Wikipedia talk:Paid-contribution disclosure

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Paid participation:
poetic perspectives

I won't argue for fun,
I won't argue for free,
with someone who's paid
to argue with me.


I'll argue all day,
I'll fight 'til I'm tired.
At least if I lose
I won't get fired.

RfC on new disclosure requirements for freelance paid editors[edit]

An RfC proposing an amendment to this policy is live at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC on new disclosure requirements for freelance paid editors. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Having been passed by consensus, the archived discussion can be found here. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Receiving payment by means of being a business owner[edit]

I have long felt this page fails to offer any effective guidance to those editors who own or run their own businesses, and who write about topics relating to their work. They don't get 'paid' by someone else, and yet they benefit financially. But they aren't mentioned here. So, I propose that we simply copy/paste the sentence shown in italics below from WP:COI into the start of this section, and insert the word business, too.

An editor has a financial conflict of interest when they write about a topic with which they have a close financial relationship. This includes being an owner, employee, contractor, investor or other stakeholder. This would make the section read as follows:

Meaning of "employer, client, and affiliation"[edit]

Further reading: Terms of use/FAQ on paid contributions without disclosure
An editor has a financial conflict of interest when they write about a topic with which they have a close financial relationship. This includes being an owner, employee, contractor, investor or other stakeholder.
Editors must disclose their business, employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any paid contribution to Wikipedia.
  • Employer: the person or organization that pays, either directly or through intermediaries, a user to contribute to Wikipedia. This includes cases where the employer has hired the user as an employee, has engaged the user under a freelance contract, is compensating the user without a contract, or is compensating the user through the user's employment by another organization.

As this change doesn't alter the policy, it doesn't seem to merit an RfC, though it seemed appropriate to post here first so as to seek other opinions before making the above changes. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The current wording is based on the linked FAQ. For better or worse, it is focused specifically on payment, presumably because it provides a clear-cut delineation. I think it would be better to update the conflict of interest guidance to strengthen its guidance on disclosure for owners, rather than introduce changes here that diverge from the terms of use. isaacl (talk) 13:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that adding "business" would essentially require paid independent contractors to identify themselves on Wikipedia. Although I believe there are some editors who would support this, it's not clear to me that it's a consensus view. (The requirement to disclose one's user account in communications to the client and external web sites, of course, does hamper the ability for an independent contractor to remain anonymous on Wikipedia.) isaacl (talk) 13:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I could also see such an argument requiring editors to disclose their investment portfolio holdings. –xenotalk 13:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure which argument you're referring to? I don't feel that the proposed addition of "business" would require editors to disclose their personal investment holdings. (I agree that arguments for strengthening disclosure requirements for editors with conflicts of interest could lead to this.) isaacl (talk) 14:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indirect payments[edit]

Let's say there is a Research Assistant for a Professor who has a point of view. That RA could be pushing that POV on Wikipedia, even though they are not directly paid for Wikipedia editing but paid for their research work. Does the policy take into account such scenarios? Puck42 (talk) 09:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is more likely to be a conflict of interest. Paid editing is a type of conflict of interest, but COIs can exist without payment. - Bilby (talk) 09:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COI and WP:PAID both deal with relationships, i.e. if your hypothetical RA was writing about the professor (their boss). There's a broad consensus that editing about your professional field of interest isn't in itself a conflict of interest, and there's a long-standing exception to COI that allows subject-matter experts to cite their own published work, within reason. That's not to say that such edits can't be problematic in other ways, but usually content policies like WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:FRINGE are more relevant than COI/PAID. – Joe (talk) 10:06, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Likely many editors taking paid that not disclose it[edit]

On linkedIn one can find many profiles from people and even companies that say they create new pages on wikipedia, that they make and edit pages for prominent people etc. Wikipedia has a policy that one must disclose if one are a paid editor, but as editors can have anonymous profiles how is this monitored? On wikipedia one can be anonymous so is it not naive to think that many of these indeed not declare they are paid, that even make them more valuable for many clients that wants to promote ideas, or attack their critics on wikipedia. Have wikipedia done any attempt to look into the loads of linkedin profiles telling they are making pages, editing pages etc for pay ? One possibility would be that to wikipedia, not to the public wikipedia, editors had to register with name etc. Then wikipedia could monitor more easily if these paid editors have disclosed it. Sure there are always ways around, but to advertise ones firm and people as wikipedia editors for pay on linkedin for example could be monitored to see if the same names disclosed their for pay editing. ChrisCalif (talk) 11:12, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisCalif: You're absolutely right. Many (maybe most) paid editors do not disclose it, although probably a large proportion of the profiles on external websites you have seen are either lying, scammers and/or already banned from Wikipedia. As with everything on Wikipedia, investigation of undisclosed paid editing and covert advertising is done by volunteers, often coordinated at the conflict of interest noticeboard. – Joe (talk) 11:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative paid contribution disclosure policy for English Wikipedia[edit]

In December 2020, a link to this page was added to meta:Alternative paid contribution disclosure policies. This page has not been approved by the community as an alternative paid contribution disclosure policy, though, and has only had a handful of editors discussing it on this talk page. I believe the page's status was last discussed at Wikipedia talk:Paid-contribution disclosure/Archive 4 § Changing this policy, where only one editor supported the entire page being a policy, as opposed to the portion taken from the terms of use, and no one felt that an alternative paid contribution disclosure policy had been enacted. Accordingly, I do not believe this page should be listed as an alternative policy at meta. What does everyone think? isaacl (talk) 13:49, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion preceded the RfC that set new paid editing requirements. The distinction, if any (and at this point I'm convinced there isn't really any) between the two options is minimal. Legal has expressed no issue either way. Since the whole point of this RfC was to help legal enforce the paid editing policy, taking actions (such as removing it from the meta list linked to from the TOU) to make it possibly have less legal standing doesn't really make sense. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As discussed on this page, enacting an alternative paid contribution disclosure policy is not needed to add additional requirements. It doesn't make sense for portions of the conflict of interest guideline, which has failed to gain consensus multiple times to be adopted as a policy, to now become policy based on adding a requirement on paid editors to make disclosures in off-wiki communications. As per the terms of use, the community should clearly approve a superseding alternative policy if that's what it wants to do. isaacl (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno about the historical events you're referring to, but when I added it it was because the meta page says: After creating such a policy, projects must include their policy here. This list will help editors and sister projects to quickly discover what the local project policy for paid editing is, or if the default applies. De facto it's an aid for editors and the other communities, perhaps those looking to draft their own. As for whether the page represents consensus / is really a policy, if you're right then perhaps someone should propose removing the policy tag at the top. Until then, it can't simultaneously be a policy and not be a policy. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that this page doesn't have enough people watching it to establish a consensus. I raised it when the tag was added, and it was discussed once again in the discussion I linked to. You can read it and verify what was said regarding the policy status of the page, including that no one believes this page to be an alternative paid disclosure policy (no RfC was held and no one added it to the page on meta; everyone involved was aware that explicit community approval was required). isaacl (talk) 14:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SarahSV's suggestion and corresponding edit (along with moving around the policy banners, like with Wikipedia:Non-free content) seems like a smart way forward. Could also hold an RfC (à la "Should Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure be considered an English Wikipedia policy?") and figure out what the broad community thinks about this being a policy, which would fix your consensus concern. As for the extensive contradictory legal interpretations made in that discussion, the best way to solve this seems to be to email [email protected] and ask them to comment.
But I don't think the way forward is a Schrödinger's cat-like state where the page is a policy in minds of some, not in the minds of others, and enforced as a "Wikipedia policy with legal considerations" regardless due to the banner at the top. It's either a policy or it isn't. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This comes back to the onus question on the policy talk page, and the difficulty in establishing consensus when there are only a handful of commenters. I feel it should be the responsibility of the person who wants to label a page as policy (or add additional non-policy content to a page labeled policy) to initiate an RfC, but the editor felt the support on meta for the terms of use was sufficient. Once a discussion has started, generally I don't like editing a disputed section until a consensus is reached, particularly when some participants vehemently disagree. So it wasn't worth it for me when operationally it had no practical effect.
A couple of background points: at the time, the community had gone through many discussions on paid editing, including a period when multiple proposals were running in parallel. Having the WMF impose some rules cut through the Gordian knot of requiring English Wikipedia community consensus, and so a reluctance to hold yet another policy ratification discussion was understandable. (Plus the portions taken from the conflict of interest guideline were unlikely to be approved to remain, given that it had already failed to be promoted to a policy. There was only one original sentence on this page during its formative period, requiring paid contributors to disclose their status when participating in policy discussions related to paid editing.) When the revised terms of use were released, there were other editors who wanted to start an RfC on having an alternative policy, but they couldn't agree on an approach. I tried to broker a compromise, but failed. isaacl (talk) 20:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More background: when the paid contribution disclosure requirement was added to the terms of use, in a discussion on whether or not English Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline was an alternative paid contribution disclosure policy, Stephen LaPorte from WMF Legal wrote, "...no, this guideline is not an alternative disclosure policy contemplated under the Terms of Use. To adopt this as an alternative policy, there would need to be consensus to change the disclosure requirements in the Terms of Use. More detail is available in this FAQ. ... the consensus should refer to the Terms of Use to set an alternative. For example, see this proposal pending on commons." The English Wikipedia community has not held a discussion such as the one on Commons where Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure was approved as an alternative paid contribution disclosure policy. isaacl (talk) 00:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to keep this short, which means relying on my memory. I may have been mentioned above indirectly. When the Terms of Use change was passed 7 years ago, I was quite surprised to see a great deal of opposition to the idea, that it was not policy here, that it needed to be passed on enWiki before it was policy, etc. I thought and still think that was pure bull. 1000's of editors had !voted on Meta, at about 80% - 20% in favor. The Board of Trustees had approved the change. It is policy here.

Also according to the ToU change itself it can be strengthened in the usual way - all we need is a consensus to strengthen it. But what is a consensus? Like anything, that can be debated endlessly on Wikipedia - and decided by consensus!! Given the confusion on the policy question I've been very hesitant to "push this" as 100% policy - but I don't oppose anybody else considering it policy.

There are clearly 2 different ways to amend the policy given in the ToU change. Normal policy changes reflecting consensus, which are done all the time on other policies and we should be able to do here (most of the time). The exception is that if we want to reject or weaken the policy we have to go through the "alternate policy" route, which requires an RfC equivalent to those used to establish core policies on enWiki. The alternative policy route *could be* used for other purposes, such as strengthening the policy, while eliminating the requirement for a special RfC to weaken it, but I don't see why anybody would purposely do that. What does it take to establish a core policy on enWiki? I haven't seen any strict rule on that (maybe a few hints), but clearly a month long, well-advertised RfC with at least a 100 editors participating should be a minimum requirement. I'd personally say the maximum requirement wouldn't be too much more than that - say 200 editors. Also, it should clearly be stated that the *new core policy* is *not* meant to replace the *old core policy* i.e. the ToU change.

I suppose that after 7 years, we should clear up all the confusion about this. I'd support an extensive RfC to firmly confirm that this is a policy on enWiki. But if the RfC didn't pass, I don't think that we could say that it isn't a policy! I'd insist that we state beforehand that this is not intended as an "alternative policy" - that we retain the requirement of a very serious "core policy RfC" before weakening this policy below the requirements of the ToU change. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:17, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, everyone agreed the terms of use define a policy that applies to English Wikipedia. The dispute was regarding information copied from the conflict of interest guidance page, which has further procedures not covered by the terms of use. Placing them on this page and calling all of it a policy bypassed the multiple failures to promote the conflict of interest guideline to a policy. Now honestly I don't think it matters much in practice with what happens day-to-day, because admins continue to treat the procedures in the conflict of interest guideline the same way as before. But as a matter of principle, it seems odd that this page is now listed as an alternative paid contribution disclosure policy, when it's never gone through an approval process as laid out in the terms of use, and no one has ever considered it (or wanted it) to be an alternative policy before, given that the community has agreed it can layer on additional requirements without enacting an alternative policy. isaacl (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree 100% that this is *not* an alternative policy. On a quick reading, I don't see anything in your comment immediately above that I disagree with. There are some sections in the policy that clarify or make more specific the ToU change - and I think they are needed as part of the policy. I think we could move the "How to change this policy" up two sections and then write: "The following are from a guideline related to this policy and should not be strictly considered part of this policy." Perhaps 2 or 3 paragraphs could be moved down below the "guideline divide", but I don't think the part on which template to use to declare, needs to be - that is just filling in a detail where it was needed.
Then perhaps we could take it to Village Pump (policy), require 100 positive votes, and make clear that this *is policy* but not *an alternative policy*. Thanks Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As both ProcratinatingReader and you are amenable to altering the layout/format to clarify a separating between terms of use policy and other guidance, I can work on a draft along those lines. From an English Wikipedia perspective, as there's been no disagreement with the applicability of the terms of use, and the most significant addition, regarding disclosure in off-wiki communications, was approved by RfC, I don't feel it's a high priority to ratify a restructured page. From a meta perspective, I have no idea; an admin reinstated ProcrastinatingReader's edit after I reverted it, and protected the page. I think it's kind of a waste of time to hold an RfC to aver that the page did not go through the explicit procedure described by WMF Legal. isaacl (talk) 14:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Isaacl: For what it's worth, the protection wasn't because of your changes. I requested protection of the alternative disclosure policies page (meta:Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat/Archives/2021-08#Protection of Alternative paid contribution disclosure policies) given that it's mentioned in the terms of use as the central repository of the alternative paid contribution disclosure policies. More specifically, the TOU says that An alternative paid contribution policy will only supersede these requirements if it is approved by the relevant Project community and listed in the alternative disclosure policy page. This is why I requested protection and why it was applied, since anyone could basically go on there and potentially fuck with the way the terms of use are applied. This is also why in my mind it's such a high priority that we have an RfC. Right now it's unclear as to whether this disclosure is an "alternative disclosure policy" as deemed by the terms of use. Because if we want it to be, we need to fully protect ASAP given the legal implications of editing the page. If it isn't, then we need to have an RfC so the listing at meta gets changed. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 00:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

non-random convenience break[edit]

As I mentioned previously, there's never been an RfC to adopt this page as an alternative paid contribution disclosure policy, as required by the terms of use, and no one involved on this talk page has ever wanted to hold an RfC on adopting it. Listing the page on meta is only supposed to happen after community approval, so why do we need to have an RfC to remove it? isaacl (talk) 02:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Isaacl: Well, the only alternatives are a) do nothing or b) go over and have a discussion at meta on whether to remove the enwiki Paid Contribution Disclosure from the list. That discussion will essentially be about whether or not there was enough of a consensus here to keep the policy on the list. Regardless of whatever that consensus is, there's probably going to be people pissed off about the result and want to either repeal this as the alternative disclosure policy or definitively adopt it as the alternative disclosure policy.
If we just have the RfC on whether to adopt this as the alternative disclosure policy then we can avoid these issues entirely. I do agree with you that the paid contribution disclosure should not have been added without clearer consensus, but that's a fait accompli now and the fastest way to resolve this is just to have a 30 day RfC posted at centralized discussion so we can establish consensus on whether the above policy is an alternative disclosure policy. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 04:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it a fait accompli? Since the precondition was never met, it should be removable from the list of alternative policies (it was only added in December 2020). I've been involved in this page since its genesis and have followed conversations at the conflict of interest page as well as others, and I know of no one who wants to approve this page as an alternative policy, as no one (setting aside paid editors concerned about outing themselves) wants to weaken the conditions in the terms of use. isaacl (talk) 04:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's a fait accompli because it's already happened and the page has been fully protected. We're going to need some kind of consensus to remove it now. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 14:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's of course literally a done task, but the connotation of "fait accompli" is that it's not reversible. It's also literally a done task that no approving RfC was ever held. isaacl (talk) 14:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Smallbones: What we really need is an RfC on the very specific point on whether WP:PAID is intended to be an "alternative policy" as defined by the terms of use. Because right now it is considered one over at meta, being listed at meta:Alternative paid contribution disclosure policies which is explicitly mentioned in the TOU as the listing of alternative policies. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 00:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's just not an "alternative policy" and can't be changed by a simple local consensus. It would need to be changed by using the 2nd method listed in the policy (and in the ToU) which would need to include using "the project's standard consensus-based process for establishing core policies." FAQ. So you might as well go the "alternative policy" route directly - i.e. use the standard process for establishing core policies. There just no easier way to overturn the ToU. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Smallbones: See, you keep talking like this isn't an "alternative policy" yet. The fact is that this is listed, right now, at meta:Alternative paid contribution disclosure policies because ProcrastinatingReader decided to add it. [2] So this might already be an alternative paid contribution disclosure policy and may effectively become one if we don't do anything about it. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 04:15, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I said four years ago, guidance doesn't become policy because someone adds it to a list somewhere, or puts a label on it. A community consensus must be established to approve policy. And the terms of use and WMF Legal were explicit about requiring community approval (it's in the passage you quoted from the terms of use). isaacl (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Isaacl: It actually can, the ToS requires community consensus AND the addition to that specific list. I raised that concern (which is why the page was protected) as hypothetically I could've just gone over there and vandalized the Commons alternative disclosure policy out of the page and therefore reimplementing paid editing disclosure requirements on Wikimedia Commons for a period of time.
Also, given that addition to the list is predicated on there being community consensus, what we're effectively telling people is that there is community consensus for WP:PAID to be an alternative disclosure policy and that WP:PAID supersedes the Terms, despite the lack of community consensus. This is an issue because it's not true; we haven't had that consensus. That's why we need to clear this up ASAP. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 04:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You said it yourself: both of those things must be true. Thus adding a page to a list somewhere doesn't by itself turn it into a policy. Note there's no need to ping me in conversations in which I'm actively participating.isaacl (talk) 05:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Isaacl: asked for a clarification on where the 2 methods of changing the policy come from. They are just the last 2 paragraphs of the ToU change:

"Applicable law, or community and Foundation policies and guidelines, such as those addressing conflicts of interest, may further limit paid contributions or require more detailed disclosure."

"A Wikimedia Project community may adopt an alternative paid contribution disclosure policy. If a Project adopts an alternative disclosure policy, you may comply with that policy instead of the requirements in this section when contributing to that Project. An alternative paid contribution policy will only supersede these requirements if it is approved by the relevant Project community and listed in the alternative disclosure policy page."

The first method is just our usual method for changing policies (from the top paragraph above) "community ... policies ... may further limit paid contributions or require more detailed disclosure." Since community policies can be changed any time consensus changes, we can change this policy (or a related one) any time as long as it "further limit(s) paid contributions or require more detailed disclosure" than the ToU. What can't be done this way is to remove or revoke or weaken the ToU.

The other method is to make an "alternative policy" which does revoke the ToU, at least to the extent that it becomes a purely local policy and then doesn't need the extra steps ("The RfC must be conducted in a manner consistent with the standard consensus-based process for establishing core policies.") to change. It was never intended to make this an easy method. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:42, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I don't consider the first quoted paragraph to be a method to change the policy as laid out in the terms of use. It's, as you allude to, just acknowledging that other community guidance can also apply. isaacl (talk) 03:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's pretty much a semantic difference berween our interpretations now. The practical meaning is essentially identical now.
I will say that the last 2 paragraphs in the ToU change speak for themselves, and make up a slight majority of the words in the ToU change 91/174 = 52%, so it's not a meaningless part of the whole.
I participated in the discussion that let in the last paragraph and remember it very well. It turns out that this discussion came *after the BoT approved the change and told WMF legal to figure out how to properly implement it* (I'm not accusing anybody of trickery here). The approx 80% support votes were already in without the "alternative policy" paragraph in place. I made sure nobody was trying to change anything in the rest of the ToU change. The part that says "community ... policies ... may further limit paid contributions or require more detailed disclosure," is definitely part of the ToU change. The final paragraph was definitely not meant to be used casually. and requires a formal procedure. I don't think there's anything else for me to say here. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll comment here because my action on Meta-Wiki seems to have been a topic of discussion. When I was initially made aware of the dispute, it seemed least risky to leave the link to the English Wikipedia there during the discussion about whether it met the criteria to be an alternative paid contribution policy. This was an incorrect judgement of mine, and I apologize. The discussion there, having gone on for a little over a week now, seems to be at a general consensus that the English Wikipedia's paid editing policy does not meet the criteria for an alternative paid contribution policy, and the evidence in favor of that side is clear. The discussion here is in the same direction (and involving the same editors), and I have since removed the link. And Chess, for the future, it's often better to have a discussion or send an email than to assume the result. The fact that it is not an alternative paid contribution policy, as defined by the ToU, is clear and not requiring any sort of significant community discussion. My initial call was incorrect, and by no means was it intentional or irreversible. Best regards, and thank you all for your effort in reaching a resolution for this, Vermont (talk) 22:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vermont: Thank you for the reality check. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your collaboration! isaacl (talk) 03:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft version identifying sections based on policy[edit]

I have created a draft at Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure/sandbox that has some rearrangement of text and labels specific sections as based on policy, using the {{Policy section}} template, as suggested by ProcrastinatingReader. Here is the diff between the two (if you haven't enabled the visual diff beta feature, here's a link to the visual diff for convenience). (A bot removed the page protection template from the sandbox page; it would of course would be preserved on the actual page.) Feedback is welcome. isaacl (talk) 04:38, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mind if I make some edits directly? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it would be good to discuss approach first? For the most part, I kept all the text as it is, and only sought to rearrange the organization to separate out content under specific policies (terms of use, What Wikipedia is not, Administrators) and guidelines (conflict of interest). isaacl (talk) 23:51, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The first policy tag at the top should be removed, since it generally indicates the whole page is policy. The second section should be changed to a BOT policy tag, like at m:UCOC. I would put the rest under an explanatory notes sub-section; the notes aren't policy themselves. Remove the {{main}} tags in the sections after. Delete the "Changing this page" section as SarahSV suggested originally. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:00, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with removing the {{main}} templates, as they indicate the underlying governing policies. I'm not strongly opinionated about creating an explanatory notes sub-section, but didn't really want to add a single second-level heading and all the other headings nested under it. I did not remove the "Changing this page" section (which incidentally I suggested originally), because Smallbones felt strongly about preserving it back then. By BOT policy tag, I guess you mean having a similar infobox as in the link you provided, stating that the policy was approved by the Board of Trustees? isaacl (talk) 00:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But the policies are linked in the text?
The explanatory notes don't seem to be a policy of either the board or enwiki, so probably shouldn't be jumbled into the policy section IMO. And re the BOT tag, yes, because "This section documents an English Wikipedia policy" seems to not be true. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:12, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Separately, a structure like Wikipedia:Office actions when describing an external WMF policy might be better, since apparently only one subsection is enwiki policy, and the rest is a summation of other policies (ie, an info page). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:23, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It does document an English Wikipedia policy by inheritance, just not a locally-defined English Wikipedia policy. But I have no objection to creating a custom infobox (I suppose with yet another attribution headache). I like pointing to the main pages to make it clear that the text derives from content on another page, and is not an independent policy paragraph. "Meaning of 'employer, client, and affiliation'" is largely taken from the terms of use FAQ, which is also policy. There are some small additional interpretations. I thought it would be awkward to place them into a separate section but we could try it. The first paragraph of "How to disclose" is taken from policy; the rest is additional explanation. "Disclosing accounts on Wikipedia and to clients" is part global policy from meta:Linking to external advertising accounts (which really should have triggered a change to the terms of use), and part local policy from the RfC on disclosing Wikipedia accounts to clients. isaacl (talk) 00:25, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any other pages that describe a policy as "an English Wikipedia policy" when it hasn't went through WP:PROPOSAL and is actually a WMF policy? AFAIK all those are either redirects to meta, or info pages stating it's describing a WMF policy on meta. I mean there's stuff like Wikipedia:Copyrights but those are actually community-written policies I believe, just with "legal considerations" (presumably meaning that there are issues with writing things like "All text on Wikipedia is in the public domain.").
I still think the state of this page is weird. If it's not a community policy but a board one, then this is just regurgitating what the Board wrote and the WMF's application notes, and should be described as such. If however we can edit it, then it should be described as an English Wikipedia policy. Right now, it seems to me that it's a WP:INFOPAGE, just like WP:OFFICE, with only one subsection that's actually enwiki policy (Kevin's RfC on freelancer disclosures). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:34, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be the same idea Sarah, who initially added the policy tag, had. [3] I think that's the best strategy here. The only other reasonable option seems to be to adopt this entire page as enwiki policy. All other options seem like a mess. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure/sandbox2 is my above thought in words, and seems to be what this page's actual status is at the moment? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:52, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I put different infoboxes at the start of the two sections that are documenting policy from the WMF/meta, and further separated out the content that are interpretations or has been approved by RfC on English Wikipedia. For better or worse, I'm constrained by knowing the past history and thus am trying to find a real-world consensus version (one that people can live with). isaacl (talk) 01:12, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your current sandbox has at least my support to replace this page. There are details there I don't like but can live with. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:15, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! For reference, here is the diff between the two sandboxes as of the current versions (visual diff). isaacl (talk) 01:26, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also previously suggested returning to the original intent of this page and having one page to simply to hold the relevant passage from the terms of use and the rest of the content on another page. However there were editors who felt there should be more related information on one page, even if it resulted in copying info from other pages (which I disliked). For this initial reformatting, I haven't chosen to be that adventurous. isaacl (talk) 00:32, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any other comments? For reference, here is the diff between the latest version of this page and the sandbox (visual diff). (These links don't point to a specific revision and so will always show the diff between the latest versions.) isaacl (talk) 14:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no further comments, then I will proceed to make the changes from the sandbox. isaacl (talk) 15:39, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have merged the changes from the sandbox. isaacl (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scientists as editors[edit]

Hypothetica question: Some scientists know everything about a certain subject and where content is concerned they are best placed to write about this subject on Wikipedia, references and all. Would it be a problem if they are in a job for the same expertise? Even if they work on Wikipedia in their own time?--Judithcomm (talk) 12:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Judithcomm: If they are working on Wikipedia in their own time, then there is definitely no problem and nothing needs to be disclosed. Things get trickier if they cite their own research - WP:SELFCITE or are writing about topics where they are at the cutting edge of knowledge as writing can tend towards original research. WP:EXPERT and Help:Wikipedia_editing_for_researchers,_scholars,_and_academics provide some advice. SmartSE (talk) 13:20, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Smartse: Thanks for the response and the link. I hadn't managed to find it on my own.--Judithcomm (talk) 13:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some professors have educating the public as part of their job role, and so for them, the paid-contribution disclosure policy may be applicable. isaacl (talk) 16:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not so hypothetical. Many Wikipedians are scientists or other experts that edit in their area of expertise. I think most would agree that this is a good thing, but we've also long recognised that it can lead to problems – see WP:EXPERT. But I don't think that WP:COI is the best way to approach the problem. If a subject-matter expert starts editing articles about their employer, themself, or their colleagues, that's a COI. If they're just generally editing subjects they know about, it isn't: although they might have an "interest" in educating the public about their subject, it is not a conflict of interest because that is also Wikipedia's mission. It starts us down the slippery slope to rendering COI meaningless: does a fan of heavy metal have an interest in promoting that genre? Do American editors have an interest in promoting the United States? And so on.
Personally I've thought about this a lot because I mainly edit topics related to my own field. I'm careful about touching on things I directly work on or citing my own publications (though I think WP:SELFCITE should be defended as a long-standing and justified exception to COI), partly out of an abundance of caution as someone with a reputation for being strict about COI with others, but mostly for practical reasons. If you're an expert in a narrow subject, it's hard to write about that subject in an encyclopaedic way: hard to put aside your knowledge of the details and write for a general audience, hard to stick to the "established" view when you might know it is outdated or wrong, hard to ignore things you know from upcoming literature or the grapevine that are not yet verifiable in the Wikipedia sense. Over time I've found that the most comfortable area is topics adjacent to, but not in, my own area of expertise: close enough that I can use my background knowledge of the field, but with enough distance that I can write about it like a Wikipedian and not a scientist. It's also why I think the best editors from academia are students, not established researchers or professors, because the more you develop expertise the more that comfort zone narrows. – Joe (talk) 07:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some scientists know everything about, then they have abandoned science.
they are best placed to write about this subject on Wikipedia. No, re-check WP:NOR. Instead: They are the best authors of sources to cite.
Would it be a problem if they are in a job for the same expertise?. Yes, it could be a problem. An “expert” is narrowly defined, and they probable obsess on their expertise, they could have NPOV issues, and they are probably too close to the best sources to make objective editorial decisions.
—- SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Policy[edit]

If there are individual sections marked as policy, then what is the rest of the page? – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 08:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AssumeGoodWraith a slow response I'm afraid, but the remaining sections to me are either:
1) Brief summaries with links to actual policies. The text is too simplistic to be the policy of themselves, but they're pointers and guides.
2) Terms of Service aspects. This is, for example, the case for the amendment process. The TOS restricts paid editing, but specifically specifies that the local communities can amend it. This means it supercedes the usual rules on how we would amend PAGs. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Paid-contribution_disclosure&oldid=1083729255"