Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

We can't force paid editors to disclose their status, can't detect them unless they are incompetent, and can't impose any penalty other than forcing them change their email account. Of all the editors trying to push a point, the paid editors are a tiny minority. Saying "We disapprove of editors working for pay" is pointless. Let's stick to policies that say what result is wanted, not how the result should be achieved. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It is not who you are that matters but what you write. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'm a PR guy by trade and a Wikipedian by choice, the two are not mutually exclusive. As my user page says, "I do public relations professionally, so I try to be very clear about where my professional life spills into Wikipedia and where any of my edits involve potential WP:COI issues. Whenever possible, I try to stay out of that whole tar patch." I've only edited Wikipedia when I had financial COI issues maybe a half-dozen times since 2007 and I think I handled each one correctly and transparently. (I'd be interested in seeing what the reaction is to how I handled Talk:The_Heat_and_Warmth_Fund, the other editors who looked at the page at the time seemed comfortable with the care I took with NPOV and COI there.) In my opinion, what we should be doing is making sure that we enforce NPOV and COI regardless of someone's motivations for writing or editing and not differentiating between financial, philosophical, religious or other interests when we have an editor attempting to proselytize instead of inform. Jmozena (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page was briefly forked; edit history preserved at Wikipedia talk:Commercial editing/archive. The sections from the new talk page:

I don't doubt that much opposition stems from paid editors trying to protect their income. Please disclose when commenting if you accept pay for edits Jehochman ^Talk 18:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, WP:AGF much? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think people paid to edit would just ignore this conversation, rather than lobbying to get their way? Jehochman ^Talk 20:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why would paid editors worry about any of these failed and failing proposals? Those that already abide by the Bright Line Rule will not be affected. Those that carry out their paid editing without disclosing will also not be affected. Jehochman, please disclose when commenting if you write advertisements suitable for Wikipedia. - 2001:558:1400:10:E1C7:8438:5E48:3232 (talk) 20:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's reasonable to ask that editors disclose if they accept pay for edits when discussing rule changes affecting paid editing. It is an indication of how lax the current practices now are, how accepting of COI, that such a disclosure is not required. Nor would it be required if this rule or guideline is adopted. Coretheapple (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's also reasonable to ask that editors disclose if they have an unusual bias against being paid to edit when discussing rule changes affecting paid editing. It is an indication of how silly the current practices now are, how dysfunctional is the view of COI, that such a disclosure is not required. Nor would it be required if this rule or guideline fails like all those before it. - 2001:558:1400:10:E1C7:8438:5E48:3232 (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only in the Bizarro World. Coretheapple (talk) 21:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a professional astronomer employed by a university, I'm paid to reach out to the public and educate them about astronomy. That includes writing Wikipedia articles, yes. WilyD 21:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody wants to stop that kind of activity. But if you work for the Acme Rocket Company, which wants to blast off a capsule of chimps to the the next galaxy, you should not be allowed to write an article about the Acme Rocket Company. I think this kind of thing has been addressed multiple times. Coretheapple (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Failing to see why you wouldn't want someone highly familiar with the Acme Rocket Company writing educational content about the Acme Rocket Company. I suppose Coretheapple would prefer to have the chimp editing Wikipedia. - 2001:558:1400:10:E1C7:8438:5E48:3232 (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible that Coretheapple's lengthy work on topics like Monsanto, BP, and the Twilight Zone helicopter accident reveals an agenda that predisposes him as anti-paid editing? It's reasonable to ask. - 2001:558:1400:10:E1C7:8438:5E48:3232 (talk) 21:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I am beginning to feel like a fool for not getting my own clients, as you purport to have, though I'm not clear if your talk page post was joking or not. Seriously, what is the point of working for nothing? Paid editors make fools of us all. Coretheapple (talk) 21:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

this is really self-indulgent you guys. 21:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

No, while I don't agree with the IP, he's making an argument that is not unknown on these pages, as am I. If you want more scintillating conversation, you've chosen the wrong place. This is, I believe, the 300th proposal on paid editing to surface in the last two days. Coretheapple (talk) 21:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If nobody wants to stop that kind of activity, why do we keep seeing proposal after proposal that attempts to regulate this kind of activity (e.g. look at all the restrictions on expert editing within the "Experts and editing at work" section of this proposal). Why can't we just have a blanket statement that these are not the people the policy applies to? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea. Since the entire process is broken, I don't expect that it will get anything right, including that part. Coretheapple (talk) 22:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I keep hearing that nobody wants to restrict that, then reading policies written to only restrict that. The question I keep asking, that nobody can seem to answer is "What behaviour is currently allowed that needs to be disallowed?". WilyD 06:50, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm paid in kudos. Are you? —Sladen (talk) 21:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos don't pay the rent. While I disagree with paid editing and don't believe it is correct, I can't blame paid editors for taking advantage of the opportunities Wikipedia offers for them to corrupt the process for their own monetary gain. Coretheapple (talk) 21:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When the options are finite and reasonable well-defined—which color should be paint the new shed, it is perfectly appropriate to list the options and take a vote. This is not limited to "small" issues–choice of the next American President is not a small issue, yet ultimately, there will be a simple vote.

Somewhat more complex issues can be addressed with the standard way of decision making on Wikipedia. Someone floats a draft, there's a discussion period, with tweaks and modifications to the draft, and then we call for a consensus, and the draft is adopted, or not.

That model works for a surprisingly broad range of situations. It even works, maybe a bit creakily, for what are termed large and complicated ArbCom cases. I don't mean to dismiss the complexity of those cases, some are very complex, but the good news is that the decisions boil down to a relatively small finite number of options. Admonish Users X and Y, topic ban user Z, etc.

The approach can even work when the options are almost unlimited, but the community is largely on the same page. We all agree that articles need to be supported by Reliable Sources, and while the exact wording of the policies has involved hours of wrangling, it has usually been about the details, not the fundamentals. It is plausible to write a rough draft and get to a consensus.

The approach breaks down when it comes to issues where the community is not all on the same page.

Examples:

• Civility Guidelines
• Userbox policy
• RfA reforms

and now, paid editing.

The problem is that we are trying to use the same model - throw up a rough draft, and tweak it. When the first one fails, try another. And another, and another.

If we "succeed" it will only be a triumph of exhaustion over reason.

We need to stop throwing up draft guidelines and have a serious brainstorming session to identify the issues, and potential solutions. We need moderated discussions to sort out all the issues, and come up with some proposed guidelines that will work.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That seems reasonable. Has anything like that ever happened? Coretheapple (talk) 22:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sphilbrick I love this and agree we need moderated discussion - how do we do that? I have been asking Slim and J to step up and do that but they are not biting. Not clear to me how to move forward. Very happy to help but I am process-ignorant. 22:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This should be moderated by someone not previously involved in the discussion. Jimbo himself, if he is up to it, or perhaps somebody from the Foundation. Coretheapple (talk) 23:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like this idea a lot. Proxyma (talk) 00:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great idea, S Philbrick, and a fair classification of the types of issues where such facilitation is needed. We should find outside moderation -- and should develop and honor that skill in our community. Since it is needed in depth a few times a year (if not more) on any major project. Any topic worth this sort of facilitation could be supported with a wikiproject, which tries to clarify points of agreement and departure, as David suggests below. And Core, in the short run, your suggestion is an option. – SJ + 10:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the best way to go forward is evaluate the different sections of the proposal individually as part of a Wikiproject. We can list a specific idea or hypothetical situation, and get feedback about how editors feel about it. I think there are a lot of areas where there is broad consensus, and once we determine what those areas are, they can be part of a future proposal. To make this work, there must be people with differing perspectives participating in the Wikiproject, and there must be a consensus reached before a new proposal is put forth. DavidinNJ (talk) 01:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree DavidinNJ I proposed such a Wikiproject for RfA here. Almost no response. We'll survive if don't reform RfA. Paid editing is a more serious problem, and I'm tempted to take that proposal for an RFA wikiproject, and mutatis mutandes for a Paid Editing Wikiproject. However, that other one went over so poorly, so I'd like to see some support before trying it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dank previously led a discussion on options for improving the request for adminship process; I've asked him if he would be interested in leading a discussion on this topic. isaacl (talk) 02:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RFA is a good example of a process that is subject to perennial reform proposals that never go anywhere. I think we need to keep trying to generate a consensus a while longer. Though it might not succeed, we must still try. Jehochman ^Talk 12:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a chance that if the occasional editor throws together some proposal, that someday, something will catch the fancy of enough respondents to stick. However, I think we could do better if we got organized.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that discussion should not be closed down and that the interested parties should keep trying to develop a consensus. I also agree with those who feel that having multiple drafts of the same proposal under discussion simultaneously across multiple talk pages makes it difficult to work towards a common agreement. Thus I think having someone take a more active role in shaping discussion will make it more effective, versus everyone simply lobbing in supports and opposes. isaacl (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invite. I agree that the usual approach with RfCs doesn't work for some protracted disputes ... but this dispute isn't protracted (yet), so I don't think the way forward is clear. What would you guys like to do? - Dank (push to talk) 04:37, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aside: +1 on having a similar facilitation for RfA reform. – SJ + 10:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sj. It wasn't successful, but it did calm things down a little, and maybe things we learned along the way will be helpful here. - Dank (push to talk) 12:55, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we need a different approach. In reading through the comments on all of the proposals, there are a mix of different ideas as to how a policy should look. The problem, of course, being that no single proposed policy has the right mix. I think we need to tackle this in three parts. The first is to get consensus on whether or not a policy is needed. There were a lot of people objecting because they felt that existing content policies were good enough to manage whatever issues arise. Thus we need some sort of discussion leading to a consensus on whether or not a policy is required. Once that is out of the way, presuming that there is support for a new policy, the question changes to what the basic policy should look like - in particular, to we allow direct editing of articles or limit it to talk pages, and do we require disclosure. Then we can handle the problem of what the wording should be.

I'm reminded of the Australian republic referendum of 1999. Voters were given two choices - to say no to a republic, or to say yes to a republic with a President elected by Parliament. There was an argument floating around at the time that a majority of voters wanted a republic, but they didn't want that model, and so it failed. In this case, I think it is possible that a majority of editors want a policy limiting paid editing in some way, but they don't like the models proposed. Thus we need to take the models out of the equation in order to get things rolling. - Bilby (talk) 05:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well expressed, Bilby. You beat me to this analogy. The issue of going about this the wrong way has been brought up on quite a few of the myriad of various convolutions of the self-same problems being addressed in too many concurrent venues. My take on it differs from yours, however, inasmuch as there is already enough discussion on the matter to reinforce the fact that there is considerable consensus over the desire to create policy. Much of the opposition I've seen has been based on what is being excluded and overlooked. I'd interpret this as demonstrating a necessity to go about going back to the fundamentals, identifying specific areas to be targeted in order to further qualify potentially undesirable impact and unwanted precedents being set needs to be recognised as the first step. At the moment, all of the draft policies are working backwards from proposed policy with problems being identified from within those constraints. Mr. Squiggle says, "Everything is upside-down, Miss Marilyn!" --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this: "...inasmuch as there is already enough discussion on the matter to reinforce the fact that there is considerable consensus over the desire to create policy. Much of the opposition I've seen has been based on what is being excluded and overlooked..." I don't think this is a fair summary. I agree with you and Bilby that a more fundamental discussion could lead to consensus in favor of a reform, but it's simply inaccurate to declare "considerable consensus over the desire to create policy" right now. Proxyma (talk) 05:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, Proxyma. Perhaps the fact that, on this point alone, there is no single interpretation of consensus and illustrating the crucial issue of whether there is a consensus as to whether some form of policy is is desired by the community. If so, what form does it take? What has been presented thus far are pre-formulated pieces based on assumptions that they are addressing both the perceived problems and fixes simultaneously. If we're going to begin at the beginning, why not allow the community the opportunity to establish where serious concern lie? All I've seen is a handful of those involved wresting the proposals as stand and continuing to 'build' a proposal, ignoring much well thought out and presented dissent. In looking at what has been 'developed' since the bitser proposals were submitted for RfC, I can't envisage myself feeling comfortable with supporting one-eyed, badly cobbled policy. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a PR person who only very rarely edits Wikipedia on behalf of clients and discloses COI when I do so, you're talking about creating a policy that those of us who do it right already functionally follow and those who do it wrong won't honor.

While I can't speak to other countries, in the US PR professionals who follow the Public Relations Society of America's Code of Ethics are already required to "Be honest and accurate in all communications" and "Reveal sponsors for represented causes and interests." In 2008, PRSA issued Internet-specific guidance on this topic, saying:

The use of deceptive identities or misleading descriptions of goals, causes, tactics, sponsors or participants to further the objectives of any group constitutes improper conduct under the PRSA Member Code of Ethics and should be avoided. PRSA members should not engage in or encourage the practice of misrepresenting organizations and individuals through the use of blogs, viral marketing, social media and/or anonymous Internet postings.

As I've said elsewhere in these discussions, I think we should focus on the quality and neutrality of the content, since that's not only what a legitimate PR person is going to try to create but also the entire point of Wikipedia in the first place. Trying to differentiate financially-motivated sock puppets from religiously-motivated sock puppets (see Scientology) from whatever else is motivating editors who are trying to use Wikipedia as a forum for proselytization distracts us from the real issue, which is protecting the reliability of the encyclopedia from anybody with an ax to grind.

And in the interest of disclosure, I'm a member but not a representative of the PRSA and I'm not being compensated for this, other than in the general sense that I'm writing it from my desk in a PR agency that may some day be asked to make an edit to a client's Wikipedia page. (But I should be doing work for paying clients right now, so my net financial interest is negative.) Jmozena (talk) 18:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this helpful comment. It would be good for any such WP guideline to reference external professional codes of ethics and guidelines - including those of the PRSA - which cover the same situations. However, please note that one reason some people feel that a policy of this form would help WP curators, is that they believe this would improve and simplify the response to PR groups that are known to edit without disclosing causes and clients. – SJ + 10:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I run an internet marketing professional group (http://semne.org), and based on advice from our membership, we have adopted a code of ethics that is partially inspired by PRSA's. I think the attached page should reference PRSA, as well as other professional organizations in England, Australia, India and other countries that make heavy use of the English Wikipedia. While professionals would already know what to do, we are an encyclopedia. We welcome, and seek the educate, the ignorant. We should not assume that every person attempting to do online public relations is a knowledgeable professional. Many business owners and inexperienced consultants or entrepreneurs fall into the trap that this page seeks to warn about. Jehochman ^Talk 16:57, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion far greater harm is done to Wikipedia by non-commercial pressure groups than is done by commercial editors. The problem is that any contentious topic attracts groups of editors promoting a particular cause. They often try to use WP as a medium for promoting their cause. Ensuing battles do little to maintain encyclopedic quality. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the solution to both problems is to focus on content and not on the editor. We need to rigorously apply the core principles of WP, in particular WP:NPOV and encyclopedic style. My suggestions are:

WP:NPOV should be applied not only to the literal content but to the tone, style, and the prominence of any statement.

Just because it is true does not mean it should go in WP; facts must be presented neutrally and in context and proportion

Just because there is a reliable source does not mean that it should go in WP; due weight must always be given to any sourced fact.

Quotations, event properly attributed, should not be used to circumvent NPOV, however well sourced that they are.

We should all remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, an advertisement, or a propaganda sheet. Everyone should, in my opinion, have a look at one of the well known printed encyclopedias such as Chambers or Britannica before editing here to see what 'encyclopedic style' means. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When considering a policy change, we need to not only make an educated guess as to the effect of the change, but also as to the effect after people change their behavior in response to the policy change.

As an example, back in 2009 a southern California fast-food chain called El Pollo Loco give away a leg and thigh of its flame-grilled chicken along with two tortillas and fresh salsa per person. This was one day competitor Kentucky Fried Chicken gave away one piece of its "Kentucky Grilled Chicken" per person. One would think that there would be no downside to the customer from this, but what happened was long lines, a full parking lot, and a 4-hour wait for food.

Likewise for our COI policy. If we adopt a "examine the quality of the edit, not the COI of the editor" policy, we will open the door to thousands of people starting home-based businesses (and a few larger organizations) selling their skills at making undisclosed paid edits to Wikipedia. The most successful of these will become very good indeed at [A] adding what the costumer wants added and removing what the customer wants removed, and [B] appearing to the rest of us to be ordinary editors with no COI.

Contrast this whith what we have now; paid COI editors who follow the Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide get active help from a number of uninvolved Wikipedia editors who are working under the basic theory that if we reward that sort of behavior we will see more of it and less stealth COI editing. As the customers of these services see that the edits they are paying for tend to stay in place without being reverted, more and more of them spend money on the paid editors who follow WP:PSCOI and fewer and fewer spend money on stealth COI editors. Why spend good money on edits that are quickly reverted and which, when we find out, sometimes end up with an article in the Wall Street Journal about your attempts to subvert Wikipedia? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly let me just say that it is on a matter of principle that I am making this suggestion. Wikipedia is 'The encyclopedia that anyone can edit'. This policy is the start of changing it to Wikipedia is 'The encyclopedia that anyone of a certain group of people can edit'

I think that there is a flaw in your argument though. You refer to [my italics] people, 'making undisclosed paid edits to Wikipedia'. How is this policy going to stop that? It could be happening now; how would we know? I have often wondered if there are covert 'we fix Wikipedia for you' agents out there already.

Finally if the article is good, who cares who edited it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ach Martin, this is a big waste of time. We have WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NPOV to deal with all advocacy -paid or unpaid, all of which is indeed a big problem. We also have WP:ADVOCACY (widely cited essay) generally and WP:COI guideline and the Terms of Use for the subset of advocacyt that is financially driven, for the most part. Within the field of advocacy, financial COI/paid editing hurts our credibility with the public arguably more than advocacy does (you don't see "advocacy" scandals in the media - you do see paid editing scandals). So I suggest you drop the stick and instead work on managing all kinds of advocacy found in WP. You could, like Joseph2302 does, work at AfC and help manage the torrent of new articles that are obvious paid or "fan" creations. You could work at COIN where you will get to help deal with all kinds of advocacy but especially financial COI. But really, it is a waste of time to argue about what subset of advocacy hurts us more - all of it hurts us, and all of it needs to be addressed and managed. Best regards, Jytdog (talk) 19:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, if you think a conversation between two veteran editors -- a conversation that just might end up becoming a policy proposal -- is a waste of time, with all due respect I must question the effectiveness of joining that conversation and supporting one view as a method of demonstrating that it is a watse of time. I'm just saying. Finally, read the paragraph where Martin says "it is on a matter of principle that I am making this suggestion" again. He is right. We are going against one of our core principles. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't do it (we violate the same core principle every time we block a spammer or a vandal) but it does make one pause and wonder if there might be a better way.

Martin, I understand your argument, and it isn't a bad argument. but as I said above it would have unintended consequences. As for your question ("making undisclosed paid edits to Wikipedia'. How is this policy going to stop that?"), right now if someone gets caught doing that, they (the ones doing the hiring, not the paid editor) get raked over the coals by the press. If we make it something that isn't against Wikipedia's rules, we will get a lot more of it, and there will be no negative consequences to getting caught. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, Martin and I know each other pretty well from having encountered each other in several articles, and in my experience we think ~pretty~ alike. It is in that context that I wrote what I wrote and I ~think~ Martin at least knows that. And yes - it is a big waste of time to argue with this essay (that is all it is) because the community went through a paroxysm of efforts to ban paid editing after the WIki-PR and banc de binary scandals, and the community could not agree to ban paid editing; this essay is just one of the remainders of those efforts. And in my view it is unlikely we ever will agree to ban paid editing - the commitment to privacy/anonymity and corresponding emphasis on "content not contributor" and NPOV (all that is policy) just as Martin describes, will probably always have a higher status than WP:COI (guideline) and this essay will probably always remain an essay. So Martin's post is just beating a dead horse. Nonetheless even in this policy environment - where WP:COI is just a guideline and the status of the Terms of Use is tenuous within Wiki-en - a big chunk of the community (including me) remains very concerned about paid editing and that chunk of the community a) is never going away and b) has legitimate concerns. Trying to beat the concerns expressed in this essay down further, is going to go no where (how much further down can it go, anyway?) and just upset people. I and others work hard to manage advocacy (including within that COI and including within that paid editing) every day, and are trying to figure out yet better ways to do it. I am agreeing with you Guy, that managing COI is important, and trying to tell Martin that there is no way it is going to get beat down further. I'll also note to Martin, that what we do at COIN is look at edits - we look for non-NPOV promotional editing. Everything here does start and end with actual edits - at the end of the day content is king. That is what I am trying to say. Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thanks for the additional explanation. I think I understand where you are coming from now, and pretty much agree. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, It looks like we do all, to a large degree, agree and this is only an essay anyway (although they can be still used by groups to enforce a POV) and as Jytdog points out I am unlikely to achieve anything here in view of the history.

I still make the point that, in my opinion, editing by unpaid pressure groups represents a greater threat to the integrity of WP that paid editing. It is a problem that needs to be dealt with somehow. Arbcom are not interested. Many good editors are losing faith in WP as an encyclopedia, leaving it to slowly become a noticeboard for minority but strongly held opinions. This what editor who has all but left WP says, The main reason Wikipedia is so unreliable as a resource and badly written is not the drive-by vandalism but because around 50% of the regular content editors and the administrators are morons; many of them morons on a mission to tell the world about how great or terrible something or someone is. If you think it's painful reading WP pages, try editing them.

So, what is to be done? Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]