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.

[ebc123]

Thanks everyone for the information!

I've done some research on VPNs but how it works exactly is eluding me. Sorry to be dumb but how does it work?

[melloden]

Thanks everyone for the information!

I've done some research on VPNs but how it works exactly is eluding me. Sorry to be dumb but how does it work?

If you are running Window$, see this help page. But I wouldn't bother with that; you're off to a longer block if they find out you're using more than one account undisclosed, which you're essentially admitting here. Figuring out your username and whatnot won't be overly difficult, I presume.

I, for one, am against paid editing, but I'm just wandering in the forest of writing for fun, a forest that is rapidly burning.

[thekohser]

Thanks SB Johnny for the reply and the welcome!

You know, I was the first to welcome you, and I was the first to point you to some helpful information.

You're welcome.

[wikieyeay]

Thanks everyone for the information!

I've done some research on VPNs but how it works exactly is eluding me. Sorry to be dumb but how does it work?

If you are running Window$, see this help page. But I wouldn't bother with that; you're off to a longer block if they find out you're using more than one account undisclosed, which you're essentially admitting here. Figuring out your username and whatnot won't be overly difficult, I presume.

The WP RPG rulez state you can have multiple undisclosed accounts. If you want one for fighting Scientology and another for writing about nuclear physics that's ok. They only get upset when you're using multiple accounts to fight the same battle.

As for the VPN question, your internet traffic is routed via another computer (server) so that it appears that you are connected from there. So for instance if you normally edit from a Florida-based cable internet company, you can use a VPN IP based in London, England, to throw people off the scent. When you disconnect from one VPN and connect to another your IP changes. Obviously you would need to logout of Wikipedia if you are using the same browser - the cleanest approach is going to be separate virtual machines for this, but even using multiple browsers (say Firefox, Internet Explorer and Chrome) will help with this.

I would point out that unless they suspect something, they are not going to bother to check for multiple accounts. Paid editing is actually normally uncontroversial - things like 'Utah's number one print company' is treated as spam and an annoyance to be deleted, whereas if you get involved with controversial issues (Israel, animal rights, etc.), you're far more likely to get busted. So it's probably an unnecessary step, but that depends on how much money, etc., you have at stake.

[ebc123]

My apologies “thekoser.” Thanks for the welcome. Your ebook looks interesting. I think it’s pricey for an ebook, especially since it doesn’t say anywhere how substantial it is (pages/words/etc.) But it looks interesting.

Thanks very much for all the info so far. It’s good to hear both sides and any details from experienced users.

If I could bother folks further (as answers often lead to more questions) I’m wondering:

As far as “wikieyeay’s” quote: “I would point out that unless they suspect something, they are not going to bother to check for multiple accounts.”

1. What (if anything) might cause them to suspect something as a Conflict of Interest if it doesn’t contain promo language or controversial subjects?

2. If they decide one account is in voilation, can they discover your other accounts through IP address, sockpuppets (whatever they are), or something else?

As far as “Multiple accounts are probably an unnecessary step, but that depends on how much money, etc., you have at stake.

I’d like to generate a fair amount of income so of course money/reputation would be a factor. Here is where question 2 above comes into play. It’s one thing to have a problem with one article and another thing to have a problem with 5, 10 or more.

I suppose saying “Paid editing is actually normally uncontroversial...” says a lot. As I mentioned in my first post, I fully intend on complying with Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines. For one thing I hate that hack public relations style writing. I won’t do it and my potential clients will know it up front.

I guess my greatest concern is one of those Dungeons and Dragons type zealots might eventually decide to pull some IRS/Spanish Inquisition investigation out of sheer boredom and the wheels come off. I don’t know how and if this happens. That’s why I’m posting here. I definitely find none of these answers on any other posts. Thanks again for any help!

[thekohser]

My apologies “thekoser.” Thanks for the welcome. Your ebook looks interesting. I think it’s pricey for an ebook, especially since it doesn’t say anywhere how substantial it is (pages/words/etc.) But it looks interesting.

Everything I do is substantial. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

1. What (if anything) might cause them to suspect something as a Conflict of Interest if it doesn’t contain promo language or controversial subjects?

Well-written content about a commercial subject.

2. If they decide one account is in voilation, can they discover your other accounts through IP address, sockpuppets (whatever they are), or something else?

They'll use everything at their disposal. They'll checkuser the account in question, finding out every IP that it's used in the past 90 days. Then they'll back-trace all of the IPs found, to see if any other accounts have used them. Any that rise to even the faintest level of suspicion will also then be checkusered to discover more IPs. And so on. Yet, the Wikipediots will tell you that their site is one of the safest you can visit, because they don't "track" you with cookies or any personally-identifying information. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

As far as “Multiple accounts are probably an unnecessary step, but that depends on how much money, etc., you have at stake.

I’d like to generate a fair amount of income so of course money/reputation would be a factor. Here is where question 2 above comes into play. It’s one thing to have a problem with one article and another thing to have a problem with 5, 10 or more.

My rule of thumb is to never conduct paid editing with one user account for any more than two different clients, and to use different IP addresses for each user account. In other words, you should have a notebook that tracks something like this:

1. User:Applesaucey One - working on Client A - use from coffee shop IP - Firefox
2. User:Bananamashey Two - working on Client B - use from Aunt Sally's IP - MSIE
3. User:Cherrypitter Three - working on Client C - use from Burger King IP - Chrome

If you live in a really rural area with few IP addresses to use and borrow, your efforts (if compromised) could all come tumbling down. You have to be really careful with this stuff, otherwise you can lose important User accounts. (Don't ask me about User:Cool3, okay?)

As I mentioned in my first post, I fully intend on complying with Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines. For one thing I hate that hack public relations style writing. I won’t do it and my potential clients will know it up front.

If you want to run a business with one hand tied behind your back, that's stupid; but you're entitled to try.

I guess my greatest concern is one of those Dungeons and Dragons type zealots might eventually decide to pull some IRS/Spanish Inquisition investigation out of sheer boredom and the wheels come off. I don’t know how and if this happens. That’s why I’m posting here. I definitely find none of these answers on any other posts. Thanks again for any help!

"Wheels coming off" is Wikipedia's middle name, kid.

Now, a question for you... How old are you, and what is the highest level of occupation you have ever ascended to?

[melloden]

Now, a question for you... How old are you, and what is the highest level of occupation you have ever ascended to?

Hahahaha. If you're a kid looking for some extra cash, don't bother. If you're an adult interested in using Wikipedia commercially, you might want to make it less obvious first by emailing Greg and continuing your plans privately because you sure seem to know nothing about Wikipedia's internal operations at all and I'm just waiting for the noob mistakes to happen.

[wikieyeay]

Now, a question for you... How old are you, and what is the highest level of occupation you have ever ascended to?

Hahahaha. If you're a kid looking for some extra cash, don't bother. If you're an adult interested in using Wikipedia commercially, you might want to make it less obvious first by emailing Greg and continuing your plans privately because you sure seem to know nothing about Wikipedia's internal operations at all and I'm just waiting for the noob mistakes to happen.

It's unlikely you'd notice. Even the most obsessive of wikifreaks can't keep track of all the new articles added to the Wikipediafiles each day. Add article, maybe somebody tags it for speedy deletion, dispute, then maybe you get an AfD, fight that, then setup a new account and follow the same procedure for another article. New accounts creaing new articles are nothing usual in wikiland.

And personally, if he is a kid looking for extra cash, well that seems better to me than if he's an adult. Wikipaedia just loves kids, and acting like one is just part of the game. If it goes wrong, that's no sweat, he was only doing it for pocket money.

Much better to do it that way than to assume Wikipedia is a venue for professionalism.

This post has been edited by wikieyeay:

[melloden]

And personally, if he is a kid looking for extra cash, well that seems better to me than if he's an adult. Wikipaedia just loves kids, and acting like one is just part of the game. If it goes wrong, that's no sweat, he was only doing it for pocket money.

Much better to do it that way than to assume Wikipedia is a venue for professionalism.

From my brief experience with children on the site, most users hate kids. Except the really smart kind that don't act like kids. People are more likely to fall for the act and offer to help with a paid editing venture they don't know about if the writer acts like a polite adult and not a myspacer.

[SB_Johnny]

From my brief experience with children on the site, most users hate kids. Except the really smart kind that don't act like kids.

Well, the "opinion leaders" tend to be people who behave like children, so it's perhaps understandable (if you can wear the right shade glasses and screw your eyes real hard) that they would resent actual children playing a part in the game. I suppose they're just "grooming" the next generation of assholes. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

[GlassBeadGame]

And personally, if he is a kid looking for extra cash, well that seems better to me than if he's an adult. Wikipaedia just loves kids, and acting like one is just part of the game. If it goes wrong, that's no sweat, he was only doing it for pocket money.

Much better to do it that way than to assume Wikipedia is a venue for professionalism.

From my brief experience with children on the site, most users hate kids. Except the really smart kind that don't act like kids. People are more likely to fall for the act and offer to help with a paid editing venture they don't know about if the writer acts like a polite adult and not a myspacer.

Being intelligent, especially as it manifests itself on Wikipedia, is unlikely to fool anyone if you are a child posing as an adult. In fact many aspects of personality are harder to mask then you might think.

[thekohser]

I wonder if the Wikipediot community has noticed this webinar yet?

[thekohser]

I wonder if the Wikipediot community has noticed this webinar yet?

One of the more worthless webinars that I've ever received.

[thekohser]

Wait! They reveal some previous client "success stories".

Face2face

Michael H. Evans

Pablo Gimenez-Riili

Let's see what happens. C'mon, David Gerard, where are you?

This post has been edited by thekohser:

[thekohser]

Wait! They reveal some previous client "success stories".

Face2face

Michael H. Evans

Pablo Gimenez-Riili

Let's see what happens. C'mon, David Gerard, where are you?

Let me reiterate. These are known, admitted, and flaunted PAID EDITING articles.

Is everybody okay with that?

Where is Enric Naval? Where is David Gerard? Where is Calton? Where is Guy Chapman?

Is paid editing so tolerated now that I can do a webinar on how to do it and give away my clients?

[Milton Roe]

Wait! They reveal some previous client "success stories".

Face2face

Michael H. Evans

Pablo Gimenez-Riili

Let's see what happens. C'mon, David Gerard, where are you?

Let me reiterate. These are known, admitted, and flaunted PAID EDITING articles.

Is everybody okay with that?

Where is Enric Naval? Where is David Gerard? Where is Calton? Where is Guy Chapman?

Is paid editing so tolerated now that I can do a webinar on how to do it and give away my clients?

All created by Niewenhuis (T-C-L-K-R-D) = Sharon Niewenhuis (as she reveals on her TALK page, no secret). These articles along with such notable Wikis as Vines of Mendoza, created by the bio'd people above.

Her TALK page makes interesting reading. Many of these articles were first rejected, and some still are tagged as "reading like advertisments" (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) The very idea! How rude.

If the Webinar counts as a "reliable source" you should use it to add info to the BLP of Mr. Evans, that he paid a person to write up and upload Wikis on himself and his business. Why not? It's true and is public knowledge, is it not? And as notable as most of the rest of this stuff.

[tarantino]

SqueakBox is mentioned yet again at AN/I for paid editing, and despite credible allegations of him lying about it, his account remains free to edit.

[thekohser]

SqueakBox is noted as one of the top "wipers" of Jimbo's talk page.

Thus, I am sure the True Believers are having a tough time with handing out justice on this one. One of their very own Jimbo Juice Drinkers is getting paid for content development on Wikipedia, then lying about it.

I don't know what they're so upset about -- Jimbo does the same damn thing.

[Kelly Martin]

The secret to doing paid editing on Wikipedia is to first ingratiate yourself with the Cabal. Only once you have done that should you initiate your paid editing activities. Because you are a "trusted Wikipedian" at that point, everyone will gladly accept your assertions that, of course, there is no conflict of interest. Your social connections within the Cabal will protect you from the generalized assumption of bad faith that all other editors are normally subjected to. Many editors, in fact, will treat your income stream as the just rewards for being a loyal Wikipedian and will actively defend you against those who suggest that it's inappropriate for you to be editing for pay.

Of course, the wheels will come off if and when you edit an article of interest to a significant power bloc. Cabal protection only covers you if you only edit articles that are of no interest to the Cabal. Tread carefully, as the articles and topics that are subject to Special Cabal Protection change frequently and without much notice. You'll have to spend a lot of time in minute political maneuvers to keep up with this and to maintain your CabalCred; it's likely that this'll make it hard for your business to be particularly profitable as a result.

[Infomercial]

The secret to doing paid editing on Wikipedia is to first ingratiate yourself with the Cabal. Only once you have done that should you initiate your paid editing activities. Because you are a "trusted Wikipedian" at that point, everyone will gladly accept your assertions that, of course, there is no conflict of interest. Your social connections within the Cabal will protect you from the generalized assumption of bad faith that all other editors are normally subjected to. Many editors, in fact, will treat your income stream as the just rewards for being a loyal Wikipedian and will actively defend you against those who suggest that it's inappropriate for you to be editing for pay.

Of course, the wheels will come off if and when you edit an article of interest to a significant power bloc. Cabal protection only covers you if you only edit articles that are of no interest to the Cabal. Tread carefully, as the articles and topics that are subject to Special Cabal Protection change frequently and without much notice. You'll have to spend a lot of time in minute political maneuvers to keep up with this and to maintain your CabalCred; it's likely that this'll make it hard for your business to be particularly profitable as a result.

We can neither confirm nor deny the existence of a cabal.

I really don't like the idea of paid editing. Users like me contribute heavily to WP with no compensation while these con men get paid to do the exact same thing. There are a variety of procedures if you want an article about yourself or your businesses, and if you're just patient, it'll be good in due time (as long as the notability requirement is met, of course (otherwise, you can suck it (or go to Wikipedia Review (we won't complain either way)))). Keep your dirty green presidents away from our site!

That's all I wanted to say. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/oldtimer.gif)