Smallbones (talk | contribs) |
→Request for Comment: disagree with proposed policy |
||
Line 215: | Line 215: | ||
: As for the mess above, what a wonderfully toxic atmosphere. The important point that the only community RFC to date showed no consensus for either banning or specifically allowing paid editing seems to be widely ignored in favor of petty bickering and a "4 against 1 here now wins" mentality. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 03:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC) |
: As for the mess above, what a wonderfully toxic atmosphere. The important point that the only community RFC to date showed no consensus for either banning or specifically allowing paid editing seems to be widely ignored in favor of petty bickering and a "4 against 1 here now wins" mentality. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 03:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC) |
||
*'''Move "WP:Paid Editing(guideline)" to user space''' It is an essay, purporting to be a summary of current policy that nobody agrees with. Several editors have asked whether anybody actually supports the proposed guideline, and nobody has answered yes. I plan on taking WP:Paid editing (which was relabeled without consensus "WP:Paid editing (policy)") to a community wide request (by December 1) for comment to see whether it will be accepted as policy. Since "guideline" has no support, it will simply be a source of confusion, an obstruction. It can be brought back, if anybody supports it, if the RfC on the real WP:Paid editing fails. WP:Paid editing (guideline) clearly is not ready for an RfC of its own, so why not get out of the way and let the serious proposal go forward without obstruction? [[User:Smallbones|Smallbones]] ([[User talk:Smallbones|talk]]) 04:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC) |
*'''Move "WP:Paid Editing(guideline)" to user space''' It is an essay, purporting to be a summary of current policy that nobody agrees with. Several editors have asked whether anybody actually supports the proposed guideline, and nobody has answered yes. I plan on taking WP:Paid editing (which was relabeled without consensus "WP:Paid editing (policy)") to a community wide request (by December 1) for comment to see whether it will be accepted as policy. Since "guideline" has no support, it will simply be a source of confusion, an obstruction. It can be brought back, if anybody supports it, if the RfC on the real WP:Paid editing fails. WP:Paid editing (guideline) clearly is not ready for an RfC of its own, so why not get out of the way and let the serious proposal go forward without obstruction? [[User:Smallbones|Smallbones]] ([[User talk:Smallbones|talk]]) 04:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC) |
||
* I completely disagree with the proposed policy, and per the previous RfC, so does a large part of the community. --[[User:Apoc2400|Apoc2400]] ([[User talk:Apoc2400|talk]]) 07:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:29, 20 October 2009
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Clarification, part 2
Just want to put out a scenario that is semi-possible and see what would happen...
A while back it was announced that a branch of the German government was going to pay to improve articles on the German language version for various topics about it. (There's probably an English-language article somewhere here, but I'm using these two articles as sources.) What the money will do is to get experts in various fields to edit the Wikipedia articles. If you closely read the announcement, the government agency is paying the Nova Institut; there is nothing in those articles that indicate that the Nova Institut is going to be paying the experts. Now here is a scenario based on that; names & such used fictitiously as clarification aids:
- The US Department of Energy decides the articles on Wikipedia about physics need improving, so they go to various recognized experts in the field and pays them directly to edit articles directly about their specific fields of study and expertise to improve both accuracy and readibility. For instance, Stephen Hawking would edit the article about black holes. Once the expert has agreed to make the edits, the agency publicly announces that it was funding said editing.
Now, would the editors in this instance fall afoul of this proposed policy? If they do, how should the department arranges in order to avoid seeing newspaper headlines saying things like "Wikipedia blocks experts from editing"?? Tabercil (talk) 02:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- There has been much discussion about that example, and most (all?) comments I have seen were totally supportive of the idea of a group sponsoring NPOV article improvement. The current wording of WP:PAID does not reflect that, but I think it will be addressed eventually. However, it is tricky to express the obvious point that Wikipedia welcomes improvements, while discouraging the many possible negative interventions, such as a government paying editors to "improve" cultural relations in ways which just happen to promote a POV. Johnuniq (talk) 03:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- As I read the proposed policy, this would be allowed, BUT the editor would have to post on his user page and on the talk page that he is a paid editor. Fair enough as far as I'm concerned. This would help avoid paid advocacy. People who disagree with the paid editor's edits would likely comb them for hidden advocacy, so these paid editors would have to be very careful not to advocate, or they could be banned. This might show up in articles about politics and history, as the linked articles note could be a problem. It could show up in other places - say Mideastern archeology - where the editors paid by Israel advocate that such and such a site proves that King David existed, but the paid editors from Syria state the opposite, and the Vatican editors say something else about another site, but the Orthodox scholars say ... This policy does give some transparency and control over that type of thing - which is good.
- An aside - there's nothing special in this about WP:OR - the policy on original research is the same for both paid and non-paid editors. I'm imagining Stephen Hawking getting hauled up to arbitration for doing OR. :]
- There is a little quirk here - if the paid government experts were already on staff, there would be no problem (other than posting "I'm a paid editor"). But if they answered a position announcement (!) they could be banned immediately in the pp. So how did the German Gov't recruit their experts? One possible solution to this quirk would be to allow editors to answer ads, but require them to state that they will follow WP:PAID and WP:COI and give the links to these policies. Possibly controversial. Smallbones (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- I do not see the wording that allows the "good" sponsored editing raised here. I think the issue of how paid editors are recruited is vital and should be in WP:PAID. If a group intends to recruit paid editors, they should prominently announce the details on Wikipedia (needs to be in a defined and well-watched location like "Paid editing/Noticeboard"). Transparency would eliminate many paid editing problems. The user page for a paid editor should include a clear statement and link to the noticeboard where consensus has approved the activity. Johnuniq (talk) 02:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. The bulk of the paid editing that I think people are most familiar with are people inserting marginally notable people into Wikipedia, and those people who are pushing a specific POV. For those editors, we already have policies in place that will enable people to deal with them with needing to point to something like "no paid editing". By closing off the bad, we need to make sure we're not closing off the good as well. And oh, Smallbones, your mention of the image of Hawking at arbitration for OR? Made my day. <G> Tabercil (talk) 03:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Restored
Whatever the intentions of the previous bold move which replaced this page I have reverted to restore it back to it's original and intended purpose. Despite my suggestion that both pages could peacefully co-exist they insisted there was no rush to launch their proposed policy. That doesn't seem to be true. They were quite eager to launch their proposed policy despite many folks agreeing that as written it likely wouldn't work. In any case this page has remained focused on the history and current policies and guidelines. I've added a link at the very top so those interested in working on creating new policy can easily find it. -- Banjeboi 09:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Could you point to the "many folks" who agree with you that the previous version of all of this wouldn't work? I'd gotten thte impression that the consensus went the other way. Will Beback talk 19:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- I've been watching this off and on and I'm very confused now - we have WP:Paid editing (policy), which looks fairly reasonable and we have this, which seems to bring a very different bias and is likely not in line with consensus. What's more the WP:PAID shortcut links here. I'm strongly against this action and I believe it should be reverted immediately to avoid more confusion. Ronnotel (talk) 20:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately the original split from WP:PAID involved copy/paste which is not permitted (at the very least, the edit summary needs to have a link to the original source, and swapping two pages by copy/paste might well be impossible). Accordingly, we cannot revert the recent changes. One possibility would be for discussion to agree that an admin should history merge the two pages. That would result in a single page with all contributions recorded in the history, and no confusion about what page is what (there would be only one page). The defect of this plan is that we would be back to the original problem where any attempt to strengthen the wording would be immediately reverted on the basis that there is no existing policy/guideline to support such wording. I'm not sure what approach I favor: Two pages can be separately developed until such time as they are "ready", whereupon a discussion could resolve the situation (possibly userfying one, and keeping the other). Or, we could merge the pages now, and deal with the conflict because that has to be done sooner or later. Johnuniq (talk) 00:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- There was a widely advertised and well-attended community-wide RFC. To date that has been the only such community-wide discussion. It was made rather plainly clear that no policy was likely to take hold even if made rather toothless. Instead this page was created to start documenting current status with relevant vectoring those looking for help as to what policies and guidelines did actually apply. Community consensus is, at best, divided. Before I was systematically targeted I worked to find everything on the subject so far and was working to slowly weave it all in for historical perspective. This page currently does need work but does not, in fact, need to be thrown out and replaced with a policy page that itself does not seem to align with consensus including the diminishing power of Msr. Wales to decree policy - something that was pointed out and refuted in the ... community RFC on the matter. I think those wishing to establish an actual policy in this area will have to come with terms that we already have WP:Advocacy and WP:COI which many seem to agree cover the vast majority of cases.
Some steps forward include helping those people and companies who want to have an article about them - should them what resources already exist so they are less tempted from contracting a poor editing service. For those that intend to write an article anyway show them some possible ways forward - mainly notability, NPOV and RS focussed - so that anything they do wish to write isn't by nature disruptive. I think this is more reality-based. There are people who want to abide by the spirit of Wikipedia but remain employed and may still feel compelled to contribute as a paid editor. We can certainly have moral objections but as long as they abide by the community standards we still will work with them. I can guarantee you that the split consensus hasn't changed much, at all, in everything I've read. The policy page will never pass at this point but until some version does this page serves as the overall summation of the issues devoid of pilorizing professions and intentions. -- Banjeboi 07:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)- I have boldly undone your revert as I don't see it moving in a helpful direction. Restoring a month old version is hardly respectful of the work put into this one. The current version is very much in touch with reality, and is entirely consistent with existing policies and guidelines on COI and advocacy, unlike the version you restored (although you have unique interpretations of those documents, admittedly). Let's not go back to where we were so long ago. --TeaDrinker (talk) 23:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- Please gain a consensus before you do that again. The month of revisions can be hist merged to the proposed policy page if deemed needed. Meanwhile there seems an interest on a few editors part to have the policy page be live but there remains no reason to replace this guideline page with it - both can peacefully exist. If there is overwhelming consensus to only have a policy page - which I rather doubt - then please demonstrate that clearly so future editors know why that work was removed. The community RfC was quite split and we should avoid injecting our preferences over that of the wider community, right? Ergo the guideline page can accurately reflect that community divide on the issues while the policy p[age can push for a hardline of some fashion. Other editors have been able to civilly and calmly discuss this important area without personalizing and vilifying one another. If you persist we can seek more eyes on the situation. If that's not clear please avoid commenting on other editors and stick to content, I warned you before about personal attacks and future efforts will be escalated in turn. -- Banjeboi 01:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- I have boldly undone your revert as I don't see it moving in a helpful direction. Restoring a month old version is hardly respectful of the work put into this one. The current version is very much in touch with reality, and is entirely consistent with existing policies and guidelines on COI and advocacy, unlike the version you restored (although you have unique interpretations of those documents, admittedly). Let's not go back to where we were so long ago. --TeaDrinker (talk) 23:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- There was a widely advertised and well-attended community-wide RFC. To date that has been the only such community-wide discussion. It was made rather plainly clear that no policy was likely to take hold even if made rather toothless. Instead this page was created to start documenting current status with relevant vectoring those looking for help as to what policies and guidelines did actually apply. Community consensus is, at best, divided. Before I was systematically targeted I worked to find everything on the subject so far and was working to slowly weave it all in for historical perspective. This page currently does need work but does not, in fact, need to be thrown out and replaced with a policy page that itself does not seem to align with consensus including the diminishing power of Msr. Wales to decree policy - something that was pointed out and refuted in the ... community RFC on the matter. I think those wishing to establish an actual policy in this area will have to come with terms that we already have WP:Advocacy and WP:COI which many seem to agree cover the vast majority of cases.
- Folks are moving these pages without discussion. I've reset a recent move. Let's all agree before anyone makes another move. If need be, there's WP:RM. Will Beback talk 04:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- I chose the two pages - Wikipedia:Paid editing (guideline) and Wikipedia:Paid editing (policy) to align with current protocols of naming convention disambiguation - one seeks to be a policy the other a guideline. We could add "proposed" to each but I'm not convinced that is needed. Is there any better naming conventions for both pages? If so what are they? -- Banjeboi 09:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't believe you have consensus for your move, and certainly I don't see the point of it. Having two pages, one of which proposes new policies and one of which is categorically at odds with existing policy and the proposed policy (while claiming to be summarizing existing policy) is absurd. --TeaDrinker (talk) 11:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- I see no corroborating support for this move from anyone besides the mover. I propose that this be undone immediately. The fact that the main shortcut WP:PAID points here is extremely confusing and suggest that WP policy is exactly the opposite of consensus. Ronnotel (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think there was some honest confusion with the page moves. I think it is straitened out. I have restored the version before Benjiboi's recent revert to his preferred version, and taken the liberty of deleting the original proposed replacement text (which was partially adopted in this version and moved by Benjiboi), since it seemed redundant. If anyone wants to keep it around, I can certainly move it to my userspace (I wrote it) or some such thing. --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think there is a consensus for that change, so I'm going to move it back. I suggest that we go through the WP:RM process instead, in order to make sure that we know what we all want. Also, some important edit history has been deleted, and it will need to be restored, perhaps through a history merge, once the dust has settled. Will Beback talk 22:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think there was some honest confusion with the page moves. I think it is straitened out. I have restored the version before Benjiboi's recent revert to his preferred version, and taken the liberty of deleting the original proposed replacement text (which was partially adopted in this version and moved by Benjiboi), since it seemed redundant. If anyone wants to keep it around, I can certainly move it to my userspace (I wrote it) or some such thing. --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- I see no corroborating support for this move from anyone besides the mover. I propose that this be undone immediately. The fact that the main shortcut WP:PAID points here is extremely confusing and suggest that WP policy is exactly the opposite of consensus. Ronnotel (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't believe you have consensus for your move, and certainly I don't see the point of it. Having two pages, one of which proposes new policies and one of which is categorically at odds with existing policy and the proposed policy (while claiming to be summarizing existing policy) is absurd. --TeaDrinker (talk) 11:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- I chose the two pages - Wikipedia:Paid editing (guideline) and Wikipedia:Paid editing (policy) to align with current protocols of naming convention disambiguation - one seeks to be a policy the other a guideline. We could add "proposed" to each but I'm not convinced that is needed. Is there any better naming conventions for both pages? If so what are they? -- Banjeboi 09:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- This has gotten totally mixed up, I beg editors to stop moving and deleting until we can agree on something. Will Beback talk 22:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- I apologize, I had thought I was restoring it to the previous state of affairs. Have I missed something? --TeaDrinker (talk) 19:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, the original page was a guideline; those - including yourself - who wished to make instead a policy page co-coted it and that has been undone. The policy page has been launch as its own page rather that either page being an "alternative text" of the other. This page was intended as a neutral overview of current policies/guidelines and that has been put back on track. Those wishing to enact policies - hardline or otherwise - should work on the proposed policy page as they see fit to move policy in a new direction. -- Banjeboi 03:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- I apologize, I had thought I was restoring it to the previous state of affairs. Have I missed something? --TeaDrinker (talk) 19:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- This has gotten totally mixed up, I beg editors to stop moving and deleting until we can agree on something. Will Beback talk 22:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
(Outdent) Please don't describe changes you're unhappy with as "co-opting" a page. We had a month of progress. Insisting we keep your version too, as a separate guideline (not even a proposed guideline) is not productive and not helpful. --TeaDrinker (talk) 03:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if you feel the term isn't accurate. I was trying to avoid the same partisan bickering of you and Smallbones against me that led to Smallbones replacing the original guideline page with one on a proposed policy which you obviously prefer. If there is indeed consensus that both pages should not exist and further consensus that the guideline page should be deleted and only the policy page should then showing such should be easy. -- Banjeboi 05:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Page move
If I understand correctly, Wikipedia:Paid editing is the page that has existed for a long time. It was moved to Wikipedia:Paid editing (guideline). Wikipedia:Paid editing/Alternative text was created as an alternative. It was moved to Wikipedia:Paid editing (policy). Somewhere in the process, there may have been some cut-and-paste moves, and the edit histories may not have been retained. In the end, we should have only one page. I propose that we move Wikipedia:Paid editing (policy) to Wikipedia:Paid editing, and move Wikipedia:Paid editing (guideline) to a vestigial location, such as Wikipedia talk:Paid editing/previous text. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Beback (talk • contribs) 23:12, 9 October 2009
- What a mess! I'm sure TeaDrinker had a good reason for the latest move, but I can't see it. I intend to wait for elaboration before considering in detail what might happen next, but I suspect that a vestigial location for one of the pages may be unhelpful in the longer term because it would only provide one side with a claim that their position was subverted. I think it would be helpful to have a disambiguation page that clearly spells out what each page is (more than just the page title), or add a box at the top of each talk page with a clear statement of what's what, and archive out any old talk from each talk page (old talk with confusing references to previous versions of the page), or history merge the two pages now (after a discussion, possibly an RFC). Johnuniq (talk) 01:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Here's the history as I have it. Wikipedia:Paid editing was created ages ago; around the time of the RfC on paid editing some months back, it was updated (primarily saying Paid editing was ok). There was a great deal of confusion over what the status of that page was. I proposed a complete replacement text then (at Wikipedia:Paid editing/Alternative text). Around the time of Benjiboi's RfCU, there were substantial revisions to the Wikipedia:Paid editing page, which incorporated a good portion of the Alternative text, but also included material discussed. Benjiboi's version was moved to Wikipedia:Paid editing/Alternative text. Up until that point, these were competing versions of the same document. On Oct. 6, Benjiboi decided he wanted his version back, so he first restored his text at Wikipedia:Paid editing, then immediately moved it to Wikipedia:Paid editing (guideline). He put the version he didn't like at Wikipedia:Paid editing (policy). These page moves are tricky to follow, but am I incorrect here? Watch the edit immediately prior to Benjiboi's moves; he usually first changes the page to something, then moves it to another location. Maybe I have made a mistake in this history; I propose, in any event, we move the pages back to the state prior to Oct. 6. Here's what I have as the history:
Wikipedia:Paid editing written (Long ago) | Wikipedia:Paid editing revised (2009, c. the RfC on paid editing) | |\ | \ | \ | Wikipedia:Paid editing/Alternative text written (July/early Aug) | | \ / X / \ Post RfCU and WP:AN discussion, the two versions switch places (Sept 8) | | | | The switch in locations (the x above) is reverted and then Benjiboi's version is moved to WP:Paid editing (guideline) and the other to WP:Paid editing (policy). WP:PAID is set to a DAB page. (Oct 6)
- Do we have consensus to move things back to pre-Oct 6.? That is my principle aim here. --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry but I do not understand your proposal. Here is a suggested set of labels:
- Original = original [WP:Paid editing]
- Alternate = [WP:Paid editing/Alternative text] August
- Shortcut = {{shortcut|WP:PAID}} pointed to Original
I am happy with what I think is the current situation:
- Original is at Wikipedia:Paid editing (guideline)
- Alternate is at Wikipedia:Paid editing (policy)
- Shortcut points to Original
I do not know if the talk pages and edit histories are correct. I would prefer that Shortcut points to a dab page. If that were recreated, I or someone else could add some brief text indicating what each page is. Whatever is done, I suggest waiting at least 48 hours after my comment before taking any action to give some chance for others to comment. Johnuniq (talk) 01:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm quite happy with the current labels and see no reason to vector either page away unless we are breaking some rule by having both. Are we? If so what rule so we can look to how to align this correctly. If those wishing to have only a proposed policy page want to push this we should a have a community discussion to warrant deleting the guideline page so everyone can see the consensus in such a decision. We're here to represent the community's views on the matter - not our own, right? -- Banjeboi 03:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)What part of the proposal do you find confusing? If it is a matter of fact, I would be happy to clarify as best I am able (and would invite corrections to my account of the history, if need be). If it is a justification for reverting Benjiboi's recent page moves, I suggest (i) it is unworkable to start separate pages to be worked on independently, if those documents are in direct conflict, and (ii) The situation stood stable for more than a month, after no one expressed an interest in editing Benjiboi's version of the document. As an approach to improving it, Smallbones revised it to be in line with a proposal people were interested in moving forward. I only ask that we bring back the document which people have been working on for the past month as WP:Paid editing. I don't even see what's controversial. Benjiboi made an unwelcome change absent consensus. If it were a simple matter to track down the change, it would have been reverted. But as it is, it was done as multiple reverts and page moves, making things hard to follow. But we should simply revert prior to this change and discuss. That's all I was trying to do. Can we have consensus to revert Benjiboi's recent page moves? --TeaDrinker (talk) 03:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- It would be most helpful to stop pretending that this ongoing situation is only the differing views of one editor. Despite repeated harassment and tactics to subdue me, that case has utterly failed to be made. Likely as it's untrue. Please focus on content and not contributors. I reverted a very bold move that was a cut and paste switch of two pages. If you're unable to see why that's problematic it may be best to let other editors offer ideas. If you persist in targeting despite numerous requests to focus your energy on content instead, we can ask for uninvolved folks to have a look. -- Banjeboi 05:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- I am open to suggestions, but I am not particularly open to your unilateral month-back reverts and controversial page moves. Please discuss controversial edits before you make them, and then only make them when you gain consensus. -TeaDrinker (talk) 07:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- It would be most helpful to stop pretending that this ongoing situation is only the differing views of one editor. Despite repeated harassment and tactics to subdue me, that case has utterly failed to be made. Likely as it's untrue. Please focus on content and not contributors. I reverted a very bold move that was a cut and paste switch of two pages. If you're unable to see why that's problematic it may be best to let other editors offer ideas. If you persist in targeting despite numerous requests to focus your energy on content instead, we can ask for uninvolved folks to have a look. -- Banjeboi 05:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- I suggest we merge the best text from the current "guideline" page into the "policy" page, which seems to have more consensus. Then rename that page to simply "paid editing" and categorize it as a guideline. Then, after an interval, consider moving it towards being a policy. Will Beback talk 08:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
TeaDrinker: What I was asking was for you to say what you intend to do with each of Original, Alternate and Shortcut (what title each would have).
The history merge proposal would result in Alternate (with some text from Original) being at [WP:Paid editing], while Original would disappear into the history of Alternate, and Shortcut would point to Alternate. That may be the best procedure since if the proposal is contested, a dispute resolution would have to occur eventually, so it may as well be sooner rather than later. Johnuniq (talk) 09:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- I propose they should, during the course of this discussion, the same titles they have had for the past month. Specifically, the version which starts with Jimbo's quote should be at Wikipedia:Paid editing and the version which begins "Paid editing is editing Wikipedia in return for material reward or compensation" should be at Wikipedia:Paid editing/Alternative text. I am happy to discuss the best locations for these, but think these steps should be taken in steps. Presently, the separate guideline and policy pages is probably the worst possible outcome. --TeaDrinker (talk) 02:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but to have any pages organized as Foo and Foo/Alternative text seems like a really bad idea. I hope you see that no matter what the subject is we have guidelines to disambiguate pages with similar/same titles to help readers find the information they seek. Months of work preceeded the very bold move to replace the page as you seem to want to again do. We should look for a path forward that allows those wishing to work on a new policy to do so while the current page that discusses the history and present state of the issues are presented in a guideline. Is there a policy forbidding both a guideline page and a policy page to exist? Maybe that can offer up some guidance. -- Banjeboi 07:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I am fairly happy to delete/userfy your version, which has been largely rejected. We can discuss other options as well. But while we have the discussion, I propose we don't make these ill-advised changes. --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- The original version should likely remain exactly where it is at. Despite the assertions it's pretty clear the community does not support only one approach or philosophy. On such an important subject we should work to get it right - not subdue other viewpoints. Is there actually any policy forbidding both a guideline on current practice and a page for a proposed policy? That should be the reason to force a choice of one page over the other. -- Banjeboi 03:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I am fairly happy to delete/userfy your version, which has been largely rejected. We can discuss other options as well. But while we have the discussion, I propose we don't make these ill-advised changes. --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but to have any pages organized as Foo and Foo/Alternative text seems like a really bad idea. I hope you see that no matter what the subject is we have guidelines to disambiguate pages with similar/same titles to help readers find the information they seek. Months of work preceeded the very bold move to replace the page as you seem to want to again do. We should look for a path forward that allows those wishing to work on a new policy to do so while the current page that discusses the history and present state of the issues are presented in a guideline. Is there a policy forbidding both a guideline page and a policy page to exist? Maybe that can offer up some guidance. -- Banjeboi 07:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- In this discussion, I see only one editor who is preferring the "guideline" version to the "policy" version. I propose that we move the "Policy page to "WP:PAID", and move the "guideline" to a talk page subpage as an archive. Will Beback talk 05:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately this talkpage has a history of rather hostile tone towards those who don't share the hardline views expressed in the proposed policy. I feel this has pushed away both those interested in participating as well as constructive dialog. This is an important subject and no matter how we personally may feel there was an extensive community-wide RfC that expressed views - perhaps a slight majority - that differ from the proposed policy page. Both pages certainly need work and as there is a strong interest from those wishing to develop a policy page I also don't feel relegating that page out of mainspace would be appropriate. I certainly won't sit idly by while the community's views on the subject are ignored for one faction's POV. So we are back to my queery, is there any actual policy that two pages - one a "status quo/history of" the other a "proposed policy" - can't peacefully co-exist? I feel in this way as well the guideline page has to follow the letter and spirit whereas the policy page is freer to be more stringent and assert a POV that is not shared. -- Banjeboi 16:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- In this discussion, I see only one editor who is preferring the "guideline" version to the "policy" version. I propose that we move the "Policy page to "WP:PAID", and move the "guideline" to a talk page subpage as an archive. Will Beback talk 05:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Moving Forward - a bold proposal
How does a proposed policy become an actual policy? And how does a proposed guideline become an actual guideline? I assume the final and critical step is for consensus at an RfC that's made known to the general community. Most of what happens before that is ultimately irrelevant. That's what we have now, a past that is mostly irrelevant, and a future that involves at least one RfC.
I propose a 3 step process for this particular quandry.
- Let's ask the editors, in particular folks who watch WP:COI for participation in bringing the current proposals in line with general formatting for polices and guidelines. I suggest COI folks in particular (but not exclusively) because both proposals are close in many ways to issues covered by COI. Of course, editors can also add content as well, but I'd ask that people who want a guideline to only contribute to the proposed guideline, and people who want a policy to only contribute to the proposed policy.
- Have an RfC fairly soon - say in one week - to see which proposal should be submitted first to a second RfC, for adoption. That is, the question would be "Should WP:Paid editing(guideline) or WP:Paid editing(policy) be submitted first for adoption?" The one not chosen could be userfied and submitted later if the first proposal was not adopted.
- The second RfC on whether the chosen policy or guideline should be adopted. Could we set a tentative starting date? say December 1?
As far as the edit histories go - could they be joined by just putting them in the same file? - i.e. without tracking the order of each individual change, only the editors' contributions. Is this a difficult technical problem? Or perhaps, just leaving everything as is? Is it really that important compared to the above 3 step process?
I do suggest putting the shortcut WP:Paid on the proposal that seems to have the most support. But to avoid a controversy, why not a disambiguation page? Smallbones (talk) 16:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- I support this proposal, although I am not sure Benjiboi has any real support for his proposal. I propose going along with your plan of two versions put to an RfC if there's at least a handful (lets say two more besides Benjiboi) editors who will support bringing Benjiboi's version up as well. Otherwise we bring just the broadly supported version to the RfC. --TeaDrinker (talk) 02:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Does anybody support the Benjiboi "guideline" proposal? Smallbones (talk) 04:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Let me again encourage both of you to stop personalizing this issue as that seems to inflame a battleground mentality. Again, our goal is not to subdue other viewpoints but to accurately portray all notable ones. That is the intended purpose of the guideline page whereas the proposed policy page can assert a view not shared by the majority of editors. -- Banjeboi 10:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Your goal has changed several times. Regardless, you don't have consensus to say it is "our" goal. Nor do I think you have consensus to split off your own version of a page because you don't like how the other one is going. --TeaDrinker (talk) 10:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Resolution
I found out about this two page issue and want to offer my $0.02.
First, it might be better to userfy the newer page, whichever one that is, then finish the discussion about incorporating both pages into one master page.
Now about the pages. The current (guideline) page, while a nice description of some issues, is so toothless as to be more an essay than a guideline. While making paid editing verboten in a blanket way is not feasible, this page does far too little to offer the proper strong discouragement what is needed.
OTOH, the policy/alternate text page, while closer to the clear discouragement necessary, reads like a rulelist at a public pool. No running. No diving. Etc etc.
I would suggest using the policy/alternate text page, but then tempering the language to be less bitey. The current page is a wikisolicitor's (and their wikilawyers') dream. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think we need this guideline. It's an attempt to summarise existing policy; the proposed policy is new and not accepted as consensus by the community. That said, this page starts well, then tails off into ambiguity. Fences&Windows 00:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure which one you're talking about. Benjiboi's version is pretty clearly the oldest (well, there was a 2005 rejected version), but has not been on the page for more than a month. The arguably more recent one (it is several months old) is the one people were working on, and had until Benjiboi's revert been the main version, replacing Benjiboi's version at WP:Paid editing. I'm not sure quite what you're suggesting. --TeaDrinker (talk) 02:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- OK, two questions.
- 1) Which version is Benjiboi's? And is it best to refer to it as his, or rather to either guideline or alternate text/policy? Normally I don't attribute pages like that, although if he put a lot of work into it I can understand the courtesy.
- 2) I am confused by Fences' statement "[the guideline is] an attempt to summarise existing policy; the proposed policy is new and not accepted as consensus by the community." That just does not parse with me. A policy needs more consensus, I get that, but why is existing policy only a guideline? Indeed, that page is so weak as to be almost useless as a page (like I said, it's more like an essay).
Benjiboi's version is now the "guideline" proposal. At various times he has described it as a proposed "policy or whatever," a guideline, and most importantly as "attempting to summarize existing policies and guidelines." It simply doesn't summarize existing policies and guidelines, (e.g. Jimbo's statements on the matter) so is misleading. As far as I can tell, nobody other than Benjiboi supports this proposed guideline. If you wanted to merge the two, I wouldn't be against it, but I doubt much of the "guideline" version would stay around very long, since only one editor supports it. As noted above, we can do an RfC to see which one should move forward first. A true consensus with the one editor who supports the guideline version has been impossible to achieve, and I don't think one editor should hold the whole thing up. Smallbones (talk) 04:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Your version of past events and mine are indeed different. Baccyak4H, to answer some of your questions, three editors including Tea Drinker and Smallbones have been thwarted from efforts to characterize all paid editing as inherently wrong - and various shades of reasoning and condemnation along those lines by mainly myself. In response there has been an ongoing campaign to subdue me which apparently has utterly failed. Meanwhile they created what is now the proposed policy page. It was a subpage of this page's talkpage and when I was being targeted by, let's call it incredibly coincidental, offsite harassment from Wikipedia Review the pages were switched. To me that suggests they want to at least have their version in mainspace if not it being the only page in mainspace. The talpage archives are full of pointy and rather uncivil and overheated jabs which effectively ran off most editors who may have offered a more moderate approach. Personally I'm not comfortable with any proposals from either Tea Drinker or Smallbones as they continue to bait and stand battle-ready to do away with not-their-version. I think the first step is to see if there is indeed any policy that we can't have both pages for the near future while they are both worked on. Personally I don't see the policy page, as is, going anywhere but I do support those who want to work on it. Meanwhile I'm happy to try to resolve the outstanding issues on this page - and there are many. The core issues remain that no policy prohibits paid editing despite anyone's wishes that they did and the community at large has shown no sign of supporting such a policy. IMHO, we should show the many pitfalls of paid editing including, ironically, the problems with editors who act uncivil towards those they believe are paid editors. I can't say I've read everything on paid editing but I sure have tried. As passionate as Tea Drinker and Smallbones are they are a bit off-the-mark as far as presenting the many POVs on this issue. It has been stated quite a few times by different editors that a new policy isn't even needed as our current policies on content and contributing cover any issues of paid editing. I'm not convinced that is true but it might be. Rather than being rigid I think we need to work to get the guideline page right and help those dealing with paid editing issues by directing them to the policies that govern whatever situation they are dealing with. And, per policy, we must be civil about it all. -- Banjeboi 10:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- For the record, I have never harassed anyone off of Wikipedia and absolutely resent your insinuation I might have done so. Otherwise my Wikipedia remarks are open for the reading, and I stand by them. I appreciate the attempt to portray those editors who oppose your version as hardened extremists, though. I think the version we developed (which used to be Wikipedia:Paid editing and is now, thanks to your move, at Wikipedia:Paid editing (policy)) speaks for itself. --TeaDrinker (talk) 11:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Alrighty then </sarcasm>. I really don't want to be in the middle of a pissing match and I certainly am not going to go to another site to discuss this when we can do it right here. Personalities aside, I can see the issues resolve somewhat between the two versions, with the bitey alternate one advocating full prohibition (which it actually does not do however, last I looked) and the current one (referred to as Benjiboi's right?) which is more tranquil but also (to overuse the word) toothless. I can understand the desire to tighten that page considerably, as it needs tightening, but let's do it without the personal fireworks, OK?
- Is it true that no one other than BB supports this guideline? Strictly speaking 1 out of 4 is only one editor, but 1 out of 4 is 1 out of...4. Could someone point me to tangible and substansive (read: content arguments free of personalidrama) discussion in favor of BB's version? Baccyak4H (Yak!) 13:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- TeaDrinker, I accept your statement at face value and apologize you felt offended. I have been maligned on these pages for several months so i hope you see why i would see these events as connected. I actually don't see you as extremist as much as passionate. You obviously care and I hope you see I wouldn't bother except that I care as well. I could just walk away, let the policy page replace the guideline page and see it go down in flames as inherently flawed and bitey, but that doesn't seem to be constructive to longer term goals. Baccyak4H, the guideline page was the page that had been here for months and I believe the unrelenting heated discussions repelled other editors with many views away. The reference point for this page needs to remain the community RfC, not the wishes of those wishing to apply their views on the issue to everyone else. If the RfC stated a concensus that paid editing is bit wrong and forbidden in all forms I would advocating that we expressed that - it didn't so we do not. -- Banjeboi 03:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll have a look at the RfC. That might be enlightening, although in advance I find it hard to imagine that it was as simple as Is it Always Forbidden, Yes or No?, as seems to be the underlying theme here.. This issue screams out excluded middle to me, so I hope there is a wide area in that middle where a good page can be written. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- The more i researched what had gone on in the past it was apparent there is a growing disdain for "pr flacks" but also a grudging acceptance that likely every company/band/public figure either has members or diehard fans editing. The issue remains the content - if it's up to our standards then we don't care. Some are certainly personally offended but that's not a basis for policy. Meanwhile the almighty Jimbo lobbed in "will personally block anyone setting up a 'paid editing service'" whic was widely misinterpreted but in another thread he clarified we can simply not be seen as condoning the practice. This sentiment has been echoed for years - if we drive paid editors underground so no one really sees it happening that would acceptable. This is essentially a don't ask don't tell issue - wait until a case is so obvious that action has to take place. At the core of all paid editing issues is that unless someone reveals, intentionally or otherwise, that they are a paid editor, we likely would never know - ergo we must default to looking at content and behaviour. As far as i can tell most if not all paid editors have been admonished or blocked for related issues, not being a paid editor per se. I liken this to old-school mobsters who were arrested for tax evasion but not actually for killing people and extortion. I'm afraid many folks see the issues as black/white when it's just not that simply. -- Banjeboi 03:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll have a look at the RfC. That might be enlightening, although in advance I find it hard to imagine that it was as simple as Is it Always Forbidden, Yes or No?, as seems to be the underlying theme here.. This issue screams out excluded middle to me, so I hope there is a wide area in that middle where a good page can be written. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Is it true that no one other than BB supports this guideline?
I believe the answer is that only one editor supports the "guideline" version. Tracking the contributions to each page is a bit difficult because of the multiple switches, but I count about 15 contributers to the "policy" page over the last 2 months, with just 3 on the "guideline" version. In any case, all guideline supporters need to do is indicate below if you are part of the "silent majority" supporting the "guideline." Smallbones (talk) 18:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- You are again antagonizing and setting up a battlefield mentality where none is needed. Instead allow others to simply try to understand the subject and issues at play without having to choose a "side", etc. We are all on the same side and need to work with each other, not in opposition. -- Banjeboi 03:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Open an RfC
The reason this issue is a mess is that there is actually no community consensus. I didn't read all of the previous RfC on paid editing, but what I took home from it was that the community couldn't decide if paid editing was allowed or not, for various philosophical and pragmatic reasons. If the small handful of editors contributing to these two pages are not constantly referring back to the last RfC, they're never going to be able to fairly summarise community opinion on this matter.
I agree that having two pages in development is no help at all, but you have to be very clear what the purpose of the policy/guideline is. What is it? Do we want to summarise existing policies and guidelines as they relate to paid editing, using the last RfC as a guide of community consensus? Or do we want to create a new more hardline policy and get the community to accept it? I don't think this handful of editors is making real progress towards workable policy, so we need to open an RfC to thrash out these questions and get away from personal preferences and disagreements. Fences&Windows 21:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- There have been several options put forward for the purpose of the page, but wording is critical. Some ideas put forward:
- A new policy or guideline
- A summary of existing written policies or guidelines
- A summary of the state of affairs as actually enforced
- Accurate portrayal of "notable" perspectives on paid editing
- On the face of it, I am ok with any of the first three of these (in fact, I proposed the third one myself, months ago). The challenge is precisely what those mean. For instance, in Benjiboi's advocacy of the second goal, he insists every statement be textually demonstrable in a policy or guideline, and then some. In his view, for example, we can say editors with conflicts of interest are discouraged from editing but we can't say a person receiving money to achieve a particular outcome in a debate has a conflict of interest eg. After several weeks of arguing these seemingly obvious points, we reached the conclusion it was better to propose the content as new (a suggestion from an editor at Benjiboi's RfCU, if I recall, but I might be mistaken). Benjiboi seemed ok with that for a month, but then revived his version anew on Oct 6. Just yesterday he stated his goal is to summarize significant views, which was the original intent of the first draft of the 2009 version but which never reached consensus (and is certainly a bad idea since it gives absolutely no guidance to editors).
- Benjiboi opposed my proposal to describe the situation as actually enforced, if I recall correctly. Despite his many protestations, the reality is the garden variety paid editors (people hired to write content on behalf of a company to promote the same) can and have been blocked. I don't remember if he had a better reason for opposing it than disliking what the document would say. --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- I have advocated following the community RfC as the main reference point since it is the most current and also the only community-wide discussion. Obviously there is disagreements but we can fairly represent a variety of POVs. This page was created to be:
- A summary of existing written policies or guidelines and
- A summary of the state of affairs as actually enforced.
- I did oppose entering anything that was false. For instance implying that a paid editor is inherently a COI editor isn't accurate as there are a variety of ways in which someone may technically be a paid editor but a tight window of what COI editing actually is. I continue to advocate in spelling out these differences rather than, IMHO, inflaming all paid editing issues as being equally harmful to the project. They simply aren't. There has been widespread acknowledgement that paid editors have been editing on Wikipedia but also a rather widespread acknowledgement that unless they are actually causing problems we generally don't care if they are paid or not. In reading over the many views expressed by Wales the main concern was that public trust in Wikipedia cannot be compromised by paid editing services. I believe because then folks will assume that a business that is paid to create content can then be influenced and ergo compromise NPOV policies. The main pitfall is that unless someone finds an outside service or reports them we don't have any great method to determine when someone walks in the door if they are paid editing or not. Likewise unless someone reveals they are paid editing amongst their other "non-paid" edits we also likely will never know. What remains is content and behaviours which are generally already covered by existing rules. Personally I think have two pages in development is acceptable, no one has shown any policy forbidding it and I think there is indeed room for both. I also think the policy page is far enough off the mark that it will fail as is. I heartily recommend that those wanting to enact a policy start with paid editing service as the focus as there seems little support for them. The issue will still have to sort out (i) detection, (ii) steps to take if you suspect (iii) COIN or ? board for reporting. In this way the concept of holding a hardline can be created and as the problems are better understood perhaps expanded to encompass other paid editing issues. But start with the slam dunk. Meanwhile this page should continue to be developed to show the range of issues and help a variety of people looking for information. Per policy we need to be welcoming, even to paid editors, and I think we need to show what the actual and perceived issues are and where to go for hep if there is a problem. One area I was working on was "paid admining" - I think we currently have it wrong as, again, someone could technically be paid and perform an admin action that is completely fine. If someone is paid to perform a specific, and likely controversial, admin action that is already covered by other policies so again there exists no policy against it just the "alarm" and conflated discussion that misses that we have policies in place to handle actual problems. And just being a paid editor who happens to perform admin actions is not in and of itself forbidden. I know these points seem frustrating but they are actual issues that should not compromise the guideline. We shouldn't state stuff we wish were true but is actually true. The toothlessness can be dealt with as long as we remain accurate. -- Banjeboi 03:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
BB - 3 editors have asked directly whether anybody supports this guideline version. Fences and Windows was a bit wishy washy giving some support, but the basic answer has been that only you support this version. Since I'd like to take the policy version forward and this guideline version only confuses the issue, will you withdraw this, i.e. userfy it into a personal essay? If not we can go through the RfC, but what's the point if only you support the guideline version? Smallbones (talk) 15:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- To address the substance of your concerns, I will note that the consensus proposal has specific language to address this issue you bring up. There's an entire section looking at acceptable behaviors. It is not a bad idea to perhaps address enforcement, I will bring it up on talk there. However it is a categorically bad idea for you to recreate and maintain a separate page to cater to your prefered content and wording. Ordinarily, evolving content (as in this instance) simply replaces the older, unsupported versions. If you'd like, we can keep your content and mark it as rejected. I'm ok with either deleting it or marking it rejected. I'm not ok with competing versions, one for you to edit and one for everyone else. --TeaDrinker (talk) 18:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Smallbones, first off please my user name is not that long, if you could avoid abbreviating as I have asked before I would appreciate it. Secondly, this page - IMHO - has been highly confrontational likely pushing away less "passionate" editors. And here you both are again pushing for only your version and setting up divisiveness when we need to instead look to the community RfC and be welcoming to other opinions. Instead of pushing for only one page why not push for the best information possibly representing multiple viewpoints. Instead the proposed policy page makes IMHO, some errors that we discussed here a while ago and removed. The emphasis on Jimbo's statement, for instance, which was immediately disputed and is presented at the top as both misleading and WP:Undue. Once you research why he stated what he did it seems rather obvious that it should be presented in context.
My views on the subject remain that if you feel the policy page is ready then open an RfC about that page. No one has shown any policy that we can't have both a proposed guideline and a proposed policy page. I've never pushed that a policy-in-development page couldn't exist but here again both of you just seem determined to supress the original page you seem feel isn't harsh enough. I would feel compelled to choose only one if there was an actual reason to do so besides WP:I Don't Like It. If you feel the policy page is ready then start a neutral RfC on that page asking for community input as to if it's ready to be a policy. If there are conflicts between the two pages then fall back on the community RfC and policies to reconcile any conflicts. I can't speak for other editors but IMHO this unrelenting quest to delete discourages development of this page. I've held off until I'm assured it's worth the effort to clean this up. So now we're at a position where you two need to decide if you want to see the process through to creating a policy page that will work or if just getting rid of the guideline page is your goal. Personally I think you would be best served to focus on paid editing service as you have strong support for a fire and brimstone statement on that. Arguably seen as the most egregious and blatant form of paid editing you actually have a possibility of getting approval on it. The ball is in your court, can you stop focusing on other editors and try to get something approved or do you want to continue on the same path as before. -- Banjeboi 21:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)- Wikipedia:Content forking specifically prohibits content forking. Creating separate pages and encouraging editors to work on the other page is pretty much inappropriate. More than that, I believe we have consensus that there should only be one page. --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Smallbones, first off please my user name is not that long, if you could avoid abbreviating as I have asked before I would appreciate it. Secondly, this page - IMHO - has been highly confrontational likely pushing away less "passionate" editors. And here you both are again pushing for only your version and setting up divisiveness when we need to instead look to the community RfC and be welcoming to other opinions. Instead of pushing for only one page why not push for the best information possibly representing multiple viewpoints. Instead the proposed policy page makes IMHO, some errors that we discussed here a while ago and removed. The emphasis on Jimbo's statement, for instance, which was immediately disputed and is presented at the top as both misleading and WP:Undue. Once you research why he stated what he did it seems rather obvious that it should be presented in context.
- To address the substance of your concerns, I will note that the consensus proposal has specific language to address this issue you bring up. There's an entire section looking at acceptable behaviors. It is not a bad idea to perhaps address enforcement, I will bring it up on talk there. However it is a categorically bad idea for you to recreate and maintain a separate page to cater to your prefered content and wording. Ordinarily, evolving content (as in this instance) simply replaces the older, unsupported versions. If you'd like, we can keep your content and mark it as rejected. I'm ok with either deleting it or marking it rejected. I'm not ok with competing versions, one for you to edit and one for everyone else. --TeaDrinker (talk) 18:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
See:WP:ESSAYS "Essays are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors, for which widespread consensus has not been established. They do not speak for the entire community and may be created and written without approval. Essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to outright contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace. See Category:Wikipedia essays." This is the "guideline" to a t. If you'd prefer an RfC, I'll certainly get one started, but why not just move it to your userspace? You can bring it back if the policy doesn't go anywhere, but now it's just a traffic hazard. Smallbones (talk) 23:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Smallbones please indent your threads as it will help anyone trying to follow the thread. I see a consensus of two and a lot of other editors repelled by the circular discussion. I'm no expert on content forking but I think it's a stretch to apply that here. The guideline page is referencing the comunity RfC on the issue and the policy page is trying to enact a more hardline - which I think is fine to try that. And encouraging you both to improve a policy page you obviously are interested in seems like exactly what we should be doing. The guideline page is to reflect the entire communities views not any one editor - or two editors - and anyone can edit and that has been true for months. Characterizing the work of many editors as a "traffic hazard" seems to suggest a continued hostility which is in opposition to working with other editors. So just to be clear here you two are not interested in an RfC to see if there is support for the proposed policy page, you just want to get rid of this one so only one page on the subject exists? -- Banjeboi 00:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- After repeated requests, I still see no evidence that anyone besides the author supports the ideas put forth in this page. It is quite clearly a content fork and needs to be moved. Please do whatever necessary to advance consensus on this - I think an RfC is called for at this point. Ronnotel (talk) 00:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what question is intended to be put in the RfC? Perhaps an MfD is more appropriate. --TeaDrinker (talk) 01:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)I see it below... Thanks, --TeaDrinker (talk) 01:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)- I appreciate your attempt at writing a neutral question, although I'm not entirely convinced people will see the significance from it. Really for me the question is more rooted in whether a user can make a separate page when ze is unhappy with the way in which the page was edited. I don't follow what the second half of your question signifies. No one is proposing we ignore the past RfC. --TeaDrinker (talk) 01:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Huh? You and Smallbones, mainly, started an alt subpage here because you didn't like the current page. When I was subdued, a switch-a-roo was enacted, that has since been reversed with now both pages in mainspace. I have held off, IMHO, contentious language and concepts from the page basing the "guideline" page mostly from the views expressed on the only community RfC which the proposed policy page seems to treat as a buffet where appealing items are cherry-picked. This is why I feel the policy page is doomed as it is now. I was quite happy to have both pages worked on simultaneously but since you have insisted on an RfC let's see what happens. -- Banjeboi 01:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I suppose I see things differently. I wrote, and many people modified the alt page as a replacement for the proposed page, when it seemed like the text there (what I call your text) was unworkable. Sizable chunks were eventually incorporated into the main text. A month later, you reverted it to your version, reverted the alt page working space to an earlier version, then moved both pages to new locations. Now your question is posing, in essence if not in words, do we want two versions of policy proposal on the same subject? I think that's a bad idea. --TeaDrinker (talk) 03:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Huh? You and Smallbones, mainly, started an alt subpage here because you didn't like the current page. When I was subdued, a switch-a-roo was enacted, that has since been reversed with now both pages in mainspace. I have held off, IMHO, contentious language and concepts from the page basing the "guideline" page mostly from the views expressed on the only community RfC which the proposed policy page seems to treat as a buffet where appealing items are cherry-picked. This is why I feel the policy page is doomed as it is now. I was quite happy to have both pages worked on simultaneously but since you have insisted on an RfC let's see what happens. -- Banjeboi 01:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- I appreciate your attempt at writing a neutral question, although I'm not entirely convinced people will see the significance from it. Really for me the question is more rooted in whether a user can make a separate page when ze is unhappy with the way in which the page was edited. I don't follow what the second half of your question signifies. No one is proposing we ignore the past RfC. --TeaDrinker (talk) 01:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- After repeated requests, I still see no evidence that anyone besides the author supports the ideas put forth in this page. It is quite clearly a content fork and needs to be moved. Please do whatever necessary to advance consensus on this - I think an RfC is called for at this point. Ronnotel (talk) 00:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Smallbones please indent your threads as it will help anyone trying to follow the thread. I see a consensus of two and a lot of other editors repelled by the circular discussion. I'm no expert on content forking but I think it's a stretch to apply that here. The guideline page is referencing the comunity RfC on the issue and the policy page is trying to enact a more hardline - which I think is fine to try that. And encouraging you both to improve a policy page you obviously are interested in seems like exactly what we should be doing. The guideline page is to reflect the entire communities views not any one editor - or two editors - and anyone can edit and that has been true for months. Characterizing the work of many editors as a "traffic hazard" seems to suggest a continued hostility which is in opposition to working with other editors. So just to be clear here you two are not interested in an RfC to see if there is support for the proposed policy page, you just want to get rid of this one so only one page on the subject exists? -- Banjeboi 00:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Request for Comment
Should the current "guideline" page be removed so it can be replaced with a proposed policy page and what weight should be given to the only community-wide request for comment? -- Banjeboi 01:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- I read through this revision of the "guideline" and this revision of the "policy". The major difference seems to be that the "guideline" focuses on whether the editing actually violates COI or other existing policies, while the "policy" criminalizes various types of editing apparently on principle. I guess it all boils down to whether these certain forms of payment have such a low rate of compliance with NPOV and other existing policies that the few that do are lost in the noise (and whether banning it would really make a difference), or whether there are sufficient good edits to justify dealing with the problem-makers. Does anyone actually know, or is it all just random guessing? I sure don't, but my random guess is the latter.
- As for the mess above, what a wonderfully toxic atmosphere. The important point that the only community RFC to date showed no consensus for either banning or specifically allowing paid editing seems to be widely ignored in favor of petty bickering and a "4 against 1 here now wins" mentality. Anomie⚔ 03:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Move "WP:Paid Editing(guideline)" to user space It is an essay, purporting to be a summary of current policy that nobody agrees with. Several editors have asked whether anybody actually supports the proposed guideline, and nobody has answered yes. I plan on taking WP:Paid editing (which was relabeled without consensus "WP:Paid editing (policy)") to a community wide request (by December 1) for comment to see whether it will be accepted as policy. Since "guideline" has no support, it will simply be a source of confusion, an obstruction. It can be brought back, if anybody supports it, if the RfC on the real WP:Paid editing fails. WP:Paid editing (guideline) clearly is not ready for an RfC of its own, so why not get out of the way and let the serious proposal go forward without obstruction? Smallbones (talk) 04:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- I completely disagree with the proposed policy, and per the previous RfC, so does a large part of the community. --Apoc2400 (talk) 07:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)