Wikipedia talk:Commercial editing

Paid Editing Proposals

In November 2013, there were three main discussions and votes on paid editing:

No paid advocacy (talk) (closed: opposed)

Paid editing policy proposal (talk) (closed: opposed)

Conflict of interest limit (talk) (closed: opposed)

Why?

We can't force paid editors to disclose their status, can't detect them unless they are incompetent, and can't impose any penalty other than forcing them change their email account. Of all the editors trying to push a point, the paid editors are a tiny minority. Saying "We disapprove of editors working for pay" is pointless. Let's stick to policies that say what result is wanted, not how the result should be achieved. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree. It is not who you are that matters but what you write. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm a PR guy by trade and a Wikipedian by choice, the two are not mutually exclusive. As my user page says, "I do public relations professionally, so I try to be very clear about where my professional life spills into Wikipedia and where any of my edits involve potential WP:COI issues. Whenever possible, I try to stay out of that whole tar patch." I've only edited Wikipedia when I had financial COI issues maybe a half-dozen times since 2007 and I think I handled each one correctly and transparently. (I'd be interested in seeing what the reaction is to how I handled Talk:The_Heat_and_Warmth_Fund, the other editors who looked at the page at the time seemed comfortable with the care I took with NPOV and COI there.) In my opinion, what we should be doing is making sure that we enforce NPOV and COI regardless of someone's motivations for writing or editing and not differentiating between financial, philosophical, religious or other interests when we have an editor attempting to proselytize instead of inform. Jmozena (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

From a "legitimate" PR person's point of view, this is unnecessary

As a PR person who only very rarely edits Wikipedia on behalf of clients and discloses COI when I do so, you're talking about creating a policy that those of us who do it right already functionally follow and those who do it wrong won't honor.

While I can't speak to other countries, in the US PR professionals who follow the Public Relations Society of America's Code of Ethics are already required to "Be honest and accurate in all communications" and "Reveal sponsors for represented causes and interests." In 2008, PRSA issued Internet-specific guidance on this topic, saying:

The use of deceptive identities or misleading descriptions of goals, causes, tactics, sponsors or participants to further the objectives of any group constitutes improper conduct under the PRSA Member Code of Ethics and should be avoided. PRSA members should not engage in or encourage the practice of misrepresenting organizations and individuals through the use of blogs, viral marketing, social media and/or anonymous Internet postings.

As I've said elsewhere in these discussions, I think we should focus on the quality and neutrality of the content, since that's not only what a legitimate PR person is going to try to create but also the entire point of Wikipedia in the first place. Trying to differentiate financially-motivated sock puppets from religiously-motivated sock puppets (see Scientology) from whatever else is motivating editors who are trying to use Wikipedia as a forum for proselytization distracts us from the real issue, which is protecting the reliability of the encyclopedia from anybody with an ax to grind.

And in the interest of disclosure, I'm a member but not a representative of the PRSA and I'm not being compensated for this, other than in the general sense that I'm writing it from my desk in a PR agency that may some day be asked to make an edit to a client's Wikipedia page. (But I should be doing work for paying clients right now, so my net financial interest is negative.) Jmozena (talk) 18:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for this helpful comment. It would be good for any such WP guideline to reference external professional codes of ethics and guidelines - including those of the PRSA - which cover the same situations. However, please note that one reason some people feel that a policy of this form would help WP curators, is that they believe this would improve and simplify the response to PR groups that are known to edit without disclosing causes and clients. – SJ + 10:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I run an internet marketing professional group (http://semne.org), and based on advice from our membership, we have adopted a code of ethics that is partially inspired by PRSA's. I think the attached page should reference PRSA, as well as other professional organizations in England, Australia, India and other countries that make heavy use of the English Wikipedia. While professionals would already know what to do, we are an encyclopedia. We welcome, and seek the educate, the ignorant. We should not assume that every person attempting to do online public relations is a knowledgeable professional. Many business owners and inexperienced consultants or entrepreneurs fall into the trap that this page seeks to warn about. Jehochman ^Talk 16:57, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

What about non commercial editing?

In my opinion far greater harm is done to Wikipedia by non-commercial pressure groups than is done by commercial editors. The problem is that any contentious topic attracts groups of editors promoting a particular cause. They often try to use WP as a medium for promoting their cause. Ensuing battles do little to maintain encyclopedic quality. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Focus on content

In my opinion the solution to both problems is to focus on content and not on the editor. We need to rigorously apply the core principles of WP, in particular WP:NPOV and encyclopedic style. My suggestions are:

WP:NPOV should be applied not only to the literal content but to the tone, style, and the prominence of any statement.

Just because it is true does not mean it should go in WP; facts must be presented neutrally and in context and proportion

Just because there is a reliable source does not mean that it should go in WP; due weight must always be given to any sourced fact.

Quotations, event properly attributed, should not be used to circumvent NPOV, however well sourced that they are.

We should all remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, an advertisement, or a propaganda sheet. Everyone should, in my opinion, have a look at one of the well known printed encyclopedias such as Chambers or Britannica before editing here to see what 'encyclopedic style' means. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

When considering a policy change, we need to not only make an educated guess as to the effect of the change, but also as to the effect after people change their behavior in response to the policy change.

As an example, back in 2009 a southern California fast-food chain called El Pollo Loco give away a leg and thigh of its flame-grilled chicken along with two tortillas and fresh salsa per person. This was one day competitor Kentucky Fried Chicken gave away one piece of its "Kentucky Grilled Chicken" per person. One would think that there would be no downside to the customer from this, but what happened was long lines, a full parking lot, and a 4-hour wait for food.

Likewise for our COI policy. If we adopt a "examine the quality of the edit, not the COI of the editor" policy, we will open the door to thousands of people starting home-based businesses (and a few larger organizations) selling their skills at making undisclosed paid edits to Wikipedia. The most successful of these will become very good indeed at [A] adding what the costumer wants added and removing what the customer wants removed, and [B] appearing to the rest of us to be ordinary editors with no COI.

Contrast this whith what we have now; paid COI editors who follow the Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide get active help from a number of uninvolved Wikipedia editors who are working under the basic theory that if we reward that sort of behavior we will see more of it and less stealth COI editing. As the customers of these services see that the edits they are paying for tend to stay in place without being reverted, more and more of them spend money on the paid editors who follow WP:PSCOI and fewer and fewer spend money on stealth COI editors. Why spend good money on edits that are quickly reverted and which, when we find out, sometimes end up with an article in the Wall Street Journal about your attempts to subvert Wikipedia? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Firstly let me just say that it is on a matter of principle that I am making this suggestion. Wikipedia is 'The encyclopedia that anyone can edit'. This policy is the start of changing it to Wikipedia is 'The encyclopedia that anyone of a certain group of people can edit'

I think that there is a flaw in your argument though. You refer to [my italics] people, 'making undisclosed paid edits to Wikipedia'. How is this policy going to stop that? It could be happening now; how would we know? I have often wondered if there are covert 'we fix Wikipedia for you' agents out there already.

Finally if the article is good, who cares who edited it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

ach Martin, this is a big waste of time. We have WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NPOV to deal with all advocacy -paid or unpaid, all of which is indeed a big problem. We also have WP:ADVOCACY (widely cited essay) generally and WP:COI guideline and the Terms of Use for the subset of advocacyt that is financially driven, for the most part. Within the field of advocacy, financial COI/paid editing hurts our credibility with the public arguably more than advocacy does (you don't see "advocacy" scandals in the media - you do see paid editing scandals). So I suggest you drop the stick and instead work on managing all kinds of advocacy found in WP. You could, like Joseph2302 does, work at AfC and help manage the torrent of new articles that are obvious paid or "fan" creations. You could work at COIN where you will get to help deal with all kinds of advocacy but especially financial COI. But really, it is a waste of time to argue about what subset of advocacy hurts us more - all of it hurts us, and all of it needs to be addressed and managed. Best regards, Jytdog (talk) 19:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, if you think a conversation between two veteran editors -- a conversation that just might end up becoming a policy proposal -- is a waste of time, with all due respect I must question the effectiveness of joining that conversation and supporting one view as a method of demonstrating that it is a watse of time. I'm just saying. Finally, read the paragraph where Martin says "it is on a matter of principle that I am making this suggestion" again. He is right. We are going against one of our core principles. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't do it (we violate the same core principle every time we block a spammer or a vandal) but it does make one pause and wonder if there might be a better way.

Martin, I understand your argument, and it isn't a bad argument. but as I said above it would have unintended consequences. As for your question ("making undisclosed paid edits to Wikipedia'. How is this policy going to stop that?"), right now if someone gets caught doing that, they (the ones doing the hiring, not the paid editor) get raked over the coals by the press. If we make it something that isn't against Wikipedia's rules, we will get a lot more of it, and there will be no negative consequences to getting caught. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Guy, Martin and I know each other pretty well from having encountered each other in several articles, and in my experience we think ~pretty~ alike. It is in that context that I wrote what I wrote and I ~think~ Martin at least knows that. And yes - it is a big waste of time to argue with this essay (that is all it is) because the community went through a paroxysm of efforts to ban paid editing after the WIki-PR and banc de binary scandals, and the community could not agree to ban paid editing; this essay is just one of the remainders of those efforts. And in my view it is unlikely we ever will agree to ban paid editing - the commitment to privacy/anonymity and corresponding emphasis on "content not contributor" and NPOV (all that is policy) just as Martin describes, will probably always have a higher status than WP:COI (guideline) and this essay will probably always remain an essay. So Martin's post is just beating a dead horse. Nonetheless even in this policy environment - where WP:COI is just a guideline and the status of the Terms of Use is tenuous within Wiki-en - a big chunk of the community (including me) remains very concerned about paid editing and that chunk of the community a) is never going away and b) has legitimate concerns. Trying to beat the concerns expressed in this essay down further, is going to go no where (how much further down can it go, anyway?) and just upset people. I and others work hard to manage advocacy (including within that COI and including within that paid editing) every day, and are trying to figure out yet better ways to do it. I am agreeing with you Guy, that managing COI is important, and trying to tell Martin that there is no way it is going to get beat down further. I'll also note to Martin, that what we do at COIN is look at edits - we look for non-NPOV promotional editing. Everything here does start and end with actual edits - at the end of the day content is king. That is what I am trying to say. Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for the additional explanation. I think I understand where you are coming from now, and pretty much agree. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, It looks like we do all, to a large degree, agree and this is only an essay anyway (although they can be still used by groups to enforce a POV) and as Jytdog points out I am unlikely to achieve anything here in view of the history.

I still make the point that, in my opinion, editing by unpaid pressure groups represents a greater threat to the integrity of WP that paid editing. It is a problem that needs to be dealt with somehow. Arbcom are not interested. Many good editors are losing faith in WP as an encyclopedia, leaving it to slowly become a noticeboard for minority but strongly held opinions. This what editor who has all but left WP says, The main reason Wikipedia is so unreliable as a resource and badly written is not the drive-by vandalism but because around 50% of the regular content editors and the administrators are morons; many of them morons on a mission to tell the world about how great or terrible something or someone is. If you think it's painful reading WP pages, try editing them.

So, what is to be done? Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

advocacy is really, really hard to address. i work mostly on health-related issues here, and the sourcing guideline for health content, WP:MEDRS is really useful in helping us achieve WP's mission of generating and maintaining content that is "a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject". (per WP:NOT) I love that little phrase. MEDRS says that sources for health content need to be reviews in the biomedical literature or statements from major medical/scientific bodies, which are how we identify "accepted knowlege." In my experience, advocates often try to generate content based on poor sources (that don't reflect mainstream, accepted knowledge), and they have a harder time doing that when the sourcing requirements are high and well defined. The best thing we can do to get truly NPOV content that assigns appropriate WEIGHT across WP is raise source quality. That is really hard to do in some fields... and those fields end up with the ugliest disputes... like video games or popular culture. Jytdog (talk) 12:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)