Jimbo's beef with paid editing, Why does he have it? Options

[that one guy]

Sort of a tangential topic from the timidguy case, which seems to be an issue of paid editing and Jimbo's ever lasting hate of it. I know we had the Kohs issue in the past but what's his issue with paid editing?

[Kelly Martin]

Sort of a tangential topic from the timidguy case, which seems to be an issue of paid editing and Jimbo's ever lasting hate of it. I know we had the Kohs issue in the past but what's his issue with paid editing?

Nobody is permitted to make money off of Wikipedia, except by the grace of Jimbo. Fairly simple.

[Eppur si muove]

Sort of a tangential topic from the timidguy case, which seems to be an issue of paid editing and Jimbo's ever lasting hate of it. I know we had the Kohs issue in the past but what's his issue with paid editing?

Nobody is permitted to make money off of Wikipedia, except by the grace of Jimbo. Fairly simple.

I thought it was that Larry Sanger was a paid editor and said he had a lot to do with the creation of Wikipedia. Therefore Jimbo does not like paid editors.

[timbo]

The answer to the "Why not have paid editors?" question, of course, is that paid editors skew content. They pump up their clients and would quickly, it is not difficult to imagine, slag off on their competitors. I think this is a very logical, sensible reason to keep paid flacks out...

Can paid editors produce good content? Sure. Just like paid lobbyists can produce good legislation...


t

This post has been edited by timbo: Wed 4th January 2012, 8:37am

[thekohser]

They pump up their clients and would quickly, it is not difficult to imagine, slag off on their competitors. I think this is a very logical, sensible reason to keep paid flacks out...

Whew... good thing the unpaid religious, political, and ideological zealots who have taken over Wikipedia would never do that!

[Maunus]

Paid editing is against all of the principles that wikipedia should be based on. It circumvents the meaning of WP:CONSENSUS, WP:COI, WP:NOTABILITY off the bat.

It is a non-argument to compare with POV pushers and other agenda driven editors - because they are not a priori identifiable as such. It is like asking "should we allow tedentious editing?" the answer has to be no.

Other than that I find it ethically and morally questionable. And it shows what I see as a basic failure to understand what it is that could be good about wikipedia.

[dogbiscuit]

Paid editing is against all of the principles that wikipedia should be based on. It circumvents the meaning of WP:CONSENSUS, WP:COI, WP:NOTABILITY off the bat.

Then again the application of Wikipedia policies by its editors circumvent the process of developing a reliable encyclopedia so it isn't necessarily a problem. After all, what is so bad about Encyclopedia Britannica - fundamentally paid editing.

If I am paid to spend my time developing articles on London Landmarks, does that really circumvent any policy at all? Seems like you are trotting out the CoolAid without applying any thought. For example, a paid editor is much less likely to fight consensus because he is not going to have a budget to spend 12+ hours a day nitpicking and crafting pointless battles over trivial articles.

It seems to me that Wiki UK Ltd has a project to create a whole raft of paid editors in several different ways - sponsorship, jobs for the boys and so on - so the Wiki bureaucracy is woefully confused about keeping the project pure.

Anyhow, I think in the past it has been established that there are plenty of Wikipedia battle grounds where there is some form of sponsorship going on, e.g. the Israel/Palestine conflict, and then there was the whole Overstock thing where someone was not paid to edit, but saw that influencing Wikipedia a means to profit in the real world.

There is only one argument that Wikipedia can legitimately use and that is "Why should someone get paid for what others are doing for free?". I am sure Jimbo fears it, not because of content, because Jinbo does not give a toss about it, but because it could be the straw that causes a significant disillusionment amongst editors.

[thekohser]

Paid editing is against all of the principles that wikipedia should be based on. It circumvents the meaning of WP:CONSENSUS, WP:COI, WP:NOTABILITY off the bat.

And then you would be wrong, since April 17, 2006.

[Peter Damian]

It is a non-argument to compare with POV pushers and other agenda driven editors - because they are not a priori identifiable as such. It is like asking "should we allow tedentious editing?" the answer has to be no.

Other than that I find it ethically and morally questionable. And it shows what I see as a basic failure to understand what it is that could be good about wikipedia.

It is a non-argument to compare with POV pushers and other agenda driven editors - because they are not a priori identifiable as such.

So you are conflating the question of whether we know that X is doing something wrong, with whether X is doing something wrong? I.e. because we don't know whether X is acting unethically, we shall assume he or she is so acting? This is very Wikipedian. There should be a whole system of Wikipedian ethics that students study as a module.

It is like asking "should we allow tedentious editing?" the answer has to be no.

Same conflation. Tedentious editing = paid editing. Why?

Other than that I find it ethically and morally questionable.

Why? What if I am a well-off person who has been grossly slandered, but so busy that I need to pay Greg or someone to pay my name? You can't say that paid editing is inherently wrong, otherwise that example would be wrong.

And it shows what I see as a basic failure to understand what it is that could be good about wikipedia.

Exactly what is it that is good about Wikipedia? As Greg pointed out above, everyone who edits Wikipedia, unpaid, is acting for an agenda sometimes. They could be trying to normalise pedophilia, or advertising a garage band, or promoting some dubious political cause, or their own crank theory. Why is that any better than someone being paid to do this?

[gomi]

It is like asking "should we allow tedentious editing?" the answer has to be no.

Also like asking, "Should we allow people who cannot spell 'tendentious', and most likely do not understand the word, to edit a so-called 'encyclopedia'?" The answer has to be "no".

[Maunus]

Paid editing is against all of the principles that wikipedia should be based on. It circumvents the meaning of WP:CONSENSUS, WP:COI, WP:NOTABILITY off the bat.

And then you would be wrong, since April 17, 2006.

You might note my use of the modal "should" instead of "is" - by which I meant to imply that the following is a value judgment based on my opinion. The existence of the reward board doesn't change that.

This post has been edited by Maunus: Wed 4th January 2012, 11:52pm

[Maunus]

Paid editing is against all of the principles that wikipedia should be based on. It circumvents the meaning of WP:CONSENSUS, WP:COI, WP:NOTABILITY off the bat.

Then again the application of Wikipedia policies by its editors circumvent the process of developing a reliable encyclopedia so it isn't necessarily a problem. After all, what is so bad about Encyclopedia Britannica - fundamentally paid editing.

If I am paid to spend my time developing articles on London Landmarks, does that really circumvent any policy at all? Seems like you are trotting out the CoolAid without applying any thought. For example, a paid editor is much less likely to fight consensus because he is not going to have a budget to spend 12+ hours a day nitpicking and crafting pointless battles over trivial articles.

It seems to me that Wiki UK Ltd has a project to create a whole raft of paid editors in several different ways - sponsorship, jobs for the boys and so on - so the Wiki bureaucracy is woefully confused about keeping the project pure.

Anyhow, I think in the past it has been established that there are plenty of Wikipedia battle grounds where there is some form of sponsorship going on, e.g. the Israel/Palestine conflict, and then there was the whole Overstock thing where someone was not paid to edit, but saw that influencing Wikipedia a means to profit in the real world.

There is only one argument that Wikipedia can legitimately use and that is "Why should someone get paid for what others are doing for free?". I am sure Jimbo fears it, not because of content, because Jinbo does not give a toss about it, but because it could be the straw that causes a significant disillusionment amongst editors.

My main beef is exactly that it undercuts the spirit of voluntarism. And by doing that it skews the coverage of topics to only those that can pay.

I admit I was over categorical. I would actually be in favor of wikipedia hiring editors with expertise in specific topic areas to moderate those. Like Britannica. I was limiting my thinking about paid editing to editing for corporations, which is obviously too restricted.

I don't buy the arguments that paid editing is less or equally tendentious as people editing out of personal interest. I think there is a fundamental difference between editing based on your own interest in a topic and between editing on behalf of someone else's interest. It is probably doesn't result in a difference in quality I admit, but I think there is a moral difference. Especially in the context of a volunteer project - which is what I believe wikipedia should be.

It is like asking "should we allow tedentious editing?" the answer has to be no.

Also like asking, "Should we allow people who cannot spell 'tendentious', and most likely do not understand the word, to edit a so-called 'encyclopedia'?" The answer has to be "no".

You do have very nice typing skills and punctuation I must give you that.

It is a non-argument to compare with POV pushers and other agenda driven editors - because they are not a priori identifiable as such. It is like asking "should we allow tedentious editing?" the answer has to be no.

Other than that I find it ethically and morally questionable. And it shows what I see as a basic failure to understand what it is that could be good about wikipedia.

It is a non-argument to compare with POV pushers and other agenda driven editors - because they are not a priori identifiable as such.

So you are conflating the question of whether we know that X is doing something wrong, with whether X is doing something wrong? I.e. because we don't know whether X is acting unethically, we shall assume he or she is so acting? This is very Wikipedian. There should be a whole system of Wikipedian ethics that students study as a module.

No I am not conflating those - but it is a logical consequence of the fact that I find (specifically corporate interest) paid editing to be unethical. Just like tendentious editing.

[thekohser]

...the fact that I find (specifically corporate interest) paid editing to be unethical.

It's amusing that of all the unethical things that take place on Wikipedia and at the Wikimedia Foundation, corporate paid editing would be the one you'd take time out to critique.

[Maunus]

It's amusing that of all the unethical things that take place on Wikipedia and at the Wikimedia Foundation, corporate paid editing would be the one you'd take time out to critique.

If you knew my edit history you would know that it is not the case that that is the "one thing" - given the topic of this thread I don't think it is particularly strange that that is what I am critiqueing here. I am basically just expressing my agreement with Jimbo on this point, although I suspect we have different motivations.

This post has been edited by Maunus: Thu 5th January 2012, 2:35pm

[thekohser]

It's amusing that of all the unethical things that take place on Wikipedia and at the Wikimedia Foundation, corporate paid editing would be the one you'd take time out to critique.

If you knew my edit history you would know that it is not the case that that is the "one thing" - given the topic of this thread I don't think it is particularly strange that that is what I am critiqueing here. I am basically just expressing my agreement with Jimbo on this point, although I suspect we have different motivations.

Okay, fair enough.

My clients, though they have most likely had plenty of opportunity to consider the ethical ramifications of their venture into paid editing, have rarely ever expressed to me that they feel I may be breaking any sort of ethical code. You see, it's usually considered acceptable for a victim to strike back at her rapist. That's usually the sort of scenario I see with my clients. They've been (or are being) raped by Wikipedia, in a sense. I'd elaborate, and you would probably agree (or at least sympathize) with my perspective, but I don't have that luxury due to mutual non-disclosure agreements.

[Peter Damian]

In which Jimbo and others decide that it's OK to 'out' paid editors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jim...act_Information

We simply don't have the kind of time at our hands to compete with a paid editor

Nor do people people with proper jobs and family commitments have time to argue with people with no proper jobs pushing strange ideas about sex, political activism, crank theories of all kinds.

So it's really the ordinary public who lose. Paid editors and nutcases win.

[thekohser]

In which Jimbo and others decide that it's OK to 'out' paid editors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jim...act_Information

Wow -- that paid editor is Bill Beutler, recent guest star of C-SPAN's "Q&A" show! Even the "pro Wikipedia" paid editors get the rough-up treatment, it seems.

[thekohser]

Oh, wow... this is getting bigger, much bigger, now that Jimbo's own brand of stupidity is red-lining.

Here we see that Beutler has made zero edits to the Wikipedia article in question; he's only engaged on the Talk page to reach a consensus -- exactly as Der Jimbo has advised for years. But Jimbo does his (usual) double-cross back-stab move, and he throws Beutler under the bus, along with the whole field of PR, apparently.

I wonder if Jimbo's baby-momma's PR firm is counted among Jimbo's list of bad guys?

[EricBarbour]

Stunning. Jimbo Is The Holy One.
Even when he says stupid things.
(As usual...)