Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-03-04/Interview

Meet a paid editor: Before being indefinitely blocked, User:FergusM1970 made more than 4600 edits on the English Wikipedia, spread over eight years. In the last two years, he was paid to edit several articles for clients that included the Venezuelan energy company Derwick Associates. We spoke with him about his experiences.

Interview

Meet a paid editor

By The ed17

Before being indefinitely blocked, FergusM1970 made more than 4600 edits on the English Wikipedia, spread over eight years. In the last two years, he was paid to edit several articles for clients that included the Venezuelan energy company Derwick Associates; Fergus maintains that this was his only step into paid advocacy, rather than paid editing, a distinction that the Signpost has drawn attention to previously. Fergus was banned in December 2014 amid allegations of advocating for pay on behalf of e-cigarettes. We spoke with him about his experiences.

---

The ed17: How long did you edit for pay on Wikimedia sites?

• FergusM1970: I edited for pay for around two years—pretty much since I started freelancing. It's a very common category of freelance job now.

Ed: Is FergusM1970 your first account? If not, how have you evaded scrutiny by the English Wikipedia's checkuser tool?

• Fergus: Yes, it was my main Wikipedia account. To be honest it never occurred to me to use a different account for paid edits; I wasn't aware that paid editing was an issue, as Wikipedia's rules are so tortuous that no normal editor actually bothers to learn most of them. That's why it's so easy for POV-pushers to use them as a club to beat editors with.

Related articles

Does Wikipedia pay?

How paid editors squeeze you dry
31 January 2024

"Wikipedia and the assault on history"
4 December 2023

The "largest con in corporate history"?
20 February 2023

Truth or consequences? A tough month for truth
31 August 2022

The oligarchs' socks
27 March 2022

Fuzzy-headed government editing
30 January 2022

Denial: climate change, mass killings and pornography
29 November 2021

Paid promotional paragraphs in German parliamentary pages
26 September 2021

Enough time left to vote! IP ban
29 August 2021

Paid editing by a former head of state's business enterprise
25 April 2021

A "billionaire battle" on Wikipedia: Sex, lies, and video
28 February 2021

Concealment, data journalism, a non-pig farmer, and some Bluetick Hounds
28 December 2020

How billionaires rewrite Wikipedia
29 November 2020

Ban on IPs on ptwiki, paid editing for Tatarstan, IP masking
1 November 2020

Paid editing with political connections
27 September 2020

WIPO, Seigenthaler incident 15 years later
27 September 2020

Wikipedia for promotional purposes?
30 August 2020

Dog days gone bad
2 August 2020

Fox News, a flight of RfAs, and banning policy
2 August 2020

Some strange people edit Wikipedia for money
2 August 2020

Trying to find COI or paid editors? Just read the news
28 June 2020

Automatic detection of covert paid editing; Wiki Workshop 2020
31 May 2020

2019 Picture of the Year, 200 French paid editing accounts blocked, 10 years of Guild Copyediting
31 May 2020

English Wikipedia community's conclusions on talk pages
30 April 2019

Women's history month
31 March 2019

Court-ordered article redaction, paid editing, and rock stars
1 December 2018

Kalanick's nipples; Episode #138 of Drama on the Hill
23 June 2017

Massive paid editing network unearthed on the English Wikipedia
2 September 2015

Orangemoody sockpuppet case sparks widespread coverage
2 September 2015

Paid editing; traffic drop; Nicki Minaj
12 August 2015

Community voices on paid editing
12 August 2015

On paid editing and advocacy: when the Bright Line fails to shine, and what we can do about it
15 July 2015

Turkish Wikipedia censorship; "Can Wikipedia survive?"; PR editing
24 June 2015

A quick way of becoming an admin
17 June 2015

Meet a paid editor
4 March 2015

Is Wikipedia for sale?
4 February 2015

Shifting values in the paid content debate; cross-language bot detection
30 July 2014

With paid advocacy in its sights, the Wikimedia Foundation amends their terms of use
18 June 2014

Does Wikipedia Pay? The Moderator: William Beutler
11 June 2014

PR agencies commit to ethical interactions with Wikipedia
11 June 2014

Should Wikimedia modify its terms of use to require disclosure?
26 February 2014

Foundation takes aim at undisclosed paid editing; Greek Wikipedia editor faces down legal challenge
19 February 2014

Special report: Contesting contests
29 January 2014

WMF employee forced out over "paid advocacy editing"
8 January 2014

Foundation to Wiki-PR: cease and desist; Arbitration Committee elections starting
20 November 2013

More discussion of paid advocacy, upcoming arbitrator elections, research hackathon, and more
23 October 2013

Vice on Wiki-PR's paid advocacy; Featured list elections begin
16 October 2013

Ada Lovelace Day, paid advocacy on Wikipedia, sidebar update, and more
16 October 2013

Wiki-PR's extensive network of clandestine paid advocacy exposed
9 October 2013

Q&A on Public Relations and Wikipedia
25 September 2013

PR firm accused of editing Wikipedia for government clients; can Wikipedia predict the stock market?
13 May 2013

Court ruling complicates the paid-editing debate
12 November 2012

Does Wikipedia Pay? The Founder: Jimmy Wales
1 October 2012

Does Wikipedia pay? The skeptic: Orange Mike
23 July 2012

Does Wikipedia Pay? The Communicator: Phil Gomes
7 May 2012

Does Wikipedia Pay? The Consultant: Pete Forsyth
30 April 2012

Showdown as featured article writer openly solicits commercial opportunities
30 April 2012

Does Wikipedia Pay? The Facilitator: Silver seren
16 April 2012

Wikimedia announcements, Wikipedia advertising, and more!
26 April 2010

License update, Google Translate, GLAM conference, Paid editing
15 June 2009

Report of diploma mill offering pay for edits
12 March 2007

AstroTurf PR firm discovered astroturfing
5 February 2007

Account used to create paid corporate entries shut down
9 October 2006

Editing for hire leads to intervention
14 August 2006

Proposal to pay editors for contributions
24 April 2006

German Wikipedia introduces incentive scheme
18 July 2005

More articles

How paid editors squeeze you dry 31 January 2024 "Wikipedia and the assault on history" 4 December 2023 The "largest con in corporate history"? 20 February 2023 Truth or consequences? A tough month for truth 31 August 2022 The oligarchs' socks 27 March 2022 Fuzzy-headed government editing 30 January 2022 Denial: climate change, mass killings and pornography 29 November 2021 Paid promotional paragraphs in German parliamentary pages 26 September 2021 Enough time left to vote! IP ban 29 August 2021 Paid editing by a former head of state's business enterprise 25 April 2021 A "billionaire battle" on Wikipedia: Sex, lies, and video 28 February 2021 Concealment, data journalism, a non-pig farmer, and some Bluetick Hounds 28 December 2020 How billionaires rewrite Wikipedia 29 November 2020 Ban on IPs on ptwiki, paid editing for Tatarstan, IP masking 1 November 2020 Paid editing with political connections 27 September 2020 WIPO, Seigenthaler incident 15 years later 27 September 2020 Wikipedia for promotional purposes? 30 August 2020 Dog days gone bad 2 August 2020 Fox News, a flight of RfAs, and banning policy 2 August 2020 Some strange people edit Wikipedia for money 2 August 2020 Trying to find COI or paid editors? Just read the news 28 June 2020 Automatic detection of covert paid editing; Wiki Workshop 2020 31 May 2020 2019 Picture of the Year, 200 French paid editing accounts blocked, 10 years of Guild Copyediting 31 May 2020 English Wikipedia community's conclusions on talk pages 30 April 2019 Women's history month 31 March 2019 Court-ordered article redaction, paid editing, and rock stars 1 December 2018 Kalanick's nipples; Episode #138 of Drama on the Hill 23 June 2017 Massive paid editing network unearthed on the English Wikipedia 2 September 2015 Orangemoody sockpuppet case sparks widespread coverage 2 September 2015 Paid editing; traffic drop; Nicki Minaj 12 August 2015 Community voices on paid editing 12 August 2015 On paid editing and advocacy: when the Bright Line fails to shine, and what we can do about it 15 July 2015 Turkish Wikipedia censorship; "Can Wikipedia survive?"; PR editing 24 June 2015 A quick way of becoming an admin 17 June 2015 Meet a paid editor 4 March 2015 Is Wikipedia for sale? 4 February 2015 Shifting values in the paid content debate; cross-language bot detection 30 July 2014 With paid advocacy in its sights, the Wikimedia Foundation amends their terms of use 18 June 2014 Does Wikipedia Pay? The Moderator: William Beutler 11 June 2014 PR agencies commit to ethical interactions with Wikipedia 11 June 2014 Should Wikimedia modify its terms of use to require disclosure? 26 February 2014 Foundation takes aim at undisclosed paid editing; Greek Wikipedia editor faces down legal challenge 19 February 2014 Special report: Contesting contests 29 January 2014 WMF employee forced out over "paid advocacy editing" 8 January 2014 Foundation to Wiki-PR: cease and desist; Arbitration Committee elections starting 20 November 2013 More discussion of paid advocacy, upcoming arbitrator elections, research hackathon, and more 23 October 2013 Vice on Wiki-PR's paid advocacy; Featured list elections begin 16 October 2013 Ada Lovelace Day, paid advocacy on Wikipedia, sidebar update, and more 16 October 2013 Wiki-PR's extensive network of clandestine paid advocacy exposed 9 October 2013 Q&A on Public Relations and Wikipedia 25 September 2013 PR firm accused of editing Wikipedia for government clients; can Wikipedia predict the stock market? 13 May 2013 Court ruling complicates the paid-editing debate 12 November 2012 Does Wikipedia Pay? The Founder: Jimmy Wales 1 October 2012 Does Wikipedia pay? The skeptic: Orange Mike 23 July 2012 Does Wikipedia Pay? The Communicator: Phil Gomes 7 May 2012 Does Wikipedia Pay? The Consultant: Pete Forsyth 30 April 2012 Showdown as featured article writer openly solicits commercial opportunities 30 April 2012 Does Wikipedia Pay? The Facilitator: Silver seren 16 April 2012 Wikimedia announcements, Wikipedia advertising, and more! 26 April 2010 License update, Google Translate, GLAM conference, Paid editing 15 June 2009 Report of diploma mill offering pay for edits 12 March 2007 AstroTurf PR firm discovered astroturfing 5 February 2007 Account used to create paid corporate entries shut down 9 October 2006 Editing for hire leads to intervention 14 August 2006 Proposal to pay editors for contributions 24 April 2006 German Wikipedia introduces incentive scheme 18 July 2005

Ed: Do you only operate on the English Wikipedia, and how many articles have you been compensated for editing?

• Fergus: I only operated on the English Wikipedia. I can't actually remember how many articles I was paid to edit; it was a pretty small percentage of my freelance writing work. Between a dozen and 20.

Ed: To broach a potentially taboo topic area, how much do you charge clients for creating or maintaining articles?

• Fergus: It would depend on what the client was looking for. To edit an existing article, anywhere between $50 and $100. To create a new one, $75–$150 depending on length. I'd charge extra to watchlist it, generally $75–$100 for three months. In that time I'd patrol edits and attempt to deal with any attempt to remove the article.

Ed: Have you consistently disclosed when you were editing for pay?

• Fergus: No, I didn't disclose that because up to the point where I started getting (frankly pretty unpleasant) emails from (Redacted) I wasn't aware I was supposed to.

Ed: If a client's preferred topic is not notable under Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, how do you proceed?

• Fergus: Early on I had a couple of articles deleted because they didn't meet WP:N. Later I started being a lot more discriminating and would tell clients up front that the article wouldn't stick. Often they asked if putting out a press release would help; I told them no, it wouldn't.

Ed: Jimmy Wales, the co-founder of Wikipedia, has endorsed a so-called "bright line", which "is simply that if you are a paid advocate, you should disclose your conflict of interest and never edit article space directly. You are free to enter into a dialogue with the community on talk pages, and to suggest edits or even complete new articles or versions of articles by posting them in your user space." Is this a viable option for paid advocates?

• Fergus: I don't think paid advocacy is acceptable at all. I only did it once, because I was financially quite squeezed at the time, and felt distinctly uncomfortable about it.

Ed: In your opinion, how should the Wikimedia sites deal with paid editing and advocacy? Where should the proverbial line in the sand be drawn?

• Fergus: I don't see any problem whatsoever with paid editing. As long as the article meets the notability and neutral point of view policies, what does it matter? Advocacy is another thing entirely. Paid advocacy should not be permitted, as it's POV-pushing by its very nature. I also have serious concerns about advocacy by people who may not be paid directly but have a conflict of interest, such as a lot of what happens around the WP:MED cabal and its efforts to spread its influence into non-medical articles.

In this issue

4 March 2015 (all comments)

From the editor

News and notes

Editorial

Traffic report

Arbitration report

Interview

In the media

Featured content

Technology report

Blog

+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try .

Fascinating! I wonder how many folks like Fergus are lurking around, just trying to supplement their income.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I carefully estimate that there are about 40 people on Earth who, in the past 2 years, have earned more than $200 specifically for writing content for Wikipedia and/or publishing content on Wikipedia, where that was not "already" a tacit part of a wider job (such as a Communications Director for an organization or a PR firm touching up a client's article). There are probably 500 people who have edited Wikipedia with an undisclosed financial conflict of interest of some kind, just in the past month -- it's just that they weren't specifically paid for those edits. - 2601:B:BB80:61D:54CB:8780:9667:BB31 (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC) (banned paid editor) (Smallbones, feel free to delete this, if you feel that need to silence useful information, just because it came from a banned editor)

The problem that a paid advocate has when he openly edits is that his readers realize that he will lie when it suits his wallet. The problem that a banned editor has when he edits openly is that his readers know that he is lying every time he edits. ("Who me? I'm following the rules" he might say.) So nobody will believe him. 40 paid editors on Wikipedia in the last two years? Aren't you afraid that people will think you are lying for your own benefit? See below. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

That's boll. I have User:AlexNewArtBot/PolandSearchResult on my watchlist and routinely there pop up articles about some minor companies by a red-colore user name which are carefully crafted with dozens of references which take long time to verify they are mostly press-release fluff plus occasional mentions in lists. "I carefully estimate that there is" no way a newbie is capable of going thru pains of crafting an AfD-survivable article from a piece of crap. Normally newbies just cut and paste the "about" piece of their fav business. So "I carefully estimate" that both paid editing and paid consultancy is alive and kicking. And if you put a hook on "wikipedia" in the news, you will be notice lots of adverts of wikipedia handymen. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Its a black market of sorts so it's not easy to determine how big it is. Surely people at companies are tasked every day with getting an article created on their company. As for the 40 number, we have no idea how he came up with that, so its not worth much.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• For sure, hundreds at least are looking for clients: it's easy to see them, just count applicants and offers on freelancer websites. Then there are probably thousands who do some editing as part of other work and are untraceable. Judging from the publicly visible portion of this demimonde, which is just the tip of the iceberg, the terms of use didn't change anything. It's harder to judge the impact on those we don't know, like cultural institutions' employees; those tend to be more shy, so I'd expect they were deterred (every new rule deters a good faith contributor). --Nemo 06:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
• And their number is growing. This is Capitalism, dude. Every minute a sucker is born. I am am wondering if anybody going to publish an investigative report about the feature which allowed creating book from collection of wikipedia articles. Suddenly Google Books search was flooded with wikipedia imprints 10 bucks apiece, with dozens of micropublishers. It may mean off-topic, but it is to my point that people never cease to make a buck off your free work. of Red Hat Linux didn't teach you a lesson how Capitalists feed of naive Altruists. Still, IMO paid advocacy is kindergarten games. Just you wait for WikiWorldWar 1.0 when all major governments realize the opportunities for subversion. A thou or so admins and a dozen of Arbcom will be choked with investigations of disruption. All wikipedia articles on politics will be edit-protected. A mighty cabal of sleeper admins will rise to rule wikipedia... How about a nice dystopia novel with this plot? Staszek Lem (talk) 22:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
• As a freelancer specialized in MediaWiki, I get invited to paid editing jobs every month, sometimes every week. I always reject them with a link to WP:COI. I did once a paid article, but years later I felt bad about it, reported it, and eventually someone deleted it ha. Paid editing is probably very common, but I can't think of a solution other than tracking existing freelance jobs, which no one is about to do, and clients don't usually post information that may lead to their article in the job descriptions. --Felipe (talk) 12:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I find it hugely distasteful that the Signpost gives a stage for paid shills to attack the editors who opposed their undisclosed advocacy. As a fully paid-up member of the WP:MED cabal (there is no cabal), I despair of the amount of time I have sometimes had to spend defending a basic Wikipedia principle like finding and using only the best quality sources. Many Wikimedians know me off-wiki and would confirm that the very thought that I could have a COI regarding the edits I make to medical articles is beyond laughable.

Of course the POV-pushers and SPAs want to exclude "their" articles from WP:MEDRS because it's so much easier to shove their insidious bias into articles if they can cherry-pick poor quality sources to bolster their views. The truth is that MEDRS is only what RS would be if every topic area had such a wealth of sources that medicine has. And anybody who believes that articles making health claims (like e-cigs) shouldn't be held to the same high standards as other medicine-related articles deserves an encyclopedia run by the POV-pushers and paid advocates. --RexxS (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

re: "to exclude "their" articles from WP:MEDRS" - you probably meant "to exclude "their" articles from the control of WP:MEDRS guideline " or smth., otherwise the phrase reads weird. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

He means from the "scope" of MEDRS. I entirely agree with RexxS, and in many issues, such as e-cigs, there is diversity of views within the "cabal", reflecting the global medical/health sources, reflecting the emerging body of research. But we are agreed that medical claims need medical sources. Johnbod (talk) 16:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Is there any summary or research on the extent of paid editing (including advocacy) and disclosure rates? The 2014 wmf:Terms of Use prohibit undisclosed paid editing. Culturally, we have WP:COI, and specifically WP:AGF & WP:OUTING combined with a lack of tools and appetite. This appears a clash of cultures that currently only WMF can navigate. RexxS is right that MED is the exception to this due to WP:MEDRS. To add my WP:OR to the IP's above, I've seen hundreds of suspected undisclosed paid editing accounts - some unaware of the need to disclose. Should this corrosive, long-term issue be buried in the smallprint? Widefox; talk 01:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I've watched out for paid editor disclosures fairly carefully since last June when the new Terms of Use went into effect. There have been at least 5 disclosures (not counting GLAM folks who are pretty much exempt). There may be others, but it is clear that the vast majority of paid editors are not disclosing. They should know now that they are intentionally breaking the rules if they don't disclose. We should make absolutely sure that they know the disclosure rule, but it is not a secret that disclosure is required.
  • I agree with Widefox that the WMF needs to step up and help out here. There are some things that they can do that individual editors cannot. For example they can use their own PR apparatus to let those newspapers and bloggers, who give advice on how to get away with paid editing, know that that is against our rules. They can also let those sites that advertise paid editing services know that those efforts are not appreciated. But admins need to do lots more also. Strict enforcement of our rules against promotion, marketing, PR, and advertising would help a lot. That's what paid editors do promotion, marketing, PR, and advertising. Enforce those rules and there will be lots less paid advocacy to handle. And when an obvious case of paid advocacy comes up, nobody needs to insist that we have absolutely incontrovertible DNA and fingerprint evidence. A "duck test" should do as well here as with many other rules we have to deal with - the weight of the evidence should be enough.
  • Arbs need to enforce the rules as well. In the Wifione case the arbs set out a principle stating that they did not have a mandate to enforce the ToU, our paid editing policy. Make no mistake, the ToU is an English Wikipedia policy, and Arbcom has a mandate to enforce Wikipedia policies. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

It appears that MyWikiBiz has devised a business plan ( mywikibiz.com/Directory:MyWikiBiz/Paid_editing) (NB: This link had to be converted to plaintext due to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist jp×g 09:54, 3 December 2022 (UTC)) that exempts them from the WMF Terms of Use clause about disclosure of paid contributions. They get paid for advice, research, and writing of content, all off-Wikipedia. Once they're paid for that, they'll post content to Wikipedia as a personal courtesy to the client, and no refund or rebate is given should the content be removed from Wikipedia. - 2601:B:BB80:61D:941:882B:E0BA:CAF2 (talk) 03:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

So pretending to fool yourself - i.e. lying - is part of your business plan. I'm sure your customers know that both you and they are covered by the terms of use. So it looks like you are asking for action to be taken against you and your customers. There should be no complaints then when it comes. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 05:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• OMG! You had an interview with him!!! Gosh, love the fellow.. Though heard about it earlier, he gets a good amount as salary. ArbCom needs more works, certainly..Ṫ Ḧ ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 04:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
• I worked on a page for a company a few years ago simply because my buddy there bought me drinks. hen their marketing made certain requests I told him "no, that won't fly", "I have to rework it as...", or "that meets the project's standards". Not that hard.Cptnono (talk) 05:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
• I have no problem with paid editing. But paid advocacy, and pure spam is a problem; we have thousands or articles that need to be deleted (failing WP:CORP). I am prodding/AfDing several a week (~90% success rate), that's a drop in the bucket. Help! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Paid advocacy is of course not only putting positive things into articles. Sometimes it is also a case of keeping positive things out, like on Organic food where the use of MEDRS is completely illogical - and to my opinion - misused. The Banner talk 10:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Why is it illogical to insist that the Organic food article only uses the best sources? Or that claims concerning the putative health benefits of particular foodstuffs shouldn't meet the agreed Wikipedia standards for sourcing such medical/health claims? --RexxS (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
• We have had good success when we request other websites to take down accounts that infringe upon our terms of use. Now if we can get the WMF to enforce / help enforce our terms of use we might be able to make a dent in the problem. Would be good to be a little more proactive. How often is this happening? Not that often within medicine but there are hundreds of accounts in other areas. I have a list but it is unclear if these details are allowed on WP per [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• And you had me going there until you mentioned a "cabal". Yep, those sinister medical editors, seeking to insure that articles are "scientifically accurate". How dare they! I do think that FergusM1970 sounds quite reasonable here. However, I read a lot of FergusM1970's comments at ANI and elsewhere when I was editing Doc James's op-ed on this subject of paid editing, and FergusM1970 wasn't making an effort to sound like a reasonable, cooperative person with those remarks. Gamaliel (talk) 05:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • He did offer to help us deal with paid editors by reporting them to the sites in question and having their accounts closed. But of course we would have had to have paid him. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
• I did editing for pay when it was still okay to do so, and I fired more than one client for trying to get me to shove non-notable crap through. A look through my edit history will never reveal where those paid edits went, because they were all good edits. In fact, I spent have spent a lot more time gutting crappy business articles than I ever did beefing anything up for money. The problem with banning paid editing is that crap edits will still happen, whether for pay or not. The problem with requiring paid editors to disclose their arrangement is that editors develop biases against paid editors and refuse to evaluate edits against Wikipedia standards, but that happens all the time anyway. The result of taking the moral high ground is that good editors, like myself, decide it's not worth the trouble, and paid editing is relegated to people with sock farms and no regard for improving the encyclopedia. I can't fathom a more struthious policy decision.--~TPW 23:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  

The Signpost is written by editors like you – join in!

Home

About

Archives

Newsroom

Subscribe

Suggestions