Wikipedia talk:Paid-contribution disclosure/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Disclosure contradiction

• At the top, we have from the ToU "must"...and "or"
• In the "How to disclose" section we have "should" and "should also"
  • Presumably because "should" is attempting to standardise on a preferred/standardised way to perform the "must"
• Propose for now changing wording to keep in line with ToU "must" "or"
• Unless this is a conscious attempt to be both weaker and stronger than the ToU?
  • If the attempted meaning is that en.WP requires it, using "must" instead of "should" is clear
  • If both locations are required (so stronger than the ToU), it must say "and"

Normally, one can replace "should" with "probably won't" in these things. Ping SlimVirgin. Widefox; talk 23:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Also, At WP:COIN I've questioned the use of a user subpage for the first option. It is still a user page, but not the user page. To see the example paid editor in question's disclosure takes three clicks from the userpage due to two nested hidden sections and the final click. This may technically satisfy the wording of the ToU being a user page, but three clicks seems far from the spirit of transparency. If the userpage is actually the only location for that option (my understanding), then we can tighten that wording, and the wording must make it clear it must be clearly visible (i.e. not hidden behind more clicks, no smallprint, no creative colours etc).
• While I'm here, paid editors often draft. The current wording appears to cover it "statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions" but they can sail through AfC or moved from userspace with current editors not considering this breaking the ToU (see COIN discussion). Commonly, paid and non-paid editors may only consider this important/valid once in article space, when disclosure will often then be made.
• To clarify:
• ToU does cover drafts?
  • Talk disclosure is required on drafts (and/or depending on above)? Widefox; talk 00:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

@Widefox: I would say "User page" should be construed as root user page User:Example. Paid editors must also tag all edits relating to their paid COI even if it is not made at the article in question cf discussion boards and deletion discussions, by placing Paid edit or some equivalent in the edit summary. This should take care of AfC but I would say the intention of the disclosure is that they place the disclosure on all AfC submissions. Jbh^Talk 00:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Given the choice in drafting guidance for paid editors one should always choose to use "shall". Jbh^Talk 00:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Good, then this must be explicit in PAID, to prevent the current confusion about subpages - for instance my COIN entry. Paid editors will naturally go for the least effective interpretation. We need to be explicit about it being visible with no user action (not contained in a collapsable section etc) per that COIN disclosure.

"Shall" would normally be OK, but we cannot water down the ToU. "must" do this... and they "shall" use that method is OK.

It isn't clear to me if PAID is trying to be more strict that TOU by requiring all/and vs the ToU "or". At COIN, another editor considers it to be or. Widefox; talk 01:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Note that this page cannot be weaker than the ToU, so "must" and "shall" are ok, but "should" really isn't. "And" was intended to be stricter than the ToU. Disclosure is required by the ToU for all contributions, including talk pages, drafts, deletion discussions, etc. I think the rules here emphasize articles only, perhaps we could say that for drafts and AfC the template should be used at the top of the page, other contributions such as deletion discussions, the disclosure could be simple text just before the signature. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I've replaced should with shall. My understanding of the ToU is A or B or C. PAID had A and B, so I've now added C in: A and (B or when not possible C). It would help if we added something explicit about drafts as they can have a talk page. The current wording means it shall be used to declare. If my wording is not the intended meaning, please just revert me. Widefox; talk 09:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Update: I'm done fixing the urgent stuff. In summary, ToU is Talk or (the) Userpage or Editsummary. PAID is now (T or when not possible E) and U. As drafts can have a talk, they are implicitly included, and shall be used for the stated disclosure. We may want to explicitly state this, as every paid editor I've seen has no disclosure on the drafts, and is not fully compliant with PAID. Widefox; talk 11:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

needs a bit of work

I like the general ideas expressed above, but feel that they aren't expressed entirely clearly in the current text (shown here for reference)

How to disclose

Editors who are compensated for their contributions shall make the disclosure by placing the {{connected contributor (paid)}} template at the top of the talk page of affected articles and filling in the parameters. They shall also supply this information as a clearly visible list of all their paid contributions on their main user page. When it is not possible to use a talk page, the edit summary shall be used. This transparency helps the Wikipedia community to understand and analyze the source and scope of paid editing, and to ensure that content originating from paid editors complies with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

My suggestions are along the line of

How to disclose

Editors who are compensated for their contributions must disclose their paid editing status by placing the {{connected contributor (paid)}} template near the top of their main user page and filling in the parameters. This disclosure must be clearly visible on the user page and should not be removed.

For paid contributions to articles the paid editor must also place the {{connected contributor (paid)}} template at the top of the talk page of affected articles and fill in the parameters. This template should not be removed.

On draft articles and submissions to Articles for Creation, the paid editor must also place the template near the top of the page.

For all other contributions related to a paid edit, including edits to talk pages, deletion discussions, and noticeboards, the paid editor must disclose his or her paid status in the edit summary, and should also disclose in the text of the edit.

This transparency helps the Wikipedia community to understand and analyze the source and scope of paid editing, and to ensure that content originating from paid editors complies with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

I hope that makes everything clear by separating out all the possible situations. I'm not completely set on the reqired disclosures for each situation however.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Seems good. It is certainly apropos. Penelope1114‎ just buried several disclosures [1] as not being "current". My AGF is weak when I see stuff like that. I have been using this boilerplate:

Please read make sure you have read and understand WP:COIDISCLOSEPAY. You must pPlace {{paid|client=Who paid for your edits|employer=Who pays you}} on your user page for each client/employer and place {{Connected contributor (paid)|User1=Youruser name|U1-employer=Who pays you|U1-client= Who paid for the edits|U1-otherlinks= Any additional information}} on the article talk page. You must also disclose your paid editor status in the edit summary of any edits relating to your paid status, such as on the article, its talk page and deletion or noticeboard discussions by including Paid edit as part of the edit summary. Thank you for your understanding.

When notifying PEs of the disclosure requirements. Jbh^Talk 14:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC) Amended. Jbh^Talk 17:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the removal of one of the assignments after less than a month illustrates the need for a set display period. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Although personally I don't have any issues with laying out a mandatory procedure for following the terms of service, note unless this guidance passes an RfC to become a guideline, it can only serve as advice. Is there a plan to establish a general community consensus for the procedure? isaacl (talk) 15:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

As I understand it the ToU requires disclosure and specifies how it must be done. In no place does it mention that it is ever OK to 'un-disclose' so without specific policy changes if an editor removed any of the required disclosures at any time they are in violation of the ToU. Jbh^Talk 15:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

For example, the terms of use don't specify that the {{connected contributor (paid)}} template must be used. Like I said, I don't have an issue with having a more detailed procedure, but unless it becomes a guideline, discussing the use of "must" versus "should" is a moot point. isaacl (talk) 16:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

@Isaacl: Please see Conflict of Interest#Declaring an interest where the use of these templates is specified. Jbh^Talk 16:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's a circular reference: it points to this page as the source of information, and it says "should", which of course is what this page used to say. My key point is that the terms of use don't specify details like how a specific template should be used, and no related mandatory procedure has gone through the RfC process to make it a guideline. isaacl (talk) 16:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

So long as they disclose all of the required material in all of the places - which is a must - they are not going to get penalized and someone can just fill out the proper templates for them so everything gets added to the proper categories. I do not object to wording that says something like 'You must disclose... You should use (templates) to disclose'. However that is, in my opinion, a distinction without a difference and simply requiring the use of the templates in the guidance will keep down the work load of those who need to go and fill it out for the paid editors. Jbh^Talk 16:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I suggest using the imperative mode: If you are an editor who is compensated for your contributions, place the {{connected contributor (paid)}} template at the top of the talk page of affected articles and fill in the parameters. Also place a clearly visible list of all your paid contributions on your main user page. If it is not possible to use a talk page, use the edit summary. isaacl (talk) 16:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

See the change I made above based on your suggestion. Jbh^Talk 17:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks; the language is more concise and direct as a result. isaacl (talk) 00:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• All for better wording.
  

Personally I'm against setting any time limit at this point. Not sure we can actually say what end of disclosure is needed at all (legally, from our perspective right now, we can only operate within the legal framework given to us from WMF) when the edits are still active. That is the only timeframe that matters. There's another issue that disclosure is needed when WP is copied. That may have been covered, anyone? I would avoid the word "assignment". Any time limit may also have unintended consequence - it may act as a statute of limitation, encouraging (risking) non-disclosure until the period is up. (boilerplate markup fixed BTW)
Drafts are best to have their disclosure already on their talk, and not sure about AfC (but in principle, AfC should decline any without). I'm presuming in both procedures that the talk also gets moved. Widefox; talk 16:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that at present there is no allowance in the terms of use to remove notices, and so an expiry time should not be specified. isaacl (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

@Isaacl: first we all have to realize that this project page is the current policy of the English-language Wikipedia. So please don't use the word "guideline" in reference to it. There have been 2 or 3 RfCs already on this talk page (and archive) so we don't have a problem of not inviting enough input here. And, of course, the Terms of Use change resulted from the largest RfC in history, with just under 80% support for it.

There are 2 ways that policies are changed on Wikipedia. First - for relatively small changes - proposals are made on the talk page and discussed and if they get enough support, they can be put right into the policy. This is the practice on every policy, no formal RfC is needed. But for larger changes, an RfC is certainly useful. According to the ToU an RfC is required for an alternative policy to the ToU, but there are no special rules for changing this policy in a way that does not weaken or revoke to ToU. I do suggest we have an RfC for this particular change, especially inviting the folks at AfC to contribute, as well as the community at large.

This policy does strengthen the ToU requirements in saying that the disclosure must go on the user page (not just 1 of 3 possible places). I don't see any problem with us saying "and this disclosure must be visible there for at least period x", at least if 1 of the other 2 disclosures was made. I'm thinking @Widefox: may oppose this because he thinks that the disclosure becomes "invisible", but the other 2 forms of disclosure in effect become invisible, maybe even after a few months. Moving the disclosure to a 2ndary talk page certainly makes it "traceable" assuming that there is a clear link on the main talk page. I've made a change above "A disclosure must be visible on the user page for at least one year and..." to prevent the "statute of limitations problem."

I'm guessing that Isaacl doesn't like the required period because it's too strict, if we say this then people might assume that the disclosure must be visible for an extended period of time. Yes, I think that is the intention of the ToU, but after a couple of years there's not much additional benefit - none if the paid edit is otherwise easily traceable. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

What problem does it solve? The ToU has no time limit, so unless someone can explain what problem this is solving...in reality, it may take weeks/months to get all the editors disclosures out properly. What we need is stable, consistent policies. Once then, we can add fancy timeouts (if legally allowed per ToU). Until then, this just seems a non-starter. Widefox; talk 18:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I guess the problem I was considering was whether "disclosed" is being used as a verb or as an adjective. Adjective would imply an on-going disclosure. Verb would be "one-and-done" and might even allow removal. In any case how does this sound?

"Editors who are compensated for their contributions must disclose their paid editing status by placing the {{connected contributor (paid)}} template near the top of their main user page and filling in the parameters. This disclosure must be clearly visible on the user page and should not be removed."

And I changed the remaining "paid editing assignments" to "paid edit."

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:41, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

As you stated, there are areas on this page that are specifying additional requirements on top of the terms of use. These are the sections I am referring to regarding the need for an RfC, and not the areas which are already policy. As you should be aware of from our previous conversations, I am familiar of the history and context. isaacl (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding your guess, I'm not sure why you have to guess. I explicitly stated my objection: the terms of use at present don't say the notice can be removed, so strictly speaking it needs to stay. Like you said, it's policy. isaacl (talk) 00:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding how guidelines and policies are enacted: see Wikipedia's guidance on the lifecycle of guidelines and policies. A well-publicized discussion is needed, and an RfC is the best way to do that. isaacl (talk) 00:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:PAID is explicit in that we can't relax "this policy". A timeout may be construed as a relax (I don't know). Yes, now I've gone full circle with PAID...so I'm back to the start - ToU specifies Talk or Userpage or Editsummmary. PAID states we can't make PAID more lax (implying PAID can be stronger). It currently specifies (T or when not possible E) and U. Is there a discussion to this and being widely agreed upon? The wording at COI guideline is out of sync too. (if there's no objections I'll sync with the wording here)

From looking at this briefly, what do we do for a disclosure that satisfies ToU but not the more strict PAID? For example, a paid editor may claim E is enough according to the ToU? Fundamentally, what are we allowed to specify here, and what level of consensus is required and has been reached already. Widefox; talk 16:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm having difficulty following your argument: by PAID, do you mean this page (e.g. WP:PAID)? I don't understand what you mean by "PAID states we can't make PAID more lax": do you mean that this article can't relax requirements specified by the terms of use (absent an RfC that overrides the WMF policy)?

Regarding your question of what happens if someone fails to meet the requirements specified in this page that are beyond the requirements in the terms of use, unless it gains consensus approval to become a guideline or policy, it's considered advice. Now some advisory essays are very influential (such as Wikipedia's guidance on the bold, revert, discuss cycle); it remains to be seen how this page will be considered. isaacl (talk) 16:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

A disclosure that is consistent only with the ToU is insufficient because PAID, the community policy implementing the ToU, defines how the disclosures should be made by referring to COIDISCLOSEPAY. A good way to think about it is PAID is the enabling legislation and COIDISCLOSEPAY is the regulation.

There is no real contradiction between the two pages. PAID says "must disclose their employer, client and affiliation with respect to any paid contributions, on their main user page, the talk pages of affected articles, or in edit summaries". This is clarified in COIDISCLOSEPAY with "on their main user page" = {{paid}}, "the talk pages of affected articles" = {{connected contributor (paid)}} and "or in edit summaries" refers to placing Paid edit or equivalent in discussions on other pages such as noticeboard and deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 20:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused; are you replying to me? I haven't discussed any of the questions you're responding to. isaacl (talk) 23:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I was responding to "...what do we do for a disclosure that satisfies ToU but not the more strict PAID?" which was Widefox but I misread as being you. Jbh^Talk 00:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

(ec) isaacl yes, I was rushing and realised at the time it was imprecise (fixed above). Couple of points:

We need to be less ambiguous about the use of the word "policy" - both the ToU and PAID are described as policies, especially in "Changing this policy".

The relationship must be spelled out - ie if PAID imposes additional requirements than stated in the ToU, then it should be (more) explicit that it "adds additional requirements" over the ToU (conversely if not, then there's no point in having anything different in PAID than the ToU).

Wording - do we agree PAID cannot use "advises" and "should" for this? Per above (per weakening the ToU), it is weaker than the ToU "must", and "shall" seems appropriate (if somewhat more archaic English).

Minimise the circular logic - PAID is the policy and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest has a {{main}} to it, so we cannot have PAID refer to the wording coming from the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. I'm sure this is an easy one to separate the policy from the guideline, and use the appropriate {{main}} or {{further}}. Anyone?

I suggest we agree the wording on this talk and implement on both simultaneously. e.g. PAID doesn't mention edit summaries now, but COI does. We have to cover it in PAID somewhere, as it's in the ToU policy (so leaving off would be weaker). Widefox; talk 23:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Terms of use

Just a note about editing this: the TOU can't be changed here (for example, this edit). When we say "must," we're referring to the TOU. The rest is advice, perhaps strong advice, but not to be confused with the TOU. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I was adding it back from this [2] since I thought it added ambiguity. Does the ToU allow editors to disclose only in an edit summary? - Guess it does... However this page is how English Wikipedia has chosen to implement the ToU and, unless I am very wrong, we require disclosure on both user page and article talk page, not just in edit summaries, as is allowed with the text as it stands. Jbh^Talk 01:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Example [3] wikilawyer within seconds. Jbh^Talk 01:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

The TOU allow disclosure on a user page, article talk or edit summary, but the community expects disclosure on talk. So it's just a question of being careful how we word it. If someone is refusing to disclose on talk, you can always add {{connected contributor (paid)}} yourself. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

The problem comes up with multiple clients or multiple employers - much like the paid editor in that diff. It is very easy for editors to say "I already said I was a paid editor" and then not disclose all of the required material ie only one {{paid}} on their talk page or just Pail edit in an edit summary. Most paid editors are going the least disclosure possible based on any loophole they can wiggle through. Jbh^Talk 01:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I have to disagree somewhat with Sarah. This entire page is policy (I'll call it WP:PAID) The ToU is also policy and is incorporated into WP:PAID. PAID can however be stricter than the ToU is. The ToU cannot be weakened except by an extraordinary RfC. PAID can be strengthened or weakened, as long as it isn't weakened below the ToU. In short PAID is not a ratchet that can only go up, rather it has a floor, the ToU. The top section and the section "Changing this policy" are fixed ("Changing..." is just a restatement of the ToU and its FAQ)

Other than that, changing the PAID policy works the same way as any other policy. Minor changes can be made after discussions on this page, but major changes need an RfC. The only question is what is major and what is minor. I don't see any problem with any of the sections, except possibly with the recent changes to "How to disclose". The other changeable sections are just definitions and "See WP:COI"

The "Disclosing.." section should include the following at the top "Paid editors must disclose their employer, client, and affiliation for every paid edit." That's just a restatement of "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution" from the ToU. Please check my parsing of the grammar. Now paid editors are going to say "surely you can't mean that," but I say "that's exactly what it means" - every paid edit must be individually disclosed, though it could be a line of diffs that just gets added to if the employer, etc. don't change..

Now that's a pretty ineffective system - it's very difficult for the paid editor to do and almost impossible for those who monitor paid editing because if the paid editors follow it at all, most but not all of the disclosures will be in the edit summaries. (more later) Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I suppose I've wanted to have a system that is both more effective at keeping track of the paid edits, at least slightly stricter in effect, and at the same time cuts the paid editor a little bit of slack. I mean that putting employer, client and affiliation in every edit summary really doesn't help anybody if a more effective system is in place. I guess I'll have to forget about that idea.

The lack of compliance with the ToU especially in non-article spaces and the tricks recently shown (e.g. hiding the disclosure under two collapsable boxes and removing the disclosure after a month) show that we do need to be more specific.

Looking at the history of the "How to disclose" section it looks like the verbs have made a progression from "are advised to", to "should" then briefly "must" and then "shall". A string of "musts" that are not specifically in the ToU probably need an RfC - it has to happen sometime, but I'll suggest getting everybody now on this page to come up with something we can agree on, using "shoulds" and then have a well publicized RfC (through Central discussion) changing some of the "shoulds" to "musts." I'd rather wait until after the New year for that however! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

My new suggestions are along the line of

How to disclose

Paid editors must disclose their employer, client, and affiliation for every paid edit, including edits made to articles, talk pages, Articles for Creation, deletion discussions, Good article promotion requests, and sandboxes. The word "paid" must be included as well as the employer, client, and affiliation, even if the disclosure is made in the edit summary.

Editors who are compensated for their contributions should disclose their paid editing status by placing the {{connected contributor (paid)}} template near the top of their main user page and filling in the parameters. This disclosure should be clearly visible on the user page and should not be removed.

For paid contributions to articles the paid editor should also place the {{connected contributor (paid)}} template at the top of the talk page of affected articles and fill in the parameters. This template should not be removed.

On draft articles and submissions to Articles for Creation, the paid editor should also place the template near the top of the page or on the associated talk page.

This transparency helps the Wikipedia community to understand and analyze the source and scope of paid editing, and to ensure that content originating from paid editors complies with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I think that if adequate disclosure has been made with {{paid}} and {{connected contributor (paid)}} then the edit summary disclosures can simply indicate it is a paid edit, this acts as an affirmative way of distinguishing paid vs volunteer edits. If the template disclosures have not been made then each edit summary must contain all of the irequired disclosure information. This would also help 'convince' paid editors not to use just edit summaries.

Sooner rather than later we need to come up with some guidance on what to do when paid editors do not meet the disclosure requirement - some point where enough is enough and they will clearly be blocked for a ToU violation. Jbh^Talk 04:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

To your last point this sounds like the COIN procedure manual that I talked about in July but it never got a head of steam. Obviously if you started it, I would support as am able. I think the best process is one where any volunteer, not just admins, can do most of the notification footwork, track cases, and queue them up when ready for sanctions. There would need to be buy-in from admins who can actually enforce the community decisions.

We are close to this now, I think, just need to formalize the steps taken. The biggest gap is probably clarifying what off-wiki info is/is not allowed, a reiteration of WP:OUTING really, and some agreed upon timeouts and definitions of what meets the bar to prevent action. The last thing is getting spelled out at this talkpage already. An initial flowchart describing at least the fast-success and fast-fail path wouldn't hurt to pull everything together. Brianhe (talk) 09:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, getting all of the procedures and policies lined up so they are consistent is a pain but necessary before anything can really be documented. Wikipedia is strange in that both 'policy' and 'the way things are done' have near equal weight in various members of the community's eyes. Usually which ever best suits their position or libertarian/authoritarian preferences. For instance this is directly relevant to this [4] discussion at Talk:COIN about how to consistently warn paid editors about failing to comply with the disclosure requirements. Based on the way things are put together now a slightly hyperbolic warning template would look like this:

You really should comply with the mandatory requirements under the Wikimedia Terms of Use that you disclose your employer, client and affiliation. as set out in the English Wikipedia's paid disclosure general suggestions. You can post such a disclosure on your user page at User:Example, and the template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:{{paid|client=Who paid for your edits|employer=Who pays you}} and by placing {{Connected contributor (paid)}} in the form:{{Connected contributor (paid)|User1=Youruser name|U1-employer=Who pays you|U1-client= Who paid for the edits|U1-otherlinks= Any additional information}} on the talk page of each relevant article. You must should may consider also discloseing your paid editor status in the edit summary of any edits relating to your paid status, such as on the article, its talk page and deletion or noticeboard discussions by including Paid edit as part of the edit summary. Or you can just pick one of these options and tuck it away somewhere where no one is likely to see it. Please disclose in all of these ways and do not hide them away. I think it would be nice but if you do not do so and choose to hide the disclosures away there is really nothing I can do but keep sticking this toothless warning on your talk page every few days until you choose to take me to WP:ANI for WP:HOUNDING. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. ~~~~

Probably not what was intended when PAID was written but as long it can be presented as a suggested supplement of the ToU rather than an en.WP policy that expands upon the ToU and must be complied with fully that is pretty much where we stand.

I do not think there is any ambiguity in the community intention with PAID and as was said earlier putting the ToU quote on the page so it looks like the reference it is rather than a summary will go a long way to addressing that problem. Also a simple statement in the {{nutshell}} that says something like

The Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use require all editors to disclose their employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which they receive, or expect to receive, compensation:[1] This page documents how the English Wikipedia community has chosen to implement the Foundation Terms of Use.

will clear up matters a lot and clearly express the intention of this page and how it relates to the Foundations requirements.

This is all rather like building a pyramid by starting at the top and bottom and trying to document it in the middle. Sisyphus had it easy :) Cheers. Jbh^Talk 15:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

(some of above refers to my comment below, so refactor to remove my superfluous section below to aid understanding) Widefox; talk 00:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• Proposal (Divergence, documentation, compliance)

We have paid editors:

1. claiming no disclosure is needed for drafts [5]
2. wikilawyering over ToU - ignoring the rest like PAID (mentioned above)
3. templates and documentation (policy, guidance, ToU policy, COIN) etc that must all be understood by the paid editor

I've just seen Wikipedia_talk:Paid-contribution_disclosure/Archive_1#How_to_disclose. Ping User:Smartse, User:DGG.

• DGG suggested changing COI
  • I'd suggest it needs to be in PAID so there's only one document to simplify
    • The ToU should be moved to a footnote, and not put at the top as it acts as a summary - which is currently valid, but does not have to be valid, then we can have a normal policy summary at the top.
• The difference between community expectation (at least limited to some editors here), and ToU is widening. I'm not sure how much of this is WP:CREEP and how much experience with attempts at compliance
• Are we making PAID be more in line with community, or keeping to the current wording "or" per ToU?
  • An explicit "and" for the talk and userpage
  • and relegate the edit summary for additional optional extra / only when the talk isn't possible?
    • If we don't, then the edit summary option is the weakness, with summaries on high editcount articles being quickly hidden. My gut feeling is that we should close this weakness at PAID for now, and follow the method to insert it in the TOU (or explicitly state PAID adds additional requirements over and above ToU).
• Even specifying both the talk and userpage is more lax than the German court ruling / EU. (Actually going as far as having a visible maintenance tag while content from a paid editor is still live is seductive, but may discourage disclosure and is against the norm per COI shaming.)
• My gut feeling is that we need to also simplify/reduce the burden for the paid editors, and propose:
  • PAID specifies userpage or article talk and a bot which templates the article talks (or userpage respectively) to synchronise. or
    • Possibly easier, just userpage and the bot only has to sync in one direction.
    • Edit summaries can be tagged based on the userpage.
• We have to be explicit about ToU applying to draft articles & userspace articles (it is neat that their talks can be used for this). Widefox; talk 10:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• Some comments:

1. It dos not matter where we put it.
2. According to the TOU, We have the option of actually modify the relevant part of the terms of use as they apply to the English WP, which requires an OK from the Foundation, but I think we would do better to simply have this as the policy that gives our interpretation. After people are used to it, ad the wording stabilizes, then we could move i
3. We do indeed need to specific it applies to draft and userspace, and to comments on article talk pages.
4. The only place it will help the reader is on the article talk page. The history is not enough. To help us, it should also be on the editor's user page .
5. The appropriate maintenance tag for the article is the ordinary coi tag, and even that only for major contributions (as is our current use). We are not bound by the German court ruling. DGG ( talk ) 06:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks DGG. Can we expedite this with more eyeballs. It sits uncomfortably with me that we've got limited consensus here, and our policy etc is in flux - just look at my full-circle journey above about use of "and" (or "or") for disclosure policy. In the meantime, my confidence to communicate with paid editors is limited to the clearcut ToU, which according to limited consensus here, only requires an undesirable edit summary disclosure. Fixable, important, agree with Jbhunley's sentiment about the middle. Yes, my understanding is WP is bound by Florida/US, so the FTC is the legal obligation, the German/EU law is interesting to put the disclosures in context that even if policy requires both locations it would fall short of that (which I'm assuming we can ignore). Widefox; talk 09:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Repetition in lead

Regarding this edit: the added sentence repeats what is said in the next sentence, which of course is repeated again in the quoted section from the terms of use. I think either the second sentence or the first with a modification to point to the terms of use should suffice; I'm not convinced both are needed. What does everyone think? isaacl (talk) 14:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't hurt anything. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Unnecessary repetition leads to the possibility of inconsistencies, and weakens the thrust of the message by triggering readers to look for different intentions between the two sentences. It's an additional cognitive load that is unnecessary. If something can be said effectively and concisely in one sentence, the writing is stronger. isaacl (talk) 15:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Isaacl, the point of the sentence is to give us an introduction in clear English, rather than jumping straight into "employer, client, affiliation," which not everyone will understand. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Sure, in which case, the repetition in the second sentence can be dispensed with, since it is already explained by the first and quoted in the following paragraph. For example: If you are being paid for your contributions to Wikipedia, you must declare who is paying you, who the client is, and any other relevant role or relationship. This is mandatory in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use: isaacl (talk) 21:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Isaacl, I've turned the first sentence into a lead. The second section then deals with the terms of use, so we've lost the repetition and the "employer, client and affiliation" language in the intro. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Shall or should disclose paid status when editing page

What the heading says per recent edits. Jbh^Talk 13:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

To be more precise, the question is whether or not paid contributors should or must be disclosing this when discussing changes to this page (actual changes are already covered by the terms of use). I agree disclosure aligns with community expectations as outlined in the conflict of interest guideline. Note though the banner on Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest uses the term "should"; for consistency, the two ought to use the same language. isaacl (talk) 14:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Given that they would almost certainly "expect to receive compensation" as a result of their contribution to the discussion, then the wording should be "must". WP:COI could be updated with that wording. But since there is at least a theoretical possibility that a paid editor could argue for more regulation of paid editing, which would make it less likely that he'll receive compensation, then I think "shall" is ok. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

"Shall" is the same as "must" for guidelines/policies. Regarding what a paid editor would argue for, I don't think that's relevant. It would be akin to saying a paid editor could make a neutral edit and so disclosure ought to be optional. isaacl (talk) 15:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

You all bring up good points, but I have to say, the Terms of Use and this article both say you must disclose on a user page, relevant talk page, or relevant edit summary. It does not require that you disclose when discussing changes to policies. That is clearly something Widefox thought was a good idea. It may be, it may not be. There's no previous rule that requires this, only the suggestion at WP:COI. It should however be discussed; he put it in without any discussion. User:Smallbones, I'm not sure where you get the idea that COI editors would "almost certainly "expect to receive compensation" as a result of their contribution to the discussion". I, as well as nearly every COI editor, am paid to do single jobs, like writing or improving a specific article. No COI editors would be paid to discuss changes to a Wikipedia policy! The people who pay COI editors usually don't even know we have policies or discussion pages, and don't care either. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 19:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually it requires that you disclose any edit you may expect to receive compensation for - that is a pretty wide net. Since discussing changes and other matters directly affect future earning potential of a paid editor, they must disclose that conflict. The two most obvious reasons for this are that disrupting processes on this page could be a reasonable way to prevent or weaken changes through filibuster and, when weighing consensus, it is necessary to know that some participants have a financial interest in the outcome. This is a no-brainer and comes down to paid editors will always be more motivated to participate and wear down those of us who are not being paid for out time here.

TL;DL - It should be shall/must.

Jbh^Talk 19:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Jbh said that very well. I'll just add that it is completely within the spirit and letter of the ToU and it would be fundamentally dishonest on the part of a paid editor to try to influence this policy without disclosure. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Ɱ has edited WP:PAID without disclosing they are (or have been) a paid editor [6], undone [7] per WP:COI / WP:PAID. This is highly improper that a paid editor 1. edits the paid editing policy, 2. doesn't disclose a COI, and 3. worse of all made an edit to reduce the disclosure when editing the policy itself - the exact thing they are doing!This is a COI reducing the need to disclose a COI on a COI issue. It's past bold and reckless. This is at ANI Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#PAYTALK. Widefox; talk 21:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, although the responsibility and onus is on the editor in question to make the disclosure, the nice thing is that anyone can do it on his or her behalf. isaacl (talk) 23:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

isaacl Ɱ removed their paid editing disclosure (from being visible) on User:Ɱ an hour before making the edit to this policy[8]. This is beyond AGF. Widefox; talk 00:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're replying this to me; I made no assumption of good (or bad) faith. The most straightforward approach regarding this talk page is to make the disclosure on the editor's behalf. Discussions of how to manage the editor are best held elsewhere. isaacl (talk) 00:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding discussing the need to disclose one's status, I don't believe it is necessary to do it again: the discussions that have already been held at the talk page for the conflict of interest guideline are directly applicable. It wouldn't make sense to have disclosure on one page but not the other. isaacl (talk) 23:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Regarding wording, this is just a copy of the COI guideline wording, but with "guideline" -> "policy" and "should" -> "shall" per our previous discussion of guideline vs policy. I felt I couldn't word it any other way without consensus, as an enactment of the COI guideline at policy level. As such, I would expect any softening (or hardening) of the wording needs consensus. It is just making explicit what is already covered but implicit in COI. As there is talk of changing the ToU (or COI per User:DGG) I thought this prudent to have this explicitly in place beforehand. It's appears that it may need to be made explicit that disclosure is required for not just current paid editors, but I leave that for discussion as expect it difficult to word. Widefox; talk 01:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

(←) Widefox, you are way out of line. You cannot accuse me of reverting or not following a policy you instituted, without consensus, yesterday. Regardless, the above editors still won't get what I made clear in my disclosure. I'm only paid to edit four mainspace articles. Therefore I only need to disclose my conflict of interest on those article talk pages. Period. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 00:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

It does not matter how many articles you have been paid to edit being a paid editor is binary either you receive compensation for editing Wikipedia or you do not. You made the decision to edit here for money and you must let that be known everywhere where paid editing is being discussed - because you have a financial COI.

It might be a good idea to start a {{connected contributor}} tag at the top of this page. Jbh^Talk 01:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The above statement shows your complete failure in understanding how Wikipedia works. Any user can edit any page at any time (with very few select exceptions). So the whole "either you receive compensation for editing Wikipedia or you do not" is just so, so, wrong. As I said in my other reply to you, like 95% of my editing is just for fun. I cannot and will not place a COI editing disclosure for my edits I am not paid for. That is well out of line. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 01:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

(ec)Second a template at top. Disclosure shouldn't be after the event too, else it was not disclosed at the time. With this level of disruption from this editor, I'm hoping ANI will now pick this up now. More opinions at ANI welcome. Widefox; talk 01:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Ɱ No one is saying you must place a paid COI notice on all of your edits. We are saying that you need to disclose on edits relating to the paid-COI. That is all discussions anywhere relating to the subjects you have been paid for and on all edits relating to or discussing policies/guidelines etc. relating to paid editing. The reason for this last is that because you get paid to edit you have a COI relating to paid editing. Are you arguing that you, a paid editor, do not have a conflict of interest relating to the paid editing guidelines? Really?? Jbh^Talk 02:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Primary source of instructions for disclosure procedure

Regarding this edit, which added a Further information: WP:COIDISCLOSEPAY line to the section on disclosure: since WP:COIDISCLOSEPAY says the main page is this page, the two are pointing to each other as the primary source of instructions. Can we just have one point to the other as the primary source, and ensure that the primary source is a superset of everything from the other location? Otherwise it is confusing for readers. isaacl (talk) 00:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

It says further information is at COIDISCLOSEPAY. We can change the link on COI to a "further information" link too, so that they're just pointing to each other, if you prefer. But calling one "main" and the other "further" indicates that only one is primary. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

"Further" implies there is additional information at the other location that is absent from this one, meaning that this location is not the primary source of information. We should avoid bouncing editors back and forth between sections seeking more information. (However, having taken a look at how various paid contributor information has been introduced into the COI page, there's a lot of redundancy that might be better extracted into this page. For example, does the terms of use have to be quoted again on that page?) isaacl (talk) 00:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

There is more information there than here, including how to do it. That's what's meant by "further," and we want editors to know that both exist. There's repetition in case they look at only one page. Repetition across policies/guidelines is common. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

To simplify updating procedures, guidelines, and policies, best practice is to fully describe the procedure/guideline/policy in one location, and in other relevant locations, point to the master copy, with possibly some key points excerpted. In addition to making it easier to keep everything in sync, it makes it easier for an editor to know when they've found out everything they need to know about a procedure: they don't have to keep clicking on "further/more/main page" links and going in circles.

In this particular circumstance, it seems to me the best approach is to just point the section on this page to the COI page. Right now, the two sections give slightly different instructions, which is confusing. isaacl (talk) 00:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree with isaacl - I mentioned this above (look for "Minimise the circular logic"). I had a go at trying to merge the two wordings to synchronise them, and use "start" "end" html comments so they can be copy/pasted to easy sync them, but gave up. Widefox; talk 01:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Any further comments on modifying the "How to disclose" section to primarily point to the corresponding section on the conflict of interest page? I suggest replacing the first two paragraphs with a sentence saying that details on how to disclose are contained in the the "Paid editors" section on the conflict of interest page, and adding the following sentence to the "Paid editors" section: You should include a clearly visible list of your paid contributions on your user page. This will eliminate the slightly different steps given on this page. isaacl (talk) 05:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

If there are no further comments, I will proceed with this proposal. isaacl (talk) 03:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I have made changes in accordance with the proposal. isaacl (talk) 00:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding this edit: it re-introduces a discrepancy between this page and the "Paid editors" section on the conflict of interest page. I proposed consolidating the instructions on the conflict of interest page thirteen days ago, and no objections have been raised to date. In the interest of reducing the number of places that have to be kept in alignment and updated, I suggest simply having this page point the conflict of interest page for full instructions on how paid editors should disclose their status. isaacl (talk) 03:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't like weakening this policy. Rather than having the policy point to the guideline, you can have the guideline point to the policy. Please don't do it backwards. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The conflict of interest guideline contains additional details in the sections following the "Paid editors" section, which is why Sarah wanted to point to that page. As the target sections deal with the mechanics of disclosure, personally I don't feel it is an issue to keep these details on a guideline page. It's not unusual for a policy page to provide higher level direction, and a guidance page to provide detailed steps. isaacl (talk) 03:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

To all interested parties: can you please discuss the best way forward on this page? I don't mind waiting for input, but it would be helpful if you could at least give some indication of when you might reply. I don't think the steps should be duplicated on both this page and the conflict of interest page. Either one can point to the other. Personally I think it gives more flexibility to leave the specific steps in a guideline rather than a policy, so they can be updated more easily. However, whatever consensus agrees upon is fine. isaacl (talk) 16:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Isaac, I've reverted your recent edits, and I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to do.

The policy is that editors must disclose in one of the following ways: user page, talk page, edit summary. The guideline offers further advice and more detail about how to use the template.

We can refer to the guideline's advice here, with a link to the relevant section, but we can't make it policy. Still, that part of the guideline isn't even slightly controversial, and paid editors not following it might find themselves in trouble over time. And indeed it may end up becoming policy, because it's likely to be widely adopted (in my view).

In the meantime, duplication is normal and helpful, so long as we make clear that X is policy and Y a guideline. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I've stated several times that I wish to eliminate inconsistency between this page and the other, and to minimize any repetition. Smallbones objected to having the policy refer to the guideline to provide the detailed steps and reverted my previous change. If you'd replied after Smallbones's response above, it would have been helpful. (I had previously attempted to draw a distinction between what's set down in policy and what has not, but there were no other supporting replies then, and so it was unclear to me that others would agree with this point of view.) isaacl (talk) 17:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the inconsistency, and some repetition is helpful. I did express that position earlier, in this section on 16 November. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

If you'd had replied to Smallbones indicating your desire to keep the instructions in the guideline in that location, rather than having the guideline refer to the policy for detailed steps, this would have been helpful in establishing a consensus. If you'd replied earlier when others were claiming that this entire page represented policy, as it was just filling in details from the WMF policy, it would have been helpful when I was trying to explain that the procedural steps on this page have not been ratified as policy. Lastly, the inconsistency was highlighted in your recent edits, where you emphasized that the guideline "further advises"; this clarifies that the guideline provides guidance above what policy states. isaacl (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Addressing your last point, the policy already clarified that, but you removed it in this edit on 25 November. I think that's why I'm confused about what you want to do. As I see it, there is no inconsistency and only enough repetition to be helpful. The detailed "how to" is on the guideline page. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Your edit clarified that the advice on the guideline page is beyond that which is stated on this page, which is helpful; thanks. isaacl (talk) 19:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Isaacl, and you're welcome. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

[9] SarahSV, I see "should" is back. Can we decide here as it's flipped between "shall" and "should". I personally don't like "shall" as archaic, and prefer "must" for a policy, especially a legal one. I know COI uses "should" but per our previous discussion translating guideline to policy that transformed "should" or "must" to "shall". I personally consider "should" in COI to fit as a guideline, but too weak in a policy. Widefox; talk 05:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

It would be confusing to use different language here than in the guideline. If a consensus agreement can be reached that disclosure is required, then the verb can be changed accordingly in both locations. isaacl (talk) 05:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Considering the legal implications, I really don't think we can say "should". Per WP:POLICY "Do not be afraid to tell editors directly that they must or should do something." . So "must" is allowed. I would have thought for changing the legal policy ToU, "must" is appropriate, and in-line with the legal "must" of compliance with the ToU. Thoughts? Widefox; talk 13:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I support the use of "must" in this case, the potential for harm is to great to allow paid editors to change, or even comment on changes, to this page without disclosing their COI with respect to paid editing. I would go so far as to say that paid editors not disclosing their COI here should be considered to be editing deceptively and subject to sanctions. I do not want to see undisclosed lobbying by those with a financial COI in paid editing policy and guidance. There is always the potential for a paid editing ring to force through a change using meat/socks, "must" would allow the meat/socks to be discounted when considering consensus should they be discovered while "should" would likely not. Jbh^Talk 16:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Any verb is allowed, but without a consensus to support it, there will be a problem with enforcement. We've already seen paid editors arguing the point endlessly that unless you can refer to a consensus, they won't comply with a procedure put into place by agreement of a couple of people. isaacl (talk) 17:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Well said Jbhunley. In formal documents (rather than WP) I've always been taught to consider replace "should" with "probably won't". For a guideline, that's OK (as guidelines are intrinsically less binding). For a legal policy, that is just unacceptable considering the context, gravity and repercussions of not disclosing a COI while discussing/changing this policy, potentially subverting it. The central issue being that paid editors are highly motivated (economically incentivised). This isn't even a case of if, as an attempt has already been made. Isaacl, lawyering/gaming has to be tackled separately as WP:PAYTALK disruption / else it's just WP:CREEP trying to cover everything. Widefox; talk 19:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The point is that a couple of people on a talk page can't compel the community to do something. If you want to make something mandatory, you need to obtain a larger consensus. isaacl (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Widefox, in the sentence "Editors discussing changes to this policy should disclose whether they have been paid to edit Wikipedia," shall looks odd, so in my view we should use should or must. I can't see what difference it makes in this context. Good-faith editors will disclose, assuming they have read that sentence; the others won't, no matter what the page says. But this is a minor point, so if there's consensus to use shall, I don't mind. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I prefer "must". It is certainly within the spirit of the ToU. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

SarahSV, I've never liked "shall". "must" is similar but more clear (the word I originally started with). It does seems minor, but my hunch is that it's not as simple as good/bad faith due to incentives, WP:COIBIAS and PAYTALK. As long as we don't use "should" anything is OK with me. Back to the obvious: "Editors discussing changes to this policy must disclose whether they have been paid to edit Wikipedia," ? isaacl, it's only best practice, just enumerating COI for this legal policy, which ultimately per WP:POLICY appears to be all "should" anyhow. Is "must" in-line with other legal policies SarahSV? Checking BLP (turns out not to be a legal policy), it starts with "Editors must.." Widefox; talk 21:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Note it's not a "legal" policy, in the sense that no law is being violated by failing to comply. "Must" and "shall" are used to specify mandatory behaviour; "should" is used to describe recommended behaviour. Best practice on English Wikipedia is against having a few people decide on mandatory practice for the entire community; it goes against its consensus tradition. isaacl (talk) 23:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

As Smallbones says, using must would certainly lie within the spirit of the policy. If an editor were to try to change the policy without even mentioning that he is a paid editor himself, his actions would almost certainly not be supported by anyone, so I would say must is a safe bet here. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

It's within the spirit of the conflict of interest guideline, but this policy is regarding paid contributions, whereby disclosure is required for edits for which the editor is being compensated. To extend it to this page would basically mean all of the editor's contributions are being treated as paid contributions, and so a disclosure must be made on every single page. Although this might be a net benefit, it would lead to a lot of disclosures on a lot of pages. isaacl (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

It's within the spirit of the terms of use and just about any discussion about COI on Wikipedia (and off). Disclosure is a key issue. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Can we just fix it as "must" please. I'm not sure what your point is isaacl? From Category:Wikipedia legal policies "that involve legal considerations". It's the ToU that's the legal requirement. I don't think anyone is claiming PAID is a legal requirement (a law), it's just a policy. WP:POLICY says we may use "must", and how policies are created and changed WP:PGLIFE WP:PGCHANGE. This isn't about changing/extending ToU or WP:PAID to itself (this isn't about editors being paid to change WP:PAID), but just the requirement that paid editors need to disclose (per WP:COI) their COI in influencing this policy. (I hope that's clear?!). By using "must", it just contextualises how important disclosing an "interest" (that one is a paid editor) is for this. A COI is for a specific thing, not for everything. I do take your point that paid editors may want to change other things, but this isn't some precedent - it's already covered by WP:COI. Widefox; talk 00:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I've stated my point several times: a consensus is required to specify mandatory behaviour, and I've simply requested to have that consensus-building discussion (the procedures you linked to regarding the lifecycle of policies, which I am familiar with, discuss the need for gaining community approval). Now personally I support making disclosure mandatory, but by Wikipedia tradition I can't just impose my own view on the community; it must agree first. And if you're going to refer to WP:COI as a source, then as I stated, the language used on this page should match that of WP:COI. On a side note, the terms of use don't impose legal requirements, either (in particular, without an exchange of consideration, there is no contract), though they may help establish grounds for fraudulent behaviour. But this is not really the issue; which verb to use doesn't hinge on this question. isaacl (talk) 01:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Issacl, if you also support must, that means everyone here commenting supports it. Given what little difference it makes, and that it makes perfect sense, I'd say we have consensus. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm also a strong supporter of ensuring the community agrees with changes to written policy. Particularly in areas where there have been protracted arguments in the past, I feel that soliciting a broader base of input is vital to ensure that the policy is on solid footing. I don't see a pressing need to short-circuit the process in this case. isaacl (talk) 01:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I've changed it to "When discussing changes to the policy, disclose whether you have been paid to edit Wikipedia," which is closer to must than should, but perhaps not quite all the way there. But again, this really is a very minor point. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy with that, but as the meaning is similar it doesn't really address any issue of level of consensus which I think is Isaacl's point. "must" is arguably more clear. Issacl dipping into the related issue of contract law (I'm aware there's a difference with how legally binding accepting T&C for say software installs is between the US and EU) but surely the consideration is simple - use of the service is it! The use of must isn't a legal issue - it's just at the policy level. I do agree with your sentiment that I'm not sure what/where PAID is going, and exactly how it fits with ToU and broad consensus, which ultimately I think needs squaring with the ToU so the "legal" requirement is identical to the policy. That's the only way I see there being no wiggle room (Wikilawyering), the clarity of which benefits all parties. That major change would require large consensus, but spelling out COI for this seems fine, it's just best practice, uncontroversial, and per WP:POLICY we shouldn't mustn't shy away from just saying it. BTW, I changed "should" to "must" in the banner at the top of this page per this consensus. SarahSV, if you'd prefer your wording go ahead. Widefox; talk 09:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not clear on why you seem to be reluctant to publicize this discussion in a few places to garner a broader consensus. That's all that is needed. Additionally, if the language is changing on this page, it should be modified accordingly on the conflict of interest page. isaacl (talk) 12:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Who's that aimed at, and what in particular? From my side go ahead, I certainly never thought copying the COI statement and pasting into here with wording modified from "guideline" to "policy" and "should" to the agreed (per above) "shall" would generate this much interest. Widefox; talk 18:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

My reply is outdented as a response from yours, as can be seen from the symbol. (It's the same template you used earlier, though you hadn't specified the indent level to which you were responding.) Not sure what you mean by "what in particular". Since I'm not seeking to change the wording, I think it would be better for you to directly solicit input, rather than my acting as a proxy. As you clearly have strong opinions about the verb used, it's unsurprising that other people would be interested as well. isaacl (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Done [10]. In general I suggest that if you feel a topic needs input from more parties you simply post a neutral request at the places you feel appropriate. Cheers. Jbh^Talk 21:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Isaacl as you can see from my question above, I wasn't sure who or what in particular you thought needed to obtain wider consensus, but my comment above highlights that the issue you raise of wider consensus is not addressed. Outside of that, it indicates my ignorance of any specific issue, so seems harsh to characterise as "reluctance". It may be just WP:CLUE. Care to strike? In fact, I see consensus plus a single editor suggesting garnering wider consensus. As such, that may be interesting, as it may be something the rest of us have overlooked. As there's consensus here for all changes I'm aware of, I'm not sure why it's up to me and my personal "reluctance" (more than anyone, or the group) especially when I'm possibly the least experienced person here, and only came here with a question which resulted in attempting to quick-fix things, rather than the capable hands of the creators/maintainers who it seems to me have more experience than I with policies, with whom I (personally) have attempted to work with and get feedback all the way for what little I've input. Widefox; talk 02:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Widefox, personally I don't consider "reluctance" to be a harsh characterization, but I don't mind using different terms. My initial response to you was a reminder of the responsibility of someone making a proposal to build a consensus. From there the intent of our two conversational threads diverged. There are times when quick fixes are urgent, but most of the time they are not, and it is better in the long run to take the time to establish a consensus. isaacl (talk) 03:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Jbhunley, following Wikipedia's consensus tradition, I felt it better if some of the other participants in the conversation took the lead in soliciting additional input. I appreciate and understand that others may think the proposed changes are small enough to not require a broader conversation. isaacl (talk) 03:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Issac, this is too much discussion for such a minor change. Note above that, when you didn't get a response, you went ahead on 25 November and made a change, even though I'd earlier voiced an objection. Sometimes it's fine to be bold, especially when nothing much hangs on it. If someone really doesn't like it, they'll say so or revert.

I do agree that we need broader consensus for major policy changes, but local consensus is fine for wordsmithing. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Regarding my previous change, when a conversation stops, it's hard to tell what the reason is, which is why I again solicit opinions to double-check if anyone continues to object after I've given a response. I dislike making changes in the middle of an ongoing discussion, but I recognize that this is a matter of personal style that others may choose to approach differently.

Regarding this thread, I feel like Widefox and you are continuing to try to convince me to agree with you, even after you've already made your desired edit, but it's really not necessary. We can agree to disagree on the significance of the change. isaacl (talk) 05:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

isaacl thanks for striking. I'm aware of my burden for my edits (equivalent of WP:BURDEN) but while I'm no policy specialist I believe all my changes despite being in my own words "quick fixes" (in passing) have had a level of consensus and as such any further desire to do something else is not my burden anymore. If I've understood correctly the specifics, 1. "must" per se can be used in policy without broad consensus per WP:POLICY (in fact the opposite, it encourages to not shy away) 2. contextualising COI for this policy isn't extending COI IMHO (and copying COI wording verbatim "should" seems negligent here considering the ToU etc) and consensus above for "should" to "shall"/"must". 2.5 If you feel it does, and as you agree "must" is appropriate here which has consequences for COI then please take that up there (as Jbhunley has started) 3. about issues around the "legal" status of the ToU itself (not PAID) - See EULA, Browse wrap, Clickwrap (I didn't link above when I replied about "US and EU"). Isaacl, much great things can come out of disagreement, but you're in the best place to take up your concerns. Until then, I just see consensus here, and as SarahSV said that deems 1. minor not major. I personally would weigh / defer to SarahSV's experience, and other editors not mine, and instead of trying to convince you, I feel like I'm having to personally defend the consensus, so the burden is on you to take forward, regards Widefox; talk 12:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

As I said, we can agree to disagree; I have understand your position from the start, and it's not necessary to re-explain it again. isaacl (talk) 12:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Break 1

I would suggest that until and unless others voice an opinion that local consensus is clear and we have reached the point of WP:DEADHORSE.

Isaacl, I understand your concern but agree with the others that the edits being made here are simply bringing the text in line with the intent of the policy and are in line with existing community consensus and norms. The matter has been published at WP:COI for a day or so with no response and you have not placed or suggested notices anywhere else. I also firmly believe that this is not a change needing an RfC or some other broad community consensus process. Jbh^Talk 14:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Unclear definition?

I am a bit confused about the definition of paid to edit. If company A pays editor B to make edits, that clearly falls under this policy. But if editor B is an employee of company A, and makes edits on their own time, does that fall under this policy? In this case they are not being paid to make edits, per se so I would say it's just under the normal COI definition. But what about if editor B's job is in the marketing department of company A? That seems a little less clear. Do we have any sort of rule of thumb for this? Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Most of this probably can be dealt with just using common sense. Also note expect in the definition "to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation."

• an assembly line worker who makes small edits to his company's article in his spare time. They would generally not get any money or expect to get any money for this. But if it's one of 5 workers and the company is about to go out of business unless it drums up some business ...
• an employee in the marketing department who just happens to edit his company's article in his spare time. Almost everybody would just happen to not believe this.
• a sales employee works on commission, they'd expect to make money off of publicizing the company.

Trying to nail down every situation would probably just make things more confusing. Why not just "if you get compensation or expect to get compensation for making an edit then you are a paid editor." That's what it already says. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps the confusion is due to trying to have very strict definitions for every possible situation that comes up. IMHO when Wikipedia rules try to do this, it just gets more confusing. But I'd say this should be interpreted very broadly. "Paid to edit" does not mean only that your boss gives you a direct order and then cuts a check with a note at the bottom "for editing Wikipedia". Rather people have an understanding of what their job duties are, if an edit could be viewed as falling under those duties, then the editor is being paid to edit. Compensation is already defined very broadly, it's clear that expecting to get a pay raise falls under it.

But this brings up something I wanted to do awhile back. We can very well leave "paid editing" alone and say that editors here must strictly follow the ToU in regards to paid editing. Then we can also define a new term, "Commercial editors" (see above, I don't know why it wasn't all archived) which would define more specific cases that we feel are especially egregious that should be regulated especially strictly. I'll ping @SlimVirgin: on this. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

This is useful. In the case in question then, I will judge the edit to fall under these rules. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

My name is Ryan Karkas, and I am a paid Program Intern for the City of Reno, Mayor's Office. My employer is Mayor Hillary Schieve herself, and her clients are the people of Reno and other citizens who would like to use a Wikipedia page to find out more about herself. I am typing this to make sure that I comply with Wikipedia policy.Rkarkas (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Not Always Paid

Hello, perhaps I should have put this in the above section, but if I have maintained an account for some time and have been hired just recently to create an article, should I make a new account? The main focus of my edits has been wikignoming, such that I haven't even signed in for most of them. I just don't want my account to be seen as a paid contributor forever based on one article. Thank you! JakeZambas (talk) 23:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Whoop, found the answer in WP:COI! For anybody else with this question, simply list the specific articles/edits which were paid contributions. JakeZambas (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Acme Widgets

I changed the example company from "Acme Pharmaceuticals" to "Acme Widgets" because there is an actual company named Acme Pharmaceuticals. We shouldn't disparage them or any particular industry by using them as an example here. Unfortunately, there appears to be an actual small company named Acme Widgets as well. Any suggestions for another generic sounding company name that isn't an actual company name? Deli nk (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Commercial editors

Before going into the process of defining "commercial editors" for our use here, I'd like to show what it applies to - special stronger rules for commercial editors. "Commercial editors" is, when all is said and done, a well understood phrase in English. Taking this step first would ensure that people don't think that we are weakening the ToU or trying to create an alternative policy. I suggest the following section:

I am the secretary of Huey P Newton Gun Club and it's false statements on there and it's only one founder and one leader who is General Babu Omowale too many false statements on this page AugustGun (talk) 19:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Minor change

I'd like to take the section

How to disclose

Further information: WP:COIDISCLOSEPAY

Editors who are compensated for their contributions must disclose their employer, client and affiliation with respect to any paid contributions. They must do this on their main user page, or on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or in edit summaries.

The conflict of interest guideline further advises editors to place the {{connected contributor (paid)}} template at the top of the talk page accompanying any paid contributions (and to fill in the parameters), and to supply a clearly visible list of their paid contributions on their main user page using {{paid}}.

This transparency helps the Wikipedia community to understand and analyze the source and scope of paid editing, and to ensure that content originating from paid editors complies with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

and change it to

How to disclose

Editors who are compensated for their contributions must disclose their employer, client and affiliation with respect to any paid contributions. They must do this on their main user page, and on the article talk page accompanying any paid contributions.

Paid editors must place the {{connected contributor (paid)}} template at the top of the article talk page accompanying any paid contributions (and to fill in the parameters), and to supply a clearly visible list of their paid contributions on their main user page using {{paid}}. Further information on how to use these templates is available at conflict of interest guideline for paid editors.

This transparency helps the Wikipedia community to understand and analyze the source and scope of paid editing, and to ensure that content originating from paid editors complies with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

--

The only two differences are the removal of the "further information" link to WP:COI and the simpler "Paid editors must place" at the start of the second paragraph.

I added "Further information on how to use this template is available at conflict of interest guideline for paid editors." per suggestion below.

My reason is that this is a policy and we don't need to rely on the weaker guideline to require this. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

As previously discussed, I suggest it would be prudent to solicit a broader audience to form a consensus on making this change, which goes beyond the terms of use by prescribing a specific format for paid editors to disclose their status. Having a wider consensus in place will help ward off future arguments. isaacl (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem getting wide input on this. We can take our time. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

As the conflict of interest guideline for paid editors provides additional instructions on how to use the template, I believe it would be helpful to keep a link to it. isaacl (talk) 20:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I put it in. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! isaacl (talk) 02:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I also made the 1st paragraph consistent with the second. i.e. "and on the article talk page" rather than "or", and eliminated "or in edit summaries", which they may do in any case. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, that diverges further from the terms of use, which say "or", so this change can be readily disputed unless a consensus is obtained. Regarding the other change you made, as I understand the terms, the need for disclosure is not limited to edits made to articles. isaacl (talk) 15:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

As someone who has received remuneration working to promote evidence based medicine on Wikipedia as a Wikipedian in Residence — this requirement just doesn't strike me as reasonable. It doesn't take into account any cost-benefit of such a talk-page tag, and with the issues I bring in the section below it borders on ridiculous. Frankly, too tough a policy has the opposite effect of what you're trying to achieve — if the hoops you're required to jump through are too small — you end up promoting undisclosed paid editing, because thats the only thing that is possible. It also skews which editors might be willing to engage in things such as WiR, because if we paint all paid editing as an evil, and as something that only happens behind closed doors without oversight — then only editors who don't care about being evil will do it. We will crush useful initiative such as WiR in favor of less scrupulous practices.

I agree it might be reasonable when you're editing about a certain topic very closely related to your employer — for example I've been planning to draft and propose an article about my employer sbu.se/en to AfC. But, when I write about a health topic such as back pain, and the only criteria set by my employer are to use the best possible sources (allowing me to rummage through their library and get help from their knowledgeable staff) such as tag is frankly pointless.

Another issue is that this may clutter certain talk-pages to such a degree that they hide the actual discussion. Imagine an editathon where 20 people participate to improve an article — now you're going to clutter it with 20 tags on the talk-page stating that they received coffee. You're also imposing a ridiculous burden on the also benign WP:Visiting scholars program run by the WP:Wikipedia Library, where any edit at all using their sources will require talk-page disclosure.

This isn't a minor change at all, it's a massive change — and a very harmful one at that. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• I would say a reasonable reading of "or" is if you are being paid to edit an article or group of articles you disclose on that articles talk page or on your user page. However if you disclose only on your user page you can be pretty sure someone will add a {{connected contributor (paid)}} to the article talk page based on that. (In that case the only real choice "or" gives you is whether you want the disclosures on your user page or not. In the case of edit summaries the "or" deals with making edits in relation to an article you are being paid to edit at other venues like noticeboards, AfD etc. The purpose is to allow other editors to know you have a PAIDCOI without needing to dig for it.

For WiRs I would recommend that they simply note in their disclosure that they are a WiR at a specific organization. I believe WiR is a "public" position ie there is no expectation that one's status as a WiR is in any way private with respect to the Wikipedia community. Jbh^Talk 14:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

What is a "good"? Cookies, coffee?

It seems slightly vague to express that editors must disclose any received "money, goods, or services". I have, and know many who have received coffee and snacks at various editathons and meetups — this doesn't strike me as something that requires disclosure, but according to the current policy it does. Any thoughts? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Come on, let's get serious. Nobody is talking about coffee and cookies. Please do review the section of the FAQ [11]

I believe it's quite harmful to trivialize paid editing with such nonsense. Would you care to propose some wording that would convince people that we're not going to execute them for taking a lolipop? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I also note that your employer seems to be the WMF. We're just not talking about the same things here. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

WMF is actually not my employer, but nevermind that — this isn't about me (I have legitimate things to disclose, and I do).

This arrises from the fact that editors on the Swedish Wikipedia are disclosing these things. Basically they disclose coffee and sandwiches etc., and to stay true to the wording so should we — which means I'm breaking the paid-contribution disclosure policy whenever I've been to an editathon where food/coffee was provided — or if I've ever been to an institution to try to promote Wikipedia and they ended the day with cookies and coffee. I think what would be useful is to have some limit, say $20/$50 USD of goods before disclosure is necessary. This pretty much means no one is able to make a living off of this type of editing, and also removes some sources of confusion. No paid editing providers offer their services for this little, so it wouldn't impact our clout against them — and if needed we could lower the limit, but that would make things such as multi-day conferences with multiple coffees require disclosure. Without this we are leaving it up to editors judgement to say "that isn't enough to influence me" — to venture into comparisons with current politics, a $500 dinner is going to influence you even if you say it doesn't, even if this is bound to be rare within the Wikipedia movement. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 08:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I frankly have never heard anybody suggest that we should require disclosure of coffee and sandwiches. Swedes might want to relax a bit, but that is their business on SvWiki. I don't think we need to get into petty details about whether a $30 coffee-sandwich-soup is ok in New York or Stockholm, but not ok in some place with a lower cost of living. The key is that the "meal" is being offered as a courtesy or a convenience rather that to incur an obligation to make specific edits. I don't think that editathons have ever tried to make editors edit this way. So a bit of added wording might be of help, but I would be very much against any attempt to try to nail details down, rather than just to describe the spirit. So let's add at the end of the definitions section:

"Payment or compensation does not include courtesies or conveniences, such as coffee, sandwiches, or short term day care for children, offered by GLAMs, Wikipedia chapters or affiliates during editathons or similar events."

I think that is already understood by editors, but if you disagree, please add it to the policy. An example of what I wouldn't want to see is adding, right after "children" "or access to restrooms". Some things are just understood.

BTW, I think you're reading the Wikipedians in Residence section incorrectly as well. This is not an additional requirement, but an "all you need to do" minimum requirement. So feel free to be bold and change: "Wikipedians in residence who are paid must disclose which organization (GLAM or similar) pays them.[2]" to

"Wikipedians in residence who are paid only need to disclose which organization (GLAM or similar) pays them.[2]"

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:10, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

The policy covers "contributions for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." Coffee and cookies are supplied as a courtesy, not as compensation for edits. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

So is it worth stating the obvious? Lots of times stating the obvious just leads down a seemingly infinite wormhole. I do think that the "only need to" rather than "must" in the WIR section clarifies what might not be clear.

This type of thing is one reason I've suggested that we define "Commercial editors" and concentrate any strict rules in that section. Jtydog for some reason didn't like that before. Is it worth doing now? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:22, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother stating the obvious. If you'd like to define "commercial editors," I'd have no objection, but I wonder whether it would make any difference, given that this page must mirror the terms of use. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:27, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I disagree that this page "must mirror the terms of use". It must reference the terms of use (at least until an alternative policy is passed, but even then I'd link it). But Wikipedia:Paid-contribution_disclosure#Changing_this_policy and the Terms of use FAQ [12] say that we can make it stricter. "Wikimedia projects may change their policies to reference this requirement, to require stricter requirements for paid contributions, or to provide alternative rules."

BTW, the stricter requirements for creating an alternative policy are laid out at [13]

If there are policies that the community cannot change, I would assume that the WMF would state that loud and clear, rather than stating the opposite. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:36, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I meant that it can't be made stricter without strong consensus, because it's a policy, not a guideline. In the meantime, it must mirror the paid-editing provision of the terms of use, because that provision is the only reason this is policy. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

SarahSV — I will start by saying that I am not a legal professional, but I'm not so sure that the distinction between courtesy and compensation is so clear. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 11:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Question re disclosure

If an editor is employed by an organization, but not specifically to edit Wikipedia or is not asked by it to edit Wikipedia, and that person makes an edit related to their organization, must they disclose that they are paid? Or is that just a COI issue? Thank you for your assistance 331dot (talk) 20:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Specifically, this question deals with the user who has posted on my talk page and I would appreciate any guidance or advice there is. 331dot (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

That is a COI issue unless it can be reasonably construed that it was a part of the persons paid duties. If the person is payed to "promote the organization through various online outlets" — it's paid editing, even if Wikipedia isn't anywhere in the job description. If the person writes about their employer on their free time — it's COI. This of course leaves us with edge cases and a gray zone, you may want to take it up at WP:COI/N if you want more help. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 20:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would judge that absolutely to be a perceived COI, and if the editing was happening "on company time" it could also be undisclosed paid editing. There are other concerns in that case; I am not a lawyer but the contributions could be construed to belong to the organization they work for. A best practice in this case would be for the editor to a) acknowledge the conflict on their userpage and b) request changes on the article talkpage. - Brianhe (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both very much for your replies. I'm a bit confused by the situation I've observed, as the user stated that they weren't specifically paid to edit Wikipedia on my talk page but on theirs posted that they made the edits on behalf of their organization. I will consider proceeding as you suggest above. Thank you again 331dot (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

If they are employed by the company and they made edits on behalf of the company then they are a paid editor from our point of view. If they made the edits in the course of their employment, there is no grey area to that. Jbh^Talk 23:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't really clarify anything — and unfortunately your comment only makes things more confusing by trying to define paid editing as "on behalf of" — a wording the policy does not use. E.g. why it doesn't work:

Say I work at a hospital that is trying to increase the number of liver-transplantations and needs new donors and started up a program to promote that. I work in an entirely different ward and none of my work is specifically concerned with PR. I nonetheless visit a lecture and decide to do something to spread the word: I post on twitter about this project, and I edit the hospitals Wikipedia article. Here I've done something "on behalf of" my employer — but it's not paid editing, (even though it is potentially a case of COI).

Frankly I'm not very happy with the policy as it stands (I think it is to lenient concerning cases of COI, and it only covers direct paid remuneration as opposed to indirect financial gain — say a CEO writing about his company), but that isn't the point — this is what we have and we have to abide with the wording of the policy, and not make up definitions on the go. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 23:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

In the case at hand there really is nothing you should find confusing if you read the linked diffs. The user states directly "PS: I am simply a temporary employee here, trying to help the radio station, since the founder of RADIO 74 and RADIO 74 INTERNATIONALE has referred to his concerns about the Radio 74 article.". This is an employee responding to specific concerns brought up by his employer.

In the example you gave you are not editing "on behalf of" your employer because you are not editing as an agent of your employer. Also, the wording of PAID does not specify the compensation must be direct. Jbh^Talk 01:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the specific case at all (that shouldn't be discussed here but at the relevant noticeboards), but regardless "on behalf of" is not as clear-cut as you make it, and we shouldn't try to simplify things in excess. Nor does the policy cover the type of indirect gain that I mentioned above, even if it does cover unpaid interns. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 07:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Well the specific case is what the OP wanted an answer to. A general discussion, particularly about the CEO example you brought up, would be worth having. As to "on behalf of", please note the definition of client in the policy; "Client: the person or organization on whose behalf the edits are made; the client is often the subject of the article."^{(emp. mine)}

For PAID to apply, based on the policy as written, there must be two things compensation and agency ie what the policy defines as an employer and a client. Often these are the same entity and the policy addresses this. What is less clear, as in your CEO example, is how to deal with those situations where all three "roles" - the person making the edits and what the policy defines as employer and client - are all one person. Right now we tend to handle that situation as a straight COI and I can see arguments for that and dealing with it under PAID. Would you like to discuss that case further? I would be interested in your arguements for handeling financial COI under PAID. Jbh^Talk 13:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Paid anon editors

Please see User talk:207.195.99.254 for an example. I do not think that this person was doing anything underhanded, simply updating an article for his/her employer without having an account. Unfortunately, paid editing without an account makes it simply impossible to declare the paid status in any meaningful way. IP addresses are generally not stable (perhaps stable in the sense of being within a certain range, but the individual addresses are not stable). To allow this person to meaningfully declare their paid status, it seems we need to tell them that they need to have an account. This is the obvious place to do that. There are also issues related to sockpuppeting when editing as an IP.

Probably the easiest way to do this would be to simply require that an account be used in a new section near the top, e.g.

"All paid editors must sign into a user account. They may not use multiple accounts for paid editing, and they may not share the account with other editors."

Simple enough? If you consider the impossibility of making an effective disclosure from an IP, then it doesn't add anything to the actual requirements, but simply clarifies them.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:PAID says disclosure must be made "at least one of the following ways: a statement on your user page, a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions."

Two of these three modalities are available to anon editors so I think this might be a solution in search of a problem. Not to say that ToS non-compliance is not a problem, but I don't really see anons exacerbating the existing problem of non-disclosure. Posing this as "impossible [for anon] to declare the paid status" is actually assuming too much good faith on the part of those failing to do so and finding no solution. In fact they just aren't motivated to disclose. - Brianhe (talk) 17:29, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Yep, an IP editor can include disclosure in an edit summary if they edit the article (which they shouldn't, but can do) and/or can explicitly say it on a talk page. It would take a community-wide RfC to make it policy that paid editors have to register and based on past experience, i believe that would probably go down in flames. Jytdog (talk) 17:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

So an anon declares in the edit summary or on the article talk page that they have made a paid edit. This is not an effective declaration of their paid status in that the next edit from that IP may be made by some other person, who is not being paid. Plus we have no way to be sure that another IP editing the same article is not the same person. All in all a declaration of paid editing from an IP tells you nothing. It's clear that you need an account to actually declare something. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:15, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The ToU says "for each edit". Jytdog (talk) 18:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I think we are all in agreement that compliance from anons is possible but it's a judgment call if it is likely. Maybe somebody wants to do some analysis in how often it happens in practice. Personally I can't think of coming across a single such instance in several years of activity at WP:COIN. The real problem is that there's a real strong WP editor movement (at least vocal, if not numerous) in favor of anonymity at any cost. Jytdog is correct that a significant sea change would be required to change the balance on this. - Brianhe (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm a little lost here, do you mean that having an account is incompatible with anonymity? Frankly having an account is far less traceable than editing from an IP, and maybe it's time to propose once and for all that creating an account should be mandatory… Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 19:18, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Some advocates of privacy are extremely fond of anonymous (IP) editing. I can't fully explain it; I don't do it myself. Meta:Association of Good Faith Wikipedians Who Remain Unregistered on Principle has some rationales. However, we are close to splitting hairs over what "anonymity" means. My comment above was about the reaction people have to any sort of request to self-identify, or investigation of the connection between a WP account and a real-world identity, even if that RW identity is that of a commercial editor. The harm such editing has caused isn't even universally agreed upon. I would point out this: using throwaway SPA accounts is one option for an actor who tries to circumvent disclosure (but can get all the accounts blocked if checkuser or behavioral evidence is solid enough to convince an admin). Sometimes we see this happen in huge cascades as the result of cases often stemming from WP:COIN, one recent example: Smileverse. The resultant cleanup is a huge time sink for those involved.

Acknowledging the OPs concerns, the issue with IPs is that there's correpsonding policy corresponding to WP:SOCK that penalizes rotating the IPs and continuing to work outside the community's constraints. It seems that dyamic IPs are a virtual shield against any kind of consequences. - Brianhe (talk) 22:44, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

(EC)I think it is possible to follow the letter of the ToU if you're an anon, but impossible to actually make an effective disclosure - since the changes in IP addresses would hide any connections between disclosures. It amounts to sockpuppetting (or meatpuppeting in some cases) to use different IPs to make paid edits on the same or related articles, so anon paid editing is damned one way or the other. My proposed change is simply an acknowledgement of the obvious. Given the observation that there hasn't been a single anon IP disclosure, we are safe in saying that this is needed and would clarify what could be a foggy situation for new paid editors. As far as forcing IPs to give up there anonymity - I don't think this proposal would do that - registered accounts are still anonymous. IPs could still edit. The only thing that would be different is that IPs would realize that they can't make effective disclosures of paid edits without registering, so they would have to register, if they wanted to make paid edits and disclose them, in compliance with the ToU. BTW, I am not against having an RfC on this, but it just needs to be a normal RfC just like on any other policy page. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

CFCF That is a much larger issue and one where I think it would also be impossible to get consensus. IF the community did eliminate IP editing Smallbone's issue would go away; this is true.

Smallbones, would be great if you indented your comments. As I said, "requiring" paid editors to register is very unlikely to get consensus; i will add that enforcement of this would be nigh onto impossible, as long as WP remains open as it is now, and is likely to always remain. Jytdog (talk) 19:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

If case studies would help, Special:Contributions/216.220.192.132 is one, including talkpage COI warnings and a temporary block last year, yet more undisclosed editing from this week. - Brianhe (talk) 23:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Unpaid interns

I am in the process of handling an OTRS ticket ticket:2016110110022807 In which someone inquires about the situation if they are an unpaid intern. My response (at the moment still in draft) is that they still have a conflict of interest. However, I am unsure what advice to give them regarding the paid contribution disclosure. They aren't being paid so it seems on the surface as if it doesn't apply. I'm still comfortable stating that they have a conflict of interest — it is not likely they would be attempting to create this article if they were not an intern at a PR firm, and it is almost certain they are receiving some guidance from people who do have a conflict of interest.

One possibility is that we conclude that they do have a conflict of interest but they do not have to fill out the disclosure. I intend to inform them that they should refrain from editing the article but should propose changes additions and corrections on the article talk page. However, it would be slightly odd if the answer is that if they actually were paid they could fill out the paid disclosure and continue to edit but if the not being paid they cannot directly edit the article.

I hope we can have a discussion about this and figure out what advice should be provided.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: As I remember past discussions un-paid interns are required to disclose per WP:PAID because it is effectively an an employer/employee relationship and they are being "compensated" (the term used in the policy rather than "paid") for their edits. They have the same "motivation" to please their employer, if not more, as someone who is being paid. Jbh^Talk 19:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Yep, what JBH said. Jytdog (talk) 20:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't dare trust my recollection, but I thought the distinction was between people being specifically compensated for writing an article, either as "piecework" or as part of the designated work duties, versus someone who happened to be an employee of the company and chose to write about the company even though it might not be part of their job description. In the latter case, the employee was being compensated by an employer one might argue they were doing something that was helpful to the employer. Thus, it might be construed as indirect compensation rather than direct compensation. However, if one is an unpaid intern, they aren't being compensated at all, unless you make the argument that work experience has value. While I don't disagree with the argument that work experience has value, I would not make the argument that they are being compensated.

However we might choose to decide, I think it is understandable that if an unpaid intern starts reading this page and sees the opening sentence "If you are being paid for your contributions to Wikipedia, you must disclose who is paying you, who the client is, and any other relevant role or relationship" They might stop reading, on the plausible belief that it doesn't apply to them. Even if they do plow on and read the subsequent sentence talking about compensation rather than "paid", it is highly likely they can similarly conclude that it still doesn't apply to them. Compensation can be in forms other than direct cash payments, particularly in startup organizations where you may be working for a share of the equity, but I can fully understand that an unpaid intern could read this guideline and conclude it doesn't apply to them.

Obviously, they can have a conflict of interest even if they don't receive payment. That is strongly hinted at in the conflict of interest guidelines section that talks about "those with a conflict of interest, including paid editors" which leaves the correct impression that paid editors have a conflict of interest but others might as well. It is my opinion that an unpaid intern has a conflict of interest and I'm on the fence whether they ought to fill out a disclosure form, but my current position is that if they are expected to fill out a disclosure form this policy page needs some editing work to make that clear.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I now see that we do have clarifying wording "Interns, even if not paid directly, are considered employees for this purpose." I'm worried that it's buried, but I have other fish to fry to I'll move on.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposal - paid editors paid or funded by Wikipedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Those who are willing to do paid editing can ask their "clients" to donate the payment money to Wikimedia Foundation (WMF). Then the WMF can pay the editor a part of that money - as a wage or simply as funding (the editor can create a project like "Improving the Wikipedia articles about Romanian artists" and get their project funded by the WFM). The editor will help the clients to create (to be more precise: to add information to) a Wikipedia article, without obligations for maintaining it in the future. And they will do this transparently, of course. WMF team will check the editor's work in order to make sure it suits an encyclopedia and that the work doesn't remove from the article facts that might be "inconvenient" for the client. I think this is the best way to do paid editing. An honest and good quality service that many people and companies probably need and are ready to pay for. I remember reading some years ago an article on TG Daily claiming that many companies simply have no idea how to edit the Wikipedia articles about them. Therefore there is a need for someone to help them to do that (although the big associations of companies can probably afford to hire a few people dedicated to improve Wikipedia articles).

This endeavor should not be done for making more money. It should simply be done in order to help the companies and individuals to create an article on Wikipedia, an article that contains the important facts about them, and that is arranged to look good - many companies and professionals that have or deserve an article on Wikipedia simply have no idea how to do it. And they need someone that can be trusted to help them to create or to improve those articles. On Romanian Wikipedia for example, there are many, many articles about artists or writers that are poorly written - and probably many of them would be interested to pay to someone to improve those articles, but they can't find anyone to do that. The editor will be funded by Wikipedia, so their main interest will be to improve the encyclopedia, not to promote the interests of the clients. They will be checked by the WMF, and if they are not doing their work properly, the funding will go to other editors. This approach can fix the problem of conflict of interests. —  Ark25  (talk) 12:35, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Many, many, many problems with this proposal, don't have time to go through them. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

First among them would be loss of safe harbor and making the WMF responsible for content, which is a non-starter from the WMF's point of view. Second is giving the WMF editorial control, which is a non-starter from the community's point of view. Jbh^Talk 14:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedians and British Museum curators collaborate on the article Hoxne Hoard in June 2010

Sorry but, actually, WMF is inevitably responsible for content. Whenever the community of editors fail to make sure that the content of a specific article complies with the legal requirements, then the WMF has to step in and do the cleaning - there's no way it can avoid that. And according to this proposal, WMF only has to give a clearance for the articles edited by the paid editors, as a safety measure - one or two WMF employees can do that.

I don't understand how can WMF lose safe harbor with this - it won't attract "shady dealers". At his moment, there are probably all kind of people doing paid editing without any transparency. With my proposal, the clients can find more reliable editors, and those editors can have certificates from WMF, based on their activity. Most likely, it will considerably reduce the size of the gray market.

On a second thought, I realize that, in fact, the paid editors can be controlled by the community, not by the WMF. And it makes sense, because the community has all the interest to keep the activity of the paid editors transparent and to reduce the gray market, just as the WMF has the same interest. And then the WMF only has to bother about the money part.

The Wikipedia article contains a video with the caption Wikipedians and British Museum curators collaborate on the article Hoxne Hoard in June 2010 - once the WMF has enough money, it can sponsor such activities, along with Museums, Culture ministries, etc.

But I must admit that the various associations of companies and artists can afford to pay some people to take care of the Wikipedia articles. Maybe the WMF or the Wikipedia community should show them how to do that. —  Ark25  (talk) 00:52, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Nobody "deserves an article", certainly not if they have to pay for it. I think you could organize some sort of paid editing system if you'd like, but the following rules would have to apply:

• the employer of the paid-editors would have to be a non-profit, other than the WMF, whose only interest is the improvement of articles.
• the applicant for the positions of paid editors would have to outline what topics they want to edit beforehand, e.g. biology, medieval history, philosophy and then edit a minimum number of articles in that area over the course of a year. Otherwise they would control their own work.
  • topics such as businesses, BLPs, and pop culture where there could be outside monetary interests would not be allowed
  • applicants would have to have demonstrated knowledge in a needed area, e.g. a philosophy prof on sabbatical
• they'd have to follow the current rules, i.e. disclosure and no direct editing of article (just drop a note on the talk page). Perhaps the outside foundation could recruit unpaid editors to review and post the articles.
• the outside foundation would have to come up with its own money, i.e. be completely independent of the WMF.

So you're probably saying to yourself "What fun would that be? Nobody would be willing to pay for an unbiased expert article in an area that doesn't concern them!" Maybe that's the point. But actually there very well may be a few - I wouldn't rule it out. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:27, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

There are many cases where there are people who are notable but they simply have no idea how to create a Wikipedia article about themselves. They don't want to have an article to put them in a good light - they just want to have an article about them, containing the good and the bad too, but written properly. Also, there are very few editors and there are no editors willing to create those articles. That happens in the small Wikipedias, but also in the English Wikipedia - a Romanian artist might want an English article about themselves too. This encyclopedia will be better by having articles about those people than not having them. That's what I meant by "deserving".

There is no need to recruit unpaid editors. If they show that they are doing their work in good faith, the paid editors should be able to edit the articles directly. The reviewing part can be done by simply removing (a part of) the work of the paid editors - the regular Wikipedia users are doing that anyways.

The WMF can start such a foundation and then it can "externalize" it - i.e. putting it into the hands of outside entity.

I can't agree that the paid editors shouldn't write articles about businesses and living people. In the end, it's all about good faith.

And I don't agree that it won't be fun to write "unbiased expert article in an area that doesn't concern them". The Governments for example have all the interest to make education and knowledge available, so they should be very interested to pay for articles about all kind of scientific and cultural topics. There are also lots of foundations promoting better education, they should be interested too.

Back to the businesses and BLP, if you can assume the good faith of the employer, then you can also assume the good faith of the paid editor who writes about businesses and BLP - that until proven otherwise. We are not guilty or evil by default. Even a judge can give a correct sentence if they would have to judge their family. Assuming good faith should be applied even to those who are paid to edit Wikipedia. —  Ark25  (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

People shouldn't create articles about themselves at all... Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 17:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

• Experience has shown that paid and COI editors are, in general, incapable of writing NPOV copy. Whether they are editing in good faith or not they are compromised by their conflict of interest. It is unreasonable to expect people to edit counter to their own financial best interest nor is anyone objective in regards to themselves or their works. Idealism is great but we have already seen the results of just AGF in this area - that is why created WP:COI and, when that proven not strong enough, the WMF changed the Terms of Use and we came up with WP:PAID to implement those changes.

  Any organization created to edit Wikipedia for money will, over time, behave ways that benefit that organization not Wikipedia. Jbh^Talk 18:03, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Promotion and advertising by paid editors

There is some discussion at WP:COI about paid editors using ads or promotion. I think it's best handled here. Here's a proposal:

Advertising by paid editors

• No editor may advertise or promote paid editing on Wikipedia. All advertisement or promotion of specific paid editors or paid editing services should be removed immediately. The required disclosures are not considered a form of advertisement or promotion.
• Any advertising posted outside of Wikipedia must include a link to your user page to let your clients know about your status and qualifications as a Wikipedia editor. Your user page must include a paid editing disclosure..
• To avoid confusion or possible impersonation, you may not link to another editor's user page in any advertisement.

The first point is already policy as part of WP:NOT, no ads and no promotion are allowed on Wikipedia.

The third point "no impersonation" is already part of the ToU (already quoted on the page)

The only thing that might be the least controversial here, is that outside ads must link back to the editor's user page. This transparency really is just standard disclosure practice in most businesses and non-profits. And it is good advertising practice as well. How can your client judge the quality of your editing without knowing your user name?

If there is anything else needed to keep advertising for paid-editing services honest, please add it.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

The first point we can and should enforce but what people do and say off of Wikipedia is not something we have any power over. Businesses which impersonate or misrepresent themselves may be open to legal claims or ToU violations at their host site if they have one but that is something which would need to be pursued in off-wiki venues. Jbh^Talk 15:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually, if they are Wikipedia editors, what they claim about being Wikipedia editors off-Wiki is relevant to us and is enforceable here, e.g. by blocking their account. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah... err... no. We can control, to an extent, what people do here. What they do elsewhere, except in the case of off-wiki harassment which there is a consensus can be punished, is not something Wikipedia can control. Jbh^Talk 20:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

We do not allow people to use our logo in their efforts to advertising Wikipedia editing services, so we are already making and enforcing what people can do off Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs email) 20:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Defending against trademark infringement is far, far.... far from what was being discussed above when it was suggested that we require a link to a paid editor's user page in their advertisements. No matter what you may believe, Wikipedia can not require individuals to perform off-wiki actions in order to use the site. Even in the case of trademarks (Which, again, have nothing to do with what has been proposed) it is a case of enjoining a particular action not requiring an affirmative action. Jbh^Talk 21:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

We can of course require individuals who wish to be involved with paid editing here to carry out certain actions if they wish to continue to be involved with legitimate paid editing here.

It is similar to how we can have requirements around the legitimate use of our logo. Editing Wikipedia is a privilege not a right. Whether or not we choose to institute this is up to us. Enforcement is another matter. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I was bold and added the following section - which I don't think anybody can disagree with if they know our rules. I will suggest that we strengthen it.

Advertising and promotion by paid editors

No editor may advertise or promote a product, service, or company on Wikipedia. No editor, including paid editors, may advertise or promote the services of a paid editor or related paid editing services on Wikipedia. All advertisement or promotion of specific paid editors or paid editing services should be removed immediately. The required disclosures are not considered a form of advertisement or promotion.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes I reverted. Was considering the discussion, and am not sure yet. This statement for sure will not fly with the community, as it could be interpreted as meaning that simply referring someone to a paid editor is violating policy. Paid editing is not barred by policy so certainly referring someone to a paid editor cannot be. The first sentence also goes way beyond the scope of paid editing. Jytdog (talk) 18:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

The first sentence is just WP:NOADS and WP:Promo so sets the context for the section. As I said, nobody who knows our rules can disagree with that. So I added the further reading blurb at the top of the section. If folks think that referring somebody to a paid editor is advertising or promotion, it should be deleted per WP:NOT; if they don't think so, then this section does not mean anything extra. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Policies are distinct for a reason, there is no reason to have them creep together. Please remember that policy reflects consensus; it isn't rules that can be drawn up and then enforced. As I said I don't think you will find much support at all that referring someone to a paid editor is verboten and like an OUTING or BLP violation must be removed on sight. Please wait to see how others react to the specific proposal you have made. Jytdog (talk) 18:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

"Policies are distinct for a reason" - actually no, they are not usually distinct at all. Almost all policies quote or refer to other policies, e.g. WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:RS. "Policy ... isn't rules that can be drawn up and enforced" - sure, policies are written by editors and enforced all the time. If you're worried that you can't go to WP:COIN and say "it appears that user:xxxx is a paid editor" - I don't think that anybody could take that to be an ad or promotion. But if somebody is asked to suggest a paid editor for a certain job, and answers "User:xxxx is a fine experienced editor and admin who knows all the rules, and all the tricks to get around them. He has many satisfied paid editing customers, and you won't be sorry going with him," I'd say that's promotion. I don't know about a response like "you might want to see User:xxxx" but I don't think something that short and vague would even get a warning.

So please just don't say "no, this isn't possible." It is current policy and it makes sense to put it on a page where paid editors come to check the rules. Please suggest constructive changes in the wording. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Not placing adverts on Wikipedia is indeed a policy we already have and should such a circumstance occur we already have policies to remove such material. The example you give above though is more like prior restraint on speech - yeah I know no freedom of speech. If someone asks a question you, in this case, can not dictate how one of our volunteers responds. If such a question/answer is used/placed/maintained in such a way that looks like an attempt to game the "no-adverts" rule that is what we have ANI for. Jbh^Talk 20:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)sure this can and should cite NOT, that isn't a big deal at all just to get rid of the first sentence and start the 2nd with, "Per WP:PROMO..." The last sentence is fine. It is the bits trying to control what non-paid editors say or do that is problematic as well as the "remove immediately" thing.

I think that stating that the required disclosure is not promotion is helpful. So something like the following might be OK....

Per WP:PROMO, paid editors may not advertise or promote their services in Wikipedia. The required disclosures are not advertisement or promotion.

-- Jytdog (talk) 20:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps:

Per WP:PROMO, services may not be advertised or promoted on Wikipedia by anyone. The explicitly required disclosures are not to be presented as advertisement or promotion.

Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I think we're all close enough on what's acceptable that we might as well put in the briefest form. People should feel free to edit it of course, but please, without removing material or going beyond the general agreement here, until a new agreement is reached. I do think that people might be reading things into what I suggested that aren't there (e.g. prior restraint on free speech) but that with something solid in the policy, everybody will get used to the meaning and see that we really haven't done anything other than very leniently restate existing policy. It does make sense to have the short restatement on this page - because this is where new paid editors will first read the rules. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

This is not the way to change policy. What the heck is your hurry? Jytdog (talk) 03:46, 18 November 2016 (UTC)