User talk:Jimbo Wales: Difference between revisions

Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates. He holds the founder's seat on the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees. The current trustees occupying "community-selected" seats until Wikimania 2017 are Pundit and Raystorm. The Wikimedia Foundation's Director of Support and Safety is Maggie Dennis.

Sometimes this page is semi-protected and you will not be able to leave a message here unless you are a registered editor. In that case, you can leave a message here

This is Jimbo Wales's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Index, Index, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251Auto-archiving period: 1 days

Last month we discussed the Amy Osmond Cook piece in Entrepreneur, What I Learned When a Wikipedia Troll Deleted My Page". This month, there is another piece promoting paid editing, "Entrepreneurs Are Paying Wikipedia Editors to Create Profile Pages", which we have been discussing at WT:COI here.

Three things.

a) Jimbo, as the more or less official face of Wikipedia to the world, will you please consider talking to the publishers of that magazine?

b) The other thing is that the reporter apparently reached out to a WMF communications person, Samantha Lien. I don't know what Samantha communicated, or how that conversation went, or how well it was reported, but what got into the article was OK but not great. It was this -- people are “'strongly discouraged from editing articles directly about themselves or [about] a subject they’re closely affiliated with,' says Samantha Lien, a Wikimedia Foundation communications manager. 'This is known as editing with a conflict of interest,' she says, and it’s something Wikipedia’s volunteer editors spend a lot of time policing for."

In my view WMF communications people should have a clear and simple message about advocacy editing, including COI and paid editing, that puts it in a context. ~Something~ like:

1. Wikipedia's crazy and beautiful mission is to provide the public with articles that provide accepted knowledge, for free, through a volunteer community of editors. It has succeeded beyond what anybody could have imagined
2. This makes it a target for all kinds of abuse - people wanting to "get the word out" about any number of causes, companies, products, etc. Even universities do it. These people are like industrial polluters who pour waste into rivers. Parts of Wikipedia are like Lake Eerie when it was so polluted that it caught fire. Parts of Wikipedia are very clean and solid.
3. For people who want to get content into WP but don't know how, there are ways to explore whether a topic is appropriate for WP. There is a help desk (WP:Help desk) where they can ask for help, and there are paid editors who at least say that they follow WP's policies and guidelines. (see their statement). There are also paid editors who hide what they do and are like people today who sneak around and dump waste in our national forests.
4. Please don't pollute Wikipedia or support people who do. Volunteers spend a tremendous amount of time cleaning up pollution trying to maintain WP as a useful resource for people who want to learn, and this cleanup takes their time away from building good content.

Something like that. This is perhaps something that the board could discuss with the ED who could then get the communications people on board with the message, so there is a clear and consistent line?

c) Finally, I embedded this in what I wrote above, but I am starting to arrive at a view that we should start pointing to the fact that there are paid editors who at least say that they consistently follow the policies and guidelines. In the absence of information about where people can go for help, the undisclosed paid editing ecosystem just thrives. WMF and the editing community can perhaps starve it by pointing people elsewhere. I am not saying endorse them, but I am saying point to paid editors who follow the Statement. Complicated I know, but the world of paid editors is not going away. Jytdog (talk) 02:18, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see this proposal.... Jytdog (talk) 02:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC) (did it myself, per below Jytdog (talk) 03:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Jimbo doesn't need to step in everytime someone writes a blog post about paid editing. Comms is doing just fine. Sometimes, you present a simple, clear message to reporters and they don't recount it the way you would prefer, or just plain get it wrong. Gamaliel (talk) 02:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I don't know what happened in the interview. What we can do is make sure that WMF communications understands the reality of advocacy editing in WP and is able to put it in context. I had already emailed Samantha to learn about what happened but she is travelling now. Btw I emailed the executive editor of Entrepreneur myself, as I was worried that they are setting up a regular theme and I don't know what jimbo may or may not do. They (happliy) replied right away and said the two articles were just a coincidence. Jytdog (talk) 03:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fair to say that the vast majority of articles on Wikipedia paid editing view the practice negatively. At l;east that's my recollection. It might be useful to keep a record of all those articles someplace, as they appear. Coretheapple (talk) 16:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In an ideal world anyone tempted to pay for article creation would be forced to read Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Unfortunately that is not possible. But we can promote the observations therein to the press, in hopes that people will pick up on the clue. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I certainly agree that proactive p.r. would be a very good idea, rather than the WMF merely responding to press inquiries. Jimbo or some other WMF person should write articles and opeds decrying these paid editing mills and opposing paid editing. Coretheapple (talk) 17:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is that an appeal to high-minded principles like "the integrity of Wikipedia" may fall on deaf ears, whereas an appeal to self interest (i.e., your article can turn around and bite you) often is more effective. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:39, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that self-interest only works in instances in which the subject is marginal and makes a fuss about getting in. If the subject is notable, then it does make sense to either create an article oneself or pay one to do so. There is no inherent disadvantage to hiring paid editors. Paid articles are not flagged for the reader. Still, you're right in principle and Jimbo or whomever can and should make that argument. It's hard for me as a volunteer to get worked up on this subject if the founder - who has a personal stake in the integrity of the project - is not sufficiently moved to speak out often against it,Coretheapple (talk) 13:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• to risk beating a dead horse, i really think we should start being clear that there are paid editors who follow policies and guidelines, and those who don't, and encourage people to avoid those who don't. Jytdog (talk) 02:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know from direct interactions that there are promotional editors who follow the terms of use and write acceptable articles. I also know that these are a very small minority of paid editors, and that not all the editors who claim to follow the guideliens actually do soI would strongly object to the WMF or anyone giving the message that paid editing is acceptable, because it is sure to be misinterpreted. DGG ( talk ) 09:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:DGG. There is a fine line between encouraging paid editing, and pointing to people who at least say that they follow PAID, and what I am saying is the latter. We need to move past the discussion about "acceptable" or not - it happens and there is no way that we can stop it, with WP structured as it is. (The conversation about "acceptable" or "bad" is like the alcohol prohibition movement in the US - banning alcohol just promoted the activities of gangsters, right?) One reason I am encouraging formation of a guild or project is to have members of the guild/project police each other and throw out people who don't actually follow PAID. We of course will continue to do what we do, no matter what. Jytdog (talk) 14:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• While I respect our current consensus, and even clean up some blatant COI spam for which due to its inherent notability I can't argue for deletion, I can't stress enough how much we should not tolerate anyone making money out of the free work our volunteers provide to develop and maintain our legitimate content. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

we do tolerate it, just barely. That is because we cannot ban it, nor could we police a ban. I spend a lot of my time educating paid or otherwise conflicted editors how they can be good members of the community by honoring PAID and COI and the rest of the policies and guidelines, letter and spirit. We do get useful content from such people via their proposed articles and content. We also get way too much awful content added directly to articles by paid or otherwise conflicted editors who don't follow PAID/COI. It is not going away, and we should educate people about the difference between "white hat" and "black hat" paid editors. Jytdog (talk) 14:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

v3.0 of the Attribution and Share-alike Creative Commons licenses. This content is sourced from contributing volunteers and from resources with few or no copyright restrictions, such as copyleft material and works in the public domain. CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License says that anyone is free to share & remix for any purpose, even commercially. Google and others are making money out of the free work our volunteers provide, and there's nothing we can do about it. We release those rights to them every time we click Save changes. wbm1058 (talk) 16:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

That's correct as far as it goes. Anybody can use our content for any reason, commercial or otherwise. But there is a huge difference between making money from using our content and making money by producing our content (e.g. by inserting hidden ads). Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody here disagrees with that. That is not the point of discussion. What I'm asking here, is whether we should start distinguishing between editors who say they follow PAID, and those who most definitely do not. In a way that is meaningful and public. This is about doing something different. Jytdog (talk)

The discussions have been based upon a false categorization which is There are either paid editors or unpaid editors. That's like saying there are either employed people or unemployed people, when, in fact, a state of employment is usually quite fluid instead of stagnant. The only real solution to this problem is if every editor refuses to be stuck in either the paid or the unpaid category and, instead, embraces the reality that any and all editors, given the current situation, may be a paid or an unpaid editor any time they feel like it. Then, the policies and rules will be applied equally and no one should really care whether anyone is paid on a particular day at a particular time or not, and the whole issue becomes moot, as it is already in a round about way. Realityornot (talk) 03:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

mmm I cannot agree with that. COI matters and needs to be managed. Having a COI really does change what people do; this is just human nature. Jytdog (talk) 04:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, I understand, it just seemed like there was no real solution or anything else to try, but now Count Iblis has come up with an idea, directly below, which at least at first blush, looks like it might be effective in an active and deterrent way. Realityornot (talk) 15:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We just need to weed out corrupt editors here and that can be done using sting operations. We can create an undercover Wiki-police force who'll pretend to be business owners who want to get favorable wiki-articles written about their businesses. The existence of this operation will be public knowledge, this will serve as a deterrent to not engage with improper paid editing as you won't know if the person you're dealing with is or isn't an undercover agent. Count Iblis (talk) 08:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My views here are well-known already so I don't have a lot to add. My sense of it is that there is a growing consensus to take a few stronger steps to deal with the issue. The paid shills will scream, of course, but that is of little concern to us. I do think that there is one thing that I could do here, at least for Entrepreneur Magazine, and that is to submit to them a piece explaining why the advice in previous columns is very bad. The problem here is that Entrepreneur is really the perfect place for bad advice to cause us problems - it's a magazine that appeals to ambitious small companies who want to grow and who therefore probably aren't (yet) ready for a Wikipedia article, but who would love to have one.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Count Iblis's proposal seems worthy of serious consideration, I believe. Realityornot (talk) 15:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My proposal is a strategy for managing the market overall, by doing what we can internally to promote self regulation by "white hat" paid editors, and communicating to the world at large that there are black hat paid editors who should be avoided and white hat paid editors who (at least say) they follow policy and are community members in good standing. The Count's proposal is a tactic to play whack-a-mole. fwiw it would be probably involve committing fraud (it is one thing for cops to run a "sting" and a different thing for people to con each other), and I doubt that WMF or the editing community per se would formally do it. Jytdog (talk) 15:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed edit by the usual banned editor per

WP:BANREVERT. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Count Iblis's proposal above is original and interesting — it might be a way to differentiate between good actors (those who indicate intent to follow NPOV and verifiability) from bad actors (those who just seek to bill a few hours of work for whatever purpose. There is a difference. Ultimately, however, no such sting operation would have teeth because it is such a simple matter to edit around blocks. Until we have some sort of meaningful registration policy and a requirement of sign-in-to-edit, all this concern about paid editing is akin to a dog chasing his tail. Ain't gonna catch it and it ain't going away... Carrite (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This could be also be considered outside this specific context of improper paid editing. In many disputes that sometimes lead to ArbCom cases, we need to judge what the intention of an editor was when he/she edited in a problematic way. This is not always clear and often one gets discussions that escalate the underlying dispute with different editors choosing different sides. The less hard evidence there is to prove that an editor is really guilty, the more such disputes tend to escalate. In some of these cases one can then consider intervening using sting-like actions when complaints are made anonymously to ArbCom, e.g. about harassment on other sites. Count Iblis (talk) 01:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think black and white lines should be drawn. No paid editors, period. Being paid to create/edit articles for small companies that subscribe to Entrepreneur magazine is bad enough, but we also have a situation where large biotech and pharmaceutical companies are paying WP editors for both reputation management and paying to demonize their competition. The line will be crossed if it isn't a hard one. LesVegas (talk) 17:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy, Thank you very much. Yes, you should write a response to Entrepreneur. Of course you can't do this personally for every publication that advises folks to break our rules, but even one letter would be greatly appreciated. Individual Wikipedians could organize to do this type of thing on a regular basis, but there is some opposition to this from the usual sources. I guess the major question is where and in what form could Wikipedians organize to do this. There are about 5 places we could send similar letters right now. Ultimately, the WMF is best positioned to send such letters. I think they are responding better than they were a few months ago, but a real proactive approach is needed.

Opposition to paid editors inserting hidden ads into articles is certainly growing - not so much in terms of the percentage of editors, since that's always been very high - but in terms of intensity. The abuse by paid editors is also growing and repeating itself as well.

I'll call the repetition Paid recidivism, e.g.

• The Orange Moody extortion scheme is back. We may not have even slowed OM down two years ago. He's still sending the same emails - exactly the same emails - to his victims. I've reported this to the WMF and made sure (with Jytdog) that arb com has received the evidence.
• Bell Pottinger is back - this time in an extremely vicious attack in South Africa against President Jacob Zuma's critics. As far as I can tell Bell Pot didn't technically edit an article, they just wrote all the text, and then told an employee of a Zuma related company to put it into an article, complete with instructions on editing. IMHO just a cynical ruse to avoid our rules. See [1].

So we've still got a lot to do. Fine tuning a few knobs is not going to do it however. I agree with Jytdog that an overall strategy is needed. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of paid editors notion

• note also posted at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Guild_or_WikiProject_of_paid_editors

I have been thinking about language, and I don't much like the "white hat" and "black hat" language. I think maybe "paid editors in good standing" and "other paid editors" (meaning ones who have been banned or don't follow policy). Not as catchy but "paid editor in good standing" at least doesn't make us represent something that we cannot know is true. But if someone is following PAID some, and has not been indeffed, they are a "paid editor in good standing". We can say that.

I want to ask - at a high and initial level, does anybody here oppose the formation of something like a "guild of paid editors" by paid editors, to do the self regulation thing? There is some interest in doing that at the Talk page of the "Statement" and if this balloon is not getting terminally shot down here, I want to go to work doing what I can to help them plan and form it, and then at some point bringing it to a more community-wide forum to get validation of the model before it would actually launch.... So just checking for "blockers" (to use the dev terminology) at this very initial starting point. Obviously the details will matter. Jytdog (talk) 22:20, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to shoot this down. I'm not totally against it. It could work as part of a larger strategy. But I'm very, very leery of establishing an "approved list" of paid editors. Part of the larger strategy might involve the WMF signing a simple agreement with any paid editor who applies. It could require proper identification of the company with contacts, etc. and a complete list of all paid editing jobs they've done in the last 3 years. Requirements of disclosure on Wiki, following all community rules. An agreement to pay damages in certain cases, with jurisdiction of SF, California courts. In return, the paid editors would get a registration number with the requirement that they place it on all Wiki related correspondence and webpages with text like "We have agreed to follow all Wikipedia rules regarding paid editing. The WMF does not approve or certify paid editing firms. Complaints about our services should be forwarded to the WMF citing this registration number." together with a trademarked symbol.

Presumably, customers would not deal with firms without a registration number, if the WMF got the word out. A minimum quality could be maintained, with penalties for firms that don't follow the rules.

I'm not sure that it would work, but I've seen similar systems work, e.g. for review courses for professional certifications.

The key to any system to work would be accountability (names and contact info), feedback from customers, and review from the community and the WMF. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Am glad you are not opposed! That is meaningful. But please don't mistake what I am proposing for an "approved list". I very much don't want to go there; the reason why I am proposing a self regulation thing is exactly to avoid the kind of heavy infrastructure and obligations you are proposing as well as any actual involvement of the WMF in making it go.

For people to remain in, they would need to follow WP policy and guidelines; nothing more. We will always be able to indef people who violate policy, that would never go away, but the guild members would police themselves, driven by self-interest, as bad apples would taint all of them. If the guild wanted to issue something like a registration or seal, it could do that. Whether that would matter would depend on how well this worked. Jytdog (talk) 00:53, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am very opposed, particularly with this terminology. In my view, there is no such thing as a "paid editor in good standing". It's a bad practice of which we should remain highly intolerant at every level. If you are a paid advocate or marketing consulting you should not edit any Wikipedia entry where you have a conflict of interest, period, ever. These people are bad actors who should be banned and shamed publicly.

I would be less opposed if we thought about some formal recognition for a "Guild of Talk Page Advocates" - people who get paid to come and talk to the community about suggested changes. We should make it very clear and easy for people to contact us and get help, in order to reduce the incentives.

I would even support the WMF hiring 20 active Wikipedians to work on helping companies and people deal with BLP issues, with an absolute ban on paying for the service. Undermine the market for these scumbags.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As long as somebody collects the info and it would be reviewable by (some) Wikipedians, and a place for customers to register complaints. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:23, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very good points above from Smallbones and Jimbo. I like the talk page advocates idea but am opposed to the WMF paying money to editors to help companies and people deal with BLP issues. I think there are far better uses that can be funded with that money, and that the "talk page advocates" should be conversant with site policies. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 18:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, I would be happy to talk, if you like. But what you are saying here is exactly what we need to leave behind; again see the example of prohibition in the US. And your language of "scumbag" is ... unfortunate and kind of sloppy. There are paid editors who follow PAID, and who are clueful. There are, well, scummy paid editors, and the goal here is to choke off their market by educating the public, and that means having something to point to that is not "black hat". Jytdog (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I kind of like the "Guild of Paid Editors" idea. The basic premise we have to accept is that volunteer Wikipedians write about what they want, they write about what interests them. While there are doubtlessly a few people fascinated by the doings of contemporary business, demand for those sort of articles by the subjects (who seek validation or representation on one of the internets most ubiquitous information sources) far outstrips editorial supply. There will be paid editing, it is going to happen — the question is whether the damage of self-serving article creation can be effectively mitigated. It is possible to create and maintain articles in accord with NPOV and Verifiability standards, but there is absolutely no question that it is something that must be closely monitored. Driving things underground by playing whak-a-mole with transient paid editing accounts isn't the solution; we need to find a way to normalize (and thereby watch and regulate) the activity; to insure that those who play by the rules in good faith won't be targeted and repressed, so that we can concentrate upon those who don't play by the rules, cleaning up their messes and getting the perpetrators out of town. I see the notion of a "Guild of Paid Editors" as a step in the right direction. Carrite (talk) 04:24, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go along with that. Provided we introduce a Wikipedia Guild of Maintenance Workers and pay our New Page Reviewers, OTRS agent, Vandalism Patrollers, and Copy Editors $500 per hour for their work. Oh, yes, jolly good ideas! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:36, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I am inclined to oppose the idea of organizing paid editors by way of in house assets; from a WikiProject to a categorization scheme. I am, nevertheless: reasonable, and willing to be convinced otherwise. The burden, however, rests with those who would enjoy such a privilege tough, as yet, I've not seen a request that gave with its asking, a compelling rationale which, I believe, is, necessarily, a requisite first step. It certainly has not been given here; nor even broached, in my opinion.--
  John Cline (talk) 11:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

User:John Cline it is unclear what "privilege" you see here; I tried to make it clear that there would be no editing privileges associated with this. This would formalize what is already going on with the "Statement" linked above. Btw, the statement was nominated for MfD in the spring, and that was overwhelmingly shot down (MFD is here. The community is not opposed to the Statement and associated activities existing. This would just formalize it further and hopefully make it more functional. Jytdog (talk) 20:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• The only compelling rationale that I know of is that our coverage of small businesses and larger but non-famous businesses is relatively limited. I have been thinking lately that a plausible way forward on that would be for the WMF to directly pay Wikipedians to work in those areas. Companies should not financially contribute to this effort at all. The idea is to destroy the market value of these services as a better way to control it than the whack-a-mole, without introducing the horrible idea that it can somehow be OK for people with a conflict of interest to write Wikipedia entries.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:35, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the WMF is going to pay Wikipedians to work on any area, then surely there are loads of areas that are more deserving... Why not simply noindex all articles about companies? That would instantly destroy any (perceived) monetary value. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's think this through. What areas would be more deserving, and why? Most areas already have good coverage. I'm sure there are areas which are all three of these things: neglected by volunteers, not the object of pressures from marketers, and also of great interest to readers. I would argue that if there are areas which are neglected by volunteers and of great interest to readers, we could likely get them done with more community organization. What I'm really interested here is in completely destroying the fallacious argument that we have to accept paid shilling because our coverage of companies is not as good as it could be. That path feels to me like attempting to cure an infected finger by stabbing ourselves in the heart. And I think the issue of the purity of motivation (to share knowledge, rather than to market a company) is the heart and soul of Wikipedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I focus on one specific niche, typofixing. Typofixing is quite boring, and not as "sexy" as for example vandalfighting is. We have loads of software to fight vandalism, but there is almost no software to find and fix typos. I had to write some myself, and the WMF refused to fund it. The software allows me to fix over 2000 typos in less than 24 hours. I am not claiming to know much about all the other areas, but I imagine that there are people in a similar situation to mine. An RfC asking: "If the WMF hires some Wikipedians to work on some areas, which areas should that be?" seems to be a good idea, and I don't think "articles about companies" would be high up that list. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 14:00, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure what you are suggesting here. What do you think would be high up that list?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's have the RfC and find out. I hope stuff to counter our systemic bias. Paying people to write about female scientists from third world countries sounds like a good idea to me, but maybe I am too idealistic. We are doing fine with our coverage of "white" males from rich countries (people like you and I); maybe we can use money to encourage people to write about subjects other than that. I assume you are familiar with

WP:BOGOF, we are already sponsoring paid articles about companies. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 14:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I think it's premature for an RfC. I really like your example: female scientists from third world countries.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it is a good idea to think and talk about this for a while. Of course funding topic area A does not mean we cannot fund topic area B; we can do both. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• If WMF wants to pay editors, that would be great. It is a separate issue from influencing the market external to WP where people or companies who want articles connect with freelancers and PR companies. As long as this remains "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", there are going to be paid editors. And the world is teeming, and the demand is always going to outstrip a curated supply. But this proposal could maybe put a small dent in the demand. Jytdog (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not opposed to this, but if this happens, I think the annual fundraising banner needs to allow people to specify whether they are donating to fund editors, or to fund the operations of the WMF and hosting expenses.
  talk) 21:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The problem with going much beyond 25,000 companies is that the rest of the companies are relatively tiny. Add another 100,000 companies and our coverage in terms of employment, sales, etc. might only increase by another 5%. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My point, of course, is that increasing the number of companies we can cover is a fool's game. Right now we don't really have any limit, so we're all over the place with very tiny companies - like a coffee truck in NYC, or a one store donut shop (with jalapeños) near Dallas, an online lingerie seamstress near Oxford (1 "employee" - the owner), lots of very new companies that just want free ads, some tech startups that may have had one round of financing. All sorts of companies that can fake 3 local newspaper articles, but no news source would ever notice when they go bankrupt or otherwise disappear. With that kind of open invitation we can get millions of companies wanting ads - and hiring 20 or 200 or 2000 editors is not going to keep up with the demand. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• One can also consider a system where points are awarded to editors based on their contributions, contributing in assigned target areas that need improvement will earn you more points. These points can then be redeemed for money or for other purposes. Editors who want to see certain articles improved can themselves award points from their own account. Editors can then donate points collectively to a WikiProject (a chosen participant in that WikiProject then gets the points), these points will then be used to improve certain articles that the WikiProject participants have flagged for improvement. Editors who are found to have misbehaved will lose any points earned by their problematic edits. Bots won't earn points. An example of a point based system is StackExchange. Here you get points based on answers to questions, but the points are not worth any money. But this already motivates people to write good contributions. People who ask questions can award extra bonus points that will be subtracted from their account. Count Iblis (talk) 01:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I want to pick up on what User:Kudpung wrote about in the subsection above. Probably the single biggest thing that the WMF could do to help, would be to finally give the NPP people the software tools that they have been asking for for years, instead of unilaterally not doing what the a strong RfC called for. This has to do with dealing with adequately patrolling the torrent of new pages that come in, which is serious labor (the hard work of maintaining WP, which the WMF never talks about). Paying people to work NPP might be useful but I don't want to speak for the volunteers who do that work. Jytdog (talk) 02:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The worst thing was getting gratuitous emails from the WMF telling me to lay off. And just look at the absurd claims of 'secrecy' below. If I got a 2p point for every hour I've spent on NPP issues, I'd be able to afford to go to Montreal and talk to the people that matter. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion on this topic has been occurring in a low trafficked page regarding the implementation of ACTRIAL. The WMF, apparently, has agreed to go along with it for a short trial to gain statistical insight. Their reasoning is a six year old consensus on the matter. When it was brought up whether or not a new RfC should be done to reconfirm that consensus it was shot down as unnecessary. Due to the immense change in Wikipedia policy that would result in this trial I felt it was necessary to post this notice to a much more seen board. The fact that this is being done in relative secret, away from the knowledge of most people, is astonishing and should bother any Wikipedian who values community input on such wide reaching actions. Therefore, the notice on this highly trafficked page. Please see a retooled Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed article creation trial for further details. --Majora (talk) 19:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody interested should certainly go to that page and comment. As I understand it, the proposal is for a short trial that would prevent non-autoconfirmed editors from creating an article. I don't think that could be characterized as an "immense change in Wikipedia policy." Autoconfirmed means:

"Although the precise requirements for autoconfirmed status vary according to circumstances, most English Wikipedia user accounts that are more than four days old and have made at least 10 edits (including deleted ones) are considered autoconfirmed."

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:57, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The switch from "account needed" to "specific right needed" to create articles is certainly a massive change to longstanding Wikipedia policy that has been in place for many many years. Only once before has this happened, when the restriction from "anyone" to "account needed" was done. The exact requirements for autoconfirmed and the length of the trial are rather irrelevant in regards to that. --Majora (talk) 21:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the switch from "account needed" to "specific right needed" is a massive change (I don't think it is), a temporary test of that change is not. Deli nk (talk) 21:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This was not done in secret: it has been discussed openly and loudly by all involved. As
  WT:ACTRIAL, you will see that informing the wider community of the change is one of the things that needs to be worked on before implementation. This isn't something we're trying to sneak in the dark.

  An RfC was shot down as unnecessary because the main reason to hold one would have been to seek community endorsement for implementing the firm 2011 consensus without the support of the Wikimedia Foundation. I was in fact one of the people opposing flipping the switch while the WMF was opposed without an RfC. The Wikimedia Foundation agreed to run this as a trial and assist in the implementation. It was the opinion of everyone who had been following the conversation up to that point that implementing the 2011 consensus with the help of the foundation did not require a new RfC. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:21, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Yes, this was so secret that we (the community) had to repeatably discuss it with more than one WMF employee. If Majora was ill-informed about AfC, they are welcome to both read and comment when we discuss topics like these. This is a topic that editors like Kudpung have been dealing with for longer than Majora has been an editor. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Relative secret. Gosh it is like people purposefully skip over words to try to make their side stronger. Relative. As in, done on a low trafficked page as opposed to someplace like the village pump that has many times the number of people watching it. It wasn't on

  T:CENT either. The conversations with the WMF are totally and completely irrelevant as the WMF isn't the enwiki community. I didn't know about this "approved" trial until I stumbled across the page and you better be damn well sure that a lot of other interested editors also didn't know. Hence, my post on a well trafficked page. I don't get why you are making this out to be a bad thing that I notified people. --Majora (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I'm going to have to agree with Majora, I consider myself pretty well informed about whats going on, on wiki and this is the first I've heard of it. Why wasn't this advertised via T::CENT or a watch-list notice? The only reason I'm seeing this now is I watch this page. This could have been handled a lot better with more community input via village pump or some other high trafficked page. This is all based off of a 2011 RFCC's consensus, just to give some perspective look at how much RFA has changed in the last 6 years. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 22:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  In fact the issue did come up at Village pump in February this year, with links to the NPP page where subsequent discussions have proceeded: Noyster (talk), 08:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  (

  WT:NPR is more active than some of the village pumps some days and has activity from a wide range of community members. Those of us who have actively been working on this have been quite open in bringing it up, because part of the problem is that many people already think that this is the policy. As I said, if you look at WT:ACTRIAL you will see that informing the members of the community that will be most affected is part of what we need to accomplish before it is rolled out. I'm fine with this being posted here: I was planning on posting it to the village pumps when we had updated the page more myself. I stand by the sentiment that an RfC isn't needed: this concept has been discussed consistently for the last 6 years and has been a major sticking point in the relationship between the WMF and the volunteer community. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

  ]