Wikipediocracy

I'll start with a fresh, new topic.

Paid advocacy editor donors

Jimbo, we know and support your firm stance against paid advocacy editors -- they have no welcome here at Wikipedia. What if a paid advocacy editor's company presented you a substantial financial donation to the Wikimedia Foundation? Would you accept that donation on behalf of the Foundation, or would you tear it up in their face? Signed, 97.68.110.99 (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I think we should accept their donation and ban them from editing. And then spend their money on a full-time employee to identify and block undisclosed paid advocacy editing accounts.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Quite refreshing to see the titular head of the WMF brazenly stating that they will defraud potential donors.

I would seriously hope he was joking, but it would not be the smartest joke to make in the world...

Jimbo wrote:Paid advocacy editor donors

Jimbo, we know and support your firm stance against paid advocacy editors -- they have no welcome here at Wikipedia. What if a paid advocacy editor's company presented you a substantial financial donation to the Wikimedia Foundation? Would you accept that donation on behalf of the Foundation, or would you tear it up in their face? Signed, 97.68.110.99 (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I think we should accept their donation and ban them from editing. And then spend their money on a full-time employee to identify and block undisclosed paid advocacy editing accounts.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Someone is already doing it for free, but Wikipedians don't care.

TungstenCarbide wrote:

Jimbo wrote:Paid advocacy editor donors

Jimbo, we know and support your firm stance against paid advocacy editors -- they have no welcome here at Wikipedia. What if a paid advocacy editor's company presented you a substantial financial donation to the Wikimedia Foundation? Would you accept that donation on behalf of the Foundation, or would you tear it up in their face? Signed, 97.68.110.99 (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I think we should accept their donation and ban them from editing. And then spend their money on a full-time employee to identify and block undisclosed paid advocacy editing accounts.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Someone is already doing it for free, but Wikipedians don't care.

Ah, but they do care. They care very deeply. It is just that they are religiously obliged to reject these works as the doing of the Wiki-Anti-Christ.*



* I suppose this means that Daniel Brandt is now Wiki-Anti-Christ Emeritus.

Cedric wrote:I suppose this means that Daniel Brandt is now Wiki-Anti-Christ Emeritus.

Good heavens, yes. He's passé and in many quarters forgotten. Wikipedians have very short memories.

Lukeno94 wrote:I would seriously hope he was joking, but it would not be the smartest joke to make in the world...

It didn't read as if he was joking, at least to me, and I'm usually more willing than most to accept that particular excuse. If anything, I'd say Jimbo is reaching the end of his tether over this issue. He knows there will be bad press over the increased number of COI-related incidents in future, and he must be worried that the resulting decline in Wikipedia's "reputation" will force him to reduce his speaking fees.

Either way, making statements like this very quickly leads to earmarking - corporate donors will insist that their money not be used in certain ways, such as turning WP into some sort of police state. This will force the WMF to either decline donations or start properly accounting for what it does with its money, most of which doesn't actually get spent right away. For now, they can probably afford to decline a few donations, even large corporate ones... but having to decline donations is always a huge pisser for management, for whom good fundraising numbers are a major factor in personal power-building and (in some cases) bonus-money calculations, as well as other perks.

Which leads to another question: Does the WMF ever give out bonuses? Many non-profits are notoriously stingy about that, but most of them will at least try if they can afford it.

Midsize Jake wrote:Either way, making statements like this very quickly leads to earmarking - corporate donors will insist that their money not be used in certain ways, such as turning WP into some sort of police state. This will force the WMF to either decline donations or start properly accounting for what it does with its money, most of which doesn't actually get spent right away. For now, they can probably afford to decline a few donations, even large corporate ones... but having to decline donations is always a huge pisser for management, for whom good fundraising numbers are a major factor in personal power-building and (in some cases) bonus-money calculations, as well as other perks.

I've heard rumors -- only rumors, but you know how that goes -- that the WMF has in the past accepted earmarked donations and ignored the earmark on Jimmy's orders. However, this sort of thing usually results in Ugly Nastiness, at least when it's done to a large enough (or persnickety enough) donor, and almost always ends up getting public and getting noticed by the charity watchdogs like Charity Navigator, so if they have done such a thing it was done on a small enough scale (or far enough in the past) that nobody has made a stink of it.

The WMF cannot afford to have a significant portion of its donations burdened with earmarks, because most of their donation stream just goes into a giant piggybank. Earmarks require the establishment of segregated accounts, and then you get into fighting over what expenses can be charged against a segregated earmark versus those that have to be charged to the general fund. And the donor making the earmarked donation has the right to review all expenses charged against the segregated fund to determine if the earmark has been breached (which results in a reversion to the grantor). In perpetuity. Nonprofits hate earmarks.

I'd love to see people earmark their donations to the WMF "to be used only for server maintenance and hosting expenses".

Kelly Martin wrote:I'd love to see people earmark their donations to the WMF "to be used only for server maintenance and hosting expenses".

"Or academic review of content."

HRIP7 wrote:

Kelly Martin wrote:I'd love to see people earmark their donations to the WMF "to be used only for server maintenance and hosting expenses".

"Or academic review of content."

If WP is ever to become a serious resource it will have to take the issue of reviewing seriously, but who in their right mind would want to review an article that a few seconds after they'd finished with it could be trashed?

Malleus wrote:

HRIP7 wrote:

Kelly Martin wrote:I'd love to see people earmark their donations to the WMF "to be used only for server maintenance and hosting expenses".

"Or academic review of content."

If WP is ever to become a serious resource it will have to take the issue of reviewing seriously, but who in their right mind would want to review an article that a few seconds after they'd finished with it could be trashed?

There are lots of ways that could be handled- reviewed articles could send new edits to a work-in-progress subpage until the next review, for example. Different quality systems should be designed and tested, but the leadership doesn't care, is risk averse, and sometimes blinded with faith in the 'wide-open-editing' model. Wikipedia is stagnating and losing editors. If it wants to improve it needs to experiment and evolve in a way that advances its goals. It is not. Wikipedia lacks leadership.

I believe that many editors capable of creating good work don't participate for the reason you mention, Malleus, and many others who try end up leaving the place quickly, without making a peep, once they become acquainted with the leadership and culture. I have no data, as Peter Damian has pointed out, just my own observations since 2003. Wikipedia has past the tipping point whereby mature editors are repulsed by the culture and wackos attracted, leading to a downward spiral. I see more and more paid editing, OCD nutcases running semi-automated bots and fewer fresh ideas from the leadership. That being said, I have great respect for a handful of editors doing good work and avoiding juvenile drama, they are the exceptions.

TungstenCarbide wrote:

Malleus wrote:

HRIP7 wrote:

Kelly Martin wrote:I'd love to see people earmark their donations to the WMF "to be used only for server maintenance and hosting expenses".

"Or academic review of content."

If WP is ever to become a serious resource it will have to take the issue of reviewing seriously, but who in their right mind would want to review an article that a few seconds after they'd finished with it could be trashed?

There are lots of ways that could be handled- reviewed articles could send new edits to a work-in-progress subpage until the next review, for example. Different quality systems should be designed and tested, but the leadership doesn't care, is risk averse, and sometimes blinded with faith in the 'wide-open-editing' model. Wikipedia is stagnating and losing editors. If it wants to improve it needs to experiment and evolve in a way that advances its goals. It is not. Wikipedia lacks leadership.

I believe that many editors capable of creating good work don't participate for the reason you mention, Malleus, and many others who try end up leaving the place quickly, without making a peep, once they become acquainted with the leadership and culture. I have no data, as Peter Damian has pointed out, just my own observations since 2003. Wikipedia has past the tipping point whereby mature editors are repulsed by the culture and wackos attracted, leading to a downward spiral. I see more and more paid editing, OCD nutcases running semi-automated bots and fewer fresh ideas from the leadership. That being said, I have great respect for a handful of editors doing good work and avoiding juvenile drama, they are the exceptions.

The "anyone can edit" mantra has had its day, but few are willing to accept that. It served its purpose back in the olden days when WP was desperate for content, but not now.

Cedric wrote:

TungstenCarbide wrote:

Jimbo wrote:Paid advocacy editor donors

Jimbo, we know and support your firm stance against paid advocacy editors -- they have no welcome here at Wikipedia. What if a paid advocacy editor's company presented you a substantial financial donation to the Wikimedia Foundation? Would you accept that donation on behalf of the Foundation, or would you tear it up in their face? Signed, 97.68.110.99 (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I think we should accept their donation and ban them from editing. And then spend their money on a full-time employee to identify and block undisclosed paid advocacy editing accounts.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Someone is already doing it for free, but Wikipedians don't care.

Ah, but they do care. They care very deeply. It is just that they are religiously obliged to reject these works as the doing of the Wiki-Anti-Christ.

I'm just surprised to find that Tim/Randy/Carrite is more suspicious of the WP drama hounds than I am.

Jimmy hasn't commented since I did... perhaps he read the thread and went straight for his reserve bottle of Old Grandad.

SB_Johnny wrote:Jimmy hasn't commented since I did... perhaps he read the thread and went straight for his reserve bottle of Old Grandad.

Is it conceivable that he didn't even know about the "Obvious Paid Editors are Obvious" thread? The person he's referring to ("Mr. 2001") is our own Gregory Kohs, and he seems to be aware that the purpose of that thread is to show that paid-advocacy WP users do exist and they're doing little to stop them:

Yes, I think that's his point. We should also add that a big part of his work there is to attempt (entirely unsuccessfully because it isn't true) to show that I'm a hypocrite and allow friends/partners to engage in this sort of thing. But my point is: a serious discussion of this issue can't really start with assuming that Mr. 2001 is our best line of defense.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I understand that he can't really be honest about the situation, but come on - the Wikipediocracy thread is clearly the most exhaustive and best-researched resource on paid advocacy WP users on the entire internet. The only page that even tries to come close is the WP Conflict of interest noticeboard, but that page doesn't limit itself to paid WP users, and most of the sections are about vague suspicions posted by people in the middle of active disputes with the users they're accusing - they're almost never completely disinterested.

I just wonder what would happen if Jimbo really did approach this issue with just a smidgen of honesty - I'm sure there would be plenty of egg on his face and crow to eat immediately afterwards, so it will never happen, but wouldn't he be better off in the long term?

What I really suspect here is that Jimbo doesn't actually know what the problem is. He only knows that it's something that could embarrass him personally, and so it has to be crushed.

Vigilant wrote: Quite refreshing to see the titular head of the WMF brazenly stating that they will defraud potential donors.

To be fair, it's only fraud if you assume that the donation buys something. Without quid pro quo, it's just someone trying and failing to influence Jimbo. After all, he's a stand-up guy and basically untouchable, right?

Malleus wrote: The "anyone can edit" mantra has had its day, but few are willing to accept that. It served its purpose back in the olden days when WP was desperate for content, but not now.

The corollary to "anyone can edit" is "anyone else can revert the edit". If you want your contribution kept, you have to play the game, and not everyone can win at it.

Jimbo must have seen this thread, because that's the only way I can explain why he would utter an even more shit-headed thing to "up the ante" on this paid editing conundrum.

In response to level-headed and thoughtful arguments being made by the ArbCom specialist, Risker, and Wikipediocracy's own (former) resident pro-Wikipedian Carrite, Jimbo identifies paid editing by using terms like...

In order to cover gaps like this, what do you think of a system that is *not* pay for play (which is inherently and inevitably corrupting) but in which people are paid (by the Foundation) to respond to edit requests of this type. The only valid argument that I have ever seen for a system of bribery and corruption is that it would help us get more coverage of marginal business topics (though at great cost to our reputation and integrity). Our goal is to create the best possible encyclopedia, and I don't see any actual harm in the Wikimedia Foundation hiring a handful of excellent and experienced editors to work on topic of importance but which have not been of sufficient interest to volunteers to fully cover appropriately, thus leaving open this gateway to corruption.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 17:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Someone should suggest to Jimbo that his friend Richard Stromback would be a perfect employee for this, since he (or his PR firm) covered "marginal business topics" very adeptly in the past.

I've read that last quote of Jimmy's three times now and I can't figure out what he's saying. It reads to me like he thinks that there would be "no actual harm to the Foundation" for creating a "gateway to corruption". Perhaps this is because he realizes that the Foundation is already completely corrupted, and thus immune to future corruption.

Addendum - I have removed a typical insulting and uninformative comment from Mr. 2001/Checking the checkers because it was nothing more than insult and ranting. I did not say, and have no opinion without looking into it - which I have not - this particular case is a Joe job. I do think that in every specific case where an individual real human being is being singled out for criticism, we have to look into all possibilities as a matter of thoroughness, dignity, and honor. If Mr. 2001 were to take the same approach, he'd likely not be so ineffective at every single thing he tries to do.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

"So ineffective at every single thing he tries to do"? Even in the 'one lasting marriage' category? - Just sayin', that's all (talk) 02:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Meow

thekohser wrote:Jimbo must have seen this thread, because that's the only way I can explain why he would utter an even more shit-headed thing to "up the ante" on this paid editing conundrum.

In response to level-headed and thoughtful arguments being made by the ArbCom specialist, Risker, and Wikipediocracy's own (former) resident pro-Wikipedian Carrite, Jimbo identifies paid editing by using terms like...

In order to cover gaps like this, what do you think of a system that is *not* pay for play (which is inherently and inevitably corrupting) but in which people are paid (by the Foundation) to respond to edit requests of this type. The only valid argument that I have ever seen for a system of bribery and corruption is that it would help us get more coverage of marginal business topics (though at great cost to our reputation and integrity). Our goal is to create the best possible encyclopedia, and I don't see any actual harm in the Wikimedia Foundation hiring a handful of excellent and experienced editors to work on topic of importance but which have not been of sufficient interest to volunteers to fully cover appropriately, thus leaving open this gateway to corruption.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 17:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Someone should suggest to Jimbo that his friend Richard Stromback would be a perfect employee for this, since he (or his PR firm) covered "marginal business topics" very adeptly in the past.

heh. One thing that consistently gets Jimbo's rapt attention is the presence of Kohs in a topic. That being said, even Jimbo's rapt attention fails to generate mental horsepower.

Someone needs to keep reminding Jimbo, every few weeks or so, that the most successful and highest quality open source projects embrace paid consulting by their authors, that one of the sanest, most ethical and open plans for paid editing was purposed by Kohs years ago in good faith before Jimbo screwed him over, that Wikipedia's license provides for commercial use of the content yet forces most editors to work for free, while Wikipedia insiders consult with no problem and Kohs perpetually vilified ... and that Jimbo's personal animosity against Kohs clouds his judgement and harms the project.

Vigilant wrote:

Addendum - I have removed a typical insulting and uninformative comment from Mr. 2001/Checking the checkers because it was nothing more than insult and ranting. I did not say, and have no opinion without looking into it - which I have not - this particular case is a Joe job. I do think that in every specific case where an individual real human being is being singled out for criticism, we have to look into all possibilities as a matter of thoroughness, dignity, and honor. If Mr. 2001 were to take the same approach, he'd likely not be so ineffective at every single thing he tries to do.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

"So ineffective at every single thing he tries to do"? Even in the 'one lasting marriage' category? - Just sayin', that's all (talk) 02:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Meow

Holy moley, that's a good one!

Kelly Martin wrote:I've read that last quote of Jimmy's three times now and I can't figure out what he's saying. It reads to me like he thinks that there would be "no actual harm to the Foundation" for creating a "gateway to corruption". Perhaps this is because he realizes that the Foundation is already completely corrupted, and thus immune to future corruption.

Do you really expect Wales to say something "coherent"?? Especially at this late date, with Wikipedia editing in decline and its public image slowly degrading? He never was an especially clear or capable speaker or writer, and I've got to think he must be getting at least occasional help with the writing. He's an "empty suit" coasting on sheer momentum. He doesn't have to make sense.

Kelly Martin wrote:I've read that last quote of Jimmy's three times now and I can't figure out what he's saying. It reads to me like he thinks that there would be "no actual harm to the Foundation" for creating a "gateway to corruption". Perhaps this is because he realizes that the Foundation is already completely corrupted, and thus immune to future corruption.

I think he's (probably) saying that the "marginality" of certain businesses, products, organizations, etc. is part of the problem in itself, because unpaid WPers aren't going to be interested in those things or even know about them. So he's suggesting some sort of procedural workaround whereby these "marginal" companies who want articles about themselves should contact the WMF's well-paid Marginal Commercial-Content Article Development Editorial Team (MCCADET) so that their request for an article can either be placed in a "queue" to be written months or years later, or else just shot down immediately without all that messy "on-wiki" edit-warring and AfD nonsense.

Here is some advice from Jimbo on how best to point out Wikipedia's problems in a way that he will listen.

As I'm sure you are aware, it is not having things brought to my attention that I am objecting to. It's the snide tone and the trolling. When you asked me "Does your Bright Line Rule apply to organizations that are in partnership with Wikimedia Foundation projects, or are they exempted" you knew the answer. There was absolutely no reason to be sarcastic. And "one of the burdens that the sole founder" is clearly a provocation, referring to a fake controversy that you've been instrumental in keeping alive for years. If you really sincerely are simply trying to help, then stop being a jerk, and sincerely try to help. Don't ask silly rhetorical questions that exhaust people. State your own views clearly and with logic and reason. Bring information to me that is worth me knowing about, without snarky tone. Basically, try to be a decent human being with less threatening behavior and more honesty. You'll be happier for it.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 16:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

This thread is a sequel to this one from 2012.

As a biased observer, I not sure about the logic here. Most people believe that the problem with paid editing is conflict of interest: The idea that if you're paid then you'll write only positive things. That depends on whose doing the paying, I guess. But that seems to miss the point. IMHO, paid editing has two issues:

1) It's not encyclopedic. Most company information is actually news.
2) It is invariably an attempt to create a positive impression of the company. In other words it is PR (a subset of news).

The problem isn't that it's paid, the problem is that it's news.

If you want a better encyclopedia, you should accept that some content does not belong there, and that some people who are editors -- those who believe that PR and news are encyclopedic -- do not belong there. The tragedy of Wikipedia is that it is what its contributors think it is - not what it's readers think it should be.

sparkzilla wrote:IMHO, paid editing has two issues:

1) It's not encyclopedic. Most company information is actually news.

Did you momma teach you to generalize to an absurd extent like that? Or did you just, you know, pick it up as you went along?

2) It is invariably an attempt to create a positive impression of the company. In other words it is PR (a subset of news).

PR is a subset of news, now? Do tell! So, would it be OK if the paid editors restricted themselves to only attempting to create negative impressions of other companies? Presumably Wikipedia simply can't handle the possibility of someone trying to create a positive impression of something - that would be, I dunno, completely unthinkable I guess.

Also, are you drunk? You seem articulate enough, but I'm afraid your points are more like that of an inebriated person.

Midsize Jake wrote:

sparkzilla wrote:IMHO, paid editing has two issues:

1) It's not encyclopedic. Most company information is actually news.

Did you momma teach you to generalize to an absurd extent like that? Or did you just, you know, pick it up as you went along?

2) It is invariably an attempt to create a positive impression of the company. In other words it is PR (a subset of news).

PR is a subset of news, now? Do tell! So, would it be OK if the paid editors restricted themselves to only attempting to create negative impressions of other companies? Presumably Wikipedia simply can't handle the possibility of someone trying to create a positive impression of something - that would be, I dunno, completely unthinkable I guess.

Also, are you drunk? You seem articulate enough, but I'm afraid your points are more like that of an inebriated person.

Did you seriously just ask someone with the WP handle "Sparkzilla" if they were drunk?!?!?

RfB

No need to be snarky. Company news and PR, of which almost every company entry is made up of, is not encyclopedic. It doesn't matter if it's positive or negative. Some major companies and products are worthy of inclusion, but most simply aren't, even if they have generated plenty of news and PR.

sparkzilla wrote:No need to be snarky. Company news and PR, of which almost every company entry is made up of, is not encyclopedic. It doesn't matter if it's positive or negative. Some major companies and products are worthy of inclusion, but most simply aren't, even if they have generated plenty of news and PR.

That's the old argument between notable, i.e. genuinely worthy of an article, and noted, i.e. lots of press coverage. Few people on Wikipedia appreciate that distinction. Half the BLPs wouldn't be there if they stuck to notable people. On the other hand, there would be many more articles on academics and businesspeople.