Knowledge talk:No paid advocacy/Archive 4

569:

automotive firms -- I can edit nothing about those industries. My parents run a brokerage, so I cannot edit any articles about stocks, bonds, forex, t-bills, investing, inflation, hedging, options, mutual funds, monetary policy. My spouse is currently hospitalized with a chronic disease, so I cannot write anything about health, hospitals, medicine. My fully-grown oldest child is running for office, so I cannot write anything about politics, policy, legislation, bureaus, government. My youngest child is graduating from high school and going on to university, so I cannot write anything about education... and they are in a band, so I cannot edit anything about music, lest I badmouth the competition. As a citizen of my nation, I cannot edit articles related to wars; as a citizen of my planet, I cannot edit articles related to the environment, nor the cosmos. WP:COI is just a subset of WP:NPOV, and there is a very fuzzy line between them. Objectivity means the ability to separate oneself from bias; it is essential for scientists, philosophers, and wikipedians. My sig would have 88 words just to explain my *direct* WP:COI, not counting one-hop indirections like my kid's pop band. I realize the proposal is intended to be narrowly tailored to editing for a formal employer, but the slope is a lot more slippery than that... I would say, inherently slippery. Better to admit we have bias, and in some cases (more than might be apparent at first glance as the list above shows) some feasibly-plausible source of financial incentives to push a particular POV. The trick is to resist, not to regulate.

5338:

resources to throw into edit warring, and constructive editors and admins often throw in the towel rather than commit the time and energy required to resist motivated PoV-pushers. As has already been stated above, part of the solution is to insist that edits ONLY summarize and are cited to reliable sources. Material that is not cited to reliable sources may already be removed (though edit warriors continually reinsert), and where edits are supported by weak sources, better reliable (and independent) references should always carry the day—but I think the frustration behind this proposal is that summarizing what reliable sources say is ignored or resisted by editors with an agenda (whether paid or not) and enforcement is time-consuming and often ineffective. I would rather see the "bright line" drawn at resistance to accepting edits based in reliable, independent sources; with guidelines for enforcement when warriors choose to ignore our encyclopedic purpose of summarizing what reliable sources say. Paid and unpaid advocates can make and likely have contributed constructive input, but it is when they cross into PoV-pushing that they become a problem. I believe it would be better to focus on the behavior, even when it is disguised/subtle but persistent, and better enforcement.

3725:. There's a distinct line of difference between conventional armies and mercenaries (in theory, at least): the most relevant aspect of which is purported accountability to the world community (through the Hague, for example) according to rules of engagement (blatant murder, torture and state sanctioned assassinations, while flouted of late, come to mind as being considered to be somewhat on the illegal side). We're not going to prevent mercenaries from infiltrating but that is not justification for not bothering to put policy in place to actively state that hired guns are not welcome or, if they are going to contribute, there are policies in place which require them to declare themselves and their position. Being an academic by profession is not the equivalent of being hired to push a specific line regardless of whether you believe it to be accurate or not. Why can't the Knowledge community be trusted to be able to differentiate? Are we only just smart enough to be able to develop and maintain a detailed encyclopaedic resource yet too thick to be able to make less than subtle judgement calls? -- 4844:

was passed banning all paid editing it would continue to operate anyway and continue to show us up. It's a situation which needs to be strictly monitored and mitigated, not entirely banned for the sake of it. IMO the growth of wikipedia has been greatly stalled because of the fear and resentment certain members here show towards anything with any possible monetary value and if they organized something which was above board I'm sure less "evil" editing would be going on. In fact I'd argue that being paid to write something, as long as the editing is neutral and within guidelines and meets out notability requirements with reliable sourcing, then there's actually a greater chance that they would produce something of higher quality than they would if unpaid. Why shouldn't editors be rewarded for their work every now and then and why should it matter how the article got there if the article itself doesn't have serious issues? Far more harm is generally done by people with personal/political/racial prejudices who insert disinformation and lies into articles and go undetected.♦

2702:. Those building new companies or releasing new technologies or promoting some new fad are overwhelmingly subject matter "experts" and many would pass even the loosest definition having won competitions or spent x years as sponsored professionals. Academic expertise should be an applicable "out" in "academic" areas like science. But "technical" expertise is something that almost anyone can claim. I couldn't care less if a PhD student writes an article about a particular frog for which his faculty has received research $ $ . I have a problem when a guy who skated as a pro in the early 90s uses his "expertise" to spam WP with advertising for his new skateboard. Same for "expert" programmers who make that claim to promo their latest non-notable software distro. I would hope that the WP community has enough sense to differentiate between an academic who might be paid to conduct research and then chooses to share some of that research with WP and a promo-spammer who cries "expert" as an excuse to promote a commercial endeavour. 3484:

their work that is not connected to Knowledge. For example, if someone who is paid by "Motherboards-r-us" to solder circuit boards (or whatever it is they do to circuit boards) and then chooses to write about the process on Knowledge then it is likely that they're going to have a view point about soldering as well as about Motherboards-r-us and that person is, in some sense, an advocate (for or against) the company and an expert on soldering motherboards. But that's ok because he or she is not being rewarded or punished for whatever they write on Knowledge. On the other hand, someone who is paid by Motherboards-r-us to write either about their company or about soldering is paid for what they end up writing. If they write unfavorably about the company, forget to mention the importance of Motherboards-r-us in their article on circuit board soldering, or give an honestly held but negative opinion about the company, they would likely be out of a job because that's what they're being paid to do.

1475:

uncontroversial phrases such as the fact that Canada was Cruz's place of birth and that he was widely seen as bearing some responsible for the 2013 government shutdown. Anyone entering the page to inject a well-documented fact was met with immediate resistance and removal of the material. Despite the fact that one or two editors reversed the new Cruz advocates' revert, the person continually removed the material. A paid political partisan who is engaged in editing as a full time endeavor (particularly working in tandem with his or her own sockpuppet or misguided and passionate supporters) can easily exhaust the average informed person trying to add a few simple facts to the page. In such cases, the whole article is biased. What does one do? You can't prove it but you can smell it. Is it ad hominem to ask about conflicts of interest and if one does, should the editor be required to answer?

1232:"The Obamacare debate resulted in a legislative impasse and a government shutdown as both parties pour millions into promoting and defending their position. This time, however, the war of words is not limited to Congress and the news media. One of the new battlegrounds is Knowledge, where every word in the 13,000-word Obamacare article is bitterly fought over." . . . 'This editorial war on Knowledge is pretty representative of the high impact Knowledge profiles now play in forming public opinion about political issues, brands, products, corporations. The stakes are often in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and so we find ourselves quite busy helping our clients achieve their objective on Knowledge, while adhering to Knowledge's notoriously complex rules and practices,' said Alex Konanykhin, CEO of www.WikiExperts.us, the leading Knowledge visibility agency." 2410:

only becomes COI in my book when the amount of renumeration you received changes because of a wiki entry. So a £20k p/a curator should be able to write for Wiki with no COI as a subject professional. Only if by writing for Wiki his £20k becomes £22k do I think there would be a COI. IMHO we have to allow curators to do what they are good at so long as they do it not for MORE money and they do it impartially without the i word. If we cannot sort this out you will have the paradox that a volunteer curator could edit wiki and a salaried curator should not. Or that a salaried curator should only edit where there is no subject relation to their employer which is nonsense. In hard terms do you want National Railway Museum curators who know about objects in their care to make properly referenced contributions or not? The example could be repeated a 1000 times.

4396:- Here, the PR manager needs to be absolutely open at all stages. A key step is to work to make sources available (e.g. good history section on their website, current information pages on their website, locate published histories of their organisation (here, a newspaper), and so on). Then make a request (on or off wiki) for a Knowledge editor willing to write an article. The article creation or creation request (if submitting through AfC) should disclose both who made the request and the work done to open up and make sources available on the history of the organisation. The job of a PR manager in this case is to get material placed in sources that can then be used for the Knowledge article. Not to have material placed directly in Knowledge. 6361:

in general falls afoul of point 2, since I work in a field almost entirely funded by government grants/private grants driven almost entirely by pubic interest in the subject (astronomy). Any time spent doing public outreach is putting money directly into our coffers (indeed, a point made again and again whenever people talk about the need to do outreach). As far as I can see, any attempt to focus on whether people are being paid, rather than whether they're co-opting Knowledge to engage in advocacy, is always going to sweep up academics. I only get paid because the public is interested in the universe. Every good article in Knowledge about planets, stars, or galaxies makes it easier for me to get funding. 16:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

5011:

to and Senatorial nonfeasance of the current occupant of a large white house on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC. I was a relatively new editor at the time, and on being counselled by a wiser editor that reflexive reverts to an edit aren't vandalism, just slunk away from the conflict. I ought to have found a way to get some balance into the articles; consensus is beautiful when it works, and I've seen it happen even in contentious issues here, even helped make it happen. A modest proposal: require that EVERY edit and revert be documented in the Talk page of an article. It provides a valuable basis for formation of consensus among editors and a means for smoking out CoIs without an inflexible bright-line policy.

4473:

interests. The new owners now operate the facility as a commercial venture but the WP article about the facility makes no mention of the sale or the new operation. The new owners notice and would like to update the article with information about the sale, the new venture, some information about renovations to the historic facility since the purchase and a link to the website of the commercial venture that currently operates there (which includes a range of historic photos of the facility provided by the local library). The owners are technical historical restoration "experts" and bought the facility confident that their expertise would allow them to successfully restore it. Should they register an account a go for it?

4798:

not me), but he knows the rules and care as much about Wikipeda as about his real life business. Does it mean he has at all any COI? No - according to this definition, because advancing the project is as important to him as anything else. He can easily create a page about his uncle per rules if his uncle fits our notability criteria, or tell his uncle: "no, this is terrible idea, you do not fit our notability rules, and the article will be deleted". Or one can easily imagine another editor who is not paid, acts on his own, but has his own outside interest (a political bias) that is hundred times more important to him than advancing goals of the project... Hence he has huge COI.

1014:

their client is not mentioned in the lead of the article, for example. How many volunteers want to spend their time, hours per day, arguing back and forth on the talk page with someone who is paid to never change his or her mind, particularly about topics that are not really that important to the editor? This editor got so frustrated with paid editors he almost stopped editing entirely. Focusing on the contributions, not the contributor is fine, but if the contributions are bad (and they usually are), allowing paid editing condemns volunteers to spending hours arguing with people paid to never change their mind. Paid editing is obnoxious and toxic to a volunteer project. --

5550:

through to more permanent and (supposedly) reliable sources? Do we have to trust that the whole process of sources being reliable acts as a check on this? That eventually the more sober analyses come to dominate, and with time the promotional froth fades into history? Also, what happens when the 'product' being placed is an educational resource such as the various GLAM initiatives (galleries, libraries, archives, museums) where institutions partner with Wikimedia and Knowledge? Or when a paywall resource gives out free accounts and asks to be 'credited' in the citations? Most of the time, these seem fine, but sometimes lines are crossed and it is not totally clear.

2079:

whether the average reader (editors in this case) would get its meaning. Smokey is on-target; I contribute about 50% volunteer and 50% COI and I have in some cases maintained articles as a volunteer where any financial incentive was years prior. It is not so easy to separate the two. Also, as I have learned first-hand, any list of COI articles becomes a target list for harassment. I have not seen any COI disclosures that were not sufficient, except those that were not made at all, which I would consider the primary target. On the contrary, sometimes they disclose too much and I want them to get to the point regarding the actual article.

3059:

employee relations. You have added a section identifying that the company was ranked in the top 500 employers for the last three years, with links to the respected independent body that made that ranking as well as to a respected business magazine that reported this. You have reduced the "controversies" section to four paragraphs, eliminating anecdotal stories sourced to local news sources but expanding the information on the major controversies by improving references to high quality national-level sources and adding well-referenced information on the company's response to those major controversies. You are accused of paid advocacy.

4390:- This one is simple. Rather than paragraphs in the articles in question, I would explain to the employee that this may give undue weight to that institution and its archives, and that the most that should be added is information in the external links. The account's user pages, and ideally the edit summaries should disclose that the editor is adding information on behalf of an institution. Even more ideally, the institution would in addition use other means to encourage researchers to use their collections, and the researchers would then publish articles and/or books that would then be used as sources for the articles. 1421:

major mainstream sources, who encouraged their minions to come to Knowledge to set things straight. The articles were overwhelmed for days with angry Republican conspiracy theorists, leading indirectly to a lot more sockpuppets, dozens of blocked accounts, and a botched arbitration case. The COI editing had been going on for months; it took a few days for Knowledge editors and a few real world journalists to piece together what was going on after the news articles. The conservative press denied the whole thing, despite the fact that it's all in the edit records. Sorry, no diffs, the arbcom case ran to megabytes. -

3592:

repeatedly for. It can be a bit of a fuzzy line when, for instance, perhaps someone who is the sole person to recently study a given subject in their book tries to influence the content in our article related to that subject. And, yeah, the rest of you, don't laugh. I know particularly in topics like, for instance, specific religious subjects related to Papua New Guinea and other areas have had reference articles written about them by individuals chosen to do on the basis of their being pretty much the only living academic to have actively studied the subject. In those kinds of areas, it can be a problem.

4358:

hotbed of "let's write an article about our beloved company, but cherry-pick our sources so that it seems neutral," we need to provide Knowledge's readers with an appropriate disclosure visible at the top or bottom of every article. It would need to convey to readers that the article may contain content written in whole or in part by the subject of the article. As we all know, there are businesses out there that make a good living selling such services to the public. Hence I think that we owe to readers, who may not be aware of that, to be cognizant. Don't you agree?

636:

have a financial COI that I need to declare in my sig? I could certainly benefit financially if WP said nice things about my industry. And everyone is in the same position. Even someone on benefits has a financial COI when editing pages related to welfare policy. Someone who lives on charity handouts has a financial COI when editing pages related to charity funding. For most people, the COI will be very narrow and unrelated to 99% of their edits, so having the COI declared in their sig doesn't help to identify whether their edits are worrying or not

235:, which prescribes how a financial conflict of interest must be disclosed. (It also makes a small clarification to exclude intangible benefits, such as an expectation of glory in the afterlife or a feeling of gratification for having informed the world of the plight of the lesser bottle-nosed fruit fly, from those that would trigger the FCOI. That sort of advocacy is also generally undesirable but not the problem this proposed policy aims to address.) I immediately reverted it so we could discuss it without giving the appearance of an edit war. 4562:. It boils down to how believable some of the reasons given are. Anyway, one approach to grant-based paid editing would be to have a central body allocating articles for people to work on, and/or approving applications for funding, matching articles to people's interests and skills and resources. No need to reinvent the wheel there. Whether that will ever happen and whether such a community of editors (which to some extent already exists) can work together with unpaid volunteers and unregulated commercially paid editors is another matter. 4384:- The approach I would take here is to draft the article in a sandbox first, and then ask others to look at it, including the author in question. I would also (asking the author first) disclose that I know the author and that they had asked for the article to be drafted. depending on the subsequent discussion, I would then move the article to mainspace, and/or make changes as needed. Disclosure is probably not required here, but ethically I think it is (this is a matter of personal ethics, rather than Knowledge policy and guidelines). 1284:, and so on, the message being that they can better ensure our standards are met than clients can do on their own. I also note they guarantee only that their articles will survive for a month, not that the content will reflect the client’s wishes. I don’t mean to downplay the issue of disclosure—about which I saw nothing (in an admittedly brief surf through the site)–but otherwise I found their presentation hard to fault. Anyway, I’m inclined to agree with you, and I’m concerned that accusations of paid editing could become a form of 3915:

as an employee of the article's subject" or "I am a contractor receiving money for creating comprehensive article about the subject" or "I know the subject of of the article in real life", etc. I do not think it eliminates anonymity and certainly it does not make an editor an "expert" on the subject - they certainly are still suppose to provide reliable sources and attributions for all their statements. I cannot imagine situation somebody would falsely claim to have a COI but we certainly do not intend verify their claims

4999:

organizations (clubs, religions, trade associations, political parties, etc.) also tend to often wander into PoV-pushing and battling for their causes. We do actually want to hear and get input from such people, but in my opinion this becomes a problem once they and their compatriots cross the line into dominating or thwarting the forging of editor consensus or challenging reliable sources. They should generally excuse themselves from controversies and recuse themselves from responses on RfCs, consensus votes, etc.

899:

simply for starting a new article about a company I thought was interesting. I agree with the parent post of this thread that accusing somebody of paid advocacy when that information isn't volunteered is tantamount to a personal attack on the credibility of the user in question. Just like being called a Jew in Nazi Germany, and the end result by demanding they get banned is almost the same in terms of them being declared "dead to the community". We really need to be much more open and willing to let

2913:{ec}Am I missing something or are you implying that a simple accusation made without any grounds or proof would produce a "guilty until proven innocent" situation in the above scenario. Unless there is evidence produced that requires refuting, it would seem that there would be nothing but a baseless accusation that should be subject to WP:HARASSMENT via WP:BOOMERANG. I don't see where a necessity to reveal personal information on the part of someone subject to a falsely accussation would arise. 31: 7717:(ec) I don't want to come across as unfriendly or threatening in any way. However I do think the page is inappropriate, as such I think it is worth a discussion on MfD and will nominate it for such. My viewpoint entering that discussion is that it should be deleted, but I hope it is not viewed as a criticism of you, merely as an effort to make a better encyclopedia. In my view, soliciting clients to post articles for pay in userspace is not reasonable. I have added the nomination ( 2868:

someone who's only been around for a year? Or someone who specialises in editing articles on certain topics that include this business? Or a completely new editor? How do these editors defend themselves when accused of having a financial conflict of interest? And what standard of evidence are we going to require to "let them off"? Will they have to prove, somehow or other, that they don't have a COI? How do they do that? What standard of proof will be required from the accuser?

3946:

other users with only some occasional brain farts and hot tempers flaring as an exception rather than a rule, they are just being like other ordinary contributors to Knowledge and should be treated just like... assuming good faith and all of the rest of the pillars of this community. I certainly don't understand why somebody needs to be treated differently other than as a pattern of bad behavior for that individual editor... aka through ArbCom actions or something similar. --

3577:, I was definitely being paid generally to do so, but, of course, nobody complained because the image is reasonably neutral, and encyclopaedic, and useful (and widely used, even though I didn't add it to a single article). In practice, there's paid editor whose goals align with Knowledge's, and paid editor whose goals align against Knowledge's; the problem isn't the person, or whether they're being paid, it's whether they're purpose is to write a neutral encyclopaedia or not. 5576:, a company in the business of paid advocacy on Knowledge. "Are you being unfairly treated on Knowledge? Our Crisis Editing team helps you navigate contentious situations. We’ll both directly edit your page using our network of established Knowledge editors and admins. And we’ll engage on Knowledge’s back end, so you never have to worry about being libeled on Knowledge." They specifically mention Priceline and Viacom as using this service. They also have an unhappy customer, 3424:

lot. Contrary to some of what I've read on this page, they don't sanction vigilantism. Overall I think they are neutral and perhaps even slightly harmful in terms of reducing COI situations, for, yes, they do not cover situations in which a corporate PR person acts as a kind of straw boss, dominating the talk pages of the articles. Yet evidently the idea of any kind of COI prohibition flies in the face of a kind of libertarian ethos prevalent among Knowledge editors.

3488:

sources that support what we say, and try to convince others that what we are adding is balanced and neutral. A paid editor is advocating what someone else wants them to push and their livelihood directly depends on how well they push that viewpoint. An unpaid editor is advocating what they personally believe or think to be correct and their livelihood does not directly depend on what they write out here. That is a world of difference. Money changes everything. --

7166:

partisan puff pieces, often related to particular corporations, brands or their ostensible USPs become part of Knowledge. Have you moderated a web forum protected solely by Captcha recently? People are paid $ 1 for hundreds of spam comments or edits. Without the monetary incentive, the problem would be manageable without resorting to IP reputation. Similarly with Knowledge, and it will get worse unless a straightforward explanation to potential editors like

7113:. The balance is lost when paid advocates for one or the other side, who come armed with prepared reams of documentation, research, are trained and hired specifically for their wordsmithery skills, and are salaried in order to enable them to work full time on the article in question are brought into the equation. That's not balance: it's an ability to wear the opposition down by time rather than by validity of the arguments brought to the table. -- 1391:. The article-subject was a non-notable publicist for oil & gas companies. He had a massive article with 33 citations, but almost everything about the article was misleading. I would rank such deceit as more offensive than just promotional writing, which is often easy to cleanup, or other non-notable articles that are easier to detect. When the article has 33 cites, editors presume it is notable and properly sourced, when it wasn't actually. 7328:

still in my top-10 edited articles), it was already rampant in certain areas of the project. There are also areas where true-believer advocacy has been rampant almost since the inception of the project. I'd suggest looking at specialized notability criteria that seem to be particularly weak (e.g., would article subjects otherwise meet GNG if not for the specialized criteria?) to find topic areas where paid advocacy is particularly strong.

3291:

because I worked for a company that consulted in the corporate Strategy arena, my edits about a particular strategy process the company used were immediately attacked as COI with some vicious accusations, especially from a new editor perspective. Despite the fact that I openly conceded the COI, I was evil and proving otherwise wasn’t an option. NPOV or Notability of the topics was no longer relevant despite ample evidence to the contrary.

5828:

micro-management. They are encouraged to point out factual errors, correct grammar and fill-in citations. They should seek input and gain unambiguous community support before making changes, if they make them themselves. And so on. Also, each volunteer editor will manage COI a bit differently and there is no reason to stamp out that difference, so long as they are acting in a manner that is supported by consensus within reason.

1583:

well, quod erat demonstrandum. Of course, if you ask for examples of problematic editing as the consequences of pay, that editing is going to be problematic according to policy, that is what was requested. However we are intelligent people and can deal with causes as well as effects. We can identify, as you have just done, the causative factors behind the problematic edits and make every effort to curtail those factors. --

7305:. There is the thought that Knowledge can never win this "drug-war" and build their own paid editing bureau. Knowledge is always underfunded and these companies are not going away. I think Knowledge is or will be facing the same crisis as PBS when they finally had to allow small commercials from corporate sponsors. *waits for the flaming* I'm just following my business sense down a most probable path for this dilemma. 7268:

CEO wage probably more than the running of Knowledge. Let's not forget that millions are also spent on giving themselves a 'humanitarian' face (from educational grants to influential NGOs), all of which they do NOT do for personal satisfaction but for the accolades. Rest assured that the generosity of their philanthropic ventures wouldn't make much of a dint in the budget supplied for advertising how generous they are.

4051:) explained in a sympathetic discussion. In other words, this policy wouldn't even be needed except for people that won't disclose their conflicts of interest, and those users who try to avoid that kind of disclosure would otherwise be hard or impossible to detect except through extraordinary means (like tracing IP address or issuing a subpoena with the backing of a government court or agency to the ISP involved). -- 2877:

the funniest notion where my pension plan invests; however, if I successfully ran for any level of government in Canada, I'd have to find out and would have to declare it as part of my financial disclosure. This isn't a far-fetched example.) For the editor accused of COI, there is no way that they can respond without revealing personal information, even if they are completely innocent and are being falsely accused.

3110:

socks. If they're more experienced, the community response is more likely to shrug it off, unless the editor making the accusation is an admin or longer term editor. We have to keep in mind that there's good evidence that experienced editors are also working for some of the "edits for hire" organizations, so the good faith that experience once had may no longer be applicable. See also Mike Cline's story below.

2109:

point in their editing career. It's just that - if you choose to harass an editor who happens to have a COI, naturally you will focus on that as an obvious hand-hold. Also, the flip side is that PR reps often feel they are being discriminated against, when in actuality their contributions are genuinely problematic, or they are just too tense because they have such a vested interest in the article's content.

815: 2034:

personnel group which would include getting autopatrolled, but not having their edits auto-reviewed under PC, as well as putting their mainspace edits on Special:PRedits or similar. Furthermore, their signature should accurately display their username (with the PR part). If the usergroup is added, it's likely that it'd be enough disclosure, and a talkpagepost/signature disclosure would be overboard. ~

7070:

doing it because the party pays me, but neither is it better. Most anti-abortion activists (say) have no financial stake in the issue. It doesn't make their advocacy more acceptable than some staffer paid to advocate for them. The organisation being advocated for might stand to make money of it, but that's not what we're discussing. Only whether the editor stands to make money off it.

2938:

going to say to an accuser, "Oh yeah? Prove it!" Nope. They're going to walk away from that article, and quite likely from the project entirely. What would you do if you were confronted with someone accusing you of COI? This is a thought experiment, and I encourage all editors to really think about how they would respond, and how they think the project should deal with such accusations.

6449:(ec) Conflict of interest is about having secondary relationships that interfere with your primary relationship, and the primary relationship is with Knowledge while you're editing it. Being paid to teach history or science, then writing about history or science on Knowledge, doesn't involve competing relationships, so it doesn't represent a COI. That is, there's no conflict between you 5205:

like to read about the new product line (and thus you're just "improving" the article). It helps assure us volunteers that every measure is taken to ensure we're not going to be volunteering our time to clean grammar on a page that someone else is getting money to maintain. It is not perfect, it is not going to keep out every paid editor, but it is going to do more good than harm. --

2531:, where a longtime administrator claimed certain scholarly credentials, have to realise that absent some sort of verification process which would by necessity require that individuals publicly identify themselves and link to their real-world identity, there is no way to verify credentials or expertise. Let's not start going for policies that result in a cure worse than the disease. 3173:

assure you it is not pleasant, and that pretty much everyone can be found and a way to force an editor off an article (if not the entire project) can be found. This proposal encourages exactly that kind of behaviour; after all, it's based on not publicly disclosing one's COI, so that means going after non-public info to prove one's point. Otherwise, why would we even be bothering?

7035:) as being divorced from what you would probably construe as being transparent 'paid' advocacy is a serious mistake. As irritating as the interest groups may be (and I predominantly work on Slavic pages so am acutely aware of the war of words being waged), at least it keeps Wikipedians on their toes regarding POV as opposed to the insidious nature of corporate interests. -- 6844:. It's dealt with by reverts or future edits. I have (and disclose) my COI regarding asphalt and concrete pavements, but in reading those articles I have seen and edited thinly sourced claims. Because I to try to uphold NPOV, I have improved citations for some statements that are not beneficial to asphalt, but I have also added balancing material, all sourced to 3809:(intending on a career in the field) who edits on geographical topics? A journalist who edits on subjects they get also paid to write about? Who decides on the boundaries, and how are they enforced? This is going to massively increase requirements for people to identify themselves before editing Knowledge, and many people won't feel comfortable doing this. -- 2749:

from self-published sources, so that CoI is diminished in its significance by proper application of PROVEIT. However, I'd like to support the proposed policy because it removes the issue of legions of paid activists/wonks (whether corporate or political party activists doesn't really matter) swamping WP with unbalanced articles with great reference lists.

2001: 1059:

never accept that resolution has occurred. Yes, with persistence, they can be banned or other sanctions imposed, but it takes dozens of hours and does not make for a better encyclopedia. I can think of very little more detrimental to a volunteer project than paying one group of editors to make messes and asking the other group to clean it up for free. --

3607:

around promoting my book, it would be exactly as unacceptable. When I made the image I used as an example, I used data from Murray and Dermott - I'm not Murray (nor Dermott), but if I were, it would still be appropriate for me to use (because Murray & Dermott is an authoritative text). The New Guinean religion isn't a particularly bizarre example;

3573:

articles or for Knowledge. The amount of money made available both by private donors, and the main source of funding, government science agencies (and hell, undergraduate tuition by students enrolled in astronomy/physics programmes) comes directly from public interest in astronomy, generated by things such as quality articles on Knowledge. When I made

5816:

adding legitimacy and entitlement to editors that insist we provide them customer service and do exactly as they say, as if following it gives them some special privileges or protection from criticisms (it does not). Also, the BrightLine is often abandoned anyway when the editor does not get their way. It is easier to revert in article-space.

8403:) No, you aren't and have, unfortunately, proved it here with continued attacks on TeaDrinker and myself who were trying to diffuse the tension. If you're incapable of seeing that and continue to misconstrue olive branches as condescension, it doesn't say much for your analytical abilities. I would have preferred to have stated that which 4402:. Employ a PR manager (or delegate to an employee with that responsibility) and take the approach above (for number 3). The PR person then posts to the talk page first. If no response then edit article but disclose who you are and why you are editing. If you handle your own PR, that is more difficult, but mostly the same approach. 6696:

paid to disseminate information in a way that congruent with Knowledge's goals, and editors who are paid to disseminate information that's incongruent with Knowledge's goals, you can only discriminate them based on how they're editing, not whether they're being paid. (And in that case, the policy/policies already exist - mostly

7109:

regular intervals. That's how articles are developed and it is only reasonable to expect that people with other preferences and rationales for their preferences will act as a method for checking and balancing your POV lauding of the party. The same is true of articles on abortion whether you are pro or anti... etc., etc.,

4893:

contributions would be torpedoed by a ban. Again, I see lack of effective enforcement as the problem, and I would much rather see policy changes aimed at making that easier and more sure than addition of yet another complication to the already complex, burdensome (to get relief) and rarely enforced no-rules rulebook.

1511:, and our other content-related policies and guidelines, then they are fine; if they don't comply, then they need to be reverted or fixed. Our actions to edits should be identical and focused entirely on WHAT regardless of WHO makes the edits and without regard to whether they may be influenced by a COI. -- 5133:? More likely a stronger prohibition will simply drive more underground. Rather than disclosing their COI, they will hide it. They're certainly not going to risk getting fired - we already know their own interests come before WP rules. The idea that we can stop people who are willing to break WP's rules by 3301:(who probably is employed in some way in the strategic planning business) is considered evil, has a COI, and couldn’t possibly contribute anything on strategy that is well sourced, NPOV and notable. This whole proposal validates my assertion that COI clearly trumps NPOV and Notability policy/guidelines. -- 7487:. When there is money to be made doing something, policing can not stop it (see Drugs, War On...). What we can do is give ethical paid editors a way to cooperate with us. It is easy to think that the alternative is "no paid editing", but, like "nobody doing drugs", that isn't one of the options available. 6596:, and paid advocates engaging in the second kind of behaviour have been clandestine since the days of WikiMyBiz, for precisely this reason. The only thing this policy has the potential to do is lump paid advocates of the first kind in with paid advocates of the second kind. 17:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC) 8172:

reaction, but I would much rather have a calm, reasoned discussion about my concerns without a bunch of amateur psychoanalyzing concerning why I have those concerns. To that end, I am going to outdent this, make a fresh start, and express my concerns again. You can refuse to address those concerns if

7134:

or whether academic field #1 is a complete or partial subset of academic field #2. We've had activists on all sides of every sex-related subject you can think of. And then there was the woman who spent weeks trying to tell the world that a particular surgery ought to be illegal, complete with links

6695:

There is, I think, a fundamental flaw in the design of the policy, because it addresses who the person is, not what they're doing. If you want to prohibit a certain kind of behaviour, you have to prohibit the behaviour (a tautology, yes, but it is the point here). To discriminate in editors who are

6639:

That's the thing I'm having difficulty seeing. Can you say which words in the policy you see as addressing the first kind of editing? I'm asking because we can use the oppose arguments to rewrite the proposal, so it's important to know which part(s) you see as problematic. There are editors who don't

6360:

cover Knowledge, improving Knowledge articles definitely falls within this realm; it's no different than giving public talks, or demonstrations, something I also do in the course of my job. This falls afoul of point 1. Probably, even doing anything to encourage public interest in my science/science

5666:

Paid editors are given the job of creating an article and often assigned to maintain that article. This implies more than just maintenance of neutrality, but rather to provide a positive benefit to the Employer/Article Subject. It is human nature to attempt to provide value for one's current employer

5171:

COI does not prohibit editing when you have a conflict of interest. It is only "strongly discouraged." People are going to edit Knowledge for pay. No amount of rules is going to change that no matter whether we call them guidelines, policies, or anything else. So it makes more sense to regulate it in

5156:

It automatically follows that they have a conflict of interest. The number of people that argue COI is just a guideline, so should be ignored is the reason for a policy. The idea that we can produce Knowledge by having "rules" is why we have policy, (eg., 'Just so you know, do that, don't do that.')

4713:

An idea based on the American principle of frontier justice, if we can't actually fix a problem, hang whomever we catch. The problem we are insufficiently determined and skilled to fix is that of bad editing, which arises from a variety of sources--so we pick on one identifiable class, people who are

4522:

Editors (newbies for example, particularly if they are, say, students doing the editing as a school project and taught by a teacher who do not themself know the editing policies too well) don’t necessarily know what they write will be considered advocacy. Even just insisting on editors to “forego all

4294:

Example 3: Here, the owner of the newspaper wants to use a paid editor to influence the editorial balance of Knowledge. No, paid editors should not be allowed to do that. Whether an article appears in Knowledge, and the amount of attention given to each subject, should not be based upon the desire of

4230:

I'm the public relations manager for one of two newspapers in a mid-sized city. The other newspaper has a well-written Knowledge article, which was created several years ago. My newspaper, which has about the same circulation and level of prominence, does not have an article. The owner wishes it did.

4203:

I am an experienced Knowledge editor, perhaps an administrator. A friend is an author who has published several novels that are still in print. He does not have a Knowledge article, and would like to have one. Knowing that I'm active on Knowledge, he asks me to create an article for him, and gives me

4136:

What is the point of adopting a policy that is unenforceable and is acknowledged as such by the supporters before it is even adopted in the first place? It won't make it harder to start any edit wars, and it would strongly discourage people who should be helping Knowledge from even being involved in

3508:

It could be summed up by stating that the money received by paid advocates to influence the reading public through Knowledge has a direct impact on their disposition toward the ultimate content of the article in question. Money supersedes reason when one's livelihood is based on producing a text that

2546:

I think it just adds more vagueness to an already vague policy, and could still fail to allow scholars to edit in their subject of expertise. If a researcher is funded by grants, increasing awareness of their field may help them get additional grants in the future. And the section still does not make

2526:

changes the goalposts. It does not, however, address the key issue with this proposed policy. It still is all about the contributor, and not the content; it actually worsens things because of the failure to define "subject matter expert". What constitutes a subject matter expert? Does having worked

2413:

Perhaps by setting my example about the amount of k beside the first quote I can see a route through because do they not amount to the same thing? Welcome the curator's content so long as in all respects it meet's wiki standards and the person does not gain ADDITIONAL finance through what they wrote.

2409:

I really struggle to get my head around this. Wiki seeks great involvement from GLAM organisations. Almost by definition a curator is hired for their expertise in a subject which they are expected to share. One of the most obvious ways to do this is to generate Wiki content. I don't see it as COI. It

2135:

I'd rather drop the "for favorable coverage or for avoiding unfavorable coverage". Any edit, other than the reversion of blatant vandalism, should probably require the editor to have disclosed a financial COI in regard to that article. I'm worried that it will raise defences along the lines of "I was

1096:

Is there empirical evidence of the number of paid editors actually working on Knowledge? Is there any method in place to measure the effects this policy is to regulate? Assuming this is a growing problem of the paid editors tirelessly outpacing the volunteers on edits and gradually shifting the POV

1079:

I could not have put it better. People who are paid eight hours a day to promote a company and/or who have staffers or interns who can spend all day here, have disproportionate time compared to volunteers and therefore disproportionate influence. In such cases where the playing field is not level, it

7979:

certainly elicited the sense of mixed responses of unambiguous support and unambiguous opposition. No doubt he felt this to be an appropriate venue in which to test the waters but did not factor in the already heated nature of the debate, nor anticipate the overflow of extremes in sentiment spilling

7817:

resembles a threat. If you really want to do this, you will need to be very thick-skinned and ignore a lot of harsh comments. Instead you are treating gentle suggestions as if they were threats. Also, TeaDrinker does not have the power to remove the page. All he can do is to nominate it for deletion

7463:

The question is not whether you can convince yourself that you're assiduously following policy and guidelines, but rather whether other people would agree. Moreover, is it valuable and reasonable to ask volunteers to spend their time checking over the work that you're getting paid to do? Your idea

7267:

Agreed that it would be fascinating to quantify the corporate input... 'mebeh' if we ask them nicely? After all, they're the ones who'd spend a 'lot' on data mining for themselves and checking on their competition. I think it can be agreed that a lot = a really, really, really BIG quantity = average

7150:

We get all sorts of retired, disabled, and unemployed people here, and a small proportion of them are enormous time sinks. Compared to the people who are trying to save the world, I'd honestly prefer to deal with the handful of paid professionals I've encountered, who have generally been polite and

7108:

will, in theory, be carefully parsed by people who want the opposition to win or are suspicious of their policies for x and y reasons. Other sources will be introduced, citations asked for regarding anything suggested that is not reliably sourced and, perhaps, there will be edit wars breaking out at

6890:

Paid advocacy rarely affects the core articles of the encyclopedia. Unpaid advocacy from zealots does affect them. As individuals advocating a personal cause will always want to contribute, and whether or not we permit anonymous editing will still leave most of them perfectly willing to do it under

6747:

We are here to get INFO. If someone wants to add support for a product or person, (business is called unnatural person under the Law.) then who cares as long as they add references and are factually accurate. I don't want the practice of replacing one company's photos with a competing brand. But all

5549:

This is an excellent analysis. Couple of questions, though. What happens when you have PR and marketing types essentially placing their product (whether it be a book, invention, celebrity, or business) in various reviews and sources and newspapers, with that promotional material eventually filtering

5010:

The vast majority of edit wars are probably attributable to unpaid advocates. I speak as someone who nearly succumbed to the urge to get into a revert war with another editor who was one of the legion of WP editors sanitizing Knowledge from unpleasant facts regarding foreign political contributions

4242:

I'm the mayor of a small city. I have a Knowledge article, but it's a couple of years old and seriously out of date. I post on the talkpage asking if someone will update my article, and I provide neutral, verifiable information to update it with, but no one does the updating. May I update it myself?

4181:

In adopting an updated policy or guideline on paid or COI editing, we need to make sure that it addresses the types of situation that frequently come up in this area, and does so in a way that accords with how we want these situations to be handled, and with common sense. Below are some hypothetical

3945:

is similarly over the top. Note that I've seen religious differences in some articles turn into holy edit wars that would make paid advocates pale in comparison, so this isn't something strictly dealing with somebody getting paid to edit. If an editor is generally well behaved and cooperating with

3606:

Except, of course, that merely writing about where you work doesn't automagically make it promotion. You could easily write that it's a shithole. And sure, if I were to run around promoting my book (I suppose my Ph.D. thesis is a book, of sorts) - it wouldn't be acceptable. But if you were to run

3572:

This kind of distinction is clear only if you don't think about it very much. As a professional astronomer, I'm definitely paid explicitly to inform the public about astronomy - by giving public talks, demonstrations, speaking to reporters, whatnot, which would include things like writing newspaper

2995:

How would I deal with it if accused of paid advocacy? I would ask which of my edits gave that appearance, and whether there is any trend in my edits that led to that conclusion. How would I deal with an editor I suspected of paid advocacy? I'd grind my teeth and wonder why I was volunteering to help

2876:

policy. I can foresee those who want to remove opposition to their editing researching their opponents in other venues and coming up with statements like "Your pension plan owns 500,000 shares of this company! You do so have a conflict!" (For the record: if someone's sleuthing about me, I haven't

2748:

The answer is application of WP:PROVEIT and the prohibition on original research. It shouldn't make a difference whether a legitimate or self-avowed expert makes an edit on a contentious issue as long as the facts in the edit are traceable to acceptable source material. We already prohibit "facts"

2198:- which is tackling the same idea, but from the other end of the telescope, so we are looking at the editing results, rather than assuming bad motives of some well meaning professionals. This is simply a quick start to get ideas flowing. I'm off out now, so won't be able to get back to it for a bit. 898:

Strangely, I think it is an appropriate comparison, because this policy has a potential of a high degree of false positives being used to take a minority group of editors and cast them in extremely negative light with guilt by association. Heck, I've been accused of doing these kind of edits myself

656:

above. Editing any useful article will have some direct or indirect financial interest to the editor. I was going to say except vandalism but even vandalism will have some financial interest to some people (e.g., people who are on a mission to say Knowledge is not a credible source). Passing this as

8605:

editing Knowledge...) Well, that does explain how The Banner suddenly became articulate towards the end of his diatribe. I thought he might be an a-typical loony who becomes more lucid as he descends into the depths of delusion. Well, I won't bother with trying to work out what to strike through as

8030:

I was aware of the heated debate, that is indeed why I wanted to test the water here. A non-friendly environment is sometimes the best place for sharpening the wits. But I had hoped for a discussion, not for an attack (the MfD-page) nor for being pushed to using an essay that add nothing to what is

7416:

What if the person who chose the wrong firm had an easy, highly-visible way to privately email someone here at Knowledge and tell us that a stealth paid editor had worked on their Knowledge page? Needless to say, we wouldn't just take the word of an anonymous tipster for it, but we could scrutinize

7244:

article last month. If they had an opportunity to reach a quarter million people a month with a positive message about their company, I suspect they would jump at the chance. We don't have any hard data, but I think it is safe to say many PR people salivate at the opportunity to reach people that

7165:

As Iryna Harpy said, there's a loss of balance with paid advocacy. This loss not only takes time in the way that casual vandalism or pushing a pet theory does, but I find often lies undetected for months precisely because it doesn't involve a POV dispute, meaning a lot of badly-written, hopelessly

6958:

You might read that point again before trying to undermine it. The political office obvious does have a vested economic interest, but if the editor in question isn't a member of the office, but merely of the political movement, it doesn't make their advocacy less problematic. This unpaid advocacy

6817:

I have to agree with User:Stfg. All facts are not the same. Stating in advance that there may be a COI or that you've been hired/contracted/engaged by an entity is helpful, however it doesnt resolve the NPOV issue. Such an individual is paid to develop and present a story or picture. To ensure that

6043:

When I first started editing Knowledge, I didn't understand why so many editors choose to register under nicknames. Now that I have seen and experienced the volume of aggression generated by some editors, I've changed my mind. In particular, I would, sadly, never advise a female editor to allow her

5604:

Seriously, I don't think this is as much of a problem as you are making it out to be or that this article is sensationalizing it to be. I am concerned about the "Knowledge admins" claim of this company, who is suggesting that there are admins who are bought and paid for which are watching the back

5598:

I'd like to see how this is any different than it has been in the past... at least after Knowledge started to get top ranking for major search engines like Google? That is what these companies are after, and they've been playing games with the search engine companies since practically the day that

5204:

PR firm that markets itself as creating or maintaining articles on Knowledge is violating policies on the site. It makes it clear that "paid editors" doesn't just apply to other people, even if you are sure that people don't want to read about the lawsuit against your company as much as they would

5113:

We know they are not paid for the Pedia's interest. They are paid for something else, and whatever it is they are paid for it's not for the Pedia's interest, since the Pedia does not pay for its interest. In every edit there is one judge of NPOV and that is the User that makes the edit. Sure some

4557:

I suppose it could be summed up as: we don't (usually) care who you are, but we may want to know why you are making these edits and whether any self-interest or interest of others is involved. The range of reasons can be large, but tends to fall into a few large classes (hobbyist, student, academic

4472:

which came up only a few days ago: A previously public facility is obviously notable because of its place as a historical location and as the host location of a number of significant events. However, it was determined that said facility was a drain on the public purse and it was sold off to private

4443:

That scenario is somewhat outside of the frame of the above-presented more normal examples of a potential COI. It seems to me that mandatory disclosure, at the very least, is necessary to keep the likes of WikiExperts in perpetual check, so to speak, under the watchful eye of those in the community

4218:

I work at a university library. The library contains archival and manuscript collections of the personal papers of dozens of historical and literary figures, which are of interest to scholars. Our collections are underutilized, and we would like to have more visitors use them. I want to add a short

3914:

I think this should not eliminate anonymity even for the COI cases, just a little bit limiting it. If I am an employee of the subject of the article, I do not have to disclose my name and job title but just put (possibly templated notice) on the talk page "I, %username%, has a conflict of interests

3808:

What does "financial interests in the field in which they edit" mean? Does that mean a physician who edits articles about medical topics? An advertiser editing about the magazine or TV station that carries their adverts? A computer programmer who writes about programming topics? A geography student

3368:

Oh heavens, not ArbCom, ever. Aside from the fact that it's specifically out of scope for Arbcom (we definitively do not deal directly with content), the last thing the committee needs is more work. I speak as someone who's been an arbitrator for 5 years and has been trying to find a way to offload

3204:

You realise now that you have made the policy unenforceable and unpoliceable by taking that out. This increasingly is coming across as "Something must be done!!! This is Something!!! Therefore We Must Do It!!!" Creating an unenforceable policy is probably the worst thing we can do. Six months from

3172:

I think you might be missing my point, Ubikwit. The way that the COI will be "proven" will be sleuthing for your personal information online and through other dimensions, like calling your boss. Speaking as someone who's been through this or seen it happen to others because of my Arbcom role, I can

2880:

This policy is in direct conflict with at least one of our oldest and most strongly defended behavioural policies. Now, there are things to be said in favour of rethinking the outing policy; however, this policy cannot go forward in isolation without a broad community consultation on whether or not

2871:

My concern here is that this policy makes it far, far too easy to launch the accusation based on an edit that someone doesn't agree with (or frankly, that does not agree with the accuser's point of view), and it is nearly impossible to defend against such an accusation. It will encourage sleuthing

2438:

and such for greater exposure of digital collections and archives. Is this paid advocacy? These researchers and librarians are adding content to Knowledge that as far as my experience goes has always met WP norms, yet they are being paid, via grant $ $ to do just that. Will they be banned under

2433:

strategies to develop greater exposure to digital collections and digital archives owned by major institutions. Such archives are money making machines for most institutions, so exposure is to their existence and content is essential. One of the avenues being undertaking by the researchers is the

2405:

Nothing in this policy should be interpreted to mean that subject-matter experts should not contribute to Knowledge in their area of expertise. Like all other editors, subject-matter experts should simply make sure that their external financial relationships in the field do not interfere with their

2108:

Harassment is already forbidden, but not well-enforced. We should do more to protect editors from harassment project-wide. COIs complain about being harassed, but they are only slightly more likely than any editor to be a target; most volunteers I have talked to have had similar experiences at some

2054:

Accounts should be linked both ways. I expect that a paid editor may create and article and maintain it during employment, but down the track may choose to maintain the article, their past work, as an ordinary unpaid editor. We should not assume a defined line exists between paid edits and unpaid

1582:

If we allow one group of editors to cause problems on the project for pay, we can't really expect many volunteers to stick around to clean up those messes for free. We know that money corrupts editorial decisions. We know it causes problems. It was your request that such problems be shown to you,

142:

Running with that idea (probably way out of scope), what about a special class of account—which might be an alternate, for those who also edit as volunteers—in which names have a distinctive prefix or suffix (say, “$ $ $ ”), and that doesn’t get auto-confirmed? One advantage to the paid editor from

8425:

I am, now, going to be scathingly, unambiguously honest with you. If you're not prepared to accept that you are working (volunteering) within the confines of an institution whose premises are based on ideologies antithetical to your own, and that you are proposing to set a precedent that will open

6379:

I respect your academic field and pursuits, but frankly, if you are unable to discriminate between the problematic nature of the difference between PR people editing Knowledge with the ultimate aim of promoting an entity that is trying to sell a product or service, not related to higher education,

6174:

I do understand what you are saying. I edit under my real name because I think it would be better if most editors did this (there are however valid reasons not to do so in some countries). But there is still an important difference between registered and unregistered editors, and registering, even

6029:

If we ban paid advocacy, anonymous editors like SlimVirgin should also be banned. We don't know who an anonymous editor is, and have no way to tell if they are paid or not. Let's have a big helping of transparency, and apply it equally to all editors. It is unfair to penalize editors who disclose

5973:

So lets work through a simple case study. Lets say that I work for a light bulb company, and I included pictures of my companies product ... to act as advertising/sales promotion ... how is the community going to tell that this is paid advocacy?? Or reverse, that I removed/replaced pictures from a

5750:

I agree specifically with Carrite's #4 above. I was once trying to edit a country's articles (you don't want to know! :) and discovered an entirely too knowledgeable editor. There was no way (he had a volunteer support staff who voted en masse against you) you were going to ever edit anything, no

4843:

is causes wikipedia. There is a major difference but the boundary between what is paid editing and what is paid advocacy is rather blurred. Knowledge has undoubtedly benefited from paid editing. I think this is a rather heavy-handed approach that all paid editing is necessarily evil, and if a rule

4797:

Yes, I agree, although this is different from real life definition of COI (there are different guidelines for different organizations). One can easily imagine a situation that an experienced wikipedian was paid to create a page about his favorite uncle or about latest work by his boss (no, this is

4020:

I think I worded the suggestion badly so I've clarified what I meant - I'm not suggesting that the scope of the proposal be expanded in any way, just that the measures taken be reduced. @David, I'm not looking to start a second !vote, just thought an alternative idea might spark some discussion of

3979:

I once saw that freelancer.com site has a special section for wiki editing. People get paid for planting specific information or removing specific information or for resurrection of deleted articles, etc. On one forum somebody claimed that those offers received numerous resumes from administrators

3611:

leans really heavily on Donald Smith's book, because it's by far the most in depth and authoritative reference on the subject. The article wouldn't be any worse if it was identical, but I was Donald Smith. Promotion is bad, but focussing on paid promotion ignores ~99% of the problem (and really,

3423:

I actually think these rules make the kind of concerns raised here either to deal with, because they set forth the narrow circumstances in which COI exists. If you are a former official of XYZ Corp., there is nothing to prohibit your writing about it. In my view, the rules are weak and leave out a

2980:

Johnuniq, how are you, personally, going to deal with a COI accusation if this proposal passes? Today, you can shrug your shoulders and ignore it and keep doing what you're doing. If this passes, you will need to address the issue. It's really that simple. So how do you see yourself doing so? Do

2093:

Excellent point that following the rules about COI identification only makes one a target for harassment. I heard the same thing from a longtime paid COI editor on WPO today. Along with mandatory ID there needs to be an explicit prohibition of harassment of COI editors without due cause. There are

1420:

material into the main Obama article until he got himself blocked, then he wrote a misleading third person account about the incident as if he did not know who was operating the account, exposing Knowledge's supposed pro-Obama bias. The story got picked up by the conservative blogosphere and a few

1325:

If their articles will survive for a month? That will not be enough for them If they are deleted, and if the edit history of the paid editor is unavailable, then the client will ask for their money back, will be unlikely to pay again, and will not be recommending the service. If they attempt to

1058:

They are, in the view of this editor, not very effective when dealing with someone who has 8 hours per day to argue and is paid to never change their mind. Many hours have been wasted discussing changed with editors who are perfectly happy to go through the motions of dispute resolution, but will

1013:

We have great policies that work pretty well for discussions among editors. Sometimes, people get out of hand, and they will not give it a rest. However paid editors are paid to never give in. They are paid to work through every policy, every medium, every forum to ensure that a lawsuit against

748:

The problem of COI editing can never be eliminated. But it can be mitigated to a reasonable level along with all biased editing, by focusing on our content-governing policies and guidelines (notability, sourcing, NPOV, etc.) and enforcing those. Let's keep the eye on the ball folks, building and

635:

has some sort of COI. I work as an engineer in a reasonably controversial area and you can bet there'd be a stink if someone found I was editing pages related to it. But my employer has never asked me to edit WP and in fact would probably be a bit worried if I was doing so on company time. Do I

7420:

Also, when such a company hires an ethical firm, they are likely to reveal that they tried the stealth paid editor first. It would be in the ethical firms best interest to let us know about that. If we set up such a thing, we should assure the whistleblower that we are not going to out him or his

7327:

I cannot say that I know how much paid advocacy editing takes place. What I can say is that I did some review of this issue several years ago, and found evidence pointing to paid advocacy at least by 2003. By the time of my first direct encounter with it in 2007 (the article involved is probably

6591:

The problem is that that explanation is exactly backwards. It's only the first kind of example the proposal actually addresses - indeed, I think it's only the first kind of example that this proposal can ever address, because the second kind of example is already prohibited. Advocating in a way

5977:

Let's take this further ... should wikipedia have articles on companies (like apple, microsoft etc.) as it could be construed as helping to promote their products?? I think this "No paid advocacy" is almost unenforcable ... because I can do anything from my home computer under the guise of work.

5815:

My point-of-view has changed. The BrightLine does not prevent a COI editor from making COI edits by proxy. Additionally, those proxies have a difficult time assessing whether the content is neutral, or at least, whether it is written the way they would do it. Finally, it creates the impression of

5369:

Bad Idea. For instance, the Internet Explorer article, or more generally, the article on attributes of different web browsers. The Microsoft people can more accurately and more quickly update the IE article or the IE section of the web browser article than the general public. It doesn't follow

5128:

A paid editor may be editing in their own interest primarily, but it does not automatically follow that it is not in the project's interest too. If their edits are neutral and sourced, then our interests are aligned. We already have a guideline discouraging COI editing. Why do you think this will

5093:

The problem is that by making it objective, it completely distorts the reason for the COI guideline. COI is essentially a supplement to NPOV. We discourage COI editing to maintain neutrality. This proposal is completely divorced from that concept by focusing more on the payment than the advocacy.

5061:

Unpaid advocacy is a problem, but so is paid advocacy. That fact that this policy does not address the former does not limit its utility in addressing the latter. People who are advocates go through tremendous mental gymnastics to convince themselves they are not biased. I had one paid editor

4439:

Knowledge is a non-profit, public interest project, and the way I see it, the incursion of undisclosed corporate funding in relation to creating and editing articles associated with a commercial (largely corporate) interest is, by definition, corrosive on the public-interest non-profit status and

3996:

The problem is that "financial interests" is still way too vague. So a grant-funded researcher will be limited to 1RR against crackpot pseudoscience/conspiracy POV pushers who don't have a "financial interest"? And this still has the problem of focusing on the contributor, not the content. Not to

3438:

Ironically, I'd be a lot more concerned about the former official editing than I would be the current PR person. The current PR person usually has more of a professional reputation to maintain, and he knows a misstep can hurt the company. Former official? much more likely to edit in revenge in a

2937:

Ubikwit, where's the proof coming from? If an editor hasn't posted onwiki info that suggests a COI, then it's going to have to come from off-wiki sleuthing...or it could just be made up out of thin air, for all we know. But how many users who value what little online privacy they have are really

2050:

I'm thinking that requiring an alternative account suffixed with "(Paid)", or similar, is a good way to go. I would expect that this suffix should be appended to the persons main wikipedia account. I expect that all half rate paid editors and better have main Knowledge accounts with substantial

1439:

trying to whitewash Knowledge's accounts of the CEO's well-documented sex scandals. I had to remind them what happens when well known people get caught gaming their Knowledge articles, this was an era where that kind of story was news fodder. That worked. Interestingly, I don't think the proposed

7377:

None of the content or citations within the body of this article should be understood to be neutral, relevant or even notable as the authors and sources may or may not be paid by interest groups and advocates involved directly or indirectly with the subject or may be working as lobbyists for the

7239:

Companies spend millions to improve their search engine rankings, improve their company image, and advertise their products. Since Knowledge is at the top or near the top for most searches by most people for many companies, it is absolutely unsurprising that they will take an active interest in

7069:

because I want people to vote for them, but I'm not a candidate or office staffer and don't stand to make any money off them being elected - I merely want people to elect them because I want to see British Columbia renamed to La La Land - that doesn't make it magically okay. It's not worse than

4838:

Agreed, and that's a great analogy comparing it with wild west lynching/hanging. Not all paid editing is necessarily bad. It is paid "Advocacy" to promote POV or untruths on something or COI presenting a colourful picture of themselves/their business which is damaging but even that may radically

4748:

I wholeheartedly agree. Edits which violate Knowledge's core policies should be removed or improved, regardless of the reasons they were placed there. If I find bad information, I do not care if the editor got paid to introduce it, did so as a vandal, or is trying to change the conversation by

4722:

to do so--as long as they do it properly, and are prepared to take the possible criticism if they don't. I would never encourage a beginner to try it, because the odds of doing it wrong are much too great, and it can be a very uncomfortable experience. Some of the paid editors I know follow the

4660:

Great description of working with paid editors. However, it also describes a group I've been editing alongside, and none of them have chosen to disclose their reasons for behaving as if a giant company was paying them. It seems to me this proposal as written would only validate non-disclosed COI

4639:

It is absolutely painful to enter into discussions with paid editors. The problem is not that the edits are clearly against the rules and can be reverted, it is that they are reverted, and then you enter into a month-long "discussion" with someone who is paid to never change their mind, and can

4357:

I'm OK with throwing out the conflict of interest rules entirely. They're not enforced, and the "community," as I've said before, has its collective head so far up its rectum on this subject that the whole thing is pretty much an exercise in futility. But if Knowledge is to become, officially, a

4046:

You are tweaking the wording but still avoiding how somebody who chooses not to disclose this information would be coerced into making this disclosure, or even how they could be identified independently as having a conflict of interest? The people who volunteer this kind of information are most

3483:

Bemused by the oppose !voters above who seem to conflate paid editors with experts, I figured it may be worth discussing the differences a bit. In my mind, there is a world of difference between advocates and experts in general and paid advocates. An advocate or expert is someone who is paid for

3187:

I don't see how that could possibly be a concern. However, if people are worried about witch hunts, then that can be dealt with by inserting strong language prohibiting such behavior. In the longer version of this proposal there is "no investigations" language that, I think, is pretty strong and

2952:

How is anything proven here? I have sympathy with the view that a rule that is hard to enforce is unworkable, but that is not a reason to have no declaration of intent on whether paid advocacy is welcome. While paid editing does not bother some people who believe they would continue contributing

2867:

So, let's say I edit an article on a business, and User:ImPerfect accuses me of obvious bias and accuses me of being a paid editor. Given the fact that I've been around here for a long time, there's a fair chance that everyone will just roll their eyes. But what if it's not me they accuse, but

1869:

Users must disclose the fact that they have received or will receive anything that could be construed as a payment to the User for favorable coverage or for avoiding unfavorable coverage of article subjects the User is working on. This includes money, gifts, tickets, discounts, reimbursements or

1625:

was replaced with laudatory text so that the "college" could then link to WP from outside as "evidence" of the institution's bona fides. (The institution, which claims to be accredited by Liberia and operates from a Caribbean island, is best known for conferring a baccalaureate on Fostoria, Ohio

397:

The problem with requiring disclosure in a signature is that the most important disclosure is linked to mainspace edits. There is no requirement for any editor to ever sign. If we look for disclosures in signatures, we may not look close enough at mainspace edits. The problem with requiring a

94:

I think it would be good to require an editor with a financial conflict of interest, as defined in this proposal, to disclose that fact in their signature with text that says "(paid)" or "(PAID)", linking to a subpage in their userspace (or a section on their main userpage) that identifies their

8802:

Oh, goody! I'm Australian. Who do I forward my request for a pay cheque to? So, according to your theory, The Banner, corporations are exclusively US entities and the only people capable of writing copy for corporations and various other business interests are Americans? Gosh, I wonder what the

8303:

1) After giving me sources, the one who requests the article will have no further influence. I decide about notability, I decide about the content of the article, the community decides if the article survives the AfD (assuming that each and every article of which I declare that it is written on

7363:

I'm fairly certain that this entire subsection can be summarized as a vote of disenchantment with the lack of serious policy in place and an inability to do anything about it out for fear of being accused of alienating new contributors. So much WMF time, energy and budget has been thrown at the

6164:

It does follow. I edit under my real name and endure a constant barrage of assumptions of bad faith because of my profession. I'm sick and tired of it. If we ban paid editing, we then need to know each editor's name and employment so we can verify. Otherwise, the rule is only going to punish

5771:

In regard to 5 - no, I don;t think declaring a COI is akin to a kick me sign. :) But the problem, as things stand, is that it is still better for the editor to hide their COI (and avoid any risk of harassment) than it is to declare it openly. The fix is to change the balance - make it better to

5723:

I'd dispute 3 as being too generic. A lot do, but you're assuming all act like that, and they don't all. Other than that, it all seems pretty accurate. I can remember a case I was involved in, where a guy was being ridiculously overzealous in defending an article they'd been payed all of £30 to

4892:

for both advocacy and COI. As of now, it is a huge and ineffective process to stop advocates and COI warriors. We need to allow for those situations in which a person's (a city official correcting a mistake, an academic contributing knowledge in their field) positive contributions and potential

4504:

to avoid pushing views that could be construed as self-interested. Sticking to "Just the facts, ma'am" is unlikely to be a problem, and relying on citations that are removed from any association with the article's subject is going to go far in tamping down advocacy (as is not objecting to other

3931:

I fail to see how such a policy of even requiring disclosure could happen? I agree that it is in the best interest of those who are editing jointly in some article that you can and indeed should be strongly encouraged to disclose biases (regardless of if it is paid, a part of your political or

3487:

To me, these are very different animals because of the purpose behind the payment. All of us have opinions and all of us are advocates for those opinions. Some of us have stronger opinions than others but all of us try to shape articles so that they are in concordance with our beliefs, hunt for

3109:

I'm not sure where you've been, Jehochman. This happens now, and has been happening since before I was a regular editor. If the target is a new account (aka "SPA") the response ranges from just reverting them (often with the summary "vandalism") or accused of COI, or blocked/banned/checked for

2697:

I don't think that would help either. The problem is that many COI editors claim to be experts - and probably are - that's why they started a business in x industry; because they understood that industry at an expert level enough to develop a profitable business. We see this all the time at the

2078:

Marketing guy here as mentioned above. If anyone cares to dig it up, the Federal Trade Commission has some great common sense advice about disclosures. Rather than having prescriptive rules, they say that the disclosure must be "clear and conspicuous". The disclosure's effectiveness is based on

1685:

I don't know about Advocacy, as that is an essay, but I was not aware of the paid editing policy proposal. That's a good point. It is more specific and seems like a common-sense way to proceed. I don't understand why that's not being discussed. While it may not be adopted, my feeling is that if

1205:

But articles like that one are usually easily dispensed with per notability. Wasn't that the primary basis for deletion in this case? The point is it doesn't matter WHO posted the inappropriate article, or whether that person had a COI. Regardless of WHO or WHY, the WHAT justified deletion.

544:

This all seems to run counter to the general policy to block anyone that has a signature that suggests they are working for an organization or company! To be honest, these editors are declaring their COI in their signature, but get rapidly blocked. If they come back again, it is under an opaque

238:

I appreciate SlimVirgin's desire to keep the proposal minimalist and laser-focused, and I've tried to keep my changes in that vein, but I believe it's important to provide a clear way for an editor to conform to the requirements if they have such a conflict of interest. Simply stating that the

8638:

As long is everybody is rolling over each other, I just do nothing. I leave the draft page as it in and wait till the dust settles. By now, I feel I have ended up in a grinder between the Enforcer of the Green Corner at one side and the Enforcer of the Yellow Corner on the other side. Lads and

8430:

possess the requisite skills (which you lack) to be recruited for pay by companies looking for professional wordsmiths with impressive analytical and behavioural credentials, you need someone to hold a mirror up for you in order that you reflect on your skewed comprehension of reality (I won't

8360:

It is very difficult for me to image that an “advertisement" as poorly written and proofed as the Banner’s and as Byzantine and Kafkaesque in its guidelines drawing any clients, but it does open the specter of thousands of such sites, professionally executed, both on and off Knowledge and that

8210:

I am sure that The Banner is a thoughtful editor and a fine human being, but he is also discussing the possibility of becoming a paid editor, and thus his stated plans are naturally going to be scrutinized. If you look at my posting history you will see that I am a strong supporter of allowing

7920:

I am sure that The Banner has his reasoning (and I look forward to hearing it on the MfD page). He is a fine and reasonable editor by all that I have seen, and so I am sure is was no more his intent to stir up drama than it was mine. The issue is clearly something that the community needs to

6800:

on something, and is not NPOV. It is different from giving positive information, and is never OK. For example, recording that an actor won some Oscars is OK (with citations), but that is not advocacy, it's factual. Saying that an actor is one of the greatest ever to tread the boards is not OK,

6264:

And non-paid advocacy is banned also. All advocacy is banned, under the core principle of NPOV. Without NPOV, we wouldn't be an encyclopedia, or at least not an encyclopedia anyone would have any reason to use rather than going to the open web and seeing what organizations and people say about

4495:

I agree that these are good examples, and it may be useful to include them on guideline pages. My thought is that, in each case, the overriding principal would be that such editors forego all advocacy. It is a fine line, but where there is any question, it is better for a paid/volunteer/unpaid

3962:

We are talking about real significant COI as been the subject of the article or being a PR contractor for the subject or being an employee of the subject, I think in those case 1RR is quite sensible restriction, if the proposal can have unintended consequences like scientists limiting in their

3700:

The lines have been blurred and the wording needs careful crafting. I am 100% opposed to sites like WikiPR and the paid editors they recruit. I also think the very notion of banning a university professor from editing his/her field of expertise simply because they are paid to be a professor is

3591:

I guess the difference between being a paid expert and a promoter. If you were to write about the observatory or whatever it is to work at, then that would be promotion. So would using wikipedia to promote your own book, something some editors have done repeatedly, and, apparently, been banned

3371:

About 4 years ago, Arbcom tried to create an editorial advisor subcommittee, which was intended to get spun off to be a community-selected group that could review content decisions (kind of the content equivalent of Arbcom), but that got ripped apart pretty quickly. They would be ideal if they

3353:

Isn't that what the evil and manipulative BP rep did? Or so we're told on Jimbo's talk page. Clearly that can't be allowed either because there are too many wikipediots who would fall for it. I think the responsibility for approving COI edits should rest only with Jimbo and perhaps the ArbCom.

3290:

Risker has it right here and I am living proof of the scenario described. When I first started editing WP in early 2007 of course I started editing on what I knew about—Strategic Planning. As any new editor, I was learning the ropes, the rules, and the norms of the community. Unfortunately,

3141:

Accordingly, if it is simply a case of a POV dispute, that is where the focus should be shifted, and that is the manner in which I would attempt to channel the dispute. Were there an actual COI involved, again, I would disclose it and abide by the pertinent COI policies that were on the books.

2981:

you support the idea of sleuthing through the internet figuring out who people are and then using that information to attempt to prove COI? Remember, we banned an admin for doing that, but it would not be possible to stop people doing that very thing, and posting it onwiki, if this is passed.

2957:

bother many other volunteers. Having a policy, even if unworkable in many cases, would at least serve to maintain the volunteer ethic. I don't mind battling a POV pusher because there are generally sufficient good editors available to ensure that eventually there will be a good outcome for the

2781:

I might have understated the difficulty of identifying who's a paid activist in that last post. But this is just one more tool to deal with a chronic and pervasive problem in Knowledge - corporately (or activist organization) - employed editors who just type the copy from their press releases

1328:

Having read most others' comments, I am still convinced that paid editing is an issue that can be managed, and that the real problem is undisclosed paid editors using undisclosed disposable accounts, probably one per client, probably with accounts used in successful paid article creation being

5843:

If every PR person "got it" as well as you, the current system would work fine. And since by default (decision-making stalemate) the current system is what we've got, all of us are going to have to work hard to make sure the PR community all "gets it" as well as you. Thanks for your thoughts.

4686:

On the other hand, it sends a clear signal that companies who sell "image management" on Knowledge are violating policies. They can not present themselves as legitimate and above board to clients. Any client who buys their service could easily discover that the service is blackhat, and most

4336:

Your responses to 3 and 4 show how ludicrous the "Champions of an unbiased encyclopedia" are. People like you actively encourage bias and inaccuracy. If two newspapers are notable, they should both have articles, period. I don't care who writes them. If the PR manager writes a non-neutral

3058:

You are accused of paid advocacy because you have edited an article about a company. Your intention was to clean it up and reflect current information. The article was 40 paragraphs long when you started, 18 paragraphs of which were in the "Controversies" section. There was no section about

2033:

Disclosure is this - on their userpage, clearly, at the top, set off from the rest of the style. Same on talkpage. Preferably a username with PR in it, or another similar way to determine that. Furthermore, as I proposed above, I support software changes to add userrights that would form a PR

1795:

you imply its OK to harass editors when the situation suits you. Declaring COI (of any sort) has over the years clearly resulted in harassment by other editors. We should encourage declarations of COI so that content contributions can be monitored appropriately, but we shouldn't tolerate any

780:

Very well said. Egregious cases of corporate shills are easily detected and easily dealt with. Anyone who's actually going to edit in a partisan, bad-faith manner isn't going to play by the rules being discussed here, whether we call it an essay, policy, or divine law. I've edited articles on

568:

and methinks inherent. Here is an examle: I work in the food industry, so I cannot edit any articles related to cooking, ingredients, kitchen equipment, farms, restaurants, or of course foods. I use computers, and drive vehicles, for business and pleasure, plus own stock in electronics and

8558:

Iryna Harpy mistakenly stated that The Banner wrote the words starting with "I am capable of". I, Guy Macon, actually wrote them. The mistake was actually my fault, because I, though a simple one-character typo, signed my post in a confusing way. I have fixed the sig, and I apologize for any

5337:

clarified (and COI elevated to Policy) rather than throwing in something that will make policy more difficult for editors to grasp. The real problem is enforcement. Paid and unpaid advocates in pushing their agendas have run roughshod over constructive editors and even admins. They have more

4998:

I also can see unpaid advocacy as an equally serious problem. There are people who are not employees or hires, yet who do benefit indirectly: e.g., franchisees, licensees, volunteers, and others who receive no direct payments or who get other, non-monetary benefits. Members of non-commercial

4547:

when editing and let the masses judge the edits. (We must insist on judging the edits, not the editor!) If there is a stronger doubt, make the disclosure then ask for opinions whether you can proceed with editing. The way to cleanse conflicts of interest is to disclose them, and allow other

1758:

There is already an anti-harassment policy, and that is enough. I edit mostly articles about historical controversies, and there are still people willing to refight old battles. I would hate for a Knowledge policy to explicitly say that "one must not harass an editor who likes to refight old

1139:

Can they though? Can the policy measures in place, or this new proposal, actually catch all or a majority of underground black-market paid editors with just a volunteer staff doing the policing? I think many are severely underestimating the sociopaths of the world and the growing financial

563:

There is little possibility that either disclosing paid advocacy (more on what this means exactly in a moment), or prohibiting paid advocates, can work. There are pragmatic difficulties with detection, and with the mechanics of disclosure, and evasion attempts, and so on. Those are covered

242:

Regarding SlimVirgin's other point about people not having a COI about every issue they edit about: I agree, but if an editor does have a financial COI then it's better for their signature to disclose that every place they leave a comment, and let the other readers and participants of those

3297:. I survived the encounter, learned some lessons and became an otherwise productive editor and admin in the WP community. Unfortunately for the encyclopedia, six years later, the great majority of the articles related to strategy are pretty poor and will probably remain so as long as any 5944:

They're a firm like Wiki-PR in that they are a PR firm writing and editing articles for money without declaring their COI but I've seen no evidence of them crating puff-pieces on non-notables or anyone else or any other tendentious editing. (They've agreed to declare their COI in future.)

4065:

Absolutely right. But the original proposal has exactly the same problem - if they don't disclose the information we've got no way to establish it. By toning it down a few more users might be willing to work within the system. Users who don't disclose will slip through the net either way.

3772:

If there is evidence of abuse any uninvolved administrator may issue a finite, targeted, topic ban of increasing length per violation, similar to current blocks for vandalism. If stronger sanctions are warranted a community discussion at ANI could establish a wider and/or indefinite topic

7676:

is a user pays service regardless of what kind of payments are being asked for). What do you add as your next option: an offshore account? Be aware that a few of us watching your page with disdain and I'm certainly not reading any of the suggestions being made above as being threatening.

5827:

The Verification policy is a good precedence to follow here. The appropriate source depends on the circumstance. So does appropriate COI behavior. A PR rep should not be editing controversial areas where they have a financial connection - they should even be careful to avoid lobbying and

4640:

spend 8 hours a day replying. Anyone with time on the project can relate to such nonsense, whether or not with paid editors, but anything we can do to cut down on the number of such "discussions" is a step in the right direction. This policy allows volunteers to get on with editing. --

2705:

Beyond that, what qualifies as an appropriate area of expertise? Can someone with a Creative Writing degree spam with impunity from an Elance account because they are a "writing expert" in general? What about an MBA who could claim to be an expert on "business, in general" and spam away?

3980:

and even bureaucrats. I am terrified from a possibility that some administrator would unsalt an article of marginally notable commercial entity for a bribe, etc. The proposal would still allow people to get money for creating wiki content but gives the community some checks and balances

1474:

might qualify as a case in point here. The single greatest contributor (a Cruz crusader), (one of his/her monikers was "Exclusive Agent") was edit-warring under multiple monikers and IP addresses. Shortly after that person was blocked, a new Wikipedian arose who continually deleted such

6891:

their true name, the only defense for NPOV is to watch the articles, and to the extent WP succeeds in this, it is because of the benfit of crowd editing. The key problem with the typical articles from paid advocates is that they are likely to be articles that nobody else is watching.

6748:

companies have the ability and equal access to post their product. Perhaps if there is a flurry of edits from rival Members, then the page should become Semi-locked and require review before alterations are made to the page that Users see. This seems a pretty reasonable solution. ;)

4979:

In fact, unpaid POV advocacy may be the bigger problem. Those who do it are motivated by something stronger than money, or they wouldn't be doing it. Those who vandalize are a subset of unpaid POV advocacy. Not getting paid doesn't seem to slow them down, and they can be persistent.~

4435:

It seems to me that the WikiExperts scenario is of a different order, however. WikiExperts is attempting to facilitate the injection of corporate money into Knowledge in a manner that would parallel the unbridled flow of corporate money into American electoral politics with similar

7364:'agile programming' rolling out of VE in order to make Knowledge more 'intuitive' and 'user friendly', while vital fundamentals surrounding policy have been submerged. Indeed, it's reached a critical point where a whole new set of corruption-specific templates need to be developed. 8211:

ethical paid editors to participate and have personally worked with several of them to get their edits into the encyclopedia. An anti-paid-editor (and there are many) is going to be far less friendly about the possibility of an established Knowledge editor accepting pay, and the

6207:

But it makes no sense to say that an IP editor should disclose conflicts of interest. They don't have a user page to use for this purpose; they will often have different IP's each time they edit. So there is a conflict between allowing IP editing and requiring disclosure of COI.

6039:

Your conclusion doesn't follow. Registered but anonymous editors can be tracked. If it is discovered that they have consistently added biassed material to an article or articles all their edits can be reviewed. They can be sanctioned or banned. IP editors are a different matter

3369:

last-chance ban/block appeals for most of that time. And Jimbo, for all of his experience, simply is not available anywhere near enough to do that, and as a WMF Trustee could be perceived to be "approving" edits in a way that could put the WMF's Section 230 immunity at risk.

4726:

This rule as proposed would lead to endless quibbling about what counts as "paid" editing, and would inhibit the excellent work of most of the Wikipedians in Residence, forcing people to double check the work of those editors who are already known to be fully responsible.

996:

Identifying potential COI is a wide-spread practice in democratic societies, it is not a form of personal attack but it helps to decrease the level of hostility. Currently we treat edits by sockpuppets of banned users quite differently from edits by editors in good standing.

8151:

capable of differentiating between different editors and reacting to what they actually write rather than automatically treating them the same as some unrelated editors elsewhere on the page. A couple of the above comments dismiss my legitimate concerns with phrases such as

3149:

implemented, one that has discretionary sanctions for hotly contested articles, restring COI editors to Talk pages, and one that simply requires disclosure and allows editing in article space until a problem arises, at which time the discretionary sanctions version could be

2381:

Let's just get rid of this horrible "bright line" metaphor. Life is grey and this matter is very grey. We need normalization of something that is already covertly happening, and that means mandatory declaration of COI and protection of declared COI accounts from harassment.

1875:

Users must disclose the fact of payment or compensation (not the amount) of any sort from individuals or organizations (including through intermediaries) who are the subject of coverage (positive, negative, or neutral) the User is to provide, edit, prepare or supervise on

6072:

Because of the obscene, violent, sexist language I have seen directed against editors who were known to be female and who had edited in a way some aggressive editor (virtually certainly male based on the comments) didn't like. Knowledge is unfortunately no different from

2786:

into Knowledge articles. It doesn't solve every issue, but it could sure help in some cases. You don't throw your hammer away because you can't drill neat little holes with it. You get a drill motor and some bits, and keep your hammer for when you need to drive nails.

304:

Flow isn't going to support blinking rainbow sigs, but, last I heard, it would still be possible to add plain text sigs that do not match the account name ("Alice Expert" instead of "Aexpert"), so presumably the plain text "Alice Expert (paid)" would be possible, too.

7286:. If we checked through articles which, on face value, wouldn't appear to have any connection with multinationals, I wonder how many companies are doing a more thorough job on developing Knowledge pages to really get a bang out of their less obtrusively spent buck? -- 5682:

As the father of paid editing at WP phrased it in a recent WPO thread, identifying COI on a talk page is like taping a "Kick Me" sign to your back. There needs to be some sort of protection for those who try to follow the rules (NPOV, identification of COI) from

1708:. This bars attempts at promotion, content that fails to adhere to NPOV. (I am completely in favor of mandatory COI identification, by the way, with a provision that those harassing declared COI editors without due cause should face sanctions for their actions.) 505:

I believe signature disclosure, strongly enforced, has worked very well on the German Knowledge. We are muddling in the sands thinking we can just ban paid advocacy at the stroke of a pen: it's not possible. Exposure and control are the sane way to handle this.

8241:

The fact that The Banner is being asked to make a commitment to voluntarily follow an essay that dozens of other paid editors have agreed to follow is rather the point. I wouldn't ask him to make a commitment to voluntarily follow a policy or guideline such as

6939:

Interesting take there. How, precisely, did you come to the conclusion that a profession or company is NOT a political entity? Could you, perhaps, draw up some guidelines as to how to distinguish between vested economic interests and vested economic interests?

3761:

should be required to publicly disclose this in some manner decided by the community (e.g. a header/footer/userbox on their user page, something in edit summaries, a technical flag similar to the minor edit flag, etc - I'm not sure what the best approach would

7300:

This is why I say Knowledge is going to need to up their security game or lose volunteers to the stress of competing against paid editors for hours on end. Or change tactics and allow companies to maintain a section in their article that is blatantly labeled

5199:

Prohibiting directly people editing for pay might discourage companies from hiring blackhat outfits. Yes, there will still be some, but just because there is still vandalism doesn't mean we can't make it against policy. Making a strong, clear statement that

6818:

this story or picture is presented they often have to determine which master to serve - objectivity or their benefactor. Thus we have articles in which "spin" as been added to the sources/references/facts so as to tell the (often, less than objective) story.

5364: 7590:

I have suggested that The Banner delete the page for the time being, since it seems clear that the page is intended to be developed into an actual advertisement for a Knowledge editing service. It seems clear that the basic approach is in conflict with the

3243:

If we can be more than usually cynical for a moment, an unenforceable (or unenforced) policy has an advantage over a non-existent one: whenever there is a media outcry about someone editing an article, we can say "How dare those horrible people violate our

4337:

article, we have a problem, but that deals with a different policy. The same thing goes for the mayor. If the information is outdated, and nobody is willing to correct it, the subject should be allowed to correct it himself if it is neutral and sourced.

3285: 6917:

I agree with those above who support edits by people in the profession or company affected by the article, who are notionally paid and edit in their area of expertise. Excluding professional expertise in the area because they get a salary would be silly.

4408:- the marketing employee should ask the company's PR department to deal with this. The famous person should not make the edit. Family member may do so unwittingly, but shouldn't really. Clients? Er, depends how that impacts the client-lawyer relationship. 5823:

from authoring articles where they have a conflict of interest, because they are unlikely to be neutral. Whether from Talk or in article-space, we are still discouraged. However, not prohibited, for the various reasons already discussed on this page.

4254:

I'm in marketing at a large law firm with an existing article. A famous lawyer joins our firm. Can I edit the article to mention this increase in our ranks? What if I am the famous lawyer myself? A member of the lawyer's family? One of the lawyer's

2916:

The main goal of this initiative would appear to aim at keeping everything above board by promoting transparency through necessitating disclosure, while restricting the scope of participation of those with a COI to prevent the occurrence of related

8304:

request/a WP:COI will be send to AfD); 2) I can put down hollow phrases like that essay on the draft, but it will be the facts that make or break the editing. I am willing to follow a Guideline, not an essay that can be altered or ignored at will.

2527:

for a specific advocacy position as a volunteer for 20 years make one an SME? Does it require proof of one's scholarly expertise? What if the SME works for a for-profit company instead of in the scholarly sector? Those who remember back to the

3630:

reputable publishers don't view any of that as adressable conflict of interest, and neither would Knowledge. But on the other hand, if YOU view it as a personal conflict of interest, that is your own personal ethics that you have to deal with.

4730:

Anyway, this misses the point that this sort of editing is only mildly harmful, as compared to the direct harm that can be done by advocacy editing for a cause, of which the very worse examples are those done by volunteers., not paid editors.

4723:

bright line rule even when they needn't--if they want to be cautious that's fine also. And I always suggest it (or even insist on it) for a promotional editor -- paid or unpaid -- whoi is heaving difficulty writing a nonpromotional article.

4047:

definitely not the people you need to be worried about (for the most part). If anything, they are usually ignorant of policies but usually teachable and would show a large degree of self-restraint once they have basic standard policies (like

1080:

needs an appropriate but definite response to level that field. Second point: The yellow star analogy was grossly inappropriate. We're not Glenn Beck. Let's keep such extreme accusations of Nazi-like behavior out of this discussion, please. --

1168:

A summary of what happened, including what the problematic edit/s was/were, how long they were in the article before they were identified, how they were identified as problematic, how they were identified as being the product of COI editing,

1735:

but I think there should never be a situation where it is OK (due cause?) to harass an editor who declares a COI. Point blank, we should never sanction harassment of our editors under any circumstance and as Carrite states editors doing so

1115:

In light of the recent quandries involving two PR companies advertising specifically with respect to Knowledge as their sole target medium through which to disseminate their PR, the question of empirical evidence would seem to be accounted

7281:

One example - Volkswagen gives out hundreds of thousands in research grant funds for Endangered Languages in the tertiary education sector every year. It's a pittance to them but how does it translate in 'good guy' points? Take a look at

701:

Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Knowledge. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Knowledge community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia.

7135:

to her extensive website on the subject. Have you ever followed any of the serious psychiatric articles? They attract activists with no financial incentives, e.g., one person who actually put "Personal experience" in the references at

5605:

of other editors engaging in edit wars to sanitize articles.... of which this particular proposed policy would have zero impact on keeping under control. Certainly this article does not change my opposition to this policy proposal. --

2047:

The above seems reasonable. It is enough that we know that they are a paid editor. We can then see from there edits what their bias is. There is no need to specifically identify the editor, or the client. The client will in obvious

1329:

disclosed in late negotiation for new clients. I suggest a small step, not a knee jerk overreaction, of merely requiring disclosure on each account, under threat of ] deletion of all their work, a threat that targets their cash flow.

7404:

I have been thinking about the many comments on this and related pages observing how difficult it is to detect any but the most clueless stealth paid editors. I was thinking that perhaps we could get their former customers to help.

3024:

Risker, if someone accused me of having a COI I would inquire as to the basis of the accusation. If, by some obtuse definition of what a COI encompasses I was determined to have a COI, I would thenceforth simply declare that I had a

1364:

completely bogus notability reasons. Deleted articles have no chance and they cannot count as evidence. (And if this is passed writing/editing Knowledge articles for school won’t even be allowed. So much for Knowledge being a “free”

6704:

prohibited. Re-prohibiting it isn't going to change anything. There might be room for a noticeboard/Wikiproject/working group/?other initiative?, but I can't see how you can merely reword it when the premise is inherently flawed.

6498:

interfere with your relationship with Knowledge. Knowledge wants you to tell the public everything that good sources write about this drug, whereas the company is paying you to tell people only that the drug is a good thing. So you

3054:

Ah, it's apparent that the editors who've tried this so far have never really been accused of editing in a seriously bad way, and so really don't know what a pain it is to defend oneself. Let's be more specific here in the example.

8326:"Can be ignored at will" is red herring. You are the one who chooses whether to ignore it or not. As for "can be altered at will", if you are concerned about alterations, simply say that agree to it as written on a particular date. 8254:

Meanwhile, those paid editors who want to work together with us have pretty much all explicitly agreed to follow the advice in that particular essay. As I said before, one has to wonder why they all agreed but The Banner does not.

5066:

have the same opinion himself. He was eventually blocked, but it took months and multiple editors and administrators. This policy is an objective criteria which is hard to get around, and makes Knowledge better for volunteers.

7194: 4413:

In practice, of course, all the above does happen (all the time, every day, all across Knowledge), but ideally the above is what should happen. Being more open and welcoming to those who openly disclose such matters would help.

7408:

Imagine yourself working for a corporation and unwittingly hiring a firm that turns out to have violated Knowledge guidelines, and then later, when you realized what was happening, switching to an ethical firm that follows our

4818:

My very best wishes summed up perfectly the reason this RfC is full of bullshit and add my !vote as a big honking OPPOSE. How has this proposal gotten this far? "I had a discussion at a noticeboard, people hated it, I'll do an

3747:

Rather than outright banning users with financial interests from editing relevant articles, I believe that a better option would be to allow such editing, but put measures into place to make abuse easier to detect and prevent:

7980:

over into his proposal/query. It's ended up as a bit of a Lemony Snicket's series of unfortunate events. Whatever the outcome of the discussion by the community, by no means should it seen as a tarnish on a good reputation. --

5640:

Okay, so much for the "bright line" approach to paid advocacy. Ain't gonna fly this time, same as last time, same as next time... Let's concentrate on some things that we can all agree upon and see if we can build upon that.

8431:

apologise for the bad pun). With all due respect, m'dear, your literacy alone begins and ends with coding. As Carptrash has so aptly expressed it, you will be left trampled in the dusty stampede without so much as a look-in.

5674:

We use anonymous registration, multiple accounts are simple, and those Paid COI editors who attempt to use a "promotional" user name are blocked at the gate. Something needs to be done to identify these edits so they may be

2896:

Nicely put. Although I am not greatly in favor of anonymous/pseudonymous editing, I think that is probably a far greater priority for most editors than the few cases of COI, which to be honest seem not to be a major issue.

4717:

Making this a policy is much too prescriptive. Some people with such COI can and do edit perfectly properly, and if they do so openly and above-board with a declaration of their COI, they should not only be permitted, but

4595:. We're a wiki, not a bureaucracy. If edits are against the rules, we revert them. If the editor insists on behaving disruptively, we deal with it. I'd support requiring vandals to submit their edits for approval, though. 8407:

has now stated, but saw that you were in a defensive state of mind. There is no headway to be made in a discussion with someone who flatly refuses to concede anything other than their own overinflated estimation of their

1998: 243:

discussions determine for themselves whether the COI is relevant to those particular remarks. That way there's no chance of arguing over whether COI should have been disclosed at a particular discussion when it wasn't.

7482:

TeaDrinker: yes, it would be reasonable to ask volunteers to spend their time checking over the work that you are getting paid to do. I am one such volunteer, but only for those paid editors who commit to following our

1332:

When these professional paid editors are disclosed, cataloged, and reviewable, then we can see the extent of the problem. Currently, we are probably suffering an extreme biased view because we catch the worst first.

95:

sponsor(s). This would maximize transparency, so that someone reading a discussion in which that editor participated would be able to weigh that editor's statements and their sponsors' interests accordingly. Thoughts?

3936:

make some disclosure about their biases on a voluntary basis and as a result cooperate to be better. Making demands saying they must disclose any COI is simply unworkable. Heck, changing the playing field and change

8329:

Why don't you just admit that you won't agree because you plan on directly editing Knowledge articles for pay? That is a decision that, according to current Knowledge guidelines, you are free to make (at least until

8246:

because he, like all of us. has no choice -- you either follow the rules of you get blocked. The problem is that every paid editor, including those who were later banned, claims that they are following the letter of

6921:

I see far worse advocacy problems in politically contentious topics. If the community jumps on WP:NPOV violations, it can treat equally the editing excesses of the paid political staffer AND the unchained activist.

6328:

Because we're discussing this specific policy proposal, which also draws no distinction between the two, by ignoring the issue of advocacy, and instead focussing on the non-issue of whether people are getting paid.

6281:

Yes, exactly that. And that's why this policy is a step in exactly the wrong direction: Gardner's statement notes she wants university professors to be able to edit articles where they're experts, and yet the only

3545: 2862: 2270:

These are the exact opposite of "bright lines". A bright line states incontrovertibly that if you do X, the response shall be Y regardless of the circumstantial nuances. Instead these "bright lines" currently say:

5313:

I was under the impression that this "proposal" was basically already policy. It may not be stated in its own right, but it is definitely spelled out in several other policies which would often overlap the issue.

5032:

When something like a "WikiExperts" shows up, however, such an entity should be capable of being precluded, by policy, from engaging in editing conducted on the basis of explicitly declared aims to commercialize

3529:

Re: "is curious"... indeed! They must be stealth advocates for stealth advocacy! I say Jimbo should ban them forthwith! Or the least he can do is expel the ArbCom members who dare oppose him on this bright idea!

1190:

The very worst would be in articles now deleted. I know of one in particular, an article created by the subject. Being about a living person, I don't think it's wise or necessary to get into this kind of thing.

8680:"Are you unsatisfied with your Knowledge page? Unhappy with the results your are getting from trying to buy edits? Call the WikiPsychicHotline and we will use our psychic powers to reveal what the problem is!" 7378:

same. As a principle, Knowledge objects to disclosure of contributor affiliations therefore relies on your ability to discern between paid promotion and NPOV representation. We suggest that you visit this page

5370:

that their input into the article is evil or bad even if it is self-interested. Many of the technical articles in the wikipedia (for which the wiki is a tremendous resource) would suffer under this directive.

2216:

We don't even have a consensus for what "banned" means. Blocked or site banned? To all those who encourage PR firm editing: a pox on your pet articles! May the paid editors spin them for you against your will.

7595:

guideline. Further its presence as an advertisement on Knowledge's userspace seems to indicate that such is acceptable (even encouraged) by the project. Neither seems to be true given the above discussion.

1415:

affair — he set up a sockpuppet account that had been content for a while to simply self-promote himself on his own article. Later, he engaged in what he later called investigative journalism by edit warring

749:

maintaining an outstanding encyclopedia, rather than get distracted by nonsense like trying to address the problem of COI editing directly. It's never going to work, and, if we try, WP will only suffer.

4137:

the first place. It sounds like trying to make a rule that is there deliberately to smack somebody down once they've been outed... something that is also currently against policy for a very good reason. --

4121:

something like this. Having a guideline requiring disclosure and making it harder to edit war would encourage many people to abide by it even if it wasn't possible to detect violations in many cases. --

7127:

Not all paid advocates are full-time Knowledge editors. In fact, from what I've seen, I'd guess that most of them spend only an hour or two a day onwiki, which is just like the typical experienced editor.

5424:

The doctor removes an entire validly-sourced section describing the risks of the procedure, soon becoming the centre of an edit war on the merits of blasting away at eyeballs with excimer lasers. Not good.

2333:

Inappropriately disparage the subject of the article without citing appropriate reliable sources, and without ensuring that the article contains any known concerns regarding the nature of the disparagement

943:

I don't think anything in your post makes Niteshifts statement it in any way comparable or acceptable. It's a form of guilt by association and Reductio ad Hitlerum, and is inherently fallacious reasoning,

3684:

I concur with WilyD. I'm an academic, so engaging with the public is part of my job. I may make edits talking about my own work or colleagues at my institution, because that's the work I know about best.

3333:

In that case, it might be a good idea to limit the scope to the Talk pages and use of the {Request edit} template, thereby preventing any hard feelings by eliminating the source of conflict beforehand.--

3138:

I don't see much of a scope for changing my initial response, because the second scenario still is based on an unsubstantiated accusation. The burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused, correct?

2958:

encyclopedia. However, if it is established that paid editing is like apple pie, it would be very unproductive to battle a tag team of new editors who are indistinguishable from paid PR hacks. It's like

1620:

Diploma mills tend to be problematic as a group - often they will remove negative information from their own articles and insert unfounded claims that their credentials are valid. There were a few times

7215: 5347:

It sounds like we are basically in agreement. Rather than write a new policy, we should clarify and enforce existing policies that already spell out the point. Let's see how many others agree with us.

5284:. It is an alternate viewpoint to this one and I think is the more sensible of the two. Perhaps if this proposal fails it can be submitted as an opposing proposal.Discuss it here or on its talk page. 105:

People may not have a COI about every issue they edit about, so unless it's an SPA we can't ask people to add it to their sigs. I think we need to focus like a laser on producing a very simple policy.

5384: 4496:

advocate to back down. That would include such editors recusing from controversies, declining to participate in consensus votes, avoiding anything that remotely smacks of PoV-pushing and adhering to

253:

Oops, I forgot that my proposed change also added proposing new articles at AfC alongside making edit requests. I understand this is opposed by some and didn't mean to slide that in without notice.

4558:

sector, museum/library sector, advocacy and promotional, PR and corrections). The problem is that those editing for reasons they don't want to disclose will give bland and innocuous reasons such as

2614:

That's a typically Wikipedian debasement of the word "expert". Let's head it off by stipulating that "expert" refers to someone with generally recognized scholarly qualifications in a subject area.

8480:"I am capable of differentiating between different editors and reacting to what they actually write rather than automatically treating them the same as some unrelated editors elsewhere on the page" 1041:), we have polices to deal with such behavior, regardless of whether the out-of-hand behavior is motivated by payment. A policy or guideline specifically against no paid advocacy is quintessential 6193:

does not require every person to disclose their identity so that we can verify they are not a sock. A requirement to disclose conflicts of interest does not end anonymous editing for everyone. --

4219:

paragraph to the Knowledge article of each person whose papers our library holds, mentioning that his or her papers are at our facility and providing a link to the online finding aid. May I do so?

2547:

it clear whether such an "external financial relationship" would be okay or not. Even if it isn't intended to do this, the vagueness leaves it open to some abuse. I can easily predict a scenario:

3742: 2996:

them. I do not support the idea of indiscriminate sleuthing, nor of outing, but gathering public information as in the recent wikipr case seems desirable in order to gauge what needs to be done.

2336:

Inappropriately praise the subject of the article without citing appropriate reliable sources, and without ensuring that the article contains any known concerns regarding the nature of the praise

8399:

capable of differentiating between different editors and reacting to what they actually write rather than automatically treating them the same as some unrelated editors elsewhere on the page." (

7672:

Ultimately, if it isn't illegal, it's certainly highly unethical. I wouldn't want to have my Knowledge contributions associated with this behaviour, nor Knowledge being perceived in this light (

781:

organizations that have employed me. Would it have been better if someone with no connection to one of those organizations made the same edits? I guess, maybe, in some abstract way. I'd like to

2890: 4176: 3391: 2517: 3906: 8716:

matter if he's being paid? We already have the reward board to prostitute ourselves for barnstars. At least this guy is smart enough to make money (or charitable donations) from it. Thanks

7818:

and let the community decide. I think he makes a good enough case that if he doesn't nominate it, I will. It also does not bode well that you ignored my request instead of adding a note to

4171: 3776:

If a user feels an unfair restriction was placed upon them by an individual administrator, they can appeal the topic ban to ANI. Community topic bans could be appealed in the normal manner.

3453:

The "former employee" usually knows where all of the skeletons are buried in any particular enterprise, which is why companies are very eager to discredit any complaints this person makes.

1140:

incentive that created these two PR firms. They are just the beginning and with their failures the next generation of this industry will learn a lesson and their tactics more insidious.

3505:

Absolutely. It the lengths that some of the comments go to in order to conflate the two, thereby obfuscating the issue and obstructing progress toward addressing the concerns, is curious.

7151:

grasped the concept of reliable sources. So I don't really think that "paid professionals waste our time (more than the kooks and unpaid POV pushers)" is an argument that holds water.

5812:

I've been watching with interest, uncertain as to whether I should comment, being a PR rep myself. However, my other comments seem to be appreciated, so I thought I would give it a run.

1272:

It’s certainly in their interest to make that claim, because it’s the principal basis of their pitch to prospective clients. Their website, to their credit IMO, gives high prominence to

8089:

The rather aggressive debate on the essay page (which, to your credit, you were not engaged in) is precisely what I was referring to. Hopefully, tempers have cooled a little. Cheers! --

7221:

Yes, good question. If we had metrics for how much paid editing was going on...Oh, wait, it is impossible to identify a stealth paid editor. this entire discussion has been for naught.

6356:

For instance, I'm a paid academic expert. One of the things I'm paid to do is communicate my science, and the general science of my field, to the public at large. Although it doesn't

5992: 4191: 3100:

is also going to become policy. You're saying that if somebody takes an interest that you don't understand, it is then fair to jump to the conclusion that they must be a paid editor.

3082:

would spend their time making such edits because they are no fun. Ergo, anyone making such edits is very, very likely someone with a more or less direct financial stake in the company.

8860:

Some may argue that bitcoins are not money, but no reasonable person thinks that they are not a tangible benefit. This will remain true until you can no longer buy things with them. --

8251:, which they interpret (and sometimes twist) to be as permissive as possible. And agreeing to follow another set of rules that they created is a signature move for those paid editors. 5373:

How is Knowledge to know if a person is financially interested in an article. They don't know much more than the name of the person, they don't know who they work for, and shouldn't.

4207:

May I write the article? Do I have to disclose anything if I do write the article? If my friend offers to take me to dinner to thank me for agreeing to write the article, may I accept?

4182:

situations—but mostly derived from actual situations I am aware of over the years—in which an editor could be accused of having a paid interest or COI. How do we want to address them?

3802: 1731:

disclosure of financial, scientific, academic, religious, political and nationalist, et. al. COI is a good idea and should be in our COI guideline. I know what Carrite meant by this:

1164:

So, I wonder. If COI editing is such a serious problem, I wonder if we couldn't have a contest to identify the worst problems ever caused by COI editing. All entries should include:

6912: 5029:

I, too, agree that non-paid advocacy is a huge problem, but that is one that Knowledge has to live with as long as there is a lack of will to enhance and enforce the content policies.

3893:, and eliminate pseudoanonymity for expert editors (regardless of how non-promotional their edits may be), and instead put in place an enforced credential policy for these editors? I 3645:

Reputable publishers wouldn't view it as a problematic conflict of interest, nor should Knowledge. You're absolutely correct. That's half of why this is a terrible policy proposal.

3205:

now when it's identified that an IP from somebody's workplace edited the article on that employer, we'll take an even bigger publicity hit than some people think we're getting now.

7976: 6007: 4757:

and move on. This is entirely like a nanny state and will not change much; knowing the motivation for an edit does not matter one whit. We have policies aplenty to address this.--

2434:

creation of or modification of Knowledge articles that contain content from or reference digital archives. The sole purpose of such Knowledge work is to explore SEO strategies via

6417:

the kind of editors you seem to consider benign. I can differentiate them perfectly well, which is why I don't like a policy like this, which only serves to bundle them together.

5478:

and attempt to get a consensus instead of replacing "Darth Vader is going to blow up your eyeballs" with the equally-opinionated "LASIK is the greatest medical miracle in history".

2540: 7130:

I have, on the other hand, seen some remarkably prolific editors who spend entire days pushing POVs that nobody could possibly make any money off of, like the exact definition of

3310: 7500:"illegal" is not going to happen. All the proposals involve firms that refuse to follow the rules. I would advise you to place such a commitment right at the top of your page. -- 6933: 6395: 4714:

often trying, however ineptly, to do what they think they ought to, and put them in a situation where everything them might rightly want to do is made ridiculously difficult.

5623:

Reporting does not make a problem bigger. If there's a slow news week and somebody decides to write a piece about Knowledge, we do not need to respond by throwing a dramafest.

3104: 2962:—essentially no one cares if a pro-pedophilia activist edits Knowledge (we don't require a declaration from each new editor), but if there are grounds for thinking that someone 8361:

concerns me. The Banner will quickly be left in the dust, but a dusty stampeed it will be. I can see giant billboards vying with the attorney ambulance chasers all around the

3563: 3539: 3363: 1507:

to ask about conflicts of interest. The WHO or WHY behind a given edit (or series of edits) should never be relevant. If the WHAT of the edits comply with NPOV, NOTABILITY,

6401:

PR people editing Knowledge with the ultimate aim of promoting a product or service are already being banned when they're discovered, because they're violating policies like

6013:

I think that this whole issues comes under a proposal to review pillar 3 and to only permit registered users to edit the encyclopedia ... something which I strongly support.

4259: 3381: 3091: 2004: 1859: 5458:

Quite the spectrum, and not one but multiple bright lines need to be drawn to distinguish these edits. Some are constructive, some need to be taken to the talk page or need

5172:

a way that at least some paid editors will be willing to abide by, rather than prohibit it with virtually no way to enforce it. This will be like Knowledge's version of the

2644:

Only kidding a bit here, but I'll venture to say my mechanic understands the working of automobiles at least as well as someone with a P.Eng. Which one would be the expert?

1791:

and a careful reading tells me that any kind of editor harassment should not be tolerated. As you've said, we don't need another policy to say that. Yet with this comment

8823: 8231: 7819: 7718: 7553: 7441: 5446: 5435: 1494: 7199:

It occurs to me that I have no idea on how much this happens in order to judge how big of a problem it is. Can someone please point to where I can find this information.

5356: 5342: 491:

as well as general administrative work. Should I really tell every vandal I have warned or blocked that I am doing it on behalf of my employer? I really do not think so

4883: 1244: 7421:

company. This is the sort of thing that someone writing a magazine article about this would love to include. This is a bit of a crazy idea, but it just might work. --

4828: 3989: 1484: 6873: 3955: 2245:, whereby the community (or ArbCom, or Jimbo) decides that said person shall not contribute to Knowledge, and all edits by said person shall be reverted on sight. —/ 2051:

mainspace edit history. I expect that the clients are often aware of the multiple account use of the paid editor, at least the more successful alternative accounts.

1184: 487:

articles but I did a few edits on plastic and CFD-related articles there I might have a borderline COI. The bulk of my edits are on politics, history and culture of

3972: 3924: 2014: 1992: 1978: 1958: 1940: 1926: 1519: 8284:. Any reasonable person would conclude that The Banner is planning on directly editing Knowledge articles for pay, and that his refusal to commit to following our 7044: 6768: 6096: 6063: 5871:

warrant any paid editor disclosing his/her being paid for edits. Although, such editors may be encouraged to discuss before editing, it must not be a precondition.

4929: 4897: 1534: 500: 440: 6848:

material. I firmly believe I am acting to improving the NPOV in these articles. Again, it all goes to editor's intent and their adherence to Knowledge's mission.

6100: 6086: 6067: 3769:

vandalism and should be prohibited from restoring reverted edits altogether. This would be enforcible by any administrator blocking and/or topic banning the user.

3257: 2423: 932: 912: 764: 352: 8845:

Are bitcoins "monetary or other tangible benefits"? If not, the text should be rewritten to include them as benefits that mean financial conflict of interest. --

8448:

P.S. The fact that you imagined that this was a good venue in which to bring up your ad (er, essay) attests to the fact that you must be right off your bonce. --

6827: 5303: 3499: 2448: 1490: 416:

THIS IS A PAID EDITOR. DO NOT TAKE ANYTHING THIS EDITOR SAID SERIOUSLY, HE IS BEING PAID BY A PR FIRM. BEWARE OF COI. IF YOU SEE THIS EDITOR PLEASE BLOCK HIM/HER

167: 7967:

I have no doubt that this is just one of those internal disputes that is being blown out of proportion and can be resolved in a reasonable and amicable manner,

7254: 7202:

Is is such a big issue given how much edit warring occurs on pages that are likely to be sensitive to this issue. In other words, do we need such a policy if

7160: 6217: 5627: 5194: 5166: 5151: 5123: 4204:

information about his background and books to include in the article. There is no question in my mind that the author meets the applicable notability guideline.

3694: 1569:

problem. The fact that that particular NPOV problem is caused by a COI issue is irrelevant - the NPOV problem needs to be addressed just the same anyway. --

1449: 1006: 953: 645: 6184: 6132:. We urge companies to conduct themselves ethically, to be transparent about what they're doing on Knowledge, and to adhere to all site policies and practices. 6053: 5718: 5695: 4989: 4807: 4784: 4696: 4681: 4367: 4352: 4146: 4086: 4060: 4011: 1837: 1805: 1774: 1615: 1546: 1466: 1214: 1200: 682: 407: 129: 8812: 8098: 8044: 7989: 7686: 7295: 7230: 6877: 6789: 4770: 4106: 3847: 3818: 1695: 1430: 1342: 893: 872: 846: 827: 8683: 8652: 8615: 8495: 8457: 8285: 8219: 8182: 7823: 7780: 7730: 7643: 7557: 7497: 7484: 7473: 7430: 7410: 6998: 6810: 6700:). If you're really only interested in dealing with the second kind of case, new policy proposals are probably a waste of time. The second kind of case is 6646: 6380:

and the benign nature of experts in academia contributing to Knowledge in their respective fields, it is difficult to discuss the issues being raised here.--

6237: 4649: 4632: 3668: 3654: 3640: 3574: 2391: 2179: 1592: 1577: 1068: 1053: 1023: 987: 600: 201: 8914: 8794: 8695: 8347: 8317: 7930: 7885: 7839: 7605: 7569: 7535: 7509: 7174: 6949: 6202: 6034: 5614: 5525:

policy that goes beyond the existing COI/SPAM rules. A subject should not be paying the author of a Knowledge article on that subject, period. Anyone using

4571: 3932:

religious beliefs, or even purely cultural differences from other editors) in the interest of trying to write better articles. Somebody who is cooperative

3324: 3238: 2872:

around off-wiki and actively attempting to link pseudonymous accounts (either by username or IP) to real-world identities, thus essentially washing out our

2758: 2719: 2639: 2088: 666: 247: 99: 8772: 8568: 8529: 8378: 7314: 6963:

to be the dominant problem on Knowledge, as it's political, nationalist, and religious advocacy where advocacy is at its worst - not corporate interests.

6022: 5962: 5736: 5269: 5214: 5108: 4509: 3879: 3734: 3524: 3433: 3214: 3197: 2796: 2776: 2316:

Any user will be banned from the project if, after an appropriate warning, they repeatedly and deliberately edit or amend an article to do any one of these

1796:

harassment of such editors, no matter how much you might dislike their motivations. As for giving someone an excuse to cry harassment, that's just lame --

1089: 578: 554: 533: 519: 464: 314: 217: 206:

We could insist that they add an "A" for "Advocate" to their sig, and to avoid confusion with the regular part of the sig, it should be in bold, and red.--

8869: 8732: 7391: 5853: 5559: 5323: 5076: 4459: 3716: 3320:. After I got sick and tired of being accused of COI and I stopped editing that article. It used to be featured. Now it's a former featured article.. 2118: 2103: 1749: 1106: 624: 111: 7122: 7079: 6972: 6902: 6169: 6151: 5910: 5764: 4131: 4041: 3621: 3601: 3586: 3348: 3165: 2906: 2620: 2609: 2300: 1661: 1400: 1159: 375: 6714: 6550: 6351: 5741: 5048: 3701:

absurd: and it's not written like that anyway. Why is there such a gulf in understanding that a PR hired gun is, as was said above, a different animal?

3119: 2836: 2263: 2232: 1680: 1639: 1312: 1263: 327: 297: 8900: 8748:. An interesting thing to say to say to a bunch of volunteers. Makes me pretty stupid, doesn't it? Giving al that time and effort away for nothing? 7337: 6259: 5114:

others may come along and debate it and even revert it, sometimes, but the edit is made and the judge was paid by an interest that is not the Pedia's.

4970: 4617: 3659:

That's not what I said. I said, "neither would". It is not generally the case that policies are construed and certainly not enforced as absurdities.

3400: 3005: 2990: 2975: 2672: 2666:

qualifications". In practice, I doubt that anyone would complain about a mechanic editing automotive articles, regardless of what's written in policy.

2653: 2591: 1717: 1149: 1134: 447:

Perhaps a userbox with the wording, "This user has received to create articles on Knowledge" or "This user has created paid articles on Knowledge"?--

257: 8031:

already on the page. So, for the moment I go not left, nor right, nor backwards or ahead, I just sit, wait and read. It is a draft-page for a reason!

7027:

has suggested and you might elicit some insight into the complexity of the issue. I'd assume that you're aware of the series of documentaries called,

6857: 5938: 5529:

agency style tactics needs to be shut down and maybe even sued by the WMF - which would require clear policy and clear TOS prohibiting these edits. A

5020: 4532: 4295:

the subject to publicize his operation. But there's nothing wrong with the owner appearing on the talk page to make suggestions as to updated content.

3182: 3043: 2947: 2932: 2818: 2509: 806: 286: 277: 6426: 6338: 6323: 5797: 5781: 5003: 4795:"When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Knowledge, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." 4793:

Yes, I agree. I do not think payment is important. What matters is COI. An important point in these discussions: what is COI, exactly? WP:COI tells:

4604: 3448: 3073: 1458: 974:

verifiable, but pointing them out would, unfortunately, constitute outing under current P&Gs. What distinguishes witch hunts from these cases is

388: 5864:

Knowledge can be edited by anyone. If someone paid/with COI edits, there is no lack of measures to counter any undesirable consequences, if need be.

8288:

is that he plans on directly editing Knowledge articles for pay. I would very much like to discuss those apparent plans in a calm, civil manner. --

5755:(NY Times, Washington Post), that made the Maximum Leader look bad. I don't see how anyone would have been able to check out his source of income. 5635: 5542: 4097:

I think the wording can be adjusted to prevent unintended consequences, we need some community agreement in principle to start working on the idea

3295: 2375: 688: 4331: 3462: 3028:

I wouldn't be editing as a PR hack to begin with, so I would simply point to WP:YESPOV and sources if someone complained on the basis of my POV.--

1740:. The COI and other appropriate guidelines should be unequivocal about this. We could simplify this Advocacy issue by adopting this approach. -- 1374: 8164:. Whether you like it or not, I have a reasonable objection based not on emotion but on observed behavior, and whether you address it or not, it 6819: 6295: 6276: 5725: 5592: 5431:

touting the procedure and encouraging patients to mortgage their houses in order to pay many thousands of dollars for the procedure. Problematic.

4942:

This policy begs the question: "Why is unpaid advocacy allowed?" Unless there's a good answer to that, I don't see how this can make any sense.

4486: 2246: 8367:

NEED A WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE? Not happy with how you or your venture are portrayed there? Visit wikieditors.com and talk to us about your needs.

7457: 7031:? Attempting to parse contributors into groups which, according to you, translate into "... political, nationalist and religious advocacy ..." ( 4852: 4423: 1097:

of a vast number of articles: Wouldn't the solution be Knowledge hiring paid watchdogs with the sole intent to patrol for COI and neutrality?

729:

WHO is editing and WHY they are editing, and instead focus on the WHAT of the edit itself as objectively as reasonably possible, and comment on

8835: 8757: 8639:

lasses, figure out first what becomes the guideline. I am a strange guys: the more hammering you do, the more sceptical and critical I become.

8297: 6223: 5987: 5255: 4552: 3722: 3702: 3478: 2218: 3612:

legitimises it by suggesting it's getting paid that the bad part of promotion, rather than co-opting Knowledge and working against our goals.

2523: 2210: 1705: 232: 5891: 5062:

tell me that being paid to edit an article to achieve a particular outcome for a client is not in violation of the COI guideline, because he

2429:

I share Robert's concern here. I am personally aware of academics and librarians that are operating with significant grant $ $ $ to explore

1949:. I tried to reach it through Google too, found the PDF, but couldn't access it or the code itself. Odd. Still can't, regardless of browser. 1865:

On their User page, on subject article talk pages, and when commenting on any conflict of interest related policy/guideline discussion page:

89: 6840:

problem in general, not exclusive to paid advocacy. Spinning or cherry picking sources can (and does) happen even if someone doesn't have a

5244: 120:

Editors can create alternate accounts, which can be used when they have a conflict of interest (or when they don't). This isn't a bad idea.

8482:. I caused the misattribution above by making an error in my signature which I have since corrected. (Note to self: next time, smoke crack 7399: 5577: 5275: 2397: 524:

Can you explain how it works in German wikipedia? Does it mean that everybody should disclose the name of their employer in the signature?

6001:

calling paid advocacy a "black hat" practice that "violates the core principles that have made Knowledge so valuable for so many people."

1759:

battles." What you are suggesting give a class of editors, in this case paid editors, an excuse to cry "harassment" when there isn't any.

6742: 5667:

in the hopes of gaining a share of that value through raises and future employment at the task. In short: close supervision is necessary.

3823:

Sorry, to clarify, I meant by the same definition used in the original proposal - although it might be worth considering extending it to

923:

It's not appropriate. If you want to discuss crap like that, go use someone else's comment as the basis. Don't rope me into your idiocy.

706:

The entire focus of this proposal, and indeed all efforts to directly address the problem of edits made by editors with a COI, is of the

4742: 1526: 7283: 4276:

Example 1: I don't see the problem here. Eliminating this kind of conduct just goes too far. The Wiki editor has no financial interest.

785:

most of us are grownups who are aware of our potential conflicts and behave accordingly. When that doesn't happen, we deal with it. If

5403:

The doctor posts a reasonable (if a bit overly technical) scientific description of the procedure, results and risks. So far, so good.

4951: 1912: 1901: 1356:

I doubt any deleted articles will survive a month. I know people who have articles written for school projects deleted in less than 5

6494:

If you were being paid by a drug company to tell the public that their drugs are great, then your relationship with the drug company

5500:

is not enough to excuse or justify removing valid information on the risks of the procedure. Policy needs to be clear in this regard.

3535: 3359: 3087: 81: 69: 64: 59: 7105: 7066: 5916: 4766: 2563:

reverts: "Your career is based on people believing your mainstream 'science', I'm trying to make it NPOV, you're violating WP:PAID"

1645: 7019:, who should read the comment and my response again with care. You're simply reiterating the simplistic categorization applied by 5837: 4313:

Example 5. Same as 3. The lawyer himself or his family? No. Too close; direct financial interest. Client? I don't see the problem.

1537:

that it was clean of notable, documented, negative information about the subject. It has been, and continues to be, a problem. --

398:

alternate account with disclosure in the username, well it might work, but be careful that we might be teaching sock puppetry. --

3890: 3759:

with a financial conflict of interest as defined in this proposal, who are editing articles relevant to this conflict of interest

3546:

Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#Something_that_should_be_changed_for_such_a_discussion:_Disclosure_for_COI_policy_discussions

2466: 1250:

If they really are "adhering to Knowledge's notoriously complex rules and practices," why is it a problem? If they aren't, isn't

8854: 4870:

which we have already as policy. Actually, I believe all PR companies and individual propagandists must be forbidden simply per

4775:

I concur. A terrible idea. Having said that, however, can anyone point to an issue that has arisen because of paid advocacy?--

2064: 6764: 2402:

Forgive me if I cannot always be up to speed with all Wiki rubrics but I read this on the project page "Subject-matter experts

2040: 1727:

is already the governing policy. We don’t need another one. As for COI disclosure, I don’t think mandatory is practical, but

1654: 1500: 2473:? I suppose the line should be drawn at the point an editor or organisation is writing about itself or its brand of products. 2308: 239:

editor must disclose their COI does not sufficiently set the expectation for how frequently and prominently it should be made.

5998: 3765:

Editors with a COI should be required to adhere to a 1-revert-rule on relevant articles except for reverting edits which are

1686:

Knowledge want to reject a paid editing policy proposal that would be routine and uncontroversial everywhere else, so be it.

8798:

And to mention your MfD: the page will be back asap after removal. There are no official gagging orders, only WP:IDONTLIKEIT

5462:

disclosure, some should not be tolerated period (to the point of prohibiting them in the site's terms of use and in policy).

3862:

template that can be (or should be) posted on talk pages. It is superior. E.g., the language of the template is neutral and

3219:

Let the policy be unenforceable. It shouldn't be a policy in the first place and it encourages witch hunts at noticeboards.

2145: 8803:

multinational corporations would make of it. Whoops, pardon. Have to go. I'm in conference with my buddy, Gina Rinehart. --

5565: 5352: 5319: 3531: 3355: 3083: 2290:

And so on. These need to be watertight if they are to be proposed as "bright lines" underlying this proposed policy change

1793:

I would hate for a Knowledge policy to explicitly say that "one must not harass an editor who likes to refight old battles.

7496:

The Banner: I have been following these various proposals, and making paid editing by ethical paid editors who follow our

7417:

the editor(s) who worked on that page at that time and possibly find other pages edited by the same stealth paid editor.

6124:

What does anonymity have to do with the press release? Let's focus on the press release, which also includes the statement

3782:

I fully agree that COIs must be declared, but I think there are better alternatives than an outright ban on such edits. --

6869: 4579: 570: 6030:

their identity while giving a free pass to anonymous editors to do whatever they want. This is a very unfair proposal.

1226: 7872:

I have no problem with WP:PSCOI, except that is just an essay and that it adds nothing to what is already in my draft.

6092: 6059: 5954: 5413:

The doctor cites "Dr I's 20/20 LASIK clinic" as the primary source for otherwise-valid info. Beginning to venture into

5390:

Knowledge does know if a user is editing in some unusual way which indicates a stake in the matter. If we suppose that

4674: 1832: 1769: 1305: 673:

No. We should not hang leper-bells around people's necks. Focus on problematic edits rather than stigmatising editors.

160: 7814: 1870:

other benefits from individuals or organizations covered (or likely to be covered) by the User in a Knowledge article.

6409:, flagrantly and repeatedly. It's a problem, but not one that can be solved by a policy forbidding it, because it's 4687:

companies won't deal with blackhat outfits. Some will, so it won't eliminate the problem, but it will lessen it. --

1733:

with a provision that those harassing declared COI editors without due cause should face sanctions for their actions.

8665:

yesterday, and here it is, just as I predicted! Perhaps I should quit my engineering job and become a paid psychic.

6640:

want to stop the second kind of example, but for those that do, it would be good if we could find different words.

1622: 1562: 1038: 733:

without regard to WHO made the edit, or WHY they made the edit. Trying to ban or even monitor COI editing ignores

6345:

WilyD, can you elaborate on why you think this proposal would mean academic experts couldn't edit in their field?

5652:

This is a fundamental policy of the site and I doubt there is a single person here who wants to see it undermined.

4432:

I agree that those are good examples, and Cacharoth's suggested approach to each respective situation is sensible.

6130:

misrepresenting your affiliation with a company is against Knowledge policy and is prohibited by our Terms of Use

5968: 5859: 5530: 5348: 5315: 2345:

Remove or suppress reliably sourced information that appropriately balances praise or disparagement in an article

47: 17: 5365:

Bad Idea, Many Technical Articles are better for the knowledge of people involved in the tech article's creation

3866:. It avoids the value-laden the "paid editor" or "paid advocate" phrasing and recognizes that edits are in fact 1326:

keep client money on the basis of an article surviving one month plus one day, then there goes their reputation.

1119:

Why would Knowledge need to pay people to police paid advocacy when it can be handled through policy measures?--

7435: 5958: 5330: 4079: 4034: 3856: 3840: 3795: 2257: 2187: 8168:

come up as other editors observe the same behavior. I suspect that this is moving towards the rather shopworn

7413:. Of course we here at Knowledge should do everything we can to advertise the many advantages of doing that. 6868:

Carter - overall I agree. I just think it happens (or is more likely to happen) when one is a paid advocate.

4920:

be in the title, huh? A simple disclosure policy would work much better for the stated aims of the proposal.

6389: 6317: 6145: 5042: 4879: 4803: 4708: 4453: 3557: 3518: 3342: 3159: 3037: 2926: 1128: 3509:

is first and foremost intended to be persuasive in a PR manner, not informative in an encyclopedic manner.--

2461:

as anyone else. They're usually a bit more articulate in what they write, but do we really need half of our

282:

I didn't realize that that was one of the ramifications of Flow. Good to know, but that's kind of a shame.

5664:

There is a natural tendency for Paid COI editors to undermine NPOV if left completely to their own devices.

4763: 1657:, which would require disclosure of all paid editing, regardless of whether the editing is neutral or not. 756:, and it's a good one. Let's keep it, and ditch this one. The intent is good, but it's wrong-headed. -- 321:

I object to these changes. I think blocking AfC and attempting to mandate signature use are booh mistakes.

4624:

LOL. Yes, and vandals should also be required to identify themselves, preferably in their signatures. --

1969:

and look for "Protecting Our Neutrality"? Or google "nyt protecting our neutrality" and get it that way?

1882:

The notices given subject to the above must be kept indefinitely in place, even after your work has ended.

195:, maybe others if anyone thinks of them. That way it'd be like PC, have a central place to review edits. ~ 7382:

for the unredacted version of this article (assuming that it has been redacted in any shape or form)." --

6222:

Reading from the beginning of the thread to here, it's clear that it's gone way off on tangental things.

3292: 1480: 745:. It's an initiative that moves WP towards pointless bickering, infighting, and, ultimately, implosion. 5680:

Those following the Identify-Your-COI-On-The-Talkpage "strong suggestion" open themselves to harassment.

2241:. I don't like the idea of a bright-line banning policy. Banning is an extraordinary remedy, similar to 8331: 7975:

quite evidently embarked on this with good intentions months ago and, in reading the commentary on the

6760: 6250:

banned. Only paid non-advocacy is allowed. The only dispute is from those trying to confuse the two.

5522: 4661:

editing, and push any potential discussion of exactly how to address it even farther from the horizon.

3317: 3097: 2959: 2430: 1854:

Multiple User's above have said we can/should "require disclosure." I have therefore cribbed this from

1849: 1668: 1667:

The Advocacy essay you link to refers to policy that governs content. The actual text of the proposed

38: 5406:

The doctor posts an opinion downplaying the risks and hyping the benefits of the procedure. No longer

8884: 7767:. And a quick look on this is good enough that mr. Teadrinker is, to put a mildly, strongly opposed. 6994: 5714: 5162: 5119: 4937: 4560:"I saw a TV documentary/read a book/saw something on holiday and developed an interest in the topic" 3664: 3636: 2175: 2167: 2159: 2010: 1974: 1936: 1908: 190:

no-review This person is unable to automatically review edits to pages protected with Pending Changes

8266:"Do not directly edit articles about yourself, your organization, your clients, or your competitors" 1886: 1222:

Oh, here's one that doesn't involve BLPs. I posted it on Jimbo's talk page and am copying it below:

8763:

Wait...what? We don't get paid? I figured Jimbo was just seven years late with my paycheck... :) --

5885: 5610: 5308: 5281: 4875: 4799: 4142: 4056: 3951: 3902: 3608: 2419: 908: 414:

Why stop with labels? Why can't we force every paid editor to put in front of their username this:

5897:

Although I've said it before: Until the community decides to change pillars three and four of the

8910: 8822:

I would like to remind those who have been following this -- on both sides of the issue -- about

7226: 6213: 6190: 6180: 6082: 6049: 5295: 4985: 4760: 4167: 4102: 3985: 3968: 3920: 3814: 3230: 2596:

Who is a better expert on the subject of a particular business than the owner/CEO/Marketing guy?

2367: 2055:

edits. We should not assume that paid editors are not otherwise ethical Knowledge volunteers. --

1002: 574: 529: 496: 432: 344: 7522:

And my plans are to follow the rules at all times and make it clear when an article is ordered.

2824: 1653:

is already forbidden, so paid advocacy is by default forbidden. Instead, we need to talk about

7156: 7136: 5950: 5334: 4669: 4629: 4363: 4327: 3429: 3253: 3193: 2809:. This wouldn't prevent it from occurring in the first place, which is really the only hole. 2195: 2188: 1988: 1954: 1922: 1828: 1765: 1691: 1574: 1516: 1476: 1292: 1240: 1211: 1196: 1181: 1050: 843: 761: 310: 264:

I do not think this should be built into policy, if for no other reason than that the proposed

147: 125: 7065:

Which only shows that you still haven't read what Chris wrote. If I write flattering copy on

5657:

There are currently Paid COI editors at work on Knowledge and there have been for a long time.

8808: 8611: 8453: 8094: 7985: 7682: 7387: 7291: 7118: 7040: 6945: 6780:, which is a problem. It's just not less of a problem if the advocate is doing it for free. 6756: 5237: 4845: 4479: 4187: 3730: 3597: 3494: 2712: 2637: 1724: 1626:

police dog "John I. Rocko"). No need to single out one like this, though, most diploma mills

928: 889: 868: 823: 6300:

Why are you obfuscating the emphatic and distinct contrast drawn the press release between "

5702: 4888:

Yes, the problem is advocacy, and it would be better to attack that problem by streamlining

8788: 8646: 8311: 8038: 7926: 7879: 7774: 7726: 7637: 7601: 7529: 7469: 7451: 7250: 7024: 6990: 6986: 6752: 6198: 5906: 5833: 5819:

I find wisdom in how COI was communicated all along. Those with a conflict of interest are

5710: 5706: 5555: 5533:

was proposed in 2009 and never implemented; we are now paying the price for that decision.

5251: 5210: 5158: 5115: 5072: 4824: 4692: 4645: 4600: 4567: 4505:

reliably-sourced information that may not fit the PoV or agenda of the article's subject).

4419: 4345: 3963:

ability to edit science-related articles it should be reworded after we agree in principle

3875: 3690: 3660: 3632: 3306: 2902: 2832: 2772: 2444: 2171: 2163: 2155: 2114: 2084: 2006: 1970: 1932: 1904: 1801: 1788: 1745: 1611: 1588: 1556: 1542: 1462: 1396: 1064: 1032: 1019: 641: 212: 7765:

I'd be somewhat inclined to nominate it for MfD if you're resolute about keeping it, (...)

6077:

in this respect. I'm not going to be more precise for what are hopefully obvious reasons.

2170:) 11:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC) I have also added a third clause about keeping the notice. 475:(a software company that develop software for plastic industry) that is now subsidiary of 8: 8865: 8831: 8768: 8753: 8691: 8564: 8525: 8491: 8374: 8343: 8293: 8178: 7835: 7565: 7505: 7426: 5606: 5571: 5176:- lots of people blocked (likely often with no hard evidence, as getting the evidence is 4964: 4138: 4052: 3947: 3898: 2462: 2415: 2060: 1603: 1445: 1426: 1338: 983: 949: 904: 678: 403: 184:

Another better (imo) option would be to incorporate it into MediaWiki - with a usergroup

4267:

These are interesting hypotheticals, thanks for posing them. My feelings are as follows:

143:

using such an account: page-histories would be easier to scan for billing purposes. ;) —

8906: 8850: 8726: 8369:” Is that your vision of the future of Knowledge? Because it is not mine. Einar aka 7464:

has more grey in it than black and white, but the fundamental issue remains present. --

7222: 7211: 7140: 7139:. How about the man who wanted to re-write an article about a historical disease as a 6929: 6823: 6209: 6176: 6119: 6091:

Yes, men really are the pits, aren't they. World would be a better place without them.

6078: 6045: 6018: 5983: 5760: 5286: 5185: 5142: 5099: 5016: 4981: 4163: 4127: 4098: 4074: 4029: 4002: 3981: 3964: 3916: 3835: 3810: 3790: 3221: 3001: 2971: 2792: 2754: 2602: 2582: 2528: 2358: 2297: 2207: 1701: 1650: 1085: 998: 525: 492: 423: 363: 335: 325: 295: 7028: 2763:"it removes the issue of legions of paid activists/wonks" How? In other words, kindly 2328:

If someone mistakenly edits the article with a non reliable source, can he be banned?

1229:

re "Obamacare" & Knowledge just came to my attention. It reads in relevant part:

8218:

I find that the two reasons The Banner gives for refusing to commit to following our

7310: 7152: 6230: 5946: 5849: 5793: 5691: 5526: 5475: 5407: 5380: 5262: 4925: 4664: 4359: 4323: 3709: 3425: 3249: 3189: 2764: 2387: 2225: 2099: 1984: 1950: 1918: 1823: 1760: 1713: 1687: 1530: 1388: 1289: 1236: 1192: 1145: 1102: 596: 306: 283: 254: 244: 144: 121: 96: 8264:

This is demonstrably, factually incorrect. The draft has nothing faintly resembling

8896: 8840: 8804: 8607: 8449: 8090: 7981: 7678: 7383: 7333: 7287: 7114: 7036: 6941: 5934: 5807: 5515: 5177: 4528: 4497: 4474: 4183: 3726: 3593: 3489: 3444: 3377: 3210: 3178: 3115: 3079: 3069: 2986: 2943: 2886: 2873: 2707: 2649: 2630: 2536: 2494: 1676: 1671:

is about contributor, not content and seems to do exactly what you are proposing...

1436: 1370: 924: 885: 864: 819: 818:

Identifying a paid editor isn't a personal attack, nor does it run contrary to it.

662: 273: 4500:

to avoid giving undue prominence to details within an article and relying only on

8783: 8641: 8306: 8033: 7972: 7968: 7922: 7874: 7827: 7769: 7722: 7632: 7597: 7524: 7465: 7446: 7246: 7104:

Another attempt at bad analogies and oversimplification. Your great copy for the

7074: 6967: 6853: 6784: 6709: 6641: 6545: 6421: 6346: 6333: 6290: 6254: 6194: 6002: 5902: 5829: 5777: 5588: 5551: 5206: 5068: 4946: 4820: 4688: 4641: 4625: 4596: 4592: 4563: 4415: 4338: 3871: 3686: 3649: 3616: 3581: 3302: 2898: 2828: 2813: 2806: 2802: 2768: 2699: 2482: 2440: 2141: 2110: 2080: 1895: 1797: 1741: 1607: 1584: 1570: 1552: 1538: 1512: 1392: 1207: 1177: 1060: 1046: 1042: 1028: 1015: 839: 757: 653: 637: 550: 514: 456: 207: 106: 8712:

If he's doing good quality work and it's neutral and adheres to policy, does it

8270:"Post suggestions and sources on the article's talk page, or in your user space" 7350:. And, yes, I agree entirely with your take on specialized notability criteria, 7206:

already covers 99% of the activity that this new policy appears to be aimed at?

5922: 2094:

some fanatics on this issue and I suspect that a few heads will have to roll...

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

8861: 8827: 8764: 8749: 8687: 8560: 8521: 8487: 8404: 8370: 8339: 8289: 8174: 7831: 7561: 7501: 7422: 7203: 7167: 7143:

for his new theory that standing up straight was a good idea? Two of us spent

6837: 6806: 6777: 6697: 6593: 6406: 6402: 6166: 6031: 5875: 5647: 5624: 5504: 5490: 5439: 5418: 4959: 4908:

I agree with DGG. This is a truly terrible proposal. If the issue was merely

4871: 4867: 4780: 4754: 4614: 4549: 4048: 3387: 3321: 3101: 2056: 1723:

This is an idea that I could get behind (with a bit of modification). Indeed,

1658: 1566: 1454: 1441: 1422: 1334: 1273: 979: 945: 794: 674: 620: 399: 385: 359: 265: 8661:'they were mean to me so I withdraw my proposal with a few snarky last words' 7440:

I had just made up my mind about minor paid editing. I have put down my ideas

8876: 8846: 8718: 8486:

editing Knowledge...) Otherwise I am in complete agreement with the above. --

8248: 8243: 8212: 8170:"they were mean to me so I withdraw my proposal with a few snarky last words" 7592: 7207: 7020: 6925: 6898: 6841: 6272: 6014: 5979: 5756: 5538: 5508: 5497: 5482: 5471: 5459: 5428: 5414: 5182: 5139: 5130: 5096: 5012: 4750: 4738: 4123: 4069: 4024: 3999: 3942: 3938: 3863: 3830: 3785: 3458: 3396: 2997: 2967: 2788: 2750: 2668: 2616: 2597: 2579: 2505: 2490: 2486: 2474: 2470: 2458: 2353: 2292: 2238: 2200: 2035: 1892:

I would also like to ask you to review and reflect on this recent comment by

1635: 1627: 1508: 1281: 1259: 1081: 881: 802: 790: 782: 753: 734: 722: 715: 694: 612: 371: 322: 292: 196: 8905:

Yes. Editing which is influenced by a conflict of interest is the problem.

8879:: Again, this is missing the point. The currency most used on Knowledge is 6306:

a university professor editing Knowledge articles in their area of expertise

5180:), lots of time spent, but no real progress made on reducing paid advocacy. 1946: 1855: 7347: 7306: 7171: 6845: 6381: 6309: 6137: 5845: 5789: 5752: 5687: 5659:

I'm just going to leave that right there, I think we all know this is true.

5486: 5376: 5339: 5173: 5034: 5000: 4921: 4894: 4506: 4501: 4445: 3549: 3510: 3334: 3151: 3029: 2918: 2383: 2095: 1709: 1277: 1141: 1120: 1098: 834: 742: 592: 7380:(insert link to paying corporate sponsor or relevant interest group forum) 4874:. This is because their openly stated goal is promotion of their clients. 2863:

A thought experiment on how this proposal will deprecate the outing policy

2275:

Any user will be banned from the project if, after an appropriate warning,

2136:

only hired to make sure it was neutral", which might be better avoided. -

714:. This entire approach is arguably a violation of at least the spirit of 8892: 7351: 7329: 6776:

Verifiability isn't the only thing that matters. Advocacy runs afoul of

5930: 5898: 5879: 4524: 3997:

mention, as Robert Horning notes, basically throwing AGF out the window.

3440: 3373: 3206: 3174: 3111: 3065: 2982: 2939: 2882: 2645: 2532: 2497: 1966: 1672: 1412: 1366: 786: 658: 269: 5974:

rival company to reduce their sales/advertising ... how would you know?

5599:

somebody noticed you could tweak things on the pages in the first place.

1917:

Alan, I'm getting a dead link at the Times website that you cite above.

1822:

OK, so leave it in. It won't make any difference no matter what you do.

7195:

How much "Paid Advocacy" does the Knowledge Foundation estimate occurs?

7071: 7016: 6964: 6849: 6781: 6706: 6418: 6330: 6287: 6251: 5773: 5584: 4943: 4610:

Agreed. This is a purely bureaucratic rule that would not prevent COI.

3646: 3613: 3578: 2810: 2478: 2137: 738: 546: 507: 449: 8880: 8682:

Then I could just cut-and-paste the actual advice I give out from our

1706:

Knowledge:NOTADVOCATE#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion

471:

I think it is bad idea, as I identify on my Userpage I am working for

7241: 7240:

their Knowledge page. Almost a quarter million people looked at the

6985:

Doubtful, since so much financial COI produces so much banality, but

6802: 6074: 5450: 4776: 4611: 2154:

The intent of the second independent bullet clause is to cover that.

616: 8777:

Only Americans will not be paid. All others have to be creative and

4444:

that take an interest in scrutinizing edits made by such entities.--

3064:

That is a more specific example. Now, how do you defend yourself?

1529:

detailing some of the recent paid editing problems. Some time ago,

291:

Another reason not to implemety flow, but that is for another page.

8334:

becomes a policy), and directly editing Knowledge articles for pay

6893: 6267: 5901:, the COI bashing this proposal advocates is a non-starter IMHO. -- 5672:

There is currently no way to identify Paid COI editors at a glance.

5534: 4749:

giving undue weight to minor sources . . . I do not care because I

4733: 3454: 2801:

There are already two super-effective tools for dealing with that:

2501: 2242: 1631: 1471: 1255: 798: 484: 480: 476: 472: 367: 6544:

It's only the second kind of example that the proposal addresses.

3188:

which I've just strengthened further, to take this off the table.

8222:

simply do not make sense. The stated reasons are (direct quotes)

3372:

existed, but they don't.... I'll try to find some links tonight.

2435: 1417: 5926: 3743:

Counter proposal - mandatory disclosure and simplified sanctions

2567:

starts noticeboard threads ad infinitum accusing <Expert: -->

814: 8282:"When the article is ready, I will duly launch it on Knowledge" 4304:

Example 4. Very much the same as No. 3, I think. Same solution.

4285:

Example 2: Same. If there's a problem with this I don't see it.

2626: 693:

I find it ironic that this proposal shares its initialism with

488: 7826:. One has to wonder why. Do you have a problem with following 4177:

Hypothetical (but not really all that hypothetical) situations

2518:

Changing the goalposts without actually addressing the problem

8362: 5445:

The doctor pays some fly-by-night "User: Wiki PR" to create

5395: 4548:

concerned parties to have the same information that you do.

2162:) 08:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC) I have made that more clear. 362:

to change their usernames to include a (P) that would always

8824:

Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion/User:The Banner/Workpage28

7719:

Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion/User:The Banner/Workpage28

6801:

however many sources say that. All sources are not equal. --

6286:

this policy would make would be to ban that sort of thing.

4858:

After thinking more about this, I have to tell, yes indeed,

4162:

I am supporting the idea, I think we need something like it

2572:

realizes he has better things to do with his time and quits.

1630:

edit this way. Pick any in the category and view history...

797:

are being observed, I don't care who's doing the editing. --

564:

reasonably well above. But the more fundamental problem is

8659:"I suspect that this is moving towards the rather shopworn 5993:

Statement from the Wikimedia Foundation about paid advocacy

5574: 2953:

regardless, the idea of working alongside paid PR spinners

6913:

Financial COI is an issue, but activist COI is pernicious.

5921:

Folks interested in this policy may well be interested in

5333:

is currently just a guideline. I would rather see COI and

3316:

My experience was exactly the same when I started editing

2625:

Yet that is not remotely the definition used in Knowledge

8400: 7032: 6175:

under a nickname, is still better than editing as an IP.

5394:

is an eye doctor who stumbles across an article entitled

3286:

Paid Advocacy (COI) will always trump NPOV and Notability

2320:

So what does this mean? What is an appropriate warning?

1900:

a PR professional and Wikipedian in a similar discussion:

1787:

I am a bit confused by your comments. Indeed we have an

6128:

Being deceptive in your editing by using sockpuppets or

3756:

with financial interests in the field in which they edit

7921:

decide, and an MfD will facilitate that discussion. --

6246:

It more or less can't follow, because paid advocacy is

903:

edit... as is supposedly claimed by this community. --

8826:

There are currently only four keep/delete comments. --

6989:

and also misleads, stupifies, and makes disreputable.

3889:

So, to clarify, your counter proposal is to eliminate

1533:

did an investigation of a known paid-for article, and

1435:

A while back I caught (and identified) an employee of

1254:

the problem, rather than some money changing hands? --

193:

PR personnel Edits made by this person are listed in ]

8684:

Knowledge:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide

7824:

Knowledge:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide

7558:

Knowledge:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide

7411:

Knowledge:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide

4243:

If I'm not supposed to but I do anyway, what happens?

1931:

Strange it works for me. (paste it in your browser?)

884:. Highly inappropriate comparison. Do not repeat it. 4586:

If you have a COI, never edit yourself, ask others.

657:

worded will prevent any editing from taking place.—

8338:your declared intent, so why pretend otherwise? -- 6592:that's against Knowledge's interests is banned by 6136:Anonymity, incidentally, is not against policy. -- 4753:about all editors, so it's more important to just 837:weren't personal attacks either. </sarcasm: --> 8215:shield is very thin in the case of paid editors. 8746:At least this guy is smart enough to make money" 8259:"It adds nothing to what is already in my draft" 8228:"It adds nothing to what is already in my draft" 5470:should be taken to the talk page - disclose any 2284:edit or amend an article to do any one of these: 7815:User talk:The Banner#User:The Banner/Workpage28 7763:The "threat" is not here, but on my talk page: 5254:. So get at it for the sake of "volunteerism". 4957:Exactly. Unpaid POV advocacy is just as bad. 611:Another idea that completely misses the point. 6503:drug company rep would directly undermine you 6189:I think your reductio ad absurdum is absurd. 1606:are more stories from the Wiki-PR debacle. -- 8559:confusion that I caused. Sorry about that. -- 8478:One small correction: I am the one who wrote 7813:Nothing in TeaDrinker's comments above or at 5929:, a firm like WIki-PR, is appealing its ban. 4523:advocacy” will have unintended consequences.— 1440:policy would have stopped either of these. - 7822:explicitly stating that you will follow our 5997:It's worth noting here that Sue Gardner has 5493:so as not to give undue weight to one clinic 2352:Right now they are not bright lines, rather 1288:that’s perceived to have backing in policy.— 8286:plain and simple conflict of interest guide 8220:plain and simple conflict of interest guide 8173:you want, but please don't patronize me. -- 7498:plain and simple conflict of interest guide 7485:plain and simple conflict of interest guide 7147:dealing with him; he eventually was banned. 5236:Exactly, you've hit the nail on the head.♦ 1704:is just an essay, the applicable policy is 1160:CONTEST: worst example of COI editing ever! 380:Why stop there? Why not have a bright red 8278:"When I have decided to write the article" 7284:Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics 6044:real identity to be exposed on Knowledge. 5453:. Clear abuse; this needs to be shut down. 5442:promoting one clinic over another. Not OK. 2457:GLAM organisations are just as capable of 1997:Are you able to view this google archive: 8395:The Banner, you've declared that, "... I 5724:write; that guy eventually got indeffed. 3390:. It was a decent idea which predictably 1947:http://www.nytco.com/press/ethics.html#A3 863:Sarcasm or not, it's a stupid comparison. 268:will not permit personalized signatures. 5636:What we should all be able to agree upon 2966:such an activist, they will be removed. 1738:…should face sanctions for their actions 721:I'm serious. The whole idea underlying 689:No paid advocacy vs. No Personal Attacks 8520:"the above" meaning . . . . ..........? 7630:And I refuse your threat to remove it. 7556:explicitly state that you will follow 5686:The answer seems obvious, does it not? 4378:Some excellent examples. My responses: 3891:Knowledge:There is no credential policy 613:Focus on the editing, not on the editor 14: 8601:(Note to self: next time, smoke crack 5583:This is getting to be a big problem. 5485:disclosure and a second opinion as to 5474:, explain why the current text is not 3479:Paid editors vs. advocates and experts 2881:we want to retain the outing policy. 1983:No,I get "oops, page can't be found." 1967:http://www.nytco.com/press/ethics.html 1655:Knowledge:Paid editing policy proposal 1457:is a two-page ad for Hayford Peirce.-- 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 7346:You're not going to be flamed by me, 5449:for a cash payment in response to an 5396:Laser-Assisted in situ Keratomileusis 4862:. The issue here is not be paid, but 4543:All of the above edits are allowed. 2823:I wouldn't call it a hole. It's just 2555:adds nonsense conspiracy theory to it 2551:writes balanced, well-sourced article 718:, if not the actual explicit intent. 90:Disclosing financial COI in signature 7400:A crazy idea, but it just might work 7373:How about starting with a generic, " 6413:. All this proposed policy does is 5427:The doctor rewrites the piece as an 5329:Yes, it is to some extent, although 5276:Shameless plug for an opposing essay 5250:No one's going to pay anyone to fix 2398:No paid advocacy and the GLAM Sector 2309:WT:Bright lines#Vague and Misleading 25: 7245:Knowledge potentially provides. -- 6743:Advocacy is OK if supported by ref. 6165:people who operate in good faith. 5867:The need to disclose advocacy does 23: 7444:. Would this suddenly be illegal? 6796:Advocacy means putting a positive 545:username and no-one is the wiser. 24: 8928: 5772:declare a COI than to hide it. - 5129:work to deter people better than 4545:Simply provide these explanations 2658:If you prefer, we could replace " 1945:I was trying to access this URL: 1861:) and modified it for Knowledge. 631:Adding my voice to others here. 8274:"I will only write about people" 5917:WikiExperts is appealing its ban 1646:Tautology, and a better proposal 1623:Concordia College and University 813: 741:based on the absurd precepts of 591:Very interesting take, TexanIP. 29: 8426:the sluice gates for those who 8365:, for example, shouting out, “ 5573:. The story describes "Wiki-PR" 5531:Knowledge:Paid editing (policy) 3544:Check this parallel discussion 3532:Someone not using his real name 3394:at the hands of the community. 3356:Someone not using his real name 3084:Someone not using his real name 1387:Worst I came across IMO was on 1176:On your marks, get set, go! -- 18:Knowledge talk:No paid advocacy 8606:my blurb is still accurate. -- 8272:. Instead it says things like 5398:, A few things *could* happen: 4394:PR manager for an organisation 3439:manner we might not observe. 382:(Paid Encyclopedia Fornicator) 13: 1: 8915:09:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC) 7023:. Take a look at the article 5580:, whose article was deleted. 5521:is where we need an explicit 8901:10:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC) 8870:18:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC) 8855:18:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC) 8836:06:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC) 8813:23:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC) 8795:13:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC) 8773:18:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC) 8758:16:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC) 8733:12:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC) 8696:11:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC) 8653:10:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC) 8616:00:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC) 8569:23:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC) 8530:23:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC) 8496:23:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC) 8458:21:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC) 8379:17:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC) 8348:17:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC) 8318:13:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC) 8298:12:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC) 8183:12:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC) 8099:09:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC) 8045:09:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC) 7990:03:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC) 7931:01:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC) 7886:08:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC) 7840:00:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC) 7781:08:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC) 7731:00:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC) 7687:00:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC) 7644:00:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC) 7606:23:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC) 7570:14:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC) 7536:08:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC) 7510:03:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC) 7474:02:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC) 7458:23:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC) 7431:18:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC) 7392:03:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC) 7338:01:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC) 7315:01:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC) 7296:00:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC) 7255:23:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC) 7231:22:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC) 7216:16:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC) 7175:09:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC) 7161:16:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC) 7123:09:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC) 7080:08:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC) 7045:21:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC) 7015:I'd suggest that it is you, 6999:13:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC) 6973:13:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC) 6950:09:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC) 6934:04:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC) 6903:18:42, 22 October 2013 (UTC) 6878:17:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC) 6858:17:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC) 6828:16:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC) 6811:09:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC) 6790:08:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC) 6769:20:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC) 6715:09:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC) 6647:18:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC) 6551:17:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC) 6427:17:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC) 6396:16:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC) 6352:16:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC) 6339:16:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC) 6324:16:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC) 6296:15:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC) 6277:18:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC) 6260:15:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC) 6238:21:19, 21 October 2013 (UTC) 6218:20:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC) 6203:20:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC) 6185:20:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC) 6170:18:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC) 6152:18:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC) 6101:20:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC) 6087:20:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC) 6068:20:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC) 6054:18:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC) 6035:17:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC) 6023:17:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC) 6008:17:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC) 5988:17:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC) 5963:08:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC) 5939:17:09, 20 October 2013 (UTC) 5911:16:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC) 5892:15:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC) 5854:16:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC) 5838:06:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC) 5798:05:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC) 5782:04:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC) 5765:18:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC) 5742:19:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC) 5719:19:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC) 5696:19:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC) 5628:15:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC) 5615:14:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC) 5593:18:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC) 5570:Read "Is Knowledge for Sale" 5566:Press coverage of this issue 5560:05:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC) 5543:18:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC) 5385:15:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC) 5357:07:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC) 5343:08:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC) 5324:07:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC) 5304:16:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 5270:11:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC) 5245:11:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC) 5215:23:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC) 5195:01:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC) 5167:21:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC) 5152:21:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC) 5124:17:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC) 5109:16:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC) 5077:01:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC) 5049:20:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC) 5021:20:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 5004:18:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 4990:11:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 4971:11:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 4952:09:40, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 4930:17:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC) 4898:17:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC) 4884:15:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC) 4853:11:30, 19 October 2013 (UTC) 4829:23:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC) 4808:20:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC) 4785:16:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC) 4771:19:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 4743:23:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC) 4697:04:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC) 4682:17:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC) 4650:01:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC) 4633:06:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 4618:05:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 4605:21:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC) 4572:05:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC) 4553:04:43, 20 October 2013 (UTC) 4533:19:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC) 4510:19:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC) 4487:08:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 4460:07:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 4424:22:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC) 4400:Biography of a living person 4368:01:40, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 4353:20:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC) 4332:20:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC) 4192:19:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC) 4172:01:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC) 4147:05:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC) 4132:17:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 4107:01:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC) 4087:23:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC) 4061:22:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC) 4042:21:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC) 4012:21:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC) 3990:01:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC) 3973:01:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC) 3956:19:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC) 3925:01:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC) 3907:18:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC) 3880:17:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC) 3848:16:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC) 3819:16:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC) 3803:16:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC) 3735:09:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC) 3717:05:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC) 3695:12:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC) 3669:15:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC) 3655:16:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC) 3641:16:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC) 3622:08:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC) 3602:00:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC) 3587:14:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 3564:15:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC) 3540:14:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC) 3525:14:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC) 3500:13:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC) 3463:01:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC) 3449:23:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC) 3434:19:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC) 3401:18:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC) 3382:15:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC) 3364:15:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC) 3349:14:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC) 3325:13:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC) 3311:13:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC) 3258:16:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 3239:21:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC) 3215:20:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC) 3198:17:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC) 3183:17:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC) 3166:14:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC) 3120:13:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC) 3105:12:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC) 3092:12:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC) 3074:11:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC) 3044:10:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC) 3006:08:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC) 2991:07:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC) 2976:06:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC) 2948:06:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC) 2933:06:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC) 2907:05:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC) 2891:05:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC) 2837:17:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC) 2819:16:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC) 2797:03:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC) 2777:21:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 2759:21:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 2720:08:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 2673:18:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC) 2654:05:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC) 2640:19:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC) 2621:19:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC) 2610:17:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC) 2592:17:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC) 2541:16:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC) 2510:00:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC) 2449:19:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC) 2424:16:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC) 2406:primary role on Knowledge." 2392:18:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC) 2376:02:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC) 2301:16:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC) 2264:14:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC) 2233:14:08, 15 October 2013 (UTC) 2211:14:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC) 2180:11:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC) 2146:01:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC) 2119:11:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC) 2104:18:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC) 2089:01:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC) 2065:00:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC) 2041:00:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC) 2015:08:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC) 1993:16:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC) 1979:08:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC) 1965:Are you able to access URL: 1959:00:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC) 1941:23:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC) 1927:23:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC) 1913:23:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC) 1838:22:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC) 1806:22:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC) 1775:21:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC) 1750:20:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC) 1718:18:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC) 1696:14:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC) 1681:10:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC) 1662:23:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC) 1640:02:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC) 1616:23:37, 19 October 2013 (UTC) 1593:20:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC) 1578:18:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC) 1547:20:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC) 1520:18:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC) 1485:23:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC) 1467:18:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC) 1450:06:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC) 1431:06:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC) 1401:01:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC) 1375:18:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC) 1343:00:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC) 1313:00:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC) 1264:23:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC) 1245:23:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC) 1215:20:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC) 1201:22:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC) 1185:22:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC) 1150:00:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC) 1135:11:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC) 1107:10:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC) 1090:00:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC) 1069:20:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC) 1054:18:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC) 1024:00:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC) 1007:01:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC) 988:22:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC) 954:22:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC) 933:02:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC) 913:18:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC) 894:00:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC) 873:02:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC) 847:00:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC) 828:21:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC) 807:22:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC) 765:22:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC) 683:13:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC) 667:18:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC) 646:15:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC) 625:09:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 601:16:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC) 579:09:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 555:14:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC) 534:02:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC) 520:01:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC) 501:01:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC) 465:15:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC) 441:00:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC) 408:23:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC) 389:23:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC) 376:22:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC) 353:22:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC) 328:20:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC) 315:21:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC) 298:20:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC) 287:19:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC) 278:19:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC) 258:19:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC) 248:18:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC) 218:15:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC) 202:23:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC) 168:18:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC) 130:17:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC) 112:17:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC) 100:17:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC) 7: 6411:already forbidden by policy 4580:This proposal in a nutshell 2493:writing specifically about 333:No COI witch-hunts please. 10: 8933: 8332:Knowledge:No paid advocacy 8232:User:The Banner/Workpage28 8162:"rather aggressive debate" 8154:"non-friendly environment" 7820:User:The Banner/Workpage28 7554:User:The Banner/Workpage28 7552:I would still like to see 7442:User:The Banner/Workpage28 7106:Rhinoceros Party of Canada 7067:Rhinoceros Party of Canada 5507:. Again, this goes beyond 5349:The Mysterious El Willstro 5316:The Mysterious El Willstro 3318:search engine optimization 3098:Knowledge:Assume bad faith 8885:barking up the wrong tree 8158:"blown out of proportion" 6453:science educator and you 5447:Dr I's 20/20 LASIK clinic 5436:Dr I's 20/20 LASIK clinic 2827:in an open community. ;) 2700:Skateboarding WikiProject 2349:Is cleanup discouraged? 1858:(see google archive here 1856:Protecting our Neutrality 737:and instead encourages a 418:Would then you be happy? 192: 189: 185: 8883:. Form of 'benefit' is 8147:With all due respect, I 7303:What the firm has to say 3145:Maybe there should be a 2341:Same concerns as above. 2324:Insert false information 6191:Knowledge:Sock puppetry 5969:Case Study: Light bulbs 5860:...that anyone can edit 5650:is absolutely critical. 5282:Knowledge:Don't cry COI 4440:character of Knowledge. 7436:Would this be illegal? 7137:Involuntary commitment 6135: 5496:is not ok. Disclosing 4839:differ in what actual 4260:Discussion of examples 3626:Don't be absurd as in 2767:, I don't believe it. 2664:scholarly or technical 2662:qualifications" with " 2471:single-purpose account 2467:User:AntiqueBoatMuseum 2339: 2196:Knowledge:Bright lines 2189:Knowledge:Bright lines 1879: 1789:anti-harassment policy 704: 366:. That'll show 'em! -- 8657:Interesting. I wrote 8238:"It is just an essay" 8224:"It is just an essay" 7375:Knowledge Disclaimer: 6125: 5648:Neutral Point of View 5252:your namesake article 5178:itself against policy 5135:creating another rule 4709:A truly terrible idea 4382:Request from a friend 3857:connected contributor 3628:reductio ad absurdum; 2825:the price of business 2330: 1863: 1725:Knowledge:NOTADVOCATE 699: 266:changes in talk pages 42:of past discussions. 7593:conflict of interest 6058:Why not, precisely? 5999:released a statement 5738:(tell Luke off here) 5707:Knowledge:Harassment 5451:ad on craigsfist.org 4388:Institution employee 4231:What are my options? 2481:in general (or even 1729:strongly encouraging 710:variety rather than 652:Totally agreed with 233:this proposed change 188:with the userrights 6987:banality sucks more 5703:required disclosure 5701:Would that be some 5523:WP:No paid advocacy 5434:The doctor creates 4876:My very best wishes 4800:My very best wishes 3392:went down in flames 3147:two tier COI system 2960:WP:Child protection 2465:article written by 2463:Antique Boat Museum 1227:PR Newswire release 8678:I can see it now; 7977:relevant talk page 4468:If I could add an 4406:Marketing employee 3864:assumes good faith 3080:No real wikipediot 2529:Essjay controversy 2194:I've just started 1850:Disclosure wording 1651:Knowledge:Advocacy 752:There is only one 708:on the contributor 384:after their name? 8799: 7381: 7132:special education 7029:"The Corporation" 6772: 6755:comment added by 6645: 6549: 6350: 6123: 6006: 5527:product placement 4938:Begs the question 4751:assume good faith 4021:other options. -- 3827:organisations. -- 3498: 2607: 2566:<Crackpot: --> 2562:<Crackpot: --> 2554:<Crackpot: --> 2439:this proposal? -- 2307:My comments from 2260: 2252: 1836: 1773: 1669:BrightLine policy 1527:Here's an article 1477:Scholarlyarticles 779: 479:. I never edited 421: 420:sarcasm of course 110: 87: 86: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 8924: 8797: 8793: 8786: 8781:their payments. 8729: 8724: 8723: 8651: 8644: 8316: 8309: 8043: 8036: 7884: 7877: 7779: 7772: 7642: 7635: 7534: 7527: 7456: 7449: 7379: 7077: 6970: 6787: 6771: 6757:Whiterussian1974 6749: 6712: 6644: 6548: 6424: 6392: 6386: 6385: 6349: 6336: 6320: 6314: 6313: 6293: 6257: 6235: 6228: 6148: 6142: 6141: 6117: 6005: 5888: 5882: 5734: 5731: 5728: 5309:As it happens... 5302: 5299: 5293: 5290: 5280:The essay is at 5267: 5260: 5242: 5193: 5150: 5107: 5045: 5039: 5038: 4969: 4967: 4962: 4949: 4860:no paid advocacy 4850: 4679: 4677: 4672: 4667: 4483: 4456: 4450: 4449: 4082: 4077: 4072: 4037: 4032: 4027: 4010: 3861: 3855: 3843: 3838: 3833: 3798: 3793: 3788: 3714: 3707: 3652: 3619: 3584: 3560: 3554: 3553: 3521: 3515: 3514: 3492: 3345: 3339: 3338: 3237: 3234: 3228: 3225: 3162: 3156: 3155: 3040: 3034: 3033: 2929: 2923: 2922: 2816: 2716: 2634: 2603: 2600: 2590: 2495:General Electric 2483:light bulb jokes 2374: 2371: 2365: 2362: 2295: 2285: 2282: 2281:and deliberately 2279: 2276: 2256: 2250: 2230: 2223: 2203: 2038: 1899: 1826: 1763: 1491:Scholaryarticles 1437:American Apparel 1309: 1302: 1299: 1296: 1131: 1125: 1124: 832:<sarcasm: --> 817: 778: 777: 776: 770: 697:, which states: 517: 512: 463: 461: 454: 439: 436: 430: 427: 419: 383: 351: 348: 342: 339: 215: 210: 199: 194: 191: 187: 164: 157: 154: 151: 109: 78: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 8932: 8931: 8927: 8926: 8925: 8923: 8922: 8921: 8843: 8784: 8782: 8727: 8721: 8720: 8642: 8640: 8307: 8305: 8034: 8032: 7875: 7873: 7770: 7768: 7633: 7631: 7525: 7523: 7447: 7445: 7438: 7402: 7197: 7075: 7025:Alanscottwalker 6991:Alanscottwalker 6968: 6915: 6785: 6750: 6745: 6710: 6422: 6394: 6390: 6383: 6382: 6334: 6322: 6318: 6311: 6310: 6291: 6255: 6231: 6224: 6150: 6146: 6139: 6138: 5995: 5971: 5919: 5890: 5886: 5880: 5862: 5810: 5732: 5729: 5726: 5711:Alanscottwalker 5638: 5568: 5367: 5311: 5297: 5294: 5288: 5285: 5278: 5263: 5256: 5238: 5181: 5159:Alanscottwalker 5138: 5137:is just silly. 5116:Alanscottwalker 5095: 5047: 5043: 5036: 5035: 4965: 4960: 4958: 4947: 4940: 4846: 4755:fix the problem 4711: 4675: 4670: 4665: 4663: 4582: 4481: 4458: 4454: 4447: 4446: 4262: 4179: 4080: 4075: 4070: 4035: 4030: 4025: 3998: 3859: 3853: 3852:We do have the 3841: 3836: 3831: 3796: 3791: 3786: 3745: 3710: 3703: 3661:Alanscottwalker 3650: 3633:Alanscottwalker 3617: 3582: 3562: 3558: 3551: 3550: 3523: 3519: 3512: 3511: 3481: 3347: 3343: 3336: 3335: 3299:strategy expert 3288: 3232: 3229: 3223: 3220: 3164: 3160: 3153: 3152: 3042: 3038: 3031: 3030: 2931: 2927: 2920: 2919: 2865: 2814: 2714: 2632: 2606: 2598: 2578: 2571:<Expert: --> 2568:of paid editing 2558:<Expert: --> 2550:<Expert: --> 2520: 2400: 2369: 2366: 2360: 2357: 2293: 2283: 2280: 2278:they repeatedly 2277: 2274: 2261: 2237:"Banned" means 2226: 2219: 2201: 2192: 2172:Alanscottwalker 2164:Alanscottwalker 2156:Alanscottwalker 2036: 2007:Alanscottwalker 1971:Alanscottwalker 1933:Alanscottwalker 1905:Alanscottwalker 1893: 1889: 1852: 1648: 1365:encyclopedia…)— 1363: 1307: 1300: 1297: 1294: 1162: 1133: 1129: 1122: 1121: 774: 772: 771: 691: 515: 508: 457: 450: 448: 434: 431: 425: 422: 381: 346: 343: 337: 334: 213: 208: 197: 162: 155: 152: 149: 92: 74: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 8930: 8920: 8919: 8918: 8917: 8873: 8872: 8842: 8839: 8820: 8819: 8818: 8817: 8816: 8815: 8742: 8741: 8740: 8739: 8738: 8737: 8736: 8735: 8703: 8702: 8701: 8700: 8699: 8698: 8671: 8670: 8669: 8668: 8667: 8666: 8633: 8632: 8631: 8630: 8629: 8628: 8627: 8626: 8625: 8624: 8623: 8622: 8621: 8620: 8619: 8618: 8584: 8583: 8582: 8581: 8580: 8579: 8578: 8577: 8576: 8575: 8574: 8573: 8572: 8571: 8543: 8542: 8541: 8540: 8539: 8538: 8537: 8536: 8535: 8534: 8533: 8532: 8507: 8506: 8505: 8504: 8503: 8502: 8501: 8500: 8499: 8498: 8467: 8466: 8465: 8464: 8463: 8462: 8461: 8460: 8439: 8438: 8437: 8436: 8435: 8434: 8433: 8432: 8416: 8415: 8414: 8413: 8412: 8411: 8410: 8409: 8386: 8385: 8384: 8383: 8382: 8381: 8353: 8352: 8351: 8350: 8327: 8321: 8320: 8261: 8240: 8230:(referring to 8208: 8207: 8206: 8205: 8204: 8203: 8202: 8201: 8200: 8199: 8198: 8197: 8196: 8195: 8194: 8193: 8192: 8191: 8190: 8189: 8188: 8187: 8186: 8185: 8122: 8121: 8120: 8119: 8118: 8117: 8116: 8115: 8114: 8113: 8112: 8111: 8110: 8109: 8108: 8107: 8106: 8105: 8104: 8103: 8102: 8101: 8066: 8065: 8064: 8063: 8062: 8061: 8060: 8059: 8058: 8057: 8056: 8055: 8054: 8053: 8052: 8051: 8050: 8049: 8048: 8047: 8009: 8008: 8007: 8006: 8005: 8004: 8003: 8002: 8001: 8000: 7999: 7998: 7997: 7996: 7995: 7994: 7993: 7992: 7948: 7947: 7946: 7945: 7944: 7943: 7942: 7941: 7940: 7939: 7938: 7937: 7936: 7935: 7934: 7933: 7903: 7902: 7901: 7900: 7899: 7898: 7897: 7896: 7895: 7894: 7893: 7892: 7891: 7890: 7889: 7888: 7855: 7854: 7853: 7852: 7851: 7850: 7849: 7848: 7847: 7846: 7845: 7844: 7843: 7842: 7798: 7797: 7796: 7795: 7794: 7793: 7792: 7791: 7790: 7789: 7788: 7787: 7786: 7785: 7784: 7783: 7746: 7745: 7744: 7743: 7742: 7741: 7740: 7739: 7738: 7737: 7736: 7735: 7734: 7733: 7702: 7701: 7700: 7699: 7698: 7697: 7696: 7695: 7694: 7693: 7692: 7691: 7690: 7689: 7657: 7656: 7655: 7654: 7653: 7652: 7651: 7650: 7649: 7648: 7647: 7646: 7617: 7616: 7615: 7614: 7613: 7612: 7611: 7610: 7609: 7608: 7579: 7578: 7577: 7576: 7575: 7574: 7573: 7572: 7543: 7542: 7541: 7540: 7539: 7538: 7515: 7514: 7513: 7512: 7491: 7490: 7489: 7488: 7477: 7476: 7437: 7434: 7401: 7398: 7397: 7396: 7395: 7394: 7368: 7367: 7366: 7365: 7358: 7357: 7356: 7355: 7341: 7340: 7324: 7323: 7322: 7321: 7320: 7319: 7318: 7317: 7274: 7273: 7272: 7271: 7270: 7269: 7260: 7259: 7258: 7257: 7234: 7233: 7196: 7193: 7192: 7191: 7190: 7189: 7188: 7187: 7186: 7185: 7184: 7183: 7182: 7181: 7180: 7179: 7178: 7177: 7170:is adopted. -- 7148: 7128: 7091: 7090: 7089: 7088: 7087: 7086: 7085: 7084: 7083: 7082: 7054: 7053: 7052: 7051: 7050: 7049: 7048: 7047: 7006: 7005: 7004: 7003: 7002: 7001: 6978: 6977: 6976: 6975: 6953: 6952: 6914: 6911: 6910: 6909: 6908: 6907: 6906: 6905: 6883: 6882: 6881: 6880: 6863: 6862: 6861: 6860: 6836:But this is a 6831: 6830: 6814: 6813: 6793: 6792: 6744: 6741: 6740: 6739: 6738: 6737: 6736: 6735: 6734: 6733: 6732: 6731: 6730: 6729: 6728: 6727: 6726: 6725: 6724: 6723: 6722: 6721: 6720: 6719: 6718: 6717: 6670: 6669: 6668: 6667: 6666: 6665: 6664: 6663: 6662: 6661: 6660: 6659: 6658: 6657: 6656: 6655: 6654: 6653: 6652: 6651: 6650: 6649: 6616: 6615: 6614: 6613: 6612: 6611: 6610: 6609: 6608: 6607: 6606: 6605: 6604: 6603: 6602: 6601: 6600: 6599: 6598: 6597: 6570: 6569: 6568: 6567: 6566: 6565: 6564: 6563: 6562: 6561: 6560: 6559: 6558: 6557: 6556: 6555: 6554: 6553: 6525: 6524: 6523: 6522: 6521: 6520: 6519: 6518: 6517: 6516: 6515: 6514: 6513: 6512: 6511: 6510: 6509: 6508: 6475: 6474: 6473: 6472: 6471: 6470: 6469: 6468: 6467: 6466: 6465: 6464: 6463: 6462: 6461: 6460: 6459: 6458: 6430: 6429: 6388: 6377: 6376: 6375: 6374: 6373: 6372: 6371: 6370: 6369: 6368: 6367: 6366: 6365: 6364: 6363: 6362: 6343: 6342: 6341: 6316: 6244: 6243: 6242: 6241: 6240: 6187: 6157: 6156: 6155: 6154: 6144: 6112: 6111: 6110: 6109: 6108: 6107: 6106: 6105: 6104: 6103: 6041: 6026: 6025: 5994: 5991: 5970: 5967: 5966: 5965: 5918: 5915: 5914: 5913: 5884: 5861: 5858: 5857: 5856: 5809: 5806: 5805: 5804: 5803: 5802: 5801: 5800: 5769: 5768: 5767: 5745: 5744: 5721: 5685: 5684: 5677: 5676: 5669: 5668: 5661: 5660: 5654: 5653: 5637: 5634: 5633: 5632: 5631: 5630: 5618: 5617: 5607:Robert Horning 5601: 5600: 5567: 5564: 5563: 5562: 5546: 5545: 5519: 5512: 5501: 5494: 5479: 5468: 5464: 5463: 5455: 5454: 5443: 5432: 5425: 5422: 5411: 5404: 5400: 5399: 5366: 5363: 5362: 5361: 5360: 5359: 5310: 5307: 5277: 5274: 5273: 5272: 5234: 5233: 5232: 5231: 5230: 5229: 5228: 5227: 5226: 5225: 5224: 5223: 5222: 5221: 5220: 5219: 5218: 5217: 5084: 5083: 5082: 5081: 5080: 5079: 5054: 5053: 5052: 5051: 5041: 5030: 5024: 5023: 5007: 5006: 4995: 4994: 4993: 4992: 4974: 4973: 4939: 4936: 4935: 4934: 4933: 4932: 4903: 4902: 4901: 4900: 4866:. This is per 4836: 4835: 4834: 4833: 4832: 4831: 4811: 4810: 4790: 4789: 4788: 4787: 4710: 4707: 4706: 4705: 4704: 4703: 4702: 4701: 4700: 4699: 4653: 4652: 4636: 4635: 4621: 4620: 4589: 4588: 4581: 4578: 4577: 4576: 4575: 4574: 4540: 4539: 4538: 4537: 4536: 4535: 4515: 4514: 4513: 4512: 4490: 4489: 4465: 4464: 4463: 4462: 4452: 4441: 4437: 4433: 4427: 4426: 4411: 4410: 4409: 4403: 4397: 4391: 4385: 4376: 4375: 4374: 4373: 4372: 4371: 4370: 4317: 4316: 4315: 4314: 4308: 4307: 4306: 4305: 4299: 4298: 4297: 4296: 4289: 4288: 4287: 4286: 4280: 4279: 4278: 4277: 4271: 4270: 4269: 4268: 4261: 4258: 4257: 4256: 4245: 4244: 4233: 4232: 4221: 4220: 4209: 4208: 4205: 4178: 4175: 4160: 4159: 4158: 4157: 4156: 4155: 4154: 4153: 4152: 4151: 4150: 4149: 4139:Robert Horning 4115: 4114: 4113: 4112: 4111: 4110: 4109: 4053:Robert Horning 4015: 4014: 3994: 3993: 3992: 3977: 3976: 3975: 3948:Robert Horning 3929: 3928: 3927: 3899:David Eppstein 3887: 3886: 3885: 3884: 3883: 3882: 3780: 3779: 3778: 3777: 3774: 3770: 3767:unquestionably 3763: 3744: 3741: 3740: 3739: 3738: 3737: 3682: 3681: 3680: 3679: 3678: 3677: 3676: 3675: 3674: 3673: 3672: 3671: 3570: 3569: 3568: 3567: 3566: 3556: 3517: 3506: 3480: 3477: 3476: 3475: 3474: 3473: 3472: 3471: 3470: 3469: 3468: 3467: 3466: 3465: 3436: 3412: 3411: 3410: 3409: 3408: 3407: 3406: 3405: 3404: 3403: 3341: 3328: 3327: 3287: 3284: 3283: 3282: 3281: 3280: 3279: 3278: 3277: 3276: 3275: 3274: 3273: 3272: 3271: 3270: 3269: 3268: 3267: 3266: 3265: 3264: 3263: 3262: 3261: 3260: 3158: 3139: 3129: 3128: 3127: 3126: 3125: 3124: 3123: 3122: 3096:It feels like 3062: 3061: 3060: 3051: 3050: 3049: 3048: 3047: 3046: 3036: 3026: 3017: 3016: 3015: 3014: 3013: 3012: 3011: 3010: 3009: 3008: 2925: 2914: 2910: 2909: 2864: 2861: 2860: 2859: 2858: 2857: 2856: 2855: 2854: 2853: 2852: 2851: 2850: 2849: 2848: 2847: 2846: 2845: 2844: 2843: 2842: 2841: 2840: 2839: 2733: 2732: 2731: 2730: 2729: 2728: 2727: 2726: 2725: 2724: 2723: 2722: 2703: 2684: 2683: 2682: 2681: 2680: 2679: 2678: 2677: 2676: 2675: 2642: 2604: 2575: 2574: 2573: 2569: 2564: 2560: 2556: 2552: 2519: 2516: 2515: 2514: 2513: 2512: 2477:writing about 2452: 2451: 2416:Robertforsythe 2399: 2396: 2395: 2394: 2338: 2337: 2334: 2313: 2312: 2304: 2303: 2288: 2287: 2286: 2268: 2267: 2266: 2255: 2191: 2186: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2182: 2149: 2148: 2132: 2131: 2130: 2129: 2128: 2127: 2126: 2125: 2124: 2123: 2122: 2121: 2069: 2068: 2044: 2043: 2031: 2030: 2029: 2028: 2027: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2022: 2021: 2020: 2019: 2018: 2017: 1888: 1885: 1884: 1883: 1878: 1877: 1872: 1871: 1851: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1813: 1812: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1780: 1779: 1778: 1777: 1753: 1752: 1699: 1698: 1683: 1647: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1618: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1524: 1523: 1522: 1469: 1455:Hayford Peirce 1452: 1433: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1380: 1379: 1378: 1377: 1361: 1351: 1350: 1349: 1348: 1347: 1346: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1267: 1266: 1220: 1219: 1218: 1217: 1174: 1173: 1172:Relevant diffs 1170: 1161: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1155: 1154: 1153: 1152: 1127: 1117: 1110: 1109: 1093: 1092: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1010: 1009: 993: 992: 991: 990: 970:Some COIs are 965: 964: 963: 962: 961: 960: 959: 958: 957: 956: 941: 940: 939: 938: 937: 936: 935: 905:Robert Horning 879: 878: 877: 876: 875: 852: 851: 850: 849: 810: 809: 690: 687: 686: 685: 670: 669: 649: 648: 628: 627: 608: 607: 606: 605: 604: 603: 584: 583: 582: 581: 558: 557: 541: 540: 539: 538: 537: 536: 468: 467: 444: 443: 411: 410: 394: 393: 392: 391: 364:display in red 358:We could also 331: 330: 319: 318: 317: 302: 301: 300: 261: 260: 229: 228: 227: 226: 225: 224: 223: 222: 221: 220: 175: 174: 173: 172: 171: 170: 135: 134: 133: 132: 115: 114: 91: 88: 85: 84: 79: 72: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 8929: 8916: 8912: 8908: 8907:Martin Hogbin 8904: 8903: 8902: 8898: 8894: 8890: 8886: 8882: 8878: 8875: 8874: 8871: 8867: 8863: 8859: 8858: 8857: 8856: 8852: 8848: 8838: 8837: 8833: 8829: 8825: 8814: 8810: 8806: 8801: 8800: 8796: 8792: 8791: 8787: 8780: 8776: 8775: 8774: 8770: 8766: 8762: 8761: 8760: 8759: 8755: 8751: 8747: 8734: 8731: 8730: 8725: 8715: 8711: 8710: 8709: 8708: 8707: 8706: 8705: 8704: 8697: 8693: 8689: 8685: 8681: 8677: 8676: 8675: 8674: 8673: 8672: 8664: 8662: 8656: 8655: 8654: 8650: 8649: 8645: 8637: 8636: 8635: 8634: 8617: 8613: 8609: 8604: 8600: 8599: 8598: 8597: 8596: 8595: 8594: 8593: 8592: 8591: 8590: 8589: 8588: 8587: 8586: 8585: 8570: 8566: 8562: 8557: 8556: 8555: 8554: 8553: 8552: 8551: 8550: 8549: 8548: 8547: 8546: 8545: 8544: 8531: 8527: 8523: 8519: 8518: 8517: 8516: 8515: 8514: 8513: 8512: 8511: 8510: 8509: 8508: 8497: 8493: 8489: 8485: 8481: 8477: 8476: 8475: 8474: 8473: 8472: 8471: 8470: 8469: 8468: 8459: 8455: 8451: 8447: 8446: 8445: 8444: 8443: 8442: 8441: 8440: 8429: 8424: 8423: 8422: 8421: 8420: 8419: 8418: 8417: 8406: 8402: 8398: 8394: 8393: 8392: 8391: 8390: 8389: 8388: 8387: 8380: 8376: 8372: 8368: 8364: 8359: 8358: 8357: 8356: 8355: 8354: 8349: 8345: 8341: 8337: 8333: 8328: 8325: 8324: 8323: 8322: 8319: 8315: 8314: 8310: 8302: 8301: 8300: 8299: 8295: 8291: 8287: 8283: 8279: 8275: 8271: 8267: 8262: 8260: 8256: 8252: 8250: 8245: 8239: 8235: 8233: 8229: 8225: 8221: 8216: 8214: 8184: 8180: 8176: 8171: 8167: 8163: 8159: 8155: 8150: 8146: 8145: 8144: 8143: 8142: 8141: 8140: 8139: 8138: 8137: 8136: 8135: 8134: 8133: 8132: 8131: 8130: 8129: 8128: 8127: 8126: 8125: 8124: 8123: 8100: 8096: 8092: 8088: 8087: 8086: 8085: 8084: 8083: 8082: 8081: 8080: 8079: 8078: 8077: 8076: 8075: 8074: 8073: 8072: 8071: 8070: 8069: 8068: 8067: 8046: 8042: 8041: 8037: 8029: 8028: 8027: 8026: 8025: 8024: 8023: 8022: 8021: 8020: 8019: 8018: 8017: 8016: 8015: 8014: 8013: 8012: 8011: 8010: 7991: 7987: 7983: 7978: 7974: 7970: 7966: 7965: 7964: 7963: 7962: 7961: 7960: 7959: 7958: 7957: 7956: 7955: 7954: 7953: 7952: 7951: 7950: 7949: 7932: 7928: 7924: 7919: 7918: 7917: 7916: 7915: 7914: 7913: 7912: 7911: 7910: 7909: 7908: 7907: 7906: 7905: 7904: 7887: 7883: 7882: 7878: 7871: 7870: 7869: 7868: 7867: 7866: 7865: 7864: 7863: 7862: 7861: 7860: 7859: 7858: 7857: 7856: 7841: 7837: 7833: 7829: 7825: 7821: 7816: 7812: 7811: 7810: 7809: 7808: 7807: 7806: 7805: 7804: 7803: 7802: 7801: 7800: 7799: 7782: 7778: 7777: 7773: 7766: 7762: 7761: 7760: 7759: 7758: 7757: 7756: 7755: 7754: 7753: 7752: 7751: 7750: 7749: 7748: 7747: 7732: 7728: 7724: 7720: 7716: 7715: 7714: 7713: 7712: 7711: 7710: 7709: 7708: 7707: 7706: 7705: 7704: 7703: 7688: 7684: 7680: 7675: 7671: 7670: 7669: 7668: 7667: 7666: 7665: 7664: 7663: 7662: 7661: 7660: 7659: 7658: 7645: 7641: 7640: 7636: 7629: 7628: 7627: 7626: 7625: 7624: 7623: 7622: 7621: 7620: 7619: 7618: 7607: 7603: 7599: 7594: 7589: 7588: 7587: 7586: 7585: 7584: 7583: 7582: 7581: 7580: 7571: 7567: 7563: 7559: 7555: 7551: 7550: 7549: 7548: 7547: 7546: 7545: 7544: 7537: 7533: 7532: 7528: 7521: 7520: 7519: 7518: 7517: 7516: 7511: 7507: 7503: 7499: 7495: 7494: 7493: 7492: 7486: 7481: 7480: 7479: 7478: 7475: 7471: 7467: 7462: 7461: 7460: 7459: 7455: 7454: 7450: 7443: 7433: 7432: 7428: 7424: 7418: 7414: 7412: 7406: 7393: 7389: 7385: 7376: 7372: 7371: 7370: 7369: 7362: 7361: 7360: 7359: 7353: 7349: 7345: 7344: 7343: 7342: 7339: 7335: 7331: 7326: 7325: 7316: 7312: 7308: 7304: 7299: 7298: 7297: 7293: 7289: 7285: 7280: 7279: 7278: 7277: 7276: 7275: 7266: 7265: 7264: 7263: 7262: 7261: 7256: 7252: 7248: 7243: 7238: 7237: 7236: 7235: 7232: 7228: 7224: 7223:Capitalismojo 7220: 7219: 7218: 7217: 7213: 7209: 7205: 7200: 7176: 7173: 7169: 7164: 7163: 7162: 7158: 7154: 7149: 7146: 7142: 7138: 7133: 7129: 7126: 7125: 7124: 7120: 7116: 7112: 7107: 7103: 7102: 7101: 7100: 7099: 7098: 7097: 7096: 7095: 7094: 7093: 7092: 7081: 7078: 7073: 7068: 7064: 7063: 7062: 7061: 7060: 7059: 7058: 7057: 7056: 7055: 7046: 7042: 7038: 7034: 7030: 7026: 7022: 7018: 7014: 7013: 7012: 7011: 7010: 7009: 7008: 7007: 7000: 6996: 6992: 6988: 6984: 6983: 6982: 6981: 6980: 6979: 6974: 6971: 6966: 6962: 6957: 6956: 6955: 6954: 6951: 6947: 6943: 6938: 6937: 6936: 6935: 6931: 6927: 6923: 6919: 6904: 6900: 6896: 6895: 6889: 6888: 6887: 6886: 6885: 6884: 6879: 6875: 6871: 6870:67.86.191.179 6867: 6866: 6865: 6864: 6859: 6855: 6851: 6847: 6843: 6839: 6835: 6834: 6833: 6832: 6829: 6825: 6821: 6816: 6815: 6812: 6808: 6804: 6799: 6795: 6794: 6791: 6788: 6783: 6779: 6775: 6774: 6773: 6770: 6766: 6762: 6758: 6754: 6716: 6713: 6708: 6703: 6699: 6694: 6693: 6692: 6691: 6690: 6689: 6688: 6687: 6686: 6685: 6684: 6683: 6682: 6681: 6680: 6679: 6678: 6677: 6676: 6675: 6674: 6673: 6672: 6671: 6648: 6643: 6638: 6637: 6636: 6635: 6634: 6633: 6632: 6631: 6630: 6629: 6628: 6627: 6626: 6625: 6624: 6623: 6622: 6621: 6620: 6619: 6618: 6617: 6595: 6590: 6589: 6588: 6587: 6586: 6585: 6584: 6583: 6582: 6581: 6580: 6579: 6578: 6577: 6576: 6575: 6574: 6573: 6572: 6571: 6552: 6547: 6543: 6542: 6541: 6540: 6539: 6538: 6537: 6536: 6535: 6534: 6533: 6532: 6531: 6530: 6529: 6528: 6527: 6526: 6506: 6502: 6497: 6493: 6492: 6491: 6490: 6489: 6488: 6487: 6486: 6485: 6484: 6483: 6482: 6481: 6480: 6479: 6478: 6477: 6476: 6456: 6452: 6448: 6447: 6446: 6445: 6444: 6443: 6442: 6441: 6440: 6439: 6438: 6437: 6436: 6435: 6434: 6433: 6432: 6431: 6428: 6425: 6420: 6416: 6412: 6408: 6404: 6400: 6399: 6398: 6397: 6393: 6387: 6359: 6355: 6354: 6353: 6348: 6344: 6340: 6337: 6332: 6327: 6326: 6325: 6321: 6315: 6307: 6303: 6302:paid advocacy 6299: 6298: 6297: 6294: 6289: 6285: 6280: 6279: 6278: 6274: 6270: 6269: 6263: 6262: 6261: 6258: 6253: 6249: 6245: 6239: 6236: 6234: 6229: 6227: 6221: 6220: 6219: 6215: 6211: 6210:Peter coxhead 6206: 6205: 6204: 6200: 6196: 6192: 6188: 6186: 6182: 6178: 6177:Peter coxhead 6173: 6172: 6171: 6168: 6163: 6162: 6161: 6160: 6159: 6158: 6153: 6149: 6143: 6134: 6133: 6131: 6121: 6120:edit conflict 6116: 6115: 6114: 6113: 6102: 6098: 6094: 6090: 6089: 6088: 6084: 6080: 6079:Peter coxhead 6076: 6071: 6070: 6069: 6065: 6061: 6057: 6056: 6055: 6051: 6047: 6046:Peter coxhead 6042: 6038: 6037: 6036: 6033: 6028: 6027: 6024: 6020: 6016: 6012: 6011: 6010: 6009: 6004: 6000: 5990: 5989: 5985: 5981: 5975: 5964: 5960: 5956: 5952: 5948: 5943: 5942: 5941: 5940: 5936: 5932: 5928: 5924: 5912: 5908: 5904: 5900: 5896: 5895: 5894: 5893: 5889: 5883: 5877: 5872: 5870: 5865: 5855: 5851: 5847: 5842: 5841: 5840: 5839: 5835: 5831: 5825: 5822: 5817: 5813: 5799: 5795: 5791: 5787: 5786: 5785: 5784: 5783: 5779: 5775: 5770: 5766: 5762: 5758: 5754: 5749: 5748: 5747: 5746: 5743: 5740: 5739: 5735: 5722: 5720: 5716: 5712: 5708: 5704: 5700: 5699: 5698: 5697: 5693: 5689: 5681: 5673: 5665: 5658: 5651: 5649: 5642: 5629: 5626: 5622: 5621: 5620: 5619: 5616: 5612: 5608: 5603: 5602: 5597: 5596: 5595: 5594: 5590: 5586: 5581: 5579: 5575: 5572: 5561: 5557: 5553: 5548: 5547: 5544: 5540: 5536: 5532: 5528: 5524: 5520: 5517: 5513: 5510: 5506: 5502: 5499: 5495: 5492: 5488: 5484: 5480: 5477: 5473: 5469: 5466: 5465: 5461: 5457: 5456: 5452: 5448: 5444: 5441: 5437: 5433: 5430: 5429:advertisement 5426: 5423: 5420: 5416: 5412: 5409: 5405: 5402: 5401: 5397: 5393: 5389: 5388: 5387: 5386: 5382: 5378: 5374: 5371: 5358: 5354: 5350: 5346: 5345: 5344: 5341: 5336: 5332: 5328: 5327: 5326: 5325: 5321: 5317: 5306: 5305: 5301: 5300: 5292: 5291: 5283: 5271: 5268: 5266: 5261: 5259: 5253: 5249: 5248: 5247: 5246: 5243: 5241: 5216: 5212: 5208: 5203: 5198: 5197: 5196: 5192: 5191: 5189: 5184: 5179: 5175: 5170: 5169: 5168: 5164: 5160: 5155: 5154: 5153: 5149: 5148: 5146: 5141: 5136: 5132: 5127: 5126: 5125: 5121: 5117: 5112: 5111: 5110: 5106: 5105: 5103: 5098: 5092: 5091: 5090: 5089: 5088: 5087: 5086: 5085: 5078: 5074: 5070: 5065: 5060: 5059: 5058: 5057: 5056: 5055: 5050: 5046: 5040: 5031: 5028: 5027: 5026: 5025: 5022: 5018: 5014: 5009: 5008: 5005: 5002: 4997: 4996: 4991: 4987: 4983: 4982:Desertroadbob 4978: 4977: 4976: 4975: 4972: 4968: 4963: 4956: 4955: 4954: 4953: 4950: 4945: 4931: 4927: 4923: 4919: 4915: 4911: 4907: 4906: 4905: 4904: 4899: 4896: 4891: 4887: 4886: 4885: 4881: 4877: 4873: 4869: 4865: 4861: 4857: 4856: 4855: 4854: 4851: 4849: 4842: 4830: 4826: 4822: 4817: 4816: 4815: 4814: 4813: 4812: 4809: 4805: 4801: 4796: 4792: 4791: 4786: 4782: 4778: 4774: 4773: 4772: 4769: 4768: 4765: 4762: 4756: 4752: 4747: 4746: 4745: 4744: 4740: 4736: 4735: 4728: 4724: 4721: 4715: 4698: 4694: 4690: 4685: 4684: 4683: 4680: 4678: 4673: 4668: 4659: 4658: 4657: 4656: 4655: 4654: 4651: 4647: 4643: 4638: 4637: 4634: 4631: 4627: 4623: 4622: 4619: 4616: 4613: 4609: 4608: 4607: 4606: 4602: 4598: 4594: 4587: 4584: 4583: 4573: 4569: 4565: 4561: 4556: 4555: 4554: 4551: 4546: 4542: 4541: 4534: 4530: 4526: 4521: 4520: 4519: 4518: 4517: 4516: 4511: 4508: 4503: 4499: 4494: 4493: 4492: 4491: 4488: 4485: 4484: 4478: 4477: 4471: 4467: 4466: 4461: 4457: 4451: 4442: 4438: 4434: 4431: 4430: 4429: 4428: 4425: 4421: 4417: 4412: 4407: 4404: 4401: 4398: 4395: 4392: 4389: 4386: 4383: 4380: 4379: 4377: 4369: 4365: 4361: 4356: 4355: 4354: 4351: 4350: 4349: 4344: 4343: 4342: 4335: 4334: 4333: 4329: 4325: 4321: 4320: 4319: 4318: 4312: 4311: 4310: 4309: 4303: 4302: 4301: 4300: 4293: 4292: 4291: 4290: 4284: 4283: 4282: 4281: 4275: 4274: 4273: 4272: 4266: 4265: 4264: 4263: 4253: 4252: 4251: 4249: 4241: 4240: 4239: 4237: 4229: 4228: 4227: 4225: 4217: 4216: 4215: 4213: 4206: 4202: 4201: 4200: 4198: 4194: 4193: 4189: 4185: 4174: 4173: 4169: 4165: 4164:Alex Bakharev 4148: 4144: 4140: 4135: 4134: 4133: 4129: 4125: 4120: 4116: 4108: 4104: 4100: 4099:Alex Bakharev 4096: 4095: 4094: 4093: 4092: 4091: 4090: 4089: 4088: 4085: 4084: 4083: 4078: 4073: 4064: 4063: 4062: 4058: 4054: 4050: 4045: 4044: 4043: 4040: 4039: 4038: 4033: 4028: 4019: 4018: 4017: 4016: 4013: 4009: 4008: 4006: 4001: 3995: 3991: 3987: 3983: 3982:Alex Bakharev 3978: 3974: 3970: 3966: 3965:Alex Bakharev 3961: 3960: 3959: 3958: 3957: 3953: 3949: 3944: 3940: 3935: 3930: 3926: 3922: 3918: 3917:Alex Bakharev 3913: 3912: 3911: 3910: 3909: 3908: 3904: 3900: 3896: 3892: 3881: 3877: 3873: 3869: 3868:contributions 3865: 3858: 3851: 3850: 3849: 3846: 3845: 3844: 3839: 3834: 3826: 3822: 3821: 3820: 3816: 3812: 3811:Colapeninsula 3807: 3806: 3805: 3804: 3801: 3800: 3799: 3794: 3789: 3775: 3771: 3768: 3764: 3760: 3757: 3753: 3752: 3751: 3750: 3749: 3736: 3732: 3728: 3724: 3720: 3719: 3718: 3715: 3713: 3708: 3706: 3699: 3698: 3697: 3696: 3692: 3688: 3670: 3666: 3662: 3658: 3657: 3656: 3653: 3648: 3644: 3643: 3642: 3638: 3634: 3629: 3625: 3624: 3623: 3620: 3615: 3610: 3605: 3604: 3603: 3599: 3595: 3590: 3589: 3588: 3585: 3580: 3576: 3571: 3565: 3561: 3555: 3547: 3543: 3542: 3541: 3537: 3533: 3528: 3527: 3526: 3522: 3516: 3507: 3504: 3503: 3502: 3501: 3496: 3491: 3485: 3464: 3460: 3456: 3452: 3451: 3450: 3446: 3442: 3437: 3435: 3431: 3427: 3422: 3421: 3420: 3419: 3418: 3417: 3416: 3415: 3414: 3413: 3402: 3399: 3398: 3393: 3389: 3386: 3385: 3384: 3383: 3379: 3375: 3367: 3366: 3365: 3361: 3357: 3352: 3351: 3350: 3346: 3340: 3332: 3331: 3330: 3329: 3326: 3323: 3319: 3315: 3314: 3313: 3312: 3308: 3304: 3300: 3296: 3293: 3259: 3255: 3251: 3247: 3242: 3241: 3240: 3236: 3235: 3227: 3226: 3218: 3217: 3216: 3212: 3208: 3203: 3202: 3201: 3200: 3199: 3195: 3191: 3186: 3185: 3184: 3180: 3176: 3171: 3170: 3169: 3168: 3167: 3163: 3157: 3148: 3144: 3143: 3140: 3137: 3136: 3135: 3134: 3133: 3132: 3131: 3130: 3121: 3117: 3113: 3108: 3107: 3106: 3103: 3099: 3095: 3094: 3093: 3089: 3085: 3081: 3077: 3076: 3075: 3071: 3067: 3063: 3057: 3056: 3053: 3052: 3045: 3041: 3035: 3027: 3023: 3022: 3021: 3020: 3019: 3018: 3007: 3003: 2999: 2994: 2993: 2992: 2988: 2984: 2979: 2978: 2977: 2973: 2969: 2965: 2961: 2956: 2951: 2950: 2949: 2945: 2941: 2936: 2935: 2934: 2930: 2924: 2915: 2912: 2911: 2908: 2904: 2900: 2895: 2894: 2893: 2892: 2888: 2884: 2878: 2875: 2869: 2838: 2834: 2830: 2826: 2822: 2821: 2820: 2817: 2812: 2808: 2804: 2800: 2799: 2798: 2794: 2790: 2785: 2780: 2779: 2778: 2774: 2770: 2766: 2762: 2761: 2760: 2756: 2752: 2747: 2746: 2745: 2744: 2743: 2742: 2741: 2740: 2739: 2738: 2737: 2736: 2735: 2734: 2721: 2718: 2717: 2711: 2710: 2704: 2701: 2696: 2695: 2694: 2693: 2692: 2691: 2690: 2689: 2688: 2687: 2686: 2685: 2674: 2671: 2670: 2665: 2661: 2657: 2656: 2655: 2651: 2647: 2643: 2641: 2638: 2636: 2635: 2628: 2624: 2623: 2622: 2619: 2618: 2613: 2612: 2611: 2608: 2601: 2595: 2594: 2593: 2589: 2588: 2586: 2581: 2576: 2570: 2565: 2561: 2557: 2553: 2549: 2548: 2545: 2544: 2543: 2542: 2538: 2534: 2530: 2525: 2511: 2507: 2503: 2499: 2496: 2492: 2491:Thomas Edison 2488: 2484: 2480: 2476: 2475:Thomas Edison 2472: 2468: 2464: 2460: 2456: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2450: 2446: 2442: 2437: 2432: 2428: 2427: 2426: 2425: 2421: 2417: 2411: 2407: 2403: 2393: 2389: 2385: 2380: 2379: 2378: 2377: 2373: 2372: 2364: 2363: 2355: 2354:blurred lines 2350: 2347: 2346: 2342: 2335: 2332: 2331: 2329: 2326: 2325: 2321: 2318: 2317: 2310: 2306: 2305: 2302: 2299: 2298: 2296: 2289: 2273: 2272: 2269: 2265: 2259: 2253: 2249: 2244: 2240: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2231: 2229: 2224: 2222: 2215: 2214: 2213: 2212: 2209: 2208: 2205: 2204: 2197: 2190: 2181: 2177: 2173: 2169: 2165: 2161: 2157: 2153: 2152: 2151: 2150: 2147: 2143: 2139: 2134: 2133: 2120: 2116: 2112: 2107: 2106: 2105: 2101: 2097: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2086: 2082: 2077: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2071: 2070: 2067: 2066: 2062: 2058: 2052: 2046: 2045: 2042: 2039: 2032: 2016: 2012: 2008: 2005: 2002: 1999: 1996: 1995: 1994: 1990: 1986: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1976: 1972: 1968: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1960: 1956: 1952: 1948: 1944: 1943: 1942: 1938: 1934: 1930: 1929: 1928: 1924: 1920: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1910: 1906: 1902: 1897: 1891: 1890: 1881: 1880: 1874: 1873: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1862: 1860: 1857: 1839: 1834: 1830: 1825: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1817: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1807: 1803: 1799: 1794: 1790: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1776: 1771: 1767: 1762: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1751: 1747: 1743: 1739: 1734: 1730: 1726: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1715: 1711: 1707: 1703: 1697: 1693: 1689: 1684: 1682: 1678: 1674: 1670: 1666: 1665: 1664: 1663: 1660: 1656: 1652: 1641: 1637: 1633: 1629: 1624: 1619: 1617: 1613: 1609: 1605: 1602: 1601: 1594: 1590: 1586: 1581: 1580: 1579: 1576: 1572: 1568: 1564: 1561: 1558: 1554: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1544: 1540: 1536: 1532: 1528: 1525: 1521: 1518: 1514: 1510: 1506: 1502: 1499: 1496: 1492: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1482: 1478: 1473: 1470: 1468: 1464: 1460: 1456: 1453: 1451: 1447: 1443: 1438: 1434: 1432: 1428: 1424: 1419: 1414: 1410: 1409: 1402: 1398: 1394: 1390: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1376: 1372: 1368: 1359: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1352: 1345: 1344: 1340: 1336: 1330: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1314: 1311: 1310: 1304: 1303: 1291: 1287: 1283: 1279: 1275: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1265: 1261: 1257: 1253: 1249: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1242: 1238: 1233: 1230: 1228: 1223: 1216: 1213: 1209: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1198: 1194: 1189: 1188: 1187: 1186: 1183: 1179: 1171: 1167: 1166: 1165: 1151: 1147: 1143: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1132: 1126: 1118: 1114: 1113: 1112: 1111: 1108: 1104: 1100: 1095: 1094: 1091: 1087: 1083: 1078: 1077: 1070: 1066: 1062: 1057: 1056: 1055: 1052: 1048: 1044: 1040: 1037: 1034: 1030: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1021: 1017: 1012: 1011: 1008: 1004: 1000: 999:Alex Bakharev 995: 994: 989: 985: 981: 977: 973: 969: 968: 967: 966: 955: 951: 947: 942: 934: 930: 926: 922: 921: 920: 919: 918: 917: 916: 915: 914: 910: 906: 902: 897: 896: 895: 891: 887: 883: 880: 874: 870: 866: 862: 861: 860: 859: 858: 857: 856: 855: 854: 853: 848: 845: 841: 836: 835:Yellow badges 831: 830: 829: 825: 821: 816: 812: 811: 808: 804: 800: 796: 792: 788: 784: 769: 768: 767: 766: 763: 759: 755: 750: 746: 744: 740: 736: 732: 728: 724: 719: 717: 713: 709: 703: 698: 696: 684: 680: 676: 672: 671: 668: 664: 660: 655: 651: 650: 647: 643: 639: 634: 630: 629: 626: 622: 618: 614: 610: 609: 602: 598: 594: 590: 589: 588: 587: 586: 585: 580: 576: 572: 571:74.192.84.101 567: 562: 561: 560: 559: 556: 552: 548: 543: 542: 535: 531: 527: 526:Alex Bakharev 523: 522: 521: 518: 513: 511: 504: 503: 502: 498: 494: 493:Alex Bakharev 490: 486: 482: 478: 474: 470: 469: 466: 462: 460: 455: 453: 446: 445: 442: 438: 437: 429: 428: 417: 413: 412: 409: 405: 401: 396: 395: 390: 387: 379: 378: 377: 373: 369: 365: 361: 357: 356: 355: 354: 350: 349: 341: 340: 329: 326: 324: 320: 316: 312: 308: 303: 299: 296: 294: 290: 289: 288: 285: 281: 280: 279: 275: 271: 267: 263: 262: 259: 256: 252: 251: 250: 249: 246: 240: 236: 234: 219: 216: 211: 205: 204: 203: 200: 183: 182: 181: 180: 179: 178: 177: 176: 169: 166: 165: 159: 158: 146: 141: 140: 139: 138: 137: 136: 131: 127: 123: 119: 118: 117: 116: 113: 108: 104: 103: 102: 101: 98: 83: 80: 77: 73: 71: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 8888: 8844: 8821: 8789: 8778: 8745: 8743: 8717: 8713: 8679: 8660: 8658: 8647: 8602: 8483: 8479: 8427: 8396: 8366: 8335: 8312: 8281: 8277: 8273: 8269: 8265: 8263: 8258: 8257: 8253: 8237: 8236: 8227: 8223: 8217: 8209: 8169: 8165: 8161: 8157: 8153: 8148: 8039: 7880: 7775: 7764: 7674:quid pro quo 7673: 7638: 7530: 7452: 7439: 7419: 7415: 7407: 7403: 7374: 7302: 7201: 7198: 7153:WhatamIdoing 7144: 7131: 7110: 6960: 6924: 6920: 6916: 6892: 6797: 6751:— Preceding 6746: 6701: 6504: 6500: 6495: 6454: 6450: 6414: 6410: 6378: 6357: 6305: 6301: 6283: 6266: 6265:themselves. 6247: 6232: 6225: 6129: 6127: 6126: 6093:86.31.65.145 6060:86.31.65.145 5996: 5976: 5972: 5947:Anthonyhcole 5920: 5873: 5868: 5866: 5863: 5826: 5820: 5818: 5814: 5811: 5737: 5679: 5675:scrutinized. 5671: 5663: 5656: 5646:Maintaining 5645: 5643: 5639: 5582: 5569: 5438:, a blatant 5391: 5375: 5372: 5368: 5335:Edit warring 5312: 5296: 5287: 5279: 5264: 5257: 5239: 5235: 5201: 5187: 5186: 5174:War on drugs 5144: 5143: 5134: 5101: 5100: 5063: 5033:Knowledge.-- 4941: 4917: 4913: 4909: 4889: 4863: 4859: 4847: 4840: 4837: 4794: 4758: 4732: 4729: 4725: 4719: 4716: 4712: 4666:petrarchan47 4662: 4590: 4585: 4559: 4544: 4480: 4475: 4469: 4405: 4399: 4393: 4387: 4381: 4360:Coretheapple 4347: 4346: 4340: 4339: 4324:Coretheapple 4247: 4246: 4235: 4234: 4223: 4222: 4211: 4210: 4196: 4195: 4180: 4161: 4118: 4068: 4067: 4023: 4022: 4004: 4003: 3933: 3894: 3888: 3867: 3829: 3828: 3824: 3784: 3783: 3781: 3766: 3758: 3755: 3746: 3711: 3704: 3683: 3627: 3609:this article 3486: 3482: 3426:Coretheapple 3395: 3370: 3298: 3289: 3250:WhatamIdoing 3245: 3231: 3222: 3190:Coretheapple 3146: 2963: 2954: 2879: 2870: 2866: 2783: 2713: 2708: 2667: 2663: 2659: 2631: 2615: 2584: 2583: 2521: 2412: 2408: 2404: 2401: 2368: 2359: 2351: 2348: 2344: 2343: 2340: 2327: 2323: 2322: 2319: 2315: 2314: 2291: 2247: 2227: 2220: 2206: 2199: 2193: 2053: 2049: 1985:Coretheapple 1951:Coretheapple 1919:Coretheapple 1864: 1853: 1824:Figureofnine 1792: 1761:Figureofnine 1737: 1732: 1728: 1700: 1688:Coretheapple 1649: 1559: 1531:YellowMonkey 1504: 1497: 1357: 1331: 1327: 1306: 1293: 1285: 1251: 1237:Coretheapple 1234: 1231: 1224: 1221: 1193:Coretheapple 1175: 1163: 1035: 975: 971: 900: 833:Right. And 751: 747: 743:Thoughtcrime 730: 726: 720: 711: 707: 705: 700: 692: 632: 566:definitional 565: 509: 458: 451: 433: 424: 415: 345: 336: 332: 307:WhatamIdoing 241: 237: 231:I have made 230: 186:PR personnel 161: 148: 122:Coretheapple 93: 75: 43: 37: 8805:Iryna Harpy 8686:page... -- 8608:Iryna Harpy 8450:Iryna Harpy 8091:Iryna Harpy 7982:Iryna Harpy 7679:Iryna Harpy 7384:Iryna Harpy 7288:Iryna Harpy 7141:WP:COATRACK 7115:Iryna Harpy 7037:Iryna Harpy 6942:Iryna Harpy 6507:Wikipedian. 6457:Wikipedian. 6040:altogether. 5927:WikiExperts 5821:discouraged 5751:matter how 5683:harassment. 5481:needs both 5392:User: Dr. I 5240:Dr. Blofeld 4890:enforcement 4848:Dr. Blofeld 4184:Newyorkbrad 3727:Iryna Harpy 3594:John Carter 3490:regentspark 3078:You can't. 2917:problems.-- 2633:Antiqueight 2498:light bulbs 2479:light bulbs 1702:WP:ADVOCACY 1565:), it's an 1413:Aaron Klein 1389:Brian Engel 925:Niteshift36 886:Newyorkbrad 865:Niteshift36 820:Niteshift36 36:This is an 8785:The Banner 8663:reaction" 8643:The Banner 8408:abilities. 8308:The Banner 8035:The Banner 7973:The Banner 7969:TeaDrinker 7923:TeaDrinker 7876:The Banner 7771:The Banner 7723:TeaDrinker 7634:The Banner 7598:TeaDrinker 7526:The Banner 7466:TeaDrinker 7448:The Banner 7247:TeaDrinker 7111:ad nauseum 6642:SlimVirgin 6546:SlimVirgin 6358:explicitly 6347:SlimVirgin 6284:difference 6195:TeaDrinker 6003:SlimVirgin 5903:Mike Cline 5830:CorporateM 5585:John Nagle 5578:Emad Rahim 5552:Carcharoth 5514:likewise. 5476:WP:NEUTRAL 5408:WP:NEUTRAL 5207:TeaDrinker 5069:TeaDrinker 5013:loupgarous 4821:Camelbinky 4720:encouraged 4689:TeaDrinker 4642:TeaDrinker 4597:Paradoctor 4564:Carcharoth 4416:Carcharoth 3941:to become 3687:Bondegezou 3575:this image 3303:Mike Cline 3150:applied.-- 2899:Greglocock 2829:Paradoctor 2807:WP:CSD#G12 2803:WP:CSD#G11 2789:loupgarous 2769:Paradoctor 2751:loupgarous 2441:Mike Cline 2111:CorporateM 2081:CorporateM 1896:CorporateM 1876:Knowledge. 1798:Mike Cline 1742:Mike Cline 1608:TeaDrinker 1585:TeaDrinker 1553:TeaDrinker 1539:TeaDrinker 1505:ad hominem 1459:Tomwsulcer 1411:The whole 1393:CorporateM 1286:ad hominem 1206:Right? -- 1061:TeaDrinker 1029:TeaDrinker 1016:TeaDrinker 739:Witch-hunt 712:on content 654:GoldenRing 638:GoldenRing 360:force them 209:SPhilbrick 107:SlimVirgin 8862:Guy Macon 8828:Guy Macon 8765:Guy Macon 8750:Carptrash 8688:Guy Macon 8561:Guy Macon 8522:Carptrash 8488:Guy Macon 8405:Carptrash 8371:Carptrash 8340:Guy Macon 8290:Guy Macon 8175:Guy Macon 7832:Guy Macon 7562:Guy Macon 7502:Guy Macon 7423:Guy Macon 7242:Microsoft 6167:Jehochman 6032:Jehochman 5625:Jehochman 5516:WP:SPEEDY 5467:is valid. 5340:• Astynax 5001:• Astynax 4961:GregJackP 4895:• Astynax 4550:Jehochman 4507:• Astynax 4498:WP:Weight 4470:Example 6 4248:Example 5 4236:Example 4 4224:Example 3 4212:Example 2 4197:Example 1 3322:Jehochman 3102:Jehochman 2874:WP:OUTING 2660:scholarly 2057:SmokeyJoe 1659:Jehochman 1503:), it is 1442:Wikidemon 1423:Wikidemon 1335:SmokeyJoe 980:IRWolfie- 946:IRWolfie- 727:put aside 675:bobrayner 400:SmokeyJoe 386:Jehochman 82:Archive 5 76:Archive 4 70:Archive 3 65:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 8891:know… — 8877:NaBUru38 8847:NaBUru38 8841:Bitcoins 7828:WP:PSCOI 7208:Bhtpbank 7021:ChrisPer 6926:ChrisPer 6820:Bilbobag 6765:contribs 6753:unsigned 6015:Bhtpbank 5980:Bhtpbank 5955:contribs 5808:Comments 5757:Student7 5289:Konveyor 4910:advocacy 4864:advocacy 4593:WP:CREEP 4591:This is 4476:Stalwart 4436:results. 4255:clients? 4124:Ssilvers 4117:I would 3754:Editors 3397:MastCell 3224:Konveyor 2998:Johnuniq 2968:Johnuniq 2784:verbatim 2709:Stalwart 2669:MastCell 2617:MastCell 2485:) isn't 2361:Konveyor 2294:Jebus989 2243:outlawry 2202:SilkTork 2037:Charmlet 1833:contribs 1770:contribs 1563:contribs 1501:contribs 1472:Ted Cruz 1290:Odysseus 1082:Tenebrae 1043:WP:CREEP 1039:contribs 976:evidence 633:Everyone 485:Autodesk 481:Moldflow 477:Autodesk 473:Moldflow 426:Konveyor 338:Konveyor 198:Charmlet 145:Odysseus 8779:deserve 7348:Alatari 7307:Alatari 7204:WP:NPOV 7172:Cedders 7168:WP:PAID 6961:appears 6838:WP:NPOV 6778:WP:NPOV 6702:already 6698:WP:NPOV 6594:WP:NPOV 6407:WP:SOCK 6403:WP:NPOV 6384:Ubikwit 6312:Ubikwit 6304:" and " 6248:already 6140:Ubikwit 6075:Twitter 5887:✉ email 5876:WP:SNOW 5846:Carrite 5790:Carrite 5705:and no 5688:Carrite 5505:WP:SPAM 5491:WP:SELF 5440:WP:SPAM 5419:WP:SELF 5377:Endo999 5037:Ubikwit 4966:Boomer! 4922:Bearian 4912:, then 4872:WP:SOAP 4868:WP:SOAP 4448:Ubikwit 4119:support 4049:WP:FIVE 3897:that. — 3872:S. Rich 3723:Doc9871 3721:Quite, 3552:Ubikwit 3513:Ubikwit 3495:comment 3388:WP:ACPD 3337:Ubikwit 3154:Ubikwit 3032:Ubikwit 2921:Ubikwit 2765:PROVEIT 2559:reverts 2436:DBpedia 2384:Carrite 2251:endaliv 2096:Carrite 2048:enough. 1887:Discuss 1710:Carrite 1567:WP:NPOV 1418:Birther 1362:dubious 1358:minutes 1274:WP:NPOV 1142:Alatari 1123:Ubikwit 1099:Alatari 901:anybody 795:WP:NPOV 593:Carrite 516:(talk) 284:alanyst 255:alanyst 245:alanyst 97:alanyst 39:archive 8893:Sladen 8889:cannot 8887:; one 8722:Jenova 8714:really 8603:before 8280:, and 8249:WP:COI 8244:WP:COI 8213:WP:AGF 7352:Risker 7330:Risker 7145:months 6850:Carter 6842:WP:COI 5931:Jytdog 5881:Fauzan 5509:WP:COI 5498:WP:COI 5483:WP:COI 5472:WP:COI 5460:WP:COI 5415:WP:COI 5131:WP:COI 4916:would 4615:(tock) 4525:Al12si 4081:Graham 4036:Graham 3943:WP:1RR 3939:WP:3RR 3895:oppose 3842:Graham 3797:Graham 3441:Risker 3374:Risker 3246:policy 3207:Risker 3175:Risker 3112:Risker 3066:Risker 2983:Risker 2940:Risker 2883:Risker 2646:Risker 2627:Expert 2533:Risker 2487:WP:COI 2459:WP:COI 2239:WP:BAN 1673:Jytdog 1628:WP:COI 1509:WP:IRS 1367:Al12si 1282:WP:NOT 1045:. -- 972:easily 882:Godwin 793:, and 791:WP:REF 783:assume 754:WP:NPA 735:WP:NPA 725:is to 723:WP:NPA 716:WP:NPA 695:WP:NPA 659:Al12si 489:Russia 270:Risker 214:(Talk) 8881:kudos 8484:after 8363:Big I 7721:). -- 6899:talk 6846:WP:RS 6798:slant 6496:would 6391:見学/迷惑 6319:見学/迷惑 6273:talk 6147:見学/迷惑 5959:email 5788:Yes. 5774:Bilby 5753:WP:RS 5487:WP:OR 5064:might 5044:見学/迷惑 4819:RfC!" 4739:talk 4502:WP:RS 4455:見学/迷惑 4348:Vesey 3934:*may* 3825:rival 3559:見学/迷惑 3520:見学/迷惑 3344:見学/迷惑 3161:見学/迷惑 3039:見学/迷惑 2928:見学/迷惑 2599:Monty 2522:This 2138:Bilby 1551:Yes, 1535:found 1489:YES, 1278:WP:RS 1225:This 1130:見学/迷惑 547:Sionk 452:Auric 16:< 8911:talk 8897:talk 8866:talk 8851:talk 8832:talk 8809:talk 8790:talk 8769:talk 8754:talk 8692:talk 8648:talk 8612:talk 8565:talk 8526:talk 8492:talk 8454:talk 8375:talk 8344:talk 8313:talk 8294:talk 8268:and 8226:and 8179:talk 8166:will 8160:and 8095:talk 8040:talk 7986:talk 7927:talk 7881:talk 7836:talk 7830:? -- 7776:talk 7727:talk 7683:talk 7639:talk 7602:talk 7566:talk 7531:talk 7506:talk 7470:talk 7453:talk 7427:talk 7388:talk 7334:talk 7311:talk 7292:talk 7251:talk 7227:talk 7212:talk 7157:talk 7119:talk 7072:Wily 7041:talk 7017:Wily 6995:talk 6965:Wily 6946:talk 6930:talk 6874:talk 6854:talk 6824:talk 6807:talk 6803:Stfg 6782:Wily 6761:talk 6707:Wily 6419:Wily 6405:and 6331:Wily 6308:"?-- 6288:Wily 6252:Wily 6233:talk 6214:talk 6199:talk 6181:talk 6097:talk 6083:talk 6064:talk 6050:talk 6019:talk 5984:talk 5951:talk 5935:talk 5923:this 5907:talk 5899:WP:5 5874:So, 5850:talk 5834:Talk 5794:talk 5778:talk 5761:talk 5727:Luke 5715:talk 5692:talk 5611:talk 5589:talk 5556:talk 5539:talk 5489:and 5417:and 5381:talk 5353:talk 5320:talk 5298:Belt 5265:talk 5211:talk 5163:talk 5120:talk 5073:talk 5017:talk 4986:talk 4944:Wily 4926:talk 4914:paid 4880:talk 4841:harm 4825:talk 4804:talk 4781:talk 4777:Nowa 4693:talk 4646:talk 4612:Shii 4601:talk 4568:talk 4529:talk 4420:talk 4364:talk 4341:Ryan 4328:talk 4188:talk 4168:talk 4143:talk 4128:talk 4103:talk 4057:talk 3986:talk 3969:talk 3952:talk 3921:talk 3903:talk 3876:talk 3870:. – 3815:talk 3773:ban. 3731:talk 3712:talk 3691:talk 3665:talk 3647:Wily 3637:talk 3614:Wily 3598:talk 3579:Wily 3536:talk 3459:talk 3445:talk 3430:talk 3378:talk 3360:talk 3307:talk 3294:and 3254:talk 3248:!" 3233:Belt 3211:talk 3194:talk 3179:talk 3116:talk 3088:talk 3070:talk 3025:COI. 3002:talk 2987:talk 2972:talk 2955:does 2944:talk 2903:talk 2887:talk 2833:talk 2811:Wily 2805:and 2793:talk 2773:talk 2755:talk 2650:talk 2537:talk 2524:edit 2506:talk 2500:is. 2489:but 2469:, a 2445:talk 2420:talk 2388:talk 2370:Belt 2228:talk 2176:talk 2168:talk 2160:talk 2142:talk 2115:Talk 2100:talk 2085:Talk 2061:talk 2011:talk 1989:talk 1975:talk 1955:talk 1937:talk 1923:talk 1909:talk 1829:talk 1802:talk 1766:talk 1746:talk 1714:talk 1692:talk 1677:talk 1636:talk 1612:talk 1604:Here 1589:talk 1557:talk 1543:talk 1495:talk 1481:talk 1463:talk 1446:talk 1427:talk 1397:Talk 1371:talk 1360:for 1339:talk 1260:talk 1252:that 1241:talk 1197:talk 1169:etc. 1146:talk 1116:for. 1103:talk 1086:talk 1065:talk 1033:talk 1020:talk 1003:talk 984:talk 950:talk 929:talk 909:talk 890:talk 869:talk 824:talk 803:talk 787:WP:N 731:that 679:talk 663:talk 642:talk 621:talk 617:Stfg 615:. -- 597:talk 575:talk 551:talk 530:talk 510:Tony 497:talk 459:talk 435:Belt 404:talk 372:talk 347:Belt 311:talk 274:talk 126:talk 8401:sic 8234:). 7033:sic 6894:DGG 6505:qua 6501:qua 6455:qua 6451:qua 6415:add 6268:DGG 6226:Doc 5961:) 5869:not 5678:5. 5670:4. 5662:3. 5655:2. 5644:1. 5535:K7L 5503:is 5331:COI 5258:Doc 5202:any 5190:man 5183:Mr. 5147:man 5140:Mr. 5104:man 5097:Mr. 4918:not 4734:DGG 4482:111 4007:man 4000:Mr. 3762:be) 3705:Doc 3548:.-- 3455:K7L 2715:111 2605:845 2587:man 2580:Mr. 2577:-- 2502:K7L 2431:SEO 2258:Δ's 2221:Doc 2003:or 2000:or 1903:-- 1632:K7L 1256:BDD 799:BDD 483:or 368:BDD 323:DES 293:DES 8913:) 8899:) 8868:) 8853:) 8834:) 8811:) 8771:) 8756:) 8728:20 8719:ツ 8694:) 8614:) 8567:) 8528:) 8494:) 8456:) 8428:do 8397:am 8377:) 8346:) 8336:is 8296:) 8276:, 8181:) 8156:, 8149:am 8097:) 7988:) 7971:. 7929:) 7838:) 7729:) 7685:) 7677:-- 7604:) 7596:-- 7568:) 7560:-- 7508:) 7472:) 7429:) 7390:) 7336:) 7313:) 7294:) 7253:) 7229:) 7214:) 7159:) 7121:) 7043:) 6997:) 6948:) 6940:-- 6932:) 6901:) 6876:) 6856:) 6826:) 6809:) 6767:) 6763:• 6275:) 6216:) 6201:) 6183:) 6099:) 6085:) 6066:) 6052:) 6021:) 5986:) 5957:· 5953:· 5945:-- 5937:) 5925:- 5909:) 5852:) 5836:) 5796:) 5780:) 5763:) 5733:94 5730:no 5717:) 5709:? 5694:) 5613:) 5591:) 5558:) 5541:) 5383:) 5355:) 5322:) 5213:) 5188:Z- 5165:) 5145:Z- 5122:) 5102:Z- 5075:) 5067:-- 5019:) 4988:) 4928:) 4882:) 4827:) 4806:) 4783:) 4741:) 4695:) 4648:) 4603:) 4570:) 4531:) 4422:) 4366:) 4330:) 4322:-- 4250:: 4238:: 4226:: 4214:: 4199:: 4190:) 4170:) 4145:) 4130:) 4105:) 4076:D. 4071:W. 4066:-- 4059:) 4031:D. 4026:W. 4005:Z- 3988:) 3971:) 3954:) 3923:) 3905:) 3878:) 3860:}} 3854:{{ 3837:D. 3832:W. 3817:) 3792:D. 3787:W. 3733:) 3693:) 3667:) 3639:) 3600:) 3538:) 3461:) 3447:) 3432:) 3380:) 3362:) 3309:) 3256:) 3213:) 3196:) 3181:) 3118:) 3090:) 3072:) 3004:) 2989:) 2974:) 2964:is 2946:) 2905:) 2889:) 2835:) 2795:) 2775:) 2757:) 2652:) 2629:-- 2585:Z- 2539:) 2508:) 2447:) 2422:) 2390:) 2356:. 2262:/ 2254:// 2178:) 2144:) 2117:) 2102:) 2087:) 2063:) 2013:) 1991:) 1977:) 1957:) 1939:) 1925:) 1911:) 1831:• 1804:) 1768:• 1748:) 1716:) 1694:) 1679:) 1638:) 1614:) 1591:) 1545:) 1483:) 1465:) 1448:) 1429:) 1399:) 1373:) 1341:) 1333:-- 1280:, 1276:, 1262:) 1243:) 1235:-- 1199:) 1148:) 1105:) 1088:) 1067:) 1022:) 1005:) 986:) 978:, 952:) 931:) 911:) 892:) 871:) 838:-- 826:) 805:) 789:, 681:) 665:) 644:) 623:) 599:) 577:) 553:) 532:) 499:) 406:) 374:) 313:) 276:) 128:) 8909:( 8895:( 8864:( 8849:( 8830:( 8807:( 8767:( 8752:( 8744:" 8690:( 8610:( 8563:( 8524:( 8490:( 8452:( 8373:( 8342:( 8292:( 8177:( 8093:( 7984:( 7925:( 7834:( 7725:( 7681:( 7600:( 7564:( 7504:( 7468:( 7425:( 7386:( 7354:. 7332:( 7309:( 7290:( 7249:( 7225:( 7210:( 7155:( 7117:( 7076:D 7039:( 6993:( 6969:D 6944:( 6928:( 6897:( 6872:( 6852:( 6822:( 6805:( 6786:D 6759:( 6711:D 6423:D 6335:D 6292:D 6271:( 6256:D 6212:( 6197:( 6179:( 6122:) 6118:( 6095:( 6081:( 6062:( 6048:( 6017:( 5982:( 5949:( 5933:( 5905:( 5878:. 5848:( 5832:( 5792:( 5776:( 5759:( 5713:( 5690:( 5609:( 5587:( 5554:( 5537:( 5518:. 5511:. 5421:. 5410:. 5379:( 5351:( 5318:( 5209:( 5161:( 5118:( 5071:( 5015:( 4984:( 4948:D 4924:( 4878:( 4823:( 4802:( 4779:( 4767:W 4764:P 4761:T 4759:~ 4737:( 4691:( 4676:c 4671:t 4644:( 4630:C 4628:2 4626:B 4599:( 4566:( 4527:( 4418:( 4362:( 4326:( 4186:( 4166:( 4141:( 4126:( 4101:( 4055:( 3984:( 3967:( 3950:( 3919:( 3901:( 3874:( 3813:( 3729:( 3689:( 3663:( 3651:D 3635:( 3618:D 3596:( 3583:D 3534:( 3497:) 3493:( 3457:( 3443:( 3428:( 3376:( 3358:( 3305:( 3252:( 3209:( 3192:( 3177:( 3114:( 3086:( 3068:( 3000:( 2985:( 2970:( 2942:( 2901:( 2885:( 2831:( 2815:D 2791:( 2771:( 2753:( 2648:( 2535:( 2504:( 2443:( 2418:( 2386:( 2311:: 2248:M 2174:( 2166:( 2158:( 2140:( 2113:( 2098:( 2083:( 2059:( 2009:( 1987:( 1973:( 1953:( 1935:( 1921:( 1907:( 1898:: 1894:@ 1835:) 1827:( 1800:( 1772:) 1764:( 1744:( 1712:( 1690:( 1675:( 1634:( 1610:( 1587:( 1575:C 1573:2 1571:B 1560:· 1555:( 1541:( 1517:C 1515:2 1513:B 1498:· 1493:( 1479:( 1461:( 1444:( 1425:( 1395:( 1369:( 1337:( 1308:9 1301:7 1298:4 1295:1 1258:( 1239:( 1212:C 1210:2 1208:B 1195:( 1182:C 1180:2 1178:B 1144:( 1101:( 1084:( 1063:( 1051:C 1049:2 1047:B 1036:· 1031:( 1018:( 1001:( 982:( 948:( 927:( 907:( 888:( 867:( 844:C 842:2 840:B 822:( 801:( 775:1 773:+ 762:C 760:2 758:B 677:( 661:( 640:( 619:( 595:( 573:( 549:( 528:( 495:( 402:( 370:( 309:( 272:( 163:9 156:7 153:4 150:1 124:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

talk:No paid advocacy/Archive 4 - Knowledge

Index