Fri 25th April 2008, 7:45pm
QUOTE(Random832 @ Fri 25th April 2008, 2:24pm)
QUOTE(everyking @ Fri 25th April 2008, 4:39pm)
I don't support banning these kinds of editors (I think they should merely be watched closely), but I think this is a really poor comparison. A reporter doesn't get paid to write about the organization that pays him, he gets paid to report the news. If Person A pays Person B to write something about Person A, there is a reasonable expectation that the resulting work will be somewhat slanted in favor of Person A.
And if they have to report about a company that is even vaguely related to their own company, they'll disclose this. Which is pretty much the opposite of what this guy's doing.
A frequently cited case in point is that NBC and MSNBC journalists will occasionally report on General Electric, Microsoft, and Vivendi... or that NPR's "Marketplace" will often report on General Electric, a sponsor of the show. As Random832 rightly notes -- they simply disclose the potential conflict of interest, and the reporter's professional reputation is expected to take precedence.
Nobody has a serious beef with this model in the journalism field, and it's what Wikipedia Review purported to do. But guys like Mark Pellegrini (who didn't even accurately know what the Reward Board was until a couple of weeks ago), Guy Chapman, and Calton Bollick successfully poisoned the well. They still
think "the community consensus" was substantially against paid editing -- but there is ample proof against that claim.
I know Wikipedia's not a democracy, but I'd still like to see an Admin Noticeboard "vote" on the concept of disclosed, monitored, paid editing. Without Guy Chapman snowballing it closed, of course.