I've taken SlimVirgin's proposed text and made some tweaks based on the extensive feedback. I can support this proposal. The main change is to eliminate the reference to "paid advocacy" which is confusing to some people because all advocacy is forbidden on Wikipedia. I've tried to be more literal by referring to paid editing of articles. Jehochman ^Talk 22:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: I like this so much more than all previous proposals. It is clean and points to how paid editors should behave and can participate in a simple fashion, rather than completely forbidding the possibility of constructive participation. This still leaves scholars who may be employees of academic institutions or publishing concerns in a gray area (and perhaps that is OK). I still believe that we need to hammer out more effective ways of addressing the problem of non-paid fans and other PoV-pushers (including paid editors, licensees, volunteers and others who choose not to reveal their advocacy). • Astynax ^talk 02:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose: I would prefer a zero paid editing policy, and this feels like it can open the door for weaker rules against it. I would rather not see some talk pages will turn into an order book, i.e. placing orders for edits. If one editor agrees with the edit request, and another disagrees, is it settled in the same way as normal conflicts? Still would like to hear opinions from advocates for the policy though. Esoxid^{talk•contribs} 03:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This is still in the draft phase and needs a rewrite, so supports and opposes are premature. I think I know what you mean in the "Subject-matter experts" section, but it is written so loosely, you could drive a truck through it. What's a subject-matter expert? What does it mean to " simply make sure that their external financial relationships in the field do not interfere with their primary role on Wikipedia."? Just need to tighten it up. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Especially with the phrasing "must not edit affected articles directly", this proposal seems concerned with edits to existing articles, remaining silent about the creation of new ones, which is a major activity of hired writers. Should it be allowed in the main space, user space, the incubator, Articles for Creation, or not at all? The phrasing "paid Wikipedia article writing services [...] violate Wikipedia's policies" implies article creation is not to be allowed at all; if that was intended, it could be said explicitly. —rybec 04:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I do not believe an anti paid editing policy to be necessary or desirable. Note that our most virulent POV hawks, religious and nationalistic matters, are certainly not paid. All this will do is drive it underground. Far better to find an agreed path forward with the paid editing firms. Far more effective.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is always going to be a suspicion that paid editors have a built-in bias and/or agenda that may conflict with the encyclopedic purpose. That is not always the case, though it does occur, and this proposal is less drastic than the complete ban being sought by many. Since the real problem is advocacy, I'm wondering if the community would be satisfied if there were an automatic review process for contributions by paid editors, rather than banning their edits completely or having them submit a request that another editor insert information or corrections? As people seem to think that an outright ban would lessen the problem of paid advocacy, resources would be freed (from addressing PoV and CoI disputes) for handling such reviews. Regardless of which, if any, proposal advances, the greater problem of the sheer frustration and wasted time posed by all advocacy (paid and unpaid) will still be with us and need to be addressed separately. • Astynax ^talk 08:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think a lot of trouble can be avoided by setting a standard that prohibits paid editing. While some paid editors might be able to edit just fine, it is a slippery slope. All concerned would be better off to set up a "fence" some distance back from the problem that we wish to avoid. The flip side of preventing commercial editing is that Wikipedia needs to be very responsible to requests by article subjects related to the fairness of our coverage. If we don't let them edit, we need to fix bona fide problems when they are reported. Jehochman ^Talk 13:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - this draft seems to focus on the status of the editor rather than the content of the edits. I don't think that paid representatives should be banned from making uncontroversial, technical changes. For instance, a company should be allowed to update outdated revenue figures with more recent numbers. I'm concerned that if routine, noncontroversial edits must be requested, these edits will just not be made in a timely fashion. I'm also concerned that we're undermining our WP:SOFIXIT culture. I'd like to see a proposal that says that editors should not make changes that might provide them with a tangible benefit rather than a proposal that says they "must not edit affected articles directly". GabrielF (talk) 07:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like a significant segment of the community is fed up with persistent advocacy that seems to continually worsen, and see paid/COI editing as the source for much of that. Some of CoI edits occur in little-watched articles, so advocacy slips through and may remain for a very long time before detected. Few Wikipedians enjoy taking on persistent advocates and that is another reason that advocacy slips through the cracks. The typical volunteer editor would also have less time and energy to expend on tackling advocacy than a paid employee or consultant, so that causes some to avoid disputing advocacy (or drop out of pursuing the byzantine and drawn-out remedies available). Fans, members, and other motivated editors with no direct financial interest can be equally frustrating in advocating and PoV-pushing, but the point has been repeatedly made that addressing a segment of the problem is at least moving in the right direction. I personally think that there should be a mechanism to allow paid editors to contribute the types of noncontroversial and neutral edits which you mentioned, and at least this draft includes ways they may. "Tangible benefit" may not make distinguishing editors with a COI any easier and may confuse people further (tangible how?). I do not see this proposal as doing enough to rectify the underlying problem (advocacy of all kinds), but I also see no reason that this proposal could not be one of a package of policy measures and example guides more clearly and effectively address advocacy (paid or unpaid), make it quicker and less time consuming to address violations, and create a streamlined way for contributions by paid editors or others who may be perceived as having a CoI. • Astynax ^talk 08:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support A balanced well reasoned proposal. Would like to see a bit more about the outing policy not protecting those who are paid editors. If you are the head of marketing of some large firm you should not expect to be able to edit the articles about your products anonymously and not be called on it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to say the opposite: outing is not allowed ever. The problem is that innocent people can be outed during a hunt for COI editing. This policy will help invalidate the business model of paid editing. It will help when somebody declares that they work for a business. I won't help when people are secretive. In those cases we can refer to WP:NPOV to stop the advocacy. Our policies each provide different protections, and to be comprehensive there must be overlaps at the "seams". What do you think? Jehochman ^Talk 13:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as proposer. This may not be perfect, but it is a good starting point and can be improved over time. Jehochman ^Talk 13:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would like this proposal to explicitly allow using articles for creation. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, while appreciating the attempt. I can think of 6 ways of gaming this policy right now. A non-enforceable policy is useless. Staszek Lem (talk) 15:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, as an improvement on the first proposal. This is too important to argue to death while nothing is accomplished (SOP here, alas). Miniapolis 16:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose (1) Unnecessary policy that will reduce the volume of constructive edits. (2) The draft as it stands would prohibit paid editors from performing even simple edits like updating statistics or dead links, adding citations, or expanding through constructive research. (3) It only allows paid editors to suggest edits on talk pages, which assumes a plentitude of capable patrolling editors. Sadly, we know there are few such editors compared to the size of wikipedia, and we know that pool is shrinking. (4) Clearly undermines WP:BOLD, which states wikipedia develops faster "when everybody helps to fix problems, correct grammar, add facts, make sure wording is accurate, etc." (5) The goals of this proposed policy are already accomplished through other accepted policies, such as WP:NPOV.--Rawlangs (talk) 17:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: At least this proposal has a vandalism clause, though I don't think it's strong enough, since it doesn't cover correcting non-vandalism errors, such as the equivalent of a wrong birthdate, nor does it cover cases where someone from the company asks Wikipedia to fix an error and Wikipedia just delays forever.

And another thing I've notied, both on Wikipedia and elsewhere, is that when it comes to anti-business political positions, it's very common to see someone accuse the other side of being a corporate shill. If you go to Jimbo's talk page and search for Monsanto, you'll see a case where was a user was accused of being a Monsanto shill to such a degree that he had to open a COI investigation about himself just to clear his name. The worse we treat paid editing, the more we encourage this sort of thing. Ken Arromdee (talk) 18:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Bias and propaganda should be addressed. It is possible that a user can be accused of paid editing, while their only intent is to get across a neutral point of view. This would leave the door open for opposing pov pushers. Also, there is no sure measure to know if someone is a paid editor (even if it is sometimes obvious). While unlikely, it is possible for a paid editor to contribute neutral and informative content. Biases cause as much trouble as paid editing can, and removing editing capabilities of one allows the other to push their agenda. Non-neutral pov or promotion should be deleted. Editors should be addressed if they abuse guidelines, including those having to do with bias and propaganda. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 18:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support - I frankly prefer the first draft (allowing paid advocates the freedom to edit provided that they weren't violating NPOV and provided that they declared a COI). I think it's often the case that a company will have gained positive RS-based coverage without any negative RS coverage and the paid advocate can quite easily perform advocacy simply by writing an encyclopedic article that covers the activities of the company and the praise it has received from third parties. In other words there are clearly times when advocacy interests and encyclopedic interests can align in the final product. It seems like there should at least be a WP:AFC option available for these editors if they are actually forbidden from editing the articles period. But this has my support for now because something needs to be done about this issue and far too many editors are making the perfect into the enemy of the good here. -Thibbs (talk) 19:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Thibbs: I agree that AFC should, and would, be allowed under this proposal. There's a problem if Wikipedia has articles about a company, but has nothing about a competitor of equivalent notability. The missing competitor could complain that Wikipedia was damaging her business reputation by not providing equal coverage. Jehochman ^Talk 19:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK I'll strike "weak". I think it gives the wrong impression anyway. I do support this proposal, but I more strongly support the first draft. -Thibbs (talk) 04:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This proposal is written in pretty arbitrary terms, and lacks a sound theoretical underpinning. For example, the definition of commercial editing may well be tweaked, or have been tweaked, to exclude or include certain things, and it would be hard to tell. It specifically includes two cases which I am very ambivalent about, the reward board and the education program. My feeling is that offering a bounty for an article about a company or individual comes very close to the exact bad sort of paid editing we don't want, and our education program should be Wikiversity or a new MOOC program, not some crusade to get unpaid helpers to increase the value somebody gets when they pay college tuition. I refused to get involved in it when asked because the student needs to submit some kind of token to prove he's part of the course i.e. paid tuition, and that's not Wikipedia, that's just being a chump - an unpaid internship without even the make-believe career prospects. Maybe the perfect is the enemy of the good, but I don't think that starting a policy on this inconsistent basis is going to be productive. Wnt (talk) 19:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we approve something that goes in the right direction, and then have separate discussions about each detail, such as the reward board, and fix them. I think that if the reward board is obsolete or bad, it can be eliminated by miscellany for deletion. If we try to roll too many different changes into this page, we will not make progress. Jehochman ^Talk 19:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really the way I see it. We have a pretty strong informal policy about paid editing thanks to Jimbo, dating back a very long way, and the purpose of a formal policy is to improve the explanation of the concept. The possibility of banning a paid editor using the policy is practically irrelevant - he is an absolute nobody, a low-paid hireling who can be replaced tomorrow - rather, it is the potential for the employer to be humiliated in the press, and/or a careful documentation in our article of the whatever facts the company was seeking to suppress, which is the punishment. So we really don't need to formalize this policy next week or next year. We should only do so when it provides clarity of purpose, rather than confusion. Wnt (talk) 20:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I need a write up, endorsed by the community, of whatever this informal policy is. When warning, blocking or banning somebody, I want to point to a document and say, "This is the rule you've broken." If a friend or client asks me to fiddle with their Wikipedia article, I want to have a document I can point to and say, "No, I can't do that myself. Here's how you would go about fixing your article." Writing clarifies thought and helps transfer knowledge. Unwritten conventions are not as effective. Jehochman ^Talk 23:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. This is a good start and it seems like something we can actually get a consensus on. Concerns about what constitutes "paid editing" are easy to resolve as they're already addressed at WP:COI#Financial. My primary concern is in what constitutes "disclos[ing] their conflict of interest." In past discussions some editors have suggested that simply putting a note on one's user page saying "I engage in [unspecified] paid editing" is sufficient. I disagree; the paid editing COI must be disclosed on the talk page being edited, either at the top or included with the editor's first comment in each discussion. No one should ever be incentivized to put COI disclosures where others might not notice them. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: See my post on the original proposal. --Elvey (talk) 20:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This proposal is better than the earlier ones. While the exact limits of its scope will need to be worked out over times, we need to prohibit the most egregious forms of paid editing. DavidinNJ (talk) 05:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The proposal singles out individuals who are being paid to edit or expect to receive tangible benefits for editing. But what if someone's significant other has a significant stake in the business or organization that he or she wants to edit an article about? (Your significant other, or someone else with whom you have a very close personal relationship – and in the case of a spouse [and possibly a parent], that personal relationship would imply that your own financial well-being is related to your spouse's ties to the business or organization in question.) Dezastru (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think that sort of thing would (and should) fall outside of the scope of this proposed policy. You're editing and you're receiving a tangible benefit from the its subject, but you're not receiving a tangible benefit "to" edit the article. Hence the appearance of impropriety is lessened. Of course you'd still have a "vanilla" COI under the WP:COI guideline and your editing would be strongly discouraged. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is straying away from the specific concern I was raising, but following up on what you're saying: Suppose Simon works for an attorney who is retained by Mr. Jones to protect Mr. Jones' reputation, broadly speaking. Mr. Jones does not directly pay Simon (Mr. Jones' attorney does), and Mr. Jones has never even met Simon personally. Mr. Jones hasn't had any discussions specifically about Wikipedia with the attorney, or with Simon. Would the proposal being discussed here be intended to prevent Simon from editing a Wikipedia article about Mr. Jones? Because I can see editors arguing that since they are not party to any formal agreement that explicitly mentions Wikipedia, their edits are not covered by the proposed policy. Dezastru (talk) 05:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we can get the policy's broad contours right, interesting problems like the one you've posed can be addressed down the road. Editing on behalf of a spouse with a financial COI would probably fall within the scope of WP:MEAT. Jehochman ^Talk 23:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're getting at with WP:MEAT, but as I read that policy, it is the solicitation of editing by the first party that is prohibited, not the editing by the second party itself. A person could be editing an article about their spouse's business, without the spouse being aware the editing is occurring. (I understand that you just want to get consensus on fundamental principles for a policy. I'm just wondering about potential loopholes.) Dezastru (talk) 05:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this is an improvement but it has the following weaknesses.

1. Per Thibbs, I like the idea that paid advocates have to identify themselves – which would lessen the need for the kind of restrictions that Rawlangs is grumbling about.
2. Per the discussion below, “some other form of close financial relationship with the subject” is very vague and needs spelling out in more detail. As worded, it includes all academics writing about their own subject.
3. “similar scholarly work.” Ha – this little statement hints at a significant bias here. Any casual observer of the advice from academia provided on behalf of the foodstuffs industry may have noticed what a parcel of rogues they seem to be, bought and sold on a regular basis. This idea that educators are somehow exempt from bias, whilst anyone with a commercial interest in a topic is by definition PoV pushing is naïve and absurd. A policy of this kind needs to treat the paid employees of a university on an equal basis with the manager of a car factory rather than assume the moral high ground on behalf of one or other cadre.
4. Given the above – better perhaps to ditch clause 2 altogether, which is in any case largely covered by WP:COI? Ben MacDui 09:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - this covers the main points of difficulty we have with commercial editors. I hope that if enacted, this will result in many editors, who would have been tiresome COI-pushers, to engage usefully with the encylopedia. Optimistically, I like to believe most do wish to play by the rules. There is a burden on us as the editing community to make sure that there is a working and efficient system for "white-hat" commercial users to obtain edits that are in theirs and Wikipedia's mutual interest. I would suggest this policy page clearly links to a plain-and-simple guide to engaging with the community to request edits.

This will be difficult to enforce for those insist on ignoring the rules, but hopefully this should be a small proportion of COI editors.

Lastly, if this is enacted, I would suggest we reverse part of the usernames policy such that we allow, and indeed encourage, usernames implying association with a corporate entity, such that good-faith corporate editors can engage with the community openly.

Short version, support, but make sure being a good-faith corporate editor can work. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 11:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose - Is this horse not dead yet? This is really focusing on blocking something entirely because of the actions of a few. Good edits are good edits, regardless of who makes them. Bad edits likewise. This is like "stop all editing because some people don't follow the rules". It also doesn't address any of the really important issues like when you are receiving tangible benfit - is an employee editing on their own time, but with a work computer, without specific instruction covered by this? What if they do it at home? What if their boss just says "you're good with computers, can you tidy that up a bit?" The simple fact is that you are not going to prevent COI editing, and this sort of arbitrary rule only serves to undermine constructive editing. Furthermore, just keeping the argument going by starting new proposals strikes me as just trying to wear down the opposition to the point where they can't be bothered to comment on this weeks proposal - this is the 5th one in a month! Drop it, it's dead, move on. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 12:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once any given proposal has been finalized, a Request for Comments will have to approve it as a policy or guideline, so there will be an opportunity for dissenters to register their opinions then. isaacl (talk) 14:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Especially because of the last part of the proposal: If you see advertisements offering paid Wikipedia article writing services, know that these services violate Wikipedia's policies. Before hiring any of these services, you should ask yourself: do you really want to hire a rule-breaker and risk the potential embarrassment?. This is a clear failure to adhere to WP:AGF by assuming that someone who is getting paid for editing always breaks the rules. That is not necessarily so. The Banner talk 15:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the two criteria for identifying a financial conflict of interest: though the first criterion is specifically targeted at those paid for editing Wikipedia, it's unclear if the second criterion is inclusive of all employees. Low-level employees are not typically considered to be significant stakeholders, but they do have a financial relationship with the article's subject. Either way, I think this point should be made clear. isaacl (talk) 16:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - this is important and hard because it can define the border between what is and what is not acceptable. If an employee edits Wikipedia 2 hours a year - is that a problem? If an employee is a regular Wikipedia editor and occasionally makes edits to the article(s) representing the employer - is that a problem? What if the employee includes negative information about the employee - not out of spite but in an attempt to provide balance - is that a problem? These issues will need to be resolved some day. -- kosboot (talk) 17:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the reasons I suggested above that it might be more workable if, instead of banning paid editors (however they are compensated or employed) we substitute an automatic review process for contributions by paid editors in place of the requirement that they submit a request that another editor insert information or corrections. It allows a whole host of editors with possible CoIs to contribute, makes sure that they aren't advocating and actually gives the contributions from such self-declared editors more legitimacy (i.e., in that they will be automatically reviewed). • Astynax ^talk 19:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The paid editor will never suggest negative info about their employer. No matter how accurate and well-referenced their material, the presences of such editors introduces systematic bias. I think the simplest and easiest rule is to just exclude them. On the flipside, when we do that, we become obligated to process requests for repairs expediently. We cannot publish info about people without a process to ensure accuracy and speedy remedy of problems. Jehochman ^Talk 19:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like your formulation. Although if you say "agree" above, that would exclude that, wouldn't it? -- kosboot (talk) 19:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're editing within the scope of your employment then you have a financial COI, period. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I don't see thinks so black-and-white. "Within the scope of your employment" - what does that mean? If you edit an entry related to your employer -- and WP activity is NOT considered part of your employment - is that ok? If you're a professor of Victorian literature, and you edit an entry dealing with Victorian literature, there is certainly a possibility of financial interest there - so why is that ok? -- kosboot (talk) 21:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Within the scope of employment" is a common legal term that roughly speaking means within one's job duties or expectations, typically for the benefit of the employer. If WP activity isn't considered part of your employment expectations then you have a "vanilla" COI that would fall under WP:COI but not under this proposed policy. As for the professor, professors generally aren't expected to edit Wikipedia and when they do, it's almost always anonymous, so there's no benefit to the university. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. There are many cases where one can edit an article related to one's employer without any possibility of a tangible benefit to either the employer or the employee. As an example, an engineer for a major technology company wants to update List of displays by pixel density to include the latest generation of his company's products. The company is not going to derive any material benefit from this minor technical change. GabrielF (talk) 01:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with GabrielF here. What if one's editing activites are "outside the expectations" of one's job. Is that ok? And if it is, how do you define the border? (One problem with this discussion is that is stems from the Wiki-PR case so everyone is insuring that explicit for-profit editing is disallowed - but I think that's preventing what people should be thinking about which are the borders when something goes from unacceptable to acceptable. That would be more useful in clarifying the issue. -- kosboot (talk) 03:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these forks don't divide and conquer the movement to get a policy in place. The forks contain the same use of "affected" that Jehochman complained about (by tagging it as vague) in the original!

The massive amount of bad new policy in the "No harassment of editors" section feels designed to torpedo the policy. Glad it's not in the 3rd (AKA 2nd) draft. --Elvey (talk) 20:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just made it 4. :) (Wikipedia:Sock puppetry/Employees) This is based on my comment above. Wnt (talk) 21:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to keep creating new drafts by refactoring the previous one, taking into account all the feedback. Once a discussion gets to a certain length fresh editors won't bother to read it all, and will be discouraged from commenting. By iterating through drafts we can keep getting feedback and keep making it better. Simply editing the proposal continuously isn't workable because then we don't really know what version people were looking at when they made their comment. If the number of proposals gets too large, we can remove the ones with the least support from the template. Eventually we should get a consensus version. Jehochman ^Talk 01:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like this proposal better than the first draft, and "commercial editing" is a much clearer term. However, it leaves too many cases ambiguous, so further clarity is still needed.

• Can an engineer who works for a software company (who isn't paid for their PR work) edit their employer's article? Assume they own minimal stock, and that nobody at the firm would know they made the edits.
• Can a government employee edit an article about their agency? Does it matter if they're trying to get more helpful information out to the public, versus inflating their agency's successes?
• Can somebody who is employed by a political action committee make subject-matter edits on topics addressed by that committee?
• Presumably there should be some mention of nonprofits, unions, religious organizations, etc to clarify the extent of "commercial". The same concerns could apply to such organizations, even though they may not be commercial.
• What about other relationships that are monetary but not owner/contractor? If I'm an ongoing customer of a company, can I edit their article? If I depend on a social welfare program, can I edit its article?

Thanks, Proxyma (talk) 02:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would add licensee, franchise holder, appointed dealer, legal representative, agent and volunteer to the list. • Astynax ^talk 02:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should simplify things by saying any editing with the main purpose of generating profit is not allowed. Wikipedia is a non-commercial website. Let's keep it that way. Jehochman ^Talk 12:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit here addresses most of my concerns regarding situations in which someone has an interest in advocacy without direct payments. • Astynax ^talk 19:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although I strongly oppose this (outlawing commercial editing), just to keep the playing field level, I would add: Grant reciepients who are editing WP or directing the editing of WP as a result of the grant proposal. --Mike Cline (talk) 12:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the purpose of the grant is to promote scholarly work, that is not incompatible with Wikipedia's goals. We specifically allow that sort of editing. If the grant is to promote political activism, or commercial advantage, I think we would slam that very hard. Jehochman ^Talk 12:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the rub. A grant can be related to "scholarly work" but the resultant editing from that scholarly work can be very POV because of the nature of the grant proposal. And don't lose sight of the fact that universities are "commercial entities" with income statements and balance sheets. Grant $$$ are income for universities, professors and staff. As a result, they behave no different from the Pizza Chain owners trying to create the favorable image in WP that they want. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some scholars do hit the PR circuits to tout their own works or programs (or those of their departments), and I would see using Wikipedia for that sort of promotionalism as also being unacceptable advocacy and a financial CoI. Not that scholars shouldn't contribute at all, even in their own fields, but they should recuse themselves from promoting their own work or departmental programs (or attacking opposing works or programs). • Astynax ^talk 19:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At times users have objected to this policy because they say it will be impossible to enforce with anonymous users. I disagree. Here's an example of a possible paid editing project I came across today, P.H. Yu. Notice how the article was created by a small number of users with no edits outside this topic, and how remarkably good at wikicode they are for having only a few dozen edits under their belts. Notice how the article is strictly positive, even glowing. As a test I added the fact that the gentleman's company Xinnet was the worlds largest registrar of spam domains as of 2009. We will see if single purpose accounts appear to edit war over the inclusion of that negative fact. Jehochman ^Talk 12:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It says "De minimis edits to correct obvious errors are usually not sanctioned either, though the editor...". The words "not sanctioned" can mean "not officially approved by us" or "not given punishments (sanctions) by us". Which does it mean? Lou Sander (talk) 13:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the text to clarify. isaacl (talk) 14:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "Financial conflicts of interest" section, #2, describes a financial conflict of interest regarding editing an article relating to the company or subject that one has a COI with. It needs to mention that editing a business rival's page, etc., in such a case is also prohibited. It's yet another reason why "advocacy" should stay buried as a term in these proposals. First Light (talk) 14:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]