Will Beback (talk | contribs) →What is paid editing?: logical conclusion, and attribution request |
rv, this seems tenditious; content was kept in each of those cases, I'm concerned we go down the road to drawing unneeded attention to specific cases when we all agree there is a general problem; Afd is full of advertorial issues, not all are deleted |
||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
Paid editing, broadly construed, is any editing where an editor is being compensated in some way, e.g. employees and contractors for money, students earning a grade and course credit such as [[Wikipedia:School and university projects]], recognition from social and business associates, Wikipedians at [[Wikipedia:Bounty board]], in-trade compensation, etc. The issues of paid editing tend to focus on the problems rather than any benefits, if someone makes constructive contributions the edits will likely be kept regardless if the editor is seen as being "paid." |
Paid editing, broadly construed, is any editing where an editor is being compensated in some way, e.g. employees and contractors for money, students earning a grade and course credit such as [[Wikipedia:School and university projects]], recognition from social and business associates, Wikipedians at [[Wikipedia:Bounty board]], in-trade compensation, etc. The issues of paid editing tend to focus on the problems rather than any benefits, if someone makes constructive contributions the edits will likely be kept regardless if the editor is seen as being "paid." |
||
There is stated opposition to Wikipedians setting up an "editing service" and there has traditionally been similar concerns about companies who advertise for someone to [[Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations|write an article about them]] on Wikipedia. There is also general opposition to '''promotional editing''' of any kind. However efforts to ban the practice are seen as driving some editors underground rather than stopping it.<ref> Driving paid editors, advocates and paid editing services underground has been mentioned in relation to both the [[MyWikiBiz]] case and the 2009 Arbcomm case regarding the dysopped admin; in each case the editors had set up a paid editing service offsite and in each case some of teh content was kept. |
There is stated opposition to Wikipedians setting up an "editing service" and there has traditionally been similar concerns about companies who advertise for someone to [[Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations|write an article about them]] on Wikipedia. There is also general opposition to '''promotional editing''' of any kind. However efforts to ban the practice are seen as driving some editors underground rather than stopping it.<ref> Driving paid editors, advocates and paid editing services underground has been mentioned in relation to both the [[MyWikiBiz]] case and the 2009 Arbcomm case regarding the dysopped admin; in each case the editors had set up a paid editing service offsite and in each case some of teh content was kept. The community RfC and other discussions including a NYC meet-up in 2007 also spoke about driving editors underground.</ref> Practical methods to prohibit promotional efforts, like adding [[WP:Spam|promotional links]] to a [[Wikipedia:Spam blacklist|Spam blacklist]], do not effectively address [[advertorial]] content which has to handled case-by-case as some of the edits are supported in policy as [[WP:N|notable]] subjects with [[WP:V|verifiable]] claims in [[WP:RS|reliable sources]].<ref> Even some obvious advertorial editing can add valid content. Use common sense to see if a company, product, website, etc. meets our [[WP:GNG|general notability guidelines]], if not look to using a [[WP:CSD|speedy deletion]], [[WP:Prod|prod]] or [[WP:AfD|deletion]] process. If an article is copied from a website see [[WP:Copyvio]].</ref> This material may have to be fixed instead. In the community RfC it was expressed that if things were out in the open, then the usual editing processes would take care of anything egregious.<ref> [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Paid editing]]; started 9 June 2009; from the summary - the opening view was that motivation for editing is not important, it is the end result of that editing - the content - that matters. They asserted that if the content is policy compliant, there shouldn't be a problem, and this viewpoint received 102 support votes, the most of any statement. While there were few other statements directly in favour of paid editing, iridescent felt allowing it would be a net positive because a declaration of intent would reveal potential bias; pfctdayelise pointed out that the German Wikipedia had allowed paid editing; David Shankbone said that existing policies take care of conflict of interest issues.</ref> For that reason, paid editors should always be open about their activities, although by doing so they invite persecution. |
||
==Advocacy and conflict of interest== |
==Advocacy and conflict of interest== |
Revision as of 05:31, 25 August 2009
Paid editing is editing Wikipedia in return for material reward or compensation. Although there may be some forms of compensation which are generally acceptable, such as the Wikipedia reward board, there are other forms which are considered unacceptable.
Wikipedia utilizes consensus to build content and maintain the project. Advocacy and conflict of interest editing, is considered against consensus, and is prohibited. Editing in this manner may result in blocks and even banning from Wikipedia.
Background
Paid editing issues remain subject to divided discussions, particularly an extensive community-wide request for comment in June 2009. Some users feel that forms of paid editing have always taken place and remain acceptable if the contributions align with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on content and contributing. Other users support forbidding paid editing altogether, based on the belief that it invites biased contributions and creates more work for the project than it saves. Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has previously blocked editors,[1] and stated his support for blocking editors who set up an editing service. He added that people wishing to offer their writing and research skills should publish their work elsewhere, and freely license the work allowing Wikipedians to add it as they deemed appropriate.
What is paid editing?
Paid editing, broadly construed, is any editing where an editor is being compensated in some way, e.g. employees and contractors for money, students earning a grade and course credit such as Wikipedia:School and university projects, recognition from social and business associates, Wikipedians at Wikipedia:Bounty board, in-trade compensation, etc. The issues of paid editing tend to focus on the problems rather than any benefits, if someone makes constructive contributions the edits will likely be kept regardless if the editor is seen as being "paid."
There is stated opposition to Wikipedians setting up an "editing service" and there has traditionally been similar concerns about companies who advertise for someone to write an article about them on Wikipedia. There is also general opposition to promotional editing of any kind. However efforts to ban the practice are seen as driving some editors underground rather than stopping it.[2] Practical methods to prohibit promotional efforts, like adding promotional links to a Spam blacklist, do not effectively address advertorial content which has to handled case-by-case as some of the edits are supported in policy as notable subjects with verifiable claims in reliable sources.[3] This material may have to be fixed instead. In the community RfC it was expressed that if things were out in the open, then the usual editing processes would take care of anything egregious.[4] For that reason, paid editors should always be open about their activities, although by doing so they invite persecution.
Advocacy and conflict of interest
- Advocacy
Any form of WP:Advocacy, which is any contribution or edit to Wikipedia content that advocates a point of view, is forbidden by WP:NPOV. Significant information and widely held opinions that are documented in reliable sources that are contrary to your point of view or business interests must be included. Wales stated that he felt paid advocates should contribute to articles on the articles' talkpages.
- Conflict of interest
The guideline on conflicts of interest (COI) must be observed at all times. Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest. When someone is being compensated, the integrity of the work, including the likelihood the content remains neutral toward those who are doing the compensating, is reasonably considered to be compromised. Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested. Using administrator tools for compensation is strictly forbidden.[5]
Advice
If you are engaging in paid editing or dealing with what might be considered a paid editing situation, please keep the following advice in mind:
- Paid editors are encouraged to create a user account on Wikipedia, and retain this over time, even if not all their editing is received positively. This helps you to build an accurate reputation, and helps other editors to scrutinize your contributions overall. The use of multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny is not permitted. If you do register multiple accounts, make links between them on each of your user pages.
- All content is edited mercilessly, sometimes very quickly. Make sure your employer(s) understand this in advance. If you create an article that is not in compliance with Wikipedia's policies on notability and reliable sourcing it will likely be deleted. Do not game the system to prevent this.
- Do not copy material verbatim from an employer's website or publications, unless they have donated the material as described at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Simply telling you that you can use it is not sufficient to comply with Wikipedia's legal requirements. You can use those as self-published sources if you attribute them accurately.
- Do not submit to Wikipedia any newly written materials that are a work for hire with copyright owned by the person or company paying you, unless that copyright owner has specifically granted permission for the material under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License and that grant is confirmed through the OTRS process. This issue can apply to independent contractors, as well as to employees, and the legal issue will also vary by jurisdiction.
If you are uncertain about whether your contribution is appropriate, you can begin by creating the article as a user subpage. To do this, visit your user page and then add to the URL a slash ("/") followed by the name of the subpage. You can then request feedback on your subpage from more experienced users before using the "Move" feature to move it to its correct title.
See also
- Boilerplate request for permission
- Closeted, referring to editors who remain in the closet as being a paid editor
- Confirmation of permission
- Copyright issues - undigested talk on this topic
- Copyright owners who submitted their own work to Wikipedia
- Copyrights
- Countering systemic bias
- Economic inequality
Notes
- ^ In 2009, following discussions unrelated to paid editing, Wales decided to give up the use of the block tool permanently. Other administrators may still block editors they feel are causing problems.
- ^ Driving paid editors, advocates and paid editing services underground has been mentioned in relation to both the MyWikiBiz case and the 2009 Arbcomm case regarding the dysopped admin; in each case the editors had set up a paid editing service offsite and in each case some of teh content was kept. The community RfC and other discussions including a NYC meet-up in 2007 also spoke about driving editors underground.
- ^ Even some obvious advertorial editing can add valid content. Use common sense to see if a company, product, website, etc. meets our general notability guidelines, if not look to using a speedy deletion, prod or deletion process. If an article is copied from a website see WP:Copyvio.
- ^ Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Paid editing; started 9 June 2009; from the summary - the opening view was that motivation for editing is not important, it is the end result of that editing - the content - that matters. They asserted that if the content is policy compliant, there shouldn't be a problem, and this viewpoint received 102 support votes, the most of any statement. While there were few other statements directly in favour of paid editing, iridescent felt allowing it would be a net positive because a declaration of intent would reveal potential bias; pfctdayelise pointed out that the German Wikipedia had allowed paid editing; David Shankbone said that existing policies take care of conflict of interest issues.
- ^ WP:ADMIN prohibits gross violations of community trust, which includes making administrative decisions for pay.