Paid editing, finally gets a full discussion Options

[thekohser]

Starting a new thread, since this is likely to become an interesting spot:

Requests for comment: Paid editing

...has been opened by Rootology.

I wonder if Wikipedia will invite one of the foremost authorities on paid editing of GFDL content, and its detection?

They claim that they aren't opposed to expert participation in Wikipedia. I'm making myself available. I'd only need a temporary unblock, restricted to this topic only. The offer stands.

[thekohser]

ArbCom twit, Coren, also shows his profound lack of clue:

Dr, anyone who claims to be paid to edit neutrally is either lying, or will not be in business for very long. Even granting the incredibly ridiculous hypothesis that an entity would pay someone to write something possibly unflattering about them without pressure to "make things right" or that the fictional writer was perfectly ethical and was – unlike human beings – perfectly objective towards a customer and had no care for repeat business, the readers would smell a rat and would no longer trust anything that writer produced. — Coren (talk) 18:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Most of my customers ask for exactly this -- an encyclopedia article that is appropriate for Wikipedia, faults and all.

What is it with Coren and Jimbo and other Wikipediots who think that every notable person, company, organization, or activity has this horrifying laundry list of "unflattering" skeletons in the closet, just waiting to be "outed" on Wikipedia?

Oh, wait. Never mind.

[EricBarbour]

What is it with Coren and Jimbo and other Wikipediots who think that every notable person, company, organization, or activity has this horrifying laundry list of "unflattering" skeletons in the closet, just waiting to be "outed" on Wikipedia?

Well, you know what to do.

Take 100 WP articles about companies, using the RANDOM button.
Read them, and tote up the sentences that appear to be "neutral", the
ones that appear to be company-generated puffery, and the sentences
that appear to be hostile or defamatory.
Make a pretty color pie chart of the percentages and show it to us.

(It will take a while. Because the percentage of company profiles in
Wikipedia's database is only 1%. There's far more about cartoons
than about the business world. Sorry.)

[iii]

It appears to me that the big hub-bub about this centers on the word "advocacy". Even Jimbo seems to be saying it's okay to receive compensation or academic credit if your mission is to edit Wikipedia in a neutral way about subjects that do not inherently benefit those doing the compensating. But, it does suddenly become a problem if the editing takes the form of advocacy.

Paid editing is a problem for Wikipedia because the concept offends the emotional self-justification of the loyal unwashed (literally) peons who slave away in their parents' basements writing in the obscure Sanskrit of Wiki-markup furiously, without pause, and without compensation. The idea that editing Wikipedia could result in getting any sort of benefit to one's life and livelihood independent of the Wikipedia circle-jerk threatens the very premise of the website. To become an "anyone" that "can edit", it is required that one join the cult completely and without reservation instead of having any of the more normal vetting processes (based on education, intelligence, maturity, and professionalism) that exist in more sanely-constructed institutions dedicated to promulgating knowledge. Additionally, those sanely-constructed institutions have all adopted compensatory schemes and quality-controls well beyond whatever slapdash communitarian and administrative blundering passes for such in the labyrinthine metapages of Wikipedia "discussions". To even admit that people are being legitimately compensated to edit Wikipedia threatens Wikipedia itself.

Wikis as technology work when they are used by an already-established community. When they are used by just "anyone" on the internet, you end up inventing the "Wikipedia community" along with the hellscape that characterizes it.

[Detective]

Paid editing is a problem for Wikipedia because the concept offends the emotional self-justification of the loyal unwashed (literally) peons who slave away in their parents' basements writing in the obscure Sanskrit of Wiki-markup furiously, without pause, and without compensation. The idea that editing Wikipedia could result in getting any sort of benefit to one's life and livelihood independent of the Wikipedia circle-jerk threatens the very premise of the website. To become an "anyone" that "can edit", it is required that one join the cult completely and without reservation instead of having any of the more normal vetting processes (based on education, intelligence, maturity, and professionalism) that exist in more sanely-constructed institutions dedicated to promulgating knowledge. Additionally, those sanely-constructed institutions have all adopted compensatory schemes and quality-controls well beyond whatever slapdash communitarian and administrative blundering passes for such in the labyrinthine metapages of Wikipedia "discussions". To even admit that people are being legitimately compensated to edit Wikipedia threatens Wikipedia itself.

There is much truth in this, but maybe it goes a little too far. There are precedents for substantial volunteer, unpaid and unsolicited contributions to serious works of reference. The first edition of the Oxford English Dictionary was mostly produced by members of the public. One of the major contributors, W. C. Minor, was in a lunatic asylum for murder. Even worse, itturned out that he was an American! When the Concise Oxford Dictionary was published, the editors received a stream of unsolicited comments that led to major improvements in later editions.

Of course, in both cases the contributions were filtered through the editors, not added instantaneously to an online file. Still, if you had proper revision procedures on WP (a huge if) and good people to implement them (an even vaster if), you could use volunteer, unpaid and unsolicited contributions effectively.

[iii]

Of course, in both cases the contributions were filtered through the editors, not added instantaneously to an online file. Still, if you had proper revision procedures on WP (a huge if) and good people to implement them (an even vaster if), you could use volunteer, unpaid and unsolicited contributions effectively.

The way to allow for the unwashed to give contributions to a serious reference work is to wash their contributions. How many submissions to the Oxford English Dictionary were simply tossed aside because they were not worth including? The ex post facto "review" processes that are in various states of existing on Wikipedia are simply unable to handle the sheer amount of refuse that ends up on that website. And the false senses of entitlement and stewardship stoking the egos of the exploited laborers grow and grow. And the world turns.

Don't hold your breath for Wikipedia to hire an editorial board or get content experts on retainer.