User:Oceanflynn/paid editors on Wikipedia

This page along with a wikipedia book I began compiling is a shareable resource to enhance my own understanding of Wikipedia terms of use and to help me better engage in the current discussion on amendments regarding Paid editing on WikipediaThis is incomplete and not a reliable resource although the links are reliable.

There is currently a discussion on this talk page called Terms of Use: Paid contributions amendment, regarding changing a section of the policy on paid editing.

In my search for a history and to get a better idea of the context I found Press releases/Sue Gardner statement paid advocacy editing Sue Gardner's statement

As a volunteer it is discouraging that there is so much paid editing that it requires a policy allowing these editors to become authorized simply by adding something to an article's talk page or their user page.

Before asking the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees to change a section on Terms of Use, the Wikimedia Foundation Legal Department created this page onPaid contributions amendmentAbility to Automate Identification of Paid Contributors"

This is the subsection from the WikiMedia page

"A subsection added to the end of Section 4 of the Terms of Use, namely Terms of Use:Refraining from Certain Activities. Paid contributions without disclosure: These Terms of Use prohibit engaging in deceptive activities, including misrepresentation of affiliation, impersonation, and fraud. To ensure compliance with these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution to any Wikimedia Projects for which you receive compensation. You must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways: a statement on your user page, a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions. Applicable law, or community and Foundation policies, such as those addressing conflicts of interest, may further limit paid contributions or require more detailed disclosure. For more information, please read our background note on disclosure of paid contributions

Wikipedia editors are asked to comment, approve or disapprove the following,

I believe that Paid Contributors ought to be required to make a note of such on their user account information page, through a checkbox or, alternatively, be required to use a specific wording in the edit summary, in which they indicate that they are a paid contributor. I believe that this is necessary, so that the modifications by Paid Contributors can receive special attention by moderators. Without a common means by which Paid Contributors must report themselves, then it is more likely that biased content will be able to sneak into Wikipedia's content. Moreover, if Paid Contributors are forced to identify themselves through a common means, then it will be easier to ban accounts of Paid Contributors who submit biased content which violates Wikipedia's TOS. Ultimately, the ability to have a computer program very easily identify Paid Contributors will keep options open, allowing Wikipedia more options, in the future, with which this situation might be dealt with.

History and context

• 27 October 2001 Date of first publication on Wikipedia of Jimbo Wales:Statement of Principles, which was, according to User:Manning Bartlett, "really a summary of things Jimbo had been saying since day one. But it still stands as the foundation of the core values of WP, even to this day." The following is the first entry on the newly created page. Since then it has been edited by over 100 users.

As we move forward with software and social changes, I think it is imperative that I state clearly and forcefully my views on openness and the license. This page, like all wikipedia pages, is a living dynamic document which I will update and clarify as legitimate questions arise. I should point out that these are my principles, such that I am the final judge of them. This does not mean that I will not listen to you, but it does mean that at some ultimate fundamental level, this is how wikipedia will be run, period. (But have no fear, as you will see, below.) 1. Wikipedia's success to date is 100% a function of our open community. This community will continue to live and breathe and grow only so long as those of us who participate in it continue to Do The Right Thing. Doing The Right Thing takes many forms, but perhaps most central is the preservation of our shared vision for the NPOV and for a culture of thoughtful diplomatic honesty. 2. Newcomers are always to be welcomed. There must be no cabal, there must be no elites, there must be no hierarchy or structure which gets in the way of this openness to newcomers. Any security measures to be implemented to protect the community against real vandals (and there are real vandals, who are already starting to affect us), should be implemented on the model of "strict scrutiny". "Strict scrutiny" means that any measures instituted for security must address a compelling community interest, and must be narrowly tailored to achieve that objective and no other. For example: rather than trust humans to correctly identify "regulars", we must use a simple, transparent, and open algorithm, so that people are automatically given full privileges once they have been around the community for a very short period of time. The process should be virtually invisible for newcomers, so that they do not have to do anything to start contributing to the community. 3. "You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred. 4. Any changes to the software must be gradual and reversible. We need to make sure that any changes contribute positively to the community, as ultimately determined by me, in full consultation with the community consensus.

— User:Jimbo_Wales 27 October 2001

• October 2001 Wikipedia had over 15,000 articles. There was an article in the New York Times. According to User:Manning Bartlett, there was major dissension between editors.

• 2 November 2001 User:The Cunctator published an essay on his/her User page entitled "How to destroy Wikipedia" as follow-up to his essay "How to build Wikipedia." Partially in response

• 2006 "I think we need to be very clear in a lot of different places that PR firms editing Wikipedia is something that we frown upon very very strongly. The appearance of impropriety is so great that we should make it very very strongly clear to these firms that we do not approve of what they would like to do." Jimmy Wales

• 3 August 2009 User:TeaDrinker began a Paid editing policy proposal related to paid editors on Wikipedia.

Paid advocacy on behalf of a client, or offering services as a Wikipedia editor for hire is not permitted. Editing in this manner may result in blocks or banning from Wikipedia. Payment which is received incidentally such as prizes awarded without the appearance of creating a conflict of interest may be acceptable, although they should be accepted only with great caution. Editors should avoid instances where a payment might appear to be a conflict of interest. Paid advocacy, which is any contribution or edit to Wikipedia content that advocates for your employer's point of view, or is likely to benefit your employer's business interests, is considered to be an especially egregious form of advocacy. Disagreement over the appropriateness of a particular instance of remuneration should be referred to Jimbo Wales. Certain activities are never acceptable: Paid advocacy on behalf of a client, or offering services as a Wikipedia editor for hire is not permitted. Editing in this manner may result in blocks or banning from Wikipedia. Payment which is received incidentally such as prizes awarded without the appearance of creating a conflict of interest may be acceptable, although they should be accepted only with great caution. Editors should avoid instances where a payment might appear to be a conflict of interest. Paid advocacy, which is any contribution or edit to Wikipedia content that advocates for your employer's point of view, or is likely to benefit your employer's business interests, is considered to be an especially egregious form of advocacy. Certain activities are never acceptable: failing to disclose any payment or prize, failing to disclose any payment or prize, and seeking payment or receiving for taking on a particular position in any editorial decision, policy dispute, or other issue arising in Wikipedia.

— TeaDrinker

• 9 August 2009 The introductory sentence of the above was slightly changed by User:Smallbones to,

Paid editing on Wikipedia is defined as accepting money, or goods or services in lieu of money, to insert specific words, facts, sources, or points of view into a new or existing article, talk page, or policy.

• August 2009 Contributing editors contributed User:Gandalf61,

• 25 August 2009 User:Jimbo Wales made revisions but added to summary "(A few proposed changes, feel free to revert, I only want here to make known my views)"

Many, but not all, types of paid editing are forbidden. For example paid editing of a talk page is generally acceptable, but paid editing of a policy page is generally unacceptable. All paid editors are required to disclose their paid status on both their user page and on the affected article's talk page.

— User:Jimbo Wales

Paid editing by Wikipedia administrators or bureaucrats is incompatible with the duties these people have freely accepted. It is grounds for summary removal of these privileges, to be reinstated only upon appeal to the Arbitration Committee.

— User:Jimbo Wales

Paid editing on Wikipedia is defined as an editor giving up his independent editorial judgement in return for money, or goods or services in lieu of money, by inserting or deleting content to the advantage of his employer into or from a new or existing article, talk page, or policy.

— User:Jimbo Wales

• 4 November 2009 Anonymous User copied Jimbo Wales previous arguments re: paid editors

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

— Jimbo Wales

• 2010? The failed Paid editing policy content was merged into Paid editing guideline

• 8 December 2011 Wikipedia suspended at least 10 accounts linked to the public relations firm Bell Pottinger regarding allegations of content manipulation on Wikipedia pages. "Editing in the interests of public relations (other than obvious corrections) is particularly frowned upon. This includes, but is not limited to, professionals paid to create or edit Wikipedia articles."

Conflict of Interest

• January 2012 Neville Hobson and Shel Holtz of FIR Stuart Bruce of Stuart Bruce Associates, and Phil Gomes of Edelman Digital combined their efforts to engage in conversations regarding "the ability of corporate representatives to make ethical, transparent, disclosed and factual revisions that are independently verifiable to Wikipedia entries." PR professionals who revise "entries to reflect accurate financial numbers, spellings of executive names, new or departing board members, employee headcounts and the like and are identified as paid editor" without a neutral point of view , their revisions were "often reversed and many are banned from the site."

• January Gomes posted

• 6 January 2012 The U. K.'s Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) announced it was to work with Wikipedia "to provide members with guidance on how to interact with the Wikipedia community."

• 10 January 2012 Forbes article on Wikipedia and PR pros

• 12 January 2012 Gomes created a Facebook group to host a conversation on the subject.

• 30 January 2012 Campaign Asia-Pacific PR Professionals sought editing rights

• 2 February 2012 PR professionals work as group to fight for right to edit wikipedia

• 2 February 2012 PR Week
• March 8 2012, Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline "strongly discourages" direct editing of articles, but encourages use of article discussion pages, by editors with a conflict of interest.

• 24 February 2012 Corporate Communicator published "Time for Wiki Editing"

Composed of public relations professionals and some Wikipedia editors, the group's aim is to improve the relationship between the PR industry and the encyclopedia. CREWE lobbies for greater involvement by PR professionals on Wikipedia, with the stated goal of maintaining accurate articles about corporations.

References

• Previous revision of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

See also

• Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement

• Conflict of interest editing on Wikipedia
• Motivations of Wikipedia contributors
• Reliability of Wikipedia