I think I'm already supposed to know this but I can't remember. Do you follow the Bright Line Rule?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Jimbo Wales I do not. I do "leave important editorial decisions up to disinterested volunteers." So I directly edit a lot to fill in citation templates, correct spacing, fix grammar, update logos, after getting a {{request edit|G}}, to correct my own mistakes, when a GA reviewer asks me to make copyedits, or in other clerical edits, such as culling through excessive citations when asked. OTOH, even when a GA reviewer or someone else tells me to make an edit I feel may be controversial like this - I am not going to make that edit even though I was told to. I do think it is a good edit, but not that it is clerical or appropriate for me to make and "see what sticks" as suggested by the well-meaning editor that responded.
I have also directly edited articles like Shift Communications, where my only COI is being an acquaintance of the CEO.
In general however, I find that even Bright Line supporters will tell me to make the types of edits I do make. My experience has been that the Bright Line does not prevent COI edits by proxy, so I've been focusing on making sure the articles are GA standard and being stern about an ethics policy with clients, though it is admittedly difficult to enforce.
I realize that is not necessarily Jimbo-approved, but I can't reasonably go around chasing down editors every time I need to add an accessdate parameter or fix a comma. CorporateM (Talk) 16:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Do you really restrict yourself to adding accessdate parameters or fixing commas? How do you personally draw the line between "important editorial decisions" and those kinds of obviously trivial edits? Is there a reason why you don't make those edits in an easy to cut-and-paste way on the talk page of the article and ping a volunteer to add them? Have you even tried that? Have you considered the risk to your clients of a news story (fair or not) saying that "x% of the edits to their Wikipedia page were made by their PR consultant"? Have you considered the risk to the reputation of Wikipedia, which is already being badly damaged by these kinds of activities? Or do you view your own income as more important than Wikipedia's reputation? All of these are serious questions, not rhetorical, because I'd like to better understand your views.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Jimbo Wales. Any organization that participates here is exposed to risk, especially if they are disclosed and even more so if they edit a large number of articles from a single account. I do not believe the Bright Line provides Wikipedia's or the client's reputation an impervious defense (insert BP). It is controversial for companies to write their own articles regardless of the process they follow and for good reason. A common and often effective Bright Line tactic is to create slanted content that an AGF-extremist will blindly copy into article-space.
That is not to say that the Bright Line is humbug, but that it is actually not high-enough of an ethical standard. If PR reps are to write their own articles in their entirety without a disclosure to readers, the ethical standard must be that their contributions mimic a volunteer so closely, that nobody can tell the difference. So few PR reps will remotely reach this standard, that they might as well be discouraged from even attempting it, but of course encouraged to pointing out errors and other problems to disinterested editors.
Is it possible I will be the subject of media scrutiny? Quite. How likely is it that following the Bright Line will make a difference? Not much. What is the best way to protect clients from scrutiny? High content standards, a stern ethical policy and being selective about only working for companies with objectives that are reasonably aligned with Wikipedia's (about 25% of cases).
I'm happy to discuss further and do my best to respond to any concerns. Ultimately I am victim to the ruling power of consensus, so my views are just a small wave in the ocean as it were. CorporateM (Talk) 17:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Having worked extensively with CorporateM, I can tell you that they are extremely careful in this area, and if there is even the slightest question/doubt, they do not do the edit themselves. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Of course the problem is that many COI editors do not show good judgement on what is a clerical edit and it is a minefield. A "copyedit" could be an exercise in positioning. Is it risky? Whether the edit is done by proxy or done directly, the mine-field is still there and any editor will fall on a mine now and then. I think the Bright Line is the right policy and while nobody will block editors for making GA pages with a COI, there's no reason to spell out exceptions that make everything murky either. CorporateM (Talk) 18:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
As my questions weren't rhetorical but rather an exercise in gaining understanding, I hope you'll go back and answer them one-by-one. I'm sorry to be so tedious.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
You're wearing me out Jimbo ;-)
See below and bear in mind my responses are whatever flows off my keyboard and not intended as official declarations:
Q&A with Jimmy Wales
Do you really restrict yourself to adding accessdate parameters or fixing commas?
No. I make edits in all the circumstances originally mentioned.
Here's an example that is the most far afield from the Bright Line I can think of out of edits I have made recently. I asked numerous editors to consider merging my draft into article-space on a now-GA page on a client. Several editors all said that the content was terrific, but refused to make the edit by proxy. They insisted that I "take credit" for it. The article was promotional and contained no criticisms as it was previously edited by the company and my draft was correcting it, adding lawsuits, making it balanced and neutral, etc.
This went on for a month or two where I asked editors to consider merging it, and they insisted I make the edit. One editor at COIN was along the lines of "what the heck are you waiting for!" And I made the edit. One you would certainly disapprove of (and I would have preferred someone else make as well) but that everyone else insisted on).
How do you personally draw the line between "important editorial decisions" and those kinds of obviously trivial edits?
I sometimes use the word "permission-based". The clearest and most effective way to verify that you have permission to add content is for another editor to actually make the edit. Request Edit G is another option for editors that philosophically oppose proxy editing. Periods or commas have permission by de-facto because they are trivial. If there's even a remote chance that a significant number of editors in the community would oppose the edit, best thing to do is err on the side of caution. Stuff like "looks good" is not permission. But what I communicate to clients is strict Bright Line because it is easier. Our contract forbids clients from ever requiring me to make an edit.
Is there a reason why you don't make those edits in an easy to cut-and-paste way on the talk page of the article and ping a volunteer to add them? Have you even tried that?
This is generally what I do. This question is misleading, because it describes my normal operating procedure then asks why I am not doing it. Generally I ask other editors to consider my work and only make clerical edits, edits that are explicitly asked of me, etc.
The reason not to do it in all cases is because it is just not practical. A typical GA review will probably require at least 30 edits. If each Request Edit takes 1 week (which would be a fast response), it would take almost 3 years to bring an article up to GA and it would by then be outdated. In the meanwhile, the GA reviewer would be scoffing, irritated and discouraged by the entire endeavor. IMO, it is actually safer for the client to get a GA review, which often weeds out subtle COI biases, then it is to follow the Bright Line in a manner that prevents the COI influence from being culled-out.
Have you considered the risk to your clients of a news story (fair or not) saying that "x% of the edits to their Wikipedia page were made by their PR consultant"? Have you considered the risk to the reputation of Wikipedia, which is already being badly damaged by these kinds of activities? Or do you view your own income as more important than Wikipedia's reputation?
I decline about 75% of prospective clients, because I feel their intended objectives are not well-aligned-enough with Wikipedia and cannot be ethically obtained. Some prospects are practically graveling for me to take their money, insisting that the desired outcome is "priceless." Certainly if it was as you say, I would be taking their business.
On the contrary, many clients have edited dubiously without realizing it and I take pleasure in knowing that I can turn those situations around in a manner that helps everybody.
Do I worry about all the poor and misguided media coverage coming out with some sensational spin-job on me? Yah sure. I wonder now if this line of questioning will end in you proactively seeking it. But the Bright Line doesn't grant me immunity either. The best way to mitigate that risk is to make sure my contributions are impeccably neutral and my conduct appropriate for each circumstance.
and he will not waver from it any more than the Soviet Union's government did, reality be damned. After all, the public still buys it, mostly. 
