354:
because virtually all of their edits cause work for others. But the edits of a typical paid advocacy editor are not like that at all. First of all, to be able to be effective, such an editor needs to establish a good reputation. The only way to do that is by establishing a history of quality editing. That allows them to maybe get away with, for example, softening something in an article to favor a client once in a while. If you put on blinder and look at only those edits, yes, it's tempting to wring your hands and maybe emit some smoke from your ears. But if you calm down for a second, and think about the total contribution of such an editor, which is what is ultimately at stake, isn't it a net positive for
Knowledge? Why discourage this in any way? --
371:, I appreciate that you are opposed to having a COI policy but you appear to be trying to make an argument based on pure hand-waving. What data do you have that supports your claim that "the reality is that the vast majority of their edits will be in compliance, and a small percentage will not comply, but most of those problems will, sooner or later, be rectified."? Also, would you please clarify whether it is really essential for your argument, if this claim is true or false? This is a hard enough conversation without people making unsupportable claims about reality. Thanks.
127:
350:
percentage will not comply, but most of those problems will, sooner or later, be rectified. In other words, a given paid editor is objectively no different than the average editor. The nature and motivation for their problem edits might be different, but, quantitatively, they are likely to be less problematic than the average editor, because the vast majority of their edits are likely to be of high quality.
444:
In the real world, COI generally means a financial interest that a person has which will be directly impacted by a decision that they are involved in making, where, in that role, they are supposed to be acting on behalf of an organization or constituency. Proposed policies have been trying to create
349:
I'm sorry, I still don't get it. While it's theoretically possible for an editor paid to advocate for a given interest to edit such that 100% of his or her edits are non-compliant with our content-based policies, the reality is that the vast majority of their edits will be in compliance, and a small
353:
The amount of work on WP is endless. Most of the work done by most editors moves us forward, but some of the work done by all editors takes us backwards. But as long the number of steps forward are greater than the number of steps backward, we are making progress. The typical vandal is a problem
246:
So, what matters above all is encouraging disclosure in every possible way if they have a high-risk-of-COI-editing situation. Including letting them simply say "I have a high-risk-of-COI on this article" with no further questions (which could tend to out them) on that then allowed. And the top
311:
As well as any policy that is developed, the health of
Knowledge will depend on the collective will of the editors to make sure information about the policies is made clear to editors who sometimes don't want to understand. Recently an editor asked for an article to be removed because his product
385:
B2C, a COI is problematic in terms of editing on WP. It does not necessarily mean that all edits made by a paid editor will be bad or non-compliant or whatever. I don't know if anyone has suggested that. But where's the data to support what you're saying about the overall quality of such editors'
294:
Good points. First, at the detail level, I meant no special COI type constraints. But my answer to your general question is that in many situations, editors are often given a lot of latitude via a range of mechanisms and realities (e.g. "benefit of the doubt" or the dis-functionality / practical
238:
If #1 is the case, and they disclose that they have a high-risk-of-COI-editing situation at an article, their reduced clout combined with the normal editor and article processes will prevent problematic editing. It will go smoother if they follow the wp:coi editing procedures, but they are not
295:
unusuability of wp:undue/wp:weight) And if they edit in a situation where conflicting-with-Knowledge interests have dominated over their fortitude, they will (within that discretion) do problematic editing and inevitably be out of compliance with those guidelines. Sincerely,
431:
First, to avoid a totally confusing conversation, we need to acknowledge that "COI" is given two completely different conflicting meanings within
Knowledge, (even within wp:coi) and that neither of those matches the (third) real world meaning. The two Knowledge meanings are:
239:
essential to this. However, I've learned that some COI editors WANT the guidance of COI-editing rules either because they simply want the guidance and a rulebook to follow, or to deflect improper requirements and expectations form the persons paying/controlling them.
312:
was no longer being sold, and wanted to replace it with instructions on how to switch from another product to his new product. The old article, it turns out, was a direct copy of the company's web page about the product, and no one had noticed for several years. —
439:
The trappings of high-risk-of-coi situation exists. Paid editing that serves the interests of the payer is an example of this. wp:coi also hints at a ridiculously wide range of other situations as being a COI, while completely missing other huge
268:
Perhaps, but why or how would anyone "edit unconstrained" (per #1)? All edits are constrained, sooner or later (and the more significant the article the more likely it's sooner), by other editors reviewing the article content for compliance with
537:
415:
of a company with a paragraph about "Insolvency in self-administration" (it means 'banckupcy' just as "I am disinclined to acquiesce your request." means "No!") cut out from a corporate press-release).
225:
234:
If interests (which conflict with the goals of
Knowledge) are influential enough to overwhelm the person's fortitude then, if they edit unconstrained, they will edit against the golden rule at the top of
411:
of dedicated "enemies of wikipedia" (unlike drive-by vandals). (I know exactly what you mean by "softening": just days ago I had to fix a marketroid edit which replaced a sentence about
461:
281:, etc. If the edits are in compliance with those content-specific policies, what is the problem, even if they go against the golden rule at the top of WP:COI? I just don't get it. --
242:
If #1 is the case, and they don't disclose it, then they are beyond the reach of policies and guidelines (and so such are worthless in that case) and problematic COI editing will occur.
362:
456:
262:
436:
A situation out of compliance with the "golden rule" definition exists. I.E. when the strength of conflicting-with-wikipedia intersest is stronger than the person's fortitude
559:
494:
118:
481:
417:
39:
425:
475:
337:
321:
306:
289:
247:
of that "high-risk-of-COI-editing" list is paid advocacy. So a more narrowly written version of the proposal of this article, but which requires
380:
542:
395:
523:
509:
194:
574:
531:
74:
505:
114:
110:
106:
102:
98:
190:
80:
210:
206:
126:
517:
230:
I've been analyzing this for a year and came out with, once the haze is cleared away, it being simpler than it looks:
471:
20:
69:
508:, since the result there depends in part on the discussion here. The vote and discussion (not an RfC) at
60:
174:
93:
24:
359:
404:...to be able to be effective, such an editor needs to establish a good reputation. <...: -->
499:
286:
452:
421:
333:
317:
302:
258:
8:
50:
545:. Linking to this and the two contemporaneous proposals as related closed discussions.
65:
141:
391:
46:
570:
376:
313:
368:
355:
282:
527:
513:
270:
137:
274:
553:
467:
387:
566:
372:
278:
142:
504:
I'll expand a bit on Mdann's closing statement when I close the RfC at
538:
Under discussion: a 'paid contributions' amendment to the Terms of Use
226:
After a year of analysis, it boils down to being simpler than it looks
412:
139:
548:
326:
I guess that that was an extreme version of that "latitude" :-)
445:
rules based on #2 (the trappings) which is usually a mis-fire.
143:
251:(not ceasing of editing) should also be included. Sincerely,
162:
In
November 2013, there were three main discussions and votes
462:
Wikimedia
Foundation sends cease and desist letter to WikiPR
489:
512:
still needs closing, for anyone interested. - Dank (
15:
405:That allows them to maybe get away with <: -->
27:and anything related to its purposes and tasks.
472:WP:AN#WMF cease and desist against WikiPR
13:
14:
586:
526:is done. (Thanks Mdann). - Dank (
407:. FUI, this is exactly a typical
125:
40:Click here to start a new topic.
524:WT:Paid editing policy proposal
510:WT:Paid editing policy proposal
1:
575:12:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
565:Thanks, that is great news!!
560:10:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
532:03:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
518:15:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
506:WT:Conflict of interest limit
495:21:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
457:18:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
426:01:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
396:01:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
381:00:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
363:00:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
338:16:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
322:16:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
307:03:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
290:01:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
263:01:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
37:Put new text under old text.
191:Paid editing policy proposal
7:
45:New to Knowledge? Welcome!
10:
591:
207:Conflict of interest limit
75:Be welcoming to newcomers
466:Please see the relevant
156:Paid Editing Proposals
70:avoid personal attacks
119:Auto-archiving period
488:21:09, 19 Nov 2013 (
81:dispute resolution
42:
221:
220:
164:on paid editing:
150:
149:
61:Assume good faith
38:
582:
558:
556:
551:
543:Proposal on Meta
493:
484:
478:
450:
402:B2C, you wrote"
331:
300:
256:
175:No paid advocacy
152:
151:
144:
130:
129:
120:
25:No paid advocacy
16:
590:
589:
585:
584:
583:
581:
580:
579:
554:
549:
546:
540:
502:
487:
482:
476:
464:
446:
386:contributions?
369:User:Born2cycle
327:
296:
252:
228:
146:
145:
140:
117:
87:
86:
56:
23:for discussing
12:
11:
5:
588:
578:
577:
539:
536:
535:
534:
501:
500:Two more to go
498:
463:
460:
442:
441:
437:
429:
428:
409:modus operandi
400:
399:
398:
347:
346:
345:
344:
343:
342:
341:
340:
244:
243:
240:
236:
227:
224:
219:
218:
203:
202:
187:
186:
171:
170:
169:
166:
165:
163:
159:
158:
148:
147:
138:
136:
135:
132:
131:
89:
88:
85:
84:
77:
72:
63:
57:
55:
54:
43:
34:
33:
30:
29:
28:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
587:
576:
572:
568:
564:
563:
562:
561:
557:
552:
544:
533:
529:
525:
522:
521:
520:
519:
515:
511:
507:
497:
496:
491:
485:
479:
473:
469:
459:
458:
454:
449:
438:
435:
434:
433:
427:
423:
419:
414:
410:
406:
401:
397:
393:
389:
384:
383:
382:
378:
374:
370:
367:
366:
365:
364:
361:
357:
351:
339:
335:
330:
325:
324:
323:
319:
315:
310:
309:
308:
304:
299:
293:
292:
291:
288:
284:
280:
276:
272:
267:
266:
265:
264:
260:
255:
250:
241:
237:
233:
232:
231:
223:
216:
212:
208:
205:
204:
200:
196:
192:
189:
188:
184:
180:
176:
173:
172:
168:
167:
161:
160:
157:
154:
153:
134:
133:
128:
124:
116:
112:
108:
104:
100:
97:
95:
91:
90:
82:
78:
76:
73:
71:
67:
64:
62:
59:
58:
52:
48:
47:Learn to edit
44:
41:
36:
35:
32:
31:
26:
22:
18:
17:
541:
528:push to talk
514:push to talk
503:
470:discussion:
465:
447:
443:
430:
408:
403:
352:
348:
328:
297:
253:
248:
245:
229:
222:
214:
198:
197:) (closed:
182:
178:
155:
122:
92:
19:This is the
418:Staszek Lem
314:Anne Delong
213:) (closed:
181:) (closed:
249:disclosure
477:Ross Hill
474:. Thanks
448:North8000
413:bankrupcy
329:North8000
298:North8000
254:North8000
83:if needed
66:Be polite
21:talk page
94:Archives
51:get help
388:Omnedon
271:WP:NPOV
235:wp:coi.
215:opposed
199:opposed
183:opposed
123:30 days
567:Jytdog
373:Jytdog
275:WP:IRS
468:WP:AN
440:ones.
79:Seek
571:talk
483:talk
453:talk
422:talk
392:talk
377:talk
334:talk
318:talk
303:talk
279:WP:N
259:talk
211:talk
195:talk
179:talk
68:and
490:UTC
573:)
550:SJ
547:–
530:)
516:)
486:)
455:)
424:)
394:)
379:)
336:)
320:)
305:)
277:,
273:,
261:)
217:)
201:)
185:)
121::
113:,
109:,
105:,
101:,
49:;
569:(
555:+
492:)
480:(
451:(
420:(
390:(
375:(
360:C
358:2
356:B
332:(
316:(
301:(
287:C
285:2
283:B
257:(
209:(
193:(
177:(
115:5
111:4
107:3
103:2
99:1
96::
53:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
