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.

[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.

[ebc123]

>> 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. <<<
-- oldtimer


Considering the many rather well-documented "old-school" Wikipedia editor shenanigans described in this thread, the above post comes off to me as the proverbial stone thrown in a decidedly glass house. The "our site" stuff doesn't help much either.

I also find it hypocritical that on the one hand it's not difficult to find flimsy, obviously self-serving articles on Wikipedia that have been around for months and even years without so much as a "needs reference" flag; however, there are editors who ostensibly are just burning to toss any well-researched, properly-referenced and acceptably neutral-voiced baby out with the bath water because their detective work has determined said article was allegedly paid for. (In case you're confused oldtimer, unless someone comes out and admits paying for or being paid to write the article, the fruits of your snooping and consequent violation assertion is "alleged.") Stick to creating articles and making edits. You're needed.

It appears the majority here believe Wikipedia foremost should be a place where people can go for quality encyclopedic information. At least represent a decent starting point. Yet go to any interest group and you'll find many worthy subjects desiring an article. Surely there are a lot more that aren't listed. The notion then that a subject notable by definition should be happy to sit around and be patient while someone else MAYBE one day decides to get around to it--while someone NOW is willing to write a quality paid version--goes straight to that nose-in-the-air "our site" editorial mentality many posters here have described.

By the way, as far as my "newbie" status: true on the topic of paid editing. But I've been using and for the most part defending Wikipedia practically since it started. I've relied on it hundreds, maybe a thousand times or more as a research tool for personal and business purposes, and I wouldn't be surprised that a fair percentage of those hits landed on extremely helpful articles that were paid for. Wouldn't be surprised at all.

Finally, (I really am done but we'll see about oldtimers assertion) what these holier-than-thou editors fail to realize is that while they describe Wikipedia as a resource "for the people," they apparently give these very same people little or no credit for being able distinguish between the good, the bad and the ugly. Our site? Hardly. The "old-timers" are the gatekeepers by Zeus! Dungeons and Dragons would be nothing without them.

[thekohser]

The notion then that a subject notable by definition should be happy to sit around and be patient while someone else MAYBE one day decides to get around to it--while someone NOW is willing to write a quality paid version--goes straight to that nose-in-the-air "our site" editorial mentality many posters here have described.

It's a point of fact that I got the idea for Wikipedia Review (the paid editing service) when I looked for a Wikipedia article about Resorts Atlantic City, the first casino hotel in Atlantic City, founded by the famed Merv Griffin, and there was nothing to be found. Then, to my dismay, only about 4 or 5 of the city's 12 or so casino hotels had articles.

I started to investigate, and I found that about 130 of the Fortune 500 companies (at the time, around May 2006) lacked Wikipedia articles.

Here's where that "we'll get around to it eventually" attitude gets you, currently in 2011, after almost 10 years of opportunity to work on a Fortune 500 company's article:

Core-Mark

Look at that documentation, the wiki-linking, the reliable sources for all of that content! It's glorious, isn't it? And you know you can trust the information, because 95% of it was added by this dedicated Wikipedian. Before he came along, the article looked like this:

Core-Mark Holding Company (NASDAQ: CORE), (formerly Fleming Cos.), is a supplier of consumer package goods to retailers in the United States.
Contents
[hide]

* 1 History
o 1.1 Fleming Companies
o 1.2 Bankruptcy
o 1.3 Post Bankruptcy
* 2 References
* 3 External links

History
Fleming Companies

Fleming Cos was founded as Lux Mercantile in Topeka, Kansas in 1915 by O.A. Fleming, Gene Wilson and Samuel Lux. In 1941, the company name was changed to The Fleming Company, and Ned Fleming was named President, Chairman, and CEO. The company's IPO occurred in 1959, when 100,000 shares were offered. In 1981, R.D. Harrsion was elected Chairman and CEO of the company, with Dean Werries serving as President and COO. Fleming Cos grew to become the nation's largest supplier of consumer package goods to U.S. retailers, serving approximately 50,000 retail locations. These locations included supermarkets such as IGA,[1] convenience stores, supercenters, discount stores, concessions, limited assortment, drug, specialty, casinos, gift shops, military commissaries and exchanges and others. The company later moved its headquarters to Oklahoma City, Oklahoma in 1984 and then to Lewisville, Texas in 2000 before it went into bankruptcy.
Bankruptcy

Fleming Companies announced on April 2003 that it had filed for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The company's fortunes had suffered considerably over the previous two years as the result of an investigation by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission into questionable business and accounting practices. Fleming had also faced a class-action lawsuit from its shareholders over the validity of its public statements, ended its relationship with its largest customer, Kmart, and saw its stock price drop to less than one dollar per share. [2] Peter S. Willmott, a member of the company's board of directors, was appointed to lead Fleming through reorganization.

The plan Willmott adopted provided for the reorganization of Fleming's debtors around Core-Mark, a wholesale distribution company founded in 1888 and acquired by Fleming in June 2002. Fleming's other assets and liabilities were transferred to two special-purpose trusts, to be liquidated. All outstanding common stock in Fleming was canceled.[3]
Post Bankruptcy

On August 20, 2004, Core-Mark Holding Company, Inc. emerged from the Fleming bankruptcy under the direction of president and CEO J. Michael Walsh. Core-Mark currently serves 20,000 retail locations in the U.S. and Canada, providing marketing programs and distribution and logistics services. Core-Mark relocated its headquarters to South San Francisco.
References

1. ^ Corporatewindow.com
2. ^ Referenceforbusiness.com
3. ^ Fdreports.com

* CJonline.com, "Fleming files for bankruptcy; trading halted." The Capital Journal, 4/1/2003.
* Business.com, profile: Fleming Cos Inc.
* Corporate-ir.net, Supervalu press release, 10 August 2006.
* Fleming Companies, Inc. - Pre & Post Bankruptcy Petition Copyright Infringement
* Sec.gov, August 22, 2008 - SEC Settles Enforcement Proceedings Against Former Fleming Companies, Inc. Executives Mark David Shapiro, Albert M. Abbood, and James H. Thatcher for Their Roles in Financial Fraud Scheme.
* Sec.gov, September 14, 2004 - Securities and Exchange Commission v. Dean Foods Company and John D. Robinson, Civil Action No. 4:04 CV-321/Eastern District of Texas (Sherman Division)- Securities and Exchange Commission v. Kemps LLC, f/k/a Marigold Foods LLC, James Green and Christopher Thorpe, Civil Action No. 4:04 CV-323/Eastern District of Texas (Sherman Division)- Securities and Exchange Commission v. Digital Exchange Systems, Inc., Rosario Coniglio and Steven Schmidt, Civil Action No. 4:04 CV-324/Eastern District of Texas (Sherman Division)- Securities and Exchange Commission v. John K. Adams, Civil Action No. 4:04 CV-322/Eastern District of Texas (Sherman Division)- Securities and Exchange Commission v. Bruce Keith Jensen, Civil Action No. 4:04 CV-320/Eastern District of Texas (Sherman Division).

External links

* Core-Mark website

I have to say it...

Wikipedia: always improving, and quickly.

[Milton Roe]

I have to say it...

Wikipedia: always improving, and quickly.

When you get to the lists of WP:NOT stuff that actually exists in profusion, then you come to what we might call the "Wiki-Apocrypha." It's the uncannonical part that is super-sized directory, almanac, defammation, dictionary work, loved quotations. And of course, add to this foundation decisions, official policies, pilars, unofficial policies, Sayings of Jimbo (Little Red Book of these), guidelines, recommendations, essays, past Arbcomm decisions, and a certain amount of Talmudic commentary on TALK pages associated with all of it.

About all of which we can only say: "Improvement commeth, and that right soon."