User talk:Phearson/PED

Paid editors marked?

Would forcing paid editors to place a template on their page identifying them as so, be helpful to the community? Phearson (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose, but I wasn't aware that there were any "paid editors" unless you're meaning people with possible WP:COI problems, like someone an organization is paying for publicity via Wikipedia. Wabbott9 (talk) 20:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is completely unenforceable, with the unintentional but unavoidable result that it would give dishonest paid editors an advantage over honest ones.
If we really wanted to do something about this problem, we might stop telling people that they can't use their employer's name as their username. A userbox isn't nearly as effective a leper's bell as as username like "Bill at Microsoft" (which is permitted, to the surprise of many users) or even "Microsoft" (which is not permitted). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes. Paid editors should identify themselves on their user page to enable admins to block them with ease. (I say snarkily, but paid editing is highly discouraged, perhaps irrationally. One could have paid editing that isn't shilling: imagine some crazy rich billionaire type like Bill Gates wanted to improve articles on some obscure topic like the history of Africa and put a few million into a fund that would pay out to any editor who took an article on the chosen topic area to FA, that wouldn't be an issue. Paid editing is only an issue when it is paid COI editing or commercial shilling which, sadly, is the only sort of paid editing anyone ever seems to want to do.) I'm also in favour of vandals identifying themselves on their userpage with a new "I'm a vandal" template so we can block them easily. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it was the Google Foundation, rather than Gates: Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Google Project has some information about a largely successful paid-editor program. They hired professional science writers to review some of our health-related articles and, if they wanted, to fix a few things. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its unenforceable, is just another mechanism that will be thrown at inexperienced editors, and any editors that obey the rule are the ones who will be the least likely inappropriately allow their conflict of interest to influence their writing. Basically it will be punitive against those acting in good faith, while not doing anything about the rest. Monty ₈₄₅ 20:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]