for it to stick around, I think that when it uses words we already have guidelines on, we'd need to match their definitions. Jesanj (talk) 18:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oi, i believe there may be a problem. What if paid advocacy is tolerated under the desk ("tell me how i can ensure my paid work remains on the site and i'll reward you guys" and the guys accept). How do you stop this? Matta Tremayne (talk) 19:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Doubtful, because if the content abides by the core content policies, then the content belongs here, so who cares if the person paid for or not? If it doesn't abide by the core content policies, then it should go. Jesanj (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That is a fallacious argument which would equally demand the abolishing of Banning policy ("if the content abides by the core content policies, then the content belongs here, so who cares if the person was banned or not?"). Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I read that, but I didn't see the part that said all their edits had to be undone. Jesanj (talk) 02:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Why did you expect a part that says that all their edits had to be undone? Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Because I thought that was required for you to have a point. I don't understand why you thought my comment would have some sort of implication on banning policy. Jesanj (talk) 15:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Your point was based on the argument that edits must be judged without regard to who made them ("if the content abides by the core content policies, then the content belongs here"). This is a respectable ideal, but in practice, the Wikipedia community has long ago found it necessary to incorporate other aspects into its editorial process; the banning policy is just one example. Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Experiances?
I am curious as to what other editors have experienced when dealing with Paid editors (or in this case "Paid Advocates"). I myself have been interested in keeping tabs on such editors and in an attempt to help, authored WP:PEW. My experience with such individuals is that when found out, it doesn't turn out well. Phearson (talk) 03:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've mainly dealt with internal corporate accounts. Often these users seem to give up when they are blocked, unlike someone being paid by a third party.  Gigs (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Consensus
Have we reached any sort of consensus here? Are we ready to go to the next step? Phearson (talk) 01:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I would say starting a RFC... mabdul 11:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Is it really necessary?
Any sort of advocacy, be it paid or not is untolerable here. Current policies (COI and NPOV) cover that already. We need no overlapping rules. Artem Karimov (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * As other people have said this is already policy under wp:Conflict of Interest yeah and it's simply restating policy in a shorter form so it should be approved too — especially since some have been trying to claim "it's too hard to understand" ignorance as a defence even when they are very much aware of what the policy is (it's one page!) and schoolchildren are able to follow it, and that we are seeing canvassing groups start to crop up, encouraging paid advocacy editors to support each other and breaking the whole concept of consensus being based around unbiased people chipping in with their opinions... Jimbo's comments on his talk page:


 * This discussion looks like it's gone on a long time now?


 * I think the latest events have confirmed just how important this is and the need for WP:PAIDWATCHs existence Websense got away with it for 6 years whilst I was away: Sockpuppet_investigations/Websense,_Inc.  -- Mistress Selina Kyle   ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉ )  18:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm you seem to be involved in a large conflict concerning COI and websense in particular. Maybe you could write a small report describing it so that bystanders understand the nature of dispute and your blocks. ;) Artem Karimov (talk) 12:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * What is wrong with paid people? They just get money for writing, but they don't influence the freedom of this site, and the mission statement is to give knowledge to people for free (putting aside the costs of a modem, internet connection, paper, and ink). Kord Kakurios (talk) 16:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)