QUOTE(Somey @ Mon 30th May 2011, 4:36pm)
Right now, for example, if you do a Google search on "wikipedia editing service," the very first non-WP result is entitled "Dangers of Hired Wikipedia Editing," and mentions Greg Kohs by name, right there in the summary. These are not idiosyncratic or unusual "jargon" terms, these are common words used in everyday conversation.
I'm as interested in what pops up for Wikipedia in that search.
Wikipedia:Paid editing (policy) is shown as a Failed Policy. This is part of what failed:
QUOTE
Paid editing on Wikipedia is defined as writing or editing on Wikipedia in return for money, or similar inducements. This includes inserting or deleting content to the advantage of the editor's employer or client into or from an article, talk page, or policy. Many, but not all, types of paid editing are forbidden. For example, paid editing of a talk page is generally acceptable, but undisclosed paid editing of a policy page is forbidden. All paid editors are required to disclose their paid status on both their user page and on the affected article's talk page.
Wikipedia:Paid editing (guideline) is also a "Failed proposal."
Wikipedia:Paid editing simply says "Wikipedia does not currently have an official written policy or guideline on paid editing." That page links to some stuff, such as
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Paid editing What fun? Great comment from Thekohser there, and some really rich comments from some, the usual Wikipedia hostile lunacy. I prefer crazy friends who are nice. I loved this from Greg:
QUOTE
Experience shows that most POV pushers are loners (with some notable exceptions in easily-identifiable topics regarding clashes between ethnic or religious groups). There may be two or three editors supporting a fringe POV, but they have no particular motivation to organize off wiki. By contrast, some large corp would undoubtedly have weekly or even daily meetings regarding their latest promotional campaign, and if one team member reports they are having trouble getting a POV to stick in Wikipedia, the response will be "What can we do about it?", and the answer will be exactly what Novickas said above. The only long-term defense Wikipedia has is the shame for the corporation of being found to be in breach of a policy regarding how paid editing may occur ("no paid editing unless such-and-such conditions apply"). Johnuniq (talk) 00:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm thinking of someone who is quite the expert on group dynamics and ethical social behavior, and he would have had quite an instructive response to anyone who foolishly thinks that "shaming" is an effective social construct upon which to achieve progress and knowledge. But, you all ran him off the project, too. -- Thekohser 02:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
My response to Johnuniq would be, "So, Wikipedia should damage the "sum of all human knowledge" in order to punish someone? What sort of process would make this determination? Of course, no policy was accepted. Did he think Wikipedia would have subpoena power?
The really nutty thing here matches my life experience. I've found it far easier to deal with people who were motivated by money than those who were motivated by "doing good." Landlords who thought they were doing my organization a favor were awful, tendentious, and quick to sue and to refuse to negotiate, landlords who were just out for a buck were much saner. People on nonprofit boards would stab each other in the back and lie and cheat much more easily than seems to be the case in most ordinary business, etc. Something about "doing good" makes people crazy.
I've been reviewing certain situations on Wikipedia and found that editors whom I thought were relatively "reasonable," when I looked carefully, were serious POV pushers who took every opportunity to get anyone banned who disagreed with them. The reasonableness was a pretense. I have someone in mind, and he's not being paid. If he were, I doubt that he'd be what he is.
More power to Greg. Reading that RfC, I got the impression of someone who truly understands ethical business, in a modern environment, where being unethical is, long-term, stupid. No wonder he was banned. Unethical is stupid and it seems that stupid may be unethical.
In the land of the unethical, the ethical are outlaws.
Ah! I get it! If I'm doing good, and you oppose me, you must be Bad. Therefore whatever I do to stop you is Good The ends justify the means. The end is Good, i.e., what I do. Go away, you Bad Person.