Jump to content

User talk:Jimbo Wales

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jimbo Wales (talk | contribs) at 18:31, 15 June 2009 (→Intercession needed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

As far as I sm concerned "Paid advocacy in article space" is already against WP:NPOV policy and WP:COI guideline. Jimbo, what changes, if any, would you like to see made to those to make this clear? I would like WP:COI to be made policy and tightened up as (in my opinion) people with conflicts of interest have watered it down. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I agree with you on both counts. I think it needs to be made clearer that "I am getting paid by the subject of the article to edit the article (as opposed to making suggestions in the talk page, writing an article on a different website, etc.)" is paid advocacy of the kind in conflict with policy. That's very different from "I have a job as a professor and we are encouraged to contribute to Wikipedia about things that we know about" or "I am participating in a government funded project to improve the quality of Wikipedia entries". There are many subtleties. I think it's pretty easy to know the difference, and hard to write it down precisely.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know it when I see it. The answer, my colleagues, is to judge the edits rather than the editor. Editors should be encouraged to reveal their potential conflicts so that their contributions can be scrutinized appropriately, but the existence of potential conflicts should not be used as mud to throw during arguments, as was done here and here. Jehochman Talk 19:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jehochman, your user page says you are Jonathan E. Hochman. I remember you from the SEO discussions that Durova was involved with and remember you as some sort of SEO guy. Is this: [www.hochmanconsultants.com Hochman Consultants » Internet Marketing, SEO, PPC, Web Development] you? Would someone who makes money on such things want Wikipedia's rules on COI to be lax? I think so. So do you disclose this COI in every post you make trying to argue for lax COI standards? WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's an awfully presumptuous and incorrect post. I provide full disclosure of my identity, write featured articles, and what do I get? Assumptions of bad faith. Shame on you. Jehochman Talk 21:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not being presumptuous nor am I making assumptions. I am drawing conclusions from evidence. I think your self interests with regard to Wikipedia COI rules are at odds with what is good for the Wikipedia community's ability to maintain neutral articles. Shame on you. WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, think whatever you want, but my respect for you just dropped from a pretty high level to something less. Jehochman Talk 22:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Let's cool down a little please. No one can accuse me of being Jehochman's advocate,[1] but this goes more than a little bit far. I've never known Jehochman to cash in on his editing work, nor to attempt to manipulate Wikipedia's policies for the benefit of his colleagues. There's a big gulf between what Jehochman is and does, versus a functionary who runs undisclosed sock accounts to cash in on his Wikipedia ops. DurovaCharge! 22:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Self interest colors one's views. It does not have to be conscious, does not have to involve overt cashing in, does not have to involve conscious manipulations. Self interest often takes the form of people honestly believing certain things and feeling their acting on those beliefs has nothing to do with their self interests. That's just how the human mind works. That's why judges recuse - not because anyone thinks they will deliberately make self-serving decisions. WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument appears to be hypocritical, because you do not seem to have disclosed your identity. For all we know, you could have all sorts of hidden biases. Why should an editor who discloses their identity, thereby inviting scrutiny of their edits be treated worse than somebody who remains anonymous? The assumption of good faith should apply to all editors, at least until they demonstrate otherwise through their actions. Jehochman Talk 22:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that "The assumption of good faith should apply to all editors, at least until they demonstrate otherwise through their actions". I am judging you on your actions, both on and off Wikipedia. I think you should recuse yourself from COI discussions. Obviously you feel different; just as initially Jimbo felt ok with editing the Wikipedia BLP on him. I am accusing you of being like Jimbo and being on at least one issue blind to how your self interest might color your beliefs and actions. That's not such a bad accusation is it? I accuse you of being human. WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is a very bad accusation to say that somebody is a second class member of the community, not entitled to participate in important policy matters that affect them. Every person in the community deserves to participate in any policy discussion as they like, as long as they are not disruptive. People have a right to a voice in all matters important to them. This is a fundamental human right. Jehochman Talk 03:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this conversation illustrates some of the difficulties in arriving at a COI policy that meets with general consensus. I want it tighter. You don't. I think people with COI problems are on your side; and frankly everyone has views that are colored by self-interest - but not everyone edits articles or policy discussions that are on issues related to their self interests. Well, Wikipedia is a work in progress and you nor I nor Jimbo are perfect but we are all assets to Wikipedia (and more importantly, to the free culture movement that gave birth to it). WAS 4.250 (talk) 05:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We'd be foolish to deny that at any given moment in time, someone who is editing en.wiki is being paid for doing so. Perhaps they are the employee of a company or an individual, or a PR agent for record label or film studio, or even a freelancer trying to make a buck.. It's already happening, we only catch the ones who flagrantly disregard our editorial policies & guidelines.. As long as Wikipedia sits at the top of the search results, this will not change - no matter how many policies we create to disallow it. We need to acknowledge this and ensure these sort of editors understand that peacocking and whitewashing are blockable offenses and that they aren't exempt from WP:V, WP:RS or WP:OR just because they are being paid to edit by the company/person that an article is about. IMHO, --Versageek 19:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to see COI become policy, but as Jimbo says, it's hard to get the wording right. We don't want to be discouraging people with expertise, which a badly worded COI policy could end up doing. I opened a discussion about this here in March, WAS, if you'd like to comment. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would they actually care if we put policies in place? As we both seem to agree on we only catch a fraction of the total amount of CoI accounts; I assume any somewhat long term editor is proficient enough in wikipedia usage to evade most forms of detection for at least some time. I would personally prefer if we simply blocked all clear WP:SPA or advertising accounts on sight, but we have to be realistic and admit that we currently have a hard time to detect them, let alone block them. Therefore i would much rather legalise and regulate/monitor the few CoI editors who wish to work withing the guidelines, then seeing them slip under the detection net. The ones who don't follow that rule can of course be removed trough whatever means necesarily. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 20:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "we can't catch everyone" is a sufficient reason to not have a policy. One of the things that the current situation prevents is someone successfully setting up a service promising to create articles or modify them for a fee and advertising for it on a blog or whatever. The last thing we would ever want from the point of view of NPOV and our public image of integrity is the notion floating around that "If you want a p.r. puff piece in Wikipedia, it's easy to do, because they are very corruptible. Just hire one of the admin-run services to do it for you. Wikipedians are cool with payola." That's just totally never ever going to be acceptable. If instead such services are - quite rightly - treated as being shady, then sure, of course, some amount of corruption always goes on... it's the way of the world. We stop it when we can, and make sure it doesn't become dominant... we're easily able to do that, and we should.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Rootology's RfC was a biased approach in any way or form. I understand that you (Jimbo) don't want people openly advertising their services for editing Wikipedia. I suggest that instead of establishing as our de facto policy that paid editing is ok as long as its secret (don't ask, don't tell), instead the existing policies on NPOV, edit warring, and reliable sources be strengthened and enforced better. If editors are abiding by those policies, then it really doesn't matter whether they are being paid to do so, does it? Cla68 (talk) 00:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The RFC got off to a pollyana start by discussing "Is Paid Editing a problem?" with the scenario of an excellent article being created, where the creator had been paid. That's lovely, but what is more likely (see links above) is that shills will offer to promote an individual or organization. Presumably an annual protection fee would ensure that the created article doesn't deviate far from the wanted POV. Providing such an arrangement went undetected, it would be very hard for an occasional editor to combat bias in a sponsored article. We can't stop shill editing, but we can make it clear that it is not welcome. This is a question of integrity, not some imaginary freedom. Johnuniq (talk) 04:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we should have a clear division between the two extremes we are discussing. On the one side we have the perfect article created trough payment, and on the other side we have the "Pay for PoV" article. For the first we should maintain a "don't ask, don't tell" policy as it was called above. In other words: If we cannot see anything is wrong with an editor, we can hardly accuse them. As for the second option i wholehearthy agree with a hardline policy - if we can see its clear CoI and point pushing, it is simply against the rules, with consequences up to a indef block. Should we explicitely welcome paid users? No, absolutely not. Should we make explicit rules to block every single one of them? Also, no. I would say we should keep it as is: Silenly acknowledge the fact they are out there, and only take action if we find them; Because once we do, they are certain to be in violation of current COI, NPOV, ADVERT, SPAM and likely a bunch of other guidelines. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 07:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is the POV, not the pay. We should ban people who use Wikipedia for advocacy. Period. This includes people who use Wikipedia for advocacy because they get paid for it, and people who use Wikipedia for advocacy because they feel their religion is the only truth, and people who use Wikipedia for advocacy because they want to help starving children in Africa. Kusma (talk) 07:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But if you do that, my dear Kusma, there will be no one left to write the bloody encyclopedia. Especially if you also ban those who advocate Wikipedia or have ever made a COI edit. Hell, then you'd have to ban the owner of this talkpage. And that wouldn't go over too well, would it:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 07:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Problem: We now have a large discussion (here and RFC) arising from a "Cash for spam" posting on Jimbo's talk page (above). After that, Wikipedia's integrity will suffer if we decide that there is no particular reason to say "paid advocacy is wrong and will be blocked". In an academic paper, one may well argue that POV advocacy is the problem, so there is no need to also ban paid advocacy. However, we can't duck the issue now: Yes or no, should Wikipedia block a user believed to have been paid to promote an individual or organization or point of view? Johnuniq (talk) 07:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Paid to promote a viewpoint? Yes. We already have a battery of policy missiles in place to nuke that down. See WP:NPOV, WP:Advert, WP:SPAM, WP:NOR, WP:COI, WP:NOTADVERTISING and i can likely go on a while quoting policies. But i really doubt that this is, or should be the issue. I think the issue should be the grey area in the middle where CoI editors actually do a fine job editing article's. Should be ban Microsoft employees for keeping microsoft products up to date? Should we ban apple employees for creating a new subsection on the IPod article? In other words: Should we ban editors because they admit they have a CoI, if their edits don't show this? Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 08:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I believe we should allow Microsoft employees to write about Microsoft products, just as we allow Catholics to write about Catholicism. We should ban Catholics who push a Catholic POV, we should ban Microsoft employees who push a Microsoft POV. Actually, we should also ban Catholics who push a Microsoft POV, and Microsoft employees who push a Catholic POV, no matter whether they get paid for it or not. In other words, it is what an editor does that we should be concerned with, not why they do it. (This is in a a way an extension of "comment on content, not the contributor", part of our civility rules). Kusma (talk) 09:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excirial: You make good points, but you did not address my concern (the issue of what to say about paid advocacy). My view is that we can confidently assert that an editor who accepts commissions to write promotional puff pieces has a COI problem that cannot be overcome, and is not wanted here. Such a rule need have no practical effect other than to establish our integrity. Johnuniq (talk) 11:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that if we can say with confidence that an article has a CoI editor, he or she is already violating the neutrality guidelines quite blatantly. I assume we could create a seperate guideline that governs this issue, but i wonder if that is not a form of policy creep (After all, we have somewhat more generic guidelines in place that cover it). There is already a footnote that specifically deals with paid editors in the WP:COI article. If we are to take a stance by writing a new policy, i think we should limit it to extending the CoI guidelines to reflect our stance paid editing a bit better. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 12:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


re: WAS 4.250, COI is and should be only about encyclopedia articles, not about providing input to policy. Based on that thinking, hardly anyone's input could be used for setting COI or other Wikipedia policies. Everyone makes money doing something. You're a professional actor? Oh, Sorry, you can't edit any of the Acting-related articles, you might accidentally portray your profession as more glamorous than it should be, by extension you can't set COI policy, because you having a conflict might want policy to be lax.. You live in and are employed in the US? Oh, sorry, no editing articles about any subject in your country, state, or home city. You might accidentally describe your local area in an unwarranted non-neutral positive light, compared to the rest of the world, because you make more money if there are more tourists. Seems extreme to me... --Mysidia (talk)


Shades of gray

Within paid editing there is a spectrum of activities:

  1. If somebody's job responsibility is to monitor their organization's Wikipedia entry and transparently request corrections on the talk page, to revert vandalism, and to enforce WP:BLP, such actions are acceptable and even encouraged by our policies.
  2. If somebody has a job for a company and they decide to edit that organization's Wikipedia entry, there is a chance those edits could be harmless, or they could be biased.
  3. If that same person edits a competitor's entry, that would be apparent or actual impropriety.
  4. If an editor advertises their services for editing, and does that editing in a non-transparent way, we have a definite problem.

I think we need to make a few changes:

  • WP:COI should be upgraded to policy. The time has come.
  • The advertising of Wikipedia article editing services should be strictly forbidden, except with the express consent of the Wikimedia Foundation. I'd expect that permission would not be given to commercial enterprises, but might be given for something like government grants to scholars. WMF has rights to the Wikipedia trademark (I hope). Thus, they have the right to prevent that Trademark from being used in trade without their permission.
  • Paid editing by consultants or employees must be transparent, and comply with all policies. Paid editors need to disclose their real world identities and affiliations prior to making an such edits. Failure to disclose would be grounds for immediate blocking or topic banning. Violations of policies by properly disclosed editors would be dealt with as usual, observing do not bite the newcomers.
  • Reward editing, such as Wikipedia:Reward board and Wikipedia:Barnstars should be exempted from any of the above restrictions. Our own incentive programs are already regulated by the community.

Somebody could fine tune these proposals and try to get them approved. Jehochman Talk 14:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure trademark law helps. One can use a company's name in a description of services without invoking trademark law, as long as it does not cause confusion as to the source, sponsorship, or affiliation of the services. You'd probably have to come up with a more creative legal theory, like inducing breach of contract. And build the COI avoidance / no fake account rule into the terms of use. Mike Godwin is up on all that I'm sure. Wikidemon (talk) 19:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the legal rationale may or may not be, I think the point is that the community doesn't want people advertising paid editing services. Jehochman Talk 02:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The community can't stop folks from advertising paid Wikipedia editing services, but it can stop accounts openly or clearly linked with such advertising from editing. On the other hand, if an account is editing within policy so carefully that there's no clue the editor behind it is being paid (and this indeed happens every day here), it's more or less the same as any PoV and advocacy brought to en.WP by so many unpaid editors. Hence I wouldn't see a need for rooting them out, it's not the slippery slope towards fund-raising banner ads on Wikipedia offering a fast track to a professionally written and sourced encyclopedia article about your notable business, project or interest. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion arose from a report that someone is soliciting payment as a Wikipedia mercenary. We cannot stop such paid advocacy, but now it's been raised, we have to decide our stance: no problem, but must follow policy or that's ok, but must follow WP:COI or not allowed. Johnuniq (talk) 11:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to offer my two cents here, and of course due to the Arbitration Committee deciding on brute force remedies as a "preventive" first resort, it's actually worth about $0.000000002 at current market value. But here goes anyhow. Wikipedia welcomes editors* to contribute what they can give towards Wikipedia's mission. Some editors are placed such that they have acquired a really in-depth knowledge of a particular POV, and knowledge of where the details of this POV can be found in reliable sources. Other editors are placed such that they have no ties to any particular POV, and they can exercise an unfettered judgment about how to include information from the reliable sources on all sides to bring the articles closer to the ideal NPOV. Both editors have a valuable role, but no editor can fulfill both roles. An editor may tell Wikipedia that he can be fully neutral when editing the articles on Blarney's Beer even though he's being paid by the Blarney Brewery to represent them on Wikipedia, and he may fully mean that. But that doesn't mean he's correct. He is most likely not anywhere as neutral as he thinks -- by which I mean "not near enough to neutral for Wikipedia to accept as such". Even if he were completely neutral on the subject of the client that's paying him -- assuming for the sake of argument that that's possible -- it would mean he's performing inadequately in his role as paid representative. And if that editor is neglecting obligations and expectations for which he is taking pay -- even if in completely good faith -- it means we cannot expect that that editor will live up to the obligations and expectations of Wikipedia.

IMHO: Paid representatives should not be forbidden on Wikipedia. But they must declare that paid relationship, and if they do not, it's a serious sign of dishonesty. They also should not be editing the articles on their clients directly, because making the final decision on what should or shouldn't go in the article requires an unbiased judgment which they simply don't have.

Why should we, as wikipedians, care if the paid editor is "performing inadequately in his role as paid representative"? That's between the editor in question and their client(s) - it's not like Wikipedia is paying or being paid. -- M2Ys4U (talk) 13:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that someone who is claiming they can represent a paying client and still edit neutrally regarding that client is claiming the impossible. At best it represents naivete and at worst dishonesty, but either way the editor who represents a paying client is biased and should not be trying to perform functions that call for unbiased editors. -- Antaeus Feldspar (talk) 14:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see one of these "unbiased editors" you speak of. Everyone has bias, granted to varying degrees but the point this stands. I'd say biased or not, as long as they conform to BLP, NPOV etc. we shouldn't care what their motivations are. And if they don't conform to those policies, we already have methods in place to block them. -- M2Ys4U (talk) 08:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument would work if BLP and NPOV and "etc." were policies that never required any degree of interpretation and judgment. In fact, though, they require substantial degrees of interpretation and judgment: who decides what "undue weight" is, for example? who decides whether a borderline source is reliable enough to merit inclusion? Let's take a hypothetical example: The newspapers are full of headlines about a nasty incident that may have been caused by negligence on the part of Culbertson Chemical Corporation. Editor A has no prior relationship with Culbertson whatsoever, besides being aware of their existence. Editor B, by contrast, is in fact being paid by Culbertson specifically to manage their reputation on Wikipedia. Are you really suggesting that Editor B's judgment about the NPOV way to deal with the incident in the article will not be affected one bit by the fact that he'll get a hefty bonus to his paycheck if the article asserts about the incident "There's no way that any of this could really be Culbertson's fault; all those people who say otherwise are untrustworthy"?
You argue that there's no such thing as a wholly unbiased editor and therefore all editors can be trusted equally to apply NPOV, but that's an example of a continuum fallacy. You argue that the problem is trivial because we can simply detect afterwards anyone failing to apply BLP and NPOV correctly, but that's like arguing that it's okay to let relatives of a criminal defendant serve as jurors at his trial because if the jury doesn't returns the correct verdict the trial can be redone. If it was so trivial to determine the correct verdict, we wouldn't need a jury in the first place. -- Antaeus Feldspar (talk) 17:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The transitory contents of a Wiki article are nothing like the verdict of a jury trial, other editors can and will edit any article of importance to the encyclopedia, unless they deem it perfect. The argument that there are not wholly unbiased editors is not an example of continuum fallacy. The reason there are not likely to ever be any completely unbiased editors is that all humans have preferences, which translate to bias, and anyone writing an article has read certain information about the subject or acquired knowledge through personal experience; encyclopedia articles aren't written in a vacuum, they will tend to follow the unstated biases of whatever sources were available to the writer. Moreover, the amount of trust we can reasonably place in an editor to follow NPOV is not necessarily influenced by their personal preferences; writing an unbiased article is an exercise in devaluing personal opinion, and explaining all points of view fairly, if the editor is good at it, their article will be NPOV, no matter what their preferences, even if a holder of one of the opinion pays them. If they are not good at setting aside personal beliefs, their article will be biased, even if they aren't paid to write it. --Mysidia (talk)
The transitory contents of a Wiki article are nothing like the verdict of a jury trial, other editors can and will edit any article of importance to the encyclopedia, unless they deem it perfect. That is indeed one difference that exists between a jury trial and a Wikipedia article. It doesn't appear to have any relevance to the point of the analogy, though. We don't say "oh, we'll let people with massive conflicts of interest serve as jurors first, and we'll only yank them off the jury if the verdict they bring in is obviously wrong"; we exclude people who have such massive conflicts of interest first because we have no way of getting a verdict we can have confidence in from people we can't have confidence in.
The argument that there are not wholly unbiased editors is not an example of continuum fallacy. Can you provide any sort of reasoning to support your statement? It seems a completely obvious example of continuum fallacy to me. "There is no such thing as a perfectly unbiased editor; therefore there is no significant difference between the editor who has never heard of the subject of the article before today and the editor who is being paid by the subject of the article to deliver a favorable article." You may be right that the two editors exist in the same continuum of "editors who aren't 100% unbiased" but that does not support your conclusion that they should be treated as if there is no difference between them.
The reason there are not likely to ever be any completely unbiased editors is that all humans have preferences, which translate to bias, and anyone writing an article has read certain information about the subject or acquired knowledge through personal experience; encyclopedia articles aren't written in a vacuum, they will tend to follow the unstated biases of whatever sources were available to the writer. Very good, but as we've noted, the statement "there are no completely unbiased editors" does not translate to the statement "the editor being paid to edit the article in a particular direction is no more biased than any other editor." Even if you could show me such an editor, such an editor is still untrustworthy, since he takes money to fulfill duties that he does not intend to fulfill.
Moreover, the amount of trust we can reasonably place in an editor to follow NPOV is not necessarily influenced by their personal preferences; writing an unbiased article is an exercise in devaluing personal opinion, and explaining all points of view fairly, if the editor is good at it, their article will be NPOV, no matter what their preferences, even if a holder of one of the opinion pays them. If they are not good at setting aside personal beliefs, their article will be biased, even if they aren't paid to write it. This is an entirely true analysis of how the situation lines up in the world of pure theory. In actual practice, I doubt we could ever find a significant number of editors with such superhuman control over their own editing that they will be utterly uninfluenced by financial rewards. And frankly, what are you doing arguing for the existence of such superhuman paragons of NPOV, when just a few sentences ago you were arguing that merely having read "certain information" about the subject of the article automatically translates into a bias? -- Antaeus Feldspar (talk) 19:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We don't say "oh, we'll let people with massive conflicts of interest serve as jurors first, and we'll only yank them off the jury if the verdict they bring in is obviously wrong" The analogy is fundamentally flawwed, the differences between a jury trial and the construction of an encyclopedia article are so tremendous as to far outrank the superficial similarities. Trials are fundamentally adversarial. Editors don't make binding decisions, jurors and judges do, and in a jury trial appeals are expensive, a waste massive resources, and may not be executed. It's basically impossible to determine after the fact if the juror made a decision because it was the right one, or because they were biased, and this actually injures someone (in a court of law, even a right decision may be overturned, if a COI also exists). The defendant will always claim there was an impropriety and biased decision given the opportunity if a juror with a COI ruled against them. Whereas, for Wikipedia, not all articles are inherently adversarial, having attention and work devoted to building a slightly biased article is in many cases more favorable than having no article, their contribution is still potentially valuable. This is distinct from the practice of an editor being paid to intentionally colour an existing article. Wikipedia is not a court room, and we don't need to impose standards that are quite as rigid.
I do not assume there is no difference between an editor who is paid and one who is not, there clearly is, but there is no guarantee that there will be a difference in their point of view as expressed in articles they edit, there has been no evidence presented that there is such a guarantee. IMO, this very much depends on the circumstances, and there can be cases where there is no significant difference in the product of a paid editor than in an unpaid one. The real fallacy would be assuming that all the paid editors are completely untrustworthy, or that all the unpaid editors are guaranteed to be more trustworthy. "Trust" is not a bar Wikipedia requires people to pass before editing an encyclopedia article, we allow completely anonymous edits; it's up to the trusted editors to fix such abuses, also, I fail to see how an edit by a known wikipedian with a COI is much less trustworthy than an edit by a completely anonymous editor, who could be writing an article so it appears written well and yet including total disinformation in it... --Mysidia (talk)
(ec)In your hypothetical situation, Editor A can look at the article, see what WP:RS have been cited (if any), and edit the article to have a more NPOV stance as he/she sees it. If his changes get reverted, he can post on the talk page and gather community consensus on the issue, and going through any dispute resolution if needed.
The problem I see with a lot of the people arguing for prohibition of any form of paid editing is that they appear, to me, to be overlooking the fact that Wikipedia has 68k (and counting) registered users and countless IP editors. One or two editors being paid to edit isn't going to make that much of a sway in consensus. If sock/meatpuppets are used, we have a method of punishing those abusers already. The point I'm trying to make is thus: The issues paid editing brings up (people writing NPOV) already happen, and we already have policy in place to fix it. If you don't think that policy works, tweak it so you think it's better (i.e. so we pick up more NPOV editing from anybody, not necessarily just paid editors) rather than forcing through this completely unenforceable policy that will stop the legitimate content from getting through. -- M2Ys4U (talk) 20:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement seems to contradict itself, or is overcomplexified. Your stating that a paid editor can edit anything except articles related to the person that pays them to do so. In other words: "Paid editors are allowed, as long as they are paid to improve rather then promote" ? Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 13:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Paid editors are allowed to provide reliable sources and make suggestions about what should go in the articles about their clients, but not to directly edit those articles, since they are not unbiased." -- Antaeus Feldspar (talk) 14:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Contract Editing Review

I've just created Wikipedia:Contract Editing Review. This is kind of a partial implementation of the suggestion you made in your statement. Discussions at the RfC have become very heated. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom pressuring the Boothroyd article before Blacketer's reconfirmation RFA?

Do you have any idea what this is about? rootology (C)(T) 13:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no information of any kind about this. It seems a bit unlikely to me, but then again, I've been naive many times before and proven wrong. :-( I do think, and will state publicly, that it seems rather obvious that it is only sensible to come to some kind of clarification and resolution of the Boothroyd article before Blacketer stands for reconfirmation, if for no other reason than to reduce drama. So I wouldn't take anyone's offhand comment to that effect as pressure. But as I say, I have no knowledge of this and nothing to do with it, so I dunno.
I will say that the userfied version I see right now at User:JoshuaZ/David Boothroyd is a fairly clear BLP violation. (WP:UNDUE among other things.) I say this as someone who feels personally betrayed and hurt by Sam Blacketer's actions. One thing that is getting lost in all this, I fear, is that (for example) the picture change on David Cameron (see Sam Blacketer controversy, another navel-gazing article that I think should be deleted) was in fact a perfectly good edit. The photo that was removed was obviously ridiculous, and the one that was added is perfectly normal. The whole situation is an ugly mess.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Let's try this again since no one seems to be listening: Obviously the version in userspace isn't a great version. Otherwise it wouldn't be in userspace. Balance of what is in a preliminary draft doesn't in any way reflect what would necessarily be in any final version. I've been going through some effort to find additional sources about Boothroyd prior to this matter (which hasn't been easy since I don't have a library access this week). I agree incidentally that the description of the Cameron edits was not at all well described in the press and in fact minimzed and then removed it entirely from the draft. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Sam Blacketer standing for reconfirmation is a bad idea. He's never going to pass, and this will only cause disruption and badwill among editors. (And, I deleted David Boothroyd. You can read all about it on WP:ANI.) Jehochman Talk 15:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no very strong opinion on the deletion of the article. I mean, I think it should end up deleted, but I also think that's a matter for AfD and DRV and I'm not going to get involved. I'm glad to see that the Sam Blacketer controversy afd seems to be pretty straightforwardly going in the right direction.
I tend to agree with you about him standing for reconfirmation. I think he should respectfully decline to reapply, and people should allow him to step away with dignity. There's just no good reason for a spectacle.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little confused by the comment people should allow him to step away with dignity in the context of the RFA. He was asked to step away from his admin bit, and his own idea was to come up with the RFA. "People" certainly would let him step away without the RFA if he made that choice.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like we are in agreement, then. I'm not sure what's confusing about it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I read it, It sounded like you were saying there's some vague group of people keeping him from steping down without an RFA. The only one keeping him from steping down quietly is himself. If you weren't trying to make a comment about "people", but rather what would be the best action for Sam to take, then I agree and am no longer confused.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken the liberty of quoting you at Talk:Sam Blacketer controversy. [2] --Hans Adler (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The statement:

  • "I mean, I think it should end up deleted, but I also think that's a matter for AfD and DRV and I'm not going to get involved."

appears to me to be so self-contradictory and self-serving it caused me to gag.

Do you think article subjects suddenly become non-notable after they receive substantial coverage in reliable sources? On what basis? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it's completely impossible that Jimbo thinks Sam wasn't notable before this teacup tempest? On what basis? --Hans Adler (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of articles on Wikipedia editors of marginal notability. Why is this one so critical to delete when there is very substantial media coverage related to it? Jimbo has involved himself along with other high powered editors, admins, and arbcoms to delete any article or coverage that includes any mention of this incident. I think that stinks and that we're better than that kind of censorship and bias towards content and coverage we don't like. Given the issues related to the controversy itself, it's particularly unseemly to engage in a cover-up of this sort. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I'm a little confused. First when I said that I'm not getting involved (which I'm not), you said this was so contradictory and self-serving that it "caused you to gag". Then, when challenged, you suddenly claim that I have "involved myself". I haven't. I didn't vote in the AfD, I didn't delete the article, and I very specifically said here - in case anyone was wondering - that it's a matter for AfD and DRV. Nothing to do with me, so I'd appreciate it if you not insult me by claiming to "gag" over things like this. That's just not a proper way to have a conversation with someone.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other crap exists too is not an argument for keeping crap, it is an argument that other crap should be deleted. If you would like to shoot me a list of names of wikipedia articles based on editors, I'll be happy to review them. The further problem is that while David Boothroyd may or may not be important enough to deserve an encyclopedia article, the Sam Blacketer controversy is narcissism and self-absorbed navel gazing at its worst. Not to mention being a huge BLP violation in disguise as a story about an event that just happens to involve wikipedia. Thatcher 19:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well, my preference would have been for a two sentence addition to the article that existed on Wikipedia for more than 4 years. Unfortunately, that article was aggressively deleted (repeatedly) out of process and editors working on it threatened with blocks. So now we have various efforts to cover the controversy in other ways and it's an ongoing drama. If that article was kept we wouldn't be having this problem. Had there been an editing dispute the article could have been protected and it could have been worked out in discussion on the talk page.
The rush to delete the article when its subject is in the news, and the quashing of efforts at restoration are unseemly and inappropriate. Wikipedia is not censored and we shouldn't be engaged in that sort of thing. Let's not forget that the article subject is a public political figure who has been quoted in mainstream media on controversial issues. As far as Wikipedians with articles see Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles. But nomming them may be seen as pointy at this time. Who knows. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How was the David Boothroyd article deleted?

By what process was the David Boothroyd article deleted? I saw 3 AfD's that failed; I didn't see one that passed. Had the article really been on Wikipedia for 4 years or so? Finell (Talk) 00:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Articles for deletion/David Boothroyd (2nd nomination). --Hans Adler (talk) 01:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That confirms that it was on Wikipedia for at least 4 years, because it says that the last AFD was 4 years ago, and the AFD failed despite Boothroyd's own request for deletion. And then it was undeleted, then re-deleted in a 3rd nomination? Isn't there some concern that by so very quickly deleting this long-existing article, just when the subject becomes more notable because of the discovery his sock puppeteering, which led him to resign from ArbCom member, it looks like Wikipedia is trying to hide an embarrassment? (In my opinion, for what its worth, his replacing the sinister photo with a good photo was a good edit. The rest is quite another matter.) Finell (Talk) 03:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP became policy in 2006.[3] Yes, an article existed for four years without any references, and without any evidence of notability. This "hide the embarassment" argument is pompous. There are other sources of information besides Wikipedia. Anybody who cares can read all about this incident in the media, and at the ArbCom discussion pages. Wikidramas should not be turned into articles. Jehochman Talk 12:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews

I've been trying to get a Wikinews article together to address the misreporting that has happened on Sam Blacketer's resignation (in particular, that Sam did not resign because it was discovered "he made secret, politically motivated edits to the David Cameron BLP under a false name). As part of the article, I would like to quote your comment above, about the picture edit having in fact been "A perfectly good edit. The photo that was removed was obviously ridiculous, and the one that was added is perfectly normal." Would that be okay? For reference, the article draft is at [4]. The headline and content may still change; I am a novice to Wikinews, and not very good at it.

I've asked the arbcom at WP:ACN talk if they would like to make a statement to be added to the article, and you're obviously invited to comment as well, if you would like to. I'll also ask Sam if he wants to make a statement.

Please let me know your thoughts. I have e-mail enabled, and will watchlist this page as well. Regards, JN466 14:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's fine, but to be fully accurate be sure to note that I in no way approve of or condone what he did.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll make sure. [5] Okay? JN466 15:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ego boost!

I wrote a featured article about you (sort of) in Uncyclopedia. Just wondered about your reaction? Bah! I care more about Chronarion's reaction! ...I don't care about anyone's reaction, it got featured on the front page! Woo! 76.222.253.225 (talk) 17:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC) (Cajek)[reply]

The article about you is really funny! lol - Damërung ...ÏìíÏ..._Ξ_ . --  13:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a good sense of humor, and I *love* Uncyclopedia. Therefore, I try to refrain from reading what it says about me, on the grounds that if it hurt my feelings it might diminish my love for Uncyc. I have read it before, nervously, and ended up enjoying it just fine.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence re paid advocacy

The RFC is too long to read, so may I draw attention to this informative evidence by User:Ha! who has gone to the trouble of writing up some eye-opening evidence for paid advocacy. No one appears to have yet checked Ha!'s results, so that needs to be done, but the report is vital reading. Johnuniq (talk) 07:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is vital reading. I think it shows how deeply wrong paid advocacy is in article space.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here (Talk:Usana#"Under construction" template) is a different perspective of someone openly noting they are editing as part of their employment, and of the response which includes noting COI concerns and requirements of conformity to WP policy. This is how transparency aids in the building of better articles. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, it would be easy to miss the link to this important expansion of the above statement by User:Ha!, so here it is. Johnuniq (talk) 02:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion on article

I have been looking at the FBLA article and I noticed there was a key part of information left out. The list of states for each region. I have tried adding the list but the user eitherway keeps undoing it. He says it is irrelevant information while I feel it is a neccessary additive to the article's overall totality. I would like your opinion on this discussion. Please note I am not trying to trash the article but only mean to enrich it with useful information. Runesage106 (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion, and that's not the sort of thing I usually like to get involved with. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The title of the article is FBLA-PBL. User:Runesage106 made no edits to the article under that user name. User:Either way, who has been following the article since at least 2005, repeatedly reverted spam-cruft and unsourced, unnecessary detail added without edit comments by IP users and by User:Rydog1010; one revert commented that another account has been trying to add some of the same material since 2007. The Runesage106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) account has the earmarks of a seldom used "clean" account of someone doing other business here. An investigation of possible editing from multiple accounts may be in order, especially in view of the controversy over WP:COI editing by paid advocates. Finell (Talk) 23:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds interesting enough for someone, but I have no opinion, and that's not the sort of thing that I usually like to get involved with. :-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I don't believe there's any COI going on here at all. These are just high school kids writing about an organization they're involved in so they want every single piece of information in the world about it in there. The "Cybis has been doing it since before 2007" comment I made in an edit summary was about the information that one put in the article; they said that Cybis (the video production company that FBLA-PBL uses) has been making videos for them since 2007, but Cybis has been doing it since at least 2005. There are no major issues here of COI or the like; it's just trying to prune the good information out of the "cruft" that gets added. either way (talk) 10:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well my ip adress used instead of my account because I had forgotten I even had one. 65.73.17.220 is it and you can see the point I was trying to add on the article but if it is too detailed I understand and I am not a paid advocate. I am merely a High school student and have not used my account because as I said I had forgotten I even had it. Go on ahead and investigate me. I am an eleventh grader only trying to better Wikipedia to prove it my Facebook adress is here Of course you have to log in and if that doesn't do it go here I haven't done any damage through the ip adress except for the Alcorn School District article and please forgive me for that but I wasn't thinking at the time and was angry at our previous superintendent who led our district into a million dollar debt, which has adversely affected my high school career. I am thoroughly sorry for that incident. Runesage106 (talk) 02:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Intercession needed

Please refer to User talk:Giraffedata. Even though numerous editors have objected to his obsessive removal of the gramatically acceptable term "consists of" from hundreds of articles, he defiantly continues to do so. Your assistance here is appreciated. Contributions/209.247.22.164 (talk) 16:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place, and he actually changes "comprised of" to "comprises". Darrenhusted (talk) 17:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Darrenhusted is right, this is not the place to deal with it, but those who are dealing with it elsewhere may find the following links useful: "comprised+of"+site%3Anytimes.com 5,760 examples at nytimes.com and "comprised+of"+site%3Abbc.co.uk 2,200 examples at bbc.co.uk.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=296591431"