Talk:Terms of use/Paid contributions amendment

Welcome to the TOU Amendment Consultation.
Please sign your comments, like this:   ~~~~  
You may comment in any language. Thank you!
Discussion archives: 2/20–2/26

Archives 2014-02-26

Background

We have seen several recurring topics in the discussion below. To help organize and address these topics, we’ve created this section of the talk page to capture these topics as questions. Please add and revise questions here if you think multiple people are interested in knowing the answer. (You can also draft an answer if you think there is a clear answer based on discussions below.) Depending on the question, we'll try to either address them here (so that newcomers to this discussion can see them), or possibly add them to the FAQ. —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

WHAT THIS PAGE IS ABOUT: This page is for anyone to discuss a proposed change to our site policy. This proposal is that if someone gets paid to put material they write into Wikipedia for money or other gains, or because it is part of their work, they should have to disclose it when they edit, for transparency and quality control purposes. As a user and reader, you and anyone else are unaffected. You will never have to pay for enjoying and using Wikipedia in full, every part of it, as much as you like - ever. You will never have to pay to read and use Wikipedia - ever. This proposal is intended to help us improve quality by requiring a transparent disclosure by editors in some circumstances.   WHAT HAPPENS FOR ALL READERS AND USERS There would be no change at all: Wikipedia remains free to enjoy and use, always, forever, and regardless. FOR UNPAID HOBBYIST AND VOLUNTEER EDITORS There would be no change at all. FOR PEOPLE WHO EDIT WIKIPEDIA AS PART OF THEIR WORK OR PROFESSION IT IS PROPOSED THAT EDITORS WHO ARE PAID TO EDIT BY AN ORGANIZATION, CLIENT, OR OTHER PERSON, WILL HAVE TO BE OPEN ABOUT THIS TO EVERYONE USING WIKIPEDIA, AND NOT HIDE IT, SO OTHER EDITORS CAN CHECK IT FOR ACCURACY QUICKER AND MORE CAREFULLY Nothing else would change if this passes: no articles would get deleted, and nobody would be made to stop editing. Wikipedia and its many charitable sister projects are part of a charity, the Wikimedia Foundation. The Foundation does not get its funding from corporate sponsors and marketing deals. It is funded instead by public donations, small donations by millions of people worldwide, the vast majority from the mass public who read and use it, and occasional larger donations on "arms length" terms (without any rights of control) from companies such as Google and charitable organizations, so that it can remain fully independent from corporate pressures. Of those who support Wikipedia, some donate what they can, as they feel able, to help Wikipedia and its sister sites continue to be accessible in other parts of the world, in hundreds of editions covering over 200 languages, especially in developing and poor areas where textbooks may be missing, education may be slight, or important knowledge may be censored or misunderstood, and to run and maintain its internet websites. Some can't or don't. But in either case, and whatever the outcome of this discussion may be, everyone on the planet will always be warmly welcomed to enjoy, read and use any of the content held, which is provided free to you and everyone - and by its governing constitution will always be free to enjoy.

Recurring questions and answers

These are some draft Q&As in response to issues raised repeatedly below. —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Why have you proposed this new requirement?

A large number of readers and editors have expressed concern about paid advocacy editing and its impact on Wikimedia’s contributors and reputation. In light of this concern, we prepared this amendment to the Terms of Use to explain a minimum standard of disclosure for paid edits. We feel it is an important and useful step forward on this issue because:

• The current Terms of Use prohibit misrepresented affiliations. This proposal helps support that existing requirement by explaining how to consistently and properly represent employment or affiliation.
• The proposal gives community members an additional tool to address potential conflict of interest situations, by helping them identify and scrutinize edits that may have a higher risk of neutral point of view problems.
• The proposal gives each project a consistent, enforceable baseline they can use to craft their own policies that are responsive to local conditions and needs.
• In the rare case where the Foundation needs to intervene legally against companies that have aggressively flouted the terms and community policies, this proposal would make the legal case even stronger.
• The proposal offers new and existing good faith editors a guideline to understand how to best edit when local projects permit paid editing. Disclosure and transparency are widely considered appropriate, both within the Wikimedia community and the PR industry. See, for example, the plain and simple guide to conflicts at English Wikipedia, or the CIPR guide (which we do not necessarily endorse).

Does the Wikimedia Foundation encourage or accept paid advocacy editing?

WMF feels that paid advocacy editing is a significant problem that threatens the trust of Wikimedia’s readers, as our Executive Director said in her statement on paid advocacy editing. This proposal does not change that position.

However, it is hard to solve the problem of paid advocacy editing without accidentally discouraging good-faith editors, like the various GLAM (gallery, library, archive, and museum) projects. Because of this difficulty, this amendment takes a simple approach: requiring straightforward disclosure of information. This does not mean that paid-advocacy editing is acceptable! Instead, we think that the best way to attack the complex problem while still encouraging new good faith contributions is to combine this pro-transparency requirement with per-project policies that use this new information to make nuanced, difficult case-by-case judgments. We hope that this will lead to the best outcome by combining each Wikimedian's ability to handle nuance and complexity with the resources of the Foundation (when that is absolutely necessary).

Also the proposed amendment makes clear that "community and Foundation policies, such as those addressing conflicts of interest, may further limit paid contributions or require more detailed disclosure." This provision gives the community discretion to further limit paid editing, including paid advocacy editing, according to the needs of the specific project. That is, the proposed amendment is a minimal requirement, but the community may impose greater restrictions or bans.

How will this provision affect teachers, professors, and employees of galleries, libraries, archives, and museums (“GLAM”)?

The intent of these requirements is not to discourage teachers, professors, or those working at galleries, libraries, archives, and museums ("GLAM") institutions from making contributions in good faith. Disclosure is only required when contributors are compensated by their employer or client specifically for edits and uploads to a Wikimedia project. For example, if a professor at University X is paid directly by University X to write about that university on Wikipedia, the professor needs to disclose that the contribution is compensated. There is a direct quid pro quo exchange: money for edits. If that professor is simply paid a salary for teaching and conducting research, and is only encouraged by her university to contribute to projects about topics of general interest without more specific instruction, that professor does not need to disclose her affiliation with the university.

The same is true with GLAM employees. Disclosure is only necessary where compensation has been promised or received in exchange for a particular contribution. A museum employee who is contributing to projects about topics of his general interest without more specific instruction from the museum need not disclose his affiliation with the museum. At the same time, when required, a simple disclosure that one is a paid Wikipedian in Residence with a particular museum, for example, would be sufficient disclosure for purposes of the proposed amendment.

Worries about Wikipedia's answer to GLAM question

Suppose that a professor or GLAM employee is employed in public relations for the university or GLAM institution. If they make edits on Wikimedia as part of carrying out their job of public relations for their institution, surely they should disclose this, regardless of whether their employer has specifically compensated them for contributing to a Wikimedia project. It seems like a better way to carve out these individuals would be to distinguish those who are employed to promote their institution and are editing Wikipedia for this reason from those who are editing for other reasons. ~ Kirsten

Hi Kirsten - Thanks for the comment. I'm having a little problem in trying to express your thoughts as actual language in the proposed amendment. If you could give me an idea of how you would express your idea in the proposed amendment, that would be great. Thanks. Geoffbrigham (talk) 12:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Geoff, how about "...you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution to any Wikimedia Projects for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation, and when such contributions arise from the performance of the normal duties of your job whether you are paid or are a volunteer. ..." This also addresses volunteers who are often deemed unpaid employees; it is just as bad for part- and full-time volunteers to tout an organization, its products or its services if they do not disclose their affiliation with that organization. Fest3er (talk) 08:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Dont forget about the nations

And what about sanctioned editing on company time

Many tech companies encourage or allow employees to improve science or general interest pages on company time (where neither topic nor change is specified by employer). Is that covered by the GLAM exemption? --Vilding1 (talk)

Yes. The employees are being asked to write on topics of general interest, without any direction about what those topics should be, and without any additional compensation paid to do it on Wikipedia. Geoffbrigham (talk) 12:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

This seems too subtle and open to interpretation. If a company is allowed to "encourage to improve" then a company's culture defines what "improve" means. There exists informal peer-to-peer enforcement of culture within every organization, and that culture determines what "improve" translates into. For tech companies, tech employees will likely choose scientific articles and focus on objective content. But what about the marketing department -- they will consider "improve" to translate into "bend the article in favor of benefit to our organization" without being explicitly told what to do. Consider also general employees of influence based organizations such as the RIAA. For them, the culture of the organization puts heavy bias on any edit made by an employee, "improve" will be carried out as "bias towards our interests".. ditto for employees in the marketing department of an oil conglomerate encouraged to "improve" articles.. they will choose, by themselves, ones related to energy and global warming and will inject bias related to their company and position. They aren't being told specific articles, nor specific content.. but they will certainly have strong bias that manipulates people towards that company's interests! Kshalle (talk) 16:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Why does "additional compensation to do it on wikipedia" have relevance? A company that encourages its marketing people to "write on topics of general interest" will gladly have them cover all the available social media, in order to bias people towards that company's interests. It's irrelevant whether they specify "target only wikipedia" versus "target the top media sites".. the bias they inject into wikipedia is the same, whether they name wikipedia explicitly or not. Kshalle (talk) 16:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify - is this an answer about tech companies specifically, or are you saying that employees of any company encouraged to improve a topic (e.g. science, or politics, or manufacturing etc.) or general interest pages on company time (where neither topic nor change is specified by employer) are covered by the exemption? Hchc2009 (talk) 13:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Hchc2009, in my perspective, the distinction is that disclosure is not necessary if you edit a general interest topic without direction from your employer, but disclosure is necessary if your employer directs how and what you edit. This is the difference between an employee who just happens to be on the clock when making independent edits, versus someone in the marketing department of a company. This is not particular to tech companies or GLAM institutions, per se, but a clarification that disclosure is not necessary when compensation is not connected to an edit. It's a difficult distinction to make, so thanks for helping us clarify! Stephen LaPorte (WMF) (talk) 00:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The driver of the amendment seems to be a desire to prevent targeted biased edits, while not discouraging good intentioned edits. The difficulty appears to lie in finding language that distinguishes the two kinds of edits. The current proposal is to use compensation as a proxy for bias. If explicit instruction is linked to compensation, then the idea is that the resulting contributions will be biased and should be flagged. However, this proxy -- explicit instruction linked to compensation -- misses a large body of drivers of the kind of bias that are wished to be prevented. For example, there must be a person who issues the explicit instructions.. if they simply do the edits themselves, then it sidesteps the amendment, but wikipedia ends up with exactly the same bias! This person could be CEO, or hold some other position that is not explicitly public relations driven. They could just be a regular employee of an advocacy organization such as Energy industry advocacy groups, political organizations, and so on. They could hold a public relations or marketing or sales position, and not be given explicit instructions, and not give others explicit instructions, but generate themselves the same bias nonetheless.Kshalle (talk) 04:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Given this difficulty with the explicit-instruction-for-pay approach, it seems that the best policy is simply to require any person making edits during paid time to add their employer to their login information and a disclosure that they are editing during paid time. This shouldn't be a drawback for any employee or company that has good intentions.Kshalle (talk) 04:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

To assist in the prevention of bias, also give people who make the edits an easier way to prevent bias. For example, create a policy that gives precedence to people who edit outside of organizational time. When a dispute arises, the edit by the non-paid/non-organization-member person is given priority over the paid edits, especially when "rollback" wars erupt, with edits going back and forth. Perhaps give editors a "this is institutional bias" flag that they can add to edits they feel should be removed.Kshalle (talk) 04:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Kshalle, that is an interesting way to look at the question. I think we may be able to find clearer language to address situations of instructions-for-pay, as you suggest. One of the reasons that we are discussing paid edits specifically in the TOU is because there are laws that address the issue, such as the FTC's rules on astroturfing in the US and similar regulations in the EU. Bias and neutrality are complicated topics in general, and my perspective is that it is best handled in a nuanced fashion in local project policies, like WP:Neutrality and WP:COI on English Wikipedia. Best, Stephen LaPorte (WMF) (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

a best practice / standard of excellence practice should include full disclosure for every contribution where undertaking the edits is part of a compensated position - easy to do, and important for reader's consideration of any contribution. As professor of women's studies, declaring that affiliation allows readers to dismiss my work as feminist bias or be open to it as informed and educated. 16:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC)~ Nechako Tess

Agree with above, and would like financial resources allocated from Wikipedia (to which I contribute) to pursue this end legally.˜˜˜˜

But what if the "general interest" as defined by the company is "Feel free to trash any of the individuals who belong to a competing ideology/industry/group of think tanks/etc."?? Especially when you have people who admit to having in the past worked for an organization or academic institution that despises and wants to crush its competitors and admit to having a job now which one might guess has some relation to the past one? 108.18.70.233 14:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

If the employee is being compensated for their edits, then disclosure is necessary. If they feel like despise a competitor and edit outside of their compensated activity, then it's not covered by this proposal, but would still be covered by the WIkipedia policy on conflicts of interest. The same general policies and guidelines, such as neutrality, will apply even when disclosure is not required under this proposal. Best, Stephen LaPorte (WMF) (talk) 00:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Why is this requirement part of the terms of use?

Putting these requirements in the terms of use highlights the importance of transparency and disclosure, and provides prominent guidance for good faith members of our community and third party organizations.

The terms of use are also likely to be read by businesses that regularly engage in paid editing, including their executives and lawyers. Our experience at the WMF legal department is the people want to do the right thing most of the time, and our ability to refer them to the terms of use helps ensure compliance without any legal action. In short, a provision in the terms of use will put businesses on notice of their obligations. In the unlikely event of litigation, courts are less willing to excuse a violation of the terms of use, particularly a corporation that is intentionally deceiving the community.

Shouldn't this be handled on a per-project basis?

Requiring disclosure makes clear to all contributors that they need to provide information, while still allowing each project to decide what to do about that information in a way that is appropriate for their project’s culture, size/age, and (if relevant) local legal regulations. It is also consistent with best practices adopted by many projects, like Spanish Wikipedia. So we think this approach strikes a good balance between enforceability and allowing local flexibility to address their specific needs and problems.

Why is it enough to disclose on a talk page or user page? Do we need disclosure for each edit?

there is also a related discussion below

There are two primary ways to handle paid advocacy through better disclosure:

1. disclose to readers, so that they can stop reading, or make their own judgments about reliability; or
2. disclose to active editors, who can fix any problems in edits, inform the editor how to comply with conflict-of-interest/neutral-point-of-view rules, or otherwise deal with the editor.

These requirements use the second approach—disclosing to editors, through channels regularly visited by editors, namely user pages, talk pages, and edit summaries. This should minimize the disruption for readers while still achieving the end goal of neutral and reliable information. This is also consistent with existing best practices, like those for Wikimedians in Residence, who tend to disclose on user pages rather than on each individual article.

Note that local applicable law may still require disclosure in other locations, depending on the nature of the edit and the compensation. For more details on applicable law, see this FAQ entry.

Is this requirement enforceable?

No rule, whether a part of the terms of use or a community policy, is perfectly enforceable, especially when it comes to rules against deception. However, Wikimedians have found plenty of deceitful sockpuppets in the past, including paid advocacy editors. This language will support those processes, and, in the worst cases, could help us enforce our policies through civil legal means, like cease and desist orders or litigation.

Also, it is not only a negative tool to facilitate enforcement when bad players are caught - it is a positive tool to provide guidance to help guide good faith editors. That makes it valuable even if enforcement is difficult.

Legally there is no way to prove that editorials are real or fake, hence the rule of 'no original research' to begin with. The same would apply to who wrote the editorial and whether or not compensation came into play. 'Community research' as to verifying sources will be the only recourse as with any information placed on wikimedia.

Why amend the Terms of Use if paid editing is already restricted by law?

Legal requirements around the world vary, and can be hard to understand without legal advice. By putting a straightforward rule in the terms of use, we hope to give a clear and easily understandable baseline that will support community requirements (like the various COI policies). It also puts in place a reminder that governments and individual projects may have tougher standards, which we think is valuable.

How will community enforcement of these obligations work with existing rules about privacy and behavior?

Like the rules around sockpuppeting and sockpuppet investigations, this disclosure requirement is intended to work with existing policies and practices, so that there is a fair balance between identifying paid advocacy edits and protecting good-faith editors. These policies include the cross-project value of civility, which is a pillar of Wikipedia; relevant project policies, like ENWP:OUTING or ESWP:ACOSO; and the Terms of Use, which prohibit stalking and abuse. (In cases of more extreme behaviors, local law may also apply.)

This requirement, like others, should be applied constructively to enable collaboration and improve our projects. Users who violate them should first be warned and informed about these rules, and then only blocked if necessary. In other words: assume good faith and don’t bite the newcomers.

If an editor wishes to avoid the disclosure requirement of this amendment, they should abstain from receiving compensation for their edits.

Recurring questions, not yet answered

Please add new frequently-asked questions here, with links to the comments below if that would help provide more context. Don't use this section for questions that have not been asked repeatedly. Thanks! —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• One possible area requiring a work-around is where a contributor is also a published author or academic, and where the best evidence to cite for a statement is actually that same author's work. What mechanism is there to enable this, without the same mechanism becoming liable to abuse? Pr0t0type (talk) 10:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
• How long the info should stay on talk or user page? I see this quite dangerous / not very practical as if someone makes several paid edits and chosen to use his user page to say that, that means that the notice should stay on his page (almost) forever even he has changed his job several years ago. 94.112.30.234 19:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree that the details of disclosure on the user page should be clarified. I see another problem though (almost the opposite): Let's say user Alice is hired for editing by company Acme, but just for a few days. Alices publishes her affiliation on her user page, makes all kinds of edits in the Acme article (and their competitors), and after her employment ends a few days later, deletes the affiliation statement from her user page. When other users check her edits later, they would have to look at older versions of her user page to find out that the edits were paid for by Acme. Probably not what we want, but formally in accordance with the proposed paid contributions amendment. 85.178.7.243 20:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
• Not all content is the same. There is an enormous difference between paid editors creating content for a city council candidate, citing reliable sources for what are predominately biographical facts, and slanted sourcing and writing in favor of a corporation or brand. How does this policy differentiate between the benign and the real COI-driven POV-pushing problem? NickDupree (talk) 01:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
• Could we require edits which don't use references apart from those published by the editor or the entity which pays the editor to mention the affiliation in the talk page? Gred16 (talk) 11:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
• The proposed amendment is extremely vague with regards to the editor/organization nexus that would trigger the requirement to disclose. Which begs two extremely important questions?

What is the definition of “you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation” [to what]. What is missing from this is any definition of what types of organizations this applies to. I would strongly suggest that a least in FAQs, the WMF adopt the description of organization from en:Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and clarify whether any of these types of organizations are “exempt” from this proposal.

From this part of the TOU: “with respect to any contribution to any Wikimedia projects for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.”, one would assume that any employee or governor of an organization whose specific mission was the advocacy of some POV (very common in environmental, educational, cultural and political organizations), if they were editing content related to the mission of the organization, they would be required to disclose under this TOU. They may not be paid explicitly to edit Wikipedia, but they are being paid explicitly to promote a POV in anyway possible. Is this a correct assumption? If it is, then it should be included in the FAQ. If it is not, then the WMF should explicitly exempt this editor/organization nexus from these TOU. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

With regard to your second point, here is my reading of this policy. If someone works for PR company, but edits on his own risk, without receiving any monetary or other compensation specifically for editing in Wikipedia he is not required to disclose anything per this policy. However, what he is doing still may be a COI problem and require disclosure per WP:COI policy in English Wikipedia, for example. This seems clear enough to me. My very best wishes (talk) 02:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Since the question has literally nothing to do with "PR firms", your comment does not address the question. The question asks about the editor/organization nexus when the organization is an avowed advocacy organization. I picked an organization at random from the 1000s that exist: w:Global Green USA. They have an avowed advocacy mission: "Global Green USA has been a national leader in advocating for smart solutions to global warming including green building for affordable housing, schools, cities and communities that save money, improve health and create green jobs." Now the question is, if any of the employees, staff or board members of this organization were to contribute content on subjects that were directly related to the advocacy mission, would they be required to disclose under this proposal? Yes or No? Taking it one step further, if the answer is No, then what specifically would trigger a disclosure requirement if anything for this editor/organization nexus? --Mike Cline (talk) 07:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• 今回の改訂の提案では、自分の業務に関係する編集を行う編集者が自分の業務に関係しない編集を行うことについて次の1,2,3のうちのいずれを推奨しているのであろうか。あるいはそれ以外の方法を推奨しているのであろうか。1.自分の業務に関係しない編集をIP利用者を含むいずれのアカウントでも行なわないこと。2.自分の業務に関係しない編集を自分の業務に関係する編集と同一のアカウントで行うこと。3.自分の業務に関係しない編集を自分の業務に関係する編集と異なるアカウントで行うこと。210.130.221.188 08:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Past discussions about paid contributions

There have been previous on-wiki proposals attempting to address paid editing, paid advocacy editing, and conflicts of interest. If you have been part of such a discussion, please add it here:

• WikiProjekt Umgang mit bezahltem Schreiben (WikiProjekt, de:wp, ongoing)
• Wikipedia:Die Grenzen der Bezahlung (Community research, Jan-Mar 2013: "The Acceptable Limits of Professional Writing on Wikipedia", de:wp)

  Precis auf Deutsch (in English)

• Three related policy proposals, from en:wp in late 2013 (all closed, opposed):

  Wikipedia talk:Paid editing policy proposal, Wikipedia talk:No paid advocacy, Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest limit

User Comments and !Votes

This section contains brief statements of support or opposition. For more detailed discussion on these issues, please join below or share your comments in a new topic. Please see the main page for more information on the amendment approval process. Thanks, Stephen LaPorte (WMF) (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Abstain

Vote for disclosing name etc. of paid contributors

• Check this out, a view from someone who relies on but doesn't contribute to Wikipedia. There are other ways to get around the issue of COI. Whether there are rules or not, people will do 'bad' things so they can profit somehow. Since they are going to do this regardless of rules and risks associated, why not develop a better way of dealing with the issue? An open source encyclopedia shouldn't be so closed minded. Crowd sourced. Innovative. Wikipedia is a bastion of open information and information society, why bother entrenching itself into outmoded ways of thinking? I know I have ideas on this - I'm a 22 y/o male with big thoughts and ideas. Are you all old fuddy duddies trying to protect a baby? Clearly you all have bad arthritis if this is how you protect Wikipedia. This website does not need your protection or arbitration anymore, it is its own engine. If you see someone pouring bad oil into the engine, A. stop them, B. drain the oil or C. set the engine up to process that type of oil.

A: you can't stop them B: this takes time and legislation and legwork and motivation... C: this requires excitement, innovation, brainstorming, forward thinking... Choose any metaphor for the situation and reevaluate your solutions, folks. This one is not a difficult issue, you just need to think outside of the box. Wikipedia was not born in a box, so don't put it inside of one. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.83.208.101 (talk) 19:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

1. I appreciated this comment very much. –SJ talk  21:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

   I didn't. It's rambling, half-baked, and incoherent. If he wants a "better way", he should suggest something more detailed than "crowd sourced" as the answer. A buzzword is not an idea. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

   "I'm a 22 y/o male with big thoughts and ideas." -So share some, instead of insulting wikipedia, and bad-mouthing the a reasonable solution. Wikipedia's an Encyclopedia, not a social media company. Also, Wikipedia IS using a crowd-sourced solution. They're requiring paid edits be highlighted, so other Editors can come behind and fix any lies or misrepresentations.

   Trying to catch and act on traditional notions of COI is a missed opportunity to find a new perspective. (Our strength for years was not caring about identity, COI, individual historical traits such as expertise; and finding ways to scale and layer contribution in simple, clever ways so that those things didn't matter.) The analogy is as good as others that have been presented, and different. Not just a buzzword. This change may be fine as far as it goes, but it's a retro and not a transformative change. –SJ talk  18:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

   i fokken swor on me mum ill jab u in ur jibber(ish. try again pal)— The preceding unsigned comment was added by 96.58.220.130 (talk)

   Here's an attempt to unpack option C: keep a list of known paid contributors (account names and IP addresses; possibly split between GLAMS and other) and retrospectively background-colour the text of their contributions. Probably still needs a policy like this, to justify the differential treatment. ArthurDent006.5 (talk) 09:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

2. As someone who has yet to fundamentally edit or write a Wikipedia article and likely never will (other than correcting typos or small factual errors on articles that are almost entirely about sporting tournaments in Latin America), yet relies on Wikipedia as a source of information and learning, I can neither fully support nor fully oppose this amendment.

   As our generation watches the internet, one of the most promising inventions of its time, fall victim to the plague of commercialization that has destroyed our environment, ransacked our economies and in many cases quite literally murdered our people, I feel strongly and deeply that transparency is a NECESSARY rule for the internet if it hopes to be anything resembling a free means of sharing information. I feel that I am not alone in saying that Wikipedia was one of our great hopes for a universal repository of impartial, or at least balanced, knowledge. Perhaps it isn't perfect yet, but it has become something greater than any of us imagined. I began my post-primary education during a time when students were sanctioned for even considering Wikipedia as reference material, and by the time I entered my post-secondary education, Wikipedia had replaced the ink-and-paper encyclopedia as the starting point for any research project. If Wikipedia becomes anything other than an impartial compendium of knowledge created by a user base that strives for accuracy and fairness, we will lose what I feel to be one of the greatest projects of our time.

   And yet, this amendment does not go far enough. As it has been pointed out by other contributors to this page, how many users read the talk, edit, and user pages? I certainly have not, nor do I have the time to; this is not a condemnation of irrelevance, but vox populi. The internal infrastructure of Wikipedia has a purpose and a function, but these are NOT to serve as a public warning for the average user.

   Any amendment to the TOU regarding transparency of paid publications that does NOT require a clear disclaimer before EVERY paid edit disclosing the identity of the company that has paid for the edit INVITES the loss of what makes Wikipedia great, and, by extension, the loss of Wikipedia.

   I therefore can neither oppose nor support the proposed amendment to the Wikipedia Terms of Use: I cannot oppose it because I believe an amendment in that spirit is necessary, and I cannot support them because they do not fully protect what I believe to be the greatest project of our time. (Daniel M) 72.83.41.66 06:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

3. Your heart is in the right place, but there are details about this that may be trouble. As others have pointed out, a notice that is only on the user talk page might be put up for a brief period while paid editing is done, then taken down, leaving other editors with no real way to tell unless they go through the full history of every user page; there's no future mandate for registering these in a more centralized way even if a mechanism is developed. Also, the disclosure of employer, client, and affiliation can be problematic: for example, suppose an editor is freelancing for a company. Is he required to know who hired the company? What if they tell him a false or less than useful bit of information about the client, such as the name of the PR person at the client, the name of another company the PR company works with that recruited the client rather than the client itself, the website registrar for the client's private domain name registration, etc.? It may be that you can only tell which way the paid editors will go to defeat your measure by enacting it, but maybe more thought would head off some of their tactics, I'm not sure. This amendment looks likely to pass, and that's not a bad thing, but either way you're going to be back here taking another vote on another wording sooner rather than later. Wnt (talk) 13:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
4. Allowing undisclosed paid editing will change the purpose dynamic of wikipedia. It is a way to make money, which could help Wikipedia, but would change what Wikipedia is potentially altering future funding and the entire concept of the project. We live in a world where "truth" is dictated by money - not a path I would want to head down. 50.139.7.65 18:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
5. Abstaining until the policy can be better worded. It should specifically exclude contributions that correct mere grammatical/typographical errors (paid for or not, as they are insignificant enough to sway opinion on way or the other). One proposal to make paid edits known is a check-able box that marks an edit as "p" - paid editor in edits, the option available to all editors logged-in or not. It invites scrutiny from fellow editors checking for NPOV violations, but abuse of the checkbox [much like abuse of "m" (minor edits)] would only be done by the occasional odd-ball. Ellomate (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
6. Abstain - Because this is WMF business and I am the type of editor the amendment is intended for (though I already surpass the requirement, unless you dig really far back in my editing history), it feels appropriate that I abstain from voting/commenting. However, I will be very interested in seeing what the court-room outcome is. CorporateM (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
7. Abstaining until the proposed policy covers ALL the issues in a more considered manner. I'm an author of 7 books (is that defined as being paid?). I've contributed to scores of descriptions and content (I have an ID here but never choose to use it due to some bigot/robot/idiot allowed in the past to more than once lord their power over gentle, informed voices). Everyone has an opinion, not everyone can contribute new knowledge. Wikipedia already has a serious problem in that biased, erroneous information is being allowed, so-called managers who can delete valid information (in their ignorance or bias) and people with an axe to grind or are promoting themselves, their company or client, religion or politics and allowed to mislead, lie or otherwise obfuscate. You will never change that as long as you allow unsigned contributions. Yet wikipedia cannot afford to impose itself on the informed who don't want recognition or credit for their knowledge. If you choose to impose regulation which does appear to be needed you only increase the level of bureaucracy, and silence many who would no longer make the effort to add knowledge and that harms the corpus of available knowledge. So if you are truly wise you will make any changes simple and avoid the desire to increase bureaucracy, as doing that creates a point of control for the bullies, bigots and oligarchs to impose themselves in a manner rather like Orwell identified in 1984. 142.165.193.234 11:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
8. Is it possible to rule out any misdemeanor by paid contributors? And does it make sense? Let's see

   If any person wants to contribute anything illicit, he or she will do so.

   Unless you are with the NSA, there is no possibility to find out whether the contributor was paid or not.

   If the paid contribution is valid and useful, I see no good in excluding it.

   If the paid contribution betrays any biased, misinformed or commercial purpose, the community will find out and correct it.

   Unless Wikipedia is willing to allow only registered users as contributors, the influx of possibly unwanted content is not feasible.

   Therefore, I believe that the movement cannot be supported as it does not make sense. 2A02:8109:480:4F8:4C71:95AC:DA6A:A6F5 10:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC) Rolf Aderhold, Bremen

9. Abstain, I guess Look, I think your I.P. is registered when you edit, right? Well, what about instead of closing the network you make a teamwork that puts down on a blacklist the I.P.s of crappy, flooder or vandal people. Usually, these scum don't settle for one article. If that I.P. appears two or more times, then block them. It won't stop them all at once, but if you don't show me a chart where I can see that unregistered contributions are at least 100 times smaller than users', I can't agree with such paradoxical decision for this site. And if you do, well maybe I'll make an account. There's someone else that's confused about the introduction. At least I'm not the only one! Please, what's all that paid contribution (who pays? who gets? when? you? what? is that bad or good?) stuff? Thanks for reading and please remove that *sshole from above. --186.153.160.240 15:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
10. Neutral/Abstain - Uhhhh Cotevertu (talk) 15:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
11. Abstain, I think Wikipedia needs to rethink their process. I am in my 40's but my 14yr old stepson told me you can't trust everything you read on Wikipedia. I just think that is sad for his generation. When I was his age before wide spread use of the computer, I went to an encyclopedia as a definitive source of information. When you want to comment on an article in the NY Times your comments are screened by a panel. What if all contributions to Wikipedia were screened by a paid panel representing a wide range of disciples and expertise? Anyone can contribute and edit so it is still "free" but unless sources are verified and companies disclosed, it is not published. How were original encyclopedias written?Soyface (talk) 16:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC) Soyface (talk) 16:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
12. Abstain, " I copy this from Soyface user " I think Wikipedia needs to rethink their process. I am in my 40's but my 14yr old stepson told me you can't trust everything you read on Wikipedia. I just think that is sad for his generation. When I was his age before wide spread use of the computer, I went to an encyclopedia as a definitive source of information. When you want to comment on an article in the NY Times your comments are screened by a panel. What if all contributions to Wikipedia were screened by a paid panel representing a wide range of disciples and expertise? Anyone can contribute and edit so it is still "free" but unless sources are verified and companies disclosed, it is not published. How were original encyclopedias written?" Nhung (talk) 16:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)71.184.226.11 18:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
13. Abstain I rely on Wikipedia to as a valuable start for research. I am saddened to see a few comments above suggesting that college students are allowed to treat Wikipedia as a reliable source. As many others have pointed out, as long as anonymous edits (like this one) are possible, Wikipedia can never be considered the final word on anything, nor can such a prohibition be enforced. The prohibition will improve the quality of the information a little, but knowing it's there could increase the misperception of reliability.204.58.171.16 20:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC) (Update) Response to "antiwesley": I'm not so sure IP addresses are becoming more static. It is now possible to have a (sub)domain name that points to a new address every hours. And how many thousands of people are using TOR or a proxy or a VPN to hide their location or identity?
14. Abstain As much as I would like to see this implemented, it would be next to impossible to enforce and would invite countless revision wars, as the paid people could just create another account, reset the changes, and so on and so forth. It also brings up the most important aspect of censorship. IP's can be blocked, but what if it blocks legitimate users as well? IP addresses are becoming more and more static, true, but they are still dynamic. What could be an IP for a paid editor in one town today, could be the IP for a user one town over the next. This sounds like an argument for opposition, but I feel that the time would be better used than trying to enforce this rule. AntiwesleyAntiwesley 21:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
15. "I reserve judgment" - Montaigne When you're sick you see a doctor. When your car won't start you call a tow truck and mechanic. Most people can't write -- so they hire a writer. Those that can't write but try to tend to produce sub-par prose that won't "start" with the reader. If a paid writer creates an outstanding Wikipedia page for someone else, and the work is neutral, objective and helps an audience, what difference does it make who's name is on it or actually did the work? None whatsoever. Over the years I've written thousands of articles, speeches (and even a few books) that ended up carrying someone else's name as author. As long as the piece in question served the public good, I've never minded remaining anonymous. If there's ever the slightest chance that a proposed article or speech will do harm, I turn down the opportunity. In sum, I write for those people and causes I believe in. Period. Attaching a "bigger name" than mine to the end product serves a purpose: People are more apt to read it. The quality of the work is the thing. In the case of Wikipedia, if there is any doubt about the end result or its intent, I place trust in Wikipedia's outstanding staff of volunteer editors to right the problem. Signed, for once, Jim Crawford.
16. Abstain I like the idea in concept, but the folks arguing about the content being important, not the editor, have a point. Finances aside, if the content meets WP's guidelines, is impartial, and uses reliable sources, it shouldn't matter. On the other hand, anyone editing and being paid to edit is suspect... I don't see a big need for this, and I dont think this is a solution. PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 15:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
17. Abstain I agree with comments #2 and #3 and would like to add a quick comment in addition to their great points. The intention of this provision is great but it needs to be implemented much better to actually be effective, in its current form I firmly believe that users following the requirements will not still serve the intention of this provision.
18. Abstain I do not think that requiring disclosure will help to fix the problem. Eventually, if enacted, Wikipedia will need to have a police unit responsible for banning such people from posting. Just like the "like" farms of YouTube, people will find a way to reliably subvert the proposed disclosure rule. In addition, with the proposed rule, Wikipedia is setting itself up for doing background checks on contributors. The assumption would need to be everyone is being paid to contribute unless proven otherwise. Logically, employment of contributors would be ascertained. This is a long and laborious process. Perhaps Wikipedia should consider paying people to contribute content. Even though the people would be paid, they would not be getting paid to promote content. Rather the content would be unbiased. As a bridge between current workings and unbiased compensated contributions, an edit might require approval by a page editor. Approval of edits by the page editor could also work as a permanent solution. This would likely make the editing process easier on the page editor while still protecting Wikimedians from bad information, whether the information is compensated for or simply false information. For example, if an expert consistently makes edits, after three or four edits the editor would become familiar with the source of information. While the edits would still need approval, the editor would not need to scrutinize the edits in tedious detail.
19. Abstain Because I'm kinda on-the-fence, I feel that the proposed amendment does not go far enough, imo, although it IS a difficult step in the right direction. A SIMPLER step, and probably a bigger and better one, is the use of a page editor system, as mentioned above. This MIGHT, also, have the additional effect of increasing Wikipedia's perceived reliability, however, I can see where that's gonna be murky waters at best, since it kinda defeats the whole allowing ANYONE to contribute thing. I tend to agree with most of #19 above, although having paid-for contributors would also kinda defeat the point of Wikipedia, I feel. Also, SOME notice, somehow, that content might not be so reliable is absolutely imperative. Whether a big "P" on the page/edited section itself, or quickly visible on the TOP of the talk page, perhaps a big RED coin? The hardest part, as i see it, is gonna be getting across the fact that some or all of the information presented might be biased ASAP, so ppl can form their own opinion. I can see this going either way, and it being good or bad, either way, there's just SOO many variables, and a LOT of them are REALLY important. Be interesting to see the eventual outcome. My 2 cents, you DID ask for it. 24.67.196.186 09:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)JesterDoobie
20. Abstain. Long answer: #Why focus on monetary incentives? So many other incentives exist to distort information.... Short answer: I don't feel competent to make my own verdict. But it's an important issue, so I wanted to give it my attention.
    6birc (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
21. If we are to somehow label contributions that are paid, to be consistent and fair, we would need to also label those that were unpaid. We would also need to decide if these two categories, "paid" and "unpaid", were the only two possibilities at this level of classification. There may well be other categories that we decide have a similar level of influence on accuracy and truthiness as do these two. It's worth some more thought I think.71.188.107.185 05:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
22. I'm kind of the person who falls under this proposed amendment. I get the concept, but as we saw with the Arturo at BP account and (hopefully?) how I've approached editing pages dealing with my employer, if we're open, honest, and reach out to other editors BEFORE editing and THROUGHOUT the editing process, then we'll foster the trust (and oversight) to be allowed to edit the pages we are compensated to in a manner that is accountable to Wikipedia's standards. My talk page says what I do, my username says by affiliation, and I reach out to other editors on the pages I'm trying to edit of which I must be under the WP:COI microscope while editing. GRUcrule (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
23. Totally abstain: wiki will become an advertisement / promotional portal — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 176.250.110.163 (talk)
24. Abstain: this concept is similar to bribing, and bribing is illegal. If paid undisclosed editing editing is allowed, Wikipedia will be unable to track vandalism. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 174.21.211.115 (talk)
25. Who runs wikipedia now? There's a board of trustees? Where does funding come from? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.204.236.240 (talk)
26. Abstain. Here is an example of horrible editing. Whatever policy can prevent a recurrence of this sort of thing I favor, but I am not well enough informed on current proposals to vote here. In the earlier days of Wiki I wrote a long, detailed article on the science of sacrificial anodes, a subject on which I am an expert, have published, and served as a consultant. I had no commercial affiliation at the time I contributed the article, and I contributed information not available in print anywhere else. Subsequently someone selling a corrosion prevention gimmick -- that does not work! -- deleted my article and substituted a a brief article based on junk science that included an advertisement for their gimmick. Needless to say, I never again contributed. I do use Wiki, it is a great resource. signature: Piezoe (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
27. Some disclosure is necessary As others much more knowledgeable than myself have noted, sources should be disclosed. Sure, there are malicious users who will circumvent any process, but there needs to be guidelines in place for the process. How this can be tracked and/or verified in the current Wikipedia system is extremely difficult, though, and may require some substantial changes. Karoluskaufmannis (talk) 02:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
28. no support because it changes nothing at all — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.155.200.17 (talk)
29. Abstain. I feel that disclosure in theory sounds great, but as the proposed amendment is currently phrased... I'm concerned that it is rather vague. However, given that I can count on one hand the number of times that I've edited on Wikipedia, I also feel that I'm not qualified to say "yea" or "nay" on this matter. -- 50.186.55.118 08:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
30. Undisclosed Paid Editing when looked at from a different standpoint, could be a way for some users to finally tell the truth. Just my thoughts 1mh3ar1nth3spac3umad3 (talk) 02:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
31. Abstain: As currently phrased, it is vague as to what all of the implications would be. It seems not easily enforceable, at the very least - or perhaps I am simply not seeing the details of how Wikipedia plans on enforcing the rules? In any case, it seems as though it should be made a little more clear exactly what policy this would result in. Better to give users more an idea than less of what kinds of changes they can expect.
32. Abstain I don't think there'll be any difference.
33. Abstain the "policing" of this implies that everyone is suspect, and that would take the enjoyment out of contributing to articles.

Support

1. Support I suggest changing "for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation" to "for which you receive, or expect to receive, or hope to receive, compensation." 2602:306:CD91:6F90:C8DC:AEAE:C4ED:4EFE 22:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
2. Strongly Support Adding this to the terms of use would make Wikipedia even more transparent and expedite removal of malicious paid editors. Bonu (talk) 20:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
3. Strongly Support Adding this to the terms of use would expedite removal of malicious paid editors. Dustin184 (talk) 15:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
4. Strongly Support In Telugu movies section you can find references from websites that are paid marketing partners of many movies which is listed in their own website and their movie reviews are listed on the Wiki Page as if they are genuine reviews . It is absolutely critical to find some pair movie promotion websites are using Wiki to gain their credibility and putting the content either extract the link juice or to promote the movie that they are paid for . The Telugu actress wiki pages are filled with those few paid promotion companies comments as if they are genuine. There should be limit on the number of outbound links to a website from the Wiki. Otherwise , genuine content gives way undisclosed paid editing. Niranjan gat (talk) 13:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC) Niranjan
5. Strongly Support I am a web designer and new contributor. My only purpose for making changes on any Wikipedia article at this time would be to add or correct information on behalf of a client for whom I am working to establish or enhance their online presence, so I would come under the category of contributors being paid to make their contributions. I made my first contribution yesterday and found the note about this discussion in the process. I think it's important for anyone who is paid to make changes to articles on Wikipedia to disclose the source of the compensation they will receive so people will know whether or not the changes they make are sponsored by someone with a vested interest in posting correct information. There are too many instances where Wikipedia articles could be "contaminated" by contributors with a vested interest in adding biased or incorrect information, and I think the proposed solution is pretty simple and elegant. This would also help to prioritize tha changes made by paid individuals in the event of a disagreement that needs mediation by the Wikipedia community. I also agree with many of the other comments left by those who also agree that this is a good thing for Wikipedia and its users. In the spirit of supporting this proposed and very reasonable change to Wikipedia's policy I have disclosed the person for whom I am working on my user page and added note regarding another change I'll be making soon for another client. Hanasazi 11:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
6. 131.191.107.123 06:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)strongly support It is important to know where information comes from to make a critical decision about the accuracy of it.
7. Support Please keep the rules for it simple as I edit in so many ways - for friends, for companies, for non-profits, for individuals alive and dead. Psychetube (talk) 11:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
8. strongly support It is necesary to disclose paid editors but not to discourage them, their edits are important.(Jorge Iani (talk) 24:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC))
9. strongly support great move, thank you very much.(Jerrygarrison (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC))
10. strongly support Great move, this is very good thank you (jamesabillion (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC))
11. Strongly Support the amendment for similar reasons as #4; Wikipedia and public will only benefit from full disclosure. Wikipedia's gain is improvement of reputation, public will gain in accessing more reliable resources. As a teacher librarian, I consciously endeavored to encourage students to look for conflict of interest and prejudiced sources of information Teach Lib (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
12. Support The proposed amendment would, in my eyes, do infinitely more good than harm, and should be considered appropriately. Requiring the disclosure of data which would affect the way a reader interprets information in an edit is the obvious course of action. --Polymetric (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
13. Support Great idea. Max112.118.225.243 16:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
14. Support I am a casual user, but Wiki is my primary information resource. I use it like one used to use an encyclopedia, dictionary, almanac, etc.. I find it VERY helpful to know who the contributors are and their backgrounds, which should include the fact that they are being paid for their contribution. This allows me to weigh the information and contributor and look for balance else where if it is needed. Alizyb````
15. Support I am a 62 year old trial attorney and I have been a civil rights activist since I was a child. Multinational corporations and their well paid advocates in Washington and in the commerical media are destroying the economic and intellectual bedrock of freedom and justice throughout the world. Many of us cannot even remember when "TV news" was not a euphemism for infotainment, calculated misinformation, rumors and advertisements dressed up as legitimate news, and thinly veiled censorship disguised as editorial discretion. Ever listen to the words of the song Dirty Laundry? Or see the movie Wag the Dog? Or The Constant Gardner, written by a former British spy? Don't let Wiki join the conga line of media whores. If we cave on this one, we may be gong beyond the point of no return. They have so much more money than we do, and they work full time at it. Let them in the door? Better apologize to your spouse and kids first. Who knows, though, maybe the oil companies will give us some of their Honored Customer discount cards if we vote No. Paul Leland Ness, B.A., J.D. (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
16. Support with my only reservation being that it might not be strong enough. I am aware of one for profit that has clearly used paid people to create what was essentially an infomercial for the company on the wikipedia. Although I'm not competitor, I work in the same business and could see what was going on. I challenged some of the copy and was mildly criticized for being inconsistent with POV policy -- which might have been a fair criticism. But there was no way to pull the covers on this. If this policy had been in place, I would have challenged the contributor for connection information if the proper disclosure was missing. Proposal is better than nothing. Frog one (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
17. Support: While I acknowledge that paid contributions might not necessarily be factually incorrect, the fact that they are receiving compensation implies that there are obvious interests at stake. In other words, there is an obvious risk that the contribution might not represent a neutral point of view at the very least. Such biases can also lead to intentional information, obviously. This is a problem even for unpaid contributions, but where there is financial incentive it stands to reason that points of view backed with large amounts of money stand gain the most influence regardless of their actual validity. An unpaid volunteer could hardly be expected to out-argue someone who's paid to edit full time whether they're right or not. In order to level the playing field, these kinds of contributions need to be disclosed. #--108.162.171.7 20:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
18. Support: The person getting paid should not be allowed to edit in the first place. That's advertising! If you refuse to block this entirely, VERY large text should be added stating "THIS IS A PAID OPINION!". Lostviking (Tim Oster) 10:45, Feb 27, 2014 (PST)
19. Support: At least the written material is recognized as Paid for. Anwaraj (talk) 14:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
20. Strongly Support and agree that "paid editing" should include political interns, military and the like. I am sorry that I don't know how to "sign" this comment. I have never edited Wikimedia/pedia before.
21. Support I think this is a step in the right direction. Bradybd (talk) 00:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
22. Strongly Support: My biggest concern is that large corporate or government entities will pay to have scientific data changed on the site. For example, an unknown whistle blower leaks the results of multinational Pharmaceutical Company BIG PHARMA's confidential test conducted by a team of doctors and medical researchers on their staff. To their shock the test proves that their best selling heart drug causes premature dementia in 43% of all users of the drug. Big Pharma's tentacles of influence are so powerful that their crisis management PR agency is able to kill the any story about the leak in major media sources, because the company is an advertiser on a global scale. But the information is here on Wikipedia. Big Pharma pays someone to delete the information, and falsify the test results on Wikipedia. Without a transparent contribution amendment, there will be no way to trace the source of the deletion. Yes, of course, they can be very clever and have a series of safety protocols to distance themselves completely from the contributor, but this amendment adds a legal hurdle for them to confront and if they are caught, they can not only be held liable but the deletion could be enough for a law enforcement body to view it as probable cause for an investigation, including the subpoenas of the test results. They will therefore have to think very, very hard about whether or not they want to pay someone to lie. MusicalTheatreBuff (talk) 08:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
23. Strongly Support: AaronF2 (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
24. Strongly support (and on the article page itself). Otherwise there is no way to evaluate any hidden bias and ensure integrity. But how to handle the issue of edits by supposedly 'unpaid' representatives of foundations, councils, lobby groups and the like which may be indirectly funded by 3rd parties with clearly vested interests (e.g. mining, energy vs climate debate). I guess what I am saying is that 'unpaid' is just one indicator of independence and objectivity. Adamswr (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC) Adamswr (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
25. Overwhelmingly Support. Wikipedia is, by design, an open, non-biased information delivery system. Anyone who has a financial motive for posting/editing anything MUST DISCLOSE their role to the world. Otherwise, Wikipedia would just become a free advertisintg site. My full disclosure: I have and will continue to annually contribute from my meager financial resources to the Wikimedia Foundation so that it can stay free from advertising. I also challenge all readers of this post to donate at least $5 to the same. If everyone who uses Wikipedia did this, we wouldn't even have to see paid posts. BASoonersFan (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)BASoonersFan.
26. Support. I would only add that paid contributors are often in the best position to provide accurate information, as compared to others despite their potential bias. I still support their disclosure, but do not oppose their participation. 174.20.145.68 05:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
27. Strongly support. Slowmover (talk) 21:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
28. Strongly support and "paid editing" should include political interns, military and the like who keep sanitizing the pages.
29. Support!71.163.222.152 17:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
30. Strongly support! This amendment is important to safeguard the integrity of Wikipedia.
31. Support Insomniacsloth (talk) 04:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
32. Hashtag=support, I guess. I'll support this, because it is something new to try. However, I will not permit such an amendment to exist unless it is able to be nullified. There's nothing wrong with trying something and seeing what happens. I know I've been arrogant about this, but if the people want the amendment, give it to them. They are the community, and they deserve what they ask for. When it all goes terribly like it very well may, just make sure you have a way out, and make sure i'm not involved in the lawsuits. I know you have other opinions to read, so I'm done. I don't like to harass people, but this situation has brought me to tears. I just find it hard to accept that wikipedia would stoop to such a level as bribery under a guise of transparency. Maybe that's just what you need to do to succeed in this fuckeed up world. (brandon).
33. Support
34. Support. This is a no-brainer. The real trick will be destroying the powerful machinations of the massive efforts by governments and political organisations to effectively purchase public opinion and/or rewrite history. No easy task maintaining impartiality against so much well-funded hogwash.
35. Support. The philosophy of Wikipedia is good as is and it's a shame it's being influenced by money. Wikipedia is where people get knowledge and info, it should remain as pure as is humanly possible. Glad to see Wikipedia is recognizing the problem and doing something about it.
36. Support with the suggestion that editors be required to state either "unpaid" or "employed by ..." whenever they make an edit.Hovenweep (talk) 14:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
37. Strongly support. paid editing is a fundamental problem for the impartiality and balance of wikipedia.
38. Strongly support. Currently in our society whoever throws the most money at a problem seems to be believed. As a source of information, Wikipedia must be free from this type of propagandizing. (SJB)2602:306:CF02:4250:CD2F:81D3:C2F2:2D73 22:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
39. Strongly support.
40. Strongly support!
41. Strongly Support
42. Strongly Support! Kick peoples ass Barack! Just please for the love of humanity. Only pay the smart people.147.69.29.43 17:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

    After reading the many posts in favor (and their reasons), and the few posts opposing this change (and their reasons), virtually all of the opposition is based on a total fallacy - that this amendment would somehow limit the ability of people with special competence in a topic from editing or commenting on it, or that it will in any way limit the access or ability of any individual to edit or amend or comment on any article or entry... NOTHING in this amendment will stop anyone from contributing to or editing anything in all of Wikipedia or its related entities. ALL it does is require anyone receiving compensation for doing so to disclose the fact. Those who oppose this change, please read the language of the proposed change. Anyone legitimately making such contributions and/or edits should have no qualms or problems in making such disclosure, and should rather be very pleased to state their affiliation, employer or whatever might even remotely seem like a conflict of interest, to place themselves above reproach as they contribute to the community. Frankly, anyone opposed to such a benign and useful amendment to the terms of use causes themselves and their motives to be called into question, since it will cause no harm and will hopefully do some good, or at least allow for the enforcement of a minimum standard of procedural and journalistic integrity that is expected - if not always present - in any legitimate publication or organization that purports to provide fair, honest, and balanced coverage of <anything and everything>

43. Strongly support. Wikipedia is fundamentally open--the first step in deterring those with financial gain is to prohibit such actions. Enforcement is a separate topic.
44. Strongly Support! Doing this might reduce the risk of biased or partial opinions stated as facts, disguised facts or partial disclosure of facts. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.65.139.248 (talk) 21 February 2014, 22:28 (UTC)
45. Support -- On the grounds that sunshine is the best disinfectant.
46. Support -- I think that if people are providing information for pay that it will be slanted news towards the payer. We don't want to start the whole news channel system here where the advertisers determine what information people have available to them. Paid providers of information would be able to silence others because they would have more time and resources available (A special interest group putting 100 people on the task of slanting the information about them in the articles here making it look like there is popular support for a particular viewpoint when there is none...)
47. Support --205.211.133.128 20:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC), But I suggest a modified wording "with respect to any contribution to any Wikimedia Projects for which you or your employer receive compensation"
48. Support
49. Support - The only thing this can do for this site is make it more reliable. It would be very difficult for a highly monitored paid contributor to decieve users of wikimedia sited.
50. Support - This seems to work very well on other sites. People interested enough to read about a particular subject are usually very much on target overall, I have found. It's very difficult for 'paid trolls' to effectively deceive on a large scale basis, without the 'bs' meter going off in the mind of the reader.
51. Support this amendment: it will clarify that the editor/writer could be influenced by a third party. May not affect contect, just puts it in the open.
52. Support. I doubt that this is very enforceable and there will continue to be people who try (or manage) to take advantage of this wonderful resource for their own ends; however, as an ideological stance on transparency I completely support it. It is absurd that a company, say, Monsanto, would get the benefit-of-the-doubt protection of not being required to have their paid editors/contributors say "I work for Monsanto" based only on the premise that such a disclosure would serve as a de-facto perception of unreliability by the reader, which is the claim many of those individuals opposing this amendment are taking. -Jay A.
53. Support.
54. Support. Is perfectly reasonable and will only ensure more security and reliability in the site.
55. Strongly Support. There is nothing wrong with making money by editing WikipediA articles, and being transparent about that contributes to the reliability of this site. AlvinMGO
56. Strongly Support this and disclosure of sources on all articles and edits.
57. Strongly support. Please keep paid interests our of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is the best place to find unbiased or minimally biased information about most anything a human can be curious about. Paid interests can only mislead, obscure, and confuse the average user; and reduce the value of Wikipedia as a whole. If an addition to Wikipedia contains only the truth there should be no need for anyone to be paid to write it.````
58. Support.
59. Support.
60. Strongly support even though it will be hard to enforce. Allowing hidden commercial or economic relationships is far worse than not being able to identify every violation every time. The fact of the prohibition is an important factor in maintaining the projects' integrity.
61. Strongly support- this is required to prevent corruption of information and freedoms related to that information.
62. The problem is solved, if it becomes possible, to write the truth at WP. But this is not possible since years. Political correctness is dominant. The political lobby is paid by her salary, so more powerful tools to handle human rights and democratie shall come to the terms of use. What shall a writer do, if a "political" admin reverts the text? You cant do any thing, I checked it. In the mean time I write the truth to other WPs like Stupidedia. This is not a honour to WP.--212.95.7.51 10:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
63. I support what Wikipedia is trying to do here in principle, but I don't think it's possible to enforce such a policy, or even to be able to detect a large portion of the population of violations of this policy, and that's just barely scratches the surface of the first face of this issue. Consider just one alternate face of this issue: what happens when someone is NOT being compensated, but their post is flagged due to a false positive hit on some filter or heuristic?
64. Strongly support the amendment.
65. support but agree that paid edits should be marked on the wiki page itself. the provision "a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions." comes closest but the implemented rule should be even stronger and take away the other two options because they are not transparent enough.
66. Support. Support - but the paid edits should be marked paid in some way on the wiki page itself.
67. Support. Agree with previous comment's sense that paid edits should be readily identified for readers. If not on the content page, then at least make mandatory that the talk page have the notice. That way a reader need only look at the discussion tab to see what content was contributed by paid editor(s). Stephengeis (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
68. Support. I strongly suggest reading these support posts in full, or else they could get out of hand. Open the door, get on the floor. Everyone walk the dinosaur.
69. Strongly support. Being paid to edit can very easily lead to bias. If this conflict of interest is not laid open, it may be that the bias escapes unnoticed (most likely for a limited amount of time). This would alter much of Wikpedia's reputation as an impartial source of information.
70. Strongly Support- This is a long overdue amendment. While there are those who suggest embracing these 'paid edits' and earning income from it, the whole point of Wikipedia is that it is a FREE encyclopaedia anyone can edit that is solely moderated by the community. A paid content provider would need to gain elevated 'privileges' above normal users (as they then become 'customers'). While this my not seem like a major issue in the short term, this could lead to major repercussions with regard to objectivity and eventual corporate dominance (Basically the same thing that has happened to many newspapers and 'traditional' media around the world). HOWEVER, I also believe that in addition to disclosure on one's talk page etc., the compensated Content Provider should also be required to put such edits in a different 'style' or coloring to make these edits known to the COMMON reader (who in some cases may not be 'tech savvy' enough to refer an article's or user's talk page). Just my two cents...
71. Support. But a better way would be to not stop the practice, but rather embrace it by regulating it and earning income from it, by requiring paid editors to register as a Wikipedia Paid Content Provider (WPCP). These WPCPs should pay Wikipedia a fee and be required to list all their current clients and all their Wikipedia IDs. Doing so would enable Wikipedia to place a symbol at the top of any WPCP created page that identifies the content as client provided material. Those WPCP clients should also pay Wikipedia a fee for each article posted in order to cover the cost of tracking these WPCP created articles and to enable Wikipedia to hire a bigger staff.
72. Support. Any bias in entries should be marked as such, and commercial sponsorship suggests the possibility that an entry may be biased. But should be left to the conscience of the individual editor (should editors also disclose membership of political parties, the Flat Earth Society, etc??)
73. Strongly support. As has been said before - transparency is key, and must be maintained to ensure the credibility of Wikipedia as an entity. Nothing should be hidden.
74. Strongly support. The conflict between candor and conflict of interest requires disclosure.
75. Strongly support. Transparency is key and, although some will disregard the rules, having the rule sends the message of what is appropriate and what is not.
76. Strongly support. I would also suggest extending the disclosure to memberships and affiliations even where there is no compensation involved, to minimize sock puppetry. For instance, I would find it useful to know that a contributor is a member of political party ABC, or religious organization XYZ.
77. Strongly support. Truth cannot be bought and sold.24.184.109.138 05:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
78. Strongly support. Conflict of interest is an issue in all other aspects of society, why not when providing information to the pinnacle of human knowledge?
79. Why have paid editing at all? Editing should be completely democratic! -Sam Bharr
80. Strongly support disclosure of compensated edits. In most cases this will reflect well on the employer, e.g. when a specialist in a field is encouraged by employer/manager to contribute an article or a clarification on company time. (1) "Refraining from Certain Activities" seems the wrong place for this. IMHO it needs a new heading, "Transparency", (2) also to be listed in the box at the top as the second item below "Under the following conditions". (3) Near the end of the FAQ under the heading "How should I disclose paid contributions in my user page?", suggest delete the indicated words: "If you work for Company Acme, and, as part of your job responsibilities, you edit Wikipedia articles >>about Company Acme<<..." (4) Recommend the disclosure be available in the edited page. I don't want to break off pursuit of a topic to check user pages, talk pages: in scholarly work the citations are at the bottom of the page; I would like comparable convenience.
81. Duh, legal limits on free speech apply only to commercial speech. Since Wiki doesn't bill itself as a giant ad for anything, this whole issue is moot. Anybody should be able to edit it with or without revealing their identity, funding, etc., and the contribution should stand if it's accurate, and that's IT. You are making much ado about nothing.
82. I strongly support a requirement that an edit made by a person paid to perform the said edit be disclosed as a "paid edit". In my opinion, further disclosure of the person affiliation is inappropriate. The act of disclosing a commercially directed edit gives the read adequate information to consider that the edit is possibly biased for commercial promotion. The only exception that I would allow is for editors potentially paid by the foundation or its agents. My reasoning for such a narrow disclosure is that all edits are potentially biased in some form. Many of these biases are intentional. If disclosure of an editor's affiliation becomes required, it seems that the foundation could foster an unintentional consequence of partisan (commercial or otherwise) debate in the wiki.
83. Yashskys (talk) 12:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)strongly support
84. Strongly support. In addition to a simple statement like "I work for ABC Company", additional disclosures like "work as a full-time employee" or "free lance project" could be useful to assess degree of potential conflict of interest.
85. Stongly support - More than once I have had discussions with people who clearly defend articles related to companies that read like advertisement. I really like the idea! --Jlascar (talk) 10:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
86. Strongly support, i agree with paid editions they must be reported (cause it will exist always legal or ilegal). Firmemente de acuerdo. A favor de ediciones pagadas deben ser reportadas porque siempre existirán. --KundaliniZero (talk) 03:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
87. Strongly support. Philiptdotcom (talk) 03:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
88. I support the amendment. Kat Schulz
89. Strongly support but don't believe any paid editing should be allowed. As they say, "Money is the root of all evil" and you will not have objective information on Wiki if you allow paid editing. So-called paid editing in some cases is nothing more than a public relations release or advertisement. I have noticed some examples of this. Since I am a writer and editor, I can detect such cases but a student may not be able to. Dru Murray
90. As I understand the intent of the proposal, I support it. Lou Schaefer
91. Strongly support. The need and the reasons for it seem obvious. Bill Mathews
92. I strongly support the proposed change.--L3erdr (talk) 02:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC) l3erdr
93. I strongly support the proposed change for paid contributions to be disclosed. Julianharty (talk) 01:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
94. Strongly Support Paradoxos (talk)
95. Strongly Support - LovelyLillith
96. Wiki promotes and cultivates a level of trust with its readers and contributors that the content it supplies is not biased by corporate interests or advertising; because of this, people let their guard down to a certain extent, regarding discernment of the real from the sensational (or outright lies). It is one of the most-read sites on the internet and is in a unique position of earnestly trying to deliver unbiased truth. Any actual or perceived flaws in our material will only be magnified or scandalized by the discovery of information that is secretly put there by paid interests, and trust will be lost. Labeling such material for what it is gives the reader the opportunity to view it more critically and preserve Wiki's reputation.
97. Strongly Support - TheOwl
98. Strongly support- 81.182.41.24 00:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
99. Quite straightforward. If anyone doesn't want to disclose it in a more public place like the userpage or talkpage, the edit summary option is great. Rehman 00:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
100. Support disclosure, not banning. --PaulMEdwards (talk) 00:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
101. Strongly support - Last thing we need is another platform for right wing disinformation.
102. Strongly Support - Hitman731
103. Support - Wikipedia is based on the principle of transparency. Payments for editing are often perfectly acceptable. I trust the Wikipedia community to be able to discern when it matters and when not. 84.227.242.86 00:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
104. Strongly support - any paid edit which has not been declared as such, becomes blatantly shameful in case of discovery; therefore I believe that this policy should be accompanied by the explicitly retained right of WMF and/or the Community to give full visibility and emphasis to eventual discoveries, at any extent. It would then be a really good tool to make it quite risky for covert paid contributors to be discovered, a sort of matter of money for shame. --g (talk) 01:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
105. Support : maybe ask for a specific keyword to help bots recognize these edits quickly. It makes sense wrt conflicts, and does not harm.
106. Strongly support this long-overdue measure. --Orange Mike (talk) 01:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
107. Strongly support - any edit made by a paid contributor should be marked as such, it must be obvious.
108. Strongly support - It's simple information sharing 58.174.85.158
109. Strongly support - The argument to the contrary (that disclosure would cause undue discrimination) is not compelling. Paid edits have a higher probability for fraud. The poster's comments (and disclosure) should take steps to acknowledge and mitigate that.(scotteemac)
110. Support (strongly, strongly...etc). Situation with suspected undisclosed paid editing is getting worse. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC).

     Strongly support - Undisclosed paid editing is corrupting. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC) Moving support to support but should be stronger. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

111. Support - Paid editing introduces a natural conflict of interest, and edits that are paid and subsequently affect a large amount of the encyclopedia may alter it in a biased way and may not be noticed until far after the event. This amendment would alleviate that by requiring notice when a paid edit occurs. NicatronTg (talk) 02:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
112. Support. Disclosure is required in many situations such as when a news story is about a parent company. With or without disclosure readers do have an opportunity to add or edit articles and this does act to limit or stop false or slanted information.
113. Strongly Support - transparency of the intention behind the addition of information will allow readers and editors to better judge the context of its addition and therefore the merit of it. Information does not exist in a vacuum and transparency allows us to better understand the intentions of a particular addition. Let us not muddy the philosophic undercurrent of this repository by letting pecuniary contrivances on it run rampant and unchecked.
114. Strongly support. Numerous article, such as this from Forbes show this amendment is a necessity.Pjposullivan (talk) 03:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
115. Strongly suport. I can't see a reason for hiding that information. Elucches (talk) 02:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
116. Strongly support. The whole reason I go to Wikipedia instead of just googling is that I can read a neutral, objective writeup about Concept X, without distorting hype like i'd get from the Concept X website, or distorting criticism from a 'Concept X sucks' site. Where else can you get a writeup of, say, Islam or Obama or Spontaneous Human Combustion where both sides have edited and (sortof) approved the details? osamabinlogin
117. Lucius Chiaraviglio Strongly Support. I strongly support the prohibition of undisclosed paid edits. The effect of undisclosed paid edits on our laws are proof that this is necessary to protect Wikipedia from falling to the same fate. 173.13.150.22 03:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
118. I don't understand the Introduction. What's the issue? "We plan to ask the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees to consider a proposed amendment in our Terms of Use to address further undisclosed paid editing." That's about a clear as mud. Who is being paid? Is Wikipedia going to start paying people? Suggestion: State the problem. Is there a problem? Are people being paid who shouldn't? Are people not being paid who should? I didn't know anybody was being paid. MarkFilipak (talk) 03:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
119. This seems sensible. I'd personally prefer an outright ban on paid editing, but this is a reasonable way of clarifying what's probably the community's consensus position on the topic. Nick-D (talk) 03:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
120. Weak support : It seems that it just specifically states what is already the net result of existing policy. I don't think it will do anything to improve compliance by the problem users, the vast majority of whom know well what they are doing is wrong (and don't care). I think it just gives admins something concrete to lean on when taking action. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
121. Support. If you're editing for money, your first loyalty is to your employer, not the project. Simple as that. You can argue until the end of time that this needn't make a difference, or is the paid contributor's right, or whatever, but it does make a difference, so it absolutely needs to be unambiguously disclosed. —Scs (talk) 03:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
122. Strongly support. This is extremely important to upholding a standard of objectivity and a neutral point of view, and is perfectly in line with a policy of transparency. Paid edits are fine, but they are certainly far more likely to be biased, nonobjective or even flat-out advertisement, and editors need to be able to see which information is more likely to be in violation of important policies so they can handle it more quickly. I cannot understand how someone could think that being more discriminating about which information is appropriate is undue discrimination. 75.140.101.66 03:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
123. Support. This is very serious problem, much more serious than most people believe. I had a lot of trouble and stopped editing political subjects because of this. Many paid editors on political subjects do excellent and perfectly neutral work. Having a disclosure would not really hurt them. Still, I am certain they will not disclose their real affiliations, because this would expose their employers. But at least they will know they violate our rules. Not so with paid editing on scientific subjects. Here, making a disclosure would be something innocent. Just to be clear about this, I never did any paid editing myself in the project. My very best wishes (talk) 03:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
124. Support. The proposal isn't particularly onerous anyways. Not many people will even bother to look at an editor's user page when considering whether an edit is appropriate or not. Being paid to edit a subject by a company presents an obvious lack of neutrality, which is clearly against the site's core principles. I think this is a pretty balanced way of dealing with it. Mikeman67 (talk) 03:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
125. Strongly support. Payment makes a difference. Else there would be no incentive to pay in the first place.---<(kmk)>- (talk) 04:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
126. Strong support, this is long overdue. I support making the disclosure requirement prominent, and clearly lay out when it is required. Blackhat PR firms will still try to edit, but if we can make it very clear to their clients that they are indeed blackhat, we might just make a difference. --TeaDrinker (talk) 04:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
127. Support - although I think all paid editing should be banned. Delamaran 04:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
128. Strongly Support - it's a small change with good benefits. Biligum (talk) 04:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
129. Support.
130. Strongly support. Moneyed special interests are being allowed to deceptively edit Wiki pages to cover up/change public opinion on unfair/poor corporate business practices. This undisclosed paid editing also allows for demagoguery of the worst degree in the political realm. This paid editing issue is closely related to the 2010 SCOTUS "Citizens United" decision. This decision effectively said 'Money equals free speech'.\Citizens United v FEC - SCOTUS dissenting and majority opinions Please keep 'Citizens United v. FEC' in mind when looking at the Wiki paid editing transparency issue. --PUnKeModUdE (talk) 07:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
131. Strongly support. Wikipedia should remain true, and possible (note: possible) corporate/religious/political/whathaveyou influence and even outright bias taints this trueness. --Marksomnian (talk) 08:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
132. Support. Pawyilee (talk) 05:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
133. Support. --Kersti (talk) 05:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
134. Support. The question of whether a particular set of compensated edits are constructive is separate from simply identifying when they are paid for. If we are fair in reviewing edits for their merit, this disclosure only helps, doesnt hinder, good editing.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
135. Support - I strongly support this important but seemingly unenforceable amendment. In addition, I believe that ALL paid editing should be banned. 68.71.70.33 06:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
136. Support. Strikes me as a sound response to the issue.
137. Support. It probably won't make a lot of difference, but it seems like a sensible thing to have in the Terms of Use. Kaldari (talk) 06:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
138. Visitor7 (talk) 06:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
139. Support. Scott Paeth (talk) 07:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
140. Strongly Support. Samitus mallicus (talk) 07:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
141. Support, with reservations about misuse of user-page notices. See #Temporal evasion of visible disclosures. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
142. Strongly Support. L337p4wn (talk) 08:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
143. Strongly Support. I also think that paid editing should be banned. It's awful to see criticisms of companies disappear. --Mathmensch (talk) 08:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
144. Strong support for a change long overdue. I've been an editor on English Wikipedia since 2006, and the steady increase in paid advertisements has now reached a disgusting crescendo that almost makes me ashamed to be a writer there. Frankly, I would make it a requirement that paid editors state it in the edit summary for each and every edit they make to their clients' pages. Voceditenore (talk) 09:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
145. Dafür/Support. Transparenz ist wichtig. Eine Frage zum Verfahren: Findet diese Abstimmung nur auf Englisch statt? Is this voting only in english language?--LichtStrahlen (talk) 09:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
146. Support. Though disclosure should be more prominent to the reader. --R2ZER0 (talk) 09:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
147. Support. Transparency is better for everyone. Additionally, I think the required notices on user pages or user talk pages should be prominently displayed, not hiding in a paragraph of text where it could be easily overlooked. Smilesplash (talk) 09:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
148. Support. Strongly support the idea, unsure on enforcement. --Captain-tucker (talk) 10:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
149. Strongest possible support Non-disclosed COI editing hurts Wikipedia/Wikimedia. To people in the Oppose section, this does not ban COI editing, but provides a way to monitor paid editing and help keep the integrity of the entire encyclopedia. Zhaofeng Li (talk) 10:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
150. Support. Nearly everything to be said about this topic has already been written; I think we should certainly do it, despite possible upcoming problems (which are there anyway). --Jussty (talk) 10:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
151. Support. We don't want people to be professionally biasing/vandalising Wikipedia without Wikimedia's knowledge! Let them do so by all means, but requiring them to effectively tell Wikimedia that they are doing it professionally helps Wikimedia keep tabs on those people so that their edits can be more closely checked for bias. Yes anyone should be able to edit, but we are also against unnecessary bias and I feel this would help with this. 146.90.158.185 11:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
152. Strongly support with further proposals. Require every such edit to be flagged in the edit summary and the user page to include a disclosure of interest; admins able to flag edits and users. New users should complete a short yes/don’t know/no questionnaire on what they intend to do, where needed link them to policy. I also fear that it will be hard to enforce, but I find a statement of policy important. But I do not see unprompted neutral unpaid factual contributions from employees to articles on their employers as a problem. PJTraill (talk) 11:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
153. strongly support. And I agree this is a very weak proposal, it would also be good to go further and require disclosure in a place where most readers will actually see it
154. strongly support: the only reason that I can think of for a paid contributor to hide their affiliation is because their edits are intended to sway the conversation in a particular direction and not to improve the accuracy of the entries being edited.
155. strongly support an outright ban on all paid contributions. This inevitably leads to bias - literally re-writing of history and current events.
156. Strongly support and possibly expand — I was literally just researching, the other day, why enwiki hadn't enacted similar-or-greater prohibitions, because my spidey-senses have recently been going off while closing a few AfDs that both paid editing and paid advocacy is increasing in occurrence. If left unchecked, it will (or has already) insidiously spill[ed] over into shaping guidelines and policies as well as other consensus-building and consensus-dependent processes, which would have the net effect of corrupting the relatively neutral and democratic nature of the wikis and eventually the foundation, much in the same way that the neutrality of The Media™ has been corrupted by paid news stories and corporate censorship and how votes were once directly bought centuries ago by the rich. The sooner this is prevented, the better, because cleaning up the mess after-the-fact is going to be difficult-if-not-impossible, as it will directly drive away honest contributors by simply drowning them out. A volunteer—admin or not—simply cannot compete against someone paid to edit 40+ hours per week to advance a specific point-of-view. --slakr 13:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

     On a related note, the very fact that, looking at the opposes directly below, I, personally, am instinctively led to question whether they're opposing based on genuine belief or because it's "in their best interest" demonstrates how toxic this can be, because all consensus-building processes could fall victim to this kind of thinking, which would inevitably cripple discussions with either overt or tacit accusations of bias and a fundamental resentment and distrust of all parties involved. This would lead to exactly what's had to happen here: someone higher-up stepping in and overruling previous-and-current discussions. This, in and of itself, is extremely counter-productive to an environment where the goal is to avoid ossification of, and strict adherence to, policies and guidelines. --slakr 14:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

157. Strongly support
158. Strongly support. One of the primary assumptions by readers is 'fair and unbiased'. Being able to check sources' potential conflicts of interest strengthens confidence in the sources. Also, this requirement provides both a clear statement to paid contributors that they are a 'special class' and must provide information, and a method for the Wikimedia Foundation to deal with issues caused by paid users who either do not disclose their status or contribute biased information.
159. Support. While it is true that unpaid contributors can also be biased, I think it reasonable to assume that those who are paid (such as a PR specialist) are likely to be more knowledgeable, harder to detect, and more persistent; it's not hard to see the relevance of this by simply looking at politics and advertising. God forbid wikipedia should become a platform for corporate PR. Though it may be difficult to enforce (and perhaps should be strengthened), I see no reason not to enact mandatory disclosure of paid editing, as a protection against unbiased information. Prohibiting paid editing does seem wise.
160. strongly support. any financial transactions relating to Wikipedia must be clearly identifiable. give the readers all the information, they will decided bias, veracity, interest, etc etc
161. Support: I think paid contributions should be increased and cited. Unfortunately, most of what I look up on wikipedia is partial or missing. I would contribute more if I had more free time and motivation. When I do contribute, it takes added time to edit and improve my writing and to properly cite multiple good sources. If people like me were paid to contribute, scientific articles could bring scientific critiques and debate to a layperson's foreground. Regardless, all conflicts of interest should be disclosed- important or not. It allows the reader to critically weight the expertise or bias of the article. (Suggestion: if you mouseover the paid user contributor, all of his/her edits could highlight so that you know what belongs to this person.) --TheNerdyPengwin 11:13 EST, 21 February 2014
162. Support - This seems like a perfectly reasonable provision to me. Paying Wikipedians for contributions is, at best, an ethically grey area. Requiring disclosure of such activities is a logical minimum step to protect our community from the fraud of dishonest editors and does not, in my opinion, constitute a breach of privacy. -Nutiketaiel (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
163. Strongly support. Wikipedia has become a wonderful resource for curious minds, but vigilance will always be necessary. Everything done by humans will be flawed, and good ethics a moving target, but keep up the great work.
164. Strongly support.
165. Support - although I would argue that the disclosure be mandatory on the article page at all times, as most end users do not read user or talk pages, but only the articles.
166. Strongly support. The basic principle of assuming good faith will be severely compromised if the idea gets around that Wikipaedia is being used as an advertising medium. And, if someone were paying me for editing articles (that'll be the day!), why should I be ashamed of this if I were editing honestly and in good faith? I can only see disclosure as problematic for editors who are deliberately violating the standards of an encyclopaedia. Лудольф (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
167. Strongly support: If you are paid to edit Wikipedia but you are doing so impartially, why hide it?
168. Support - I don't think that it will stop paid editing, but will instead provide a method for Wikipedia to take down some paid edits with a strong policy behind their backs
169. Strongly support: it might not solve the problem completely, but it will do little harm.
170. Strongly Support: Transparency is good thing!
171. Strongly support. I declare an interest when I feel I might be unconsciously biased just because of who or what I know, and so declare it in any discussion, yet I have never been paid to contribute to Wikipedia, it just seems like a decent honest thing to do so that other editors or readers can come with clean hands. It is quite right that someone adding something for another, paid or unpaid, should declare that interest.
172. Strongly support: Truth is always good, therefore transparency is good! SimonTrew (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC) I have somehow got my signature wrong but I am User:SimonTrew at EN:WP and oddly enough came here because I saw the ad flyer for comments while I was editing the article at [en.wikipedia.org/quid_pro_quo English Wikipedia "Quid Pro Quo"]. Sorry to be in a hurry to write this, I do try to consider what I write, but the Wikimedia ads fly by very fast sometimes. I can only say I have contributed a few new pictures to Wikimedia Commons in the last month, created a stub article which went to "Did You Know" on the English Wikipedia main page on 24 January, tried to clear up and add content, and a great deal of trouble is caused, if not by companies or hired help adding content, the suspicion that they have, even when it is neutral content by someone with no personal interest in that company. To declare up front, sure, it is not going to happen, but it will be easier to detect. SimonTrew (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
173. Strongly support: Having worked in industries where independence is paramount, the idea of paid contributions with no disclosure is very disconcerting. That affects whether their contribution is viewed as objective by the communities.
174. Support the amendment. Not Sure (talk) 19:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
175. Support - As the policy is just asking for disclosure for transparency I see no reason to object. Not that I believe that anyone who is editing in a biased way will declare, but I guess this will make any cases that comes to light easier to deal with. KylieTastic (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
176. Support. This is a good structural piece for the agreement. By no means is it a final solution to the issue, but it doesn't purport to be one. Any other adjustments for the long term can be made as the need arises. Ultimately, this is an issue that may require more light to fully be solved, perhaps a disclaimer on the talk page of new users or on the edit page itself. This would be the framework for such a project. Wikipedia's independence is safer with this in place. Leoberacai (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
177. Support
178. Support - This should apply only to the Tea Party and Conservatives. This proposal should follow IRS guidelines and should not apply to progressive and liberal non-profit causes. Also should the FCC become involved with Wikipedia and help determine on the content allowed? They are starting to monitor TV, Radio stations and newspapers to make sure that they are neutral and not right-wing.
179. Support - It doesn't address all possible issues of bias and full disclosue (note section "#For which you receive compensation.3F.21" in this talk page), but it's good to address the paid edits. (And of course it should apply to all.) --Gahs (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
180. Support - It would prevent companies who wanted to promote a product or game from hiring someone to write a page without the readers knowledge.
181. Support. Hope a way can be found to enforce it!  :) (and so much for having an "all WikiMedia logon :( Student7 (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
182. Strongly support - Wikipedia is becoming so popular that some organizations that are interested in manipulating minds, such as companies, sects, superstitions etc. try to take control of minds through this supposedly impartial and non-profitable media.--Francois C (talk) 20:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
183. Strongly support
184. Strongly Support, it will hopefully lead more people to be mindful of the rules regarding COI. Perhaps the disclosure can be easily implemented in the form of a standardized template or ubx to be placed on the user's page. RA0808 (talk) 20:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
185. support, if you're in public office you have to disclose, being an editor is like that --Light.olive (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
186. Support. I also want to see a conflict of interest on the article or article talk page though. This is a great first step, but let's go further.
187. Strongly support --OhWeh (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
188. Support: while this may not be an infallible way to prevent COI issues, it does add to the overall transparency of edits. --Tcxspears (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
189. Support: This is akin to journalist who disclose a possible conflict of interest when writing a story about the parent company of the organization that they're writing for. 21:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
190. Strongly support. I further suggest that there should be no paid editor from outside without prior approval of EN-WP. This would help in outing paid trolls from commercial, political, religious corner who work for monetary gain without caring biased or fair jobs. Nannadeem (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
191. Strongly support - People will use Wikipedia to advertise and manipulate anyway, but at least this would make them more accountable. Hyperfunnel (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
192. Strongly support - LessayCatus (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
193. Emphatically Support - Wikipedia's information value is directly linked to the provider's objectivity. That isn't to say that the editor cannot be interested in the subject, but payment creates a conflict of interest in terms of objectivity. The payment is either going to be exclusively or almost exclusively in exchange for promoting a particular view, which will dilute or destroy objectivity.
194. Support - a clear policy should help
195. Support. Many paid editors are already declaring their affiliations. This can only help Wikipedia and for the community to provide support and more importantly control of possibly biased content. Something I noticed: Many people who are voting, they are not signing. A community vote is not a series of edits from the same person coming in from several IPs. Vote counters beware. --FocalPoint (talk) 22:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
196. Support: this amendment maintains the spirit of openness fundamental to Wikipedia. Such disclosures can help readers decide whether or not who is paying for a contribution may influence or bias its perspective.--65.199.189.6 22:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
197. Undisclosed paid contribution are rife with the risk of political, economic and historical spin and distortion. What makes Wikipedia a useful source of information is that people, in general, have to put their name to the contribution. If someone is being paid to contribute it should be noted so people can evaluate the potential of risk of distortions or spin. And that includes who paid the person.
198. Disclosure is good. It's also good to make clear that acknowledged and disclosed paid editing can sometimes be appropriate.
199. Support ITAC (talk) 23:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
200. Strongly support: it seems an obvious thing to do to keep the integrity of Wikipedia.
201. Support. Disclosure should not be used to whack someone over the head. Basically, someone with a disclosed conflict of interest should be protected when advocating for a position, as distinct from edit warring over it or actually, without adquate notice, placing POV material into articlees. They should never be dinged for "POV pushing," per se, since we expect a paid or COI editor to have a POV. Disclosure should not protect them from the consequences of disruptive behavior, of course. The wikis may decide, in a case-by-case basis, what restrictions to place on editing by COI editors. --Abd (talk) 23:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
202. Support. --Mox La Push (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
203. Bold text Strongly Support. Transparency is a must!
204. Support Jeepday (talk) 00:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
205. Support IMO, paid editing should be forbidden. I find it very hard to believe that PR people have Wikipedia's best interested at heart. I realize the difficulties involved in banning the practice so I guess this is the best idea for now. (I also recognize at least one person in the oppose section who was previously blocked for whitewashing articles for money.) Captain panda 00:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
206. Strongly support for the following reason: I made some edits to the article on opera director Richard Jones after User talk:Traceyelliston had removed the italics and other formatting consistent with WP Opera's guidelines.

     Then Mr. Elliston chose to make the following comment: "I am the professional manager for Richard Jones. He has requested that these changes be made to this page and that the information appears in this format. Thank you for your understanding."

     I responded to User talk:Traceyelliston's revisions. "Wiki isn't a piece of online personal promo for anyone. This is an encyclopedia. Articles relating to opera use standard formatting, italicizing titles, etc. Argue your case on the "Talk" page if you disagree.)"

     Mr. Ellison then posted the following on his Talk page (rather than the article's: italics are mine):

     "Richard Jones has requested that I make these changes for accuracy and a personal preference for how the information about his professional credits appear. I note your comments about the standard formatting for opera articles and I apologise that I am not familiar with the particulars of this style. I take your point that this is an encyclopedia, but as Wikipedia is now so widely used, I hope you can appreciate an individual's wish to have a degree of control over the factual content of a page relating to himself. The success of Wikipedia means that regardless of other means of promotion, it does become a first port of call for many seeking information about Richard. I would be most grateful for your understanding. best wishes. Tracey Elliston"

     So now we have the perfect reason why someone who is a paid manager of an artist (in this case) thinks that he can create the article the way he - or his client - wants it!! Total rubbish!! Disclosure is essential. Viva-Verdi (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

207. Support: to the strongest extent of all applicable laws. Non-disclosure contributions must be utterly removed and the responsibles SUED to the maximum extent of the law.
208. Strongly support. But I do wonder how this rule will be enforced. Atomicporcupine88 (talk)
209. Strongly support. I would ban completely, but this is a minimum first step.
210. Strongly support. A transparency regulation is a non-invasive, commonsense approach to dealing with the long standing problem of paid advocacy. It is not a solution to the problems surrounding advocacy, but it will provide pause to corporations engaging in this type of behavior on a large scale or to obvious detriment to the project. Jaydubya93 (talk) 02:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
211. Strongly support: the fact of substantial commercial resources (internal or via paid public relations firms) being put to use in editing or debating positions in an entry should be available to readers and other editors.
212. Support. Standard format disclosure on user page, plus edit summary indexed. (MartinGugino (talk) 03:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC))
213. Support. I support this simply to have this policy, which is little more than an extension of WP:COI, on the books. But I have serious doubts as to how effectively it can be enforced. Unschool (talk) 03:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
214. Strongly support. The reasons should be obvious.
215. Strongly support - not only the information we post but also the questions we ask about that information are highly dependent on our position. I expect every contributor to have an opinion. I want to know if that opinion is being paid for by someone else. Money as a multiplier of opinion is fine in a political race but is out of place in an open exchange of information.
216. Strongly Support. Paid contribution to Wikipedia HAS been used to discredit people. A good example is court documents showing that Syngenta, a chemical company, paid consultants to edit wikipedia to discredit Tyrone Hayes, a scientist, after he published evidence their chemicals are likely be harmful. (See article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrone_Hayes ). I would like to see the wiki foundation have more tools to take legal action against such edits. Gsonnenf (talk) 04:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

     Strong support. MER-C (talk) 04:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC) Moving to support, but should be stronger. MER-C (talk) 09:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

217. Strongly support. It's not an ideal amendment, and obviously won't be universally enforceable, but will put the WMF in a stronger position to take action against extreme violators (like these guys) whose work legitimately threatens the integrity of our projects. Kevin (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
218. Strongly support. Where opinion is galvanized by money, the people or companies behind it should be disclosed. While enforcement of this policy may not be feasible everywhere, the amendment to terms will provide the foundation with necessary legal tools. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.244.172.87 (talk) 22 February 2014, 04:47 (UTC)
219. Strongly support. verdy_p (talk) 04:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC) (see my other comment below).
220. Support. Having lost a battle to get an undisclosed paid editor sanctioned, I feel this is long overdue. Brianhe (talk) 05:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
221. Strongly support. 108.77.65.78 05:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
222. Strongly support. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 14.139.181.229 (talk) 22 février 2014; 05:35 (UTC)
223. Support. It may help to include a requirement about the duration of the disclosure. Quondum (talk) 05:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
224. Support. I see nothing here that prevents other stronger restrictions on paid editing in the future, but this seems to me to be a necessary bare minimum. - Jmabel (talk) 06:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
225. disclosure provision necessary a s phadke — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cmsrjp (talk) 22 février 2014, 07:46 (UTC)
226. /* Support disclosure*/ — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 184.98.159.128 (talk) 22 février 2014, 06:57 (UTC)
227. Support. I think openness is essential to impartiality. However, I am concerned about how this might be enforced. What is the process if a violation is suspected? How one might defend against a violation accusation? What sanctions would occur if a violation was discovered? I think these questions need to be addressed before the policy is adopted. Tigerdg (talk) 06:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
228. Strongly support. If the quality of a user's content should speak for itself, surely there is no harm in disclosing anyone paying the user to produce the content. This is not an onerous restriction on anyone, especially not on anyone being paid to make edits. On the other hand, this does not somehow encourage paid editing by "legimitizing" it; paid editing already occurs all the time. A simple, easy-to-follow rule like this is the best way to minimize bias due to paid edits, because it is easy enough for paid editors to follow and because it is dangerous enough for them to violate.
229. Strongly support. Paid editing of information is similar to paid articles in the news, i.e., potentially misleading with the specific intent to mislead. Never a good thing.
230. Support, in the interest of full disclosure. Do not conflate this proposal with the stated goal of a free encyclopedia that anyone can use. Others receiving compensation for their effort does not mean that YOU must pay to use it. This merely allows some to be more upfront and honest about something that we all know goes on in some form or another all day every day. Just as soon as you find evidence of true altruism, you let me and the scientific community know and we'll nominate you for the Nobel Peace Prize. Until then, if someone is found determined to not have fully disclosed, this policy gives editors, administrators and the WMF ammunition to take action if need be; something to point to and cite if necessary. Having a greater understanding of someone's motives provides a better knowledge of the situation in which action may be necessary. Having a lesser understanding is never preferable. Clearly, WMF up until now has naturally assumed the good faith of its users by default, as it should, but I agree we should also allow (or in this case even encourage) users with alterior motives to state them as such *in* an act of good faith. If bad faith is determined after wrong-doing, then they can't say we didn't warn them. 71.236.253.188 07:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
231. Support Although I think it'll be difficult to enforce --Mirrakor (talk) 08:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
232. (moved to Oppose section) Peter Chastain (talk) 06:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
233. Support A commonsense approach, which lets paid editors know where they stand, and is consistent with existing legal requirements.--Greenrd (talk) 08:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
234. Strongly Support And even better would be to make it a requirement to disclose payments in each and every edit (in edit comments). Rationale: IMHO, it seems that during last 2 years impartiality of articles about existing companies in Wikipedia has degraded severely (with less blatantly ad-like wording, but still ad-like nature). I tend to attribute this degradation to paid editing, so the more requirements on disclosing COIs - the better. Ipsign (talk) 09:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
235. Strongly Support Wikipedia addresses with this proposal a problem that has always existed. True, controversial subjects have always been written with bias and moderated by the community. This proposal does no harm. It may help, but is rather benign. For that reason, I support it. Halnwheels (talk) 10:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
236. Support. I totally support this proposal. Full disclosure will add to the integrity of Wiki.69.123.244.78 10:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
237. Support. Wikipedia can benefit from paid contributions as long as it's done honestly, openly and on the understanding that it is likely to be edited. http://whirlpool.net.au is an example of successfully managing paid company representatives in a forum that is largely free information sharing - they seem to keep the shills away. It's obviously more difficult for an encyclopedia, but "this page reads like an advertisement" is a loud warning. BAPhilp (talk) 10:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
238. Support. I've seen and been annoyed by some entries that are transparently paid press releases, and no doubt there are others written by people competent enough to avoid canned-press-release style. (Oddly, I have once seen an editor's box complaining that something looked press-releasy, and I disagreed completely. The article looked to me like a legit unbiased essay on a non-commercial topic -- but written by somebody who thought press release style was good writing!) 207.245.236.156 10:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
239. Strongly Support but please remind clearly this regulation to any editor. Personal example: I work for a public reasearch institution, and have already edited a page to add an external link to our own website as I think that it is quite relevant to the topic. I totally agree that my position must be disclosed in this context. But this must be reminded explicitly or else this term of use would often be forgotten in good faith (not everyone does read all terms of use before editing - at least I didn't). Simon Chabrillat (talk) 11:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
240. Strongly Support. I can't really see any downside to these rules as currently worded. Transparency is much more important to me than stopping people. Jasper Janssen - 13:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
241. The Illuminati Strongly Support this statement.
242. Support. Sebástian San Diego (talk) 13:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
243. Strongly Support. Requiring writers and editors to acknowledge their affiliations helps to make entries more neutral and not skewed to one particular way of thinking.Bruce WhitehillBrucewhitehill (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
244. Strongly Support. Paid editing without proper disclosure beforehand is tantamount to using what should be an objective source of information for advertisement. Lucasoutloud (talk) 14:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
245. I was recently thinking about if it's against policies of WMF/En-WP to make edits for some sort of self-advancement when disclosure is made, actually. While paid edits themselves sound bad because the most visible implication is that neutrality will be violated, there is another side to paid contribution. Paid contributions could strengthen the neutrality policy because, for instance, I could remove marketing-style wording and false positive information on competing products and services as a CEO. Of course, this must all be disclosed and negatives cannot be added by paid editors. The only problem I see is the aforementioned potential legal issue in Europe. Would have logged in as En-WP's NuclearWizard but there's a bug in the login/IPblock feature. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.41.39.34 (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
246. Support 101.171.255.226 13:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
247. Support, I view this as a rectification of a broken and malicious system into a more neutral and regulated system. 129.62.65.243 15:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
248. Strongly Support 79.89.238.167 15:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
249. Support 173.53.19.192 15:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
250. Support. Way too confusing without this. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
251. Strongly Support. I believe that this amendment will hinder and possibly stop companies that deliberately edit articles for others to further a political/economic or personal cause. See for example: And Paid Edits: Companies Pay Top Dollar To Firms Willing To 'Fix' Their Entries. This practice is incompatible with Wikipedia's stated goal to be an objective source of information and endangers the credibility of the entire project. AlwaysUnite (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
252. Strongly Support - transparency is key to the WMF. Bcdm (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
253. Support. I would like to see the disclosure strengthened to any edit made while on the clock (as it were) in the edit summary, to simplify identifying paid edits. Wikipedia may be a Hitchhiker's Guide, but I prefer it as the Guide of the first book, not the one of the fifth. Trdsf (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
254. Support As a first step towards truly cracking down on COI editors. They are the biggest issue facing our credibility today. Hopefully in the future we can expand the policy into an outright prohibition and give it more teeth. Themfromspace (talk) 16:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
255. Support! ~ MarkJerue
256. Strongly Support with additional proposal The amendment doesn't go quite far enough. I don't think paid contributions will be clear enough if any admission of payment is buried in the user's talk page. A brief disclosure should be required on every compensated edit summary with a detailed disclosure also required either on the user's talk page or the article's talk pagee. But the amendment is a step in the right direction, so I support. Anonymous paid contributions to wikipedia threaten wikipedia's neutrality and credibility. It's difficult to see how a requirement for disclosure could ever negatively affect wikipedia, but it's clear how no requirement for disclosure undermines the project.NZUlysses (talk) 17:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
257. Support Skrrp (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
258. Strongly support. Am sick of people trying to pervert what should be an objective forum to advance their own commercial agendas. Keep the forum objective! User: theinrich71.92.252.96 17:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
259. STRONGLY SUPPORT. I also think that the disclosure should be made with the edit, not just on the user page. Tracking back and forth to user pages, I believe, will be an obstacle that will effectively make this rule null and void. We want readers to know when there is content from paid users, and we all know that people are either too busy or don't care enough to have to dig for this information..... Some paid representatives CAN be a valuable source of accurate information. If someone who is paid by Joe Bloe edits his page to correct his place of birth, for example, that would be an unbiased, credible edit. I believe paid users should be allowed to edit as long as that fact is EASY for readers to figure out..... Wikipedia MUST remain neutral and unbiased! Thank you.208.163.194.246 18:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)208.163.194.246 18:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
260. I strongly support this ammendment. Darkinin (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
261. Support. Makes sense, gives Wikipedia a foundation from which to correct abuse.
262. Strongly Support. Any commercial or paid for article should be clearly labeled as such if authorized, without any doubt or ambiguity for the reader.
263. Strongly support. This is the only way to keep (most) articles neutral. Ozzie42 (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
264. Support: I think this is addressing a significant problem, and one worthy of significant response. I think I agree with those who say that this may not decrease the problem, so this policy may should only be one stepping stone towards a more comprehensive response. I think the intent of wikipedia is in conflict with the intent of paid editors who try to subvert the goals. Just as there are restrictions on vandalism, there are also some restrictions on the activities of editors whose commitment to wikipedia is too narrow, and self-interested.Ottawakismet(talk) 19:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
265. Support: Transparency is the cornerstone of Wikipedia. Without it, I would stop donating. It is known that paid editors have the time, resources, and motivation to intentionally mislead or in dishonestly characterize the content that they are editing. I would be skeptical of any evidence that suggests secrecy is good for public discourse. Secrecy is good for many things that are good, but this is not one of those things. And just because some clever devils who feel the need for secrecy will indeed find their work-around to this new limitation, I still support, because it demonstrates best practices where possible Seanongley (talk) 19:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
266. Support: Strong support from me.--Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
267. Strongly Support - I believe any and all wikis should be free from corrupting influences. 75.71.64.241 19:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
268. Support. Some people just do not understand what is wrong with editing Wikipedia pages for marketing. It is fine with them so long as the edit does not look too commercial or too biased. This trend is especially strong in countries where stealth marketing is the norm. I think it is good to make it clear to everyone that we do not want the inherent bias from for-money editing. 三郎 (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
269. Strongly support - The issue of disseminating and acting on knowledge is the greatest challenge of our time (see climate change). Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest, particularly financial, is a necessary precondition to engage with any community in an intellectually honest way, intellectual integrity being perhaps the cornerstone of the Wikipedia enterprise. Vrrm (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
270. Support: Paid advocacy editing should be an exception. Paid edits should be marked in the edit history at least. User accounts for paid edits should be individual accounts. --Minoo (talk) 21:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
271. Support: Transparency is the only way to move forward. A person's motivations are just as important as their actions Bigfatfrog67 (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
272. Strongly Support. I would suggest that the words "You must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways:" be ammended to "You must make that disclosure in EACH of the following ways:" Disclosure is paramount. That said, care should be taken not to discourage contributions from well-qualified paid contributors- but i think that perhaps this might work in favor of some in the arts, education, etc.. For example, if someone credited as being employed by M.O.M.A. is paid to edit an article on Picasso. This change in policy would benefit us all. I hope that this is particularly rigorously applied to political candidates and organizations, and to dissemenators of biased scientific (or pseudo-scientific) thought. Bravo! B. Z. RowanB. Z. Rowan (talk) 21:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
273. Strongly Support. I agree with the points made in Support #9. The quality and quantity of articles in Wikipedia will be enhanced by disclosed paid editing. Disclosure: I have hired people to create articles for Wikipedia as I believed (and still do believe) that this was allowed, based on extensive reading of Wikipedia policies. I have no problem disclosing whether my edits are paid or volunteer. TriJenn (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
274. Strongly Support. Transparency is vital to freedom and democracy. If one writes, one must be open to challenge. We grow immeasurably through open investigation, discussion and transparcency. We die inside bubbles when secrecy and beliefs go unchallenged openly. Take Galileo Vs the Church and State. And Rob vs Church and State :-). Bravo! Education is the light on our world. As Jesus says seek and you find. How can you find stuff if it is deliberately hidden.
275. Strongly support this measure. It acts as a regulator of potentially untruthful information being introduced on to Wikipedia; forr the sack of political or other motives of slander. In quoting TriJenn, "Transparency is vital to freedom and democracy". Therefore, it is the duty of Wikipedia and it's contributors to disclose if their intentions are for the sake of information or due to being sponsored.--Mrsolan22 (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
276. Strongly support: I have been editing and contributing, both through my account, and anonymously since the very beginning; when I was only 15. Yes we have all come a long way, when there were less than 500k articles in English!. Now, however the problem is different, malicious changes are being made to sensitive information which has a deleterious effect on public awareness, as well as representing an impediment to the constitutional rights of free speech and press. I have witnessed changes to pages in a number of hours. The Sheer number of pages and articles that have been deleted or merged, witnessed by red links, especially on sensitive topics, is disgusting, and alarming. These actions are being PERPETRATED by small groups and they can be traced through the history of page edits. The actions of these Individuals is tantamount to book-burning, and propaganda riling. however I do not believe them to be Isolated unconnected incidents. For personal reasons I do believe the FBI should be brought in on this and a full cyber crime investigation be launched. Ordinarily this would never be something a person like me would propose. However, I have an intense disregard for tampering, as a machinist I feel it sullies hard work. Furthermore, I believe some or all of these individuals to be acting criminally in manner to cover equally criminal activities. I propose a massive sweep, perhaps automated in nature to reset page history and reset/remove any edits which remove large bodies of text or entire articles and topics. Moreover, the trolls have infested this very discussion. I have had it out with a few of these worms in the past seriously call the Feds in on this one.Default0023 (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)Admir@lKrunch.AnonSec.Hawaii...Default0023 (talk)
277. Support Aoeuus (talk) 22:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
278. Strongly Support. Our society needs more transparency in general.
279. Strongly Support. The only truthful information is unbiased information that seeks the light. AlabamaSouthern (talk) 13:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)AlabamaSouthern
280. Strongly Support, The purpose of Wiki is hindered when a partisan edit is made without full disclosure Keith Robertsson (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
281. Support. I think a lot of the opposition is worried that this will be directed at anybody with a stake in the content they add, but this seems like it's rather aimed at people _without_ a stake in their content, and who're motivated specifically by money (e.g. WikiPR, who it seems were basically uninterested in whatever their clients told them to write, as long as they got paid to write it). 2601:9:8580:19C0:226:BBFF:FE0C:FA8B 23:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
282. Support: It's happened too often that I've found articles written about corporations, by those very corporations. Misko15 (talk) 00:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
283. Support. Assuming that the board is willing to propose further changes to the amendment and its manner of enforcement if needed, and that this amendment will be enforced with the caution needed in dealing with a young and impressionable web (read both ways), this change seems clearly for the better.
284.  Support – Per Abd. Paid editing needs to be tamed, not banned outright. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
285. I accept. On the basis that this change in policy will preserve or increase Wikipedia's credibility as a resource, I generally support this proposal. I have not read every comment on this page, but I have read many. I accept the concerns others have raised regarding the proposal's details, such as the acceptable methods for providing disclosure. I am satisfied to leave those details to experienced editors. I am not one. I am not pursuaded against the proposal by the arguments that it is unenforceable, or that Wikipedia's openness implies that it should have no rules. This page contains many examples of situations that could challenge the revised policy. In my judgment, these examples do not demonstrate that the proposal is flawed. Rather, they show that, like regulations in any context, the policy will need to be applied to cases as they arise. However, the Wikimedia Foundation Legal Department (and all of us) should welcome these and more thoughtful examples as a tool for perfecting the proposal before its submission to Board of Trustees.
     Christopher.ursich (talk) 01:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
286. I support this proposed amendment since transparency of motive is how Wikipedia can maintain it's NPOV status regarding content, and in the interest of content integrity, I believe this amendment is in the best interests of the Wikimedia Foundation across all of its projects. Arcane21 (talk) 01:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
287. Support, and also call for a requirement to use a standard project-defined template for the disclosure, to facilitate automatic processing, as described below. Nealmcb (talk) 02:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
288. Support - as an obvious first step to normalization of paid editing. Carrite (talk) 02:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
289. Support Spiffulent (talk) 05:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
290. Support. I've used this site as a reference tool for a very long time, and finally just created my account tonight to start assisting with contributions as an editor. At this time, I have never considered being paid in any way for my contributions. Because of such, this proposed amendment therefore does not apply to me, and I honestly really don't care about it right now; just want to enjoy use of the site as I came here to do. Furthermore, even if I were a paid contributor, it wouldn't bother me, either. In any such case, I wouldn't have any problem(s) with providing such a disclosure of information. I just want to learn, and in turn, educate the world; that's all... Josh cannabis sativa™ (talk) 05:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
291. Strongly Support Eight9three (talk) 05:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
292. Strongly Support - When someone (a PR firm, a staffer for an elected official) is paid to edit a Wikipedia article, many such cases nowadays are sneaky attempts to "spin" things or remove unpleasant truths. With disclosure, it'll be much easier to detect cases like this and straighten them out. And if someone is paid to edit something in a way that isn't sneaky (GLAM et al.), then they should be OK with making the appropriate disclosure. I say go for it. Robnorth (talk) 05:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
293. Support - it seems like an obviously good thing to include to address a problem which may not have been obvious at the outset. Conflict of interest disclosures are the standard in academic publishing and belong here as well. Sawdust Restaurant (talk) 06:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
294. Strongly support. We need to safeguard the neutrality and integrity of Wikipedia by preventing commercial editors from editing articles in the favour of their clients. Balaam's Miracle (talk) 06:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
295. I Support this. Honesty and transparency are the best policy Aethalides (talk) 07:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
296. Strongly support - very important and the burden is minimal. BruceThomson (talk) 07:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
297. Strongly Support -- That said, I am very alarmed by the amount of unsigned votes here. Snakebyte42 (talk) 09:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
298. Support I do think that Wikepedia's greatest protection is its existing open transparent nature. If somebody edits something and is paid to do so, anybody else has the right to correct any misinformation or misrepresentation. this is the case whether the editor has been paid or not. 46.7.99.174 10:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
299. Strongly Support - Something stronger could be attractive, but a blanket ban on commercial submissions would have serious drawbacks: it is very useful to keep manufacturers interested in providing accurate documentation of technical specifications and protocols. Douglas Ray (talk) 11:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
300. Strongly support - good idea. I would make it more clear by insisting on a statement in the edit summary. But one as suggested saying "I work for ..." is not good enough, we want automated searching to inspect such edits, so a tag like [[paid]] should go into the edit summary every time. Mirams (talk) 11:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
301. Support -- It is unfortunate that such a requirement is necessary, but experience has shown that it is. The requirement is not onerous. It does not eliminate the ability to make anonymous contributions, just PAID anonymous contributions. I would urge that Wikimedia make a significant effort to make these requirements clear and also adopt a policy of assuming good intent, because I would not want new, inexperienced contributors to be driven off because of failing to comply with this policy if they were unaware of it. Mcherm (talk) 12:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
302. support - APOYO la iniciativa. Es una buena práctica saber cuales son las afiliaciones de quien escribe en wikipedia, particularmente cuando aquellas condicionan el contenido y forma de lo que escribe, como cuando el autor es pagado para decir algo específico que favorece a la institución a la cual pertenece. Enrique Peñalolen (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
303. Support Max Blatter (talk) 13:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
304. I strongly support the emendment, wikipedia should be transparent and totally free of paid interests. This surely, the idea of paying for entries or edits against everything Wiki stands for. This is make no mistake a wall, a bastion of free will and a balance to corpotate and govt propoganda! Strongly agree! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 109.77.91.17 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 23 February 2014.
305. support --Wiki-observer (talk) 14:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
306. Support Memetics (talk) 14:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
307. Support Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
308. Support, with small addendum - While I like this idea and think it's a good common-sense approach, I am worried that, as others have suggested, editors might use the existence of affiliation to toss AGF out the window on impulse. There also seems to be some confusion over how and when affiliation disclosure is necessary (I read it as "only if you're being explicitly compensated - like, directly receiving $$$ for contributions", and it is under that reading that I support the amendment). Perhaps some clarification on how this applies to AGF and some illustrations on when disclosure is NOT needed would be helpful. --Viqsi (talk) 15:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
309. Support. I'ld prefer to mark each site containing paid edits by a sign. On the other side, it is difficult to verify paid edits by users (readers). Therefore, the requested amendment seems to be a suitable compromise. Juetho (talk) 15:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
310. Support - Mgrand (talk) 15:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
311. Support As already stated above, a checkbox (paid contribution) on the page next to the minor-edits checkbox would be good and if there is a check it can be shown in the history of the page as a "p" linked to the users talk page that has to have a section like "Paid contributions / Conflict of interest" where the user should state his COI. If a substantial amount of an article (e.g. more than 50%) is provided by paid contributions (of different authors) (article-history counts the bits) a notice can be left above the rendered article, stating that "Significant parts of this article have been provided by professional / paid authors (see edit-history) which might affect the neutrality of the article." In this way people may as well promote their work for WP and readers can be hinted to the history. I think that this should be supported.--Triple5 (talk) 15:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
312. Support - sunlight is essential to seeing what is happening. Require disclosure so that readers can make their own judgments, but don't ban paid contributions: There will be paid contributors who can make neutral & positive contributions. Alan J Shea (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
313. Support - I agree that paid contributions and conflicts of interest should be disclosed in the wikipedia entries. Rdiehl (talk) 16:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
314. Unequivocally Support Clearly trolls(unpaid or paid by moneyed interests) prolifically attack irrefutable science of neurological damage by mercury(in vaccines, coal pollution, dental amalgams, etc) by deleting scientific research sources, creating silly ad hominem/strawman entries against anybody (including scientists and doctors) who are knowledgeable about neurotoxins & carcinogens, etc.Yankhadenuf (talk) 17:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
315. Support. This can be informative for investigating edits that seem biased; Mr. Shea's comment is apt. Standardrobot (talk) 17:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
316. Support. Organizations may employ special workers to manage their online image, and Wikipedia, as one of the most important sources of information on the web, should be able to incorporate the opinions and assertions of persons with a vested financial interest in the material being presented, so long as they disclose their financial ties. I think that more broadly a disclosure of any particular conflict of interest, e.g. my wife works for this corporation &c., would be useful for transparency's sake but perhaps too cumbersome to implement.152.10.217.56 17:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
317. Support. But please simplify the disclosure discovery algorithm by mandating a standard "PAID EDIT" tag in the edit summary, so that other editors can more easily find such disclosures. Details of the disclosure can still be included on the user page. Requiring other editors to search the talk pages and user pages for all edits is far too difficult. -- 174.58.20.123 17:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
318. I firmly believe that all violators of this should be forced to chop down the mightiest tree in the forest with a herring 172.4.228.98 18:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
319. Support. (a) Wikipedia strives to be an unbiased source of facts. In many cases, it succeeds through a balance of contributions from knowledgeable folks around the world without conflicts of interest. This mechanism works well, exemplified by many excellent and well-rounded articles. Efforts from financially invested parties to deliberately and artificially perturb the balance reached by the unbiased community should come with associated health warnings. (b) Many "oppose" arguments assume that requiring this information will prevent editors who, for example, work for a company from commenting on that company at all. This is of course not the case. Editors will still be able to write anything they wish -- what will change is that readers will see where conflicts of interest may possibly occur, and, crucially, will be able to make their own decisions about the reliability of the source. (c) Many of the recurring themes in the "oppose" category are rather weak arguments, for example, disbelief that this protocol will be enforceable, or that the problem it attempts to fix is widespread. These are not in themselves reasons not to attempt a proposed improvement. Aeioun (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
320. Strongly support. To those who think this isn't a problem (whether you think it doesn't happen or it's OK that it does), you're kidding yourselves. To those who think it needs to be stronger... Sure, maybe, but if anything this is a start. Compromise is useful. Remember, most people will not notice anything. But it will likely help improve the quality, accuracy, and impartiality of a lot of small-to-medium-sized articles about living individuals and extant companies and organizations. Akkifokkusu (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
321. Support. I believe that, unfortunately, this will not change the behavior of shady PR and SEO companies, and take slight issue with the legitimization of paid corporate content creation on Wikimedia sites. That said, the practice of paid editing is widespread enough nowadays that it will likely not make much difference, and I support the institution of rules that will support transparency and disclosure of biases.Tgjohnst (talk) 19:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
322. Support. Transparency is the way to go. Editors will be assured that their edits cannot fall foul of deceptive advertising law; readers will know that companies may have edited their own article (this should be publicised!); and other users will be better able to keep an eye on paid edits. What is important is to make clear that a disclosing paid editor is a valid and valued member of the community. There must be no stigma attached to it: otherwise people will NOT disclose, and things will carry on much as before, with readers none the wiser that they are reading articles authored at least in part by their subjects. (From that point of view, Jimmy Wales' recent comments on his en:WP talk page that this will make it easier to ban paid editors are deeply unfortunate. If the board gives the same message, this laudable initiative will fail.) Andreas JN466 19:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
323. Support Even presuming that there is a small bandwidth of paid editing that may be beneficial to the encyclopedia, there is certainly no rationale that would justify concealment in such cases. Meanwhile, such concealment poses a(n existential) threat to the non-commercial character of Wikipedia as well as the intimately associated aim of providing reliably sourced neutral information to the public on an open-source platform.--Ubikwit (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
324. Strongly support: I also suggest if there are paid contributors to a page, there should be a section of links to paid contributors at the bottom of that page.
325. Strongly support: 76.14.43.76 21:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
326. Support but "any contribution to any Wikimedia projects for which you receive compensation." should be emended to "any contribution to any Wikimedia projects for which you receive compensation or for contributions which would reasonably be considered part of your job duties." Other types of Conflicts of Interest are even more difficult to deal with. Let the Sun shine in.Abitslow (talk) 21:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
327. Support - But your lawyers might consider the impact of putting company names on users profiles - could it be used to sue for trademark infringement?--79.151.121.135 21:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
328. Strongly support: I would love to see it made mandatory that one of the first two items be satisfied and ALWAYS make the third one mandatory, so every change has it mentioned somewhere local to the change as well. Spawn777 (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
329. Ziko (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
330. Strongly support - Paid COI edits by individuals with ties to pharmaceutical industry appear to be common on medication pages. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
331. Strongly support Adam the Fish (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
332. Support Paulherrin (talk) 22:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
333. Strongly support Miniapolis (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
334. Strongly support Full disclosure is essential Cjsunbird (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
335. Seems a very sensible proposal and I hope the Foundation Trustees adopt this. AndrewRT (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
336. Support --Wikimpan (talk) 22:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
337. support but with moderation If someone is paying someone for editing, it is like rewarding someone for community service. As long as wikipedia itself is not paying anyone, its fine. Paying editors is like contributing directly to editors rather than to wikimedia, who of course also needs funds for its projects.
338. support76.73.249.253 00:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC) Full disclosure will make it complicated. I think if its just a simple tag of paid edit or voluntary on, its enough. Its actually an interesting choice to enhance wikipedia. However, we need some watchdogs to check that no bias or misinformation is specifically paid for, that is to not allow use of wikipedia as just another media platform. Stricter review and references checks will make it easier to counter biases. Writing name of employer and other details will itself make it look like an advertisement of that employer. A company may come and say, "Hey, I got a million wikipedia edits paid by me. See, I am such a great company that value free knowledge!" and here wikipedia becomes an advertisement platform and you won't even know that! The assumption that paid editors are more likely to write bad or biased articles supremely undermines the power of voluntary community who will counter any such attempts against the free spirit of wikipedia. And even if someone is really getting paid and not disclosing it, how are you going to find out. It's anyways very difficult to enforce. we have to trust people and see it in a positive light. Paying a contributor is different from paying you for maintaining server etc. for running wikipedia. You may even yourself come up with a program to reward (not necessarily monetary rewards) good editors. Moreover, legal terms are complicated and you should rather consult experts, we can just give opinios but how much we know about those legalities! Pradeep115 (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
339. Support. I think this is a good change. One page I have edited (on Wikipedia) on numerous occasions had a critical section deleted from an IP address associated with the organization on several occasions. It seems pausible that the person involved was from the 'communications' department of the organization. I'd like to think this policy will discourage that sort of behaviour. Nierensteinlaus (talk) 23:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
340. support. I think this change is for the better as it discourages certain undesirable behaviors with minimal negative effects137.104.187.16 00:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
341. Support - and needs to be clear on each edit. Unfortunately the WWW and Wikipedia are ever increasingly being used in manipulative ways. (I sometimes wish there were a similar "declaration of interest" requirement for members of political parties or religious organisations, when editing articles about their own party, candidate or church, etc.). CFynn (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
342. Support: Dedwarmo (talk) 00:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
343. Support Invertzoo (talk) 00:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
344. "Support"[(User:tiahende)]76.115.143.101 01:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
345. "Support" Has anyone mentioned WHY Wikipedia articles are so sought after? Because they come up first in search engines! They are also seen as less biased versions of the company than can be found on the company's website. Perhaps there could be some way of marking paid contributions that could lead to a lower ranking by search engines? Dlwv (talk) 01:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
346. Strongly Support I firmly believe that anyone paid to contribute should be totally transparent. Wikipedia has always been unbiased and a clear model of information that is working without corruption.. so far. The problem lies where a Corporation(s) or Government(s) starts paying people to update and modify a certain article that they find is 'not in their interest'... that's not what Wikipedia is about. Transparency is a must. In this modern age where the governments around the world and corps are trying to get every edge they can, you know damn well they are here and modifying information that they don't like. Like I'm sure my own Government is doing with the article 'Canada Environmental Protection Act' Please amend. Thank you. 108.168.0.45 02:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
347. Support: ADNewsom (talk) 03:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
348. Strongly Support: MeikaIsNotTooSimilarToMełka (talk) 04:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC) On wikipedia I am meika
349. Strongly Support: Twomcvms (talk) 04:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
350. Support. Hakalau Tom (talk) 04:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
351. Support I support despite reservations that this may overwhelm the admin staff of Wikipedia. This may need to be expanded in the future but a small step is still usually a good step. -Taospark (talk) 05:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
352. Strongly support B-a-b (talk) 05:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
353. Support66.97.205.228 05:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
354. I absolutely support policy changes that attempt to protect the integrity of the process and its results from biased contributions. I am truly surprised by some comments from users who seem to have gotten "the wrong end of the stick" and are railing against the idea because they seem to assume WMF is planning on paying people to contribute. It is also impossible to prevent biased individuals from introducing potentially false or misleading information, so any assertion that all contributors with a financial interest in the content must be banned is quite, IMHO, unrealistic. At the least, by implementing a policy change, those who abuse the process for their own gain are potentially subject to penalties more significant than a slap on the wrist and deleted post. By incorporating this policy in the Terms of Use, the offender cannot say, "oh, I didn't know I had to tell you I was being paid to post this information by another party." This is the same principle that requires political lobbyists to register as lobbyists--so we can take what they say with a very large grain of salt.RevLauren (talk) 03:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
355. Strongly Support: Souvikmaitra (talk) 06:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
356. SupportI am tired of seeing pages being "controlled" by their organizations. --PowerY (talk) 06:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
357. Overwhelming Support I support stopping "bad people" from doing "bad things". But I also believe that the amendment needs to specify the actions that will be taken against individuals violating the TOU and how they will be found. The wording needs to become simpler so that everyone can understand without needing to ask questions on the Talk Page. Thank you Wikipedia. Peoplez1k (talk) 06:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
358. Support. 161.209.206.203 06:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC) ('CheMechanical' on Wikipedia, no WikiMedia account yet)
359. Strongly support. Can one really represent or stand for anything without the attribution central to the creative commons mission? While we may justly harbor any afraid to show their faces, we need not extend the same courtesy to those apparently ashamed (or worse) and willing to abuse our trust. This is a collective effort. So: have a policy. State it. Good. I'll suggest that statement of content policy [intellectual/philosophical/justifying/permanent] can and maybe should remain separate from one defining enforcement policies [practical/actual/resulting/transitory]; the latter require diligence, attention, and resources; and that's not why I donate today. Oh, and BTW I agree entirely with Supporter #3! [Unashamed] Paid contributors do add value! But I also want any advertisement to declare itself. Sr Yesterday (talk) 07:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
360. Very, very strongly support. Paid contributors may have valuable things to add, but it feels incredibly dishonest not to disclose when one is being paid for what they're doing. NotGaryStu (talk) 07:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
361. Support --JimRenge (talk) 08:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
362. Support. I am in general supportive, though I ask for clarification (as mentioned in a comment in the "unsorted" section): what do we do about folks academics or researchers who are paid in a general/generic way, rather than a specific way, to contribute to thought on a topic? In other words, I'm comfortable with the policy of attribution, but I wonder how edge cases of general payment rather than specific payment will be handled. Joebyday (talk) 09:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
363. Support. I strongly support the Wikipedians when editing in all Wikimedia projects paid for their efforts so far in developing all Wikimedia projects. And I hope it is retroactive and all the Wikipedian edits in the past are still active and can not be paid so that they can be rewarded for their actions. Aldo samulo (talk) 10:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
364. Support. I support Wikipedia and if the Wikipedia folks need this, then they have my vote. As long as Joe users like me can mold the paid contribution into something resembling the truth, I'm fine with with the continuance of paid contribution. Highlighting what is and isn't paid will simply help me identify those areas which deserve extra scrutiny. Sancarlos1 (talk) 10:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
365. Support. Mihirpmehta (talk) 11:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
366. Strongly Support. Strikes a good balance between "an encyclopedia that anyone can edit" and basic good governance requiring disclosure of COI. Well drafted. Will provide solid basis in policy to go after sponsored sock networks in the future. Disclosure in edit summary, allows easy auditing of articles. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 12:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
367. Support. Got to say it took me ten minutes just to figure out how the change was worded to know if No meant Yes or if Yes meant Yes. I rarely edit and can only rarely make donations, but if the site goes whore-in-secret I'm likely to stop using it or supporting it. Rodger Asai2602:30B:82E1:2A39:3DD2:A9B9:1AE0:6D02 12:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
368. Strongly Support. I think paid contributions are a severe problem, I would like to limit their impact even stronger, but cannot think of a just method for it. --Weidenrinde (talk) 12:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
369. Support without a doubt Gwaka Lumpa (talk) 13:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
370. Support very strongly, but with a major concern: How can it be determined whether a contribution was paid for? And if it is possible to determine this, I would support, vastly more than disclosure, the outright banning of paid contributions.
371. Support without modification. It appears the purpose of this is to give the Foundation a new tool, not admin, although this might not be obvious to the casual observer. Adding more to it only muddies the waters. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
372. Support. After all, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an ad platform or a platform for advocating views.TorKr (talk) 14:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
373. Support.Cjohn1949 (talk) 14:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
374. Support even though ensuring that every paid contributor will disclose the fact that they are, in fact, paid contributors will be hard. My suggestion is to add a list on the edit page itself where a contributor can choose between "I am a paid contributor and I am affiliated with [fill in the box]" and "I am not a paid contributor" or something similar. And then maybe mark edits by paid contributors so that they stand out in the page history. Adding a note on the user page is not really reliable since a contributor might work for a company at some point and then what happens when said contributor is fired or something? Does he leave the note up? Does he remove it? Does he need to specify from what period to what period he was affiliated with whom? Black3agl353 (talk) 15:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
375. I support the proposal. It is proportionate and easy to comply with. Gareth.randall (talk) 15:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
376. Support. Flagging the edits as commercialized does not invalidate them, and allows the reader to draw their own (hopefully educated) judgments about the validity and appropriateness of the edit given the context of its commercial nature. Not allowing commercialized edits is not only impossible to enforce, but also implies that it is impossible to say anything meaningful while being paid for it, and not flagging them deprives the reader of context which allows them to interpret the edit properly. Popecrunch (talk) 15:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
377. Support. As a user who doesn't have enough time to do more than read the amendment and the titles of the discussion sections here, I'm not familiar enough to give a thorough critique, but it seems to me in general that this is a good move, not too strong, and can become stronger in the future if need be. KoriganStone (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
378. Support. Any "paid" articles have some commercial background and this is not good for an independent lexica Flip67 (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
379. Support.113.199.137.214 16:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
380. Support. If an editor is being paid by someone, they are beholden to that payer, which is being reflected at some level in the edit, and we should be able to determine who is the real source of the edit, and not allow them to hide behind some anonymizing intermediary.Gsskyles (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
381. Support. Developing a class system of some editors who get paid versus those who edit for love reminds of the civilizational problems existing in our greater world. How much inequality can we take before it all falls apart? Gzuufy (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
382. Support. I worry that it will be unenforceable, and that it may be too late anyway as many of the most prolific editors are already folks who are paid to put spins on things and bias is already a significant problem. Regardless, something has to be done if Wikipedia is going to maintain any respect. Feneric 17:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
383. Support. An important step. BCorr|Брайен 17:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
384. Frothing at the mouth weak support. I am not paid could be a prevarication. What a legal romp this could turn into. - 173.16.85.205 17:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
385. Support. An encyclopedia of information can only be relied upon to be truthful if it is impartial.
386. Strongly Support. This is a enormously important point, at the heart of the issue of credibility. --Gedrean (talk) 19:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
387. Strongly Support. Also what percentage of the opposes do you think are real people as opposed to paid shills? If we don't fix this soon it's going to become a situation that's beyond the ability of the project to fix since once the shills reach a critical mass they can control every attempt to solicit the community opinion. This really might be our last shot at maintaining anything even remotely resembling the goals of the project. I'm also strongly in favor of the shaming plan, whereby the worst corporate offenders are publicly called out. Maybe maintain some kind of Hall of Shame.
388. Strongly support. I like the idea of having an icon that paid editors can use to alert other editors of their status. Eastmbr (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
389. Support. I think this is an excellent measure that allows individual editors to handle biased content. Instead of excluding paid contributors, which would just force them underground, it allows people to make their own decisions, and provides more information to the public, which is the goal of Wikipedia. 208.15.90.2 20:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
390. Support I agree with vote 17, I can't see any real negative outcome from this amendment and it makes sense (to me) to implement it. Dbrain64 (User talk:Dbrain64) 20:23:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
391. SUPPORT I once met a savant (the guy is a walking encyclopedia, much like Longinus in the Court of Zenobia of Palmyra) and I asked him about a particular period in English 'Tudor' history, to do with Cromwell and Boleyn. The savant (whom, can *accuratly* list the name of every Monarch, Pope and Emperor throughout the course of European history!) told me of the history of Cromwell. The wikipedia article I checked was *spot ON*, bang on the money. When this savant learned his art as a historian, he did so from primary sources, at a French University, with no such thing as the internet. I have been a firm convert to wikipedia as a valid source of information ever since.
     I have however, always been apprehensive of editing wikipedia, up until now. The monetary incentive is a marvellous idea; and, furthermore, as a scholar and historian, I shall be making contributions, corrections, with citations, in future. It is a wonderful idea recompensing people for their work. As a poor artist and would-be historian, I embrace this initiative, whole heartedly. Thank you kindly wikipedia,
     Yours Sincerely,
     "Anglyn" Mr. Maxwell Lewis Latham Cert.H.E. (Humanities) with Classical History specialism. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anglyn (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
392. Support. Boud (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
393. Strongly support: I also like the idea of an icon for paid contributors. Truth and facts are what this is all about anyway. If paid editors are factual and unbiased, they have nothing to worry about and will hold up to any potential additional scrutiny, which they deserve since they have a potential motive for bias. If they engage in funny business, then not so much. ArishiaNishi (talk) 22:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
394. Support Raindrift (talk) 22:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
395. Support. The only thing worse than a paid troll is a paid troll editing my wiki. If you can make it stick I fully support this.~~LeeAnn
396. Support. A contributor who is paid may be tailoring the contribution to suit their client and not their personal beliefs. I consider this to be a bad thing. 80.229.245.202 23:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
397. Strongly support - The original intent of Wikipedia is extraordinarily important to both current and future users. There is no current viable alternative (i.e. individual viewpoints, not a commercially-driven platform, widespread usage), and there is no historical precedent: Wikipedia is a unique achievement in human social development. Part of the value of Wikipedia is the democratizing nature of individual voices: people think and express themselves differently when writing on behalf of only their own conscience. From a big-picture, historical perspective, it seems blatantly obvious to me: preserve the individual voice. From a pragmatic perspective, I have committed to double my annual donation. It's a big deal. ProtonWest (talk) 23:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)ProtonWest
398. Support. Axl (talk) 00:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
399. Support, while noting that a reference to "organization" is to be preferred over "company." I would also encourage specific Wikis to make methods available for editors to further characterize the nature of any potential COI, such as
     • Employee specifically paid to edit wiki (e.g., PR person)
     • Employee making edits incidentally to job
     • Former employee (could go either way on COI!)
     • Family member
     • Volunteer or unpaid intern
     • I also believe (based on my professional experience) that a large number of companies attempt to follow the rules, and although some will try to fraudulently mis/non-represent their affiliations, there will be quite a bit of voluntary compliance. Matchups (talk) 00:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
400. Strongly support It is important that paid editors disclose that they are being paid. Readers are free to make of that information what they will.~~BrekhusR
401. "Support", While noting my belief that Wikipedia has the moral obligation, in respect to knowledge and information, to provide public access to these user's edits.
402. Support, It must be noted that this rule already exists, but it has a hard time being enforced, (this is being paraphrased) this page/section is written in a biased view, please improve this article. (Sorry, I can't figure out how to fix the numbers)--DrDominodog51 (talk) 01:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
403. Support, I am a public relations professional that writes articles for consideration to be included in Wikipedia. I think undisclosed paid advocacy editing is highly detrimental to the encyclopedia and I applaud efforts to ban it. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 02:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
404. Strongly Support
405. Support Others have made the case better than I can. BTW, I think vote #374 above broke the formatting, but I don't know how to fix it. Henrymrx (talk) 03:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
406. Support. Like the idea (above) that the "paid contributor" note should be on the modified/created page rather than her page, or whichever is more "permanent."
407. Support with trepidation. Transparency on who writes history seems like a great direction for overall society to go in. This seems akin to a band with a hit song giving credit to the creative mind behind the song; the writer or producer.
     • However, I'm not sure if this will lead to Wikipedia becoming a better resource. I've worked for several people with their own Wikipedia articles, and it's painfully obvious that they put in the links, quotes, etc. themselves. (One 'famous person' example of this trait is Nardwuar the Canadian). If it explicitly stated that they edited their own pages, that would be extremely embarassing. They would rather lie, or become less reliant upon Wikipedia,.
     • Now, we are talking about transparency of financial motivation here, not pride.. but are they really different?
     • A tech company that wants to frame its products in a good light on Wikipedia may find it more prideful to lie about how the info is put up, than to follow this rule. The result in this case would be more lying and less transparency, precisely the behavior this rule is supposed to prevent.
     • Another company that doesn't want this brand up may disengage itself from the site entirely, and the overall quality of its Wikipedia article would be negatively influenced.
     • So, I'd either say that this disclosure could maybe be made optional or something, or the quality of Wikipedia as a wholesome resource may suffer. But overall I think it's a good direction for the Web to go in. 71.87.115.93 03:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
408. Support. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
409. Support. Guusbosman (talk) 03:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
410. Support, although I think it would not be easy (or possible) to enforce, nor it will really fix the problem (see below). However, it will provide guide for what is expected, and allow those who are not trying to hide the fact to show their affiliations and expect same of others in good standing. Those who are trying to hide the fact should lose their reputation, but such thing does not seem possible wihout either a very small community, technology-enforced PGP-alike web-of-trust, or tehnology-enforced stackoverflow-alike voting system. Note that technological solutions can be circumvented, and if there is money to be made - they probably will be. --Mnalis (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
411. Support. Sockpuppetry is sockpuppetry, and mercenary sockpuppetry is worse. Scutigera (talk) 04:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
412. Strongly Support Without some recourse against whitewashers, we risk Wikipedia losing what critical approval we've earned through our hard effort. Although it would be nice to have editors who could afford to devote their full working day to actually improving Wikipedia, we have to have some way of reigning them in. The hidden ones (talk) 04:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
413. Support. --Cavarrone (talk) 04:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
414. Support. Although, I wonder how many actually read the TOU to know that they should comply. 70.67.96.84 04:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
415. Support! As an Indigo Shaman, integrity and transparency are very important to me. By all means lets support it!
416. Support! 85.255.109.164 05:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
417. Support. Julian BH (talk) 05:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
418. Strongly Support. I would like wikipedia to remain a reliable, unbiased source of information, so it is imperative that any biases arising from employment, personal gain etc be made clear, so the reader can sensibly assess where biases may exist.
419. Strongly support Scrabbledemon (talk) 07:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
420. 'Strong Support' should go further, personally I would give an immediate 12 month editing ban to anyone caught gaming the system, this goes against everything wikipedia stands for. GimliDotNet (talk) 08:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
421. Support. Dnwilson (talk) 08:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
422. Support on the grounds that transparency is better than lack of transparency. Sheherazahde (talk) 09:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
423. Support As someone who has a COI statement on my page I'm happy to support this measure. Wikipedia should always be open and honest in it's approach to essentially sharing information with the world - i think this measure simply bolsters that concept. --Jazqer (talk) 09:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
424. Support, with reservations.
425. Strong Support Transparency is key to the goals of the foundation. Philg88 (talk) 10:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
426. Support. This is a step in the right direction. Good-faith paid contributors must be encouraged. We should take additional steps to ensure NPoV, including perhaps requiring additional disclosure or reviews for such edits. --Dionyziz (talk) 11:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
427. Support
428. Support I note that there is at least one legitimate model for paid contributions, namely when some well-off person supports an expert in preparing a contribution that the author is competent to prepare but unable to afford the time. I suppose this makes the contribution a work made for hire and perhaps should be contributed by the sponsor rather than the expert, but I have not thought through the policy issues sufficiently deeply. There is another context in which a contributor should disclose their interest in a contribution. That is when they are participants in some sort of contentious community and are making a contribution whose point-of-view may not be dispassionate. For instance, I rewrote an entry about the apartment complex in which I reside that had been originally created by a local real estate agent and whose POV was entirely biased by the agent's desire to portray himself as the only broker dealing in apartments in the complex. The broker should have disclosed his authorship (it was anonymous and I can't prove it was him, but the only references were to his web site). Nygeek (talk) 13:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC) [User:nygeek].
429. Support
430. Support. --Gregor Kneussel (talk) 13:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
431. Support, even if the system will probably rely heavily in user's honesty about compensation, the simple fact that this possibility exists raises awareness among readers and ultimately contributes to critical evaluation of pages' contents.
432. Support.--Héctor Guido Calvo (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
433. Support! --93.130.142.180 15:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
434. Strongly Support! Wikipedia's value is as an encyclopedic information source, not an advertisement repository.
435. Support. Wiki readers need to know who is being paid so they can better evaluated their comments.
436. Support. I prefer declared paid contributions over forbidden but nonetheless paid edits, as you will hardly ever be able to prove that anybody has been paid.-- Gürbetaler (talk) 20:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
437. Support + Ideas. The key to fixing responsibility for the truth of contents is the truth of personal integrity and the only way to reach this goal is to publish by real-name as I do. (move body to Ossip Groth section - was too long and clogging up the numbering) [User:Ossip Groth|Ossip Groth]] (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
438. Support. It seems like transparency is what we are looking for here. Ximthebest (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
439. Support. Thank you.
440. Support. Mithrandr12345 (talk) 22:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
441. Support. This would seriously help editors who prowl the newly created wiki pages easily identify the spam and unwanted "advertising" type of content and promptly get rid of it. Biglulu (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
442. Support. This humble and poor reader supports any and all disclosures of compensation. 173.31.0.124 22:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
443. Support.Requiring disclosure & transparency is a fair & simple way to address the issues brought about paid editing. Only time will how effective it will be (it is based on an "honor system" after all) but it is certainly worthy of a try, and I see no obvious downside.--JayJasper (talk) 22:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
444. Support. While an outright ban would create unnecessary infringement on the public's right to choose their means of exchanging information via the Internet, this proposal respects the rights of all users to know where said information is coming from. Money is speech, remember? We can split hairs over the reliability of Wikipedia but we cannot ignore the wide scope of reference it provides, which is accessed by members of many different demographics. Individuals with lower educations are likely also more inclined to rely on the information Wikipedia provides, which thus creates a societal obligation to preserve the quality of information over time. Any refusal to operate in transparency will make it clear that large sums of money are being spent to reflect the opinions and biases of a powerful entity.
445. Support. Good to force disclosure of paid affiliations.
446. Support. Mostly, I support idea of the board of Wikipedia being asked to consider this. I hope that the Wikimedia Foundation has, and will continue to have helpful & good management, directors and legal department. Realistically, I'm unlikely to be able to delve into this question until many months from now. Detailaware (talk) 00:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
447. Support. I'm unconvinced as of yet as to the merits of completely banning paid edits, so I support this as a compromise.--Radix838 (talk) 00:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
448. Strongly Support./ I support this measure because of how prevalent calls for commercial Wikipedia editors are on freelance jobs sites. Most employers who want wiki writers pay below minimum wage and they get the poor quality we don't deserve.
449. Strongly Support. Crush all attempts of capital to destroy the integrity of Wikipedia. Now and in the years to come, only the free flow of information will protect us from the controlling attempts of states and corporations. The accumulation of vast amounts of wealth is inherently corrupt, the product of collusion between capitalists and those upon whom they confer political legitimacy. Their money can purchase away the integrity of Wikipedia, as it has purchased away the integrity of countless institutions of education, journalism and media. To fail in checking the power of money is to finally, ultimately fail. Campaign to eliminate paid shills from Wikipedia.
450. Support. Paid contributions should always be disclosed. Whiteguru (talk) 02:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
451. Support. I think that this is the best course of action for fairness.
452. Support.
453. Strongly Support.195.57.167.218 18:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
454. Strongly support.
455. Support ONUnicorn (talk) 03:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
456. Support. However, what if a person is prohibited from disclosing that they were paid due to any applicable law (e.g. attorney/solicitor-client privilege, breach of confidence etc.)? The contribution may nevertheless be neutral and useful. Walfin (talk) 03:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
457. Support. I agree with the general concern that paid contributions, in any form, damage the credibility of the site.
458. Support. Thesagemarmot (talk) 04:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
459. Support. 71.83.233.127 04:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
460. Support.
461. Strongly support. I've seen innumerable articles 'plugging' all manner of 'causes' and 'self-interest' including, for example, a religious cult's lengthy page with numerous references. ALL such references came from the cult's own publications and, once redacted by a Wiki editor, only around 300 words remained. The editor initially expressed the opinion that the page would probably be taken down but, after consultation, the result described was achieved. I believe this was far too meek a response and the editor's implied, preferred course of action was the right decision. (Especially given the cult's pernicious messages, although I realise that this is subjective.) I'm also aware that the example is unlikely have to been paid-for in most of the conventional definitions already covered. Being sui generis it would little surprise if payment were deferred! There's little to prevent insidious organisations, large or small, from reappearing in different guises but that's no argument against expelling them, and expelling them again, once their 'covers are blown'. Brian Benedetti (talk) 08:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
462. Support. Disclosure of obvious potential bias seems a very tame response to the problem. Rwessel (talk) 06:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
463. STRONGLY Support. We come to Wikipedia for verifiable information - not for "paid political announcements", so to speak. Requiring disclosure of payment for information provided to Wikipedia is an insurance against psuedo-academic chicanery. William Woodburn (talk) 12:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
464. Strongly support. Paid-for contributions are an excellent contribution to Wikipedia (and others) as soon as they are visible as such. 37.162.189.106 12:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)FrédéricLN
465. Strongly support. By knowing whether or not the contribution that was given was paid for we can determine whether or not the pretext for such information has biased attached to it. It can also lend credibility to certain forms of information particularly if the contribution paid for is legitimate scientific or medical research.
466. Strongly support 199.67.203.141 16:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
467. Strongly support. It's a matter of neutrality and impartiality. Thomaskpi (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
468. Support. Should be required to post exact amount of payment for content as addendum to the content itself.
469. Support. Transparency is best for this issue.--Pharos (talk) 17:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
470. Strongly support. Lparsp (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
471. Support.70.52.181.196 19:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
472. Support. I strongly support not allowing any form of paid contributions to the WP project. Good Luck! But I fundamentally oppose overly complex and poorly understood rule-sets which have been the bane of writers, especially where content covers or overlaps commercial interests. Please do not allow this to become the tool of dogmatic witch-hunters who confuse legitimate information about companies and organizations as some kind of capitalist heresy. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
473. Support. Sounds a good idea.
474. Support. Seems correct to prevent 'advertorials' etc ninjabeard
475. Strongly support How will it be policed? Moruya.
476. Support In my personal and professional experience, I've seen 'paid contributions' both used responsibly, and abused. However, I think disclosure of affiliation, and adherence to the 5 Pillars is enough to address this problem. FuturePrefect (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
477. Strongly support On first review, my only suggested change is to have affiliation notices at all three locations. Each of the these locations serves a different purpose and client.#Atoizzard (talk) 23:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
478. Strongly support While I believe it will be hard to enforce, I strongly support the policy amendment as definitely a step in the right direction. --Jeff Hill
479. Support I see this amendment as a step into the right direction. PR edits are reality and need to be reflected. Because enforcement will likely be problematic at first, I'd start now easy with the amendment as it is suggested. For a future, I agree with user YakButter that the provision can be made stronger by simply requiring all three ways of letting know about a paid edit - at the talk page, AND at that user's page AND in the edit summary. W.0q (talk) 00:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
480. support the change Dan Maddox --184.185.162.133 21:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
481. Support I think this is a step in the right direction. Bradybd (talk) 00:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
482. Strongly Support: I might add a clause to ensure that compensation for editing, "directly or indirectly", is prohibited.
483. I support any amendment that makes Wikipedia entries more transparent. Its primary value is as a source of general factual "truth" for a better informed world community. Anyone wishing to explore the nuances of knowledge on a particular topic should get an education by other means. 118.210.142.146 21:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
484. Strongly Support. --Mike E
485. Strongly support. -- Matt Z.
486. Strongly support. Mondebleu (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC) MondeBleu Transparency and ethics, by all means.
487. Strongly support. Some kind of disclosure of paid editing is necessary. It seems like editing Wikipedia is becoming part of the standard "to do" lists of industry public relations people, which affects the credibility of this entire effort. I recently ran into this on the page regarding "aspartame," where one editor -- presumably someone from the industry -- diligently edits off or reverses all of the edits from people trying to add a discussion of the damaging health effects of that product. They seem to do on a regular basis, every day, like it's part of their job. -- Zack 2
488. Strongly support. -- Lindsay As a business we have noticed editors using Wikipedia for fluffy business profiles. These businesses hire editors to work around wikepedia rules. Having raised this issue with Wikepedia management in the past it seems reasonable if someone is going to write a promo for a business profile they should openly declare if they are receiving compensation and whether they are affiliated with the business. If self promotional business profiles are prohibited then it can easily be spotted and removed.
489. I think that this is a sensible amendment that provides better guidance for the community to hash out the particulars. David Fuchs (talk) 04:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
490. Support
491. i think its obvious this is why schools say not to use wikipedia as a source 2601:6:7500:49E:8DAA:3968:F1AA:6B85 04:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
492. Support
493. Transparency allows the intelligent users of WIKIPEDIA to come to their own conclusions about the accuracy and completeness of information posted. As a corollary to the fundamental WIKIPEDIA fairness model, this amendment must be passed.

     However, I have a concern about naive or young or less sophisticated users of WIKIPEDIA who may be less experienced in discerning when a complete picture is not being painted. It is far easier to bias an article by omitting facts than it is by telling untruths. Incorrect information will generally be challenged but most of the time, the omission of information goes unchallenged. This a problem regardless of whether or not editing is a paid or unpaid activity. I suggest that maybe two "heat charts" at the beginning of articles be introduced. The first would be a summary of the neutrality of the article as perceived by users. (Tick or cross at the end of the article or some such mechanism.) The second would be similar but show the degree of paid editing. An algorithm relating amount of editing, number of paid edits vs non-paid edits etc could be reflected in the heat chart. (or whatever mechanism is used to display the relativities.)

     I am a reasonably seasoned research scientist and over the years have developed my "bulldust detection" skills in my own disciplines however, in disciplines I have no affiliation with, I am a very naive user. It would be of great benefit to me, (and I suspect other naive users,) to have access to the equivalent of peer review of the articles based upon the two criteria outlined: COMPLETENESS and CORPORATE input.

     As an aside, your banner drew my attention to the issue and was a timely and appropriate usage of your "biggest gun".

     Thanks for the magnificent resource and congratulations on the current quality of WIKIPEDIA.

     John Millman

494. Support Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
495. Support --Hispalois (talk) 06:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
496. Support Even though it will not prevent violations from occurring, having the disclosure requirement in the TOU will provide important tool for enforcing disclosures in those cases where controversy does arise. I hope this amendment will be passed. 07:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
497. Support This is common practice in scientific publications and is a good idea for Wikipedia. People saying you can either declare COI or have unprejudiced fact checking are presenting a false dicotomy. Richard.decal (talk) 07:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
498. Support This is a good balance, it supports transparency whilst not excluding paid editing in any way, professional contributions are a good thing, and a good-faith accurate and informative contribution from someone paid to do it is not something that should be hidden or disguised. --217.36.92.70 10:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
499. Support for the reasons offered above IanS1967 (talk) 10:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
500. Support for essentially the same reason we require citations. Yes, everyone has bias, but I think we all benefit from being able to research whether the author is a propagandist by profession. Patrickwooldridge (talk) 11:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
501. Strongly Support Medical journals require this, for obvious reasons. Wikipedia must try to stop the paid lobbying/slant/corporate troll wars on the truth. They have been buying off the mainstream media and web journals with ads and threats of pulling ads; they have been buying off researchers in medical, dental and scientific journals but at least they have to disclose that now in the academic press. Please stop them from buying off Wikipedia's compendium of knowledge and reinforcing outdated orthodoxy that represents their interests, not the truth. User:HealthyAgain. Hope this posts, I am new at this, can't find vertical mark.
502. Strongly Support. This is a good and proportionate response to a very present danger C.jeynes (talk) 13:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
503. Strongly Support. Wiki is all about using your own critical thinking skills to assess the wealth of content. This information is absolutely necessary to do that.
504. Support. However, the amendment does not fully address the issue of those seeking to edit Wikipedia content in pursuit of a personal "hidden agenda" whether compensated for the edits or not. The Wiki concept appears to heavily depend upon an implicit "honor system" whereunder individuals are assumed to provide and edit content with pure motivations of providing factual, unprejudiced, and reliable information. This honor system and the Wikipedia content upon which it depends are easily and readily compromised by unpaid and paid contributors. Because of this, Wikipedia is a great starting place for research; however, it should not be the only place used of research.
505. "Support" I support this change FDLeyda (talk) 16:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC) FDLeyda
506. Strongly Support. I think it is vital to place this issue out: front & center. Many of the recent comments are cogent and I share in them. And although Wikipedia cannot stop the paid "lobbying/slant/corporate troll wars on the truth," that shouldn't keep us from voicing our dissent. There should not be undisclosed paid editing practices on Wikpedia. When this has occurred, then users, editors, and contributors need to know this. We can not (and will not) bury our heads in the sand and pretend it doesn't happen (even if, at the same time, we are skeptical that any "regulations" can really and truly stop this from happening). The fact is that there is a war on the "truth," and there will continue to be a war. And yes, it will continue here on Wikpedia just as there continues to be the insidious (and ubiquitous) practice of Public Relations and business-sponsored "think-tanks" and "Foundation" lackeys "buying off the mainstream media and web journals with ads and threats of pulling ads." And of course there's no way, within the current "system," to completely stop or eliminate this practice of undisclosed "paid contributions." In fact, I don't believe this can stop unless there's some kind of collapse or systemic break with the current world-system which is a Capitalist world-system (see the "Immanuel Wallerstein" page on Wikipedia for more information). So for now let's do what we can do to limit what the "lobbying/corporate" shills can do with the truth. After all, there is a "human right" to information (in fact, September 28 is the International Day devoted to that right; and that is an 'observance' that we recognize as happening everyday on Wikipedia). But I digress. I vote here to "strongly support" this amendment because we must do whatever we can to make it difficult for the "shills" (and that's what you are when you're paid to either "edit" the truth or otherwise traffic in ideology & propaganda on behalf of 'special interests' and undisclosed agendas. Even if your motives are well meaning or done in 'good faith.' That's not up to you. It's up to us. That's up to the Wikipedia community to decide). Finally, we traffic in the real world, we partake of the truth. We also must, as a "commons" and a community on Wikipedia, pay attention to how the truth is being manipulated and make every effort to prevent the lackeys and shills from "buying off Wikipedia's compendium of knowledge and reinforcing [an] outdated orthodoxy that represents their interests, not the truth." Christian Roess (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
507. Strongly support the amendment. Wikipedia and associated properties are the single biggest resource globally for many many people on an daily basis. The transparency and collaborative community are part of the very *foundation* of this resource. Please keep the transparency.
508. i strongly support any an all measures that allow the reader to evaluate both the wiki-offerings themselves as well as their source.— The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrbklyn1943 (talk)
509. Support. Glad to see this effort by the WMF to reduce astroturfing and the like. --24.4.140.255 17:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
510. Support 24.64.229.181 18:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
511. Support. Additionally, I believe that a template should be required for this purpose. --174.54.143.50 18:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
512. Support with reservations. Proposed language is probably unenforceable except perhaps against fools. I sympathize with view that we should police content, not contributors, but COI rules already police contributors. This is essentially an extension of the COI policy, and will probably only keep honest people honest, but it may offer some protection to legit editors who delete biased articles or edit them to remove bias. Jdcrutch (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
513. "Strongly Support" Transparency works for me. This gives us the tools to judge an article. I don't think that it's possible for everyone to argee on what is true... but this will give a red flag to people who are hiding attempts to manufacture the self-interested truths.
514. Support: Wikipedia is the place where I come seeking knowledge and information. The sole nature of information is that it is factual. Undisclosed paid edits are harmful in this regard as lesser transparency in the editing system means that it can be a potential tool to weed out deliberate misinformation with material gains in mind. Just a simple act of disclosing if you are compensated for your edits will allow people to better exercise their power of judgement on the topic and decide on the validity of the data presented. However, the system will only work if editors believe in goodwill. But as is in the nature of wikipedia, one and all should be able to add or correct information present in the site. Disclosing your intentions behind doing so makes it easier for us to interpret the data and the information conveyed. ~~~~
515. Support: The requirement makes sense and should be passed. That said, disclosure makes only a modest contribution toward objectivity. As always, NPOV itself is still the key attribute that has to be monitored by the community. Not every paid contribution will violate NPOV, and some unpaid contributions will violate NPOV just as in the past. ~~~~
516. Support. Undisclosed conflicts of interest (which are not always monetary) are always a problem. This particular class of conflicts is fairly easy to identify (either you received/expect to receive money and they expect you to edit in return, or not). I have supported stronger rules (e.g. the unsuccessful Wikipedia:Conflict of interest limit proposal on English Wikipedia) recently. However, importantly, this does not take away the ability for individual wikis to make such rules. It explicitly says, projects can "require stricter requirements for paid contributions". This unambiguously applies across the board, including legitimate paid editing (e.g. Wikipedians in Residence). However, it does not burden such programs, which are generally viewed as positive (Residents generally have notes on their user page already). I'm speaking only for myself, in my personal capacity. Superm401 | Talk 20:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
517. Support. I'm also on-board for transparency, especially where the integrity of the information is as important as it is on Wikipedia.Joewwilliams (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
518. Strongly Support Inetdog (talk) 20:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
519. Support Happy now I read the examples Scott A Herbert (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
520. Support -- paid edits can be useful and desirable due to information unavailable elsewhere, but unless such edits are disclosed they cannot be determined to be NPOV. If entered with stealth they must be assumed violations of NPOV.
521. Strongly Support. Undisclosed paid contributions defeat the entire point of Wikipedia: unbiased information. Athomas24 (talk) 02:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
522. Strongly support. I think transparency is good for everything.Jjroper (talk) 10:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
523. Strongly support. if someone who is paid has an entry that in any way supports whoever is paying him, even if it is an "honest" attempt to enter value, it's still a conflict of interest situation, and he should recuse himself. (But I'm really curious how you could tell!) RaverDad - Sam Galetar, sgaletar@neo.rr.com. BTW, I'm a total newbie at this (commenting), so I'm hoping I did it right and didn't break any protocols.
524. I support the proposed amendment. I'd like to think anything I read on Wikipedia is fair and unbiased. (Heather M. Lane)
525. Strong support.
526. Support. I've observed a whole spectrum of bad behavior on Wikipedia, and in particular, horrible behavior coming from the admins. Any measure to limit any of these abuses has my support. # Support
527. Strongly Support This is a crucial step in pursuing an objective Wikipedia. Matt I.
528. Very Strongly Support Need to keep Wikipedia transparent and free from vested and opaque commercial interests. Venkat.
529. Strongly Support the proposed changes to "Terms of use/Paid contributions amendment" because Wikipedia needs to be honest, clear, and available to all. Vested interests may pollute the content, therefore it must be mandatory for all to disclose their professional affiliation before editing pages on Wikipedia. Satish K Dubey
530. Support - this project in many ways (apart from apart from anonymity and openness to all) is similar to more traditional encyclopedias, reviews, summaries and so on. The similarity being the trust that all edits are done on an impartial basis and with the aid of independent sources. It would be näive to claim that is is always the case - but it is the basis of our (and readers) trust. Therefore a full disclosure of paid (in whatever form) editing is a must that was overlooked for a far too long time. An academic paper that has a shadow of being paid for by interested industry looses automatically any moral (and often formal) right to be called 'academic'. Same implies to literary reviews, art critique and even plain journalism. There should also be a consideration given to possibly penalties (however rare - hopefully - that might be) for editors who failed to make such a disclosure and were found later to engage in such an act. yours,
531. Strong Support - Content that is provided by paid agents seeking to promote a person or product or point of view should be identified in a clear manner, such as a different color, than the rest of the content. Also, such people should not be allowed to edit the content of others in the same article.
532. Strongly support - It is true that this would be difficult to enforce, but I still feel that it is important. It might actually have a real impact in reducing misleading or manipulative edits, or increasing scrutiny thereof. More importantly it would send a clear message about what Wikipedia is NOT. We should not discourage professionals from writing about their fields of expertise, and stating one's profession on one's user page should be a matter of establishing credibility. I edit pages relevant to my profession (archaeology), and sometimes cringe at the edits made by obvious non-professionals. Expertise should not be shunned. This is a different matter from PR hacks and government flunkies making edits to manipulate opinion.

     I moved a comment header that was keeping peoples' support entries from being displayed, and now everyone's signoff (4 tildas) from that point to this are displaying my ip address. I added a lot of space above the comment at the bottom to hopefully keep people from splitting the comment again. I will let someone else fix the renumbering problem75.136.121.80 10:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC) [thanks, fixed.]

533. Support. There are endless possibilities about where you might draw the line on this, but the proposed amendment gets the balance about right. Sue Zuki (talk) 14:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
534. Support. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog or an advertising space. I feel this proposal is an acceptable minimum to avoid the corruption of a valuable source of knowledge by paid advocacy. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
535. Support. The amendment is a very good idea; the wording achieves the right balance as it pertains to paid editing. APerson (talk) 17:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
536. Support. Good, but doesn't go far enough. There are other kinds of venal interests besides direct payment for services that have equal corrupting influence. What we call "log rolling" is an example. I write a flattering bio of you, and you write a flattering bio of me. No $$ change hands. I see stuff that reads like a promotional brochure all the time, but I doubt that all the writers were being directly paid to edit that stuff in. Here.it.comes.again (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
537. Support. Quoting Wikimedia, "There is an extreme likelihood that contributions which are paid for, but intentionally not disclosed as such, do not serve the public interest in a fair and beneficial manner...there is at least an implied conflict of interest that the balance will tend to serve the more private interests of the paid contributor." History reveals that hidden affiliations produce hidden bias; so it seems self-evident that a Wikipedia reader deserves full disclosure to weigh the question of whether he or she is reading an attempt to objectively report or to instead advance a biased point of view.Djonesvb (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
538. Support. Compensated article creation/editing can never be neutral. Nevertheless sometimes it can be constructive. Knowing those authors who are receiving payment can only help judge the value of their edits. Prestonmag (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
539. Support. Cause Wikipedia have to be "free" of corruption and criminal affairs. Wikipedia is not a marketplace to offer informations like trends and goodwill contents.
540. Support. Conflicts of interest should be disclosed and monitored. I am certain that despite occasional good additions or creations, the overall effect of paid contributors will be detrimental to the quality of the Wikipedia encyclopedia and to the ability users have to rely on the information found here. Anything that can be done to eliminate it should be done Kdannehl (talk) 19:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
541. Support. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Sometimes paid experts are the best experts. Sometimes they are the worst. Disclosing helps to tell the difference. And though there can always be an improvement, I'm tempted to be in the "and should not be any stronger" column after reading some of the draconian "stronger" suggestions. --GRuban (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
542. Support. Polyergic (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
543. Support. Any paid edit, irrespective of who paid and who got paid, must be disclosed. Nobody should be allowed to influence the content anonymously.
544. Support. I find it amazing that transparency, and that is all that is being proposed here, is such a controversial issue. It is heartening to see that so many uses are in favor of this modest proposal, which will cost nothing and affect only those contributors that we have the most reason to distrust, and even then that effect ultimately amounts to "be honest." Wikipedia is a success because of good faith collaboration. If you're getting paid, tell us in good faith. That is all.
545. Strongly support existing amendment. I am for a total ban on paid contributions, however the amendment as is will be a good way to begin to assess the amount of paid contributions which exist today. Bhuston (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
546. Strongly Support. Imagine advertisement e.g. during news shows on TV weren't made recognisable as such. If paid for - and per definition biased - contributions aren't avoidable in the first place they would clearly have to be distinguishable from serious articles. SW2001 E (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
547. Strongly Support. If you are advertising or promoting something you should be made to declare this.
548. Strongly Support. As a librarian, knowing the source of the information and potential biases of authors is critical.
549. Support. I can't see how more transparency could be bad. Natsirtguy (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
550. Support. The amendment works as written, and I'm confident in the Wikipedia bureaucracy's ability to handle exceptional cases. Beige.librarian (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
551. Strongly Support. If Wikipedia were filled with paid-for items, it will become nothing more than just another way to advertise, for free, to uninformed users. Notta skeptic (talk) 02:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)Notta-skeptic
552. Strongly Support. Wikipedia must remain separate from monied interests. Johnnyhorse (talk) 03:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
553. Support. I agree with the proposal. This type of content should be identified by the editor. Holierthanthou (talk) 04:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
554. Support. NPOV and paid editing cannot coexist. Andreclos (talk) 06:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
555. Strongly Support Not only is transparency a key to honesty - and ideally, truth - but this gives the WMF the legal tools to deal effectively with the worst and most persistent offenders. Additionally, my experience has been that many people, even in COI situations, are striving towards improvement. In these cases, this measure would improve the ability of other editors to find and verify potentially biased information from even the most well-intentioned editor in a COI situation.TheAmbsAce (talk) 07:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
556. Support I have had my content removed on two occasions, by editors who failed to respond to questions about whether that was the right thing to do. I am beginning to wonder if I was the victim of paid editing. ArthurDent006.5 (talk) 10:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
557. Support via email from Faye, a teacher and user of Wikipedia. From OTRS Ticket:2014030110001965, via JzG (talk) 10:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
558. Support - transparency is important
559. Support can't ppl learn & practice a real profession to gain some money? Gernot66 (talk) 14:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
560. "Support" in order to maintain integrity of contentOrlivia (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2014 (UTC)Orlivia
561. Support Because disclosure of paid contributions provides an important form of transparency for Wikimedia Projects. Ambhis101 (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
562. Support Concealing the paid affiliation of editors will likely be problematic. Maximum disclosure, minimum delay. Chuck Burden (talk) 15:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
563. Support objectivity/transparency needed192.183.41.177 17:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
564. Support, in the name of transparency. I appears that certain changes/omissions are being made by paid image watchers; such activities need to be in the open. Ekem (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
565. Support, to think that billionaires and special interest can, and in secret, pour money into the constant editting or manipulation of a topic nullifies the entire credibility of wikipedia. this is not a "blog" as others have said, but rather the world's largest encyclopedia. Any steps that move it further from a blog, which is opinion, or propogandized, or biased without transparency, is a good one. I don't come her for anyonymity, I come here for the wisdom of crowds, and that is where the value of wikipedia lies.
566. Support It's just normal!Saluatoix (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
567. Strongly Support - There is a tremendous amount of incorrect information on Wikipedia. Editors in some situations censor their pages based on their own opinions or biases. Editors often do not check cited sources, but accept the information as facts. Wikipedia can essentially re-write history as a result at times, and cannot be trusted as fact. All relationships should be disclosed to increase integrity.
568. Support Agree with the idea of full disclosure.
569. Support This is an important change. Many people in oppose seem to leave comments indicating they actually support the change, so I think support is actually more wide spread than the raw numbers indicate. Cdehaan (talk) 23:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
570. "Support" I think some people will be paid to monitor the information about an article no matter what policies are in place. Also, I usually can tell when I am being pandered to. I guess you have to "consider the source" when you read these articles. De acuerdo
571. Support - transparency is important, so is accountability.
572. Support - I support efforts to prohibit, discourage, or otherwise limit drafting or editing articles with the intent to persuade, deceive, slant or otherwise act to write or revise the meaning of any article that a knowledgeable neutral observer would determine on the preponderance of the facts or style of writing would present a false or slanted perception on the part of an average reader; whether paid or unpaid. I support efforts to prohibit to the greatest degree possible on a site that depends on the ethical intent of its editors writing for hire to present other than objective language or facts. I support efforts to encourage whistle blowers to bring such activity to task through some kind of initially nonpublic fact-finding body within the Wiki editing community, with an appeal process for editors called out to make their case that they have been erroneously charged. 22:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
573. Strongly Support Academic papers are generally required to make the same disclosure. I would make inclusion in the Editing Summary mandatory, for ease of reference.
574. Strongly Support Strongly vested interests such as compensation for edits should be disclosed. 174.101.234.76 23:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
575. Support I think the wording is fair, viz "you must disclose ... with respect to any contribution ... for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." In other words, just having a paid job does not require disclosure, but if are paid to make specific edits... That's fine. Equally, the statements from US laws seem fair, such as "creating the impression [of] not acting for ... his trade... or falsely representing oneself as a consumer." There is no reason why every editor, no matter where they live, should not be subject to a robust requirement against misrepresenting themselves. I have in the past battled against specific editors that I was certain were paid shills. They appear from nowhere on a limited range of articles, making outrageously biased edits, and getting very angry when challenged. They get better at Wiki-lawyering, prepared to fight anybody and everybody at AN/I and everywhere else, then, just as suddenly, disappear - either their contract ran out or they got banned. w:Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia --Nigelj (talk) 23:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
576. Support I have no moral objection to paid contributions, but disclosure can help contributors to be honest, and can help readers judge when to be skeptical. Sue D. Nymme (talk) 23:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
577. weak support like 111 said, I dont see how this is going to actually work. People lying will not be deterred by yet another rule.
578. Strong support The purpose of this rule is not just redundant deterrence, but also to clarify the legal standing of the Foundation and its editors when faced with a party that has violated the rule. 12.43.67.52 00:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
579. Strong support This is clearly in line with the aim of wikipedia itself. I do not require a stronger action, because first we have to test this action, which is already a big change and may be more difficult to implement than it seems. But we need absolutely to know if a contribution is free or paid.--Rdelre (talk) 06:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
580. Paid contents should be allowed for fund raising but it should be clearly indicated to users .
581. Strong support With a question: does Wikimedia have any sort of strategy to implement this? How will ordinary editors be involved, if at all? Unless this produces results and discourages violators, it will be an empty gesture. Tapered (talk) 07:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
582. Support It is unethical to to obscure or omit one's affiliation with a company when one publicizes a company, its products or its services. The amendment should clearly state that ethical behaviour requires disclosure of one's relationship with an organization in such cases, be it as part of a contract, as a paid employee or as a part- or full-time volunteer (who is considered an unpaid employee). Fest3er (talk) 09:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
583. Support Print encyclopedias had signed articles; why should Wikipedia be any different? If this amendment doesn't work as intended, it can be modified. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 10:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
584. HERE HERE I appreciate the proposed amendment manages to address this problem without being too onerous. The exceptions are both generous and reasonable; the disclosure requirements pretty simple. DO APPROVE! 76.178.144.67 11:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
585. Support This encyclopedia should not be written on any slant. If any changes are needed to be made for accuracy, they should be made personally, without pay. 86.135.209.145 11:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
586. Support Proposal is similar to the disclosing of a conflict of interest that one must do in scientific journal publishing. I think this is a good practice. Miguel Andrade (talk) 12:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
587. Strongly support as well.
588. Fully Support this initiative. It will restore some level of integrity to articles, as many people have noticed the prevalence of professionally constructed PR-type analysis and influence in certain subject areas. Full transparency on source and motivation will help. The professionals writing articles for money should be prepared to state that they are doing it in a professional, research capacity. This will add credibility to their work as well - An important point. Brett West - London, UK.
589. "Support" Just as you said, "there is an extreme likelihood that contributions which are paid for, but intentionally not disclosed as such, do not serve the public interest in a fair and beneficial manner." That should speak for itself. It's not going to stop the problem, but it will do something to make it better and it's relatively low-maintenance. 138.16.98.88 20:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC) Josette
590. "Support" Complete objectivity is never possible. It is always useful to have knowledge about the source of your information, and it seems that having someone disclose if they are a paid editor would be useful. The downside, thought, is that , due to ease with which a source could simply not disclose this information, it could actually act to make viewers less wary of contributions.
591. Strongly Support I believe that it is VITAL that Wikipedia remain (as far as reasonably possible) a source of unbiased information - and not become yet another internet corporate-money-making/misinformation-spreading/advertising website. The danger of corporations employing workers to pollute Wikipedia with profit-motivated misinformation is real and likely - and this goes against the real spirit and value of Wikipedia. Here are a couple of questions for all here to consider: Would a print encyclopedia allow corporations to pay for non-reviewed entries? What would be the long-term effects if profiteers could 'buy' encyclopedia entries? This stance might seem to go against the 'freedom of speech' of contributors, but this false conflict is actually only a result of not differentiating 'free speech' from 'profit-seeking advertising'.
592. "Strongly Support" I agree with supporting this action wholeheartedly. Over the years I've relied less on Wikipedia because I've personally known the facts on several people it has articles on, only to discover Wikipedia spewing negative about them. I've seen multiple articles that always seem to highlight the negative sides of a story, and many of the articles appear to have an agenda. To be completely honest, I skip wikipedia now when searching for information. Today was an interesting exception. Many peopl are aware large corporations control information on the internet. The normal news outlets are under this influence. Thus many people know the information they are getting is biased, no matter how much they claim its not. If Wikipedia is going to claim to be un biased, it must have the integrity to disclose who's paying them to say what they want. What's the goal of Wikipedia? To inform people and help them lead informed empowered lives? Or take money from anybody who is willing to pay and do what they want, instead of what the millions of readers want. If you are truly an organization of integrity and honesty, I would suggest disclosing paid editing 100%. If you take this action, I feel your credibility will be restored and it will pay off in the long term. If not, its just a matter of time before people get sick of Wikipedia as a propaganda outlet.65.130.65.48 16:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
593. PLEASE keep Wikipedia a source of knowledge, bending EVERY effort to block unbiased content. Only if we all stand strong to insure that happens will Wikipedia continue to be the modern-day oracle we all appreciate! --Lew Sheen (talk) 01:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
594. Support Any published factual work requires conflict of interests disclosure. Wikipedia should be no different, especially when we take into account that it's a main source of knowledge in the world today. Not only this helps writing unbiased articles, it also might help its reputation with people who still question Wikipedia's integrity. --AbderrahmanNajjar (talk) 01:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
595. 01110110 01100101 01110010 01111001 00100000 01100111 01101111 01101111 01100100 01010100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01100001 01101101 01100101 01101110 01100100 01101101 01100101 01101110 01110100 01110011 00100000 01100001 01110010 01100101 00100000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01110011 01101111 01101110 01100001 01100010 01101100 01100101 00100000 01100001 01101110 01100100 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 00100000 01110011 01101000 01101111 01110101 01101100 01100100 00100000 01110011 01100101 01101110 01100100 00100000 01101001 01110100 00100000 01100110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01100111 01100101 01110100 01110100 01101001 01101110 01100111 00100000 01100001 01110000 01110000 01110010 01101111 01110110 01100101 01100100 (Its in binary.They said a language of choice!Right!) [translation: 'very goodThe amendments are reasonable and you should send it for getting approved']
596. I'm fine with it as is, but I have a minor suggestion for revision discussed in more detail below as Talk:Terms of use/Paid contributions amendment#Suggest a slight change to the opening sentence. DavidMCEddy (talk) 00:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
597. Strongly Support. I think disclosure of interest, especially paid interest, is the most basic ethical requirement for contributors.
598. Support. Many of us rely on Wikipedia for some sense of objectivity in our hyperpoliticized world. This ammendment will at least justify this practiceVVVVVV EYE (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
599. Support. Raf82 (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
600. Support. There have been too many instances of edits to specific pages by peoples with an agenda that does not include trying to further the education and sharing of information with others. With this implementation, it would add an additional layer of accountability to those who have ulterior motives. While some editors may see this as a hindrance to their efforts, the die-hards will only appreciate this level of protection afforded the precious Wiki articles that they've put so much effort into already.
601. I support the idea of disclosure when a writer is paid.
602. support @hairyasian (talk) 19:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
603. Support In our age of systematic self-conscious misinformation, it is always significant to understand the motives of editors
604. Strongly support. Jdlambert (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
605. Strongly Support The credibility of Wikipedia as well as all establishment media are under assault by the forces of corporate darkness; disclosure of professional status is the very least we should demand. Nefarious purpose or no, axe to grind or no, orginal research and POV are not always detectable but this will add another tool to the skeptic's quiver. Bruce Marlin (talk)
606. support No objection to people disclosing their allegiance when performing edits. Many experts in a field will, reasonably, be working in that field and disclosing that they were paid is no barrier to contributing. Adoll (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
607. Strongly Support.Joachim M. (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Joachim M.
608. support 24.155.200.17 01:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
609. Support (conditional) The condition is that what specifically denotes "editors paid for their contributions" is further clarified. I support the concept of more open information. 99.110.57.242 03:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
610. Strongly support and then some. It seems to me that Wikipedia has a major problem with politically or ideologically biased material, and while some of it is a result of paid editing, most is not. So in addition to this proposal, I would like to propose a policy that articles in which "editing wars" have taken place be locked, and some sort of community review mechanism be required for any further changes to them. Jdg71 (talk) 03:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
611. Support: People with a conflict of interest can still make good edits, but there needs to be something to show that there's the COI going on so other editors can look at their edits closer. A total ban would be a mistake, because then we lose the good edits that we'd get otherwise. Anything else either wouldn't do anything or would be way overkill. 199.16.223.2 04:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
612. Support Disclosure of financial conflicts of interest is a fundamental ethical requirement in most organisations. No reason why it shouldn't be in Wikipedia. Neljack (talk) 04:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
613. Support Any respectable media request full disclosure from contributors wherever a conflict of interest may exist.--Gorpik (talk) 08:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
614. Support Please keep the rules for it simple as I edit in so many ways - for friends, for companies, for non-profits, for individuals alive and dead. Psychetube (talk) 11:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
615. Support Pretty clear this is going to happen in some form no matter what. I'm more comfortable with this way of doing it than others that have been proposed. Mendaliv (talk) 13:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
616. Support as another tool for addressing the reality of paid editing and its potentially corrupting influence, Practically, a job board I use allows me to report for delisting any solicitation for Wikipedia corruption or misuse that violates Wikipedia terms of use. I relish additional grounds for so doing. Douglas Michael Massing (talk) 14:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
617. Support Often paid editors act without being aware of WP:COI. HopsonRoad (talk) 14:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
618. Support The change seems simple to understand and covers most cases of paid but non-negative edits. 138.251.184.3 14:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
619. Support Strong support. Any step to discourage well-meaning employers from asking their Wikipedian employees to bend the rules is a step in the right direction. My employers wouldn't want disclosure, but they also wouldn't ask me to do anything that would legitimately jeopardize my Wikipedia account. PR firms and marketers will continue to do what they do regardless, BUT I think this amendment can protect a large swath of Wikipedians from their well-meaning but misguided employers. Wieldthespade (talk) 15:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
620. Support Strong support. This is a basic change that will help further one of Wikipedia's goals - open information. Of course it will be difficult to control or monitor, but it's a good step towards ensuring unbiased communal information. Plus, WP already requires user identification for major changes and certain locked pages. This is a logical next step. Neil618 (talk) 16:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
621. Support This doesn't ban any users and nothing changes. It only requires that paid contributors must say that they are such, which I think needs to be done, since it actually protects the editor, because if it violates one of the rules, it can be attributed to the company in question instead of the lackey editor. It also discourages corporate meatpuppeting. --XndrK (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
622. Strong Support It is important to stop commercial interests from clouding the treasure trove of information and knowledge that wikipedia has become.
623. Strongly Support for reasons well-outlined by others. --TimmyMcG (TimmyMcG)
624. Strongly Support; "Paid Edit"/etc should at least be mandatory in edit summary Grye (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
625. Support (with concerns) - This is an excellent first step. Now we are able to understand who is doing paid editing, and watch them to be sure that they aren't acting with COI. Those who try to edit-for-pay without following this new rule can be ejected without discussion - and that's also a good thing. My concern is that we don't now sit back and say "Well, thank god we solved the problem". We still need more decision making on whether we want to allow this behavior at all. Once we know who's doing it - we'll have more information with which to make a more final decision - and information is power. So this proposal has my support - but we need to be very sure that it's only just the first baby-step towards a final decision. SteveBaker (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
626. Strenuously Support StephenTS42 (talk)
627. Strongly support --Dyveldi (talk) 21:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
628. Support I was initially in the 'opposed' camp. I didn't agree that that there should even be paid contributors and question why Wikipedia would even accept such a thing since it goes against its own fundamental concept of 'edited by anyone, anywhere'. This isn't by a long shot a professional service. I think Wikipedia should have made it much more clear that there are paid contributors on here. But since there are I would say they must declare in case of vested interest. Outwu (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
629. Support 84.197.90.207 21:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
630. Support. If we don't do this, there will still be paid editors - but there will be no mechanism for monitoring them, and no accountability for those funding their work. It's probably not ideal, but it's not an ideal world - it's a world driven by search engines, and in that world, Wikipedia is nearly always near the top of a search for a recognizable brand or term. In this world, asking for good faith disclosure seems a good start. Ezratrumpet (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
631. Support, too. Like you say, Ezratrumpet. Good faith, Ikipfler (talk) 22:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
632. Support this amendment. Bjoertvedt (talk) 22:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
633. Support Yes! This absolutely needs to happen. It is standard practice to disclose such information in most things, it certainly should be here as well. 67.177.240.92 23:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
634. Support I agree with the reasons stated in supporting vote 1. 194.118.255.204 23:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
635. ""Support"" When paid editors do not have to identify themselves as such it is identical to watching a commercial and thinking you are watching the news68.211.12.71 00:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
636. Strong support - It is simply an unfair advantage to use paid editors to create articles for companies that could well afford to pay hundreds of editors to do their bidding. It is also an unfair advantage to editors receiving compensation for their work when the site is meant for donations of contributions. It isn't a donation if your were paid to contribute. Disclosure has always been the suggestion...it should be the rule.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
637. Strongly Support It is absolutely critical that ALL contributors disclose any conflict of interest. Obviously this includes any benefit a contributor receives from the contribution(s). There can be no justification for a failure of a "source" to honestly disclose the motivations behind the contribution.jamesefelton (talk) 02:17, 04 March 2014 (UTC)76.125.94.220 02:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
638. Support. I support, and believe this should be extended to political propaganda too, especially on the French version of Wikipedia! (fortunately, The English version of Wikipedia puts a bit more efforts to be more neutral than the French one do) Unfair dissemination is not better, not more acceptable neither, when it serves the purpose of political propaganda, that's not really about being paid of not, this goes beyond that single case. At least the disclosure requirement will invites to make theses cases clear. --Hibou57 (talk) 02:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
639. /* Support */ I believe the amendment is a fair and balanced way to ensure the concept of "self policing", especially with the site growing every day.
640. Support - It is not unreasonable to require potential COIs to be disclosed as long as no one person is responsible for the decision to remove any given comment. Adding information is done communally, and editing must be done communally. If your contribution is supportable and objective, then your information should withstand the public editing process even if an affiliation is recognized. 63.140.89.0 03:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Kat
641. Strongly Support transparency in regard to contributions and visibility of potential conflict of interest. Would like the information posted visibly for significant edits to articles as well.
642. Support A reasonable step forward. Cullen328 (talk) 04:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
643. Strongly Support Definitely agree with the direction the board seems to be taking :) Thank you. Xacobi (talk) 05:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
644. Support - The key statement is - There is an extreme likelihood that contributions which are paid for, but intentionally not disclosed as such, do not serve the public interest in a fair and beneficial manner. The opposing views mostly argue about the effectivenes and enforceablity of this. There is a stong arguement for disallowing anonymous edits.
645. Support. I believe that the good faith assumption that we give others should not be used in order to bend the rules of Wikipedia towards favoring any particular point of view. In light of that, I think each of us has the right to know if someone we're talking to has an ulterior motive for pushing certain types of content. This is also the spirit of the US and EU laws cited as "applicable law" here.Andrei Stroe (talk) 08:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
646. Support i find these guidelines extremly useful. Gilgamesh (talk) 10:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
647. Support. I am uncertain whether or not stronger rules than this are needed, but this is at least a decent bare minimum. --66.65.73.157 11:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
648. Support. I'd prefer to see a note on individual articles indicating that it has been edited by someone who was paid to do so. It's a bit of a burden on the reader to hunt through for an individual editor's profile to learn if they are compensated. That said, I think this transparency measure is a really important step.
649. Support - Support vote #22 (above) says exactly what I was thinking about this issue as I read the proposal. Those working, for pay or not, in a particular field are often those who know more about that field than those who are not working in it. That being said, if such an individual is trying to be balanced about an edit, then s/he should not really have a problem with acknowledging that an edit has been done on company/organization time. 71.109.99.22 20:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
650. Weakly support - The philosophy of this proposed change is essentially good. As others have noted, it is likely to have very little impact as failing to satisfy these rules is difficult enough to track that it will not be done in most cases and the burden of charges falls on local law and its associated system of law enforcement. Most of the points brought up by those who oppose are either misunderstanding the proposal or complaining that it is unenforceable or contrary to the spirit of wikimedia. I disagree that it is contrary to the spirit of wikimedia and I while I agree that it is basically unenforceable, I feel that it is worthwhile to have just as a policy for guiding administrators for smaller wikimedia projects even if it is rarely if ever used in law. I do think that there are several comments in the oppose category that bring up interesting and legitimate points. I want to call attention to the comment accompanying oppose vote #42, which suggests that employees who are required to sign a non-disclosure agreement, there may be some situations that generate a problematic legal circumstance for that employee by having to prove legally that the edits were not compensated and doesn't have the option of simply declaring their affiliation (this is mostly a problem in that the employee may be harassed by legal authorities who point to the legal weight of this clause even in the presence of clear rules that describe what compensation consists of. But, despite the policy's weakenesses and ambiguous corner cases I do feel that it is a good policy which should be implemented in some form. Niffweed17 (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Support, but should be stronger

The requirements to sign here are:

• You'd be ok with the proposed change being implemented by the Board.
• You think that something that would more strongly limit or prohibit paid editing should also be implemented (very briefly fill in your own limits if you'd like).
• You sign below with # and 4 tildes ~~~~ and remove your !vote from any other section if you've already !voted.

1. ~~~~I am pretty certain this will never be recorded or read because I don't know the codes. I am just a Wikipedia user. I support this amendment but feel it shoukd go further by requiring anyone paid for editing to supply the name and address of the person/persons, whether natural or legal, who have paid them for the editing and further, that all "paid" editing will be "flagged" (perhaps with simple colour highlighting) in all Wikipedia entries and the "person" who has paid for the editing be identified in a footnote. This, of course, will cost Wikipedia, so I further suggest that Wikimedia institute a registratio0n system with registration fees for "paid" editors and that "charges" be levied against those fees for any edits. James Boyce 2 March 2014
2. Support, but should be stronger. I believe this amendment has a good in-writing intention, but that the way it currently is has the potential to lead to greater corruption by invested parties. Like others have said, the amendment may allow for larger corporations and businesses with greater power (financial and otherwise) to bypass these new restrictions, leaving for a biased set of contributions. I worry about this amendment doing exactly the opposite of what I'd like to see it do. Sayla, 28 February 2014
3. Support with changes The disclosure in the article text should not be optional. In order for the disclosure to not break up the text too much, perhaps it could be added like a reference/citation? This might also provide a mechanism that would allow WP to remind paid editors that any text that isn't NPOV will be removed. 174.65.10.224 00:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
4. Receiving college credit for writing wikipedia articles should be specifically banned68.186.130.94 19:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
5. Ban all commercial editing of articles by or on behalf of corporations and businesses Smallbones (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
6. Banning all commercial editing would be impossible, it would simply result in a covert war of sorts between PR firms and wikipedia, which (spoiler) wikipedia would never win. Rather I think we should take into account the various issues raised in the Abstain and Oppose sections, such as temporally-bounded employment, weasel-worded contracts, and other logistical issues. Fundamentally, what I am saying is that I support the proposal, but there are a large number of kinks to work out and specifics to address before it is meaningful. 67.80.153.207 00:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
7. Support, but would like the notification of paid editing to be on the page that is edited. I know this would be awkward, but since many of us don't go to user pages, this would be a more universal notice of bias. 63.131.29.154 00:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)92.225.129.169 16:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
8. Ban all commercial editing I support this proposal as a first step one toward fully rolling back the allowance for paid editing. I agree with 63, the notice of paid edits needs to be placed on articles (and the fact that it is awkward highlights the ludicrous situation we are in, having allowed this in the first place). Note: If we are to continue to allow paid edits, Wikimedia should also pay editors to watch over those pages and edits. It is too much to ask of volunteers to fact-check the BP PR department, for example. Many hours have been put into doing just that, and that article is still biased in BP's favor, per latest RfC. Petrarchan47 (talk) 00:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
9. Multiple COI Support, but some provision must be made for paid editors who handle multiple clients. Correlation between edited articles and individual clients/COI sources should be possible. 68.199.234.49 00:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
10. I'd like to see a ban on all paid advocacy editing, though it might be unenforceable. Editing for pay/credit isn't itself a problem, it's NPOV violations. Disclosure rules help, though, and I'd like to see a flagging requirement (I suggest "$") for every paid edit and tools for giving them extra attention. Noophilic (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
11. Support per Jeff Q. See #Temporal evasion of visible disclosures. Disclosure should either be via edit summary or permanent user page disclosure, i.e. even after paid employment ends, that user account must continue displaying the disclosure (as long as any paid edits remain un-reverted). Hugetim (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
12. Strongly Support, but should also:

    i) require inclusion of a "disclosure" link on the wiki page itself at the end of any such non-trivial edit, which would link to the required disclosure (e.g. on the user's page).

    ii) be expanded to cover other vested interest situations - e.g. the current proposal doesn't seem to apply to the owner of a business making an edit, even if he/she has paid someone to draft the edit for them.

    • Members of religions should be required to make disclosure where relevant to the edit - e.g. abortion, euthanasia, theology, evolution, creationism.

    • Ordinary members of political parties not necessarily required to make disclosure, but actively involved members to do so, where relevant.

    iii) "vested interest" edits should be readily searchable so that other editors can find and check them.

    I definitely think there is a place for disclosed "paid" articles - e.g. if a company or product/device doesn't have a presence on wikipedia then it is in the public interest for said company or product manufacturer/seller to add a factual entry (with disclosure). I've sometimes used Wikipedia to find contact details for the manufacturer of a particular computer card (e.g. video card). Even if the entry reads like an advertisement it can be better than nothing, as long as the reader knows the source, and it provides useful true information. Same applies to definitions - sometimes a website uses a term or acronym I've never heard of and for which I cannot easily find a definition.

    Ausvirgo (talk) 02:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

13. Strong support as per all above. AnupMehra ^✈ 01:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
14. Strong support. Disclosure should be required in the edit notes, _and_ a footnote should appear on the page proper for any article which has been the subject of paid edits. Writing for hire is not necessarily bad or wrong, but the examples that come to light are PR flacks who are interested in providing spin, not factual information.Pstemari (talk) 02:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
15. Strong support with these changes, or else oppose for being redundant. Require all three, and also an inline notice (or a stylistically unique footnote so that it stands out) along with the edited parts. Jarmihi (talk) 02:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
16. Support with changes Notice posted on the user's talk page should be mandatory. Ideally, we'd require notification on the user's talk page AND one of either the article talk page or edit summary, but perhaps the talk/edit summary notification could be made optional as long as the user was clearly identified, such as a username like CocaColaOfficial, or whatever. Squigish (talk) 03:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
17. Support Although this progression is far from perfect, this progression still merits support because it has a good intent. This progression can be beneficial since transparency is sincerely the driving force behind a successful entity-- today.
18. Support As it is not possible to prevent paid contributions, disclosure is the best answer. I support disclosure with every edit, with a simple "paid edit" mention in commentaire, or something pertinent, as "WMF officer" or "[GLAM] officer" etc.. --Wuyouyuan (talk) 05:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
19. Ban all commercial editing of articles, implying blanket support for lesser strictures as long as this is not possible. Paid editors should not be allowed, and if they are they should disclose in the edit summary for EVERY EDIT. Free means free. Mr.choppers (talk) 06:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
20. but should say "compensation or other financial COI". See my discussion below. WikiAlto (talk) 07:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
21. Support I doubt there is a practical method of implementing something stronger, but if there were, I would support it. The encylopedias are built and maintained by volunteers, but skilful volunteers are not easy to find, and as the ranks of professional advocacy swell (due to Wikipedia's success) it is possible that the community could change from a body of neutral volunteers who work for the love of the project to a dwindling group of disillusioned volunteers who recoil from battling professionals. There is no inexhaustible supply of capable volunteers who can examine, debate, and take corrective action against teams of determined professionals. Johnuniq (talk) 08:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
22. Very strongly support, with changes This should be a completely unbiased, open academic resource. There is no place here for advertising, vested interests, or other forms of bias to the truth. Even to permit "paid for" posting when acknowledged is unacceptable, and can only lead to the kind of manipulation of truth evidenced in George Orwell's 1984 or, indeed, many current governments. As I see it, the problem arises in how to monitor/administer/"police" such a system. If Wikimedia has the means so to do, then please, let's see some very strong punitive measures against those who would seek to voice vested interest within this place. (There being a vast magnitude of difference between "interest" in the context knowledge of a field in which one has invested years of academic research, and "interest" in terms of business and profit. Mere advertising, or the often misleading claims associated therewith, contribute nothing of value to Wkikmedia, which should reflect only absolute historical fact and state of the art knowledge.) Pr0t0type (talk) 09:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
23. Very Strongly Support, But Should Go Further I very strongly support the proposed amendment, but also very strongly support that it go further, in the way suggested by Squigish, above at no. 12: "Support with changes Notice posted on the user's talk page should be mandatory. Ideally, we'd require notification on the user's talk page AND one of either the article talk page or edit summary, but perhaps the talk/edit summary notification could be made optional as long as the user was clearly identified, such as a username like CocaColaOfficial, or whatever." Justito (talk) 09:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
24. Support I recognize it's difficult to implement something stronger, but the scope should be always to limit as much as possible paying for editing. If somebody is getting money for editing, which should the motivation for people who want to contribute as a volunteer. - Joxemai (talk) 09:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
25. Very strongly support, with changes I recognize that there are several really difficult aspects to this, especially that the bad guys will not play the game, no matter what. I cannot comment on how this is capable of being handled. But, I agree that all three declarations must be made, not just one, to avoid ambiguity. However, I would go further. The reader needs to be able to see *what* has been edited in such fashion. This is simply a good-faith declaration, and even partisan writers who are honest will be happy to see the record corrected and take responsibility for it. It is a kind of referencing. If I become the source of any information I am happy to be associated with it. I see no reason why honest but compensated editors should not feel similarly. In a sense, there is no distinction to be made between an unpaid zealot and a paid press officer: they both have a motivation beyond unvarnished free information. But, establishing the moral code ultimately means that the user can make judgements as appropriate with more information as to provenance. No reader of anything, anywhere, on any subject whatsoever, should be uncritical. We are dealing with fallible humanity. Guide first; full disclosure is to be the norm. Editorial sanction follows eventually, no matter what, in the event of malfeasance. There are many eyes, fortunately. Hrdubwd (talk) 10:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
26. Strongly support ... with supporting of suggestions number 8 (Ausvirgo) *May be a special template, mandatory to use for paid contributors, with an optional extra parameter like this: *type = new article – means a new paid article was created *type = new section – means a new paid article was created *type = or no_parameter_at_all – means another single edited text *can handle the whole process – inclusive automatically categorizing the affected articles? - Jaybear (talk) 12:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC) *(... trying to correct automatic numbering ... Jaybear (talk) 14:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC))
27. Strongly support - I think disclosures should be made on the talk page for the article, and ideally on the actual article page, not only on the editor's personal page. Most users don't look any further than the article. We all have personal beliefs and biases that will affect our edits and the information we choose to add to a page and the information we choose to withhold, there's no such thing as an unbiased human! The majority of editors generally strive to make sure the Wiki page reflects the truth on that topic as they see it, but everything is going to be subjective by it's very nature. It issue with paid editors is that by definition are going to be loyal to their employer, not the truth on the issue. Really, ALL editors need to be making disclosure, but paid ones more so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 92.9.60.100 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC).
28. Very strongly support - Why stop with monetary compensation? Everyone should disclose all of their biases. If someone is a stock holder, stake holder, or benefit in any way from advancing a biased opinion that person should disclose that information. This should also include those who are receiving welfare when they are commenting on welfare/expanding government social programs. This should include anyone receiving government grants. Full disclosure is essential, and allowing anyone to advance their biased opinion tarnishes the reputation of Wikimedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.86.88.50 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC).
29. Strongly support - I agree with the above editor; full disclosure should be practised and promoted. Anyone who has a vested interest in a particular topic should disclose that interest. Repeated editing of a particular page by people with an undisclosed bias should be dealt with by presenting a template on the page saying something to the effect of "This page is semi-protected due to editing by people with bias X. If you are a stakeholder in this issue you must not edit this page without disclosing your affiliation and motivations in the edit summary. Other users, please watch for the insertion of biased content." -- 27.33.71.62 00:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
30. Very strongly support - Wikipedia shouldn't tolerate paid contributions, nor should it tolerate dictated changes (e.g. from a company or religion ordering their employees/worshippers to remove any negative comments about them). 24.46.198.55 15:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
31. "Support, but should be stronger" Place large warning next to Wiki Logo on top banner containing full contact info including but not limited to email phone address etc. Unfortunately enforcement of this measure will add greatly to review of edits let alone enforcement of any new regulations. "English Wikipedia’s policy on neutral point of view requires that editing be done fairly, proportionally and (as far as possible) without bias; these requirements must be followed even if the contributor discloses making paid edits." the aforementioned line should serve the public interest in a fair and beneficial manner. Leaving simple but broad will ease interpretation. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.74.196.182 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC).
32. Strongly support - I strongly support the proposed amendment and would like to see it be stronger.209.6.131.125 15:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
33. Strongly support, every edited page should be transparent about the paid incentives of its editors, on talk, just as with declarations of interest in other reputable academic sources.86.157.186.165 16:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
34. Strongly support, but should be stronger. If employees of a corporation, or employees of a PR firm or "reputation defender" are editing the client corporation's Wiki page, future edits from the IPNs of the corporation or its hired advocates should be banned. Activist (talk) 17:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
35. Strongly support, as these flat-earthers who would bend this resource in exchange for compensation are an abomination. The point is made that there will always be a way around this. A call for an even stronger version of this needs to remember that you cannot get rid of corporations trying to modify our base of knowledge of our own health and science. Right here in this "vote" you can see that a user "Brandon" has been accused of editing the comments. I know of forums with better AI security... Wiki could be so much better if the obvious propaganda that gets re-pasted into here were auto-kicked or added to a growing known dis-informer list. See the strongly oppose section for the comment of opposition because "he was paid to say so." This grain of salt that has to be taken with this site could be well-diluted by a bit of spam flagging for users who show a log of repeatedly retrograding the same page and/or editing areas that are the core problem for this type of issue. I use other wiki's for technical coverage that are able to manually ban individuals who come in to only subtract. 199.58.100.38 17:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
36. Support - unfortunately I don't see a way to enforce this while still allowing anonymous contributions, but it's too big a problem to be left unchecked. Corona688 (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
37. Support. Although if need be, I'd just support the necessity of disclosure (depending on what the final decision is)
38. support it's a start, but I'd prefer all 3 rather than 1. Hobit (talk) 20:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
39. Support - But I think a brief tag should be required in the edit summary for *every* paid edit. 172.10.232.107 20:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
40. Support. Paid contributors are a serious problem, and the language should definitely be in place, but it seems "floppy" on both ends. On Wikimedia's side, I don't see how they could possibly enforce this without developing telepathy. And on the user's side, they must disclose paid contributions or else... what? So I'm voting in this section to support the change, but to also indicate that Wikimedia should not sit back on their laurels after doing so. This is only a first step. Aubri (talk) 20:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
41. Support. It's a good first step, but ideally, no one should get any compensation direct or indirect for editing or contributing to wikipedia 223.234.58.215 21:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
42. Strongly Support - The only trouble is that disclosure on the editor's page is burried. How about a This is a paid edit checkbox below the edit summary? DavidHarkness (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
43. Strongly Support. The main article says "many believe" in a total ban on paid contribution. The strength of the ban is in direct proportion to the health of the society, so if the strongest ban is implemented, this will be coherent/resonant with a most healthy society, or the greatest collective wellbeing of the planet. It's hard to argue against greater collective wellbeing as societies have myriad feedback (karma) mechanisms. We know that most of what characterizes the dominant society today erodes our wellbeing, quite severely. The idea of moderation (or centrism in more "political" terms) is very prominent in the dominant society and so we can associate moderate policies with societal failures (this means Obama & company bear responsibility), and then resort to stronger policies, more reflective of the Hippocratic Oath: "Do No Harm". This oath contrasts sharply with the centrist "feel good about doing lesser harm than your evil twin". Ultimately it's our individual choices to come together and do what is best for all of us: Do No Harm. Complete ban on money. Thanks to Wikipedia for providing a collective platform to help us manifest our agenda of greatest collective wellbeing. Rtdrury (talk) 23:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
44. Strongly support. Suggest that any edits by an editor with a paid or other vested interest in the topic (such as a member of an activist group) be followed by a normal note/reference. (The number in the little superscript []'s.) At the bottom in the list of notes, the text says, "This section edited by Name working for Blah Blah" or words to that effect. On financial blogs and editorials, the writers often put a "Full Disclosure" at the bottom if they work for the company under discussion, and I think it's fair that Wikipedians should do the same. BAP in San Diego. 76.88.40.30 23:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
45. Strongly support. Several editors have made additional good suggestions, notably a "This is a paid edit" checkbox and a requirement for all types for relevant vested interests to be represented. I do not support a total, across-the-board ban on paid editing, as this totally removes any ability on the part of commercial entities, political figures, or anyone else subject to smear campaigns to offer a defense of any type, and that's unfair. Knowing someone is shilling for a company is sufficient for anyone to take their pronouncements with a grain of salt and a boulder of skepticism, without banning them from having a voice at all. Having said that, though, the acknowledgement of "vested interest" edits should be extremely prominent. Additionally, I would strengthen the protection further by allowing community vote on additional, non-compensated "vested interests" applicable to a particular article. Someone above used the example of abortion or creationism; religious or political affiliations required to be annotated should be votable. For example, comments made by a Buddhist to an article about American, "biblical literalist" creationism are most likely fairly neutral; they represent the views of someone who has religious faith but doesn't subscribe to the religion under discussion. The views of an atheist, or a born-again Christian, would be more potentially biased. Community voting on requirements for non-compensated edit bias allows the community to further police itself for factual accuracy and neutrality, without becoming needlessly exclusionary.Xenodox (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
46. Support. Wikipedia needs to root out this problem once and for. The process requires recognizing the problem and then having the will to do something about it. Wikipedia's trustees clearly recognizes the problem, so what you need to do now is to take the next logical step. Disclosure is a bandaid approach. Figureofnine (talk) 01:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
47. Ban all commercial editing of articles by or on behalf of corporations and businesses. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randstad_Holding for an example of how shit wikipedia is when businesses write their own articles. Ballchef (talk) 01:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
48. Strongly Support with mandatory disclosure on the paid editor's talk page and on the article page (an automatic "this article contains material from editors paid by parties with a stake in the subject of this article" banner) and in each and every paid-edit summary (an automatic "paid" tag). Failure to disclose by all three methods, or attempts to circumvent the requirements, to be a blockable offence taken as seriously as sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry. I used to spend many, many hours contributing to Wikipedia. I stopped permanently when I saw bought-and-paid editors trashing the project with impunity—and laughing about it. Additional background: Jimbo Wales' statement on the matter, Later discussion on Jimbo Wales' talk page, smug paid editor on CNN. Scheinwerfermann (talk) 02:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
49. Meenavora (talk) 02:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC) Strongly Support. Check box indicating financial ties would cover any kind of commercial interest and make it easy for readers and editors to make a note of it.
50. Support - Ban all of the editing described by Jimbo as "paid advocacy editing". Robert McClenon (talk) 02:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
51. Support and support banning of editing in receipt of benefit or which could be construed as editing in receipt of benefit. done and seen to be done. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
52. shut them DOWN! 98.249.58.72 03:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
53. Strongly support. I believe that paid editing is one of the biggest threats to the integrity of Wikimedia Foundation projects, especially Wikipedia. In the absence of other ideas to limit this practice, there should be mandatory disclosure on every edit summary, ideally with a flag to make searching for such edits easier. InverseHypercube (talk) 03:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
54. Strongly support, and it should go further. Paid "edits" to the people's encyclopedia are just commercial cruft. Ban them. Huw Powell (talk) 04:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
55. Support. Unpaid volunteers cannot be expected to compete with paid advocates. Even when paid advocates who adhere to the rules of Wikipedia (NPOV, etc.), there will still be a systemic bias in favor of the sources of their paychecks. Gamaliel (talk) 04:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
56. Strongly support. I've contributed financially to wikipedia in the past, but will never contribute again, if paid editing is allowed. And as a librarian, will strongly deprecate the resource as lacking transparency and being prone to commercial bias. 24.239.163.234 05:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
57. Strongly support and believe it should go further. As stated elsewhere, not many "average" users go to the "talk" page of an article. I do not believe that would be enough. Any paid edits should be noted inline or, at the absolute very least, at the BEGINNING of the references section of the article. The notation for paid edits should also be distinctive enough that the average user will understand that the modified/contributed content comes from a paid edit. Anything less DOES violate the integrity of this medium. acsteitz 06:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
58. Support However I think multiple identifications shoudl be required with the language You must make that disclosure in EACH of the following ways:
    1. a statement on your user page,
    2. a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, AND
    3. a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions.

    --YakbutterT (talk) 07:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

59. Ban all commercial editing, please. The goals of Wikimedia projects and the advertising, promotion or marketing of corporations are mutually exclusive. (Plus I would like to point to the terms of use when I block users for spamming.) MER-C (talk) 09:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
60. I'm definitely agreeing with this amendment, and would like to see it stronger, if that can be done without inflicting the Law of Unintended Consequence upon the community. Paid and/or biased edits harm the entire project. I think this amendment is an excellent place to start, and hope that it passes. le loup-garou184.9.155.189 11:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
61. Strongly support. It is difficult enough for volunteer part-time and occasional editors to keep Wikipedia NPOV without having to battle constantly with people who have been paid by vested political or commercial interests to reverse NPOV full time. 82.69.9.159 11:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
62. Strongly support. Could have a flag on the main page of the article. OriginalKratos (talk) 12:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
63. Totally support this. Paid edits are bad for wikimedia as a whole. 90.152.2.53 13:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
64. Strongly support these new mandates, but I'd think that at least the "a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions." should be compulsory, not optional... Serag4000 (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
65. Support and feel the edit summary requirement should be compulsory Warfire (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
66. Strongly support this, which is clearly going in the right direction, and would suggest that consideration be given to showing in a prominent position in the article that it has been subjected to paid editing. (Maybe even an option to show it without all the paid edits, if technically possible?) I think there is a need for very strong enforcement, and the way in which this will operate needs to be considered carefully. The aim is of course to prevent the unscrupulous, greedy, ignorant, ill-informed, or confused from reducing the integrity of articles by inserting a bias, perhaps unwittingly, and we need to avoid making it needlessly difficult to apply proper edits. Yet, we need to ban editors and their financial backers after a small number of repeat offences. I think that there needs to be more attention to the enforcement process, but the intent of the policy is very good and has my full support. 82.20.69.157 15:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
67. I would support stronger disclosure: flagging of paid-editor edits to both Wikipedians – through tagging or coloring of paid edits in the contributions history – and the reader, by marking articles that have received paid edits in a way that is visible to the ordinary Wikipedia reader and makes it easy for them to check the contributions history. The last point is key to compliance with EU deceptive advertising law. I am, however, firmly opposed to a ban on paid editing as such, given the proven potential for bias in Wikipedia. We accord biography subjects considerable leeway when their biographies are unduly slanted against them: companies deserve exactly the same rights and consideration. In addition, paid edits are often minor edits – they include uncontroversial updates (new year's turnover figures, change in CEO, etc.), grammar fixes and so on. In general, paid editors should be welcome as long as they act transparently and that transparency extends to the reader as well. Andreas JN466 16:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
68. "Ban all of the editing described by Jimbo as "paid advocacy editing"". --Natkeeran (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
69. Strongly support, recommend that we create a mechanism that will allow pages from sponsored sources to be flagged for review for editors; might not be possible but would definitely make it easier for the community to evaluate paid edits for neutrality.Asmallwhitecube (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
70. Strongly Support Wikipedia must weed out paid edits because their presence calls the neutrality, accuracy and truthfulness of articles into question. Wikipedia has become the de facto reference in many places. Its high standards must be maintained and enforced. Rosattin (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
71. Strongly Support However the disclosure requirements of the current proposal are far too mild. Paid editing undermines trust in what is posted and unbalances debates hence a complete ban would be a better solution.Dejvid (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
72. Strongly Support. However, the disclosure must be on a per-edit basis: a statement on the talk page is not enough. This makes it easy for someone scanning edit history to see paid contributions. I suggest having a checkbox in the edit screen that could be set to a default value by the user. Grover cleveland (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
73. Strongly Suppor
74. Strongly Support - We need this, whether you call it Transparency, Sunlight, Full Disclosure or just doing the right thing. The question is, what are the remedies? If we find that a paid contributor is injecting bias and false information, I don't think it is enough that we remove their contribution. --Cdichter (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
75. Strongly Support Commercial editing is the bane of honesty. -- Eriksiers (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
76. Support But disclosure needs to be on the user page.#Binadaoc (talk) 00:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
77. Strongly Support Commercial editing IMO is simply destroying the Wiki values. I believe this is a step in the right direction but Commercial Editing should be removed entirely. 82.44.35.41 03:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
78. Support, & endorse Ausvirgo's suggestion above that "vested interest" edits should be readily searchable so that other editors can find and check them. A crude solution would be to require a specific string to be included in the edit summary (though that doesn't allow the editor to add it later if they forget). --Chriswaterguy (talk) 05:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
79. Strongly support banning all paid contributions, with a few reasonable exceptions, such as WMF, and paying a copy-editor to turn one's prose into good English. Any typical paid Wikipedia entry will almost certainly violate the entire spirit of Wikipedia and any good reference source, but introducing a point of view. (Alas, my Wikipedia membership does not translate into Wikimedia membership, so no 173.8.212.241 08:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC).
80. Support Disclosure should be required to be present on the user page in some noticeable form (at minimum), and editing by corporations should be limited as far as necessary to ensure only accurate information is published instead of allowing pages to become advertisements (to use a popular example). Intentional violations of this provision should result in consequences up to and including the revocation of a paid contributor's editing privileges, compensated or otherwise. A standard of decency should be upheld which would enable Wikipedia users to view pages which have edits by paid contributors without fear of bias therein. A conflict of interest should necessitate further considerations, most likely on a case-by-case basis. Wikipedia is the Free Encyclopedia; "Free" should mean more than just the lack of a price tag. TheDorianMode (talk) 08:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
81. Strongly support When a point of view is contributed, and someone is paid to contribute or is a volunteer representing a foundation/corporation/PAC etc. this fact should be noted. Those bogus info-adverts found on pages at other websites which provide actual news, etc. often begin their pretend articles with wording which makes it appear that unbiased factual content is being provided when in fact somewhere towards the end of the writing the reader will discover they are being asked for money for bogus medical cures, or the like. At the end of the day people will make up their minds about whether the information they have is useful to them or not, even if it is a result of a paid endorsement. The most helpful and useful way to encourage democratic discourse is to make sure everyone's cards are on the table -- at the very least this starts with admitting who you are and what you support.
82. Support - and change to "You must make that disclosure in ALL of the following ways: statement on your user page, AND a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, AND a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions." Chrisboote (talk) 14:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
83. Lenrodman (talk) 14:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)Strongly Support I believe this should be made very slightly stronger as above - paid contributors should have to note their status in ALL three ways, not any
84. Strongly Support - all paid contributions should be banned, period. 146.7.88.46 17:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
85. Support. Paid contributors should put at least in article talk that they are a paid contributor. Would also be interesting, if paid contributions were marked as such in edit summaries. -Mardus (talk) 17:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
86. strongly support. Am opposed entirely to paid contributions. Not concerned about people who may contribute to an article about their employer per se. As long as that contribution was not part of their job. -User:Earnestscribbler Feb. 25 2014
87. Support but needs to be stronger Implement specific disclosures on a PER EDIT basis at the actual location of the edit, not just on a user page. Most of the general public, myself included, do not go to user pages, edit history pages, etc. I understand those are important pages for editors, however not for Joe/Jane Public. When I use Wikipedia, I use it for what I believe is generally unbiased and factual information. It is a brief, direct, and immediate interaction. Maybe I'll click on a photo to see a higher resolution. Once I find the information I need, I then click on the reference link to find the specific source of information. That then typically concludes my interaction with Wikipedia. This is how the vast majority of people use Wikipedia (even less with Google and other search engines providing synopses directly in a search of information). So putting disclosures in a page buried somewhere in the Wikipedia infrastructure does NOTHING to help the typical, casual users from being preyed upon by corporate, government, and other paid affiliation entities.
88. Support but needs to be stronger. The problem is that clandestine paid editing will still almost certainly occur, and discovering it may be difficult to do. There need to be mechanisms to determine if this is occurring and for handling it if it does. Daft Creftsman (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
89. I oppose undisclosed contributions, whether paid or unpaid. A person's profile needs to list their affiliations and whether these are paid affiliations or unpaid. It would be ideal to mark all signatures that have paid affiliation with an indicator (previously suggested “$”)so anyone seeing such can track back and check. I also like idea of footmark indicating article has paid contribution. This could be expanded if collected to indicate which organizations have sponsored content. I believe the stipulation of listing that a contribution is sponsored can be and will likely be ignored. This sadly speaks to power of corporatocracy that rules at this time. Independent voices can and should be given additional weight, however it will be nearly impossible to ensure enforcement. I agree with the change in terms and hope a suitable manner of implementation will be created to offer ease of monitoring where contributions come from. --69.14.210.229 20:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
90. Strongly Support. Disclosure of the entity who payed for research or a study is standard practice for reputable scientific publications for good reason: Scientists know how easy it is for money to bias (consciously or not) the work of those being paid to perform it. Of course it's possible for Wiki editors to hide the fact that they're being paid to edit Wikipedia articles, but this change in policy should serve to address the biggest offenders with the greatest legal culpability (i.e. special interests with large PR budgets) by 1) Informing the public that an entity may be biasing (intentionally or not) or deceptively skewing an article; 2) Protect Wikipedia from being accused of failing to exercise due diligence for not requiring paid editors to disclose their working financial relationships with special interests. Just as scientists seeking publication for their work in reputable scientific journals disclose who paid for it, so too, anyone receiving compensation for the work they do in editing articles for Wikipedia should disclose who their benefactors are. Njancewicz (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
91. Support. This would be a small step in the right direction — necessary but not sufficient — in the way of retrieving Wikipedia’s relationship of trust with its users. It’s better than nothing — but it could be much better. Burbridge (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
92. Support but should be stronger. 99.247.254.182 23:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
93. Support this movement, but hope it is only the first of many attempts to decouple the wonderful resource of Wikipedia from specific commercial interests SlapAyoda (talk) 02:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
94. I strongly support the amendment, but I would like to suggest a change to it as well: In the interest of convenience to users who want to be aware of potentially biased editing, there should be a mantadory and universal form of disclosure. To best accomplish this with minimal invasiveness to the articles, and maximum convenience to the said keen users, I propose that the "statement on your user page" method of disclosure be required, not optional. This also makes it more convenient for users who have something to disclose, as they only need to note their disclosure on their user page, and no longer need to decide whether or not their disclosure applies to other edits they may make. We should leave it up to the community whether or not a user's disclosure applies in each instance. Scalethemachine (talk) 02:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
95. Support strongly The proposed TOU amendment is a good start - and the minimum requirement. Further, I see a necessarily adversarial relationship between the foundations of Wikipedia and paid POV editing (and this means any editing by PR firms). POV editing is part of the marketplace of ideas; paid POV editing is just part of the marketplace. - Neonorange (talk) 04:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
96. Support Strongly, Should be still stronger A reader should not have to go to a user page to find out that an edit was made by a paid contributor. This information should be noted on the article page itself. I agree with a suggestion above that there should be a check box in the edit signing area, to indicate that the edit is from a paid contributor. AND checking this box should automatically result in a note at the top of the article: "This article contains edits by paid contributors." --Pechmerle (talk)
97. I support the amendment but strongly believe that authors should be compelled to indicate their "paid" status in only one of the 3 ways proposed: by adding that information in "a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions". Why -- because this is the most obvious place for the reader to look and takes the least effort. The reader should see this information right with the Wikipedia entry and not need to go elsewhere for it.107.198.148.159 04:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
98. Support the amendment but believe that an edit by a paid contributor should be so noted in the article itself.75.47.108.198 05:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC) 05:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
99. /* Support, but should be stronger */ I support the strongest measures possible concerning transparency of paid submissions. It is a real shame that this issue even has to be considered, a very sorry state of affairs, indeed! (S.R. Strong)
100. Strongly support. I've seen innumerable articles 'plugging' all manner of 'causes' and 'self-interest' including, for example, a religious cult's lengthy page with numerous references. ALL such references came from the cult's own publications and, once redacted by a Wiki editor, only around 300 words remained. The editor initially expressed the opinion that the page would probably be taken down but, after consultation, the result described was achieved. I believe this was far too meek a response and the editor's implied, preferred course of action was the right decision. (Especially given the cult's pernicious messages, although I realise that this is subjective.) I'm also aware that the example is unlikely have to been paid-for in most of the conventional definitions already covered. Being sui generis it would come as no surprise if payment were deferred! There's little to prevent insidious organisations, large or small, from reappearing in different guises but that's no argument against expelling them, and expelling them again, once their 'covers are blown'. #Brian Benedetti (talk) 09:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
101. 60.225.108.160 09:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)Strongly support, but should be stronger...who cares if it's not workable for capitalistic pursuits?
102. Strongly support, with declaration of paid contribution and of any other COI (paid or unpaid) in edit summary or article talk, not only on user page. Stanning (talk) 12:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
103. Mostly strongly support Excellent idea to require identification of paid edits. But allowing only identification on the user page is useless. I often check the edit list to better understand an article's history, and I do not want to have to wade through everyone's user page, to figure out if they're employed by something that could affect bias. And... You better disallow just identifying on user pages, for IP-only editors like me. Also, the point a previous poster had about people who change jobs, is also relevant. You don't require the user pages to specify the exact timeframes of employment, and I _really_ don't want to sort through whether the edit in question happened while the user was working for Company A or Company B when they made the edit - especially if they're on contract part time for both. Or work for a consulting company, paid for by several companies. Perhaps there could be a per-user auto-edit-sig, which adds "$Paid$: I work for xyz" to any edit, instead of just allowing the user-page notification. At the very least, there should be a uniform, computer-detectable way to quickly identify which edits are paid. And edits to a hobby page, not related to a job, shouldn't be seen the same way as a job-related edit, even if the user page says "I work for xyz".108.108.114.117 13:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
104. Strongly support. I basically agree with entry number 23 above that disclosure needs to be on the page itself, in most cases. However I disagree with those who want to ban all paid contributions. Often paid contributors are in the best position to produce a knowledgeable entry on a subject; for example a celebrity's staff person may have information or insights on the celebrity that would be valuable or at least interesting; similarly, an employee of a company that produces a product could well have valuable information on that product that was not available to someone outside that company. Captzucchini (talk) 13:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
105. Strongly support -- as a paid editor I have twice been in a position to add information about organizations that were not represented or not properly represented on Wikipedia. My role as a contributor of information is tracked and published and does not impede anyone else's role as third-party editor, arbitor or dissenter. Further, as a member of a professional organization -- the International Association of Business Communicators ([IABC]) -- I am bound by standards of professional ethics. It is good, therefore, for Wikipedia, for me and for my employer, that I disclose my role and do not engage in any deceiptful or fraudulent behaviour. I am, and others in positions similar to me are, in a position to contribute beneficially to the base knowledge captured in the Wikimedia projects. If done so freely and openly, you -- the unpaid contributors -- can monitor, correct or edit as required. Lastly, though it is understandable that the terms start with paid contributors, it must be noted that there are a lot of unpaid affiliations that are dearer to people's hearts than their jobs are (namely politics, religion and nationality) and these could more easily lead to someone posting fraudulently or seeking to manipulate the information to eliminate or generate negativity. Limiting the change now to paid contributors is good, but it still falls short of fully protecting the information from bias and manipulation. BrettTremblay (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
106. strongly support. The normal viewable page or media should contain a remark noting which content is paid and who paid for it. Most users do not track down who made a particular edit nor do they go to talk pages often. Thus, if it is not in plain site, the fact will be lost to most people. This is a very important issue to solve because one can not rely on the fact someone is being paid to write something implies any expertise. Anyone can be paid to write anything and there are plenty of people who would love to spread false information. Those parties who would benefit the most from the spread of false information are those who have the money to pay for the spread of that false information. -User:RobertStreet 10:51, Feb. 26 2014 (EST)
107. Strongly support -- Wikipedia will become totally untrustworthy if most of its editors are paid.Amyzex (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
108. Support and would like to see paid editing made much more difficult. I do not want to have to read the comments page for each article, and all the contributors' talk pages, to work out whether the article is paid for or not. That said, there might be exceptional circumstances, such as when no unpaid contributors can be found for a topic, but even then I would prefer no topic to a paid-for one. --Heron (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
109. Support disclosing paid contribution. Support the proposed amendments and add additional requirements. It is my opinion that the provisions you are proposing may not go quite far enough to inform casual readers of Articles that the “information” they are reading is being provided by a paid surrogate or vested interested party.I would suggest footnotes be required in the articles that either disclose an affiliation or link to one of the three proposed disclosures.I would further suggest adding to the list of who is a “paid contributor” principals who may not technically be “being paid” but none the less have a vested interested in the positivity / negativity of a segment.An example might be an article on a manufacturer of doohickeys. The owner of the company him or her self, not paid by anyone, might tout positive aspects of their product or dismiss negative aspects. This contributor would be no less prejudice than a paid contributor. Their content should be clearly noted so that people can judge for themselves it’s validity. IE: (4) Information provided by manufacturer.(5) Information provided by paid representative of manufacturer. Fbcnova (talk) 4:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
110. Support, but should be disclosed for each edit. It could be a check box like for Minor Edit or a recognized phrase appended to the edit comments like CMPEDT (compensated edit). Those compensated are often advocates, and greater attention must be paid by other editors to such edits. 137.112.42.240 18:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
111. Support Bluehotel (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
112. Strongly Support, but we should also require an disclosure for every edit, including the name of the paying corporation visible in the edit history. This will make it easier for other users to spot manipulative edits and will lead to a more trustworthy Wikipedia. Stealth edits by paid editors are a great threat to Wikipedia. --Laberkiste (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
113. Support. Disclosure is a step forward but insufficient. Coretheapple (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
114. Support. I see this proposal as the minimum that should be done to counter paid editing. It won't solve the problem by itself, but at least it'll make our position on it clear. I'd personally rather see paid editing prohibited altogether. Robofish (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
115. Support. This is a good first step, but any article touched by a paid editor should be identified by a header notice on the order of "This material has been modified by a paid contributor or editor and should be evaluated for bias." #Exfilia (talk) 23:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
116. Support, but expect and require later improvements. In particular, the amendment should require the paid editor to directly inform a moderator of that page (or a moderator of pages in the same category) of the edit and any details necessary to ascertain whether or not a COI exists. The proposed amendment falls short in this respect, as it is expected that a moderator will notice the disclosures wherever they may be simply by browsing. For commonly accessed and edited pages, this will most certainly be the case, but the raw quantity of pages on Wikipedia far exceeds the number of moderators. Thus, it is entirely reasonable to predict that the majority of paid edits will go unnoticed. Consider a new page created by a patent holder or a paid editor creating this page on behalf of the patent holder (e.g. pharmaceutical company creating a page about their new drug, or a web tech firm creating a page about their new application/site, etc.). This applies equally to the examples about political candidates creating or hiring someone to create a Wiki page about them. In all cases, the COI or bias can go unseen for a prolonged period of time, leading to a misinformed public. I feel that the core philosophy of Wikipedia relies on providing the best information on a topic to the general public. The onus should therefore be on the paid editor to ensure the best information is made available to the public, whether via their own edits, or those of an impartial moderator. 69.54.26.14 23:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
117. Strongly support, but should go much further. Wikipedia - and all other WM Projects - promulgate themselves as sources of Information, Knowledge and FACT: The very nature of the written word itself has been, virtually since human civilisation began, something of such reverence and sanctity, that anything which is written down is, simply because it is written, understood through mutual agreement to be THE TRUTH. Without wishing to get overly-post-structuralist about this assumption, the primum factum here is that we can have NO "Truth" without understanding that no-one can be completely objective in anything written, because we are all subjective individuals. However, Wiki projects have, since day one, aspired to (and in most cases attained) the highest and most scholarly standards: this means that every nugget of info given by every contributor, must be appropriately cited to the same scholastic standards - precisely to show that it has not simply been included into these living compendia of the Knowledge of Humanity at the whim of one singular writer TO SERVE SOME PERSONAL MOTIVE - regardless of whether the writer/contributor (OR whomever they represent) will receive compensation of any kind. ANY practice of this type (viz. adding or changing content at the behest of another person or company with the intention of manipulating how it may be inferred by readers) is antithetical to the very ethos of ALL the Wiki projects - exactly as it would be in any other Open-Source and/or regularly-reprinted Dictionary or Encyclopaedia! Would this even have become an issue in need of discussion for, say, the Oxford English Dictionary, or Encyclopaedia Britannica? What if either of those publications allowed anybody the ability to, for example, add in a brand name into a digital version of the dictionary to spread awareness of its existence, or to change an entry about a certain new prescription drug, for example, by skewing the information in the company's favour, regardless of whether they *'d that entry as such? Not a snowball's chance on a BBQ! And as Wikipedia (et al.) continues to Increase the prestige and global reputation of its mellifluous role as The Guide to the Living Zeitgeist of the 21st-C Human experience, we must all strive to help keep it as impartial, neutral and uncompromised as possible. IMO this means that THE ONLY acceptable contributions/edits to any Wikimedia article can only be of a purely factual nature: e.g. corrections to the spelling of names, dates of birth, biographical/professional achievements and relevant personal information. And such facts as these can be added by any person, and furthermore since this info cannot bias the content, all that would ever matter is whether such info is accurate and can be substantiated - which wholly negates the need for any info having potential to bias the content to be declared; it would simply (continue to) not be permissible anywhere in wiki-world! pompyxavier
118. Strongly support I'll borrow from Pstemari: "Disclosure should be required in the edit notes, _and_ a footnote should appear on the page proper for any article which has been the subject of paid edits." Qleem (talk) 03:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
119. Strongly support Even without paid editors we have a problem with WP:COI, and with paid editors (e.g., representing PR organizations) things would get out of hand and the reliability of this resouce would suffer.--50.179.157.5 04:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
120. DONT MAKE US PAY!!!222.155.33.165 04:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
121. Strongly support. All significant academic publications/journals, and presentations at scientific conferences, and so on, require such disclosures. Failure to require it for wikipedia lessens its authority. I would go further and require a declaration of all potentially conflicting interests (not just payments). For example, a spouse who is a company director, or a major shareholding, would be considered potentially conflicting interests in an article on the relevant company or industry. I disagree with the concept that there are sufficient checks and balances in the editing process to result in an overall even balance - repeated assertions backed up by biased data will often gain undeserved credence. I would like to see a checkbox, which must be selected to assert 'no interests to declare', unchecked by default. The edit should not be committed until either the checkbox is checked, or the interest details are completed. Obviously this is dependent on honesty, but a person who edits and fails to declare an interest, and who is subsequently found out, will likely find their future edits subject to extra scrutiny. Incidentally, I see many people seem to be misinterpreting the question at hand and believe it to be an offer by Wikipedia to pay for expert articles Stagv (talk) 04:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
122. Strongly Support, with proviso I agree with the need for disclosure. I also feel that scenarios where the funds/payments/whatever transaction is involved is motivated by religion or politics should not be permissible, since it is virtually impossible for anyone to be wholly impartial/neutral when invoking politics, least of all those paid to represent a certain party or belief. This is not my argument against any one faction, but rather, a blanket argument against the topics and anyone paid to support any argument within either. I would also like if there were something of a tic box on user profiles which flags what topics might fall within their employed opinion (for lack of a better term), thus empowering us to put a flag on any documents of that nature showing that it was edited by someone with conflicting interests. Admittedly, harder to code than simple honesty would be, but this is 2014 we're living in... Mychyl (talk) 04:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
123. Support but I have three areas of concern: (1) I think that any article that has been edited by a paid contributor should have a specific tag at the top to indicate that status. (2) I think there needs to be more clear punishment or sanction provisions. The obvious candidate that comes to mind is a big and visible tag that will be permanently added to any article when it is discovered that a paid contributor has been editing the article in violation of the disclosure requirements. (3) I think there should be a challenge mechanism to question the neutrality of a contributor, but I admit that I am kind of stumped how to implement this. I think what it calls for is a mechanism to look for patterns of apparent bias in a particular person's contributions, and I think that is somewhat beyond the current technology. Shanen (talk) 06:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
124. Support but I think it should go further to say that Wikimedia will prosecute both the individual and organization involved should they either attempt to conceal such an arrangement or if said arrangement damages the integrity of projects. This is a community, and everything here is supposed to be free in both a monetary and metaphorical sense. Preserving validity and neutrality should be our top priorities Runrun395 (talk) 09:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
125. Strongly Support Am opposed entirely to paid contributions. The thin edge of the wedge L-Bit (talk) 09:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
126. Strongly Support but should be stronger. I agree with the proposals put forward by contributor no. 8. ~jgrog14
127. Support I support this requirement, and wouldn't mind it be made stronger. Mckaysalisbury (talk) 14:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
128. Support, and policy should be stronger: Ideally, paid contributions would be banned entirely, even if this policy slowed the growth of Wikipedia. Wikipedia's strength comes entirely from its impartiality; if that impartiality is jeopardized the entire project loses its purpose (yes, there are certainly instances of partiality currently, and they must be eradicated; in my view allowing paid contributions, even if they are disclosed, is a needless weakening of the project). That said, if the Board concludes that paid contributions cannot be banned entirely, any paid contribution should be disclosed not only on the user profile pages or edit logs, but in the actual articles as well. Users (not just editors) need to be aware of paid contributions. Finally, GLAM employees should ALWAYS disclose their affiliation when writing about their employers (as should any other employee writing about their employer!), REGARDLESS of whether they're being paid explicitly for writing about the employer or not. The fact that an individual is on an organization's payroll is plenty enough of a conflict of interest, even if they are not being explicitly paid for their contribution. 209.6.55.166 16:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
129. Strongly Support, and I also believe that paid editing is a practice which should be heavily restricted if not completely prohibited. While paid editors may have access to information some do not in certain circumstances, it is important to remind oneself of the many instances in which paid editors may reside on teams which will fabricate information for citations to allow biased material to be seen as factual, or in certain cases material which has no credence. This is a group of people which we, as an encyclopedia which puts blood, sweat, and tears into maintaining a neutral point of view, go against the very standards that this wiki is founded on. I will go further to add, however, that I do not believe that someone who works for an organization that also edits or creates an article about that organization should be classified along with paid editors, as long as they publicly disclose their relationship with the entity. There is a very strong distinction between someone using their insider knowledge to better construct a more accurate portrayal of the organization they work for versus someone given incentive to portray that organization in the best light possible. It won't be easy to enforce paid editing while allowing unpaid editing from members of an organization, so I can see less incentive to completely ban paid editing, and more to keep it under heavy restrictions. Regardless, I strongly support the proposed measures. Idarin (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
130. Support and also would like loosened criteria for WP:SALTing of PR articles I will accept this amendment but the biggest issue, IMO, isn't gaming of existing articles but creation of entirely new articles that are promotional pages. I would also like to see articles that are successfully AfD'ed with a consensus view that they are WP:PROMOTIONAL be subject to routine administrative WP:SALTing. As it stands now, they simple get recreated when the original AfD nominator isn't looking. BlueSalix (talk) 19:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
131. 80.195.213.4 16:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)Strongly support. Also I consider that the scope of 'compensation' should be broader; to include 'favour', 'benefit', 'advantage' etc although such things would, in practice, be very hard to detect and then prevent. EG the editor is not 'paid' but gets free use of a luxury holiday villa.
132. Strongly Support and should be stronger. All kinds of paid editing has to be forbidden, as it can be seen as as marketing strategy. Wikipedia is not dedicated to advertising AT ALL. Wikipedia MUST remain free, encyclopedic and independent. Bozo fr (talk) 22:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
133. Strong Support. The commodification of information is already out of hand. Marketers and editors working in a "reputation management" capacity are simply astroturfers when they do not disclose their COI. Every edit they make should be disclosed as a Compensated Edit, and the article should be tagged. - CompliantDrone (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
134. Vehement Support. Paid editing is fundamentally against the spirit of Wikipedia and must not be allowed. Blitterbug (talk) 02:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
135. Support the idea but rule needs changes Here are my problems with this amendment: First, consider that Amazon.com forbids paid reviews and requires people to disclose if they received a free book to review, but how many people follow that rule? As a freelancer, I have seen many jobs for paid book reviews that are to be posted on Amazon. Even people receiving the book for free do not disclose it. (How many kindle books are offered for free and people give a review afterward?) I like to consider myself very unbiased even when being paid, but I would find it difficult to slam someone's book if they paid me for a review or even gave it to me free - instead I would just not comment. For this reason, the only paid reviews I do are for a reader service that allows me to disclose I work for them. But not everyone has that level of recognition when it comes to their own bias. Let's also consider how many people use or even edit Wikipedia compared to how many are responding to this. That is about how many you can expect to follow this rule. Based on what I know of history, rules that are made without enforcement or minimal enforcement encourage bigger and worse crimes. This change in the Terms of Use is going to be just as difficult to enforce as those rules on Amazon (and Amazon should at least know some of the people who got it for free). Second, say the non-paid board member of an organization hires me to write a page, but then he wants to post it himself. (I don't write/edit Wikipedia, but there are many freelancers who do.) This person would not have been paid and since I am not posting it, the payment would not need to be disclosed. However, because the freelancer knows how to write better, it could be far more emotionally convincing without appearing biased than if the board member wrote it himself. Third, I just bought a refurbished computer. Say I want to make an edit and I have not been paid, but the person who used this computer before posted he/she was a paid editor in association with my IP. I might never know I was making edits that were marked as "paid" when in fact they were not paid edits. Or say I am a paid editor and I see something I am not being paid to edit that needs to be changed? A blanket statement on my page would not distinguish between the two. Fourth, if a third party hires me just to make grammatical edits to their page, I can't see the need to disclose it. Can I show bias by adding a comma between two adjectives? I think it would be best to just create a blanket statement in the terms of use that says editors need to disclose if they are affiliated with or being compensated in some way to make edits. Then, as many others have stated, when a person is editing or creating a page, force them to choose "compensated," "affiliated with," "not compensated or affiliated with," or "grammar/spelling edit only" to save changes. This way you are making everyone aware that disclosure is necessary, and you are forcing them to make a moral choice each time they post. I would also like to see a "click here to view compensated or affiliate content" at the top of the appropriate pages and have compensated/affiliate content then show in perhaps red or red/green if the user wanted to view it. Since I am a freelancer and get paid to edit people's writing all the time, I can see the value of paid editing. Paid editors tend to create and edit articles faster because they do not have to fit time in around their jobs to do it. There will always be the concern of bias as long as humans are doing the writing, so claiming that only (and all) those paid or affiliated have extreme bias is self-deception. After all, any book that has been published was written by an author who received payment. To those who are concerned that Wikipedia will change because people are being paid in association with it, consider any other non-profit organizations: If they pay a freelancer to help in one area does it mean they no longer need volunteers? Or does it mean that volunteers no longer should give their time because someone is getting paid to do some of the work? I hope not. Few non-profits would survive without a combination of volunteers and paid workers (including freelancers). However, disclosure is important because it allows those reading the article to make an informed decision about it.173.109.142.219 04:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
136. Support Further Restrictions I came here with concerns 44 and 55 in mind, but after reading all opinion sections I have strongly ended on the side of severely imposing stringent limitations on this aspect if it is something we come to the conclusion we need to allow at all. There is a case to be made that slightly less information some of the time is better than sometimes questionable information all the time, but even with that aside I feel as if there is enough to worry about as is. To use one of the first examples from the Opposed side, if a member of the Conservative Party is the main editor for their page, I'm concerned about some bias slipping through even unintentionally on occasion. The response shouldn't be to look at that problem to then justify allowing new problems of a similar nature to happen, but to find creative new ways to prevent that problem from happening whether it be a personal OR paid standpoint. We all edit by choice, and while there's certainly always more to be done the answer should come from more Wikipedia meetups and edit parties to encourage activity and get new people interested in editing, not introducing a new line of editors who might be of a lower quality simply to get the work done - to me, that goes against the whole spirit of Wikipedia. 50.139.95.65 05:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
137. Strong Support. I believe this behaviour is reprehensible and should be illegal and classed as fraudulent behavoiur. I believe there should be a section on each wikipage that is coralled/ring fenced for paid contributions so it is clearly marked as such. No need necessarily to declare who is paying but perhaps it is to be encouraged as it may lend veracity to the comments if say it's from a competitor company about a product etc.
138. Strong Support. I believe that amendments like this one will be a recurring event, since the advertising business is too well paying to not look at ways around any restrictions. The weaker the amendment, the sooner this issue will recur. Lost Boy (talk) 06:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
139. Support, but should be stronger. I hope this is rule is made very strong, and that mechanism(s) is put in place to detect the commercial nature of any such editing, and to automatically flag it in the text as it appears in the encyclopedia page, so that it's clear to everyone. #Dcpleland (talk) 12:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
140. Strongly Support. I think "a statement on your user page" is not sufficient. Documentation should be obvious on the changed page itself, either through the update comments or the talk page. However, I do not support a full ban because there are legitimate reasons why this might need to happen. For example, an artist's agent might need to correct false information. Raran75 (talk) 14:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
141. Strongly Support
142. Strongly Support. Paid contributions--in ANY form--should be CITED AND HYPERLINKED INLINE. It's not enough just to list this critical information at the bottom of the page or on a different one altogether. The potential for information bias needs to be SEEN IN CONTEXT. Wikipedia is about accurate, crowd-sourced information that serves all, not an individual entity's bias that serves only their interests. Keep up the great work.
143. Strongly SupportDisclosure rules help, though, and I'd like to see a flagging requirement (I suggest "$") for every paid edit and tools for giving them extra attention.--Aruck (talk) 18:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
144. Strongly Support Wikipedia was created as a community edited encyclopedia, paid editing should be quite limited and all such edits must be cited/flagged as such. Jgurtz (talk) 19:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
145. Strongly Support I believe that any person editing a Wikimedia page who is paid to do so should be required to make that plain, and the notice should appear on the page edited.Saintonge235 (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
146. Strongly Support Preventing any COI is good and because the temptation for paid edits is so high, I think the policy could be stricter. Yakatz (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
147. Strongly Support Users must be able to identify scam content of paid-for articles for commercial, religious or political institutions. That would discourage such instutions from placing tainted articles in the first place. If possible, Wikipedia should stay free from all paid-for content. SW2001 (talk) 22:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
148. 96.42.117.51 23:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC) I basically ditto this: "There is an extreme likelihood that contributions which are paid for, but intentionally not disclosed as such, do not serve the public interest in a fair and beneficial manner. When considering the value of the contribution of content to the public on balance with the value of dissemination of the content, there is at least an implied conflict of interest that the balance will tend to serve the more private interests of the paid contributor. If it is accepted that this is the case more often than not, it is hard to imagine the expected outcome as a net positive for Wikipedia.

     As repeated real life examples illustrate, undisclosed paid editing can have the unintended effect of causing negative public relations issues for companies, clients, and individuals. The press follows such stories closely. Failing to include a disclosure with a paid contribution may lead to a loss of trust with the broader public as well as the Wikimedia community. To maintain goodwill and to avoid misunderstandings, transparency and friendly cooperation is the best policy for those being compensated for Wikimedia contributions."

     And also saw someone else mention that if it weren't too much hassle a alternate version of each article could be provided without paid edits so I ditto that too. 96.42.117.51 23:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

149. Strongly support, with more disclosure This is a no-brainer. But disclosure should be required to be ALL THREE...user page, talk page, and edit summary...AND the article should automatically get a note on it saying "some of this content is from paid editors, see Talk page and search edit summaries for details". And there should be an easy way to search for "all paid edits to this page" and "all paid edits by this person". --Jason C.K. (talk) 23:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

     More requirements...should also be an easy-to-click link with each article, "list all paid editors of this page". --Jason C.K. (talk) 23:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

150. Strongly Support, but should also:

     i) require inclusion of a "disclosure" link on the wiki page itself at the end of any such non-trivial edit, which would link to the required disclosure (e.g. on the user's page).

     ii) be expanded to cover other vested interest situations - e.g. the current proposal doesn't seem to apply to the owner of a business making an edit, even if he/she has paid someone to draft the edit for them.

     • Members of religions should be required to make disclosure where relevant to the edit - e.g. abortion, euthanasia, theology, evolution, creationism.

     • Ordinary members of political parties not necessarily required to make disclosure, but actively involved members to do so, where relevant.

     iii) "vested interest" edits should be readily searchable so that other editors can find and check them.

     184.166.75.242 01:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)Becky

151. Agree with most here. Although some of the entries so far are somewhat contradictory of each other, I agree with the general direction of a tougher statement. Thx especially to the list: Require inclusion of a "disclosure" link on the wiki page itself, Expanded to cover other vested interest situations, and "Vested interest" edits should be readily searchable.Gloucks (talk) 03:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
152. Support & make stronger I'd like to see a checkbox in the signup process that would identify & assign a paid contributor userclass to the account. This could then be used to flag all edits in the edit history/add a comment in the summary. In fact I'd go so far as to revive the Pending Changes concept and ensure that all edits from a paid contributor userclass do not automatically go live, but are held pending review from a non-paid account holder. regards --188.220.165.128 04:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
153. Very Strongly support. This is long overdue. Nothing is more annoying than finding what was once an objective and informative article that has been hijacked by some political cause or industry or corporate interest. To further that point, I think to some extent some unpaid volunteer activists should also be required to disclose when they have decided to use wiki pages as their own personal lobbying platform. I was recently pleased to see that some entries have teams of objective experts and academics safe guarding the accuracy and content of certain hot button topics. genetically modified foods for example. But, should these teams of academics and experts really have to devote their life to keep others from trying to rewrite history or well established scientific facts? Its become very clear that a large number of these contentious topics do indeed have politically motivated operatives trolling wiki, watching for any changes or corrections to facts that would run counter to their organizations political goals. If you don't believe me, just try adding well cited references to court precedences that support the 2nd amendment to the US constitution to any wiki entry related to gun control and see how long it takes for it to be deleted. What also needs to be brought under control is when journalists use their own editorials as a cite-able reference to insert their own personal opinions into wiki as fact. Maybe it is time for at least some kind of rudimentary peer review before a wiki author is allowed to use themselves as a citation source.
154. Support and would prefer a policy where any admission or discovery of paid contributions would result in an indefinite block on a user's account. That any such content exists within the Project is contrary to its entire existence. Abusers should be revealed and tracked with extreme prejudice. The sad bare minimum is being proposed here and it is hopefully on a start. These changes were due 5+ years ago. Tstormcandy (talk) 10:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
155. Support and beef it up further. the problem of paid editing is simple: even POV pushers usually have a day job to do, so the "force of arms" between them and the community is at least of the same order. If pimping your customers' profile on Wikipedia is your day job, you have not only more incentive but also more time. Any policy on paid editing must include an absolute right of veto for the community on any project, to reject proposed content and restrict the editor. This policy should more strongly state the fact that it covers the minimum required disclosure and does not in any way support or guarantee that paid edits will be allowed. JzG (talk) 10:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
156. Support and I think that readers should be informed as well, in form of a disclaimer at the top of relevant articles. Asteiner (talk) 12:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
157. Support. Also, would it be possible to incorporate personal financial liability for violation, in addition to suspension or ban?Patent.drafter (talk) 13:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
158. Support. Me parece bien, pero.... Me agrada la idea de que se nos sea retribuido a los buenos editores, pero habrá que tomar en cuenta que no todos son acertados, y no todos hacen el mismo tipo de contribuciones. Es decir, en mi caso solo periódicamente hago correcciones y/o aportaciones a una sola página; no me interesa cuánto pudiera yo recibir por ello, pero me doy cuenta de que otros contribuyentes no son confiables. Propondría o agregaría un verdadero análisis de la idea, y hacia quienes va dirigido. Ademas, sería mejor si dieran amplitud de lengua. || Good, but no good enough. Aileen Carreño 08:16, 1 March 2014 (CST)
159. ""Support"" Transparency is necessary and I think this first step is better than nothing. I believe that every single paid edit should be noted in the talk page. There should also be a warning (as it occurs with articles flagged as 'poor quality', 'spoilers' or 'controversial', whenever paid edits where a substantial part of the article ('substantial' would have to be defined. I am also wondering if there could be a way for non paid edits and edits *not* from an interested party can take precedence over paid ones, to avoid paid editors taking control of articles... 173.70.129.18 14:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
160. '''Strongly Support''' I agree with Yakbutter's (#57) statements that EACH requirement must be met. Additionally, I would like this information to be immediately visible to the everyday wikipedia user in the form of a notice at the top or bottom of the page or section which was written by someone receiving payment for their contribution. ~~~~
161. I agree that paid contributors can enhance content, but the contributor must be clearly indicated in the article (red footnote, instead of blue for example). As a casual user, I feel the indication should be uniform across all content. The reason for this flag (with hot link to the contributor) must be payment, but could also be a vested interest in the topic by affiliation or contribution history. Not being an editor, I rely on the internal structure of Wikipedia to ensure accuracy and fairness in content. If this amendment can be worded to further these goals I am strongly in favor.24.5.12.32 17:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
162. I strongly support the amendment, but would like to see it go further. If it is learned that a PR firm or individual made money submitting edits, the content should be removed. Wikipedia already suffers from individuals having their own agendas posting material. If you have paid material it becomes advertising or propaganda. I do rely heavily on Wikipedia for an impartial view (which I usually get). But the volunteers can never keep up with companies or organizations with deep pockets.93.91.49.198 19:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
163. I do believe that paid contributors are different from others with an (ideological) agenda in that companies and governments can put a large amount of money in distortion. I have the area of pharmaceuticals / drugs in mind here in particular. However I do believe there sould be a clause in the TOU, that makes commercial agents liable to pay damages to the project, should they engage in any POV editing or do not state their conflict of interest as required. This will not directly increase enforcability but will underline the aspect of illegality, potentiating the reputation damage. Also identity verification for members with extended rights should be discussed in that context. Any contributor would agree to that contract when submitting an edit. [UserTH, Konstanz, Germany] 134.34.218.137 20:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
164. Support, but disclosure requirements should be clearer to make sure that paid edits and paid editors are visible and remain visible to other editors. With the current proposal, disclosure statments could easily become practically invisble (by later edits on talk or user pages). I would like a new checkbox 'I am currently being paid to edit', just like the 'minor edit' checkbox. Chrisahn (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
165. Support. Should be stronger. Paid writers may be presenting a NPOV, but the appearance of a conflict of interest is high. #Saphil (talk) 02:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
166. Agreed, but it does need to be stronger. Possibly one way would be to allow users to not see paid edits (though programming this would be a nightmare). UrbanTerrorist (talk) 03:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
167. Support. Suggested modification: College credit should be expressly included as compensation for contribution; it should not be a substantive problem for anyone involved if disclosed (and, if feasible, the sort of class for which credit is being offered should also be disclosed, as it would facilitate inquiry into the expertise or lack thereof informing the edits, which might then indicate potential illicit agenda in the editing).
168. Alakhras (talk) 10:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC) Ban all commercial editing of articles by or on behalf of corporations and businesses
169. Strongly support, as strengthened in comment 11 above by Ausvirgo. We don't need to ban. We need transparency, and for that transparency to be obvious but not distracting. Learjeff (talk) 14:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
170. There should be the severest of censure for anyone who would defile wikipedia with paid contributions. There is already an abundance of users willing to trounce others for edits (even a talk page, as was my encounter with one of these "paid contributors" and I've simply never bothered to make another edit in over five years). I've no desire to waste my time contributing only to have some low-life remove my contribution(s) with no discussion whatsoever and such paid contributors will most certainly do just that anytime someone would dare defile their paid contribution. 68.235.189.48 15:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
171. Strongly support and agree that "paid" should be shown (also) on the actual wiki page. 92.225.129.169 16:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
172. Strongly support, but paid editing shouldn't be allowed at all. Thin end of wedge, slippery slope, foot in the door etc. I've spent time reading the adverts and requests from companies for paid articles and then reading the resulting articles; they aren't of any benefit to Wikipedia and are only designed for the benefit of those companies or entities that commissioned them. The paid editors go to great lengths to find ways of skirting policies so that they can get biased and complementary info into the articles without technically breaking the five pillars. Why do we actually want paid editors editing Wikipedia when almost all of Wikipedia's great content was and is created by normal non-paid people. Wikipedia doesn't need it, it's not beneficial to Wikipedia, it results in bad articles and biased information given to the world. Ban it. Don't get this (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
173. Wikipedians who engage in paid editing should be blocked on sight, full stop. People who engage in similar activities have only one thing at heart, and it's neither neutrality nor the sustainability of the project.--Underlying lk (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
174. Strongly support. Suggest that hint user page is not considered sufficient because it's too tedious to look up for the aveage reader. Enforceability remains a problem, of course - however, there are ways and means to find out ... - All in all, in my opinion this comes 5 yeares (at least) too late, but better than never ... 84.143.6.147 22:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
175. Strongly support. last thing we want is info because people paid for it to be
176. Strongly support We dont want Govt spin here on WP or big corps or national interests like Israels paid bloggers. Snowden has shown its here. PS agree with below articles should be flagged ie Syrian Ukraine if required. SaintAviator (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
177. More than just disclosure should be required to address the problem fully. Thanks, 108.18.50.243 00:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
178. Strongly support and I'd like to see some flag on articles - "This article may be biased" or similar. Paid editing is likely to be non-neutral, so the read should see that, without having to hunt through Talk or Contributors pages. Drpixie (talk) 01:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
179. Strongly Support - Suggest NO Paid Editing Whatsoever! Thanks for letting me voice my opinion. --- BBQDad (talk) 04:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
180. Yes, I more than support this. If there is a way to do it, I would like to see paid editing banned and strict controls placed on politically, commercially and religiously motivated edits, unless this would have side-effects that would be too destructive to Wikipedia. The information that something is a paid contributions should be visible on the page that was edited and the edit, itself, should be bracketed by a tiny symbol in superscript (e.g. <pd>), so I can know, as I read, what words have a paid POV. At first such symbols might seem disruptive but I'm sure it wouldn't take long for users to get used to these symbols and be able to read past them. I assume they would be noticed again once the user has decided that some particular information they're reading is of specific importance to them and they would check for the symbol. For example, if I were to read about diabetes, once I would come to diet descriptions, I would want to know if any of them are paid for, this could save my health. In all, announcing who is paid within the text would probably be a huge wake up call to users to always read and learn while employing a high degree of discernment and critical thinking. Thank you for the opportunity to add my opinion. Lilly-Rose Lazarus (talk) 07:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
181. Support, but I think there should be a simple binary disclosure on each edit (via a checkbox, say). The details can be provided on the user page, etc., as laid out in the proposal. Marfire (talk) 08:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
182. Strongly Support However I should wish there were to be a manitory disclosure for paid editing
183. I believe contributions paid by anyone, probably except of WMF, should be disabled at all.199.83.103.139 11:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
184. Support the proposal, but a simple disclosure mechanism, for both editors and readers would be a useful feature.SuW (talk) 16:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
185. Support, but should be stronger. Vested interests should not be allowed to edit, even with disclosure, since the disclosure will often be overlooked - such is the power of what we see 'in black and white' and the weakness of our attention to caveats, disclaimers and details. #86.25.20.184 16:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
186. Strongly support the proposal and its intention, but I believe your definition of compensation is too narrow and allows the potential for undisclosed conflicts of interest to remain. I would strongly suggest that you refer to the language used in various treaty definitions of bribery (e.g. OECD Convention) when considering how to define compensation. In particular compensation should include "anything of value" (not just money, goods, services) and disclosure should be required where the contributor has obtain, will obtain, expects to obtain or hopes to obtain anything of value in return for their contribution. In addition, and to stop an obvious loophole, where a contributor subsequently obtains, is promised or solicits compensation after making a contribution (even where there was no intent to do so at the time of making the contribution), then the contribution must be marked with the appropriate disclosure immediately. I think you will need to deal explicitly with the issue of paid edits by wikipedia staff (i.e. creating a specific exception to this group), I presume you have other rules to avoid potential conflicts of interest / political and commercial influence of wikipedia paid editors.217.155.35.76 20:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
187. I support the strongest disclosure requirements that can be enforced. Support but the amendment should be stronger so that it CAN BE LEGALLY ENFORCED. If this amendment is NOT ENFORCEABLE, people MAY NOT DISCLOSE paid changes. If the AMENDMENT IS ENFORCEABLE people are LESS LIKELY TO RISK A LAWSUIT by supplying false information and non-disclosure. If a lawsuit is required, the ACCUSED party should be REQUIRED TO PAY for the lawsuit. PAID EDITORS might be REQUIRED TO GIVE a MONETARY DEPOSIT TO WIKIPEDIA, forfeitable in case a lawsuit is required.
188. Support, but should be stronger. There must be disclosure of paid editing wherever it is made- if an article is edited by a paid editor, it should be marked as such on the article page, not just the talk page. This could take the form of a footnote like the disclosure of potential conflicts of interest in scientific articles. I think it would be useful to the reader and not detract from the cleanness of an article to have each phrase in an article that is written for payment marked as such with a citation-like link to the disclosure footnote 137.229.131.34 02:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
189. Many people would like to rewrite history. If there is incentive to rewrite history, people will be even more inclined to do so. Wikipedia cannot afford to allow people to compromise the integrity of information. Paid editing should not be allowed at all, but then people will do it anyway without disclosure. It is better to have disclosure so that paid edits are tagged and checked for integrity. Codairem (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
190. Support. Also support discussion of adequate wording for in-kind or other non cash payments. Think change is needed so there is means to act where there is serious issue. Support improvements in this aspect being transparent to readers, visible to editors (so no "paid contribution" etc on article pages as alt solution). CitizenofEarth001 (talk) 06:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
191. Strong support but I agree with Ausvirgo et al.'s comments above (currently #12 in list). All vested interests (defined as "standing to gain, whether financially or otherwise, from promoting a particular viewpoint on the subject of the article or closely related matters") should be declared, and such edits should be easily identifiable by casual readers of the page, without having to dig through page history, talk etc. Perhaps a "show interests" button which added color and hovertext? Kim SJ (talk) 10:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
192. Strong support. This is an encyclopedia, not a platform for advancing various "causes" or promoting one point of view over another. Wikipedia's reputation parallels it's objectivity. Paid writing is the antithesis of objectivity, and Wikipedia's reputation suffers as a result.Clepsydrae (talk) 11:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
193. Support, but should be stronger --Dennis6492 (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
194. Support, should be easier to identify Add a flag to top of article if any paid contributor has edited. that flag (link) should take reader to the place(s) where paid contribution is disclosed - quick for reader, hence effective#68.81.44.177 21:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
195. 99.141.248.97 21:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC) Support but really believe there must be at least minimal reference on topic page.
196. Support, and policy should be stronger: Paid contributions should be banned entirely. Rhinestone K (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
197. Support, but should be stronger Paid editing should be banned completely. INeverCry 22:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Support, and should NOT be any stronger

1. Support For the sake of transparency, I support the amendment. Groups and Organizations are like people too, and their reputation must be earned, maintained, and over viewed by the community. Steps taken beyond this amendment would violate privacy. This amendment must pass, and there must be no further amendment regarding paid contributors. 50.11.50.225 01:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
2. Strong opposition to this "support but strong" alternative. This would mean excluding completely users from any kind of organisations (including WMF staff users !!!) from editing anything on Wikimedia projects. All existing Wikimedians in residence" would also be excluded. It would be impossible to create group of reviewers. Even the existing wiki admins could no longer contribute (they would act only as mediators). The projects must remain to anyone (commercial or not). We just want that all users do not get more powers just because of their capability of constracting and paying others to promote their content. The currently proposed amendment does not ban anyone: it just wants them to disclose who they are and to forbid them to force others to remain hidden only because they are paid or acting under some secret contract. Banning users by principles is completely opposed to the principles of Wikimedia, and to its supported licences. The proposed amendment allows more balanced powers and improved neutrality of positions: and it better protects also the paid contributors (allowing them also to act in their own conscience, instead of being forced by contract to act secretely; the mendment mke these contracts no longer enforçable and will only force the organisations to reveal themselves, without compromizing anything about the own privacy of paid contributors). verdy_p (talk) 02:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
3. I prefer the proposed amendment to an outright ban. I believe that some paid editors (CorporateM) and advisers (Peteforsyth) are good Wikipedians, and I believe that others can be trained or coached into become good Wikipedians. I don't believe that everything connected to money is inherently evil. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
4. Strongly support - I would also prefer that there were no paid edits. Acknowledging the fact that this is impossible the next closest measure seems to be public disclosure. Stating that this will somehow inhibit contributions seems to be a less than convincing argument by someone whose motives I would consider suspect. I would expect someone writing on a technical subject to disclose their affiliation with a manufacturer. That doesn't diminish their credibility in and if itself. To notice that the same person is improperly writing to extoll the virtues of a company technology while denigrating a competitor's would give me pause; were I to know their sponsorship. I, again, strongly support this measure. ImNotEinstein (talk) 05:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
5. Strongly support -- public disclosure is the right approach and this amendment is very crisp and clear Timdig (talk) 06:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
6. Support - while there are valid concerns about possible discrimination against paid editors (and a potential restriction of their contributions), I do not think that a simple disclosure requirement when being paid to edit articles is harmful. Rather, this will improve transparency and possibly dissuade companies and organisations from astroturfing. However, we shouldn't ban all paid contributions, since people are definitely capable of keeping their biases to a minimum and contributing positively. TROPtastic (talk) 06:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
7. Support - (as mentioned under "Support", above) - commercial entries useful to maintain accuracy of technical specs and protocols - do not ban. Douglas Ray (talk) 11:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
8. Strongly Support Because what you will have if you do not disclose paid material is fake science creeping in under false pretenses of being bona fide scientic experimentation, data, and thus conclusions. For instance just think of sugar and how now that people are finding out about the grave dangers of it, there suddenly appear these new scientific studies on how all sugar substitutes are deadly, and create neurological, liver and other permanent bodily damages. You get to a point where you don't know which conclusions to believe. The same applies to things like the science of "global warming" which has been proven to be fake science in order to further the efforts of central bankers to create wealth out of a new Carbon Tax which is based on consumption versus the old way of taxing production. This sheds a whole new light on the "climate change" science and all the while ignores verifiable facts to the contrary (look out your back door if you live in certain zones during the winter of 2013-2014) of global warming that the earth is in fact getting colder. The media is reporting an alternate reality via propaganda provided by corporations and politicians, and wouldn't it be nice to be able to go to a source where you can find the truth according to "follow the money" to discover the connections? Steedcarat (talk) 07:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
9. Strongly Support -- as noted much earlier on, "Sunshine is the best disinfectant." Perhaps we could broaden this to include articles written, not just edited, by house flacks as well. It annoys me greatly to seek information and be presented with an infomercial, infrequent as this may be. I'm mulling over the suggestion that "political interns, military and the like" should be counted as paid editors also. I'm definitely one of thos who would like to see all THREE proposed ID methods for paid edit. A small boxed "paid edit" label linked to a more complete statement at the end of the article, with links there to the other two modes --user's page or talk page-, would give the reader a heads-up without much muddying the reading, seems to me. Do we then need a clarification of what size of edit (only non-judgemental way to judge impact I can think of) must be so identified? Or would a "paid" editor ever bother with just cleanup? A company certainly has a right to see that facts are correct (years, spellings, other 'tis or 'taint items). M Lou102WK (talk) 08:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
10. support - proposal fine as is. --Diligent (talk) 10:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
11. "Support" 109.145.84.211 12:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
12. Support - sunlight is essential to seeing what is happening. Require disclosure so that readers can make their own judgments, but don't ban paid contributions: There will be paid contributors who can make neutral & positive contributions. Alan J Shea (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

    An outright ban would be unjust. It is not uncommon for companies to have articles on Wikipedia that are defamatory, or at least strongly slanted against them (see this Stormfront post), and company articles often aren't on any Wikipedian's radar. If a company finds itself in that position, they have to be able to say so on Wikipedia, and if need be remove grossly defamatory material themselves. Andreas JN466 19:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

13. Support - I generally support the guideline for informing other editors about your consultant status, but please, the objections I am reading here are just preposterous. Of course COI issues should always be disclosed, WE ALREADY HAVE A GUIDELINE FOR THAT. My opinion is this: NOBODY MADE YOU THE KING, SO STOP TRYING TO CONTROL PEOPLE. Wikipedia guidelines are sufficient for specifying the editing task. I agree with a guideline that states that paid consultants should announce themselves as such. Good on you. Now, all edits by all editors must conform to Wikipedia guidelines as already constituted, for ever and ever, amen, without regard to who you are or why you are here. YOUR PERSONAL REASON FOR BEING HERE IS NONE OF MY BUSINESS. The conformance of your edits to established guidelines are all that I care about. If an editor's edits comply with guidelines and rules, then any other concern that you may have is about something other than making a good encyclopedia. In other words, you have control issues that you should deal with offline, not here. Have a great day.Jarhed (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
14. support - proposal fine as is.
15. Support - I support this proposal as distortion of information and inaccuracy are fatal to the aims of the wikipedia project. However self-policing of this will be most likely to be extremely ineffective for obvious reasons. Careful checking of entries ex-post will be needed and this gives me some cause for concern. There seems to be a good deal of attention paid to the low hanging fruit, asking questions such as "is this new entry relevant?", rather than the significantly more onerous study required for "is this assessment of the evidence fair". Who has the time to enter into the depths of quoted references to check the analyses which are presented? And yet I have seen some text entries, particularly with respect to historical events, which appear polemical. JChurchman-Davies
16. Support - I support this proposal as a common sense measure to increase the reliability of content. It makes total sense to require full disclosure of any edits that are made by individuals who receive compensation of any kind for their posting.
17. Support - I support this proposal, or rather, I do not oppose it. It maintains the present spirit of Wikipedia contributions; does not make any statements on whether or not pseudonymity is the advasary of good form; recognizes situations in which paid contribution might legitimately occur without abuse; and, if implemented properly, solves the problem of using Wikipedia as a means to manipulate information.
18. Support - I support this balanced proposal. Trassiorf (talk) 20:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
19. Suport - I support this proposal.
20. Support - I support this proposal. It's another means of making sure the information is good. I don't think this proposal should be any stronger at this point since there may be plenty of situations in which paid contributions are accurate and helpful edits.
21. Support - I support this proposal as is. Stronger language may weaken Wikipedia as it would discourage professional input into areas of technical or scientific specialty that require a higher than amateur understanding to effectively comment. Disclosure of affiliation is both fair and an ENDORSEMENT of the editor's skill set and professionalism.
22. Support- I support this proposal, it promotes transparency, as disclosure is absolutely essential for maintaining a healthy public discourse. It doesn't seem to take too strong of a stance against paid contributors (which I like), but it curtails some of their potential powers (which I like even more.) The key is keeping published articles from homogenizing issues and promoting transparency, which the disclosure mandated by thins proposal clearly supports.
23. Support- I support this proposal. Compensation influences the intention of the writer. When the intention is bad the results will be bad.
24. Agree with #1 above. Lana
25. Support- I support this proposal. Where does it leave Google though, one of the biggest corporates in the world, that realistically owns Wikipedia? Most Google employees, at any rate many, are high level editors, so it seems. Hmmm. Perhaps adding religious affiliation might be better, seeing as most googlies are going to be Hindu's or Bhuddists, and editing divides along world-view (religious) lines?
26. Support. The presence of paid editing is an issue that is of legitimate concern to the Foundation and Board and this proposal sets a reasonable basis for it on a cross-project level. More specific concerns are best addressed at the individual project level which can adopt additional limits on paid editing of need be. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
27. Support only in its current form, no extra restrictions. Suitov (talk) 11:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
28. '"support"' its already hard to manage some paid editors swamping some contentious issues.Polypipe Wrangler (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
29. Support in current form, no extra restrictions. Transparency, Transparency, Transparency!
30. Support I do not edit, but use frequently. 74.195.249.180 16:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)JAP --75.70.248.209 03:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
31. Support Pro transparency and disclosure.
32. Support I think Wikimedia thought this out well. This is a modest change making it more likely that your edit will get more scrutiny if you were paid to make it. This page is MASSIVE, so maybe this was addressed, BUT, IF: the fact that an editor is paid is only acknowledged on an editor's talk page (and not present at each instance of editing); THEN: an individual that edits in a paid capacity as well as a personal capacity should be encouraged to have separate accounts for these 2 capacities. (People in this situation would likely do this anyway)
33. "Support" - With the caveat that User Pages are expected to have time periods if the editor no longer is no longer affiliated with whatever organization. i.e. not everyone keeps the same affiliation forever with employers and gifters, etc.
34. "Support" Here we only want to assure the quality of the contributions, maybe this is a primary way, wish this can be promoted the all of the users.
35. Support for the sake of maximizing transparency while retaining usability. If there were additional ways to identify material added by paid writers, I would also support that if it could be done without making anything else harder to do. If not, I support the amendment in its current form. Clarifythis (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
36. Support because I believe that transparency are required but not preventing professional writers to contribute to Wikipedia. The proposal would allow users to make an informed decision.

Oppose

Note: Many people below seem to be misunderstanding the proposal being discussed. Wikipedia is NOT pondering to start paying for contributions, or anything of the sort, which has apparently outraged several commenters below. Please do read Terms of use/Paid contributions amendment in more detail. 4ndrepd (talk) 16:07, 28 February 2014 (Oppose

1. Strongly Oppose: Many of the unpaid editors perform their own version of editing for a cause. Is it any less egregious to edit a page for purely political motivations, irregardless of known facts to the contrary, than it is to edit for pay? In many cases, I'd suspect the paid edits are more neutral and objective than many of the partisan edits I've witnessed on Wikipedia. Silliness.
2. Strongly Oppose: There are many countries where a single dollar means a lot of money. And if they can't access to the information that wikipedia offers because they can't afford it, that will contribute to knowledge stagnation. and that is really bad. Wikipedia is not starting to charge for access. Read the article before leaving such a stupid comment.
3. Oppose - as someone says in the support section (I agree with the comment below) - Wikipedia is quite capable of looking after itself. I know that when I look at the Conservative Party Wikipedia page it has probably been edited by a member of the conservative party with an inherent biase. If I see something truly wrong there (as a non-Conservative) I will edit it - that, fundamentally is how Wikipedia works. If I look at a specialist page on the reflecting superposition compound eyes of natant decapods, I'm pretty sure that the information presented there will represent contemporary facts and understanding written by geeks like me. Perhaps Wikipedia need to add a gauge to each page that indicates how often it has been edited which will indicate to people that there are contentious issues on the page. If a commercial company is using Wikipedia as a shop window (fair enough) they should pay the Wikipedia Foundation for their entry but have to live with the fact that it can be edited by anyone.
4. Strongly Oppose - the question has confused some. See above SUPPORT talk - many support when they in fact appear to want to oppose. This is insidious. Secondly - having support has a general assumption of something positive... wiki, you are starting to lose the benefit of the doubt.
5. Oppose I was checking out a commercial product on YouTube which claimed "solid science" was behind it. I came to Wiki to find out about the cell biology "facts" quoted in the add. If I thought this company could edit the biology pages to suit it's ads, I would never trust Wikipedia again. The very suggestion to consider the question of allowing such editing, even if disclosed, is offensive and has diminished my trust already.
6. Very strongly oppose This will cripple Wikipedia's growth enormously!Awarningmessage (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC) How?
7. STRONGLY OPPOSE - Wikipedia should not consider taking payment for any article/editing etc. Taking donation is best way and honest way.It isn't. Wikipedia is not starting to take paid articles. Read the article before leaving such a stupid comment.89.211.116.250 16:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

   Wikipedia isn't paying or being paid. Companies are paying individuals to edit their wikipedia pages, and make them look good. This amendment tries to prevent that. 208.15.90.2 20:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

8. Vehemently Oppose - I want my donations back. I did not donate to support this supposedly "free" enterprise so that it could in turn pay for contributions. I feel like a fool to have ever donated my family's hard-earned money to support this sham. If Wiki truly pays for contributions, I WILL NEVER DONATE AGAIN ... and I will tell everyone in all of my many circles what a sham this is. Paid contributions remind me of the researchers who "find" that their paid endorsers' products are the best. Shame on you. Backbone310 (talk)It isn't. Wikipedia is not starting to pay for articles. Read the article before leaving such a stupid comment.

   Note: the above comment is the user's only edit, ever. And its nonsensical; it's not about what this is about; see comment by 208.15.90.2 just above. --24.4.140.255 20:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

9. Strongly Oppose — This would basically be an institutionalized ad hominem and is completely unnecessary. Well-sourced edits that concur with NPOV are not invalidated by any affiliation, and are not invalidated even if the user gets paid for them. Unsourced edits, or edits violating NPOV do not need a claim of affiliation to be reverted.—Austriacus (talk) 16:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

   I guess you have misunderstood this. Note that the requirement to declare paid contributions does not restrain you from making purely voluntary contributions. You would also NOT be forced to disclose affiliation on your user's page, it would be sufficient to disclose it with each specific edit that you were paid (or otherwise externally "stimulated") to make. 62.178.250.9 08:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

   Note, however, that being identified as a paid contributor does not immediately implicate the invalidation of its edits. Rather, it would merely be a warning flag to investigate those edits, in order to verify that that payment is not in fact compromising NPOV nor causing a conflict of interest. That, I am in support of. 4ndrepd (talk) 16:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

10. Strongly Oppose- "The law is an ass." This rule set provides a framework for future invasions of privacy and the bedevilment of the "little guy". Once enacted, unintended consequences will cascade. The technical barriers to publishing in this format have grown exponentially; it's a natural evolution that payment to skilled people will be involved. Struggling semipro writers will be scared away from economically marginal projects while big money will press forward with carefully calibrated spin. You can't legislate morality; this well-intentioned effort is sure to backfire.Klasovsky (talk) 14:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
11. Strongly Oppose-- I disagree with this proposed change for reasons of privacy (the user below who dismisses privacy as "not an issue here" goes on a tangential non sequitor), difficulty of enforcement, and the free flow of information. As a user below write, "knowledge will work itself out." The fact that someone may have a financial interest in a topic does not mean their contribution will automatically be manipulative or biased, and this proposed change disincentivizes meaningful contributions from folks merely because of institutional affiliation. Frankly, NPOV problems are far more likely when strong beliefs--not a paycheck--are involved. The use. Regardless, there is clearly no consensus here, and a change that follows a "mini-consensus" will be destructive to the community.192.204.30.29 06:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
12. Strongly Oppose-- Privacy is integral to the contribution of information today. Doing this would also mean that employees can't speak ill of their companies or the field they work in or related matter. Knowledge and information should have nothing to do with a person's background. What's important is the information not the person who contributes this verifiable information. They shouldn't have more of a say because they work there. Also this would mean that it is easier to get proof of favourable information than unfavourable information. Also employees would be encouraged to speak well of their companies as this is considered good business sense. 117.213.3.211 18:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)Privacy

    Privacy is not an issue here. It is possible to protect it, while also protecting the project: people that really need an anonymity should be able to file an OTRS request to register the registration of an anonymizing account for their contributions where they need privacy, but paid contributions rarely need that and have objectives (imposed to them by others that paid them) that should be disclosed, and have nothing to do with their own privacy.

    Also note that IP users (like you) are definitely not anonymous: if you really want privacy, you absolutely need (for now) to register an account and use it to logon, because your externally traceable IP address will be part of the public logs. verdy_p (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

    I know my IP is shown. However I was referring to details about the person which is sensitive information. If you'll read below I have more posts on why this amendment makes it worse. I do however wish my IP address wasn't shown but having an account to cover up your traces is futile as NSA technology has clearly shown. If anything it would help connect the dots more easily.117.221.189.242 16:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)Privacy

13. Oppose -- because I was paid to oppose this, so clearly it is a terrible idea.

    Lol. Thank you for your honesty. ArthurDent006.5 (talk) 10:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

14. Strongly Oppose -- it is easier to manage trolls, than the powerful corporate interests. Knowledge will work itself out. Free access gives access to all. If approved, it will be the beginning of the end of the spirit of wiki.
15. Strongly Oppose -- I don't not believe this is going to solve anything, and may prohibit good editors from editing articles that they have a large amount of knowledge about. --Wildboy211 (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
16. Oppose -- This amendment will solve nothing, as contracts will be re-written and Wikipedia edits will simply be considered a free "bonus" alongside other services provided by an agency. Every edit should be judged on merits, should be factual and present accurate information. It is not relevant if said edit is paid for by someone if it has good quality - such a disclosure would diminish value of valid entries, when the payment was in all good faith (you could pay someone with writing skills to do it for you)
17. Oppose -- Even if labeling the paid contributors is practical for maintainig a Npov, Labeling them is like accepting the situation as normal and encouraging it. This situation is supposed to be out of wikis pollicies and we must not accept them. The reputattion of this enciclopedia wouldnt be the same if it is known that a great number of edit are paid and that pollocies allow this to happen. Unmismoobjetivo (talk) 13:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
    1. @Unmismoobjetivo: Thank you for raising this concern. We do not think that this represents "accepting the situation as normal", and have tried to explain why above. Hope that helps. —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
18. Strongly Oppose -- Every edit, be it from a paid or non-paid person, should be judged on its own merits. Forcing people to disclose this would make it too easy to discriminate against them and content they create, even if it is perfectly valid and in line with what others are contributing.
19. Strongly Oppose
20. Strongly oppose - no point making an unenforceable policy.--Eliterealprogamer (talk) 17:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
21. i'm very choqued that this important think is not wrigting in other languages. Et je suis "strongly oppose" à cet amandeandement. Si les gens veulent être rémunéré, il sn'ont qu'à publié allieurs. Qu'ils créent un autre wiki. Il doit exister une source de savoir gratuit, c'est wikipédia. C'est un opa inacceptable sur les baleurs qui ont fondé cette encyclopédie.--Jean.jul (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

    Salut Jean.jul ... le projet a été traduit en français, italien, espagnol, allemand, et japonais. Tu peux voir les traductions en haut de cette page. Geoffbrigham (talk) 01:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

22. Strongly Oppose- Why limit people. The exsisting system has always worked. If it ain't broke don't fix it.
23. Oppose — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 99.22.13.158 (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
24. Oppose -- didn't we just have a referendum on this in a different forum? I thought that the consensus there was against, but could be wrong. I agree with the first poster above. Paid editing can be a problem, but this amendment will only hurt people who are trying to do the best, NPOV work and not catch people who won't disclose. Mscuthbert (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC) [addendum 10-minutes later; realizing now that that discussion was on en:wp, not on meta]
25. Strongest possible oppose. This will do nothing to stop those POV-pushers and other paid editors who do not care for the rules in the first place, and will only serve to discourage those who genuinely mean well, because those are the ones who actually try to follow the rules. We should not automatically assume that all paid contributors necessarily have a COI, because to do so will only result in pushing away the many that indeed do not, such as GLAMs and other professionals who simply wish to share their knowledge. -— Isarra ༆ 03:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
26. Not that I think that we should be voting on this, but this seems as good a place as any other to state my objections. First, there's no evidence presented that (a) this is sufficiently widespread to require action and (b) this is causing sufficiently widespread content problems. Second, I feel that edits should stand and fall on their own merits; we shouldn't attempt to differentiate edits as to whether they were paid or not, just whether they are helpful or unhelpful. Third, paid editing may have different effects on different projects and this is the sort of thing that should be dealt with on a project-by-project basis, not globally. JYolkowski (talk) 03:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
27. Strongly Oppose -- no conclusive proof that paid admins or editors are adding entries that break the rules of wikipedia.

    There was at least one such case in Russian Wikipedia, with "paid admin" concluding deletion discussion "Keep" for the article he was paid for (now he does not have admin rights). Tatewaki (talk) 00:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

28. Oppose - As long as it does not violate the Wikipedia:NPOV and other rules pertaining to edits, it does not make any difference. Moreover, this does discourage people from making legitimate edits, even by making others judge such edits. And, as long as the policies and Terms of Service are not violated by contributing paid edits, such edits do not make much net differences. Rishikeshan (talk) 04:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
29. Oppose. Beyond the myriad of grey situations The Signpost points out, this rule is essentially unenforceable. There would have to be proof of a violation in order for WMF to take action. Without that proof, paid editing shall continue. Regardless of money changing hands, everyday Wikipedia will be assaulted by numerous pop culture fans, POV warriors, and vandals and this change will do nothing to solve that larger problem. Chris Troutman (talk) 08:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
30. While the outline of the proposal as given didn't sound that bad, the one thing that worries me with such a rule change is that it might cause people to try to remove legitimate information on the basis of it being posted by someone whom they don't like (even, potentially, in completely unrelated articles -- example, Person A noticing So-and-So is the owner of a company he hates, so Person A starts reading through everything So-and-So ever posted, looking for things to make complaints against.) While there is a separate harassment rule that's supposed to combat this sort of thing, it sounds like it would be inviting more of these kinds of problems, and strife for everyone. All in all, it seems to me like as long as the citing sources rule is followed, it shouldn't really matter if someone was paid to post it or not -- any source in a Wiki article might have been created by a paid, biased person, so what difference does it make after that? --
31. Strongly Oppose -- Most articles are written by experts, but experts inevitably are employed in a way that creates a theoretical conflict of interest, even though it seems most edits seek accuracy rather than angle. Are you going to forbid Google employees from editing the Microsoft Bing page? Or the Information Retrieval page? How about the Microsoft employees? Wikipedia works because for every malevolent edit there is a curative counter-edit; leave it that way. Otherwise "Discussion" pages are just going to fill up with even more nonconstructive, unprovable flame-war about 'conflict of interest,' you're going to require people who contribute to Wikipedia to jump through even more hoops than they already do, and you're ultimately just going to drive more potential contributors away while not fixing anything in the process. 67.164.149.104 08:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

    I understand your point of view, 67.164... To be clear, the proposed amendment would not cover the Google employee writing about Microsoft Bing ... unless Google was paying the employee to make those edits. There may be specific COI project policies that could apply, but not the proposed amendment. Thanks. Geoffbrigham (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

32. Strongly oppose. You don't have to prove your good faith, you don't have to say where you're working, you just have to say that you're paid for contributions. And that's enough.--Sammyday (talk) 13:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
33. Oppose -- All edits and newly made pages should be judged on their merit which includes quality of references, writing, and notability. The Tallest Tower (talk) 13:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
34. Strongly Oppose as underthought bad implementation -- It should be obvious from the many comments that the proposd is more heavily flawed than the existing situation and would cause things to get worse not better. I'll suggest that WP should start by following norms on guidance -- begin a WP:PAID page and have WP admins including grant holders test out following it -- and reorient thinking into NPOV and goal being 'how do we guide this towards being a good thing'. Markbassett (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
35. Oppose, as redundant, in addition to the following: we would be giving up, as a community, the right to collectively decide who can edit and how, by placing that decision in the hands of the foundation. Effort after effort to ban paid editing has failed, that is the will of the editorial body--this smacks of a minority trying to find any way to get around the majority because it doesn't like the will of the people. Jeremy112233 (talk) 15:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

    I would also add that this being written in English, as something that would effect all languages is extremely problematic as it takes away the right to vote of thousands of non-English Wikipedians who cannot access this discussion due to language barriers!!! Jeremy112233 (talk) 15:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

    Hi Jeremy. The proposal was rolled out in six languages: English, Japanese, Italian, Spanish, German, and French. We have discussions in different languages below, and encourage people to participate in their native language. (The legal department itself is fluent in seven languages.) Geoffbrigham (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

    As long as the disclosure about their paid editing has been made on their user page, they have the same restrictions on editing as everyone else - according to current version of the draft. But perhaps this should be clarified. My very best wishes (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

36. Oppose. Neutral and verifiable content is neutral and verifiable content. If it's not, remove it. If it is, leave it in. Should we require members of a church to identify themselves when editing articles involving that faith? Should people have to self-identify their ethnic heritage when editing articles on a historic genocide? There are so many places where bias come into play in Wikipedia that calling out one form of bias as being more damaging to the encyclopedia than others is, in my opinion, inappropriate and creates second-class content. I will say that, as a PR guy by trade who nevertheless has only edited Wikipedia for a client maybe a half-dozen times, my professional association's ethics already require me to identify when I'm speaking on somebody's behalf and I've always done so. Jmozena (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
37. Oppose -- This is a rule attempting to indirectly fix a perceived problem. First, where is the data indicating that paid edits are a substantial problem? Second, if the problem with paid edits is that they are not up to WikiMedia standards, that should be addressed directly with modifications to submission rules rather than targeting of certain users. Third, how could this ever be enforced? There will always be more ways to hide paid activity than there are ways to detect it. This rule will simply send the worst offenders deeper into the shadows while potentially discouraging valuable content. 67.152.152.11 15:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
38. Oppose WMF legal department is trying to enter of spying of users, breaches of privacy of user and violates the autonomy project. The lawyers from legal department of WMF are trying to guess the intentions of editing users and legal department is trying decided about possibility of editing by users. Meanwhile, it is important that the editing is NPOV, WER etc. and not whether the editor got or not to got the money. I agree also with Jeremy that lawyers of WMF takes away the right to vote of thousands of non-English Wikipedians. This proposition is the next step from legal department of WMF to exclude users from project and yourself decide on all matters not only Wikipedia, but even but even about what motives editing must have a user. The extreme arrogance ! --Piotr967 (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
39. Oppose. The only argument provided is to help the editors avoid their own liability: that's their concern and is no reason to adjust our policy. If there's some other, better argument to be made, make it.LlywelynII (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
40. Oppose - see below
41. Strongly Oppose - Go to any public discussion forum where individuals share unpopular views or views which are seen to be those of a large group; the calls of "paid shills" are vehement. Do we want this sort of crowing to exist even moreso within the wikipedia talk pages, now citing a rule? I do not think this makes any sense. The moderated anarchy of wikipedia is what keeps it useful, this serves no purpose other than making people with a financial bias (rather than the nonfinancial biases the rest of us do) wear a scarlet letter. --Dramamoose (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
42. Oppose -- A case of trying to swat a fly with a sledgehammer. In my own situation, I often work as a conrractor for a certain high-tech Fortune 500 corporation you all have heard of. In the past, I have helped some individuals with writing Wikipedia articles, & sometimes I have edited articles about technology they sell, although prior to their submission -- & sometimes during business hours. (For the record, my contribution has been to format them, & make them conform to Wikipedia standards. Once added to Wikipedia, my attitude towards them is that they live or die on their own merits; I do not have a yardstick for notability in that subject to know which subjects are notable.) However, I am contractually bound not to disclose this relationship. (See Nondisclosure Agreement in any encyclopedia.) So, in effect, this proposal will forbid me from contributing to any technology-related article, even to fix typos or add references. Thanks a lot, WMF. -- Llywrch (talk) 17:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

    Hi Llywrch. I respect your opinion. To be clear, the proposed amendment would not prohibit you from making the above edits, unless your company was explicitly paying you to do so. If companies have nondisclosure agreements, under the proposed amendment, they should not be paying employees to make edits in support of the company. Thanks. Geoffbrigham (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

    Geoffbrigham, the point Llywrch is making is that virtually ALL large companies with consultant/contractor/similar employees — which is for taxation-related reasons becoming widespread — tend to give ALL such employees a blanket NDA as a condition of employment. (This is WP:OR on my part, sorry, but trust me here. :-)   The point of these standard blanket mandatory NDAs is to keep the consultant from using the name of the big company, in marketing their consulting services. However, the current language of the TOU-amendment sounds like consultant/contractor/similar folks are now prohibited from editing wikipedia, whether about the company or about the products of that company, or article which are somehow related to the company. This is particularly harmful, because consultant/contrator/similar folks tend to have breadth of experience (from working at many different jobs) as well as frequent downtime (between jobs). I suggest thinking carefully about how to phrase the language, so that Llywrch is able to contribute to the encyclopedia without violating their NDA. Specifically, if a person is a consultant at HugeCorporation, and makes an edit to the w:search engine article, which is an industry where HugeCorporation has a product-or-service offering, then putting "I have w:WP:COI" into the edit-summary would not violate the letter of the NDA the person signed with HugeCorp, whereas putting "I am a consultant for HugeCorp" into the edit-summary would definitely violate the terms of the standard NDA with HugeCorp. Does this make sense? I suggest that option#3 language be revised, to permit 'vague' disclosure that a particular edit was compensated. Thanks for improving wikipedia, see you around.

      p.s. I will bug LuisV (WMF), with another concern, somewhat along the same lines of clarifying the language... the first option currently says "#1 a statement on your user page" ... but in fact this needs to be more clear, because simply stating "I work for an employer" without specifying who is of little help in userspace. *Which* employer? (By contrast, if you edit w:iPhone and say "I have COI" then we can figure it out.) Furthermore, anons have only user-talkpages, so that should be explicitly included. I suggest saying "#1 an explicit statement naming your employer(s) on all your userpages" or perhaps 'on all pages in your userspace'. Similarly, the language of the second option needs to specifically refer to article-space, not to userspace. "#2 a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions" should be clarified as "#2 a statement that you have w:WP:COI (the name of your exact employer is optional) on the article-talkpage accompanying each paid contribution to the associated article". HTH. 74.192.84.101 02:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

    74.192 - as I read your argument, companies can't let their paid edits on Wikipedia be disclosed because they a) want to minimize their taxes, or b) they just can't bothered to modify a standard contract form. Smallbones (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

    Geoffbrigham, I don't think you appreciate the problem from a contributor's position. Let me explain it in terms you might understand. You are a lawyer, & make a living from that -- which everyone knows. One day someone at the Foundation, knowing your background asks you to fix an article on trademark law for a specific coutnry which is in obvious need of work, which you do in full compliance of Wikipedia rules. How do you prove this wasn't a violation of this proposed "paid contirbutions" amendment? I have seen contributors hounded from the English Wikipedia for less problematic reasons. (And anyone at whom this amendment is targeted usually violates other, more obvious rules at the same time -- & can be banned from the project on those grounds.) The fact I cannot disclose possible COI in advance due to NDA terms only compounds the problem I face here. -- 134.134.139.74 17:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

43. Oppose - I'm going to throw my oppose vote in here, on the basis that the Wikimedia Foundation, its founder, and its vendors who are paid with WMF donors' money, have not amply demonstrated (even as recently as 2013) that they are themselves capable of properly disclosing their financial or other professional conflicts of interest when editing Wikipedia. If the WMF, founder, and vendors can properly abide by this proposed amendment for the period of six months, then the WMF legal team can present it to the board. But if we catch multiple failures to properly disclose, then the clock re-starts for another six months. -- Thekohser (talk) 17:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
44. Oppose -- Everyone has his or her right to advocacy. Also unenforceable. Very naive idea. Alonso McLaren (talk) 17:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
45. Oppose - It's the content of the edit, not who's doing it, that matters. If a paid editor is making POV edits, there are already ways to deal with it. Furthermore, a dishonest editor wouldn't follow this proposed rule any more than the existing rules which such inappropriate editing already breaks. Indyguy (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
46. Strongest possible oppose - "Paid editing" is like a wolf in sheep's clothing, because it is naive to assume that such editors will have the best interests of our wikis at heart. If this amendment is implemented, it will give a green light for any business to take advantage of this "free advertising". If this proposal is implemented, it won't be long before someone proposes that we solve the cashflow problem by hosting advertisements. Eventually we will end up with some business-appointed bigwig sitting on our board. Where will it stop? If you have the time, please look at the history of the Cooperative Bank, which used to have community-focussed purposes until it let sly and subversive people lead it up the garden path, with small changes here and there (all with the "best of intentions"). The final nail in the coffin was a blundering chairman who left the bank deep in crisis. This is what will happen to us if we let profit-oriented people and organizations to get their foot in the door. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 17:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
47. This goes against everything I have though Wikipedia to be. It fundamentally changes the face of editing, by allowing for anyone to be paid to edit so long as they "disclose" that fact. No disclosure can make up for the complete reversal of policy and culture that this can and does permit. Therefore, I have no choice but to oppose in the strongest way possible. --Hamtechperson (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

    Hi Hamtechperson - To be clear, this proposed amendment does not endorse paid editing: it requires its disclosure to ensure against misrepresentation of affiliation. Wikimedia communities on their various projects are free to impose stricter standards and even ban paid editing, which a few communities have periodically discussed. Thanks. Geoffbrigham (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

48. Oppose - I put on my user hat to answer this. As a frequent reader of English language Wikipedia articles containing information about countries that use other languages, I assume that many of those contributors are paid editors, if for nothing other than translations. I oppose any further burdens being placed on world contributors who may shy from additional red tape. I think the monitoring system for content, references, quality, and COI works well, as is.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
49. Strongly Oppose as underthought bad implementation - please see vote and comment above by Markbassett as I concur with his reasoning Abyssoft (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
50. Strongly Oppose - This amendment would be antithetical to Wikipedia. If the content isn't neutral or verifiable, any user can remove. It seems counterproductive to identify problematic content and then track down the editor that contributed it just to ridicule them. I think this amendment would harm Wikipedia. Paviliolive (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
51. Strongly Oppose - An ill thought legislation that may well have the exact opposite of it's intended effect. As per Markbassett and Abyssoft before me. Falerin (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
52. Oppose for two reasons: a) People may have personal preferations or interests which bias editing, believe in certain theories, technologies or trends which make them create more lexicon material regarding these themes - while perfectly out of the amendment, this is certainly kind of “self-paid” editing. b) As possibly quite a lot of people, I'm kind of a corporate man. I talk my employer, though I am not paid for this opinion, and I am very anxious not to under- or overemphasize products or technologies we promote here. For the matters of this amendment, however, I would see also these cautious remarks “paid edits enough” and either refrain from further editing or simply add my employer as a precaution although Wikipedia editing never was nor will become part of my job.--Tinne (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
53. Oppose Same as Sammyday : too intrusive. We're strangers among strangers, no knowing who we are is the default state, and suddenly one should disclose employer and client ? That's too much, for too narrow a purpose - paid editing is in no way the only conflict of interest one can have on WP. Esprit Fugace (talk) 20:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
54. Strongly oppose: No one seems to have thought this through. Violating privacy rights and anonymity principles in order to direct attention to conflicts of interests stemming from economic motives, as opposed to political, personal, religious, juridical etc ones.--Toter Alter Mann (talk) 21:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
55. Strongly Oppose - I feel this is just an invitation to concentrate on the editor instead of the edits, and will cause talk pages to get even more bogged down in speculation of motivations and identities. Moreover, there are legitimate reasons that people, even those whom WMF puts its trust in, not to want to identify themselves, at least that was the conclusion of WMF Legal from the Access to non-public data debate. Jztinfinity (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
56. Strong opposition This is exactly the discussion that failed at Wikipedia 3 separate times, for good reason. I'm amazed that it's coming up again in a different forum so soon. 0x0077BE (talk) 22:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
57. Oppose - contributions to Wikimedia projects should be judged by their merits, not the contributor's motives. --Joshua Issac (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
58. Oppose — Such a regulation could be easily misused to discredit editors with different views. Many editors edit pages on topics they work professionally with, or have as a hobby on a professional level. They love the topic, and just that is why they know a lot and can write a lot about the topic. I have witnessed a lot of cases (at least on my home Wikipedia) somebody got accused of positive bias because of it ("only a neutral editor without any affection to topic can write a good Wikipedia article about it"). Some of them left Wikipedia after being chased in this way, and I am sure Wikipedia is poorer without them. And such a regulation could be easily misused to get such professionals banned (if they have not fully disclosed their professional etc. affiliation) or chased even more (if they have disclosed their professional affiliation and get even more often accused of non-neutral point of view). --Mmh (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

    Note the difference between "being professionally involved with a topic" and "being paid to contribute". Everyone has bias - being paid or not. Being paid to contribute can be very welcome, for example I think students should be paid from university research funds for the effort to contribute. What is needed is that a contributor can be asked to give sufficient detailed explanations and sources / quotes for his contribution.

59. Oppose We're really going to take legal action against someone who does this sort of thing? I have a clause in my employment manual at work that governs how I represent my company online; I'm supposed to disclose that "these views are my own and do not represent those of the company I work for" or something along those lines. I'm also supposed to report anything that I see online that negatively portrays my company. Work is work, life outside of work is my own. Seems like a waste of time, when all the "paid-contributor" has to do is create another account, not disclose what they're doing and away they go again... Have we ever brought legal action against someone who violates the Terms of Service on Wikipedia? If not, why does this matter? Oaktree b (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
    1. @Oaktree b: You asked "Have we ever brought legal action against someone who violates the Terms of Service on Wikipedia?" Yes, we have. Violations of the terms of service were part of our legal action against Wiki-PR. —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 20:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
60. Oppose It seems fair to think about those unfortunate4 individuals who can't afford it.--Brittian (talk) 13:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
61. Oppose Contributions should be valued by the content, not by motives (although I see the dependence of motive and content) --Murma174 (talk) 22:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
62. Oppose. Not in the terms of use. As a local project policy, no problem with an individual community deciding this, but I see no good rationale for being centralistic here. darkweasel94 (talk) 23:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
    1. @Darkweasel94: Don't know if this helps, but in part in response to your question, we explained why we think this belongs in the terms of use in a Q/A above. —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
       1. Yes @LuisV (WMF):, I've seen that, thank you. I've also already responded to it in #Yes, I believe it will. darkweasel94 (talk) 00:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
63. Oppose. If money was involved then some information could be bias and influenced by that money.
64. Oppose. In particular, the legal threat in the proposed amendment is odious. Edits should be considered on a case-by-case basis. I thought that "assume good faith" was the modus operandi here. Moreover, unscrupulous people with a hidden agenda will simply ignore this rule and continue to be disruptive. --When in doubt, eat potatoes (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
65. Strongly oppose.

    (a) No evidence has been presented that any harm has been done to Wikipedia by any compensated contributor. Why impose a policy when there's no evidence of anyone's having done any wrong?

    (b) By your own admission, current policy treats the very abuse that you're trying to discourage.

    (c) How are you going to enforce this policy? How do you know when someone has not disclosed his commercial compensation? Are you going to spy on us -- a la the NSA? And if you do detect a violator, so what? Even if you ban him, he can just register under another account. And if Wikipedia fails to enforce its own policy, does it become liable for its failure to do so? This proposal is useless ; it's a statement of sentiment.

    (d) What is objectionable about commercial compensation? If the XYZ Co. makes a new gadget that becomes hugely popular -- or if only the XYZ Co. makes an obscure widget -- then who's best qualified to write about the gadget or the widget? An employee of the XYZ Co. !

    (e) What about other biases -- political, religious, sexual, etc.? Read some of the articles about, say, the history of Eastern Europe, where contributors fight with brass knuckles. People write articles about things that interest them -- where they're likely to have a bias. (And is there such a thing as a "neutral" point of view about, say, the Holocaust? "Yes, 6 million Jews were shot or gassed, but then they deserved it, according to their killers.")

    (f) Who is the dainty party in Wikipedia who was so "concerned" about crime that hasn't happened that he/she/they proposed this idea? One guy? Two guys? Some bored lawyer? Who has so much influence? And why should the rest of us pay attention to them?

    Don't fall into the bad habit of trying to anticipate all evils. You'll just end up constructing a police state -- full of rules that you can't enforce and that everyone ignores. Worry about more important things; e.g., what you intend to have for dinner tonight. Cwkmail (talk) 01:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

    @Cwkmail: Those are some of the very good points that I've also made. But based on this link the "crime" in question has already been committed. I get the feeling that all this hullabaloo is a direct moral panic reaction to those events. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 02:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

    @TeleComNasSprVen: Hi and thanks for the link. I read the story. Basically the problem was that a couple of guys ran a company that created Wikipedia pages for businesses that weren't "noteworthy". I strongly suspect that Wikipedia is constantly flooded with new articles about subjects that aren't "noteworthy" — kids writing about their high school or their local school sports teams, people writing about their local pond or lake or village, matchbook or bottle collectors writing about their hobbies, etc. It just means that the administrators weren't evaluating the new pages that these two "entrepreneurs" were creating. Lax administration on Wikipedia's part. I still don't see how the proposed policy would stop this activity. It's as if the police requested a law that all burglars register with the police. Not likely to be successful. Cwkmail (talk) 09:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

66. Oppose. This amendment highlights those motivated by money, which reflexively feels apt. However, we must divest ourselves of intuition when it comes to something like this, and consider the wider parallels. Firstly, wikipedians are not immune to witch-hunts, and there is the danger of financial affiliation imbuing the status of pariah on valuable members of the community. Secondly, money is not the only nefarious influence on information -- ideology is at least equally pervasive and harmful. There is no way to remove all forms of bias from the editing of these pages, which leads me to -- thirdly, all edits, and all reviews of an edit, must be made critically, logically and on a case-by-case basis. This amendment would provide a shorthand which would remove the necessity for due process from many editing judgements, and provide a mark which could easily imply pariah status on valuable wikipedians.
67. Oppose approach, support philosophy The current proposed amendment is not strong enough. Every paid edit needs to indicated as such on the page where said edit occurs. No potential bias should be tolerated, but by allowing - or at least not regulating - edits of that nature undermines the mission of non-bias. The amendment, however, lacks the requirement of explicitly showing which edits are made in return for payment. The three listed requirements are not all required, only one of the three. That does not provide the necessary safeguards to draw attention to potential bias. So, as the amendment is currently written I must oppose it. However, with modification of the text to make the restrictions more stringent and strict, I would strongly support the amendment. Wikipedia should continually strive to eliminate bias and to make users aware of edits that may be bias in nature. Cole.E.Hansen (talk) 01:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
68. Oppose The underlying premise is that the merits of an edit have some connection to the identity of the editor. This is an Ad hominem approach that is inconsistent with the long-standing practice of editor anonymity. Wikipedians have developed an amazing system whereby a publication can be edited anonymously, while remaining at least as accurate as other publications with a clearly identified staff. This is because all content must be supported by reliable sources. Biases are managed by [|WP:NPOV] and a variety of additional policies serve to discourage or result in the removal of the types of edits this proposed amendment is designed to prevent. My point is that policies do, and should, be based upon the edits instead of the identity of the editor. When an editor is dealt with adversely, it is because of his or her edits, not an external affiliation. This leads to another issue: Verifiability. It seems like the amendment calls upon an editor who is likely to engage in dubious activity to out him or her self. The easiest thing would be for the editor to refrain from admitting such affiliation to begin with. So the effectiveness of this amendment would depend on an end to anonymous editors.--Libertyguy (talk) 02:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

    Yes, the prevailing wiki philosophy ought to be "comment on the contributions, not the contributor". There are only limited circumstances where an individual user's motives may be used to determine a pattern of problematic/disruptive editing, and even that is limited in power TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 02:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

69. Oppose Dumb, misdirected, and unworkable. Editors making edits just for money will continue to fly under the radar; this just terrorizes editors making potentially good and valuable edits just because of their careers. No government employee can edit an article about the government; no member of the armed forces an article which refers to the armed forces; no author an article mentioning a magazine or publisher which has published them? Nuts.KD Tries Again (talk) 05:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)KD Tries Again

    Definitely respect your opinion KD Tries Again, but I do think your examples do not accurately illustrate the proposed amendment. Under the proposed amendment, you must be receiving compensation by your employee in return for the edit. Most government employees are not paid to edit Wikipedia, for example, so the proposed amendment would not apply to them. Take care Geoffbrigham (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

    Actually, some government employees do edit Wikipedia, and the last thing they want is to see their employer get slammed in the media over some Wikipedia flame war-- whether they're editing on the clock, or off the clock. Djembayz (talk) 14:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

70. Strong oppose The problem with Wikipedia is that it has too many rules, not that it doesn't have enough and needs some more. This will increase the ratio of legal wrangling to actual edits, and prevent simple edits by companies to delete plain untruths, or to, for example, change the date of founding or the name of the managing director. It will also provide yet another reason to hit the occasional ruler over the head with bureaucracy. Mike Young (talk) 09:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
71. Strongly Oppose - and why isn't this discussion available in other languages so that non-English speakers can participate, given you're attempting to shove down their throats a policy that they can't even comment on!? Azx2 (talk) 09:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
72. Oppose because fraught with privacy and expert-disenfrancisment concerns. Consider academics who, in the course of teaching or background reading, have opportunity to contribute to articles in broad fields of expertise (and are extremely unlikely to encounter potential COI). These are the kinds of articles for which expert contributors are most highly sought-after. (A similar issue occurs with other salaried professionals, for whom there may be no clear division between private and paid efforts.) Consider also the like of security guards who are paid to be available on-standby for countless hours on end, but have no particular duties to occupy them (just internet or TV). This amendment will inevitably motivate some overzealous wikilawyering vigilantes (seeking its enforcement) to try to discover (and out-closet) the real-life identities of psuedonymous wikipedians. (This invasion of privacy can easily lead to physical or financial harm, for all the reasons that editors may legitimately not want their contributions associated to the same identities they present to their employers and governments.) Consider if an editor has previously helped to locate objective unbiased sources about a topic that their future employers would find unflattering, or if their contributions reveal a political-stance (or even a sexual orientation) that is outlawed in a place they live or travel. Yes, biased advocacy (especially editors employed to use WP for advocacy) is a problem, but this proposal goes too far. Cesiumfrog (talk) 09:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
73. Oppose 1. Do we have a problem in the first place? 2. Assuming that's true, I don't believe this will fix it. Multichill (talk) 10:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
74. Strongly oppose, Wikimedia could not stand with such decisions. This proposal can result in miserable and biased projects.--78.87.105.61 10:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
75. Strongly oppose, unless Wikimedia and Wikipedia intend to crack down just as thoroughly on ideologically-motivated editors who throw far more bias into articles than paid editors (who are often paid to correct inaccuracies left by unpaid editors), this is an unbalanced and unworkable approach to the problem. Pervasive ideological bias is the issue that OUGHT to be addressed, and never has been by Wikipedia except by rare instances when an article is tagged for rampant NPOV violations. The ability of some editors to halt contributions by other editors by placing a "protect" tag to halt additions they simply don't like is a much worse issue going un-addressed right now. Until we take care of that issue, I fail to see how imposing an ultimately unenforceable stricture against undisclosed paid editing will help. Are we at some point going to require unpaid editors with a political axe to grind to post on their talk page (inside of a text box surrounded by black and yellow police tape lines) "I am a political activist, and I freely admit that my edits are going to be driven by my attiudes, and I will suppress the truth and utter lies in articles to further my political ends"? THEN I might endorse similar strictures on paid editors, who at least are potentially NPOV if one assumes good faith. loupgarous (talk) 10:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
76. Oppose, I think this proposal may cause many good editors that do have some kind of affiliation of relation to the "subject" of an article they want to write to give up writing on the subject. That would be bad because usually they have the best "first-hand" knowledge on it. I think current mechanisms are sufficient to control the quality of the projects. I do not think that additional regulation would help the cause even though "it may sound good". It would be relatively easy to circumvent the proposed regulations anyhow (for example by using a computer in an internet cafe or something like that).--BenVrackie (talk) 12:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
77. Oppose I don't see a need and I believe that overwhelming evidence of a need is required to change a tradition, practice, or procedure. Wikipedia on the whole works and I do not see how this will improve it enough to risk the potential downsides mentioned by many. What we need is honest, passionate, knowledgeable editors. Volunteers are not more honest; their evil motivation might be pride or envy instead of greed. Many people get paid to do what they are passionate and/or knowledgeable about. The honest, passionate, knowledgeable editors who live and work their passion might decide not to edit if this is a rule. They might conclude it is dishonest -- that it is against the terms of service -- to edit articles on topics that relate to their work even if they are not paid explicitly to edit Wikipedia, even if their motivations are pure and honest. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 12:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
78. Oppose If we accept that, we have editors of one type and editors of another.--Xan2 (talk) 13:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
79. Oppose I oppose this proposal, not because I think it's a bad idea but because I don't think it goes far enough. It only covers paid editing. I think it should be extended to cover unpaid/free-time editing of an article if that article relates to the editor's employer, customer or their (and their competitors') products/technologies. For example, I believe an employee of a large proprietary software vendor which has publically opposed Open Source Software should have to declare their affiliation when editing an article on an Open Source Software project or an article on a new technology developped by their employer's competitor in their own time. I think the disclosure should also cover affiliation or employment (whether paid or not) to religious organisations and political parties. PapaRedFox (talk) 13:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
80. Oppose Bad reply to a good question; editing to promote someone's interest is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia; being paid or not is only a part of the problem. Cst7 (talk) 13:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
81. Strongly Oppose in Current Form. Is accuracy of Wikipedia information the primary objective, or is the aim to protect a spirit of the organization as a wholly volunteer effort? If the concern is substantially the accuracy of content, then the proposed change limits focus to payment leading to bias in article accuracy, over other equally tangible, and some intangible origins of bias based on nonpecuniary interest that are just as egregious. For instance, an alumnus of a particular academic scientific research group (having worked with a given faculty member), though presently unpaid by that former mentor, can certainly be expected to display a bias toward the work of that mentor in writing about it. Yet, for the expertise that the former trainee brings, we would not want her or him prohibited from writing about a subject, though the supportive writing likely brings many tangible benefits. (The few scientists who have broken ranks with their former mentors can attest to the suicidal attributes of disowning one's academic "parent".)

    What is needed, perhaps, in both paid and unpaid cases, is a standard disclaimer of affiliations and interests, such as is used by the Nature Publishing Group, for its authors. In such an approach, varying manners of potential content-bias through affiliation and compensation are exposed. Then, critically needed are reforms within the Wikipedia establishment and community to provide a policy regarding source verifiability (and the mechanisms for automated text checking and removal to give the policy "teeth"), see following, so that it becomes the uniform rule, rather than the exception, that we know where Wikipedia content has originated.

    With such in place, we can acknowledge that few will know as much about a company as those within the company itself, few will know as much about a celebrity as their publicist or agent, etc. What matters to accurate content generation is their expertise distilled to useful prose, insofar as what they state can be sourced to Wikipedia standards—then, critically, trusting in the Wikipedia system to provide further information to balance the bias that their association has introduced. For it is a common understanding in the social sciences and humanities that all authors bring bias to their writing. A controversial example would be to note that bias against business exists (cf. http://www.providencejournal.com/opinion/commentary/20140210-jeffrey-h.-joseph-revolving-door-installs-brazenly-anti-business-activists.ece), and can find its way into Wikipedia though its contributors are unpaid, and from individuals in organizations rather than companies. How can we suggest that biases arising form payment are alone inaccurate in direction/emphasis, and so only the paid are egregious? Wherefrom, in the current policy and revisions, are the protections to come, against such unpaid biases, that might also be clarified if affiliations were disclosed? (Note that I am neither pro- nor anti- on any of these matters, but am simply noting that bias is not relegated to paid offerings.)

    Finally, if the verifiability of sourcing were to begin to receive serious attention (e.g., by a high level wikipedia policy review), leading to a more uniform application of a true, steely verifiability policy, then many real bias issues would work themselves out. The glory of the system is the potential for content to become correct over time, as unreferenced or poorly/selectively referenced material is removed. However, to any academic or other scholarly individual that edits regularly, it is clear that the notion that "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." (tag verbiage), is a statement of fiction in some article contexts. (The mechanisms of reversion counting and the existence of editorial cliques serve, in some locales, to maintain status quo despite reams of longstanding unsourced, and therefore potentially inaccurate, biased, and plagiarized material.) As it stands (again, echoing others' comments), there are tremendous biases of various sorts and origins in Wikipedia, and selectively addressing one, while failing to tighten up the policies that can rectify this one and other sources of inaccurate information—for it is the propagation of inaccurate information that should most gaul us—is likely an effort in vain. 16:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC) Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

82. Oppose with prejudice I can't speak for the rest of Wikimedia, but I know that Wikipedia doesn't handle COI well. This takes an aspect of COI and places editors in legal jeopardy for a COI-related issue (paid editing). Very bad idea. Wikipedia is accused of calling it's own secret-police on unfavored editors; now the real police (or FBI, or non-US equivalent) can be called, and the tax-authorities, and suddenly Wikipedia is a government institution, net neutrality is lost - and that's assuming Wikipedia was ever net-neutral. 1000JarsofPickles (talk) 14:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
83. Oppose Strongly This will go to the heart of Wikipedia's credibility. Who wants to read advertorials ? Not me. Would I ? Not in a million years. 86.45.17.60 15:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
84. Oppose Strongly I think this is silly. It is completely unenforceable and calls into question the motives of anyone who happens to work anywhere (heaven forbid that they, like me, happen to work in marketing!). If someone is paid but adds useful content to Wikipedia, it is neither here nor there. If someone is unpaid and adds content to support their own beliefs or prejudices, that is an issue. This is likely to develop into some kind of witch-hunt against people who happen to have access to useful information. 77.100.117.169 16:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
85. Oppose - WMF can respect the privacy and anonymity of its editors, or it can have no paid editing, but it can't have both. To say otherwise is deny common sense and logic, and lead to even more witch hunts, sock accusations, and attempted outings (at least on English Wikipedia; can't speak to behavior on other projects) NE Ent (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
86. Strongly Oppose. Any Wikipedia policy which in any way permits paid editing/ advertising in Wikipedia, for any reason, radically alters the entire nature of Wikipedia. While, admittedly, the enforcement of the prohibition against paid advertising/ editing in Wikipedia may be difficult, retaining a policy of absolute prohibition against paid edits remains absolutely necessary. Otherwise Wikipedia loses the basis of its greatest claim to highly unbiased editing. Scottperry (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

    Thank you Scottperry. To be clear, this proposed amendment does not prohibit project bans on paid editing. It simply requires disclosure. More is said here about that. Thanks. Geoffbrigham (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

87. Strongly Oppose - I see this as a solution looking for a problem. Maybe paid editing is a problem, but aside from a few high-profile cases it does not appear to affect the vast majority of articles. The vast majority of problems that I have encountered with Wikipedia articles involved people who were highly-motivated people with ideological biases. Consider how many Wikipedia science articles now have a counterpart "Controversies" page as a means to get around the Undue Weight prohibition. For that matter, Undue Weight is one of the biggest problems I see in Wikipedia articles in general, where information from highly reputable sources (ie NIH, CDC) gets a single paragraph and information from a few crackpots gets five. The people who add the crackpot information are not paid, but they are often highly motivated by ideological biases, usually more motivated than people who just want to add relevant verifiable information.

    And it needs to be said that people who try to add good reliable information are often already accused of being "shills" by said ideologues. All that this proposal will do is give these people more ammunition, and if they accuse me of being paid or having a COI (neither are true), the only way to conclusively demonstrate that I have no COI would involve disclosing personally identifiable information. This is an essential problem at the heart of Wikipedia's philosophy: experts are distrusted because expertise implies COI (and possible even monetary compensation in the field), while we trust non-experts to be able to accurate comprehend and summarize highly technical literature. There are serious limitations to this philosophy, as demonstrated in many medical articles. Often we're lucky if non-experts even understand MedRS and why it's important, much less whether they can fit what their one source says in with the larger body of literature in a given subject. I oppose this proposal, but I think that it underscores a much deeper problem with Wikipedia in general. Hyperion35 (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

    This is what I fear. Genuine editors will be dissuaded by editors who will wave the "conflict of interest" flag as soon as they see the edit comment. It's unworkable bullshit that the real shills will ignore because they can. Short of catching IP addresses known to belong to companies or PR companies, how would we even spot this? More likely honest editors who note their affiliation will get mired in the conflict of interest accusations, and end up in Internet Court instead of making edits, good or bad, that other editors can scrutinise impartially. Concernedresident's butler (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

88. Oppose If only because it's completely unenforceable, and will increase, rather than decrease, the problems with paid editing. Good edits, paid or not, should be encouraged. Bad edits, paid or not, should be fixed. This helps neither of these goals, and only reinforces the misconception that paid edits are somehow inherently worse than free ones. They are not. Thesteve (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
89. Strongly Oppose - I have had the same idea as writer number 6. DTeetz (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
90. Oppose This encourages paid editing, which often creates lots of articles that look like ads (but not always). It also makes anywhere who works anywhere seem untrustworthy, not to mention that it is completely unenforceable. ~ Missionedit (talk) 20:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
91. Oppose. « because it's completely unenforceable », « Good edits, paid or not, should be encouraged. Bad edits, paid or not, should be fixed. This helps neither of these goals ». Pour moi le principe sur Wikipedia c'est qu'on pouvait contribuer anonymement, donc sans donner aucune information sans soi, et que les contributions étaient jugées uniquement d'après leur qualité et leurs sources. Devrait-on aussi signaler pour qui on vote avant de contribuer sur les articles politiques ? En somme les votes 74 et 75 résument bien ma position. --Ululo (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

    The problem is that those paid editors are not free with their own opinions, and there's no way to convince them to change it, given these contents are completely out of their control. They are acting as proxies for someone else that is not honnest enough to reveal who he is (and that may have paid lots of other pseudo-"contributors" to force their content to be published (an in that case, most of these contents will be crap but as they seem to have supporters (the hidden paid proxies acting as if they were independant), this unbalances severely the weight of other independant contributors acting on their own initiative (and that can be convinced and with whom it's possible to negociate). Paid editors will never vary any iota about what they publish simply because they can't (or if they do, they will be fired by their payer).

    Paid editors are a severe problem for the wanted neutrality of Wikimedia projects : those that can pay more to pay proxies acting on behalf of them, will get a decisive power on the projects against all other independant contributors of the projects (there are companies that pay the internet connection at home of their employees, and instruct them to install a proxying software on their home internet access, so that these companies can send at any time their own content coming from randomized locations not directly identfiable as these companies: these companies are polluting all social networks with their crap but the proxy users have no choice if they want to continue being paid by their employers: those users also are not free to contradict their employers in their own private contributions).

    Yes it will be difficult to enforce it, but with the policy, we know what to do when these hidden proxies will be detected with their fingers still in the honeypot and the Foundation has ways to defend legally against the companies paying these non-free contributors. The policy should help mitigate the risk that companies (or other third parties) will start doing that in Wikimedia projects (for them there's the risk that one of their employees will denounce the abuses by these companies at any time for ay possible conflicts that could oppose later the company with one of its contractors or employees). On Wikimedia, the model we highly prefer for paid proxies is Wikimedians in residence. verdy_p (talk) 21:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

    In addition wth the proposed policy, we have the roots to defend the past paid employees that could be threatened illegally by their past employers for revealing to the world a secret contract between them and the company that they were acting as sockpuppets on Wikimedia projects on behalf of the company. These paid proxies will not be bound by these illegal secret contracts and can defend themselves in a court against their past employers that violated a Wikimedia community policy. That company will be condamned in courts. Globally we are helping to defend the effective freedom of everyone, including the own freedom of these paid proxies, so that they can still refuse to publish things they don't support themselves. In all this, the quality, or non-quality, of these proxied contributions does not matter at all. All this is about keeping the projects free (for everyone to give his own opinion) and neutral. verdy_p (talk) 22:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

    We are also helping protect the point of views of organisations because this policy forbids anyone to impersonate the organization and act as if he was a valid representant acting on behalf of that organizations. The affiliation of these paid proxies can be tested, and asserted, using the OTRS system. This allows than even the powerful organizations to have their own share of point of views in Wikimedia projects, including the NSA, or the US State Departement, or any government, even if they are employing proxies to do work in Wikimedia projects. In summary, this also impoves freedoms for everyone, including moral personalities like organisations, to defend their own opinion, in a fair way, even when the rest of the community has a strong opposition to the positions of these paying organizations. Finally these paid proxies are free to have their own opinions given on separate accounts when they do not act on behalf of their employers: what they wrote under this organization affiliation does not engage themselves for the future, and if they leave the organization and join a competitor, they will be able to give other opinions, including on behalf of the new organization or their own opinion. Everyone will gain with more trust and more reliable sources. verdy_p (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

92. Oppose. Stongly Oppose
93. Oppose. I don't see how these changes will do anything other than add yet another rule for people to inadvertently break, which will be used against them even if the violation isn't intentional. Conflicts of interest are everywhere. Validity of edits shouldn't be based on the identity of affiliations of the editor. It gets silly. How about if I'm in one of those fan-based publicity groups (street crew?) for a band, and I get t-shirts and stuff for going out spreading the word? Technically that must be disclosed, yet a regular fan with no affiliation can make identical edits without disclosure. What if I'm not specifically paid by x company to edit, but it's in my interests to see my employer receive favourable coverage on Wikipedia? I think edits should be judged by their quality and the history of the user - nothing more. Ban hammer disruptive users and revert unsuitable edits. In short, this is a rule that many will inadvertently break, and those looking to circumvent it will very easily do this. Those are warning signs of a bad rule, and this whole idea strikes me as being more about principle than having something useful and workable. Concernedresident's butler (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

    if you are just a fan of a group that may give your some gifts, you are not a contractor with anyone are remain competely free to abandon it, and change your opinion. The policy is there to address the cases where the controbutors are bound to some paid contracts under which they are not free to give their own opinion or drop any dot over a iota in the proxied contributions.

    As long as your favorite fan-club does not incite you by any form of legally enforcable contract, you're not concerned by this policy, because you already agree yourself with everything published in your online contributions. We want people to disclose their affiliations if they do not represent themselves, and we want to make sure that every opinion given in Wikimedia by anyone is effectively endorsed by the contributor himself, or by his paying organisations, affiliating or employing him.

    But if you are doing that to promote a commercial site (including a fan website), then you have to reveal your affiliation with that site for such publication (and if needed, you should use a separate account for publications made under this affiliation; and the affiliation will be also checked, if needed, by the fan-club to make sure that you do not impersonate them without their authorization to damage its own online reputation). verdy_p (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

94. Strongly oppose. A good edit is a good edit, a bad edit is a bad edit; it's as simple as that. If the Wikimedia Foundation feels so strongly about the corrupting influence of money, they should of course immediately stop paying their employees. Yaron K. (talk) 03:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
95. Strongly oppose. Just like PACs in the USA are able to lobby under ambiguous names that do not truly identify their affiliations (and, therefore, conflicts of interest), so, too, can paid contributors and editors even if they are required to provide some sort of self-identification.173.172.73.33 05:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
96. oppose - Edits should be judged based on Wikipedia policies not intent of editors. It is at odds with the philosophy of Wikipedia. --Sicaspi (talk) 08:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
97. Strongly Oppose -- I answered a job ad for a company that has major involvement with this. What alarmed me about their process was not that there was payment for Wikipedia material, but that the company fabricated material in "reliable sources." Obviously, Wikipedia cannot stop the world at large from creating biased or dishonest material. The problem rests, then, in what is considered a reliable source. All too often Wikipedia accepts material from a talk show or a popular magazine or even an Internet entertainment web site. Examination often shows these pieces to be fluff, or biased, or written by marketing departments. Also, examination shows that perhaps 1/4 to 1/3 of the links either are broken, or do not confirm the Wiki content. The problem, then, is that Wikipedia is indiscriminate about sources. One suspects, indeed, that many of those eager to contribute actually don't KNOW any reliable sources. They read a few things online, don't know the subject in depth, and are uninterested in becoming more informed. So their Wikipedia contribution is of indeterminate value. The fault is in Wikipedia's editorial practice. Statements that are backed by citations yielding a "404" page result should be hidden from the text, and placed on the talk page for evaluation, just as an example. Leptus Froggi (talk) 09:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
98. oppose - Initially I intended to support the proposal because I have seen what is obviously 'driven' bias in several articles where there is a request for comment. On reading the comments in abstain I really began to wonder whether the proposal will solve the problem and on reflection I do not think it will. Those who write in wiki in a manner of driven bias will not be stopped by the proposal and may even gain legitimacy through their false credentials as unpaid. Although most of my edits have been made in my own time completely unpaid and unaffiliated I have been in a different situation which I think could reflect that of many wiki editors. For example I have been employed to conduct research and will often use wiki to check sources or information. In doing so I have often corrected minor errors and factual errors and I have been open with my employer about this. If however, I had to disclose my paid employment, my employer would object and it would not have been possible to make such edits. I think that wiki probably works with an army of editors who value wiki and make a positive contribution the best their time allows and I think that wiki cannot afford to lose those editors contributions. Isthisuseful (talk) 09:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

    I believe that you have misunderstood what its written here. From your description of the situation, it is very clear that your employer did not ask you to modify Wikipedia content and it was not given to you as a task to modify content. Your contributions, therefore, are not under the category of paid contributions. Such contributions, are not under the proposed terms of use. --FocalPoint (talk) 12:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

99. Oppose. This information has, in of itself, no relevance to the merits of any given edit. James500 (talk) 13:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
100. Strongly Oppose -- a) The proposal is full of legal terms in English language. Most of the non-native speakers of English language (and I suggest: even most of the English speakers) are not able to understand them fully. So any discussion here must and can be limited to the WP in English language only. (I am a native speaker of German and usually write in the WP in German language). b) There may be a lot of valuable input into WP by people working in organizations, paid by them, who want to contribute knowledge gained there, but without letting their employers know they do so. c) To implant rules which can not be checked properly in their application and which have no real sanctions behind them are useless. -- Reinhard Dietrich (talk) 14:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
101. Oppose Hchc2009 (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
102. Oppose Why is this being discussed in the first place? Where there's money, corruption and lies follow. Simple as that. Keep this place open. Allow us to amass our knowledge in a collective space without having corporate interests come in and ruin it. Let's just face it. Jimbo is tired of begging for money from the userbase, so the only logical solution is to completely sell out. Sadface :(
103. Oppose I have two reasons to oppose this proposed change. First, it appears that a general opinion is being made that paid writers cannot write in a fair and neutral way showing good faith. By someone posting that they are "paid" does that mean they will be held to a higher standard? Second, As an editor, how does one know they don't have an ulterior motive as well? For example, at a job several years ago, I had to submit business listings to DMOZ. Over time, we were discovering many submissions under one category were not being approved. It turned out the editor worked for a competitor and just wasn't approving anything that could be considered competition. So, it really depends on who has "the final say" alvb
104. Oppose - in times, the growing will be less than before, in times, there were too many rules, we will loose too many well writers. And, there is no possibiliy to make difference between paid writing and writing in pages about / relating to my company. As I am a teacher, I'm paid from my state, but if i edit something about my state, my school, then I'm not paid for editing, only I have knowledge while I have a job there. The goal was to have a free encyclopaedia, the targets seems to get a closed wikipedia, where we do not want to have everyone be helping. --Quedel (talk) 16:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
105. Oppose - As being utterly against the goal of Wikipedia to be an open source and anonymous project. My view is that the users voting to support this amendment have too strong a sense of ownership over the project. They are blindly raging against an opponent that doesn't exist, harming the project as a result. 97.118.44.28 18:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
106. Oppose - I utterly detest any proposal that involves paid sponsorships related to editing. It will - not would, will - destroy Wikipedia's standing as an open encyclopedia that anyone can edit. What's next? Wikipedia administrators will be paid to do the job in three years? We must not allow paid sponsorships to ruin this great information resource by possibly rejecting accepted views and discussions of topics in favour of someone providing money to put forth their views. This is equivalent to McDonald's paying to have the article say nothing negative - in effect, if McDonalds paid Wikipedia, they could remove the entire Criticism section from the article and mandate it be left off. This is ridiculous and unacceptable. CycloneGU (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

     Hi CycloneGU - I fully understand your views. Please note however that this proposed amendment is not intended as an endorsement of paid editing. You can read more here. Thanks. Geoffbrigham (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

107. Oppose - I understand and applaud the intention, but I think it will cause unnecessary conflict where declared, be widely disregarded by the oblivious, and easily circumvented by the determined. Extra policy isn't what's required; focus should be on growing the editor base to improve the resilience of the project. EdSaperia (talk) 18:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
108. Oppose - Wikipedia should not introduce regulation that it cannot possibly enforce - short of accepting the service of NSA :) 82.135.29.13 22:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
109. Strongly Oppose — One of those silly rules that can't be enforced. Exactly how would you know if I was compensated or not?????? Was I compensated to write this?
110. Oppose - putting adverts here would be better solution than this.83.5.208.108 00:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
111. Oppose — There would be some positive effects to this change - it would provide a clearer way for well-intentioned editors with a COI to declare it, and it would serve as an additional tool in the case of legal action against someone making paid contributions. However, these positives are outweighed by the negatives: it opens up well-meaning people to stalking and harassment, cannot be enforced, and promotes a culture of distrust among Wikipedians. If spin and bias introduced by paid contributors is a major concern, then we need enforceable policies that more directly address the problem. Cthomasbailey (talk) 01:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
112. Strongly Oppose - I don't think anybody should be able to pay for edit, that would make the encyclopedia less reliable, my opinion down here The power to censure knowledge Gabrielx com (talk) 01:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

     Hi Gabrieix. I clearly hear your point of view. To be clear the proposed amendment is not intended as an endorsement of paid advocacy editing. We write more about that here. Geoffbrigham (talk) 11:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

     I think you might have this backwards. People already pay for edits. The proposal is that if they do, they have to tell everyone. Opposing the proposal means you support the right to make paid edits without disclosure. 210.55.212.212 01:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

113. Oppose - Disclosure seems like a legal fig leaf, not a practical solution to a problem which, though real, is not proportional in scale. Or is it? Why is this necessary? Wouldn't paid shills make it worse? Before going down this dubious road, WP needs to state its case much more clearly, explaining why this amendment helps the user.Kaewon F. Addus (talk) 02:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
114. Strongly Oppose - I do not think anybody should get paid for editing. MozzieINbangla (talk) 05:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
115. Support (with reservations) Oppose Require paid editors to disclose on their talk page and to set a "Paid Editor" user attribute. (See my comments about the latter, below.) Do not clutter the article itself with confusing tags about contributions having been made by paid editors. My reservation: how enforceable is the requirement, and are violations likely to be detected? Wikipedia (among other projects) should have a clear ban on editing any article in which the editor has a financial interest. That disallows nearly all paid editing. Requiring paid editors to disclose implies that their activity is permitted. As I will argue below, the few cases of legitimate paid editing can be handled better without the proposed amendment. Peter Chastain (talk) 06:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

     Hi Peter Chastain. I clearly hear your point of view. To be clear the proposed amendment is not an endorsement of paid advocacy editing. We write more about that here. Geoffbrigham (talk) 11:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

116. Strongly Oppose. Any policy which in any way permits paid editing is like advertising in Wikipedia, for any reason, radically alters the entire nature of Wikipedia according to its own policies. While, admittedly, the enforcement of the prohibition against paid advertising or editing in Wikipedia may be difficult, retaining a policy of absolute prohibition against paid edits remains absolutely necessary. Otherwise Wikipedia loses the basis of its greatest claim to highly unbiased editing with all its information. Say2max (talk) 08:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

     Hi Say2max. I clearly hear your point of view. To be clear the proposed amendment is not intended as an endorsement of paid advocacy editing. We write more about that here. Geoffbrigham (talk) 11:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

117. Strongly oppose. I prefer to judge contributions by the contributions, not the contributor. --Plauz (talk) 12:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
118. Strongly Oppose. The existing rules are generally sufficient for maintaining quality articles. The information on wikipedia is already judged by its citations. I would agree with either banning all paid edits (unenforceable) or allowing all paid edits (possibly deleterious to wikipedia). This is really a refomulation of the age old philosophical dichotomy: freedom (of use) vs. safety (of articles). I tend to side with freedom. 192.249.47.163 19:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
119. Oppose'. Wikipedia is about its content, not about who wrote it.Jorgecarleitao (talk) 13:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
120. Wikemedia Foundation is answering yet another urgent question nobody really asked. How are you going to enforce it? What are you going to do if you find out someone is being paid? Mentioning "legal ramnifications" violates WP rules about legal threats. DUH! Leo711 (talk) 13:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
121. Strong Oppose. This policy preferentially targets those seeking to edit in good faith by the rules, without (as mentioned in the proposal) hampering efforts by violators of existing rules. Magic5ball (talk) 14:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
122. Oppose - Orphan Drugs. These drugs are so-named because they do not seem profitable enough to manufacture. While these drugs may be viable and make-able the small scale of the need prevents profitability. In an interesting twist on the concept, I ask "What good topics find no author because they find nobody willing to do it for free who also has the willingness and ability to navigate Wikipedia's byzantine method of article construction?" Articles and edits should stand on their own merit regardless of who posts them...or why. Why does anybody choose to edit an article? What motivations are "pure"?Rtgates (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
123. Oppose. I agree with the view that each edit should be judged on its own merit. I think, on top of that, that a rule that is not enforcable doesn't make any sense in the first place. --Zamomin (talk) 15:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
124. Strongly Oppose I don't see the problem of being paid to contribute to Wikipedia. We can imagine paid people from government that writes article about historic places, history, protected landmarks, translation of article from other languages. Or simply Wikipedians who want to help companies improving their own articles. Wikipedia is becoming USSR. It's not very surprising. I just hope that a more liberal and free project will be created in the future. --Deansfa (talk) 16:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
125. Oppose per #"Paid editors". As worded this proposal would add additional disclosure requirements on good editors who are editing from a place of business, or anyone who is employed and edits an area in which they are a subject matter expert due to their employment. The goal of this proposal (stopping exploitation of WMF projects for commercial benefit) is a good one and should be pursued, but the current proposal will do more harm than good. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
126. Oppose Complicated, not needed, and appears to raise costly legal concerns. Guidelines & Policies for individual projects are sufficient for handling this problems. -Verdatum (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
127. en:wikt:solution in search of a problem. Still a redlink? Too bad. No such user (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
128. Very Strongly Oppose It is a known fact that Wikipedia hires people to edit their own articles using money from donations. Forbidding other organizations from doing so is hypocritical and typical of Jimbo Wales left-wing agenda in controlling information. Wikipedia in general has already been compromised to provide an almost entirely left-wing slant on all articles courtesy of the dictator Jimbo Wales. The last thing it needs is Jim Crow laws to make certain paid editors 'separate but equal'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.70.221.14 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 24 February 2014.
129. Oppose. Biased writing because you get paid for it is no worse than biased writing because you like something for whatever reason. --Studmult (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
130. Oppose because of the proposal's failure to distinguish between expert editors and spammers, as detailed in my comments below, as well as because of the forum-shopping antics of the proponents of these policies and their failure to respond to past feedback. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
131. Oppose. While I understand that editing Wikipedia by people who are paid for advertising their company is a serious problem, I fail to see the point of creating unenforceable rules. Moreover, this rule might lead to displeasing situations in the community, when people will start being tracked what are they doing IRL. Marcgalrespons 22:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
132. Oppose. Seems there are a lot more supports than opposes, but that many of the supports seem like hysteria. There are more downsides than upsides- overall my impression is that this reads as a knee-jerk, PANIC! reaction. I also find the fact that this has been discussed and opposed before and then brought to the community again by the WMF legal department distasteful. Are we just going to talk and talk until the answer goes the way some people want it to, or can we come to a decision already. Comments from the legal folks also seem mostly geared towards "good point, we could change the wording of it to address your concern", rather than, "good point, you make a solid argument for this being a bad idea in general".
133. Oppose. I agree 100% with Austriacus (above), but it shouldn't matter how many of us "vote" here or who I am. One should be able to contribute anonymously or pseudonymously without being expected to explain their motives. Stuff like this is why I stopped contributing years ago - it became about the social status of people involved instead of about the edits. --99.106.242.242 01:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
134. Oppose Contributions should be, and already are, judged solely on their content, not on their author. Korossyl (talk) 01:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
135. Oppose. I've made my objections known in this section. To summarize: imho it is a uniquely bad idea to elevate pay as an agenda-driving factor over other agenda-motors (ideology, political views, national perceptions, religious affiliations etc etc), because it gives non-payment-driven agendas a tacit pass which they should absolutely not be given. I honestly wonder why WMF proposals are always so singlemindedly focused on particular aspects of far-ranging issues. It seems that some ideology doesn't permit them to see or to address the actual issue, leaving them to fight a single symptom. Back when they were pushing for the image filter, "naughtiness" was the sole potential problem they saw with images. This time, it's pay. The WMF is completely wrong to focus only partial problems. This approach will never, not even potentially, address the problem "incrementally" as some might claim. To the contrary: It will make it even more difficult to address agenda itself as the problem (or in the case of images, objectionability as a general category). --85.197.31.79 02:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
136. Oppose. This is worse than doing nothing because it cannot be enforced. It empowers the dishonest. Only the honest paid editors will disclose voluntarily and there is no way to enforce disclosure or even to identify paid editors who don't want to volunteer the information. Edits are supposed to be judged on their merits, not on the motivations (real or imagined) of their editors. Bias is supposed to be handled under the NPOV policy. Just as we do not require editors to declare their political affiliation, gender, nationality, or ideological biases, there is no reason to require disclosure of monetary interests. Tendentious editing is already forbidden. If we need a better way of enforcing that existing policy, this is not the way to do it. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

     Yes, this is very common opinion. Unfortunately, I can not agree because I know that a small group of editors, coordinated by a single employer, can effectively own an entire subject area, and this is the reason I stopped editing Russian politics. My very best wishes (talk) 10:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

     If you already know of tendentious editing by a group and can't do anything about it, then the problem lies in our enforcement mechanisms, not our lack of rules. How would this actually help? AmateurEditor (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

     A few years ago, Arbcom in English wikipedia came up with a ridiculous finding during one of their cases: "there is no proof about KGB editing in Wikipedia" or something like that. It was ridiculous because no one claimed about KGB (a defunct organization) editing in Wikipedia at the first place. I guess such ruling has been made to make a mockery of the very idea about the potential interference by external political organizations that could be more powerful than WMF. A lot of things had happened with me since then, including outing, interception of private wikipedia-related emails and placing them on Wikileaks by unknown people to protect a "pro-Russian" editor, serious off-wiki harassment by unknown people to protect the same editor, someone editing from my campus to emulate my grammar mistakes and appear as my sockpuppet, and a couple of other strange real life incidents I would not talk about. This discussion and suggestion by WMF is an open admission of the more general problem and a step forward in the right direction - hence my "support". Will this immediately solve anything? No. But at least this is a significant mindset change that should be made official. The problem is potential hijacking of the project or parts of the project by external organizations. Even admission of this problem by community is important. Telling: "this is unacceptable" is even better. My very best wishes (talk) 05:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

     I'm sorry to hear about those things happening to you, but each of those things is already unacceptable under the current rules and would not be affected by this new requirement. Collusion off-wiki cannot be stopped by this. Likely, it cannot be stopped at all. If we can effectively enforce our existing policies, it doesn't even need to be. People making bad edits to articles and making bad points in discussions can be overcome by a better adherence to our present rules (such as the quality of !votes being more significant than the quantity in an AfD discussion) even if they collude with each other. The potential for off-wiki harassment will also be unaffected, unfortunately. And to make things worse, good-faith paid editing will be hampered, and such a thing can exist. For example, I can imagine a famous person hiring someone just to ensure that Wikipedia does not contain baseless slander about them, which has been a problem. It is apparent from other comments on this page that some editors will automatically assume bad faith toward a paid editor, before they have even seen the specific edits made by that person. Assume good faith. If necessary, take editor behavior to the noticeboards. If that is not working, then that's where the problem is and that's what we need to fix. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

     This is why Wikipedia must aim in the opposite direction: that of anonymous editing. The current Wikipedia model relies on being able to trace users back to their real-life identities to control malicious edits. Anonymous edits are now impossible. The consequences? Like what you've just described. More in this section...
     – 6birc (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

     Hmm... (1) Indeed, one can not assume good faith with regard to a person who acts as a proxy of PR company, whose intrinsic goal is to produce POV. WP:AGF policy must be modified if this passes, which should not be a problem in my opinion. (2) Yes, I agree, this is only a declaration of intention, and can not be really enforced if paid editors (or rather their organizations) are clever and have sufficient resources. Still, it's better to have a declaration. My very best wishes (talk) 03:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

     "Assume Good Faith" is to help us ignore our perceived motivations of other editors and to focus instead on the content of their edits and behavior, which is all that actually matters. The primary result of this proposal will be people assuming bad faith of those people honest enough to voluntarily disclose this information about themselves. This will be completely counterproductive and divisive. And unnecessary. And even PR efforts are not necessarily bad for Wikipedia. PR efforts need not be the promotion of a POV (which is already against the rules, of course). When verifiable facts are on their side, companies are more than happy to point to them. I can imagine some such edits being perfectly appropriate. Other edits can be seen for what they are through their wording or references. A much bigger problem, in my opinion, is bias from political ideology, which is far more pervasive among Wikipedians and which compromises the noticeboards themselves to some extent. And which seems to be feeding into the arguments on this page. Wikipedia could really use a better way of dealing with subtle tendentious editing. This is at best a distraction from that more fundamental issue. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

     I can not talk for others, however speaking for myself, you are wrong. As a matter of fact, I knew several paid editors in the area of Biology; I beautifully collaborated with them, and I found their contributions very helpful. Speaking about political subjects (as relates to my national culture and my country of origin), I can easily identify several probable paid editors. Most of them contribute positively. Why on the Earth I would automatically assume bad faith on their part? Those who behaved badly were assigned to watch my edits and do not allow placing specific well sourced information into several specific articles related to their employer, or at least this is my interpretation. As about political bias, yes, I agree, but this is irrelevant to current discussion. My very best wishes (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

     My very best wishes, I never said that you automatically assume bad faith toward paid editors. That you know of paid editors contributing positively to Wikipedia reinforces the point that the important issue is the content of edits, not the motivations behind them. AmateurEditor (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

137. Oppose. A number of solid objections -- solution looking for a problem, only affects the honest, etc. -- have already been propounded on at length above, so I won't belabor the issues. It's just a bad idea. Thomaslknapp (talk) 02:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
138. Oppose. Very against this in general even before this recent proposed amendment. Many agencies already paying people to make edits and opening this up would bastardize Wikipedia. -PatrickCoombe (talk) 05:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
139. Oppose. Wikipedia should explicitly ban any and all paid contributions.
140. Strongly Oppose. As long as the information is valid and insightful, I don't care whether or not the person writing it is getting paid for generating the content. Zzyzx (talk)
141. Strongly Oppose by ignoratio elenchi: This amendment would be a suitable and sufficient way to address a problem if one existed. As Austriacus succinctly put it, there is no issue with the lack of mention this topic receives in the ToS. All edits are initially created equal, regardless of their creator. It is the content that decides their validity - not payment, employment status, or other. This is and always shall be a core tenet of Wikimedia. We do not ask all of our editors to provide personal information while making edits because we AGF. This is akin to OUTING sponsored and forced by the WMF. This is an alarming proposal and one that I cannot see as having been thoroughly thought through and processed. Conflicts of interest do not inherently mean that the content will be inappropriate for an encyclopedia - it simply means that some of the editors might not always make neutral contributions using proper neutral language. Determining when those cases exist is a job for local users: sysops, rollbackers, reviewers, and the like. It is not only unfair, but it is completely inappropriate for a foundation that was raised on anonymity and good faith to propose that we label, marginalize, and quite likely stigmatize individuals due to a perceived and unsubstantiated claim of partiality. --Slazenger (Contact Me) 10:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

     Unfortunately, according to my experience, this is paid editors who successfully label, marginalize, and stigmatize volunteers, and they do it not only on wiki and and much better than volunteers. My very best wishes (talk) 10:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

142. Oppose. I'm an expert in my field of research, and get paid accordingly. If I contribute to the relevant wikipedia research page whilst at work, these rules would treat me the same as an editor with a financial conflict of interest.
143. Oppose. This isn't worth using violence over. Failure to disclose conflicts of interest should be met with a ban. There will be unintended consequences like those listed in the comment above. Honest editors won't be interested in taking the time to legally disclose what the law could fall under, whereas dishonest paid shillers, who the rule is targeted at, will find loopholes (i.e,) getting someone else to do their editing who isn't being payed but is just copying their edits. _David Kinard
144. Oppose It is clear that the current policy makes it clear that PAID CONTRIBUTIONS are not allowed. The text is tantamount to saying "it is okay to be paid for contribution but you must disclose it" which is against policy and, I think, the spirit of Wikipedia.. I would rather that every user should instead be presented on the facts of LAW as they might apply (for example in the US and the EU which prohibits non disclosure) and that the user should categorically state UNDER PAIN OF PROSECUTION that they are NOT being paid for their contributions. Full disclosure here. I have, unfortunately, gotten into edit tussles with editors who seem to add political spin to their edits and who I suspect are paid editors, and eventually got an edit ban for this. I strongly suspect that a fair number of Wikipedia Administrators and higher are also secretly being paid to protect such accounts. I have given up any attempt to regain my editor status because of this.. But I still feel passionately about the projects and think that paid editing is something that should be deprecated rather made tacitly acceptable under disclosure. If there was a fund to enable the instigation of investigation and prosecution of paid editing I would support this financially. --Hauskalainen (talk) 12:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
145. Oppose --Channer (talk) 13:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
146. 'STRONGLY OPPOSE' This is unworkable policy that will result in unjustified witch hunts without accomplishing anything positive. The people who ignore current policy and guidelines on NPOV editing and COI are simply going to ignore this as well. Instead of wasting our time on this we should be focusing on ways to increase the number of active editors and crack down on POV content. 203.218.215.139 13:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
147. Oppose, (might support with changes) To address the concerns about anonymity/outing (see oppose 40 above), I would write "you must disclose that you have an employer, a client, or an ownership interest with respect to any contribution...". I would break the disclosure-requirements out, perhaps:

     • "For edits to article text, you must disclose the paid status of the edit in the edit summary in a form to be prescribed by Wikipedia policies;"
     • "For edits to talk pages, you must disclose the paid status of your edit or any edit under discussion in the text of your comment, before your signature;"
     • "In all cases, you must disclose the fact that you made a paid edit in your user page, and keep that disclosure displayed for at least three years after that relationship ends."

     I would add a clarification, "You need not disclose your employer if your employer's policies permit you to comment on social media or online expressing your own opinion, and not that of your employer, and you are in full compliance with those policies." (In my case my current employer has such a policy, but it requires disclosure where the topic is my employer or its competitors, so that clause wouldn't allow me to hide.) I would also add a clause excepting payment from the Wikimedia foundation (and perhaps other nonproblematic "scholarship", "stipend", etc., programs.) DavidLeeLambert (talk) 14:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

148. Oppose as written. It is inconsistent, unenforceable, and will not help readers identify paid edits. Also, as noted above, it has negative implications for professionals who are experts in their field and voluntarily edit content while at work, but not at the request of or on behalf of their employer. -- Dave Braunschweig (talk) 15:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
149. Strongly Oppose As a blatant attempt to mislead the community into banning paid editing of any kind. See my notes here. Just Cause (talk) 19:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
150. Strong oppose I don't know about the rest of you, but this has been repeatedly discussed and shot down on the English Wikipedia, and for good reason. It's effectively unenforceable, can cause problems for GLAM workers and similar people, and most importantly, it constitutes a very strong focus on the contributor rather than the content, which is at least as against the ideals of Wikipedia as paid editing is. If someone edits within policy and makes good content, I don't care if they're being paid for it. If they're spamming, violating NPOV or N, etc., that's the problem, not the fact that they're getting paid. --BDD (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
151. Oppose as unenforceable, selective use of potentially chilling, vague legal threats that don't add anything to the project not already covered by core policies, per my comments below. And enwiki, the real focus, has many times spoken on the matter. Fmrvetwp (talk) 23:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
152. Oppose If you're being paid to post here, chances are you know what you're talking about. A main goal of Wikipedia is to retain accuracy, let's keep it that way. -Bobby
153. Oppose You can't check everybody. The right way is to encourage everyone NOT TO TRUST Wikipedia, just like any other encyclopaedia. #87.102.120.146 06:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
154. Oppose As far as I remember, the policy on Wikipedia (the only part of this wikimedia thing I'm really familiar with) is to Assume Good Faith. If paid editing is promotional in nature, and violates content policies, then that fact will be visible on its own. The only thing a "red flag" like this does is encourage users to treat the edits of paid editors with more scrutiny. How is policing specific editors for reasons other than the content of their edits assuming good faith? How will it help people find content that, if it violates policy, should be self-evident? Extravagance (talk) 08:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
155. Oppose This will stigmatize paid contributors and become a tool in editing wars. Being a volunteer is no guarantee of NPOV. Contributions should be evaluated on merit, not on source. Race, gender, sexual orientation and political affiliation can also be sources of bias. Should we ask editors to disclose all this as well? Dwatson888 (talk) 09:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
156. Strongly oppose While the idea to be able to avoid "promotional" content by the ToU amendment seems favourable, it must backfire for all academics. Even students would need to disclose their affiliation. Botanischwili (talk)
157. Strongly oppose Wikipedia exists to foist lies on the world. Wikithugs have no problem with people doing this without compensation, but are upset that someone might get paid for his labor. Thus, they propose yet another rule, whereby people getting paid to edit would have to disclose such, so the wikithugs could vandalize his edits, and cost him his job. Of course, paid editors are going to follow this new idiotic rule! WP doesn’t need new rules, it needs to get rid of the old ones, since the thugs, er, administrators never enforce them, except in situations where they are irrelevant, and they are enforcing them (or inventing non-existing rules), in order to terrorize people on their enemies list who haven’t broken any rules. Anyone who can actually get paid to edit Wikipedia should fully exploit the possibility. Be libertarians! But don’t dare tell anyone. Unless one is a Marxist enforcer here, and gets one’s rocks off spreading lies and censoring the truth, anyone who edits for free is one of Jimbo’s fools!24.90.190.96 10:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

     Not one bit of your comment makes any sense whatsoever. --89.0.233.137 10:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

158. Oppose : I dont't see the point of this amendment regarding a link between so called "deceptive activities" and paid contributions. It's all nonsense to me. Why should paid contributors be forced to disclose their status more than anybody else ? What about privacy ? What about freedom ? What's more wrong with being paid thand being old, woman, pastafarist or left-handed ? I don't care who's editing Wikipedia and what's their main agenda, income or background. I do care about helpful contributions and NPOV, but I don't see why paid contributions should be considered any worse or "deceptive" than others. Will there ever be any weird amendment forcing me to disclose that I ate chocolate before editing the article about chocolate ? Even if I add something interesting about chocolate and put many references but don't want the whole world to know what I'm eating ? Or would that be considered "deceptive" too ? C-cube (talk) 14:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
159. Oppose - Everything has been said above. --92.108.210.53 14:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
160. Oppose : This is a feel good attempt by ignorant users to stick it to the man without actually addressing a real problem. Paid editing is still subject to the myriad of rules regarding editing articles on Wikipedia. Until someone can document an actual problem caused by lack of disclosure that caused enough of an issue to warrant a change, this smacks of over-regulation and idiocy. 76.112.25.59 14:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
161. Oppose : I honestly believe that the proposed amendment will be difficult, if not impossible to enforce, and will cause more problems than the behavior that is to be addressed in the proposal. ShawnIsHere (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

     Not Opposed : I'm sorry, I misread the "Proposed Amendments Paid Contributions Without Disclosure". From what I've read in comments in this "Opposed" section, I suggest everyone who is opposed should *probably* carefully re-read the yellow section at the following page: "http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment#TOU_Amendment:_Paid_contribution_disclosure" as this Amendment is to keep large corporations and/or Special Interest Groups including PACs, Government Agencies and/or other organizations from paying anyone to author subversive/prejudiced/biased/etc. articles within Wikipedia.org. I, like others, skim read and jumped to the incorrect conclusion... based on text I've read w/in the opposed section, just like others. That is, I though the amendment was for Wikipedia to hire editors. Not so if you read the article at the URL I just referenced.Skeletons From The Closet (talk) 18:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

162. Oppose. I see no way this could be made to work, especially across jurisdictions. (Starting a trial against a person living in, say, India, and affiliated with a company there, anyone? And if you’re willing, please consider Kazakhstan, too.) This proposal is an overengineering of sorts (it has no additional value over the already well-established CoI rules), unenforceable in but the most trivial of cases, may open a way for witch-hunts at projects (especially the smaller ones), and also excludes the unpaid people with an agenda. Thus, I doubt the proposed clause would be of any use. (Other than for exemplary trials against US companies, perhaps? The ones not clever enough, or unable to pay $15 for a VPN or a “closed” proxy for such activities, anyway.) — Ivan Shmakov (d ▞ c) 19:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

     (Just to clarify it a bit further.) It’s years since I’ve read “The One Hundred and First Law of Robotics” – a story where a robot kills its owner when the latter tries to teach it the “100th law of robotics.” Naturally, being taught 96 laws after the first three, the robot completely forgets the law #1, with a most unfortunate result.

     My point is that adding clauses to ToU isn’t something to be taken lightly: they come at a cost, – the cost of the time it takes for the community to read, understand, and (possibly) implement or enforce them. This proposal has no value, but it still has cost. And it’s on these grounds I reject it.

     — Ivan Shmakov (d ▞ c) 19:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

     Minimalism in Roman law:

     • "Corruptissima republica, plurimae leges." ("In the most corrupt state are the most laws.") – Terence
     • "De minimis non curat lex." ("The law does not concern itself with trifles.")

     – 6birc (talk) 21:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

163. Oppose as unenforceable. Let's not turn Wikipedia into a witch hunt.HtownCat (talk) 19:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
164. Oppose Wikipedia has always been a volenteer organization, and I think it should stay that way. Dietcoke3.14 (talk) 20:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
165. Strongly Oppose 1) The proposed measure is unnecessary. The attention to the quality of content should be no different whatever its source. 2) The proposed measure is unenforceable. It only encourages deeper deception. 3) The proposed measure is counter-productive. Time will be wasted investigating sources instead of assuring accuracy of the actual words. Portucauan (talk) 00:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
166. Strongly Oppose As an editor on Wikipedia who had to disappear due to harassment and stalking at my work place across international borders regarding edits that would not have even been covered here, I oppose any policy which requires an individual to disclose any PII. Doing so places editors at undue risk of receiving further harassment, stalking, including ramifications from their employer, loss of livelihood, and potential harm. While I understand the community's desire to restrict harmful paid editing, I feel that the ends in this case do not justify the means. Individual instances of harmful editing, sock-puppetry, etc. can be handled as it is right now. As it is, due to some of the dangers of participating in this community, The Foundation should make it easier for people to remain anonymous when contributing, not harder. Furthermore, I do believe it is a waste of time to codify these rules. People who are already circumventing policy are not likely to comply, those who would comply risk physical, emotional, and financial harm, regardless of the nature of their edits OR even if they contribute directly or indirectly to an article in which they have a financial affiliation with. This is bad policy that, in a perfect world could be implemented, but really in a perfect world wouldn't even be needed. User Phantom85 on EN Wikipedia, unable to unify logins. 2607:A600:2A2:3200:DD4A:E4C9:CDD8:1E08 00:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
167. Oppose Jane023 (talk) 00:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
168. Oppose Ultimately paid editors are a) more editors, and b) likely to provide information which has not been previously considered. Yet how many companies will pay for edits if they are required to be "outed", at the threat of legal action if they are not? Moreover, corporations are people too; their opinion should be represented, and this is done through the edits of their staff or contractors. GreenReaper (talk) 01:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
169. Oppose Paid or unpaid, what we write in Wikipedia is subject to a vetting procedure that takes away all bias. Which means that our relation to the subject is irrelevant. Disclosure of our professional position is a threat to our anonymity. Balko (talk) 01:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
170. Oppose as chilling the free speech (and stifling the editorial quality) of the ambivalent agent/whistleblower. See my comments below at the end of this vote (as they seem to have been removed below). (Note: I was not paid to write this.) —Matjamoe (talk) 04:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

     Suppose I am employed by Company X or Government Y, and my duties include an informal expectation of promoting my employer's Internet presence. Suppose I am ambivalent about my employer, and, if given the chance to speak freely as an anonymous editor, would be inclined to edit frankly—perhaps to the point of whistleblowing. If I am required to identify myself as a paid agent of my employer—thus exposing myself to my employer's scrutiny—will I not feel more inclined to toe the company line in my edits? —Matjamoe (talk) 23:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

171. Oppose. "Paid contributions" amendment will be a step away from what the community was created for (free information) and will create problems for Wikipedia in the long run (copyright lawsuits, data theft, patents). You've been doing fine without it so far. I may rethink my position if pros/cons are summarized in 10x less words. Mtonumaa (talk) 13:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
172. Oppose. Tricky to navigate and too open for interpretation. For example, student work (even when a scholarship, bursary or internship is not involved) would, as stated, constitute “paid contribution” (“educational service” as “compensation”), which completely defies common sense.—Al12si (talk) 10:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
173. Strongly Oppose. 1) wp:COI is a soft rule and more than enough for its purpose. 2) The proposed rule hardens often unclarified and artificial boundaries between editors. 3) The proposed rule is not going to get us more editors and more freedom to edit; it is thus a grave concern for those of us that want Wikipedia to be a free encyclopedia still being developed, not a closed entity governed by ever more strict rules. 4) The proposed rule is practically unenforceable, as long as anyone can edit without a login. 5) The proposed rule is a "hygienic" rule, whereby it says no to "bad" things thinking the mere statement will make for a better world and a better encyclopedia. 6) As this proposed rule will be unenforceable at the local level (i.e. at WMF project having less than 100,000 editors each month, due to different project cultures and prerequisites) it will be a legal annoyance with minimal founding in reality.--Paracel63 (talk) 10:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
174. Oppose. People in good faith will be driven away by this, while those that abuse the wiki will continue to. Daniel Mahu (talk) 12:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
175. Oppose. While I like the idea I think it backfires for several reasons. As can be seen from some of the comments it kind of suggests that "commercial editing" is okay as long as you tell everyone where you are coming from. Secondly it can never be enforced unless Wiki goes the route of certifying and hence also identifying editors which could mean a big loss of contributors. Lastly I think biased contributions can be identified and may be deleted if they have no valid sources. If they have a valid source then they might stay and another person may respond with another opinion and source - this is the case for many subjects, some things are a matter of opinion rather than written in stone. I personally like to see all opinions - again if they have a creditable source. Suggest instead to make non-commercial editing clear and more strict. Enforcement will also be a problem, but it sends a clearer message than this porposal. Qualle14 (talk) 13:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
176. Strongly Oppose - "Wikipedia is written collaboratively by largely anonymous Internet volunteers who write without pay" This is the core idea of WP. WP has enough volunteer editors right now, no need to hire editors. Instead, it would be great to change the platform to something more user friendly to get more editors involved. The platform used right now requires a minimum level of programming knowledge and it's very time consuming, making it difficult for people with average programming knowledge to participate. Aretemetic (talk) 14:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
177. Strongly Oppose "Paid contributions" amendment will be a step away from what the community was created for (free information) and will create problems for Wikipedia --Kalogeropoulos (talk) 15:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
178. Strongly Oppose - First of all, it's nobody's business who pays me. Second, even if I were to write a for-pay piece, if it is written according to Wikipedia's standards for objectivity and style/citation, I have done no one harm. Lastly, having watched Wikipedia in action over the years, any whiff of blatant spin or PR is quickly and viciously corrected by other editors.
179. Oppose - I oppose this not because I believe paid editing should be allowed, but because of how this TOU change could (and likely will) be used by editors as a new weapon against Users they disagree with or have some fundamental viewpoint difference. It's the "human nature" consequences of this change that frightens me. This new rule would give many license to start digging in order to make accusations about something that may never be possible to prove or disprove for that matter. Worse yet, a change like this may even encourage Editors to violate the privacy of Users in an attempt to discredit them. Yes, this is a "What if?" argument, but its based on years of interaction here on WP as well as many other forums. --Scalhotrod (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
180. Oppose to the Death! It completely violates the spirit of Wikipedianism to allow ANY paid editing or advertising for that matter. Undisclosed editing or advertising will further violate the spirit. It should ALWAYS remain free from paid editing or advertising, PERIOD! Doing otherwise will not only insult the .org domain premise but will lead to the DEATH of Wikipedia.ORG as it will no longer be for LOVE but for MONEY. Donations should always keep Wikipedia.ORG (*THE* Source of Truth) alive, and I certainly donate when I can. This is a very DANGEROUS path to take if it indeed goes ahead, as you run the risk of turning Wikipedia.ORG into just another *PAID* site on the web, and there are already just too many of *THEM*. 121.223.227.170 18:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC) You guy should post this under 'support', I guess. Some people are just so over-enthusiastic; mistake a Yes for a No ;-) (No offense) --Reginald Sachs (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC) Dear Reginald Sachs, thank you for hijacking my vote and for your many very abusive insults obviously from a person who is jealous and cannot control themselves from bullying others online which is so symptomatic in most social media these days. I hope a moderator here will remove your offensive hijack of *MY* vote and this objection and leave *MY* truthful and passionate vote (from a regular Wikipedia donator) as *ORIGINALLY* posted without the extremely offensive additions. Thank you. 101.173.42.142 11:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
181. Strongly Oppose. It's a slippery slope away from a free and open encyclopedia. And lots of other reasons (one given in the discussion below) - Averater (talk) 20:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
182. Oppose - I don't feel that paid editing is a good thing, but trying to enforce this policy could cause more harm than good. I think each edit needs to be judged on its own merit. This policy isn't going to be a shield against companies using Wikipedia for promotional purposes, instead the policy will be used as a weapon for editors to get editors they don't like banned. Edit Ferret (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC) +1 I second this opinion. --DJGWB (talk) 06:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
183. Strongly Oppose - Wikipedia/wikimedia is about truth (or as Karl Popper with good cause states 'not yet falsified' stuff). If we begin to distinguish between paid/unpaid truth and --strangely so-- value unpaid truth over the paid, we are clearly on the wrong path and lead our efforts into completely unfruitful activities. More effort should, instead, be spent on testing/falsifying wikipedia contents ... and on immediately removing/tagging wrong/falsified articles or sentences. --Reginald Sachs (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC) (Switzerland)
184. Conscientious Oppose - The proposed amendment serves to acknowledge that paid contributions are being made on the site, suggesting that such action is allowable, which is against the spirit of wikipedia. Further, the proposed amendment presents the challenge of preserving the integrity of wikipedia if the site condones paid contributions on the basis of them followed by a paid contributor disclaimer "badge". Instead for the time being, until a reliable, trustworthy ban can be implemented against hired PR services, wikipedia users should continue to trust their own instincts and judgements regarding information found on the site, and, when appropriate, edit rather than rely on a paid contributor disclaimer "badge" to tell them so.Wikithrowaway001 (talk) 21:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
185. Oppose The central idea is good, but as written (especially the immensely broad definition of compensation) this would create a monster /witchhunt. For example, merely asking for and receiving information while researching for the article would be defined as "payment" ("preferred access to information") under this and a license to use the system to beat someone up. . North8000 (talk) 22:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
186. Oppose as unenforceable; Wikipedia can already easily deal with biased material - policies are in place to revise it. Paid contributors will be able to continue their paid edits by registering multiple accounts or claiming unbiased view. Most importantly, this will create a sense of distrust in the community, when innocent people might be asked to disclose that they are paid editors. --Anthony Ivanoff (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
187. Oppose. Unnecessary. Conflict of interest disclosures are already suitable. I don't see how further discriminating undisclosed paid editing is necessary or fair. --El Chivo 2 (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
188. Oppose. The basic rationale of the proposal is that somehow an editor who is paid (or given something of value) and who edits wikipedia projects related to the payor is somehow fundamentally unreliable or biased to the point that they must disclose. Meanwhile, volunteers for causes who edit out of strongly held beliefs are not required to disclose anything. In both examples, the editors must maintain NPOV, but the compensated editor is treated differently. I just think the basic premise is flawed. I also think the proposal is too broad. A person who is a paid employee of company who is an expert in a field they work on (think scientific researchers) would be required to disclose their affiliation, even if editing wikipedia wasn't in their job expectations, but just them sharing their scientific knowledge. Finally, enforcement is nearly impossible. Argos'Dad (talk) 04:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
189. Oppose - While I believe the essential principal of the amendment seems valid, I do not believe the amendment as present is enforceable except in the most extraordinary of circumstances. Consequently, I oppose the amendment as written and suggest that the advocates for the amendment go back to the drawing board to develop a better system of enforcement.96.237.184.145 06:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
190. Strongly Oppose - In my opinion any positive contribution for Wikipedia is valuable. But main point is how do you want to check it (introducing cenzorship)? What about anonymity of Wikipedia users? --Pnapora (talk) 08:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
191. Strongly Oppose - Wikipedia has neither the time, nor the resources, nor the inclination, nor the moral compass to achieve the valuable goal of developing its crowd-sourced content in a manner befitting a traditional newspaper or other publication. WP has always been one-sided in the sense that people who care about an article are the only ones who edit it. WP has no practicable way to discern or govern over *why* the editors care about it. Whichever WP admins and superusers who are petty, impulsive, abusive, or unfair will become worse if they are granted greater power, while those who are humble, friendly, thoughtful, and helpful will not become better. For better or worse, WP is a tremendous resource because it is free and anyone can become an editor. Power will corrupt, as it always does in government and society, and WP will be the worse for it -- someday it will be neither free nor open, and on that day will be forever changed into the Huffington Post model, where the content is bought and sold and only the content creators are left with nothing. Best to leave WP alone, bias and all, and caveat emptor. 66.243.230.71 12:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
192. Strong Oppose - Recently I began to worry with this article that the votes are now numbered. I really hope something this important isn't merely a vote, it needs discussing and discussion points should be taken on board. I am for disclosure of COI full stop. But I don't think this is the answer. Verdict78 (talk) 12:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
193. oppose
194. Oppose. One of the arguments goes like this: "this policy is unenforceable". The very salient counterargument is like this: "laws against murder might as well be unenforceable, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist". However, the proposed policy isn't analogous to a law against murder, it is analogous to a law against potential murderers. There already is a "law against murder" (in this extended analogy, NPOV policies). This isn't about whether this policy is enforceable (it's not), it is about whether it's congruent with a site which is supposed to judge contributions on their own merit and not on the merit of those who make them. -Anagogist (talk) 16:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
195. Oppose This is a lot of work to put to a vote, and solicit feedback, but I'm not sure it's doing much to settle the issue. I appreciate how you're trying to get consensus in the open spirit of Wikipedia, but there's a much simpler way to handle this. The problem you are trying to solve isn't that paid editors are editing, but that articles are written poorly, in some cases because the editors have hidden agendas. The goal should be first and foremost to stamp out poorly written articles. The implication of this new rule is that having voluntary disclosure will make it easier to spot incorrect/biased/advertorial entries. In fact, seeing a paid editing open disclosure could actually cause some of the more militant editors to delete a person's contributions, regardless of merit. I know of at least one article where consensus was sought by a paid editor giving full disclosure and the edits were all reverted. For this reason alone, you will not get people to disclose a paid relationship with their subject, regardless of any rules you put in place. If the current restriction on paid editing isn't enough of a discouragement, why would this be any different? What you want to do is make it easier to identify potential paid editors. You already have a way - with contribution history. In the View History section, you can click on "contributors" at the top and see who has edited the article. You also have software to automatically screen editors for site longevity and quantity of edits. Why not simply add a color code next to the contributor's name? Red if the person has only edited that entry, or if their first edit was that entry. Orange if they have only edited five or fewer entries, and green if they have edited more that five entries. This "experience" flag will go a long way to helping identify company employees who may have an account only to edit their entry. Their contributions will be scrutinized just as if they had disclosed a paid relationship. But what about paid editors who edit multiple entries and have been around for a while? In the edit history, you can see "contribs" next to the person's edits. Why not consolidate and link a person's contribution summary to their name on the contribution page. Then you can click and see what other articles a person created and edited. If you see just corporate entries that are written as ads, you can spot a paid editor and issue a warning, or even a temporary hold on their account. If you have an editor contributing to the site in multiple ways, including writing neutral articles on companies that are demonstrably significant with good references, whether they are paid or not, does it really matter?Timtempleton (talk) 18:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
196. Strong Oppose The proposed fix is too simple. I work for a company (most of us do), if I post that I work for a company then all my posts become a representation of the Company. This would mean I would have to have it reviewed by legal and this threshold then becomes a barrier to my participation. I also belong to several societies who post on topics to reflect their position on topics of interest. On my page I get paid by my company, but my posts for the societies would be labeled as paid since I am either marked as paid or not. And when I am doing independent updates in my spare time, I am marked as a paid contributors. I think that most of the folk who post are doing it honestly. The mechanism we have for a self-righting system has worked pretty well. I think individuals who abuse the system should be barred, but trying to figure out if a government official is doing it as an individual or a government, or a librarian/teacher/student are doing as an individual or for profit is too hard. The rules should state that some limit on overwhelming a site with material exists but not labeling folks as us or them. What if only Republicans could use the site, or left handed people, or do you get the point.LJVandergriff (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
197. Oppose Way too generalized to be practical. Paid advocacy is a valid concern when people are paid to tamper with content and spread POV, but some of the paid editing which takes place on wikipedia is well within guidelines and the articles are written fairly and neutrally and I do fear that content would actually be affected by such a bureaucratic proposal. If Audrey Hepburn's son paid me tomorrow to develop her article to FA status and it was well within guidelines and a great article and I was supplemented for my time and efforts, why should it matter to the foundation or anybody else. If I happened to be rewarded for the work personally and it didn't affect the article why would it matter? Wikipedia's way too large and open for such a thing to be practical and it looks silly making legal threats at people to try to frighten people off paid editing. If the foundation actually embraced neutral paid editing within guidelines that would probably have a better chance of being successful than thinking they can eliminate it entirely. If articles are neutral and within guidelines the bottom line is that it shouldn't matter how it got there. Content and editors should be judged individually not by some wildly ambitious attempt to control the growth of wikipedia and paint all paid editors with the same brush and label them as evil. A better solution would be actually for the foundation to hire a team of investigators to patrol the website and scour for obvious paid advocacy which is damaging to the site's neutrality or people and try to stamp it out indirectly, assessing each article and each editor separately and then taking action on individuals who they believe are guilty of serious offences rather than this silly generalized proposal. 81.104.175.138 19:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
198. Strongly Oppose Wikipedia is already stuffy and hard enough to edit. Doesn't need any more restrictions freedom.
199. Oppose as further policy creep, unenforceable and missing the point. The matter is not whether someone is paid to edit the encyclopedia. What matters is whether their contributions are biased or not. We already have policy on that: en:WP:NPOV. Liken our situation to the open source field. Major open source projects rely on full-time paid contributors. As pointed out directly above, if someone was paid to bring an article up to FA status then brilliant, I say. Instead of adding more needless policy and bureaucracy to occupy the time of people who talk too much and contribute too little, we need to re-orientate and focus on the five pillars. Handing-wringing over paid editing moves us further and further from our goal here. And I oppose a vote as well. What has become of us? --Tóraí (talk) 21:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
200. Oppose: Even non-GLAM research corps reward or encourage improving articles of general interest, including science articles. This makes is sound like sanctioned wiki editing on company time needs disclosure, where none is needed. --Vilding1 (talk) 23:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
201. Strongly Oppose The only thing that should be judged is the neutrality of the edit, not the motivation for the edit. FireTheIncumbents (talk) 01:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
202. Strongly Oppose: As others have said, Wikipedia can take care of itself. In other words, if an edit is obviously biased/promotional other editors can just as easily alter/delete it. There are POV & Advert tags for a reason. Additionally, many content driven edits (as opposed to fixing typos etc.) are made due to the inherent bias/POV of the editor (they are obviously interested in the issue presented in the article they're editing), and there is nothing wrong with that so long as the edits themselves are verifiable and follow the current guidelines. We've all seen the abuses of government, NSA, IRS, FBI and so forth, and to now add an additional layer of "protection" which could result in WMF itself taking part (by reporting the "criminal editor" because they got paid *gasp*) just really guts the fundamentals of this endeavor. Not to mention that if a paid editor does make an edit, and is required to say it was a paid edit (one way or another) - even if the edit was fully justifiable - there's always the chance that other editors will see the "paid" comment and blindly revert an otherwise good edit, thus harming the article. And where do we stop? If a person has a blog about "Green Spaghetti" and gets paid $0.05/day form advertising on their blog, and then edits an article on "Green Spaghetti", does that mean we have make additional rules to further regulate their editing? I hate the notion of someone being paid to edit, but, I've done my share of deleting & correcting obvious promotional type edits, I see no reason why I shouldn't be able to continue that without having the editor tossed in jail (potentially). Not to mention that if the paid editor continually makes edits that violate current rules, they can be banned (their IP, all the way up to entire networks) - problem solved. Coinmanj (talk) 02:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
203. Most Strongly Oppose: The way to challenge "paid" edits is with the community doing what it has always done - set the record straight through consensus. This action (and the FTC's in my view) flies in the face of the First Amendment. While Wikipedia is not bound to the First Amendment, deviations from the spirit of it are inherently unethical to the freedom of humanity. I for one, will applaud acts of civil disobedience if this is enacted. 83.162.94.45
204. Oppose: (1) While I do think it would be good if no paid editors (or anybody else) would make Wikipedia articles (etc.) biased, I do not think this is the right way to realistically work towards that goal. Instead it is to improve or remove content that is biased, advertising language or does not have proper sources. Judge the edit, not the editor. (2) Besides enforcability is questionable; probably mostly those paid editors with rather "good intentions" would comply while many of those willing to deceive would not. (3) The border of the definition of "paid editing" seems vague, see section #Recurring questions, not yet answered. If all employees of a company that has rules/recommendations about social media usage for all employees might be considered paid editors they could come into the conflict between being required by the amendment to disclose their affiliation (and lose part of their anonymity) and not being allowed by their company to represent it in public (unless they work for marketing etc.). This might drive editors away from contributing in their field of expertise. (4) What could come next in the desire to highlight potential Conflict of Interest? Requirement to disclose your ethnicity, your religion or your political orientation when doing edits in those areas? (By the way: I do not think it is OK that clicking the edit link of section "Oppose" leads to actually editing the previous section "Support, and should NOT be any stronger".) --Wilhelm-Conrad (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
205. Most Strongly Oppose: I was slammed for posting factual, verifiable, non-marketing, non-advertising content on a wiki page while fully disclosing who I was. I was threatened with being banned from the wikimedia/wikipedia sites. If content can be verified as factual IT SHOULD BE PERMITTED. PERIOD. Your supposed "enforcement" of your existing policies is capricious at best and biased towards the so-called 'editors' fancies at worst. WikiP/Media is quickly becoming my _last_ resort for information on the internet!
206. Oppose - I'm not convinced that this will achieve what it wants to. It has a very enwiki-centric approach (something evident from the English-only nature of the discussion here), suggesting that this proposal would be better fielded at a local level there. Additionally, I'd like to consider judging contributions by their own merits. While ideally all contributions should be from people from the goodness of their hearts, a good contribution is good no matter the motive behind it. I would certainly like to see every editor revealing a conflict of interest, regardless of whether or not they are being paid, but I'm not convinced that this ToU amendment is the best way of accomplishing that or that this would help. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
207. Oppose - Wikipedia is about having content, whether from paid or free editors, regardless of bias or indicated bias. Subsequent editors can always revise the content to make it better. --Skarg (talk) 01:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
208. Oppose - While I agree (and have always agreed) that blatantly promotional and commercial entries should be removed, Wikipedia already does a good job with that. This motion raises privacy concerns. One small example: If a user is a publicist for a celebrity or brand and corrects biographical information or brand details, he or she will need to disclose for whom they work. If they also have edited any controversial articles in the past assuming anonymity, someone could tie that editor to the celebrity or brand. The potential implications are frightening. Fuzzmartin (talk) 02:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
209. Oppose - Agree with Intent, Disagree with Implementation - What would be better is having a series of checkboxes when editing (as I proposed elsewhere on this page), which automatically gets tied to their profiles by automatically generated lists. This would help editors identify specific edits that may need to be looked at further, and also provide disclosure for every edit. 99.99.233.74 05:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
210. Oppose - This idealistic, unenforceable rule does not distinguish paid shills from expert contributors whose knowledge of a topic derives from their professional employment. It does not distinguish between individuals providing content and individuals assisting content providers to use an edit page. Tagging contributions, or contributors, as paid will weaken them regardless of their merit and leave them open to attack from strong-POV or fringe-POV elements (already a huge hassle, even in some scientific and engineering topics). And since the rule relies on the honor system, it will discourage ethical contributors while posing no barrier to trolls or liars. Whatever particle of legal advantage might be gained against paid advocacy editing would be offset by the burdens to contributors at large. Susato (talk) 08:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
211. Oppose Paid? Unpiad? There should be only one class of editor on wikipedia. Their private lives should not be a part of it unless they are required by law and wikipedia has a legal obligation to ensure they follow that law then disclosure isn't important. People shouldn't be put under a microscope because they get paid. They should get put under a miscoscope because they make bad edits. You got a three revert exemption that lets you revert just because you feel like it. What is it? banned people and ip editors can be reverted arbitrarily? Why? Your going to have people jus focus on paid editors? Why? These types of policies seem like cop outs.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:18, 2 March 2014
212. Oppose - The best thing about Wikipedia is the ability for everybody to edit and add knowledge to every article. Monetizing is dangerous and it seems a money-grab--if Wikipedia is the tool it has been previously and was always meant to be. I vote for free (in every sense) distribution of knowledge. I believe there to be ulterior motives to this.(UTC)

     To be clear, the proposed amendment does not endorse paid advocacy editing. See here. Thanks. Geoffbrigham (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

213. Oppose - Any undisclosed editing/addition is a sure source of ambiguity and uncertainty in the already overloaded global pool of information (86.96.226.8 12:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)).
214. Oppose - As stated in the previous community-devised proposals about paid editing, the real issue is WP:NPOV and WP:COI. WP:NPOV is a much bigger problem than paid editing. I support the idea of voluntary disclosure, but I think this proposal is more likely to drive potential WP:COI editors who want to do the right thing to try to sidestep disclosure.
215. Oppose. I fail to see how this will stop the shady PR and marketing folks from doing what they do, but I am certain that there are constructive contributors (i.e. people who read and try to abide by policy) who fall into the huge, gaping grey area of this policy and will decide to stop contributing rather than open themselves up to misguided witch hunts or other abuse. Maghnus (talk) 15:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
216. Oppose - I edit Wikipedia under my real name, but I respect the right of others to edit under a user name not traceable to their real identity. This is a core value of Wikipedia reflected in the very terms of use being amended, and outing someone is considered a grave offense. In particular, our outing policy says "Personal information includes ... home or workplace address, job title and work organization..." The proposed wording "any contribution to any Wikimedia Projects for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation" is very broad. We want to encourage professional experts to contribute to Wikipedia, not chase them away and we would hope that their employers, e.g. universities, value time spent improving our articles. So in effect we would be demanding that all professionals who edit in their areas of expertise out themselves. This is too high a price to pay for a dubious improvement in terms that already prohibit deceptive behavior.--ArnoldReinhold (talk) 17:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

     Hello ArnoldReinhold, I share your concern about any unnecessary barriers for professional experts (who are not being paid specifically to advocate their point of view). We tried to clarify this point in the FAQ response on How will this provision affect teachers, professors, and employees of galleries, libraries, archives, and museums (“GLAM”)? Do you think this is a helpful distinction to make? Do you think we can clarify this further through the FAQ or adjusting the language in the proposal? Thanks for your feedback. Stephen LaPorte (WMF) (talk) 01:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

     The language of the proposed amendment is very broad. What the FAQ says in the section you reference is very different and is more acceptable to me. If that is all the amendment addresses--monetary payment for specific contributions--it should say so. I am not a lawyer, but my understanding of a Terms of Use is that it becomes a contract when one uses the services offered. Unless the FAQ document is incorporated into the terms, what legal standing does it have? The language should be narrow to address the specific ills that cause alarm, and not the usual sweeping language that attorneys are taught to write.--ArnoldReinhold (talk) 02:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

     The FAQ would be officially maintained with the TOU, similar to a legislative history to guide how the terms will be interpreted (if necessary). But I agree that it is preferable to make the terms as clear and narrow as possible, so we will continue to consider how this can be improved. Thanks again, Stephen LaPorte (WMF) (talk) 20:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

217. Oppose Ban paid contributions altogether. This resolution looks like it's going to be implemented because the editors are only stepping in to make supportive arguments; as well as the fact that Wikipedia has brought this up before. That makes me mad. Deenasao (talk) 18:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

     Hi Deenasao - I'm not sure if I fully understand your comment, but this proposed amendment is not intended to support paid advocacy editing. See more here. If I misunderstood, my apologies. Geoffbrigham (talk) 16:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

218. Oppose. Anyone should be able to edit anonymously and have his work analysed for the contents it brings to wiki. In my opinion it doesn't matter if it's paid or not, as long as acceptable by community. Max51 (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
219. Oppose - This is just a silly waste of time, but I'm still going to oppose this idea. I think this is going to form the basis of witch hunts which will destroy otherwise reasonable editors who can't defend themselves against admins and others who are going to try to push them out. w:WP:Outing is effectively made irrelevant with this policy change as the only way to legitimately prove that somebody is violating this policy is to reveal personally identifying information. I believe this also is against several other Wikimedia proposals as well in terms of being concerned about privacy issues and more. Regardless, as long as anonymous IP edits are permitted on Wikimedia projects, this policy will be essentially unenforceable. It certainly won't fix the perceived problem (which I don't even see as a problem) of people getting paid to make edits on Wikipedia or other Wikimedia projects. --RHorning (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
220.  Oppose – this doesn't really get to the heart of the matter (not all with hidden agendas are paid!), and I'm now a bit concerned that it could lead to good editors getting harassed via their work phones because they dare to edit articles related to their employment in some way. —SamB (talk) 02:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
221. Oppose - Some unpaid editors are wildly biased in what they write, and some compensated editors produce good, unbiased content. Wikipedia may or may not have a problem with biased editing. This "solution" widely misses the mark. I'm not sure there is a solution without fundamentally altering what Wikipedia is, but this isn't it. Pattonre (talk) 06:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
222. Oppose -- Obviously, no one who is being paid to promote something is going to follow this rule. It only places an unnecessary burden on good faith editors who comply. They will then have their contributions unfairly scrutinized by others. Maintaining impartiality has always been accomplished through the consensus building of editors. Biased edits never last long, and biased editors never get far. I fail to see how singling out one particular sub-type of biased editor with a rule that none of them will obey accomplishes anything good for Wikipedia. More needless bureaucracy can only be a bad thing, and I feel this amendment will hurt Wikipedia. Elladril (talk) 09:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
223. Oppose - For similar reasons no policy has worked ever before, mainly that you are pushing people into an underground situation instead of valuing their input regardless of their motives. Secondly this is a pure case of classism, there are many rich people who have absolutely no business editing as their contributions are troubling and their participation disruptive, but these policies only focus on the poorer classes who must work for a living. It is better to improve the quality of contributions to avoid the POV issues, paid or not is irrelevant. This also promotes an atmosphere of disparaging anyone who may be thought to be a paid editor. That creates its own disruption all by itself. Sportfan5000 (talk) 09:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
224. Oppose - Contributions should be assessed by their content alone, and not by the perceived potential motivation of the contributors. Judging the quality of a submission according to the rules of Wikipedia can be done in an objective way. Trying to guess the "hidden agenda" of contributors according to their affiliation is a subjective matter. Cochonfou (talk) 15:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
225. Oppose - I love wikipedia and use it constantly, almost borderline obsessively, and sometimes regrettably exclusively. "Sometimes," being a word that implies (and literally means) less times than not. All this being said, i rarely wonder if what i'm reading is being fabricated or manipulated to favour a certain point. until now. if companies can pay to write their own articles, they can write their own fictional profiles. and a self made profile for a company is basically an advertisement. in order to maintain wikipedia's basic purpose, articles cannot by financially controlled by their makers. it's for us by us. not for us by them. fox news and george bush might as well write the articles. if wikipedia supports financial aid from the article's controller, they're basically accepting bribes. with the exception of the odd idiot, the people don't prefer lies, so the people won't lie to the people. so support the people, not the money.( 70.78.27.68 14:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC))

     Hi there. Actually this proposed amendment does not endorse paid advocacy editing. You can read more here. Thanks. Geoffbrigham (talk) 16:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

226. Oppose — Adds no value to free culture. genium ⟨✉⟩ 17:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
227. Strongly Oppose - This strikes me as a proposal driven by those who just can't get the after taste of Citizens United out of their mouths and assume that corporate or paid speech is inherently evil and unpaid speech (especially that which supports the reader's agenda and/or POV) is inherently good. Concerted organizational attempts to ingrain POV is the issue. Not whether or not someone is paid to do it. Jamesdcarroll (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
228. Oppose: While at first view the amendment appears to be reasonable I am afraid that this amendment could be an invitation to open witch hunts: What happens if a user does not declare himself to be paid but if there are suspicions that he/she possibly is? This is a conflict which the communities cannot resolve. So far, we focus on the edits of a user and we do not care about a user's background outside of the projects. Consequently, we just need to focus on material that is available on-wiki to discuss the quality or merit of a user's edits. We should not introduce any amendments where we are not prepared to enforce them or where any attempts to enforce them are likely to cause more harm than benefit. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
229. Oppose--Gyanda (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
230. Oppose - As long as the information is provided with enough sources for other people to verify, who cares what the motivation was for adding the content? What's next? Requiring all vandalism edits to be tagged as well? My point is, there are many motivations for the appearance of inaccurate content and the integrity should always constantly be checked anyway. we can't become lazy and start to rely on tags now. P.S. How did the Dutch translation of the proposal came to be? It seems like it was translated almost word for word and together with numerous grammar mistakes, it makes no sense whatsoever. 83.81.14.100 22:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
231. Strongly Oppose: I don't care whether an editor is being paid for their work. All I care about is that they are following WMF wikis' other guidelines. Libcub (talk) 23:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
232. Oppose - in the end a court will decide what "compensation" is, and I wouldn't be surprised if it applied a rather broad definition. Moreover, paid editing is not as big a problem as to warrant this type of instruction creep. I have many other reasons and am happy to state them if you wish, but much of it has been said above. --Pgallert (talk) 06:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
233. Oppose - Too many vagaries and problems, and I'm not yet convinced the problem is great enough to justify them. There are more pressing problems affecting the quality of articles such as recentism, too much tolerance of original synthesis, ideological bias, overreliance on weak net-based sources rather than stronger print-based sources, and organized, politically driven campaigns of hostile editing. Concentrate on strengthening policies and practices in those areas. Metamagician3000 (talk) 10:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
234. Strong oppose — What problem are we trying to solve ? Will it solve it ? I believe ill-intended paid editor won't discolse anything, and this change of TOU will set another barrier to new contributor. --PierreSelim (talk) 11:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
235. Oppose Concentrate on the edits, not the editor. I will continue to oppose any amendments like this until it can be proven that all undisclosed paid editing is harmful, which of course not all of it is. Konveyor Belt (talk) 17:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
236. Strong oppose. I do not see the problem at all and am sure that the "solution" does not solve the problem if it exists. Editors who are not accustamed with the wikipedia who are here for payment, are easily identified. There is no need for them to identify themselves, surely not the entity paying them. Anonymous contributors coming in covert will not disclose anything and there is no way to identify them. Respectable wikipedians will get the same respect whether they are identified or not. There are some terrible problems with this suggestion. First, identified paid contributors will probably get more respect from the community to their mistakes then if they did not identify themselves. I had an example like that just today on the Hebrew wikipedia. People saw that the contributor presented himself as a representative of HaEmek Medical Center and allowed him to enter gross errors into the article because "he must know what he is writing". Second, many people who would normally pay for articles about them or their institutions and thus promote the wikipedia would not do so if the article will contain a notice that it was sold out. We loose a lot of progress that way, for nothing. The saying says: "if something is working do not try to fix it". Please, retract this amendment. עדירל (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
237. Oppose The idea that paid equals false or deceiving is unproven. We pay doctors to get a diagnosis. An unpaid fanatic can write dribble. Monarch17 (talk) 22:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
238. Oppose a good edit is a good ecit regardless of where it comes from, a bad edit is a bad edit paid or not. Edits which are blatant adverts, PR will be seen and removed for what they are, and other than blocking IP addresses when they can be identified with a commercial enterprise how on earth are you supposed to enforce this proposal, if an editor choses not to disclose what are we to do, I suppose you could create a system where we can go around denouncing editors we suspect of being paid, a committee on unwiki activities? but a sly editor will know how to hide such edits. Adopting this change will be potentially devisive and unenforceable.--KTo288 (talk) 22:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Oppose voting

• Wikipedia is in need of oversight by impartial editors. For example, Germany is not a democracy because The Left/SPD/Green Winners of the 2013 election with a 320 seat majority are not represented. Angela Merkel has bought off the SPD leadership with money and power even though her support amounts to only 311 seats. This type of corruption is how Hitler came to power and explains how World War Two started. Today we face a similar expansionary Germany as can be seen corrupting EU politics and invading the Ukraine by means of supporting hooligans. Wikipedia should be honest about the German Dictatorship and report properly in a factual way. Wikipedia in the present form is very dangerous and this has been reported to GCHQ. Please be honest from now on.

  Wikipedia doesn't "report" anything in the way you are suggesting. If there are any facts to back up this assertion, it should be simple to update the relevant article(s) (with citations, of course). But WP is overseen by a fair-minded Board of Directors. Why do you think this discussion is even happening? And please sign your comment next time. 76.178.144.67 11:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• This voting is a total mess; many if not most of the !votes and comments do not have any signature and are likely coming from the same person or a group of people. Not to mention that we shouldn't even be !voting on this amendment in the first place (because 1/ the decision lies with the Board of Trustees and 2/ This community has generally tried to avoid voting on matters, and favoured discussions and consensus-gathering; last time I checked). odder (talk) 09:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think that it is helpful at all (in contrast to the comments below), but someone thought it should be here. Alice Wiegand (talk) 09:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

  Personally I am reading it as a !vote, per its heading. I'm less interested in the numbers, and more interested in the comments. The community feedback has been wonderful (including the stress-testing with hypotheticals). Internally, we are trying some new drafts to tighten up or add language in some areas of concern, and, if it passes our internal legal scrutiny, we may share with the community for their thoughts. So - like our other legal consultations - my expectation is that the text will change continuously as we hear and consider new ideas and concerns during this consultation. Geoffbrigham (talk) 15:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• I oppose paid contributions without disclosing political affiliations or any and all sorts of special interest corporate organizations who are merely paying a price to have their voice heard above all net neutrality voices. We, who contribute to wikipedia, in full good-will do not avoid transparency whereas these underhanded organizations and government agencies are only contributing to the good faith trust relationship to fill their own pocketbooks, it is 100% Grade A USDA B.S. that nobody is going to believe in ever again, and if you file this motion through your board of trustees, word will get out that wikipedia is a co-opted government and corporate hypermedia serving corporate aims, no one will believe in this site anymore and you will eventually see your click results dropping, even though corporate subsidies keep you at the top of the google search engine listing assignment. We do not support big agribusinesses and big pharmaceutical corporations, we are the voice of the people, and word-of-mouth has a lot more to it than what you might think, if all you see is dollar signs blinking in your eyes right now, you won't see them later. See you later. I'm not even going to wait for it to happen. I'm going to start spreading the word since you even considered this option. B.S! Wikipedia changed it's logo and remodeled, they no longer serve content production, they serve the capitalist overlords. You don't even know what this means yet, but you will.97.115.149.83 11:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• The strength of Wikipedia has always been natural and spontaneous volunteers. You can't always buy all the volunteers in the world. Its hard to pay the entire population of the world. Knowledge should be shared, not bought. There are already plenty of websites where people buy stuffs. Think of the people who have donated to save Wikipedia. Think of us who have volunteered for years. "There are companies richer than several countries".  and they have the capacity to pay for anything they want. People believe in Wikipedia because they believe Wikipedia does not have paid editors and it is neutral. Money can't can't buy trust. I oppose paid editing. -RajeshPandey (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

  @RajeshPandey, I think that your vote is in the wrong section. It should be in #Oppose #Support.
  – 6birc (talk) 14:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

  @6birc, Did you read the last line ? which says I oppose paid editing. RajeshPandey (talk) 17:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

  Rajesh, you are right. I read it, it just confused me. Confusingly, many people, who #support the amendment, cite the same reason as you... even though the amendment is not going to ban paid editing. – 6birc (talk) 19:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Lazy and a false choice; while I agree with the board's effort to improve the Terms of Use, this vote demonstrates a lack of transparency on the part of both the Board and the Wikimedia Foundation Legal Department. This "take it or leave it" approach is simply lazy. Please provide the community more respect; the Legal Department must open up their process and allow input across a range of potential amendments. Unless there is more than one choice, this vote will not properly gauge the true intent of the community. MarkWarren (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• When looking at psychological literature, there are two types of motivation: Internal and External. External motivators, such as monitory gain is good at increasing efficiency when the task does not require creativity. As soon as monitory gains become involved internal motivation is gone, and so with it, creativity and enjoying something for the sake of doing it. On the other hand, internal motivation which is the drive that makes a person dedicate themselves to the good of the community can never be rewarded. The reward is the act itself and the fact that there is no "external" rewards it makes it even stronger. Thus this entire page will destroy all that Wikipedia stands for and if a vote was to be held, it will be the end of this amazing open source initiative that we have been enjoying for many years.

• I oppose increasing Wikipedia's authority on the grounds that I find all authority to be imperious and repressive, and I oppose voting on this issue on the grounds that I find majority rule to be nothing more than a dictatorship of majorities over minorities. I would prefer an autonomous, user-motivated, user-led response to combating this issue over a response that relegates decision-making power to trustees, legal departments, and intermediaries.

• Wikipedia is not about the truth it's about facts (not necessary accurate) and opinions. You should focus on the accuracy of the facts (users can create their own opinion) and that doesn't depend on "user's intentions disclosure". You are trying to solve a different problem with a wrong solution. It is not worth voting.109.69.5.39 15:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Unsorted comments

Append new unsorted comments at the bottom of this section.

• Wikipedia always has been, is and always will be the Mother of all Blogs; ergo, truth and accuracy is neither expected nor assumed; ergo, EITHER WE ALL GET PAID OR NONE OF US GET PAID. Seems fair to me. Luxartisan (talk) 03:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• Paid editing contributes greatly to wikipedia. I recall, a former science colleague of mine was asked by our program director to create an article on an engineering topic because it didn't yet exist. Our program was in a government research lab, and he was paid for the time in which he did the edits. Its fairly common for academic researchers in fields to make such edits during work hours while getting paid.Gsonnenf (talk) 08:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

your insight is informative, but good-natured edits by GLAM is not the subject of criticism or debate here.Wikithrowaway001 (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I submit that any practices affected by this policy are appropriate for this discussion. We're not all shills here, and that's an important point to be made. Suitov (talk) 11:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

This proposal doesn't in any way prevent a government research lab from paying someone to create an article. What it does is to say that if you are being paid to edit here, you must make it clear that you're doing that, and who is paying you. This means that this research lab can continue to pay for someone to write that article - but that it won't be a secret that they are doing it. Those of us who care about it will be able to tell that your colleague is being paid (and by whom) to create the article. That's in the spirit of openness - that seems like a good thing. If everything is being done in an honest manner, the organization in question should have no problem with making their financial commitment clear. If they actually do want to hide the fact that they are paying someone to do it - then for sure, we don't want them to do it. SteveBaker (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I greatly benefit from Wikipedia's articles in biological sciences, a great many of which, I am sure, are initiated and maintained and improved by the type of editors Gsonnenf is talking about. That said, I like the idea of some self-disclosure on an editor's user page. Canhelp (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Contributors and section editors should list openly their interest and/ or expertise in the subject area. Readers deserve to know and expect this higher standard. A simple rule avoids many complications.

  That's not necessary. Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia that's written by experts - it's written by anyone who can find suitable reference material and quote it accurately. The biggest quality we need from our editors is 'bookishness' and a reasonable command of the language that they are editing in. SteveBaker (talk) 20:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• A diet article may be from a trained dietician or a supplement vendor. Conflict of Interest is a gray area and the reader needs to judge the apparent degree of propaganda. An article evaluating exercise machines may come from a licensed physical trainer and/or from a heavily invested vendor. Sorting 'paid' from 'unpaid' is nigh impossible. And some vendors do render even-handed evaluations. Wikipedia will have to somehow vet prospective contributors with employment conflict. <Eumo@stonefieldsheep.com>

• I guess you'll delete this, but you obviously haven't applied the science of neuroplacticity to this issue. Just go ahead and sell out. Cash is king. Am I supposed to put the squiggly lines here? Mister void (talk) 00:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• Many of us live lives in broad strokes simply because there is not enough time or energy to live otherwise. Given this I would like to discern simply and quickly how an edit has been created. This would allow me to decide its a validity. I have no problem with “undisclosed paid editing” I only wish to know what kind of edit it is. 24.156.227.3 02:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• The most important thing is to remember it's an encyclopedia. So the overriding issue is factual accuracy. Ensuring that if editing is paid or sponsored that it is identifiable will assist towards this goal of accuracy. That said it falls on everybody to be vigilant and report any factual errors whether or not the contribution is paid/sponsored or not. I repeat identifying such contributions WILL help the process as money talks though I cannot blanket condemn paid contribution editing per-se as some information can only be given in a sponsored way, e.g. about a company's internal workings, without being intrusive and with data protection conflicts etc. EBrownUKWakefield 02:38,26 February 2014 (GMT)

• Oppose. One of the main goals of Wikipedia should always be accuracy.If you're being paid to post here, chances are you know what you're talking about. Why should we restrict anyone's access to posting an article here regardless of what they are being paid or not paid?

  You might know that the homeopathic medicine that the company you work for is junk and doesn't work - but that might not stop your employer from paying you to write about how good it is. The problem is with the motives of editors. SteveBaker (talk) 20:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• Opposing an amendment - I do not know what effect the amendment would have compared with what it wouldn't as I've not read up on both sides of the argument. As far as I'm aware, Wikipedia is there for anyone to add correct factual data and while I see 'issues' around being paid for edits, if the edit is factually correct and unbiased, I see no need for payment disclosure. I also see it very difficult to police. Content quality is the key thing - and knowing the source of edits invaluable. I therefore say don't make restrictions and allow legal challenges to come from external sources and simply that the warning that Wikipedia Foundation will pass on editors' details if requested to do so by any authoritative law.

• I've written whole articles (or major portions of them) as well as doing normal minor edits while reading. For free, of course. But I would be most glad to be paid for this work!! Any offers? Contact Ron....

• Documentation and footnoting are the essence of peer review. No one publishes in a peer reviewed journal without a show of credentials that normally includes employment while one's peer's comments are available only to paid subscribers. Wikipedia is a step above, an author does not pay to be published, an author can write without fear of employer repercussion, the author can expect a large, articulate, and somewhat knowledgeable, audience. Edits remaining on pages are typically well reviewed while opinions on talk pages get rapid and substantial consideration by experts in their field. With such a podium on which to stand, I believe a minimum of restrictions encourage the best of us to edit freely and often. Excessive restrictions will leave only paid contributors sufficient protection for explication. --Pendare 12:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• I oppose strongly

• Strongly support, but would be desirable to go farther

It is clear that the conflict of interests bias the otherwise valuable information and should be avoided as much as possible.

I understand that sometimes there is people that can't expose their name because of potential retaliation from some powerful entity, but as much as we all have the right to say whatever we want -freedom of expression- the reader has the right to know who said what and the possible bias of any comment.

In the academic world many times wikipedia references are not accepted because the author of any piece of information is not risking his/her reputation when an idea is written, yet, wikipedia information is invaluable to researchers, students, etc. Real names are important.

Then why did you neither sign, log in nor give your real name? - Averater (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Avis d’un utilisateur

Non au "Paid contributions amendment". C’est la porte ouverte à tous les abus !

Un utilisateur.

What if everyone working on wikipedia is paid, and we just didn't notice? I believe any debate on distribution is, to some degree, navel-gazing, unless a little thing called human rights and protection of the environment are given top priority. Both entries on Wikipedia somehow manage without mentioning article 25. What happened there? Think or swim! Some people in this discussion mention (the spirit of) article 26, and that it shouldn't be entirely up to wikipedia to ensure neutrality. It's pretty clear that wikipedia's next phase will involve a lot of backtracking: people wading through old entries, sifting through edits. No one but a crazy angel would do something like that for free - especially if they have to worry about paying the bills!--Michael Paul Kerr (talk) 10:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• brief comment: if this is the way you chose to handle input and user feedback, you have little chance of ever resolving anything. Put one person in charge and live with their decisions - this is reducing intelligence to babble. Wayne Rice 2/28/2014 ( preceding comment copied from where left inside the FAQs above Jalexander--WMF 01:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC) )
• Find a better way or risk irrelevance. It sounds like a good idea, it also sounds almost impossible to enforce, even given the responses I've read as to how it could be enforced. Any unscrupulous entity could systematically alter wikipedia if they were to do it subtly enough, as I'm sure they already are, and a non-for-profit organization will likely not have the assets to combat this in pure man hours. It may just be the nature of the beast; once idealistic pursuits gain attention those with money find ways take advantage of them and sully them beyond repair, until an entirely new approach is taken. I think that a part of the solution may be to require that any contributors go through moderately rigorous verification procedures to identify them(i.e. phone #, address, real name, etc.). All this, of course, while only showing a user name to other users, but logging users' personal info with the foundation. It sucks, but it sucks less than wikipedia getting hijacked in to irrelevance by opportunists.75.111.41.81 08:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I am concerned that the way the proposal is phrased (immediately below), leaves too much wiggle room for a contributor to say "Well, I have been paid for doing some specific editing on this topic, but this is not something I have been paid for; it is my honest contribution of fact", or whatever. How to correct this I am not sure how to improve this, except perhaps to say "I have been paid to edit and contribute now or previously on this topic or by this interested party."

REFERRING TO THIS WORDING: with respect to any contribution to any Wikimedia Projects for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. You must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways: a statement on your user page, a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions. -Jim Terr 75.161.33.86 09:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• Let's be careful & keep the objective in mind. We want the most honest & reliable source available. There are some paid entries that each of us will support & some we each will oppose. The answer is to understand the source of the information. Second best is to note the source of information; so that individuals can determine if the source is accurate. Is there are way that edits can be color coded to an editor; or some similar way of marking them?— The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.15.63.203 (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• The page I arrived here from stated "You will find an introduction to the question and the proposal from the Wikimedia Foundation Legal Department below." Where is this "question" on that page?Zylstra (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• In the list of the three ways of disclosure, after the first item, put "or".

Discussion

Who is we?

The text starts with 'we'. Please put the names and affiliations of these people (comercial, political, religious). We need to know who is behind this idea. We need full transparency.

I previously explained below that the "we"is the WMF legal department. Thanks. Geoffbrigham (talk) 14:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I have BOLDly replaced the first "We" with "The Wikimedia Foundation Legal Department". Dodger67 (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Technically, the Executive Director would have to agree and ask the Board. That said, I'm fine with the edit for its purposes. Thanks. Geoffbrigham (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Who is "we"? Is this something which the community members may sign? Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I wondered the same thing. --Another Believer (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I guess the "we" is the WMF legal department in the sense that the legal department is putting this before the community for comments. If, after the consultation with the community and after making adjustments in the draft per the feedback, the legal department feels it makes sense to recommend the draft to the Board, it will consult with the Executive Director. If the ED agrees, the ED with the support of the legal department will make the recommendation to the Board on the draft and refer the Board to read the consultation and the community comments before making a final decision. Geoffbrigham (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is the beginning of regulated information, stemming from the powers at be outside of WIki's control.

• I just came here after seeing a banner advertising the discussion. I don't quite understand what we're supposed to do now but the edit history indicates that the principal author of this amendment is Philippe (WMF). This seems to be itself a paid work account but the user page has a disclaimer: "Although I work for the Wikimedia Foundation, contributions under this account do not necessarily represent the actions or views of the Foundation unless expressly stated otherwise. For example, edits to articles or uploads of other media are done in my individual, personal capacity unless otherwise stated." So, does this amendment represent the views of that user; the community that he is paid to liaise with; or the Foundation itself? Are the edits which created this proposal compliant with the proposed terms? In other words, if Philippe is acting as our paid advocate and editing on our behalf, is his disclosure adequate? This may be a good test case ... Andrew Davidson (talk) 19:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Andrew, the statement on his user page, and the (WMF) in his user name, both indicate his affiliation and wiki-related employment. As I understand it, both are adequate for the purposes of the proposed amendment; and it is ok for there to be uncertainty about whether any particular edit is made as a result of that employment. –SJ talk  06:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

An astute observation and excellent question from Mr. Davidson. There is a certain irony (or is it hypocrisy?) for a WMF employee who is not in the Legal department, to be presenting new content that the Legal department says it is putting forward, all regarding a proposal that would require editors to declare their paid interest in subject content. Let's get this ironed out before you "we" take this any further, please. -- Thekohser (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, Philippe is part of the Legal and Community Advocacy Department and reports directly to the General Counsel (I am on the same team). The proposal is written by and is from the lawyers within the Legal and Community Advocacy Department and Philippe and myself (along with other members of the team at times) are assisting them. For example Philippe worked on wikifying the document (which was originally not on a wiki) while I later came in to mark it for translation and move it to meta (it was imported from a staff wiki). Jalexander--WMF 07:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• This question definitely needs answering. If this is put to the Board, it needs to be made very clear who exactly it is coming from and who is supporting it. I am also concerned that there does not seem to be any clear path to voicing opposition to this proposal. SpinningSpark 19:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • SpinningSpark: I think the opposition path is fairly clear: start a section on this talk page. :-) Others will chime in if they agree. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a very good question. What's to prevent anyone from "asking" the WMF to do anything? What evidence is there that this is going to be seriously considered or is even on the agenda? Coretheapple (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Coretheapple, the legal team discussed this proposal with Board members before posting. The Board will ultimately decide when this will be on their agenda, based on this discussion and the process that Geoff describes above. Thanks! Stephen LaPorte (WMF) (talk) 23:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. Coretheapple (talk) 01:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing proventing anyone from asking things of the WMF Board. There is a Board noticeboard, where requests and proposals from community members are responded to. –SJ talk  06:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Privacy and free speech

Would this mean that wikipedia would be restricted to those who sign in?

Will wikipedia change? Requiring that no more anonymous edits can be made? As in will that mean that a person who views a page cannot edit the page without signing in? 117.221.189.242 12:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)Privacy

No ... as presently written, the proposed amendment only applies to editors receiving compensation for their edits. And you do not need to be registered to meet the requirements of the amendment. Geoffbrigham (talk) 13:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Why are we voting if this isn't the final format?You do agree that it heavily relies on honesty for enforcement if anonymous users can contribute? So will anonymous edits be removed when the final draft is created?117.221.189.242 14:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)Privacy

Hello 117, that one I can answer for you: this is not a vote, it is more of a straw poll, slash communal discussion. The end result will *not* be decided by the "votes" at all, rather, as Geoff mentions in some other comments, the WMF staffers will continue to revise drafts internally. They may decide that the current language is perfect (it ain't ... sorry Geoff :-)   but more likely they will fix it up, and then hold another straw-poll-slash-communal-discussion later. This is more like a town hall meeting, than like an actual election. Does that analogy make some sense of what is going on here? This issue has been under discussion on-wiki and off-wiki for years now, and the WMF staff is trying to feel their way slowly towards the correct language that captures the essence of what wikipedia needs. It is a bit of a messy process, but it works out reasonably well in the end. Hope this helps, and thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 02:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Good question. The legal department did not start the !vote, though I'm finding the comments in both the support and oppose lists quite helpful as we think about revisions. We expect to propose some revised language in light of the feedback and continue listening to reactions. The consultation period under the TOU lasts 30 days (sec.16). We are running this consultation as we did the privacy and trademark policies, changing text as we go along, in response to the feedback. Geoffbrigham (talk) 13:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• The question is: "Would this mean that wikipedia would be restricted to those who sign in?" - I would suggest: NO (the information on Wikipedia has to remain free to all), but the opportunity to contribute should be restricted to those who have the integrity, honesty and scruples to log in and be identified. Pr0t0type (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Are anonymity & pseudonomy now lost?

Determining "compensation" seems very vague; lots of people poke at Wikipedia during working hours. Are they "being paid to edit"? Do they still have a COI about their employer even if they hate their job and don't have any respect for them? What about voluntary affiliations that don't pay, but may be as strong or stronger than a paid affiliation?

More generally, forcing people to disclose their employer is .... rather personal information, which strikes me as incompatible with the notion that our users can be anonymous (or rather pseudonomous, using usernames and keeping their real-world identities private).

If we're going to go that route, we should stop pretending we respect anonymity of our contributors and perhaps go for a true Real Names policy... which of course would crash community participation from many sectors (people at risk for harassment, people who worry they may be at risk of harassment, etc; and of course people at risk of being stalked and murdered, or arrested and tortured and executed).

I'm not sure I'd support that; while "Real Names" has done well by me (as a white male upper-middle-class knowledge worker in a liberal democracy, which is relatively safe) I don't think it's for everybody. --brion (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Real names are needed if we speak about real money. The Wikimedia can protect the privacy of its donators, but not the privacy of those to whom it gives money (or at least, the benefitor should give a proof of identity to the Foundation, by a secure mean, if this person really requires protection (e.g. an LGBT group in Russia, in Iran or in many anti-LGBT African countries where they risk jail or even death penalty for their online promotion activities; but such risk should not be considered in countries where their activities are perfectly legal and adequately protected by national laws and constitutions, such as LGBT groups or individual in the European Union, USA, Canada, Japan and some others; the protection by anonyity may be requested on a case per case basis: such cases could be discussed publicly to see if someone in a given country may request for anonymity, but even in this case that person or group should proove his identity to the Foundation that will keep it as secretely as possible, just like for donators: a public forum may ask question to the Foundation, that will forward them to the requester; the requester will reply privately to the Foundation, and then the Foundation will report the anonymized answer to the community for evaluation of the general situation; if the situation concerns lots of people, the question should be debated for the whole group of these persons without detailing them: a policy may be adopted about them, and the Foundation will apply it consistently, but securely). verdy_p (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Also there may be situations where some people ask for online anonymity to get some financements for being able to report about some emergency situations (e.g. today for news reports in Ukraine or Egypt), in specific cases where (even in "free" countries like USA) they could take a risk (imagine the situation of another people revealing things about US NSA activities : that person risks years of jail even in US for only reporting the truth to the world !). However in such situation the Foundation may not be able to offer the protection itself (being subject to US law) and could transfer the money to be given and controled by another trusted Wikimedia chapter (e.g. in Europe such as Wikimedia CH in Switzerland, or Wikimedia Sverrige in Sweden, and possibly even Wikimedia Russia for protecting US citizens).

The Foundation would have to trust these Chapters about its control on the final benefitor (located in another country where the benefitor asks for protection of his anonymty), but the Foundation will request to the chapter some aggregated acounting reports about these exceptional extra grants. After all these large chapters also have already good accounting practices. If needed, an amendment to the agreements linking the chapter and the Foundation may be signed to help secure this type of transfer relayed by the chapter protecting the anonymity of the benefitor.

And the Foundation should then inform candidate benefitors that they can choose one of these other chapters to request anonymity directly to them. The chapter would create an online account for that benefitor (with a tracking tag informing the community that the user is anonymous and protected by this chapter according to the signed agreement beween the chapter and the Foundation). verdy_p (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Verdy p as to "real names are needed if we speak about real money". Paid editors will need to give up some anonymity in order to make proper disclosures. That needs to be the price of being paid to edit, by the nature of that activity, and I don't think WP needs to apologize for that.

If an individual is paid to edit, I think it is acceptable for that person to have a separate account for that purpose. If he or she wishes also to contribute in an unpaid capacity, a separate standard anonymous account is also acceptable for that activity. If WP is unable to allow such dual accounts, then there is a question of individual rights wrt what their employers (or compensators) demand of them. If WP is unable to resolve such issues satisfactorily, then I think it would need to consider a complete ban on paid editing in order to preserve its goals, just as a practical matter. Evensteven (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Standard anonymous accounts are absolutely NOT anonymous. IP accounts are definitely not secure enough as they can be easily traced backed to the user by any one else through public logs of the wikis. What we need are standard registered accounts that are created and controled by someone whose real identity has been secured by the Foundation (or by one of its trusted chapters taking the control, for the Foundation, on how the money will be spent by that anonymous benefitor, that chapter being alone to know the identity of that benefitor for whom the Foundation cannot secure itself the anonymity, such as another Snowden reporting to the world about NSA activities and that would want protection of his anonymity by Wikimedia CH or Wikimedia Russia). Such registered account would have a tag indicating Account secured and protected by the Wikimedia Foundation in USA, or Account secured and protected by Wikimedia CH in Switzerland.

If the account is protected by a trusted chapter, ONLY the chapter will know the identity of that person. The trusted chapter takes its own responsability to control that user but NOTHING (except national laws directly applicable to that chapter) would require that chapter to reveal privately to the Foundation or publicly to the world the real identity of that user and this would be the essential part of the signed amendment linking the trusted chapter and the Foundation. Ideally, the trusted chapter would host an anonymizing proxy for that autorized user, in order to connect to the Foundation servers. The Foundation servers will know that the user comes from that trusted proxy (e.g. Wikimedia CH) but nothing else (so any US agency investigating in the logs of the Foundation will find nothing about that user whose privacy rights are protected by another country). verdy_p (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Also this possibility of offering anonymity by proxying users could be given to other partner trusted organizations (such as Reports Without Borders, whose seat is in France, or the Red Cross International Comity that actively promote the use of TOR, The Onion Routing network, to secure and protect local reporters and humanitaries working in dangerous countries, for promoting education, health and development of political rights and justice).

I think that this could be the base for cooperation with other wellknown organizations in the world defending Freedom of Speech, Human Rights, and Equality. A single organisation located in US cannot do that alone without help from partner organizations exempted from US laws, only because it is subject to US law and US law does not always protect these freedoms on a worldwide scale. verdy_p (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

So This type of protected account should not be accepted with weak passwords, and should have their password updated regularly or in case of some knows security alert. The password used should also be unique for this account. There exists excellent tools to help users secure their multiple accounts without forgetting them or have to type them in a complex way.

Another note: these trusted accounts, anonymized, protected, and possibly proxied by trusted chapters or organizations, need to have strong password protections. This type of account should not be accepted with weak passwords, and should have their password updated regularly or in case of some knows security alert. The password used should also be unique for this account. There are excellent tools to help users secure their multiple accounts without forgetting them or have to type them in a complex way.

I can cite Dashlane (sorry if this looks like advertizing, add other names if your can...) which works really well (but unfortunately still not on Windows Phone devices; it works on desktop/server Windows, Linux, MacOS; on mobile OSes it works only on Android and iOS) and that is securet only because they are NOT known even to the site proposing it (decryption of the password wallet, is performed only on the local device used by the password owner). But there are possibly others (but most of them are storing user password in clear text on their servers, and we know now that large servers can be comprimized with millions passwords stolen: avoid these other tools completely) ; for now; I've not found any equivalent to Dashlane to secure personal wallets competely out of control of central servers, and that's the only reason why I cite it. correct me if I'm wrong, but other similar tools exist nowhere else

And I think this type of tool (protecting personal wallets out of control of any central server) is now essential to protect our online privacy (such as HTTPS, or any IP-based protocol like IPSec or the whole PKI broken by the need to certify his identity to a large company you cannot really trust: all these online protocols are clearly not sufficient as they are controled by a central authority whose data can be, and has too frequently been compromized by various attacks). Today's attacks against central servers have changed scale radically: they are now regularly stealing millions of accounts (think about large online gaming platforms, lots of banks, and wellknown brands of malls; as well as lots of official governement sites), that NO company wants to warranty or indemnize. The time of centralized servers or authorities is defintely over: you cannot trust at all any large central authority as an universal proxy for protecting your privacy (even when you are not connected to the Internet and when you have switched off your mobile phone !!). In other words: everyone should use unique passwords for each site, and avoid delegating any part of the control to any central server, even if it's named Google, Yahoo or Facebook (OAuth for example will stop working soon). verdy_p (talk) 22:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

In the amendment I see no requirement to bind information about the employer to your personal account. Nothing prevents one from creating a separate account (or even edit IP-ously) for paid contributions. I would even go one step further: the employer may create its official account and treat contributions to Wikipedia the same way as sport sponsorship, organizing public events or maintaining a historical building in its homecity. And in a case of a separate company account no anonymity is lost - it's increased, as now not a single person performs edits. --Wikimpan (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Harassment and outing

I would like WMF legal to consider the implications of harassment and outing regarding possible implementation of this policy. At the present, there is a very dangerous problem with Wikipedia of people using paid editing as a way of violating local policies regarding harassment and outing. Namely, these policies are ignored if people make the allegation that some one is in any way a paid editor. This recommendation would estentially enshrine into policy that dangerous practice by further encouraging people to target Wikipedia editors employment. Because the worst cases I have seen have involved women (and gender specific harassment), this potentially leaves open the WMF to violating the civil rights of women by creating a hostile workplace for them, whether they work for the WMF or not. Also, it encourages harassment, and successful harassment at that. The WMF supporting this is esentially the WMF supporting the harassment of volunteers and their employment. Beyond hurting the potential to recruit new editors, it will also hurt the WMF's ability to hire new employees from within the community because no sane person and quality candidate is going to want to subject themselves to potential job loss any given day because the community has been licensed by the WMF to harass editors. --LauraHale (talk) 08:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Or is it Wikipedia's Outing policy that is leading to the banning of editors who try to address significant conflict of interest among some of the editors here? Yes we need to find a balance between the two. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

There are always trade-offs. I agree, a balance needs to be found. Right now, the balance is skewed too far to one side, where there is complete permissiveness towards those who are editing Wikimedia projects by proxy for institutions willing to pay to manipulate the information on those projects. That permissiveness is tempered only by whatever local efforts are made at those projects, which can be difficult without the direct support of WMF. This amendment need not lead to witch hunts; on the contrary, it can serve as a guide for people so that they can take a reasonable approach to dealing with paid editors. -- Atama頭 16:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The situation is very similar to sockpuppets, in that it is inevitable that such investigations will sometimes require the disclosure of information that ties accounts to identities. We've been doing sock puppet investigations for years. In the case of inappropriate harassment or disclosure, we have all the normal tools of oversight and edit suppression to deal with those. Gigs (talk) 16:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, Gigs. And if LauraHale is right about a dangerous mix involving conflicts of interest, harassment, and outing, then that is the signal that paid editing is perceived as being so serious an issue that some have resorted to undermining important WP policies in order to address it. We need a policy like this all the more then, in order to achieve a balance in editing, and to maintain proper supports for all those important policies. Evensteven (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

@Evensteven:, I think that your conclusion is flawed in that it favours the possibility of a bad paid edit being more problematic for English Wikipedia than English Wikipedia trying to recruit and retain all editors. Let me give you an example from my own editing experience: I edited roller derby articles. I had a picture of a roller derby player on my user page. Some one was trying to insert a non-notable league into several pages on Wikipedia. I removed the references and nominated the article for deletion. The person who was trying to include the non-notable league concluded by these actions that I must be working for a competing roller derby league and working to promote them on Wikipedia at the expense of their league. They made this accusation pubic despite zero evidence for it. I largely stopped editing roller derby articles because it wasn't worth that. (In many other circumstances, these accusations are followed up by Wikipedians contacting the people they believe to be the employer, with and without disclosure.) If I was working for the organization, WP:OUTING was violated. If I was not, they were seeking to harass me and make false accusations specifically to allow them to push their own point of view. That's the problem here. These accusations of paid editing, without evidence or in violation of WP:OUTING and WP:HARASSMENT, are bad for Wikipedia. --LauraHale (talk) 09:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

@LauraHale:, I agree that using the paid editing issue in order to harass or out editors is inappropriate, and serious enough when it happens to be deserving of a ban. Such bad behavior can indeed lead to the loss of editors. But allowing paid editing by policy is flawed policy, bad policy, and just as serious. It creates a situation where an editing team can be created by nothing more than having enough money to pay them. I yield the point that such teams could abide by WP guidelines just as well as individual editors can, and even that they could accomplish some cleanup in areas that don't get enough attention from volunteers. The possibilities of good behavior and constructive contributions exist. But so do the possibilities of bad behavior. WP's policies depend on the editing community for their oversight and enforcement, and that activity has been shown to take much time and effort. Even so, the assumption is that the playing field is level; it is run and operated by individuals. When a whole paid editing team becomes a bad actor, the playing field becomes tilted in favor of whomever dedicates the most resources to its advocacy. Teams can overwhelm WP's ability to police itself. Consider how problematic that is even when assuming volunteerism. Sock puppets, meat puppets, use of one-time or small-time temporary accounts or IPs, all contribute to the messiest problems in vandalism and promotions of POVs. How much more then if paid editing becomes accepted practice? Besides, if my employer required me to edit WP as a condition of my employment, I would resent that as a violation of my personal freedoms, since it would compromise any volunteer activity I might want to do after hours. I represent myself here, not my employer, and that's the way I want it to stay. As many here have pointed out, a mere policy change will not do our policing for us. But it does establish the publicly-stated groundwork for legitimate activity. If the legal eagles ever have a need to pursue miscreants through litigation, they must have the legal means. WP needs to live in the real world, which includes even legalistic nations like the US. Evensteven (talk) 06:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

@Evensteven: It's true that there is a given problem within the English Wikipedia, but given the large number of rebuttals here about edge cases, possible outing and harassment, and even about potentially well-behaved paid contributors, would your suggestions not be more well-suited for internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines to regulate? More power to the editing community at hand there about how to regulate such users, who will judge for themselves (Wikipedia:Consensus), and with less potential collateral damage on the rest of the Wikimedia wikis. After all, it's not just Wikipedia that's affected by the change in the terms of use - one paid contributor or shared account banned on English Wikipedia may have a chance to contribute positively to other Wikimedia wikis, such as English Wikivoyage and German Wikipedia respectively. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 07:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

@TeleComNasSprVen: You may have a point; honestly, I just don't know myself, but what you say sounds reasonable. I join discussions like this when I have something to say, but I particularly like it when I have something to learn. When you or others speak of "collateral damage on the rest of the Wikimedia wikis", I am unsure of that because I haven't contributed there, so you're right that I'm Wikipedia-centric. But I definitely have the impression that the criticism is leveled specifically at this proposal. One thing my time spent here has done for me is to clarify my opposition to paid editing itself, at least for Wikipedia (probably as much in other languages as in English). Another thing it has clarified is my steadily increased reluctance to embrace the proposal itself. I appreciate the designers' intent to keep it a relatively light touch, but that can have the defect of making it toothless and ineffective. It can also introduce undesirable collateral effects (as you mention). Put the two together, and you get little benefit while introducing negative impact. You will see in my paragraph above that most of what I say is directed towards the ills of allowing paid editing as a matter of policy. And I would like to support the general idea that Wikipedia, and the Foundation, should have the tools they need to get a handle on the problem. For Wikipedia anyway, I think there could be very serious impacts if they don't. Constructive contributions are never a problem, but the ability to discern constructive ones from destructive ones is always necessary because of the sheer fact of bad actors. Wikis need some protections, and various tools in the armory. I'm just less sure all the time that this proposal is a needed tool - that it will accomplish anything in return for its impact. But as a matter of policy, I believe the Foundation is going to have to decide whether this effort is going to continue to be a volunteer effort or not, and that issue must be addressed at the level where this proposal has been made. However well some corporate or paid elements may be going in some areas, the present English Wikipedia troubles (and feedback here) serve as a warning about what can happen when participants don't play nice. Money does have the power to build. It also has the power to destroy. The point is that money has power. If that power takes hold, especially in the hands of corporations, it won't let go, for good or ill. Then this grass roots effort at building will become a corporate effort at building. The content of the Wiki projects may not decline in quality (or they might). What they won't get is the same community doing the building, and it will likely be a smaller or more concentrated community, with narrower perspectives. I am singularly unimpressed by what I see in corporate America in terms of vision. And even for those who think differently, corporations are not people. With paid editing and corporate involvement, the vision will change, the participants will change, and the joys of dealing with people will change. This specific proposal is "small change". But the English Wikipedia problem is now. The Foundation is looking at what to do. And it will take vision, because choices must be made. I prefer the volunteer approach, and want to see it continue to get the chance to see how far it can go. It's been impressive so far. And that is the path that provides a unique perspective for the world, one that corporations would crush, good intentions or no. Because corporations are not people. Evensteven (talk) 19:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC) Corporate information is not free. It is controlled. Evensteven (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Here's another thought, specifically about outing. Employer E hires editor W to do a job of editing. From the start, or perhaps later, E determines that it needs to evaluate W's work, in line with accepted practices regarding employees' performance on the job. To do so, it requires that W reveal the account handle used to do the work, thus establishing the real world connection of W with the wiki account. This information becomes a part of company records, which is seen by certain other employees in the legitimate course of their work. At some point, there are personnel changes; employees become former employees. And at some point, before or after personnel changes, someone reveals the connection of W to the wiki handle on a wider basis. Perhaps it is even unintentional, though perhaps it could also be harassment or intimidation. There could even be blackmail. And all of it could occur outside the jurisdiction and control of the Foundation, and also of the original employer. What if W was already a long-established editor before this job came up? Is this an additional hole in the security of identification that it is advisable to open? What will be the effect on recruitment of new editors? And what will be the effect on retention of existing editors? Of course the answer is: who knows? So here's another in the long line of risks attached simply to the idea of permitting paid editing; never mind this proposal. Evensteven (talk) 22:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

English Wikipedia's policy on "outing" is commonly applied in a ludicrously restrictive way. There are many ways in which this applies, but the one that is relevant here is that anyone who is paid to use Wikipedia to promote the interests of a business, person, or organisation should not be hiding the fact. If the "outign" polciy says otherwise tehn theat polciy needs revision. LauraHale asserts that this particularly affects women, but provides no eivdence for that assetion: I would be interested to see the evidence. As for "hurting the potential to recruit new editors", no, it would only hurt the potential to "recruit" new editors whose purpose is to abuse Wikipedia by secretly and covertly using it to promote. The fewer of that sort of editors we "recruit" the better. As for "potential job loss any given day because the community has been licensed by the WMF to harass editors": What? Why? How on earth does requiring people who are paid to promote the interests of a prticualr party to disclise the fact amount to a lciense "to harass editors"? And why on earth should such a paid editor be likely to lose their job because they are required to be honest and open about the fact that they are being paid to edit Wikipedia? JamesBWatson (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that those who wish to "abuse Wikipedia by secretly and covertly using it to promote" will continue to do so regardless of the ToU. True, the Foundation might be able to sue them if it could identify them and prove loss (both hard), but I'm not certain that it would. Indeed doing so might be "problematic" itself. Rich Farmbrough 22:19 20 February 2014 (GMT).

Unintended consequences of disclosure

LauraHale, Nathan, and others have raised this issue, and so I think it's worth clarifying a little more. It's a good question, and this amendment should not be an excuse for other users to disobey other community policies and standards.

The community's processes depend on transparency, which must be occasionally balanced against the interests of users who do not wish to disclose information about their employer or affiliation. The Terms of Use, and other project policies (like WP:OUTING), do not allow harassment or stalking. As others pointed out above, this is a similar question to enforcing sockpuppet rules, and other Wikipedias already have similar disclosure requirements for conflict of interest editing (like Spanish Wikipedia's COI policy). When there are cases where users feel harassed, then that is a bigger issue than a paid contribution disclosure, and should be dealt with more directly (or comprehensively) as necessary. But if users wish to avoid disclosing any information about their affiliation, they should also not submit paid contributions. Stephen LaPorte (WMF) (talk) 01:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you are too dismissive of the problems regarding uneven and highly selective enforcement of such policies, especially in the situation of a high-status "insider" versus a low-status "outsider". A simple inspection of this discussion page will show many people with a passionate attitude that paid contributors are regarded as (my phrasing) enemies-of-the-state. While I have no dog in this fight, having such contributors required to in effect paint targets on themselves does not strike me as something which will go well for them. The issue that while de jure, bad things should not happen, de facto, bad things are likely to happen, needs to be factored into considering the consequences of a policy. Basically, if there's an angry mob, feeding the mob more prey shouldn't be excused by saying it's a separate problem if the mob is hurting anyone in the first place. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 04:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

1. I think, if one doesn't want to disclose, who he is, in his main account, he simply should have a sockpuppet, where he may state that he has another account but not which one or where he doesn't state it, but doesn't vote on official pages - What's the problem?

2. I think, that stating that I am Kersti Nebelsiek (which in fact is my realname) on a hypothetical Kersti Nebelsiek article talk page would be an advantage if I want to enter the information that I am born in Giessen (Germany) on september 22 1969 and a disadvantage if I wanted to tell, that Kersti Nebelsiek is right in everything she writes on her webpage and everyone should believe her. And that is how it should be. (In fact that's kind of a joke - my webpage http://www.kersti.de/ contains mainly the ideas of mine, which I didn't read somewhere else before. Therefore they are ideas, interesting to think about, but absolutely nothing where it would be a good idea to believe it blindly!)

3. If someone has a real understandable problem to disclose his identity - maybe because he writes about a topic, where in real-live are thrown bombs - thats an exemption of this rule if you ask me.

--Kersti (talk) 05:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you have some right in the direction of "balance between benefits of transparency and needs of users" but that it needs to get more neutral non-demonizing in analysis and go deeper in not being easily dismissive of effort to designing a better way. That transparency is made possible including some WP:PAID guidance on how and when it should be used should be thinking also about that transparency giving value to users of both reader and editor without being a big pain and useless. Don't want to tell users that they have to go thru a long account process; see the large percentage of editors in histories are red with no profile, and I think an even larger percentage seems to be those with little personal information content in profile. And I do think that having CDC wikimedian would be a good thing and that they and we would benefit from knowing when an edit about Swine Flu is from them. Markbassett (talk) 15:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I am totally agree

I've suggested a counter-solution below. I think email is the best way; it's not as public as user page display, which can easily enable outing, but it's archived sufficiently enough that in times of necessity we can call the right people to refer back to the paid editor to verify and resolve any problems. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Stephen LaPorte (WMF), I have no idea why you think that any of the WMF communities' processes depend on transparency. They most certainly do not, and they never have. They depend on neutrality and accuracy. Our readers do not care who writes the content, as long as it is fairly well balanced and more or less correct. The vast majority of Wikimedians carry out their activities using pseudonyms; only a minority fully disclose their identities. Transparency has never been a core Wikimedia value; quite the opposite, in fact, given its "anyone can edit, even without registering an account" core philosophy. No, Stephen, if the communities' processes depended on transparency, all WMF sites would be accessible by registered accounts only, linked to real-world, verified identities which were publicly accessible. Risker (talk) 01:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but Risker, there is tension between neutrality and transparency. If we have transparent COI disclosure, does that improve neutrality? Or to flip the question around, if we permit non-transparent hiding of COI, does that harm neutrality? At the moment, on any controversial page, people are immediately accused of being POV-pushers for (or anti-POV-pushers against) whatever the topic at hand is, be that a politician, a product, or some more abstract sort of noun/verb/whatnot. Will disclosure of a subset of COI (hard compensation) lessen the witchhunt atmosphere, or increase it? I'm not actually sure, I can imagine it causing more problems: the volunteer editor who happens to think the iPhone is the greatest thing since sliced bread will honestly declare they have no COI to declare, but this will just inflame their content-opponents, who will seek to out them off-wiki, as a means of proving they are Apple shills. Slaporte (WMF), there is no clear-cut advantage to transparency, and as Risker says, the WMF actually has a long-time commitment to pseudonymity/anonymity. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 03:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you 74, for articulating the question clearly. I appreciate that everyone is thinking carefully about the practical implications. Do you think that there is anything we can include in the policy (or FAQ) to reinforce our commitment to psuedonymity and anonymity, emphasizing that a witchhunt atmosphere is not appropriate? Stephen LaPorte (WMF) (talk) 01:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

@Slaporte (WMF): and @Geoffbrigham:, One potential solution is to provide additional information in this proposal that says anyone violating the WMF's privacy guidelines by providing information of a person's employment on a Wikimedia project 1) may be in violation of local laws (as is the case in Finland, South Africa and other countries), 2) violates the WMF's privacy agreement and 3) may be subject to an immediate office action block. Sharing speculation about a person's potential employment is also considered harassment on 19 different Wikipedia projects, and probably several other sister projects. It should be cautioned that any accusations of paid editing that are not disclosed should be made directly to WMF staff to handle to avoid potential legal troubles and possible blocking on local projects. This wording would help, and would empower local administrators to better prevent harassment on this issue. A separate OTRS queue should also be set up for people to report accusations of paid editing, especially ones that have negatively impacted their offline life directly to WMF staff who can provide assistance for those targeted. This cannot be left up to the projects to interpret because this is coming from the WMF's own global terms of use policy and privacy policies that should not be left up to local interpretation. --LauraHale (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for these detailed comments. We will start drafting a FAQ item that can address the points you suggest, and we will post it above and would appreciate your input. I do not expect, at this time, that we will be able to cover the points about office actions, setting specific blocking standards for local admins, or creating a separate staffed OTRS queue. These points would probably need a bigger conversation with the community.. Best, Stephen LaPorte (WMF) (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

But what if the content is flagged (as compensated or affiliate contribution) but the user is not. That would support anonymity and transparency. 108.115.0.241 23:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

What counts as compensation?

Expenses, bursaries, grants, etc

It should be made clear how receiving expenses, grants, bursaries or similar payment from the Foundation, a chapter or other affiliated or associated organisation relates to these proposals.

For example, Wikimedia UK have just approved a grant to an editor to cover travel and related expenses to photograph public art in order to produce a featured list on the English Wikipedia (details). Would this need to be disclosed under the terms of this amendment? Thryduulf (en.wikt,en.wp,commons) 23:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I was supported by Wikimedia Australia a couple of years ago to take photographs of a region where there was next to nothing and I just placed them in a category https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Photographs_by_Gnangarra_sponsored_by_Wikimedia_Australia, like wise for another person https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Photographs_sponsored_by_Wikimedia_Australia who had the same. Its useful just for reporting of your activities back to the chapter to categorise photos as a result of that, I see no need beyond that for such activities. Gnangarra (talk) 23:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

These are good points. I don't believe incidental charges to facilitate legitimate NPOV editing are intended to be covered by the amendment. Compensation for the editing service is. I think we could address your concern by including an FAQ that clarifies this point. Would that work?

On grants, I do not see a reason not to disclose the grants if the intent of the grant is to constitute payment for the editing services. Indeed our movement grants are granted in a transparent way, and I think that principle of transparency appropriately follows any compensation for editing. Those are my preliminary views, so I'm open to different views or nuances based on the experience and insights of the community. Thanks for your helpful comments. Geoffbrigham (talk) 00:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Certainly on the first part, an FAQ would do the job well. Probably for the second part too, but I need to be more awake than I am now to understand it fully. Thryduulf (en.wikt,en.wp,commons) 01:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I support transparency (and a FAQ). To quote Jimbo There are some good reasons to disclose, and no real reasons (are there?) not to disclose.. However, if there is caution, it may arise from another quote of Jimbo's (talk page) It's the first step from the board in banning paid advocacy editing of all kinds. I trust that Jimbo chose his words carefully, and banning "piad advocacy editing" is not the same as banning "pad editing". I know that Jimbo has made this distinction clear in the past, but not all users have followed all of the history, so may need to be reassured on occasion.--Sphilbrick (talk) 14:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Without expressing a very strong opinion either way, I wanted to say that I don't see any reason not to disclose "travel and related expenses to photograph public art". There are some good reasons to disclose, and no real reasons (are there?) not to disclose. The disclosure doesn't have to be framed in a negative way (why would it be?). "These photographs were made possible by a grant from Wikimedia UK to cover travel and related expenses." Sounds positive to me, not negative, so why avoid it?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The uploads are already disclosed. There's these categories and associated templates (e.g.) used in the file description page. -- Katie Chan (WMUK) (talk) 09:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I certainly wasn't suggesting there was a reason not to disclose, I was just querying whether these this TOU update would make disclosure mandatory or not. Thryduulf (en.wikt,en.wp,commons) 10:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Certain political forces represented by people such as George Soros are currently engaging in a "new media" initiative. Soros for example recently pulled much of his funding of 'patch.com', a system of local news websites. Now, other news websites are popping up, with a similar political slant to 'patch.com'. The difference is, they all appear to be small, independent sites. They get funding from a number of grants, organizations, and private individuals, making the major sources hard to trace. As a small town news website administrator, I know first hand, that donations of this type are few and far between. Therefore I don't see how many of these seemingly independent sites can afford to pay a staff or writers, unless they are getting funding, ultimately, from political forces with deep pockets exc. I do think all paid contributions that have to do with editing of pages should list the benefactors, parent sources exc, all the way up to the private donors in my opinion. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 191.210.158.225 (talk) 21 February 2014; 19:43 (UTC)

[What is meant by 'people such as George Soros'? Jewish people? I think the person writing this is probably an anti-Semite.] — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.163.65.149 (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2014; (UTC)

[A brilliant ad hominem attack from someone who has no place in this discussion. Please note I did not write the original paragraph; I simply find it despicable when a legitimate viewpoint is attacked by someone who ascribes despicable motives arbitrarily to discredit the writer.]72.83.41.66 05:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Knowing the publisher of media you read is always a good idea. Wikipedia tries to have a collective and neutral point of view, but paid individual editors should still disclose who pays/funds them, just as with journals. But requiring disclosure of the complete ownership chain seems overkill to me.

(I resplit comments above to actually track the history and separate individual comments, [the ad-hominem attack] from the [complaint on it].--Blaisorblade (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

A hypothetical situation: "I have such-and-such viewpoint. I intend to edit Wikipedia. Please donate money; the more money donated, the more time I can spend editing." Said person would edit with or without donations; however, following that statement, donations he receives would presumably be because of his stated point of view.

Setting up a donation button or a patreon.com ID or whatever is no guarantee of donations happening, therefore there isn't necessarily money to disclose. Saying he has such-and-such viewpoint doesn't necessarily say he's going to improperly apply it to the editing. So in this instance, what would he have to declare, and what effect would it have on his editing privileges? Morfusmax (talk) 01:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Definition of "compensation"?

A semantic query. I see "compensation" is defined in terms of "an exchange of money, goods, or services." This is a somewhat broad-brush definition. For instance, I presume the term "services" may include "hospitality" (as, for example, in the stringent COI guidelines used by Cochrane [1]). This raises the question of quite what counts as an "exchange". Some contributors may have such COI to rather variable extents, ranging from collective lunches at sponsored meetings (without obvious direct exchange) to much more substantial individual hospitality (where some degree of indirect exchange may effectively exist).
I suppose it could be argued that editors should be expected to declare any potential COI of this sort. But that might be both impractical and undesirable. In particular, one would scarcely want to discourage direct editing of articles by academics who only have a theoretical (borderline) COI. But where to draw the line... Perhaps a few more words are necessary as to what sort of services (or goods) are intended? MistyMorn (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi MistyMorn. Yes, I've thought a bit about this and I see your point. In the end, I think it will not be possible to find a perfectly exact formulation, which is a fault of language in general. But maybe there is a better phrase. I would be interested in hearing other phrasing proposals that might address your concerns, if you have time. Otherwise, I will continue thinking about this to see if there is a way of tightening the language. Geoffbrigham (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Hmmm, maybe other more legally-savvy contributors have some suggestions? MistyMorn (talk) 20:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• I suppose a possible approach could be to provide a few well-chosen representative examples of what would and would not be considered "paid editing" in terms of received services, goods etc (though I have no idea of the legal implications of this). —MistyMorn (talk) 20:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I like this idea. We could include more examples in the FAQs. I'm putting it on the list of changes to make this week. Geoffbrigham (talk) 13:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll preface this by saying that I like the proposal here, and see it as well-worded and balanced. But I have a related question about defining "compensation". Let's say that an editor owns stock in a company. They are not in any way employed by the company or otherwise affiliated with it. If they were to edit the page about that company, they might be in a position to benefit materially if the value of the stock were to increase (or if they prevented the value from decreasing), but that isn't really "compensation" as it is defined here. My reading of the proposed language is that disclosure would not be required; is that correct? Furthermore, someone might own, for example, a mutual fund that has holdings in a company, and in good faith not even know that the company is held in the mutual fund. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I would like to hear from others, but I think you are right: the proposed amendment would not cover this. My concern is having a definition that is too broad and rendered ineffective accordingly. My rough reasoning: if the definition solves 70% of the challenge, I think individual projects can address the remaining scenarios in their own COI policies as appropriate for that project. I'm just concerned about having a block of legalese text that nobody understands, and, as a result, implementation becomes problematic. Your point is a good one, though. Geoffbrigham (talk) 13:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• Geoff, you could borrow "consideration" from contract law, if you think that would serve the purpose better. Gigs (talk) 20:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

No, please. We're talking WP policy here, not a legal document. Enforcement is by the community. Just make the policy cover the general ground. Evensteven (talk) 21:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The definition is partially based on the concept of consideration (though not as comprehensive). I think this is an interesting point, but to ensure better clarity (as discussed above), I might not go that route. Thanks. Geoffbrigham (talk) 13:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually we are talking a legal document. And a very long (overly long) one at that, partly modelled on the topsy like ToS's of a thousand other websites, and only somewhat ameliorated by community involvement. Rich Farmbrough 23:46 20 February 2014 (GMT).

I agree that this is vague and subject to interpretation, but from a different angle. One's employment affiliation is usually unambiguous. What seems more vague to me is if mere employment constitutes presumed conflict of interest or if editing Wikipedia needs to be part of the job description. For scientific and technical entries one would expect the most up to date & accurate entries to come from researchers in that field. I consider those contributions valuable and 'honest' and don't want to burden the contributors with disclosure requirements simply because they are paid by a university or business for their expertise. In my mind, the more suspect activity is if an entity tasks an employee specifically with making edits to Wikipedia in order to promote/demote their or another entity's position. (often known as 'managing' or 'defending' an online reputation) In this case, even though the edits may be factually accurate, disclosure is appropriate to make sure the facts are not being 'cherry picked' to support an agenda.

Requiring disclosure might have an unintended chilling effect. Many technology companies have enthusiastic legal departments who write broad non-disclosure agreements for their employees. An engineer may be willing to anonymously post a clever approach to circuit design or data analysis for the benefit of other engineers, but may not wish to disclose that his employer is using the technique, or risk the wrath of the legal department (or the office politics of internal rivals) for making such a contribution.

To summarize: Is someone who is paid to be an expert, but who decides to sneak in a few edits on company time, considered to be a paid contributor or must the editor actually be paid to make edits? This has a simple test: If your boss told you to do it, or knows you are doing it and supports the effort, you should disclose. If your boss would think you are wasting time and should get back to work, if he knew about it, you are a volunteer.

Professors and some other university staff over here have informing the public as one of their duties. Some choose to use Wikipedia as a channel, while wishing to keep their contributions anonymous (e.g. because of presumed prejudices among colleagues). The amendment would effectively forbid this, which would be very sad. Even when writing on Wikipedia as a hobby, the professor is in fact doing his job every time he touches his speciality, just on unpaid overtime (like he does very much of his ordinary research). --LPfi (talk) 14:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

So here's a "for instance" I'd like to propose...

I have a Cabelas credit card that awards me points (that equate to a monetary credit) every time I use it, more so if I make a purchase with that particular store. I know I will receive benefit from this company simply for using this card. Furthermore, I have edited this company's article on WP. Clearly I have an affiliation with the company and receive compensation from them, but I am not a paid editor. Would I be required under the new rule to disclose my connection? --Scalhotrod (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Dominique Fausser : Bonne initiative, mais je propose d'ajouter après « pour lequel vous recevez une rémunération ou vous vous attendez à en recevoir une », les mots « soit directement, soit indirectement au bénéfice de l’un de vos proches », des employeurs pouvant par exemple rémunérer l'avantage par le fait d'embaucher ou d'attribuer un stage professionel pour l'un des enfants du contributeur. C'est la contrepartie en terme d'avantage qui importe d'identifier, qu'elle soit directement au bénéfice de celui qui a contribué ou au bénéficie d'une personne tierce que l'auteur de la contribution à désignée comme bénéficiaire.

Definition of paid is neither specific nor easily verifyable

In many companies employees are allowed to use the companies internet connection for private purposes. Given now that an employee sees an article in Wikipedia that might be of concern to his employer. He now edits the article which may be proven by his IP address.

Is this now to be considered a paid edit? Or is it only a paid edit if editing is one of his duties? How can he prove to Wikipedia that it was his private edit?

A employer would probably not want a private edit to be associated with his name because this might have legal implications.

Does Wikipedia really want one person to use different accounts depending on the cicumstances of the edit?

How about other conflicts of interest? A member writing about his NGO, should he not be obliged to disclose his affiliation?

--Xypron (talk) 08:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Seconded. This requirement is easily circumvented by someone who has a strong interest in a particular POV due to their job and presumably their personal beliefs, but is not specifically paid on a per contribution basis. Take the William Connolley controversy. Connolley would probably not have to declare an interest under the terms of this new clause, even though his income may be related to public acceptance of a particular viewpoint.

As an occasional contributor to WUWT, any edit I made to a climate topic might attract similar controversy - but there would be no requirement under this new clause for me to declare my personal views or non financial affiliation.

--Eric Worrall 01 March 2014

Agreed. The current text sounds like only edits where the editor is specifically being paid to make said edit. The impression I get from the current policy is that edits that happen to be made 'on the clock' but not specifically required by the employer do not require disclosure under this proposed policy. In my view, these affiliations should be disclosed. This may simply mean rewording the policy, or it may mean the policy needs to be extended; currently, I'm confused as to whether these scenarios are intended to be included or not. -- Calrion (talk) 04:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Edits by Teachers in class?

A teacher is showing the class of students how wikis work and how to make the best use of them for their studies. During a class the teacher edits an article on a subject (e.g. a local park) that had recently been covered by a class project, using sources found during that project. The teacher is being paid while making the edits, but there is no benefit to the employer. Does this edit need to be declared? AlasdairW (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the important thing that should be focused on, is when payments give rise to a conflict of interest. However this can get blurry, I would argue that when there is any doubt, disclosure should be forthcoming Jashwood (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello AlasdairW, disclosure would only be necessary if a teacher was being compensated for his or her edits. If the teacher is merely editing in an area of interest or expertise, then disclosure may not be necessary. We are discussing a similar question above, and we are considering an FAQ or clarification within the terms, since we do not want to create an unnecessary impediment to educators who are adding good neutral content! It can be difficult to determine if there is a possible conflict of interest, and I agree: transparent disclosure is good when there is doubt. Best, Stephen LaPorte (WMF) (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I belive Stephen LaPorte (WMF) is missing the point. The teacher is indeed getting paid to do his or her work which in this case includes editing Wikipedia. - Averater (talk) 08:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not think any disclosure should be necessary if Wikipedia editing is merely a part of a teacher's teaching activities. On the other hand, if a teacher is being paid directly to edit Wikipedia, then disclosure would be required under this amendment. We drafted an FAQ that will hopefully clarify this point: How will this provision affect teachers, professors, and employees of galleries, libraries, archives, and museums (“GLAM”)? I think it's important to keep the rules and process very simple overall, and we should ensure that the rules are particularly easy for educators and GLAM institutions, particularly if they are not paid advocates on a topic. However, I am concerned that "advocacy" is too complicated of a topic to include directly in the Terms of Use, and it is best handled in a nuanced fashion on local project's conflict of interest rules. If you think this question can be better clarified in the FAQ, or avoided by modifying the proposal, I would be very interested to discuss it with you. Thanks for your attention to detail! Stephen LaPorte (WMF) (talk) 19:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification even if it also makes it clear just how difficult it is to draw a line for when this will apply. In the professor mentioned above is in part employed to inform about the university and chooses, or understands that the intent is, to edit Wikipedia I think it is still unclear. My point here is not to find out when this will apply and when it won't but to show how difficult it can be and how misinterpreted it will become. I do understand that all here have the best of intent and that this is aimed at "bad" edits but if an edit was compensated specifically for contributing only the editor (and possibly the employer) can know making this all pointless. - Averater (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that the amendment is clear about these people having to disclose their employer (letting their identity easily be inferred). The FAQ says this is not the intention, but there is no hint whatsoever in the proposed amendment that the obligation be only for "advocacy" . Thus professors writing about astronomy and teachers checking the language of their pupils' Wikipedia contributions are clearly affected.

If the terms of use can be used as a weapon in real COI situations (where the paid contributor may be the neutral part), they will be. Therefore good intention is not enough, but the wording should clearly exclude any activity that should not be affected. Having it cover all types of paid advocacy is much less important.

--LPfi (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I have some reservations about using the word "advocacy" in the terms of use amendment itself, since we want to avoid ambiguity if possible. Your points about clearly covering intended activity are well-taken, so I hope we can provide some helpful clarification in the FAQ (which I hope would be officially maintained with this TOU amendment, as a sort of legislative history to guide interpretation) or the amendment itself. Thanks, Stephen LaPorte (WMF) (talk) 01:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Student assignments?

There's a huge page on Wikipedia regarding student assignments. If students are being graded for edits to Wikipedia, would that count as compensation? Would the students need to declare their affiliation with the school or the teacher? 5reided (talk) 04:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I created my Wikipedia account just for this question. In a university classroom about British Literary History a few years back we were instructed to make a good edit to Wikipedia and explain what contribution to British Literature we made to Wikipedia. Like 5reided has asked, is a grade considered compensation and must it be disclosed?

I would not consider a grade to be compensation requiring disclosure under this amendment. A grade is not usually understood to be "payment" for the student's work in a class, and my understanding is that grades are not a frequent source of problematic conflicts of interest (please correct me if I am mistaken). If this is a point that should be clarified further, we could include it in the FAQ under What do you mean by “compensation”?. Thanks for the question! Stephen LaPorte (WMF) (talk) 20:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree. If the school teacher concerned was employed to make edits while in the classroom (for example, while demonstrating editing to the students), however, that would clearly seem to be a paid edit that would need to be disclosed. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn’t object to a teacher disclosing the edits he or she made to the sandbox as “paid.” I see no reason to require him or her to do so. Neither do I see a way to ensure that he or she complies with such a requirement, should it make its way into the ToU. — Ivan Shmakov (d ▞ c) 20:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

...Apologies, I should have said at the end, "...would need to be disclosed under the proposed amendment". I don't think that this amendment is the right way to go, btw. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with Hchc2009 when that user said, above, If the school teacher concerned was employed to make edits while in the classroom ... that would clearly seem to be a paid edit that would need to be disclosed. It is NOT a paid edit in that the payment has nothing to do with the content specifically; the payment is for instructing students in using a tool, not for the act of creating content. The essential difference is best summed up by the motivation of this TOU amendment: to avoid undisclosed potential conflicts of interest which may bias the content of Wikipedia in favor of, or to the benefit of, the entity providing the compensation. There needs to be a connection between the payment and the content. If the content generation is ancillary or secondary to the primary purpose, which in the example is "teaching how to edit articles on Wikipedia", then there is no reason to believe the specific content being created would potentially be biased. It is only when there could be a potential for biased outcomes in content creation as a result of the compensation, that would trigger the disclosure requirement. By analogy, operating a typesetting machine and changing the layout of an editorial piece in the local newspaper would not require one to reveal an affiliation with the subject matter of the editorial, whereas editing the content of that same editorial for style or tone might be questionable without revealing your connection to the topic at hand. To go further with the student analogy, editing an article about British Literature would not be a paid edit; editing the article about the university where the teacher was employed, now that would require a disclosure!JoGusto (talk) 13:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Jo, the ammendment at the moment simply says "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution to any Wikimedia Projects for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." As written, that makes no distinction between a contribution for the purposes of instruction versus a contribution for the purposes of adding content, nor indeed does it make any distinction about the motivation behind the contribution. The intention behind the proposed ammendment may well be different, but that's not what has currently been drafted. 14:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Free time at work, or related to occupation?

It's not about paid editing. People can edit wikipedia during free time at work (eg when something is compiling) and add information immediately relevant to their occupation (eg details about a commercial compiler or modelling software they use). This will technically be paid editing, but it will not be conflict of interest, unless their work involves coding the darn thing. Gryllida 01:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

No. They are not being paid to do the edit so it is not paid editting. Filceolaire (talk) 16:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

-->On the other hand, the notion that a person adds information to an article based on their own first-hand knowledge of the subject matter, without reference to or reliance upon a verifiable, published source, preferably secondary or tertiary, falls under the Original Research prohibition policy, does it not? While Wikis in general are designed to encourage this kind of information sharing and user-content creation, Wikipedia policies specifically restrict user-created content to encyclopaedic and verifiable citations of published sources. That is the important difference between the project wiki for your compiler or modeling tool project on your work server, and Wikipedia specifically. This principle of "no original research" is one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia and one of several important principles to keep foremost in mind. JoGusto (talk) 12:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

You also have situations where an employer is not paying an employee to edit an article, but the employee notices a mistake on their own, and updates it either while at work, or at home. They are not being paid to edit the article, and might even get in trouble for doing it on company time, but at the same time, they do have a vested interest in making the company look good (or look bad if they are disgruntled). How does this fit into the new requirements? There can be obvious bias, but they are not being compensated in any way for editing the article. 99.99.233.74 04:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Types of edits that are affected

Real and hypothetical examples for discussion

(cross-posted, with edits and additional material, from an En-WP discussion a few months ago, here)

In considering an updated policy or TOS provision addressing paid or COI editing, we need to make sure that it addresses the types of situation that frequently come up in this area, and does so in a way that accords with how we want these situations to be handled, and with common sense. Below are some hypothetical situations—but mostly derived from actual situations I am aware of over the years—in which an editor could be accused of having a paid interest or COI. How do we want to address them? Does the proposed TOS addition do so well, or how might it be changed to do so better?

Of course, given the specific proposal at issue here, the expected answer to all these situations would be along the lines of "make the disclosure." However, each incident could be looked at from the point of view of "is it realistic that editors in this position will do that, and do we need them to?" In some instances below, the answer is probably yes; others may be more borderline.

(Note: The examples refer to "Wikipedia", but could apply with minor tweaking to most if not all projects.)

Rewriting History - more examples

Example 6:
I am the leader of a nation-state. We throw people in jail without charges to take care of small problems, and use assassination to take care of larger problems. Sometimes we have to do a little ethnic cleansing, sometimes we have to use a little WMD, you know how it is. We have the media well controlled at home, but for some reason we're having a little P.R. problem in foreign places. "History is written by the victors." I'm asking all of our friends and countrymen to, ah, correct the Wikipedia entries, put the appropriate spin on our glorious slaughters, let the enormities be forgotten, and in general burnish our image so we can keep on doing more of the same.

Example 7:
Same but I hire a team of students explicitly for these state propaganda purposes. I compensate them by giving them scholarships or forgiving their loans.

Example 8:
Same but I want to start a war to completely wipe out my enemy. As this costs someone money and lives, the cheapest way to get this done is to subvert America and its Congress, then get the Pentagon to do all the hard work. Look at Iraq--$50,000+ average debt from each household in America, and no one blinked. I have all the resources of a nation-state at my disposal. I can change history by changing Wikipedia. I can change the zeitgeist by changing history. And I can start a trillion-dollar war, killing millions of people, by changing the zeitgeist.

Everyone knows "If it's in Wikipedia, it must be true". ---reference 1984, which shows a way the above could be done; and it's consequences.71.95.57.54 09:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of examples

I don't think fear-mongering helps here, but we all do know that there are some nasty governments out there.

All I can say is that asking for a simple disclosure, as the proposed change in ToU does, is not going to hurt anything in these scenarios, and - who knows? - it might actually help. Smallbones (talk) 15:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The examples that 71 gives are pertinent, and helpful. They delineate the boundary-cases, where the TOU-amendments are simply not going to help us. Dictators actually are not much interested in the TOU, it turns out. (I have a reliable cite for that, somewhere around here.  ;-)   We do not have to imagine what will happen if the dictator starts torturing people, to force them to improve the dictator's BLP on wikipedia. The people being tortured will do their level best to cheat, remove WP:RS, whitewash the dictator's page, and in general do whatever it takes to avoid being tortured. But we needn't imagine such extreme examples: even without torture, that exact same behavior happens regularly. Look at the articles related to the former Yugoslavia, look at the Middle East, look at Eastern Europe, look at any political hotspot. There are nationalists and political POV-pushers all over without any tinpot dictators needing to lift a finger. So the conclusion here is, that the TOU is not perfect, and the TOU is not a silver bullet. The TOU is intended to solve a specific narrow problem: paid COI. It doesn't handle dictatorships. It doesn't handle friendship (see the my-buddy-is-a-notable-author example up above). The proposed amendment just handles paid compensation, no more, and no less. That is a big enough job, however, and worth doing well.  :-)   — 74.192.84.101 02:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

What's important: another examples

I think it's important to understand that the Paid contributions amendment is not about "being allowed" to write or edit an article but it's about making clear that you are paid to do so if you are. You may write articles even though you get paid for it. If you can provide information you couldn't if you wouldn't get paid, then paid writing is not a bad thing per se. But nevertheless I think it's important for other members to at least know that you got paid to write in the wikipedia. So if you are a member of a company and you edit an article about this company during work time (or get paid for it in another way) you should state that. So it will be easier for other members of wikipedia to rate your edits. Other members might take an extra look on your edits if they know you were paid to do them. Which is a good thing because paid edits can in many cases be compared to advertisements which are likely to miss a certain objectiveness. The question about the friend who is an author and offers you to take you to dinner for writing the article I think is also easy to answer: If you knew that your friend was going to take you to dinner before you wrote the article (or if they offered to take you to dinner only if they like the article) I think you should state that. (Actually I think you should even state it if they offered to take you to dinner only if they don't like the article, but I fear that discussions about this option would lead off topic...) I don't think the statement should depend on the amount of money or other things you get - if you get something for writing the thing, you should state it. If you don't expect anything for it and your friend hasn't made such an offer but takes you to dinner anyway after writing the article, then of course you can't (and thus: don't have to) state it when you write the article. And all in all - if the community thinks the articles and edits someone contributes are of high quality I think they won't undo edits just because someone got paid to do them. But it will be much easier to understand the motives behind edits that seem biased if you know someone got paid to do them. Sebástian San Diego (talk) 14:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Example 9:
I am a paid employee in a for-profit company (e.g. pharmaceutical) and I edit articles in good faith with completely referenced material from reasonable sources (e.g. the country's Medical Association media releases, medical journals)that are correct to the best of my ability with my qualifications related to this field. One of my edits includes the importance of early intervention of a particular condition in line with current industry best practice (and does not include the company's brand name). Am I required to declare the company I work for? Would I be discouraged from editing in a field of my expertise because of the potential of duality of interest?114.76.48.193 06:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

My presumption is that disclosure would only be necessary if your employer requires you to make such edits, or is specifically employing you to do same. If you happen to just be a researcher who believes in his/her work and adds (otherwise verifiable, notable, NPOV) material about same, I imagine that's Perfectly Okay. Viqsi (talk) 14:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I have the opposite take from Viqsi. If you are in the medical industry, and you are editing articles about procedures that will send money your direction, then you have an inherent COI. This is just like editing the article about your Gramma... you know that her cooking is the best, just like you know that early intervention is a "best" practice for your industry, because your company *is* the best in your industry, just like your Gramma is the best cook in the world. Definitely disclose that you have COI, with regard to the procedure (ditto for the company and the products).

  That doesn't necessarily mean you must state the name of your employer, in my book, just that you have COI with respect to the procedure/drug in question. Follow the bright line rule, and suggest edits on the article-talkpage. This sort of thing can be taken too far, of course: if you are in the medical industry, and you add a source to an article on human health which says sometimes doctors save lives, are you suffering from COI? Probably not.  :-)   Use common sense... but that includes, being aware that any time you edit in a way that could "butter your bread" as Mark Twain would say, you are COI-encumbered and ought to proceed with due caution. I've seen many people who rationalize in exactly this way; but they end up cherrypicking sources, and violating w:WP:UNDUE in their edits... they cannot help themselves, nine times out of ten. Having a bias is no shame; the point of disclosure is to make it easy for others to verify you are * acting* in a way that is unbiased, despite your inherent COI-bias. HTH. 74.192.84.101 02:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Fair warnings about contraindications for a medicine ("persons with liver damage or compromised immune function should not use [insert name of prescription medication]")or about side effects with appropriate warnings are of value to those who prescribe or use a medicine. If such also appears in the product literature supplied with the medication -- such is appropriate. What is not acceptable would include advertising to expand a market or defamation of a competing product. Wikipedia can obviously not offer free advertising. A link to a company site is adequate.

Testimonials for the efficacy of a medication are of course unacceptable as in real life. Those merit swift deletion even if made in good faith without pay. Pbrower2a (talk) 03:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Example 10:
A medical professional is more likely to edit medical articles than a non-medical professional because they feel they have the expertise on the topic. Most medical conditions have to be diagnosed by a doctor and people should not self-prescribe treatments they read about, so these articles are likely to contain advice such as "contact your doctor if you have these symptoms" (which in a sense does "butter your bread" and presents a possible COI) and are likely to be edited by paid medical professionals - would this create a 'boy who cried wolf' issue where almost all articles in certain fields (this isn't limited to medicine e.g. an electrician explaining how certain power lines work but with the warning that they should only be fixed by a qualified electrician) are marked as edited by paid contributors? 114.76.60.131 07:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Weighting The Threats To Neutrality And Accuracy

I think there are certain categories of employment that pose a higher risk of abuse than others when it comes to contributing to wikipedia on the job. For instance, if you are a staffer for a United States Congressperson or an industry lobbyist, you just simply should not be permitted to edit wikipedia at all, in my not-so-humble opinion. In that situation, there is nothing you could edit while in service to that employer that would not stink of deception or propaganda. A medium risk might be journalists linking to their own articles or their own newspaper exclusively. Some journalists may have a genuine interest in adding to the available content and quality of information by including their own work as a source or citation. Others may be shamelessly interested in self-promotion. For that, I would say it should be dealt with on a case by case basis. An example of a low-risk contribution would be an employee at a zoo who is contributing scientific information from the zoo's websites about unique animals that they harbor. Yes, the zoo may get some residual benefit from being linked to the informative article, but the main interest is to inform the public, so that's not a problem in my view. Everything should be weighted by how controversial the edits are expected to be. If there is no perceptible controversy (The larvae stage of a butterfly, for example), minimal disclosure is adequate. If the edits are highly controversial (Does oil fracking pollute a community's drinking water?, for example), maximum disclosure should be demanded by wikipedia so that readers can feel that they are receiving good information and aren't being lied to. 69.245.239.174 22:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm wondering if a more narrowly worded amendment based more on the kind of edit might be appropriate. I suggested a rough idea below. (It is only rough and requires word-smithing.) Geoffbrigham (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Non-hypothetical example

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tyop_Contest

Would this sort of thing get swept up in the "declaration of interest"? Rich Farmbrough 22:35 20 February 2014 (GMT).

Moved your signature up so it formats a bit nicer. Hope you don't mind. As for the question itself, I would most likely say no, it shouldn't be a problem because you're competing to make Wikipedia a more structurally sound, typographically and grammatically correct place. Besides the point, it would be a burden on the editor to say "no, you must disclose every edit or request paid editor grouping to qualify in our contest to fix Wikipedia's grammar errors". Since I am uncertain that en:WP:IAR or any Wiki-space policy supersedes the terms of use, I ask that the amendment be clarified as to exclude community projects that are not limited to an article (or articles) owned by an entity. Ellomate (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm open to this. Maybe we could find examples and draft language for the FAQ that carves out this exception. If someone wants to try penning a draft, that would be great; otherwise, I will try to get to it. Geoffbrigham (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

@Ellomate: The proposed policy says nothing about whether changes are improvements to Wikipedia. What weight does your opinion that this is non-problematic carry, against the clear wording of the policy itself? This is why we should be very careful what we write into policy: because it is what we actually write, not what we secretly would like it to mean, that will end up counting. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

@David: Well, I should have "disclosed" (wink wink) that I am not an administrator on any Wikipedia project, so can't say for certain. As the saying goes "the law is only as good as the people who are willing to enforce it", which is why not every rule** here is set in stone. I have confidence that a revised FAQ should clear it up, if not, an actual rewording of the amendment will. Ellomate (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Ugh. This is hypocritical in the extreme. Other company's paid edits are presumed bad and contributors must jump through extra hoops to put them in, but our own payments, which clearly fall under paid editing, smell like roses and get a free pass. If you want to put this extra burden on the editors into the TOU, then do it. But no exceptions, especially not for the WMF and its pet projects and initiatives. Thesteve (talk) 05:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure how a typo fix or grammar fix doesn't smell like roses, but obviously the exception falls far beyond that particular scope. Let me offer rhetoric; would ignore all rules apply in a scenario where WMF cleans up vandalism on its own page, or would Terms of Use supersede it? On a side note, check out my proposal under "Abstain" of including an option of editors checking a box that marks the edit as paid "p". That wouldn't be a burden on any reasonable person, "community compensated" editor or not; in contrast of leaving a disclosure on often overlooked article/user talk pages. Ellomate (talk) 07:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

There are WMF employees who edit/fix Wikimedia pages anonymously?! There shouldn't be. Thesteve (talk)

I think I understand what you're saying - but I would like a bit of clarification. Do you mean all Wikimedia/Wikipedia articles or just the ones related to Wikipedia itself? Ellomate (talk) 00:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

If you look at Geoff's user page, he clearly states he's working for the WMF. I expect this sort of disclosure from *everyone* who works for the WMF, on all Wikimedia/wikipedia pages and articles, to indicate that they are paid editors, and that they have a potential COI. If this amendment passes, it will be required. Thesteve (talk)

Thanks for explaining. But how, though? Does an edit of, say, La Roche-sur-Yon (a town in France) by a Wikimedia Foundation editor truly need to be held to the same standard of paid editing as a member of that town's local government? Granted, Geoffbrigham is paid to serve as General Counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation, but where would a conflict of interest be found in editing that article besides the site in which to do so? Wouldn't it be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point? I don't have a problem with WMF being required to disclose their affiliations for any Wikipedia/media related projects, though. Ellomate (talk) 11:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

More hypothetical examples, from Commons and OTRS

While I believe the main concern is text editing of articles, the amendment clearly applies to all projects. I have a couple questions regarding photos provided.

Situation 1. The subject of an article realizes that there is no photo of the subject in the article, and arranges to send in a photo, with permission. The actual addition of the photo to the article is often done by an independent editor, but the literal upload of the photo is a contribution to a project. I assume this situation doesn't require disclosure, but it is set-up for the next situation.

Situation 2. The subject of an article realizes that there is no photo of the subject in the article, and asks his or her assistant to upload in a photo, along with permission. In this situation, the assistant is paid by the subject (or their common employer). Do we want to declare this as an example of paid editing, requiring disclosure?

Situation 3. Same as situation 2, except the assistant doesn't upload the photo, the assistant sends it in to Photosubmissions and I upload it for them. (For those unfamiliar with OTRS, this is a common occurrence, happening the order of a hundred times a year. ) Is the act of emailing Photosubmissions a contribution as defined in the amendment? Does it require disclosure? If I upload the photo for them, do I have to declare anything?

Situation 4. An art museum decides to licensee some of its collection, and a paid employee of the museum arranges to upload the photos to Commons. Does this require disclosure? Suppose the employee uploads to Commons, and places the photos in articles. Is this different.?--Sphilbrick (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sphilbrick. Your examples force reflection.  :) I would be interested in how you would answer under the proposed amendment and where you think disclosure does not make sense. If you think disclosure would be required but it does not make sense, would you have any language changes for the proposed amendment or suggested FAQs to clarify the scope? I'm not punting this, but genuinely asking. I will continue to think about this and will likely benefit greatly from your perspective. Thanks. Geoffbrigham (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of Examples

Photos are indeed different but I do believe that the same basic ToU will work as well. Commons may want to set a specific policy on this but I believe our current rules and practices cover almost everything. For examples 1-3, presumably a copyright statement is already required, releasing the photo. That could be viewed, in effect an adequate disclosure. If Commons thought that a more specific disclosure was needed they could require something else (but of course not retroactively). For situation 4, I'm sure there is already something recorded that shows the museum agrees to the upload.

I don't think there would be any problem with anybody (paid or not) uploading public domain photos. I think the only real problem with photos would be when they are biased, e.g. photo-shopped to show something that didn't happen, or perhaps an image of a political cartoon. I'd think that any Commons policy should focus on these, and the rest of the situations could be handled easily by saying "ToU apply for all photo uploads, but are adequately covered by other required disclosures." Smallbones (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Short response: my current thinking is that Commons should be treated differently. (See collapsed discussion for complications.) My argument is that while it is quite understandable that paid edits to articles should be, at a minimum flagged, and in some circumstances, prohibited, I don’t think the same rule applies to Commons content. I not only accept photos from pros, I encourage them. If an art museum wants to freely licensee their collection and a paid employee is involved, I want to applaud them. I do not miss that inclusion of a photo in an article, not just the decision to include or exclude, but the choice of photos, their captions and placement all contribute to the POV of an article, which we want to be neutral. However, I think there is a clean demarcation between the selection of photos in an article, and the addition of a photo to Commons. The first is an editorial function, and if compensated, should be acknowledged, per TOU. The second action may or may not be compensated, but I don't think that identification is critical.--Sphilbrick (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

My opinion is, in cases like this, what reason would there be not to disclose? Why would they not want to be known that it's someone connected with the subject/the institute that is doing the uploading? If you want to applaud them, is it really an onus on them to let you know who you are to applaud? - Andre Engels (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Selection of an image to upload is also an editorial process, photo-shopping is just further down that road (by a long way, but still ... - Neonorange (talk) 03:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

additional thoughts
I first thought about photos. Commons has more than photos, but in the context of this issue, I felt comfortable treating video, animations and sounds the same way as photos. Then I remembered that text, in the form of pdf's are often uploaded to Commons, and I paused. However, I then decided that the distinction is not between text and images, but between the compilation of an article about a subject (which includes a lot of text, can include images and pdf texts, and other items). I decided that the compilation is the editorial process, and it is that process that must meet NPOV, and that process where paid editing must be identified. If someone upload a pdf of text they created, it will probably be deleted (unless they and the text are famous) but if it passes the rules for inclusion, it sits by itself as a file until and unless some editor makes the judgment to include it in an article. It is the second step where I want to know if the editor is paid. I don’t think I care about the payment status of the creator or uploader. I then thought about the fact that it is possible to lie or mislead with images. Suppose there is a famous text, and one side wants to minimize the importance. If they pay someone to take photos in a way to minimize the size of the crowd, isn't this as serious a problem, as the paid advocate using text to say that the crowd wasn't that large? Of course, but the difference is that if the paid, biased photographer uploads the photos to Commons, it is not automatic that they will be used. There may be better photos with a different message. Even if not, it is the editorial judgment of the article writer to determine whether photos should be included, and if the only photos are misleading the editorial decision ought to be to exclude photos. I note that the amendment refers to " any Wikimedia Projects" . I'll start by suggesting it be changed to " any Wikimedia content Projects", then if my arguments above carry weight it may be appropriate to exclude Commons. I propose the modifier "content" because I can think of several examples of contributions to "backstage" projects which could be paid, but not problematic. (It is possible that no one intended that Backstage Projects be included. However, this page defines projects, and I don't think any casual user would know why the TOU refers to some projects but not others. I can imagine several situations where someone might be paid to contribute to a Backstage project (e.g Wikimania conference planners) and I don't think disclosure is needed. I know little about Wikidata, but I have a long-term hope that I can persuade ESPN or some other stat company to provide sports statistics. If that ever happens, I would see it as analogous to the Commons situation: a paid editor choosing to incorporate such data in an article should disclose, but a provider of the raw data may not need to. Finally, to give my own views on the situations I listed, I think that the paid assistant uploading a photo, the OTRS agent uploading on behalf of a paid assistant, and the art gallery employee uploading photos should all be allowed to without disclosure of their compensation arrangement. The art gallery employee should be urged to leave the placement of the photos in article to other (unpaid)editors, or disclose if they want to be involved in the placement.

i would say all situations comply with the proposed terms, if they reflect the provenance of the image in the metadata of the image. and you have the edit summary to disclose situation. Slowking4 (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Goodness, I fear this discussion is becoming a bit 'retentive' that I fear it will put off much goodwill of the enthusiastic GLAMWIKI contributors who want to support Wikipedia, but happen to have jobs in the cultural sector as well. Before I was made redundant from Derby Museum (England) in 2011 I was doing my best to work with Wikipedians to bring museums and wikipedia together. Jimmy Wales even gave us an honourable mention for our use of QRpedia codes (steered by Victuallers). But at that time my employer had a blanket ban on use of social media, which included Wikipedia. What I did was out of the box, and done for the best interests of both sectors, but having to make a formal declaration that I was being paid (as a museum curator - with only 1% of my paltry income even barely relating to Wikipedia) could have entirely put me off contributing. Let's get real folks and find a way to separate paid promotion from genuine contributors who happen to have a job in the cultural sector, and want to help.--Parkywiki (talk) 01:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

My reading of the proposed change would mean that:

• Situation 1. No, unless the subject of an article is themselves an employee of a firm or a client; e.g. if they were employed through a company. This is actually quite common in some countries for tax reasons, where "John Smith" takes on (e.g.) lecturing work, and his feeds are paid through "John Smith Ltd", which firm then employs him as to do the lecturing work. In this case, the promotion of himself could be considered to be implicit in the payment received through the contract, and would need to be declared.

• Situation 2. Yes, seems clearly to be covered the new guidance.

• Situation 3. No, the uploader doesn't seem to be a client or an employee.

• Situation 4. Yes, seems clearly to be covered the new guidance. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

How does this affect researchers?

Would e.g. the research worker will be able to edit the articles of Wiki from your field only as paid user? Because he gets a salary also for the popularization of science. How the foundation officials want to decide whether the scientist is reading the article due of his mission or for the money. --Piotr967 (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this proposed amendment would apply unless it was part of the researcher's work responsibilities to edit Wikipedia. Maybe we could maybe include some FAQ that makes clear that editing on general subject areas of interest by professors and researchers would not be covered. Would that make sense? I would be interested in people's views on that. Geoffbrigham (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

There are researchers in industry, also. In some fields, such as some areas of electronics, a good part of our best content comes from there. But it does not matter who adds the material; it matters what the material is that they add. An unaffiliated person adding sponsored medical research without realizing it can do as much harm as someone from the company. DGG (talk) 18:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi DGG - I think you are making fair points. I guess it depends on how important it is to address the potential conflict of interest when one is paid for editing. This amendment is not intended to label paid editors as necessarily bad, but, as recognized elsewhere, there is a motivating factor that money provides in our world that sometimes compromises objectivity (which scarce community resources must be employed to correct). I believe fair disclosure neutralizes that effect, and frankly helps paid editors who are operating in good faith and accordingly to community rules, like NPOV. We also spell out some reasons to address this in the terms of use here. Thanks again for taking the time to read and respond so constructively. It is really helpful as we think this through. Geoffbrigham (talk) 12:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

we've already seen questions about wikipedians in residence. is there a distinction between paid and unpaid WIR? is there a requirement to disclose lunch at an editathon, since it is "money, goods, or services". a de minimus might be useful. i agree it's the COI, not the pay. Slowking4 (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey Slowk! as you know I've had several light lunches at the Smithsonian at GLAM editathons. I don't see a problem there that needs disclosure for at least 2 reasons. 1) they didn't tell me which articles to write, much less what to say in the articles. 2) "de minimus" definitely applies. OK, I really loaded up on the roast beef sandwiches one day - but it was still under $15 worth! :-) Perhaps we could include something on de minimus in the FAQ? There are so many questions along this line that I think it just distracts from the real issues

Paid WIRs are a more serious question. Non-paid WIRs of course have nothing to disclose under the proposed change - but most of them do anyway. Most paid WIRs also disclose that they are paid - all of them that I know. Most also stick to the talk pages, which makes it totally cool with me, but requires disclosure under this change. Perhaps something could be written into the FAQ about "'WIR' editors supervised by GLAM and similar Wikiprojects should disclose their status on their User pages, but in general are not considered to be paid editors"? Smallbones (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a "de minimus" approach would work. $15 may not be a large amount of money for most people in the US (or the UK), but it is, for example, a reasonable sum in many other parts of the world (I suspect it is about three times the average hourly rate of pay in India, for example) or potentially to particular individuals (for example someone in the UK living close to the poverty line). Given that we don't know where editors live, or their personal circumstances, I'd recommend any proposal like this has no minimum threshold for disclosure - just go for total transparency. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

i grant you, whenever you start talking ethics, you quickly get in the weeds. i don't mind disclosing every lunch or prize, but others have expressed a deterrent effect. when you're a social media staffer, why bother with all the wikidrama? such ethical absolutism harms wikipedia. WIR's have displayed good disclosure, and upaid WIR's have exactly the same conflict as the paid ones. and they get bitten just the same. by elevating ethical norms into terms of use legal code, the foundation is raising the stakes; it's unclear to me to what benefit. it's ammunition for a lawsuit, but the unintended effects are bad, we have already seen the wikihounding. Slowking4 (talk) 15:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Disclosure and notification

Why not require all three types of notification?

While I can see the problems with content written for financial gain, there is also the point that corporations have a great deal of information that the outside world can benefit from. But it should be made obvious when that information comes from a corporate source. So what is the problem with requiring that a paid editor post all three types of proposed statement? That's the only way that I can think of to make their motives fully transparent. Will102 (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Will, I don't think this is an unreasonable position, but we are also trying to build a disclosure process that is flexible and can accommodate the varying needs of various types of editors, including those who are doing clearly mission-driven editing while receiving compensation (for example, as a Wikimedian in residence). It is a matter of finding the right balance to achieve the goal of the amendment, which is to help ensure greater transparency to ensure against hidden potential bias. After thinking about it for some time, I think the alternative options strike that balance, but I also would understand if others disagreed. I would be interested in learning what others thought as well. Geoffbrigham (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Will02 and I don't see how having the choice of how someone discloses that they are a paid editor will "help ensure greater transparency" because you are effectively allowing them to bury this information wherever it is least likely to be discovered; in the middle of a lengthy userpage for example. KADC "Be unreasonable." (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd say that the primary problem with that is the fact that edit summaries have only a limited number of allowable characters. If a COI notice has to be in every one of them, potentially there won't be any space left for an actually useful description of the edit. Do you really want the article on Foo, Inc. to have a lot of edit summaries such as "m /* Allegations of having too long section titles in their Wikipedia article */ (COI notice: I work at Foo, Inc.) fixed typo (althuogh -> although)"? darkweasel94 (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

There's a point here, simply working at Foo Inc would not constitute paid editing, one would have to be specifically paid for editing the Wikipedia in question. Deciding whether an edit constitutes paid editing requires a bright line between work and leisure, which is often in reality very fuzzy. Rich Farmbrough 20:33 20 February 2014 (GMT).

Doesn't change my point about ever requiring anything at all to be put into the edit summary. They should first of all be useful to see what was changed, not for any kind of COI declaration or anything. No, requiring one of these things is entirely sufficient. darkweasel94 (talk) 20:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed it was a tangential point. Rich Farmbrough 21:40 20 February 2014 (GMT).

I personally would prefer to see this policy applied on the talk page for the given article. Applying it to the user page is problematic, because it does not allow the user to separate themselves from the paid work. They may have a paid contribution in some areas, and then have unpaid work in other areas not at all influenced by their compensation. The edit summary would only allow for simple notification, such as 'paid contribution'. It's not the place for detail, and could be easily overlooked without being supported on the talk page, particularly as the edit history scrolls on to other pages. The talk page seems to be the best place for this, and consistency and transparency are most important if the new policy is to have the desired effect. -- Dave Braunschweig (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dave Braunschweig - So, if I'm reading your comment correctly, you would require disclosure on the talk page in all cases (and omit the options for the edit summary and the user page). I definitely understand your reasoning, but it may require people who work in movement organizations or on GLAM initiatives, for example, to be constantly disclosing on talk pages - which might be too burdensome. Or maybe we allow an exception for employees of movement organizations and GLAM when they disclose their employment on their user page. Interested in your thoughts (and those of others). Thanks. Geoffbrigham (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Would there be a way that on a user page a notice could be given that the user does some paid content, with it serving via hypertext to link to a list of what has been done for pay? That could get cumbersome, but it would have the virtue of not cluttering the page itself.Dismalscholar (talk) 05:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Geoff, idea: make OTRS-verified paid editors and WiRs a separate user account category (following the model of OTRS-verified company accounts in the German Wikipedia). Tag or colour edits from such accounts in the edit history. Mark articles that have received edits from such accounts with a symbol (much like the FA star or GA symbol) that links to the article history. Andreas JN466 21:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

That seems entirely feasible, but I don't see why you need the legal team's permission or fiat to do that. Gain a consensus for that on whichever wiki you want to do this on, file a bug so that the new user group is created by the sysadmins, install an abuse filter that tags the edits, and run a bot that tags the articles. darkweasel94 (talk) 00:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Restricting the "transparency" of the fact that one is a paid editor to just the user page, talk page and edit summary essentially allows the paid editor to HIDE the fact that the information he or she has added to an article is paid content! It is not openness: it is treachery! That is why the EU courts have held this type of corporate chicanery to be illegal. If you're going to allow paid content, there needs to be a BIG RED LABEL in the title of the article warning everyone: "THIS ARTICLE CONTAINS PAID CONTENT" and then the paid content itself needs to be made to stand out from the rest of the article either using italics or a different font color or both. We believe that it would be easier and better to just ban paid content outright, as the potential for misuse FAR outweighs any benefit to users. IWPCHI --IWPCHI (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree that any article which has paid content should have a notice saying so right up front. If my church decided to pay me to edit an article that has their history grossly misrepresented, I would certainly want everyone to know I was paid and by whom. I would also want others to see just what editing I did while paid to do so, if for no other reason than to be able to judge if I remained as fair when paid as when not. But the paid content wouldn't have to be different right up front; it seems to me that a button like REVEAL PAID CONTENT would be better, first because I would be able to read the article without any words being set apart in any way, which is a good thing when doing research, and second because anyone who really wanted to know exactly what was paid could find out with just the click of the mouse.Dismalscholar (talk) 05:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I can see that paid contributions can have a great benefit too. A company can make sure information about it is fair and complete. Public editors simply may not have the knowledge, and can have attitudes.George Slivinsky (talk) 17:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course it can't be enforced. WMF can respect the privacy and anonymity of its editors, or it can have no paid editing, but it can't have both. To say otherwise is deny common sense and logic, and lead to even more witch hunts, sock accusations, and attempted outings (at least on English Wikipedia; can't speak to behavior on other projects). NE Ent (talk) 03:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

@NEEnt You can have both, just not both at the same time: you can make paid editing an exception, to privacy and anonymity. Some want to exclude paid editing altogether... requiring disclosure seems like a reasonable concession, for the privilege of doing something that many distrust. (And paid editing that has integrity can withstand the anticipated scrutiny: if it's an entry re' your company, for example, your staff may be most capable of providing the information... and if the information doesn't land as promotional, information is helpful.) DougIvison (talk) 12:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think all three are necessary, but having more than one way is poor design. As a user, you should be able to figure out if an edit is paid by one single action. Think about what the current procedure is to figure out if a piece of the article was paid for:

1. Run w:WP:Wikiblame. Find where the edit was added. See if there's a notice in the edit summary. (The notice has no standard format, so please don't consider trying to automate this process)
2. Look up the userpage of the user who added the edit. It could be 50 kb long, full of ribbons and banners, so look carefully! (And no, you can't be sure what it will look like) And make sure to do that for the history while he was editing the article, not necessarily now.
3. Check the article talk page for a statement about paid editing by the user who added the edit. Note that the editor might have announced this early on, and it could be in an archive somewhere, or who knows, maybe some IP totally unrelated to him deleted it in the meanwhile. Make sure you search both for the editor's actual username and whatever he signs his username as, because for some editors those are very different.

Now to me this seems like a very difficult process. You can't reliably automate it, you can't even use Lua/Scribunto to access history versions in the first place; you'd have to have an unreliable, giant Javascript that users would have to pass over a big notice about potentially compromising their computer to install. Who's going to spend weeks writing a script like that for five people to use it? So the bottom line is that this is limited to the most blatant cases where users are so incensed that they are willing to put in a lot of effort. Wnt (talk) 14:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

A pertinent point of law: "The FTC’s guide Dot Com Disclosures specifies that “disclosures must be communicated effectively so that consumers are likely to notice and understand them in connection with the representations that the disclosures modify.”" Notification on the user's page, alone, does not seem to fulfill the requirement of being "likely to notice". But, to ease the time/effort of disclosure, while still making disclosure "local": how about at least any two types, instead of all three? "You must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways:" would become "You must make that disclosure in at least two of the following ways:" That would ensure at least one of the disclosure was "local", and likely to be noticed. DougIvison (talk) 12:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Why not ask for real names?

Since transparency is so important is why the foundation no orders disclose true personal data of user (e.g., surname). Knowledge of who the person maybe be useful for the assessment of conflict of interest. Probably more useful than knowledge who pay of user. --Piotr967 (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Piotr967 - I understand your perspective, but I think our culture and concern about harassment would likely not permit such explicit identification. The proposed amendment seeks to find a balance on this point Geoffbrigham (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I strongly support non-anonymity: true personal data should be obtainable. If you write truth (testable truth that is), you must stand for it. Do we want to cultivate cowardice? Wikipedia/wikimedia must contain true and only testably true stuff, that's the rule. Who authors the stuff is of no importance. Hence, I strongly oppose to this amendment. --Reginald Sachs (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Some people get fired, killed or harassed for speaking the truth. By making everyone disclose who they are, using real names, it becomes super easy to attack your opposition. Stalkers and government would love for there to be no anonymity. It's a great way to kill political dissent, and in some cases, actually kill the person. Several government agencies have already been caught with their pants down on spying and on programs designed to spread propaganda and discredit opponents online. The fastest way to kill the truth is to make honest people fear speaking out. 99.99.233.74 04:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello - I support the Amendment, but I see value in both the points made by Piotr and Reginald Sachs under "Why not ask for real names?". The disclosure of COI/paid work is a step toward removal (albeit that it seems voluntary, which is a potential problem but let's make this rule change in the spirit of clarification of expectations and then make further adjustments if they are needed) of anonymity, but it is not removal. I'll briefly compare Wikipedia with a venue where I argue against anonymity. In scientific publication for example I maintain that the usual anonymity of peer review is counterproductive because reviews too often fail to make their case properly and sometimes are written very carelessly and with an evident agenda (it seems that many great human ventures decay after becoming venues for politics), and removing anonymity would bring an accountability that perhaps would prevent that. In scientific peer-review, I see no good and valid reason why accountability for its conclusions should not be required equally of review as the article being reviewed. Thus I have never reviewed anonymously in the scientific context, and no doubt I've paid the expected price for that (and amongst all the reviews I have received I can recall only one instance where they were non-anonymous). So, WRT Reginald's comment about cowardice, I think that in some contexts (like science) anonymity is indeed cowardice, but in some other contexts it is not. A test of whether anonymity would be cowardice might be if the writer would be ashamed or afraid to place his name there. Wikipedia is different, I think, because the use of pseudonyms (I use one) is in a way asking for the suppression of the ego, not a shelter for an opportunist or the bully or the person with an axe to grind. Wikipedia is unlike scientific publication, where the authors expect credit and acknowledgement, and the originality that is desirable in science is very different from Wikipedia (where originality of even synthesis would be rare to expect). Wikimedia and science require different kinds of accountability, and thus may demand different degrees of identification. Antillarum (talk) 04:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to require disclosure on each edit

WMF legal has posted our explanation above of why we think the proposed amendment is a good answer to this question. The idea below is a proposal for an alternate approach, and does not reflect/explain the current text of the amendment. —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Insisting on disclosure on every edit would greatly assist transparency:

• Only the briefest of disclosures can be made in edit history. If full disclosure were required to be made on the user page "in addition to", rather than as an alternative to disclosure on edits, this would provide much more transparency.
• Without disclosure on every edit, the only way to see if paid editing has taken place would be to check absolutely every editor's user page. Surely this is such a prohibitively time-consuming activity that it means that in practice it would not happen and disclosures on user pages would be likely not to be seen.
• Without disclosure on every edit, the entire talk pages would have to be searched for disclosures in addition to the user pages of every editor, yet more searching (although not as onerous), which would mean in practice disclosures are rarely seen.

This draft answer therefore calls for compulsory disclosure

• • on every edit,
  • with details of interests to be disclosed on a user's user page,
  • a standard link mechanism be established so that a very quick simple link can be placed in the edit history directly to the relevant disclosure on the user page,
  • a standard and automatically updated list of compensated editors and their edits be incorporated into the edit history so that the influence of these edits can be clearly seen. SciberDoc (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I see what you are trying to do here, but it would be very cumbersome in practice. It might be easier to require disclosure on an article's talk page as well as a user's page, rather than on every edit: this would bring the disclosure to the notice (e.g. the watchlists) of any editors involved with the page. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

No, by mandating a standard "PAID EDIT" tag in the edit summary, it would be very easy. Details of the disclosure could still be given on the user page. -- 174.58.20.123 17:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

AGREE with the proposal above and suggest that the practice of allowing unsigned edits be ended to further transparency, responsibility, and accountability. I would go further and require that every editor post his or her real name and location on their User page. So, for example, you would know that, when I posted an edit, it was done by Charles Landman of Portland , Oregon, USA. I see no reason to allow anonymity for editors. CTLandman (talk) 02:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC) • SUPPORT this draft requirement with a standard "PAID EDIT" tag in the summary, perhaps implemented with a checkbox. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C01:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely, to be meaningful, disclosure must be made in the summary for each individual edit. Lahaun (talk) 02:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree, every paid edit should be marked. Huw Powell (talk) 02:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the redlinks. I am on en.wikipedia.org as a user. Huw Powell (talk) 03:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• Strongly support. Ideally there should be a checkbox that would flag edits as paid ones (similar to the 'Minor edit' one) to make them easier to search for. A user page or talk page requirement is not enough, since it can take a long time to notice this for low-traffic articles. InverseHypercube (talk) 03:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support! I think I have a great idea how to make this work *really* :) but I’m not sure if this is the best place to post it, so if you like it, please feel free to copy it in a better place! Here goes:
  

When editing a Wikipedia article, a number of "motivations for editing" buttons are shown, where at least one has to be checked before the edit can be saved. I’m not sure if we can fit all the possible motivations in there, but some main ones could be: "personal interest, field of study, sympathy for people discussed, compensation, other", where "other" would require an explanation in a connected field. This series of buttons disappears when one checks "This is a minor edit". Like that check, the motivations clicked are saved with the edit and can be viewed in the article’s history.
-Notes: Instead of writing rules and proclaiming that everyone should follow them, this feature would make their fulfilment automatic and easy. The only way around would be lying, and recording the clicked options will make that very unattractive. The people reviewing non-minor edits will easily determine problem cases, so there is no need to flag "paid edits" in the article text. If a so-called "minor edit" turns out to be problematic, it was not a minor edit, which would also ring an alarm bell. Except for the paid edits problem, this feature would also help with solving edit wars.
The proposed motivation line would include a help link to a Wikipedia explanation/manual page where the exact meaning of the options is clarified.
(My signature is red, too, although I’m registered--probably at en.wikipedia.org or nl.wikipedia.org--and logged in.)--Geke (talk) 12:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support I strongly support machine-readable per edit marking. I like the previous poster's suggestion of a tick box. Wikis that need to, can turn on a "This page contains paid content" banner, anytime such a flag is ticked. Maybe the edit content itself could be in a greyed font, until an unpaid editor verifies it for neutrality. (Probably quickly for GLAMs, slowly for Fortune 500s...)108.108.114.117 14:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support the proposed reason-for-editing mechanism. Other editors can probably make a common-sense judgement about whether it is likely to have been lied to.ArthurDent006.5 (talk) 10:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• Strongly support From a usability perspective, this seems to me like the best idea so far. It's simple to disclose (with full details on the user page) and easy to check later, as the disclosure is machine readable. Without this, checking for bias and transparency will be a logistical nightmare. Lupisak (talk) 00:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Extra User Accounts for commercial Use

People who get paid to edit Wikipedia for their companies should open a new account for each national business entity (let's say Microsoft Iceland). By opening a new account they are under extra scrutiny and contributions can be easily attributed to them, wild edits by corporate users could be edited out (much like with the stable versions), and the affiliation would be clear to anyone looking at the contributors list. As businesses are legal entities it would make sense to attribute a single user to each corporate edit. Paid contributors would have to use this account - or create it and later transfer it to the company. What do you think? --Gegohouse (talk) 13:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

This is exactly what I have been thinking. Going yet further, paid-editing accounts should be in a separate user-namespace (instead of "User:..." for example "Paid:..."). That would be structured data, and that would make it easy to identify paid advocacy edits in the version history and would avoid any need for an additional edit comment, a flag, or a comment on the talk page.

Just to be clear: the use of these accounts should be available & obligatory only for clear situations of paid advocacy editing, that is, if PR activities are explicitly paid for (or explicitly mandated as part of another paid activity or employment) by an organization or group. Not for all types of COI. And of course a person should be allowed to use their own private User:... page plus one or more Paid:... identities without this being considered sockpuppeting. --Chris Howard (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it is best practice to create an account specifically for editing that is paid. Otherwise it becomes a mess when you are later no longer employed by that company. People should not have to put their entire resume on Wikipedia, because they worked for some company and happened to edit a wikipedia page about the company while working for them. 99.99.233.74 05:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

"Professional editor" concept

The idea of requiring distinctive accounts for paid/professional editing has a lot of advantages. From a technical perspective it means contributions can be flagged in edit histories, tracked and analysed. It would also allow behavioral norms to be established and enforced. I raised this as a thought-starter on enwiki a few months back (see Could professional editing be made safe?). This approach was basically asking whether professional edits could be made acceptable, if their editors would consent to sufficiently rigorous conditions, such as:

• Professional edits may only be made with a special SUL account set up for this purpose. This account is individual, not corporate. It is distinct from any account used for normal "unbiased" editing. The professional account-holder must identify to the WMF (or similar), so any one individual can only have one professional account in their lifetime (or at any one time, perhaps).
• Their usernames must end with a standard string such as "(COI)", "(POV)" or "(PAID)".
• Their user pages have a standard format that lists their affiliation(s). Professional editors don't have discretion about how this is presented.
• Professional editor accounts are technically marked as such: it's a sort of user right, and it cannot co-exist with any of the discretionary rights like autopatrolled, rollbacker etc.
• An edit filter logs their contributions e.g. "(Tag: professional edit: please check for COI)". All their edits are globally opted-in for edit count statistics.
• This type of account can't create a new article directly. Instead, they must use the proposed draft namespace.
• Professional editors promise to abide by specific policies about how they edit and interact with other users.
• These policies would include strict rules about notability, verifiability and reliable sources that would apply to all their contributions.
• If they fail to adhere to these policies, they can be complained about in a specific venue similar to AN/I. They can be admonished, blocked or banned.

The "professional" label gives flexibility for a wider definition of editing-for-benefit, if that's desirable in future. For example, volunteers in politics, sports, the arts and charities might be professional editors even though unpaid. - Pointillist (talk) 10:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Requests for stronger disclosure requirements

• I think that a user page disclosure should be required for all paid edits in addition to one of the other disclosures. Non-editors should not have to guess whether a reliable editor has found and fixed such problems. I know that I often consult history, diffs, and talk when evaluating articles.204.58.171.16 17:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I completely agree. Having a note on the user page will help spread information around more, and ultimately make things around here simpler and friendlier. 75.80.16.138 21:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
• disclosure should be conspicuous; on the page edited, at the top; and should contain detailed information about the payments to the party editing and from the party editing #208.104.164.87 17:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
• I personally believe that paid contributions should be expressly disallowed. There's no way to avoid contaminating the objectivity of the information in Wikipedia if people are allowed to hire writers to tell things their way. 2601:9:4180:40C:7DBD:1415:4984:1508 17:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Confidentiality clauses?

What about the potential scenario where an editor (for example) is working for an agency and is prevented by a confidentiality clause with their client from disclosing the clients identity? Such confidentiality clause/ non disclosure agreement may not be specifically aimed at Wikipedia but may be intentionally or unintentionally affected by it. Perhaps I'm foreseeing things that won't exist or or could this be a very real issue with requiring disclosure of the client?

In order to clarify any uncertainty from this comment; I am in favour of requiring the disclosure of the client if this idea is approved. However although I support the idea in principle I have yet to decide whether to support the implementation or not. --Wintonian (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Details on why people support

To the critics: WHY THIS AMENDMENT IS USEFUL

The usefulness of this amendment has been a major point of contention so far. Detractors and critics point out that this amendment does not do much in the way of actually preventing or deterring such undisclosed, deceitful or paid edits. I concur. However, this does fulfill the critical requirement of acknowledging this problem and laying the groundwork to combat it. Allow me to explain. I will be using the modern legal system as an example. The exploits that lawyers often manipulate to win cases were not borne overnight. Instead they are oft build upon the framework of past cases and judicial rulings. As such, the current legal system which we are accustomed to is the result of the groundwork and precedents laid by the generations that preceded us-- from the initial beginnings to all the subsequent cases, fair and unfair rulings alike. All that we have today is the result of the mistakes of those who preceded us AND of the things that they got right.

This amendment fulfills the same purpose. It provides a foundation for us to build upon and eventually face this issue that threatens the integrity and freedom of Wikipedia. So, it's not really 'useless'. at all.

BUT, it is IMPERATIVE that we do get this right. If today's legal system or society in general are any indicators, laying the wrong foundation can have devastating consequences in the future (to cite a more humorous example-- the common acceptance of decadence and frivolity from the rich and the famous-- sure they do have their critics, but it's become the societal norm hasn't it?).

Should we allow this issue to go unchecked, it will eventually lead to:

a) Wikipedia's compromised integrity

b) loss of trust amongst the user base

c) Political and corporate dominance of Wikipedia (akin to the hardcore bias by the traditional media networks such as Television and Newspapers)

The true beauty of Wikipedia is its freedom and community governed ethics. It's an encyclopaedia by the people, for the people. Sure there may be a bit of bias here and there, but as long as it remains free and open, the rest of the community will balance it out. This discussion, in itself is proof of that. Should this fall into the hands of entities such as the corporates etc., these founding ideals will be truly lost and Wikipedia will become another political tool. And encouraging or allowing paid or sponsored edits to go unchecked it the path to promoting eventual corporate dominance of the Wiki.

Thank you for your views here. I set out some other reasons why this proposed amendment may make sense here. Geoffbrigham (talk) 01:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I support this measure. But paid editing can be done for an innocent reason, such as not being able to type. Ixobel (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Various support

out of place, redundant with !votes above?

I Believe This Proposed Amendment is a Good Idea

I believe - as noted on the Content Page - that this amendment will contribute to transparency and openness. Some people have made comments suggesting that the proposed amendment is not a good idea. There are several broadly repeating themes with these arguments, all easily dismissed, and I will address these now.

Firstly, the number of Wiki contributors will not decrease, whether paid or not. In fact, if people know that WIKIMEDIA is taking further steps to ensure transparency, it is quite likely that the opposite will happen - its reputation will be enhanced and it will continue to be trusted as a source of (at least) transparent information.

Secondly, it has been suggested that the amendments won't stop bias in articles. I believe by providing transparency, readers can make more informed decisions about how they interpret the information presented. The alternative being suggested by some is to do nothing, simply because there isn't a better solution. I think this would be wrong. To at least make a well-informed start is far superior to doing nothing, because of a paralysis of ideas. Amendments can themselves be amended in time, but the idea of allowing paid contributions to continue without further efforts at transparency would be a big disappointment and damaging to Wiki's reputation.

In short, again, I support moving forward with greater transparency.

• I entirely agree with the above.86.151.130.9 12:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• I support this amendment Rohita (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• I support this amendment70.138.163.252 23:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)Tom Peery

• I support this amendment Outofindia (talk)

• I support this amendment. I feel quite certain that without increased transparency, undetected bias in editing by paid editors would inevitably occur, despite any of the likely denials that such an editor's opinion could be so easily swayed. 22 February 2014 Roger L Kelley 67.164.215.159 23:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• I support this amendment. As a contributor, both monetary and grammatic, to WIKIMEDIA, I believe transparency in editing is crucial, as are live and valid reference links, for those looking for information on any WIKIMEDIA project.50.151.117.41 19:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Anything That Preserves...

the integrity of Wikipedia...I'm for

Doug

Strongly support

I rely on Wikipedia for unbiased information. If I want biased information, there's always the rest of the web. Please disclose. 76.176.43.190 00:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Strongly Supportive

I strongly support this move! Paid edits are fine - nondisclosure of commercial payments is not fine!Jashwood (talk) 00:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

+++++I agree with disclosure of paid contributions=== yes!!===

Strongly support

I support this amendment. Please disclose. Generically (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Details on those opposing because this seems to legitimize paid contributions

redundant with !votes above?

Worst Idea Ever !!!

This is the worst idea ever!!! Can't belive that it comes from Wikimedia! Keep Wikipedia free! 178.149.113.164 03:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thats what we are trying to do Troll! Default0023 (talk) 04:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

??? --Golden_burg111 17:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Motto

In Wikipedia, it says, the FREE encyclopedia, but if you pay, this is violating it. Creeper919 (talk) 00:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually I thought the free implied free to use. BTW I support the amendment. Peoplez1k (talk) 06:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

There is a common misperception among some that this amendment is an endorsement of paid advocacy editing. It is not. You can read more about that here. We may need to be clearer about this in our FAQ or text in the next revision. Geoffbrigham (talk) 13:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Oppose paid editing: BAD Idea

today they pay for this tomorrow they'll bankroll something else,,,,,,,,,,keep Wikipedia clean!!

What you wanna say? Marcus Cyron (talk) 13:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I interpret this as support for the proposed amendment. Let me know if I have that wrong. Thanks. Geoffbrigham (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose all paid comments

Such a black hole we have fallen into without notice or alarm

Agin paid comments. (unsigned comment)

• THIS IS ALL GARBAGE. PAID CONTRIBUTIONS ARE AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF A FREE ENCYCLOPEDIA ONLINE. STOP IT NOW. DON´T MAKE WIKI A COMMERCIALISED ENTITY. YOU CAN´T SLICE BUTTER. YOU CAN´T DRESS UP A WOLF AS MUTTON.

~There is little if an way to stop paid editing. If I am a moderator being paid, all I have to do is have the editing done by a third-party. You are attempting to put a band-aid on a bullet wound. If you really want to stop paid editing you'll have to fundamentally change the way wikipedia works. And a lot of the 'legitimate' sources don't serve the public interests. i.e. the MAJORITY of the public opposes MOST of the USGovt Legislation but they ignore us all and pass it anyway because we live in a Rogue Nation. Will Wikipedia report that? I doubt it.

Lolwut. 152.23.211.247 04:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Conflicted, oppose legitimizing paid editing

I have very mixed feelings about this. Certainly, given a choice between editing for pay with disclosure vs. editing for pay without disclosure, disclosure is clearly better. But, this legitimizes an inherently inappropriate activity. I don't see any possible way somebody being paid to "maintain" a company's wikipedia presence could maintain the neutrality we demand. RoySmith (talk) 02:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi RoySmith. Thanks for your comment. I think we address your concern here. Let me know if we do not. Geoffbrigham (talk) 05:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Opposed paid editing: Consider It A Betrayal

May I have the monies I contributed {covering use for a few hundred people per year} previously, returned to me, please? Do you think I will continue contributing? Think again. So, if the corporations buy it, whatever. Just casts every single thing about Wikipedia in a less credible light. Who the hell comes up with these stupid ideas anyhow? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.230.249.238 (talk) 22 February 2014, 02:58 (UTC)

You realize that currently this amendment isn't allowing anything that's not already allowed, right? It's only adding a restriction to paid editors. Right now, paid editors can edit where and how they want as long as they aren't being disruptive. -- Atama頭 03:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. This is only a minimal requirement. I think we address the above concern here. Geoffbrigham (talk) 05:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Questions of context

Jimmy Wales: "There is a master plan to ban paid advocacy editing."

On Jimbo Wales Wikipedia talk page, Mr. Wales announced that this amendment is "the first step from the board in banning paid advocacy editing of all kinds."[2]

He later confirmed this intent by saying that "There is a master plan to ban paid advocacy editing."[3]

Why isn't the WMF Legal department being transparent about the true purpose of this proposed amendment?

Who has access to this master plan? What does it entail? Why does only Jimmy Wales seem to know anything about it? And why is there not a single mention of the master plan in this proposal? Just Cause (talk) 19:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know of such a plan. Note that Jimmy was responding to a commenter on his talk page, who first used that phrase. I believe it was a figure of speech indicating that people who care about the projects are thinking about systemic ways to discourage paid advocacy. That has been true for years, and you can see the discussions about how this might happen on the English and German Wikipedias (see the 'further reading' links above), where this is an ongoing issue.

Advocacy -- in the sense of 'promotion of a biased view and suppression of notable opposing views' -- is unwelcome on all projects that uphold NPOV. Paid advocacy is distinguished by the scale and leverage of the problem: wealthy clients can hire large numbers of contributors to continue an editing or astroturfing campaign for years. While there have been efforts to limit this, it is not easy to do so in ways that don't also limit constructive contribution.

To my knowledge, the legal team has been transparent and precise in drafting this proposal. It is what it appears to be: an effort to clarify how contributors can avoid misrepresenting by omission their affiliation, if they are paid to contribute. This aligns with US and EU guidelines on fair commercial practices. It is not clear to me that this would limit advocacy any more than current project policies do. –SJ talk  03:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, Wales deserves a break there, he was obviously being figurative. But Sj, to be fair, the transparency has also been a bit foggy. This is not to help contributors. It's for WMF legal to have a new weapon to go after Wiki-PR and similar. For or against, that's what it is. The further effect is that paid editors will be put in a bind of either hanging a target on themselves, which will have disfavored ones relentlessly hounded until they are driven off since it's not worth the hassle or slip up and give their attackers enough ammunition for a ban, versus not disclosing to avoid the grief and then being hammered for terms-of-use violation. Again, whether one believes that's a good thing or a bad thing, it's the result. Part of the reason there's a lot of confusion in this discussion is an unwillingness among many to be blunt about it, and then using phrasing that's very easy to misread as a "safe harbor" for paid editors. Again, that "safe harbor" misreading is completely mistaken, but it's an understandable mistake to make from the way the amendment is being justified as somehow intended to be beneficial to some paid editors (the ethical ones, of course). In the current environment, it's laugh-out-loud ludicrous to imply this is going to help anyone who falls under it. At best, it won't hurt people in WMF-approved cases like the GLAM projects, since they're not for banning. But those outside such approval are going to be considered fair-game. Once more, favor or oppose this, it would be useful to avoid any implication that it's something else. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Diskussion in anderen Sprachen / discussion in other languages

Im Artikel steht: "Übersetzungen in die deutsche, französische, spanische, italienische und japanische Sprache sind ebenfalls verfügbar; die Gemeinschaft wird ermutigt, den Änderungsvorschlag auch in andere Sprachen zu übersetzen und zu besprechen." Wo findet die Diskussion in den anderen Sprachen statt?

The article mentions the discussion in other languages - where can i find these discussions? --LichtStrahlen (talk) 09:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Moin LichtStrahlen, wie immer bei LCA-Konsultationsverfahren kann der jeweilige Textvorschlag auf der jeweils verlinkten zentralen Diskussionsseite - in diesem Fall diese Seite - in allen gaengigen Sprachen debattiert werde. Das ermoeglicht einerseits die thematischen Faeden zusammenzuhalten und erleichtert andererseits den Uebersetzern die Mitwirkung. Beste Gruesse, --Jan (WMF) (talk) 09:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Bitte einfügen, wer WIR ist: WMF legal department/ein Vorschlag der WMF Rechtsabteilung. --Wir sind (talk) 09:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Die Frage stellte ich schon weiter oben unter der Überschrift "POV". Offenbar handelt es sich um die Rechtsabteilung der Foundation, die hier die Grundwerte der Wikipedia mit Füßen tritt. Wie immer nach schlechter Presse in den USA kommt bei Herrn Wales, der um Spendengelder fürchtet, Aktionismus auf. Noch schlimmer - das geht das weiter an die Gardner'sche Foundation, die nich nie gezeigt hat, daß es sie scheren würde, was denn die Community geht. Wer diese ominösen Leute sind, die angeblich laut dem Antragstext so viele Probleme haben und sehen, wird ja nie erklärt. Aber man will hier ja eh nicht wrklich Feedback. Zumindest kein der eigenen Initiative widersprechendes. Typisches Foundation-Fegenblatt. Marcus Cyron (talk) 13:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Da würde ich nicht so sicher sein, das das "Legal Team" eigentlich ganz allein auf die Idee gekommen ist, so eine Sache in die ToU rein zu bringen. Just sayin'. notafish }<';> 16:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Unter "Geltendes Recht" ist bitte welches Recht zu verstehen? Dceonline (talk) 10:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Natürlich US-Recht. Die WMF kümmert doch eh kein anderes, es sei denn, es könnte dach mal teuer werden. Marcus Cyron (talk) 13:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Nicht ganz. Der Entwurf nennt auch europäische Gesetze, welche die Diskussion betreffen. Es gibt aber offensichtlich keinen europäischen Präzedenzfall, etwa ein Statement von einer europäischen Kartellbehörde. Ich habe den Eindruck, der Entwurf betrifft uns ebenso wie die Amerikaner. - Dragon Legacy (talk) 14:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Dies ist ein Erweiterungsvorschlag der Rechtsabteilung fuer die Nutzungsbedingungen. Mithin sollte klar sein, dass "wir" auf das Anwaltsteam referiert und die anwendbaren Rechtsordnungen die im zu erweiternden Dokument angegebenen sind ("Sie für Ihre sämtlichen Beiträge, Bearbeitungen und Weiternutzungshandlungen nach dem Recht der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika sowie anderen anwendbaren Rechtsordnungen (darunter gegebenenfalls denjenigen des Landes, in dem Sie leben oder Inhalte betrachten bzw. bearbeiten), verantwortlich sind.") Gruss, --Jan (WMF) (talk) 15:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Das Problem der mehrsprachigen Diskussion

This page is clearly not working for multilingual discussion. Out of two hundred comment sections and four hundred votes, we have two short sections in German, one in portuguese, two manifestos by the same user in french-and-english, and one comment in Japanese noting how hard it is to contribute to this all-English page.

An interim option: having a separate talk-page for each of a few major language groups (de, en, es+it+pt, fr, ja, pl, ru, zh), and one talk page for all other languages. You can transclude all of the non-en talk pages onto a single page for easy review; but that lets readers and writers from those languages immediately find and talk to one another about the proposal. (A reason to have each of those language-specific pages on Meta is that cross-wiki transclusion doesn't yet work.)

We could also ask language-ambassadors from each language (starting with the translators) whether there is discussion on their home wikis. And we should make it easy for them to find very-short versions of FAQ and Q&A sections that they can translate for their own talk pages. –SJ talk  09:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I already have put a different German system in place with Southpark (linked in the section below) but in general and based on past experiences of consultations I am in favor of keeping what we got for the time being. As far as I can tell, this is very much a German-English issue when it comes to mobilization and mushrooming the number of Meta pages dealing with it tends to stir up confusing among the occasional visitors already troubled by navigating Meta as it is. --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Nutzungsbedingungen zu bezahlten Beiträgen

Weitere Diskussion in DEWP.

The amendment is meaningless

Is evident that WMF board has a lot of free time and is wasting it in fix something that is not broken. I state here three arguments that show you how that amendment is stupid.

1.- Violates the open and collaborative spirit of Wikimedia projects

“Projects to serve the interests of a paying client while concealing the paid affiliation has led to situations that the community considers problematic.”

Just as copyrighted stuff has led to situations that the community considers problematic, just as contributions made by non experts has led to situations that the community considers problematic, just as non-neutral editions have led to situations that community considers problematic, just as bad behavior in discussions has led to situations that the community considers problematic, just as everything than free and collaborative project just as wikimedia have led to situations that the community considers problematic.

Most of WM projects work with a few, clear and general rules that allows to keep the objetive of each project. Power of these rules lies in the work of the community to verify and change violations to rules. If there is an “amendment” to each “situation that the community considers problematic” we will create an enormous, bureaucratic and powerless web of rules to solve anything. ¡Use common sense!

Most important, with that disposition you are LABELING individuals in the aim to avoid “conflicts of interest”. Then, Baptists have to state that they are baptists and they have to avoid edit content related to the Pope because they could incur in “conflict of interest” just as the fans of Elvis Presley have to state that they are Elvis’ fans and they have to avoid edit content related to The Beatles, why not?

This “amendment” only leads to seed the distrust in WM community without a clear benefit but with the idea that labeling editors and his contributions are right and useful in some way.

Paid contributions should be managed (and actually are managed) as this:

• In good faith: give thanks to people than paid to make grow WM. Actually is a donation.

• In bad faith: revert the contribution and, if the user keeps making inadequate contributions, ban him.

Follow a basic principle can help us to avoid that policy entanglement: asses the quality of a contribution not the individual behind it. (ward off the “ad hominem” fallacy)

2.- Violates the privacy of individuals

“you must disclose your employment, client, and affiliation when making any type of paid contribution to any Wikimedia project.”

Request that information could allow identify individual editors.

3.- Non enforceable rule is dead letter

How you can demonstrate that somebody is making a paid contribution?

That is the question that supporters of the “amendment” should solve before to propose that absurdity.

Sure, we can find a lot of biased editions in WM but, these material can be produced by:

• People with biases due to lack of information.
• Fans, supporters or activist to some cause or celebrity.
• Employees, servants or other kind of people whose editions are based on loyalty.

Which is the distinction between these assumptions and the paid contribution? Are the “five pillars” of Wikipedia insufficient to treat that issue?

After all, you are allowing to act, as the Spanish Inquisition, based only in the “suspicion” than somebody is making paid contributions. That is good for the discretional power of WM administrators not to the WM community. Labeling editors will have consequences.--SirWalter (talk) 05:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

1: Experience has demonstrated the basic principle you suggest, while good, is insufficient to guarantee the high standard of quality Wikipedia strives for. The proposed amendment provides a mechanism by which potentially inappropriate content can be clearly recognized as such.

2: I don't see any reason Wikipedia should tolerate paid anonymous editing. And your privacy was comprised when you logged onto the interwebs.

3: No one said enforcement would be easy. Without an explicit policy in place, however, enforcement is a "dead letter."

76.178.144.67 10:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Let me extend some ideas.

• The “free enciclopedia” is based on liberty to edit

Basic principle of Wikipedia has been insufficient to guarantee the high standard of quality Wikipedia strives for since the beginning of Wikipedia itself. Criticism about low quality editions, recurrent vandalism, stubs instead of full articles, wars of editions and more has been part of the environment of Wikimedia projects always and it will remain just like that. Unless that WM starts to forbide anonymous contributions, requires real names to edit, demand Ph.D grade to edit a specialized theme, and to request that editions have to be reviewed by specialist before to be published. Wikipedia will solve his quality problem but it will not longer free.

Main problems of quality still remains, not due to lack of policies to deal with it but due to lack of people than are working in that. Paradoxically if, instead of goofy things (like visual editor), WMF spend money in pay people dedicated to work in basic maintenance tasks, real administrators could have time to work in solve controversial editions.

Of course, you can request that paid editors state they are paid and that they have to label their editions as “paid editions”.Then, why not request to vandals that state that they are vandals and that they have to label their editions as “vandalism”? The underlying principle of the amendment is equally absurd.

• Paid advocacy is a chimera

But, in contrast with vandalism, that is well recorded in the WM scope. I can not find the records or evidence that proof, not only that paid contributions are a problem, but that they actually happen. I encourage the WMF staff to post here the major evidence their have about paid advocacy and how it is affecting the WM proper performance. If have not proof for paid advocacy we have here not problem to try to solve.

Is interesting that former discussions are not based in the records of problematic behavior but in a apocalyptic scenario about how WM will fall down if we open the door to (imaginary) paid advocacy. In my experience in Spanish Wikipedia I have found very few articles clearly edited by the staff of politicians or artist. Actually, those articles were not bad, they only requires some improvements (remove promotional content, for example) but, MOST articles of Wikipedia requires some improvement. At last, this only means that we are in Wikipedia “the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit”.

Arguments against paid advocacy maintained by Jimmy Wales—the man who fought to keep advertising in Wikipedia—are like that: “ I do think we should think about asking the Foundation to invest more resources in helping us to defend Wikipedia against the forces of darkness” [4]. If you can not show what are those “forces of darkness”, you are believing in a conspiracy theory not in a real facts.

But, here you are avoiding a very important fact: a lot of companies, artist or politicians have a big entourage of “fanboys” ready to serve to their lord (think in Apple Inc. for example), why will these companies pay for something that they can get for free?--SirWalter (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Postscript: at the moment when I wrote opinions above I lost comments about the WikiPR case. This leads us to an harmless situation to a serious situation because WMF legal department is TRYING TO FOOLING US. Wiki-PR incident is not mentioned in the Background of the amendment not in the Introduction of this discussion, but that is the origin of the whole discussion. Wiki-PR was the sufficient relevance to have his own Wikipedia article… in two languages, and to some editors proposed to erase the article because of lack of relevance. For further reference I recommend to track these cases http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Morning277 and https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/11/19/wikimedia-foundation-sends-cease-and-desist-letter-to-wikipr/ cases that I had to investigate because nobody of the proponents of this discussion mentioned it in any sense. But, instead to recognize a situation and ask the community how to deal with it, legal department built a change in the Terms of Use and beg us to approve it, that occurs because a situation happened in the English Wikipedia that are not reporting in this discussion (by the proponents), but changes of the terms of use will affect the global WM. How the legal department hopes than editors of Wikis in other languages realize the real background behind this proposal? This is what is called LACK OF TRANSPARENCY of the legal department. Shame on you. Finally as Ivan Shmakov states below the “Wiki-PR case” was successfully resolved despite the lack of the proposed text in the ToU. The amendment is doubly stupid.--SirWalter (talk) 08:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks SirWalter. I may not agree with everything you say, but I do appreciate and think about your arguments quite a bit as we think about how to address some of the issues that you have elaborated on. Thanks. Geoffbrigham (talk) 16:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Ungrouped discussion

It takes a lot of research and time for someone to even acquire the skill to write a comment. In other words, many good ideas are not heard because the formatting required computer skills scare people away from editing wikipedia as a whole. Therefore I am very much in favor of hiring professionals to edit and fix the formatting but not technical aka semantic/factual or opinionated claims, more the grammar behind it (please fix this run on sentence for example). And The cheat sheet is actually more complicated to the technologically inadept as well. People probably skim/skip over opinions like this because lack of time to format them properly or even coherently for that matter, should this population therefore be neglected? --Smsegal (talk) 02:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Previous discussions

I believe there have been recent community discussions/requests for comment on this subject in the recent past and the proposal has been roundly defeated. There should be a description of these past results on the page and an explanation of why this one is different, or why a different result is expected this time. At the very least there should be links to those pages so editors can get a complete picture of what is going on. SpinningSpark 21:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed there have been: somebody with the required edit permissions (not me, I don't) left a comment at the bottom of the proposal over which this discussion is going. — RandomDSdevel (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Could maybe put them at the top of the Talk page? That's probably more appropriate than the document itself. —LuisV (WMF) (talk) 01:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm seeing references at the bottom of the page, but not any links to past discussions. SpinningSpark 11:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I have added the links that I know about to the top of this page. SpinningSpark 11:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Additional background

Additional background: Jimbo Wales' statement on the matter, Later discussion on Jimbo Wales' talk page, smug paid editor on CNN. Scheinwerfermann (talk) 02:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed questions that we do not plan to turn into FAQs

A few users have raised questions above that were worth answering, but that we do not plan to turn into FAQs. I've placed them here for reference. —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• Has due consideration been given to a change, such that only registered contributors (who are logged in at the time) may post. I believe this would afford a greater degree of moderator control at several levels, from being able to deal more effectively with trolls, through to identifying and taking appropriate action against those with vested interest or other reasons for "paid"/"for profit" entries. Pr0t0type (talk) 10:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • No; the movement and the Foundation are committed to allowing anonymous contributions generally. —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
• IS THE PROPOSED RULE written unambiguously and clearly and correctly enough with respect to the common meaning of documentation? Which elements in particular should be questioned & clarified? Xgenei (talk) 05:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • @Xgenei: We think it is written clearly, or we wouldn't have published it. (One of the reasons we made it short was to reduce potential ambiguity, but all language is inherently at least somewhat ambiguous.) If there are specific concerns or ambiguities, we're happy to discuss those, though! —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
• Could a link to en:WP:COI be added to the new wording as an example of what additional restrictions apply? I think this would answer most of the Not Enough votes below and having it linked in the TOU would make it harder for weasels to pretend they didn't know - not with the nutshell summary "Do not edit Wikipedia in your own interests or in the interests of your external relationships" right there at the top of the page. Filceolaire (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
  • We try to make the policy itself neutral with regards to projects, so we didn't want to link to specific projects COI policies - instead we just say "community ... policies, such as those addressing conflicts of interest, may further limit paid contributions or require more detailed disclosure." If there is a project-neutral way to do that link, we could do it, but probably references in the FAQ are better. —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
    • then the wording of the link needs to be changed from our background note on disclosure of paid contributions to our background note on paid contributions and the second paragraph of the FAQ needs to discuss these additional restrictions on paid contributors. It's much more important than the unsolicited legal advice you have in the second para now. As the vote has stated already you therefore need to post the proposed revised wording now. At least that is what I think. Filceolaire (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
      • @Filceolaire: I'm not clear why making the document project-neutral requires a title change? Could you explain more? —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Handlungsbedarf?

Ich erkenne keinen Handlungsbedarf seitens der Wiki. Die Nutzungsbedingungen scheinen rechtlich ausreichend zu sein. Die zusätzliche Sicherstellung wird den Ottonormalverbraucher ohnehin nicht erreichen: Für ihn ist die schnelle Information wichtig, Fußnoten oder gar Informationen zum Schreiber auf dessen Benutzerseite usw. werden selten gelesen. Somit vertraut er auf die Qualitätssicherung, zumal das auch die Medien tun.

Einem bezahlten Schreiber wird kaum nachzuweisen sein, daß er eigene Interessen verfolgt, die nicht dem Gemeinwohl und einer neutralen Aufklärung dienen, aber das geht auch unbezahlten so.

Der Flut von einseitigen Interessen kann nicht anders als über die Qualitätssicherung begegnet werden. Die zunehmend hohe Nachfrage nach unbeeinflusster Wissensvermittlung stellt einen nachzukommenden Bildungsanspruch dar. Deutschland könnte sich an Wiki zunächst über den Topf der Gebühren (Gez) für öffentliche Aufklärung prozentual beteiligen. Kreisquadrat (talk) 19:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Moin Kreisquadrat; mir ist nicht ad hoc ersichtlich, wie das Ausbuchstabieren der minimal-verbindlichen Transparenzregulierungen, die hier von der Rechtsabteilung vorgeschlagen wird, sich zu deinem GEZ-Punkt verhaelt und waere mithin fuer eine Erlaeuterung dankbar. Gruss und Dank, --Jan (WMF) (talk) 23:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Hallo Jan, ich war schon bei der Umsetzung der Idee, die Qualitätssicherung zu verbessern und dafür brauchts nunmal Geld (für Technik, Personal usw.).

Wenn ein Artikel den Ansprüchen genügt, dann ist es egal, wer ihn geschrieben hat und ich meine, daß das nur über die QS gehen kann. Schau' Dir meine Versuche zum Thema Sepa an, die ich anschließend entfernt hatte, weil keine Rückmeldung kam und mir und vielleicht auch anderern das Thema zu heikel war: Schade, denn dort stand (oder steht noch) ein Artikel, den kein Laie versteht. Wenn Wiki damit anfängt rechtlich unnötige Transparenz zu fordern, so hatte ich das jedenfalls verstanden, dann ist das der erste Schritt zur Aufgabe einer freien Enzyklopädie. Wie schon geschrieben stellt es für professionelle Schreiber mit einseitigen Interessen kaum ein Problem dar, die erhoffte Transparenz zu verschleiern. Einen bezahlten transparenten Schreiber im Sinne eines neutralen Artikels halte ich für unwahrscheinlich. Vorstellbar wäre aber auch, daß ein Bezahler nicht der Arbeitgeber (z.B. die Kirche) ist, sondern ein gemeinnütziger Verein (der andere Ziele hat) und was schreibt er dann in seine verbindliche Transparenz, ohne den Job verlieren zu wollen? Zudem besteht die Gefahr der Ausweitung von Reputationsheischerei. Beispiel Professor und Student (Student wird bezahlt von Mutti, die eine Firma hat) oder sonstige Abhängigkeitsverhältnisse. Dann könnte es unter Umständen schwer werden, wenn sich jemand Drittes zum Thema äußern will, von dem man augenscheinlich nicht weiß, was er außer dem Interesse an freier Verfügbarkeit von Wissen und einer verständlichen Darbietung zu bieten hat.

Du formulierst es schön: Das Ausbuchstabieren minimalverbindlicher Transparenz. Wo sieht die Rechtsabteilung den Grund für eine erforderliche Bestätigung durch Klarnamen und weiteren Eigenauskünften? Ich hab's nicht verstanden, aber vielleicht hilfst Du mir auf die Sprünge? Dankeschön. Kreisquadrat (talk) 18:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Was die Rechtsabteilung hier zu veraendern vorschlaegt, ist in gewissem Sinne ein Minimum aber keines, dass nach meinem Verstaendnis z.B. aktueller bundesdeutscher Rechtssprechung ueber die rechtlichen Erfordernisse hinausgeht. Das OLG Muenchen, das die momentan einschlaegige Entscheidung zum Themenkomplex vorgelegt hat (Zusammenfassung der Signpost ist im letzten Satz der zweiten Frage der FAQ verlinkt), geht ueber die hier vorliegen Entwuerfe qua seiner Auslegung des europaeischen Wettbewerbsrechts deutlich hinaus. Die WMF addressiert hier mithin nur ein globales Minimum, auf das die jeweiligen Gemeinschaften dann projektweise aufbauen koennen. Gruesse, --Jan (WMF) (talk) 14:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Jan, mir fiel heute siedend heiß ein, daß mein letzter Beitrag zum Sepaartikel womöglich abwertend überkam: Dem ist nicht so, weil ich nachvollziehen kann, wenn aus fachlicher Sicht berichtet wird.

Aber nun erstmal Danke für den Hintergrund, ich steck momentan nicht so in der Sprache drin (in der Syntax auch nicht), aber denke, das Anliegen verstanden zu haben. Warum wurde dies nicht gleich so deutlich formuliert und stattdessen die Diskussion auf eine bereits erfolgte Auswahl von Reaktionsmöglichkeiten angezettelt? Diese Frage hilft nun nicht weiter, aber andere vielleicht. Es scheint sich um ein schwebendes Verfahren zu handeln, dem dringend Argumente fehlen. Nach meiner Auffassung der Wikiphilosophie müssen die aus der Allgemeinheit bedient werden, das stellt in meinen Augen keine Schwäche, sondern Stärke dar.

Natürlich liest der Nutzer die Diskussionsseiten im allgemeinen nicht: Diese sollen und stellen lediglich die Möglichkeit zur qualitativen Verbesserung des Artikels dar. Es handelt sich dabei also keinesfalls um die Möglichkeit eines Wettbewerbsaustauschs,sondern um eine offene Diskussion, deren lebendige Arbeit unverkennbar und vielfach nachzulesen dem Anspruch einer geforderten und freien Enzyklopädie nachkommt.

Wo ist eigentlich das Problem? Dazu folgende (chaotische) Überlegungen nach Anlesen der erwähnten Signpost. Es besteht zunächst nur ein Vorwurf und die Wertung eines Gerichts. Die Möglichkeit zu unlauterer Wettbewerbsgestaltung sei gegeben. Natürlich ist sie das, weil die ebenso in der Kantine eines anderen Unternehmen geschehen könnte. Beispiel Altersheim mit öffentlicher Kantine, wo sich die Besucher über Vor-und Nachteile der Konkurrenz austauschen. Man kann ja woanders hingehen: Der Markt ist offen.

Der Unterschied zu Wikipedia besteht darin, daß keine Konkurrenz verfügbar ist. Warum nicht, denn die Möglichkeit besteht für jeden.

Die Nachfrage einer gelebten und jederzeit öffentlich nachvollziehbaren Unternehmensphilosophie kann schon aus diesem Grund keinen Anlass für Vermutungen hinsichtlich Vorteilsmöglichkeiten bieten, weil sie sich einer freiwilligen öffentlichen Kontrolle unterwirft, die es jedem Menschen ohne Ansicht auf Herkunft, Bildung usw. erlaubt einen Gesellschaftsbeitrag zu leisten, solange er nachvollziehbar und belegt ist. Das ist sehr viel unbequemer als in anderen auf Gewinn ausgelegten Unternehmen und muß bei einer Urteilsfindung berücksichtigt, bzw. stärker herausgestellt werden.

Die Frage nach unlauteren Wettbewerb stellt sich somit nicht.

Selbstverständlich ist die Frage der Qualitätssicherung in jedem Betrieb im ureigenen Interesse zu stellen, damit es bestehen kann und natürlich muß der Gesetzgeber unter zuhilfenahme seiner Möglichkeiten Qualität gewährleisten. Diese Frage beantwortet Wikipedia durch die Öffentlichkeitskontrolle und unterliegt damit bereits strengeren Anforderungen, als sie an jedes andere Unternehmen gestellt werden. Es stellen sich die Fragen nach der Gleichbehandlung von Unternehmen und öffentlicher Interessen.Kreisquadrat (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Hm, dass dies ein grundlegender Vorschlag ist, auf welchem aufgebaut werden kann bzw. ueber welchen ggf. rechtlich hinausgegangen wird, steht bereits drin ("Geltendes Recht oder Richtlinien der Gemeinschaft oder Stiftung, etwa betreffend Interessenkonflikte, können bezahlte Beiträge weiter einschränken oder umfangereichere Offenlegung vorschreiben.")

Das Argument des OLGs bezieht sich auf die Offenlegungspflichten seitens Unternehmen zu geschaeftlichen Handlungen. Der Leser ist dabei weniger zentral (d.h. er/sie ist addressiertes Objekt, nicht handelndes Subjekt) als die Relation zwischen den Wettbewerbern (Wikipedia ist kein Wettbewerber, sondern der oeffentliche Raum in welchem diese handeln woll(t)en). Wikipedia, so das Urteil stark auszulegen sein sollte, ist grundlegend kein Raum fuer wettbewerbliche Handlungen - mithin waeren die mesten bezahlten Bearbeitungen gemaess einer solchen Auslegung des OLG-Urteils wettbewerbsrechtswidrig. Unternehmensphilosophien an sich sind nicht Gegenstand des europaischen Wettbewerbsrechts.

An dem Punkt muessen wir aber nur bedingt stehenbleiben, denn das OLG diente mir oben primaer als illustrierendes Beispiel fuer Rechtslagen, die ueber den Richtlinienentwurf hinausgehen. Beste Gruesse, --Jan (WMF) (talk) 08:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Hallo Jan, also besteht kein Zugzwang seitens der Rechtsabteilung. Wikipedia und Wikimedia (darüber weiß ich so gut wie nix und beziehe mich daher auf WPedia) stellen demnach eine global wirkende Öffentlichkeit dar und folglich denke ich schon, daß es sich unbedingt um die Philosophiefrage handelt. Stellt Wiki eigene Regeln auf, die in diesem Fall die Nutzung einschränken, dann wird der ursprüngliche Gedanke nebst des eingestilten Vertrauen ins Gegenteil gedreht. Gedacht war nach meinem Verständnis eine wirklich unabhängige Plattform, die sich nur über die Qualität definieren kann und die die wesentliche, weil andauernde Herausforderung ausmacht. Wiki ist momentan nicht mehr wegzudenken. Das ist alleine der Befriedigung einer globalen Nachfrage zu verdanken und mit Sicherheit eine bleibende, wenn daran festgehalten wird. Kreisquadrat (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Moin Kreisquadrat. Regelungsbedarf besteht zumindest nach kalifornischer Rechtslage durchaus, denn unter den Regelungen dieser Jurisdiktion sind die Nutzungsbedingungen (vereinfacht und afaik) die rechtlich jeweils grundlegenden. Die Stiftung unterliegt kalifornischem Recht. Die globale Situation ist mithin deutlich anders gelagert als in dem von uns oben diskutierten bundesdeutschem Beispiel, welches ueber die vorgeschlagene Position hinausgeht ohne diese aufzuheben (sondern sie erweitert). --Jan (WMF) (talk) 23:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

NIPPON(JAPANESE) no yuutu Write JAPANESE ro-ma ji

Taihen jyuuyou na naiyou to kakareteiruga , Wagakuni deha eigo ga tsukaenai hito mo ooku , Honyaku kinou de yomanakereba narazu giron ga muzukasii. Nihongo de narubeku okonattehosii to kanjiru. Wagakuni deha koukou de eigo wo narauga , Hazukasinagara eigo wo dekinai kodomo ga ooi. Kentei siken mo sakan dehanaku. kentei siken wo motteinai hito mo ooi. Tada , eigo ga syabererukara atamagayoi wakedeha nai. Watasimo itsunohinika Eigo wo dekiruyouni ganbaritai. Nihongo wo honyaku surutoki no tyuui de aru. sumimasen.--ぐれ猫 (talk) 10:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Google Translate is not working for me on this, so, if somebody can translate for me, that would be great. Geoffbrigham (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh hah, probably because GTranslate doesn't recognize ローマ字 (romaji) as a legitimate language. I'll try to parse it through this before sending it through GTranslate. No guarantees this will work though. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Machine translation: "It is very important for writing and for internal use, but there are also many people who can not use English in our country of Japan, discussion is difficult and must be read in translation yesterday. You feel it wants as much as possible be done in Japanese. In our country English is learned at high school, but there are many children who cannot use English because they are ashamed. I -ken also test rather than actively. People who do not have a certification examination also covered. However, the head is not good English because speak. I also want to do my best to be able to when the Nohinika English. It is Ji~yuu physician Nyakusuru when Carved Japanese. I am sorry."

@TeleComNasSprVen and Geoffbrigham:: The above translation more or less tells the idea. He/she pointed out inability for many Japanese people to make comments in English. @ぐれ猫: 具体的な懸念点がありましたら、通常の日本語でお書きください。ボランティアで誰かが翻訳することもあります。最悪の場合、機械翻訳で部分的には伝わります。 --whym (talk) 00:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. To the extent we can encourage our Japanese colleagues to comment in Japanese on this page, we will find ways to get their thoughts translated. (We already translated professionally the proposed amendment and FAQs into Japanese.) Many thanks to each of you. Geoffbrigham (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• 日本語で入力しても翻訳が伝わるのですね。よかったです。では、日本語で。

（上記の意味、一部略、一部追記）本件は大変重要な内容と書かれておりますが、我が国日本では英語を使えない人も多く、翻訳機能を使ってのディスカッションでしかできず、実際には議論がかみ合わない可能性があります。 我が国では一部を除いて、英語の各種検定もあまり盛んではありません。高校生も英語ができない人も多いです。ですから、日本語での議論ができる場所もあれば、そのまとめたものを英語に翻訳し伝えることも可能ではないか。そう感じています。なお、私も英語ができるよう頑張りたいです。 （実際の考えについて）Wikiには、日本では、予想ですがHNの乱用（一人で複数のHNを所持したりする行為）も考えられ、抜本的な対策は難しいとは考えます。ただ、規定自体は問題ないと考えます。なお、HNを所持する際、営業で利用する場合は寄付を募る。営業で書き込みする場合はマークをつける、そういうこともそろそろ検討すべきかもしれません。実際、日本のWikiでは、有名なスポーツ選手やアイドルでも、記載で否定派が多くなる、あるいは、書き込みされないケースも出ています。書き手も減ってきているようです。その結果、百科事典機能としての利用者も減っている気がします。　--ぐれ猫 (talk) 11:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Tsukainai? kokose, ego dekiru hazu da. Daga, anta wa pointo o shimashita, arigato g-neko-san.--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 11:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Do what ever it takes to keep this site non biased

Support. This is the best site on the web and it needs to be kept as such. I constantly use it as the first stop for any research, from electronic engineering to Eminem's shoe size. I look forward to my children using this site as a learning platform for homework or hobbies. The thought of conglomerates taking over this safe haven makes me cringe. I'm already fed up with Google, Facebook and Microsoft continuously climbing up my elementary canal trying to squeeze every drop of data or disposable income out of me.

Please. Keep this site informative and above all, with information i can trust.

P.S damn fine work, keep it up. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.201.240.170 (talk) 21:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! —LuisV (WMF) (talk) 23:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Most excellent comment!!! I am in total agreement of this assessment! Once the greedy mongers get a hold of this, it's all over for Wikipedia's reputation.

Word yankhadenufYankhadenuf (talk) 19:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I quite agree. You need to do whatever it takes to keep the legal guys satisfied while retaining the integrity of the site. Wikipedia is something that I use multiple times every day. I don't know what I would do without it. It may be the singular most valuable tool on the internet. I ALWAYS donate whenever you ask because this is worth the money and then some. I trust the judgement of the people running Wikipedia. Do what you must. To your detractors, I can only spin the words of Mark Zuckerberg and say, "If you detractors are so smart, then you would have invented Wikipedia." 66.8.208.184 19:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC) Kay Lorraine

Wikipedia spirit or something

… In other words, isn't this an attempted (success can be averted) step in the direction of refocusing the main service Wikipedia provides? Henceforth metaphorical description. A mass of readers visits Wikipedia. These readers differ on a scale of being more or less versed in critically perceiving information (extracting "interesting", "good", "irrelevant", "unverifiable", "senseless", "you-name-what-..." pieceworks of facts and characteristics). Certain part of "readerbase" is getting the best service out of state Wikipedia is in now. The amendment proposed means to expand the best served audience to include some part with slightly sub-par abilities, is this assuming too much?
If it isn't, I'm very much sceptical about the prospect of a gain. Instead of expansion, this could evolve into or turn out to be a shift. Meaning, pardon the strength of my opinion, that target audience is to become dumbed down. I strongly feel that the steeplechase with ineptitude of worse parts of general readers population has no hopes. Do you have any estimates on how much (percentage maybe) of poor unsuspecting readerbase you're going to protect by establishing a ban, which is randomly inspired and who know how it can be enforced (in a project that puts emphasis on freedom)?
I'm not meaning to discriminate, rather to promote readers discipline. Легат Ская (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

@Легат Ская: Thank you for sharing your opinion! I don't think this is an attempt to change the service we provide, or to "dumb down" Wikipedia. Most of our readers, I think, already assume that we are transparent and unbiased. This amendment specifically supports those goals. People should of course have to have critical thinking - but this will help give them information to do that. Hope that helps clarify. —LuisV (WMF) (talk) 23:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you LuisV, for your reassuringly positive statement of the basic principles and aims, in light of which I feel we must support this amendment as a carefully drafted measure to deal with the situation as it is. DavidWEvansDavidWEvans (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Luis, Editing by anonymous people is not transparent. The only way for true transparency is a real name policy. Almost no article on most topics is truly unbiased. Articles on artists or performers or sportspeople are edited by their fans (when not by their press agents.) The only way for freedom from bias is expect editing. Since both these requirements would contradict our basic principles, it is a naïve oversimplification to call WP transparent and unbiased. All we can hope to do about it is to reduce the cruder forms of COI, under our fundamental but not necessarily true assumption that on topics with a wide interest, the community as a whole is unbiased. DGG (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The English version is better, but the French version is a shame. In many cases, the technical articles have a lower level in the French version than in the English one, and as soon a subject is political, the French version is more or less fully biased. It would take much more than this proposition to cure the French version, because gangs of peoples with more or less the same interest are in the way to fully hi-jack the French wiki, and a lot of old contributers have just stopped to contribute because they was constantly harrased by these gangs.144.85.230.177 12:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

DGG, where you say "expect editing", didn't you mean "expert editing"? P123cat1 (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Will this do anything?

Actual examples

Let's look at a few real-world examples.

• Wilson Engineering Services derives over 60% of its revenues from PetroChina and its subsidiaries. If an employee of Wilson Engineering edits the Wikipedia article about PetroChina, does the proposed policy demand that the editor disclose their employer, or the employer's large client, or both, or neither?
• Envestnet's largest client is Fidelity Investments. Fidelity accounts for about one-third of Envestnet's revenues. If an employee of Envestnet edits the Wikipedia article about Fidelity Investments, does the proposed policy demand that the editor disclose their employer, or the employer's large client, or both, or neither?
• The Albuquerque branches of Fastsigns name Eclipse Aviation as their biggest client, but representing only 4% of the Albuquerque-area revenue. Certainly, this would be far less than 1% of all Fastsigns revenue globally. If an employee of Fastsigns edits the Wikipedia article about Eclipse Aviation, does the proposed policy demand that the editor disclose their employer, or the employer's largest client, or both, or neither? Does it make a difference if the Fastsigns employee is located in New Mexico, than if he is located in New York (where presumably there is zero Eclipse Aviation signage activity)?

I have a feeling that a purist is going to say "all possible financial conflicts of interest in one's editing must be disclosed". However, the average person will surely see the point of ridiculousness set in somewhere on the low end of the revenue spectrum. If UPS makes deliveries of packages between two offices of Edward Jones investment advisors, then clearly Edward Jones is a client of UPS, and it establishes a potential conflict of interest should a UPS driver wish to edit the article about Edward Jones. And not just the driver who knows that Edward Jones is a client -- but every single UPS driver on the planet, who may or may not even be cognizant of the fact that Edward Jones helps them earn a paycheck. What a purist would say is that EVERY EMPLOYED EDITOR is best off disclosing who their employer (or employers) might be. What does that say about Wikipedia's policies about privacy? I think more than a few people on this page have not thoroughly thought through the implications of this policy. Or, are we saying that you're only required to disclose your financial conflicts if you are specifically paid by someone specifically to edit Wikipedia? The work-around to that is simply to modify all paid editing contracts to say, "payment is for enhancement or other modification of popular community-sourced reference media", without mentioning Wikipedia specifically. When called out as a "paid editor" who is violating the new Terms of Use, the editor will merely need to respond, "I have not been compensated, nor expect to receive compensation, for any contribution to any Wikimedia projects". -- Thekohser (talk) 16:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Paid articles

Copied from Meta:Babel. PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, no paid articles would be allowed. If a company's representative wants to describe a new product or process, I believe s/he would do best to assign the topic to one of the Wikipedia editors by phone, with a follow-up description by mail, so the editor can decide whether the topic provides useful information or just advertising.

Narrabel

P.S. I'm new here, and I hope that by clicking Save my comment will be added to the Talk page on the subject.

Thank you for sharing your opinion, Narrabel, and thank you, PiRSquared, for helping ensure that Narrabel's voice was included. Mpaulson (WMF) (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Anyway, here is a reply to Narrabel: they could write a draft with a disclosed conflict-of-interest, and then have a more experienced editor with no COI review it and create it (depending on the topic's notability, the tone, and the references). PiRSquared17 (talk) 12:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I didn't know you could just "assign the topic to one of the Wikipedia editors by phone." How do you find such a person to contact? Reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us_-_Subjects, I see no opportunity to request an article. This is why paid editors are needed. However, they need to write with a neutral point of view and to disclose that they are compensated. Disclosure: I have hired people to create articles on Wikipedia. TriJenn (talk) 20:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, some people may want to request article to be created on Wikipedia (either about their company or their employer). 'bout the edit. hmm...--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 00:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

If there is payment anyhow, Wikipedia is no longer the "free" encyclopedia.

There should NOT be payments for contributions.

If there is a payment for contributions, an explanation of why that is paid and the rest not must be explained.

If there is any payment for a contribution, be it to an individual or to a company/firm/organization, full disclosure should be clearly provided, in the case of an individual his nationality and affiliation with third parties given, and in the case of a company any possible conflicts of interest stated, including the company ownership etc.

I have noticed already bias and straight non-neutrality in some articles, and others have the same type of information in a format that is (I believe) external to Wikipedia. For example for articles about countries, and in particular "economy of countries" there is now a graph of squares representing the share in percentage of that country's economy. This seems to me done (but I don't know if that is the case) by someone employed by (or directly by) an Anglo-American consulting firm. Then some articles are semi-protected or fully protected or simply someone has decided that no more addings are allowed, even when the article is extremely poor! If individuals are not allowed to build obejectively an article but then Wikipedia pays someone to do that instead, what is the point of allowing anyone in the first place?

I think you might be confused. The question at hand is "should editors be required, by their own admission or some other mechanism in place, to disclose their affiliations / possible conflicts of interest when they are paid to edit an article?". Wikipedia isn't the group doling out money to paid editors - it's private companies. Ellomate (talk) 23:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

You are misusing the term "free" in the same way that I would be misusing it if I said, "If slaves are allowed to edit Wikipedia, it is no longer the 'free' encyclopedia." -- Thekohser (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Only unpaid volunteers should be permitted to edit Wikipedia under any circumstances. The original "volunteer" nature of Wikipedia is what has made it one of the world's best sources of information. By allowing paid contributions of any kind to Wikipedia, it suddenly becomes far less trustworthy, renders it subject to all sorts of potential legal liability, and begins to shift the politics of Wikipedia away from the rough democracy that it now is, and towards some sort of a thinly veiled corporate plutocracy. Is this really acceptable to Wikipedia? Scottperry (talk) 17:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Allowed or not, it is happening. E.g. look at the article Product information management. I was started by a Wikipedia Amcathra who did't do anything else but creating the article. If you look at the german counterpart, the article Produktinformationsmanagement, it was created ten days earlier, but there the editors didn't even bother to create a dummy user, the left their IP instead which belongs to the Swiss based company hybris GmbH. The english article at least is flagged, the german not, and unfortunately this is typical for the german Wikipedia. --BerlinSight (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Your logic: if someone buys/sells icecream in a public park, that park is no longer public. Really??? Is it a private park then?
– 6birc (talk) 03:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

For which you receive compensation?!

I'm concerned about the phrase "...for which you receive compensation." being a grey area. For example: someone is employed by a company, and contributes to an article that in at least some respects relates to goods or services provided by that company, but the person is not specifically paid by their employer for their editing efforts, nor are they asked to. Do we think that someone working for a certain organization is likely to have a possible bias, *however inherent and unintentional*, towards that company? *Maybe* not, but can we rule it out? No! And, if not, wouldn't we want to know? In the non-profit group with which I've been working for over a decade, we sign conflict of interest (COI) forms that relate not only to actual COI, but also to the *appearance* of COI. So, when I read content, I can likely judge whether someone has gone over the edge in terms of bias, but if the content is more subtle, it would be very worthwhile to know if I might want to be extra careful, as when even an indirectly paid person contributes in a situation of this sort, hence involving a possible implicit bias. To that end, I agree with others that the suggested location (not locations, since only one of the three is proposed to be necessary) seems insufficient. I do like the idea of hovering over a signature showing the notation, to whatever extent of linking makes sense. And, for those that want to claim the sky will fall if paid edits start undermining confidence in Wiki... oh, well, if there's that much of it, maybe we need to know. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rosebud (talk) 00:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I would be interested in any proposals on how to reword our definition of compensation to be more exact, if you have the time or desire. We do have this FAQ. Maybe someone can propose a sentence or two to add? Thanks. Geoffbrigham (talk) 00:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I share some concerns which Rosebud has expressed. As I am working for a German university, my employer is a German state. May I write or modify an article during my office hours if this article is related to my employer? The German state and its subdivisions (states, towns) is the largest employer in Germany, and a huge number of articles is more or less related to it. Neither do I want to be forced to write my personal details on my user page, nor do I want to write such information in commit messages. --Stefan Weil (talk) 06:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I share the concerns Rosebud has expressed with regard to edits made by employees whose employers don't specifically ask them to do so. Two related issues: (1) What if someone is self-employed or has broad discretion in his/her activities, so he/she gets to decide for his/herself what to do in conducting business? (2) What about employers that specifically restrict employees from identifying themselves as being affiliated with the employer when contributing material to the internet, which is sometimes done to avoid the appearance of an organization endorsing a position that it doesn't officially endorse? The first issue could be addressed by having a broader "full disclosure" policy as Rosebud seems to suggest, but the second is tough. Do we want edit summaries and signature lines cluttered up with disclaimers as well as affiliations? Maybe, maybe not, but that seems like a broader issue. So, to address Geoffbrigham's request while keeping the scope of the provision narrowly focused on paid contributions, how about adding the following section to the FAQ:

What does the phrase "contribution ... for which you receive compensation" mean?

As used in this provision, this means a contribution (or edit) that was necessary in order to receive compensation. Contributions unrelated to compensation are not addressed by this provision as written.

Would this be useful? --Gahs (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a useful conversation. Thank you. In my opinion, "necessary" may be too narrow. I want to think about this more, but, for discussion purposes, how about something like this in an FAQ:

The phrase "contribution ... for which you receive compensation" means a contribution for which someone is paying you compensation - such as money - to make on a Wikimedia project. Contributions that are made in a personal capacity without compensation are not covered by this proposed amendment. A professor who edits about areas of personal interest on her personal time without receiving compensation for those edits would not be required to disclose under the proposed amendment. An editor who is contracted for pay by a PR agency to write an article about a company of interest would be required to disclose.

Geoffbrigham (talk) 22:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Those two examples seem to leave such a huge grey area between them that they are almost no use at all. How does being a professor affect the first example, anyway? --Avenue (talk) 09:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I have a similar problem with "with respect to any contribution to any Wikimedia projects for which you receive compensation." It seems to me to have a loophole.

For example, say I work for company x but my job description makes no mention of PR or wikipedia. In my own time I "happen" to spend many hours editing Wikipedia articles in ways favorable to my employer. I am not receiving compensation for this editing so i would not need to disclose. However, there is clearly still a conflict of interest.

What if, instead of "for which you receive compensation," it said "for which you receive compensation or have another financial conflict of interest."? That would at least eliminate a large loophole in the proposed wording.

WikiAlto (talk) 07:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem with the wording "or have financial conflict of interest" is that it now applies to anything. For example, you have a financial interest in stocks you personally own. Do you now have to disclose your entire stock portfolio, if you happen to update a page of a company you happen to own stock in? What if the stock is in a mutual fund, and you are not aware you actually own that specific stock. Technically, you would be in violation not disclosing that your mutual fund has the company's stock in it. You have a financial interest in a bank you are a customer of not failing. Do you need to disclose where you bank when you edit a bank's Wikipedia page? I know what you are driving at, but that wording isn't specific enough since it can apply to anything where money is involved. 99.99.233.74 05:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

evidence of edits under influence indirectly paid, which will never change

In the French version of Wikipedia, it is very easy to see biased articles - more or less indirectly paid - by retired employees of firms, even inside Wikipedia, who block and supress some modifications, which point out difficulties or even proven information, that are not favorable to these firms !! Some articles are trusted by theses persons, and it is impossible to change the optimistic presentation of these as, for example, on heat pumps; geothermy; motors; nuclear problems; EDF; etc.. .

You can write edits including equations difficult - or outright impossible - to understand by 99% of readers, but if you try to explain the pratical consequences of theses equations in simple terms, your writing is suppressed by members of Wikipedia who, while are not paid directly, are under strong influence of these firms (sometimes as former employees). Thus,since they are not directly paid,they will feel justified in continuing to suppress many edits, that are not advantageous to their former employer(s).

Let's consider, for example, heat pumps and geothermy in French: it is impossible to explain - simply - how to verify if the dimensions [of the various components] are adequate, without this clarification being suppressed, when many [users] have paid for geothermal heat pumps of too small underground size, that are not working !! In diffusivity it is not possible to explain the elementary meaning of the equations which are useful in geothermy. The same is true for the Pantone system, where [there are] big errors which are impossible to suppress !! Thus it is nearly impossible to suppress theses bias, even inside members of the Wikipedia, under influence of indirectly paid writers .

The only way is to discuss freely the reality and to have the possibility of asking competent judges, even of a foreign country, to solve the discussion on valuable arguments. Such is not the case [at present] in wikipedia.fr

I no more contribute to wikipedia.fr for this reason !!

• Not sure when this was added but adding a note here so that we have a time for archiving later Jalexander--WMF 19:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I added this comment on Sunday 23rd of February and I can again give a sample of evidence of edits and suppression under influence of lobbies, indirectly paid, which will never change, with Jpjanuel - retired from the French energy and electricity firm EDF and GDF in France - who suppress systématically and in a few minutes, any correction on geothermy in French - explaining practical problems of French solutions in geothermy such as the freezing of the ground - which happens in too small, undersized systems, as it often happens in France. ABACA seems [to be a] similar case modifing diffusivity without understanding and leaving a basic error. This retired person - Jpjanuel - is not paid, but [whilst] remaining inside the French Energy lobby, writes and suppress [as he/she pleases] !!

I ask, how is it possible to correct such basic scientific errors, existing within Wikipedia France, over several years, in consequence of suppression or modification of edits - by such members of lobbies inside Wikipedia France - who are themselves unable to see and understand these basic errors ???

It is absolutely necessary to have a Court of Appeal against decisions, that, as an external, even foreign,body, is qualified to assess and understand the scientific arguments, thus being able to arbitrate on real scientific grounds.

Even discoveries recently published in the revue Nature are suppressed in edits in Wikipedia France  !!

As 'dedereu' scientist, I am so disgusted, that I no longer write in wikipedia fr because it seems impossible to fight such lobbies ( nuclear and heat pumps; automobile manufacturers and so forth) with so many people lobbying inside Wikipedia France. I have asked to suppress my account, but in Wikipedia accounts are perpetual !! You have only my IP.

In consequence, many French teachers advise their students to not trust Wikipedia France, for this basic reason of wrong statements impossible to correct !!

--77.195.89.138 19:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed amendment is culture specific

The proposed amendment is in no way guaranteed to alter anyone's behaviour, and potentially could do so for the worse by inhibiting more honest contributions. Protection of the consumer is already done by local laws, especially by those US laws mentioned in the description. As well, appropriate standards of behaviour are already covered in the TOU as they stand. In terms of deciding whether a contribution is valid, I do not think knowing whether or not it is a paid contribution is helpful. The only reason I can think that this amendment would be useful is that it corresponds well with the current practices that exist in the US. For this reason I object to it - US culture is particularly litigious, and overly concerned with money. There are many reasons why someone would be editing an article with bias or less than ideal intent - why single out paid employment? I realise that Wikipedia is based in the US, but I don't see why this particular view of the world should start to impact Wikipedia.

I once tried to work on articles about Venezuela. It was clear that one editor was "professional." He had around him a "team" that might not have been paid, but they all acted off the same sheet. Nothing was allowed that was detrimental to the Ultimate Leader no matter how reliably substantiated it might be. I don't know how you could have got him to reveal the fact that he was paid. This sort of thing is probably endemic in third world countries, though more accurate articles were available on Iran and North Korea!

Not too sure what is meant by "culture specific." Are there cultures who venerate people who masquerade under "amateur" but are really professional? The policies will be language specific, once enforced. Do the English, Canadians, New Zealanders, etc. like liars? I am not aware of this cultural difference. Student7 (talk) 20:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

How do you know that person was being paid to put forward that point of view? In fact, Wikipedia has known for years that the groups most dangerous to the dissemination of unbiased, neutral, accurate information are those who have a firm belief or opposition about something: it could be a firm belief in a spiritual group (or alternately, a firm belief that a particular group is a "cult" or similar), a nationalistic perspective, one that is politically motivated, or a personal philosophy (e.g., animal rights, opposition to nuclear/wind/petrochemical energy). The Venezuelan articles are a case in point on English Wikipedia: heavily edited by those who agree with the ruling party and thus unbalancing the articles. To give a few examples where there are definitely belief-based biases, often with allegations of "paid" COI:

• Scientology and other new age religions/philosophies (believers vs. detractors);
• Climate change (biographical articles of minor scientists who did not agree with a particular report were created with little info on their actual accomplishments, but multiple paragraphs about the scientist's [obviously wrong] opinion on climate change);

• As an added bonus, editing by acknowledged experts in the subject - conflict of interest, or increased accuracy of Wikipedia coverage of the topic?

• articles relating to polarizing political figures (almost invariably written by detractors, often with individual articles for every negative news bite)
• articles on geographic areas/regions that are the subject of historical dispute (far too numerous to mention, but including just about all of the Middle East, Eastern Europe, large parts of Asia, and at least some of Africa)

In every case I have identified above, allegations about paid editing have been raised; however, the editors raising the allegations were often as biased (if not more so) in their editing than those they accused of being paid. The real danger is not paid editing, it is biased editing, and it applies to every subject and every Wikipedia, Wikitravel, and Wikinews (other projects, not so much). It applies to Wikidata even more strongly: given its intention to "supply" identical information throughout the WMF projects and beyond, there is a very strong motivation to get one's biases accepted, and any changes will only need to be made in one place, not hundreds.

I first encountered verifiably paid advocacy editing shortly after I started editing Wikipedia (the article of someone essentially unknown at the time, as part of the publicity campaign to make her an international "celebrity"), and it pretty quickly became apparent to me that paid editing was directly correlated with subject areas that had low notability standards. Raising notability standards — a project-level issue — would result in a major reduction in opportunities for paid advocacy editing. Risker (talk) 02:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Good post, Risker. Especially the points about Wikidata and notability. Andreas JN466 04:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Spot on! Although I would say that the monetary influence is probably just as big a problem (if not more so) in many European countries. I think the biggest problem for wiki coming from the US is politically motivated advocacy. One of the commenters above who was strongly opposed to this amendment used as the reason for his/her opposition that, "everyone is entitled to their advocacy!" Is Wikipedia suppose to be a place for advocacy??? Wiki is suppose to be about sharing verifiable knowledge and fact that may otherwise not make it into less voluminous sources. Its NOT suppose to be a platform for pushing political or social causes. Using it to try to rewrite history or to "muddy up" scientific fact is a gross violation of the goals of wiki. Most people in this discussion say this is needed to combat corporate influence. That is really a red herring. Its really clear that the biggest threat is not Paid Corporate interests. If you go to a wiki article on GE or Cuba that someone is watching to make sure any statements are not too negative. The problem is paid and unpaid activist and political operatives! Does it bother anyone that the White House has a whole department full of interns whose sole purpose is to respond to every negative comment posted on twitter or Disqus and monitor every edit to wiki for the purpose of burying potential scandals or slimeing their opponents? Political co-opting is the biggest threat. Wiki should not allow the truth to be edited by the victors or the losers? This amendment is a start, but its only a start.58.141.84.124 09:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Are knowledgeable contributions such a bad thing?

I don't ever write anything except this comment at wikipedia, and I've mostly stopped reading anything but very (very) mainstream topics because they're full of errors and omissions. Sometimes I imagine a professor has issued an assignment at a college and a few of the students, in order to satisfy the requirements of the course, have completely rewritten a significant part of geography or world history.

My point is this: it's not necessarily a bad thing if people knowledgeable about a certain subject (i.e. compensated individuals) write the articles. To the contrary, shouldn't we encourage it?

Create an incentive system to give people a reason to disclose their compensation if you must. Why not offer "brand leader" status or something similar, while maintaining independent quality controls? Make it a requirement that they research and write a second, unrelated article. For every article on Samsung's newest phone, force Samsung to edit a page on Alexander the Great.

I guarantee you'll run out of history before Samsung runs out of phones...

Wikipedia needs to operate like a combination of the Associated Press (if they were actually unbiased and checked their facts like they claim) and a well-oiled corporate hierarchy machine.

-wikipedia needs to operate like 'a well-oiled corporate hierarchy machine'? what are you smoking?

Glad this proposal makes only a minor change in emphasis and focuses on a public good rather than a clique of editors - I would hope a good community practice of routine disclosure will now develop, I've not been aware of that so far. Clarity is key to managing conflict of interest, to me these rules clarify when, how and what to disclose about payment/consideration. They are to be welcomed. Jayprich (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Could do better

I spent quite some time reading through this. The honest truth I gather is that this whole debate is a waste of our time. Only an insignificant number of "paid editors" (however completely ill defined that is) will react to these changes, because they change nothing about the actual rules of the game - as opposed to the fantasy society their rationale seems based on. If anything, it increases insecurity for honest well-meaning people who fall on borderline cases such as paid activists in situations that require discretion, university professors and GLAM workers, and a bunch of other cases whose contribution is both valuable and already too challenging. Just stop reacting to every media scandal by trying to save face through the increasing lawyerization of Wikimedia projects. Get real, focus your efforts on delivering understanding, improving interface and policy in projects that address specific issues related to this, and bring on better tech to monitor COIs and guide "paid editors". Good night, --Solstag (talk) 05:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Solstag. Thanks for your comment. I'm thinking about an FAQ that addresses your issue about university professors and GLAM to ensure greater clarity. If you have any ideas, please let me know. I think in a few days, we will start taking some of the feedback and make some adjustments in the language and add a couple of clarifying FAQs. Take care. Geoffbrigham (talk) 14:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Geoff, you can write all the FAQs you want, but you're not the one who's going to be stuck interpreting or enforcing it, community members are. Subject matter experts are almost always going to be also receiving their personal remuneration by working in the field about which they write; this policy automatically declares them to have a conflict of interest. The communities are not in a position to determine whether Math Expert A, writing about Theory Z, is doing so to share her knowledge or to increase the visibility and perception of scientific consensus on Theory Z (thus increasing the likelihood of obtaining further grants or other monetary support for her research) - but for the record, both can be true at the same time. Is the donation of thousands of high quality media files by a GLAM an effort to increase the visibility of the institution, or a generous donation to support free knowledge? Both *are often* true at the same time. I know it's hard to believe, but the majority of problematic edits on all of our projects are motivated by bias, not money. Risker (talk) 02:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Risker, you touch the issue that concerns me most, community enforcement and interpretation, and its consequences. Especially outside English Wikipedia. I worry how far some community members will go trying to enforce (or prevent, suspecting non-disclosure) this potential new scenario. Geoff, I'm looking forward to reading the new text. Thanks, Raystorm (talk) 19:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Risker, I just want you to know that I'm reading your comments and thinking about them. Geoffbrigham (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Take the issue of false flag operators seriously, please

As the US Supreme Court decision in Citizens United should make clear to all of us, firms are now in a position to dominate our culture completely; this state of affairs is an inevitable result of corporate personhood. In view of this situation, it is incumbent upon us to be prepared for all of our institutions to be attacked.

Because Wikipedia has become a large and popular entity, it has become a target, and the proposed changes to its terms of use are a step in the right direction, because they demand transparency. Sure, the proposed changes can be criticized for not going far enough or for being too easy to circumvent. But I believe that one single aspect of the picture is persuasive on its face: the corporatocracy has the wherewithal to accomplish the subversion of Wikipedia, notwithstanding their fewer numbers, and they have already commenced the attempt. In the face of this reality, we now must work out whether any project of the kind Wikipedia represents can survive.

One significant aspect that hangs in the balance is Wikipedia's credibility, both as a source of information and as a venue for people (such as myself) to bring a world of knowledge to the world of humankind. A tainted Wikipedia, a Wikipedia that cannot be trusted, can attract neither readers nor contributors.

• I suggest that paid-for content be rendered in a contrasting color of type (say, purple).

• Alternatively, surround such content by banners labeled "Paid Content" (similar to those thick inserts in Scientific American or National Geographic), and charge the patron a fee.

• Also, if an editor is acting as an paid agent, he should have restrictions on his ability to alter existing content.

One might argue, "How do you justify saddling a person with these special burdens?" I do so by forming a distinction between contributors working for free, as most of us have done from early times, and those who are using Wikipedia as a vehicle for their revenue stream, that is, paid agents. There is arguably a presumption that the latter category is less trustworthy merely because of the existence of pecuniary interest (or rather that their trustworthiness redounds to their paymaster instead of to the wikiworld). ArthurOgawa (talk) 10:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Excellent points all around. Whatever the outcome of this proposal, I definitely agree the central real issue is "we now must work out whether any project of the kind Wikipedia represents can survive." Evensteven (talk) 00:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I strongly support "that paid-for content be rendered in a contrasting color of type (say, purple)". I think that using color to further differentiate paid-for content increases the likelihood that the reader is made aware that the content was procured by monetary interest. As ArthurOgawa states, "There is arguably a presumption that the latter category is less trustworthy merely because of the existence of pecuniary interest (or rather that their trustworthiness redounds to their paymaster instead of to the wikiworld)." As BrekhusR puts it, "It is important that paid editors disclose that they are being paid. Readers are free to make of that information what they will". Bitobum (talk) 05:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)Bitobum

This goes against core wiki principles

Everybody should be shocked and disappointed by the blatant corrupt nature of this concept. This is like "reverse" [reverse psychology] in that Wikipedia wants to encourage a sort of [bribery] but won't ask for it directly preferring to use the [Newspeak] term "undisclosed paid editing". Basically Wikipedia wants to create a business model based on [Undercover marketing]. They want Wikipedia to be the world's largest knowledge-base of [Disinformation]. They don't want the contributors to be open and accountable, but underhanded and surreptitious. This may just be a simplistic way to assure future funding by being sponsored by corporations and government intelligence-stealing institutions to update, manipulate and manage Wikipedia articles en masse, especially when they know that as time goes by the [Truth] always comes out. For example, there are certain parties that don't want the truth to come out on sensitive Wikipedia articles like Sandy Hook ( http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/02/20/school-safety-expert-sandy-hook-was-a-scripted-event-at-least-two-years-in-planning/ ), etc. I think the media should take up this article and raise awareness about this other side of the internet being restricted, corrupted and taken over by the dark side. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 1.121.173.201 (talk • contribs) 13:36, 21 February 2014‎ (UTC)

Hi there. I'm not sure if I fully understand you, so please correct me if I have it wrong. But, to be clear, our terms of use prohibit anybody from misrepresenting their affiliation, and that has been the case for a couple of years or so. This proposed amendment explains how one can honestly represent their affiliation in the context of paid editing. The amendment is not an endorsement of paid editing. Indeed, the amendment only sets out a minimum standard and our various communities on the different projects could impose stricter standards or even a ban. If I did not address your concern, feel free to let me know. Geoffbrigham (talk) 14:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear anonymous critic of the proposed rules change: your contribution - in my opinion - has an odor reminiscent of the "high minded" lawyering that is associate with SLAPP lawsuits, and other hypocritical attacks on freedom of thought. Speaking hypothetically and without reference to the present controversy, one way of nullifying freedom of speech is to drown it out with louder noises.

• Not sure when last comment was added but adding a note here so that we have a time for archiving later Jalexander--WMF 19:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

A point of principle of what the Terms of Use are meant for

I wish to raise a point of principle in opposition to this amendment. (I haven't yet entirely decided whether I really oppose this proposal, but simply want to share my thoughts.)

Currently, most of what is in the Terms of Use is essentially common sense and fairly standard for a (US-based) website. Don't harass others, don't do things that will get the WMF sued out of existence, don't break the law, don't put too much load on our servers. The only exception to that is the section on licensing, which is why (a summary of) that part is repeated before every "save page" link.

This amendment, however, isn't any such thing. It's a surprising clause. In some countries (such as Germany, § 305c BGB), surprising clauses in general terms of use are actually void. I don't know if that law is applicable here, but that's beside the point: I think morally it isn't a good idea to put things into terms of use that aren't, really implied by common sense anyway.

What exactly is the reason you are trying to do this globally, not locally with the consent of each community? Is it only so that you can say "you didn't just break community policies, you broke our terms of use"? I'm fairly sure that even if that is what you want to do, you can simply put a list of the projects that have found a consensus for it into the Terms of Use or an accompanying page which you refer to in the ToU. It seems unusually centralistic to force this on all projects, including projects that are still in the stage of being happy to have any content at all, and that don't yet need or want to care about these issues. darkweasel94 (talk) 22:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I understand the concern about surprise, but I don't think this is a "surprising" clause in any meaningful sense. As we mention in the FAQ, in many places local laws may require much stronger disclosure; and the reaction of many casual readers to last year's WikiPR situation indicates that many (if not most!) of our readers already assume that disclosure is required (or that paid editing is prohibited altogether). If there is any surprise here, for most people it is likely to be that the ToU requirements are fairly mild.

I also don't think this is a correct assessment of the relevant laws, but even if the correct legal standard were "surprise" I don't think this would be a problem, so I won't get into much detail on the relevant legal standards.

(I think the question about trying to do this elsewhere has been covered in a variety of places above, and I'm trying to put together a FAQ on that, so I will not repeat those answers here.) —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

If the legal regime in which WMF operates already impose disclosure requirements, what is the purpose of this ToU amendment? What is next: will it become against WMF "Terms of Use" for editors to cross the street against a red light, for editors to steal other editors cars, or murder them? Will the WMF be inlining the entire set of statues of country X?

Just like you can't enforce crossing the street against a red list, we can't enforce FTC rules, or German/EU false advertising rules (linked elsewhere in the discussion), ourselves. This gives us an additional tool to do enforcement when necessary without having to rely on government bodies. —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

So the point of this rule is not because the law demands you to make it a policy, or that even in the absence of policy, the law demands editors disclose all on their own, but simply a means to enforce (pretty much arbitrary) Wiki Rules and Regulations? Or, if you want it bluntly, the entire rationale given for the amendment is more or less dishonest?

Given that this is your website and you are, like anyone else who runs a website, free to management in in whatever way you wish, why not just erase the entire rationale for this amendment and replace it with your one line comment, above? Insisting people disclose about X isn't much different that demanding they edit while wearing purple wigs when the argument offered for "X" isn't much better than the one I could invent for purple wigs.

I am completely serious: erase it all and just say "We need to do this for the purposes of enforcement of other Wiki policies." and move on. 76.10.173.8 03:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Like I've said above, this whole thing smells like some other goal is trying to be achieved. I speculate that the WMF wants to use "ToU violations" (aka "trespassing") as the means to bring civil and/or criminal proceedings against vexatious editors. 76.10.173.8 19:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Oops, this fragment was mine as well. Somehow it was disconnected from the original comment. But, imagine that, it looks like I was actually correct! 76.10.173.8 03:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

@LuisVilla - when you talk of "additional tool to do enforcement when necessary", that gets to a key aspect of this amendment which troubles me - it "criminalizes" (puts in TOU violation) a wide swath of users on a strict-liability basis, and then relies on "prosecutorial discretion" (enforcement when necessary) to sort out who will be taken to task over the issue. Frankly, the WMF doesn't have an unblemished record here when it comes to inspiring confidence over legal threats. Even if I'd hypothetically trust the current legal team to make the correct calls, there's no assurance its successors would be as good. And when such conditions are put in Terms-Of-Use, I think that's a lamentable situation, not an argument for other organizations to follow suit -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 03:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

no undisclosed paid editing still leaves problems

I've spoken with several people with first-hand information concerning errors on Wikipedia who have solicited me to fix them as their own attempts were thwarted by not having any suitable third-hand (or further removed) information. Note, I din't not ask for, nor received, nor was offered payment. Incases were my attempts failed, a few paid a professional to fix it. They did not disclose this because of coi concerns. Note that my efforts right away would be in violation of the spirit of this rule without being in technical violation (I was not paid). But more importantly, these people have little recourse currently to correct known false information as it is. They need access to some sort of appeal to correct errors along the lines of wikipedia saying they are baptist when they are actually buddhist. Or whatever the error may be. I agree with the proposal. But please consider the motivations that can be perfectly legitimate that lead to some of the occurrences of undisclosed paid editing. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.111.92.243 (talk) 00:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

On Wikipedia at least, that would run afoul of the ban on original research. I remember an article on which the supposed w:WP:RS (a stack of local newspaper articles over many years from the same reporter) contradicted each other. The reporter asked different, successive owners how many rooms are in a motel under restoration on the Route 66 Corridor Preservation Program; one article said "12", another said "14". One direct e-mail asking "how many rooms are in your motel?" gets the response "rooms 1-14 with 13 skipped due to superstition" but technically, sticking that bit of info directly into the article violates Wikipedia's original research policy. It also might run afoul of this amendment if the hôtelier were naïvely (with no prior knowledge of policy or any Wikipedia experience) just to drop "we have 13 rooms" into the article in contravention of w:WP:OR, w:WP:COI and (deity) knows what all else. In that particular instance, a Google Books search for "room 13 at (name of) motel" found a Route 66 travel book that was WP:RS and confirmed that indeed, "room 13 was skipped out of superstition", but that might've just been a lucky break. K7L (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

From a Wikisource/Sisters perspective ...

I know that this is important for the Wikipedias, especially where there are issues of conflict of interest, and vested interest. That said we are talking about an all of Wikimedia policy statement here. So my comment is about making sure that we don't hoist ourselves upon our own petards. I have next to zero issues if we have people being paid to come and transcribe our works at enWS (not that it is likely to be happening, unfortunately). So however you word this, please take into consideration the balance of the wording as it effects each of the sister sites. For example if it is the Wikivoyages are you just enabling the addition of commercial links on the user page, and any page where the person add links? If it is at Comons where an employee is legitimately uploading an image of their organisation, you are now requiring that they do more. My concern is that to stop abuse at the WPs, the consequences can be negative elsewhere. There seems to be a lack of focus on the (perceived) benefit for the editor/recipient and not sufficient acknowledgement/allowance of neutral edits.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

In #Other Wikimedia projects I made mention of the four wiki projects that are probably most affected by organizations: Wikimedia Commons, Wikisource, Wikiversity, and Wikivoyage. Wikimedia Commons and Wikisource have similar goals, that is as repositories/collections of media and text respectively, and so may depend on donations from outside organization-like sources. For Wikisource, it could be libraries under the GLAM projects. Wikiversity depends on educational resources written by various university professors affiliated with (and sometimes paid by) whatever institution they are affiliated with to conduct wiki "courses" of a kind. Wikivoyage is the youngest and perhaps the most important, and I believe some of their best info is written by travel agencies wishing to advertise their destinations (and then later rewritten by other neutral editors). This is a recurring theme that I hope WMF will address in their FAQ once it's been revised. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 12:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikivoyage has to deal with edits from CVB's (local convention and visitors bureaux), which are there to provide up-to-date local "tourist information" (which is good) but at the same time their mandate is to hype and promote a destination (which can be problematic). If they'd just drop the promotional language and stick to the facts, they can (and have) contributed constructively. K7L (talk) 01:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Question

What proportion of WP edits do fall within this conflict of interests area; what proportion are beneficial (tidying up, updating links etc) and what proportion reorientating against the spirit of Wikipedia?

What does WP actually want - those involved to state 'I am linked with body X (directly or as a linked PR body), and am adding the attached with permission (so not copyvio)/improving the article/adding links' and similar; to prevent such people from having anything to do with the specific article; or to have a neutral party checking the edits; or something else?

Some commercial and other organisation connected editing is probably inevitable - the issue is how to manage it and maintain 'the spirit of Wikipedia.' Jackiespeel (talk) 12:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Wording improvement

The intent seems fine, but the wording has issues.

1. The first sentence prohibits "deceptive" activities and "fraud", but it's not at all implicit or even clarified how this isn't a non sequiteur - because 1/ undisclosed paid editing is not always and necessarily, deceptive or fraudulent, 2/ non-disclosure of affiliation is a lot weaker than deception or fraud (strong words masking weak ones), and 3/ other persons with a strong vested interest who are not paid, are not apparently deemed to be deceptive or fraudulent (the amendment doesn't touch on them).
2. An employee or owner of a business may not 'receive compensation' for contributions related to that business, but should be covered by this TOU anyway.
3. Aas we allow pseudonymity, we should state the action required by editors who edit both commercially and non commercially, or who genuinely feel they see an article problem, where they do not wish to make disclosure.

Requested wording change:

To make it clearer and more obviously direct, can we add two sentences -

These Terms of Use prohibit engaging in deceptive activities, including misrepresentation of affiliation, impersonation, and fraud. In particular where you have a financial, commercial, or work-related interest in a matter, or receive any form of compensation for editing, it is deceptive to present your editing activities connected to that area as having no such connection, or by omission to allow other editors to be mislead and believe you have no connection with the subject matter.

To ensure compliance with these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution to any Wikimedia projects for which you receive compensation. You must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways:

• a statement on your user page,
• a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or
• a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions.

If you do not wish to make this disclosure, you are forbidden to contribute to articles where these statements apply, to any debates directly impacting such articles, and to any discussions about the editing or editor conduct within such articles, other than at the 'talk pages' of such articles, unless permission is obtained from that project's arbitration committee or equivalent.

The first underlined proposed words, make clear the link from affiliation to deceptiveness and that omission is also deceptive; they make categorical what exactly the issue is, and what 'unacceptable conduct' means. The second underlined section says what to do, if unwilling to make the disclosure - which needs saying. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

There are some really good ideas here FT2. I will be interested in the response of others to your proposal. Thank you. Geoffbrigham (talk) 01:37, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

My suggested wording for the first underlined part:

If you have a financial, commercial, or work-related affiliation with another organization, or if you have been compensated as part of your affiliation, omission of this information from other Wikimedians during the course of your activities on a Wikimedia project, especially if it relates to your organization, may be considered deceptive or fraudulent.

Also FT2: while I appreciate the efforts at rewording the last bit, I object to its threatening tone especially as this matter is still under discussion and we are still examining its potential for negative impact on other Wikimedia projects like English Wikivoyage, which depend quite a bit on contributions from travel agencies and other commercial entities. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 09:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Not clear enough

There is at least one scenario that is not covered: if the contributor is a salaried employee of the organization in question, but the contributor's activities on the wikipedia site are voluntary and not part of his/her job description, and no extra compensation is given for this voluntary effort. Ergraber (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no gauge to determine whether a edit is "voluntary" or not. Editors should be excluded from editing an employer's page, even if they're just doing it because of corporate allegiance or in an effort to earn "brownie points." Without such an exclusion, bias is almost inevitable. Activist (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Reading through all of these issues, I'm beginning to nod in agreement that the definition of "paid" in the amendment is really not clear enough. Here's an example that I think illustrates Ergraber's point: An editor works for a university and has no intention whatsoever of editing page/s about the university itself, either on company time or on off hours. Should that editor be excluded from editing any pages that mention research that came out of the university without full disclosure on each edit? Examples of such could be in the tens of thousands, and in many cases, that editor may have no idea that the page in question has any direct trackback to the university. How about pages of professors or former students who may have, at some point in their lives, ever been affiliated with the university? I'm concerned about those who work regularly on editing articles of people and topics that may be connected with large-scale employers like this who will be burdened with doing extra research to see if there was/is ever a connection to an employer on every edit simply for the sake of disclosing such when, in practice, the employer in question does not request or have any actual financial connection with the edits in question. I also agree with whomever here has stated that this will basically punish or at least unfairly burden the good eggs, while people who want to skirt this issue will continue to do so. Finally, my experience with many new editors is that the vast majority of readers of Wikipedia articles have no idea what goes on behind the scenes. Talk page? User page? Most ppl have no clue these even exist or how they work. Adding these disclosure rules might make some legal sense, but I really don't see them fixing the root problem of people being expressly paid to edit for marketing, promotion or other non-neutral purposes. Girona7 (talk) 13:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

French :: IL me semble que la proposition itnitiale portait sur la déclaration des contributions « payées » mais que le débat dérive souvent vers : «faut il accepter les contributions payées ? », ce qui est une autre question (également intéressante).
Oui, il y a un problème éthique très grave quand des contributeurs payés cherchent à biaiser wikipédia en y introduisant des informations commerciale ou publicitaire ou de propagande politique ou religieuse avec conflit d’intérêt. C’est dans ce cas un "bon message" de demander à ces contributeurs ou à leur employeur de déclarer qui paye dans ce cas.
Il y a inversement aussi quelques cas particuliers compliqués, comme le cas de retraités (ils ne sont plus payés, mais peuvent encore faire de la propagande). Il y a aussi le cas des musées, des archives ou des sciences fondamentales, et aussi celui des professeurs et des enseignants-chercheurs (qui ont tous une mission de diffusion/vulgarisation, quasi-encyclopédique de l’information). En théorie il n'y a pas de conflit d'intérêt dans ce cas, et idéalement il ne devrait y avoir aucun problème pour afficher que ce type de contributeur est payé pour faire ce travail. Mais en réalité : 1) beaucoup d’entres eux contribuent hors de leur temps de travail et 2) souvent ces administrations ou organismes de recherche parapublic ne permettent pas clairement à leurs salariés de contribuer à wikipédia ou ne leur accorde que peu de temps ; Dans ce cas le contributeur qui de bonne foi contribue à Wikipédia en pensant agir pour améliorer wikipédia tout en répondant aux objectifs de son métier, pourrait néanmoins être mis en difficulté vis-à-vis de son employeur.
Il faut en tous cas au moins un "code de bonne conduite volontaire", et un message clair disant que WMF ne cautionne pas les contributions payées cachées quand il s’agit de contenus non neutre.
Dernière remarque : beaucoup de spécialistes d’un sujet techniquement ou scientifiquement ou historiquement compliqué sont aussi ceux qui pourraient apporter de nouvelles informations d’intérêt encyclopédique et parfois être les meilleurs vulgarisateurs du sujet.
Ne faudrait il pas prévoir quelques grands cas généraux et quelques cas particuliers pour mieux décrire ce qui est admissible et ce qui ne l’est pas pour WMF ?--Lamiot (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
English I think the proposal was firt about “contributions paid" , but I note that the debate has quickly drifted " shall we must accept contributions paid ? " This is another question.
Yes, there is a very serious ethical problem if commercial or advertising information or political or religious propaganda with conflict of interest are introduced in wikipedia with money (and without). To ask to declare who pays in this case is a good message ( and for retirees ?) .
There are also some special cases inversely complicated , as the case of pensioners ( they are no longer paid, but can sometimes still make propaganda ) . There is also the case of museums, archives or basic sciences, professors and lecturers ( who have a mission to spread, almost encyclopedic information). Theoretically and ideally it should not be a problem to show that this type of contributor is paid to do this work (This should even be considered a noble task). But actually : 1 ) many of them will contribute out of their working time and 2) often these services or parastatal organizations research does not clearly allow their employees to contribute to Wikipedia , in which case the contributor who in good faith contributes to Wikipedia thinking action to improve Wikipedia in meeting the objectives of its business could still be in trouble vis-à- vis his employer . we need at least a “voluntary code of good conduct” and a clear message that WMF does not endorse contributions paid hidden when it comes to risk of non-neutral content.
Finally, many expert in a subject technically or scientifically or historically complicated are also those that could bring new information encyclopedic interest.
Should’nt we provide some great general cases and some special cases to better describe what is permissible and what is not to WMF ? More easy to say than to do.. We have to be more clear --Lamiot (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

French only :: Je suis très étonné par cette proposition qui semble en contradiction flagrante avec l'éthique de wikipédia.
Je crains fort que cette "ouverture" ne fasse la part belle aux organismes disposant de moyens financiers et juridiques importants.
Et surtout, je constate qu'il n'est prévu (apparemment) nulle part d'organisation (d'instance ?) chargée de :
- détecter les abus (contribution suspecte)
- détecter les déclarations de "rémunération" absentes, fausses ou incomplètes
- signaler clairement (marqueur graphique explicite) dans le corps du texte d'un article l'éventuelle intervention d'un contributeur en situation de conflit d'intérêt (la déclaration dans la page utilisateur est nettement insuffisante !)
- décider des sanctions, avec plusieurs degrés (avertissement avec demande de régularisation, effacement de la contribution suspecte, publication de l'adresse IP suspecte, interdiction de contributions ultérieures).

Et je souscris à la remarque de Lamiot concernant le cas des professeurs (l'ayant été longtemps moi-même) pour qui la question de la contribution de "bonne foi" est délicate... Papy77 (talk) 15:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I suspect a lot would depend on the actual contract held by a lecturer with their institution. I was having a quick look at some formal definitions of a UK professor's role (NB: UK professors are not quite the same as US professors...) In addition to the usual sorts of objectives about raising the profile of their institutions, finding funding lines, outreach to the wider public, etc. there was also some powerful inspirational language about their roles in being an "academic citizen" - "applying their their disciplinary or professional specialism for the benefit of wider public understanding" - and being a "public intellectual" - "engaging with and seeking to influence public debate on social, moral and economic issues beyond the confines of their academic specialism". Both of these are clearly good things, but someone who was being paid to do them and then engaged with the WMF Projects in their specialist area would seem to me to be a paid editor under this amendment. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Please require a standard "PAID EDIT" tag in the edit summary, to SIMPLIFY DISCLOSURE DISCOVERY

Permitting the conflict of interest disclosure to be hidden in talk pages and user pages would make it far too difficult for other editors to notice the disclosure when reviewing edits, as they would be forced to exhaustively search both the user pages and talk pages for all edits. Please SIMPLIFY THE DISCLOSURE DISCOVERY ALGORITHM by requiring a standard "PAID EDIT" tag in the edit summary, and mandating a SINGLE place -- the "Conflicts of Interest" section of the user page -- for disclosure details. (The Talk page is not the right place for conflict-of-interest disclosures.) This requirement will be easy for paid editors to follow, and will allow other editors to easily and predictably locate disclosure statements. -- DavidBooth (talk) 18:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

To make this change to the current proposal, I suggest changing the following wording:

You must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways:
        a statement on your user page,
        a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or
        a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions.

to:

You must make that disclosure by: (a) including the upper case words 
"PAID EDIT" at the beginning of each relevant edit summary; and (b) 
including a statement on your user page in a section entitled "Conflicts 
of Interest".

-- DavidBooth (talk) 18:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, to simplify and encourage compliance, a mandatory checkbox could be added to the Edit page: "This [ ] is / [ ] is not a paid edit.", where "paid edit" is a link to a more explanation. -- DavidBooth (talk) 18:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

This has been discussed in #Why not require all three types of notification? darkweasel94 (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Possibly a template as an alternate method of disclosure, discussed in #Standard template. Felixphew (talk) 20:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

This is great! I love the idea in the proposal that the disclosure must be made in the edit note in addition to the article Talk and Userpage; the disclosure in the edit note needs to be standardized so that paid edits are easy to find and audit. I was thinking something clear short and 'PAID EDIT' is perfect. But even better, is the checkbox. I love the checkbox idea - super standardized. It should show up super clearly in the history, somehow, too. And, if anybody has checked that box, it would be great if checking that box led the wiki software to automatically put a template on the checker's Userpage, where all of that editor's paid edits appear. The key thing is to be able to audit and that requires standardization that IT tools can easily work with. Would these things be hard for the techies to implement, I wonder? Thanks for these great ideas. Jytdog (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry when I commented on this earlier, I did not notice the "not a paid edit" option in the checkbox. There should be a checkbox only for "This is a paid edit." We AGF by default. Jytdog (talk) 07:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Endorse a "This is a paid edit, or an edit as part of my work" or similar. Excellent idea.

However I'd make it a stronger version: "I confirm this edit is/is not connected to my work, or any activity for which I expect remuneration." Much harder to escape peer and media censure, if avoiding the policy requires a blatant and direct dishonest statement. Many people would shy away from dishonesty in the face of a clear "black and white" choice, because of impact on their reputation if caught, and will choose to disclose or not edit (either is ok for paid editing); it would also sent a much stronger signal that we're serious, when the UI change is live and discussed by the media. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The "not-conflicted notice" idea goes too waaaaaaay too far in my mind. i would quit wikipedia before i submitted to something as bureaucratic as this. please AGF, for pete's sake. Jytdog (talk) 07:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Just like we introduced the "cite.php" code in 2004, and now cites are pretty ubiquitous and most people know they need to cite statements that may be challenged, perhaps all users should be required to disclose if an edit may have a serious COI? The wording can be softer. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The standard we implement should enable easy discovery by human users (both readers and editors) and foolproof auditing by software tools of all editing by advocates - whether paid or voluntary. User:DavidBooth's proposals make sense for paid advocates, but if implemented, should also cover voluntary advocates. We need to make it much easier than it is now for all users to find out what biases an editor brings - particularly when the editor cannot fail to understand their own conflict of interest, because they clearly know that their editing is advocacy rather than NPOV editing.

We should therefore require each and every edit that advocates anything to include the words "PAID ADVOCACY" or "VOLUNTARY ADVOCACY", as appropriate, as the first words of the edit summary. But it's more important to inform readers than editors! Using a checkbox could make the reader's task easier, supposing that we can use it to clearly identify those words on a Wikipedia page whose neutrality has (very likely) been compromised, and how; and further, of course, supposing that we have the technical resources to develop this change. If so, I'd suggest we have two checkboxes, one for each kind of advocacy, viz. "[ ] This edit is paid advocacy" and "[ ] This edit is voluntary advocacy".

The preceding comments all presuppose that the Wikipedia community wishes to allow any such advocacy at all! In a perfect world, I'd suggest we don't want it, but in the real world, we may sometimes learn more by letting others uncover their own prejudices for us ... yoyo (talk) 15:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I would say we also need to include a checkbox for "Edit by Unpaid Volunteer Advocating on this topic" or something along those lines. The worst bias and distortion is often not by paid professional editors, but overzealous volunteers. 58.141.84.124 09:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I like both of the checkbox suggestions: Paid and Unpaid. Jlaroe (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Checkbox when Editing

I like the idea of a checkbox appearing when you edit, but I would make more choices to reflect the reality of editing Wikipedia. The checkbox I would suggest include:

• I was compensated for this edit.
• I am affiliated with a company, person or entity mentioned in this article.
• I work in this industry or field, but am not affiliated with anything in this article specifically.
• I have not been compensated and am not affiliated with anything in this article.

People can check more than one box, as appropriate (for example, I have not been compensated, and I work in this industry).

On the user's profile page, there could be sections created automatically for each checkbox, with a list of articles and edits where that checkbox applies. This would help editors and readers identify edits that are paid and may have a potential conflict of interest, and would help people comply with disclosure laws, where applicable. It would also make sure that people are aware they need to disclose at the time of the edit, and not have to depend on someone reading the terms of service to realize they have to disclose.

99.99.233.74 05:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC) and 99.99.233.74 05:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC) and 99.99.233.74 05:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest showing these checkboxes only on the first time when a user edits, plus a text box to enter the company the user is affiliated with. The choices are permanently saved in the database with the corresponding information. Showing the checkbox every time when you edit is quite counter-productive and intrusive, at least for WikiGnomes like me who always does various clean-up work. Zhaofeng Li (talk) 05:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

It could be setup so that if nothing is checked, it assumes it is uncompensated and unaffiliated. You can also have it setup so that you can set a default setting, where it automatically checks certain ones for you, but still allowing you to change it for that entry if needed. 99.99.233.74 06:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Moving this here - it is a link to a personal blog of an individual and had been added as a 'reference' to this section: http://blog.morepossibilities.info/?p=3029 (Simply moving this without comment.) Risker (talk) 07:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Is the edit summary backed up?

I think the idea of an edit summary tag is great, but I am not sure if it is sufficient. I do not know if the edit summaries are backed up together with the page. This means that, if somebody copies the Wikipedia pages (or, in the unfortunate case when a disk crashes and needs to be recovered from backup), the information about which edits are paid might be lost. --Erel Segal (talk) 12:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the edit summary is backed up in the database and connected to each edit. You can download a dump of Wikipedia and get each edit summary! Stephen LaPorte (WMF) (talk) 01:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

CFAA

Hi legal team, thanks for this reasoned development. I've long supported disclosure and transparency as the best practice for dealing with paid editing.

I have a government-power concern to match this money-power proposal. We saw what happened to Aaron Swartz, with the government's severe interpretation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. In part, it raised felony hacking questions for deviation of terms of use, as 'unauthorized access'.

Of course, WMF isn't the US Justice Department, but I want to make sure we are not criminalizing behavior that our editors may inadvertently, or somewhat harmlessly engage in. What is the calculus when forming a terms of use so that it does not expose editors unnecessarily to judicial overreach?

I say this under the presumption that we want most paid editors to follow this disclosure policy, but want few of them to wind up with felony convictions for hacking.

Some reading

• http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/06/aarons-law-is-finally-here/
• http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/02/07/the-justice-department-used-this-law-to-pursue-aaron-swartz-now-its-open-to-reforming-it/
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act

What do you think? Best, Jake Ocaasi (talk) 20:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Jake aka Ocaasi is correct here. There might be unintended consequences to the modification of the TOU in this way. Frankly, nobody reads the TOU before they come write up an article on their garage-band, or on their startup-company, or similar. In fact, we don't want beginning contributors to have to read the TOU. That is one of the main points of the fifth pillar, and of the lack of a mandatory registration requirement. Can somebody from the legal department weigh in on the risks to the readership, once this TOU-amendment is in place? If there *are* risks, such as outlined in scenario #1 and #2 below, can we tweak the language of the TOU to make sure nobody has standing to sue editors but the WMF?

  Scenario #1. There is a large group of readers in a first-world country, that are involved in some kind of political movement which is not appreciated by powerful interests. These powerful interests (the bad guys) decide that a good way to stymie the political movement in question, is with lawyers. So, they begin collecting information about wikipedia editors that are involved with the political movement. In particular, they look for wikipedia editors that at some point violated the TOU, by editing articles where they had compensation coming (the band/startup/boss/similar). Then, the bad guys sue these wikipedia editors, for violating the TOU. Is this a plausible scenario, legally speaking? Can some uninvolved third-party bad guys — i.e. not the WMF or any other part of the wikiverse — take editors to court for violating the TOU?

  Scenario #2. Same as scenario #1, except this is a third-world country. There are a lot fewer legal restraints on the bad guys. The country in question has a very weak legal tradition generally, and consumer protection is almost non-existent; corruption is extremely high. Can the bad guys do bad things in this scenario, that might not have been plausible under scenario #1, because of stronger requirements upon standing to bring lawsuits, or upon due process, or whatever? Thanks. 74.192.84.101 05:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the question, Jake. I knew Aaron for many years, so I take the CFAA issue quite seriously, as does the entire legal team here.

This amendment doesn't change much from a CFAA perspective. The entire problem with how prosecutors have wielded the CFAA is that they've defined "access without authorization" very broadly. That means that a lot of the problem occurs the moment you have a terms of use or any other policy that has any access restrictions at all. Terms of Use are the obvious/high-profile situation, but any other policies that restrict access can also have the same problem. Adding one more clause doesn't change the analysis very much, and there isn't much you can do when drafting to prevent overreach - either it is a restriction on access, or it isn't, and even when it isn't, a determined prosecutor can probably twist it into one if they want to.

It might be worth noting in this context that a prosecutor who wanted to use the CFAA against a malicious paid editor could have done so before this change, based on the existing ToU language, especially in the case where the paid editor was on notice (because of SPI investigations, etc.) that their activities were problematic and prohibited by the community. That said, prosecutors are unlikely to do so without WMF's support (since we're the "victim" in this case), so hopefully the problem should not come up.

Hope that answers your question; let me know if not. —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 02:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

@Luis Villa - I think there's a problem in your chain of reasoning above, at the point where you claim "Adding one more clause doesn't change the analysis very much". One aspect which bothers me about the proposal, is that it creates a "strict liability" offense, where lack of an affirmative action puts someone in violation. Hypothetically, that strikes me as something a prosecutor would find very easy to use, as opposed to other provisions which might be more difficult to establish to the necessary standard of proof. When SOPA was at issue, WMF legal certainly didn't say that there's already so much to deal with regarding removing copyright violations, that adding one more task of putting a few pirate sites on a blacklist doesn't change the analysis very much! After all, WMF legal obviously believes this terms-of-use amendment would give them additional power which would let them do something more readily than before, so that argument also applies to a prosecutor (this is again rebutting the idea of minimal change). Note also the Aaron Swartz case proceeded without the "victim"'s support, quite explicitly, so that part of your statement has a problem too (I know, you said "unlikely", but it's not clear how much that's really so). Given all the kitchen-sink legal bluster sent to wiki-pr - "This practice also gives rise to a number of potential legal claims, including statutory and common law fraud, unfair business practices, breach of contract, and trespass to chattels" - it doesn't seem a big leap to imagine that "CFAA violation" might be added in as some sort of threat or more bluster, especially if matters escalate. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 08:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Another CFAA-related comment

For blatant, bad players, would it be possible to pursue a criminal complaint under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, in the event that violations of ToS are considered criminal? This Slashdot article mentions the possibility that the USSC might rule on whether that can happen. I'm personaaly hoping that they don't allow it, but in the event they do, using that additional artillary to deal with paid contributors could make people think twice, if they are on the hook for felonies with jail time. 68.200.151.128 01:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, 68.200.151.128. I have moved it down here so that it is near Ocaasi and 74's expressions of concern about CFAA, as well as my followup. I hope that those answer your questions about the CFAA, but let us know if not. —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 02:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm just glad someone has considered the issues. But, and I may be extremely unpopular for suggesting this, I think that WMF should look more seriously at actively using the CFAA as a weapon against undisclosed paid contributors. The discussion above seems focused on making sure that no one is caught by an overzealous prosecutor. We absolutely have to do that too, but while such a draconian interpretation of the law exists, we may as well use it to our advantage. I would think/hope that WMF can always retroactively give authorization to someone to make edits if a prosecutor started going after the wrong people. 68.200.151.128 10:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

governments manipulate the mainstream opinion, commercial entities don't care about being truthful

And in the face of that, how does this policy improve wikipedia? To give a hint where it should: mainstream opinion . There should be policies which favor wikipedians adding 2+3 together and however else you can make sense of the world properly. Instead there are policies which make it 4 if enough sources imply that. It is a shame. 37.201.225.191 03:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC) Is this a contest in blind wishful idealistic thinking or what? 37.201.225.191 04:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey 37, this is actually a very insightful point. If a corporation/government/whatever wishes to influence wikipedia, they don't have to pay editors to do so. Wikipedia has policies that we follow what published sources (television/newspapers/professors) say about a given subject-matter. Of course, the media and academia are heavily dependent on corporate and governmental sources for 99% of the funding.

  Therefore, fortunately or unfortunately, wikipedia is always going to be slanted towards what big corporations and big governments want the citizenry to believe. w:The Man! You cannot always trust what you read on the internet, whether in wikipedia or otherwise. Nothing will change that, for sure.

  The point of this TOU-amendment, is that when some politician pays a staffer to *directly* edit the wikipedia article about that politician, the staffer (under this new amendment to the terms) will legally have to disclose that they are receiving compensation for their editing. Same for if a corporation pays an employee to edit articles about the corporation's products. Right now, they are encouraged to do so, but not required.

  Still, even if this amendment were to pass with flying colours, and be implemented tomorrow, that will not prevent politicians and corporations from influencing wikipedia indirectly via the media and academia. Furthermore, politicians and corporations would *still* be able to pay people to edit wikipedia directly; the amendment only legally requires that the conflict of interest is disclosed, not that the paid editing cease. Hope this helps, and thanks much for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 04:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, I entirely agree with you and am glad that you made the mentioned realizations. However, I read the comments of Jimbo Wales on it. That plus the impression I got of the discussions going on around this topic, lead me to believe that the impact of the proposed TOU change is highly overvalued. If not elusive in the sense of superstitious means of protection against willful manipulation. Maybe it is better than nothing, though in the face of much more urgent and grave dynamics surrounding conflicts of interest and other factors influencing information quality on wikipedia, I perceived the effort and extreme focus of users on the desired effects, by means of implementing this policy change, as highly disproportionate if not plainly naive. And judging by the lack of effort to implement more solid and fundamental policy changes with much higher impact, if not the complete ignorance towards merely considering those changes, even offensive. 37.201.225.73 09:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Who asked for this to be developed?

I think these cards should be on the table. Did Legal and Community Advocacy come up with this idea on its own, or was it directed by the (entire) Board of Trustees to do this? Is there a Board motion that requests this? Is this the idea of one or more Trustees, but not the majority? Or is this something coming out of the ED's office? Risker (talk) 05:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

It looks like someone from the WMF was the first to create and edit the page. It is shown in the History Page of the Introduction. You can find his user page and he also has a different more official page. It says you can email him. Peoplez1k (talk) 06:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The is a WMF legal initiative (as pointed out above), though the idea was discussed informally with Board members. This is an important discussion that merits a community discussion. We are listening to the feedback and may make changes based on that feedback. We will then determine whether the final version should be reviewed by the Board. Thanks. Geoffbrigham (talk) 12:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

We'll never know the exact social dynamics (barring an extreme leak). I'd say the impetus was obviously from the company "Wiki-PR" blowing off (politely) the legal cease-and-desist letter sent by the Wikimedia Foundation. See the article "PR Company Says It Was Demonized By The World's Biggest Internet Encyclopedia". The key is this paragraph:

I don’t know. I’ve read their terms of service over and over again. I see nothing about sockpuppets in there. I see nothing about paid editing. I see nothing about any of the terms used in the cease-and-desist letter.

[Editor's note: The closest item in the Terms of Use discussing a violation is this: “Attempting to impersonate another user or individual, misrepresenting your affiliation with any individual or entity, or using the username of another user with the intent to deceive.”]

Thus, for no terms-of-use violation, the WMF response is to change the terms-of-use, to make it a terms-of-use violation. As to who drove it, did someone at WMF legal scream "Our tiger shall not be denied!" versus someone on the board ranting "They won't get away with it, land-sharks, attack!"? Only the people involved are going to know, and transparency is not going to apply here. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 07:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Even without amending the ToU, Wiki-PR was in violation of it. Specifically, at a minimum, this clause from section four: "With the intent to deceive, posting content that is false or inaccurate." I should really put a better on-wiki breakdown of it (I think my last good breakdown of it was in CREWE on facebook,) but this article is a fabulous example of their style of ToU violation. Kevin (talk) 07:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

While that's certainly a "PR" article, can you give more detail on the "false or inaccurate" aspect? That violation wasn't clear to me on a quick read. Remember, the standard is how a court would construe those terms, not mere puffery. This is not to endorse the article as good, only to say that terms-of-use violation is a higher standard to meet than PR-flackery. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 12:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I find it troubling that the WMF is making an effort to steer the attitude of the community away from its previous stances to suit its own agenda. Can't help but see the hypocrisy in this... Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not noticing that at all. The community is pretty strong willed and used to making up its own mind; it has rejected Foundation proposals before and will again. Do you see a community groundswell to endorse paid editing, that this is attempting to "steer away" from any "previous stances"? If anything, previous community stances have generally been closer to "no paid editing, period" than "no paid editing without disclosure". FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see what you mean by that. On English Wikipedia proposals very similar to that roundly failed just 4 months ago. Are you saying the Wikimedia and English Wikipedia communities are so very divergent? 96.44.144.218 23:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I see key differences; your impression may differ of course, so we may disagree.

• The English Wikipedia proposals were local project proposals. The two closest to this (w:Wikipedia:Paid editing policy proposal and w:Wikipedia talk:No paid advocacy) were both rejected, but it's worth reading the detail -in both cases (!) the ideas were not rejected outright; the closers concluded on both that they were rejected as written. This suggests the issue with both was not rejection of the idea, so much as inadequate drafting and a split consensus over whether disclosure was harsh enough with many preferring an outright prohibition.
• The history of specific paid editing incidents tends to support this - a quick check shows what happens when paid editors have been found out, and the community reaction to their discovery (and frequent insta-banning). So it's very clear there is a strong view that it simply shouldn't be allowed, almost enough for a "completely forbid" proposal to pass. Among those rejecting a "simply ban" proposal, a "disclosure should be enough" view seems to be common. Putting those together, it seems the community is in the unfortunate position that there are essentially 3 mutually exclusive options discussed (forbid/ban; require disclosure; do nothing as existing content policies should suffice) and none of the 3 command an outright majority, although a majority would endorse "disclosure at minimum"; but no !vote on any of these 3 positions gained a majority in the recent community discussions as a result.
• A WMF policy and an enwiki policy are fundamentally different. As the server system owner, WMF can stipulate a legal policy rather than a mere social one, and can enforce without risk of outing. In the closest policy to this, which was rejected "as written", a major concern over a social policy was specifically related to community handling, namely that with a social policy one may have to prove the infraction to peers on a wiki, in conflict with w:WP:OUTING. As a legal site policy by the site owner, a WMF policy implies no need to present "outing" evidence of identity to convince peers worldwide, and also has a legal effect rather than a social one. It can be handled without public outing, negating a major concern for a community policy, and has a level of legal standing that a mere social policy cannot have and which may carry weight where a social policy would not.

Essentially it seems the community is consistently within a hairsbreadth of some policy on paid editing, either a ban or a disclosure requirement, but falls between two stools (outright ban, or disclosure, with neither getting a clear majority), and as the closers summarize, English Wikipedia's community so far chooses neither as presently drafted (important qualifier!). In addition the community can only instigate a social policy, and a social policy is extremely problematic for enforcement (since local social policies unlike WMF ones generally need to be executed on a public wiki where outing is a real concern). I therefore don't see the proposal of a WMF policy of the lesser of "ban" or "disclose" as ignoring or corralling an unwilling community into something it doesn't want. I see it as closer to a minimum that the community does seem to want (or stronger) but hasn't found a way to reach. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I think it's simpler than that, FT2. A cursory glance at both proposals you linked include virtually no input from one set of key stakeholders: the reader, likely represented by IP !votes/comments. This page tells a much different tale. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 12:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I think we're answering two different questions here (and I probably should have noticed that, so good catch!)... I answered "Who asked for this, and is WMF obnoxiously pressing for change in the face of editing community rejection?" (Answer = no, but needs explaining why), and you answered "Was the original community dialog sufficiently informative and embracing of the key stakeholders?" (Answer = yes for a usual local policy but no for a general one, and worth expanding to get better oxygen/input either way). Both were probably relevant though - good catch. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

As per w:en:Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia, the “Wiki-PR case” was successfully resolved despite the lack of the proposed text in the ToU. Isn’t it indicative of the fact that the “community policies” (which are referred to in the ToU) are already sufficient to handle the cases like that? — Ivan Shmakov (d ▞ c) 00:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Not really - anything can be "handled" but that doesn't mean "handling" is optimal or best. In this case, a social policy or requirement, isn't going to ever have the gravitas or weight of a legal policy or requirement. Not everyone would respect these but probably at least more will respect the former than the latter, and it adds extra levels of options to handle truly extreme perpetrators. The community did "handle" the Wiki-PR case, but it makes the question obvious: should more weight, hurdle or deterrence be in place, to rebut undisclosed paid editing and also to deter more of it even when undetected (or add impetus to transparent disclosure), than a mere social policy and "handling when detected" can ever provide? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

If the current ToU does not explicitly require the users to abide by the community policies of the particular projects, then, well, didn’t we just miss a bigger issue to consider? — Ivan Shmakov (d ▞ c) 04:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to say "yes" but the answer is "not sure/probably not", because local community policies tend to be interpreted according to "commonsense and consensus of editors" so they aren't legally robust, they won't need or contain wording that has legal precision, they aren't designed for ability to stand in a legal issue, except in very obvious blatant cases. They are intended to guide and the rest is done by "what editors think considering their intention", which isn't legally robust. In simple terms a community policy can say "don't bother wikilawyering" to deal with an issue, but a legal clause cannot fall back on "you know what we mean and if not the community will interpret it at the time". Not least "when is a policy, a policy" (anyone can edit them, there is no formal process to endorse a specific wording, so at what point is a wording on a policy page deemed to be a community policy). They would have to be more certain in a legal sense, for a simple "follow community policies" to carry much/any legal weight, and for that to be all that WMF needs to do. Might still be worth saying though. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oh for heaven's sake, everyone can cut out the conspiracy theories here. It was a straightforward question. I asked it because it makes a difference whether the Board or ED has asked for an amendment to the TOU, or whether the LCA Department is doing this on its own initiative. This is not a proposal to add paid editing to the TOU, it is a proposal on how to add paid editing to the TOU. I do not think it is within LCA's scope to bring this forward to the community, absent a directive from higher in the chain of command. We all know that at least one BOT member has been openly advocating banning paid editing for many years, so it is not far-fetched to wonder if the BOT as a whole has asked this to be added, but it is now clear that they have not. Perhaps LCA should be paying attention to the fact that the Board has steadfastly refused to take up this particular issue over the course of many, many years, despite its most prominent member being a public advocate of this position.

  At this point, I think this proposal should be withdrawn. It is clearly misunderstood by a significant number of participants in this discussion (just looking at the number of people who think that the WMF is paying editors somehow or other). If you would like to have a discussion, I'd suggest starting with "Should we, as the Wikimedia community as a whole, consider including some active constraints on paid editing on all of the WMF projects?" instead of handing us what is essentially a fait accompli decision to amend terms of use with the community's only option to suggest wording changes. There seems to be no understanding of how this would fundamentally change the ethos of every community, and override many decisions already made by many communities. There seems to be no understanding of the fact that accusations of paid editing are already used on a daily basis in attempts to abrogate the core editing principles of Wikipedia, and that this would be used as a weapon to lock articles in biased points of view. Yes, I understand that the notion of paid editing can be used to negatively affect the perception of the Wikipedia brand (and let's be honest, it's all about Wikipedia, nobody cares if a paid editor reviews documents on Wikisource). That calls for the same Legal and Community Advocacy department to fill its multiple open positions on the Communications team, and to develop messaging that is consistent with the fact that lots of very respected editors participate while being paid, or during their working hours with the consent of their employer - up to and including Board members. Risker (talk) 04:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Endorse this in the big picture. Maybe ask for further feedback anew on a basis closer to that which Risker lays out, as version 2? Explain the pros and cons of such policies, and main options if any, then ask for feedback 1/ whether people feel it will improve the encyclopedia or damage it, and why, and 2/ would they endorse a rule about commercial editing and if so what rule. That should get a bit clearer thinking on the issues. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Risker seems to want to change the rules in the middle of the feedback, while the position she supports is being overwhelmed by a ratio of 4 to 1. If we could call the "snowball rule" here, the feedback would already be over. If she believes some technical rule has been broken, all she needs to do is inform the Board that this feedback is going on (despite their wishes?), and cite which rule she thinks is being broken. But there is no rule that she's cited, and I'm certain that the Board knows that this feedback is going on.

As far as her original question: who put this proposal forward? That's been answered several times above. If you want a more descriptive answer, here is what I imagine happened. The ED, the Board, and the Legal Department all read the papers (e.g. the SignPost) and all know about the Wiki-PR. (Correct me if I'm wrong) They all talk about it together and in effect ask each other "Who has a solution?" (as they should) They even talk about it informally at and around Board meetings. (as they should) The Board likely asked the ED or Legal to come up with their best ideas and present them. The Board can't decide the issue presented here until it gets feedback, but were likely pleased enough with the proposed solution to say something like "take it to the community and see what they think." Frankly, I don't think they would let it get this far, if they weren't prepared to to vote for it - given positive feedback from the community. While I don't guarantee each step in the process worked exactly this way, I can't imagine any how any major proposed policy, ToU change, etc. change would work much differently according to our rules.

And finally, I have to say that this is all about one simple change: paid editors will have to disclose their paid edits and name their employer. That's it - no outing of editors required. The Wiki-world won't fall apart. Simple disclosure of paid edits. Four to one in favor.

Smallbones (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh Smallbones, how simple you make it all sound. You're obviously speaking from a very free, Western country where there is no chance at all that you can be imprisoned for writing about...well, just about anything your heart desires on Wikipedia. The same cannot be said for those who live in China, or Iran, or Saudi Arabia, or Egypt, or several eastern European countries. We have editors who literally put their personal safety, their livelihood, and what liberty they have at risk to freely share knowledge here. Free as in libre, not free as in beer. But students at universities all over the world will be proscribed from updating factual information about their alma mater unless they're willing to link to the fact they're students there, as will their professors writing in their area of expertise. It (probably) isn't a big deal for most people in democratic English-speaking and European countries (although there are some editors for whom even this statement is not true); it means genuine danger to people in much of Africa, the Middle East, and a good part of Asia. But let's just look at what this proposal really says. Municipal employees will have to declare they are paid editors when editing about their city (it increases the profile of their employer); healthcare workers if they edit any articles on which they have advanced knowledge (they could potentially benefit financially if more people decide they have that illness); the editor who writes about an artist whose work they have on their wall (we all know that a Wikipedia article is a sign of notability, which will increase the value of the artwork). Indeed, it would take a lot of work to find someone with more than 5000 edits who has never edited anything for which this proposed amendment would not require them to make a disclosure of some sort. Just looking at people whom I know some personal information about and who have commented on this page, I've yet to find anyone who wouldn't have to make a disclosure under this proposed amendment. Depending on how expansively these rules are interpreted, I could even find myself running afoul of the TOU. And I say that as someone who didn't even know whether or not her employer had a Wikipedia article until someone else pointed it out to her. Risker (talk) 05:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

FT2, thanks for your especially clear comments above. Risker, yes it is within LCA's scope to discuss and propose changes to the TOU, and to other sitewide legal policies, at their discretion. Given the high quality of the public LCA consultations in recent years, I expect that they will gracefully handle misunderstandings and concerns in any recommendation that they make. –SJ talk  00:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

@Risker - I agree with much of what you say in terms of a descriptive perspective (laying out the situation), but sadly that does not go far regarding a prescriptive perspective (what people *should* do). In specific, I have found lack of understanding matters very little in politics. Now, "Legal and Community Advocacy" works for WMF. They don't work for "the community" (sigh, repliers, no quibbling please). WMF did a high-profile action against Wiki-PR. Wiki-PR was, well, let's say not quaking in their boots. What's likely to result from that? Legal threat version 2.0. And here we are. As Sj just pointed out above, this is what LCA has power to do ("sitewide legal policies, at their discretion"). Politically, I'd say this proposal is a stark example of the tension between the worldview that WMF exists as a support organization for the Wikipedia volunteers (an emotionally popular but factually mistaken view), versus that Wikipedia volunteers are privileged to be unpaid labor building WMF projects (love-it-or-leave-it). That is, which side's interests take priority when in conflict with the other? LCA's job is first and foremost advocating what's good for WMF and Wikimedia legal (disclaimer - this isn't intended as a criticism, merely stating a fact). Regarding any enormous mess that creates for those who have to deal with the fallout of ill-considered policy changes, well, that's an old story. Take solace that "meme-hustlers" will be able to get popular conference speaking gigs and big consulting fees telling the tale of the happy helpful people who cheerfully work for free to resolve the conflicts created by the decisions of upper management (what could please some corporation executive more?). -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 09:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

(off topic reply) My experience is that most issues are either community originated (not WMF), an inherent part of the compromises of writing in an extremely diverse world, or human nature which even nation states haven't found answers to. WMF is miniscule whether by number or effect compared to the community's self-originated policies. Many individuals - whether for reasons that you may endorse or disparage - express in their actions a real wish to produce works unpaid for others' free use under a license that explicitly says "anyone may reuse anyhow". They do it on Wikipedia, they do it in software (Apache, Linux, and a huge amount more that runs most of the web), they release rights to their photos on Flickr and often to their videos on Youtube. Some people set up websites to release their work freely even if they could choose more mercenary or controlled ways to benefit from their own work, and even where massive choice exists (software authorship). Linux contributors do it whether or not a Linus Torvalds gains speaking opportunities or fees, although they could easily switch to other similar systems if they wanted, and the same in a hundred other projects of note. From here it looks like exactly what the wider unconnected readership would approve of: individuals' work, small in itself, is being enabled to combine with the work of others, and going out into the world, and nobody however powerful can specify and fix the content in stone (beyond agreed legislation) against the broad view of 100,000 individuals in hundreds of countries fiercely defensive of their editorial approach. We can debate this courteously and without ad hom, a little more, if you want, perhaps in email where it's less off-topic. Bottom line - I don't think your view holds up. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

@FT2 - I doubt we will convince each other on the broad philosophical issues (note, I'm a big supporter of what I call the "Light Side" of Open Source, as an economic efficiency argument in allocating development costs among businesses - but not what I call the "Dark Side", businesses expecting programmers to work for free). However, what I'm trying to express here is that in this discussion, it strikes me that ground-level people such as Risker and LauraHale have made cogent arguments as to why the proposed amendment in specific is a bad idea with serious unintended consequences. Yet this seems to be brushed off by the higher-ups, in a way very familiar to any engineer who has ever attempted to explain to management that marketing's proposed wonderful new feature is a disaster because it'll wreak havoc on a delicate system (thank-you-for-your-feedback, yadda-yadda-yadda, goals, objectives, blah-blah-blah - which means "management doesn't have to clean up the mess, you do"). It's a classic hierarchical power relationship, with "benefits" flowing to the top and "costs" shifted to the bottom. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

(again off-topic, @Seth) Thanks - that's actually not a bad comment. I think if you stuck to plain unvarnished statements, it would get taken as insightful input. I'm familiar as heck with the setup you describe. The difficulty is that you don't write that way most times I've seen. You write with appeal to emotivity and rhetoric, hyperbole, exaggeration - a bit like a fanatic would (I hope I can express how it can come over and not be offending), the results as posted seem mostly rhetoric and hyperbole - and from me at least it usually gets what overstated exaggerated simplistic writings lacking visible merit on the facts, usually get. After all, that style is usually used to cover up more than reveal, especially by people who write in the media as part of their living. By contrast, the points in your second post are plain stated and reasoned. Your first post derails itself - WMF is evil for allowing speaking opportunities (can I see your writing about how Linux coders are naively supporting a power structure for Linus to get conference opportunities? And whoever runs myriad other high profile open source projects - Apache, MySQL, Redhat, Folding@Home, whatever, or whoever builds commercial structures on top of their volunteers' work). So the impression created from here is usually that when you criticize, you pick and choose, you don't have a real complaint so much as a "bee in the bonnet". Again I should emphasize this is meant cordially and respectfully, as feedback, not to be offensive, though I accept it could come across otherwise it's truly not my intent. For a good example, look at the ending of your first and second posts compared:

First post ends - "Take solace that "meme-hustlers" will be able to get popular conference speaking gigs and big consulting fees telling the tale of the happy helpful people who cheerfully work for free to resolve the conflicts created by the decisions of upper management (what could please some corporation executive more?)."

Second post ends - "[W]hat I'm trying to express here is that in this discussion, it strikes me that ground-level people [] have made cogent arguments as to why the proposed amendment in specific is a bad idea with serious unintended consequences. Yet this seems to be brushed off by the higher-ups, in a way very familiar to any engineer who has ever attempted to explain to management that marketing's proposed wonderful new feature is a disaster because it'll wreak havoc on a delicate system (thank-you-for-your-feedback, yadda-yadda-yadda [] - which means "management doesn't have to clean up the mess, you do"). It's a classic hierarchical power relationship, with "benefits" flowing to the top and "costs" shifted to the bottom."

See the difference in explanatory style, in the final sentence(s) where supposedly one summarizes and wraps up what one means to say? That's what comes over, and why I feel your second comment above may come over as cogent or meritorious observation while the first declares itself "sound and fury". Again, this is off topic though. Email? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Unsigned votes

How are we addressing unsigned votes here? Before this closes we need a method of determining the legitimacy of the votes on each side. Jeremy112233 (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The !voting is clearly messy - in a lot of ways. I'll just quote @Geoffbrigham: above "Personally I am reading it as a !vote, per its heading. I'm less interested in the numbers, and more interested in the comments."

I had thought at the start that there would be no !voting, only comments, but we're well past the stage of changing it now. Frankly, the feedback system needs to be worked on for the future, the WMF likely didn't expect 500+ comments/votes in the first few days.

But the results aren't going to depend on throwing out unsigned votes. Most of the unsigned votes were in the first 70 or so cases, mostly in the "support" category, but also in the "oppose". The totals in those categories as of this a.m. is 343 to 107 - it's not going to make a difference. Plus there were 58 !votes in the "Support, but should be stronger" category, which just started 1.5 days ago (with almost no unsigned votes). Since I started "Support, but should be stronger" it has gone more than 2 to 1 over "oppose", with plain old "support" still getting a majority. So "oppose" seems to be a minority of a minority. Smallbones (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I still think it is important for clarity here, but of course comments are the only thing that really matter in these things. That said, maybe that can be made more clear at the top--that this exercise is largely to seek critical comment, not a vote tally. That could let people with less Wikipedia debate experience that if they have an opinion on the matter they can share it, and that this is encouraged. Just a thought. Jeremy112233 (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a good thought, Jeremy112233. I'll bring it up with the team. (And Smallbones, you're quite right that we didn't expect quite this many comments - though we knew it would be a lot, in fairness.) Philippe (WMF) (talk) 11:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Philippe - no criticism of the WMF staff intended here at all. It is one of my pet peeves (I only have 3) however, that the consensus/!vote method of decision making really doesn't work very well when there are a couple hundred folks involved. Among other things - the loudest and most extreme views are often the only ones heard. Now that 700 folks have !voted, this would be extremely difficult for anybody to make sense of, if the results weren't so overwhelming (only 22.4% oppose). Even just looking at the numbers can be misleading, e.g. a lot of the "opposes" are really folks saying that they "oppose all paid editing"! Or a bit more understandable, that some opposes seem to come from folks who think that this ToU change will legitimize paid editing (despite what the WMF has said about that).

I imagine what will happen here at the end of the month is that each board member will take 3-4 hours to read through everything and come away with a good understanding of the percentages (+/- 5%), a few of the best arguments on each side, a few interesting new ideas, and that's about it. Then they'll discuss it at the board meeting, probably not spending much time on the best arguments only because they've discussed those many times before, spending a lot of time on the few new interesting ideas - but probably not coming up with a solid new solution because of this (the ideas are too new, but they might help set a new direction later). And ultimately deciding mostly from the percentages. It's a reasonable exercise - mostly to get the interesting new ideas into the mix - but I think we could do better.

My "interesting, new" proposed solution is:

• Have an open unstructured discussion, as we have now, but without !votes, until it become clear within a certain time that there are too many people discussing to make much sense of it (say 150 people in the first 2 weeks)
• Once it becomes clear that too many people are involved for an unstructured discussion, have a more formal, structured feedback system
  • WMF staff select the 4 or 5 "major viewpoints" and in one short paragraph each summarize these.
  • Everybody (including those who discussed before) could then svote, on a separate "page" like we use for voting for the ArbCom, selecting one of the structured choices, or "other" and putting their comments (say 100 word or less) is a special box.
  • If it was considered to be important there could also be a questionnaire on who the svoter is, e.g. reader, former editor, occasional editor, active editor, or even the old "check for 100 edits in the last year" option if that was really necessary.
• At the end, or as you go along, the output would be formatted under each of the structured choices (plus the other category), with the contributor's wiki-name and short comment neatly presented.
• The board members could easily see the percentages, read the comments much more quickly, concentrate on the "other" category where the interesting new ideas might be concentrated, and of course read the unstructured discussion. Whatever they want to do, they can do - but in a more structured form, making a more effective use of their time.

This wouldn't be useful for all discussion, e.g. discussion on technology might be very difficult with this method. The technical requirements to set this up shouldn't be very difficult - it's very much like the voting systems used for ArbCom and other places we actually vote.

Smallbones (talk) 17:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Another idea I'd throw in, if you were re-running this, would be to consider what roles you want the paid WMF staff to perform in the debate. It's been unclear, to me at least, about whether the individuals concerned are:

• Advocating the proposed amendment (e.g. selling it as a preferred solution);
• Neutrally providing expert information about the proposed amendment (e.g. explaining background, or what a particular concept meant);
• Neutrally coordinating or chairing the discussion (e.g. summarising points, steering debate etc.);
• Contributing as private individuals (e.g. not with their paid WMF hats on at all)

I think that with greater clarity about the roles being played out, we'd get a more structured and flowing discussion.

As a fan of experimental learning (!), I suspect that we'd also learn more about the interaction of paid and unpaid editing. Generally, I think that more of the community will accept paid editors contributing in the second category (as experts), and to a limited extent in the third (helping to coordinate), but is generally less keen on the first (acting as advocates) and are suspicious about the last (paid editors in a private capacity).

In this particular debate, of course, the WMF staff are paid editors with particular personal and organizational interests (I can't imagine your team would wish to be banned from editing entirely, for example, which is the proposal from the more extreme wing of the argument...). It would be interesting to consciously track what sorts of contribution the paid staff make, and reflect after the debate on the impact that has had, either on the debate itself, or on their own sense of what it is to be a paid/unpaid editor. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, we struggle with that on any consultation. Typically (although there's no easy indicator of it), folks from my community advocacy team are acting in a neutral fashion to moderate and steer things. Sometimes, I or another team member may be the "in-house expert" on something, and then we can provide background but were usually also have a pretty well informed opinion, which we usually share, because we're community members too. But yeah, when we have some people advocating, some being neutral, etc, it can lead to some confusion. I wish I knew an easy fix to that. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 18:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

My advice would be to follow best facilitation practice, and formally assign the key roles, including appointing an overall facilitator for the debate; someone to advocate for the change; and someone to handle the admin, including updating the FAQs. I'd advise putting these names and the roles clearly at the top of the discussion page, and then stick to them - don't be tempted to wander "off-role", because, as you say, it does confuse others and can break the "neutrality" of certain roles. I'd also recommend briefly stating how you intend to manage your work and personal personas at the top as well, for example, perhaps laying that you are formally acting in your WMF roles unless otherwise noted, and spelling out what's probably already on the individual editors' WMF pages - namely the legal team are professionally representing the WMF's interests etc. In my opinion, it wouldn't be unreasonable, at the start of a debate like this, to also note that the WMF team think the amendment is broadly the right way to go (else you wouldn't be intending to progress it!) - again, it makes it transparent. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Hchc: good ideas. Naming a facilitator (of the debate), an administrator (of the proposal and the FAQ), and an advocate (for the proposal), would be a help. Other possibilities:

• have an open group of clerks that help maintain the wiki discussion - everyone's welcome to do this, but for large-scale changes [like some of the refactoring, which can be contentious] it can help to have a group of people who regularly do that.
• have the comments and any !votes on their own page; neither the proposal page nor its talk page.

  Talk:Proposal can include discussions about wording, context, structure, and timing; not about content.

  Proposal/Comments can have discussions about the proposal, alternate proposals, and the like: most of what's on this page now.

  Talk:Proposal/Comments can include discussions about who is participating, how they're finding out about this / what this is a cross-section of; and how facilitation is going. Including sections such as this one.

–SJ talk  01:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Ungrouped discussion 2

A warning message to all paid editors

Hi! I hope I can get this message out to all paid editors ASAP, but if you are worried about this [5] (maybe because of that banner that keeps coming up), then have no fear. I have the perfect legal defense for you all, please see [6], ignore all rules, which permit you not break any rules of wikipedia. As an added bonus, it's official policy. By the way, to all wikipedia who do not support my POV, please don't delete this. I am simply offering a defense for paid editors.I would also greatly appreciate ways to reach more paid editors. Awarningmessage (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

And this kind of attempt to mislead people is exactly why this policy is being proposed, because the actual wording says "If it will improve the project".

The issue is, of course, that it's relying on a majority of Wikipedians reviewing the edits, to agree that the paid editor's choice to be deceptive and breach policies that are designed to help protect the integrity of editing, will "improve the encyclopedia".

What do you think the editorial community's answer will be when the paid editor's failed gaming that you advised them, is discovered? (Hint)

And how do you think this will reflect in the media on their employer or business? (Hint 2)

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Per FT2 and don't forget, you can't call Essay and Policy as "perfect legal defense". You're one funny guy aren't you?.--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 15:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Input from Superdadsuper

My input is I agree that those who are hired or contracted to edit a page or article should post so on their user page and as well in the edit summary. I also think before or after a paid contribution the Wikimedia Foundation should get a report about why they were hired to fix the error, what sorts of errors etc. I also believe that any paid edits that are not properly followed according to the Terms of Use should be investigated by the Wikimedia Foundation and should be dealt with appropriately. Part of the filling to the Wikimedia foundation about those being hired can also provide insurity that the source of payment was from the authority of the subject. In closing this is all I have to say Superdadsuper Biblicalapedia Administrator and Bureaucrat --Superdadsuper (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

avis d'un utilisateur

Non au "Paid contributions amendment". C'est la porte ouverte à tous les abus. Un utilisateur. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.240.128.185 (talk) 00:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Undisclosed compensation

Copied from User_talk:Marpaulus. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I am sixty four years of age. I am an Archbishop with the Independent Christian Churches International. I have had experience in bi-vocational ministry since 1973. Presently serving in Pakistan until death, building schools for the deserving children and depending on God's mercy and kindness to have an influence in a such a great Nation.

It is my strong suggestion that anyone who is being paid to contribute, edit, design, write, transcribe or alter pages, in Wikipedia, Wikimedia, or any other sight even remotely connected to this organization should make a full and complete disclosure of who they are, who they are being paid by, or what exchange of services they are receiving for such contribution to these sites.

Reason: We live in a global society.

We all are humans, therefore subject to bias, tradition, culture, and prejudices inherit in our society.

We all are, from time to time, influenced by "greed" which has been the small but ferocious mind altering vices of humans as far back as we have written or oral communication. Now, in an age of information, Wiki has a deserving privilege to invoke whatever remedies are necessary to keep its public information trustworthy and clear of any human behavior that may be distracted by influences from outside sources.

Let us not forget a very special example of one of the disciples of Jesus of Nazareth. On the same night that a lady of the street came in and broke a (stone) alabaster box of perfume on the feet of Jesus, which price was equal to one years worth of her wages. All of His disciples were so annoyed by this lavish expression of worship, could not hold their tongues still with critical and judgmental words of displeasure. It was that same night, while the entire room became filled with the Oder of this illustrious gift, a switch triggered in the heart of Judas to leave the room and go to the enemies of his leader and make an insignificant exchange of betrayal.

If this could happen to such a person of such exposure to one of the world's most famous Spiritual Leaders, who then can be of such character that could not be influenced by compensation of any sort or kind.

Thanks for allowing me the privilege of expressing my thoughts and thank all of you who have poured yourselves into making this resource such a blessing and educational tool for the future of our children.

Archbishop Mar Paulus, ICCI — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marpaulus (talk)

Hear, hear! Botteville (talk) 16:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Is this to protect NPOV?

This amendment appears to exist to attempt to protect NPOV. I find the wording very far-reaching in that (as discussed elsewhere) "compensation" and "employer, client, and affiliation" could cover very nearly anyone who edits a page.

I would revise this to include only the subset of contributors who are not explicitly told to honor NPOV. For examples:

• Your employer asks that you edit pertinent pages on Wikipedia relating to the company you work for. At face value, this implies to any employee to, at best "give a positive spin" unless instructed specifically to stick to facts and NPOV.
• Your author friend asks you, as an expert at editing Wikipedia pages, to create jeir "author's page". You might be inclined to make biased statements unless jee said to keep to facts.
• You work for an employer who wishes to use Wikipedia for free advertising and explicitly tasks you with editing pages to remove any negative perceptions and to add positive ones. In no way were you told to honor NPOV.

For that matter, it should be the case that all editing be performed by people who freely agree to the Terms of Use, including NPOV. Would a checkbox on the editing page that requires users to state that they freely agree to said terms pass legal muster? Jason Olshefsky (talk) 02:33, 25 February 2014 (UT

No, this is not about NPOV. This is a measure against ownership of Wikipedia by external corporations and political organizations. My very best wishes (talk) 10:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

"This is a measure against ownership of Wikipedia by external corporations and political organizations. ..." you forgot to include environmental, cultural, scientific, educational, etc. advocacy organizations as well... --Mike Cline (talk) 14:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

oppose

i oppose182.19.20.14 04:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I oppose paid editing.

Do not care, which counts as oppose as no support for change. Wiki's reputation sucks anyway for impartiality.

To be clear, the proposed amendment does not endorse paid advocacy editing. You can read more here.

• Not sure when last comment was placed so adding this as a date for future archiving Jalexander--WMF 21:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this.

wrong German translation

- Sie müssen weder die Höhe noch die Menge Ihrer Vergütung angeben, die Sie für Ihre Bearbeitung erhalten

must be

- Sie brauchen weder die Höhe noch die Menge Ihrer Vergütung anzugeben, die Sie für Ihre Bearbeitung erhalten

, as the negation of "müssen" is "nicht brauchen", like in English (do not have to)

Nicht ganz. Im Deutschen werden "nicht müssen" und "nicht brauchen" weit überwiegend synonym verwendet, insbesondere wenn die Unterscheidung zwischen Zwang und Erfodernis unerheblich ist (was hier der Fall ist, weil sich die Erfordernis allein aus dem in der Richtlinie kodifizierten Zwang ergibt). Zu den feineren Bedeutungsunterschieden in bestimmten Fällen siehe z.B. Zum Skopus der Negation der Modalverben des Deutschen in Modalität und Modalverben im Deutschen, ISBN 3875482549. 66.65.120.23 13:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

In der Tat, 66.65.120.23 hat das schlagende Argument an der Hand. Dessen ungeachtet sehe ich mir die Feinheiten der Uebersetzungen aber nochmal an, sobald der Text sich zu stabilisieren anfaengt. Bei dieser Art Konsultationsverfahren duerte das in rund zwei Wochen der Fall sein und dann gleiche ich den Punkt nochmal mit dem dann bestehenden englischsprachigen Haupttext ab. Gruss und Dank :), --Jan (WMF) (talk) 14:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

- 'Menge Ihrer Vergütung', besser 'Umfang Ihrer Vergütung'

• Not sure when last comment was placed so adding this as a date for future archiving Jalexander--WMF 21:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

STRONGLY SUPPORT - Transparency Always Trumps Accountability!

Strongly support - First, with an author's or editor's disclosure of a paid and compensated affiliation, especially regarding any type of intellectual property, it also implies that such an entry or edit can become the property of and would be "owned" by Wikipedia.Org, and not the "paying party"! So if a reader wished to quote or otherwise refer to an entry, that person would merely need to include the citation reference(s) linking to or attributing Wikipedia.Org. This single benefit of this "Paid Contributions disclosure amendment" is worth its price in gold for the User communities!

I don't think this amendment is strong enough -- an Exxon or Exxon PR firm employee can always say he was editing a climate-change page in his spare time. The wording shouldn't be "paid to edit" but "can't write on a topic related to the business of the editor's employer without disclosing the conflict." And often negative facts about individuals or organizations are deleted by their relatives, friends or supporters. Editors should have to disclose if they're closely associated with an individual or organization when they delete negative, documented facts.Wombatjpw (talk)wombatjpw

I agree with user Wombatjpw. I believe the disclosure should require the specification of closely associated to, if any form of affiliation exists. This may contribute to the prevention of rationalizing type of identification, x person (omitting he/she is an employee, or contractor for organization, but writes on his/her free time) vs. x person, employee, or contractor of X organizationVeronica2020 (talk)Veronica2020

• Not sure when last comment was placed so adding this as a date for future archiving Jalexander--WMF 21:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I strongly support this change and would like the change to include both direct and any indirect benefits that someone may receive. I guess that having something that is broad and yet enforceable is difficult, but I do hope this can be achieved. 185.15.100.90 18:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Support. Biting the Bullet

This is a very old type of topic. The question more generally is, do you sell out your original revolutionary ideals for the money to keep the revolution going? If you do, how can it be said to be a revolution? If you don't, you look failure and loss of previous sacrifices in the face. There is a host of corollary problems. What if a revolutionary leader or leaders profit from the revolution? You can see the problem I am sure. WP needs the money, no doubt. Its existence has been and will be in question, no doubt. WP has taken previous money without looking carefully at the source, no doubt. WP has favored money contributors, no doubt. Articles from paying contributors have been favored, no doubt. Non-payers have been thrust aside, no doubt. But now, the question has come up! How badly DO you need the money? How far from its original goals shall WP be allowed to get? I've seen editor after editor, honest administrator after honest administrator, be harassed and driven off WP. Along with it has been a deliberate downgrading of articles by phony administrators in temporary power. They don't do that for nothing, you know? I don't much contribute any more, as most contributory work is not contributory. But, now that the issue has come up, why not face it? I think there is still a lot of value in WP. Why not defend it? Is this not a step in the right direction? Maybe the product is worth biting the financial bullet. If we do not move, WP will degenerate finally into a long series of commercials, solvent ones, no doubt. I vote for the measure.Botteville (talk) 13:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

@Botteville:, your analysis at the top is very good for most revolutions, but I think that Wikipedia has avoided most of the problems you note.

• Wikipedia does not accept money for advertising, and would not get any money from the passage of this amendment.

Well, that is not quite what I meant. I will elucidate. Money gets contributed, let us say x dollars. If you now demand disclosure of powerful people and organizations who contribute, they will probably stop contributing! Thus the price for demanding forthrightness is the difference between x and the income after demanding forthrightness. In that sense forthrightness is an overhead. That is what I meant. Such a policy WILL cost WP contributory funds. Now for the advertising, I meant not just advertising but any sort of view people have to pay to publicise. For the rest of it you seem to have misunderstood. You say that I am saying the opposite from what I did say. I am saying, WP will lose money from this amendment! If you want money from people, you do not threaten them!

Wikimedia Foundation financial development 2003–2013, for reference. For more precise data see en:Wikimedia_Foundation#Finances. --Andreas JN466 15:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• The movement and the WMF are financially secure (at least in the short-term), getting something like $40 million in donations last year mostly from small donors averaging something like $15 per donation (Those who know the exact numbers, please correct my estimates)

If they are financially secure, why are they dunning us for money all the time? That is not security. Moreover, income is always balanced against expense. This note of your does not seem honest to me. You hasten to assert what WM denies many times a year by running fund-raisers. If they are secure, why should anyone contribute? Frankly, I'm disappointed. You seem like a fraud to me, another one of those professional hypocrites with a stake in not passing the amendment.

• This amendment is only about those editors who make money for themselves and their non-WMF employers by placing hidden advertisements and other self-serving material into our articles.

To make an analogy with your analysis. (removed - this just confused everybody!) Smallbones (talk) 14:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this amendment is only about that nor did I understand your strange analogy. As to whether you talk the talk and walk the walk, I'd say you don't even talk the talk. Mr. glib, at this point I got you pegged as one of the very people the amendment is aimed at. If someone has the guts to propose such an amendment it is clear to me that they are clear-minded and persistent so my guess is eventually they will arrive at a solution and WP will be able to do something more.Botteville (talk) 15:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

PS. I do see the graph. From an accounting point of view that is a phony also. The problem is the "net assets" column. Income is clear, and expenses are clear. These are the main items on an Income Statement. What is a "net asset?" It can't be profit, which income less expenses. In the first item, the "net assets" is made identical to the Income. But what about the expenses? Obviously the column is either phony or tracks something totally unexplained by the Income Statement items. It isn't good accounting, or any accounting at all. Any free acquisition of assets is income, I guess not reported here. Assets increase if the profit increases, but there seems to be no correlation here. I suppose by "net assets" you might mean assets less liabilities. Those are items on a Position Statement. Why is the graph mixing Income and Position statements? Wales must have borrowed quite a lot of money to get those assets. Why does that not appear? Frankly this graph seems to be pure BS to me. WM is non-profit, so the huge profits shown have to go into the capital or tp pay back the liabilities. What are you trying to do, get WM in trouble with the government? How about disclosing exactly who YOU are?Botteville (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I think we are totally misunderstanding each other. It's best to just leave it alone at this point. I have removed the analogy above - it confused even me!

I'm very familiar with accounting (over several decades) and the graph looks right to me. In brief: donations (the green line) minus expenses (the red line) = the change in assets over the previous year (the black line). Assets seem to be held in cash equivalents or short term investments, as I recall, which is a very conservative strategy.

As far as personal disclosure. I'm a comfortably retired university prof and have never taken any money from anybody to edit Wikipedia. From 2 unpaid situations, briefly working with fellow editors and WMF employees, I've disclosed my identity and more (with documentation) to the WMF. Folks who know about the struggle against paid editing all know of my dedication; you might want to check my contributions to the Signpost on this topic over the years. Smallbones (talk) 18:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Botteville, you may be interested to view the completed IRS Form 990 for the most recent year, which (as with all years) is posted to wikimediafoundation.org (specifically, here for 2012). I think that will answer your financial questions. Disclosure: I am a paid employee of the Wikimedia Foundation, though not in an accounting or finance role. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 11:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your disclosure Philippe. If I were sitting there right next to you and also worked for the foundation I think we would agree on some things and disagree on others. I would point out, you DO have a bias. YOUR boss is James Wales, so you cannot always say and do what you really think. It isn't that I hold it against you; after all, WP cannot function without a structure. I recognize this organization and method as an experiment. Like everyone else, I wonder if it can succeed. I am sure all of you there including James have had the same doubts. Encountering the obstacles I had the same reactions as all the other complainers you read on this page. I could have joined the great fight to destroy WP. That would have been a negative approach. I prefer to help it be better if I can. I'm participating in this discussion, but frankly I find I cannot do much on WP and still undertake the creative writing I am trying to do; moreover, WP writing is mainly presentational although it is not true that it is non-creative. Well, I still say I think WP may take a hit financially if disclosure is promulgated. On the whole however I am much happier with disclosure. Sometimes you have to know to whom you are speaking. For myself I'm a retired technical writer not so comfortable as you. I reached the wrong working age just about when the bottom fell out of the market. I have quite a varied background, some military, some engineering, some liberal arts. Politically I have tended to be more on the radical side, but often I'm quite independent. I don't know if that says anything. Well the rest of my day is scheduled to help someone move. Again, I feel better talking to disclosed people instead of to the shadows and spooks and my feeling is most people will also. If you can find a way to continue with that, that would be fine with me. I got to go now. I will pick up on this when I get a chance. Maybe I will resume some editing. Adios Amigo (I'm English).Botteville (talk) 13:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Botteville, because I'm a Wikipedian at heart, I want to correct a couple of factual inaccuracies in what you said. :) Jimmy (not James, his actual name is Jimmy) Wales is not my boss. Geoff Brigham is my boss, and Sue Gardner his. Now, the Board of Trustees (of which Jimmy is a holder of one-of-ten seats) is Sue's boss, so my eventual boss, I suppose but he's not my direct boss, and our Board is very good about not doing staff management. I don't agree with you that donations will take a hit if this is passed. I actually suspect that it won't move the needle on donations one way or the other. People give to Wikipedia because of what it is. For the most part, they won't even know about this rule. (Further disclosure, I ran the fundraiser for one year - 3 years ago - so have done some study of our donors. But I don't pretend to be up to date. For that, you need Megan, the Director of Online Giving, who is an absolute genius at anticipating our donors. And I'm still a paid employee of the WMF (they didn't fire me yet! <grin>) Philippe (WMF) (talk) 08:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Support

Although I'd prefer it if it said "... AND on the talk page AND in the edit history ..." If you're being paid to say something then let others know that your words are not your own Chrisboote (talk) 14:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I mostly second this. Searching the edit history is tedious, having to look at three places to find the information even more. At least notes on the user page and in the edit history should be mandatory. --BerlinSight (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree.65.51.192.126 21:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Paid contributions.

It is against the wiki ethos - although reality is time is money blah blah (in a modern world.) It is a tricky one. If payments are increasingly made someone will have to pay and that usually lands on the pocket of those who can least afford. Also when money is included, so is corruption. What do you call a person who makes love for money? I would prefer on multi-level reasoning that wiki stayed free of filthy lucre. It is an oasis and an oracle in an otherwise barren world. Thus I say no (to paid contributions.) 'nimrod' griffin. Griffmayo (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, this proposed amendment is not an endorsement of paid advocacy editing. You can read more here. Geoffbrigham (talk) 21:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the above statement. --Daniel_podgaichenko (talk) 06:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The paid contribution will create negative SEO for Wikimedia, where Google will dis-value all Wikipedia links and pages.

Payer des contributions?

Comme beaucoup de contributeurs bénévoles sur Wikipedia, je ne trouve pas normal de payer des rédacteurs d'articles et j'y suis opposé.

Confectionner une encyclopédie grâce à des bénévoles est une idée extraordinaire, il ne faut pas la détruire. Si des erreurs ou imprécisions sont commises, il est toujours possible d'y remédier puisque chacun peut donner son avis. La perfection n'est pas de ce monde, mais les tentatives d'abus ne sont que trop nombreuses, c'est inutile de s'y exposer...

ZorglubAB (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

"Google translate: Like many volunteer contributors on Wikipedia, I do not find it normal to pay writers of articles and I am opposed.

Make an encyclopedia by volunteers is an amazing idea, do not destroy it. If errors or inaccuracies are made, it is still possible to remedy since everyone can give his opinion. Perfection is not of this world, but attempts to abuse are all too numerous, there is no need to expose ..."

• Not sure when last comment was placed so adding this as a date for future archiving Jalexander--WMF 21:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

TRANSPARENCE

Pourquoi refuser les contributions rémunérées ? Les médecins doivent-ils soigner gratuitement leurs patients ? ...... Mais il faut une totale TRANSPARENCE. La garantie ? C'est que quiconque puisse modifier, si une modification est justifiée. Paul.schrepfer (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Google translate: "Why deny the contributions paid? Physicians should they treat their patients for free? But ...... it takes a total TRANSPARENCY. Warranty? Is that anyone can change, if a change is warranted."

• Not sure when last comment was placed so adding this as a date for future archiving Jalexander--WMF 21:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Avis d’un utilisateur

Non au "Paid contributions amendment". C’est la porte ouverte à tous les abus ! Un utilisateur qui en a marre que tout soit dévoyé par le fric. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.50.28.13 (talk) Google translate: "No to 'Paid contributions amendment. 'This opens the door to abuse! A user who is tired that everything is corrupted by the money." -- translation added by Philippe (WMF) (talk) 11:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

There is a master plan to ban paid editing

See my comments here.Just Cause (talk) 19:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

GOOD! 203.26.125.101 23:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

As an Argentinian

I can agree with these new Terms of Use. Several articles in the Spanish Wikipedia are highly biased, probably written by so called "militants". These people have often been exposed for being paid to tweet in support of political organizations. It wouldn't surprise me if they were paid to edit Wikipedia, as well. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 181.28.191.105 (talk)

very bad change !

• you'll just get payed more to not reveal that you get payed at all -> this rule actually helps the payed traitors to earn more
• it gives a whole new vector of attac by fooling of whom you work for -> traitors can put false contractors and thus can spread distrust or trust to 3rd partys
• the other rules of wikipedia are already doing its job good, like that you have to show evidence for your claims that anyone can proof .. no matter if it was payed or not
• the whole 'rule' might apply to many more people and the separation between payed and not payed is really unclear -> e.g. is it payed work if you write about sth. you know, but the reason you know about this is that you earned your living out of this area of science? simply by writing and improving an article of your own work-field increases a little bit the public view on that field, thus gaining you and in the long term your company more money .. if you just forbid 'payments to edit wikipedia' the contracts will just be renamed to sth. like 'i pay you for public relations' and pointing him at wikipedia -> no revelation needed? -> the whole idea of revealing of who you payed simply won't work like imagined by some naive people over here

62.100.103.86 20:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

good change !

• I see this as a very good thing, especially in the light of the growing activity of secret services and the like, see Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive, and Destroy Reputations
• To the comment of 62.100.103.86 above this one, I answer: well, then let doing shady stuff cost them (whoever) more. The more it costs them, the better. Means budget limits means less manipulators
• As I understand it, the rule applies when you get paid for actually editing the wikipedia, its not about where your knowledge comes from (that has to be sourced/evidence required by other rules, that should stay the way it is)
• This is good even when the rule can't be strictly enforced and depends on the honesty of the editors, as it shows people that such action isn't okay and shouldn't be normal
• Its a message to the community and to the public which strengthens the spirit of free and transparent knowledge sharing, that this and similar projects are meant as enrichment to humanity and shouldn't be abused as propaganda tool
• thanks for the banner, it made me participate here

a swiss guys opinion, 46.253.177.114 21:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in. I'm glad the banner was helpful for you. We try to carefully judge when to use them and when not to, because banner space is precious and it's a heck of a tool to deploy. It's good to know that it was effective in getting you here though. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 11:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Osip Goth (moved from Support vote - too long and clogging up the numbering

Support + Ideas. The key to fixing responsibility for the truth of contents is the truth of personal integrity and the only way to reach this goal is to publish by real-name as I do. This did cost me much trouble of discussions and deletions even in an unrelated cross-topic way of editorial misconduct since I do not operate with dissociated identities. I am n designing medical databases as entrepreneur and tried to give some valid ideas directly from the person who designed and curated them. I caught the shit for this.

1. At no time there was a problem of matching me as a wikitxt contributer and developer of those resources which I created. Sure, there is a difference between getting a topic relevant vs faking the wikitxt of an already accepted item - I failed the former; there are no similar ressources out there than I created, but in the intention of creating negative propaganda on competitor's subjects, I had the opportunity to get into some kind of revenge by anon-ip. Everybody can fake-down an article even by adopting an advertisment-like style to make a formerly well-written article subject to neglect, not by omitting essential properties and so on. So, any edit done in explicit fraud may be done in support of someones interests, but no-one would sign that minor non-contential edits should be in someones economic interests. If I like a product as a satisfied customer, I would describe it in a supporting style, if I see that by brother scanner needs ink at 50$ even to scan and the pdf-scans are single-page-image-pdfs, I would personally retract from buying brother officeware, but I am not selling or promoting or affilling items from a competitor, and, as anybody would say, there is no much more conflict of interest than to have thrown away 100$ for trashware. Had I to declare me beeing a screwed (dict.cc de-en) customer ?

   So, it is more important to let people positively state where they feel to write beyond obejectivity on a by-case base. There is no COI when I as a physician describe MDSC cells whereas I am creating useful medical databases because there is no overlap of interests. I would not see any COI in the MDSC topic even if I had to cite my former employer as hospital physician. I do not see any CPOI in my rivets image which is the same in amazing dot de as well as in the german wikitxt on that topic because it is a valid complementary graphical description. The pic is not misleading, since it shows a superb low-cost product extension available from any building-supplies-store (dict.cc baumarkt de-en).

   Remeber, if I had wirtten on the pic a-generous-gift-from-the-leading-vendor EGO (Im not...), this well-done piece-of-work would have been discarded as advertisement. So I omitted explicit signs of identity.

   Some companies are interested to see at least content-valid articles so it could happen they would edit stuff that a w202 has 1798 ccm not 1789 ccm. Maybe, a solution to the whole problem should be a complementary page (article,discussion,dependent-contributions) showing who by freename on behalf of whom by freename.inc did modify a paragraph in which intention. If I run a wikitxt page edit, it would yield 10 versions until style and typeset would be correct, so the Edit-summary box is the least useful site to show the COI declaration. And the users home page either - or has ip 109.45.67.89 a users home page or something with an own personality ?

   O.G on behalf of his own as enwiki editor and dewiki author and disillusioned customer of officeware discussing his experience in contributing wikitxt as an entrepreneur concerning his own work and pledging for a full COI page covering conflicts on an per-edit-session base

   So, readers can expect where the bias is located: Nobody scans the bulk page (article-history) which edit was done by whom and who of them explicitely outs himself of having conflicts. This is of use to editors trying to save contents as objective and valid, but it would be useless to those ppl who came into wiki to read shortly why a canary sings his song.

   Hope I have contributed at least one well-suited idea - that of the third page - with my topical COI of having enwiki editor status.

Conflict of interest
*Article: Talk:Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment
*User: Ossip_Groth
*in the interest of wiki user/topic unknown
*with explicit name  enwiki-dewiki 
*states the following conflict-of-interests:
enwiki-editor on wiki integrity
disillusioned-customer on officeware
entrepreneur on articles of his own products--Ossip Groth (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

1. The inserted template coi_experimental seems to avoid that numbering continues!! Could anybody repair this?

needs "This page in a nutshell" and basic background news

The page is very confusing for someone not knowledgeable about the topics. I'm an experienced editor and wise about many branches of the law (e.g. intellectual property law), and after reading the intro I'm lost as to what's going on here. I shouldn't have to pore through the whole thing to figure this out, especially if there's going to be a large invitation link when I'm reading/editing. Some basic questions should be answered before asking someone to delve into the article: Are there people being paid to edit WP? Who are they? Is this to stop this or allow this? Will this mean I could get paid for editing? Etc... Squish7 (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

@Squish7: Given the vast amount of discussion about this topic, we didn't think this was necessary - clearly a mistake. We've been working on it for a bit now, but I'm afraid your comments are sending me back to the drawing board. Thanks for the comment. —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 01:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Squish (and Luis). It is clear that this is a topic of high interest, and your suggestion makes sense. One possible place to start might be the Wikimedia Foundation's Executive Director's statement on this issue, which you can find here. Also you may wish to read the amendment and FAQs here as well as our section on answers to recurring questions here to understand the proposed scope and limitations of the amendment. Over the years, there have been a number of Signpost articles on paid advocacy editing as well as regular press reports expressing a variety of views. Geoffbrigham (talk) 16:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Emilia Lehr's opinion

Your speech is as free as you are rich. Your encyclopedia is also as free as you are rich.

By law, in the US free speech has become as free as you are rich. And world-wide, the reality doesn’t look any different.

And: The most significant power in this “information age” is that of misinformation.

There are several facets to this. One is a genie that already is out of the bottle. How can we, the non-corporate Wikians, band togethet to police the corporate intruders? If they run countries (which they do, almost all of them), how can we keep them from running this repository of free information? If information has become the backbone of what we are sold as “national security” we can bet that misinformation and infiltration is no less an integral part of that “national security” strategy. The same goes for the medical industrial complex, which includes the ultra-profitable pharmaceutical, medical, and insurance industries.

Misinformation and slanted information is nothing different from censorship. What we have is corporate censorship by drowning independent information in a flood of paid contributions.

I was at the receiving end of this a couple of years ago, when some commercial interests (an actress and her sponsor) changed the wiki page for my late wife Greta Keller. They edited me out and inserted a plug for their unauthorized production about my wife’s life. Eventually, the commecrial change was deleted, but it demonstrated very clearly to me how deeply misinformation pervades out lives.

Let’s face it, if the population of one country didn’t have misinformation about the people of another country, they would not go to war. It’s called war propaganda and has been in use for thousands of years, as long as there have been wars.

Biased information is propaganda.

Let’s take the thing about Eve and the apple. It is a piece of alleged information that has led to a brutal war against women, with millions and millions of casualties, to this day and going on as we speak. Not all are burned or drowned. But it is a war.

The same war of corporate misinformation succeeds in promulgating the propaganda that it is OK to commodify and/or destroy our life resources. It’s an equation that cannot pan out (pardon the gold digger language).

This war is no different from that depicted in Fahrenheit 451.

Having said all that, our challenge is that of any enforcement. We cannot make laws that the law-breakers can’t break. We can only make it harder to break the law. This, however, pits us against the numerical superiority of the corporate interests. You and me, we have jobs, we have a life. We cannot give up our lives to gumshoe through wikipedia to flag every infomercial we see. We are also not specialists in whatever discipline the predators post biased information about. Maybe we have to think differently.

Instituting fees would be useless. Legal action is pobably, too. The legal system, after all is a legal system and not a justice system. Maybe we need an out-of-the-box approach, and I don’t know yet what that would be. All I can think of is some kind of crowdsourced approach (not that it couldn’t be invaded as well).

Really, my friends, this is the tip of an iceberg.

But we may have more power than we think. Feel into it. What do you feel strong about. Go for it. Question posts when they are too good to be true, when they sell you something.

to be continued

Emilia Lehr (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Biased information is propaganda

OK

Let’s take the thing about Eve and the apple. It is a piece of alleged information that has led to a brutal war against women, with millions and millions of casualties, to this day and going on as we speak. Not all are burned or drowned. But it is a war.

So this is propaganda? --BerlinSight (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

No paid editors should be allowed on this site.

Wikipedia is the place all common people, as well as many experts, go to for quick information that has become reliable over wikipedia's existence. Paid editing will inevitably lead to the wealthy taking control of the information we all go to for reference. Companies will be able to control how they are portrayed, politicians will be able to glorify themselves, and all the people who go to wikipedia to become generally informed on such matters will be deceived. WIKIPEDIA SHOULD NOT ALLOW PAID EDITING. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.212.121.136 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC).

I absolutely agree with this post. When this is a community project supported by donations, why do we need corrupt paid posts at all. Another thing - why this is posted all the way in the end that one is bound to miss. Is this by design/intentional. It should be on the top.

-Manoj

Simply because new comments are posted at the bottom. It is by design (although you could argue the design is confusing). PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

A WP:V/NOR/NPOV article is paid for - do we ask them to stop? Delete?

Seriously, if PR Firm X or Congressional Staffer Y put together content that follow our core policies, and we figure out the connection, would we demand that they cease and desist from neutrally reflecting reliable sources to produce articles that would otherwise merit GA etc.? Would we delete and ban?

It just seems that if the problem is various organizations, paid or not, systematically violating our existing policies, then that is what we should discuss. If they commit fraud while violating of our policies, then lets talk about that. Otherwise we'll find ourselves down some of the slippery slopes discussed by others here.

And of course those willing to violate our core-policies won't mind violating one more policy. And by "our" policies, I mean ENWP, since we all know that that is what is being discussed. Disappointed [and opposing], Fmrvetwp (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. So what if it was paid for? As long as it is NPOV, properly sourced and compliant with excisting guidelines. 188.207.104.166 15:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your views. I think if a undisclosed paid editor is acting in good faith, the community should give them a gentle reminder that the terms of use require disclosure. I don't see good edits removed, but I could see community members wanting to review those edits for NPOV given that interested parties have paid for the edits. Also we address some other points here. Thanks again for taking the time to comment. Geoffbrigham (talk) 15:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Flip on its head - if an article is written by a paid editor for some commissioning person or company or organization, and it happens that paid editor is careful and fair, informed about our policies, takes effort to comply and search out balanced NPOV even if that might not be to their client or employer's favour, and the end result is WP:V/NOR/NPOV, then why exactly can editors and the public not be told the edit was paid for (which doesn't impact personal pseudononymity or right of editing) so that it can have the extra scrutiny and eyeballs it might merit, and the community can clearly agree it's neutral and so on? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree with FT2. This change in the ToU doesn't require anything except disclosing that an edit was paid for, and who paid for it. It does not require outing editors. It does not require deleting articles. It *allows* independent editors to identify paid edits and to check whether they are WP:V/NOR/NPOV. It *allows* independent editors to check whether there has been abuse. And there clearly has been abuse by firms like Wiki-PR, and we need to be able to clear it up more efficiently.

This change in the ToU is *not* as strong as I'd like it. I believe that the chance of abuse is so high with *commercial editing of articles* that we might as well ban the practice. There would still be ways, however for a business to get material into an article, e.g. they could post the material on their own website and encourage independent editors to quote them. Smallbones (talk) 16:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why FT2 deleted my comment - I'd guess by mistake because of an edit conflict. But who knows, maybe I don't agree with him! Smallbones (talk) 21:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't delete people's comments other than in the most extreme grossly improper cases (having been an oversighter), at least not deliberately. Please reinstate anything that may have been killed by any edit conflict and sorry if it has happened. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Statements made in the "questions" section

We're trying to focus on recurrent, constructive questions above in the #Background section. In an attempt to keep that section focused, I've moved non-questions/arguments made in that section here, in the main body of the discussion. —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 23:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• There is no doubt paid advertising used by entities, including countries. If only Mexico was more into Wikipedia, last year only .6 million people used Wikipedia from Mexico. I have heard that Turkey pays editors to say good things about them and bad things about a perceived enemy. There is no way this type of editing will ever be disclosed. If companies (or other entities) actually do disclose their editing, it will give the impression all orgs are disclosing. This is simply an amendment that has no teeth, and whose sole purpose is to provide "cover" for Wikipedia that they are "doing the best they can" and won't be sued. That is the only problem "solved" by this. Ubie the guru (talk) 16:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
• A TOTAL waste of time, and face-saving exercise. No mechanism to establish who is in fact a PR stooge and who is legitimate. All a way to hopefully rescue Wiki from the inevitable lawsuits. This place is a sewer of Western political propaganda anyway. 142.176.57.222 22:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
• I feel that this proposal is a complete waste of time as well, but I also think the provisions will discourage Wikipedia users from making slight changes to incorrect material. Thus, Wikipedia will turn into another website controlled by people who are paid to do a "good" job. Also, if people are paid to edit Wikipedia pages, some information may be offensive to "everyday" users.
• The proposed amendment is a good start - and the minimum requirement. Further, I see a necessarily adversarial relationship between the foundations of Wikipedia and paid POV editing. POV editing is part of the marketplace of ideas; paid POV editing is just part of the marketplace. - Neonorange (talk) 03:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

General support

I agree and support it. Many people who make contributions to Wikimedia or Wikipedia do have conflicts of interests.

For example, say I am an employee of a fictitious organization/company called MER. Now say that there is a Wikipedia page or Wikimedia on MER. So I go to MER, and because I want MER to look good, I write flowery good stuff about MER and support it all with pro-MER websites and media. So basically, as a member of MER, I am using Wikimedia or Wikipedia to make MER look good thus helping to advertise MER instead of looking to build up Wikimedia or Wikipedia. I don't think this should be allowed.

Then say MER pays their webmaster, who operates the MER company website, to go and help make the MER Wikipedia/wikimedia better and pro-MER.

So in both scenarios the people are employees of MER and are trying to advertise MER instead of making Wikipedia/Wikimedia better and more reliable. Qewr4231 (talk) 05:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Navakodi Sithar Aalayam-Point Calimere

I was at this temple recently-19th February 2014, and had the opportunity to meet Mr. Vyrakannu, the great great grandson of the guardians of the temple. The temple is in a bad shape and and in need of repair and renovation. The renovation has already begun but the progress is at standstill due to financial difficulties. The man is in desperate need of funds to complete the renovation project and I was wondering how the public in India who visit the temple on an annual basis in April could be contacted for financial contribution to complete the project in time for the festival..

My name is Nadraj and I am writing from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Hi Nadraj! Welcome. Unfortunately, some bad news - while I'm sure this is a laudable task, it's not the purpose of this page, which is to discuss the proposed Terms of Use. I'm not sure that we're the organization best positioned to help out here. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 11:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe that this discussion has concluded and, unless you remove this template, will be archiving this topic soon. If you disagree, please edit this section and remove {{ArchivingSoon}}. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 11:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I support this change

I think commercial, business, and government editors should have to identify themselves. I have read many articles on say a company or a president where it's blatantly edited by one of their cronies to portray the article's subject in a positive light. At the very least, their corporate/government IPs should be logged and flagged as identifiers, to warn other Wikipedia users of their edits and draw suspicion/verification. Allen649 (talk) 09:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't paid staff and governors of organizations that have an avowed advocacy mission be subject to this as well. Those staff and governors, if they edit any article related to their organization's mission are likely to be pushing their POV. These organization exist for the sole purpose of pushing a POV (advocacy). Why single out businesses or commercial organizations? --Mike Cline (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree Mike. Allen649 (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree Mike, "Shut er' down" (as "uncandidLover1982" so lovingly puts it) before ulterior motives and illicit subliminal messages draws us further yet from our once god fearing peace loving country that Benjamin Franklin perceived- nay dreamed we would propagate towards. For that to happen, we must completely shut wikipedia down, as you so keenly alluded to in your comment. Rest assured, you are far from alone in your idealism. You have my unconditional and inextinguishable support in pressing this petition.

Support

As an occasional editor but frequent reader of WP articles I support this idea. A lot of opinions, pro and con, ventured above seem to be driven by specific personal experiences of edit and moderation wars from people deeply involved in the WP/WM community - their involvement is doubtless very valuable (certainly I value it) but their opinions are necessarily unrepresentative of the bulk of users. To me the issue is very simple - undisclosed paid editing is not good for WP, and the policy should clearly state that it is not allowed. Or in the terms of the amendment, that disclosure should be made in the case of paid edits. Objections may certainly be made that the policy is not enforcable, and problematic edge-cases proposed, but these are not valid counter-arguments to the amendment. They are observations that the world is a complex place.

My personal wish (that it is unlikely to come to pass, I concede, simply because popular content would be removed under this scheme and so usage would dramatically decline in the short term) is that the whole issue of undercover shills be circumvented by a radical change to the interpretation and enforcement of the Relevance and Notability criteria. Articles on living people - get rid of them. Articles on extant commercial entities - get rid of them. Once they're gone, what's there left that anyone would want to secretly pay for? Already Google and soon the children of IBM's Watson, Wolfram Alpha etc. will return you all the factoids about a celebrity or company that you care to ask for within a search result. You don't need to visit the WP page. WP should play to its true strength, which is not a repository of factoids, nor opinions, nor even informed journalism, but as a collection of curated Articles written in an informative, didactic style. You know, like... an encyclopedia. Controversial I know. Delocalizer (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Would you agree with eliminating all articles on extant organizations and closely related topics as well whose explicit mission is the advocacy of POV? --Mike Cline (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

That wouldn't be relevant to the question or his comment though. We have policies to help articles with such issues be improved, and to mandate that certain editorial approaches aren't allowed. Wikimedians can write fairly NPOV articles on POV bodies and ideas easily enough and we routinely do; since any topic can have a slant, any NPOV topic is evidence that slants can be neutrally covered. So probably nobody here is interested in eliminating articles (especially those on organizations, even those with non neutral goals)... or eliminating any editorial input.

The aim (as I see it) is more like, 1/ transparency of editorial motives of one specific subgroup that may have resources and persistence about the norm, and a motive or intent to slant our neutrality, 2/ to require disclosure of a financial motive, mainly so the article can gain more scrutiny, better editing prevail, and 3/ for those editors who do not value neutrality and who want to benefit from POV editing to the point it suits them to hide a commercial finance motive, to place them formally in breach of a legal not a social policy if/when they do so. Reducing some bad writing of articles, perhaps, or making it a little less easy to feel safe covertly doing so. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Well put. I would only add that the idea of getting rid of articles on commercial entities and living people is not motivated by a belief that these are bad in principle, but by a pragmatic approach to what I see as an optimization problem - there are finite editorial resources available to maintain the quality of Wikipedia; it seems to me (as an admitted outsider) that a disproportionate quantity of those resources is spent resolving POV controversy relative to other quality issues; the quickest and dirtiest fix for that is to get rid of a large category of causes. I don't think it would harm the mission, and it would play to a strength. Delocalizer (talk) 04:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Society as we see it.

Money is the unique tool that corrupts and destroys the morality of mankind. Today, majority of employees enter into jobs they dislike and most likely hate, but since they have no other means that is legal to get a paycheck, they work. America contains some of the worst workaholics in the world. People work so much that their immune system grows weak and their body is no longer able to fight bacteria. Their emotional side of their brain is deteriorating considering the fact that all they do is work. Not love, not live, but work. Nonchalantly, they work. Afraid to rebel, they sit in their little offices, or they work tediously at their horrific job. But this is society today. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.134.86.226 (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

By not disclosing paid commentary and by not making the entries in Wikipedia totally transparent, confidence in Wikipedia as a reasonably accurate source of information is severely compromised and ALL articles become suspect. Full disclosure should be required of ANY paid content. 209.169.69.254 18:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC) Rob Briggs, Montgomery, TX, 2/26/14.

A look from an angle not quite right?

I wonder if the folks behind the amendment have this particular view on the issue: See, we’ve got a problem. So let us think of a rule to solve it!

The problem, so to say, is that it’s not rules that make Wikipedias and various other Wikiprojects neutral (or otherwise healthy): it’s the people that do. Should there be no user to notice the biased edits, or should there be no administrator to delete the pages and block the offender, – the rule is of no use anymore.

That is, as long as there’re 100 well-behaving Wikipedians per one mean advertiser (or “Hey, I’ve just got it off the Internet!” photo uploader, or someone else along that line), – the offenses will be duly noted and acted upon. But if, on the other hand, there’s no community to take action, the most complicated and well-intended rules won’t help the project to retain its credibility.

True, this amendment alone wouldn’t result in anyone ceasing to participate. Not any noticeable share of the community, anyway. But add a dozen more, and the particular implementations in the rules local to a project on top of that, and the impact may become visible.

And I’ve seen it all over the place: the articles on Wikipedia citing no reliable sources whatsoever to prove the notability of their respective subjects – for half a decade; the files at the Commons attributed to someone else than the uploader, but with no proof of the licensing information stated; or (my personal favorite): the files at Russian Wikibooks lacking any attribution or licensing for years (including a few whole textbooks in PDF, claimed to be under CC BY-SA, but presumably restrictively licensed, that I’ve just nominated for deletion.) And all that in spite of all the rules strictly prohibiting just that.

The cause? The lack of manpower.

But yes, the rules are good.

— Ivan Shmakov (d ▞ c) 21:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Support

I support these ammendments. Transparency seems to be the most appropriate way to address these concerns.

Solifidist (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

lol

I agree, having read thousands of pages, and often returning to pages months later - the 'planned' or 'commercial' editing shows. I suggest that paid be tagged as commercial input. All too often I know something is wrong. Only twice have I tried to comment. both time I got a hack back telling me to stay out. O.K. I always tell my staff to use more than reference. Wk is fine now show me the bound copy.

Sadly all to often the bit 'lacks sufficient sources' pops up. Not everything will have a source or a pre-positioned paper on the topic.

Then there are the pages that are no longer there... (repository or current linguistic stream?)

Tag the paid or planned or commercial editing, this will allow the reader to consider the source.

regards dan

• I agree with the amendments and the public should know the background of the contributors. If wiki is going to have meaning it must make every attempt to prevent being overcome by special interest groups and disinformation that can harm us all. That is to say....it is getting harder and harder to find pure research that is not subject to the bias of the sponsors. Keep up the good work Wiki!

Amendment regarding undisclosed paid editing.

Boy what a load of rubbish you have to read to finally get to this page (lawyers) . Yes I agree there should be a small payment a one off for small users like myself. I'm just retired and would maybe use it 10 times per year. So I think there needs to be consideration to small uses of the system. Regards Bob

I think you may misunderstand: Wikipedia remains free always, forever, and regardless. This proposal is that if someone is paid to add material to Wikipedia for money or other gains, they should have to disclose it when they edit, for transparency and quality control purposes. As a user and reader, you and anyone else never has to pay for enjoying and using Wikipedia in full, every part of it, as much as you like - ever. You will never have to pay to read and use Wikipedia - ever. Wikipedia and its many charitable sister projects are part of a charity, the Wikimedia Foundation. The Foundation does not get its funding from corporate sponsors and marketing deals. It is funded instead by public donations, small donations by hundreds of thousands or millions of people worldwide, and occasional larger "arms length" donations, the vast majority from the mass public who read and use it, so it can remain fully independent from corporate pressures. Of those who support Wikipedia, some donate what they can, as they feel able, to help Wikipedia and its sister sites continue to be accessible in other parts of the world, in hundreds of editions covering over 200 languages, especially in developing and poor areas where textbooks may be missing, education may be slight, or important knowledge may be censored or misunderstood, and to run and maintain its internet websites. Some can't or don't. But in either case, they are all welcomed to enjoy, read and use any of the content held, which is provided free to you and everyone - and by its governing constitution always will be. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

(copying this 'boldly to top of FAQ section - FT2)

No Paid or Unpaid Editors Abolition of Wikipedia and its Open Door Editing

This policy is completely idiotic. Everyone knows that wkikipedia can be edited by anybody and that ANYBODY can create their own 'sources' to pretend to support any article in part or in whole in a medium that is electronic. One of the most important and insane examples are propaganda articles like the ones about F.Y.R.O.M. where the title is listed that references a non-existent country, and where the body of the article clearly supports that propaganda - propaganda that is, in fact, panned by every logical scholar. When people edit the page to put in FACTS, the master's who run wikipedia ban the people who make the factual edits and reinstate the original propaganda texts that were in the article. This clearly shows that the wikipedia owners SUPPORT propaganda!! Same thing happens on articles about Japanese island articles which have been edited with chinese propaganda!!! So if these things happen, how can you have paid or even unpaid editing?! The only solution is to stop this poison since wikipedia will not remove propaganda pages like this!! So my support is the abolition of wikipedia since we can't have scholars exclusively write articles who know NOT to write propaganda pages like FYROM, among other things. But of course this edit on the comment page will probably be removed or sited for some reason or another on their main page for what ever bull**** reason - which will be further proof that wikipedia supports the cultural genocide of my people and others.

With no due respect, Johnny P.M.

I fully agree in principle. See my pointing out of things below ("Judenstern tag…").--Paracel63 (talk) 11:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

This is completely misinformed. There is no "editor in chief" who determines editing. There are no "masters" who run Wikipedia. Wikipedia is written by millions of different members of the public from all around the world - and only by them. It is legally owned by a Foundation, but they operate the systems which support the website and are not the creators of the encyclopedia's content. So if you find content is removed or missing, which you wanted or expect, it isn't because some god-like editor in chief or "master" (!!) removed it. It is because the editing community - who come from all countries, all ethnicities, all political views - have either removed it, or don't feel it should be reinstated, or (much more often) they haven't agreed it meets our standards. Wikipedia is a reference source, so a lot of things you might want it to say - it won't. A lot of smaller topics you might want it to cover - it won't. If you expect Wikipedia to show your preferred view and your preferred scholars over the wider majority view of the world and the evidence provided of how the world generally (not just your "side") sees it - it probably won't. That is the policy agreed by its users and editors, millions of people worldwide, not any "masters".

It is harder to get neutrality in areas where many people feel strongly in different ways, such as F.Y.R.O.M., often with good reasons and scholars on both sides, but anger and "hot air" is never going to get you anywhere on Wikipedia, except as you have found, a block or ban.

If you educate yourself, you'd find that we have tight policies about the content and writing we allow on Wikipedia, and you'd find what those policies are and why they exist. If you write angrily and without satisfying other editors of the quality of your changes, then it's probably no surprise one of millions of members of the public - in America, Japan, the UK, Australia, wherever it may be - decides it really isn't high enough quality and may remove it. If they are wrong, then reasoned evidence is needed to change that opinion, or it'll keep happening. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

"Preferred views and preferred scholars"? are you on drugs or something?? Propaganda is propaganda. And what I stated is completely valid. Contrary to your brainwashed reasons, it doesn't change the fact that that article needs to be completely removed on the basis that it promotes irredentist aspirations and references to a non-existent country. And the continued promotion of such propaganda directly supports the arguments that wikipedia like many others are seeking the cultural genocide of my people!! A fake country with a fake language, fake symbols, cities full of perverted copies of ancient Greek statues, youth full of fanaticism against their neighbors, people absolutely cut from the truth and their Past (a past history btw which started after WW2!!). Besides, it is a non-existent country, by the way, which contains the ONLY PEOPLE in history to have stolen others history simply because they are in denial about the fact that they have NO history. So please stop pretending like most people accept your idiotic propaganda-supporting and wake up. I already gave you reasoned evidence!! are you blind?! - Johnny P.M P.S. about your "majority of the world" bullshit, that is how propaganda is promoted!! and the more idiots perpetuate it the worse it will get!! So please don't insult my intelligence by saying that "the majority of the world" believes something that is contrary to historical FACT!! - Johnny P.M.

Writing ad hominem comments attacking people who bother to try and help ("on drugs.. brainwashed.. pretending.. your idiotic propaganda..") is hardly going to make you sound like someone that can be reasonably talked with to discuss such an issue. Given we have a policy for blocks and bans for personal attacks, and you have had warnings about it, consider whether this is the same way you got blocked or banned? Not for writing about Yugoslavia, but for focusing on how much you could attack others and declare you are certainly 100% right and they are "brainwashed" "idiotic" propaganda pushers?

I think you may need it said without euphemisms. So here's the thing. I, personally, as an uninvolved editor, don't give a care per se about "your side", or "the other side", in whatever real-life dispute you may have. I, personally, don't care which of you is right or wrong, or whose version of history is right or wrong, in your off-Wikipedia matters. If I were inclined to edit this area, I would make decisions based on our policies and not your personal view. I don't know any people personally who are strongly engaged in either side of your real-world argument, and yours is one of a thousand real-world geopolitical disputes where people feel similarly strongly (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Crete, Ireland, Kashmir, Palestine/Israel, Rwanda, Spain, you name it).

I do care that you have been blocked or banned, because if you could edit again, then you might be able to contribute more in the end to topics that interest you and others. But I wouldn't invite that if you can't collaborate to make your editing presence a positive thing. I care how you behave when you are a guest on Wikipedia, which is a precondition to editing. I care that you follow site policies when a guest on Wikipedia and that you don't attack other editors, that you treat people on the other side as cordially as your own, that you listen when editors who aren't involved tell you to cool it or cut out some behaviors, and that you understand Wikipedia is not going to be saying your view in the way you want it said, because other views exist too. I care that you follow our site's policies on sourcing and balance and original research, which aren't perfect by far but seem to be the best we have and apply to every other topic and to yours as well, and I care that, if you believe other editors aren't following them, you handle that concern like our site dispute policies say, even if that doesn't always get you the answer you want. These are all conditions for any dialog or editing our sites. I also care that you are arguing all of these on this page that has nothing to do with the proposal, and so it's pointless on this page. If it has a point elsewhere then write it elsewhere. If you tried and it wasn't heard, then learn to write to your fellow editors in a way that doesn't get you blocked or banned, or write it on a non-Wikimedia website. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems that all of you have had your collective asses handed to you by corporations who have thoroughly taken over your minds, because it seems you only perpetuate the propaganda of which I spoke by making it seem that everyone who supports the facts are all crazy except for you. And to the last person who wrote something: instead of addressing the issue you create your own fantasy where you say i've been blocked and banned. When exactly did i ever that happened to me????? Last i checked when someone is banned and blocked it happens with their IP. So as you can see i'm not the crazy one here since i'm still am able to write. So don't you dare insult my intelligence by saying that "you made a mistake in interpretation" or some similar bullshit, because we both know which one of us is the one lying here. And by the way, since you you LOVE lying through your teeth, as per wikipedia's usual tradition, i'd like for you to show me a screen-shot of where these fantasy blocks or warning are? can you produce a screen-shot? the answer is: no, you can't. SO STOP SIDE-STEPPING THE ISSUE THAT I PRESENTED! This isn't some philosophy class where there are multiple vague answers where only you are correct and the factual arguments are all wrong. But please continue your bullshit propaganda tactics. I'd be really amused to see what other syllogistic fallacies you guys are going to pull out of your asses to to protect a propaganda engine like wikipedia, where everything is permitted and nothing is scrutinized by educated people. P.S. to the replier that mentioned "people trying to help", how are people helping by promoting Tito propaganda and making it seem like everybody is crazy except for the propaganda-pushers?? the answer is: you're only helping your own denial. Johnny P.M. 22:14 1/3/2014

The first issue on Wikipedia is editor's conduct. Because with good conduct, good articles become possible. Without good conduct, good articles are not possible at all. It is like how good waterproofing is needed for a house. You don't live in the waterproofing, you don't even need to see it if it's done right, but you need it before anything like decoration or heating to make a home. Without good editor conduct no article can be okay. So that's first. So, although you might want to argue about it, when you discuss bans, your own conduct and courtesy is the very first, important, thing, before any question of what content you want in an article. Words like you use simply don't allow a community to edit, so people who constantly speak in the style you show above, generally aren't allowed to edit until they agree to stop talking that way to others no matter what others may do or what the article is like. So it goes from warnings to blocks to bans. Decide not to interact that way and keep your word to be different when discussing and disagreeing, and all that will change. Your call. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

So, you FT2, or whatever your name is, instead of addressing the issue, you ALSO support this irredentist propaganda engine by spewing your own non-sense. You continuously avoid the issue, like everybody else, with a strangely reminiscent 1984 attitude, by making it seem like everybody else is nuts except you. Nice try. It doesn't work on me. And you continue to perpetuate other peoples lies: you still haven't shown me a screen-shot with proof of what you say about me. But please continue to make a fool of yourself, and making yourself look like a Henry Kissinger clone. It provides much amusement. Please continue embarrassing yourself by avoiding the real issue here. You're not fooling anybody. - Johnny P.M

It's good sense. If someone comes into your own home, with a foul mouth, assaulting your other guests, and acting bad, you probably do the same - you ask them to behave, then ask them to go. Wikipedia is this community's home. There's no place on Wikipedia for editors who cannot work with other editors calmly and fairly. But I will address the issue of the article very directly: "Johnny has got a ban or block for behavior, but many other editors can still work on the article, who will behave well and help write it without getting blocks and bans. But Johnny doesn't want to be one of them." We manage without Johnny and his attacks on others, and the article will end up improved in future. If Johnny changes then we might let him back to be part of the effort to edit the article, and hear his views, if he acts properly in our home. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

What is the issue you are addressing here? It changes on each paragraph rant about something.KendoSnowman (talk) 12:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I AGREE with most of you. I think there is no solution to this problem. What I can offer is, first, education systems must equip students with i-critical thinking, ii-deductive reasoning, iii-rational minds so that they can think on what they read, instead of believing blindly. Second, ALL WIKIPEDIA PAGES must start with a DISCLAIMER cleary WARNING the readers on the possibility of i-WRONG INFORMATION ii-PROPAGANDA iii-PAID EDITORS about what they read so that they dont rely on WIKI alone.

All paid edits should be clearly identified in the article

Actually there should be no paid edits, but if they are allowed the reader should know what they are reading is commercial advertising.

• Whilst I wholly agree with this in principle there is a serious problem in practice - It's very difficult to see how the issue could be policed with 100% reliability. For example, many guitarists and bassists credit their sound to the make of strings they use. How might an editor distinguish between a contributor making a factual observation and something paid-for by a company? Using the same example, would it be observation or advertising to state the simple fact that that Roger Waters, Herbie Flowers, Paul McCartney, John Entwistle all play (or played) strings from the same manufacturer, or that Hendrix also used that company's guitar strings during his time in London? How could the editor distinguish here between the contributor who makes such a statement as an observation (albeit perhaps also with some element of admiration for the company's products) and a contributor paid (in cash or in kind) by the manufacturer? Pr0t0type (talk) 09:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the above, compensation for contributions is only going to bring bad outcomes, you know the old saying 'money is the root of all evil'? As a suggestion for the alternative (i.e. the wrong option), there should be some kind of dishonest disclosure clause that you have to check off when making a paid contribution, where the consequence would be serious penalties if found to be in breach. 165.142.249.81 03:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• That still leaves the biggest problem unanswered though: How can any such system be policed effectively? Pr0t0type (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • We explain some of the benefits above, under Why have you proposed this new requirement?. Even if there is some difficulty enforcing the rule comprehensively, it is helpful to have a clear rule for good faith editors who wish to engage properly, as well as for a rare egregious case where legal action would be necessary. Thanks, Stephen LaPorte (WMF) (talk) 01:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, "Out" the paid editors.

Their motivation is money, not public discourse. They're editing with their employers' agenda in mind.

• Certainly, where this is proven beyond reasonable doubt I would agree entirely. If an editor or contributor is repeatedly guilty, some means to ban further contributions from them would be good. This ties-in with an earlier point I made, that edits should only be accepted from registered contributors. Since registration costs nothing more than a few moments of a contributor's time, I don't think this in any way conflicts with the "open to all" ethos of Wikimedia. Pr0t0type (talk) 09:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

You could ban them by banning the IP address however that might not always work they would just need a new computer but good idea.````

Out with the paid editors

I agree with the above statement. --Fox1942 (talk) 06:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree too. - Outwu (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Churches and other organizations.

The amendment doesn't go far enough. Other organizations such as churches should be forced to make disclosure when editing pages. Some medical pages such as ECT are constantly monitored and edited by some churches with an ulterior motive, and, no doubt, the contributors are unpaid. John

Actually, I agree with this. "Paid editing" is an easy catchy expression, but while fine for a community policy where wikilawyering will be blocked by simple consensus, it's very inadequate for a legal clause that requires certainty to have any kind of meaningfulness. Examples:

• Editors may expect future payment (noted way above) rather than be paid now;
• Editors may receive benefits in other forms rather than payment or compensation;
• Voluntary bodies such as religious and political organizations, and lobbyist and protest groups, may have substantial organizations and unpaid persons organized, who for the purpose are akin to unpaid employees or engaged for the task and paid editors in all but actual pay (John's point);
• A business owner is neither a paid editor nor an employee of their business;
• A colleague or contact who "does a favor" for a person or organization in exchange for a favor, or because of a long line of "scratch each others back" return favors, is neither an employee, nor paid, nor compensated.

Can the wording be modified to try and catch these obvious loopholes, if we are going to do anything here, rather than merely cause such editors to thumb noses and fix themselves up to be legally unpaid or not expecting pay? Something like this, perhaps:

"These Terms of Use prohibit engaging in deceptive activities, including misrepresentation of affiliation, impersonation, and fraud. It is considered deceptive and misleading to edit on behalf of yourself and your business, or any other person, organization or business you are closely connected to, for their benefit, if you have not openly stated that this is the case. It is also deceptive and misleading to allow the impression (even by silence) that you are unconnected with any organization, person, voluntary group or entity whatsoever connected with your edits, if you do have a close connection or a commercial or contractual relationship with them, or voluntary participate more than trivially in their work, or there is any kind of understanding under which you edit Wikimedia projects to achieve a benefit for them or their purposes. To ensure compliance with these obligations, you must disclose..."

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

So in essence, this new amendment might become an umbrella to cover all organizations (incl. paid/gov.)? Allen649 (talk) 23:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that you need to carefully consider churches and religious organisations that may have a policy of significantly expanding their presence on Wikipedia to create the impression that they carry more weight in society than is the case, for example starting a project to create pages for all holders of a fairly minor religious office. The only way to distinguish between a helpful edit by an employee and a puff is whether the page is proportionate. I appreciate this is more difficult than the change you are proposing, which is designed to inform readers' decisions about whether there might be a commercial motive behind an edit. DZNRKkCV (talk) 11:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not paper. "Detailed subtopics and sub-subtopics enrich Wikipedia with information. There is no reason why there shouldn't be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly cross-linked and introduced by a shorter central page." Also Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia (WP:INKLESS).
– 6birc (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Just because Wikipedia is cheaper to distribute than a paper encyclopaedia, does not absolve contributors from the necessity of of applying the principle of 'notability' to an entry. It may be that every Simpsons' character is notable-that does not mean that every officer of every church is. For example, one of the two objectives of WikiProject Anglicanism is "To increase the number of articles related to Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion in Wikipedia".

The project calls on 'all Anglican editors'. While the Anglican church might be a charity, it has a large number of members who are remunerated and the WikiProject Anglicanism has the characteristics of an 'in-house' or corporatist project which coordinates editors to pursue a subjective point of view.DZNRKkCV (talk) 12:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Remember when Wikipedia was about content?

Look at the amount of time and effort that so many people have put into proposing and debating these rules, and imagine if all that same time and effort had instead been devoted to adding and improving content. That would have improved Wikipedia far more. If people are more interested in making and enforcing regulations than in building an encyclopedia, maybe they'd find more fulfillment someplace else.

Incidentally, this is why I don't give to Wikipedia's fundraising drives - because this is what that money gets spent on. -J. Conti 108.20.74.240 05:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• With greatest respect, I believe this post misses the point. The issue is all about building and improving an openly available encyclopedia; but, by the same token, the sources of material in that encyclopedia need to be controlled a little, to avoid the spread of bias, misinformation and vested interest, which if allowed to roam rampant and unchecked, would detract greatly from the validity and usefulness of the encyclopedia. The whole purpose of a good encyclopedia, after all, is to be repository for factual information, not a platform for advertising.

On that basis, I believe this discussion is entirely relevant and necessary.Pr0t0type (talk) 09:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Disagreement: Wikipedia is very much trending to mutate into a machinery of indecipherable bureaucracy, becoming more and more distant to perfectly valid common sense realizations and more repellent to addressing necessities originating outside of the system that extensively conflict with its life-long refined and extended rule sets, thereby defeating it's original purpose (reminder: to be an encyclopedia). If you favor the outcome of any rule within any rule set used to justify statements, in ignorance of otherwise feasible and truthful assessments of statement validity, you will inevitably favor those entities who exploit the limits of that system. Mostly forgotten here is the fact that information quality, and both reductionistic or holistic logical coherence, is not merely a theoretical myth or the result of someone's opinion. To my knowledge, there are zero rules or policies on wikipedia that address to replace, improve, remove or merely flag information containing presentable factual and logical contradictions of any kind over the act of simply replicating it, if it is not contradicting the myriads of wikipedia policy specifications (supposing there is actually someone present in the individual situation who knows and can "navigate" through all those). In fact, wikipedia enforces the latter and discriminates against the former. That is because in effect, information on wikipedia is founded on the popularity of opinion, and thereby also the popularity of opinion on quality of those opinions, and not the absolute logical coherence of supplied information (which you would rather aim at when creating an encyclopedia), which is admittedly a lot harder to grasp and demonstrate, but which it, as an organizational entity, doesn't even consider once. Given the extreme amount of bureaucratic resources spendings and sheer force of user contributions nowadays, I find it pretty obvious that the mentioned fundamentals are nothing more than inappropriate, misdirected and largely to blame for the manifestations of most persistent deficits. Such as ridiculously high organizational cost and the manipulation of information on wikipedia, failing to accomplish due proportional effects on content improvement. Also see this comment: [7] C0NPAQ (talk) 11:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Things change, Wikipedia has changed drastically. Now pages have monitors, editors, and there's helluva lot more structure at Wikipedia. There's ongoing development too, like the visual editor. Without these constant and consistent changes, Wikipedia may be very well replaced by a better competitor in the future [however unlikely that is or is not is beyond me]. Allen649 (talk) 23:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

J. Conti is absolutely right. This whole debate seems to be trending just one way. Everyone is focused on controlling paid editing, but why? They assume all paid editing must be bias and fact distorting because, well, its paid. But just maybe, the whole reason someone is having to pay a professional editor is to fight a well organized volunteer smear campaign. WIKI is suppose to be about content. Its not for pushing personal or political agendas. Again, the rel threat here are those volunteer groups that have hijacked specific pages on controversial subjects, turned them into their own political manifesto and now want to lock out anyone who tries to restore any sense of objectivity. The commenter warning about religious groups sounds exactly like one of these activists who would like for certain topics to have gatekeepers. This control of information is exactly how the truth gets rewritten. This is the kind of bias that needs to be prevented and it more often than not is volunteer advocates who are the most guilty. 58.141.84.124 10:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Editing or writing articles for an employer

This is the sort of thing that is starting to happen in professional journals. Authors of articles appearing in some of these require the authors to disclose any potential conflicts of interest in the article credits. I never much thought about this a few years ago, but this proposal makes sense. Articles should be written or edited to provide accuarte information, not be public relation or advertising blurbs. I have on at least two occasions encountered persons involved with outside groups trying to distort information. Wpollard (talk) 07:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

This raises an interesting question. Should the TOU require users generally (not just paid editors) to disclose or avoid any editing for which this applies (ie, a non trivial or non-arms length relationship between a specific edit and real life), thus closing the loophole entirely? Of course we'll get many editors who should disclose such a COI and many will be dishonest (all the ethnic edit wars, people with fringe and social causes, etc) but - actually, might that be a good thing? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I would not be against your idea to require everyone who has some relationship with the subject of an article to disclose such. Wpollard (talk) 07:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Paid should not mean false

The support is strong against paid contributions. But, paid contributions may be good, because Wikimedia is a free foundation running on donations. There is always the possibility that someone will misuse the policy. Therefore, the paid edited page(s) or section(s) should be identified as paid, with a complete disclosure of who did the payment with the full hierarchical structure of person(s) or organization(s) of the company(ies) who initiated the edit. This way the person who views the matter has an open option what to believe and that is open-source/free, the freedom to make a choice and not disabling anyone from doing their will.

Judenstern tag, unenforceable, impractical, counterproductive

This proposal is a shot in the dark. Shots in the dark often miss the point. I believe that …

• 1) wp:COI is a soft rule and more than enough for its purpose.
• 2) The proposed rule hardens often unclarified and artificial boundaries between editors; it opens up a can of worms and in the discussion above there are lots of examples of a widening definition of what a "paid contribution" means.
• 3) The proposed rule is not going to get us more editors and more freedom to edit; it is thus a grave concern for those of us that want Wikipedia to be a free encyclopedia still being developed, not a closed entity governed by ever more strict rules.
• 4) The proposed rule is practically unenforceable, as long as anyone can edit without a login.
• 5) The proposed rule is a "hygienic" rule, whereby it says no to "bad" things thinking the mere statement will make for a better world and a better encyclopedia.
• 6) As this proposed rule will be unenforceable at the local level (i.e. at WMF projects having less than 100,000 editors each month, due to different project cultures and prerequisites) it will be a legal annoyance with minimal founding in reality.
• 7) Just looking at the measures to be taken to ensure that any editor and any edit made from a paid editor's account is tagged makes for comparisons to Nazi activities. The Nazis at least had different kinds of organisations for the investigations into the identities of people. I'm not going to enjoy a future where editors and edits carry their own Judenstern. And I'm not thinking/hoping WMF will develop its own type of Gestapo; the mere risk of this can easily put a plague tag on the whole of Wikipedia. My two cents.--Paracel63 (talk) 10:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I have a comment on one aspect on this. Professional company/entity representatives and PR agents, and so on, who are the main kind of focus of this proposal, will perhaps think more about breaching a legal site policy than an informal community request, which is effectively all that a soft policy is. It becomes instead, a formal legal site requirement to be transparent which was not complied with. The backlash could be greater in every way - legally, to the employer/client, and to themselves, the stakes are higher for concealment, but disclosure allows them to edit as before. SO the aim is to add a deterrent of more weight, that has no effect on those willing to be transparent, but may lead to more editors who are paid, doing so transparently, setting more of a world expectation of disclosure, and may deter at least some who would otherwise have edited bias into articles for pay without concern or second thoughts. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. Yes, the amendment would seem to be a psychological thing more than a judicial one. But it still opens up at least one can of worms going straight to some core principles at Wikipedia, not the least regarding anonymity. This amendment could be a step in the way of transforming Wikipedia into a "normal" encyclopedia, where every editor is pre-chosen and every edit is pre-moderated. That would be an ugly thing, in my eyes. Best of wishes.--Paracel63 (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Commentaires et ma position sur le sujet proposé

Bonjour, D'abord merci pour cet exercice difficile de consultation et de démocratie...

Commentaires liés à cette consultation et aux contributions que j'ai lues :

(A) Je crois que certains contributeurs ont mélangé 2 types de contributions rémunérées :

(A1) Celles qui auraient pu être commanditées par Wikimédia pour écriture, contrôle, mise à jour d'un article.

(A2) Celles qui ne sont pas commanditées par Wikimédia, et qui sont l'oeuvre de personnes rémunérées par leur organisation pour mettre en avant cette organisation, ses produits et services. Nota : Ces personnes n'ont pas toujours créé de page personnelle pour se présenter, et n'ont pas de ce fait de signature Wikimédia.

(B) En France nous avons dans notre culture :

le don gratuit : Il peut s'agir de donner gratuitement et de façon anonyme du sang et ses constituants, le don d'organes, le don de son corps à la science, etc.

et le bénévolat : Il s'agit de mettre à disposition d'un groupe, gratuitement, sa propre expérience, ses propres compétences, son temps, son énergie, etc.

Mais le don et le bénévolat ont leurs limites : ils ne sont possibles qu'à "petite échelle". Dès que les conditions dépassent un certain seuil, il faut passer par l'embauche de personnels rémunérés pour réaliser des tâches précises sous commandement et responsabilité des bénévoles.

(C) Il existe dans Wikipédia en français des articles liés à un produit (exemple disque blu-ray : Toshiba est dans le texte / Sony "le leader" est dans les références) dans lequel des noms de marque , des avantages, etc. sont vantés... Donc caractère publicitaire.

(D) Il existe dans Wikipédia en français des articles liés à un service, ou à une technique (médecine douce, énergie zen,...), ou à une croyance. Certaines ont un caractère commercial évident, d'autre ont un caractère de prosélytisme.

(E) Est-ce que le modèle économique de Wikimédia nécessite aujourd'hui un changement d'échelle pour pouvoir perdurer ?

Ma position :

Je trouve que le conflit d'intérêt n'est pas suffisamment précisé dans le texte proposé et qu'il faut être plus moteur dans les directives.

Je trouve formidable que Wikipédia soit un projet bénévole de don de son savoir pour rédiger ensemble une encyclopédie mise à jour au fil du temps : c'est dans l'ADN du projet Wikipédia ... et il faut que cela reste comme cela. Donc je crois, en tout cas j'espère, qu'il n'y a pas, à ce jour, de contributions rémunérées par Wikimédia (A1 ci dessus).

Cela dit, pour certains sujets difficiles, par exemple la mécanique quantique, il y a dans Wikipédia en français des inexactitudes. Et les contributeurs qui essayent tant bien que mal de corriger sont génés par leur manque autoproclamé d'expertise en la matière (Exemple de commentaire : ...mes cours de physique quantique commencent à dater...). Du coup, je serais personnellement d'accord pour la séquence suivante :

1. qu'après la consultation des bénévoles qui sont intéressés par la mise à jour d'un article (statistique de consultations et statistique de présence de commentaires sur la page de l'article),
2. qu'ensuite, après la recherche infructueuse d'un volontaire pour la prise en charge de la modification (analyse des pages personnelles pour trouver la personne compétente),
3. un spécialiste volontaire attesté par son CV et par une lettre d'intention puisse revoir le contenu d'un article. Ce travail de mise à jour ferait l'objet d'une commande de la part de Wikimédia (règles à respecter). Le "tarif" devrait être statutairement symbolique, forfaitaire pour éviter les abus, et le blocage des modification dans l'attente d'une rémunération. Ce travail de mise à jour devrait pouvoir être comptabilisé par le spécialiste volontaire comme un article dans une revue à comité de relecture. Pour se faire il y a nécessité d'une commande de Wikimédia dans le cadre d'un budget alloué, d'une facturation du prestataire commandité et d'un paiement de Wikimédia. Le tout fait l'objet d'un reporting économique régulier. La contribution se doit d'une transparence dans l'article (référence en bas de page) et commentaire en page de discussion (écrit par Mr Untel en date du jj/mm/aaaa rémunéré selon commande Wikimédia n° XXX).

Pour éviter A2 et D ci-dessus, pour toutes les créations de page et les ajouts dans des pages existantes, il est de la responsabilité du modérateur Wiki (et des robots) de veiller à ce que  :

• les textes non sourcés, les opinions, les avis personnels, les informations d'actualité qui n'ont pas objet à figurer dans une encyclopédie soient poliment purement et simplement éliminés.
• chaque contributeur ait dûment rempli sa page personnelle, et soit porteur d'une signature l'identifiant clairement.

Les lecteurs doivent alerter le modérateur via les outils proposés dès qu'ils ont le sentiment qu'une information dépasse les limites permises.

Pour éviter C : Tout ce qui relève de l'actualité devrait être sorti de l'encyclopédie Wikipédia (qui pourrait être intéressé économiquement aujourd'hui par les avantages commerciaux d'un avion Potez par rapport à un Dewoitine ? Quel est l'intérêt de savoir la capacité de tel ou tel composant informatique sachant que son concurrent ayant des caractéristiques meilleures arrive sur le marché ?). On pourrait créer "un autre système" pour tous ces sujets, au même titre qu'il y a un wiktionnaire, bien sûr avec les liens ad hoc... et ne conserver dans l'encyclopédie que les éléments faisant Histoire.

Et finalement, Wikipédia est-elle victime de son succès ? ou est-elle lentement phagocytée par le pouvoir de l'argent ? Est-on en train de nous préparer à un changement de modèle économique ?

Soyons vigilants ! Indignons nous lorsque c'est nécessaire ! Mobilisons nous pour agir... Merci encore... --Guy6631 (talk) 11:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Require A Disclosure Template

I apologize if this has been suggested already; I can't search this entire page to see if this is the case.

Requiring the use of a template on a user's talk page for the disclosure could facilitate automated cross-checking of paid edits and even a "reputation" system for paid editors and payers. Perhaps, if I am permitted to be optimistic, organizations might even pay editors to contribute constructively, buoyed by positive feedback from such a system… --174.54.143.50 13:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense to me. --ShaunOgg (talk) 13:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Why the Academy can't Trust Wikipedia

Article provenance is unclear. Period. --66.108.245.35 14:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Citations don't matter? – 6birc (talk) 17:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Why focus on monetary incentives? So many other incentives exist to distort information...

Why focus on monetary incentives? Current conversation

Possible answer: because other incentives can't work on a large scale without involving paid labour?

I'm not convinced. What about edits by unpaid citizen militia members? Fan groups? Sects? Religions? Charities? Gangs? Political volunteers? Organised trolls?

This rule doesn't look culturally universal; not every society is capitalistic.

But I acknowledge importance of the issue. I just don't know the right answer and I don't feel competent to vote. Therefore I abstain but it has my attention. Corruption of Wikipedia would be a tragedy.

– 6birc (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and slaves. Societies that practice slavery use the Internet too. There are many documented cases of using forced labour to play MMORPGs (online computer games). Forced, therefore unpaid. Amongst others, North Korea has seen a prolific use of this practice, if only because their nearest neighbour South Korea is the most advanced Internet society in the world. Koreans literally breathe the Internet. There is simply no way slaves won't be used for editing Wikipedia. Slavery is on the grow... shouldn't we be more worried about unpaid contributions?
– 6birc (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Because it's one thing at a time. The "issue" at hand here isn't how to eliminate all corruption and distortion in the project, because that will never happen. Right now, there is a real problem with money being used to distort the wiki, and what in my opinion is a reasonable way to address that problem.

Maybe another time we can address the issues of unpaid citizen militia members, fan groups, sects, religions, charities, gangs, political volunteers, organized trolls, and slave editors. Requiring extensive disclosure of every editor's background and life story subject to independent verification would go a way to solving all of those. Do you have a better idea? I sure don't. So, at least for now, let's focus on something that we can do at least something about. --174.54.143.50 18:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

You wrote: "Right now, there is a real problem with money being used to distort the wiki."

I totally believe you... even though I have no reliable knowledge of the scale of the problem.

You wrote: "Requiring extensive disclosure of every editor's background and life story subject to independent verification would go a way to solving all of those."

That irony... To be honest, Wikipedia is already not anonymous enough. Legitimate contributors are too easy to track and dox. That's why I, for one, contribute very little. (It's often heart-breaking to see something wrong on a Wikipedia page and making a decision to leave it as it is... out of privacy concerns.) I can't see how users from oppressive countries can edit Wikipedia safely when all their IPs are recorded by the Wikimedia Foundation. Double standards are unhealthy, at the moment Wikipedia gives contributors a false sense of anonymity. Actually there is no anonymity here at all. The only reason we all aren't currently required to show the proof of ID to validate our accounts is that it would pose a technical problem. Essentially, Wikipedia is currently a part of the Big Brother panopticon.

If the Wikipedia model was founded on true anonymity... the issue of "paid or unpaid" would be solved in one sweep, without any special measures, together with a host of similar issues ("slave or not slave", "agent or not agent", "member or not member", etc.) And this would work across all cultures.

Maybe the way to go is to rethink the whole model. This thought has occured to me as I am writing it. I'm coming to think that approving the proposed disclosure policy will give a further legitimacy to the current Wikipedia model of user credibility based on his/her real-life identity. In other words, this motion could actually be a Big Brother ploy to tighten the control of information flow in the society even further.

– 6birc (talk) 19:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that you may have misunderstood my intent. My comment about requiring disclosure of an editor's life story was facetious. The intention was to present an obviously ridiculous "solution" to your legitimate concerns to show that no perfect solution exists that would combat every threat to the project's integrity. This was to answer your question: Why focus on monetary incentives when so many other incentives exist to distort information? My answer: because we can sensibly address the problem of monetary incentives at this time, and we should focus on problems such as this that we can sensibly address, not on the myriads of other issues, however legitimate, that we can't do anything reasonable about right now.

I would like you to explain what you mean by "the current Wikipedia model of user credibility based on his/her real-life identity". I've used a Wikipedia account in the past – the only reason I'm not using it now is that it has been too long and I don't even remember the user name. I don't remember ever having to divulge my "real-life identity" to gain "credibility", so I simply don't know what you're talking about.

If Wikipedia were founded on true anonymity, all of the progress made combating non-constructive edits and vandalism would be non-existent. This is because, unfortunately, some people on the internet are such assholes that the only way to stop them from vandalizing the wiki is to force them to stop by technical means. Obviously, true anonymity would make this impossible, so a limited amount of information disclosure is necessary to maintain order and hold people accountable. If one has an account, contributions are tied to that account so that repeated misuse can be traced back to the same individual and corrective action taken. If one does not have an account, contributions are tied to the user's IP address for the same reasons of maintaining order and accountability. Using the IP address for non-account contributions is not a perfect solution by any means, but it is the best solution available. If everyone behaved as good citizens, true anonymity would be feasible. But people don't, and for this reason users must be identifiable, to be able to identify the bad guys. My point is that the limited identifiability Wikipedia requires of its users is for the purpose of maintaining order, improving the overall quality of the project, not some malicious plan to control everyone.

Paid lobbyist editing has been demonstrated to be a real problem on Wikipedia, even making the mainstream news. In order to scrutinize such edits, one must be able to identify them. This is the purpose of requiring editors to disclose if they are paid to edit Wikipedia. I have made the case in other comments that paid edits need not be bad. But they do need to be identified. The purpose of this rule is to ensure that Wikipedia stays as integer as reasonably can be assured; it is not some Big Brother ploy to restrict the flow of information somehow. --174.54.143.50 21:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Putting my post in a frame not to advertise it but to help readability.

Anonymity: your remark has made me think about the proposed amendment from the standpoint of the ideal of the anonymous Internet. That's regardless of your intent. Needless to say, this standpoint doesn't shed a favourable light on this amendment at all.

Simplicity: maybe I'm not the most pragmatic person, but I don't believe in bloatware. Robust code is small code. This applies to computer programming as well as to law. (Admittedly, there exist complex and arcane, man-made things that manage to function remarkably well. Some examples: space shuttles, the European Union, intelligence agencies... But I, for one, am not good with such things.)

You say: "we should focus on problems such as this that we can sensibly address, not on the myriads of other issues." I agree. Except enabling anonymous editing would be the most simple and (at the same time) total solution of all. (A solution to restore the balance of power between "organised groups of influence" and the masses.) The proposed rule looks like a quick fix and even you appear to admit it. Now I'm not saying that quick fixes are always wrong. If the WMF demonstrated a long-term interest in going in that direction, I would gladly accept a temporary quick fix (or two). But the WMF doesn't appear to have a grand vision of this sort, these fixes appear to be the end goal. And I don't like it.

The long-term aim should be to make Wikipedia healthy with less control, not with more control.

I recognise some potential pitfalls in my thinking... such as not being pragmatic enough; or naive radicalism. Also I am not very active member of the community. That's why I'm not quick to make a definitive vote... I simply don't consider myself smart enough or informed enough. Maybe the community itself too is not ready to make a good-quality decision?

---

Some food for thought:

• "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." – Albert Einstein
• Feature creep
• Bloatware
• Code is law (or, like an unsigned user in section #Abstain said: "This website does not need your protection or arbitration anymore, it is its own engine." Perhaps that's not the reality, but that's the holy grail: a self-healing system; an engine being its own law.)

Minimalism in Roman law:

• "Corruptissima republica, plurimae leges." ("In the most corrupt state are the most laws.") – Terence
• "De minimis non curat lex." ("The law does not concern itself with trifles.")

---

You wrote: 'I would like you to explain what you mean by "the current Wikipedia model of user credibility based on his/her real-life identity".' Anonymous editing is currently impossible in Wikipedia. If it isn't anonymous, what is it? It's tied to your real-life identity.

You said: 'I don't remember ever having to divulge my "real-life identity" to gain "credibility", so I simply don't know what you're talking about.' That's because Wikipedia made it easy for you. Your IP is stored automatically, no need to do anything on your part, even when you use an account. IP is almost as good as your home address.

You wrote: 'If Wikipedia were founded on true anonymity, all of the progress made combating non-constructive edits and vandalism would be non-existent.' A Wikipedia vulnerable to anonymous vandalism is simply a Wikipedia not founded on anonymity. It is my belief that self-healing anonymous architectures are possible and workable; it's a matter of community will and design. Some such architectures have already functioned in real life. If anonymity always inevitably lead to a catastrophe, such architectures as Bitcoin couldn't exist.

You said: 'This is because, unfortunately, some people on the internet are such assholes.' I would say that the majority of people (not just on the Internet) are innately malicious. That's what the word 'robust' in 'a robust architecture' stands for: idiot-proof, vandal-proof, error-proof, etc. Many things in life and in the nature are that! If the world depended on our goodness, it would be long gone. Small projects and communities can operate based on trust. But Wikipedia is as far from a small community as it gets. (Oh, wait... I've just violated w:Wikipedia:Assume good faith.)

You wrote: 'If everyone behaved as good citizens, true anonymity would be feasible.' See the last two points.

You said: 'The limited identifiability Wikipedia requires of its users is for the purpose of maintaining order, improving the overall quality of the project, not some malicious plan to control everyone.' And: 'It is not some Big Brother ploy to restrict the flow of information somehow.' I can't take it for granted. Wikipedia is too valuable for the Big Brother for this to be impossible.

You wrote: 'Paid lobbyist editing has been demonstrated to be a real problem on Wikipedia.' I don't have any doubt about it.

To recapitulate... my opinion for the time being (quoting myself): 'If the WMF demonstrated a long-term interest in going in that direction [that is, restoring power to the masses], I would gladly accept a temporary quick fix (or two) [such as this amendment].' This is not a final verdict and my opinion is still evolving. I don't expect it to reach a level of confidence sufficient to make a definitive vote (other than 'abstain'), although a chance for that exists.

– 6birc (talk) 00:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

More food for thought... I have mentioned feature creep (a concept in software philosophy).

Now how about this... Avoid instruction creep (an official Wikipedia guideline)?

And Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy? And Ignore all rules?

"If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."

– 6birc (talk) 00:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't even remember that these official policies had existed! Anonymity and Wikipedia is anonymous – I have just dug them up! Are these old values out of vogue in the social climate of 2014?

There even once was Welcome anonymous editing, but someone eventually degraded it into Welcome unregistered editing. Their explanation: "IP editing is not anonymous, and certainly more revealing of identity than registered editing." That's a very circular argument not to welcome true anonymous editing! It's like "we discourage anonymous editing because we don't encourage it".

I'm going to revert that change. If I don't, please, someone else do this.

Wikipedia needs more anonymity... not less. We already have other authoritarian encyclopedias (online or otherwise), we don't need one more. Prove me wrong – you can't beat this logic! It shouldn't take an anarchist to recognise that Wikipedia's unique selling proposition is her anarchism... or we may already merge her into Encyclopædia Britannica (as much as I respect her). The proposed amendment superficially looks like it protects anarchy but a second look reveals that it's an authoritarian solution.

I'm almost ready to switch my vote from #Abstain to #Oppose.

– 6birc (talk) 16:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Issues: demonising money; anonymity; simplicity of rules. Map of conversations

This section is a review of relevant existing conversations. Format: location + summary/excerpt.

Discuss here or in respective locations.

About demonising money A very similar archived thread: What about non-paid people with an agenda? 89.0.243.30 said: 'Singling out pay as the "motor" for a non-neutral agenda over other, potentially equally strong or even stronger root causes for non-neutral agendas.' 24.0.133.234 wrote: 'STUDENT editors. They are mandated to edit in some cases-not really voluntary there! EDITED BY STUDENT EDITOR should appear on the article page too.' Smallbones said: 'It would be nice if we could fix everything at once, but that's just not the way the real world works. Let's fix the really important stuff first.' Smallbones wrote: 'Many businesses can afford to have several people monitoring "their" articles on Wikipedia, whereas our usual editors are volunteers. The paid editors will dominate unless they have to disclose their paid status. (...) PR people can argue forever trying to prove that black is white.' – 6birc (talk) 07:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC) Archived entry: Add obligatory disclosure for volunteers, too. 88.207.29.155 said: 'I think that volunteers, for example government volunteers, should add their disclosure, too, as their edits could be motivated by opportunity for personal advancement in political party.' – 6birc (talk) 07:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC) POV problem not limited to employment basis. 70.114.134.24 said: 'The second area of difficulty I have with Wiki is that so-called moderators are also unknown to the public, and, in my experience, can drown out, or force, or harass, other POVs from contributing alternate ideas to a subject.' – 6birc (talk) 08:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC) Churches and other organizations. FT2 wrote: 'Voluntary bodies such as religious and political organizations, and lobbyist and protest groups, may have substantial organizations and unpaid persons organized, who for the purpose are akin to unpaid employees.' – 6birc (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC) In an unrelated section, Ixobel has made this specific statement: 'But paid editing can be done for an innocent reason, such as not being able to type.' – 6birc (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC) In #Unsorted comments, Michael Paul Kerr said: 'What if everyone working on wikipedia is paid, and we just didn't notice?' 'Wikipedia's next phase will involve a lot of (...). No one but a crazy angel would do something like that for free!' – 6birc (talk) 15:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

About anonymity How does the WMF reconcile the TOU proposal the WMF Strategic Plan. While not directly related to anonymity, that section touches on a closely related topic of the proposed amendment's conflict with the WMF mission to increase public participation. Privacy and free speech (and a subsection: Are anonymity & pseudonomy now lost?) Harassment and outing. LauraHale said: 'Accusations of paid editing, without evidence or in violation of WP:OUTING and WP:HARASSMENT, are bad for Wikipedia.' – 6birc (talk) 12:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC) Why not ask for real names? Reginald Sachs wrote 'I strongly support non-anonymity: true personal data should be obtainable. If you write truth (testable truth that is), you must stand for it. Do we want to cultivate cowardice?' Piotr967 said: 'Knowledge of who the person [is] (...) [is] probably more useful than knowledge who pay.' – 6birc (talk) 00:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC) The basic normative conflict: openness, anonymity, and voluntary work (in Die Grenzen der Bezahlung) on German Wikipedia. 'Only content is important – it doesn't matter where it comes from.' The text invokes Wikipedia:Anonymity. –6birc (talk) 12:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC) In section #Oppose, Phantom85 wrote: 'As an editor on Wikipedia who had to disappear due to harassment and stalking (...), I oppose any policy which requires an individual to disclose any PII. (...) Due to some of the dangers of participating in this community, The Foundation should make it easier for people to remain anonymous when contributing, not harder.' – 6birc (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC) About simplicity of rules Is Wikipedia broken? Gaarmyvet wrote: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." – 6birc (talk) 07:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC) Remember when Wikipedia was about content? C0NPAQ said: "Wikipedia is very much trending to mutate into a machinery of indecipherable bureaucracy." – 6birc (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC) An unsigned user in section #Abstain wrote: "This website does not need your protection or arbitration anymore, it is its own engine." – 6birc (talk) 02:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC) In an unrelated section, an unsigned user said: 'There is little if an[y] way to stop paid editing. (...) You are attempting to put a band-aid on a bullet wound. If you really want to stop paid editing you'll have to fundamentally change the way wikipedia works.' – 6birc (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC) In A warning message to all paid editors, Awarningmessage wrote: 'Have no fear. I have the perfect legal defense for you all, please see [8], ignore all rules, which permit you not break any rules of wikipedia. As an added bonus, it's official policy.' – 6birc (talk) 12:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC) In #Oppose voting, an unsigned user said: 'I oppose increasing Wikipedia's authority (...). I would prefer an autonomous, user-motivated, user-led response to combating this issue over a response that relegates decision-making power to trustees, legal departments, and intermediaries.' – 6birc (talk) 15:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Ordering of Votes

I looked at the Oppose section and see that my vote, previously #95, is now down to about #106. It seems there is a subset of people on here who don't know how to follow rules on Wikipedia. Are there plans to reorganize the votes in the various sections based on timestamp?

Nonetheless, to add to my vote, money is the root of all evil. Corruption will result. Doesn't matter if companies pay Wikipedia or Wikipedia/companies pay editors. CycloneGU (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Demonising money... I'm not saying it's wrong, I just don't know. I might need to live 40 years more to know definitely. Isn't money simply a symbolic representation of energy? Not expecting you to delve into this question – it's not necessarily the right place for a philosophical discussion.
– 6birc (talk) 16:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

A simple script could easily sort the votes by timestamp. Why do you think that this is important? --174.54.143.50 19:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Both massively depleting our childrens future psychological environment of the right to freedom of information and copyright battles will follow

I have to say, this is the first sign of wikipedia becoming corrupted - not the commercial contributors (where's the harm in that?) but the 'requirement' - the first sign of the totalitarian wiktatorship that will follow. More reasonably, it will herald an age where people will be able to advertise their services as commercial writers and once again the basis of Wikipedia - that knowledge should be free becomes corrupted. We become, as individuals, products of the 'environment' in which we grow up; qed, this fact is the currency of all religion. If wikipedia becomes commercialised then there is a significant loss to the environment that children grow up in where freedom of speech is advocated.

The creeping in of commercial values to wikipedia is an insidious thing in the sense that we have grown with Wikipedia's development, and expect free access to information as an almost inalienable right, but where the youngsters of the future grow up with a commercialised wikipedia, that part of our complete environment that is part of the suggestion that freedom of access to information should be practiced disapears, as when it becomes a 'paid for' entity it is no longer in the realm of freedom, but rather converted to the domain of 'exclusivity'. Currently wikipedia is completely free to access, and who cares if someone is paid to write something? I might have a desire to see some information on wikipedia about my town's history for instance, but not be a proficient writer, so I may pay for it, at the moment. Why should I declare that I paid for the written work? How do I benefit? Only the commercial writer benefits from declaration as it is a subtle form of advertising.

Furthermore, with paid editors creeps in the expectation that those paid editors, in competing for work, will undoubtedly be participants in some area of expertise related to the subject matter that they edit. For example, they might be professors, or other experts in their field. Access to education is not freely available to all, and many people become experts in their field without having the 'authorised' stamp of acceptance that comes with a paper qualification often awarded for jumping through hoops barking the accepted dogma. Currently wikipedia encourages us to dare to imagine that we could be part of the intelligensia (I refer you to the following internet post in which a fifteen year old used wikipedia amongst other freely available internet sources to learn to devise the first ever 100 percent accurate pancreatic cancer test, stimulating us to dream as we study wikipedia. Paid expert contributors raises that psychological block that is the unlikeliness that our contribution could be of any use.

Right now, if I pay someone to write an article I only have to edit that writing slightly and it is no longer the work of that commercial writer. When paid writers contribute openly to wikipedia - who owns the copyright of their work!!! Expect battles over ownership rights to follow! Finally, what relationship exists between free access to knowledge and commerce?

Jamesstewartmiller (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

You wrote: "When paid writers contribute openly to wikipedia - who owns the copyright of their work!!!"

I don't think they could make any claims to the copyright. The licence is clear. But then, I may be naive, I don't have experience with law. Just my three pence.
– 6birc (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

First of all, 6birc is absolutely correct. Wikipedia's terms are absolutely clear. Paid editors would submit to Wikipedia the same as unpaid editors. Anyone who submits content to Wikipedia releases it under two very liberal licenses. Unless somebody submits unlicensed third-party-copyrighted content, "battles over ownership rights" will be short-lived if they occur at all, but this has nothing to do with whether an editor is paid or not.

Second, your assertion that pay implies expertise, or that this is or will become the predominant assumption, is entirely without merit. This talk page does not exist because people paid to edit Wikipedia have all or mostly been "experts" in their field. Paid editors could indeed be experts or hired help, but they could also be company or advertising agency representatives, members of political campaigns or special interest groups, members of government, or any other class of shady individuals paid to edit Wikipedia against the fundamental principles of neutrality or even truth. The only valid assumption applicable to paid editors is that somebody places extraordinary value to certain sets of assertions contributed to the wiki. Requiring paid status disclosure will enable watchers to ascertain why, and to detect patterns of dishonest, fraudulent, and conflict-of-interest behavior that are the actual concern of paid editing in the first place.

Finally, if a class of "expert" paid contributors does arise, these editors are no more special than any other editor of Wikipedia. Such "expert" contributions can be edited or reverted just as any other, and Wikipedia's existing guidelines of consensus and citation mean that "expertise" carries no weight in determining which content remains in the wiki. Experts of a variety of fields already contribute to Wikimedia projects, and no "psychological block" as you describe has thus far occurred. If paid expert editors make quality contributions, what harm is done? If paid "expert" editors make contributions that fall short, the rule still applies: anybody can edit. --174.54.143.50 18:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe that the normal remedy for a broken open-source project is to fork it. If this change broke Wikipedia, then I don't see why that remedy wouldn't apply. ArthurDent006.5 (talk) 11:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a reasonable and timely improvement to the objectives of Wikipedia and the Wiktionary. I recommend that the Board move to adopt as written 108.0.142.36 18:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC) tom carney

Is Wikipedia broken?

My answer is that it is not. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."--Gaarmyvet (talk) 18:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a bit of a binary viewpoint in which something is either "broke" (so why bother trying to fix it) or "not broke" (so why fix it). What proverbs exist around"If it ain't broke, but has undesirable but improvable issues..."? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

@FT2, can you make something rounder than circle? Not everything has endless room for improvement. The Wikipedia founding principles are pretty much perfect.– 6birc (talk) 20:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Incomprehensible sentence

The explanatory text contains a strange expression: discuss the proposed amendment into other languages. Petr Matas (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Should probably say "translate the proposed amendment". --174.54.143.50 18:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Corrected, thank you. –SJ talk  23:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

It made more sense to me before, weil die ganze Diskussion est assez chaotique! C0NPAQ (talk) 11:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

@1,2,3,4. Have you never heard about someone "laughing (all the way) into the bank"? Or "talking themselves into a party"? This could be similar! – 6birc (talk) 20:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Naive oversimplification

There is a grave and naive oversimplification concerning who this is intended to concern. When it comes to advertising we already have rules and for all other edits this only makes for a worse encyclopedia. The mere risk of being (wrongfully) accused of being paid is bad enough for me and I can think of a lot of cases where such accusations might be yet more harmful. Professors working at universities paid to write about the research they are conducting or any research, people working at art galleries paid to write about art (within their galleries or not), people working with tourism informing through different Wikipedia projects about a specific area or city and lots of other possible cases where this might drive those people away. - Averater (talk) 20:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why Professors or art curators would have a problem disclosing their profession, if the topic they are editing is one for which they receive compensation. The rule is not as ambiguous as you make it out to be. If you work for a tourism company, and edit that company's wikipedia page, then you ought to disclose your affiliation. If you work for the tourism department of the city of Chicago, and you edit the Chicago wiki page, then again, you ought to disclose your affiliation. If you work for Nestle, and you redact or entirely delete the 'Controversy' section, you certainly ought to disclose your affiliation.65.94.155.211

You are missing the point. You are discussing non-neutral edits but the examples I give are beneficial for Wikipedia. You also doesn't differ between to ought to and are enforced to. I don't see why we need to enforce those users to disclose their employer and often thereby also their name (as many companies and workplaces are small). If you work for a tourist company and are adding proper, neutral information about points of interest that are missing from Wikipedia but the user for some reason doesn't want to give his or her real name we as an encyclopedia will lose that contributor and thereby also the information. Note also that you your self didn't give your real name or even bothered to log in and yet you can't see how others might have problems disclosing their names. - Averater (talk) 12:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Certain States and Organisations should be Prevented from Abusing Wikipedia as Propaganda Loudspeaker by Paid Contributors and Administrators

I like wikipedia very much principally and I use it myself often. In the natural science and medical field wikipedia is rather reliable meanwhile and on

a high quality level.

But in the field of the history of WW2 and especially the "holocaust" you can forget Wikipedia totally. ALL administrators of wikipedia pages about Germany during WW2 and the "holocaust" are payed Hasbara propagandists and agents.

All corrections (and even all postings on the "talk" page) which don't match 100% the Hasbara point of view are deleted within seconds (sic !) as "vandalism". That that happens within seconds proves that the deletion is not the result of a serious evaluation but just the general principle of the page administration. Only the postings of paid Hasbara contributors are accepted. You can make a test: Try to post something critical or only sceptical on the Hasbara POV in wikipedia (even with clean scientific source in clean scientific style). You will see that it is deleted within 5 seconds (!) and you are blocked from writing anything in wikipedia for life-time because of "vandalism" already after only ONE critical posting. Your posting becomes invisible for normal users. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x2DFnGI9Ac

The paid Hasbara contibutors make sure that only their administrators are elected. If a non-Hasbara administrator candidates and gets for instance 20 votes, you can observe shortly before the end of administrator elections that suddenly 40 Hasbara contibutors register and elect the Hasbara administrator with 40 votes. If the non-Hasbara author gets 100 votes, then 200 Jewish "authors" appear from nowhere and so on ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIYhE-hei2Y

I see two possible ways to prevent that:

1. Deletion on the TALK page must be generally impossible. This page is intended for FREE discussion, and discussion by deletion of the POVs of dissidents is no discussion, but blatant censorship typical for dictatorships. 2. A vote-of-no-confidence against suspect administrators must be possible, which leads to a check of the circumstances of the election and a general check of the activities of the administrator by a special political-independence-panel or a general-quality-panel.

Without these changes WIKIPEDIA will never be accepted in schools and universities as reliable source. Today mentioning that you used WP as source is the best way to fail in school and university cause all professors and teachers detest WP as biassed low quality source. 91.64.206.41 17:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I have alot of examples of political propaganda and revisionist foreign policy articles paied probably by political organisations from Central Europe and against countries in Eastern Europe. They use the anonimity of Wikipedia for making propaganda with territorial or ethnical purposes. Please STOP THIS! --Monterex (talk) 10:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

1. Are you both sure that there are no unpaid volunteers working for such organisations? I, for one, have seen similar, highly organised activity done on a volunteer basis on a mass scale. So demonising money is just counterproductive to your (valid) primary concerns. An opposite solution – making anonymous editing possible for everyone – would protect individual users from harrassment, restoring the balance between organised groups (including governments) and unorganised masses. I elaborate on this in "my" section.
2. Yours is a good example how illegitimate means can serve legitimate causes. It's a matter of time before people from your political camp use methods of your opponents too. There are ways to rally unpaid volunteers, so this amendment... distorts certain balances itself! I'm very sure that your political opponents aren't short of unpaid volunteers!
– 6birc (talk) 11:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with 6birc, but therefore I proposed two ways to achieve my (as you say "valid") primary concerns:

1. Deletion on the TALK page must be generally impossible. This page is intended for FREE discussion, and discussion by deletion of the POVs of dissidents is no discussion, but blatant censorship typical for dictatorships.

2. A vote-of-no-confidence against suspect administrators must be possible, which leads to a check of the circumstances of the election and a general check of the activities of the administrator by a special political-independence-panel or a general-quality-panel.91.64.206.41 11:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

How does the WMF reconcile the TOU proposal the WMF Strategic Plan

It appears that the probable consequences of this new disclosure requirement is in direct conflict with two of the five strategic priorities in the WMF Strategic Plan.

• Priority: Increase Participation – It would seem probable that the long term consequences of this disclosure requirement, especially if clumsily and aggressively enforced by community zealots would have the net effect of discouraging participation.
• Priority: Improve Quality—It would seem probable that the long term consequences of this disclosure requirement, especially if clumsily and aggressively enforced would discourage a lot of the subject matter experts Wikipedia needs to improve the quality of its content.

How does the WMF reconcile this proposal with these strategic priorities? --Mike Cline (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

You appear to be operating under the assumption that WMF decisions are made based on long-term planning. While this may be a plausible assumption, I've yet to see any evidence to support it. Yes, I know, I'm being snarky, but I'm also pointing out that you are 100% correct that this proposal is inconsistent with WMF's stated goals...and that the authors of this proposal probably do not care much for WMF's stated long-term goals.

That being said, it is also possible that many people (mistakenly) believe that this proposal will increase the number of quality edits. This is certainly consistent with the general Wikipedia philosophy that expertise is suspect. One only has to look at the talk pages of many articles to see situations in which expertise in a given field leads to accusations of being a "paid shill". This Post-Modernist concept is also, of course, inconsistent with the Wikipedia ideals of content that is verifiable from reputable high-quality sources. I've seen many cases where content sourced to publications like Medical Hypotheses was included and stuff from NEJM rejected (or deliberately misquoted) simply because editors who may have, to assume good faith, misunderstood these concepts, were far more persistent than those who had assumed that verifiability and sources were the only important aspects. Hyperion35 (talk) 03:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I am operating under no assumptions here. The WMF and the community spent a good deal of energy on crafting the WMF Strategic plan and establishing these priorities. There's been a lot of projects designed to further these priorities within the community. My feeling is that the proposed TOU will have some adverse impact on the two priorities mentioned. Therefore I am explicitly asking the WMF crafters of this proposal whether or not they attempted to reconcile the proposal with the potential impact on the priorities in the plan. Whether they did or did not is their's alone to answer. Whatever that answer is, I'd like to hear it from the WMF. I might prompt further productive discussion on this proposal. --Mike Cline (talk) 10:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Balancing bias and expertise

This proposed ammendment is aimed at maintaining the goal of NPOV in articles, and ensuring that the content is factual rather than opinion. Which is desirable. Wikipedia articles vary considerably in perceived reliability, and I find some of them are dire in literary quality. I've made my share of mistakes. But I always aim to be factual, and the discipline of giving supporting references is valuable.

Transparency about "paid contributions" helps the reader assess the reliability, or at least the fairness, of articles. But would this have prevented the case a few years ago when it was widely reported that Wikipedia was used as a platform to promote the mann-made global warming hypothesis, with a highly-placed editor in the Wikipedia hierarchy aggressively deleting any opposing viewpoint, in spite of the mass of scientific evidence? That editor had credentials implying expertise, but I think he worked in a university department funded to "prove" global warming.

However, one source of knowledge is contributions from professionals in the subject matter about which they write. As a knowledge base, the strength of Wikipedia is the open editing, especially when the edits come from people with professional knowledge. Which means that editing has to be open to (current or past) employees of a company which works in the subject matter of an article. Related to this is a further issue of sources. I have knowledge of some places because I have lived there, and can describe them accurately, but this does not satisfy the citation requirements.

So there needs to be a way of encouraging expert editors while ensuring transparency about possible lobbying. Robert of Ramsor (talk) 00:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I am sending this also to say that the first discussion I sent was accidental for I was intending to just delete it after the discussion was typed as well as how my comment explaining this wasn't signed so this message is being sent just in case it didn't get sent.Marcus Fye (talk) 01:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I think there are certain categories of employment that pose a higher risk of abuse than others when it comes to contributing to wikipedia on the job. For instance, if you are a staffer for a United States Congressperson or an industry lobbyist, you just simply should not be permitted to edit wikipedia at all, in my not-so-humble opinion. In that situation, there is nothing you could edit while in service to that employer that would not stink of deception or propaganda. A medium risk might be journalists linking to their own articles or their own newspaper exclusively. Some journalists may have a genuine interest in adding to the available content and quality of information by including their own work as a source or citation. Others may be shamelessly interested in self-promotion. For that, I would say it should be dealt with on a case by case basis. An example of a low-risk contribution would be an employee at a zoo who is contributing scientific information from the zoo's websites about unique animals that they harbor. Yes, the zoo may get some residual benefit from being linked to the informative article, but the main interest is to inform the public, so that's not a problem in my view. Everything should be weighted by how controversial the edits are expected to be. If there is no perceptible controversy (The larvae stage of a butterfly, for example), minimal disclosure is adequate. If the edits are highly controversial (Does oil fracking pollute a community's drinking water?, for example), maximum disclosure should be demanded by wikipedia so that readers can feel that they are receiving good information and aren't being lied to. 69.245.239.174 21:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The disclosure obligation is to the readership, not the editing community.

I still have several problems with the amendments:

1. the amendment does nothing to inform the casual reader that the content is paid, casual readers do not generally visit User and Talk pages.
2. the editor would expose her free works as well as her paid works to the wrath of a portion of the editing community.
3. the Wikipedia:Sock puppetry guidelines do not afford having an alternate account for such disclosures and segregation of paid vs free content.
4. the paid relationship is temporary, the amendments will only be followed by upstanding/compliant editors, when the paid relationship is severed, these editors are perfectly free to update the record if they find unacceptable Wikipedia:Corporate Social Responsibility during or after their initial research and engagement.
5. The payer in this relationship is in most cases already transparent, cataloging and discriminating against those editors who engage in commerce, and who are upstanding enough follow the guidelines, is not warranted.

I want to reiterate that the obligation for disclosure is to the readership, not the editing community, so the amendments completely miss the true target. I still feel that a template, much like the Wikipedia:hilite template, with a nuanced background-color (and expiration date)is a better way to disclose paid content to the readership. Once the content has been patrolled and fact-checked the template could be removed.

NPOV deletions of unflattering content would require a different solution, but the amendments really don't cover that issue either. With that said, competing businesses might have some input on that practice and may tend to have their competition on their watchlists for the purpose of patrolling such eventualities. 009o9 (talk) 03:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

No, we have a disclaimer for readership already. In essence, it tells: "do not trust Wikipedia" and rightly so. This disclosure is needed for community. But indeed, if someone terminates their paid editing and removes notice from their user page, that creates problem, because no one will know about paid edits in the past. Probably we need a rule that such notice should not be removed, but replaced by a different notice telling that paid editing was accomplished only during a period of time. My very best wishes (talk) 03:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Feedback

This has already been happening for a while. Notice the difference between MacDonald's and Wendy's pages or Coca-Cola's page versus Snapple. One page has been able to be edited the other has not, for a while. Whether paid to do so or not, it is still a conflict of interest.

Note: this was moved here from my talk page. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 04:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

03:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)~Hi, I hope this is the correct place to write a comment. In India it has so happened that the free social networking sites and comment pages are flooded with paid posters, this results in campaigning and unfair targeting in gangs of any individuals expressions or free thoughts. As a result many honest individuals have begun avoiding such forums. Had the paid posters revealed their employers, it would have been easier to form an opinion of their posts and most probably we can ignore them as biased posts. I think anybody who is paid to post must reveal the employers details so that we know whether to take them seriously or not. There can be a bold logo which says that this particular contribution is from a paid employee, clicking on the logo can lead to further details of the poster and (compulsorily) his employee. Infact the TV news says there are agencies which hire people to do this job, and the political and/or business men give contracts to these agencies to begin like/hate campaigns. Hence not only the agencyof the paid pster but also the person who in the first place hired the agency should be revealed.Thanks for reading14.97.7.242 04:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)Devraj User:Devraj

Expectations on community members with access to non-public information

Let's take some real scenarios to discuss this question. As an oversighter, I have frequently been asked by editors to remove personal information they'd put on their userpage when they were naïve enough to think it was a safe thing to do, and that information included the name of their employer; they're now receiving harassing phone calls at work. This is usually an accepted reason for at least deletion from the page history, and often will meet the requirements for suppression as well. Will I be expected to verify that the removal of this information does not put the user in violation of the terms of use? Will I be expected to give a warning before deleting or suppressing? More importantly, if it is clear to me that the editor has indeed made edits that might potentially require a disclosure under this provision, am I obligated to refuse to delete or suppress, and tell the editor that because the disclosure is required under the terms of use, that Wikipedia won't do anything to help him mitigate the harassment he's being subjected to?

As a checkuser, if I discover that someone is editing from a specific location, and also that they've made edits that would require a disclosure if they have an affiliation with that location, am I obliged to share that information? Give the editor a warning? Make further inquiries? How is this going to interact with the access to nonpublic information policy, and the privacy policy?

Simply put, this proposal is so broad that I can foresee these issues coming up on at least a weekly basis on enwiki. Risker (talk) 05:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the proposal is very narrow and limited. Editors who make paid edits after the change is passed by the Board (no mention of ex post facto here), must disclose a paid edit in 1 of 3 ways. So you don't have to worry about anything in the past. Going forward, you should be a bit careful about deleting anything that says "I made a paid edit", if it's about an edit made after the proposal passes, then I wouldn't delete it - perhaps the editor can restate the required info, and leave out any non-required info and then you can delete the old info.

But really, is this ever going to come into play? User:XYZ states that he/she made a paid edit on April 15, 2014 for the GHIJ corp, are people really going to call up GHIJ and ask for User:XYZ? A little common sense will go a long way here. Smallbones (talk) 02:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea why you think this is narrow and limited, Smallbones. As I have already noted, I do not see a single editor about whom I know any personal history who has not already fallen afoul of this proposed amendment. And whether or not you think it's written narrowly, there is a very significant portion of the community that will decide to interpret it broadly, and since on Wikipedia the person who pushes the rules the farthest is usually the one whose position prevails, that is the level to which any proposal will have to be written. I have no idea why you think this will not be applied retrospectively on English Wikipedia: are you editing a different project than I am? I can guarantee you that it will be applied retrospectively, because it's already being applied now under the existing conflict of interest guideline. We already see accusations that information has been suppressed from various locations to "protect" COI interests. We already get checkuser requests for editors someone considers to have a COI. We already see swathes of edits removed from the project because of COI allegations; it's one of the primary methods of keeping articles in one's preferred version. Seriously, I really do not understand where you're coming from. These things are already happening. What I have asked here is if the obligations on oversighters and checkusers will change with this. Nothing you have said in your response addresses my point. Risker (talk) 15:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The current rules will still apply, and paid editors will have to disclose paid edits and who paid for it. As an oversighter,you shouldn't delete these (post-passage) disclosures. That's all I can see. Smallbones (talk) 17:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for admitting that you put this proposal above editor safety. I am sure that will be reassuring to every editor that it is no longer a concern of the WMF that editors be able to edit safely without fear of reprisal. Of course, that means that the several months of editor investment in improving the privacy policy is wiped out; the data retention policy will have to be rewritten, because it will now become mandatory for editors to publish personal information about themselves (and I repeat, I cannot see an editor involved in this discussion about whom I know any personal information who would not need to do so); your opinion is that the oversight policy will need to be rewritten; the neutral point of view policy will also have to be rewritten, because all edits will not be treated equally or with primary consideration to its benefit to the project; the founding principles will of course have to be rewritten. I suppose making this list should go elsewhere. Risker (talk) 20:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

dont include just 'paid' but 'group_advantage' misinformation by act or omission(by acting to remove information)...

think this group would form majority under sources of disinformation in wiki...how to effectively monitor and address...dont know, big kettle of fish this one...BUT I guess a starts needed...eg seeking disclosure that its not the simple provable truth that the information is disclosing but mainly a 'relative truth' to benefit a particular group view or interest and which of120.51.214.121 08:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedians who receive money for their contributions need to be identified and away from any administrator position as well as being apart of the voting power

Distortion of cultural purposes of Wikipedia

The proposal must be severe to prevent SPAM paid by corporations, and Wikipedians who receive money for their contributions need to be identified and, at least, away from any administrator position as well as being apart of the voting power on any issue. Otherwise, Wikipedia loses its function to inform and disseminate knowledge and culture. Intelectual gratuito--177.199.175.238 11:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

"Spam" is not a scientific concept. A clear distinction between for-profit and non-profit signalling is not possible... not only because all signalling is for-profit. For example, not all "spam" is commercial. While useful in colloquial speech, the word "spam" has been a buzzword of abuse, a hallmark of people with hysterical attitudes to money and a knee-jerk reaction to capitalism. The capital is far from the only threat to science and culture. The label of "spam" is often used in real-life situations to suppress clearly uncommercial speech that the labellers simply don't like. More about demonising money in "my" section. (See? I'm "spamming" right here, under your nose!)
– 6birc (talk) 12:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Личная заинтересованность / Vested interest

ИМХО, надо декларировать не только оплачиваемое редактирование, но и заинтересованное редактирование. Участник может не получать оплаты и не работать в организации, но при этом он может быть крайне заинтересован в размещении информации о себе или о своих проектах, цитаты из своих книг и т.д. Здесь речь не идёт о рекламе своих взглядов, а именно в заинтересованности из-за потенциальной возможности монетизировать результат (увеличить продажу своих услуг, продукции, книг и т.п.). Такие участники обычно действуют так же, как и оплаченные редакторы, с теми же целями и последствиями, но при этом они не получают от работодателя или компании прямого вознаграждения за правки, по этому такие действия не будут считаться оплаченным редактированием. Klip game (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

"ИМХО"... лӫљ.
– 6birc (talk) 14:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Here, a human-assisted Google translation... because our friend is making very good points: "IMHO, we have to declare not only paid editing, but also vested-interest editing. A member may not receive payment, and may not work for an organization, but he can have very strong incentives in placing information about himself or his projects, excerpts from his books, etc. Here, we are not talking about advertising his views, but in particular [doing so] with an interest in the potential to monetise the result (to increase the sale of their services, products, books, etc.). These participants are usually the same as paid editors, with the same goals and consequences, but they do not get direct compensation from an employer or a company for their edits, so that such action will not be considered paid editing."
– 6birc (talk) 14:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Deberiamos explicarles mejor a los nuevos usuarios como hecer sus páginas?

Si deberiamos explicarles uya que los nuevos usuarios quizas quieran subir cosas o hacer cosas y no sepan como. Por favor a los administradores hagan una pagina explicatoria.

Susan.AM

Gracias, Susan. Ya existen esas páginas, pero puede ser que no enfatizarse lo suficiente todavía. Saludos, --Jan (WMF) (talk) 23:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the proposed change

In the recent political elections in the country I live in paid people where changing the bio pages of other political candidates by the minute and that should not be allowed to happen.

It also hurts the public trust to Wkipedia.

200.107.234.234 19:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Corruption can be perpetrated without money. Big players are skilled in this game. This focus on money is likely to produce a false sense of transparency. False security is worse than no security. (More...)
– 6birc (talk) 23:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Transparency in all information dissemination is essential. Nothing is recorded without context, and people should have the opportunity to evaluate that context with regards to financial considerations. Thank you for your integrity. 99.112.163.53 16:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Trading Edits

Would this new policy regulate the trading of edits? For example, "I'll edit article X if you will edit article Y." Greatpopcorn (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I like your question. It seems it wouldn't.
– 6birc (talk) 23:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Data on COI/paid editing

Has there been any Foundation initiative to collect data on the amount of paid editors on Wikipedia? How many percent of them provide factual and verifiable policy-compliant contributions and manage to integrate successfully into Wikipedia's community, such as CorporateM mentioned above? How many of them simply leave Wikipedia after a while? How many of them became sanctioned or topic-banned or site-banned from the English Wikipedia? What is the net benefit of the contributions paid editors might bring to Wikipedia? What is the net harm? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

'e' Segh-let mI' qay' quantify QaH 'e'-De' lI', je ngoD nIS in order to decision val chenmoH topic je Har jIH. 2607:FB10:2:236:6909:E446:D8BA:3523 21:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

There is a report here (if you can read German) and a survey here. CorporateM (talk) 05:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

You can also look at all the GLAM projects, which definitely fall into this group; those individuals are all obviously and clearly financially benefitting from editing Wikipedia. On the whole, they integrate very well because they hire experienced Wikipedians who edit within the policies and guidelines of the community, but there have definitely been some exceptions. Whatever happens, should this be passed, it is critical to include GLAM in the coverage of this, as should all the education programs (students gaining benefit of marks, professors/teachers doing it as part of their paid employment). Actually, one of the bigger problems is paid/COI editors who don't understand Wikipedia's rules trying to make corrections to articles and then being blocked or banned; this happens quite frequently on biographical articles. That's because there's no effective means for article subjects to raise a red flag about errors, vandalism, or biased information in their articles. OTRS is sometimes helpful, but it's hard to find, it's not always timely in its responsiveness, and OTRS responders can't make the corrections stick against "the community". Risker (talk) 06:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Disclosing paid GLAM-editors who work under pseudonym

I hope my use of English is sufficient to be understood. I was on the Dutch Wikipedia confronted with an editor that worked under pseudonym and turned out to be a paid GLAM-editor. So paid by a project under responsibility of Wikimedia.nl. Disclosing this connection between editor Theobald Tiger (pseudo) and an IRL-name of the employee, based on several pages on wikipedia itself in which this connection was clearly made, resulted in a total block of my account (including blocked editing my user-pages) on the Dutch Wikipedia. This block is now indefinitely for as long I refuse to stop disclosing this connection. It is also important to know that the editor in this question was really intimidating to other users under his pseudonym. He wrote things as: “Well I wouldn’t be surprised that you will be thrown into the canal after visiting this wiki-meeting” I intentionally don't use examples of his behavior against myself, and ok I can't translate the whole context; which imho is worse if you consider his behavior in total. He was not blocked for this behavior, earlier he got some one-day-blocks. I'm feeling that I'm a kind of whistle blower that is punished with a block. I was editing on Wikipedia for almost ten years without any block. Inbetween I'm so afraid that I did not have the courage to mention the real name of Theobald Tiger on a Wikimedia page here. I brought this question off wiki because of the importance of it. So I'm feeling that the Wikimedia-organisation itself is not well handling the question of disclosing. On contrary. Thanks for your attention. --94.213.43.95 19:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC) sorry this was my contribution --Joep Zander (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, this guy was blocked for slander and cyberbulying and explicitly making the connection after he was requested not to do so. So this story is only half the thruth. Natuur12 (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

501(c)(3) fronts

Considering the prevalence of these organizations within obfuscating propaganda networks, I would urge them to be added to the list of criteria comprising "employer, client, and affiliation".-Froglich (talk) 21:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Editing and Discretion

There is a simple rule in Pool: Call your shots. Some folks think playing by the "rules" is not as effective as being "covert", for whatever reason. Paid or unpaid an honest, well researched, opinion is as good as one unpaid. Judging the soundness of that opinion or the form in which it is expressed is the job of an "editor". An editor has rules (guidelines) which are those of the organization for whom he/she works. This organization (Wiki) is peer review at its most grand scale. Even at that, errors are going to seep through. That is why corrections are printed. Wikipedia is an open format, not a catechetical manual. My mother had a saying: "If you believe everything you read, you will eat all you see." The onus is on the reader. I will conclude with my favorite line from the Timaeus: "Being is to becoming as truth (is) to belief." John Shuttleworth (talk) 22:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)John Shuttleworth

Support Fully

Hi I support what you are proposing with this disclosure of paid editing. Why not? I love your collaborative style of gaining feedback...Stick with it. We have enough dictatorship type models of leadership around us everywhere. Thanks for modeling a collaborative approach. I wish you could train the legislature. 107.2.73.218 00:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm just chipping in to say that I appreciate this step quite a bit! I do think that paid editing should be kept in Wikipedia (for practical purposes -- who else would edit obscure/unknown pages?) and the only thing that needs to be done with them is that they all have to report that it's a paid edit. Don't need to suppress any significant amount of editing or allow shadowy edits to happen. Good move. Hans.Kariniemi (talk) 23:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)--21 y/o who likes neutral information

Support fully. Farleyguy (talk) 21:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Full support80.101.191.175 23:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

YOu are right!!

oMG WE MUST DO THIS! Make people pay so that spammers cant destroy wikipedia lol it annoys me when people say other bands are better than one direction thANK YOUU!U!! - kayla tomlinson

Process for weeding out COI

How about we preemptively block paid editors and then ask them to go through a process of vetting similarly to RFA whereby they are asked a series of questions and then asked to acknowledge that they understand Wikipedia's policies on conflict of interest and paid editing? Then we just assign one of the volunteers to monitor their contributions, or subject them to the PendingChanges extension (kudos to CorporateM for thinking about that idea!) TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 01:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I oppose this idea. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia where "anyone can edit", but blocking paid editors breaks this principal. Moreover, this process is also seriously counter-productive - There are a lot of COI editors and we can't question them one by one. Forcing edits to be reviewed via pending changes isn't good either, since this is a WMF-wide move, and as far as I know English Wikipedia is the only wiki that has PC enabled (not counting the test wikis of course), so this will require extensive discussions in other WMF projects. Zhaofeng Li (talk) 05:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

@Zhaofeng Li: Yes, you're right, I was mistaken as the discussion was primarily centered on English Wikipedia, which sometimes preemptively blocks names of organizations under Wikipedia:NOSHARE policy. Wikipedia's not the only wiki though, and it's a cruel mistake to think that way. Perhaps this is better left as a proposed policy for individual projects only. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 12:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion: Add a check box: "___ Agent for Another Person or Entity"

• As someone else noted, plenty of unpaid people have hidden agendas. Examples include political, religious, educational, charitable, and business advocates. The problem is not payment, but hidden advocacy.
• I am not sure how this would be enforced, as honest people will disclose and dishonest people will not. In deciding what is neutral, even the guardians of neutrality may be influenced by their own views and experiences or biases.12.110.193.186 02:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

How will the community seek to enforce these new TOS should they be enacted?

To me, this is simply a matter of advantage vs. disadvantage. Here is how I see it:

• Advantage -- paid editors might be known during edit disputes. I'm on the fence about this one. It would be difficult to assume good faith with someone editing via an agenda based on compensation, even if their edits held merit to some degree.
• Disadvantages -- Alienating decent editors whose motivations are to preform good edits, despite compensation. Possibly adversely affecting the quantity of active editor; causing fewer to contribute. Adversely affecting corporate donations; lets face it, if we demonize money as a motivating factor for editing, we subsequently diminish incentive for those same 'payers' to donate.

Aside from these points, how does one effectively enforce this rule? I can foresee a problem; an edit war breaks out, one of the editors is editing from work, and the other side has powerful motivation to no longer assume good faith. What do you do, ban them? Ban the company? I think that this proposed TOS suffers from major conceptual rationale flaws. 70.193.155.27 03:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, we tried to address these questions above in FAQ responses:

• How will community enforcement of these obligations work with existing rules about privacy and behavior?
• Is this requirement enforceable?

I am considering how to address users whose motivation is to provide good edits, despite compensation. It's a difficult distinction to make, but if you have any guidance or thoughts about how to address this point, I am very interested to discuss with you. Thank you for this feedback, and let me know if there are other points we can clarify. Best, Stephen LaPorte (WMF) (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, do NOT allow paid editors to infect the WIKI site, although they are most certainly here already

It is highly obvious there are some and many wiki page sites that are obviously being sponsored by an organization in an attempt to promote positive Public Relations of a business entity, rather than the truth, or facts of that said business entity.

Personally, I have recently experienced a block to editing as I thnk it has been implied I am one of those being paid to edit, which is completely NOT the case. I will however just patiently wait out my block though and once concluded, will continue the dissemenation of factual Corporate Historical Information detailing incidents which many firms and businesses would rather not have mentioned on their WIKI page.

Truth is important, and for the most part WIKI is reliable because of individuals such as my self. Just wish I knew more about the editing process so I could do more of it! 172.56.32.37 04:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I like it, but it should go further

I like the idea that editors should declare if they have an association with the subject, whether paid or otherwise. I think all forms of relationship should be covered and that articles should be flagged clearly on the main page if they've been edited by someone with a declared interest, perhaps by check box when editing. That way readers can assess the level of influence that may have on the content based on the subject. On pages for archives and libraries etc it will be obvious to readers that the editing is made in good faith and on other pages, that the association must be one of paid advocacy or something similar. I think that the readers should be given the relevant context, and trusted to assess it as they will.

Leigh 101.160.136.41 08:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

This guy is right. I want to see paid contributors marked in a different color on pages I read. Who the heck is gonna read through 500 citations searching each user page one by one and referencing them back to the beginning? And the editors are more often than not fairly sloppy because they are not professional. Its unrealistic to trust random editors to supply us with this information.

I would not trust wikipedia content any more if paid contributors information is hidden in.

— The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.151.31.146 (talk)

You didn't even sign your own post... but you require invasive disclosures from others. (Disclaimer: argumentum ad personam.)
– 6birc (talk) 13:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Everyone

Hi all ... speaking as Chair of the Board of Trustees, I would like to express that the Board supports the work of the Wikimedia Foundation's Legal and Community Advocacy (LCA) Department in launching this consultation process, and we appreciate your time as community members in expressing your various points of views. LCA has worked successfully in community consultations in the past, listening to the community and making changes in response to appropriate feedback. The issue of paid editing and its disclosure has been the subject of Board discussion, and this consultation complements those conversations. The Board has not yet made any decision on the subject of this RFC, but we are happy with the helpful, robust, and diverse discussion within the community on this issue.

We look forward to reading your comments and reviewing the final recommendation. Thanks again for your time and views on this important proposal.

Jan-Bart (talk) 09:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The goal is truth

Wikipedia has the goal of 'crowd sourcing' to gain it's knowledge, ideally the person who is recognised as being the uppermost expert in the field will write the definition of the topic at hand. This is not always the case and often self appointed experts will give their insights, these may or may not be correct. Also often there are errors that are not picked up, such as the claim that Mercedes-Benz makes vehicles, Mercedes-Benz has not produced one vehicle, Mercedes-Benz is a trademark of Daimler AG who have made a lot of vehicles both under their current name and former names. I am not an employee of Daimler but like some of their products and have an interest in correct information, would it be a bad thing if Daimler tasked one of their employees with maintaining the accuracy of information relating to their company? It looks like they have not, as the employee would perhaps like to note that his/her pay slip does not say Mercedes-Benz on the top but rather says Daimler AG. I see no problem with someone who is paid by a company writing about that company, as long as the information is correct, as that is the end goal. For instance an employee of Coca-Cola may say that Coca-Cola is the worlds most popular cola drink but should not say that Coca-Cola is the worlds best cola drink, as the claim of popularity can be backed up by facts but the claim to be the best is subjective and could be seen as promotional. Another example could be that the chief researcher at Pfitzer may well be worlds foremost expert on Viagra, should he/she be excluded from editing information regarding viagra? If he/she uses wikipedia as a promotional tool to discredit other erectile dysfunction drugs, then yes.

Some good points that are worth a reply. Also a minor correction.

Crowd sourcing doesn't mean that we seek the one person who is ideally an expert. Not least, experts can have just one view, or be fanatical or biased, or be unfairly dismissive of other views, or have reputation, prestige or employer or peer pressures, or have other conflicts of interest. Example - I'm the chief chemist who developed a drug and sure I know a huge amount, I'm the "world expert"... will I be neutral about its possible negative interactions that I minimized and didn't fully disclose when we asked for drug approval, or which undermine my employer's marketing, or harm my job prospects or professional reputation? I own company X and invented product X, but I have stockholders and investors to keep happy in a difficult market?

What it means is that ideally, we don't rely on One True Spokesperson, we consider all sources, and allow anyone to put forward evidence that something is poorly written or missing and can be better covered. We see how all the different sources and viewpoints cover each topic and try to represent those together, in the article, so that a reader can understand the sense of how those engaged in varying sides of a topic - be it a drug, a company, a political matter, or the next car by Daimler - see the topic, and its key points.

So yes, we welcome insight and attention from the companies and manufacturers concerned. We welcome them, they (often) want us [as our pages are well read], so there is a mutual benefit. But we're wary, it's a double edge sword. They want us for our ability to represent them in a specific way and style, and that isn't a point we can negotiate on. So the question is, how do you try to arrange it so that we can get the input from people like you mention, who want to add truly valuable information - and yet make it less easy or less likely that they might use us in an unacceptable way. We already aim to achieve this in many ways, through existing policies, so we have a part answer (the article on Microsoft is not a Microsoft PR department writing, for example). But it's not a final answer, since it's a constantly evolving question. So this proposal is one small incremental step in an evolving answer. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

OP reply:

WP uses the age old method of peer review to ensure the accuracy of articles. It choose to use the format whereby anyone can edit an article, it does not 'lock' articles when it thinks nothing can be added. So if the foremost expert in the field writes on a subject, others can edit it, provided evidence to back up their changes are provided. WP aims to provide factual information, not hearsay, rumours, half-truths and the like. It is sometimes difficult to ascertain the reliability of information, as insider knowledge is required, such as development of drugs. A large chemical company may well try to hide some information but I cannot see how this proposal will change anything. As it relies on the person to be honest and declare their interest.

Even the notion that people should have to register with WP before being able to contribute won't work, as it is easy enough to have aliases. I think the current system, although perhaps not perfect, is as good as it is going to get, considering the basis of WP. Once you start to enforce rules as to who can contribute towards WP, you start to erode the foundation/basic principles of WP.

I feel it would be better that perhaps making the rules stricter in regard to quoting sources. For instance the claim that the Mercedes-Benz G wagen is the longest produced model by Daimler is a little dubious [[9]] The reference used for that claim is an article on the net [[10]] that is quite shaky as the basis for the claim, who wrote that article and what qualifications does the author have to make that claim? I have placed an edit on there stating that I believe the UNIMOG [[11]] to be the longest production model, I do not have any substantial evidence to back this up, thus I have not changed the article and am allowing others to peer review my claim. When I find a substantial reference, such as an article by a noted vehicle historian, then I feel that I can change the article on the G-Wagen and amend the article on the UNIMOG to reflect this 'new' knowledge. Which is actually not new but rather revised knowledge.

That leads to another thought, would it be possible to change WP so that any edits to an existing article are subject to a cooling off period, with both the original and revised article being on display for a period of time and if no objections are made in that time, the article automatically changes to the revised version. That way no one is able to just change things with a few keystrokes.

Traduction française ambiguë

texte origine dans la première phrase : "afin de traiter les situations futures de révisions rémunérées non divulguées"

1) Dans la première phrase - ci dessus - le terme "rémunérées" est trop restrictif et introduit de fait une ambiguïté ; en effet comment traiter une publicté masquée ? ; il faudrait introduire la notion de "conflit d'intérêt" ou le terme "intéressé". 2) la traduction peu claire, pourrait être remplacée par  : "afin de ne pas divulguer ou de divulguer et dans quelles conditions, les articles ayant un caractère d'intéressement."

Thanks. A number of people are making that argument. For me, it is finding a compromise solution, since community policies already address conflict of interest issues in general. The argument for this proposed amendment is that, as a general basis, payment of money threatens NPOV more likely than other kinds of edits, though many don't agree with that, I understand. Geoffbrigham (talk) 13:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Ich bin dafür, daß bezahlte Beiträge jeweils bei den Beiträgen direkt gekennzeichnet werden, nicht irgendwo, wo man danach suchen muß. Im übrigen ist es kompliziert gewesen, dieses Feld für Kommentare überhaupt zu finden. Unklarheiten der Formulierung der neuen Bestimmung: "Falschangaben zu Mitgliedschaft oder Zugehörigkeit" - welche Mitgliedschaft ist gemeint? Hier muß klar gesagt werden, um WELCHE Mitgliedschaft es sich handelt. Nutzer von Wikipedia kennen schließlich die Struktur der Organisation kaum. "Nutzer" sind für mich übrigens solche Menschen, wie ich, welche nach Beiträgen suchen, nicht die, welche sie verfassen.

---

(Tilde? Habe ich nicht auf meiner Tastatur!)

This is a fair point about the meaning of "affiliation." We have worked on that issue, but, in the end after many formulations, we felt that the term was necessary, though not defined with complete certainty. To the extent we need clarity we can rely on FAQs to better define the term based on practical examples as they come to our attention. Thanks for taking the time to comment. Geoffbrigham (talk) 13:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments left at top

Some comments were left a bit randomly at the top of this discussion. To avoid confusion at the introduction for other participants, I have put them here. Geoffbrigham (talk) 12:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Not sure where comments are supposed to go as it's not made clear, but I am in favour of this proposal. 5.198.10.184 10:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Anyone else having issues with posting their comments? Wikipedia wants our comments but the site has no facility to accept them! 5.198.10.184 11:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The same here....WMF certainly doesn't make it easy for the public to actually post their comments! Anyway, for what it's worth, I'll post my comment right here: I haven't actually had occasion to check the terms of use in WMF before, but I'm surprised that such a provision of disclosure is only being considered as an amendment now! That probably explains the highly biased biographies of people that I've sometimes come across on Wikipedia. I tried to find out who had written or edited the article but came up with no information. I shall watch closely for the results of this proposal, and if it is not passed I should really stop using any website affiliated with the WMF and warn my friends as well.188.78.168.55 12:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Major Privacy Concern: With This Amendment, Will all Wikipedians Be Required to Disclose or Employers?

After reading through the Proposed Amendment and the FAQs there. I saw in there that we will have to disclose the company we all work for even if we getting paid to do our normal jobs with them. The vagueness of the Amendment as it's currently written states "To ensure compliance with these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution to any Wikimedia Projects for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation."

While I do receive compensation from my employers for my normal work as everyone who works a job does, I don't get paid to make edits to Wikipedia or any of the Wikimedia Projects. If anything I removed false uncited statements or correct factual errors after using Google to verify if those are errors and false statements and cite them with those sources of course. I don't get or expect any compensation for those edits. I also watch to make sure I don't violate the NPOV polices either so I edit very carefully, limiting those edits to those fact checking edits.

If anything being required to disclose our employers even if we don't get compensation is a bad idea. It could lead to ill effects by our employers, not limited to getting terminated by them, which is why I consider this a major privacy concern. Sawblade5 (talk) 14:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sawblade5 - The proposed amendment would not require you to disclose if you are not being paid to make the edits. We try to address this in this proposed FAQ (where you should feel free to leave comments). Geoffbrigham (talk) 13:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Sawblade5, you would be required to disclose if you make edits that relate in some way to your employment and could be considered to have benefited you. Geoff, please be forthright here, and avoid double negatives; the FAQ is how the WMF fantasizes that a perfect and loving community might interpret this policy, and it doesn't apply to the huge percentage of Wikimedians who work outside of the teaching and GLAM industries. Risker (talk) 15:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

not in favor of undisclosed contributions to Wikipedia on specific subjects

I am not in favor of undisclosed contributions to Wikipedia on specific subjects. Someone may have a financial interest in seeing a subject talked about in a certain way. I like having the source of the contributions disclosed. That is like the political system of the U.S. When donating to politics, the source of the donation must be disclosed.

Oh, sure. People are constantly trying to subvert the law, but it is as good as we can get it without inhibiting peoples' free speech rights.

— The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.237.43.137 (talk)

How about disclosing the author and the date of your own post?
We add signatures by writing: ~~~~.
– 6birc (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

here's a suggestion

Whenever a page is edited/added, the source should be added i.e. the person's qualification in that matter. This way, you know the validity and trust in the information that you are receiving.

Nobody should be required to pay to improve the world's knowledge. Does a teacher need to pay you to improve your knowledge? nope....

I disagree. The reliability of s statement in Wikipedia comes from refererring to reliable sources, not from the "qualification" (however you want to determine that) of the person who put it in Wikipedia. See en:Wikipedia:INTREF or de:wp:q. --Wilhelm-Conrad (talk) 19:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Disclosure policy is needed to to expose, e.g., the blatant paid advertising of tobacco products

The Tobacco_smoking article (unlinkable, though it exists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_smoking )

is an example of one tobacco-related article chronically rewritten as ad copy for tobacco use, with the devastating health effects repeatedly moved to an inconspicuous section near the bottom or consigned to a separate article (and so made even more inconspicuous by requiring a click-through).

Volunteer editors who don't have 40 hours to devote each week can't keep up with the paid tobacco flacks for smoking, vaporizing, chewing, nicotine products to "cure" nicotine addiction, as well as repeated deletion of mention of the financial costs to the users (tobacco isn't free) and the lucrative profits of the companies selling tobacco to "loyal" users.

Paid promoters of a particular product should be required to sign their posts as "Username for Employername", e.g.,

"RebelliousSmoker, paid product promoter for Phillip Morris Tobacco"

Thanks for your observation. I would like to hear more about the impact that paid advocacy editing has on our administrators, Checkusers, etc. Some have suggested that it is not that great, but, from what I have heard for some time, it takes up a lot of volunteer time. Geoffbrigham (talk) 13:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Apoio que se identifique os editores ligados de alguma forma ao assunto.

Eu concordo firmemente que a pessoa que edita o conteúdo se identifique. Se ela tem algum vínculo ou ligação com a empresa, assunto, causa, governo, pessoa, etc, ela terá motivos para esconder, tendenciar ou manipular conteúdo, mesmo que diga o contrário. Mesmo que diga que suas opiniões não refletem as da empresa ou pessoa à qual está ligada. Em nome de interesses do capital, as pessoas mentem, simulam, escondem e manipulam. Conheço um antigo ditado que dizia "o papel aceita tudo", referindo-se a coisas escritas que por alguém, e dependendo da ingenuidade da pessoa que lê em questionar a informação, se tornavam verdades, embora fossem inverdades. Hoje podemos dizer o mesmo da internet e seus infinitos sites, grupos, blogues, páginas e afins: "a internet aceita tudo". Queremos que Wikipédia seja um local imparcial e sério, e para isso a identificação do editor é fundamental para análise do conteúdo publicado. Se alguém tem alguma forma de ligação com a informação, logo temos que procurar outras fontes além da Wikipédia para termos uma opinião formada de outros pontos de vista. Se o editor não se identifica compromete-se a seriedade e a veracidade da informação divulgada na Wikipédia. Depois que cair no descrédito popular, a frase "A Wikipédia não pode ser levada a sério como fonte de informação", que já ouvi de muitas pessoas, fará cada vez mais sentido.

Ewaldo Ewaldo101 (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts. I really want to encourage viewpoints in all languages. On the legal team, we speak about 6 languages fluently, and Google Translate also helps. So translation is rarely a problem. Geoffbrigham (talk) 13:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Free Wikipedia is more important than money

I fully agree, that rules should stay as simple as possible and contributing and editing should stay without direct money influence. neutrality is most important.

However, you should offer more ways for donation, for example bitcoins are perfect way. There is nothing wrong for this way of donation.

Regards --Magy357 (talk) 20:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Maturity and responsibility

Now that WP has become a mature source for large numbers of readers, we have to act more responsible compared to the time when it was more an enthusiast project. I believe this amendment makes sense because it reminds all users of the original attitude behind the project, and the one that made it succesful. --Edoe (talk) 00:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, there was no intention the Founding principles to prevent editors who may receive some sort of personal benefit from editing Wikipedia, even anonymously. (From the Founding principles, #2: "The ability of almost anyone to edit (most) articles without registration.") IP editors cannot put these notices on their pages, because most IPs in 2014 are dynamic to some extent. This would require that anyone who could potentially benefit personally in some way must register an account, at minimum. Risker (talk) 06:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

"Not preventing" paid authors does not mean they are invited, "original attitude" prevails - and that was committment to present unbiased, neutral information. This is what made WP a success. <br\>Secondly, anonymous editing is not hindered by the amendment, as one can hint on his affiliation "in the edit summary" or "on the [article] talk page". So registration will still not be neccessary. --Edoe (talk) 21:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Suggest a slight change to the opening sentence

What you think about adding a second sentence, so the proposed amendment starts something like the following: "These Terms of Use prohibit engaging in deceptive activities, including misrepresentation of affiliation, impersonation, and fraud. They also require full disclosure of an affiliation that might present the appearance of a conflict of interest in any edits."

Also, what do you think about adding something like the following to the FAQs:

Do I need to disclose food provided at an edit-a-thon? Were you expected make certain kinds of edits to specific article or to edit a certain way that would presumably benefit the individual or organization that provided the food? If you were encouraged to edit something without any implications about which articles to edit and how they might be edited, then no disclosure is required. If you regularly attend and edit at events sponsored by a business or a political organization, and you are expected to make edits consistent with their business or political objectives, then that should be disclosed.

Must I disclose my affiliation for edits I make in my free time? Does your employer expect you to make certain edits in your 'free time' as a condition of employment? Alternatively, are you trying to curry favor with your management by making edits in your free time that you think they will like? If yes, then disclosure is required. (In such cases, there is a problem with interpretation of 'free time'!) If you make the edits under an assumed name and don't advertise to your management what you are doing, then disclosure is not required. If you ask your management what changes to Wikipedia they would like to see, then you also need to tell them that you are required to disclose your affiliation if you make any edits they request.

Comments:

1. I believe the thrust of this amendment is to officially require transparency without discouraging people from contributing in ways consistent with Wikipedia policies such as w:Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Accepting free lunch at an edit-a-thon once or twice a year should only require disclosure if you are expected to make edits others have already prepared for you -- essentially trying to meet the letter but not the spirit of the TOU. As a purely hypothetical, I would welcome the w:Jewish Defense League and the w:Palestine Liberation Organization trying to edit each others articles following Wikipedia policies such as w:Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and w:Wikipedia:Assume good faith. If they are honestly citing sources and seeking common ground, that could contribute to resolving the conflicts between them. If each side knows it's correct and the other is criminal, then we have problems that can't be fixed by simple disclosure of who paid for the sandwich. This is my response to a comment by User:Smallbones above.
2. In practice, I'd be surprised if many people employed by w:Public relations companies to polish their clients' images will abide by these rules. Still, I think it's worth having them, because it makes it easier to block them when their edits are so egregious they get caught.
3. For employees of galleries, libraries, archives, and museums (GLAM) who pay their employees to edit Wikipedia, I would think they would want the public to know that they are doing that. That would hold also for some organization like a health care facility that might want to refer their clients to Wikipedia for certain information.
4. An organization that would not want the public to know that they are paying for edits is probably hoping to pay for deception. They may not disclose their affiliations unless forced to.

DavidMCEddy (talk) 00:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi DavidMCEddy - Thank you for your thoughtful comments. FYI, we are trying to address some of these issues here in this proposed FAQ - though I think it does not cover as much as you propose. I will be interested in your thoughts. Geoffbrigham (talk) 13:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Sweet

Cool I like that.

207.119.150.26Ty

Effects

If we have to pay what we already edited, there are thousands of pages across wikipedia in several languages. For instance my edit area (id.wikipedia) has a tremendous amount of things to edit. I don't want to pay even for a small edit, editors like me are voluteers not a wallet. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rayton89 (talk) 03:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

You absolutely do not have to pay to edit Wikipedia. But if a company (or others) pay somebody to edit, the paid editor must disclose that he made a paid edit and who paid him. It's a completely different thing. Don't worry! Free is better Smallbones (talk) 04:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

To clarify Smallbones' statement: if accepted, this proposal would require a disclosure if someone receives any kind of benefit from the edits. Risker (talk) 06:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

@Risker, are you sure your "any kind of benefit" test is correct? For example, if a contributor is basing their career on being skilled in new technology/platform/framework "X" they would expect to benefit by boosting X on Wikipedia, even if they aren't paid by X's makers. Do you think these new Terms of Use would (or should) cover that case? - Pointillist (talk) 09:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Pointillist, the proposal explicitly includes any edits "for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation", which I would interpret as "if you edit an article with the expectation that it will help you in gaining employment with the article's subject, you must disclose". This proposal is a no-go on the whole from my perspective - it's PR theatre that won't actually have any real effect on the "bad players" who are the hypothetical target but it sure looks good on a press release, and at the same time they put ethical Wikimedians in an untenable position - but the statement is consistent with the rest of the proposal. I think the bigger problem is how many Wikimedians actively seek positions with the WMF, chapters or thematic organizations (not to mention GLAMs), so every edit or other action they take is something they are using to build their reputation for that job application. And no, I don't see any difference whether the targeted employer is the WMF or the ABC Corporation. Risker (talk) 19:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for replying so promptly, @Risker. I'm impressed by the ambition of "expect to receive", though it would be even more comprehensive if the wording were "receive, or expect to receive, any benefit". With terms of use like those we'd be able to eliminate vast swathes of mostly-primary-sourced technology articles (a good thing IMO) but at the risk of losing experts in other subjects whose edits are almost entirely unbiased and rigorously sourced. This is a really difficult choice. I know what you mean about people sucking up to the Foundation, but the WMF has to do something to maintain momentum. They're sitting on piles of cash far greater than they need to keep the servers going – ostensibly the reason they solicit funds – but the project could collapse anyway. If wikipedia gets a reputation for covert paid editing they won't be able to attract future editors or cash. That's not a risk the trustees should ignore. It seems to me that however much we may suspect the motives of the WMF, if they are stuck between a rock and a hard place we should try to help where we can. - Pointillist (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments copied from FWF

Copied from Special:Diff/7692818. PiRSquared17 (talk) 05:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I have never, nor expect to ever, contribute to or edit any Wikipedia page/material. Nonetheless, I refer to you frequently and am glad you exist. I only want to say that YES, in my opinion, ANY [paid] WIKIPEDIA WRITER AND/OR EDITOR ABSOLUTELY MUST reveal any/all professional and/or commercial connections s/he may have that are at all pertinent to the information/editing provided. If the "information" provided by Wikipedia is in fact a [paid] contribution from say the Flat Earth Society, or the White Aryan Resistance--I as a Wikipedia user, jolly well want to know the source of the "information" I am reading.

--Yes; my examples are silly and obvious--but you get my point: IF someone is being paid--whatever construct one may put on that word--to say certain words, present a particular take/slant on a topic--OF COURSE I the intellectually neutral reader, want to and should be able to know about that [paid] point of view. --Most people will "say" damn near anything, if paid, hired, or whatever, to do so.

--humble user, Jill — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 2602:306:BDF7:400:699D:558A:3FEE:AFD (talk)

(not copied from FWF:)

Your examples show that the proposed amandment is not the solution:

It would only cover paid edits by flat earthers, but if they edit without getting paid, their affiliation would not be revealed. And I assume many people that strongly hold a specific Point Of View would make edits in favor of it without getting paid for that.

And if somebody would edit Wikipedia to say the earth is flat, he would have to give reliable sources as references, and if he does not give them the edit should be reverted. It does not matter whether or not he is a member of the Flat Earth Society, a creationist group, the local Elvis Presley fan club, staff of a publishing house or faculty of a university. --Wilhelm-Conrad (talk) 10:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Strongly Agree -- paid editors and edits must be disclosed

Wikipedia has been my primary go-to for almost all web-search results going on 2 years now. I don't always stop there when looking for information, but trust it implicitly to at least get me going in the right direction. The pitfalls of web searching is that sometimes you have to know the right keywords or you just go in circles. I believe Wikipedia recognizes this and even in cases where the article doesn't completely fill my needs, it provides a valuable launch point to intelligent use of the WWW on the topic. I'd hate to think that someone with an agenda is purposely mis-directing me to materials that don't serve me well, let alone providing false or misleading information directly in the WP article.

24.21.3.240 05:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC) Eric Mayer

It seems that everything that starts out with a noble motive must be commercialized and corrupted by those whose own motives are for personal gain alone; that the ancient term "Caveat Emptor" is becoming the sole 'way to do business' in the U. S. It would be one glorious victory among the legions of defeats if Wiki is able to stop those attempting to twist Wiki to their own selfish ends.2601:1:8100:400:BCC8:F5F1:EF0B:6475 23:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

What to ask to disclose: paid contributions or COI?

There are a lot of cases when people edit Wikipedia at work time. Not all of them involve conflict of interest. (A biology researcher may edit Wikipedia to write about favourite topics his research has no direct relationship with, for example). To reflect on this thought, I would like to propose these changes:

Terms of use/Paid contributionsConflict of interest amendment

Paid contributions Conflict of interest without disclosure

These Terms of Use prohibit engaging in deceptive activities, including misrepresentation of affiliation, impersonation, and fraud. To ensure compliance with these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution to any Wikimedia Projects for which you have a conflict of interest, included but not limited to:

• you represent the article subject, such as an employee or as a (potentially unpaid) volunteer
• you have a close relationship with the article subject (remove this line?)
• you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

You must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways:

• a statement on your user page,
• a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions details of conflict of interest, or
• a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions details of conflict of interest.

Applicable law, or community and Foundation policies and guidelines, such as those addressing conflicts of interest, may further limit paid contributions or require more detailed disclosure. For more information, please read our background note on disclosure of paid cotributions.

—Gryllida 05:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I strongly support this change. Not all COI edits are paid for, but they all hurt the neutrality of Wikipedia (and other WMF projects) to some extent. And I'd suggest changing all occurrences of "paid contributions" to "details of conflict of interest" in the ways of disclosure part:

You must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways:

• a statement on your user page,
• a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions details of conflict of interest, or
• a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions details of conflict of interest.

Zhaofeng Li (talk) 05:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Added your changes in, thank you. Gryllida 09:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Expanding this to WP:COI would be highly problematic. Consider someone who is a Biology researcher (example above) and writes about something directly related to his own research, meaning something he really knows about. According to WP:COI, "when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.". Right. He can reasonably argue that all he only promotes scientific knowledge, and he does not edit to promote his own interests (and I can easily believe this; I personally damaged my scientific career by wasting my time here), hence there is no any conflict of interest. Now, speaking about "close relationship", what is it? Drinking tea with the "subject"? Liking his research? Personal affection? My very best wishes (talk) 06:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Promoting knowledge and COI two aren't mutually exclusive, so the researcher should disclose COI if he writes about own research.

The close relationship thing is vague, I marked that line as one worth removal. Gryllida 09:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• • This is quite an interesting topic, given that my advising of User:My very best wishes above (then known at User:Biophys) that he had a COI on an article on en.wp was many years ago deemed to be harassment and is responsible for my very first block on en.wp. In 2008 the friendly reminding of an editor of COI was harassment; but today it is a complete 180. And not only that, but all evidence of his COI (en:Orientations of Proteins in Membranes database) was completely hidden from public view (both on the article, and on his talk page). Why is that? Russavia (talk) 15:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• In practice, "COI" is used way too much by querulous editors as a stick to beat people they're arguing with. Including this is a bad idea - David Gerard (talk) 11:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I really appreciate this effort to find better language. I am open to all thoughts on this. I do hear the concerns expressed by many about true harassment, so I think we need a solution that is sensitive to that consideration as much as possible, so I'm really open to ideas on how to minimize harassment with a proposed amendment like the one proposed. I hear that the focus should be on the edit, not the editor, but I also hear that our administrators have had serious difficulties with paid advocacy editing. I also hear loudly that paid advocacy editing is a concern to many, so that cannot be ignored. It is an interesting challenge. If we were to think of alternatives, we could narrow the scope of the amendment (like the rough draft below), but I'm not sure that is the right approach or solves the issue. It also may be too selective for many. Needless to say, I will be reading this discussion closely for ideas.

Paid contributions without disclosure

These Terms of Use prohibit engaging in deceptive activities, including misrepresentation of affiliation, impersonation, and fraud. To ensure compliance with these obligations, if you are making an edit or upload to a Wikimedia Project for compensation on behalf of an employer, client or other affiliation about them, their commercial product, or their commercial services, you must make that disclosure in the edit summary accompanying the edit or upload.

Applicable law, or community and Foundation policies and guidelines, such as those addressing conflicts of interest, may further limit paid contributions or require more detailed disclosure. For more information, please read our background note on disclosure of paid contributions.

Geoffbrigham (talk) 12:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

@Geoffbrigham. I think your new version is good, although I am not certain if this is really an improvement (either version is fine). @Gryllida. I mostly agree; it certainly would not hurt if a researcher places a disclaimer about their area of study, so everyone concerned could look at their contributions for consistency with "five pillars". What had actually happened when I edited in the area related to my research? Several contributors, who are familiar with the subject, quickly checked my contributions. The result? Not only none of them had any objections, but some of them even asked me for help, and I helped them as time allowed. However, speaking about WP:COI in general, this policy tells very clearly and quite correctly: "when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia". I believe that was never the case for myself. Yes, every time when I write something about a living person (and follow BLP and other policies!), one can reasonably argue that I "advance their outside interest". But as long as my writings serve the purpose of improving encyclopedia (meaning their or my own interests are not more important than interests of creating the encyclopedia), there is no COI - per policy. Same with anything related to science, I believe. My very best wishes (talk) 23:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Needless to say, I am just a regular volunteer, a biophysicist, no one asked me to edit here; I do not have "political connections", and I did not receive any compensations for contributing to WP. I received outing and harassment by a group of like-minded editors, personal attacks on off-wiki hate site in connection with the same editors, someone stealing private emails and placing them to Wikileaks in connection with same editors, someone editing from a building next to my work to report me as a "sockpuppeteer" [12], and other things like that. This has nothing to do with my COI, but reveals organization(s) that conduct information war on the internet, including WP. All my trouble started when I created this page. Since then, it was frequented by many [13]. My very best wishes (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The appropriate phrase I believe is something like "direct financial connection with the subject being edited"

• Direct: To avoid stuff like saying the owner of an electronics store must disclose before editing articles about electronics, because they have a distant, tangential financial relationship
• Financial connection: This is the term used by the FTC and it's a good one. Most marketing professionals are not actually "paid" to edit Wikipedia (or at least they don't feel they are) and they don't understand the term "paid editing" (think marketing intern doing what their boss tells them to do - it's not like their boss will literally hand them $20 extra after the article is posted).
• With the subject being edited: This addresses some of the concerns previously about editors that may be funded, but do not actually have a COI if they are not editing articles about the organization or person that is funding their edits.

Sincerely a frequently paid editor clearly breaching my prior claim to abstaining. CorporateM (talk) 05:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Disclosure of Paid Editing is VITAL

Definitely.

No Hidden Agendas, Keep Information Accurate & Reasonably Objective. No one should have a problem with a disclosure of this type, unless they DO have "ulterior motives" when making changes in Wikipedia Projects and Info.

Derek Mogambo'68.207.93.198 07:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

aThis is a seperate person from the commenter up there, and I think that this is a good idea. My question is, how will you go about paying these people? How much money per edit? Will there be a daily limit? And will the donations recieved be enough to pay everyone?

Nations

Like a lo of game Nations are a very important factor for a game, i think you guys should do more than one nation for this great game, something like, normally in most of the games, humans, aliens(be creative) and others. You get the point

Confounding aspects

Ulterior motives for editing/creating articles are not always rooted in financial gain. Many articles are adulterated to re-frame controversial topics/figures in a more appealing tone. This may constitute propaganda or a reinvention of the spam wheel via planting contrived wiki-PR (public relations) seeds as a marketing scheme. It seems wise to limit as many of these variables as the organization can in order to protect the integrity of Wikipedia as a whole. - Airgeadais (talk) 08:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I think there are many aspects to open editing that must be addressed, but this one is the clearest problem and the most obvious threat at the moment, it is a great place to start. 50.183.0.245 14:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Überzeugungstäter

Und was ist mit dem Problem der politischen Überzeugungstäter, die Artikel immer wieder diesen festgefügten Überzeugungen anpassen, ohne Rücksicht auf Tatsachen? Hat die community dafür eine Lösung bereit? Früherer Beiträger ulula

I hear you on political influence, but I think that would have to be covered by local conflict of interest policies. The proposed amendment is to address an area where NPOV may be at greater risk - with compensation. (I acknowledge, however, that many people disagree with that view however.) Geoffbrigham (talk) 13:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

References

Interesting read. Thanks. I like some of the ideas, though I'm still thinking about it. If this were the right approach it would take time to put in place. In that case, maybe the TOU amendment is only an interim solution. In the end, I think that will depend on what the community wants. Thanks for the reference. Geoffbrigham (talk) 13:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Edits by School/Tertiary Insto Students and adherents to religions.

A lot of articles on schools look as tho' they have been written by students who have been set the editing of the article as a project. Likewise I often see articles eg. on towns and localities that look as though they have been edited as part of a group project set by a teacher/lecturer. This should also be disclosed.

Whilst we are at it adherents of religions should disclose this if they edit articles relating to their religion and its beliefs. This constraint should probably be applied to members of political orgs who edit articles relating to the organisation. Silent Billy (talk) 11:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Commercial donation and commercial reuse

If Wikipedia allows reuse of its content in all manners and forms with the minimum being only attribution (CC-BY-SA covers both commercial and derivative usage which is contrasted with CC-BY-NC-ND and the like), why does Wikipedia disallow donations to its content, i.e. us editors, only if they come from a noncommercial source? Just curious as a thought experiment: commercial stuff goes in, and commercial stuff comes out. What would happen then? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 12:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Apples and oranges is my first reaction, but I see your point.  :) TeleComNasSprVen, I don't think you will l like this idea much better, but I wonder if any of your concerns would be addressed by a more narrow drafting of the proposed amendment. A really rough version is set out below, and, if people saw interest, I would want to wordsmith a bit more. I'm definitely hearing some of your arguments and would like to find ways to mitigate some of them if possible. See one possible approach here. Geoffbrigham (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

@Geoffbrigham, I just noticed your link says "edit or upload". Is there really a concern about having media files uploaded to commons by paid/professional editors? I would have thought we want to encourage commercial rights-holders to release images for re-use, rather than the opposite. - Pointillist (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm open for discussion on this. Would you only say "edit"? I'm thinking we may wish to narrow the scope a bit in other ways, in light of the consultation, and this may make sense as well. See here. I would be interested in your thoughts, Pointillist. Thanks. Geoffbrigham (talk) 17:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I haven't read everything about COI and uploads, but I don't recall any historical concern about media being uploaded by people who work for the uploader. I'm not a professional photographer or illustrator (far from it!) but I know that we do benefit from skilful freelancers who release some of their images on commons. If they are working for themselves when they do their uploads, do we really want insist that they out" their real identity? I'm not saying that your "or upload" is necessarily wrong, just that we should be careful about casting the net more widely than is good for the project. - Pointillist (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Opposed

/* Oppose */

I believe you are attacking a symptom rather than the problem. I believe the problem is the inability to catch bad editors paid or unpaid and going after compensated editors will not solve the problem. I would prefer a more self regulated method. I would like to see:

1. A check off list that does not identify the editor (you can work out the exact questions) A. Are you editing only for spelling and punctuation? B. Do you work in this field? etc. and lastly - Why are you qualified to make this edit? It is true that not all would answer honestly but probably most would. Until it was filled out the edit could not be completed.

2. Have an button at the end of the edit that when clicked would highlight what was changed in the edit. This button would also bring up the check off list for me to consider.

3. A back button so I could see what was written that this person believed needed to be edited. I could then go back through the edits if there are more than one to the first posting. From the check off lists and the history of postings I may be able to determine if the posting is correct, It is not certain or even probable that I would possess enough knowledge fix an error but I might suspect there is something wrong about it without knowing enough to correct it myself.

4. A flag button so if I suspect and error I can mark it and maybe label its importance. It would be sent to someone who checks for correctness of postings. If several flags turn up that would say something too.

This would get everyone looking for bad content. No one would be singled out or identified any more than they are with the present rules. The current rules would stay in force which should be sufficient once violators are identified.

I believe it is wrong to single out one group of people and call them the problem. It sounds like prejudice when you single out a group based on one trait, being paid to review or write something in WP because they might slant their post. Who is to be next in the you must identify yourself list? Blacks? Women? Poor people? Native Americans? Sex workers? Democrats? Republicans? All because they might express a slanted view on certain topics.

Go after bad content, not groups.

Walker

— The preceding unsigned comment was added by 173.174.1.126 (talk) 09:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Moved here from [14] by Michaeldsuarez, 13:21, 2 March 2014.

I only read the first line: "I believe you are attacking a symptom rather than the problem." And the last line: "Go after bad content, not groups." And I already love it! Going to read the whole shortly.
– 6birc (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Completamente de acuerdo

Todas las personas que de alguna u otra forma están colaborando en Wikipedia, deben informar para quién están trabajando o a favor de qué organización y el tipo de beneficio (pago, donación, sueldo, etc.) están recibiendo por efecto de esos artículos.

Muchas organizaciones crean un falso apoyo a ciertas causas debido a estos dineros que reciben directa o indirectamente por diversas organizaciones.

Crean un gran diversidad de artículos y conceptos incluso inventados para apoyar esas ideas que en muchos casos son contrarios a cualquier sana lógica.

Entonces es necesario conocer si esta "colaboración" ha estado influenciada por grupos con capitales que en muchos casos arman reingeniería social con propósitos poco claros y nada loables.

El usuario necesita saber cuál fue el origen de esa información, no solo una referencia bibliográfica, sino el dinero que estuvo detrás para crear esa "referencia" que le da a muchos conceptos un tinte de verdad y de legitimidad.

Thanks for your comment, which I was able to read through Google translate. Much appreciate your participation. Geoffbrigham (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Paid Contributors Identified by article

I would like to support those who ask for paid contributors to be identified by article.

1) The individual should be identified plus 2)the body he or she is working for and 3)the person/outfit actually paying for the work.

It is not enough that paid contributors should be simply identified on their user pages.

I cannot speak for other parts of the world but my proposal would address some abuses originating in Europe.

A) The European Union and its various satrapies clearly edit anything to do with them to the point of banality or untruth.

- Euronews for example claimed for many years to be a public service broadcaster along the lines of the BBC.

Criticisms that it was over influenced (to put it mildly) by its major funder - the EU commission - were edited out.

B) PR companies edit Wikipedia as part of their efforts to improve the image of various unsavory characters and regimes. So here the need for individual to be identified, together with the middle man PR company and the ultimate payer is clear.

Personally I have no real problem with paid contributions provided those conditions are met.

I am a beleiver in a market based system and a market place of ideas. But I also support non profits like Wikipedia and do so with money (my own post tax money) and unpaid time.

It is fair that those being paid for contributing should be held to a high standard of transparency - and that readers should know that they are reading paid words.

Ideally paid contributions should be in a different colour.

"and", nicht "or"

Im Kapitel 4 sollte nicht "or" sondern "and" zwischen den 3 Möglichkeiten der Kennzeichnung stehen. Damit kann niemand ein Schlupfloch haben.

Die Formen der Abgeltung / Bezahlung / Gratifikation sollten auch angekündigte oder versprochene Arbeitsverträge beinhalten , die nach der Veröffentlichung eines Artikels dem Verfasser von dem Begünstigten des beschiebenen Themas von einer Firma oder Organisation gegeben werden. Auch für Weitervermittlung für passende Anstellungsverhältnisse bei Dritten oder über Dritte , besonders wenn es sich um Agenturen handelt, weil Interessenten für bezahlte Informationen diese Geschäfte auch über Dritte abwickeln können, woraus dann die Kennzeichnungspflicht nicht entstünde.

V 855

Thanks V 855. Like you, a number of commentators have suggested that the three bullet points in the proposed amendment explaining where to make the disclosure should have the conjunction "and" - not "or." Right now, we are trying to build in some flexibility in the disclosure, given the newness of this requirement. Being required to disclose in the edit summary may be too cumbersome, especially for our GLAM employees - that is, employees who work in galleries, libraries, archives, and museums like Wikipedians in residence. A disclosure on the user page would be sufficient in my mind. I definitely see your point, and I think it is reasonable. But I tend to favor a structure that is a little flexible with the understanding that is can be tightened later if there is a proven issue. Thanks for sharing in German, much appreciated. Geoffbrigham (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Paid contributions (2)

I made a comment under the heading "Paid contributions" on 23rd February, and I do realise you are regrouping the comments, but mine has disappeared completely from the current list. Where is it, please? (There is a comment at 5.12 headed "Paid contributions", but it is not mine; it has the same title accidentally.) The gist of my comment was that full disclosure of interest should be appended to every Wiki article's author/editors, for the sake of immediate transparency.

My main reason for posting this comment now is to highlight the response I got from LPfi (who I presume is a member of the Wiki team fielding and responding to these comments) which concerned me and I suspect may concern Wikipedia as well. The response (a) clearly stated that one has to learn to distinguish which Wiki articles can be trusted (!), and (b) clearly implied that not all Wiki authors/edits can be trusted (!). This was in addition to my being rather rudely told that if I wanted to be able to trust individual authors, I should use a traditional encyclopaedia. I am wondering now if my comment has been removed because of that rather outrageous response to my comment.

I would be grateful if you could tell me (a) whether you are discarding some comments and (b) if not, where I can find my original comment. -- P123cat1 (talk) 22:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I have now found my original comment in an earlier listing, but would still like to know why it does not appear on the current list. -- P123cat1 (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, archives of comments before 2/26 are here: Archives/2014-02-26. That's a common way to handle long talk pages. –SJ talk  01:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Bezahltes Editieren ...

... kennzeichnen ist ein symbolischer Schritt in die richtige Richtung. Zustimmung. Da die neue Weltregierung der Konzerne sich einen Teufel um so etwas wie ehrliche Kommunikation schert, wird es in Praxis natürlich weiterhin für die Benutzer ein Lesen zwischen den Zeilen bedeuten. Aber das Problem bekannt zu machen ist gut.

Thanks you. I appreciate your sharing your point of view in German. Geoffbrigham (talk) 15:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

STRONGLY SUPPORT

How else can we stop the greed-driven rot...? 203.3.232.28 23:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I strongly favor disclosure of paid editing and, for that matter, wiki pages produced by commercial interests, as a broad policy. I happen to know (from my own professional activities) of one Wikipedia page that contains entirely False Data that serves a particular group of commercial interests. Sources of material should be disclosed. Steve Smith63.197.81.215 23:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I strongly agree with this proposal as without it Wikipedia becomes a combination of Vanity Fair and Corporate corruption. Please effect.

What about the gray area

So does everyone who has a job and edits articles on the same field have to post their affiliation? Or what if User:<X> works at ACME and sees that the article says something factually incorrect about ACME- eg they're not a Fortune 500 company while they actually are, or that the have recently opened offices on Pluto, not on Mars. I don't feel that the amendment is clear about areas such as these. --Kangaroopowah 01:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by that, do you mean that you shouldn't have to disclose if you are making accurate edits? If so then that is the whole point of this to ensure that you only make factual edits. Also the title says too many loopholes and this comment doesn't mention any loopholes. I may not be a wikipedia moderator but if there are any here I don't think they will understand what you are saying so maybe you should clarify it so they are able to respond. as a side not I am 100% for this change in terms it makes complete logical sense Senrabnaneek (talk) 09:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I edited the title header to make it clearer. And my point is that the amendment doesn't make clear is what exactly is paid editing- would it be paid editing to fix a mistake in an article about your company? That stuff needs to be cleared up. --Kangaroopowah 06:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hayek Economics Applied to Knowledge

Information is incomplete, dispersed, and costly. Wikimedia is trying to change all of that. They are trying to make the world's knowledge accessible, usable, and editable to everyone. When you are paid to make a ripple in this web of collective knowledge, you have different incentives from everyone else. That is, you are being paid for your point of view. While you may be paid for an objective point of view, it is equally as possible that you are paid for a subjective one. We, the people contributing to the world's web of knowledge, would like to know if your POV came at a cost to us. The way to make that judgement call is to know where the funds came from, so that the source can be investigated. If you're trying your hardest to make Wiki the best place online for the world to learn, you should have no fear. Why would anyone object to this?

Agree and a comment about community reactions

I support and agree with the general idea of disclosing paid editing (either by order of employer or by contract; by the way no disclosure is necessary if you do not edit articles related to your employer). I just want to mention - though many may be already aware of that - that one possible collateral damage is that some members of the community will attack people honestly disclosing their affiliation status, take their edits as less value or try to see their efforts as less worthy (or, in fact, worthless and to be reverted). This problem should be addressed by some guidelines otherwise explaining the expected behaviour about paid editing and suggest people to use this knowledge wisely and not in a degradatory manner. Paid is not equal to cheating. --grin ✎ 10:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi grin, thanks for your comment. We are working on a strong FAQ that explains that harassment is not acceptable (and may be legally prohibited). We are also working on an FAQ that indicates that we should treat enforcement in a civil way - help first, warning second, and more serious sanctions as a last resort. I am playing with the idea of formulating something a bit more narrow to help minimize the harassment and enforcement concerns; I'm not sure yet whether it is worth proposing formally, but it would read something like this (with no doubt additional word smithing):

Paid contributions without disclosure

These Terms of Use prohibit engaging in deceptive activities, including misrepresentation of affiliation, impersonation, and fraud. To ensure compliance with these obligations, if you are making an edit or upload to a Wikimedia Project for compensation on behalf of an employer, client or other affiliation about them, their commercial product, or their commercial services, you must make that disclosure in the edit summary accompanying the edit or upload.

Applicable law, or community and Foundation policies and guidelines, such as those addressing conflicts of interest, may further limit or prohibit paid contributions or require more detailed disclosure. For more information, please read our background note on disclosure of paid contributions.

I will be interested if others think if something like this is worth proposing as an alternative and whether it would win over any of those in the opposition (which I am taking seriously). Thanks. Geoffbrigham (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Still not tight enough for me, for same reasons as given. Sentence #1 references an existing prohibition on "deceptive activities" and "misrepresentation" (by default the latter is usually taken in an argument as signifying acts of commission not omission, or at least it's a common argument that this is a reasonable and "natural" interpretation). Sentence #2 immediately says to "ensure compliance with these obligation" paid editors must disclose certain things. The link between the two is still as absent and non-sequiteur-y as when I commented on this point way up. Read the wording I suggested on this issue, which to me seems tighter and less open to argumentation in the role of a legal clause. Also I'd edit the second part to read: "may further limit or prohibit paid contributions or require more detailed disclosure. Compliance with established community policies is mandatory when editing on any Wikimedia project" for whatever good it does.

But unless carefully considered, I still think that referencing a community policy here is plain useless in any legal sense (it might be weighty against breachers in a reputation sense though). Almost no community policies seem to be actually legally enforceable, since nobody can even define what a community policy is, when a specific wording is or isn't "our policy", or when a change becomes binding within one. They are all "we know what we mean" consensus interpretations, fluid and open to change with no notice whenever some editor changes them and nobody (yet) changes them back, and even when edited may be unbinding if editors feel the change wasn't really agreed (although an explicit agreement is optional too!). Citing "established" community policies might help since one can readily show a community policy clause is long standing over many years, but not too strong either. Unfortunately as a result, I'd guess one could legally tear a hole in any attempt to make almost any local community created policy enforceable in court as a TOU, even if site TOU directly said they should be. There's no certainty, no fixed version, no notification of change, no notice period of change, policies directly state they are subjective not objective and mean "whatever a majority of random editors who randomly decide to engage a particular case feel they should conclude", conflicting and contrary interpretations and responses to similar cases almost always exist. So no, I don't think that "You must comply with community policies on each wiki" can become enforceable in a court in any realistic manner. Those are a social, rather than a legal, structure.

The only outcome of a local policy I can think of that might be enforceable in a legal sense, would be specific definitive actions in specific cases (block, unblock, ban, warning, and a few issues like puppetry which by their nature scream deceit and abuse). In other words, situations where it can be shown normal processes were followed and a user is under notice they must not edit or are restricted in editing, but the means of reaching the decision is not in itself pivotal or determinative of the decision's validity. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Geoff - I am sure this is not the first time I've seen this language being suggested (From Paid contributions without disclosure above) ... "...To ensure compliance with these obligations, if you are making an edit or upload to a Wikimedia Project for compensation on behalf of an employer, client or other affiliation about them, their commercial product, or their commercial services, you must make that disclosure in the edit summary accompanying the edit or upload."

I would strongly suggest that the word "commerical" be striken from all these TOU and FAQ as it implies that the disclosure requirement only applies to affliations with commerical entities (undefined as of yet) and does not apply to other classes of organizations. All classes of organizations have "products and/or services". All organizations have something to promote. Many organizations exist solely to promote a POV. I would suggest, as I've done several times above, that the TOU and FAQ adopt the word "organization" and define it as defined in w:Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Singling out "commercial" entities in any language in or supporting the TOU will do nothing but strengthen the already stifling bias this community has against commercial enterprise and continue to promote the naivety this community has about the POV pushing of select sectors of avowed advocacy organizations.--Mike Cline (talk) 14:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Unenforceable

All of us would like to see wikiworld free of unannounced/undisclosed: a. opinion masquerading as fact (lots of anti-this and anti-that out there on all sides of every political issue); b. skewed commercial promotions masquerading as information (almost every corporate and most "non-profit" entries); and c. self-promotion screeds masquerading as celebrity reports (bet you cannot search for any special topic without getting a boatload of "consultants" personal pages).

Alas, there is no REAL means of policing the shameless, craven, and unscrupulous. I suspect the hard-working wikipedia editors sometimes feel they're beating their heads against this virtual wall. The ONLY means I could imagine (weak as it is) would be to develop a public BAD BOYS list of known offenders. The legal problems with this are obviously legion and the foundation lacks funding to engage in endless recreational litigiation. So it must be dismissed as unworkable.

That said, the best (perhaps the only) means of dealing with this is to strengthen the CAVEAT that already appears on suspect pages to read: "THIS ENTRY IS SUSPECTED OF HAVING BEEN PREPARED BY A PAID CONTRIBUTOR." That should flush out at least SOME of the malefactors, embarass others, and might prove a deterent to some. This is workable--a pain in the proverbial--but workable.

In sum, there's nothing wrong with the proposed amendment, I just think it's unenforceable and therefore irrelevant.75.127.175.77 19:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, well ... almost exactly. More to the point it is not only unenforceable but difficult to recognize and prove and even more difficult to adjudicate without solid proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I honestly believe far too many are overlooking the liability issues involved with calling an editor's honesty and integrity onto the carpet in a, at the very least, semi-public domain that the Project has become. Imagine accusing someone of paid contributions, be they negative or positive, and then seeing that editor appear on CNN with legal counsel in tow claiming defamation of character to not only themselves, but let's say the article that was edited was that of a celebrity or politician or corporate giant or whatever. I just see no way to prove any of this unless there was an outright written admission by the payer or the payee. And if you cannot prove it, you had darn sure better not try to enforce it. Scrooster (talk) 22:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree

I agree, it is necessary...

You have truncated my post to invalidity DISCARD YOURSELF

--77.9.79.37 17:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

/* Oppose */ I love wikipedia and use it constantly, almost borderline obsessively, and sometimes regrettably exclusively. "Sometimes," being a word that implies (and literally means) less times than not. All this being said, i rarely wonder if what i'm reading is being fabricated or manipulated to favour a certain point. until now. if companies can pay to write their own articles, they can write their own fictional profiles. and a self made profile for a company is basically an advertisement. in order to maintain wikipedia's basic purpose, articles cannot by financially controlled by their makers. it's for us by us. not for us by them. fox news and george bush might as well write the articles. if wikipedia supports financial aid from the article's controller, they're basically accepting bribes. with the exception of the odd idiot, the people don't prefer lies, so the people won't lie to the people. so support the people, not the money. (70.78.27.68 15:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC))

Thanks. To be clear the proposed amendment does not endorse paid editing ... it simply requires disclosure. You can read more here. 19:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Where do I comment? Here??

What a load of writing you've requested me to read before commenting on your amendment proposal - I have read the first paragraph of the main text and the paragraphs under: "Are there other possible negative effects of paid contributions?" - to which I agree on the conflicts of interest.

I always believed 'Wikipedia' & 'Wiki's' to be almost akin to 'Open Source' software packages and didn't involve strange payments - which appear to be clearly undisclosed - and I believe that this will lead to a conscious or subconscious bias of information. It also just gives an impression of the liability, even probability, of corruption at some level.

I appreciate that contributions have to be reliable and accurate, but I do not believe that remuneration for such, will guarantee this. I also appreciate that I haven't read all of the proposal - it's rather long and I believe that I reflect the viewing of many, who just click on the link to be helpful as you've asked for comments. I doubt 'the many' comment much.

Undisclosed yes/Unannounced no

Someone above has already proposed the best solution to this issue. Undisclosed paid editing should be permitted, but the fact someone paid to edit the article should be noted at the top of the article in bold. Those of us with unpopular political positions have long been accustomed to what one might suggest is personal or political bias or the passing off of opinion as fact. And as long as this political environment exists we will experience it wherever we go. We don't have to like it, or love it...but we do have to lay back, spread our legs and think of England for it. I came to terms with that a long time ago. As far as I'm concerned this place has never been completely unbiased so it might as well be bought and paid for. At the very least, though, we should know that it is paid for by someone. And of course we'll probably have a pretty good idea who paid for it by the contents of what is written. Wikipedia stands to make a fortune off of this. I can see bidding wars going on for hot topics such as abortion, gun control, health care reform etc. The cynic that I am, I should have seen this coming eventually. Again, at most all we can ask for is that it's noted when an article is paid for. This debate is a nice courtesy extended to every day users but I'm pretty sure someone's mind has already been made up. This is what people get for failing to donate to keep it public and what most may consider bias free.

como se paga? la pagina

Me gustaria tener una pagina publica pagada???? , pero que solo sea modificada por mi,pero en Wikipedia — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 186.156.1.222 (talk) 21:49,03 March 2014 (UTC)

Gracias por el comentario. Para aclarar, la modificación a los Términos y condiciones de uso no busca avalar o ratificar las contribuciones remuneradas. Lo que busca la enmienda es que, en el caso que estas contribuciones sean hechas por alguien que haya sido remunerado por realizarlas, dicha persona debe hacer pública esta circunstancia. En esta discusión se ha dicho lo siguiente (en inglés). La traducción en español de esto a continuación:

¿La Fundación Wikimedia anima o acepta la edición promocional remunerada?: La Fundación Wikimedia (WMF) considera que la edición promocional remunerada es un problema significativo que amenaza la confianza de los lectores de Wikimedia, como nuestra Directora Ejecutiva dijo al respecto. Esta propuesta no altera esta posición.Sin embargo, es difícil resolver el problema de la edición promocional remunerada sin desanimar accidentalmente a editores de buena fe, como varios de los proyectos GLAM (galerías, bibliotecas, archivos y museos). Debido a esta dificultad, esta enmienda toma un acercamiento simple: requerir que se divulgue información de frente. ¡Esto no quiere decir que la edición promocional remunerada sea aceptable! Por el contrario, pensamos la mejor manera de atacar este complejo problema, mientras seguimos animando a nuevos contribuyentes de buena fe, es combinar este nuevo requerimiento en pro de la transparencia con políticos de cada proyecto que haga juicios caso por caso con esta nueva información, cuando éstos son matizados y complejos. Esperamos que esto lleve a un mejor resultado al combinar la habilidad de cada Wikimedista de manejar los matices y la complejidad con los recursos de la Fundación (cuando esto es absolutamente necesario). Adicionalmente, la enmienda propuesta aclara que "las políticas de la comunidad y la Fundación, tales como las que se refieren a los conflictos de interés, podrán limitar aún más las contribuciones remuneradas, o requerir de una divulgación más detallada". Esta cláusula da la comunidad la discrecionalidad de poder limitar aún más la edición remunerada, según las necesidad de un proyecto específico. En otras palabras, la enmienda propuesta es un requerimiento mínimo, pero la comunidad puede imponer restricciones más fuertes, o suspensiones.--JVargas (WMF) (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments moved from above

I've moved these from above to help keep things organized, and to help users who were unable to figure out how to comment in the appropriate place. —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• no encuentro la pagina donde comentar, por lo tanto espero que pueda encontrar mi comentario: me adapto a las normas de la pagina wikipedia y prometo cumplir y hablarles de esto a mis amigos. soy luis ricardo minier
• Please do not do this Bomaran (talk) 19:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to surface bias

Thank you to Wikipedia for so openly addressing this issue. Allowing paid (and invested) contributors to edit pages tied to their financial interests is akin to allowing advertising. Viscerally this feels incompatible with the elegant resource that is Wikipedia. Nonetheless, sharing of knowledge is the heartbeat of this site.

My suggestion would be to allow paid (and invested) contributors to post information on Wikipedia, but with a mechanism by which readers can relatively quickly know the 'bias' of the contributor. For example, if a contributor is employed or has vested interests in the posting, then an acknowledgement of that is in the post. Perhaps something simple like a specialized link that will take the reader to the posters actual information (eg 'Samuel Jackson is employed or has investments with this business') or an anonymous acknowledgement (eg "contributor has a fiscal interest in this topic"). 75.210.20.238 02:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC) -- Catherine

Question about embassies

What about the employees of a foreign embassy, consulate, trade office, etc. who are paid salary and then, during the course of their day-time work duties, or even during their off-time hours, they edit various Wikipedia pages to reflect the POV of their home government . . . . (and of course actively delete all content not supportive of their government) . . . . . from all of the discussion on this page I still cannot determine if such editing activities fall in the realm of "paid editing" (including "paid advocacy editing") or not, so I hope someone can make a full clarification. Hmortar (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

@Hmortar: If the government is paying them to edit, then they'd be covered. If they are only doing editing in their "spare" time (as many other people do!) then normal conflict of interest and disclosure rules apply. Hope that helps. —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Privacy and outing contributors who make donations as part of work

The proposed TOU states that: "To ensure compliance with these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution to any Wikimedia Projects for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation."

I work in the tech sector. In that sector it's common for employers to allow company work to be donated to open-source projects, etc. Enlightened employers see it as mutually beneficial in the long term. And good karma.

If, in the course of my work, I create potential content (research on some topic, photograph something, etc.) that is not business-sensitive but which would be useful to Wikimedia, my employer wouldn't object to donating it. Wikimedia would get it for free. But I would have received compensation for the work. So, I would now be expected to reveal information about my real-world identity? On the internet? Just because I'm a nice guy who works for an enlightened employer?

No thanks.

Generous people get punished? Donation of content gets discouraged? You'd have to out yourself just because you were kind enough to think, 'Hey! Wikipedia could do with that photo.' Or 'Hey! This comparison table would benefit that article.'

Nice attitude, Wikimedia. Real nice :-(

--Tóraí (talk) 00:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Tóraí, thank you for explaining your concern, it is very helpful. This proposal is still under consideration, so we still have an opportunity to revise or clarify the proposal to resolve this point. Your situation sounds similar to a professor who wishes to edit Wikipedia, while being compensated by his or her university, but is not compensated specifically for his or her edits. In that case, like the donation situation you describe, I don't think disclosure would be necessary. I hope this point is clarified in a proposed FAQ item above, entitled How will this provision affect teachers, professors, and employees of galleries, libraries, archives, and museums (“GLAM”)? Do you think this resolves your concerns? Do you think there is a clearer way to make this distinction? Best, Stephen LaPorte (WMF) (talk) 00:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Stephen. The FAQ clarifies that it is not the intention of the TOU proposal. But if that is the case then the TOU proposal needs to be revised. An FAQ statement explaining what we 'meant to say' doesn't suffice.

I think the Foundation needs to be clearer in its mind about what it wants to achieve with this TOU. As someone with an interest in open-source, you should know that not all paid (or sponsored) work is nefarious. Some is an inherent part of the ad hoc and volunteer spirit of Wikimedia - and is something we should celebrate.

The proposal as it stands is too blunt an instrument. It punishes the good and the wicked equally. --Tóraí (talk) 08:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Slaporte, how about inserting something like the following beneath the bullet points:

Where any such contribution is made as part of a gesture of goodwill towards the aims of the Wikimedia Foundation, a contributor may choose not to disclose their employer, client or affiliation by name so long as the nature of the relationship between their employer, client and affiliation and any such contribution, clearly stating any potential conflicts of interest, is disclosed in at least one of the above ways.

The intention here is to allow for anonymous goodwill donations as part of paid work, while still obliging that a disclosure be made. --Tóraí (talk) 15:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

This is an interesting approach to consider. Specifically mentioning gestures of goodwill may add some degree of ambiguity, but there may be other ways to achieve the result that you suggest. I do completely agree in principle, donations should be celebrated! Best, Stephen LaPorte (WMF) (talk) 20:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

question about source of payments

As a user working for a tech. company, I am looking at tech articles all the time - usually relevant to the protect I am working on. What should I do (under these proposed rules) if I want to complete, add, amend or correct an article if the changes are standards or common-use based? So, not for the benefit of the company, but of the community (as I see it)?--Alisterb (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

@Alisterb: Stephen tried to answer a very similar question above; let us know what you think of that answer. Thanks. —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 00:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Is the real problem ineffective action by administrators?

Right now administrators refuse to stop POV editing, misuse of RS, concerted attacks on BLPs, harassment (especially of clearly identified females), tag-team editing, sockpuppetry that is obvious from clear patterns of similar editing on the same articles using the same language style/POVs, etc. etc. What good is it to have a policy on COI editing or anything else if some administrators are terrified of editors who threaten to try to take away their administrator rights? Or some are too intimidated/confused by professional B.S. artists and/or those who scream discrimination? Or if others are too nice a guy or too much of a "good old boy" to enforce policies? Or if admins only enforce them on editors perceived as "weak" politically but not those perceived as "strong" politically? Where issues that should have been handled by admins months ago have to go to Arbitration. And then you still will end up with too many ineffective decisions that are either too wussy or too harsh (and sometimes against the wrong individuals), all because they were not dealt with effectively earlier by admins.

Unless Wikipedia figures out how to have a few hundred truly independent admins committed first and foremost to enforcing Wikipedia policy through frequent short blocks which escalate for those who don't get the point, the whole project is doomed. The bad editors continue to drive out good and/or new ones, especially females who aren't willing to enter into a field of combat.

If the Foundation can't figure out how to set up some procedure and or independent body to hire and train a few dozen (or hundred) tough and fair administrators to do the dirty work that volunteer admins refuse to take on, the Foundation might as well fold it's tent and hand the whole project over to Citizenpedia. Also, make sure half or more of those paid admins are women who won't play those good old boy games and will get the job done. Carolmooredc (talk 14:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

@Carolmooredc: Thanks for taking the time to respond, Carol. I politely disagree with the thrust of your argument, for a couple reasons.

First, I disagree with your assessment of what admins do/don't do. While they're not perfect, I've seen them put a ton of time and effort into some of the exact problems you identify, most notably sockpuppeting. It is unfair to them to say they, collectively, have "refused to stop" anything - many of them do a lot of good work in all the areas you've identified.

Second, the Foundation has historically avoided being involved in content in this way for extremely good reasons. Besides the legal reasons, experience from other open source projects suggests that this sort of thing is a very slippery slope, and once you start paying a few people, it snowballs very quickly.

Hope that helps explain why we're not going these routes. —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 00:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Two questions about identifying contributions from paid editors

Many thanks to Geoff and the legal department for all your hard work in developing this. I have two questions:

• First, paid editors will often create drafts and ask others to add them, which means that readers and editors can't see which parts of an article have been written or financed by the company (or other subject). Would it therefore make sense to require a statement in the edit summary whenever paid contributions are added to an article, even when not added directly by the paid editor?
• Second, I was wondering if you could explain the thinking behind not requiring talk-page (or project-page) contributions from paid editors to be identified in edit summaries.

Many thanks again, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

disclosure of paid edit is impractical, unnecessary and counterproductive

The fundamental goal of wiki is to present facts and sources. It should not matter who offer facts as long as the material is sourced and doesn't stray into opinion or hyperbole.

Fact has no viewpoint.

The wiki community can police and refine entries without additional regulations or prohibitions.

Try something like this?

For those seeking an "all embracing" approach, but worried about the impact on GLAM and enthusiasts with topic knowledge, I thought I'd try my hand at a first draft of something more embracing.

Requirement to disclose any advocacy activity you undertake on Wikimedia projects, whether for your own or another's benefit Wikimedia's websites are intended to be neutral public reference works. We welcome content added by people knowledgeable in any topic or field, but not at the cost of neutrality and quality standards, and not by misrepresentation or deception. As part of our quality control, editors try to scrutinize especially carefully, any changes to our content made by people who may have a personal gain or benefit from the edits they make. This is part of our routine quality control. You are forbidden from impeding this process by misrepresenting yourself (or allowing others to believe by your silence) to suggest that you have no close involvement with the topic, if you do have some close involvement that might reasonably be seen as potentially biasing your editorial activity. If you have a close connection with the subject matter of an edit, to the point that your edits are made in anticipation of some benefit or advantage received by you or anyone else connected to you (including any other corporation, person, organization, legal entity, or group), you must disclose this "up front" to other editors even if they haven't asked you. You don't ever have to identify yourself, or give information on the exact benefit or connection that exists, but you must not hide the fact of a close connection existing. You have to be open about this, even if you intend to be neutral, so other editors can check the change you make more carefully. If you don't want to disclose this publicly, you must ask permission from the local Arbitration Committee or equivalent to make the edits.

Examples: John is a PR consultant for IBM. He writes content on IBM topics as his job. He should say that he has a personal connection to the topic when he edits things related to IBM, because he gets pay for these edits. He does not have to say what the connection is or give any more details. Michelle is a researcher for a pharmaceutical company. She improves an article on a disease for which her company is researching medications. She should say that she has a personal connection to the topic, because her employer will benefit from her work (even if it is appropriate and neutral they may still benefit). She does not have to say what the connection is or give any more details. Chris is a museum archivist for an art museum. He often writes and improves articles on art topics, and sometimes he improvements articles related to the exhibitions they are showing or promoting. He doesn't have to disclose anything for most of his edits, but he should say he has a connection if he edits an article about something they are showing or going to show, and his employer could be seen to benefit from the work. He does not have to say what the connection is or give any more details. Janice's sister is a board member of a religious body and Janice edits a lot on religious topics, mostly her edits will be to help her sister, her religious body, and their religion, by ensuring their religion's views are represented in articles as appropriate. Even if unpaid and voluntary she must disclose she has a connection to the topic for these edits, because of her especially close connection to the religious organization or group that benefits from them. She does not have to say what the connection is or give any more details. Clive is a protester and activist, and as a voluntary activity he helps "put the facts out there". Even though unpaid and voluntary, and not an employee, he must disclose that he has a connection to the topic, if he makes edits relevant to his activism on our sites, because his edits could reasonably be seen as influenced by his advocacy role (even if they were in fact balanced). He does not have to say what the connection is or give any more details.

This is intended to be a "stab in the dark" at a possible policy style. It aims to promote debate and see whether people who would prefer a more embracing policy could possibly find a wording that works for them.

It is indeed quite strongly worded and it covers a lot of voluntary and completely desirable work.

I have deliberately tried to see whether a completely embracing policy can be found, not least to test whether we can in principle exclude any "unpaid advocacy" loopholes and whether this kind of clearly minimal disclosure would actually be seen as reasonable by GLAM personnel and other common instances with a clear topic connection. If it's a decent idea but over-strong, perhaps someone else will suggest the needed exemptions or improvements. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

^{[citation needed]}

Under the heading: "Are there other possible negative effects of paid contributions?", in the Proposal, I found this:

"There is an extreme likelihood that contributions which are paid for ..."

Really? An extreme likelihood? Not just a possibility or an unnaceptable risk? You know, emotive language like that makes me wonder if the writer is pushing an agenda. Perhaps they are being paid to promote the proposal! (No, I'm not seriously suggesting that, read on.) How would I know? Wait ... why would I care?! If there is no authoritive citation, and the language is emotive or opinionated, I don't need to know why the writer posted it. I just treat it as doubtful and move on. You see, that's what citations are for.

And therein lies my main reservation about this proposal to change the TOU. It wont help. People will still make dodgy, unsupported entries. Some of them will be paid to do so and wont fill out the COI declaration. Some people will be paid to make informative, balanced and properly referenced entries. It's a very big hammer to crack a pretty small walnut, which it wont do, and the walnut isn't really the whole (COI/POV) problem anyway.

But at the end of the day I'd abstain. The issue doesn't motivate me to take sides. I can see from all the posts here that there are people who feel strongly about passing it, and even if this is nothing more than a placebo for them, well and good, who am I to try to block that? I do worry though that they will be mightily disappointed when the measure fails to provide the cure that they hope for. --Wayne aus (talk) 04:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)d

Parcialidade, obscurantismo e publicidade dos wikipedistas pagos. Barramento dos administradores e perda do direito ao voto.

Wikipedistas só poderiam ser pagos pela Wikipédia. Wikipedistas pagos por outras entidades devem ser identificados, qualificados como produtores de SPAM, pois são parciais e se reúnem para fazer lobby nas votações, excluindo conteúdo válido e comprovado, e ocultando conteúdos desinteressantes para a publicidade das entidades pagadoras. São publicitários e devem perder o direito ao voto na Wikipédia, bem como o de serem administradores. Voz Wikipédia Livre--191.23.111.140 08:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Partiality, obscurantism and advertising of Wikipedians paid. Impeachment for administrators and exclusion of the votes in Wikipedia.

Wikipedians could only be paid by Wikipedia. Wikipedians paid by other entities must be identified, qualified as producers of SPAM, it is incomplete and come together to lobby in voting, excluding valid and evidenced content and hiding uninteresting content for advertising of payers. Are advertising and should lose the right to vote in Wikipedia as well as being administrators. Free voice Wikipedia .--191.23.111.140 08:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Will normal people find this PRACTICAL to implement?

It seems the intent of the rule is to make disclosure where there is a causality between the contribution and the compensation. But conflicts of interests do not always present themselves in neat dichotomies of black and white. Instead people are conflicted on a scale of grey, different in each situation. The whole of Wikipedia relies on people contributing knowledge in their areas of expertise, and often they are also employed in those same areas of expertise. Hence opportunities for minor to major conflicts of interest. There is often an indirect, perhaps non-causal, relationship between a person's employment and their Wikipedia contribution. It will not always be clear for contributors to identify whether or not this constitutes a conflict. Their employer (e.g. university) may not directly pay them to present their knowledge to the wider world, but there may be a tacit expectation, even one that the contributor takes upon him/herself. My concern is the potential for this rule to make it harder for genuine contributors to engage. The maze of regulations and the opinionated people who police them already make Wikipedia an unfriendly place for new contributors, and this rule has the potential to make that worse. Imagine all the battles of words on the talk pages, with people accusing each other of conflicts of interest in the shades of grey. The new rule is necessary to make it clear that it is unethical to make paid contributions without declaration. However Wikipedia also needs to do more to make it a welcoming place for new people to contribute. My own feeling is that a much better solution to all these issues would be to insist that all contributors used their real name. (E.g. only allow users with some validated identity, like LinkedIn, Researchgate, ORCID, there are many such options). At the moment both the rabid editors and the unscrupulous paid contributors are hiding behind pseudonyms. That's the deeper root cause of many problems with Wikipedia. John Pons (talk) 08:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Does this mean….?

The proposed rule implies that disclosure is necessary to 'ensure compliance' with certain 'obligations', which are specifically identified as ' deceptive activities' (among others). So this implies that if the contributor had no intent to deceive, impersonate, or defraud anyone, then disclosure is unnecessary. To put it another way, I don't see a robust logical connection between the list of prohibited activities and the need for disclosure. I suggest the Terms of Use should be expanded to explicitly prohibit (say) 'prejudiced contributions'. Then it would make it much clearer why disclosure was required. John Pons (talk) 08:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Support

I strongly support this measure, as it adds to the

transparency which makes Wikipedia such a valuable resource. Sheena Ford

I too support transparency as it relates to paid contributions

Support

Everything I read, I am always diffident. I think we should always ask ourselves, if the writer might have had some benefit as a reason for his doing. But I support you if you try to keep this wonderful resource cleaner and more transparent.

Wikipedia's pivotal role in human development and necessary boundaries to shield that niche

With the little means that I can, every time I see that yellow banner, I click, and I send in a 10, a 20, ... hoping many others do the same.

I'd like to start off using an example. I was reading about the 'Syrian revolution', which has it's own page on Wikipedia, and as I read through, I realized this information is not entirely correct. I checked the sources, and it was CNN. :) Well.... If we could trust CNN why have Wikipedia?

Of course, the links to terms etc. the puzzle gathering aspect of Wikipedia is it's main forte, and when it comes to reliability, when money comes through the door, the real objectives behind this not for profit - and oh so noble - initiative, will crumble.

I am surprised there's money involved. But since it's not within the wiki family, but parties paying others, or employees, to post on wiki... it indeed becomes touchy feely and I empathize.

Openly: I think yes paid information contributions should have a level of disclosure. It ensures reliability of information for those paying parties would rather not be embarrassed for funding misinformation. coz that's the bottom line, and biggest threat to Wikipedia, to get a reputation of wrong and/or misinformation.

Discreetly: Paid contributors should be monitored. They have more incentive to skew info in what appears to the normal reader as benign. I did not read everything, but I also I think part of the money should be donations to wiki.

in conclusion: Wikipedia should never become a for profit institution. (yes, that's what it is, an institution). Should never offer advertising, and should never sell out like whatsapp recently did :)

This is a noble project helping people making sense of their worlds and cultivating their minds into becoming more 'aware' members of their communities and when the Man get their foot in here, we can kiss a great new age enlightenment tool goodbye.

Please keep the path, i'll keep my 10s and 20s, and soon I hope, more.

Can we have a report button for those paid writer?? 220.246.129.203 17:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Your first question is a good one with a good easy answer.

CNN have one slant on the topic. Wikipedia isn't a news media. We don't write the news at all. That's not our role. You can come here (hopefully!) to find a collated article, covering the Syrian war (and a few million other topics) in a way that doesn't favor any specific side, and that aims to inform neutrally, by summarizing all the important points that are "out there" in one structured constantly-updated article. That's a crucial function that's hard to get elsewhere - you can get it with research on some topics, but fragmented, and hard to be sure just who's decided it's okay. Here you can see transparently all of that and on many topics it is (a number as we all know, it isn't).

So if we just said "read CNN", then you're right, you wouldn't get a thing from here. But unlike CNN, here you will find information and reports from everyone from Hürriyet Daily News, the Guardian, Welt.de, the NY Times, the Institute for the Study of War, The Daily Star (Lebanon) and about 500 other sources, all pulled into one comprehensive structured article - with transparency over how each has been used.

What else? Well, lets say you want to ask if something's correctly reported, or completely stated, or if there are subtle points omitted you'd care about. Have you considered asking CNN where they get their information from, or what they are relying on, who they have relied on so you can assess if you trust it, and what they missed out that those sources told them? If you did, did you get anywhere with it? Probably not. That's because like most media, CNN say "trust us to report things and not much say where we got the information". Here, we may not be able to show you the ultimate sources for much, but we can say "this is where we got it", and usually show if it's agreed by multiple sources (including those on opposite sides), if not what they differ about and how they each see it, and many articles you can look deeper behind each stated point.

In a world where major media are routinely manipulated, that kind of coverage isn't trivial. We do it every day. CNN don't. That's what you get here, on major international news topics, major events, makjor businesses and topics, major scientific discoveries, and most other topics. Wikipedia's not CNN because it's simply not trying to be CNN. Or be anyone else. Especially, it's not trying to be, nor by its charitable status and constitution can it ever be, a profit making corporative enterprise. Charitably owned, it cannot be "sold". Community managed with a strong non-advert ethos over its entire life, and with policies that forbid "donations in return for article input", it cannot accept advertising or bias its articles by diktat without a revolt by far too many people to make that outcome at all likely to happen. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

One more, perhaps vital point

Instruction creep, this certainly would be. But more importantly if this policy is adopted it can never be let go of without "Wikipedia Gives in to Paid Editing" type headlines. I know the majority of those with a legal background see things in terms of "rules", how could they not? But the success of the projects is injured by proliferation of rules - we work far better with a body of guidelines and a minimum of hard rules, with a spirit of cooperation rather than conflict.

Rich Farmbrough 23:05 4 March 2014 (GMT).