Paid editing, finally gets a full discussion Options

[milowent]

[quote name='thekohser' date='Wed 31st August 2011, 2:23pm' post='283911']
[quote] Also, your imaginary story about why Google outperformed Yahoo! is also amusing.
[/quote]

yeah, he wants to think this was important but that's just silly. i vaguely remember yahoo deciding to charge for submissions, but what drove people to google was that its product was so much better than altavista, etc. in finding what you wanted. yahoo's directory was already crap by 1996.

i guess jimbo's calculation is that it is better to ignore evidence of paid editing, because him saying there is "virtually no evidence of it" is all 99& of reporters need.

[thekohser]

Jimbo happens to mention the New York Times' own Wikipedia-suck-up, Noam Cohen here.

The thing is, when Noam Cohen publishes something in the New York Times, that's it. It's not open to "community" revision the way a Wikipedia article is.

So, when Jimbo is ranting about how awful it would be if paid editors started manipulating the content on Wikipedia on behalf of a specific client, he fails to remember that other paid editors (perhaps for the labor union fighting that client, or a non-profit cause that works against the client's track record) are also at liberty to go and "undo" all of the first paid editor's work.

He just doesn't grasp that Wikipedia is awful, regardless of his stance on paid editing, because whether you "ban" it or not, it's always going to be there. He is so dumb.

[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.)

[thekohser]

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.)

Eric, I will actually do that (or some reasonable facsimile, such as checking every 5th sentence of each article, as that would be less time-consuming), if someone will have the courage to ask something of Jimbo on his talk page in the next 24 hours...

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.

So, the simple question is...

"Jimbo, what is Wikipedia's stance on advocacy editing of the wholly unpaid and uncompensated variety? If advocacy editing of any variety is not tolerated on Wikipedia, then this notion of 'paid' advocacy being wrong is rather redundant."

Once that question's been posted to Jimbo from an established, long-term WP editor account in good standing, I'll get started on the business article analysis. My work will take many hours to complete. Posting the question to Jimbo would take about 3 minutes.

[EricBarbour]

Eric, I will actually do that (or some reasonable facsimile, such as checking every 5th sentence of each article, as that would be less time-consuming), if someone will have the courage to ask something of Jimbo on his talk page in the next 24 hours...
"Jimbo, what is Wikipedia's stance on advocacy editing of the wholly unpaid and uncompensated variety? If advocacy editing of any variety is not tolerated on Wikipedia, then this notion of 'paid' advocacy being wrong is rather redundant."

I'd post that from my old account, but they will probably revert it and ban me, since I'm a "critic" and a "troublemaker". How to proceed. Hm.

[Kelly Martin]

Advocacy editing is essential to Wikipedia's ongoing survival, so I don't imagine you'll see Jimbo come out against it. Jimbo's policy is, of course, stupid and incoherent, but there's barely any point in observing that because the Wikifaithful will simply ignore anyone who says that. It's simply not permitted to notice that the emperor is naked.

[Floydsvoid]

"Jimbo, what is Wikipedia's stance on advocacy editing of the wholly unpaid and uncompensated variety? If advocacy editing of any variety is not tolerated on Wikipedia, then this notion of 'paid' advocacy being wrong is rather redundant."

Greg's problem seems to be one that we Fed contractors have to put up with There you go talking logically again.

I particularly like Greg's explanation on Slashdot a couple of years ago

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...

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 someone from the WikiHive intent on deleting paid promotional puff pieces?

Guess what? The articles that result are relatively 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.

Sounds like a clear case of Don't Ask, Don't Tell

[Detective]

It's simply not permitted to notice that the emperor is naked.

Is it OK if you're Rachel Marsden?

[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.