I've updated the guideline to reflect the new Terms of Use, with this series of edits.
The Terms of Use are automatically policy. Since there were apparent contradictions the ToU automatically over-rides the version in this guideline. I don't think that any of these contradictions were serious, just minor things that became out-of-date with the new ToU. But please check the dif above. Smallbones(smalltalk)18:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Good job with the update. Just as a procedural point: the statement Terms of Use are automatically policy is a little misleading, because the community has the option of adopting a divergent standard that supersedes the ToU. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}}00:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm puzzled by how the terms of use relate to the English Wikipedia. The terms of use describe the default position, according to the Foundation, but each project can have its own policy, including that no disclosure is necessary (see Commons, for example, which is supporting a no-disclosure position). A lot of projects may not have any COI policies, so the terms of use express the position for those projects.
But we do have this guideline, so is this guideline our default or the terms of use? If the terms of use is the default, we have a contradiction on our hands, namely between (a) direct article editing is very strongly discouraged (this guideline), and (b) all you have to do is disclose on the talk page or in an edit summary (the terms of use). SlimVirgin(talk)16:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
My presumption is that the two merely combine rather than conflict. Actual editing is still very strongly discouraged but now disclosure is mandatory, for a (hopefully) minor edit, or even for just a talk page comment. We may need to 'ratify' that presumption with an RfC. Ocaasit | c16:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
An RfC is probably a good idea, but it will be difficult to find precise wording. We need to ask whether the English Wikipedia requires disclosure, and if so to what extent and in which circumstances (only when engaged in direct article editing or also when engaged on talk, policies and elsewhere?). And how does this relate to asking about the bright line (if at all)?
In the meantime, I wonder whether our default is the terms of use or this guideline. The terms of use don't say that projects must introduce a new policy, simply that they can have a separate one. Before the terms of use, this guideline said of disclosure:
"When investigating COI editing, be careful not to reveal the identity of editors against their wishes. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over this guideline."
"Paid advocates are also advised to disclose their conflict of interest."
Then there was an advisory section, "Declaring an interest," which ended with "Do not publicly declare an interest if this could put you at harm in the real world, e.g., from stalkers."
I'm assuming that, prior to the conclusion of any RfC (which will take several weeks, at least, to prepare and be closed), the above is still our default position. SlimVirgin(talk)17:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. We previously had a policy, but we have never reached consensus as a community to "adopt an alternative paid contribution disclosure policy." As such, where our old policy was at odds with the TOU, I would argue the TOU governs until such time as we adopt an alternative paid contribution disclosure policy. Specifically, "Adopting an alternative disclosure policy requires consensus, consistent with the project’s past practice and local understanding of what consensus is." You appear to state, above, that it would take several weeks to reach consensus per past practice - as such, we have no alternative disclosure policy, and the TOU governs where there is disparity. Hipocrite (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
@Smallbones: Please stop making changes to this policy unilaterally. Please propose changes and seek community consensus. Two changes in a row now have received criticism. You need to stop.--v/r - TP17:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
One of the changes that concerns me is "Paid editors are required to name their employer, client and related affiliations for each paid edit." First, that seems to contradict the "very strongly discouraged" advice about avoiding direct article editing, and leaves the guideline looking less clear than before. Second, it's very intrusive. The previous version said: "Paid advocates are ... advised to disclose their conflict of interest." I don't think it's our business to know who exactly is paying someone. That they declare a COI is arguably enough. SlimVirgin(talk)18:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. A user is required to disclose those things with respect to any "contribution," they are strongly discouraged from actually editing articles (if they were to, in fact, edit articles, they would be required to disclose). We are, in fact, per the TOU, allowed to know exactly who is paying for the edits. If you feel the community disagrees, seek consensus for an alternative disclosure policy. Hipocrite (talk) 18:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
m:Terms of use, "A Wikimedia Project community may adopt an alternative paid contribution disclosure policy. If a Project adopts an alternative disclosure policy, you may comply with that policy instead of the requirements in this section when contributing to that Project." We have a COI policy addressing this issue with community consensus. Smallbones changed it unilaterally without consensus.--v/r - TP18:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, we have, it's at WP:COI and it said, prior to Smallbones's no-consensus change, that disclosure was strongly encouraged. "You should provide full disclosure of your connection, when using talkpages, making edit requests, and similar." That is our policy on disclosure which the WMF Terms of Use allow to supercede their own and Smallbones has unilaterally changed without consensus--v/r - TP18:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
No, we have not. First of all, "An alternative paid contribution policy will only supersede these requirements if it is ... listed in the alternative disclosure policy page." This policy was not listed on the page in question. Of course, since the page in question is free to edit, you could list it there, but there is absolutely no evidence that this guideline was approved as a policy by "the relevant Project community." Hipocrite (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Says who? Three editors a consensus does not make. You, Smallbones, and figureofnine do not make a consensus to demote this policy nor change it.--v/r - TP18:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
This page was never a "policy," it was always a "guideline." Do you not know the difference between a policy and a guideline? Hipocrite (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
You're conflating English Wikipedia definition of policy with the wider world. The definition of a policy is "A policy is a principle or protocol to guide decisions and achieve rational outcomes." This "guideline" is a policy in the literal sense. This is simple, if you want a change, I'm not opposed to change. Simply start a RFC and gain consensus instead of Smallbone's underhanded insertion when he thought no one was looking. If you three are so confident in you're changes, that should be easy.--v/r - TP19:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Hipocrite, this is not a disputed guideline just because one or two people don't like bits of it (most of us don't like bits of most policies). As for the policy/guideline distinction, there's no reason to assume that the Foundation is using the word policy in the distinctive way we use it on the English Wikipedia. By policy, they simply mean guidance that has consensus, and the guidance on this page regarding disclosure is the closest thing we have to consensus right now. SlimVirgin(talk)19:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't care about one or two bits - it's disputed because you lot are edit warring over it. There's also no reason to assume the Foundation is not clearly aware of the distinction between policy and guideline, given that we are the highest traffic website they host, and the majority of their movers and shakers come from here and all. Who from the foundation told you that "By policy, they simply mean guidance that has consensus," or is that just your personal opinion of what they think? Hipocrite (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Then hold on RFC about whether an English Wikipedia guideline does not meet the threshold of the Foundation's requirement for a 'policy'.--v/r - TP19:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Then there's no dispute - since it has been a guideline since forever and a day, you submit an RFC to have it upgraded to policy. Hipocrite (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm glad we all agree that this guideline is not a policy, and thus cannot be a policy that overrules the TOU. Hipocrite (talk) 19:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
You must be mistaken, I see we all agree that the current wording of our long standing standard for disclosure is that it is strongly encouraged. You clearly show no interest in starting the community-wide discussion needed to change that.--v/r - TP19:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Round and around we go then? You can open an RFC or not, I don't care. Wording isn't going to change until you get a consensus.--v/r - TP19:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I haven't changed any wording in this inapplicable guideline except to switch "edit" to "contribution." It's you who is furiously reverting. Hipocrite (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Furiously? LOL. It was so quiet around Wikipedia while you were on your break. Welcome back.--v/r - TP19:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Hipocrite, policy is not what is written on the page. It is what is enforced and respected. Any editor on the English Wikipedia trying to enforce "Paid editors are required to name their employer, client and related affiliations for each paid contribution" would run the risk of being blocked under WP:OUTING. So the wording you want to add to this guideline, or want to assume is now policy, is highly problematic and would almost certainly not gain consensus. SlimVirgin(talk)20:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
A paid editor who failed to disclose those things also runs the risk of being blocked under the terms of use, true? Hipocrite (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
But blocked by whom? I'd be surprised if any admin on the English Wikipedia would do that. I can see an admin asking an editor to step aside if there's an obvious COI, or blocking a COI editor who had become disruptive, but I can't imagine anyone insisting on full disclosure or else. SlimVirgin(talk)20:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Options
We have several options:
do nothing and continue to accept this page as our guideline;
hold a quick RfC to ask that the advice on this page about disclosure – "that paid editors are advised to disclose" – continue to be our guideline (or "policy" within the meaning of the terms of use), until further notice;
in conjunction with (2) or alone, start a discussion about holding a longer RfC asking whether the English WP is willing to ratify that part of the terms of use, and if not what it proposes instead;
gain consensus to add a sentence to WP:OUTING, which is already policy, that "Paid editors are advised, but not required, to disclose their conflict of interest."
Of these options, (4) would be the easiest, because it involves adding one sentence to an already established policy. We could then add that section of the policy to the meta page at Alternative paid contribution disclosure policies, which would satisfy the Foundation's requirement that disclosure policies be listed there. SlimVirgin(talk)20:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I oppose 4, as there is no consensus to modify our policy in such a way, and certainly just "add a sentence and call it consensus" is not enough to codify as an APCDP. Hipocrite (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm supportive of 2 or 3. A discussion is needed. The lack of one would only continue to embolden both sides of this debate.--v/r - TP20:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
The ToU update applies to Wikipedia until we decide to change it. We should change this page (the COI guideline) for now to reflect the reality of the ToU requirements, and move forward with an RfC to determine if we want an alternative. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}}20:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
The COI guideline is our local policy regarding the ToU. The rest is just wikilawyering over the local ENWP status of a guideline versus a policy. This wouldn't be in doubt to anyone outside of this project and I certainly couldn't imagine that the WMF had any forethought to ENWP's 'special' treatment of guidelines when they wrote the exemption. Again, I dare anyone who disagrees and seeks change to open an RFC and ask the wider community. I'm not opposed to change, I'm opposed to underhanded sneaking insertion of material into the COI policy.--v/r - TP20:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
No. The WP:TOU is policy. Obviously the TOU knows the difference between guidelines and policy, since to specifically refers to guidelines and policy in "may further limit paid contributions or require more detailed disclosure" and then goes on to say only a policy (after an RfC and which is properly listed) may adopt an alternative disclosure requirement. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Let's avoid distinctions between "guidelines" and "policy"; they're wikilawyering. In fact, we don't even need to use those words: we can use "rules" instead. As you said, the ToU rules override the COI rules until English Wikipedia adopts a rule specifying the reverse situation. In the meantime, I would like it if the COI rules are consistent with the ToU rules, so that we don't confuse people. Our goal should be to settle this debate over the (temporary) wording of the COI rules, and then to have an RfC on what the rules should be. How can we do that? {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}}21:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
We can't, I don't think. The terms of use directly contradict the guideline on two key points: (a) the terms of use allow direct article editing with disclosure, where the COI guideline "very strongly discourages" direct article editing regardless of disclosure; and (b) the terms of use require detailed disclosure, where the COI guideline advises only that the existence of the COI be disclosed, and does not require even that. SlimVirgin(talk)21:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
The TOU allows guidelines to be more restrictive regarding editing, so your a) is a non issue, at present. Your b) is also a non-issue, at present, if this guideline details no specific form of requirement for disclosure because the WP:TOU does state a form (so they don't conflict). Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Alan, my point was that if we accept the that terms of use override this guideline (for now), then we are accepting direct article editing with disclosure, and that the required disclosure be seriously privacy-violating. We can't pick and choose (now, without an RfC) which bits of the terms of use to allow to override the guideline. It's all or nothing (for now). SlimVirgin(talk)21:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Seriously privacy violating? How so? No one has to disclose anything, just as no one has to be NPOV, as long as they don't edit the article (The TOU does not force anyone to edit an article). Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
As for your first point paid direct article editing without disclosure is against the TOU, it's also strongly discouraged, by this guideline, for someone with a COI to edit articles directly. There is no conflict there. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Alan, the terms of use require paid editors to disclose their employers, clients and affiliations for all their paid contributions, not only article edits: "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation."
So it would no longer be enough for someone to say on a talk page "I have a COI here, so I won't edit directly. I just want to make a suggestion." According to the terms of use, they would have to tell us exactly who was paying them. But no one would enforce that on enwiki, so I don't see how it can become policy. SlimVirgin(talk)21:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Only if they are being paid (not other COI). Moreover, it is doubtful that such a disclosure (as you describe) would not be deemed "in the spirit" (its the proposal that will disclose much of the rest) unless it gets much more involved than what you said and seriously pushes the envelope of conduct problems. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Why doesn't someone simply ask the Foundation whether this guideline is the "alternative policy" mentioned in their TOU? I was thinking that it might be, until I saw the "alternative policy" page to which SlimVirgin linked. That says to me that this guideline is not in fact the alternative policy contemplated int he TOU. But if there is any doubt, and there clearly is, just ask the Foundation. Coretheapple (talk) 21:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Some editors here seem confused. The ToU are not negotiable. Reality on enWP is defined by WMF unless we enact policy otherwise (that is explicitly what the ToU says in the relevant section). WP:COI is only a guideline. We have tried several times to enact a COI/paid editing/paid advocacy policy and failed every time. So yes, the ToU overrides this guideline until we make our own COI policy. My suggestion would be to copy the section from the ToU and paste it into the guideline, adding and taking away nothing, but introducing it by saying that "The following is copied from the WMF Terms of Use which govern everything that happens on Wikipedia. This text is presented simply for ease of reference". If anyone tries to revert that, refer them to ANI for vandalism. Which I may do, and start doing... Jytdog (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Question! Is anybody aware of the enWP community, or the WMF, enforcing disclosure or banning someone for violating the "Paid contributions without disclosure" clauses of the ToU? Asking for actual examples, ideally with difs. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Jytdog as well. However, even though the TOU is policy, it is not reflected (so far as I know) in any existing policy, and it appears to be contradicted by this laughable, flabby piece of non-paper that we call a "guideline." I agree that we should cut and paste from the TOU into this guideline. Coretheapple (talk) 22:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Jytdog, along those lines also. I would note, we don't jump to ban or block for most policy vios. As for your question, that type of banning was done at AN last fall for some editing business and at least one owner, as I recall. It was the confessed non-disclosure that concerned people. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Does this version[2] faithfully reflect the TOU? If it does, why was it reverted? Was there a consensus for this reversion? Why do we have a COI guideline that is at variance with Foundation strictures? Coretheapple (talk) 22:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I think it does, yes, but of course things can always be said better. As for why it was reverted see Jytdog on confusion, probably, and a seeming non acknowledgement or mistake regarding WP:TOU policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I hope no one will try to restore what was there without first gaining consensus. It's not clear to me at all that the Foundation can tell us what is policy and tell us that something isn't policy unless it's listed on a certain page and developed in a certain way. That's unprecedented, so I think we should take time to look at the other projects and how people are handling things elsewhere before acting here. SlimVirgin(talk)22:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, what's your opinion of it? I've wavered on this myself, because I feel that if there is ambiguity it is the Foundation's fault. But on your point about what the Foundation can and can't do, I think that it has pretty much unlimited power, as the owner/operator of Wikipedia. Coretheapple (talk) 22:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
That last point ignores all kinds of realities, including who would enforce this. If it's not enforced, it's not policy, no matter what it's called. That's been the problem with this COI guideline throughout its whole existence. It has basically been ignored and paid editing is now ubiquitous. Policies and guidelines have to be respected or they're worse than useless, because they occupy a space where an enforceable guideline might sit.
As for my opinion of it, I'm on the fence. I'm more concerned about the meta issue of the Foundation doing this, and confused as to why they would do it, and why they didn't consult specifically with enwiki to avoid these contradictions (given that this is mostly aimed at enwiki). SlimVirgin(talk)23:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
The change was made on the back of the PRWiki scandal and with Coretheapple pressuring WMF and Sue Gardner to do it on her way out.--v/r - TP23:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I guess what annoys me is that the Foundation is saying, "These are our rules! And they are engraved in stone. (Unless you don't like them.)" However, I think that Jytdog, an editor with whom I do not always agree, has raised a valid point. The TOU are policy. In fact, they are a kind of super-policy, and even though they can be overridden locally, this is a guideline and it is not the policy contemplated by the Foundation. If anybody has any doubt about it, then they should ask the Foundation, as I indicated previously. Coretheapple (talk) 23:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Feel free to ask the foundation or get community consensus. Until then, do not change ENWP policies and guidelines without a consensus.--v/r - TP23:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
@Coretheapple: no, this guideline is not an alternative disclosure policy contemplated under the Terms of Use. To adopt this as an alternative policy, there would need to be consensus to change the disclosure requirements in the Terms of Use. More detail is available in this FAQ. Thanks, Stephen LaPorte (WMF) (talk) 23:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
@Slaporte (WMF):, in what way is this not an alternative? Is it because it is listed as a 'guideline', because it does not have 'consensus', because the consensus was established before the change to the terms of use, or because the consensus didn't explicitly reference the terms of use? I ask because I want to know which part needs to be corrected. Because this is an established English Wikipedia rule, it does have community consensus, and it does directly address the issue of disclosure.--v/r - TP23:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Not contradicting, just asking. So what you're saying is that we need a RFC to reaffirm what we already have and explicitly states it is an alternative to the ToU? Is that all it takes?--v/r - TP00:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
There appears to be nothing in the WMF's new FAQ, which is informative and not part of their ToU, and much less in their new ToU, saying that a community-derived policy (see below for my comment on the meaning that word) is only valid if created or ratified after the introduction of the new WMF's new ToU; or that the new WMFs ToU over-rides existing community consensus. If I've overlooked such a condition, I'm sure User:Slaporte (WMF) will now quote it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits14:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Slim Virgin: What do you mean? WP:TOUis policy. Also, the current proposal is just to put the quoted policy on this page not go back to another version. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I am sorry but the objections are childish, like asking "why is the sky blue, I want it to be yellow." There is zero question from a legal perspective, that when Wikimedia Foundation says dance, we dance. They almost never do that, because everyone would leave. But this is not ambiguous. If you don't like the Terms of Use, DON'T USE WIKIPEDIA. You agree to them every time you use this website - that is the deal that you make. Every. Time. If you do not understand this, you are a danger to yourself and the community. Every thing you do on the WWW is through websites, and every website has Terms of Use that define what happens there. If you have issues with the ToU please address them to the WMF. Down here, under them, we do what they say, until the ToU change. This is not the place to fight about them. Jytdog (talk) 23:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not making myself clear here, so I'll try again. If you add the terms of use to this page as policy, you are allowing direct article editing by paid editors, because the terms of use allow it.
If we want to hold an RfC and adopt some parts, but not others, we can do that if it gains consensus.
But prior to that RfC, if you add the terms of use to this page qua policy, you will be saying that direct article editing is okay, so long as there is disclosure. And that introduces a contradiction – very strongly discouraged on the one hand, and okay on the other. That contradiction will take the guideline even further in the direction of "laughable, flabby piece of non-paper"-dom. SlimVirgin(talk)23:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
But direct article editing is permitted by the COI guideline too. It is, however, discouraged. Nothing is prohibited. It can't be, as this is not a policy. Coretheapple (talk) 23:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Off-topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Glad to hear you admit it. I suppose that makes your comment below null and void, then.--v/r - TP23:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Of course I "admit it." This guideline is a joke. And what "comment below" are you talking about? I have made no comments below this one. Coretheapple (talk) 23:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Of course it's a joke. You are trying to cram something down ENWP's throat that the project doesn't want. You're confusing vocal support with mainstream support. When we've help actual RFCs, you haven't gained a consensus. You had to go to the WMF to get them to push a new terms of use because you couldn't get a consensus on this project. So when you try to push things quietly when no one is looking, it's going to be a joke. The policy is going to contradict itself. It was a joke before too, but now even more so. Let me ask you a question, why is going to enforce this? You?--v/r - TP23:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
"Cramming" What the holy hell are you talking about? I haven't even been involved in this issue for months. What "comment"? WTF in general are you saying? Cool the f... down. Coretheapple (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Certainly not. I wouldn't dare enforce a policy that the community didn't consent to. I am a servant to the community, not to you. I enforce existing community policies such as WP:NPOV which should cover the needs of this policy. You're trying to force something on the community because you think you know better than us. You're our savior and you're going to save us from ourselves. The truth is that the rest of the community thinks that your approach to COIs, displayed by your militant attitude toward me, is going to drive COIs underground and make them harder for the rest of us to find. It isn't going to slow it one bit. In essence, in your zeal, you're creating more work for us. That's why you have so much opposition when the wider community opines. I'm plenty cool, thank you. Craming, yes, the adoption through force (you petitioning Sue Gardner and the WMF to change the terms of use) of something the community has rejected (see previous 4 RFCs you were involved in).--v/r - TP00:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Whoa there, buddy. I don't have a militant attitude toward you. I just think that you are too invested in this issue, too emotional, too hopping up-and-down about it, to be an uninvolved administrator in issues involving paid editing. I also think that your own record, as a person who has done what you have described as a "form of paid editing," is such that you really are conflicted and should stay away from this issue. You've been asked to recuse yourself in the future (as an uninvolved administrator) from controversies involving paid editing, you've declined, so we'll just have to see what happens in the future. As far as paid editing is concerned, my interest has waned because I think that it is basically a Foundation issue. I haven't even followed the TOU. If you had asked, rather than tried to put words in my mouth and screamed and yelled about it, you might have learned that Coretheapple (talk) 00:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
And what's this stuff about "petitioning Sue Gardner" etc. etc. I've never petitioned anyone, including Sue Gardner. Where do you come up with this crap? By the way, this is all side talk, all this personalizing, it really has nothing to do with this discussion. So why not cut it out? I mean, we can continue to go on about this, you can continue to get all this stuff "off your chest," but it is kind of tedious and off-topic. Coretheapple (talk) 00:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Uh, yeah. I remember that. I posted on her talk page a couple of times. So? That's not "petitioning" and even if it was, it has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. You're being disruptive. I'll ask you again: please stop. Coretheapple (talk) 00:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
It's funny how you call things disruptive if they undermine your argument. No, it is not disruptive to demonstrate how you couldn't gain consensus at an RFC and instead tried to undermine the community's position by seeking a WMF fiat. That is exactly on topic, on point, and not disruptive at all. I'll ask you to please stop your attempts to chill my speech by calling it disruption. Or, as I continue to say, go to ANI and get a consensus.--v/r - TP01:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Coretheapple, right, very strongly discouraged. But it's not discouraged by the terms of use, not in the slightest. The terms of use permit it, so long as there's disclosure. So the terms of use, and now this guideline, support what Chevron's PR person did at Chevron Corporation, for example, when he started to rewrite the article, but made clear who he was. SlimVirgin(talk)23:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
What did the editing community do about it? He was not editing in a walled garden. Did they strongly discourage him? As this discouragement is allowed by WP:TOU then and now. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, that makes sense. In high-visibility situations, COI editing is usually deterred one way or the other, despite the lack of a prohibition. But I've seen it happen many times, without repercussions, in less significant articles. That was true before the TOU and it will happen after. There's really no change except disclosure (if the projects don't overrule it, and this one hasn't). Coretheapple (talk) 23:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
SlimVirgin In the edit I just made, I do not cite the WMF position as Wikipedia policy. I described it as Terms of Use for using Wikipedia, which is what it is. It is higher than any policy we make (unless we make policy to contradict it). I was careful to not say that it is Wikipedia policy because I saw the kinds of objections people were raising, which miss the point. You are right, that all that the ToU do, is require disclosure. Our COI guideline goes further and suggests certain restrictions, but those restrictions do not have the power of policy and cannot actually forbid anything. If we ever enact a policy, we can go further and actually ban paid editing, but you and I both know that we are unlikely to ever get consensus for that. The upshot - where WP stands as of today - is that paid editors MUST disclose, and they are strongly discouraged from directly editing articles, etc. The ToU adds exactly one set of teeth - paid editors MUST disclose, and if they do not, they can be banned. I asked above if enWP has ever done that since the ToU went into effect. I remain curious. Jytdog (talk) 23:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Per Stephen's comment above, which I grudgingly accept only insofar as I believe that there is a technicality he has yet to explain that the ENWP community would be happy to meet if an RFC opened, what you've said isn't exactly agreeable. What it should say is something to the effect of "In 2013, the Wikimedia Foundation enacted terms of use for all projects detailing a requirement for paid editors to disclose their conflict of interest on all WMF projects unless that project explicitly lowers the bar. At this time, the English Wikipedia has not made an explicit contradiction with that policy."--v/r - TP23:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I purposefully refrained from describing what it says, and only described what its authority is. The ToU is well-written in plain English and has an FAQ. I know (and you should too) that embellishment or description of what it says or means will be very controversial; there are a wide range of very strong views on paid editing, and any description will step onto somebody's landmine. Jytdog (talk23:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm a bit unclear regarding your question: are you asking if anyone has ever been banned for a violation of the terms of use? Or are you asking if someone has been banned based on the modifications made yesterday? isaacl (talk) 00:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you so much for responding! My question was stupid - I (foolishly) thought that these came into effect ages ago. Thank you for pointing out my dumb question (nobody else did, so really thanks). So let me shift it - do you know if enWP has ever taken action based on violation of ToU alone? It would still be interesting to know if there is a precedent since that is the world we are now living in. thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
The new ToU states: "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." This seems to say that there is nothing stopping us from insisting that paid editors or COI editors are not allowed (or strongly discouraged) from directly editing articles. That doesn't contradict the ToU policy, which only relates to a requirement for disclosure. And that specifically allows for guidelines, rather than policies. I'd read the new requirements as saying that we are can, with no major problems, restrict paid editors as we see fit. But that we have to insist that they meet the ToU disclosure requirements when they do, or we need to have a new policy with community consensus that overrides the ToU on disclosure. - Bilby (talk) 23:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Bilby et al, I hear you, but enWP has tried many many times - most recently last winter when we had about 5 competing proposals, to make a policy on paid editing. All of them failed pretty dramatically to get consensus - there is a huge range of very strong views on the issues involved. You can find the failed proposals in links at the bottom of the Conflict of interest editing on Wikipedia article (not sure they are still there, but I put them there at one point). Be sure to check out their Talk pages. In any case, until we do (if we ever do) come up with a policy, all we have is the WMF ToU and this guideline. Jytdog (talk) 23:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm certainly aware of all the attempts. :) I guess what I'm trying to say is that the ToU takes precedence in regards to disclosure, until we manage to make an alternative disclosure policy. Which would be a challenge for us given our history. However, the ToU doesn't stop us from retaining the existing guideline restricting paid editing, and specifically states that we can do that, because it only relates to disclosure. Thus the current wording of this guideline, stating that paid editing of articles is "very strongly discouraged" is in compliance with the ToU, so long as we also accept that those editing must disclose their affiliation. The new ToU hasn't weakened our stance on paid editing, but it has increased what paid editors are obliged to reveal. There seems to be a belief that the new ToU allows paid editing over our guideline, but my understanding is that it isn't what the ToU is saying, as it leaves that side up to us. - Bilby (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
we seem to be on the same page, which is happy. the COI guideline as it stands right now, reminds readers that disclosure is required under ToU and everything else is exactly as it was. The ToU makes it very clear that projects can make policies or guidelines further restricting paid editing, and that is exactly what ours does. You have to read in a tendentious way to see it otherwise. Jytdog (talk) 00:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Bilby is right about what the WP:TOU covers and it does not contradict WP:TOU to also discourage direct editing, as per this guideline. I have also discussed this above [in the prior section] but since it now has its own section, I thought it best to reiterate, and I think that is what Bliby is responding to --this section header.Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
hm. the ToU explicitly says "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." That is exactly what we have with our COI Guideline. We "further limit paid contributions" with our guideline. Where do you a contradiction? Thanks!Jytdog (talk) 00:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
that is what i thought you meant but wanted to be sure. so we have a little island of shared understanding here. happy :) Jytdog (talk) 01:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
When multiple people object to the editing of a policy or guideline, the usual practice is to restore the consensus version and talk. There are several options ahead, including holding an RfC. No one should be pushing through their preferred version in the meantime. SlimVirgin(talk)00:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand your objection to inserting the TOU into the guideline. It's totally relevant and its applicable to Wikipedia (because there is no COI policy, as the WMF rep just reaffirmed). It does not contradict the rest of the guideline. Where's the harm? Coretheapple (talk) 00:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the collegiate approach is to discuss any proposed changes where there is opposition. I also agree, though, that the terms of service do not give a free pass to paid editing, as described in the answer to the corresponding question in the FAQ. A restriction on editing is not an alternate paid contribution disclosure policy (since it does not deal with disclosure) and so listing this guideline on meta:Alternative paid contribution disclosure policies is unnecessary for that purpose. However, should this project wish to specify a different set of information that must be disclosed, then an alternate paid contribution disclosure policy should be added to that page. isaacl (talk) 01:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
The WMF rep did not say we don't have a COI policy, he said we haven't explicitly stated with consensus that this is a direct alternative to the ToU. That is an altogether other matter; one I'm not sure the community was aware was necessary.--v/r - TP02:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Summary of principles
I've assembled some of the points and arguments that I think are good into a list of principles.
The Terms of Use (ToU) is a legal document backed by the authority of the Wikimedia Foundation, with the approval of the Board, based on a generally favourable poll of Wikimedians. It is not a "policy" or "guideline".
The ToU update only concerns disclosure of paid editing. It does not concern disclosure for other forms of conflict of interest (COI).
Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline is a guideline. It discourages (but does not disallow) paid or otherwise COI editing, and recommends (but does not require) disclosure.
The ToU, as a Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) legal document, supersedes local Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
The ToU update includes an opt-out: if a local Wikipedia project decides to implement an alternative disclosure standardpolicy, and announces it as such, the local standardpolicy supersedes the default ToU standardrules.
The English Wikipedia has not formally adopted an alternative disclosure standardpolicy, so the ToU applies on the English Wikipedia.
The English Wikipedia has a responsibility for its policies, guidelines, and legal terms (rules) to be reasonably consistent, both in description (i.e. the text of the rules) and in practice.
There is some conflicttension between rules. For example, COI rules have tension with rules upholding user privacy. This is normal and acceptable, if unfortunate, though it should be avoided when practical.
Rules are not perfectly enforced, and may be unenforceable in practice. This is normal and acceptable, if unfortunate, though it should be avoided when practical.
The ToU update neither authorizes nor discourages paid editing. It merely sets standards of disclosure that must be met to engage in paid editing if it's not otherwise disallowed.
The ToU update does not preclude greater restrictions on COI and/or paid editing.
The paid/COI editing rules are controversial, and so we need a reasonable level of consensus to implement or repeal these rules.
Given points 1–6, the ToU applies. Given points 8–11, it is probably reasonable to say that we can tolerate some "contradictions" in the short term. I suggest that we immediately uphold point 7, by mentioning the new ToU rules in the COI guideline. That being done, we should uphold point 12 and pursue a wider RfC to establish a more permanent consensus on the ToU rules. I prioritize 7 over 12 because 12 may require a long time to be resolved.
Fair point. My goal in saying that it was not a policy was to emphasize its difference from community policies. I've struck that portion for now; saying it's a legal document is probably sufficient to make the point. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}}01:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, WP:TOU is "community policy" - yes it has a different method of adoption, but we are in community with the WMF and even if we were not, it is a Policy of en:Wikipedia, which is this community. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
On points 5 and 6, the only we way can opt-out is to pass a policy - the TOU is clear on that. Based on past experience, I think it is reasonable to say that enWP there is almost no possibility that enWP will be able to achieve consensus on any policy related to paid editing or COI. I think the way it is currently stated, is a bit misleading as to how real the "opt-out" is for enWP. Would you consider replacing "standard" with "policy" in points 5 and 6, and separately consider adding to 6, "And based on past attempts, there is little chance that English Wikipedia will be able to reach consensus on an alternative disclosure policy"? Jytdog (talk) 02:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Done for the "policy" distinction. I don't think it significantly affects the argument, but I suppose it's worth being precise. I don't want to add the second part because it seems too speculative. It's not an unlikely outcome, but it's not a safe assumption, either. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}}02:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
On point 8, I don't understand. Nothing in the ToU allows WP:OUTING - and FAQ point 1.3 specifically addresses WP:OUTING and WP:HARASSMENT - this is the same as the warnings at our WP:COIN. I would prefer that Point 8 read: "Some may perceive a tension between the ToU and privacy policies, but there is none. FAQ point 1.3 of the ToU specifically says that the ToU do not override WP:OUTING and WP:HARASSMENT - this is the same as the warnings at our WP:COIN." Would you consider that? And in that light, 9 should be struck. Would you please consider that too? Jytdog (talk) 02:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
On point 8, I don't understand. Nothing in the ToU allows WP:OUTING - and FAQ point 1.3 specifically addresses WP:OUTING and WP:HARASSMENT - this is the same as the warnings at our WP:COIN. I would prefer that Point 8 read: "Some may perceive a tension between the ToU and privacy policies, but there is none. FAQ point 1.3 of the ToU specifically says that the ToU do not override WP:OUTING and WP:HARASSMENT - this is the same as the warnings at our WP:COIN." Would you consider that? And in that light, 9 should be struck. Would you please consider that too? Jytdog (talk) 02:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I think the idea that there's no tension between outing/harassment is a very weak argument, but you've got a point that they don't actually conflict anywhere. It now uses "tension" over "conflict". I think that 9 is important, because unenforceability is a significant weakness in the ToU update, especially given the lack of conflict with outing/harassment policies. That weakness being acknowledged makes the argument stronger. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}}02:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you so much for being responsive! Glad you moved from outright "conflict" to "tension"- I can live with that. I get accused of COI not infrequently by anti-GMO activists and I am very grateful for our very strong privacy policies. As someone who has been in the fire I can tell you that our policies against outing and harassment are effective; there is no real tension. If somebody tries to out you they are in huge trouble. I wish the harassment policy were stronger with regard to chasing someone around pushing COI accusations, but the policy eventually works. So I really don't see a problem, especially since WMF were careful to include FAQ 1.3 and we say the same at COIN... but the description above is OK for me.Jytdog (talk) 02:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually it does restrict lesser restrictions. The ToU applies unless it is repealed in a very specific way. but "policies and guidelines, such as those addressing conflicts of interest, may further limit paid contributions or require more detailed disclosure." It strikes me as a kind of ratchet or the old style of car jack. It can be jacked up a bit very easily most of the time, but doesn't go down by little bits. Rather there is an escape mechanism that lowers the ratchet completely and you can start over again from scratch. But that's only a rough metaphor. Smallbones(smalltalk)14:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
It's not clear what you are quoting, but the WMF's new ToU simply says "A Wikimedia Project community may adopt an alternative paid contribution disclosure policy." - nothing about whether that alternative is more or less restrictive. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits13:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I think the above are OK. The point about superceding is crucial. However, I'm not sure I'd say "legal" document. That implies something a bit more lawyerly than this TOU. I'd say something more like "formal statement of governance principles" or something like that. Coretheapple (talk) 02:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
The meaning of the word policy as used in the new WMF ToU (to paraphrase: "you may have a local policy that is different to the WMF ToU") is not necessarily the same as the rather legalistic meaning of the word "policy" on en.WP, where it means something with more weight than a guideline. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits14:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I very much doubt that as the terms are used carefully and the amendment was drafted with a dialogue from the community. Would you please explain your basis for saying this? Jytdog (talk) 14:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Prove that they have the same meaning. Don't forget to include reference to the local meaning of the word "policy" on each of the other WMF projects. The "community" to which you refer != the en.WP community. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits14:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Andy, don't worry about the difference or not. We could argue all day about it and not get anywhere. I've been making a point here about using the word "rules" instead, because all of our policies, guidelines and legal terms ultimately come down to rules that editors have to follow—and simplifying stuff that way short-circuits some of the more legalistic arguments. If English Wikipedia comes up with an alternative disclosure standard, chances are we'll call it a "policy" anyway… {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}}14:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, there is no need for us to be uncertain about any of this, as the WMF legal counsel was kind enough to weigh in here. @Slaporte (WMF):! It would be great if you can clear this up for us. When you say "policy" in the TOU, do you mean "policy" in the Wikipedia sense of the word, or could that be construed as including this COI guideline? Coretheapple (talk) 16:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
With all due respect to Stephen (Slaporte), it matters not one jot what clarifications he makes here; what matter is what was written in the ruling that was passed by the board; and how that is interpreted by admins, arbcom, or whoever gets to (mis-) apply it. Good lawmakers know this well; the same model applies here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits13:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing Your radical skepticism ~may~ be useful for a litigator but even in those cases the intent of the parties matter and Stephen is excellently placed to make representations about that and would probably be taken as an authoritative description. In typical contexts the plain meaning of the terms in the ToU is plenty clear, and for a reasonable doubter someone in Stephen's role is totally appropriate to explain what was meant. Your stance, on the other hand, is not mainstream and would be unlikely to get much weight in determining community consensus. Jytdog (talk) 13:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
"radical skepticism"? You seem to have mis-spelled "realism". I would never claim to carry "much weight" in determining community consensus; not least because such is (contrary to what you appear to believe) often nigh-on impossible to predict. How is Stephen qualified to speak for en.WP administrators, and/ or arbcom? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits14:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
What we know, right now, is WP:TOU is a policy, while WP:COI, which claims it is a guideline, is also not listed as a policy on enWP, nor by the WMF list. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
There is nothing on WP:TOU that says it is an en.WP policy; it's just a soft-redirect to meta. And we don't know what equivalence, if any, exists between our use of the word "policy", and the WMFs — which is the point I made above. 18:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
OK, so about the RfC below. I don't agree with its preface but that is not the real problem. The problem is that it is "omnibus". It has three main buckets. 1) Override the ToU or not, and if so how? and 2) Obligations of other editors when they see (what they think may be) paid editing; 3) A philosophical question. Under each of those are various options, which are overlapping in some ways and separate questions in other ways. This is a lot for the community to bite off. Too much I think.
Especially in light of the graveyard of failed proposals and difficult discussions the community has already been through just in the past few years: (copied from the links at the end of the Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia article):
it seems to me that an omnibus RfC like the one below, with overlapping options, will very likely result in a whole slew of very intense, and very long, conversations and that we will end up with no consensus about anything that we can actually act on. And I shudder to think about the work anyone would have to do, in order to close it! I really, really don't want to do that to the community. If anybody active here is unaware of the 4 failed policies from last winter, please look over the Talk pages associated with each of them, linked above. Not pretty. The editor Dank was the one who stepped up and put each of those 4 proposals out of its misery, and while he was closing them he expressed a willingness to try to facilitate a community-wide conversation about COI/paid editing in a way that could lead to a consensus. If TP would be so kind as to withdraw the RfC, I suggest we invite Dank to see if he is still willing to do that, especially now in light of the new reality that the ToU amendment has created. Would everybody be OK with that? If not, I would be happy to have a conversation here about how to set up an RfC (or a series of them) that has a hope of leading to something actionable and of being close-able. But the one below... respectfully, I see it as a disaster waiting to happen. TParis, would you please please withdraw it? Thanks very much. Jytdog (talk) 21:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I can't argue with you on this, but once the RfC ship has sailed, it's sailed. I know of no way of calling it back. If we can push a button and abort this errant missile (forgive the second metaphor), fine. If not, not. Life goes on. If there is stalemate, or if the paid editing fans get their way, the Foundation will act. Or not. Ultimately it's their problem. The only reason we are having this discussion is because of the past stalemates you reference. My further thoughts on this are under "Objection" below. Coretheapple (talk) 00:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Jytdog, I'm willing to be reasonable if you have legitimate complaints. I disagree with you about the structure of the RFC, I've personally closed dozens in this very format. But let's make this easy, if you acknowledge that I have repeatedly called on an RFC to be formed for days now and you agree that we are in need of one, I am willing to work with you on formulating one that is more agreeable. It serves my 'side' in this discussion as much as your 'side' to have a RFC that could not be called into dispute about its closure. We can even invite Dank, and anyone else who cares, to help develop it.--v/r - TP03:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much for replying, TP! I do acknowledge that you have been calling for an RfC. I am happy to reply to the rest, but first....Three questions: I am sorry but I am a little unclear on how you are defining "sides" (sorry that it is not obvious to me! I just re-read your comments on the page) and what you see as being at stake.
Are you drawing the separating line around those who understand that our COI guideline is a "policy" as referenced in the ToU, and those who understand that when the ToU refers to "policy" is means "policy" in the same sense that enWP uses that term (Wikipedia:PAG#Role?
If that is accurate, is the stake, whether the ToU overrides our guideline or not?
If that is indeed what is at stake, is such a broad RfC really the best way to address that specific question?
Thanks again, very much. btw, I do get a strong sense from your RfC that you would like to try to get the community's consensus on all the paid editing/COI issues, but that does not come through so much in your various comments here, which seem more focused on the questions I list above. On the broader issues, I too would love us to have a policy (as we define that) on paid editing/COI but after the disaster of last winter I really think we need to it carefully - and those broad questions are somewhat separate from the more legal questions above....Jytdog (talk) 12:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Sides I used very loosely, hence the quotes around them. I didn't really have a definition other than to mean, I've been throwing it out there repeatedly. It's obvious from WMF Legal's comments that currently the ToU overrides the COI guideline. However, it's not accurate that the COI guideline is not sufficient to be a local disclosure policy. WMF Legal's comments were only that a local consensus needs to be specific that the COI guideline is an alternative to the ToU disclosure policy. The other two questions have come up in this discussion above. My sole intention is that changes to guidelines and policies happen by consensus and not by editors who have strong opinions and call them 'grammatical fixes' etc. Wikipedia guidelines and policies reflect community practice, community practice does not reflect policies and guidelines. This is very clear in Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, "Because Wikipedia practice exists in the community through consensus, editing a policy/guideline/essay page does not in itself imply an immediate change to accepted practice." I don't oppose change, even change I dislike. I oppose change that the wider community hasn't weighed in on.--v/r - TP19:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
That was very gracious of you to withdraw the RfC, thank you! I considering your explanation of concern. I agree that the community needs to have the opportunity to weigh in, at least on whether to accept or to override back to our weaker guideline. I could see such a narrow binary RfC as having a chance of being productive. But as you can see I have invited Dank to step in since there are indeed many issues in the air... let's see what he thinks. Thank you again. Jytdog (talk) 20:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree pretty strongly with the people suggesting that this RfC doesn't really work in it's current form. I would be happy to work with anyone interested on drafting a different RfC, but I can't see this one resulting in a productive discussion. Option one is a red herring because there is no clear conflict between WP:COI and the new ToU, option two is not ideal because it is very vague and would require at least one additional RfC if it won in all likelihood, option three is not ideal because it's not worded ideally since presumably it means "WP:COI is our alternate disclosure policy as permitted by the ToU" rather than "WP:COI fulfills the ToU", option four is subideal because... welll.. I can't really see why on earth it's even an option given, and option five is subideal because it both assumes that the June 10th version actually represented a consensus version and doesn't explicitly specify whether restoring that version would entail it coexisting with the ToU requirements or standing as our alternate disclosure policy as allowed by the ToU.
It's probably also worth noting that there's not really a rush about getting this RfC through and it would be ideal to spend a few extra days getting wording that's reasonably likely to result in a clear outcome instead of launching it immediately. The ToU changes are currently already in full effect on ENWP, and will continue to be in full effect unless we approve an alternate disclosure policy. Since an RfC like this is going to run for a minimum of probably 35 days including the time the closers will take, is there any reason to rush the launch of an unclear RfC over waiting a bit to launch a more clear RfC? Even if it takes us a week to formulate a more clear RfC, it'll only be the difference between the new ToU applying to ENWP for 42 days vs 35 days if an alternate disclosure policy is approved.. I would much rather see an RfC launched later on with fewer and more clear options than a confusing RfC launched immediately that reaches no satisfactory outcome. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
The problem with the RfC below, as I read it, is that is assumes this guideline is essentially about paid editing, which is just not true. This guideline is about conflicts of interest, and only tangentially about paid editing. And the WMF foundation resolution is about paid editing, and only tangentially about conflicts of interest (in form, if perhaps not in intent). Even if English Wikipedia wanted a separate policy on paid editing, throwing away our conflict of interest guidelines and replacing with something that only covers a very small corner of conflicts of interest and instead deals with mostly occurrances that have no conflict of interest, doesn't make sense. We're still going to need guidelines for conflicts of interest. WilyD12:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
WilyD has said more articulately something I was about to point out, and also at present we don't even have a guideline. It was tagged "disputed" after one editor insisted upon removing a reference to the TOU. Coretheapple (talk) 12:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
COI by Foundation members
Specific proposed addition to this guideline, whether or not required by the ToU.
Foundation employees, editing Wikipedia on behalf of the Foundation, must identify themselves in the manner specified in the ToU for paid editors.
We have had examples of Foundation members (or developers) who have made statements in support of Foundation (or other Foundation members or employees) without identifying themselves as writing for the Foundation. I realize en.Wikipedia cannot enforce this, but it seems important to have it as a statement.
Arthur, wouldn't this be achieved already by using their staff accounts which generally have (WMF) in their usernames? Isn't that sufficient disclosure? I mean, I get the point you are trying to make, I'm just not sure it's made well.--v/r - TP02:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that this is necessary: it's a fair assumption that WMF employees are acting in good faith. TParis makes an excellent point, too. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}}02:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, some developers commenting on (say) WP:FLOW don't always identify themselves. I don't doubt their good faith, nor that they are often acting in (what they consider to be) the interests of the Foundation, but against the interests of en.Wikipedia. I have no doubt that some paid editors are acting in good faith, and attempting to ensure that their edits are in keeping with (other) Wikipedia policies and guidelines. — Arthur Rubin(talk)14:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Any staff member who is actually writing for the Foundation should be clear about that (e.g., by stating that it's an WP:OFFICE action and doing it from an official staff account, assuming the staffer has one). However, speaking on behalf of the Foundation is rare, especially if you're not in Legal or Communications. Staff members are also allowed to be regular volunteer editors off the clock. If I comment at Flow (usually in the form of telling the Flow team that it's really not going to work for me unless they put yet another feature on their list), then I'm doing that strictly as a volunteer. I have nothing to do with Flow on the job, and a reasonable expectation that I'll have a lot to do with it as a volunteer: Why shouldn't I post my ideas for Flow exactly like any other volunteer with an idea? What if posting "by the way, I'm on staff" meant that someone who disagreed with me felt that it wasn't okay to oppose my idea?
That said, most staff members' accounts (both volunteer and official) should have a note about their affiliation on their userpages, which is all the TOU requires. If you find one that doesn't (and it's an account that is currently active), then feel free to leave a friendly note on the person's talk page. (BTW, I haven't noticed anyone posting over at WT:Flow whose userpage didn't already include such a statement.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Obligations under new ToU
I presume that we are currently operating under the new Terms of Use until such a time as there is community consensus to establish a local policy. My question is what obligations this places editors aware of paid editing under. In the past, although paid editing was "very strongly discouraged", it wasn't specifically banned. So there was no obligation to reveal paid editors, as the paid editing wasn't in-and-of-itself a problem. If the editing went beyond that, into use of socks, vote stacking, writing masses of non-notable articles, or the use of Wikipedia for promotion, we'd act on those grounds and maybe raise the paid editing component. However, now editors who do paid work without disclosure are acting against a policy in the form of the ToU. Are we therefore expected to act on the basis that they are breaking the Terms of Use through their non-disclosure, and reveal their paid editing status accordingly? I should note that this isn't an issue of outing them in terms of any identifying information, so much as outing that they are being paid.
I ask because there has always been a certain stigma in regard to being a paid editor, so some editors tend to try and operate within policy, but underground. (Many others just ignore policy and create multiple throwaway accounts, but they are handled through SPI). Based on the new ToU, those editors are no longer acting within policy, and so they presumably cannot remain underground. - Bilby (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
First they should be politely asked to conform, pointing to the TOU. If they refuse and continue and can't be talked down, it escalates in possibly different ways, which will likely in the situation dictate where and when to press it. (eg, WP:COIN) Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I'd say that non-disclosed paid editors are committing a banable offense, but should not be considered banned until they are formally banned, e.g. at ANI or by the WMF. I don't think anybody is actually obligated to bring paid editors, or even banned editors to anybody's attention, but it is certainly possible and should be encouraged.
I'll suggest a very gentle series of escalating steps.
1st a gentle personal note explaining the ToU and suggesting reasons why somebody might think the editor is being paid
If the editor does not disclose and continues problematic editing, then
2 explain why the matter should be taken to WP:COIN, just to clear up possible misperceptions
if folks at COIN decide there is a problem (without outing, but obviously some investigation is just natural), and the problems continue, then
3 post a formal notice on the editor's talk page, explaining that there are perceived problems with paid editing and that the matter may to taken to ANI and possibly lead to a community ban.
If ANI refuses to perform their obligations
4 bring the matter to WMF legal - who I'm sure can ban by office action or other methods, but would prefer not to over-ride ANI without very good reason. Give the WMF some time on this, but don't let them forget about it.
5 that's the end of on-Wiki steps, but it should be clear that Wikipedia editors are free to pursue the matter off-Wiki, e.g. by public shaming through the press.
WP:OUTING still applies. The terms of use are not a shield against outing. Encouraging COI editors to reveal themselves is one thing, outing them is another. The obligation is on the editor being paid, no such obligation exists for other editors and no immunity exists for other editors. Other options include Arbcom and WMF legal.--v/r - TP16:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
If that is the case, OUTING needs to be looked at because on the contrary, OUTING should not be a shield against obvious paid ediitng. It has long been used as a cloak for paid editors to hide behind, no matter how visible the off-wiki evidence is. Paid editing is a scourge to the project and this is our best opportunity in a long time to take a proactive stance against it. If a user publicly associates themselves as a paid editor and links to his Wikipedia account anywhere on the internet, we absolutely need to confront that on-wiki. Punishing such behaviour as "harrassment" is foolish. ThemFromSpace17:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
If outing were changed in this regard, there would be no point in having an outing policy. The most frequent types of outing is discovering someone's employeer and then emailing their employer. This is an issue way more widespread than COI editing, but I COI editing would easily be an excuse. "I was making sure he didnt have a COI" ect.--v/r - TP17:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
My assumption is, and continues to be, that outing applies like it always has in terms of COIs - if you have to out someone to reveal a COI, then you can't reveal the COI. That said, we don't necessarily need to publicly out someone to say that they are a paid editor. If someone has off-wiki proof that a person is a paid editor, I presume it can go through the same channels this sort of issue has always gone through, via arbcom or a checkuser, without ever being made public. - Bilby (talk) 17:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Exactly on point, Bilby. Arbcom and Checkuser, and even the WMF, remain the avenues for private information.--v/r - TP17:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Just as one quick comment, I don't feel that publicly shaming editors, paid or otherwise, should ever be an option. From the discussion my reading is that I should raise it with the editor, even if that also raises a suspicion, and take the path COIN => AN/I => WMF, with private information shared only with ArbCom or a CU. I'm also assuming that admins have the usual discretion to block. - Bilby (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Disclaimer - I am not a lawyer, and my comment here reflects only my own (educated) guess, and not an official statement from the legal team - I think this is exactly on point, Bilby and TParis. I don't encourage such a change to WP:OUTING. I think existing enforcement mechanisms are fine here. The Amendment should not become a vehicle of harassment, nor should it become a tool that's used against good editors. It's a tool to be used against those who are not good editors and demonstrate that by undisclosed paid advocacy. It is not, and should not be, used to declare open season on outing. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
"should not become a vehicle of harassment, nor should it become a tool that's used against good editors" But you can bet your house it will. "a tool to be used against those who are not good editors and demonstrate that by undisclosed paid advocacy" Then it should refer to paid advocacy, not paid editing. This conflation is a major concern, as I have already outlined on meta. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits09:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Respecting this guideline
"Any editor who discusses proposed changes to WP:COI or to any conflict of interest policy or guideline, should disclose in that discussion if he or she has been paid to edit on Wikipedia." - WP:COI
unless I've missed something, it looks like this part of WP:COI is not being followed. More specifically, an editor who declared elsewhere on Wikipedia that he or she was a paid editor is currently editing here. This point was more subtly brought up on this page just a day or so ago. It's time to declare.
Notice that this does not ban anybody from expressing their opinions or prevent anybody from casting an !vote, or anything like that. Nevertheless, it might have a bearing on how other editors evaluate the paid editor's arguments.
More importantly, if someone does not respect the guideline and makes changes to it, how can they expect other people in the future to respect the guideline?
Sorry, I'm not much for witch hunts. I generally find myself agreeing with you Small, but this seems like slamming a door on the discussion because you feel someone needs to continuely disclose over and over that they once were paid. I think this is only needed if they are currently being paid. That's my two cents at least.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
The supposed guidelines is currently labelled "The designation of this page or section as a policy or guideline is disputed or under discussion" (emphasis in original). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits21:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
But that provision of the guideline reflects longstanding community consensus that people who have been paid to edit on Wikipedia have to make a disclosure when proposing changes to this guideline. This is fundamental, Ethics 101 type stuff. Especially in a situation like this, editors coming to this page have a right to know that. That's why it's in the guideline. Coretheapple (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Could you show that in a link please. I personally don't like Scarlet letters being placed on editors and I am not clear that this is actual policy. At least copy paste the actual policy or guideline to confirm your stance please.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree that WP:COI says they should disclose "in th[is] discussion" if they "ha[ve] been paid to edit on Wikipedia" past and present. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Uh yeah. It... like... says that, if you know what I mean. Mark Miller, you want me to give you a link to the guideline that you're commenting on? Coretheapple (talk) 22:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Uh, yeah, like...because you made the claim, you could at least back it up with a link. This guideline has changed so much over the last few months it would indeed speed things up and be a benefit to others reading this.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
You still need a link? The text is at the top of this section. You can click on "project page" to get there, and it is at the bottom of the lead section. Coretheapple (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I know who Smallbones is talking about. It may actually be pretty obvious, but this is NOT a requirement. So again, please link or copy paste the policy that demands that an editor continue to disclose they were once paid. That's is all I ask. If we are talking about a guideline...do you seriously intend to have it enforced. I am on the side of logic and civility and frankly this goes too far in my opinion. A scarlet letter to be placed forever on an editor. No, I would rather allow Wikipedia to be overtaken completely by COI editors than to keep demanding someone disclose over and over. Sorry, but once is enough and if that very fact is an interference with proposing guidelines than I do, very much, object to that.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Once is not enough, because that disclosure is buried on Jimbo's talk page. I only know about it because I was involved in that discussion. The purpose of this provision of the COI guideline is to provide full transparency during precisely this kind of discussion. The time to discuss the validity of that part of the COI guideline was prior to adoption of that provision on Oct. 22, 2013. However, if you want to get rid of that clause, if you think it stinks on ice, then by all means propose such a revision. No one has. Unless you or some other editor wants to do that, then that ought to be respected. Coretheapple (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
How does it "improve the project" for any editor, but especially an administrator, to ignore a guideline? Doesn't really matter what the guideline says, IMHO. Coretheapple (talk) 23:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
wp:coi is a guideline, not a policy so i guess there is no way to force anybody to declare that obvious conflict of interest, but I think people should be aware of it, and that fairly bold box takes care of that here as far as I'm concerned. It really is ethics 101, if you're going to try to change a conflict-of-interest statement, you should at least disclose your own obvious conflict of interest. Please do note that disclosure is not banning, and I do not want the editor involved to quit giving his or her opinion. This has been a part of WP:COI since Oct. 22, 2013 when I added it after a long discussion ending in consensus. Smallbones(smalltalk)22:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I actually agree with you in more than spirit Smallbones, but the reality is, there are editors that get away with COI editing to simply advertise and promote themselves and their pet cause, theatre of whatever. So, yes, I believe that editors have a right to know when an editor is in conflict of interest and I have added content and debated the issue on this page before, but what I simply do not agree with is that an editor must disclose that they were once paid at some point just to add content to a guideline. So...to me it is simple, when there is a policy, adhere to it. When there is a guideline, stick as close as you can unless there is little reason to do so. Here...I think there is little reason to do so.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and the editor in question keeps referring to this guideline, over and over again, erroneously, as a "policy." He should treat it as such. Coretheapple (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh, don't be sorry. I don't think much of this guideline myself, I think it's a crock, mealy-mouthed, poorly drafted, an ethical disaster area. But still, I abide by it. I think that we all should. Your position seems to be "he doesn't have to respect this guideline because it's not a policy." By the way, I take it you agree that the RfC is bogus as it treats this guideline as tantamount to policy. Some of its choices would overrule an existing policy, the TOU. Coretheapple (talk) 23:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I still am a little sorry. Can't help that. Not just being sarcastic. I have been a part of the discussion on COI editing for some time and it is really hard to say what is the best route to take here, but...yes, I am having a bit of trouble understanding this RFC. My position has always been that when an editor is clearly in conflict of interest that they should be exposed. But this creates a lot of drama. I have come across politicians, musicians and directors who think Wikipedia is a promotional tool for them to drop off every link or reference they, themselves have created, or that speaks well of them, watched as editors use their own Wikipedia page to bash living persons and destroy their lives (not an exaggeration). There are real world consequences and I am fully aware of that. My only issue is that we not stop this discussion because we believe that an editor involved has been paid at one time. I guess I am arguing that we not treat this particular guideline too sternly, and that it not be used to stop a discussion. Thanks for being so reasonable. Dang.....it just confuses me even more to think I have to thank someone when they are being reasonable. ;-) So many unreasonable editors...it is nice to see when people are being so. But I digress.....— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Miller (talk • contribs)
Oh that's OK. I get yelled at a lot, and you're being awfully nice. Just to clarify: no one is asking that someone be banned from the discussion, simply that they disclose. That's all. Coretheapple (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Mark is right, at least technically - we want disclosure from folks who are currently paid editors or in want to be in the future. But how to say that in terms that can't be wikilawyered to death? If anybody wanted to have it "made a paid edit in the last year" I would not object. It might even make the paragraph stronger, as Mark's objection is valid for (probably only) a few people.
Using the boxed statement as I did above has at least 2 effects: 1) says to the editor involved "come clean, we know there is something you're not telling us" or maybe even "cut the BS" and lets newcomers to the discussion know there is something missing; 2) it does distract from the main point - in this case how to change our rules about paid editing (see one section above, please). That said, I think the notice should go at the top of any new rfcs on paid editing.
BTW, on the rfc at Meta there were 1389 !votes, with 1103 (79.4%) supporting required disclosures and only 286 (20.6%) opposing it. Clearly a quicky rfc with 40 contributors revoking the ToU would not reflect consensus or be accepted by the community. Smallbones(smalltalk)13:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
But do keep in mind that the text you put in the box at the top of this section regards only a specific situation on this page, in which an editor who has accepted money for editing proposes to change this guideline. Seems relatively easy to do. You just say something like "Full disclosure: I have XXX" when proposing something. Coretheapple (talk) 16:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure how you read it that way. It says proposes changes or discusses proposed changes. If you get paid to edit Wikipedia, nearly any post on this page should have a disclosure with it in some form, and absolutely any RfC participation. Just take a look at Corporate Minion, he's doing it right. Gigs (talk) 17:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
So my username use to be "Corporate Minion", which is what CorporateM stands for (hence the reference from user:Gigs). We have seen actual cases of a paid editor using socks to sabotage discussions about the Bright Line. However, if COI contributions are not a substantial portion of the user's contributions to Wikipedia, I think there is a point where it becomes a scarlet letter.
Various advocates on the issue of COI are often claiming there is consensus for whatever their viewpoint is. However, when it comes to disclosure of a financial connection, I think the consensus is very strong (and required by law anyway). The primary question is how much disclosure is required - as the amount of information the TOU mandates is extensive and breaches our policies and principles regarding anonymous editing, outing and privacy. I disclose a COI, but without disclosing any personal information. It is not necessarily a trade between the two pulling forces - done right we can have our cake and eat it too. CorporateM (Talk) 01:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
US law generally applies on this site (since the servers and HQ are in the US. ToU statement on jurisdiction (not quite the same thing) also suggests this.)
FTC rules generally (but not in every case) apply in the US
FTC requires "paid endorsements" to be prominently disclosed (likely on the article page), unless it absolutely clear from the context that the statement is an advert.
If you can't disclose your paid COI prominently (e.g. on the article page), you can't make the paid endorsement according to the FTC - the ToU FAQs emphasize this as well.
EU law prohibits undisclosed corporate edits as well, see the German case cited, which said that a disclosure on the talk page was not good enough.
The EU law, and UK law, as far as I understand it are very similar to the FTC rules
Just about every country in the world has prohibitions against undisclosed advertising. Many US states have laws that are stronger than the FTC's. In the Common Law tradition, undisclosed advertising can be considered a type of fraud.
Applicability and jurisdiction for the many seemingly overlapping laws would be a matter of debate among lawyers, of course. But (without offering legal advice), I'll go out on a limb and say that if the company you represent has customers or any other business presence in a country or state, that country or state's laws will be applicable - i.e. you better make sure to follow the laws of **every** country or state where business has customers or other business presence (as long as English Wikipedia reaches there). Smallbones(smalltalk)16:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
When I ask "what law", saying "EU law" or "UK law" is not an answer. Which laws? And you conflate "paid editing" with "undisclosed advertising" - again, a misleading and unhelpful error. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits10:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Please do see the links I put right at the start of my comment immediately above. Perhaps the clearest statement from the EU law is
COMMERCIAL PRACTICES WHICH ARE IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES CONSIDERED UNFAIR
11. Using editorial content in the media to promote a product where a trader has paid for the promotion without making
that clear in the content or by images or sounds clearly identifiable by the consumer (advertorial).
Now if you are doing paid editing which is not promoting a product or service, I don't think you'll have any trouble with the ToU. But by declaring, you will be helping us identify others who are doing this type of illegal and unethical promotion. Smallbones(smalltalk)05:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
To clarify the US situation, the FTC guidelines carry some of the weight of law, but they are technically administrative regulations. Violating them won't land you in jail, but they can sue you civilly for violating them and get a consent agreement or financial settlement. Gigs (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
That's an EU directive, not a law. Once again: which laws? You're also — again — conflating paid advocacy ("promotion") with paid editing, which are not the same (and which are not the "financial connection" to which you originally referred). Indeed, "paid for the promotion... (advertorial)" is not "paid someone to edit", and "the media" is not Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits17:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
'Disputed' tag
I wasn't involved in the original discussion that led to someone putting a "disputed" tag on this guideline, but it seems to me that it all boils down to one editor not wanting a reference to the TOU in it. Marking this guideline "disputed" means in effect that we have nothing, not even a weak behavioral guideline, to stand between Wikipedia and the army of paid editors. To warrant the tag, I think that one needs a great deal more dissension over this rule than I see here. Also, to remind all editors of the notice at the top of this page, I think that editors who have accepted payment for editing need to declare it in discussing this, whether or not this guideline is "disputed" or not. Coretheapple (talk) 17:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
User:Hipocrite added the tag to stop an edit war. We're going to need an RFC here, as I've repeatedly said. I opened one and you objected to it's wording. Until a new one is opened to resolve the dispute, I suggest you leave this thing alone. Please, for the love of the project, quite unilaterally making changes to guidelines and policies without consensus. User:Jytdog, what do you think? Change was enacted and disputed, a tag was added and we are in the middle of starting an RFC. What do you think should happen with the tag?--v/r - TP01:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
He was mistaken. One editor - you - was starting to edit war, based upon your personal dislike of a policy that was imposed by the Foundation on all projects and will remain in effect until overturned by the community. That's right, the community, not you or a handful of editors on this page. You and a couple of others don't effectively toss the Wikipedia COI guideline into the round file (as the "disputed" tag does, invalidating it), in effect holding it hostage, doing gawd knows what kind of damage to the project, because you don't like the change in the TOU, which is in effect whether you like it or not. What you describe as a "unilateral change" wasn't a change at all, it was simply an acknowledgment of reality, which is that the Foundation has changed its TOU to directly affect this guideline. It is ridiculous for this guideline not to acknowledge the reality of a Foundation-decreed policy because it raises the ire of a tiny number of editors. You have things backwards. The policy remains in effect until overturned. It does not go into a kind of limbo until an RfC is completed. Coretheapple (talk) 02:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
The community have rejected your proposals to strengthen the COI guideline. Editing under the radar is unethical.--v/r - TP03:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it's a shame. Instead, the Foundation enacted this change in the TOU. It's really not very good, but it's policy. I'd rather that it be stronger. You'd rather that it not be done at all. OK, we'll have to disagree on that. But meanwhile, the policy is in effect, and it directly impacts on this guideline. Also, I think that it's inappropriate for you to be changing this guideline by putting a "disputed" tag on it, and now proposing some lengthy and complex "point system" for COI editing, when this guideline says that people who have accepted money for editing need to disclose that, and you have taken money and you haven't disclosed it.[4]Coretheapple (talk) 03:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Alternate Proposal / Scoring System
What if we had a scoring system to judge by? The current system doesn't take into account Wikipedians experience, project dedication, other contributions, and featured content into account. It also fails to account for the intentions of the paid editors without Wikipedia editing experience. That is essentially a black and white/zero tolerance policy that leaves little for faith and intentions. I'm not proposing the following as the grading system but what if we had something like this:
Categories of volunteer editors (VE)
Category
Point of view
neutral
advocate
Involvement
disinterested
0
no ties to subject and no personal biases
+1/ea
someone with personal bias related to subject but no financial stake
benefits from specific coverage of subject
+1/ea
someone in same general category: e.g. works in same industry
someone who derives benefits from publishing their opinions: e.g. personal product review site
+2/ea
someone who derives benefits from publishing advocacy: e.g. newspaper columnist
Categories of paid editors (PE)
Category
Point of view
neutral
advocate
Involvement
disinterested
0
independent watchdog group: e.g. Consumers Union
+3/ea
government regulatory agency
benefits from specific coverage of subject
+2/ea
commercial product review site
professor editing within scope of expertise
Wikipedia community liaison for an organization
+10/ea
subject or representative
competitor or litigant
advocacy group
Categories of Wikipedians (WP)
Category
Experience
Novice
Experienced
Topics
Focused
+2/ea
Single Purpose Accounts
Tendentious Editing
NPOV Violations
-1/ea
Featured Article Writers
Subject Matter Experts
Generalized
-3
Novice Editors
New Page Patrollers
Copy editors
-2/ea
Administrators
Featured Articles
Good Articles
Score = (VE || PE) + WP + NPOV_BLOCKS
Score
10
Paid Advocate / No interest in complying with policy
9
Paid Advocate / Only interested in complying with policy to avoid blocks
8
Paid Advocate / Interested in complying with policy
7
Paid Advocate / Complies with policy
6
Paid Editor / Edits more than one topic and complies with NPOV policy
5
Advocate / Interested more in cause, strong advocacy, wants Wikipedia to say a certain thing
4
Advocate / Project focused, strong advocacy, believes Wikipedia could be improved by coverage
3
Wikipedian / Project focused, some advocacy, edits topics outside of interests
2
Wikipedian / Project focused, little advocacy, only marginally interested in some topics of interest
1
Wikipedia / Project focused, no intentional advocacy, well rounded
0
Wikipedian / Project focused, no advocacy, complies with policy, interested in neutral encyclopedia, no advocacy
The numbers could be changed to give us a better scale, so don't get stuck on the numbers themselves. I'm also not making a statement that Administrators are somehow better than copyeditors or new page patrollers. The numbers and the descriptions can get rearranged. This is only a concept. Frankly, we need to make exceptions for editors who contribute much more to this project and whose participation has largely been primarily focused on Wikipedia editing. If we were writing a biography on ourselves, it would be too much weight to focus entirely on the minute paid editing of an experienced editor and ignoring all the rest of their participation. I personally have written twoGAs, a soon-to-be FA, a bot, the UTRS system, and maintained a number of tools. Labeling me, making me wear a badge of shame as one editor consistently insists on doing, it not how we want to treat dedicated Wikipedians. And if that is how we treat Wikipedians, then I've got a very new image of many of you. Thoughts?--v/r - TP02:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Off topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Yeah, I have a suggestion, which is that you read what I posted on your talk page about the disclosure required by this guideline. [5]Coretheapple (talk) 02:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Well I guess you're going to be "collapsing" comments you don't like, but go right ahead and do that as I certainly won't dispute it. I was addressing a comment that you yourself made which was Labeling me, making me wear a badge of shame as one editor consistently insists on doing, it [is] not how we want to treat dedicated Wikipedians. All that is being suggested is that you be treated like every other editor and make the disclosure required by this guideline. If people want to read the forbidden details, I guess they'll have to uncollapse the details you feel aren't fit for the sensitive eyes of Wikipedians. As for the "merits" of this "grading" system, if I can find any I'll let you know. It's just bizarre, that's all. I have no idea why you went to all the trouble of proposing this. It seems to be a kind of elaborate justification for administrators engaging in paid editing. Coretheapple (talk) 03:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Because whatever the merits of the addition of that line that you keep quoting had, the actual practical use of it ([6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]) has been to harass a well established editor who has dedicated and volunteered hundreds of hours to this project the likes of which a few instances of getting paid to advise, and not edit, are not at all a adequate payment. On an article, editors would immediately call that undue weight. The terms of use, as Philippe at Wikimedia said, is not to punish long time editors in good standing. It's to attack undisclosed paid advocacy. You've said your peace to me dozens of times, I've ignored it, now be done with it. Does anyone else feel treating each other like this is appropriate? We need a system that recognizes good editors who are dedicated to this project and produce good content. The current COI guideline, as demonstrated by the application of it by Coretheapple, does not do this. My proposal above does.--v/r - TP03:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
But none of the diffs that you provide have you complying with this guideline. It is simply diffs of another editor saying things you don't like. What has that got to do with this guideline? Coretheapple (talk) 04:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
But the guideline calls for self-disclosure. When another editor asks you why you haven't complied with the self-disclosure guideline, how is that "application of the guideline"? You seem to be saying that noncompliance with the guideline is "application" of the guideline. That's ludicrous. Coretheapple (talk) 04:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
What's ludicrous is your following me around this page hounding and harassing me.--v/r - TP04:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I just don't understand your point, that's all. Not knowing what in heaven's name another editor is talking about is not "hounding" or "harassing" him or her.Coretheapple (talk) 04:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm a bit lost as to the purpose of this chart. As I understand it, the issue is that editors being paid to edit Wikipedia are now expected to disclose who is paying them and that they are being paid. Is this advocating that they are only required to disclose if they get a certain number of points in the chart? What is the scoring to be used for? - Bilby (talk) 04:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
It's to describe how we categorize editors and in turn treat them. As Philippe said, the terms of use are not meant to be used against editors in good standing. Yet, Coretheapple continues to harass me. Clearly there is a disconnect between this policy and the intent of the WMF. The terms of use are meant to fight paid advocacy. That phrase has two criteria: one that an editor be paid to edit, and two that they be paid to advocate. I've done neither. If the current policy allows the kind of hounding I'm receiving, then the failure of policy needs to be addressed.--v/r - TP04:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
You're responding to posts I make and I'm responding to you. How is that "following you around this page" or "harassing" you? I still don't understand the point of your multi-diff posting above, but if you have nothing further to say on it, that's OK by me. Similarly if you have no further details to provide on your chart above, even though I don't understand it either and I see that I am not alone. Coretheapple (talk) 04:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
It's simple. The current wording of the policy does not distinguish between a long term editor dedicated to this project and some newb that just came by to push their agenda. It entirely undermines and diminishes an editors contributions to this project over years. The requirement for repeating disclosure over and over is nothing more than a badge of shame. My taste of getting paid in relation to Wikipedia were not paid editing, but it was a good taste to help me understand what it's all about. That information is well known to the community after the discussions on Jimbo's page and ANI. But if anyone is confused, you have sufficiently illuminated it for them nearly a dozen times on this page and elsewhere. Thank you, you've disclosed for me. The only need for disclosure on every thread, as opposed to once on a page per significant time period, can only be described as a badge of shame. There is no other need for it, practical or imaginary. What I am proposing is a way to distinguish editors who have proven dedication to this project from editors who would only use Wikipedia to further their own goals. The only reason to oppose that is if you arn't truly interested in paid advocacy, but you are rather interested in having a tool to continue berating others with.--v/r - TP04:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
What I am proposing is a way to distinguish editors who have proven dedication to this project from editors who would only use Wikipedia to further their own goals. But distinguish for what purpose? Coretheapple (talk) 04:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
For the purpose of not treating established editors as if they are paid advocates. If an editors edits are exclusively paid advocacy, then whatever, ban the crap out of them. But established editors who have no more violated the rules than any other established editor do not deserve to be treated like second class citizens (ie scum) on this project. Your behavior highlights that the most.--v/r - TP04:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I have no rank, I am a Wikipedian like everybody else. This isn't some imarginary elitism, I have a more practical reason. We have a history to know what the intentions of established editors are to judge them by.--v/r - TP05:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Monks and nuns and professional "religious"
First I have not received and have no expectation to receive any sort of compensation financial or otherwise for this question, and I have never received and have no expectation of ever receiving in the future any financial compensation for editing. But I wonder whether COI might apply in cases of what might be called professional "religious" like monks and nuns. I know in Christianity some priests and other ministers are also monks or nuns, but many are not. I would myself think that monks and nuns although technically they may not be paid specifically for their work do receive their "room and board" or whatever for their religious work and so might qualify as being in a sense "paid" for being religious. So, in a hypothetical case of a Dominican monk or nun who is a member of a religious order whose specific purpose is preaching, would editing Christian religious material here in what might be called a vaguely "evangelical" way qualify as COI or not? The same question might I suppose apply to all people in roughly "religious" professions, like priests and some independent ministers. The latter in particular might be effectively promoting their own religious views in perhaps an attempt to promote groups which hold with the beliefs they are writing about. I have been contacted by someone who believes they might be aware of such a case and am asking this both on my own behaf as a theoretical question and on the behalf of the individual who asked me regarding this matter. John Carter (talk) 23:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I think the difference is if they are paid to edit, "paid advocacy", or not. If they are not paid to edit, they would simply have a conflict of interest like the rest of us. If they are preaching, well then that's a issue of WP:SOAPBOX.--v/r - TP00:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Three big classes. 1st volunteer editor vs paid editor. 2nd set of big classes: neutral vs advocate. third big set of classes: not-conflicted vs COI Put those on X and Y and Z axes and you see what we are dealing with! you can sort out the boxes! if the monk's superior tells him to go edit WP and take the cricicism out of the pope article and the monk does this with zeal, you have paid, conflicted, advocate. If the monk does that reasonably according to our policies (taking out just the unsupported mudslinging and maybe adding some negative things and maybe some positive things and a whole lotta just plain information, all well sourced), you have a paid, conflicted, neutral editor (!) {Yes (!) advocacy is unreasonably tendentious by definition!!} If the monk is told by his boss, go make Chimay and the monk plays hooky by making the article on the pope look great, with zeal, you have a volunteer, conflicted advocate. If that monk happens to be huge fan of the belgian soccer team and hates the german soccer team, and spends his hooky wikipedia time adding nasty things to the German soccer team's article, you have a volunteer, unconflicted, advocate. (I say "unconflicted" because there is no financial or ownership stake there) and on and on it goes. In your example of the monk here to preach b/c his superior told him to, you have paid, conflicted, advocate. if he does it on his free time, volunteer conflicted advocate. a lot of people in the community focus on the "paid" and "conflicted" parts because money is such a huge driver and money is somewhat verifiable in the RW, but advocacy is probably a more pervasive issue around here - and a huge driver of content creation/deletion since passion drives so much WP editing -- but is more subjective and harder to deal with since there is no obvious flag like a paycheck or job pinned to it and advocates seem to rarely be self-aware. it is really really messy to deal with them (who wants to touch those battles with a ten foot pole?) i would bet that most arbcom cases are driven by advocacy on one side or the other or both. wow that was a long answer. Jytdog (talk) 00:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
but i agree with TP in that most times we just deal with the categories of conflicted or not, and we don't play out the full cube. Jytdog (talk) 00:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
and i want to say that there is SO MUCH PASSION about how to manage the "paid" and "conflicted" and "advocate" rows of the cube, because every advocate sucks to work with, but some conflicted editors and some paid editors are actually very neutral and don't advocate at all and it is actual advocacy that is the destructive to WP, regardless of what other categories you fall into. but there is no "flag" on an advocate like a pay check or some financial/ownership allegiance..... And those who are getting paid or who have a conflict do to tend to advocate in favor of their paymaster or their outside allegiance. So the flags are somewhat useful. and paid advocates are the suckiest of all advocates because they can pound away on WP all day. so by putting a redline around the paid and conflicted rows, the thought is that you at least restrain the suckiest and deal with the tendency to suck. Jytdog (talk) 01:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I think I understand what John Carter is saying, but what I think this is similar to are university professors and their expertise or published works. They are paid by the university but not to edit Wikipedia. They may have a conflict of interest in some cases but their expertise is important. I know that many of our articles on the LDS church and related articles can sometimes be difficult to deal with some passionate believers, but how is that much different then a Justin Bieber fan? Seriously. there are passionate experts of all levels. Religion is certainly personal and varies greatly but just being a priest shouldn't be a paid advocacy issue unless the priest is being paid by the church to do the work or make whatever changes they want.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
It's a mistake to say that university professors aren't paid to edit Wikipedia. A lot of positions will include a public outreach component, which would usually be generically enough designed that editing Wikipedia (at least within their field) would fall under their job description. Writing a Wikipedia article isn't really different than giving a public lecture, or talking to a group of girl scouts, or whatnot. WilyD09:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
WilyD what you write is vague to that extent, unhelpful. With respect to how general public outreach by a professor is treated under the ToU obligations to disclose....the FAQ to the ToU about teachers, professors etc (see here specifically says: "you are only required to comply with the disclosure provision when you are compensated by your employer or by a client specifically for edits and uploads to a Wikimedia project." (emphasis added) And my understanding of discussions around enWP's COI guideline, is that it is the same. It is only considered "paid" if work on WP is specifically in the job description or instruction by a boss. It is conflicted, only if the learning professional is writing about his/her own work or institution (or competitors, etc). There can certainly be advocacy, by anyone on anything. Jytdog (talk) 15:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
What you're saying is wrong. The policy on this point is unambiguous, and the FAQ doesn't really contradict it. It does say "if you're a professor paid only for research and teaching, you can write in your free time without having to disclose", which is true, but usually going to be irrelevent, because it presupposes something that's unlikely to be true. It also says "if you're given specific edits to make, you'll have to disclose" which is just as true, and just as irrelevant because that's also not a very realistic case. A far more realistic situation where you're paid to write, but without a specific list of edits, is going to be rather like most PR firms, who'll be paid to manage reputation on social media including Wikipedia and whatnot, but without a specific list of edits. The kind of misrepresentation of the Terms of Services you're engaging in her Jytdog is what sunk all the policy proposals. It's not helpful. WilyD15:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
wow you remember things I said from last year? i am flattered. i am sorry but i don't recall what stance you took during those discussions. I don't think it is fair to blame anyone idea or heuristic on the failure of the community to reach consensus. There are a lot of hard issues, on several levels. Back to the point...from where i stand, the ToU tries very hard to be clear about what definable activities are problematic, and to do that in a reasonably robust way (not too vague, and not too hard-edgedly clear). There will be people who come along and try to treat it as though it is meant to be hard-edged, and others will want to fuzzify away the meaningful distinctions it is trying to make. The overly hard edged, and the overly fuzzy readings each make this harder to actually implement than it needs to be. Common sense needs to be used. Jytdog (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Sure, the TOUs are pretty clear, and more or less black and white. The FAQs are much shittier at this. But the TOUs also don't appear to think that paid editing is a problem (one just does this and goes about their business). They think advocacy is a problem (but boringly enough, had already forbidden it a long time ago, by the mechanism of requiring one to obey community policies, plus us having the policy WP:NOT#ADVOCACY), but this recent change doesn't really address it. WilyD09:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
He did say "evangelical"! so paid + conflicted + advocated, the latter the worst problem. Should be self-aware and should very very much honor the COI guidelines. Jytdog (talk) 04:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I like the break down of concerns into three dimensions. To try to make it a bit more concrete, here are some examples for each that I came up with (think of idealized versions of the examples, rather than real-world instances, which of course may exhibit specific biases); feel free to update the tables. isaacl (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Regarding your modification to the term "advocacy group", I don't feel it is necessary. All advocacy groups, by their nature, exist to bring attention to the positions they are advocating, and so benefit from specific coverage. For example, advocacy groups related to an industry (e.g. web designer guilds) or an academic line of pursuit (e.g. physicist associations) can fit into this category. isaacl (talk) 17:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
someone with personal bias related to subject but no financial stake
benefits from specific coverage of subject
someone in same general category: e.g. works in same industry
someone who derives benefits from publishing their opinions: e.g. personal product review site
someone who derives benefits from publishing advocacy: e.g. newspaper columnist
Categories of paid editors
Category
Point of view
neutral
advocate
Involvement
disinterested
independent watchdog group: e.g. Consumers Union
government regulatory agency
benefits from specific coverage of subject
commercial product review site
professor editing within scope of expertise
Wikipedia community liaison for an organization
subject or representative
competitor or litigant
advocacy group
RfC pathway forward?
Dank, you had offered (or at least considered offering) while closing the policy proposals from last winter, to try to lead the community in a more structured way to try to reach an actionable consensus on the passel of issues under discussion here. Are you still willing? If so, the time would seem to be ripe... please let us know if you would like to or not. If you would, all ears (here at least). If not, I want to honor TParis's kind withdrawing of his RfC to get another one going, promptly. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
The RfC should not occur on the COI talk page, but rather at a central location like the village pump.- MrX20:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer guys. Yes and no. We've had a really hard time getting closers for RfCs involving COI, protection policy (specifically PC2), and hats/permissions (specifically RfA) ... and it's not for lack of begging. I helped close the stalled PC2 RfC just recently. So: since I'm willing, it's likely I'll be one of the closers for this upcoming RfC and for more to come ... so I shouldn't also lead discussions, that's too much influence for one person. But I can help in a couple of ways: I can add a footnote to my last close on the COI stuff in December, updating my advice in light of the new TOU (which changes everything), and I can ask the community for guidelines on structuring these difficult RfCs. (Seven simultaneous RfCs on COI issues in November and December wasn't ideal, nor was the recent PC2 RfCs with 15 proposals to vote on, some of which didn't show up till close to the end.) The key I think is for everyone to lower their expectations ... we're not going to reach a stable point after one RfC that settles everything involving the new TOU, we're going to need a bunch of discussions and a bunch of RfCs and a lot of time. I'll try to find at least a few positive results in RfCs, even if they accomplish less than people were hoping for (and they will, probably). - Dank (push to talk) 20:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Would anyone object to a widely advertised 7-day straw poll to get a temporary answer to the question of how to structure COI RfCs? Seven RfCs at once (last November) is too many, but we're also going to get a bad result if the first RfC to launch shuts out any other attempts. Fifteen proposals in one RfC (last RfC at WP:PC#Timeline), including some about a week before the end, is probably too many, but we also can't expect that every reasonable proposal will be thought up on the first day, or by one person. We need some kind of reasonable limits if the end result is going to be meaningful. - Dank (push to talk) 17:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Btw, that's in case a COI RfC happens ... I'm not pushing a quick RfC (though it's probably inevitable), I just want to be ready for it. - Dank (push to talk) 23:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
The multiple RfCs from last winter were a very big problem, but they did register that people have different ideas on the best way to handle paid editing, so there will almost certainly be different views this time around. I suggest a joint RfC for three proposals.
1. A simple statement of the current ToU - as now presented here + a short paragraph or two on how this may be changed as policy (essentially the same rules agreed to on how this RfC will be run, but without the 3 options)
2. A policy very similar to 1. but with a very few very short additions strengthening the policy, e.g. "Paid editors working for commercial organizations or businesses may not edit article pages." These changes from 1. should be agreed on in advance by proponents of a stronger policy, which I don't think will be a problem.
3. Anything the proponents of a weaker policy can agree on in advance. If they can't agree, we go ahead with just options 1 and 2.
Determining the result:
If either 2 or 3 have gained consensus, the one with the higher number of !votes will become policy.
If only 1 has gained consensus, it becomes policy.
Any other result - ignore the RfC and just start over with other choices if folks want to.
How to conduct this RfC and future RfC's on paid editngThis is the "paragraph or two" promised under choice 1 above
All proposals to change this policy before July 1, 2015 must be highly publicized to the En:Wikipedia community, e.g. by banner notices, with the RfCs running at least 18 days, and be closed by a team of three administrators. Only one RfC on the topic of paid editing may be active at any one time.
What if folks don't want a stronger or weaker policy, they just want to reaffirm the existing policy, pre changes, as our alternate disclosure non-EnWP-policy policy for the terms of use? I'm not a proponent of weakening the policy, I'm a proponent of leaving it how it was before you started making changes.--v/r - TP19:16, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
The current policy is the ToU change. If you want pre-ToU change then you want to weaken the current policy, which will take a serious policy RfC. BTW, I did not change the policy 1,100 folks at the Meta RfC did. Smallbones(smalltalk)00:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
My suggestion is to hold off on planning any RfCs and start with the basics: which specific aspect(s) of the problem are we trying to address (for example, which parts of the three areas discussed by Jytdog: volunteer–paid, neutral–advocate, disinterested–benefits-from-coverage), and what are the range of solutions? From there, we can proceed to build a list of advantages and disadvantages of each to more fully evaluate them. isaacl (talk) 21:37, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Current problems with the current policy (the ToU)
Businesses put hidden ads on article pages against US and EU law - solution, no paid commercial edits on article pages
Commercial services, e.g. Wiki-PR, writing articles, "monitor" (i.e. assert ownership) articles, and claim they don't edit articles - solution, no text from commercial services on article pages
Commercial services, e.g. Wiki-PR, claim that they employ WP admins - solution prohibit admins from working for such commercial services and from making paid edits.
Paid editors try to dominate talk pages, wear down volunteers - solution limit paid editor comments to 1,000 words per page per week. They can link to the firm's webpage or to an RS for more if they'd like.
Disclosure in ToU is difficult to keep track of - solution, require disclosure for each paid edit in the edit summary, and on User page for each article they've made paid edits on.
With all due respect to Jty, this issue has been talked to death by some of the wordiest people in the world. We know what the issues are, it's time to solve them.
This section is entitled "RfC pathway forward" - let's work on the RfC here.
for what it's worth, i trust Dank to identify and execute a pathway for the enWP community to make some meaningful headway on expressing some collective thoughts on COI/paid editing issues, that we can act on. I am willing to go with whatever Dank recommends.Jytdog (talk) 04:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
solution limit paid editor comments to 1,000 words per page per week.
require disclosure for each paid edit in the edit summary, and on User page for each article they've made paid edits on.
These suggestions sound punitive and obstructionist. People getting worn down from discussion is a universal problem here, I haven't read 1/3 of the content written on this page in the past week. The solution is not limiting one side's ability to respond, sometimes you need 1,000 words to respond to another editor's 1,000 words. In practice this would lead to debates about word count, awkward redirecting of discussions to editor's talkpages or offsite, editors deleting other editor's comments because they went over their word length, and all manner of petty drama. Disclosure in every edit summary also doesn't solve any problem, editors commonly scope other's talkpages/userpages/contributions/block logs/etc. This is instruction creep.AioftheStorm (talk) 04:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Those kind of proposals don't have a chance in hell and shouldn't be presented to the larger community. Gigs (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
As for the subject of any RfC relative to the consequences of the new TOU re "paid editing", I think the questions are actually relatively simple to construct. The TOU clearly lays out what "paid editing" is and has done so with a very broad brush. Anyone paid or compensated by an organization or individual (any type of organization as the TOU did not single out commercial or business organizations like some encouraged them to do or any individual) is classified as a "paid editor". In my view if you have a paid relationship with an organization and you edit Wikipedia on subjects either directed by the organization or associated with the organization, you are a "Paid Editor". IAW the TOU anyone who is a "paid editor" must declare so when editing Wikimedia projects. So here are the questions the community must answer:
What are the consequences for a "paid editor" if they fail to disclose IAW the TOU or community policy when they edit Wikipedia?
What evidence does the community want to see, to identify and deal with undisclosed edits by "Paid Editors"?
If "Paid Editors" do disclose their "paid editor" status when making edits, what additional scrutiny should the community impose on their edits above and beyond normal content guidelines and policy?
I think that once the community answers these questions (no other questions are relevant) then the community can begin to build the processes necessary to deal with "Paid Editors" (undisclosed or disclosed) in a manner consistent with the norms of the community. --Mike Cline (talk) 21:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the terms of use and this policy, pre unilateral no-consensus changes, only encouraged disclosure. That contradicts with the terms of use. A significant question is whether the community wants to retain a lower disclosure threshold, like Commons is proposing, before we should even begin to discuss how to implement the terms of use. That's a minimum necessary for any RFC.--v/r - TP01:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Or a higher disclosure threshold, including disclosure to the reader, which is a legal necessity in some countries (the U.S. possibly included; Smallbones and others have done some research into that). Or other improvements in a possible COI policy. The RfC hasn't even started, so let's not stack the deck and make it into a "TOU or something weaker" RfC. If you're so confident that the great silent majority of Wikipedians are chomping at the bit to toss the TOU changes in the round file, I assume you'd not object to making it a fair and well-rounded RfC that will provide alternatives to make strictures on COI stronger than the TOU, as is explicitly contemplated by the TOU amendment. Coretheapple (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Use of the disputed "disputed tag" on this guideline
WP:COI has been a guideline forever. But there is now a tag on this guideline saying that it is disputed whether it is a guideline or a policy. There are means to make a guideline into a policy, but nobody has done that for WP:COI. Are we in agreement here?
The terms of use are policy and they are quoted here. Guidelines are allowed to quote policy, but if a guideline quotes policy that doesn't mean that the guideline becomes a policy - just that the policy is a policy and the rest of the guideline is still a guideline. Are we in agreement here?
So what is the dispute on whether this is a policy or a guideline? It is a guideline.
I've already removed it. However, I just wanted to point out that this appears to be a "generic" tag, so I wouldn't read too much into its boilerplate language. (Striking out - Smallbones is correct.) One thing that the disputed tag says is definitely relevant. It says "The use of this tag on policy and guidelines is itself controversial." It's an extreme step, in other words, and was put on this article far too hastily, and as far as I can see, just because one editor was opposed to the TOU reference. One editor's personal dislike of a TOU passed by thousands of editors on Meta, and applicable to this project as policy, is not a valid reason for in effect invalidating this guideline unless it is consistent with his extreme point of view. Coretheapple (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
There are multiple editors who dispute the changes made and unilateral changes without consensus. If my view is 'extreme' then why am I the only suggesting we retain the WP:COI guideline how it is, without your changes? How is the status quo an extreme view? Can you please explain?--v/r - TP01:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
It's extreme because it does not reflect reality, which is that now there is a policy that directly impacts upon this guideline. That policy remains in effect until it is replaced. Coretheapple (talk) 02:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Also Smallbones has a point in his post at the top of this section. (My earlier comment misunderstood his point.) The tag says "The designation of this page or section as a policy or guideline is disputed or under discussion." In fact, the "designation" of this page is not disputed. It is simply inapplicable in this situation, as this is a well-established guideline and its designation is not in dispute. Coretheapple (talk) 03:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I think we should all be able to agree that no changes should be allowed to be made to a guideline or policy unless there is a consensus behind making these changes. I contend that:
Adding mention of the TOU is making a change to this guideline
There is not consensus to change COI to mention the TOU
I don't understand why you believe that WP policies and guidelines can be changed whenever a change to the TOU is made. Adding mention to the TOU is not the norm. Note the following:
WP:HARASS: no mention of the TOU banning harassment
WP:BLP: no mention of the TOU banning libel and defamation
Wikipedia:Bot policy: doesn't state how the TOU requires automated processes to be community approved and not place an undue burden on the site and the serves
It would be easy but tedious to find 20+ policies and guidelines that do not mention the TOU even though the TOU directly concerns them. It has not been our practice to cite the TOU in all our policies and guidelines, and if you want to begin rewriting our policies and guidelines to make mention of similar portions from the TOU then you need to find community consensus for this. This is a very conservative request, please do not make any changes to the wording of any policy or guideline unless you have a consensus on that talkpage beforehand.AioftheStorm (talk) 04:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
The difference between is that the TOU change makes very specific requirements that have already gone into effect and directly impact on the COI guideline. Whether it is mentioned in the guideline or not, it is in effect, and it is policy.Coretheapple (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
(ec) I was going to add that there has been a specific change in COI disclosure rules, imposed by the Foundation. Per WP:CONEXCEPT, Foundation decisions cannot be overruled by the consensus of editors on a page, and in this case there is no such consensus. The Foundation does provide an escape hatch, in case we want to pass a stronger or weaker policy. But that hasn't been done yet, and may never happen. Until or unless that happens, the TOU prevails. Not mentioning it in the COI guideline, when it imposes specific requirements pertaining to COI, is sticking our head in the sand and irresponsible. Coretheapple (talk) 14:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
WP:TOU was referred to on this page even before June 2014, so that's not a change for WP:COI to refer to TOU.
Well this is embarrassing, I had no idea this was the case D: I have no problem then with the TOU wording in this guideline.AioftheStorm (talk) 04:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Draft FDA guidelines for social media
subject trimmed from "Draft FDA guidelines for social media use say pharma companies should feel free to correct misinformation"
For third-party websites, such as Wikipedia, the draft guidance suggests that companies should feel free to correct misinformation, but that any correction must include balanced information and the source of the revision or update must be noted, Abrams explains. This means a company or company employee or contractor should be credited with any additions.
“The information should not be promotional and should be factually correct. This is not an opportunity for a company to tout its drugs,” he says. “The information [being added or revised] should be consistent with the FDA-approved [product] labeling and for it to be effective, you want it posted right by the misinformation.”
The draft guidance itself is here. Wikipedia is not mentioned by name, but there are references to "an interactive website" and "an Internet-based, interactive, collaboratively edited encyclopedia".
I think this is the first time I have seen a US government authority advise companies to go on interactive websites like Wikipedia to correct user-generated content related to their products. As an alternative to companies editing the information themselves, it mentions the possibility of contacting the author of the user-generated content (cf. examples 7 and 11 in the draft guidance). AndreasJN46609:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
It's along the same vein as the FTC requirements, that it be done in a transparent way. The subtext there is that if they do take control of the content directly, they'll be subject to the full FDA requirements for advertising communication, which are extensive. Gigs (talk) 17:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
This is indeed an interesting and timely development. First it should be noted that prescription drugs and FDA approved medical devises are one of only a couple exceptions to FTC regulation of ads in the US. FDA ad regulation was, and still would be, done on a case-by-case basis; the FDC consulting with the potential advertiser. Note that the proposed guideline are more or less similar to the FTC rules, e.g. the paid edits would have to be disclosed.
The only other exception I know of to FTC regulation of ads in the US is for *some* financial firms, e.g. all communication re: newly registered stock offerings (sales) is strictly regulated by the SEC.
Note that there is a 90-day comment period on this (until Sept. 17, 2014?). It would be useful if Wikipedia editors got together and make their own comments to the FDA. I'll suggest this be coordinated by WP:Medicine, but there may be conflicting views, so I'll suggest that folks with different views just send in their own comments.
It may even be the case that the WMF board or WMF legal might want to send in their own comment - after all they do possess better legal knowledge, and do speak for the the entire movement. Even so, I think they'd like to hear from Wikipedia editors with the comments made in some organized fashion. (that's up to them of course) @GeoffBrigham (WMF):.
I'll repost this in several places, but will probably concentrate my efforts at WP:Medicine.
If we are going to send a message to the FDA it should be to point out that due to the collaborative and open source nature of Wikipedia, there is no one "author" for a page that can be contacted in most cases. We should educate them on how our talk pages work. Gigs (talk) 17:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
And I'd generally like the pharmas be limited to the talk pages, except to remove dangerous information, perhaps identify "off-label" uses with a simple sentence and ref. Make it clear that disclosure is required -but the draft guideline already does that - and probably indicate that the "promotional labeling" information shouldn't be included anywhere (I think the draft guideline does that but it wasn't entirely clear). Education about Wikipedia, via our comments, via the final guidelines would be the strategy. Smallbones(smalltalk)17:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
What I find interesting about this is the focus on the content. Technically speaking, if a paid editor discloses and writes an advert, they would be violating Wikipedia's community policies, but probably not the Terms of Use? In my opinion it is still a covert advertising problem when a paid editor discloses in the edit-history, but writes a blatant ad. CorporateM (Talk) 00:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
