Proposal talk:Prepare to deal with paid "editors"

From Strategic Planning

This is already happening, when it results in COI breaches and spam we often spot it and deal with it. Where the editors are sufficiently careful to comply with our rules it is questionable if it is really a problem, but we need to make sure that our policies clearly set out what paid editors are and are not allowed to do. But would we complain if a Hollywood studio authorised one of their employees to add photographs to relevant articles that didn't have them? WereSpielChequers 21:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see much trouble here as long as the guidelines of Wikipedia are upheld. Everybody edits for some kind of (personal) reward, so paid editing is not the problem itself. Spam and massive attacks is something different and and can be handled quite efficiently by blocking a certain page. Greetings --Hannes Röst 11:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Hannes. Abyssal 17:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree too. This proposal is, to all intents and purposes, a dead duck as the problem is largely dealt with already.Petebutt 18:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an example of paid editing that seems okay. I think there are areas that could benefit from an organization/government adopting them and paying editors to update them. -- 00:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We could block their IP ranges, if we find suspicious activities. We should also block marketing agencies now. -- 20:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly why would we want to do that and secondly blocking IP ranges is an extreme step that goes against the ethos of anyone can edit. And if someone removes vandalism from a page does it matter whether they have a conflict of interest in the subject? WereSpielChequers 09:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's all nice, and I certainly agree that we need to be prepared, but I see little in the way of how we do that. HereToHelp (talk) 19:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Review our policies and guidelines as to conflict of interest editing so that its clear to anyone who reads them what the rules are. When it starts to become a problem make sure we have welcome templates which cover COI. WereSpielChequers 09:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Some proposals will have massive impact on end-users, including non-editors. Some will have minimal impact. What will be the impact of this proposal on our end-users? -- Philippe 00:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bit vague

While this overall notion is fine, the proposal offers nothing in terms of "how". WP already routinely deals with COI issues, and I can't immediately think of how to improve the current process. Manning 07:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]