→Break: resuming discussion from two years ago; can we just delete the section "Changing this policy" and move on? |
|||
Line 248: | Line 248: | ||
::::Nope. You yourself have written that the policy page is an official policy of Wikipedia and that only part of it is the WMF's ToU (see banner at the top of this page). It's totally clear that "community ... policies ... may further limit paid contributions or require more detailed disclosure" and that the community can change any policy in the usual way, except where specifically limited such as in replacing this policy wholesale. Please go ahead suggesting an "alternative policy" it may clarify the situation to everybody. [[User:Smallbones|Smallbones]]<sub>(<font color="cc6600">[[User talk:Smallbones|smalltalk]]</font>)</sub> 17:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC) |
::::Nope. You yourself have written that the policy page is an official policy of Wikipedia and that only part of it is the WMF's ToU (see banner at the top of this page). It's totally clear that "community ... policies ... may further limit paid contributions or require more detailed disclosure" and that the community can change any policy in the usual way, except where specifically limited such as in replacing this policy wholesale. Please go ahead suggesting an "alternative policy" it may clarify the situation to everybody. [[User:Smallbones|Smallbones]]<sub>(<font color="cc6600">[[User talk:Smallbones|smalltalk]]</font>)</sub> 17:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC) |
||
*It would have been better to create this page in 2015 as an information page or "explanatory supplement", along with the headings I added recently: "Policy" and "Explanatory notes". Perhaps we should consider adding an information tag now, then moving the "legal policy" template to the policy section (we would have to create our own template). It wouldn't change the policy status of the blockquote portion, but it would stop people thinking that the whole page is a community policy. [[User:SlimVirgin|SarahSV]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</sup></small> 18:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC) |
*It would have been better to create this page in 2015 as an information page or "explanatory supplement", along with the headings I added recently: "Policy" and "Explanatory notes". Perhaps we should consider adding an information tag now, then moving the "legal policy" template to the policy section (we would have to create our own template). It wouldn't change the policy status of the blockquote portion, but it would stop people thinking that the whole page is a community policy. [[User:SlimVirgin|SarahSV]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</sup></small> 18:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC) |
||
*It's deja vu all over again: the same people discussed all this nearly two years ago, with same positions... The various sections on this page come from the following sources: |
|||
**Wikimedia Foundation terms of use: direct quote of Terms of Use; official policy on the basis of being handed down by the WMF. |
|||
**Conflict of interest guideline: taken from [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest]] (guideline) and the Terms of Use FAQ. |
|||
**How to disclose: taken from [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest]] (guideline) |
|||
**Meaning of "employer, client, and affiliation": taken from the Terms of Use FAQ |
|||
**Wikipedians in residence: taken from the Terms of Use FAQ |
|||
**Promotion and advertising by paid editors: taken from [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]] (policy) |
|||
**Changing this policy: taken from the Terms of Use, and the one original sentence on this page: "When discussing changes to the policy, disclose whether you have been paid to edit Wikipedia." |
|||
*Other than the one sentence, everything else is covered by consensus agreements on other pages. If the other pages were all policies, then this page could be considered to be an umbrella policy page over all of them, though in that case, it would be desirable to restructure all the pages to reflect this nature. But we don't have to get hung up on the descriptor: this page can still be considered an umbrella guidance page, pointing to a combination of guidelines and policies for more information, subject to the usual consensus process to reach agreement on changes. Can we just delete the section "Changing this policy" to avoid ambiguity regarding what "policy" is being referred to and move on? [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 20:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== Change in Undisclosed paid editing tag color? == |
== Change in Undisclosed paid editing tag color? == |
Revision as of 20:04, 18 September 2017
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
and or or
It shouldn't take too long to come up with an RfC wording that will satisfy almost everybody who wants to make a change.
The basic idea is to change "They must do this on their main user page, or on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or in edit summaries."
to: "They must do this on their main user page, or on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or and in edit summaries.
For the RfC we should present our reason for the change, something like "This change is proposed so that we can track the scope of paid editing". That is the reason for having this section and the ToU in the first place and is included in the last sentence of the section. so there's no reason for including that sentence in the actual text.
The only real question I see is if we want to prescribe the templates that have to be used to disclose. Since these are described in the next paragraph by reference to WP:COI, we might also state "These declarations must be made using the templates recommended at WP:COI." Or we could just copy the text directly from WP:COI.
If everybody uses the same templates, Jytdog's hope that we could get pages listing paid editors and articles with paid edits could probably be handled with a bot editing those pages.
Any other suggestions?
Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, on reviewing the template, there are a couple of problems.
- The description of the template says it should be included on the article talk page, but doesn't say anything about the user page.
- The brief usage statement doesn't include a non-linked place for affiliations
- "You should post the disclosure at the top of talk pages as follows:
- {{Connected contributor (paid)|User1=InsertName|U1-employer=InsertName|U1-client=InsertName|U1-otherlinks=Insert relevant links, such as relevant affiliations, disclosures, article drafts written by paid editors, or diffs showing paid contributions being added to articles.}}.
- To make the bot's job easier compiling the paid edited articles and the paid editors user pages, perhaps 2 different templates might make sense e,g, {{Template:Paid editing - talk page}} and {{Template:Page editing - user page}}"
- I'll suggest redoing the templates and just putting those 2 templates into the policy, e.g. "Use template 1 for the article talk page, and use template 2 on your user page."
- Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:01, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) While I agree that only including such information on one of these three is insufficient — all three is similarly overkill. Talk-page mentions are in my book pointless and will likely only clutter pages.
- If it is perceived to be too difficult we'll end up having no disclosures at all — or that disclosing will make things more difficult than just shutting up.
- So even if you absolutely detest paid editing, this seems over the top. It would rather support an outright ban than requiring disclosure on three different pages. Carl Fredrik talk 18:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- Well, it's disclosure on 2 pages and in an edit summary (which is not a page). It can be convenient to see which edits were paid via the edit-summary, but I'm not totally against removing the requirement for edit summaries.
- Perhaps easier - keep the requirement for the edit summary, and the user page and article talk page disclosures each need only be made once - not tracking individual edits. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not yet sure what I think, but CFCF makes a good point. I'd also have a concern about a paid editor who makes most of the required disclosures, but misses one, and I see that as a problem with framing it in terms of "must". I really could not support blocking someone who is in fact making the disclosures in good faith, but makes a mistake on a technicality. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- How about "They must do this once on their main user page, and once on the article talk page for any paid contribution involving a new employer, client, or article" using template 1 for the user page and template 2 for the article talk page. "These templates must be kept in place while the editor works for the same employer or client and for at least one year afterward." That's only two disclosures for each employer-client-article. I think any looser and we'd be violating the ToU and have to put this forward as an alternative paid-editing policy, which I am not prepared to do. It would let bots compile most of the pages Jytdog is interested in @Doc James, Slim Virgin, and Jytdog:.
- BTW, I interpret the ToU as saying that each paid edit must be disclosed. Others have mentioned that this is quite burdensome, and I'm inclined to agree that it's ok to modify this as long as we get essentially the same info. The above suggestion is not burdensome at all, and I don't think that anybody would block somebody for this if there was a good-faith effort made. We'd know, or be able to look up easily enough every edit the paid-editor made to a paid-for page. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- Disclose should remain on their user page and the talk page of the article in question forever. Unless the article in question is deleted and than it should just remain on their user page. Should each edit also contain disclosure? I do not think that is unreasonable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- I agree that disclosures shouldn't go away.
- In a framework where COI is managed through a "disclose and edit directly" scenario, disclosing in each edit note makes a lot of sense.
- But in practice we try to use a "disclose + prior-peer-review" framework (no direct editing) - and I am pretty sure that this approach has pretty broad consensus -- and in that framework disclosing in each edit note is kind of overkill. Jytdog (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with all of the above about lasting disclosures on the user page and the article talk page. As for edit summaries, I see it as "best practice", but I think it would be overkill to take the position that any page edit that lacks a disclosure in the edit summary amounts to a violation. But the point about prior peer review gives me an idea: we could specify that the edit summary should include disclosure for any non-minor edit that has not had prior talk page review. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not yet sure what I think, but CFCF makes a good point. I'd also have a concern about a paid editor who makes most of the required disclosures, but misses one, and I see that as a problem with framing it in terms of "must". I really could not support blocking someone who is in fact making the disclosures in good faith, but makes a mistake on a technicality. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused by the comments. Taken together they strike me as asking for both tighter and looser requirements. My tendency then will be to simplify, or to ask somebody else to give it a try! My try follows.
Under How to disclose
Editors who are compensated for their contributions must disclose their employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any paid contributions. They must do this on their main user page, on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, and in edit summaries.
They must do this once on their main user page, and once on the article talk page for any paid contribution involving a new employer, client, affiliation or article using template 1 for the user page and template 2 for the article talk page. These templates should not be removed.
Each paid edit should include an edit summary beginning with the word "PAID". Further disclosure in edit summaries is not required when template 1 and template 2 have already been placed as required. Paid editors who have discussed the edit on the article talk page may wish to include the edit summary "PAID per talk".
- The bolding is just for this discussion, letting you know the main changes. The italics is to show that we actually need new, simple templates and names for them. "Should" in the last sentence is a bit softer than "must". The user and the article talk page disclosures are about the minimum consistent with the ToU. Adding PAID to each edit summary doesn't sound very burdensome either. Looking forward to somebody else's attempt! Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
@Doc James, Slim Virgin, Jytdog, Tryptofish, and CFCF: I added just a bit more. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- Responding to Tryptofish above, and to this. Please imagine reading this policy from the perspective of a newbie paid editor who is trying to understand what they must do, and what they should and should not do... I would like for them to walk away understanding that they need to disclose and they should not edit articles directly - that they think of direct editing of articles as taboo - as something they should not do. This should also be clear to more experienced users (and of course be grounded n the details and technicalities) but the high level message shouldn't get obscured.
- I think we should be careful with the words "contribution", "edit" and their verbal forms. These words mean any change to Wikipedia, anywhere, but I think most people take "edit" to mean "changing the article". We don't say that anywhere. I think some of the proposal confuses that issue further...
- I would favor an RfC to replace the "how to" aspect called for in the ToU with our own, and to specify article talk page and Userpage.
- btw Smallbones the markup doesn't show what is new (the whole paragraph with "Each paid edit should include an edit summary...." is new.) I don't want to change your proposal but would you please fix it? Jytdog (talk) 19:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- I think Jytdog makes a very good point about not doing direct editing. As I think about the issue of the edit summaries, I'd prefer to put the emphasis on "don't do it at all" instead of on "use the right kind of edit summary when you do it."
- Here is how I would like to go, working from Smallbones' version. I'll try to make it clearer what would be a change from what is on the page now:
- Editors who are compensated for their contributions must disclose their employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any paid contributions. They must do this on their main user page,
orand on the talk pagesaccompanyingof articles where any paid contributions, or in edit summariesare proposed.
- Editors who are compensated for their contributions must disclose their employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any paid contributions. They must do this on their main user page,
- 2nd paragraph as per Smallbones, pending the templates
- new 3rd paragraph: Normally, paid editors should propose changes to articles on the article talk page, rather than editing the article itself, leaving it to other editors to make any changes. If, however, an article is edited directly, the words "PAID EDIT" must (should?) be included in the edit summary.
- --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- I like User:Tryptofish wording. I have just had a paid editor claim that they ONLY needed to disclose articles they created from scratch not those they simply made changes to. So yes paid editors will try to disclose as little as possible. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- Note as per previous discussions, changes to all pages are covered by the need to disclose, not just articles, hence the current wording of talk pages accompanying the paid contributions. Of particular interest are pages in the Wikipedia namespace, and talk pages themselves, where disclosure is made directly on the same page. Since there is typically a lot of back-and-forth discussion on a talk page, the disclosure mechanism should not be overly onerous for this scenario, either for the paid editor or anyone reading the talk page. isaacl (talk) 03:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
- Yes that is dead on. They need to disclose where ever they are writing in WP as a paid editor, and they should not edit articles directly as a paid editor. We have to keep the message clean and simple. Jytdog (talk) 04:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
- OK, that's fine with me. (By the way, the reason I kept using the word "article" was because of the way that I had understood what you said about making things clear, about "they should not edit articles directly", and "most people take 'edit' to mean 'changing the article'". I took the latter to mean that newbies might not understand that "contributions" and "edits" refer to article space, but I realize now that you meant the opposite: that they should not be misled into thinking that the rules apply only in article space.)
- Yes that is dead on. They need to disclose where ever they are writing in WP as a paid editor, and they should not edit articles directly as a paid editor. We have to keep the message clean and simple. Jytdog (talk) 04:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
- --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- Consequently, I'm fine with changing "of articles where" to "of pages where" in the first paragraph of my proposed wording above.
- Question: In my proposed third paragraph, the word "article(s)" appears 4 times, and there are a couple of possible ways to change it. I'm not sure which is best, so I'm asking. We could change "should propose changes to articles on the article talk page, rather than editing the article itself" to "should propose changes to pages on the talk page, rather than editing the page itself". I think that's clear to experienced editors, but is it confusing to new editors that "talk pages" are "pages" themselves (so they can directly edit one kind of page to make proposals but not another kind of page)? And if we were to change "If, however, an article is edited directly" to "If, however, a page is edited directly", that gets even more confusing, so maybe we should leave that sentence with "an article"? I'm not sure.
- Second question: Do I understand correctly that, in the last sentence of the 3rd paragraph, "must be included in the edit summary" is what has consensus, and not "should be included in the edit summary"?
(All of this makes it more complicated for editors wanting to follow the rules about paid editing, and makes it easier for them to get their accounts blocked for failure to disclose on a technical point, which is going to drive such editing further underground and will do little or nothing to advance the project. If you want editors to disclose paid edits, you can't make it complicated or full of punishments. Declared paid editors need to feel that their effort to disclose has been met somewhere— it is the rest of us who want to see them do it in three places or be blocked indefinitely, and that's not really in anyone's interests. KDS4444 (talk) [Note: This user has admitted participating in paid editing,— trust but verify.] 06:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC))
Consequences of paid editing disclosure
I would like to suggest that this page contain some information about the structural consequences for disclosing engaging in paid editing, and the limits that are likely to be placed on an account which has made a paid editing disclosure. I think it is appropriate that editors understand that making a paid editing disclosure will have far-reaching effects on their account, and that they may be asked to surrender existing user rights such as WP:NPP,WP:AUTOPATROLLED, and WP:OTRS, and that they may expect to have requests to be granted such rights/ memberships declined. It might also be worth mentioning that having these rights while disclosing engaging in paid editing is likely to be viewed by other editors as deceptive, and that having advanced user rights is largely incompatible with disclosing having engaged in paid editing of any scale. The fact that a paid editing disclosure is a point-of-no-return for an editor is not at all clear, and warrants pointing out. Thanks. KDS4444 (talk) [Note: This user has admitted participating in paid editing,— trust but verify.] 05:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- That is an... odd way to say it. The issue is what happens if you engage in paid editing.
- It is an activity that is not loved by anyone and not something an editor in good standing should do lightly.
- If you are going to do it, you can do it "black hat" or "white hat".
- Going black hat, you are constantly at risk for getting caught which will lead to an indef. Not a nice way to be present here.
- Going white hat, you are going to catch flak, and yes, you should be ready for that. But one can be a member of the community, in good faith, and in alignment with the mission, going white hat. But you have to really know what you are doing.
- But the fork in the road, is the decision to start editing for pay.
- To be honest your post above still kind of feels like you are looking for somebody else to blame for the boat you are in now. It takes about five seconds of googling to see that it is a controversial thing to do.
- That said, it might be useful to improve the essay Wikipedia:Paid editing (essay) and link it here (btw, see the first sentence in the "Why you shouldn't do it" section. Jytdog (talk) 06:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- While I oppose paid editing I don't think that attitude is helpful at all Jytdog. Since we do allow it we can't go around saying that all paid editing is bad — else we will drive people into the shadows. As long as we allow it at all we won't be able to "convince" all editors that it is bad, and thereby keep them from doing it. That would require an outright ban.
- What I think KDS4444 is getting at is: there needs to be some incentive to disclose. If we're only saying "it's bad whether you disclose or not, and these are all the negative effects of disclosing" — then disclosure will only invite more scrutiny, and arguably no benefit. Hence, paid editors will not disclose.
- I prefer the method of deleting all edits that are performed under non-disclosure, no matter their "quality" (an objective measure anyway). In fact I think we're going to come to a point where this is the only solution — just that there are too many who haven't realized that yet... So I do think KDS4444 brings up a very valid point in that we should provide examples of why disclosure is necessary, or even beneficial.
- I would also like to ask where/why these rights have been revoked? This seems to be very counterproductive, because it serves to de-incentivize disclosure. Is removal of these rights policy-supported? If not they should be restored immediately with the proviso that they can never be used to promote paid edits. Carl Fredrik talk 07:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- For the record: no rights were "revoked", it was suggested they be surrendered. KDS4444 (talk) [Note: This user has admitted participating in paid editing,— trust but verify.] 04:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- CFF you are parachuting into a situation and inventing facts, which is unhelpful. Please read Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers#Conflict_of_Interest_-_of_a_different_kind. Then you can read KDS' talk page. There is other stuff but those are the two places to start.
- And no rights were "revoked". I suggested that KDS should resign the advanced permissions, and they did. Nothing was taken from them.
- COI is an emotional issue but rushing to judgment before you understand everything is just.. unhelpful. I won't respond on the rest of what you wrote until you are able to circle back here, and you may want to strike some of it anyway. Jytdog (talk) 08:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- I don't know the history of the particular editor posting here, and I do not want to wade into any dispute. But as a general comment about "black" and "white hats", I remember having pointed out somewhere or other that there can indeed be a very much "white hat" form of disclosed paid editing (albeit sadly uncommon, especially when new content is being created). If we already have a page about a legitimately notable subject, that subject can hire an editor who carefully complies with our policies and who mainly watches out for vandalism or BLP violations, but otherwise only edits the article talk page, and does so with clear disclosure. I think that that kind of "white hat" editing is actually very welcome here at Wikipedia, and not something that attracts flak. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- The question that was raised at WT:NPR was about advanced permissions. The rough consensus was that at the very least those user rights involving new content are generally not appropriate for editors who have been paid to edit: i.e. autopatrolled and NPR. I won't get into the discussion of white hat vs black hat, but I think recognizing that the community expects users to resign the technical means of avoiding review (autopatrolled) when engaging in paid editing is something we can view as a reasonable expectation, even for white hat editors. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- That's a very good point. In fact, what I was calling "white hat" is about editing that does not involve new content. But when, for example, there is a new page that might be started, there are many pitfalls with respect to paid editing, and the community has a clear consensus about minimizing the damage to content. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- The question that was raised at WT:NPR was about advanced permissions. The rough consensus was that at the very least those user rights involving new content are generally not appropriate for editors who have been paid to edit: i.e. autopatrolled and NPR. I won't get into the discussion of white hat vs black hat, but I think recognizing that the community expects users to resign the technical means of avoiding review (autopatrolled) when engaging in paid editing is something we can view as a reasonable expectation, even for white hat editors. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- I don't know the history of the particular editor posting here, and I do not want to wade into any dispute. But as a general comment about "black" and "white hats", I remember having pointed out somewhere or other that there can indeed be a very much "white hat" form of disclosed paid editing (albeit sadly uncommon, especially when new content is being created). If we already have a page about a legitimately notable subject, that subject can hire an editor who carefully complies with our policies and who mainly watches out for vandalism or BLP violations, but otherwise only edits the article talk page, and does so with clear disclosure. I think that that kind of "white hat" editing is actually very welcome here at Wikipedia, and not something that attracts flak. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I've worked with one or two paid/COI editors on existing articles. Mainly involving the donation of copyrighted materials that had the possibility of helping the Wikimedia movement. In general, if paid editing is to exist, I think it is best kept as far away from new content as possible. It should also be made clear to those editing within the terms of use that the community expects that any new content by a paid editor will be subject to review by a non-connected entity before it is indexed by Google (which really is all the patrolled flag does.) TonyBallioni (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Also Jytdog, I've added a section to the essay you mentioned that I think reflects the past week or so of discussions. Anyone is free to edit or revert. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- KDS4444, I don't know what happened in your case, but I saw Jytdog tell you (diff) that we have a paid-editing policy that says you can't edit (or publish) articles directly. That isn't correct. We have no paid-editing policy, because the community can't reach consensus on the issues. We have this paid-editing disclosure policy in virtue of the WMF terms of use, but it says only that there has to be disclosure, on the user page, article talk page, or in edit summaries.
- Beyond that, we have the COI guideline, which "very strongly discourages" direct article editing by paid editors (see WP:NOPAY). Nowhere does it say that paid editors can't hold certain user rights. There was a recent RfC asking whether paid editors should not become or remain admins, but the proposal was rejected (writing from memory). SarahSV (talk) 06:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Noting that I've now seen the article in question and agree that it should not have been posted. SarahSV (talk) 06:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
That is a good correct, SV, thanks.This policy does refer to the WP:COI guideline, and says "This advises those with a conflict of interest, including paid editors, not to edit affected articles directly." It is odd that the should not directly in the COI guideline is watered down here. But the notion that paid editors and people with a COI should not directly edit, is widely held, as far as I know. I haven't seen anybody argue against that in a very long time. Jytdog (talk) 07:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC) (overreach Jytdog (talk) 17:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC))- There is no policy on user rights (the de-bundled ones we might be able to come to a consensus on. Adminship we won't be able to). The note I added to the essay simply says that there is no consensus on this matter, but that it is controversial, which I think is fair. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- I agree, that is a reasonable summary. Jytdog (talk) 17:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- There is no policy on user rights (the de-bundled ones we might be able to come to a consensus on. Adminship we won't be able to). The note I added to the essay simply says that there is no consensus on this matter, but that it is controversial, which I think is fair. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Responding to this a bit more. In that diff - I never said "can't". Jytdog (talk) 17:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
should not directly edit affected articles vs. very strongly discouraged from editing affected articles
On August 30, Jytdog made this edit changing the meaning of this policy and misrepresenting the contents of WP:COI, which the section summarizes. WP:COI only says that paid-editors are "very strongly discouraged from editing affected articles."
I am a paid editor. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- Please revert this change. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 00:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- I made it match the COI guideline. It is a distinction without a difference, but technically yes it should match. And neither of you should directly edit where you are paid, and as far as I know both of you are following that. Which is good for everybody. Jytdog (talk) 03:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Meta discussion regarding the requirement for paid editors to link to their accounts on other sites
Please see meta:Requests_for_comment/Interlinking_of_accounts_involved_with_paid_editing_to_decrease_impersonation. I am sure this has been raised somewhere on en.wiki before and rejected but can't find the discussion. I may be wrong... SmartSE (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Changing this policy
@Slim Virgin and Doc James: I hadn't seen this edit before from about 2 weeks ago. It was not discussed here and was summarized as "ce (more accurate)". I don't think it clarifies anything and is less accurate about how we can change this policy.
The main problem with it is that it ignores the two level nature of the policy:
- the role of the Terms of Use - which must be followed and can only be changed in a specific manner, and
- the role of consensus on Wikipedia reflected by normal editing of the policy. We should try to reflect the current consensus of the community (excluding undisclosed paid editors, who are of course prohibited from editing until they make a full disclosure). I see the consensus to limit paid editing getting stronger every day, so normal, usually small, edits can be made which strengthen this policy.
Just to be clear what happened:
A. This version (which had been essentially unchanged for 3 years)
- This policy may be changed in two ways:
- An alternative policy can revoke the disclosure provision of the terms of use as it applies to the English Wikipedia and replace it with a new policy, which may be stronger or weaker. A proposed alternative policy must be clearly identified in a Request for Comment (RfC) as revoking the WMF policy. Upon approval, the new policy must be listed on the alternative-disclosure policy page. The RfC must be conducted in a manner consistent with the standard consensus-based process for establishing core policies.
- Other changes to this policy that do not seek to revoke or weaken the terms of use are permitted, consistent with community practice for adding such material.
- When discussing changes to the policy, disclose whether you have been paid to edit Wikipedia.
Was changed to
B. This version
- An alternative policy can strengthen or weaken this policy, including by revoking the disclosure provision of the terms of use as it applies to the English Wikipedia. A proposed alternative policy must be clearly identified in a Request for Comment (RfC) as revoking the WMF policy. Upon approval, the new policy must be listed on the alternative-disclosure policy page. The RfC must be conducted in a manner consistent with the standard consensus-based process for establishing core policies.
- When discussing changes to the policy, disclose whether you have been paid to edit Wikipedia.
which ignores the fact that this policy can be changed like any other policy on Wikipedia (as well as the more drastic "alternative policy" type of change.
I've temporarily added an introductory paragraph to B. which should clear things up, but I think I still like A. best.
C.
- This policy may be changed in the same manner that other policies are changed on Wikipedia. These changes may further limit paid contributions or require more detailed disclosure, or, in some cases relax the limits on paid contributors. But if this policy's limits and requirements are less strict than those in the Terms of Use, the limits and requirements of the Terms of Use will still apply.
- The Terms of Use as it applies to English Wikipedia can be changed by adopting an alternative policy.
- An alternative policy can strengthen or weaken this policy, including by revoking the disclosure provision of the terms of use as it applies to the English Wikipedia. A proposed alternative policy must be clearly identified in a Request for Comment (RfC) as revoking the WMF policy. Upon approval, the new policy must be listed on the alternative-disclosure policy page. The RfC must be conducted in a manner consistent with the standard consensus-based process for establishing core policies.
- When discussing changes to the policy, disclose whether you have been paid to edit Wikipedia.
If we are going to change this part of policy we need to, of course, do it consistently with the section on "Changing this policy."
In the discussion below, please indicate whether you want A. changed, and if so, whether you prefer the change to B. or C.
Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- The confusing part is that technically speaking, only the portion under the section "Wikimedia Foundation terms of use" is policy, and as I recall, this page was originally created to have a copy of this within English Wikipedia. Since then, the page has been expanded to add clarification of how the policy is applied, and to repeat guidance from other pages. This page itself has never gone through the RFC process to gain general consensus as a guideline or policy, so its status is entirely dependent on the status of the other pages from which it copies. (Which is part of why I previously argued that duplication of guidance isn't a great thing, but that's in the past now.)
- So the paragraph discussing on how the policy can be modified is just a repetition of the last quoted section from the Terms of Use. Since it is redundant, the whole section can just be deleted. If it were to be kept, I think it should be substantially the same as in the Terms of Use, with perhaps a brief clarifying statement saying it is only referring to the policy as described in the Terms of Use. isaacl (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, but this page is a policy on En Wikipedia and has been for over three years. We can change it in the normal way just like any other policy - and we always could. There is consensus for it in the community now and there was when it was started more than 3 years ago. This has never been seriously challenged. You ask about the RfC - it was the largest RfC in history, was passed with 80% support, and approved by the WMF Board. But "technically speaking" it was conducted on Meta and approved as the Terms of Use, isn't that right? Actually "technically speaking" our policies don't rely on technicalities or fancy processes. They only depend on consensus. The consensus was clear when the policy was established, I think it's even clearer now. If you want to change the fundamental policy - or say that it isn't a policy anymore - the policy itself tells you how it can be changed - pass an alternative policy. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, the RfC approved the change to the Terms of Use, and as I said, that part is policy. The rest of this page has some explanations of the policy based on the FAQ, and material taken from other guidance pages. Thus the rest can change if the other guidance pages change, to keep it in synch. isaacl (talk) 00:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, but this page is a policy on En Wikipedia and has been for over three years. We can change it in the normal way just like any other policy - and we always could. There is consensus for it in the community now and there was when it was started more than 3 years ago. This has never been seriously challenged. You ask about the RfC - it was the largest RfC in history, was passed with 80% support, and approved by the WMF Board. But "technically speaking" it was conducted on Meta and approved as the Terms of Use, isn't that right? Actually "technically speaking" our policies don't rely on technicalities or fancy processes. They only depend on consensus. The consensus was clear when the policy was established, I think it's even clearer now. If you want to change the fundamental policy - or say that it isn't a policy anymore - the policy itself tells you how it can be changed - pass an alternative policy. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- I just changed the section back to what it had been, before the recent edits, as a temporary measure until there is agreement about what if anything to change. My recollection from the discussions following the issuance of the Terms of Use was that WMF Legal wanted something specific to be here: that any changes that we make here at en-Wiki must be performed according to what it says at meta:Terms of use/FAQ on paid contributions without disclosure#Can a local project adopt an alternative disclosure policy for paid editing?. I think that, in particular, they were concerned that we not weaken the ToU requirement without good reason, although setting requirements higher than the ToU would be less of a concern to them. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Smallbones, this isn't correct: "Other changes to this policy that do not seek to revoke or weaken the terms of use are permitted, consistent with community practice for adding such material."
We don't have a paid-editing policy, because there's never been consensus for one. We have this paid-editing disclosure policy, courtesy of the WMF. The only part of the page that is policy is the grey block quote. The process for changing this is expained at the FAQ and at m:Alternative paid contribution disclosure policies, where you've been explaining it to others on the talk page. To change the policy we have to hold an RfC to install an alternative disclosure policy, which can be stronger or weaker, including "we have no disclosure policy", as Commons has done. [1] Then we list it on that page. SarahSV (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- The disputed sentence ("Other changes to this policy ...") was added here in September 2015. We should go back to the earliest version:
- "The Wikimedia Foundation allows projects to adopt alternative policies governing the disclosure of paid contributions. An alternative policy supersedes the requirements of the terms of use only if it is approved by the community and listed as an alternative paid contribution disclosure policy."
- That's a good point, about the earliest version, so I just changed it back to that, for the time being. In my opinion, that earliest version is actually better than any of the subsequent versions, concise and to the point. If we blue-link "approved by the community" to WP:PGCHANGE, WP:PROPOSAL or WP:RFC, and maybe add a few words about clearly identifying that such an RfC alters how we treat the ToU, I think that would be all we need. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, I would support that. SarahSV (talk) 21:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with SlimVirgin's description of what this policy is and is not, and with going back to the earlier version as well. Jytdog (talk) 21:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- Question: Wont it be better just stop hard blocking editors who are paid to help us to improve our project? Like, there were some cases when editors were blocked simply by being a part of an organization (a church for example). They didn't do anything promotional but their user names were in conflict with our policies just because they don't represent Wikipedia in name (but I do believe that they do represent it in heart).--Biografer (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- violations of USERNAME are entirely different from violations of this policy. The rest of what you wrote begs the question. Jytdog (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Jytdog: Hmm, I would understand if a username contains something offensive, but if it contains something promotional (and it is here to help us) shouldn't that be OK? What do you mean by the rest of what you wrote begs the question?
- PS: Sorry if my question above was a little bit irrelevant (maybe).--Biografer (talk) 22:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- violations of USERNAME are entirely different from violations of this policy. The rest of what you wrote begs the question. Jytdog (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- Question: Wont it be better just stop hard blocking editors who are paid to help us to improve our project? Like, there were some cases when editors were blocked simply by being a part of an organization (a church for example). They didn't do anything promotional but their user names were in conflict with our policies just because they don't represent Wikipedia in name (but I do believe that they do represent it in heart).--Biografer (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with SlimVirgin's description of what this policy is and is not, and with going back to the earlier version as well. Jytdog (talk) 21:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- Personally, as I mentioned above, I think it's redundant to virtually repeat what's already quoted from the Terms of Use. isaacl (talk) 00:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, I would support that. SarahSV (talk) 21:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Break
One correction - above I said that the version of "Changing this policy" that I put in on Sept. 1, 2015 was 3 years ago. Obviously it was 2 years ago. It was the 4th edit to the policy page (excluding a vandal's edit and quick revert). At that date I explained on the talk page why this was the policy given in the ToU, and that section stayed on this talk page without comment until it was archived a month later. That section of the policy stayed the same until August 30, 2017 when it was removed without discussion. AFAIK it had never even been questioned over those 2 years.
6 days after my edit Sarah included the following text box at the top of this talk page [2]
It's still there and AFAIK it never left. IMHO it indicates full agreement by Sarah with my understanding now and back then of the policy page being a policy and how it can be changed.
A quick run down on why this policy is an En:Wikipedia policy. The ToU specifically allow further limits on paid editing without giving any limits on how the community can do this "community ... policies ... may further limit paid contributions or require more detailed disclosure." So obviously it can be done by the usual methods, which are described by us at WP:PGCHANGE
But was this a policy when 1st posted in late August 2015? WP:PROPOSAL gives the procedure for establishing new policies. The only requirement is "Proposals for new guidelines and policies require discussion and a high level of consensus from the entire community for promotion to guideline or policy." With the largest RfC in history giving 80% support to the ToU change. this requirement was clearly met. If it's not met in this case, it was never met in any case.
The "alternative policy" paragraph does not refer to the normal type of change described above. It was added at the last minute of the RfC and I made sure that it was not intended to change the meaning of the existing wording. It gives a means to completely replace the ToU changes as it applies to en:Wiki and other projects. Completely replacing the policy is a great deal different than making normal changes, so stronger standards have to be met.
The net result is that the ToU gives a floor for paid disclosure policy, unless an alternative policy goes through WP:Proposal. Additional limitations on paid editing may be added in the usual manner. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- I reverted Sarah's new attempt to say that this is not policy. It clearly is.
- Then I reverted back to the version on August 30, 2017 just before Sarah changed the "Changing this policy" section without discussion. If you want to change that section, you'll have to go through the "Alternative Policies" procedure. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Smallbones, when you made that edit in September 2015 I didn't realize the significance of it. It wasn't until you started talking about adding provisions this year that I realized that paragraph was perhaps causing confusion, so I removed it. SarahSV (talk) 17:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- I added headings ("Policy" and "Explanatory notes") to differentiate the part of the page that is policy from the rest. Smallbones has removed the headings and, as he said above, reverted to 30 August. There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding about what this page is. It's not a policy that we can just keep on building. Several Arbs don't even recognize the blockquote part of it as policy. This is the WMF default disclosure policy, which applies because the English Wikipedia doesn't have its own policy. SarahSV (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- (EC)I've added links to WP:PGCHANGE and WP:Proposal to the section on "Changing" to clarify, consistent with comments above.
- The Sept 1, 2015 version is exactly what is in the ToU. You'd need to go through the alternative policies procedure to change it. That might not be a bad idea to do that, we can add other material at that time too, but we'd need to discuss how to best present an alternative policy. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- The Sept 1 2015 version is not what is in the Terms of Use. There is conceptual confusion here, and I don't know how to make it clearer. The WMF handed down its own policy. It said that every project must have a disclosure policy. Communities can create their own (and the WMF explained what procedure it expects to see). Communities that don't want to create their own must use the WMF's.
- The English Wikipedia has so far decided not to create its own disclosure policy. Therefore, the WMF policy applies. This page is just a courtesy page designed to make the WMF policy easy to find, and to explain some terms that might not be clear. It has no other status or function. Its status as policy derives entirely from the Terms of Use. SarahSV (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- Nope. You yourself have written that the policy page is an official policy of Wikipedia and that only part of it is the WMF's ToU (see banner at the top of this page). It's totally clear that "community ... policies ... may further limit paid contributions or require more detailed disclosure" and that the community can change any policy in the usual way, except where specifically limited such as in replacing this policy wholesale. Please go ahead suggesting an "alternative policy" it may clarify the situation to everybody. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- It would have been better to create this page in 2015 as an information page or "explanatory supplement", along with the headings I added recently: "Policy" and "Explanatory notes". Perhaps we should consider adding an information tag now, then moving the "legal policy" template to the policy section (we would have to create our own template). It wouldn't change the policy status of the blockquote portion, but it would stop people thinking that the whole page is a community policy. SarahSV (talk) 18:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- It's deja vu all over again: the same people discussed all this nearly two years ago, with same positions... The various sections on this page come from the following sources:
- Wikimedia Foundation terms of use: direct quote of Terms of Use; official policy on the basis of being handed down by the WMF.
- Conflict of interest guideline: taken from Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (guideline) and the Terms of Use FAQ.
- How to disclose: taken from Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (guideline)
- Meaning of "employer, client, and affiliation": taken from the Terms of Use FAQ
- Wikipedians in residence: taken from the Terms of Use FAQ
- Promotion and advertising by paid editors: taken from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (policy)
- Changing this policy: taken from the Terms of Use, and the one original sentence on this page: "When discussing changes to the policy, disclose whether you have been paid to edit Wikipedia."
- Other than the one sentence, everything else is covered by consensus agreements on other pages. If the other pages were all policies, then this page could be considered to be an umbrella policy page over all of them, though in that case, it would be desirable to restructure all the pages to reflect this nature. But we don't have to get hung up on the descriptor: this page can still be considered an umbrella guidance page, pointing to a combination of guidelines and policies for more information, subject to the usual consensus process to reach agreement on changes. Can we just delete the section "Changing this policy" to avoid ambiguity regarding what "policy" is being referred to and move on? isaacl (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Change in Undisclosed paid editing tag color?
This is probably a trivial subject, but why was the color of the standard UDP tag changed from red to orange? I always liked how a red tag stood out as opposed to the orange color seen on the majority of other templates.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- SamHolt6, it was changed here, apparently because red is associated with deletion. You can ask about it on that talk page, Template talk:Undisclosed paid. SarahSV (talk) 19:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- Have restored red. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)