Tell me about your background as a Wikipedian. When did you get started? What were your first edits and first impressions? What got you hooked?

I was first exposed to the Internet at college in 1992, and was captivated by the opportunities for global interaction and collaboration. The free software movement captured my attention in the late 1990s, mostly via Slashdot. I later built a wiki with fellow volunteers and staff at Free Geek (a Portland, Oregon-based charity rooted in free culture and building community). Learning about wikis as part of a thriving real-world community was a formative experience. When I came to Wikipedia, I wanted to find others who shared my interests. Developing good working relationships -- and ultimately friendships -- through the site greatly enriched the experience. My first project was to start the article Oregon's statewide elections, 2006. I was learning myself, and wanted to share the information I found so others could benefit. When others began to improve on my work, I was hooked; it was exhilarating to see unambiguous signs that other people valued what I was doing, and wanted to carry it further.

How did you grow in the Wikipedia community to become an administrator and then work with the WMF?

I quickly found others working on Oregon-related content. There was even a little overlap with people I knew from local blogs. A few things that stoked my interest: connecting with people in person, attending open space-based conferences like BarCamp and RecentChangesCamp, working with Wikipedians to reach out to organizations like the Oregon Historical Society [8] and the state legislature [9]. I was working as a consultant, so it was probably inevitable that my Wikipedia interests and my professional interests would converge. I took every opportunity to share my enthusiasm for Wikipedia with others in my personal and professional life, and earned a reputation as a Wikipedia expert. I wouldn't count attaining admin privileges as a major milestone. I think my efforts as a writer, editor, and in outreach are much more significant. I rarely introduce myself as a "Wikipedia administrator;" I think it conveys a misleading notion of hierarchy.

When did you start Wiki Strategies? What was your motivation for doing so?

I launched Wiki Strategies in 2009 (initially as a partnership with User:Esprqii, though we have amicably parted ways since). I'd been working as an Internet and communications consultant for several years; we both observed that as Wikipedia grew into a robust and widely known institution, new people and organizations were getting interested. We saw an opportunity primarily with organizations that tried to engage with Wikipedia, but did not get complete or useful answers through typical on-site interaction. Wikipedia's production model is very unfamiliar to many people, and a dedicated consultant can offer value through a customized introduction to the site.

Now, I see more opportunity to advance Wikipedia's mission through deeper engagement with organizations, not merely working with marketing departments to improve their "own" articles. Companies and other organizations have rich and complex relationships with knowledge generation and dissemination. Companies often have a strong interest in improving public access to accurate, neutral, factual information, especially when the focus is not limited to their "own" articles. Encouraging and helping organizations to explore how Wikipedia may relate to their efforts has become my central focus. In the long run, it will be in everyone's interest if a relationship between Wikipedia and other branches of the company exists before any serious effort to work on content is begun.

How does Wiki Strategies deal with conflicts of interest?

Above all, we only work with clients who agree to disclose any conflict of interest, and approach any related editing in a collaborative, respectful way. We work with clients who agree to do things like stating their affiliation on their user page, and leaving notes on the article talk page and in "Wikipedia:" space when appropriate. We do not edit Wikipedia on their behalf. Our clients appreciate the practical guidance about how to engage in ways that are ethical and consistent with Wikpedia's values and culture. They are happy to learn how to genuinely improve a highly regarded public resource. On a more pragmatic level, our model eliminates the risk that they will be "outed," because of the high degree of upfront disclosure. From a client's perspective, this translates to stability; there is less likelihood of something unexpected happening with an article months or years in the future, when an effort to openly build consensus has guided their work from the start.

What is the difference between being a paid editor and a 'consultant'? What types of services do people pay your for?

I would say the central difference is this: as a consultant, my clients are explicitly interested in my expertise in Wikipedia, how it operates, and how to engage with it in effective and ethical ways. I would think "paid editor" encompasses areas where a company has already determined what they want to do, and are paying somebody to carry out a task. Not necessarily good or bad; but in a case like that, I would hope they have a thoughtful Wikipedian good working on outlining the project up front.

Do you ever edit articles that you are paid for directly?

I have never made an edit to an article on behalf of a client. (There's a slight chance I've fixed a typo, or similar, without thinking.) However, I routinely advise clients (and others, in my volunteer efforts) in how to edit articles in an open and respectful way. Typically, clients are "on the clock" while making those edits, and they clearly disclose what they are doing. Here is an example of a client's work. The history and talk page may give a better idea of how Wiki Strategies helps clients with articles about themselves.

'"If you don't edit articles directly, but you do edit the text of client drafts, which are later posted to Wikipedia, can you be sure that these clients are following COI best practices by disclosing their COI and seeking other editors to review the text--that your clients are not editing directly? If they were editing directly, does that mean you're paid editing by proxy?" Once, you're 'off the clock', do you provide guidance as to what clients should do next, or what not to do, like edit directly?

I go to great lengths to set clear expectations with my clients prior to starting any paid work. I work with those who are interested in my expertise and looking for guidance. I work closely with them through their first edits; if they were to stray significantly from what we agree upon, that would just be weird -- it would be a significant betrayal of a trust-based relationship we have both invested in. I suppose I would end the project, and scratch my head about why they had hired me to begin with. When I look back at past clients' articles, I have never seen anything that raises any flags for me. In the few cases where they're still engaged, they are doing good work, and being open about their identity.

I can think of one instance in which an associate of my client interfered with an edit. It wasn't anything of major consequence. But the integrity of our process, and of working within Wikipedia policy, was as important to my client as it was to me; as soon as I pointed it out, she took steps to have it undone.

What has surprised you about working with clients? What is the most common misunderstanding they hold about Wikipedia?

Nearly every organization I talk to expresses a strong appreciation for Wikipedia's commitment to neutral and factual information. They recognize that it's a fundamentally different model from other media, but generally don't understand fully how it's different. I am sometimes surprised by the specifics; for instance, I've heard this sort of thing many times: "Years ago, I just clicked an edit button and fixed a typo. But I'm sure that's been locked down now, you can't just edit any page without [insert hazy theory], right?" As the Internet has become more complex and interactive, I think it becomes more difficult for most people to distinguish even among the most popular sites they visit every day. As for misunderstandings, I'm actually more surprised by Wikipedians' assumptions about why an organization might be interested in Wikipedia. As a consultant, I have learned to ask a lot of questions and listen carefully when getting to know a prospective client. On Wikipedia, such discussions often get skipped over while we deal with massive quantities of information. I think as Wikipedians, it's tempting to focus on the worst-case scenario (inserting non-neutral material) rather than considering the broad range of reasons people and organizations might want to engage.

Have you ever turned down a client?

Yes. I get inquiries from people and organizations who are marginally notable from time to time. I typically advise them that resources spent on making the case for notability are not a good investment, and are better spent on other kinds of earned media.

Have you ever spoken with Jimmy Wales about your paid consulting?

Yes, but not in any great depth.

Have you ever been accused of having a COI? If so, how did you deal with it?

I was once attacked with a multi-page screed by an anonymous Wikipedia editor, who dug up every bit of information he could find about me and made multiple accusations about my motives. I didn't like it at all! It took some effort, but I resisted the urge to read it closely, or to respond in detail. I was deeply appreciative of the responses that came from other Wikipedians, who were all, I think, strangers to me. It was gratifying to know that such attacks were regarded as an attack on the site, in addition to being an attack on me as an individual. In the long run, it did a lot to strengthen my hope for the Wikipedia project as a whole.

How much do you earn from your consulting? Is it your primary job? Enough for spending money? Quit your day job? Retire early?

All my income relates to Wikipedia; it is my day job. I am comfortable with my income, but I won't be rich any time soon. However, my major projects are not ones where a conflict of interest is of central significance. Currently, my two main projects involve helping organizations contribute to broad topic areas on Wikipedia [such as Consumer Reports [10] and the Open Education Collaborative Documentation Project [[11]]. I have some side work advising on articles that involve more direct conflicts of interest (along the lines of the Pixetell example above) but it's not my central focus.

At heart are you a regular Wikipedian who gets paid for working on Wikipedia on the side, or a consultant who occasionally does editing unrelated to your company? A Wikipedian, without hesitation. Yes, I believe it's important to maintain a strong connection to the volunteer-driven nature of the project, and I'm not sure there's a better way to do that than through volunteer work. My expertise in how Wikipedia works is the single most important thing I can offer my clients; and because Wikipedia is tremendously complex and continually evolving, I find it absolutely essential to stay engaged in a variety of ways. Plus, I love my work with WikiProject Oregon and various Wikimedia projects -- it's personally fulfilling in important ways. I have learned and grown more through my involvement with Wikipedia than through any other life experience.

You've managed to do what many experienced Wikipedia editors would dream of, which is to make money around Wikipedia. Do you think your path is a feasible one for other editors?

Absolutely. It's not only possible, but vitally important to the future of Wikipedia that engaged, experienced, and mission-driven Wikipedians develop consulting skills. As demand for services relating to Wikipedia grows, it's imperative that we point the way toward practical steps companies can take that are built on the site's core values and policies. It's not an easy path, and it's not for everyone; I've worked hard to get this far. But the demand for expert advice in how to engage with the biggest, most widely read body of work in human history is not going to subside. I will say, I don't have a lot of confidence in models where the consultant's focus is entirely around direct conflicts of interest. I try to work with clients who have an interest in improving a general topic area, building goodwill as a good "digital citizen," and/or learning something about online community engagement through an exploration of Wikipedia. I believe staying active in these areas, both in my paid work and as a volunteer contributor, is essential to maintaining and continuing to build the expertise I offer to my clients.

You're getting paid to do what many do for free. Do you think that's unfair? Can the community survive with a split between those who are volunteers and those who are employees?

I disagree, in two respects: (1) I continue to volunteer heavily, and I don't think I could be a very effective consultant if I didn't; and (2) the paid work I do is very unlike my volunteer work. At the core, it's about gaining an understanding of my client's strategic objectives (either as an organization, or on a specific project) and exploring where it does or doesn't align with the strategic objectives of Wikipedia/Wikimedia. I don't believe this is work that takes place routinely in the volunteer community. There are some excellent examples where it has, but I doubt very much if the Wikipedians who have done this sort of work as volunteers imagine themselves doing so in a volunteer capacity for any length of time. No, I do not believe the community could survive a split of this kind. I believe it is essential that paid consultants act as, and be accepted as, members of the community. This means actively serving the site's mission to connect all humanity with the sum of all knowledge. Our community has always been diverse, with writers, software developers, photographers, Foundation staff, etc.; the fact that paid consultants have a different approach than volunteer editors shouldn't exclude them from the community. But effort on the part of consultants and of other Wikimedians is needed for the relationship to work well.

Are you hiring?

No, but we are beginning to explore what kinds of tasks can be spread among sub-contractors. I would like to be in a position to hire Wikipedians in the next year.

What do you think of Jimbo's strong stance against direct editing of articles by COI editors?

A strict prohibition on article editing for editors in a conflict of interest would go against healthy, everyday Wikipedia practice, and would have devastating consequences. Conflicts of interest are common, and only some of them involve money. They can be managed through ethical behavior and sound judgment. Striking the right balance can be a challenge, but new and experienced Wikipedians challenge themselves to value neutrality above their own opinions every day, often with excellent results. Numerous organizations have, and will increasingly develop, an interest in contributing to Wikipedia. If we were to prohibit them from ever editing articles, there would be two major results. In cases where directly editing an article is common, accepted practice (for instance, non-controversial edits), (1) we would throw away any ability to influence how they edit articles, and (2) we would create a situation where such edits could not be disclosed, for fear of being punished. We would effectively be promoting secrecy over disclosure and accountability. In little over a decade, we have developed a new model of peer production, knowledge management, and publication. We have built the largest, most widely read body of work in human history. Along with these accomplishments comes responsibility: we have to help the people and organizations of the world understand how to make sense of Wikipedia, and how it relates to their work. We are "the encyclopedia anyone can edit." Establishing and adopting practices about how to do so is the way to stay true to that vision; excluding entire classes of people is not. To simply tell organizations "no, you can't participate" is not a practical or reasonable approach, doesn't align with day-to-day, normal practice on Wikipedia, and wouldn't align with our mission. At the core, it would be an abdication of our goal and responsibility to improve the way knowledge moves through society.

Do you see a need for the community to keep out paid/PR/COI editors?

Wikipedia is a project founded on inclusion, not exclusion. While any serious Wikipedian should be concerned about the influence of special interests (monied or otherwise), excluding broad categories of contributors, whether from the entire project or from editing article content, is the wrong way to go. That kind of exclusion would go against everyday, healthy Wikipedia interaction, in which reasonable contributors engaging in respectful ways are treated well. It would also take us in a new direction, in which there are giant asterisks next to our core policies of Be Bold and Assume Good Faith. It's reasonable to expect people with conflicts of interest to clearly disclose them, and to respect emerging consensus even if they don't like it; but it's not reasonable to treat them as second-class Wikipedians. What's more, every one of us has various conflicts of interest. Ideally, we develop skills that help us minimize the impact of those conflicts on a project devoted to neutral information. People in a professional role are no less capable of developing those skills than anyone else; but it would certainly be helpful if other organizations' policies toward Wikipedia were to develop in ways that fully support Wikipedia's mission. That aspiration is at the core of my consulting work. Wikipedia is a place for everyone to share knowledge. If we lose sight of that, Wikipedia is in trouble.

How can the constructive paid editors be accommodated while still dealing with the unethical ones?

I am continually impressed with the efforts of Wikipedians to deal with counterproductive editing. But there is always room for improvement. I believe organizations that value Wikipedia for what it is can be important allies in that process. Their actions can be used to guide future efforts by other organizations; and their reports about positive experiences based in ethical practices can reach audiences difficult for Wikipedians to access directly. Above all, I believe it is of critical importance to develop strong and clear consensus that openness about one's affiliations is a key component of ethical engagement with Wikipedia. By "consensus," I don't mean mere agreement just among Wikipedians, but also among the general public, companies, non-profits, government entities, and thought leaders in general. The world is learning to love and value Wikipedia. At the moment, the absence of clear and actionable guidelines about how to engage constructively leaves everything up to individual interpretation. Without those guidelines, much of that interpretation will be self-interested. Wikipedia is an enormous and well loved global brand, strongly associated with values like inclusion and universal knowledge. Consider this: given a genuine choice, what organization would want to be perceived as an adversary of Wikipedia? By offering useful guidelines for organizations on how to engage in ethical and productive ways, we have a tremendous opportunity to influence organizational behavior. Strange as it may seem, ethical guidelines need not be formal or enforced in order to be useful and effective. My clients ask me all the time: "what's the right way to do it?" Through all the work we have done as Wikipedians, we have established our own authority and influence. We have more power to advance our mission through straightforward communication than we tend to realize.

There is a long list of scandals dating back to MyWikiBiz through WikiScanner and BellPottinger, in which COI editors have been exposed, blocked, embarrassed. If you were Gregory Kohs in 2006, would Jimbo have blocked you? Why do you think you are still in good standing with the encyclopedia?

The Bell Pottinger story provides a plain-as-day example of the risks inherent in a simplistic, short-sighted, and unethical approach to engaging with Wikipedia.([12][13]) As such it is valuable to us as a movement, and to businesses considering whether and how to engage with Wikpedia. By failing to think through the best way to engage with Wikipedia, Bell Pottinger let its clients down and exposed them to backlash. They created a situation where principled Wikipedians had no choice but to publicly criticize the firm and its practices, and reverse the damage. As for myself, I like to think I'm in good standing with the encyclopedia because I continue to advance its mission on a daily basis, in an open and collaborative way -- both in my paid work and in a volunteer capacity.

What do you think of recent efforts to improve relations between the PR industry/paid editors, and Wikipedia. I'm thinking of CREWE and WikiProject Cooperation in particular.

Improving relationships is always a worthy goal. But the interest public relations firms have interest in Wikipedia doesn't usually align strongly with Wikipedia's mission. I would be somewhat surprised if a clear and positive path forward emerges from the PR industry; but I've been surprised by many things in my time as a Wikipedian, so I wouldn't rule it out completely! In my own business pursuits, however, I see better opportunities with other kinds of businesses and organizations.

What do you think is a bigger problem, paid editing, or upaid 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?

I think genuine adherence to Wikipedia's mission and policies is important, whether or not there is money changing hands. Many, or perhaps most, edits to Wikipedia involve some level of conflict of interest; we tend to work on articles where we hold some kind of opinion. Striking a balance between our own opinions and our commitment to a neutral point of view is a continual personal challenge for any serious Wikipedian. I believe an open exploration of how to best strike that balance, whether as an individual or as someone with an organizational affiliation, is in the best interest of the encyclopedia.

Do you think WP:COI needs to be updated, promoted to policy, or demoted to essay status? Should policy prohibit direct editing by paid editors?

I think the conflict of interest guideline is good as is. I especially appreciate the bolded sentence in the lead paragraph: "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." The page is very useful in establishing relationships with my clients. It provides a clear picture of how conflicts of interest can be problematic for Wikipedia, without outright denying the possibility that a person with a COI might be able to make a valuable contribution.

Do you think COI disclosures should be required for paid editors?

Creating a requirement, given the project's strong dedication to individual privacy and anonymity, strikes me as impractical in the extreme. I do think it's important to establish a strong consensus, extending far beyond Wikipedia's inner circles, that openness and transparency are critical to ethical and effective engagement with Wikipedia, especially when there is a clear conflict of interest. Clearly articulating the benefits of disclosure, and advancing it as common practice in numerous small ways, will ease tensions between Wikipedia and other entities. (I'm not advocating a fundamental change -- there are tons of great anonymous editors -- but I do think we would be better off if it were more the exception than the rule, moreso where conflicts of interest exist.)

Should editors be able to advertise their services *on* Wikipedia?

Advertisements are disallowed by policy. We've gotten really good at dealing with this in article space (e.g., "Company X makes product Y" is generally OK, but a graphic listing specific prices, slogans, etc. is not). If we weren't distracted by the "paid editor" component of this issue, I think we'd all agree the concept translates directly to user space. Mentioning a service in passing is one thing; boldly advertising it, with a rate, at the top of a user page -- that's something else entirely. That's advertising, and advertising is prohibited.

What is your plan for the next 5 years with Wikipedia? What do you think it's biggest challenges are, and how do you see the community addressing them?

As a participant in the Wikimedia strategic planning process, I take a great deal of pride in the five year plan that emerged.[14] The dedication and creative energy of the community has always been essential to advancing the project. I would like to see a Wikipedia where the community of contributors better reflects the diversity of the broader world, in all aspects; currently, the low representation of women and the global south in our contributor base strike me as major shortcomings. In building community around wikis, I have found that helping people understand the potential of the medium, and the values that have brought it to its present state, are vital ingredients. That's why I focus my efforts in these areas.

For the following list of problems--no visual editor, few women, poor editor retention, pending changes, lack of civility, BLP issues, vandalism, lack of global south editors--how would you rank them in order of urgency and importance, and where would paid/coi editing fit on that list?

I would put civility at the top of that list, but with the caveat that one person's "uncivil comment" might be another's "strong defense of the project's core values." There are seldom bright lines when it comes to what is or is not civil, but even so, it's really important that we remain committed to dealing with one another in civil and respectful ways. I believe the diversity of our editing base along many vectors (gender, economic status, organizational affiliations) will improve if we can make progress in the overall civility of our interactions. Improving the editing interface is very important, but we have gotten this far without it, so I wouldn't regard it as totally essential. And it may be possible to substantially improve the editing interface (for example, by suppressing templates except in an "advanced" mode) without needing a full-on "visual editor." I'm confident that good things will continue to come from the developer community, which I think is showing signs of becoming more effective in recent months and years. I believe organizations (both for-profit and non-profit) have a great deal of knowledge to offer a project seeking the "sum of all knowledge." Unlocking that potential in ways that serve the project's values and policies -- rather than undermining them -- is an interesting project to me, and one that I think will become increasingly important as organizational interest in Wikipedia grows.

What article or project are you most proud of in both your unpaid work and your paid work? What article or project was most controversial or unsuccessful, both in your unpaid work and your paid work? What did you learn from it?

In my work as a volunteer, I am very proud of having guided the process of bringing the Columbia River article to Featured Article status, though there is a great deal of credit due to the article's many other contributors. I also take a lot of pride in the work I've done in places like Meta wiki to categorize and improve the historical coverage of the Wikimedia movement. And leading events like edit-a-thons and GLAMcamp DC has been very rewarding as well. In my paid work, I researched and planned much of the Wikipedia Public Policy Initiative for the Wikimedia Foundation, and it's been very gratifying to see the results (a growing network of Wikipedia Ambassadors, establishment of an ongoing Wikipedia Education Program, etc.) My current main projects involve helping experts in health care [15] and in the open education movement [16] find the best ways to engage with Wikipedia. These projects are exciting to me because I see great potential to build bridges between different groups that share core values, but approach their day-to-day work in very different ways.

What's your favorite quote or piece of advice about Wikipedia?

In the occasional cynical moment, Valfontis' Law resonates pretty strongly! But overall, I'd have to go with the nutshell version of the Be Bold policy: "If you see something that can be improved, improve it!"