Wikipedia talk:Paid editing (guideline)/Archive 4

Charity?
All of these assume that people are being paid to advocate for something.

What if some charity wants to recompensate editors simply for doing their duties as wikipedia editors. Would that be as much of a problem?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean they would simply give money to editors without asking them to modify any particular articles or advance any position? This situation sounds a bit like the MacArthur Foundation which gives "genius grants" to allow talented people to do what they do best. Is this a real situation or a hypothetical? Many charities have distinct or even fringe viewpoints, so their involvement in Wikipedia content wouldn't necessarily be benign or neutral.     Will Beback    talk    20:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Traditionally, our first editor was paid in that way, of course. :-)


 * Next to that, I can imagine -for instance- an academic-run organisation hiring someone to write a bot to update all articles on genes with data from uniprot. I wonder if I could write a grant proposal for that?


 * I'm also pondering whether it might be useful to hire people to do some article writing.


 * --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * So that wouldn't be pay to editors for simply doing their duties: it'd be pay for making specific edits. The latter example is a straight case of paid editing. The former case, of writing a bot, is more complicated. There have been payments, if I understand correctly, for programming work on Wikimedia. I'd say offhand that it's more similar to that than to editing in a conventional sense. An important issue is the decision of whether the community wants to have a mass creation or updating of articles by a bot in that fashion. There was a recent controversy about just such a bot effort. So the best process would probably start with getting a consensus that these edits are desirable.   Will Beback    talk    20:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think present practice permits prizes, at least of a content neutral nature. For instance Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-05-18/Multilingual_contests, and there was another editor, if I recall correctly, who won a prize from a Nynorsk organization for writing a bunch of articles in Nynorsk (thus promoting the language).  I haven't found the details of the latter, however.  Neither on en.WP, of course, but I think they received a positive response here.  I put an example of prizes under "possibly acceptable" in my proposed text since that was my sense of acceptable practice.  I think it would come down differently, however, if say the Heritage Foundation offered prizes to editors who promoted a conservative viewpoint in articles.  That would be clearly improper (although to the best of my knowledge, it has never happened).  --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikimedia and many other friendly organizations hire multiple FTE's to work on the Mediawiki software, yes. :-)


 * Since you switch to "obtain consensus first", I take it that it is (now) your insight that it is ok for people to be paid, provided they are paid in a neutral fashion.
 * --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I just meant that anyone considering writing a bot to create thousands of articles should seek wide coinsensus first. I wasn't addressig the paid aspect, so I guess that part of my comment was off-topic.   Will Beback    talk    20:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding the prizes, it's not clear if the prize involved money or just a plaque or medallion. It also occured in the Estonian Wikiepedia which is run independently of the English Wikipedia. More broadly, what if the Isaeli Embassy sponsored a prize for writing articles about the Jewish settlements in the West Bank? What if the Chamber of Commerce sponsored a contest to write articles about government regulation? I can imagine all kinds of unhelpful contests.    Will Beback    talk    20:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * So the actual issue is: How do we make sure such activities ARE helpful. I mean, people can do unhelpful things, even if not for pay. But how do we define what is helpful, for pay, or not for pay? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I think it seems reasonable, on a discussion of paid editing policy, to restrict ourselves to what is and is not acceptable in relation to getting paid. I suggest that present practice prohibits paid advocacy on behalf of a client, or setting up a service to edit for pay (which to some is subsumed into the first as a priori advocacy). There are plenty of interesting cases on the side, prizes being one of them, but that should not distract us into thinking there is no enforced rule. --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I get the impression that any kind of payment immediately carries the assumption of bad faith. Like it is never possible to pay someone to act in good faith. Am I getting this correctly? --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a good analogy is sex. There are all kinds of sex, but there is a fairly bright line in this culture between paid and unpaid sex. (that line gets blurry where nice dinners and jewelry are concerned.) At the moment, everyone who edits Wikipedia does so out of love, not for money. Money changes everything. Does the fact that a prostitute expects money mean she isn't having sex with me out of love? That's a good assumption. But getting back to the issue at hand, if I learned that someone had been paid to write or maintain an article then I'd be inclined to block them until they agreed to stop accepting such work.   Will Beback    talk    00:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding Kim's earlier question: "how do we define what is helpful, for pay, or not for pay?" - We have dozens of policies and guidelines which define unacceptable behaviors.   Will Beback    talk    01:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there is a lot more motivations at play on Wikipedia currently that counter "everyone who edits Wikipedia does so out of love, not for money. Money changes everything." The sex example is interesting but will also be misleading as a premise. Plenty of people have sex for non-monetary compensation including Karen Walker who did so for jewelry, furs and Manhattan properties. -- Banj e  b oi   01:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Football players usually don't need much inducement to have sex, but I suppose that depends on who the other party is.   Will Beback    talk    02:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If someone is paid to edit wikipedia, but follows basic policy and consensus, they are then free to do so without issue? --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Basic policies include no advocacy. What is that they are being paid to do if not advocate?   Will Beback    talk    18:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The first wikipedia editor edited for money, and did so for quite some time. You consider this to be a problem?

The issue is one of time and money. If we want people to spend more than their regular free time on maintaining the wiki; or even work on it full time, we need to somehow pay their rent/mortgage in the mean time.

I wonder what happens to your bright line when it comes to marriage?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 11:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "If we want people to spend more than their regular free time on maintaining the wiki; or even work on it full time,..." Where has this been identified as a goal?   Will Beback    talk    19:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Time to get serious
This discussion has gone around in circles for a long time.

I think rather than waste everybody's time, it's best to put some text in that a) reflects current policy and b) has a chance of being accepted by a consensus of editors (which is perhaps the same thing as a)). The minority opinion here wants to outline where paid editing is acceptable, which is not just writing down the current policy in a clear statement, but trying to change current policy.

Is there a reason that the project page does not reflect the majority view? The proposed wording above seems like a very good place to start. Smallbones (talk) 03:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Disagree discussion has gone in circles although the heat has cooled a bit which is good. To clarify, could you link to which policy you think isn't already covered? Advocacy is addressed with due weight and there seems no policy about Paid editing itself. -- Banj e  b oi   04:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Paid_editing and Jimbo's statement on the matter. Smallbones (talk) 13:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not ok with me that anyone ever set up a service selling their services as a Wikipedia editor, administrator, bureaucrat, etc. I will personally block any cases that I am shown.... the idea that we should ever accept paid advocates directly editing Wikipedia is not ever going to be ok. Consider this to be policy as of right now.... Just imagine the disaster for our reputation. Are we free and independent scribes doing our best to record all human knowledge? Or are we paid shills. I know what I choose. Jimbo Wales

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

- Upton Sinclair

I've also put in the quote from Upton Sinclair on why discussion with paid editors can be very frustrating. IMHO we should generally keep them off the talk pages. Smallbones (talk) 13:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you just proved my point, there is still no policy forbidding paid editing. Just in case you wish to gloss over it again ... Jimbo's statement is not a new defacto policy and it simply doesn't cover this issue the way in which you seem to suggest. And Sinclair's quote is interesting but I could toss in a few dozen that would calso confuse the issue and not build consensus so let's steer away from that. -- Banj e  b oi   13:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a consensus system. We respect both majority and minority views. Be very careful before you disenfranchise either view.

If we want to change the world so that free/open content becomes more common, we are going to need to find a working payment model. Not just for a free encyclopedia, but for free music, free movies, free books, etc...

So that's the very good reason why some people want to allow paid editing. The conflict of interest examples and paid advocacy examples are all very nice, but to some extent they act as strawmen when discussing the above. I'm not talking about paid advocacy. I'm talking about recompensing regular editing.

There are a large number of scenarios that allow paid editing that do not involve conflict of interest. If I had a million dollars, and I wanted to help wikipedia, I might want to pay several people to go full-time on wikipedia, for instance.

If we can agree on some base rules, the WMF might even be able to obtain that kind of money. But as it stands, where the community might reject recompense for editing sight unseen, I think that that plan is going to remain shelved for a while longer.

And my dreams of wiki-world domination shall have to remain dreams for now. --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Good points actually, I hadn't even thought of some of these issues. -- Banj e  b oi   13:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * While we work on such a model, doesn't it make sense to write down what is currently being practiced? Right now there are several admins, including Jimbo, who will block users for paid editing of some sorts (well encapsulated in Jimbo's post).  It seems like there is a public benefit to writing this down somewhere.  The text I proposed above (I should probably move it to a subpage) is intended to reflect current practice, which there is currently no consensus to change.  (That's the intent, at least, I would invite criticism indicating where I fall short of that goal.) --TeaDrinker (talk) 13:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You have a point that it is a current practice. But at the same time, some people vandalize wikipedia too. That's also a current practice. ;-) Just not a best practice.
 * I think it would be a good idea to sit around the table with those people who would block out of hand. --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and created a page for the alternative text at Paid editing/Alternative text, incorporating two suggested changes from the version above. I welcome further revision, of course.  I don't think we should get into the role of Jimbo in Wikipedia's governance. At present, he has the ability to block users and no one can reverse them.  Per Will's point above, we've never come up with an instance of any admin blocking a user for paid editing of some sort, only to have the block reversed.  That being the case, we need to make sure new editors know what this de facto policy.  It also gives us a starting place for a discussion of policy change.  I would encourage you to take a look at the current text and see if there's something in it you don't think is an accurate portrayal of the current situation (I realize you disagree with the current situation). Thanks, --TeaDrinker (talk) 14:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Jimbo's role is being questioned formally in a few venues. These are thoughtful discussions but it doesn't help anything to put him as the omniscience blocker of some sort. IMHO, better to not invoke that as it's likely just not needed, and this is a very new concept for most people so we also don't need to be in a rush on this. Disagree that this is the defacto policy, I could just as easily point out that paid editing has been going on on in various forms without those editors ever being blocked - I don't think that's policy either. And yes, some are quite likely admins, who are, after all, just editors with more tools. -- Banj e  b oi   15:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I know Jimbo's role is questioned by many (although I doubt even he would describe himself as "omniscience." Maybe omnipotent...).  If we can sidestep the issue, all the better.  It is currently the case that he has de facto authority; to deny this is to simply not be in tune with reality.  If we write a document which does not reflect this reality, the document will be meaningless.  As far as people currently editing for pay, please point them out.  --TeaDrinker (talk) 15:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I cannot deny that which is de-facto policy, no matter how much it pains me. I would be denying my own philiosophy if I opposed someone writing it down. Just write it down, put a policy tag on, and stab a knife through my heart while you're at it :-( I'll support you all the way.
 * At most we can mention that this current policy is under discussion at this point in time. --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I would have similar feelings if I held similar views. Nevertheless, I would ask if you think Paid editing/Alternative text is a reasonable reflection of current practice.  I think, if nothing else, current practice makes a good starting place for discussions of change.  --TeaDrinker (talk) 15:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Tendentious editing
I repeat myself. Benjiboi has reverted essentially everything that other editors have added to the project page over the last month or so. 

That's during a period when there were about 10 non-Benjiboi edits. What can we do to open this page to non-Benjiboi editors? If only BB gets to edit this page it will go nowhere, stay in its current form and only be a potential source of confusion to editors. Can we at least get it marked as a "failed policy"?

I'll ask every editor who supports Benjiboi's reversions to indicate below. My guess is that only Benjiboi himself supports this non-consensus approach. Smallbones (talk) 16:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please comment on content and not contributors. Per WP:BRD you were bold, I reverted and now we are discussing. No need to polarize these issues further. -- Banj e  b oi   00:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see a problem with Benjiboi's edits. You were bold with a complete re-write, he reverted - nothing wrong with that. I agree that this policy proposal is not making much progress, but I don't think that is the fault of any single editor - it just reflects the fact that there we are not approaching a consensus on this issue. Being adversarial won't help matters, though. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That might explain 1 revert, but there are 7 reverts given above - a clear pattern, reverting single lines, phrases, etc., etc. There's a clear problem of WP:Ownership here, and BB should not suggest that it is my fault that I had to point it out to him.


 * Given that BB will accept that others are allowed to edit without constant reversions, there should be no problem. I will now insert Jimbo's statement of policy on the issue of paid editing from the RFC.  This is as clear as statement of policy as we have had on the matter, and it is generally accepted that Jimbo has the right to make policy statements like this.  I know that there are some who dispute his right to do this, but there are better places to dispute that than here.  Smallbones (talk) 18:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm generally more forgiving of reverts on policy/policy proposal pages since the discussion is more intensive. Of course, there's nothing that should prohibit people from editing.  I think we have a consensus that the present page does need work (insert plug for my complete revision here...), so it is not a problem to make bold changes.  I do think, however, reverts should be perhaps discussed a bit more here than they are.  (I just made a few bold changes myself.) --TeaDrinker (talk) 19:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Non-profit status of Wikimedia foundation
I removed the following from the proposal: The Wikimedia Foundation is a not-for-profit corporation and allowing any person to use its assets for personal gain may violate | Article VI of its bylaws, and threaten its not-for-profit tax status. More importantly, allowing any person to post articles for profit will reduce Wikipedia's credibility, and would likely hurt the foundation's fundraising efforts. I am not sure that it is legally true that allowing paid editing would potentially hurt its nonprofit status. I would hesitate to make a legal claim based on our own interpretation of the law, but count on the Wikimedia staff attorney to step in if there's a problem that would put the foundation at risk. I agree, however, that the credibility of Wikipedia would be damaged, but think that is evident enough in the remaining text. Thoughts? --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sure that letting some paid editing slip by is not going to affect the non-profit status, especially if there is some gain to the project such as better articles. I'm equally sure that there is a level (probably fairly high) of using Wikipedia for any profit making activity which doesn't benefit the foundation's purpose would result in revocation of the non-profit status.  That's why it's "may violate."  I'd guess the foundation's lawyers would want to stay out of this.  But please ask them if you wish.  Smallbones (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Better yet, ask User:Newyorkbrad if he is still around. I'm not a lawyer, but have dealt with this on a professional level, and all non-profit directors have to worry about somebody using the foundation's assets for personal profit-making.  There's not many times where editors have to deal with the non-profit status of Wikipedia, but when they are dealing with editing for profit, it's time to at least think about it.  I don't think that the credibility issue is dealt with enough in the remaining text (except for the Jimbo quote) and the fund raising aspect is not dealt with at all - and it would be a very real problem.  Smallbones (talk) 23:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this is covered by You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 and the GFDL. You agree to be credited, at minimum, through a hyperlink or URL when your contributions are reused in any form. See the Terms of Use for details. Non-profits are subject to this for assets they don't freely give away. Am I missing something here? Why is this an issue on this issue?  -- Banj e  b oi   00:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are totally missing the point. Non-profits are not allowed to let people use their assets to make a profit (with some conditions).  If they did this is could be viewed as a form of tax evasion, hiding a for-profit enterprise under the veil of a non-taxable non-profit organization.  Smallbones (talk) 03:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Likely there is a more clear explanation but this really doesn't seem to bear on paid editing issues at all. There may be more to this but rather than spinning our wheels here perhaps getting a lawyer-ish and official-ish response from the foundation would make the most sense. If we do include anything it should be clear and accurate IMHO. -- Banj e  b oi   10:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales quote
"It is not ok with me that anyone ever set up a service selling their services as a Wikipedia editor, administrator, bureaucrat, etc. I will personally block any cases that I am shown.... the idea that we should ever accept paid advocates directly editing Wikipedia is not ever going to be ok. Consider this to be policy as of right now.... Just imagine the disaster for our reputation. Are we free and independent scribes doing our best to record all human knowledge? Or are we paid shills. I know what I choose."

- Jimbo Wales


 * I don't dispute that some mention of this can be helpful somewhere but Wales' role is and even this statement was a source of debate in the RfC, we need to find a NPOV of presenting this. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   00:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Another revert, but at least you didn't revert everything I included! Wales' role is not really something that should be considered while writing every policy.  Please take it to WP:Jimbo or other page that discusses his role in general. Just a small thing as well: WP:NPOV refers to article content, not to policies.  Policies should, in my view, reflect the POV of the editing community.  Writing about a policy being NPOV, in my view, just doesn't make sense. Could you rephrase with more accurate wording?  Smallbones (talk) 00:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please stop beating the drum of oppression it's not true and is really not helping anything. I'm concerned we are cherry-picking part of his statement as well as giving it more due weight than needed or appropriate. You likely would feel similar if I plopped in a quote that opposed your POV, you'd quite rightly question why should such a thing be so prominent or even used at all. We can fairly summarize his statement where needed without quoting, IMHO. FWIW, we reference his statement three times that I'm aware of without directly quoting, i feel this is fine and we have accurately summarized his view. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   00:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Disclosure
Disclosures shouldn't be obscure. If a reader or another editor are interested in a topic, they shouldn't have to make a dozen clicks and several searches to find out if one of the editors has an acknowledged conflict of interest. So I changed To Though I think a disclosure on the COIN is probably unnecessary unless there are special circumstances.  Will Beback   talk    00:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Editors with a conflict of interest should disclose this conflict, either on their user page, on the article talk page, or at the WP:Conflict of interest noticeboard.
 *  Editors with a conflict of interest should disclose this conflict on their user page, on the article talk page, and at the WP:Conflict of interest noticeboard.


 * I'm fine with:


 *  Editors with a conflict of interest should disclose this conflict on their user page, and on the article talk page.
 * but the other is ok too. Smallbones (talk) 00:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've removed this completely per WP:AGF. It's unneeded and sets up battleground mentality. Unless someone's editing or behaviour is actually causing problems we actually don't care what religion they are, what their political and cultural views are etc. As long as they adhere to NPOV policies the work should be fine. We have no sign at the door that editors must wear a badge of disclosure to all their possible bias. It's also unenforcible, "ADMIN: Are you affiliated with company X?" - "EDITOR: No." So really we go by the edits. If they are poor and bias they should be fixed or removed. If they aren't then likely they can stay - even bias editors can make good edits we don't automatically delete all their work. we keep what works for us. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   01:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * So that's absolutely everything done today that you've reverted, despite 2 editors who think the wording is fine. You don't like it so it goes.  If I understand your logic correctly, we don't need to warn paid editors about their behavior, because we assume good faith.  If that's the case we don't need any policies at all.  Smallbones (talk) 01:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The WP:COI calls for disclosure and this is just advise anyway. I believe that if paid editing is going to occur it must be transparent. Does anyone think tere is a consensus to allow secret paid editing?   Will Beback    talk    01:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the wording is the issue. I'm afraid every alrtiacle could have a list of COI editors, On heterosexual do we really need a list of every editor who is or isn't? Is that meaningful or helpful? On Martha Stewart do we really benefit from a list of everyone who is connected to her or opposed to her professionally (competitors) listed there? We should only bother raising the flag if we see a problem. editors are not required to disclose COI. Send those interested to COI which states that but also adds "Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over this guideline on conflict of interest." So let's keep it short and simply and discuss the problem behaviours and direct tham to the main articles where we can. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   01:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We're not talking about every conceivable COI - we're talking about paid editing. Unless you can show some sign that undisclosed piad editing has community approval I'm going to restore it.   Will Beback    talk    02:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe we should just delete the entire advise section. It's all stuff made up by editors here, and there are plenty of other policies and guidelines. I don't see why we should suggest that paid editors register a user account, or warn them that their contributiosn may be edited mercilessly - those are already covered in other pages. So are the copyright issues. Why repeat them here?    Will Beback    talk    02:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This page was originally created as an informational summary of existing policy relevant to paid editing. These policies in particular are useful for paid editors to know and remember. I don't see the issue. Dcoetzee 03:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, apparently there's a problem with citing the relevant WP:COI language. If that's not going to be allowed by editor here I'm not sure what criteria is being used to decide which advice to offer paid editors. Why are these tips beibng offered, but not others?   Will Beback    talk    03:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the advice section might need to be reworked and merged appropriately as a few items already have been. I see two main concerns now. Some feel we are advising how to with this section while another issue is that we are over- or under- comprehensive. Would it make more sense to avoid calling it "advice" altogether and find ways to turn it into prose? -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   10:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've restored the COI entry. If we're going to include an advice section it's important.   Will Beback    talk    02:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You also missed that the same information is covered in teh section preceeding the advice section so I've removed the redundancy. I thin all the advice section should be similarly converted as appropriate. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   16:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Time
Since everything I've done today has now been reverted twice, without meaningful discussion, and Banjeboi has even accused me of edit warring in his edit summaries, I think it's time we move on to some sort of dispute resolution process, that will actually open up the possibility that BB will let me contribute something to this page and not be immediately reverted. I'll let BB decide which process he want to go through, but I'll ask other editors to comment here. Smallbones (talk) 04:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

BB's reversions of myself and others Today's last reversion

today

today

today, revert labelled "Merging"!

Over the last month (when there were only about 10 non-Banjiboi edits) 


 * I don't know what you think "dispute resolution" will achieve. You believe Jimbo's quote should be included; Banjeboi thinks it shouldn't. You have tried to insert it several times; he has removed it each time. There is no right answer here, and the attitude and approach of both of you is equally confrontational. At the moment, we have no paid editing policy in Wikipedia (apart from the extent to which it is already covered by WP:COI), there is absolutely no sign of consensus emerging here on a paid editing policy, and the lack of wider community involvement shows that most editors don't think a paid editing policy is necessary. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Smallbones is again personalizing and creating a battleground where none is needed. This isn't helpful or constructive and despite their claims meaningful discussion from myself is quite obvious to anyone who bothers to read this page. Most editing here has been constructive and civil from most editors. And no, many of the changes, even the bold ones have not simply been reverted. I'm cautious about starting any RfC until we actually feel we're near a point where it will do some good and be the only one needed as sadly the community at large doesn't seem to have a lot of energy for quibbling on each successive round of nuance. Gandalf61's points are also well-put. I tend to agree that as passionate as it can be at times there is only so much interest in this. IMHO, we should strive so that potential writers and future editors several months from now can look at this page as a quite helpful reference - much like an article - and get a clear explanation and direction where to turn if they then determine they need more help. I'm opposed to demonizing all paid editing and declaring a pox and pending ban on such editors. I'm equally opposed to misrepresenting that there is no issues of concern regarding these activities. we should be clear and dispassionate to shed light on the issues. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   10:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Would you be be interested in WP:MedCab? I'm sure you know the basic problem - you've taken ownership of the page and revert all edits from anybody other than yourself. I find this unacceptable. Everybody should be allowed to edit - even unpaid editors! Smallbones (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm working toward consensus here and really don't see these efforts as helping as much as entrenching your position that everything I do is bad here. That seems like a really bad opening statement for any dispute. You've advocated for adding some rather undue weight for your position and I have advocated for following the community's stated POV's all be presented with due weight to each accordingly as evident from the RfC on this issue. I trust you mean well but I do think your creating problems when it's not needed. If your goal is to push me away and insert "Paid editing is wrong and those editors will be blocked" what will it get you if that is not accurately reflect the status quo? Will you work to push away the next editor(s) who come along and correctly rewrite everything to be NPOV? It would be better to simply find the commonalities and then see if what we have is lacking. If we come down to one actual question that we simply can't agree then we ask for more opinions to see if consensus can lead to a better decision. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   01:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Tip: Don't start an RFC unless you are either desperate or insane. ;-)

In the mean time: The most recent point Smallbones and Benjiboi seem to disagree on here was the Quote by Jimbo. Why is that quote important to keep/remove respectively? Would you each care to explain your reasoning? (or link to where your reasoning was presented earlier?)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 01:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree for now on the RfC, I see little good coming from it and i feel we only get one. The main points against quoting Wales' verses citing it are here, I know it's been previously discussed as well. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   16:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Try again for the introduction
I think that it is important to include something about the Wikimedia Foundation being a non-profit. Non-profits cannot accept donations and then allow those donations to be used, willy-nilly, by others to make a profit.

I'd start with Jimbo's comment - it really is very clear on certain things - and then include something like this:

"The Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., the parent organization of Wikipedia, is a nonprofit charitable organization that accepts donations, to support Wikipedia’s goal of building an encyclopedia that is available to the public free of charge. Editors who put their personal goal of profit making before Wikipedia’s goal undermine the entire effort by reducing the credibility of the encyclopedia and, almost inevitably, by decreasing charitable donations. Paid editors are also more likely to violate Wikipedia policy on WP:Neutral point of view and guidelines such as WP:Conflict of Interest and WP:Spam.

"Paid editors have been blocked for their activities since at least 2006. However all editors who accept money for activities related to Wikipedia are not necessarily considered paid editors, for example those who are paid through the bonus board.  Paid editing has been a controversial practice because some editors believe that simply accepting payment does not reduce the quality of an article, and because it is not always clear who is considered a paid editor.  This guideline/policy is meant to clarify who is considered to be a paid editor."

Then include categories or examples of who is generally considered to be a paid editor and who is not. This is the meat of the matter, and what my interest is here. The vague generalities that have been included so far are not helpful IMHO.

Then I think we should get rid of most of the "Advice" section. It could be read as advice on how to avoid being caught as a paid editor.

Hope this helps - feel free to include this or your version of it, or just tell me where I'm wrong.

Smallbones (talk) 17:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Including Jimbo quote(s) IMHO isn't needed as I've stated above. If we correctly and NPOV summarize and a quote isn't actually needed then it would seem to add undue weight. The non-profit statement seems a red herring. I'll of course defer to one of the many lawyers to answer this better but the crux is that if someone writes something and publishes it as wikipedia article content then there seems no legal ground to suggest they stole or are profiting; the claim that someone is profiting from Wikipedia accepting and using their work also seems flat as Wikipedia is set up to accept and publish everyone's contributions. If you include a statement that paid editors have been blocked since 2006 you also have to explain why they were actually blocked as it infers they were blocked for paid editing when that doesn't seem to be accurate. You'd also need to explain paid editors have not been blocked so that whole thing likely should also just be left out. We have Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has previously blocked editors, and stated his support for blocking editors who set up an editing service this seems to cover the history without bothering into unhelpful details and case history. "Paid editors are also more likely to violate Wikipedia policy on WP:Neutral point of view and guidelines such as WP:Conflict of Interest and WP:Spam." I think you'd need to prove this and we've already seen paid editors whose work has not been an issue so this leads to some paid editing ... which is essentially already covered. "Paid editing has been a controversial practice" - actually what we have presently is more NPOV likely because there exists no consensus on what paid editing actually is. "This guideline/policy is meant to clarify who is considered to be a paid editor" - actually it's not as we aren't defining who a paid editor is but instead defining what the issues are, why there is disagreements and where to look if you are dealing with problems related to the issue including an editor POV-pushing or being Wikihounded by someone accusing you of Paid editing. Disagree about categories/examples but we are discussing that above. If we can find something that is helpful and isn't already covered then let's work on it there. "The vague generalities [...] are not helpful IMHO." Maybe plucjk a sentence out you feel is too vague that should be reworked. We need to follow the community's views on this or it will be worthless. The advice section is not there to advise on "how to avoid being caught as a paid editor" as paid editing is not forbidden so there is nothing to "catch" someone doing. This does clarify your interest so I appreciate that however I don't see any actual constructive changes as of yet. I do think the Advice section needs to be converted to prose as it does seem a bit NPOV but the actual information is fine. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   02:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)