User talk:LinaMishima/PaidEditing

Please feel free to get involved in editing this suggestion! - I have no qualms with people editing this document, as long as they edit along the exisiting spirit. If entries to knows and believes would logically lead to a significanly different conclusion, please talk about it here first. LinaMishima 20:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Typos

Lina, there are several typos in your essay. Would you mind if people edit them? (I would do this for free.)  ;-) Also, might I ask that you add a link to my current talk page discussion/vote that is going on now? -- MyWikiBiz 15:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Feel free, I know I suck at spelling and occasionally make typos :) Add whatever you feel would be useful (whilst in keeping with the basic spirit of my proposal), I want this to try and be as useful to the debate as possible LinaMishima 16:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Wrong position

Also Lina, I'm not sure if you know this or not but I don't think it's in your userspace. I think you've used a \ instead of a / and it's made into some kind of new non-existant user's page. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 15:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Damn, you were right... got to move another article of mine now, too. Thanks for that :) LinaMishima 16:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

No worries. Your other essay, Brown's Gas, seems to have the same problem. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 16:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete=Refund

I am not sure that this is the best option - especially if it doesn't get deleted until a year later or something - there should be a time limit on it (3-6 mo) - or the business plan would be too at risk. --Trödel 19:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

True, it needs a time limit on it... I'll have a re-read. Perhaps just refund if community consensus does not agree to article? LinaMishima 19:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Participation in this page

Lina, I took the liberty of adding one item to the list of what is known. I am wondering: how much am I welcome to edit on this page, vs. how much is it your personal page? I have a lot of thoughts on this, but they do not all coincide with what is already there. - Jmabel | Talk 00:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

If your thoughts would change the spirit of the conclusion (ie, that paid editing is allowed but with oversight), then please discuss them on the talk page first.

Facts (within 'known that') can be added freely, as long as they refer to policy (not guidelines) or some other official point. They should be referenced in every case (as they are supposed to be shared truths). Generally, if anyone can at all argue with you, then it's a 'belief', and goes in the next section.

I would be careful adding any 'requires', but 'suggests' is a looser term. To be honest, it's been nearly a year since I worked on a document stuctured like this, so I'm very rusty. I used the layout as it's generally how legal suggestions are made, citing truths then beliefs and drawing conclusions from them. It's easier to engage in debate by having it in this format, then turning it into prose once there is consensus.

I've gone somewhat off on a tangent, so I'll make the main point again - I want people to edit this document, but if the meaning would be changed (eg, from paid edits allowed to paid edits must only be done when the money goes to charity, and so on), it would be better to discuss it here first. The facts and beliefs to support a suggestion can be added, however (although beliefs should be ones the community as a whole shares, rather than a personal one such as "Paying money for something is a sign of weakness").

Ga, that probably didn't help too much, did it? :P

Jimbo's response

In his response to an e-mail of mine, regarding Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest, Jimbo Wales said that this concept would be "Absolutely unacceptable, sorry." He gave no further clarification or illumination. As I am beginning to see it, the community thinks THEY have final say in what shall be policy, while Jimbo Wales feels that he has final say (based on a 15-minute telephone conversation with me -- one, solitary editor), regardless of the community's opinion after hours, and days, and weeks of thoughtful dialogue. This doesn't leave much incentive for the spirit of cooperation and good faith. My recommendation would be that before anyone spends TOO much time working out a "Paid Editing" policy, that it be approved by Jimbo Wales, because apparently he will reserve the right to block any editor that doesn't comply with his idea of what is acceptable. -- MyWikiBiz 20:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Too many rules

I think the spirit of this essay is the appropriate response to paid editing, but it has too many rules and tries to regulate things too much. The tougher we make it, the more paid editing will be pushed underground, which is exactly what we don't want. I don't think we should try to involve ourselves with the financial end at all, and stick to encouraging/requiring (it amounts to the same thing) oversight or pre-approval of paid-for articles. I guess this issue is mainly being discussed at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, but I think this is a good start conceptually for a draft guideline. By the way, nice summary of the listserv discussion, LM; very thoughtful of you.--ragesoss 02:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

A very different way of looking at this

Public relations people are going to write articles in Wikipedia whether we like it or not. I've offered my draft of how I think this should be approached. If you have comments, for now please use its talk page: I've deliberately left this in my own user space. - Jmabel | Talk 17:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Problems with paid editing

I think you have your heart in the right place, but it does not sit nicely with me.

• Companies charging for Wikipedia editing must pay an amount of the costs to the Wikimedia Foundation

I have no faith that there wouldn't be any strings attached to this type of money, especially if it comes at a regular interval. This would thoroughly break NPOV. There's also a problem of who exactly would be tracking these companies down and forcing them to pay, of course. How are you going to distinguish a company shill and a regular editor? What about a regular editor who uses their account to shill? ColourBurst 00:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Making the amount payable by the client depend upon keeping the article is probably a poor idea, as it induces the paid ed. not just to write the article, but to lobby for it. Even more important, the ed. and the client must realize that the "edit mercilessly" basic policy will always prevail with respect to the contents. Correspondence School X may in good faith pay for an article which is then properly edited by others to expose it as a diploma mill. 20:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)