The Signpost

Related articles
paid advocacy

How paid editors squeeze you dry
31 January 2024

"Wikipedia and the assault on history"
4 December 2023

The "largest con in corporate history"?
20 February 2023

Truth or consequences? A tough month for truth
31 August 2022

The oligarchs' socks
27 March 2022


More articles

Fuzzy-headed government editing
30 January 2022

Denial: climate change, mass killings and pornography
29 November 2021

Paid promotional paragraphs in German parliamentary pages
26 September 2021

Enough time left to vote! IP ban
29 August 2021

Paid editing by a former head of state's business enterprise
25 April 2021

A "billionaire battle" on Wikipedia: Sex, lies, and video
28 February 2021

Concealment, data journalism, a non-pig farmer, and some Bluetick Hounds
28 December 2020

How billionaires rewrite Wikipedia
29 November 2020

Ban on IPs on ptwiki, paid editing for Tatarstan, IP masking
1 November 2020

Paid editing with political connections
27 September 2020

WIPO, Seigenthaler incident 15 years later
27 September 2020

Wikipedia for promotional purposes?
30 August 2020

Dog days gone bad
2 August 2020

Fox News, a flight of RfAs, and banning policy
2 August 2020

Some strange people edit Wikipedia for money
2 August 2020

Trying to find COI or paid editors? Just read the news
28 June 2020

Automatic detection of covert paid editing; Wiki Workshop 2020
31 May 2020

2019 Picture of the Year, 200 French paid editing accounts blocked, 10 years of Guild Copyediting
31 May 2020

English Wikipedia community's conclusions on talk pages
30 April 2019

Women's history month
31 March 2019

Court-ordered article redaction, paid editing, and rock stars
1 December 2018

Kalanick's nipples; Episode #138 of Drama on the Hill
23 June 2017

Massive paid editing network unearthed on the English Wikipedia
2 September 2015

Orangemoody sockpuppet case sparks widespread coverage
2 September 2015

Paid editing; traffic drop; Nicki Minaj
12 August 2015

Community voices on paid editing
12 August 2015

On paid editing and advocacy: when the Bright Line fails to shine, and what we can do about it
15 July 2015

Turkish Wikipedia censorship; "Can Wikipedia survive?"; PR editing
24 June 2015

A quick way of becoming an admin
17 June 2015

Meet a paid editor
4 March 2015

Is Wikipedia for sale?
4 February 2015

Shifting values in the paid content debate; cross-language bot detection
30 July 2014

With paid advocacy in its sights, the Wikimedia Foundation amends their terms of use
18 June 2014

Does Wikipedia Pay? The Moderator: William Beutler
11 June 2014

PR agencies commit to ethical interactions with Wikipedia
11 June 2014

Should Wikimedia modify its terms of use to require disclosure?
26 February 2014

Foundation takes aim at undisclosed paid editing; Greek Wikipedia editor faces down legal challenge
19 February 2014

Special report: Contesting contests
29 January 2014

WMF employee forced out over "paid advocacy editing"
8 January 2014

Foundation to Wiki-PR: cease and desist; Arbitration Committee elections starting
20 November 2013

More discussion of paid advocacy, upcoming arbitrator elections, research hackathon, and more
23 October 2013

Vice on Wiki-PR's paid advocacy; Featured list elections begin
16 October 2013

Ada Lovelace Day, paid advocacy on Wikipedia, sidebar update, and more
16 October 2013

Wiki-PR's extensive network of clandestine paid advocacy exposed
9 October 2013

Q&A on Public Relations and Wikipedia
25 September 2013

PR firm accused of editing Wikipedia for government clients; can Wikipedia predict the stock market?
13 May 2013

Court ruling complicates the paid-editing debate
12 November 2012

Does Wikipedia Pay? The Founder: Jimmy Wales
1 October 2012

Does Wikipedia pay? The skeptic: Orange Mike
23 July 2012

Does Wikipedia Pay? The Communicator: Phil Gomes
7 May 2012

Does Wikipedia Pay? The Consultant: Pete Forsyth
30 April 2012

Showdown as featured article writer openly solicits commercial opportunities
30 April 2012

Does Wikipedia Pay? The Facilitator: Silver seren
16 April 2012

Wikimedia announcements, Wikipedia advertising, and more!
26 April 2010

License update, Google Translate, GLAM conference, Paid editing
15 June 2009

Report of diploma mill offering pay for edits
12 March 2007

AstroTurf PR firm discovered astroturfing
5 February 2007

Account used to create paid corporate entries shut down
9 October 2006

Editing for hire leads to intervention
14 August 2006

Proposal to pay editors for contributions
24 April 2006

German Wikipedia introduces incentive scheme
18 July 2005


+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

Just one quibble. I don't undestand Sportsguy saying "not all paid editors and COI editors are here for their own benefits..." Aren't paid editors here because they are paid? Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Demur - many people with clear "conflicts" hold their beliefs independently of their "job." As one example - suppose a person interested in (say) Gnarphia edited a very large number of Gnarphia related articles - I would suggest that he (or she) was doing so out of actual personal interest, no? A doctor who specializes in treatments for Cholophilia (tis is supposed to be a fully fake term here unlikely to have any article - if it means something, I apologize) should reasonably be expected to be interested on articles about his speciality. That doctor is being "paid" (in a very strict sense, to be sure) but the issue we ought to be concerned with "Is the person making edits , and receiving payment (of any form) for those edits.
As long as the requirements for reliable sourcing applicable to the topic are met, and the general Wikipedia policies and guidelines are closely adhered to, I am not too worried.
What would be of concern is if Wikipedia became "Paypedia" - that is where commercial entities told "customers" that they could make a favourable Wiki article for $X, just as I find the "purchase" of followers on Twitter to be nicely absurd. More to the point, editors who hold "personal opinions" which outweigh their willingness to abide by policies and guidelines actually applicable to the end product of Wikipedia are far more of a problem than the editor who dares to write "d**n" in a post not part of the final product - articles and the material related thereto. (Wikipedia:Wikipedia and shipwrights) Collect (talk) 15:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@CorporateM: thanks for putting this together, nice work. Gamaliel (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Thanks to everyone that participated. Sometimes we only hear from people with the loudest microphone that have the most extreme viewpoints, so this was an opportunity to hear from editors with more well-rounded views that are not often heard. I'm a personal fan of @Smartse: and his devotion to following high-quality sources; also, he expertly up-roots even the smallest bias in my COI work, all without a hint of drama. So it was no surprise that I also found his contribution better than anything I could have written myself.
Regarding the discussion above, a POV pusher is basically just an editor with strong opinions that are not reflected in the source material and not supported by the majority demographic of editors (for example, open-source advocates are not considered POV pushers, because everyone supports their editing agenda). I think most PR people, article-subjects, etc. edit based on their personal views just like any POV pusher, but their conflicted motives, exposure to corporate kool-aid, and a desire to please their paymaster create very extreme views, thus they become POV pushers. Most POV pushers, including conflicted ones, are acting in good faith and just believe in the rightness of their edits. Paid editing firms are a little different in that their motives are more purely financial, but even in my sponsored work I find myself developing complex personal views and being upset if an editor makes changes I don't think are very good. This personal investment is true even though the edits don't effect my pocketbook and even when those edits are promotional and/or benefit the article-subject, but are still not very good. CorporateM (Talk) 17:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]





       

The Signpost · written by many · served by Sinepost V0.9 · 🄯 CC-BY-SA 4.0