User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Let us talk about:

"What should Wikipedia do about editors who are paid to contribute to Wikipedia?"

This is my discussion page. Therefore, I reserve the right to delete any comments that are left by users who are either anonymous or who are not adding any intelligent thought to the discussion. Other than that, I honestly want to see an open dialogue about what is best for Wikipedia (not what is best for me personally). Nothing on this page will be binding, obviously. However, after about August 30th, I would like to ask the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) to look at the commentary on this page and, with Jimbo Wales, move toward a sytematic guideline or policy for Wikipedia.

Background: Editing Wikipedia for money

My name is Gregory Kohs. In April 2006, I conceived a business model where, for a fee, my company would author Wikipedia articles for businesses and non-profit organizations that currently lack one.

Of course, being experienced for a couple of years editing Wikipedia, I knew that we would only be able to accept as clients businesses and charities that were notable corporations. Likewise, if we merely wrote commercial drivel, I knew that the articles would just get deleted as spam.

Wanting to do this "above board" and in an honest fashion, I searched high and low on Wikipedia to try to discover if authoring articles for a fee was prohibited, and I found nothing to say that. In fact, seeing the Reward Board only encouraged my resolve. We established the project as a State of Pennsylvania "DBA" entity called MyWikiBiz.com. We designed a logo, printed letterhead, set up a web site, took out paid announcement ads in the local newspaper and County bar association journal, established a bank account, and set up an online storefront that could accept credit cards and PayPal. In all, we sunk about $1200 and probably 100 hours into MyWikiBiz.com.

We started out with our first few customers. They were delighted.

Then, I made the mistake (?) of announcing our business with a series of free press releases. That brought Wikipedia's editors and admins out of the woodwork. They landed on our article contributions (especially Norman Technologies) like locusts. Some were prepared to condemn MyWikiBiz to Hell. Others saw the articles as well-written and a natural progression of filling an "open" encyclopedia with GFDL content.

It wasn't long before Jimbo Wales was made aware of MyWikiBiz.com, and his first reaction (on Wednesday, August 9) was to call my cell phone. It was a bad connection, and he didn't have time to talk then, so we arranged to speak later that afternoon. But, before we spoke, he indefinitely banned my account and IP address. Personally, I didn't think that showed much respect to a long-time contributor of quality content, but, he is the boss. We did manage to talk later, and while he did concede that there is no written or official policy against being paid for generating content for a corporation or non-profit, he adamantly called it antithetical to Wikipedia's mission. There will be the appearance of a conflict of interest.

He proposed a compromise, which is essentially Option 4, below. I initially agreed to this compromise. (NOTE: As of late August 2005, MyWikiBiz.com is operating under the "Jimbo Concordat".) However, I am now concerned about several problems with that arrangement. Before deciding exactly what to do, I want to see what the community thinks, and what the ArbCom thinks. I've heard several respected admins say that Jimbo is wrong on this call. And, most importantly, I am not going to spend more time and money redesigning my business under a new model, based on an unofficial, informal agreement that Wales could just retract at any time. So...

The OPTIONS that we should discuss

I believe that there are five distinct options that could address editing Wikipedia for money. I have organized them below, in a general ranking from "most liberal" to "most restrictive". If you believe there is another distinctly different option that is not shown here, please add it at the bottom, but be judicious. I don't want this to become a list of 14 options. Please add your comments and sign them (-- ~~~~). You can comment anywhere in the "grid" below, but only "vote" for one Option, please. -- MyWikiBiz 05:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Option 1: Anyone Can Edit, even in secret

You've heard, "the free encyclopedia anyone can edit", right? Wikipedia should not restrict the ability of someone to create or edit content, as long as it is not vandalism, POV, or original research. There are plenty of safeguards in place that filter out content that does not suit the encyclopedia. -- MyWikiBiz 05:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Reasons FOR

Undoubtedly, most people who create an article on Wikipedia have some form of "interest" in the subject. Where do we draw the line at what becomes a "conflict of interest"? Simple. That line is to assume that everyone may have a conflict of interest, and it is up to the community to critique, manage, and if necessary, delete anything unsuitable for the Wikipedia. If someone is hellbent on getting content into Wikipedia, they will find a way to keep trying. Only the oversight process protects the integrity of the content. -- MyWikiBiz 05:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Reasons AGAINST

If companies pay for their appearance in Wikipedia, it smacks of a telephone directory, or worse, a collection of advertisements. -- MyWikiBiz 05:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I vote for this option because...

Neither the identity of a contributor or his motivation for editing is relevant to the project; if he is editing propitiously and in a fashion consistent with encyclopedic standards, his contributions ought to be welcomed, irrespective of the extra-Wiki benefit they might accord him. It should be said, though, that, although I surely adopt my formulation as categorical, the consistent with encyclopedic standards conditional has not always been satisfied by MyWikiBiz (witness, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman Technologies; even as the disposition will almost surely be no consensus, there are many editors who think, the encyclopedic quality of the prose and citations notwithstanding, Norman Technologies to be non-notable), but surely the deliberative work of other editors within our normal processes will bear out those articles that are unencyclopedic, for the deletion of which a consensus will then develop. Joe 06:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Support, per Jahiegel. Neon Merlin 14:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Option 2: Conflicts of Interest Can Edit, with scrutiny

Recognizing that there will be occasions where someone may have a personal, cultural, religious, or financial conflict of interest, they should be encouraged or mandated to disclose such possible conflicts on the Discussion page of whatever affected article they edit. This will bring their edits under a greater degree of scrutiny, but with such disclosure, fair judgments can be made by the community. This is similar to how a news organization or reporter would fairly disclose any conflict of interest before or after reporting (such as NBC doing a story about General Electric). -- MyWikiBiz 05:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Reasons FOR

Wouldn't you rather have an editor "out in the open", acting with the transparency of disclosure? Believe it or not, good editors can manage to write NPOV content, despite having an interest in the subject (I can fairly tell you both the good and the bad -- mostly the bad -- about my pet beagle, even though I love him and have thousands of dollars invested in him). Good NPOV paid writers will come to be recognized and trusted as fair editors. Those who consistently can't separate their biases from neutral assessment will come to be seen as suspect contributors, placed on many watchlists, to be sure. -- MyWikiBiz 05:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

There is the chance that such edits, even when being written by someone employed by the subject, could benefit Wikipedia. Since the contributions of such accounts will inevitably be watched more closely than normal users, any questionable/biased etc. edits can be quickly removed. Therefore the potential benefit to Wikipedia is significant while the potential risk is minimal. Cynical 18:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Reasons AGAINST

Possibly not "in the open" enough -- talk page may be too discreet. For possible solutions, see my comments below. Ian Manka Talk to me! 00:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I vote for this option because...

This is the fairest way to allow freedom of speech, while also create a more robust monitoring process. I have such confidence that MyWikiBiz.com's activity within Wikipedia will be seen by most admins as a positive benefit to the encyclopedia, I will proudly sign our articles' Discussion pages. Competitors who wish to offer similar services will be obliged to submit to this same level of scrutiny (or face doubt as customers ask to see their accredited work), and the competition thus engendered will keep all "paid for edit" services on their best behavior. -- MyWikiBiz 05:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Option One will always be an option, and we can't force any editor into any other option without adopting draconian measures of identification, confirmation, and then policing or simply guessing at their motives. Guessing at motives can be quite bad and may violate AGF. What's more, more restrictive options would be contrary to WP's open nature and would seem to cross the foundation's wishes (Jimbo's comments notwithstanding). Being pragmatic, option two is the best we can hope for: encouraging PR people to disclose that they are editing for profit so that others can engage in civil NPOV, notability, etc. discussions and keep these new articles in line with our policies and guidelines. Finally, I think this whole straw poll and discussion sets a good precedent for any future PR people writing articles.--Kchase T 06:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree mostly with Kchase, but I'd like to expand on his reasoning, as well as comment on how this would be carried out.

If this option is adopted, I fear that such a disclosure will not be prominent enough to allow for the most inexperienced of users to realize that the article was written for a payment, no matter how much the writing was NPOV. My thought is that displaying a notice on a talk page would be like CNN reporting on Time Warner, with "Time Warner is the owner of CNN" in the news ticker (if that analogy makes any sense). I would suggest that an icon or other related notice be shown on the main, article page of a company that paid for this service. In my opinion, disclosure that the article was written for a payment could be displayed in four different ways (ordered from most prominent to least prominent):

Infobox display. A notice at the top of the page, in a userbox-like/cleanup messages-like setting. A similiar notice to the ones suggested above would be contained the box (similiar to this).
Icon display. A small picture (such as a dollar sign) could be displayed in the upper-right-hand corner of the article page, similiar to the featured article star or the Spoken Wikipedia icon. Clicking on the icon would lead you to more information on made-for-pay articles or a link to appropriate policies and help pages.
Italicized display. A notice in italics could be displayed at the top (or perhaps bottom, à la copy of page at meta Wiki) of the article. Similiar to the "wrongtitle" template, a notice could read: "This article was written by someone who was paid by the subject of this article. The article may not adhere to the neutral point of view policy. Learn more..." (with "learn more..." linked to the appropriate policy). Note that this is not any reflection on MyWikiBiz's writing, but for the anticipation of competitors/copycats who may or may not adhere to NPOV.
Notice on talk page. Two variations:
1. Written notice. A written statement stating that the article was written by a paid author.
2. Infobox notice. Same as "infobox display" option, but placed on talk page. Similiar to featured article boxes found currently on talk pages (similiar to this).
Forced naming scheme (Stevage's suggestion): All "paid editors" would be forced to use an account with some specific name, like "PE_..." (Paid editor), or maybe incorporating a $ or some other symbol if possible. This would open up *all* their contributions to scrutiny, and alert people on any page, once people learnt the naming scheme. Stevage 11:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

If this option (Option 2) is selected as the appropriate action to be pursued, I would opt for either an icon or italicized display, as both would be sufficient in informing users of the background behind the article, whilst minimizing confusion and/or "overdoing" the notice. Ian Manka Talk to me! 00:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that Option 2 is the correct choice, and I specifically support having an template on the talk page saying that the article was originally created for a fee. Wikipedians edit articles for a number of reasons, but mainly because they want to. Whether they are being payed or not is not an issue in my mind. If the article isn't worthy, it will go to AfD. If no one reads it and thinks that it's not worthy, what's the difference between someone being payed to create it and someone creating it because they like the subject? None. While that seems like Option 1, I'm supporting option 2 to allay concerns by other editors and admins, who disagree with my position. In other words, Option 2 is a compromise between Option 1 and 3-5, so even though I like 1 better, I'm jumping straight to the compromise solution. While I respect Mr. Wales, Option 4 is completely unworkable. Who defines who is a "prominant" wikipedian? Are they admins? High edit counts? What's to stop the company from simply creating some sockpuppets, or even meatpuppets, and posting it themselves? Not to say that MyWikiBiz would do that, but they won't be the only company to try this out.

In short: If they're good articles about notable subjects, who cares why they were written? --PresN 19:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

This option seems the most realistic and the least patronizing. I have a strong tendency toward, "Don't corrupt the purity of the Wikipedia ideal," but I am impressed by MyWikiBiz's presentation here and I would be willing to hope that this one company, at least, and the WP community could make it work. Truly, there is no guaranteed way to prevent paid writing from appearing here. And we can all edit it out of existence if it is not well done and does not chiefly serve the ends of WP. --Sean Lotz 10:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Option 3: Conflicts of Interest Must Edit in Quarantine

Wikipedia contributor Erik Möller (Eloquence) has developed a proposal where persons with a self-described conflict of interest would post new content to a sub-page of their own User page, then inform a "Conflict of Interest" board that they would like their content reviewed for inclusion in the general Wikipedia. -- MyWikiBiz 05:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Reasons FOR

This protects the Wikipedia from potentially biased content even entering the mainspace, and it also provides the "paid to edit" editor with a formal means within the Wikipedia environment of getting content seen and approved. -- MyWikiBiz 05:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Reasons AGAINST

Seems that this would be a somewhat cumbersome "two-step" that drags out the process of creation and review. -- MyWikiBiz 05:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I vote for this option because...

Option 4: Conflicts of Interest May Only Edit Offsite

I don't want to speak for this Option, other than to say it is what Jimbo Wales proposed as a compromise to MyWikiBiz, as a precursor to being unblocked as a user of Wikipedia. Perhaps Jimmy can comment here if it needs further elaboration. Otherwise, just read the "compromise". -- MyWikiBiz 05:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Since the linked email doesn't describe the proposed compromise, I've taken the liberty of following the thread to where the proposed compromise is actually described: [1]: "… write articles and post them on [one's] own site, under the GNU FDL, and to ask trusted prominent and independent Wikipedians to add the articles, on their own independent judgments of the merits of the articles." - Jmabel | Talk 15:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Reasons FOR

Jimbo Wales thinks it's a good idea. -- MyWikiBiz 05:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Places an "arm's length" between the person who is acting on a public relations basis and any actual Wikipedia content, while still keeping a clean chain of intellectual property rights. - Jmabel | Talk 15:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Serves the Wikipedia community and the general public interest by making the provenance of the material: the paid-for work can be cited as a separate source, so that there is no question what material in the article derives from this possibly compromised source. - Jmabel | Talk 15:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Reasons AGAINST

There are numerous flaws with this plan. The paid editor will have to devise and support the different "free license" aspects on his website (visitors may take content from here, but not from here). By having to post each article "in public view" on his website, the entrepreneur implicitly will be showing the world who his clients are (they may prefer anonymity), and his volume of business. No private enterprise should be expected to share that information with competitors. Furthermore, what's to prevent a vandal from taking these offsite postings and submitting them to Wikipedia after adding malicious text, thus unfairly impugning the editor's and the client's reputation from the outset? -- MyWikiBiz 05:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not set up a "Wikipedians only" page where you list the articles, and don't link to it from your website. Then, recruit a few wikipedians to move content from that page. You could set up that page to not be indexed by search engines, and you could email the link to users who agree to help (so that the url isn't publically posted anywhere). Regarding your points on anonymity and vandalism: if you added the articles yourself, your customers and volume of business would be easily determined anyway by looking at your contributions. With this method, there is actually more anonymity because multiple users will be adding your content to Wikipedia (that is, all your work won't be tied to your account). As for vandals, presumably you will want to monitor the articles on companies who hire you, so that will be easy to see. Furthermore, there's always the chance of vandalism on wikipedia, so the reputation of editor and client could be impugned at any time. If that's a concern, Wikipedia is a bad place to work. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 06:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The two biggest problems (as I see them):

Unpaid Wikipedian volunteers would effectively be carrying out the work that someone else is paid for: putting information about a company on Wikipedia. Wikipedians tend to edit in areas most interesting to them, and barely notable companies are almost certainly the least interesting area on Wikipedia: hence the need for companies like MyWikiBiz.
It's such an obstacle to getting information onto Wikipedia that most people won't put up with it, and will simply edit "quietly" without disclosing themselves.

I second Spangineer on your concerns about "impugning" your clients' reputations: it's part and parcel of having an article on Wikipedia, you definitely shouldn't promise your clients that that won't happen. Stevage 11:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Reply MyWikiBiz would make no promises about the future durability of an article. That's obvious. When I mentioned "unfairly impugning the editor", I meant that the VERY FIRST copy-post of a MyWikiBiz article could be unfairly altered, with the notion being that the first impression of the community would be, "Wow, there's a(nother) horrible article by that MyWikiBiz company." Then, how do I defend that what was posted was not our original material? Would MyWikiBiz be allowed to edit such an article, once posted? If not, our site would be the only forum where the act of the vandal could be "exposed", and we're not likely to get the same measure of traffic that the Wikipedia mainspace article will get. I'm just trying to show that someone who has a vendetta against MyWikiBiz would have too easy a time getting into our "free distribution" section, then making a bad name for our company. -- MyWikiBiz 12:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that's just a chance you have to take. If the very first post is badly treated, someone else will probably fix it. Dunno whether you're "allowed" to edit it, but at the very least, you could put some comments on the talk page. Your trying to control the content too much is exactly what some people are probably afraid of. Stevage 14:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I hear you, Steve. The GFDL states: "to assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it, with or without modifying it, either commercially or noncommercially. Secondarily, this License preserves for the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work, while not being considered responsible for modifications made by others". The way this has traditionally played out WITHIN Wikipedia is that the FIRST POST of an article establishes the GFDL. What Option 4 is proposing would be a little different, because the "independent" editors copying from the MyWikiBiz.com GFDL pages would essentially be taking credit for the work as the first instance of creation, within Wikipedia. If it is decided that MyWikiBiz does not then have the authority to modify the Wikipedia page in question, but only its Talk page, then we (as the creators of the GFDL) are not even being given the same benefits of GFDL that some average Joe has, two days later on Wikipedia. I'm not trying to "control content" -- it just doesn't seem fair to limit the GFDL vis-a-vis MyWikibiz, when we'll have been the ones doing the work to create the content! To reiterate what I've been saying to others: I would just be more comfortable with our GFDL rights if our creations were in some way WITHIN Wikipedia (not necessarily the mainspace), so that the community can see the chain of creation and subsequent editing, without having to go back to "our" domain -- ESPECIALLY if we're not going to be "allowed" to edit articles once transferred to the mainspace. I'm just asking for fairness, not "control". -- MyWikiBiz 16:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Your understanding of GFDL is seriously mistaken or misspoken. Please read up on it. For example, just because someone else places text into wikipedia (that you have the copyright to and have released under GFDL) it does not and can not under US law deprive you of your copyright status as owner of the copyright and able to also release it under other copyright licenses. WAS 4.250 23:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right, WAS. My understanding of GFDL is seriously mistaken or misspoken. GFDL was intended to promote communication in that "derivative works of the document must themselves be free in the same sense". If someone establishes upon Wikipedia a derivative work from a GFDL document originally housed on the MyWikiBiz.com site, it should then remain "free in the same sense". But what Jimbo Wales seems to be saying is that this Wikipedia document would no longer be "free in the same sense". It would be "free to everyone but Gregory Kohs, MyWikiBiz, or anyone paid or in the employ of the subject of the article". My understanding of the GFDL was that you can't have it both ways, but I guess Jimbo Wales' and your take is that you can have it both ways. Interesting. "Free" is in the eye of the beholder. -- MyWikiBiz 01:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

You're mistaking the what the Four Freedoms which the GFDL tries to protect/make-feasible are. They refer to copying and modifying works of intellectual property, not be able to force someone to let you use their resources and physical possessions (such as a website) as you insist. --Rhwawn (talk to Rhwawn) 03:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you guys going to cast a vote on this page, or is your intention rather to argue the fine points of GFDL? I'm not an idiot. I know that I can't "force" Wikipedia to let me edit it. As a thoughtful adult, I rather intended to discuss ways to fairly and acceptably edit Wikipedia for payment, being that THERE WAS NO WRITTEN POLICY AGAINST THAT when I started. If such a policy is going to come into being, I hope that the WP:Reward_board is shut down, and that the powers that be realize that by using sockpuppets and different IP addresses, any user can get around a ban that he or she feels is unfair, whether they are paid or unpaid. I didn't think that's the outcome everyone wants, though. -- MyWikiBiz 03:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Rhwawn provided a useful and informative response to your prior communication. We are here to build an encyclopedia. You are here to make money. The two goals can be compatible, but it will take time to work out all the details. I highly recommend that you act according to the deal you made with Jimbo until the community talks and argues and discusses and flames and votes and revotes and finally months from now reaches a consensus that may or may not have anything to do with your agreement with Jimbo. I wish you well, but doing our best to make Wikipedia be as NPOV (unbiased) as we can is more important. WAS 4.250 04:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I vote for this option because...

Option 5: Conflicts of Interest Must Be Stopped At All Costs

If the real crux of this problem of "paid to edit" content is that it creates the wrong sort of appearance for the "impartial" Wikipedia, then it should be stopped at all costs, wherever it is detected. This would include the Reward Board and the Bounty Board, which should be shut down. Additionally, good admins should research the User-originator of every article on Wikipedia, to determine if that person appears to have been paid by or in the employ of the subject of the article (for example, by investigating IP addresses).

Reasons FOR

If this is a matter of principle, this is the logical conclusion. -- MyWikiBiz 05:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Reasons AGAINST

This would create an immense amount of surveillance. Edit wars would begin to include personal indictments of "conflict of interest" based on the income sources of the protagonist. It could get rather ugly, and it goes against assuming good faith. -- MyWikiBiz 05:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I vote for this option because...

Suggestion area

Hi Gregory, I'll have to think on these options a little more before I comment on them, but if I could make a suggestion, your talk page is supposed to be for "direct" communication with you, and having this big proposal/commentary gets in the way of that. May I suggest that you move your proposal/commentary to a separate page such as in User:MyWikiBiz/Editing options (or some other name) and adding this page to your watchlist? --Deathphoenix ʕ 06:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your suggestion, Deathphoenix, but I am not sure that I would even properly execute what you suggested (I could let you sign into my account to do it, though). Furthermore, though, I have already notified many users of this particular destination page, and I posted it to WikiEN-l list. It may do more harm now to move it than to just bear through this process. I can always archive this page on August 30th, per my concept/background. For now, I've added a section for "direct" communication, below. -- MyWikiBiz 12:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I could easily do what is technically necessary to accomplish this, and we could post a notice at the top of User talk:MyWikiBiz pointing to the new page. Let me know if you want to do that. - Jmabel | Talk 17:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

In the spirit of suggestion, it should be noted that the ArbComm do not make policy (and, in fact, neither, on the whole, does Jimbo; if he appreciates that the community think him to be wrong apropos of this issue, he'll accede to the wishes of the community, especially since WP:5P are not imperiled here—indeed, I imagine that he involved himself here only because of the perceived urgency of the situation and wouldn't otherwise have trifled) and are not, qua editors, "special", such that you ought not to direct them to review this page but, instead, ought, should a consensus here develop, to propose (per WP:HCP, most probably at WP:VPP and WP:CS) a new policy or guideline on which the community might then comment. Joe 06:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Another idea that I should have mentioned above is this: In the past, I (Gregory Kohs) have been a financial donor to the Wikimedia Foundation. I would have no qualms about continuing that tradition with the company MyWikiBiz.com. Perhaps we could set aside $5 (or some such amount) from every one of our paid clients, toward a donation to the Foundation. I'd hope that this would demonstrate further our stewardship, but if it rubs people the wrong way, then I'd like to hear about that, too. -- MyWikiBiz 12:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- I strongly object to that idea. Even if your intentions are good, it looks like you are paying for a privelege. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs · e@} 21:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I can only say that we have the bounty board so why not allow companys to submit articles, the encyclopeadia is still free. If this is diallowed then surely the bounty system should be. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 13:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Also i dont like this agreement as i thought wikipedia was not censored. Making the guy publis it to the web 1st is in essence censoring. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 13:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice to see some donations from time to time. Although I don't think a set amount per article is good (paying for privilage...), I think anyone looking to make money from Wikipedia should donate something once in a while to support us. Ian¹³ /t 09:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Paid editing

I found I had a fair ammount to add to the debate, so I wrote up my thoughts within a userspace article. You can find it at User:LinaMishima/PaidEditing, and I welcome discussion and work to improve it LinaMishima 15:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure this already happens

I'm sure that numerous PR flacks around the world are already editing Wikipedia, and will be. See, for example, Brian Wasson, "The wide world of Wikipedia, and why PR practitioners should take note". It's clear that Wasson is trying to work out how to do this ethically; it is equally clear he hasn't quite got it right.

I also don't think that the matter is all that different from someone writing about their favorite band, or their favorite author, or a politician that they strongly support or oppose. Money is not a radically different motivator than other things. My biggest concern? That some big company or political pressure group might pay someone to put in the kind of time that it takes to "sit" on a page and effectively "own" it by wearing down other contributors. Clearly, behavior of that sort is a breach of ethics in any case, but would be far more so if it is being done for money: someone would basically be buying control of their (or their rival's) Wikipedia entry.

I would think that we have to work out how best to work with this, rather than make a fruitless effort to ban it. It seems to me that the proper approach would be full disclosure, which at a quick read does not seem to be among your listed options above. I would propose something like this:

Paid work should be under a "role account", and thereby kept separate from other work that the same person is doing.
If that person does other work on Wikipedia, then their non-role primary user page should disclose their paid-work role account(s) and each paid-work role account should point back to that primary page.
If that person does not do other work on Wikipedia, then the user page of their paid-work role account should state that explicitly.
The user page of each paid-work role account should be expected to attempt the fullest possible disclosure of possible conflicts of interest. Above all, it should be explicit who is paying the person, and if that is a PR agency, then any relevant clients should be listed. The burden of an honest disclosure should be on the person whose account it is.
We should also probably come up with a standard notification (probably a template) that should be placed on the user talk page of any article to which such a paid-work role account has contributed. This would be one of those templates that would go near the top of the page and would not be archived. A single template could include a list of all such accounts that have edited an article, where relevant.
Perhaps we need to come up with a distinct naming pattern for such role accounts, so that they can be quickly identified.

The "full disclosure" requirement is based more or less on what many professional publications ask of their contributing writers. Some, I would point out, go much further. The Nation expects its writers to disclose any personal friendships or past working relationships with people they are writing about, plus whether that person has ever (to their knowledge) written about them. For example, if I were writing about the Romanian newspaper Evenimentul Zilei I'd be expected to disclose that they once wrote a review of my personal website. I'm not sure we need to go that far, but it might not be a as idea. - Jmabel | Talk 17:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Jmabel, would you like to work in some of the above into my own proposal document, User:LinaMishima/PaidEditing? I think you have some very good ideas there, and at the least our suggestions seem to be supportive of eachother. Thanks for your contributions to this matter! LinaMishima 17:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

"Direct" Communication to MyWikiBiz

I will monitor this area for talk that lies outside the bounds of the above discussion! -- MyWikiBiz 12:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:Conflicts of interest. WAS 4.250 06:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Noteability

Elsewhere you said:

Personally, I can understand the failure of notability requirements, and I respect your decision on that point alone. If, in the next few months or years, another independent publication or two (other than the Charlotte Business Journal) discuss the company Norman Technologies, then I think that a new attempt to establish the article ought to pass inspection, based on Criterion 1 of WP:CORP. However, your mention of the "bad precedent" argument suggests to me that political reasons were also present in your mind when making the Delete call, and that is nearly as "bad" as the supposedly bad precedent. I will not personally pursue WP:DRV for this company at this time. -- MyWikiBiz 02:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I've run into this before and my advise was "tell the company you work for to put out publicity releases and when major news outlets report noteablility on the part of the company you work for then wikipedia can repeat it saying The New York Times reports that SilverMining Corp. has announced a major strike or whatever. We really can't just repeat any ol' thing off some website - We report what encyclopedic sources report. Or at least we are trying to. And no we aren't going to just give up trying to be encyclopedic just cause some people are adding every fact known to man about pokeman. WAS 4.250 05:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Artbyus

I put a speedy on Artbyus, you changed it to a prod, the "owner" has spent sometime adding a whole pile of external links, which to me are just more advertising promo, and confirm it should be deleted. He then deleted the prod tag. I put it back on, but I'm not sure of the correct protocol. --Brat32 07:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it inappropriate to use AfD to advertise your company?

[2] JChap2007 16:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

That's why I put the smiley face in there. That symbolizes "humor". I would never take business from a company whose article I nominated (or voted) for deletion. If you think a Wikipedia AfD discussion is a good way to cost-effectively reach companies who need our services, you have a different angle on mathematics than I do. -- MyWikiBiz 17:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It certainly is a cost-effective way to reach that company (although I think that this particular company probably isn't too worried about its Wikipedia entry). Also, as it costs nothing but time to post to AfD, it would seem quite a "cost-effective" way to do so. Or, if you think that zero divided by any number ever gives you a result other than zero, you have a much different understanding of basic mathematics than I do ;-) JChap2007 17:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I just figured if I really wanted their business, I would have sent them private correspondence, and not brought overt public attention to the fact that I'm conducting business. But, if it's striking you as a foul, then it must be striking others that way. I'll go back and edit my comment out. I love Wikipedia. -- MyWikiBiz 18:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It sets a bad example. It is better to nip this sort of thing in the bud. I'm glad you love wikipedia and I appreciate a smily face meaning humor. Speaking of humor and not doing what we don't want everyone to do; a comedian (Alan Arkin? in Catch 22?) had a line about being told not to do something because "What if everyone did it?" and replied "Then I'd be a fool to do any different wouldn't I?" so if only you do it its not so bad cause only one person is doing it and if everyone does it its not so bad that you also do it cause everyone else is also doing it. WAS 4.250 22:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment from Jimbo

I was disappointed re your communication from Jimbo that the conflicts of interest page was "Absolutely unacceptable, sorry" - can you post, or get permission from Jimbo to post your full message and response - as I argued on the mailing list - paid editing of wikipedia under grants, etc are also at risk without a useful policy - in fact - if an employer allows one to edit wikipedia as part of their employment duties they are also at risk. However, all the formal policy does is force those people underground, and the conflict to be not easily verified/checked/etc by open review of those people's edits. --Trödel 22:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You're preaching to the choir. I've e-mailed Jimbo to see if he minds my reposting the thread of our short e-mail exchange. Some people may be disturbed by revealing a private e-mail in public, even if it contains only three words from the other party. -- MyWikiBiz 01:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - permission is useful - "better safe than sorry" --Trödel 01:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales elected to comment on this matter at [3]. -- MyWikiBiz 17:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

I have filed a request for arbitration regarding you here. --Cyde Weys 14:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the arbitration: please make your statement here and I will copy it over to the arbitration page for you. --Cyde Weys 14:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no statement on this matter to make at this time. -- MyWikiBiz 16:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Silence in the face of your accusers may be virtuous in some cases, but here it is likely to be prejudicial to your case. --Doc 18:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

OFFICIAL STATEMENT: I hope that the Arbitration Committee will review the entire legacy of Conflicts, of PaidEditing, of the threads at WikiEN-l and of Options (which took quite some time and effort on my part, to create a fair discussion forum), and weigh the effort and thoughtfulness of those discussions against the three-word reply of "Absolutely unacceptable, sorry" by Jimbo Wales, regarding Conflicts. In light of that, I hope that (a) my most recent juvenile attempts at WP:POINT will be understood as a one-off spurt of activity (where I actually identified some pretty awful non-notable or spam-linked articles, but did so in the wrong way), and that (b) the ArbCom will elect to view this "case" not so much as a means to punish MyWikiBiz, but to address the larger issue of "paid editing" on Wikipedia. The herd of horses is already out of the barn, as evidenced by the Reward Board and by PRSA article. Are Wikipedia admins resolved in attempting to remedy the situation one AfD, one block, and one IP ban at a time? If so, then Wikipedia admins will have a ton of arduous work before them, and the prejudice against MyWikiBiz is going to be insurmountable, anyway, and this "statement" will have been just more wasted time. -- MyWikiBiz 15:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I've posted your comment to the RfAr. If you need any modifications to the statement, please let me know (well, let us know, since you'd be making the request on your talk page). --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a truly sad state of affairs, MyWikiBiz. If you're successful in what you want to achieve here, and I think there's a good chance you will be—maybe not immediately, but I think the lure of profit will keep this issue alive until Wikipedia is overrun with predatory editors (and that's really what this is). What I predict is that Wikipedia will be abandoned by the more serious editors, who will want to work somewhere where the goals of the project are respected, and that won't be here anywmore, because your goals and the project goals are unalterably in conflict. -- Slowmover 21:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Predatory? I'm not sure that's the apt term to use. Yes, MyWikiBiz would exploit the environment that Wikipedia provides, to the financial benefit of my family. At the same time, however, we would be adding thoughtful, NPOV content to Wikipedia, which is (you have to agree) to the benefit of the volunteer editor community (it's less time they have to spend creating an article that ought to be created) and the at-large user community (who will be able to amend and edit whatever content we place there, anyway). You may argue that NPOV can't be achieved by a paid entity, but then, you've got a lot of work ahead of you, boycotting NBC for ever having delivered a story about General Electric, its parent corporation. Granted, MyWikiBiz may have some growing pains, learning where to wave the white flag (Norman Technologies, for example). But, if you want to wring your hands about Wikipedia being exploited, how do you feel about the Answers.com shared advertising dollars deal, or the fact that there are at least 180 outbound links from Wikipedia to ad-supported Wikia.com? -- MyWikiBiz 21:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not too concerned about WP generating revenue to support itself. But when a third party uses WP for personal gain, it's an abuse of the freely given talent and effort that has created the value of Wikipedia. But the world operates this way in general; we take many things we didn't pay for as a matter of routine (air, water, resources). Maybe many of us who don't like what you're doing just don't belong on Wikipedia. -- Slowmover 13:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

You make logical, impassioned points, Slowmover. I respect that. You didn't really address the outbound links to Wikia.com, though. Those (to my understanding) don't generate any revenue for Wikipedia. They generate revenue for the shareholders of Wikia.com, because the site is loaded with Google ads. The shareholders include Jimmy Wales. I don't want to accuse anyone of hypocrisy, but I will say that if Wales is concerned about the "appearance of impropriety", then he (or one of his "volunteers") should be actively deleting links from Wikipedia (non-profit beacon of freedom) to Wikia.com (exploitative capitalist enterprise), because he has influence within both organizations. -- MyWikiBiz 16:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right. It's long been a concern of mine that WP content may ultimately end up enriching a small elite who, without owning the content, own the means to create maximum value from it. The current snapshot of WP at any one time may be a mess, but by flagging the best edit of a large subset of articles (the holy grail of WP ver 1.0) it may eventually be possible to produce something of unparalleled quality and comprehensiveness, and those with the ability to control that extraction process may be the true beneficiaries. I have no solution for this problem. -- Slowmover 16:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
It may appear I didn't directly address your point there, but I think what I said is a corollary to it, since I'm agreeing with you here. -- Slowmover 16:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for seven days

Separately to the arbitration issue above, I have blocked you for seven days due to your blatant advertising at AFD, specifically the statement "They should have contacted a company like MyWikiBiz.com first. ;-) -- MyWikiBiz 14:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)". --AlisonW 14:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Alison has pointed out that an attempt at humor can be taken the wrong way. The 7-day block is duly noted as a firm reminder to stay "serious" about this important discussion. -- MyWikiBiz 17:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

One philosophical problem...

In any volunteer network, if one employee is paid it can actually undermine the motivation/dedication of those who are not paid. I think on a philosophical point of view your being out in the open is actualy more damageing then the fact that you take money to edit. But then again, I could be wrong. :) Good luck, ---J.S (t|c) 04:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The goal of paid editing is different from the goal of encyclopedia building. The latter aims for objectivity, the former must serve the needs of its client base. As others have said this no doubt is already going on, but ironically it may be more damaging when done openly. -- Slowmover 13:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Disagreed. I understand that the director of the American Red Cross is paid over $600,000 per year in salary. While this has received criticism, it apparently has not brought the organization or its mission to its knees. If everyone agrees that "conflict of interest" editing is going on under the radar (yet Wikipedia continues to thrive and grow), how is it that MORE damage will come to it when a transparent organization attempts to place notable, NEUTRAL point of view content on the encyclopedia, that "the volunteer community" apparently has not had the time over five long years to bother entering into the compendium? As long as some Wikipedians cling to the notion that "volunteer-generated" is what "free" means (I don't), I think the Wikipedia is going to continue to have a surplus of Pokemon/record label/rugby team articles, and a dearth of articles about corporations and non-profit organizations. Seriously, if MyWikiBiz were to post non-neutral facts about a company (especially one that has skeletons in the closet), how long do you think it will take for another user to edit in a "Controversies and Criticism" section? And then the "community" has the benefit of that body of knowledge from both sides, rather than a blank page. That's what it really comes down to -- you prefer a blank page for volunteers to view, rather than a robust page of content that both paid editors and volunteers can access and modify. It's a valid position to have -- just not one I agree with. By the way, did you know National Public Radio is "listener supported", but about 23% of their budget comes from corporate underwriting, too? Shudder. -- MyWikiBiz 15:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't really disagree with your points in the way you've expressed them. Perhaps you refuse or fail to grasp the points underlying the concerns some of us have. Perhaps it's not in your interest to try to see the other side, as it is with all advocates. It's your advocacy that I see as the problem (and the likely problem of PBS accepting corporate money too). There are lots of editors here with an agenda (whether it's their clients' interests or their hobbies or their fanatical fandom for some trivial topic) but we don't need more of this. Believe it or not, there are editors here with no intentional agenda (I'm not saying they're without bias), and we need more of those. And those editors are motivated differently than you, and as J.S tried to say above, they could be driven away when they see other agendas taking over (not just yours). Maybe the damage from you is no worse than the other trolls and POV pushers here. But it's also true that your clients are not that notable (from what we've seen so far). As you say, there are many notable corporations that lack articles on WP, or that have biased articles that need fixing, but I don't think you care about changing that, because "contributing" is not your goal. In most cases, it's unlikely that notable corporations pay any attention to their WP article, precisely because they are notable. Coca-Cola may or may not like what WP has to say about it (or, of course, they might be quietly editing their article), but they don't need WP. Tiny, non-notable companies who are likely to become your clients can get a boost from WP exposure; otherwise, why would they pay? It's almost a given that a company willing to pay you for a WP article isn't that well known. -- Slowmover 16:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Notability should be borne out in an AfD process. "Not that notable" is an irrelevant opinion, like being "not that pregnant". Being notable or not is quite clearly defined in WP:CORP. We failed with Norman Technologies, I believe because two mentions in the same independent source (Charlotte Business Journal) was not sufficient. In my mind, the company is notable because it does high-level business with multiple Fortune 500 clients in the banking industry. But that's my personal opinion, and irrelevant, because it's not in WP:CORP. Our article on the Family & Workplace Connection has received surprisingly little attention, probably because it's an organization that deserves to be on Wikipedia per WP:CORP, and nobody had ever got around to writing it. (By the way, we accepted no payment for that article. We're not the complete money-grubbing heathens that so many seem to want to paint us. <Not you, Slowmover.>) Anyway, if anything, this has been a rewarding experience for me as a person who loves to learn about process. Whatever the ultimate outcome. -- MyWikiBiz 16:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Your example with the Director of Red Cross isn't exactly what I'm talking about. (For a correlation, I think Jimbo actually has a salary). I was really thinking more on the lines of the grunts. It has been shown (forgive me if I can't remember the study) to reduce the number of volunteers if paid employees are used alongside of volunteers. (assuming similar duties).

I don't have any problem with you making money with editing. It logical when your dealing with topics that have very little interest. However, I question the value of such a service. Topics that attract no editors are articles with very few readers. Articles that don't get read provide 0 exposure for your client.

I almost want to sugust moving underground. No matter what, everything you submit to wikipedia will be out in the open. Your under no obligation to provide your personal modivations for editing. However, pay-to-edit will eventualy evolve into POV warriors for hire... and that is a tad scarry. ---J.S (t|c) 22:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)