Support with the proviso that this only applies on WMF wikis that have disclosure of paid status as a requirement (so not Commons or other projects that have chosen similar alternative policies on disclosure). TonyBallioni (talk) 20:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support This sounds like a great idea, and if we could actually require (and automatically enforce) this then that would be great. However, I can't see how we could automatically check this (so the burden is still on editors/the WMF) so I think that this is more of a guideline that we would like to see people follow, rather than a requirement. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 00:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is actually much closer to a silver bullet for the undisclosed paid editing problem (the part of it that gets facilitiated through Upwork and similar sites) than most people voting here seem to realise. Rentier (talk) 00:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support if I understand this correctly, anyone claiming on one of these sites to be an experienced Wikipedian will need to have a declared account on wiki. This is a good step. We may in future have issues with people offering ambiguous terms such as "profile protection" and "online biography editing" but wikipedia is the obvious search term and this should help there. WereSpielChequers (talk) 08:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support implementing this will grant more recourse for editors being impersonated, as from what I have seen on Upwork, there are dozens of freelancer claiming to be well established ( many claim to be admins, as that is what clients request in their job postings) Wikipedians.--SamHolt6 (talk) 16:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I briefly spoke to Doc James about this at Wikimania. I essentially see this as an extension of the requirement to disclose paid editing. While I do not think this will affect all that many paid editing cases, it will limit to a degree the places in which undisclosed paid editors advertise their services. Mkdw (talk) 23:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support I thought that paid editing was not allowed at all. They changed policy by creating exceptions? Of course those exceptional editors should declare by whom and for what their edits bring them money and/or other benefits. Klaas `Z4␟` V: 21:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This kind of measure protects users from being impersonated and helps monitor Wiki accounts involved with paid editions, which is something I consider necessary. Sabbut (talk) 06:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have thought about this a long time. I am sympathetic to what Bilby and others have written about this being burdensome. However making these kinds of links is actually routine for good faith paid editors; it is one of the things that pretty much every signatory to the Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms does already. This is already a good "white hat" practice and one that should be propagated and made policy. (I could actually see some people objecting to this on the theory that it is on-project advertising, and am somewhat surprised that no one has said this). But bottom line is that multiple good things flow from this, and it is not an unreasonable burden to place on people who want to make money in the real world by exploiting the value (eyeballs) that the volunteer community has created.
To be clear the multiple good things are:
(1) For consumers, they will be better to able to differentiate "white hat" paid editors who actually follow the ToU from "black hat" paid editors who don't
(2)For marketplaces like Upworks, the management of which would like to avoid enabling people to violate our policies, it gives them something actionable to work with
(3) For good faith paid editors it helps differentiate them from blackhat paid editors, increasing the benefits of following policy and levelling the playing field with those who cheat
(4) For WMF communities it will enable editors to better monitor good faith, policy compliant paid editing and shut down "black hat" paid editors.
Support This will not solve all related problems, but it's a start. A year ago I would have said the problem of paid editing has increased to totally unacceptable proportions, but by now it's become an emergency. Anything that looks likely to help should be at least tried. DGG (talk) 02:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of the opposes, I only find Bilby's relating to potential privacy concerns to hold much weight, but I think this is negated to a large extent by the fact that nobody is forced to be a paid editor, nor to disclose personal information on their profiles on other sites. Of the profiles I've looked at over the years, I can't recall often seeing information that would link them to a real life identity. Echoing DGG (and the opposers who say this is unenforceable) this will by no means solve all of our problems, but it is most definitely a step in the right direction. I've reported users to various freelancing sites and provided clear evidence that users are already blocked or are socking only to be told that this isn't their concern and that their ToUs are not infringed (incorrectly IMO). It would help greatly if we had a clear rule such as this that would make it black and white as to whether paid editors were following our ToU or not, and in turn whether the freelance sites' ToUs are also being broken. We should also consider the effect that the claims that freelancers make about being experienced editors has on their customers who are unwittingly being deceived and probably are not even aware of our disclosure requirements. Smartse (talk) 20:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot understand Bilby's concern. The proposal is that if a website offers paid editing with a statement like "I edit Wikipedia as Jimbo Wales", then Jimbo's user page has to link to the off-wiki statement to confirm the claim. The only penalty for failing to provide that link is that the website may be asked to remove the paid editing advert because it contains an unverified claim that might involve impersonation. This proposal would have no effect if the advert did not claim to be written by an identified editor. Johnuniq (talk) 04:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If that was the issue I wouldn't be concerned. The issue I have is that people are being asked to link to their profile on job sites under this proposal. Their profiles list their names, locations, employment history, short biographies, education history and typically contain photos.
The "impersonation" is a bit of a missnaming on Doc James' part. The target here isn't really someone off-wiki claiming to be a particular editor, but someone claiming to have a certain amount of experience on-wiki, such as having created 50 articles and made 5000 edits. It would have been better described as misrepresentation, rather than impersonation. - Bilby (talk) 04:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Paid editing leads to damaging the spirit of volunteerism on Wikipedia as I had learned from one of my friends User:AbhiSuryawanshi. Hence I support this proposal which will help to find out paid editing so that appropriate actions can be taken. Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 06:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It seems like action needs to be taken on this. Paid editing does not have to be bad per se (I wish more NGOs for example would allow their staff to edit Wikipedia pages in their work time), but anything dodgy, hidden or misleading needs to be stopped or made as difficult as possible. EMsmile (talk) 10:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Waek support. It may be a positive step for Upworks specifically, but I am skeptical it will have any effect on other sites. For example, I know of one LinkedIn profile that advertises paid editing services (contacting other LinkedIn accounts with offers to write their articles or rescue articles from deletion), the user is banned on Wikipedia and still creates numerous sockpuppets, but LinkedIn has declined to take any action on the basis of their user violating some other site's TOS. So I view this RFC as "mostly harmless", may be a positive in the case of Upworks but ineffective otherwise. Anachronist (talk) 23:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support on general principle, as well as potential leverage with freelancer websites. Note: I myself consult on paid editing matters, though FWIW I've never used one of these sites. WWB (talk) 12:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I originally closed this as "no consensus". There was a protest below for various reasons that I should not have closed. Since I read everything, and I am not going to be an outside close to the discussion, I feel that I am free to take a side. Below I posted comments about the barriers to which I perceived to enacting this proposal. I read and re-read, and talked the matter over with people. I support the proposal fully. My biggest concern about this issue is still that various people say that paid editing either rarely happens or if it does, then it is helpful. I believe it happens, and it happens a lot, and that it so rarely helpful that saying "never" is a fair estimate. Despite the lack of hard data, I am convinced that paid editing is a really serious problem and we need to address it. I have considered the potential disruption that this proposal could make and am not persuaded that the likely costs outweigh the likely benefits of further recognizing the problems associated with paid editing and pushing back. Some people have said that the paid editing problem is for WMF staff. I think that the WMF is paralyzed by lack of community support on the issue, and when the community comes to consensus in ways that expresses wishes, then WMF support and other technical fixes can follow. We have the potential here to work with partners at other websites because reputable websites do not let other reputable websites engage in cross-platform abuse. If a hiring board is obviously posting jobs for anti-wiki behavior, then anyone should be able to alert that hiring board about abuse. There is no ambiguity about what sorts of behavior are and are not acceptable. I am doubtful on one point, and that is whether non-English Wikipedias have a paid editing problem. English Wikipedia has a horrible problem; perhaps other languages do not, or want to set their own rules. I do agree with limits on this proposal to make it for English-language paid promotional job postings because that is where the complaints are. Blue Rasberry (talk)02:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Have been following the discussion to see if there are any surprises but no, this is a commonsense way to apply our policies and identify and deal appropriately with the non-disclosers. Bri (talk) 01:10, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would support if it were stated to be not retrospectively applied, be time-limited and inapplicable to clean-start users who have made good faith attempts to comply with policy. It seems unfair to force a user to forever declare themselves as a paid editor and link to their "corporate" accounts if they happen to have been employed to do so years ago; we do not require ex-WMF employees to do this. I suggest there is a reasonable time-limit of one year after paid edits have ceased. --Fæ (talk) 15:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Fæ this is for people still involved in paid editing. If a person is no longer involved in paid editing than they should not have accounts on Upworks / Fiver still offering to do paid editing of Wikipedia should they? Does adding "active" address your concern?
It's too implicit. Paid editors need to remain responsible for their contributions for a relevant period, not "vanish", shuttle between apparently unrelated non-paid and paid accounts, or be allowed to pretend it never happened 5 seconds after their last paid edit. If that were allowed, then regularly contracting paid editors could refuse to make any public statement between periods of engagement, even if for the same employer. Anyway, something to sort out the details in the Comments section if a further rewriting is being suggested. --Fæ (talk) 16:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure I understand your concern. What is too implicit? This is only putting in place the requirement to interlink accounts that are currently involved in paid editing to prevent impersonation of Wikipedians. It means that if one puts up an adverts that says "I am Fae and I will write article for you for 1000USD", if the Wikipedia account of Fae does not link to that advert, we can assume that advert is impersonating you and more easily request it be taken down. If someone was previously involved in paid editing and has removed all the adverts they had up than no linking is required per this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"vanish", shuttle between apparently unrelated non-paid and paid accounts, or be allowed to pretend it never happened 5 seconds after their last paid edit - unfortunately, Fæ, this is precisely their MO. There's not much we can do about it except make more rules so when we find them being broken we can react better. Kudpung (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks James, Kudpung, I know you both and respect your views, so would swap to neutral if the vast majority of votes were not supports. However, the proposal does not actually say what James says here, nor would its implementation resolve the other issues that Kudpung alludes to. I'm also concerned that virtually the only real project that gets targeted this way is the English Wikipedia, and having this vote on meta seems misplaced. A better starting point would have been to establish an English Wikipedia consensus, then make a global one later when the knots were teased out. Oh, and I'm sure you've thought about this, but being paid while misrepresenting your identity as someone else is identity theft and is covered by the law in all countries where paid editors are likely to receive their money. If the WMF or someone else were really serious about this, go sue someone as an example and to get plenty of positive press attention. --Fæ (talk) 13:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure suing people is the best way forwards. Often the accounts on Upworks do not have any clear identity attached to them. And why would they give us at the WMF private data? Additionally often these folks are overseas. Not sure this is a great use of funds when we can just assume that account are unconnected unless the person in question explicitly connects them. Just because something is the "law" in some country does not mean the legal system is particularly interested in perusing enforcement of said law. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This will only lead to wild goose hunts with nearly no real benefit. Problem no 1 is that you have no way to verify that two accounts on two different systems is controlled by the same person. Not even if the two accounts seemingly is involved in editing the same article, and not even if they seems to have the same user name. You must start with creating systems that allow identification and tracking of users, and as of now no such systems exists on Wikipedia. The only outcome of the proposal would be stalking and alienating users. It is quite frankly, not a good idea. — Jeblad23:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are misreading what is being proposed. Let says a Fivver account is claiming to be you and offering to edit Wikipedia for pay. Yet you have not linked to that Fivver account on your Wikipedia user page. With this proposal we can ask Fivver to take down that account more easily and thus prevent the impersonation of you. P.S. both we and Fivver have policies against impersonation. For those involved with paid editing our TOU already require that they list the intermediaries through which they work, so nothing changing there. We are not trying to verify that "two accounts on two different systems are controlled by the same person" only the person who controls those two accounts can do that.
You can reformulate this as impersonating someone, but it is still the same – only worse. The proposal would then be to make claims about impersonations done on an external site, with no real evidence. — Jeblad01:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm regretfully opposing this for now because there was a very similar proposal made within the last 12 months on en.wiki to require paid editors to disclose their accounts on other sites that was rejected by the community. Unfortunately I am unable to recall where the discussion was, and until I can review that, I can't support a proposal that is using what in my experience is a rare occurence (impersonation) to force all paid editors to link to their accounts on other sites. Once the discussion can be found and opponents have been made aware of this then I would be happy to reconsider. Smartse (talk) 12:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Have looked and been unable to find it either. If anyone can link to any prior discussions that would be appreciated. Have already posted notes about this RfC to wikimedia-l and the EN village pump. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Smartse have found the prior discussion here. User:TParis commented. Legal (User:Slaporte (WMF)) also said "On my work with the Wikimedia legal team, we have found a few platforms that are quick to remove posts that violate their terms of use. The terms of use for Fiverr, for example, say that they may remove Gigs that violate a third party's terms of service (eg, they will rove Gigs that violate Twitter or Facebook's rules, and could do the same for Gigs that violate a Wikipedia policy). These sort of policies may have some variability from site to site, but it's helpful from my perspective to have clear and simple written rules, even where it may not be guaranteed to be enforced 100% of the time"Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Doc James: Sorry about the delay in responding here. I was obviously mistaken about there being a lengthy discussion about this before as you, I and Jytdog have all searched for it and produced nothing more than what you've linked to above. Smartse (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unworkable in practice; and unlikely to have the effect of aiding "take down" actions that is claimed. This specific proposal is badly worded, and over-reaching, as discussed below. Likely to be harmful to, for example, Wikimedians in Residence (such as myself). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits12:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How would it harm WiRs? Do you know of any who offer to edit Wikipedia's articles for pay on Upworks while trying to hide the Wikipedia account they are using? Most WiR are above board and closely follow the rules.
This will actually help honest WiRs who do follow the rules as it will hopefully cut down on "black hat" editors. It will help people who want to hire a WiR not be mislead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Foundation has also made it clear that most of the work done through GLAM and Wikipedian in Residence are not considered paid conflicts of interest. Mkdw (talk) 21:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
consider the chilling effects of incidents such as this one [1] i have had to wiki-splain to a GLAM what is up with this COI questioning by editors less reasonable than you. need to consider how the tools will be used and abused. Slowking4 (talk) 01:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WiRs, from institutions that share our goals, are not paid editors per our TOU. The accusations in that case were inappropriate and I said as much. Just because we allow, and in fact welcome, disclosed WiR does not mean we must allowed undisclosed paid promotional editing by banned accounts pretending to be users in good standing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, that reiterates that paid WiR are covered by the requirements of WMF policy: "If you are a compensated Wikimedian in residence, for example, you must note what GLAM organisation is paying you.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits11:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The context there is very clear (please follow the link Doc J gave you) - that's the only disclosure required for a W-i-R. (A) Wikipedian in Residence who is specifically compensated to edit the article about the archive at which they are employed should make a simple disclosure that he is a paid Wikipedian in Residence with the archive. This would be sufficient disclosure for purposes of requirement. Surely you're not against a W-i-R posting e.g. I am a Wikimedian-in-Residence at the XYZ Museum. Would there be any advantage to anybody to have a W-i-R operate in secret? Of course not. Smallbones (talk) 14:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No that is a serious question. Are you saying you want to allow WIR to operate secrete side paid Wikipedia editing businesses? I do not believe this negative activity exists to any extent so I did not add it to the lists of beneficial effects of this proposal. But if you believe we have a bunch of WIR operating secrete paid Wikipedia editing businesses than that is only more of a reason to support this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:53, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Do you know of any who offer to edit Wikipedia's articles for pay on Upworks" Were the proposed wording upon which were asked to comment specific to Upwork, your question would be relevant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits16:28, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This asks editors to link to personal information contained in their CVs, which are typically included in their job profiles, and goes beyond what is expected by the disclosure requirements. To meet the current requirements, editors need to provide their employer and client. To meet this, editors will be linking to their online job histories, (whether it is related to Wikipedia or not), real names, photos, employment histories and locations of residence. This degree of self-outing is substantially more than currently required, and more than the community has ever supported. - Bilby (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As unworkable and unenforceable. Furthermore, I oppose the manipulative attempts to undermine local enwiki consensus by abusing the Meta processes, where less enwiki attention lies, to force policy on enwiki. Why is it always the COI warriors here abusing this process? Why does their inability to gain local consensus never satisfy them? I retract that comment, Doc is not one of the typical 'warriors'.--TParis (talk) 20:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Their right for privacy outweighs our desire to snoop around on the internet. Just let the WMF handle paid editing initiatives. And what about projects that do allow paid editing without disclosure? Natuur12 (talk) 22:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Already specific for Wikipedia and thus does not include Commons. Which other projects were you thinking of? By the way this RfC is about supporting the WMF in handling paid editing initiatives and this proposal has been discussed with legal already. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Citation: We commonly see paid editors pretending to be established Wikipedians such as here. The link does not work and the proposer did not disclose the dimension of the problem. Commonly means nothing. I cannot understand that the described situation - someone creates a fake account elsewhere and asks for cash - requires a policy that forces all paid editors to disclose their accounts on other platforms. If you find someone pretending to be User:Cimbail and asking for cash, just leave a message on my discussion page. If I don't see your post for months, this would be my problem. After all, I would be the person "impersonated". And, by the way, I don't see any problem with paid editing, unless the paid author breaks the rules, does something that is verboten, or runs into a conflict of interests. Most paid editors won't bomb their business with POV-pushing, religious or political weirdness, edit wars or personal attacks. And they have to write good articles, or their business will fail. --Cimbail (talk) 23:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"And they have to write good articles, or their business will fail." Don't you mean: "they have to write articles that will satisfy their client"? This is the goal of a paid editing activity, don't forget it. (While the goal is, for volunteers, to write an encyclopedia, following the 5 pillars.) Jules78120 (talk) 00:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(1) As for now, I still have not enough information about the extent of the problem. I am not prepared to support a requirement that forces a considerable number of honest contributors to disclose personal information, to kick out a very limited number of foul players. And it is indeed personal information, as those paid editors usually don't run big businesses. (2) OK, with yesterdays edit I had the paid writer for a multi-billion-dollar fortune in mind, who is indeed required to write high-quality articles. The community would rapidly stop any misinformation in high-profile articles. As far as the less important stuff is concerned, I am convinced the community will discover any false information and correct it - sooner or later. Any promotional bullshit is at permanent risk of being deleted or turned into the opposite. That will not protect us against every author disrespecting our goals. But, again, I can not see a dimension of the problem that justifies the proposal in question. (3) Well, some of the links provided here lead to closed Upworks pages. Seems closing down these pages was possible without the proposed rules. (4) The proposal is about non notable / barely notable and promotional articles? OK, just strictly enforce our citation requirements: no edits might be saved without proper citation. This would greatly reduce the problem, and it would give an overall boost to Wikipedia's quality. --Cimbail (talk) 17:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On EN WP the estimate of the number of articles involved is in the 100,000s. With respect to check user cases, some have estimated that over half are related to undisclosed paid editing cases. The COI notice board is very active. We have a couple of dozen active companies involved specifically in paid editing of Wikipedia with many having multiple staff.[2] So a substantial issue.
You claim "a considerable number of honest contributors". I have only come across a handful while I have come across 1000s of dishonest accounts. Can you provide evidence for your statement. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Requiring users who post a paid editing advert claiming they are editor X to verify they are indeed editor X makes sense. The proposal, as currently worded, goes further and requires paid editors who wouldn't want to identify themselves to link their accounts. That seems unjustified. (And also unenforcable.) --Tgr (talk) 03:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So how would you achieve "requiring users who post a paid editing advert claiming they are editor X to verify they are indeed editor X" And what about those who claim they are Wikipedians in good standing when they are not? Legal at the WMF believes this will help with enforcement. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By writing it into the terms of use, as you propose. And then asking freelancer sites to remove all adverts where the user identifies himself as a Wikipedia editor but there is no link back from the editor's user page. There is no reason to request such a link when the paid editing ad does not claim that the user is an established Wikipedia editor, though. --Tgr (talk) 08:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The ad references a specific editor ("I am User:Foo with one zillion edits and I will write your biography for $$$!"). This is pretty clearcut. The user has chosen to make their identity public and has nothing to complain about. Also the policy will protect users from impersonation.
The ad makes vague claims without specifying anyone ("I am an experienced admin on English Wikipedia"). Now paid editing without disclosure is against the ToU, and consequently advertisements playing on that are as well, but the advertiser could create a paid editing account, with the appropriate disclosures, and claim that they are an established editor (without telling who exactly). That's not against the ToU. In this case the proposed policy does not protect anyone from impersonation but arguably still protects the would-be employer (who probably can't verify the claim on their own) against false claims; and maybe the reputation of the Wikipedia community in some sense, which might be harmed by the public claim that high-level users are engaged in low-quality paid editing.
The ad makes no claims. Ie. an established editor creates a sock account for paid editing, makes the disclosures on the sock account (but not the primary one), and does not divulge in the advertisement or the sock description that they are an established Wikipedia editor. For an external viewer, this is not really distinguishable from paid editing by a non-established user hence there are no impersonation or reputation issues. The proposal gives no reason why disclosure on the main account should be required in this case, and there are obvious reasons why it shouldn't be required (harassment etc).
My opinion is that the proposal makes perfect sense for #1, it's more borderline but still a good idea for #2, and makes no sense for #3, so it should be rephrased so that it does not cover that case. (Maybe that's already the intention but it's not very clear - does "those involved with paid editing on Wikipedia" refer to those accounts or those users?) --Tgr (talk) 19:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal is just to require disclosure by the WP account doing the paid editing. Whether or not all accounts used by a paid editor are required to be connected is another question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The proposal is badly worded. There are concerns about it not working as meant and I cannot easily verify the effects. --LPfi (talk) 07:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathis B: Hey! Which ones? Everybody is free to participate to Wikipedia as a volunteer, anonymously. If people want to do paid editions AND to advertise it saying they are Wikipedians, it's their problem, and no one forces them to put personal information online (where they are advertising their business). Jules78120 (talk) 10:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I understand. But as I said, imho, it's their problem. We guarantee people that volunteers (people who are on Wikipedia to improve it, not to make money and satisfy a client) can be anonymous, that's all. Furthemore, if their personnal adress or phone number are already public and linked to their "advertising profile", it's not because of Wikipedia, and these information are already available. Jules78120 (talk) 11:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Goodwill edits highlight and expand topics required by society on its current development level, instead, you will advocate lots of promo-trash on pages. Also, be ready to forget Google top ranking. Let it be undercover with speed deletion of promo-trash, leaving pr-agencies de jure aside. Alex Khimich (talk) 09:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mechanisms to deal with COI / ghostwriting / etc are one of the requirements of being a high quality source. If we do not deal with this problem we should and likely will have our reputation harmed and thus could lose some of our google ranking. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not Wikipedia's business. That site is the one who needs to add link to wikipedia user page not wikipedia because all doubtful actions are on their side. --Igel B TyMaHe (talk) 14:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Policy on conflict of interest differs considerably between projects (Wikipedia editions). The proposal may be suitable for English Wikipedia – i don't know since I don't contribute to English Wikipedia – but clearly not for all Wikipedias. Unsigned by User:NH
Oppose I don't think the proposal is relevant to the problem. The problem announced here is that there are some people impersonating active users when advertising paid editing. The relevant solution would be: 1) asking these users to confirm (remember good old days when you were asked to confirm that the Meta account really belongs to you?) 2) asking to take down the ad if it is an impersonation indeed. The proposed solution actually means that we want people disclose their paid editing even if done from a completely separate account, which should be managed by local rules like w:en:WP:SOCK — NickK (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This proposal won't fix anything (as explained above), and will penalize honest paid editors (sometimes seasoned wikipedians) doing a good job improving articles following Wikipedia rules. I'm sorry, but seasoned Wikipedia editors can potentially be a big help for helping any companies, non-profit organizations, individuals, or entities improve articles on a given topic, by following the standards of Wikipedia (and the fact they're paid doesn't really matter from a content's quality point-of-view). We get it all wrong here, from the beginning. --Deansfa (talk) 17:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1) why would an honest paid editor not want to link to their site? How can any editor who wishes to conceal such information be considered honest?
2)the overwhelming majority of paid editing produces unsatisfactory articles. We used to say, and still should say, that if the company or person is really notable , one of our tens of thousands of active unpaid volunteers will know about it and write an article. The only reason to even tolerate any paid editing is that in practice we can not prohibit it, and it is better regulated in the open than hidden. DGG (talk) 02:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I think it's completely unenforceable and simply burdens those who are already playing by the rules anyway. Those who aren't won't give a rat's ass if we pass this. If impersonation of users is a real problem, then we should address that as standalone and not wrap it up in the paid editing debate. I've also seen a couple of assertions that this process will involve WMF legal, or that they've been consulted but do not see any of them commenting on this page and Doc explicitly called this out as not-a-WMF-initiative. Which is it? 😂 (talk) 04:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. With Bilby, Andy Mabbett and Cimbail. It still is pretty unclear what exactly the actual problem is. Unless this is clear for everyone and every project effected, the cost of connecting private data from platforms like Upworks with Wikipedia accounts is just not affordable and probably not effective. I would also suggest it is not in accordance with our privacy policy and I haven't read anything which tells that this has been properly checked. Alice Wiegand (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a german phrase, a metaphore. I wasn't aware that is doesn't work in english. It's too much of our values and principles we would give to get something from which we don't know if it helps to solve a problem which is not described in a way that Wikipedias beyond en.wp understand what this all about. (See for example german comment below and the discussion at de.wp.) Alice Wiegand (talk) 22:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you are referring to non financial "costs". Yes EN WP is hardest hit by the issues of undisclosed paid promotional editing, and thus these issues are of greatest immediate concern to this community. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While the paid editors would then simply claim that while they do paid editing they do it on a language other than English and disclosed in non English. They will than argue that they need not provide a link and thus are not in breach of our policies and thus should not have their account removed from Upworks / Fivver. Not only did I not want this loophole, but the TOU are here on meta.
Additionally we have other values such as independence (from the subject matter we write about) and being free from advertisements. Or at least disclosure of paid editing / advertising. Currently we are not doing well in upholding these values on EN WP. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are my English abilities really so bad? "on a site such as Fiverr or Upwork [..] these types of sites, some with whom we currently have good relationships, to remove those accounts" - I understand you want to remove accounts outside of our projects. Here you wrote the opposite. What do you really want? As you may noticed some (maybe many) users on de-WP don't understand your request. Stepro (talk) 21:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a request for a change in activity outside of Wikipedia. This is a request for a change on Wikipedia (ie requiring linking to the ads). With respect to requesting Upworks take down accounts, we already do a bunch of these every month for infringement of our trademark. This is just a slight extension of that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:04, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose First, the proposed wording is ambiguous and vague. I read it to mean that paid editors must disclose all the Wikipedia accounts they use (which I'd have no problem with) but it looks like it means that paid editors must disclose any account anywhere on any site through which they do paid editing. Those sites could include social media, which would mean requiring an unacceptable (to me) level of personal disclosure. Second, I am unconvinced that the proposal solves the stated problem of impersonation - which I believe does happen but I do not know how widespread the problem is, or even if it is a major problem. Without evidence that the scope of the problem justifies this particular solution, I cannot support it. Come back with some data on the issue, several potential solutions instead of just the one, and clear and precise wording and I'm much more inclined to support. Ca2james (talk) 04:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, mainly because I don't actually understand the wording of the proposal - it's very unclear. I don't think Meta is the proper venue for this kind of discussion - I think this is more appropriate as a project-level conversation (some Wikipedias might want this, some might not, and it's largely an English Wikipedia problem that we're trying to solve here - presumably even if this passes, individual projects can opt out). And I would prefer to see the proposal explicitly address Wikimedians in Residence rather than creating yet another rule that gets GLAM partners worried. Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 06:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is a multilingual problem so it might be best addressed here. For example, a multinational company might post an ad for articles in English, French, German, and Spanish. Or even a local Swiss company might post for 4 language versions. Each language version might have trouble dealing with the 1 article in its purview, but when all 4 are considered, the conclusion can be much easier. As far as getting GLAMs mixed up in this, I don't see how, it is certainly not aimed at them. Do they advertise on Upworks? Smallbones (talk) 02:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The statement of issue is weak and doesn't really lay out what the problem is. I can't see how the proposal would have helped the example case. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Opposeall other active accounts "accounts" is hard to define. This may mean any editor who accepts any form of monetary compensation is de facto disallowed from mentioning such work anywhere on the Internet, causing the aim of increasing transparency to backfire. Also echoing Bilby's points. Feminist (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what it is saying. What it IS saying is that if you are advertising editing services for pay you must link to that advertisement. This does not mean you need to link to any discussion you have of your WP work.
This is also saying that advertisements for pay are tolerated as long as they are linked to. So in fact it does not even disallow advertising of paid WP editing services. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you are looking for? WiR are required to disclose and generally do an excellent job of it. For example here is the disclosure by User:Bluerasberry[4] If a WiR where offering additional paid services via Upworks to edit Wikipedia for pay not sure why they would not want to disclose? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, Meta shouldn't be trying to make rules for specific projects such as Wikipedia without some clear constitutional settlement. For example, there's increasing friction between Wikidata and Wikipedia and some suppose that the English Wikipedia is sovereign. If there's a Meta rule then this should apply to all projects, not just Wikipedia. And introducing bureaucratic rules through the back door may have unintended consequences. For example, there's a contest which has just been launched on English Wikipedia with Amazon vouchers as an incentive. Paid editing, right? And there was an interesting experiment in which articles about advanced chemistry were written by experts in the field. They were paid in some fashion for their services and so that's paid editing too, right? Andrew D. (talk) 08:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that tool is broken by design. Anyhow, the example is totally moot as the tool has very little in common with what is asked for in this RfC. — Jeblad11:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lets see if I follow this, an editor commits fraud off-wiki, there's a new wiki-rule against that so we get to go on witch hunts for the suspected rule breakers in out midst, when we think we've found one it's just like a SPI, the account is banned and we feel safe again. I'm against policies that reach off-wiki based on suspicion, accusations based on an arbitrary rule to get control of other editors we treat with bad faith. Not at all what I expect from a community working together. Dougmcdonell (talk) 23:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No that is not how it works. It does not result in the banning of WP accounts but helps with the removal of advertising by those impersonating or not following our current rules. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How it works now - "impersonating" (as sock puppets do) will result in a block or a ban and not following COI rules, usually earns a block, being asked to delete a page with no other sanction is not the likely outcome of this new rule and I remain opposed to it until the consequences are spelled out much more clearly.Dougmcdonell (talk) 22:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The consequences of this are primarily offwiki. Users who advertise paid editing outside Wikipedia and identify their user handles in those ads will be required to state that in their user pages. That would prevent impersonations offwiki, as it will allow us to clearly demonstrate that the ads violate our policy. This is primarily not about onwiki behavior, but a way to prevent impersonation of editors offwiki. Chico Venancio (talk) 14:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, there is a bit of confusion over the use of the term "impersonation". This isn't about targeting people who are impersonating particular editors, in part because that almost never happens, and I'm concerned that saying "impersonation" is misleading people. This is about targeting people who say "I am an editor on Wikipedia" without proving that by linking to their off-wiki details from their on-wiki account. It doesn't matter if they provide a username or not when they make that claim, or if they provide identifiable details or not, just that they claim to edit Wikipedia. - Bilby (talk) 22:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Be that as it may, by "impersonation" you simply mean "claiming to be a Wikipedia editor", not "claiming to be editor X", although naturally the former would encompass the latter as well. - Bilby (talk) 23:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose First define what “paid editing” need, note that you don’t actually need to receive money to be a “paid editor”, a simple accusation of being “a spammer” just because you have a preference for a link 🔗 means that you have “an obvious COI”. So what makes a COI? Well, let’s look at me with Andrew West/BabelStone, I requested an image from him, I used his website as a reference in 4 (articles), and I wrote this. According to many like the “spam-fighters” en the ArbCom I have “an obvious COI” with this subject and requesting someone to upload images to Wikimedia Commons makes you “a paid editor” only because I also used sockpuppets even if at no time the sockpuppetry ever concerned encyclopedic content but everyone knows that every sockpuppeteer is a paid editor. 🤨 Obviously don't don’t have to get paid in money 💴, the word “paid editor” is just an excuse to get useful sites blacklisted. “Paid editing” in its current definition means that you like a subject and add sourced content relating to that subject and ask those people to upload images to Wikimedia Commons, it should be redefined to exclusively mean people who get money 💴 for their edits, and even then I wouldn't want to support this witch hunt 🧙♀️, seeing how the mere suspicion that I am “an obvious paid editor” means that no-one is allowed to use a source on any wiki related to that subject, even if it was placed years before I even used it. Obviously w:nl:Geschiedenis van Chinees muntgeld tijdens de Westelijke Xia this article is “spam”, and adding reliable references to content is “spamlinking” and if you research something via Google or Microsoft Bing the websites you use make it “an obvious COI” and if you pay $ 20,- of your own money to buy a book 📚 and ask the author to donate some images to Wikimedia Commons you're obviously “a paid editor” because giving money 💴 = being paid. 😑 No other website would define the term “paid editor” as this. Sent from my Microsoft Lumia 950 XL with Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile 📱. Also, who cares where the content comes from? As long as it satisfies WP:NPOV, WP:NOTABILITY, Etc. I wouldn't be opposed to them as free knowledge is more important than if It's acquisition was free or not. This witch 🧙♀️ hunt against paid editors just hurts the encyclopedia more than it benefits, and constantly removing references and sources from articles only benefits the witch hunter, not the WP:READERS. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 😒🌏🔒) (My global unlock 😄🌏🔓) 09:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Content added by any editor should be evaluated based upon existing GNGs. Good content is good content no matter who puts it in. We have paid editors adding relevant and valuable content. The information added to WP by people who are paid can be limited simply by a careful evaluation of the content. All we will be doing is driving paid editors into developing a system or method that will be more successful in getting their clients' information into WP. Notable people ask me all the time to create content about them. They might buy me a cup of coffee. YIKES! Now I am in trouble. If you read the biographical content I have added, you will find that it meets GNG and the cup of coffee had no influence on its creation. That is why a 'no paid editor' is a policy that is too fuzzy for me. WP 'guidelines' are creeping into being more and more restrictive. We see a problem, create a guideline and POOF - problem fixed. This will be the first step to create a new policy that will characterize Wikipedia as being the the encyclopedia that anyone can edit - as long as you don't make some money. This may be offensive to some editors but there are really two kinds of editors - ones who add content and the other consists of those editors who watch the ones who add content. Not everyone can contribute content for all sorts of reasons. But this is most definitely the case here: Those who can't or don't add content have no way to become a paid editor, do they? The opportunity of becoming a paid editor won't be offered to them, will it? Hence the effort against paid editing will be most strongly supported by those editors that don't add (much) content. Since they can't get paid for their contributions, neither should you. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 14:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To comment on that last point, people are hired to both write, remove well referenced content that they payer does not like, and "protect" articles. So their are jobs for all, not just content writers. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:04, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - sensible proposal. – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose This will only lead to wild goose hunts with nearly no real benefit. Problem no 1 is that you have no way to verify that two accounts on two different systems is controlled by the same person. Not even if the two accounts seemingly is involved in editing the same article, and not even if they seems to have the same user name. You must start with creating systems that allow identification and tracking of users, and as of now no such systems exists on Wikipedia. The only outcome of the proposal would be stalking and alienating users. It is quite frankly, not a good idea. — Jeblad 23:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Strong oppose Goodwill edits highlight and expand topics required by society on its current development level, instead, you will advocate lots of promo-trash on pages. Also, be ready to forget Google top ranking. Let it be undercover with speed deletion of promo-trash, leaving pr-agencies de jure aside. Alex Khimich (talk) 09:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
