4 ms·
I actually don't find paid Wikipedia editing inherently troublesome. The process of discussing and editing a Wikipedia page is entirely open. So why should a co
by dabernathy89 13y ago
I actually don't find paid Wikipedia editing inherently troublesome. The process of discussing and editing a Wikipedia page is entirely open. So why should a company not be able to contribute to their page if the community approves of the changes - especially if that company is open about their involvement? Perhaps higher standards of review should be applied, but I see no reason to consider it inherently suspect. And we should all be realistic - you would be hard pressed to find a company, organization, or individual who doesn't try to influence their Wikipedia page if they have the resources to.
- hobs 13y agoPaid editing by a random person, going to happen, could be a job for people, this is just called writing. Paid editing by someone with authority over Wikipedia, that is where I think people are going to draw the line.
- jebus989 13y agoNeither does the Wikipedia community on the whole [0]; the problem is when it's undisclosed. If the editor makes clear their conflict-of-interest, the edits should receive extra scrutiny for neutrality and due weight and the end result should be the same: a "warts and all", unbiased article about a notable topic. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PAY#Paid_editing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PAY#Paid_editing
- dabernathy89 13y agoThank you for posting that. I was under the impression that Wikipedia took a firm stance against all paid editing.
- emmelaich 13y agoThey also make a distinction (important!) between paid editing and paid advocacy. Read further in the thread.
- massysett 13y agoWikipedia's entire ruleset ("neutrality", no paid editing, no original research) winds up excluding anybody from the editing process who actually has knowledge about the subject of the article.