Paid editing, opinions on paid editing Options

[ebc123]

To state my opinion up front, what does it matter if you are paid to write about a person or organization or whatever and you follow the conflict of interest, neutral point-of-view, etc. guidelines, include most if not all the necessary references and basically produce an average to above average encyclopedic page?

For one thing there are many notable people out there who likely will never have a page written about them unless someone else takes the initiative to contact them or if they decide to contact someone to do it for them. I mean, it's nice and all to donate your time but unfortunately in this world the bills arrive every month. Again if you're able to be up front with a client and spell out the Wiki ground rules and from there produce a quality piece, what does it matter that you were paid?

For another thing it stands to reason that many if not most pages on Wikipedia are originally created and subsequently edited by people who have some abiding (some may say "slanted") interest in the topic. Why else bother with the effort?

So there's that. I'm wondering as far as paid editing what other people have to say. In addition to the above comments namely:

1. If you submit to Wikipedia's encouragement to divulge your paid arrangement, are you forever and automatically tagged with a "conflict of interest" heading?

2. If you divulge your paid status, are you now basically chum for other editors to tear your piece apart no matter how well it conforms to style and substance?

Thank you for any thoughts on this.

[thekohser]

Welcome, new member.

You'll want to read this, I think.

[melloden]

Welcome, new member.

You'll want to read this, I think.

Never letting up a chance to spam your company, eh, Greg? Maybe we should have "paid WR posting" too. Like when Jimbo wants to say something here but is too afraid, so he hires a random noob to do it.

[Cla68]

I support paid editing of Wikipedia. As Greg has pointed out, a paid editor will usually obey WP's rules because they want their edits to stick around and not be messed with.

[Somey]

Never letting up a chance to spam your company, eh, Greg? Maybe we should have "paid WR posting" too.

Will you give me a dollar for every time Greg refers to you as "Mike" from now on?

[Alison]

Will you give me a dollar for every time Greg refers to you as "Mike" from now on?

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

[thekohser]

Welcome, new member.

You'll want to read this, I think.

Never letting up a chance to spam your company, eh, Greg? Maybe we should have "paid WR posting" too. Like when Jimbo wants to say something here but is too afraid, so he hires a random noob to do it.

I see you joined WR only hours before ebc123, yet you already are fluent in the "Greg advertising his company" meme.

...Mike...

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Welcome, new member.

You'll want to read this, I think.

Never letting up a chance to spam your company, eh, Greg? Maybe we should have "paid WR posting" too.

Or maybe plugs for Wipipedia. No, not that kind of plugs.

[Text]

...Mike...

(IMG:http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn206/Snapperz48/normal_runcorn.jpg)

[ebc123]

I suppose it's to be expected on occasion that a person is used as a pawn in previously-standing bad blood between other posters. Whatever. But in this case at least is it too much to ask for people to offer some information, especially answers my two questions, before or after they rip the other guy? I would really appreciate it. Thank you.

[SB_Johnny]

I suppose it's to be expected on occasion that a person is used as a pawn in previously-standing bad blood between other posters. Whatever. But in this case at least is it too much to ask for people to offer some information, especially answers my two questions, before or after they rip the other guy? I would really appreciate it. Thank you.

You'll find that the vast majority here don't see anything wrong with paid editors, or with people being paid to write in general. The lack of direct response is mostly because we've been over it over and over (and because there isn't really anyone taking the other side to have a drag out flame war about, which means not enough lulz).

Welcome to WR. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

[ebc123]

Thanks SB Johnny for the reply and the welcome!

Actually I've gone through the forums quite a bit both manually and though search topics "paid editing" "conflict of interest" and didn't find all that much.

I still have these three questions that I'd be very appreciative if someone could supply answers to.

1. Do you recommend divulging a paid arrangement as per Wikipedia's suggested guideline?

2. If you do submit to Wikipedia's encouragement to divulge, are you automatically tagged with a "conflict of interest" or similar heading?

3. If you divulge your paid status, are you basically chum for other editors to tear your piece apart no matter how well it conforms to style and substance?

Thanks again!

[Basil]

Do not divulge a paid arrangement.
Write articles. Take money. Keep mouth shut.
Good luck.

[EricBarbour]

Do not divulge a paid arrangement.
Write articles. Take money. Keep mouth shut.
Good luck.

Yep. Do not go around bragging about it.

[Somey]

I still have these three questions that I'd be very appreciative if someone could supply answers to.

As indicated above, the answers are still "no," "yes" and "yes," but that may be changing over time as younger, more realistic WP'ers start to actually consider the problem.

In other words, past reactions to "paid editing" were based on the "information must be free!" meme popular with freikultur social libertarians, which of course is a crock, especially if applied as broadly as the WP'ers in question have wanted to apply it. These folks also have short attention spans, and don't really consider potentially positive rationales for businesses being paid to write WP content within the limitations of WP's own business model. Many of those rationales are not only legitimate, they're actually beneficial to the WP cause, and that's what many of them failed to understand.

On another level, you also have to bear in mind that WP'ers, who generally lack critical thinking ability and are unable to see moral/ethical grey areas, tend to take an all-or-nothing approach to anything that might seem new or unorthodox. If someone can come up with a single realistic example of someone abusing the system in a way they deem harmful (as opposed to their own abuse of others, which is "different"), then this often negates any positive examples brought up in the course of discussion. In fact, many WP'ers are actually extremely conservative, if not reactionary, in their approach to site administration - this is why we sometimes refer to them as "hard-liners" or even "cultists."

[SB_Johnny]

Thanks SB Johnny for the reply and the welcome!

Actually I've gone through the forums quite a bit both manually and though search topics "paid editing" "conflict of interest" and didn't find all that much.

I still have these three questions that I'd be very appreciative if someone could supply answers to.

1. Do you recommend divulging a paid arrangement as per Wikipedia's suggested guideline?

2. If you do submit to Wikipedia's encouragement to divulge, are you automatically tagged with a "conflict of interest" or similar heading?

3. If you divulge your paid status, are you basically chum for other editors to tear your piece apart no matter how well it conforms to style and substance?

Thanks again!

YW

1. I would, but then that's just me.

2. Yup

3. Actually, the real problem is that there are probably one or two mentally disturbed wikipedians right now just waiting to try to connect your divulging with this WR thread, because WR is evil and anyone who asks questions here is evil. Any well-meaning advice you receive here will be held against you in the Court of Wikidrama.

Seriously though: if you're asking because you're not the kind of person who likes to deceive, then yes, of course, you should just talk straight. As long as you follow the other rulez, they'll bitch but they'll have no teeth.

[SB_Johnny]

...

All it takes is one fella doing it the right way and in the open to screw the Old Guard.

Not that I'm saying this fella is the one to do it (or that he's not the fella to do it).

and I still think you've set the "merge to last post" clock waaaaaay to short.

[ebc123]

Thanks for the information!

As far as "Actually, the real problem is that there are probably one or two mentally disturbed wikipedians right now just waiting to try to connect your divulging with this WR thread, because WR is evil and anyone who asks questions here is evil."

How is someone possibly connecting my divulging here?

How does someone determine on Wikipedia if you are getting paid?

[wikieyeay]

Thanks for the information!

As far as "Actually, the real problem is that there are probably one or two mentally disturbed wikipedians right now just waiting to try to connect your divulging with this WR thread, because WR is evil and anyone who asks questions here is evil."

How is someone possibly connecting my divulging here?

How does someone determine on Wikipedia if you are getting paid?

Speculation and finger pointing, the Wikipedia stock-in-trade.

On which subject:
Stock in Trade (T-H-L-K-D)

Not hard at all.

Register a new account, and get editing.

Just don't make the mistake of including your company/product name in your wikipedia username, because although obviously that would be more transparent and accountable, in whacky wikiland it will earn you an instant permaban and your article will probably be deleted as well... Best to call yourself something portentous but meaningless, that way you'll be able to get away with indefinitely.

Obviously don't do all your paid editing from the same username, that risks the whole house of cards if you get 'busted' for one. Much better to have them separate.

If you do get seriously 'busted' they might break out the leet wikispy tools, which they laughably think can track down 'sockpuppets'. They can't, but they can track other users from the same IP.

It might be worth getting some VPN accounts (about $5/month) if you want to keep things strictly 'clean'.

[melloden]

I see you joined WR only hours before ebc123, yet you already are fluent in the "Greg advertising his company" meme.

...Mike...

I know the trends. Mike is a boring name, at any rate.