On 1/26/07, Mets501 <mets501wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
For what
it's worth, I don't see that Microsoft did anything obviously
wrong. At this point, we definitely need a clear and responsive
system for coordinating paid editing. We've recognized for a while
now that paid editing will happen. It will definitely be in our best
interest to set up a system to facilitate it and give a sense of
fairness to entities like MS who want to do things above-the-board.
-Sage
I don't know about that...
I would steer clear of all paid editing in any way, shape, or form.
It just creates problems when the article is edited or deleted and a
company is outraged because they paid good money for that very article.
--Mets501
The argument has been made many times, but I'll make it again. The
people at Microsoft knew what they were getting into by trying to hire
an independent writer to improve articles: edits are only likely to
stick around if they bring Wikipedia articles closer to the ideal of
verifiable, neutral, well written information. It's only in a
group/individual/company's best interest to pay for editing if getting
closer to neutral point of view is beneficial for them; obviously it
is beneficial to us.
If introducing bias is what they want to do through paid editing, they
aren't likely to use official channels even if they are available.
But if we did have a system for coordinating and monitoring such
activity, it would put that much more social obligation on
(financially powerful) groups who feel wronged by Wikipedia content to
respect our editorial policies. If there is no recourse but secret
paid editing, then they are already going against us; there is little
to discourage the further step of attempting to whitewash their
articles
-Sage