Actually we also get bookspam. The classic version of this is an IP turns up at a watchlist making one edit to an article to add an item to the references section. Check the IP history and it makes one edit each to a lot of different articles, each adding a book reference but not building the article. All the books come from the same publishing house. Check the WHOIS...surprise, surprise...
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 6:09 PM, Carcharoth <[email protected]>wrote: > On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 1:32 AM, Sam Korn<[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 11:35 PM, Andrew Gray<[email protected]> > wrote: > >> 2009/6/10 AGK <[email protected]>: > >> > >>> In practice, however, it would be exceedingly rare for that type of > editing > >>> to not be problematic to some degree; the nature of the business world > is > >>> such that paid editing would almost certainly not adhere to Wikipedia's > NPOV > >>> policies. Consider this: if a client commissions a Wikipedia article's > >>> creation, would the client be satisfied with an article that did not > reflect > >>> a stance that was at least a smidgen flattering? I wouldn't imagine so. > On > >>> that basis, I think a blanket discouragement from editing for payment > to be > >>> the most sensible approach to the issue. > >> > >> This only really applies to one type of paid editing, doesn't it? > >> Commercial or quasi-commercial, ones where the client has a definite > >> stake in the "message" of the article. > >> > >> You can easily have paid editing where this isn't the case at all - an > >> educational group, for example, which pays people to produce content > >> about a specific field without presupposing the tone of that content. > >> In many cases, it may just be that the topic is one where it's hard to > >> put the "sponsor's" slant in - mathematics, for example, would be a > >> lot more resilient than alternative medicines! > >> > >> We've already had a very limited form of this - the project on Commons > >> which pays for the creation of images - and there's no doubt that, if > >> done carefully, this could be extended to article-writing without the > >> danger of producing editorial slant in the end product. This is pretty > >> much the traditional encyclopedia model, in fact - paid generalist or > >> specialist editors, who may well bring their own prejudices to the > >> text but aren't expected to comply with the "central editorial slant" > >> on each. > >> > >> I agree entirely paid editing can be a bad thing - but so can unpaid > >> editing for a topic you hold dear. Likewise, both can be forces for > >> good. I'm not sure it's wise to completely throw away the opportunity > >> for a powerful tool which we haven't used much yet, due to short-term > >> fears about commercial interests. > >> > >> (In short: regulate, sure. Don't forbid; it'll bite us in the long run.) > > > > These are all excellent points. > > > > I would like to see the guideline state something along the lines of > > "You are not required to state that you are being paid to edit. > > However, if it is later discovered that you have been doing so and you > > did not state this openly, people will be very suspicious about your > > motivations. If you are open, honest and neutral, people are more > > likely to trust you." > > > > Also, I would like to see the end of COIN and direct its traffic to > > the NPOV noticeboard -- it is highly misleading to suggest that the > > conflict of interests is the problem; it is the lack of neutrality > > that is the problem. > > My points, from a post I prepared yesterday (which I may post on-wiki > at some point): > > *One point I don't think has been raised is that paid editing mostly > focuses on living people and contemporary organisations. I can't > actually think of examples of paid editing that don't involve > biographies of living people ([[WP:BLP]]) or corporate companies > ([[WP:CORP]]), plus a side-serving of political and non-corporate > organisations (e.g. non-governmental organisations and charities) and > I'm sure that is an important point, but maybe someone else could > articulate that? What I'm thinking here is that editing on 'academic' > topics such as history and science (if you ignore paid attempts to > push fringe points of view - such as crackpot, pseudo and fringe > history and science), is largely done either by academics or volunteer > amateurs with interests. The editing on living people articles and > corporations (and music groups) is largely done by fans (volunteers) > or paid editors. But the editing on long-dead people (I've created > several articles on 19th-century scientists) and organisations (think > 19th-century independence movements, such as [[Hellenoglosso > Xenodocheio]]). I'm not saying that paid editing is impossible in such > situations, but it does seem that *corporate* and *contemporary* paid > editing is mostly limited to certain areas. > > *The final point is that no-one seems to have mentioned the model of > having paid editing done outside Wikipedia under a compatible license, > and then filtered in through a vetting process (with strict disclosure > of amount of money, the authors, and the WP accounts, if any) and > suffrage restrictions in place). It is ironic, considering the history > of that sort of editing in the past, but I think that is a viable > model that should be considered as an alternative to in-house paid > editing. > > *Actually, that's not the final thing. The final point I wanted to > make was about paid corporate editing versus individual wealthy > individuals paying for specific requests, versus philanthropists > providing "editorial support" in general (if I had the money, I'd pay > into a fund to support volunteer Wikipedia editors who needed the > money - goodness knows how they would distribute it though), versus > charities and other non-corporate groups paying, versus academic > funding and grants, versus completely altruistic, gratis volunteer > editing. I think that covers the whole spectrum. > > Carcharoth > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
