Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Paid editing

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was speedy keep as a nomination by a banned user. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page is a gross and wanton violation of policy, Jimmy Wales's own edicts on the matter, and most importantly gives the false impression that paid editing is acceptable when the current policy is that paid editing is banned on wikipedia. If paid editing becomes legalized on Wikipedia, this article then might be revived. Erich Mendacio (talk) 04:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Just a comment that Checkuser indicates Enrich Mendacio is banned user User:Wiki brah and also sockpuppets User:Bamoral and User:Rick22225. MBisanz ^talk 01:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Nonsense. The Church of Jimbo apparently didn't give everyone the kool-aid yet so no - the discussion is still in process. And from all appearances the RfC - which is still going - was a great call. People have questions and differing opinions. Like it or lump this is already happening in various forms so this is now the early stages of a guideline how to address the issues raised whether this becomes policy or whatever. Personally I'm reality-based and know that employees have been compelled by their bosses to fix errors on Wikipedia - quibbly or not they were compensated for editing here. That is certainly different in spirit from someone who sets up some sort of editing service which is also different from paid advocacy - advocacy of any kind being a no-no. These are nuances and the jury is still very much out on how to sort all this out. Meanwhile this page is to help guide those looking for a brief on the issues and guidance of what to do next. this should help those sorting out issues which are not quite as black/white as I think many editors are led to believe. -- Banjeboi 06:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a community proposed policy page work in progress. Jimbo's opinion, while noted, is not mandatory. It should be noted that in the RfC in which Jimbo made the comments refered to above, that statements and endorsements supporting the permitting of paid editing (and those opposing same) were made subsequently - indicating that Jimbo's comments did not conclude the discussion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The idea that Jimmy Wales can pass an "edict" to vanquish any idea or essay from Wikipedia is not only unjust, it's also incorrect. Jimbo, admin though he may be as well as founder of the website, cannot trump any form of discussion from taking place on a hot-button issue. That sort of decision is made by the board lawyer. On that note, several legal forms of paid editing on Wikipedia (in the form of WP:BOUNTY, I believe) do exist. Finally, how on Earth do we legislate whether or not paid editing takes place if the transactions themselves are underhanded?--WaltCip (talk) 13:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep What policy is it violating, exactly? --Tango (talk) 17:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The nom says some strange things. If paid editing were banned, we'd need to revert anybody who ever set up an account and added some info to their user page, in the course of their job -- even if their only purpose was to maintain a watch list and make the occasional talk page comment. -Pete (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is an RfC in progress on this very subject, and it appears that no community consensus will be reached. If a consensus is reached, that would be the time to begin a project page. It appears that this page was created to circumvent the RfC process by starting to formulate policy when there in no consensus in favor of the proposed policy. Further, this whole business of paid editing and paid advocacy editing is really a sub-topic of WP:COI, and should be dealt with there. It is a serious blunder for Wikipedia to have a policy page with this title, because it could be construed by others—the press and Wikipedia editors who wish sell Wikipedia editing services—that Wikipedia condones creation and editing of Wikipedia content by individuals who are paid to promote commercial or other private interests. Finell (Talk) 18:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  We don't delete policy pages that don't have consensus, we tag them as rejected. --Tango (talk) 18:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment (by nom). My sentiments exactly. I was surprised at how sneaky it was unilaterally describe paid editing as "neither forbidden . . . " where NO consensus existed to make this change from the diametrically oppposed original position, which was that paid editing is a conflict of interest and IS forbidden. Erich Mendacio (talk) 18:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no "original position", that's why the RFC was needed. Up until know we've used exactly COI policy to deal with incidents on a case-by-case basis. --Tango (talk) 18:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As I've been trying to emphasize: this is not a proposal for a change in policy. It is an attempt to clarify our position on paid editing as it exists today. Any disagreement regarding its interpretation comes down to a disagreement regarding what the status quo is. I'd like to work out something that both sides can at least grudgingly accept as representative of current practices. Dcoetzee 19:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. MfD is not for getting rid of things you disagree with. The RfC in still ongoing, but this looks like a decent summary of the discussion. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment: ...and for those who disagree, and don't think it captures enough of the RFC, the best option is probably to edit the text of this page, rather than to argue for its outright deletion. -Pete (talk) 21:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Deleting pages like this is nearly universally a bad idea. If anything, tag them as {{historical}} if appropriate. By erasing history, we doom ourselves to repeat it. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We don't, and shouldn't delete pages directed at wikipedia policy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Changing my tune from the talk page because, per MZMMcBride and SmokeyJoe, a historical record will be helpful—whether this policy page ever reaches consensus or not. Priyanath ^talk 22:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think MZMcBride says it best, but "per all of the above". — Ched :  ?  02:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's getting chilly here - perhaps it's beginning to WP:SNOW? Keep per all above. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 06:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.