The question "You're one of the minority of Wikipedians whose real name is known. Has it had positive or negative ramifications in you on-Wikipedia work? How about your off-Wikipedia life?" is an interesting one. I also use my real name. In my preferred area of editing (Engineering) this has been a strong positive for me. On multiple occasions someone has phoned me (which I encourage) with interesting questions or news about various engineering topics. One downside is that when I click on the random article link I sometimes see a typo or a place where a citation needed tag is needed and am reluctant to make the edit because I don't want to be associated with that topic.

On several occasions I have been contacted off-wiki and asked to help with a page that someone is having trouble with. While I am open to declaring my potential COI and making the edit, I would only do that in completely noncontroversial cases. Usually I end up explaining to them why Wikipedia won't put up a page for their non-notable business or theory or explaining how to edit with a declared COI. Most people are pretty open to this once you explain the goals of the encyclopedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. If these are the "benefits" of editing under a real name I'm glad I'm not editing under mine. Nageh (talk) 13:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know whether it's true that CREWE and other paid editors are planning to attend WikiMania Washington en masse in order to ensure that their viewpoint on paid editing is perceived as the majority opinion? Most of us on the sceptic side are unable to afford to go, of course, since nobody is going to pay for us to attend just to defend our perception of what is in the best interests of this project. ---Orange Mike | Talk 00:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you hear that? I know that David King is hosting a panel at WikiMania, but he's doing that separately from CREWE. I'm not sure if any other CREWE members are going to be going, I think only a few that i've heard of. Silverseren^C 01:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a member of CREWE (but not a paid editor - perhaps there is a misunderstanding about who CREWE's members are?), living in the DC area (so cost isn't an issue, regarding attending Wikimania). I'm not planning to go (for personal reasons), but I note that this is the first time that I've heard anyone say anything about CREWE attending as a group. I'm also skeptical that even if they did (or even if hundreds of paid editors showed up), that it would make any difference whatsoever with regard to defining "majority opinion". Wikimania isn't where policy and guidelines are decided upon, or changed; that happens only here on the wiki. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also a member of CREWE, as a Wikipedian and not a PR person or a paid editor on the make... I agree that OrangeMike's misgivings are phrased in such a way as to indicate an unfamiliarity with the nature of the group — which includes both people from the PR industry, broadly defined, and Wikipedians who have nothing to do with that industry whatsoever other than an honest interest in resolving the messy and contradictory situation that COI editing policy is in today. There have been some militantly anti-paid editing Wikipedians who have participated at CREWE and having such a perspective is no barrier to participation. Wikipedia is a diverse place and the PR folk do need to hear the full range of voices. The URL for the Facebook group that is CREWE is: http://www.facebook.com/groups/crewe.group/ —Tim Davenport //// Carrite (talk) 04:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that in mistakenly using "CREWE" as shorthand for "those folks lobbying to open Wikipedia up to more uninhibited editing by paid professionals whose job is to make their clients look as good as possible", I have led us off topic. What steps, if any, have been taken to assure that those who are skeptical of this whole movement will be heard at Wikimania, and that any discussion of COI editing will not become a fluffy-bunny celeberation of the PR industry tampering with client articles? The PR pros, the spin-doctors and the lobbyists can afford to be there, because those for whom they work will pay for it; the rest of us cannot, because those for whom WE work, the readers, will not be paying for us to come. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am David King and the organizer of the proposed panel "Maintaining a Neutral Encyclopedia when Users are Anything But. To clarify, it's not focused exclusively on paid editing and as far as I know hasn't been accepted yet. I asked a CREWE member to discuss the group nominating a spokesperson to be on the panel and the only conversation that ensued was if there was any value. It seems unfathomable a bunch of PR people would fly across the country to astroturff a tiny crowd of Wikipedians, rather than just learn the rules and use Talk pages. I actively sought an anti-paid editor to be on the panel, but was unable to find one that was attending. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 01:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, you didn't ask the right people. Smallbones (talk) 03:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going smallbones? I was poking around at the paid advocacy group, but Herostratus isn't going. We really need someone with a strong opposition. Are you game? I wasn't even aware you necessarily considered yourself in that camp. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 17:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of us in the opposition camp have to do honest work for a living, and are unable to afford to go to Wikimania, since our employers won't pay us to go. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The full copy of the study mentioned here would seem to confirm that CREWE is lobbying against the bright line. I can finally leave my user page disclaimer up with peace of mind. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 17:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a hard time seing this piece as unbiased journalism - if this is supposed to be two pro-paid editing folks pushing their point of view then it should be labeled as a pure opinion piece, not as an interview. I hope we do not see the series on paid editing that was promised in the first paragraph. There have already been at least a couple of pro-paid editing article in the Signpost over the few months, e.g. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-12-05/In the news and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-02-06/In the news. Just to be clear User:Silver seren founded the grossly misnamed WikiProject Cooperation, which is overtly pro-Public Relations editing on Wikipedia. User:Ocaasi joined it in the first month.

Could Ocaasi and Silver seren at least rename their Wikiproject? - What does having Wikipedia volunteers support the PR industry have to do with cooperation? Editors cooperate in every Wikiproject. How is the PR industry cooperating with us? BTW, the link in the article WikiProject Cooperation links to WP:Civility. All the name does is sow confusion.

I particularly think the softball questions have to be avoided, see, e.g.

Which do you think is a bigger problem; paid editing, or unpaid advocacy? Do you think it's unfair that paid editors have a target painted on them while unpaid advocates can civilly push their point of view without consequence?

and

You do yeoman's work at WikiProject Cooperation's Paid Editor Help board. Do you ever feel like you're doing other people's work for them, that they're being compensated for and you're not?

If it ever does come to the point that Wikipedia allows PR firms to edit articles, I just hope that our journalism schools do a better job teaching how to write PR pieces than they apparently have done in teaching how to write straight journalism. Smallbones (talk) 02:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We already allow PR professionals to edit articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PR professionals are paid to get across the POV of their employers. It's absolutely impossible to do this and edit according to an NPOV. Paid advocacy is definitely not allowed. They been told since Kohs that they are not welcome here. What are they missing?

I'm surprised that I can say above that the Signpost is publishing a PR puff piece disguised as an unbiased news article, and nobody even bothers to defend their honor. Do folks here even know what unbiased means anymore, or is it considered ok now to put PR anywhere? Smallbones (talk) 00:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some paid editors are paid to get across the POV of their employer and, for the most part, these are discussing the unethical ones. But most paid editors are actually paid to fix inaccuracies and false information placed into articles by users who dislike the subject in question. Silverseren^C 02:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Inaccuracies and false information" from the employer's POV, of course. He who pays the piper calls the tune. It's extremely naive to expect otherwise. Smallbones (talk) 03:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As long as they are improving the article in a manner that follows NPOV and the rest of Wikipedia's rules, then they are no different than any other editor. The people who have a deep rooted personal opinion about a subject are of far more importance, as they are an actual threat to Wikipedia's integrity. Silverseren^C 04:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Smallbones, you said "PR professionals are paid to get across the POV of their employers," but speaking as a PR practitioner myself, many times I'm being paid to occupy all 10 slots of Google page 1 search results for my client, so a short article that presents basic facts is enough. It is in my (and my client's) best interests that the article adhere to community standards so that it is not deleted. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 21:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited where I've had a clear COI, but it was a slightly unusual situation and I was very careful:

• I suggested the changes on the talk page, declared my COI, and waited, and only edited when there was no response.
• I was mainly removing and condensing unencyclopedic content that had been tagged by another editor as being problematic - long passages that someone had copied from Appropedia pages - CC-by-sa and I think it was attributed, so not a copyvio. Just not interesting from a Wikipedia point of view.
• I was making the article less promotional. (This was a major motive - it reflected badly on us to have it look as if we were using Wikipedia for shameless promotion.)
• I didn't make all the changes that I might have wanted to make - I stuck to changes that I considered completely uncontroversial and which unambiguously improved the Wikipedia page (which is the point of WP:IAR).
• I was careful not to remove negative content (not that there was any).
• I posted diffs of my changes to the talk page and invited anyone to revert or change.

Never had any complaints. The fact that I'm a longstanding Wikipedia editor with a respectable edit record is relevant - most PR people would struggle if they were in that situation.

Maybe the above could be a starting point for a guide on "when and how is it okay to edit an article where you have a COI." --Chriswaterguy talk 08:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC) [ Clarification - I wasn't a paid editor in this case - the COI was that I'm an unpaid director of the non-profit organization that is the subject of the article. I think the same principles apply, though. --Chriswaterguy talk 00:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC) ][reply]

I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir with you, Chris, but not only are there a range of opinions about COI editing at WP (and contradictory signals about it sent out), but there are a range of situations being addressed by COI editors. At one end of the spectrum, I'm sure we'd all agree that COI editors fixing vandalism or typographical errors is no problem whatsoever. At the other end of the spectrum, I'm sure we'd all agree that COI editors surreptitiously adding promotional, spammy content is NOT EVER okay. Between those poles there is a lot of room for debate. What about a company employee spending two weeks to add history from the 1920s to the 1960s to a currently really shitty piece like Brown Shoe Company? Few would object. What about that person adding non-promotional sourced content about uncontroversial current affairs — company personnel, sales figures, etc.? Some would object. But where's the line between "controversial" and "non-controversial"? And how do we know who has a COI in a current WP environment that does not require real-name registration and sign-in-to-edit? It gets complicated pretty quickly, as you know...

That's what the PR people at CREWE just want to know: how do we do this PROPERLY? And they can take THIS IS NOT OKAY for an answer in situations calling for it. My own advice to them is to make acquaintances among the dedicated content writing corps at WP and to get in touch with them, using them as an intermediary to make the call about on which side of the invisible line between OK and NOT OK content falls. My analogy is that editing on behalf of clients at WP is like walking a tightrope with no net in front of a crowd with a taste for gore. One slip and it's hasta la vista. "So: are you sure you really want to do this yourself?" It can be done properly, but it's definitely a dangerous situation for them — not so much for WP, which has hundreds and hundreds of people dedicated to fighting spam and vandalism...

You did it exactly right, of course. 1. Declare your COI. 2. Commit no spamming — "I stuck to changes that I considered completely uncontroversial and which unambiguously improved the Wikipedia page." 3. Invite scrutiny. Carrite (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are some misguided Wikipedia editors who seem to think that we have a policy against paid editing, but we don't. If I were a paid editor or someone hiring one, I would be very interested in some sort of organization where other paid editors gave good advice about how to best follow Wikipedia's policies -- especially if my first few efforts were quickly reverted.

I think that there is one situation where paid editors who follow the rules would be especially valuable; articles about corporations that have become attack pieces. It sometimes happens that someone has some bad experience with Acme Corporation's roadrunner-capture products and turns the article on Acme (and perhaps the one on roadrunners or coyotes) into a completely unbalanced attack article accusing Acme of being Nazi Pedophile Bedwetters. Then someone from Acme turns the article into a sales brochure with no negatives at all, and the battle is on. Wouldn't it be better if Either Acme or the lawyers representing W.E. Coyote hired a pro who calmly explained to them that they are not going to get the article they want but that they could get an article with both POVs given due weight, written by someone who has made it his business to write articles that don't get reverted for policy violations? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see it as the same as The New York Times or the Wall Street Journal. None of these publications would trust PR professionals to write their own articles. On the other hand, they do accept factual corrections, contributed articles on non-controversial content and get the perspective of the article subject on controversial areas. Because PR professionals don't know how to navigate Wikipedia and there is a convenient shortcut, the whole thing is a mess. The model of working with Wikipedia's citizen journalists isn't that different from traditional media relations.(ok maybe it is very different, but similar conceptually) On the other hand, putting an official stamp of approval would also produce unfavorable results, considering the practicality of the type of contributions that are most common. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 01:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked with some paid editors (and other COI), and will work with others, if they're willing to work properly. I think they can be a very valuable resource, in providing us access to sourced information we could not otherwise conveniently find, in contributing free content that would otherwise be under copyright restrictions, and in helping us write decent articles in fields where our coverage is weak--which includes most business topics outside of computer technology.

I have a somewhat different opinion from some of the other people who do this about how their editing should be done. I find their proposing content on the talk page cumbersome for uncontroversial material, and I would much prefer they edit and disclose their identity, and that we deal with it by the normal wiki editing process. What I ask is that they not try to add clearly improper content, and that they not interfere with our discussions about whether their edits or articles are acceptable. Much content can be seen as both informative and promotional, and how it will come across depends on the way it is written. I'm as prepared to fix this as I am to fix wording of an enthusiast or beginner or non-native speaker, but I find it much easier to do it on wiki, on the content page itself. Others may disagree, but i see no reason to penalize such editing. Of all the forms of low quality editing we get, this is among the easiest to deal with.

But, when someone doesn't cooperate or the tone requires complete rewriting, I have no hesitation in deleting or even blocking, and I have personally deleted thousands of such articles--just the same as my fiend Orange Mike, who looks at things in a different way: we--and I think everyone else in this discussion--agree on what is and isn't proper encyclopedic content. Our vigilance to do this,and to revert bad edits is our best defense. An active community is the only way of protecting an open project against harmful conflict of interest. (the only alternative is to have closed editing with required disclosure of true identity--otherwise we're in the situation of random enforcement, which only encourage people to try trickery to avoid detection, which is where we would be if Jimmy's view of this topic were controlling. Rather, he should trust the quality of the editing mechanism his project has developed.) DGG ( talk ) 23:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I tend to agree. Banning COI editors or paid editors is likely to be as effective as banning prostitution or alcohol - it will just force it underground.

Emphasizing sourced and uncontroversial edits is probably helpful for new editors. Phrasing for a guideline might be along the lines of: "Edits by COI editors are likely to be accepted where they have appropriate independent sources and are something that both employees/advocates and critics/skeptics would agree with." --Chriswaterguy talk 05:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will this person accept money in exchange for helping people edit for money? I assume the answer is "Yes", if offered.Ling.Nut3 (talk) 05:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What person? Are you referring to me? Silverseren^C 05:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I deliberately only skimmed the article, as its content was mildly distasteful. In general, anyone who works with this WikiProject: what distinguishes them from people who put crappy "Gets tons of money on the Internet" ads on T-shirts? If they meet people who are paid to edit, and they correspond via email, la de da and so on, and then eventually do they get a little check in the mail? And people who are paid to edit, where is the firewall against COI? And isn't this legitimizing a profoundly dangerous practice? Aren't you concerned that pretty soon Wikipedia will become captured by private interests: MSNWikipediaSoft? Ling.Nut3 (talk) 09:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of the Wikipedians working with Wikiproject Cooperation, including myself, are getting paid anything. And I find that accusation to be incredibly offensive. The "firewall" for paid editors is just the same as with everyone else. Paid editors exist and will always exist so long as we have articles on corporations and other individuals who stake a large amount of their livelihood on their image and especially when Wikipedia allows inaccuracies and, a fair amount of the time, outright vandalism to exist in their articles and tarnish this image. The point of Wikiproject Cooperation is to work with these individuals to fix these issues and, in doing so, avoid any COI issues being added to articles. Silverseren^C 22:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deliberately choosing to work with people whose goals are inherently and completely incompatible with ours is a slippery slope, isn't it? They will take your cooperation as validation, at first implicitly, but at some point down the road the case will be made explicitly.. As for my remarks being offensive, well, you may be Gandhi, Mother Teresa and MLK all wrapped up in one, but wherever an opportunity exists for someone to make money by doing a spot of Wikipedia work, someone will rise up to grab the cash. That is called "human nature". So step down from the offended harrumphing and face the real world: you are playing with matches in a powder keg, and labeling yourself a helpful citizen for doing so.Ling.Nut3 (talk) 01:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is your personal opinion that their goals are incompatible with Wikipedia. But it's quite clear to me and others that there are significant contributions paid editors can make to Wikipedia and already have through Wikiproject Cooperation. Your labeling of human nature like that is saddening and it surprises me that you edit Wikipedia, since I would expect your opinion of a volunteer-run encyclopedia to be one that is doomed to failure from the get-go. Silverseren^C 01:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is evidence that my opinion (that their goals are incompatible with Wikipedia) is shared by many others: aren't they banned pronto? That does seem like admissible evidence that others feel the same way... as for the intersection of my worldview and Wikipedia, well, a relatively small but extremely important subset of our articles are doomed to fail from the get-go (see anything about Hugo Chavez, Huaihai Campaign, Six-Day War, etc.). But a huge number of other articles are not doomed in that manner, and providing them to the public for free is a (modestly) noble cause. Other causes are certainly far more noble, but this one at least can hold its head up with pride. And if you are one of those pitiable few who genuinely think human beings are inherently noble, read Frog Boys. Om dat de werelt is soe ongetru Daer om gha ic in den ru. Ling.Nut3 (talk) 02:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editors are not immediately banned and I don't know where you got that idea from at all. And paid editors make great articles, such as this and this. You're letting the bad examples of paid editing color your opinion of the ones that are doing things the right way. Silverseren^C 02:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now, to be honest, I think a lot of newer editors and even those who have been editing on WP a while have the impression that paid editing is a strong no-no. Until I started looking into it more after seeing this discussion, I had that idea as well. But after looking at WP:COI (specifically WP:NOPAY) I see that it is really frowned upon if it leads to non-neutral editing, but not explicitly prohibited in general (people aren't banned for simply paid editing, I suppose). However, so many times people who are found to be working for a company or paid to edit have their edits reverted for COI and if they continue, sometimes they are temporarily or permanently blocked. I mean, really, the shortcut is NOPAY (of course, WP:PAY goes there too). I have not read the signpost through yet, so I can't really comment on that. Unfortunately, while I see that they are not "automatically banned", it almost seems that way and to claim that you don't know where he got that idea at all seems somewhat specious. Since the ones you generally talk to might support paid editing, you might think most WP do, but I'm sure there are more like me who thought paid editing was not appropriate. I will reserve my judgement completely on it until after I have read the signpost. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 03:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the signpost and some of the discussions, I see that several users are trying to state that many people (like I did) think paid editing is forbidden, but that it isn't explicitly. Thinking about it more, I now cannot say I am opposed, but just think we have to be leery of anything that could promote non-neutral editing. As long as editors are up front about being paid (in whatever way) I'm sure that there are enough editors out there both named and anon IPs that can check for COI/neutrality. I know there are a lot of articles out there to patrol, but it can be done. I guess I'd have to give a weak support for paid editing. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 04:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Considering that there are a number of established users who are also paid editors (though they often has a separate, disclosed account for it, I really don't see where the idea came from. WWB has been an editor here for years and there are a number like him. I've run across several of them long before I created Wikiproject Cooperation and i've always edited amicably with them. They're, more or less, normal editors just like the both of us. All that really matters is how you're editing. You can just as easily get someone who writes hatchet jobs of articles or puff pieces and has nothing to do with being paid, but just that they have a personal opinion on a subject. Conversely, there are a number of paid editors (I would even hazard to say most paid editors) who are here just to improve articles and make them more accurate and not to make them puff pieces. Silverseren^C 04:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's really the point of this whole process, we (Wikiproject Cooperation and others) are trying to come up with the best method to make sure neutral contributions are being made to articles, but to also allow correction of inaccuracies and improvement of articles at the same time. Silverseren^C 04:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think some of the problems with paid editing seem to arise with newer editors who are in a COI position. They don't really know the WP guidelines yet (not really speaking about WP:COI, they may have looked into that already just to cover their bases. I'm talking about other general MOS, Project and other guidelines), so when they start editing and make mistakes, other editors might see those as biased editing, perhaps. And often, they just don't realize what is appropriate for inclusion a Wikipedia article. They get scared off or blocked for non-neutral COI editing when they really may have had good intentions. I can understand how this could happen. Would it be better for only experienced editors to really be paid editors? Everyone has to start somewhere, but they don't have to start off being paid. Experienced editors can be biased as well, I know, but they know the rules much better than a newbie coming who may not really know how to be neutral. Don't know how you would prevent that (or if you should). But perhaps a user type or wikiproject whose members are allowed to be paid who are trusted with neutrality? Just throwing some ideas around. Not really sure if that goes against WP aims or not, but just wondered. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 05:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's the whole point of the Paid Editor Help page. Where new (and experienced) paid editors can suggest changes, with references attached or they can just show a userspace draft, then we check the suggested change for neutrality. If it's decided the change is neutral, then we implement it. Silverseren^C 05:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see WWB has been around precisely three weeks longer than I have. Are you sure that the Glover Parks article is so good? If I sniff around, will I find out that you've left out any dirty laundry etc.? And that's just the point: paid editors cannot be WP:NPOV. They cannot. It is simply impossible; they need to please the people signing their checks. There is no argument against that fact. Ling.Nut3 (talk) 08:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, but you are missing an important related point; you cannot be WP:NPOV either. Neither can I. Neither can anyone else. We all have biases, some of which we are unaware of. As a whole, editors with strong political or religious views and followers of pseudoscience cause far more POV problems than paid editors do.

The question is whether a paid editor is required to violate NPOV in order to to please the people signing their checks. Not if we do this the right way. Those who are working on this issue want to make it so that if a paid editor violates NPOV his edits will get reverted, and if he persists he will be blocked. Do you think that the person writing the checks wants that? Of course not. Look at the Search Engine Optimization industry; in general, when a customer wants them to do something that would hurt Google, they inform the customer of the negative consequences of not following the rules.

On the other hand, those who call for a ban on paid editing are making the same mistake that the War On Drugs makes - driving the activity underground where no regulations apply, combined with the customers trying to do it themselves. In this case, that often means getting into pitched battles with the Unfair Censors at Wikipedia that are Thwarting Them out of Pure Malice. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you're the one who's missing the point. :-) Several points, actually. The main point is that money is a force that presents a far, far more powerful destructive challenge to the core values of Wikipedia than wingnuts could ever dream of offering. Money is simply too powerful to let into the door here, but you are throwing open the door and firing up the welcome wagon... Sure, the wingnuts give everyone fits and tie up boatloads of admin and arbcom time and trouble. But they lose. In the end, they and their topics of choice are simply too obvious, and they are too emotionally involved. They get their three yards and a cloud of dust for a while, then they are banned. But level-headed, paid editors with an agenda are a different breed. Even worse, level-headed editors from your WikiProject are an additional threat. Why? Let me challenge you: find those editors who worked on the Glover Parks article. Ask them to tell, in all honesty, if they ever even saw the words "Colombia" or "ethanol" while they were doing whatever they did. I would be willing to bet that they didn't. If they did, then why weren't those topics mentioned? If they didn't, then that would be because (please forgive me) they were too lazy to spend any real time doing any real research. Your "everyone violates NPOV" argument is also specious. The reductio ad absurdem response to your point is that Wikipedia should be deleted and salted, since it is pervasively POV. Your "prohibition" simile is specious as well. Prohibition was scuppered because of the vast numbers of people who wanted it to be done away with. There are not large numbers of people (in most cases) who want to push any moneyed agenda; merely large numbers of dollars. There will not be any pent-up supply of editors clamoring for POV articles, so there will be no underworld figures like Al Capone bootlegging Wikipedia articles or whatever. You are stringing together appealing phrases that fall apart when examined logically. Ling.Nut3 (talk) 10:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ling.Nut3 there IS an argument against your supposed "fact" and here it is: I engage in online reputation management among other digital public relations activities. I sometimes recommend to clients that they have a Wikipedia article (if they meet WP:N), so that they will control another slot of Google page 1 search results, thus pushing competition down. When I write that sort of article, it is little more than a stub, and is written from an NPOV because the client's interest is in its continued existence, so it continues to occupy a page 1 slot on Google. Another argument is User:I'm Tony Ahn/Articles/Local Splash. The reason this article is in my sandbox, is because the company requesting the work has not provided me enough reliable sources for this article to be released to mainspace. I took a partial payment to get it where it is, but I'm refusing to release it (and take the rest of the payment) until it meets community standards, whether the "people who sign [my] check" are "pleased" or not. But they are, because I've done a good job managing expectations by letting them know that if their article is released in its current state, it will likely be deleted, and then their money is wasted. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 21:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So by your own admission, Tony, you are creating that stub for pay not to improve Wikipedia in any way, but in the interest of the client, in order to occupy a search engine results slot and push your client's competition down a notch. And we should tolerate this behavior why???? --Orange Mike | Talk 16:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you just completely ignore the rest of what he said? He also said that he is refusing to put it into mainspace until it meets notability requirements, as per our rules, and he told his client that. Now it's up to the client to actually get some real coverage that isn't a press release. The reasoning behind why someone makes an article is irrelevant if they make an NPOV article that meets all of our rules. We're not here to make sure everyone has perfect morals (though I wouldn't even consider this bad morals, really), we're here to write an encyclopedia. So long as the article as written fits within our rules, it's fine. Silverseren^C 18:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I read what he wrote. With the sole exception of the one client he openly admitted to creating an unspecified quantity of articles to occupy search engine results on behalf of his clients, and for other non-encyclopedic purposes. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am with Silver seren on this one. Consider the following thought experiment: someone creates a perfect Wikipedia article, informative and sourced with no bias or POV issues at all, but he does it for the worst possible -- even evil -- reasons. Do we reject such an article? Only if we stop being an encyclopedia and start being the Thought Police. The answer is not discriminating against those with what some would consider base or mercenary motives but rather to structure Wikipedia in such a way that those same motives lead to good results. Consider the specific example Tony Ahn gave above: reputation management. RM is for those who have had their reputations ruined by an online enemy; one troll can make it so that a Google search on your name or business turns up nothing but bad info. To our credit, Wikipedia has a BLP policy that works against that sort of thing. Reputation management involves hiring someone to make it so that Google's results bring up many positive or neutral items, burying the negative on the 20th page. Obviously, a neutral Wikipedia page would help. If we didn't have any standards, of course every reputation management consultant would be motivated to stuff Wikipedia with junk articles. This is where our policies come in to play. Our general notability guidelines mean that this will only work if the individual is notable and the article belongs in Wikipedia. Whether or not his motives are pure, it is to his advantage to only create the article if it will survive. By having well-thought-out policies and enforcing them, we end up with good articles no matter what the motivation of the article creator is. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But we certainly can ban advocates - people who consistently violate WP:NPOV. So why can't we regulate paid advocates - people whose business is to advocate. The argument I hear coming along is: "But these paid advocates don't necessarily advocate here." If we ignore the problem, they will. If we go all the way through the usual dispute resolution process for each instance of suspected paid advocacy, it takes a huge amount of time and effort. Tony Ahn's paid writing is a fairly harmless example of paid advocacy, but it is putting his client's wishes ahead of the mission of building an encyclopedia. It's not building the type of encyclopedia that I want - who wants to read about Joe's Carwash? You say if it's not notable, then we can delete it; but if it is just below border-line notability, much time and effort will be spent and a lot of editors will think that it's not worth the effort, and a lot of Joe's Carwashes will go through the spin cycle and come out looking bright shiny new. Even advocacy at this level has a cost. Smallbones (talk) 22:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part, what makes Wikipedia neutral are the rules and process, not the editors. On the other hand, paid editors are very likely to break the rules and professional COIs to follow the rules only by technicality but not in spirit. I have written my own controversy sections, done massive projects for free because the client's vision of the article is not aligned with the world view in reliable sources, etc. This thing that I'm doing isn't easy and the longer I do it the more anti-paid editing I become, yet the more I strive to be the exception. In any case:

For marketing professionals (not just PR just because they have a FB group) the question is "how many have the skills to make meaningful contributions?" The exact mechanics will always be up to debate, but they will be successful with a disclosed username making minor edits etc.

For dedicated paid editors, the question isn't if we are "potentially bias" but "as neutral as we can be." I will never be neutral enough in the most holy interpretation, but I can be professional about it, as helpful as possible, non-disruptive and use good judgment and when and how to discuss with volunteers. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 22:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A theme that comes up sometimes is that people who are paid to edit are not acting in Wikipedia's interests, but in their client's interests. It's not so simple. Jimbo's comment is helpful:

"about a hypothetical professor whose University decides to value Wikipedia highly and asks the professors to contribute to Wikipedia on topics where they have expertise, i.e. they are now being paid (in some small part at least) to edit Wikipedia. That's a good thing, generally.
"What crosses the line is paid advocacy."

I'd add that someone who works in a field may be doing it because they are interested in that field. I suggested to my employers that their clearly notable institute doesn't have a Wikipedia doesn't have an article about it. I'd be tempted to write about it anyway, but probably wouldn't get around to it - as it is, I get to write about it as part of my contract. Note that I'm doing my edits in userspace and will ask another established editor to move it into mainspace when the time is right. It sounds like maybe I'm Tony Ahn mainly does that too. This kind of behavior isn't necessarily advocacy, especially where a strong attempt (and I would say a good faith attempt) is made to respect NPOV. --Chriswaterguy talk 03:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's how Tony does it. I know he recently finished one piece and invited comment as to whether it met notability, etc. I futzed with it a little bit to clean out a couple things that shouldn't have been in that were on the borderline, in my own opinion, and told him that it met notability guidelines and was written neutrally. He was looking for somebody to port it over to mainspace but I didn't do that because I'm autopatrolled and think such things should have to run the gauntlet of NPP. The piece would have cleared anyway, but it was a principle thing... I'm not sure that building out of mainspace and having a third party port the info over is the best model to follow, as it inadvertently disguises authorship. Intentions are good, but the effect is less than desirable. Carrite (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carrite, when you say it disguises authorship, are you just talking about disguising it from WP:NPP? Assuming the page is moved rather than cut and pasted, the authorship will still be in the edit history, and the edit comment should still make clear that the page has entered mainspace through a page move. --Chriswaterguy talk 03:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of that. What do you do, just hit MOVE THIS PAGE with a mainspace name as the target? Carrite (talk) 04:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you state in the move summary where you are moving it from and that it is the work of such and such user, that's actually enough attribution right there. Silverseren^C 06:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carrite, yes, like this move. --Chriswaterguy talk 00:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As to the original point, I favor a total ban on paid editing. That would open up the floodgates for p.r. "flacks" showering Wikipedia with marginal articles on their clients. Paid content would be indistinguishable from unpaid content, even if the editors identified themselves. That would destroy Wikipedia's already tarnished reputation. I can understand why Wales takes such a strong position. I think that we should get behind him on that. To be effective, the prohibition on paid editing should be absolute, with no exceptions.

Will there be undisclosed paid advocates? Sure, just as you currently have dozens of p.r. people writing articles about themselves without disclosing it. They're pretty transparent, just as paid editing will be transparent. Current policies should be able to deal with such situations as arise. Jay Tepper (talk) 12:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then clearly, we should also get rid of anyone with a COI, since it's impossible for them to edit neutrally. Oh, you like this subject, sorry, you have a COI, you're not allowed to edit. Oh, you're interested in this topic, sorry, COI.

And then we'll have the perfect future where everyone on Wikipedia is banned for having a COI, since that's all that matters and not how they edit. Silverseren^C 17:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

COI can be dealt with, and the policies on that are reasonably clear and good. What bothers me is the abuse of Wikipedia by public relations professionals. This does not mean that p.r. people can't participate at all. But I think that there needs to be a firewall between the p.r. community and Wikipedia. I like Wikipedia Cooperation Project for providing one such mechanism. Jay Tepper (talk) 19:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If any PR firms are reading this, I offer my services as a paid editor. Check my userpage to see my qualifications. I charge $1000 to take an article to featured status. I am not being sarcastic. If Wikipedia ever wants to be a truly credible encyclopedia, it needs to pay editors so that it will be worth their time to improve articles about stuff they otherwise wouldn't be interested in. My email on my user account is enabled. Cla68 (talk) 04:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]