Culture Unbound
Journal of Current Cultural Research
Wikipedia needs a clear, written policy on financial COI [conflict of interest], like every other major non-profit. We owe it to to [sic] ourselves, and to the public that trusts us, to get this done. I don't want to explain to my grandkids (if I ever have some) that I stood by and watched while this great experiment of our [sic] was inundated by a tsunami of commercialism. We are at the barricades, let us not back down. You have to decide if I am crying WOLF or, is the wolf at the door, here, now. (Wikipedia 2013b)
While some participants outlined their support of such a policy because paid editing is against the ideals of Wikipedia, another group of editors opposed such a
policy saying that preventing paid editors violates Wikipedia’s core premise – that
it is the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit.
Be clear and honest here, this policy change won't eliminate paid editing and COI, it will hide it. It's a deterrent to honesty and a line right through the Wikipedia slogan ‘The encyclopaedia that anyone can edit’. Thanks
…and yes as always the original foundation of wikipedia remains ‘Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.’
If it is principles that you want I would start with, ‘If it ain't broke don't fix it’, followed by not eroding the two basic principles of ‘Attack content not editors’ and ‘The encyclopedia that anyone can edit’. (Wikipedia 2013b)
The last quote raises an interesting point, and one put forth by a number of editors
who discussed the norm of focusing on the quality of edits as opposed to the type
of editor making contributions. This reason was often given in conjunction with
an oppose vote to the formation of the proposed policy, also citing existing policy
as being sufficient to address the issue of paid editing.
We have policies and guidelines for how articles should be written and developed. We have built up the project to focus on the content not the contributors. (Wikipedia 2013b)
This was a recurring theme among users, that a fair and accurate encyclopaedia
article can be achieved by addressing the quality of the edits, not the people contributing the content. There was also the view among editors that such a policy
would be unenforceable and create extra work for already over-burdened volunteers who would be required police it.
Unenforceable. Waste of time and resources. Creates more problems that [sic] it solves. It is impossible to eliminate paid editing, so we might as well accept it and try to regulate it as best we can. (Wikipedia 2013b)
Highlighting the gap between institutional and community response only one editor referenced Wikipedia’s reputation in the discussions, which the Wikimedia Foundation cited as a reason to cease and desist in its letter to Wiki-PR. Also, only one comment called for institutional involvement in this issue, suggesting that overall the community sees this as an issue it can manage itself. Another challenge to forming an explicit policy against paid advocacy editing
is that the community is still not clear about what constitutes paid editing. It can
