Wikipedia talk:Paid editing (guideline)

Accept, Modify or Reject

May I request a formal discussion to accept, modify or reject this proposal. As another editor suggested, that discussion should be required before tagging with {{failed}}. Thanks.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     17:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The basic premise of this guideline (not policy) has been stable for a while with only cosmetic changes for many months. One change I think should be discussed is the Paid editing only equals "payment" rather than what was there, "Paid editing is editing Wikipedia in return for material reward or compensation." I think the same issues arise when someone isn't being paid "extra" for updating their company's article but they are indeed considered a bit less objective. There is also the cases of students or volunteers earning recognition for a job well done but technically no money was given. As for the formal discussion I think it would be good but how do we do it?Wroted (talk) 17:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought that it had been so long since this was requested a guideline that Consensus in its favor was not established within a reasonable period of time. So I posted {{failed}}. I don't think there needs to be a formal discussion to reject this proposal, otherwise this would drag on. -- This proposal was first proposed on 11 March 2007. -- Oh, it is dragging on. :) -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 17:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The page was created on that date but it has been worked on since and I do not see any attempt to formalize it to go to a vote. To me it seems like there are still a few problems to work out, like the redundancy issues and ensuring the admin statement is accurate. The page also could do well to sort out how to deal with potential paid editing situations (focus on the edits and interactions first, witch hunts seems counter-productive, etc and wheer to report problems if not at the COI board.Wroted (talk) 12:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• Reject - this proposed guideline could easily be viewed as encouraging paid editing - even as a "how-to" manual on how to squeeze by the rules to do paid editing. It is so far from the consensus on Wikipedia against paid editing, that it will never become an accepted guideline, and thus can serve only as a source of confusion to people who read it. It's time to put this out of its misery. Smallbones (talk) 17:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
  • "Squeeze by the rules to do paid editing"? What rules? What consensus? This is the best we have, and it amounts to don't ask don't tell. I'd prefer a more open system in which paid editing is acknowledged and managed. - hahnchen 22:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes this is clearly Don't ask, don't tell, but that has nothing to do with the current rules. Paid editing is obviously a strong conflict of interest, but don't ask, don't tell does NOT apply to WP:COI. Smallbones (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

As nobody has actually come forward in several weeks to accept this as a guideline - it's very clear that that this should be marked "failed" - I'll do that within a few days. Smallbones (talk) 17:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Marked as failed as no new discussion has come up - certainly nobody has said anything about "accept". Smallbones (talk) 17:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

aloof

so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.69.52.22 (talk) 21:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

low price

Thanks very good for report, I follow your blog — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.69.56.182 (talk) 20:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Good post

Мне очень понравилось. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.68.175.65 (talk) 08:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

How comply and commitment are met through the source

Is there any clear clarification for the source.. Toast Marotho (talk). 19:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC)