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]

Jimbo has kicked it up a notch.

The battle over whether or not to allow paid editing on Wikipedia, two-and-a-half years after I made it famous, is now being fought tooth and nail. Jimmy Wales kicked it up a notch, declaring "policy" where he (probably) no longer holds the reputation capital to pull it off. The current box score:

Paid editing - 52
Jimmy Wales - 22.

In American football, that's a blowout, folks.

What I'm wondering -- where the heck are JzG, Calton, and Sam Blanning? We need those guys to get the fire REALLY HOT.

As for Jimbo's comment... I enjoy how in paragraph two he says, "I think the opening statement on this page is a red herring." Then in paragraph three he says, "Are we free and independent scribes doing our best to record all human knowledge? Or are we paid shills. I know what I choose."

Also, "Just imagine the disaster for our reputation."

Spoken like someone who knows intimately about disasters and reputations.

This post has been edited by thekohser:

[TungstenCarbide]

As for Jimbo's comment... I enjoy how in paragraph two he says, "I think the opening statement on this page is a red herring." Then in paragraph three he says, "Are we free and independent scribes doing our best to record all human knowledge? Or are we paid shills. I know what I choose."

Oh . My . God.

Jimbo's been suckleling at the teat for years now; from speaking fees to Russian massage parlors to Wikia to pussy.

"we"

This is the first I've heard of Jimbo being a humble scribe.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Interesting ... the third person to become involved in this debate is the David 'Shankbone' Miller himself who we recently discussed receiving big hand outs, and multiple opportunities of professional advancement, care of the Israeli government.

Sadly, there are none of his pictures of pissing Zionist goats or engorged genitalia in this topic though. All the same, I am pretty sure that you could find perverts who would pay to have pictures of their genitals on a top ranking website like the Wikipedia.

Could I just flag up a little inequality and imbalance here, what he and they are, basically, say is

"we get paid to write, shoot sponsored photos, stretch the limits of what are 'facts' or what is 'PR' or not, use the Wikipedia for our own personal advancement ... the lowly serfs then have to pay with their time to police us for free and the unpaid janitors (admins) waste their time over the disputes that will arise".

Time is also money. Likewise, could someone also widen the discussion that not all "paid for" editing and POV creation is "paid for" per se ... palm greasing comes in many subtle forms as above; sponsorship, back scratching, blow jobs etc.

Users who endorse this summary:

rootology ©(T) 19:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
>David Shankbone 19:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by David Shankbone

I have always supported paid editing if you can get that work. Unfortunately, in the past the person/people most associated with paid editing are unpleasant and disliked; thus, the issue has been paired with them.

It's time to review the idea outside of the past, and ask why our other policies and guidelines will not take care of perceived WP:COI issues. They would. Paid editing happens; only diligent review of material for NPOV, V and OR will circumvent problems with any of our material, paid or unpaid. -->David Shankbone 19:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

And surely spoken like a true whore ...

At the end of the day, our core policies are our core policies, and collusion--for whatever motivation--to circumvent our core policies is cause for sanctions. I think Root's main point with this RFC is that ...

money is no more odious an incentive than fandom, love, identification or ideology ... for writing about a subject.

-->David Shankbone 20:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:

[Milton Roe]

And surely spoken like a true whore ...

At the end of the day, our core policies are our core policies, and collusion--for whatever motivation--to circumvent our core policies is cause for sanctions. I think Root's main point with this RFC is that ...

money is no more odious an incentive than fandom, love, identification or ideology ... for writing about a subject.

-->David Shankbone 20:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Time for the Devil's Advocate bit. While I'm no fan of Shankbone or his work, I do happen to agree with his specific sentiment, above. Moreover, I see nothing wrong with "whores" (though it's a rather loaded word). Whores of various sorts can be (though are not always) refreshingly honest. There are far worse things than honest whores, and one of them is dishonest whores. Let COIs be declared and caveat emptor (or lector).

Furthermore, if somebody like Shankbone says that time is money, that doesn't mean it's not true.

(IMG:http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll191/Shrlocc/einstein.gif)

[Somey]

Time for the Devil's Advocate bit. While I'm no fan of Shankbone or his work, I do happen to agree with his specific sentiment...

But it's still self-serving, because of the classic Wikipedian conflation tactic. In fact, money really is a more odious incentive than love (I'm sure Greg would tell you the same thing), and probably more odious than fandom, though that depends on what the person is a fan of. It's significantly less odious than ideology, though that depends on where you're sitting ideologically. As for "identification," by that he presumably means that people who are "in the closet" in terms of sexual orientation should be forced out of the closet by people like Shankers himself, or at least that's what Shankers' past actions would tend to suggest. And money is far less odious an incentive than that, at least in my opinion.

Furthermore, if somebody like Shankbone says that time is money, that doesn't mean it's not true.

It's a "humanocentric" statement, though, which depends on an individual's time being such that a dollar amount can be assigned to it. This is essentially what Jimbo is afraid of, and indeed what he should be afraid of. If unpaid editors start having to work with editors who are being paid, they're going to start thinking that maybe voluntarism isn't all it's cracked up to be. In reality it has nothing to do with the integrity of the paid editors; rather it has everything to do with the simmering resentment of the unpaid ones, and the attrition that will probably result.

Remember, they could have allowed this years ago, and think of all the money they all could have made in the meantime. I'm thinking maybe hundreds of dollars! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

[thekohser]

Remember, they could have allowed this years ago, and think of all the money they all could have made in the meantime. I'm thinking maybe hundreds of dollars! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

Well, it's probably more like a couple thousand dollars... but, who's arguing?

As for the mind-set of a true, underground Wikipedia paid editor... let me give you the insight in my mind.

When I am under contract with a person or corporation to write an article about said person or corporation, I have very, very, very little interest in presenting an "advocacy" position on behalf of that entity. Rather, success is measured in durability within Wikipedia, so my highest priority is...

...wait for it... ...because this is important... ...many, many hours of learning have gone into this outcome, so you'd better appreciate it...

How do I write (and publish) this article in such a way that it passes WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, and all the other WP:things, while simultaneously NOT DRAWING THE ATTENTION OF THE HIVE?

Guess what? The articles that result are pretty bland, not puff pieces, quite encyclopedic, and (ever since I learned this technique) 100% durable within Wikipedia -- with surprisingly little follow-up maintenance, and likewise lasting appreciation of my clients.

That's why Jimmy Wales is such a one-dimensionally thinking man, that he feels the need to frame my work as "paid shill" and the like. In order to rally his equally one-dimensional followers, he has to demonize the paid editing effort, because it is potentially, in fact, so non-sinister in its undetectability. My paid content is virtually indistinguishable from the other crap on Wikipedia, except for the fact that, perhaps, it is of a higher encyclopedic and "neutral" quality.

So, thanks to Rootology, we've got our drama-of-the-week on Wikipedia, and I'm free to go back to paid editing that is undetectable and indistinguishable within the world's most irresponsible encyclopedia.

[Somey]

How do I write (and publish) this article in such a way that it passes WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, and all the other WP:things, while simultaneously NOT DRAWING THE ATTENTION OF THE HIVE?

Guess what? The articles that result are pretty bland, not puff pieces, quite encyclopedic, and (ever since I learned this technique) 100% durable within Wikipedia -- with surprisingly little follow-up maintenance, and likewise lasting appreciation of my clients.

Well, I would have pointed that out too, but I didn't want to give away any trade secrets! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

But yes, I believe you're absolutely right - a "paid editor" is going to have a huge incentive to produce highly-finished articles on practically the initial (new-page) edit (so as to avoid attention from RC patrollers), keep his/her head down in general, and not get into serious arguments with anyone over anything, if at all possible. Whereas someone who's known to be getting paid who is also argumentative and "tendentious" probably isn't going to be getting paid for long, and should probably look for a new line of work.

[Cla68]

How do I write (and publish) this article in such a way that it passes WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, and all the other WP:things, while simultaneously NOT DRAWING THE ATTENTION OF THE HIVE?

Guess what? The articles that result are pretty bland, not puff pieces, quite encyclopedic, and (ever since I learned this technique) 100% durable within Wikipedia -- with surprisingly little follow-up maintenance, and likewise lasting appreciation of my clients.

Well, I would have pointed that out too, but I didn't want to give away any trade secrets! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

But yes, I believe you're absolutely right - a "paid editor" is going to have a huge incentive to produce highly-finished articles on practically the initial (new-page) edit (so as to avoid attention from RC patrollers), keep his/her head down in general, and not get into serious arguments with anyone over anything, if at all possible. Whereas someone who's known to be getting paid who is also argumentative and "tendentious" probably isn't going to be getting paid for long, and should probably look for a new line of work.

This is my point exactly. Openly POV-pushing advocates of a certain position, person, or organization, like Jayjg or Jossi, eventually get noticed, dealt with, and their articles receive a lot of negative attention and scrutiny. That's why it would be best for a paid editor to make sure that the article follows Wikipedia's rules to the "T".

I suspect that Shankbone supports paid editing because he wants to actually be paid for doing it. Well, that goes for me too. As long as he or anyone else follows the rules, I don't care. This comment on the subject is a good one.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[EricBarbour]

I suspect that Shankbone supports paid editing because he wants to actually be paid for doing it. Well, that goes for me too. As long as he or anyone else follows the rules, I don't care. This comment on the subject is a good one.

Good luck herding those cats. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

I suspect that Shankbone supports paid editing because he wants to actually be paid for doing it.

Excuse me if I appear to beating my drum (rather than anything else to hand) ... but this link is exactly what I would define as "under the table" and on one's knees ...
Until WP:JIMBO is repealed, WP:JIMBO stands. -->David Shankbone 17:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC).

To be fair, you made a relatively strong WP:JIMBO statement when you said,

"I will personally block any cases that I am shown. There are of course some possibly interesting alternatives, not particularly relevant here, but the idea that we should ever accept paid advocates directly editing Wikipedia is not every going to be ok. Consider this to be policy as of right now."

-->David Shankbone 16:45, 10 June 2009(UTC)

Now what makes it more interesting is that, surely, he must know through NYB and the official (New York Wikipedia Foundation and others about the Israeli government sponsorships of David 'Shankbone' Miller, and all those juicy shmoosing opportunities with Rushdie, Auster, Amos, Sharon et al ... even if the fruit it bore was only Zionist goat piss pictures and a few badly photographed gay clubs.

I don't see Jimbo handing out blocks over that ... surely that is "pay for point of view" (PPOV). Or is this an example of the "interesting alternatives, not particularly relevant here" ... because, perhaps, they also bore fruit for the Foundation, e.g. the conference in Israel?

I dont know ... but it makes me wonder, as in "we will turn a blind eye and let you get away with it, because there was a buck in it and more for us coming our ways"?

I think paid editing for a chosen *undisclosed* few ... never mind the sort of POV that Shanker came up with over that Palestinian kids playing with guns ... is bound to cause rot unless is transparent and clearly account for. But "for a chosen few" is what obvious stands at present.

At the very least, surely they ought to have a note on their edits saying, "Wiki-whore for rent" or "Sponsored by ..." or something?

(IMG:http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3376/3619507648_365aafc457_o.jpg)

Its not that I am saying that prostitution is wrong ... I just would not want by kids playing in the same street as they work.

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

FayssalF (T-C-L-K-R-D) leads the 'charge' (ho ... ho ... ho ...) with a page for Wikipedia:Contract_Editing_Review.

Still no apparent discussion about heavy weight financial sponsorship deals and offers of professional advancement ... such as the Israel government's splashing about its PR budget on "leading Wikipedian" David 'Shankbone' Miller in the hope of a Wikipedia-sized money shot all over the face of Google.

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy: