Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-06-11/Paid editing
Does Wikipedia Pay? The Moderator: William Beutler
_21.JPG)
- Does Wikipedia Pay? is a Signpost series seeking to illuminate paid editing, paid advocacy, for-profit Wikipedia consultants, editing public relations professionals, conflict of interest guidelines in practice, and the Wikipedians who work on these issues... by speaking openly with the people involved.
- The views expressed here are those of the author and interviewee; responses and critical commentary are invited in the comments section.
- William Beutler (WWB), author of the blog The Wikipedian, is a long-time editor and community-watcher. He is also a paid editor (WWB Too). Well—not any more—because he gave up direct editing of articles in 2011. Instead, for the past three years he has followed Jimmy Wales' Bright Line rule in acting as a researcher and consultant for companies and clients that want to suggest changes to Wikipedia articles and engage on the Talk page. Beutler's company, Beutler Ink, has worked with clients such as C-SPAN, Cracker Barrel, and Verizon. Motivated by a desire to broker a better relationship between the two worlds, Beutler set up a meeting in D.C. in February for industry representatives to hash out a Statement that could lead to a more constructive, less fraught relationship (see related Signpost coverage this week). I interviewed Bill to hear how this all came about, and whether the community should view the Statement as a sign of good faith or, well, just more spin.
- Full disclosure: I attended the meeting—as an individual representing only myself—and as someone who has hoped to improve our guidance around paid editing.
- This interview has been condensed for readability. The full interview can be read here.
How paid editors squeeze you dry
31 January 2024
"Wikipedia and the assault on history"
4 December 2023
The "largest con in corporate history"?
20 February 2023
Truth or consequences? A tough month for truth
31 August 2022
The oligarchs' socks
27 March 2022
Fuzzy-headed government editing
30 January 2022
Denial: climate change, mass killings and pornography
29 November 2021
Paid promotional paragraphs in German parliamentary pages
26 September 2021
Enough time left to vote! IP ban
29 August 2021
Paid editing by a former head of state's business enterprise
25 April 2021
A "billionaire battle" on Wikipedia: Sex, lies, and video
28 February 2021
Concealment, data journalism, a non-pig farmer, and some Bluetick Hounds
28 December 2020
How billionaires rewrite Wikipedia
29 November 2020
Ban on IPs on ptwiki, paid editing for Tatarstan, IP masking
1 November 2020
Paid editing with political connections
27 September 2020
WIPO, Seigenthaler incident 15 years later
27 September 2020
Wikipedia for promotional purposes?
30 August 2020
Dog days gone bad
2 August 2020
Fox News, a flight of RfAs, and banning policy
2 August 2020
Some strange people edit Wikipedia for money
2 August 2020
Trying to find COI or paid editors? Just read the news
28 June 2020
Automatic detection of covert paid editing; Wiki Workshop 2020
31 May 2020
2019 Picture of the Year, 200 French paid editing accounts blocked, 10 years of Guild Copyediting
31 May 2020
English Wikipedia community's conclusions on talk pages
30 April 2019
Women's history month
31 March 2019
Court-ordered article redaction, paid editing, and rock stars
1 December 2018
Kalanick's nipples; Episode #138 of Drama on the Hill
23 June 2017
Massive paid editing network unearthed on the English Wikipedia
2 September 2015
Orangemoody sockpuppet case sparks widespread coverage
2 September 2015
Paid editing; traffic drop; Nicki Minaj
12 August 2015
Community voices on paid editing
12 August 2015
On paid editing and advocacy: when the Bright Line fails to shine, and what we can do about it
15 July 2015
Turkish Wikipedia censorship; "Can Wikipedia survive?"; PR editing
24 June 2015
A quick way of becoming an admin
17 June 2015
Meet a paid editor
4 March 2015
Is Wikipedia for sale?
4 February 2015
Shifting values in the paid content debate; cross-language bot detection
30 July 2014
With paid advocacy in its sights, the Wikimedia Foundation amends their terms of use
18 June 2014
Does Wikipedia Pay? The Moderator: William Beutler
11 June 2014
PR agencies commit to ethical interactions with Wikipedia
11 June 2014
Should Wikimedia modify its terms of use to require disclosure?
26 February 2014
Foundation takes aim at undisclosed paid editing; Greek Wikipedia editor faces down legal challenge
19 February 2014
Special report: Contesting contests
29 January 2014
WMF employee forced out over "paid advocacy editing"
8 January 2014
Foundation to Wiki-PR: cease and desist; Arbitration Committee elections starting
20 November 2013
More discussion of paid advocacy, upcoming arbitrator elections, research hackathon, and more
23 October 2013
Vice on Wiki-PR's paid advocacy; Featured list elections begin
16 October 2013
Ada Lovelace Day, paid advocacy on Wikipedia, sidebar update, and more
16 October 2013
Wiki-PR's extensive network of clandestine paid advocacy exposed
9 October 2013
Q&A on Public Relations and Wikipedia
25 September 2013
PR firm accused of editing Wikipedia for government clients; can Wikipedia predict the stock market?
13 May 2013
Court ruling complicates the paid-editing debate
12 November 2012
Does Wikipedia Pay? The Founder: Jimmy Wales
1 October 2012
Does Wikipedia pay? The skeptic: Orange Mike
23 July 2012
Does Wikipedia Pay? The Communicator: Phil Gomes
7 May 2012
Does Wikipedia Pay? The Consultant: Pete Forsyth
30 April 2012
Showdown as featured article writer openly solicits commercial opportunities
30 April 2012
Does Wikipedia Pay? The Facilitator: Silver seren
16 April 2012
Wikimedia announcements, Wikipedia advertising, and more!
26 April 2010
License update, Google Translate, GLAM conference, Paid editing
15 June 2009
Report of diploma mill offering pay for edits
12 March 2007
AstroTurf PR firm discovered astroturfing
5 February 2007
Account used to create paid corporate entries shut down
9 October 2006
Editing for hire leads to intervention
14 August 2006
Proposal to pay editors for contributions
24 April 2006
German Wikipedia introduces incentive scheme
18 July 2005
As this is the PR industry, why should Wikipedia editors expect that this Statement is anything but PR?
Fair question. I think the answer will be in what happens afterward. This statement has always been intended as preamble to additional efforts by participating agencies and, we hope, a new or renewed conversation with the Wikipedia community.
Wordsmithing aside, what do you think the Statement is trying to accomplish?
It's always been a great source of frustration for me, on both a personal and a professional level, that every time Wikipedia and public relations are in the news together, it's for all the wrong reasons. To this day, when I tell someone about our Wikipedia services, I often have to note that we follow Wikipedia's rules in the first sentence, lest they think otherwise. That's why I decided to convene the Donovan House group and why I believed a public statement by the top communications agencies was a valuable project. I want more people to realize that there can be cooperation between honest agency representatives and self-respecting Wikipedians.
| “ | It's always been a great source of frustration for me, on both a personal and a professional level, that every time Wikipedia and public relations are in the news together, it's for all the wrong reasons. | ” |
In this role of meeting organizer, did you see yourself acting as a Wikipedian, or a Communications professional, or some hybrid of the two? I suppose I'll ask it cynically: which side were you on?
I am definitely the hybrid model. I got started editing Wikipedia the same year I moved from journalism to a social media marketing agency. I don't think it is impossible to be both at the same time, although if a client asks to do something that Wikipedia rules prohibit, we will not help them do that. We are very clear when new clients approach us: we're going to do it the right way, or we're not going to do it at all.
Why was it necessary to have an invitation-only, closed door meeting? Isn't that against the spirit of transparency?
The idea is to find a balance between open and closed, so participants are willing to be honest and not fear they will later have to answer for an unpopular opinion. After all, minds can change, and a free exchange of ideas is necessary to work through controversial topics such as paid COI on Wikipedia. Just a few weeks ago, myself and two other participants at the Donovan House meeting held a panel discussion at WikiConference USA where we described the topics we talked about that day, and gave a brief preview of this statement. In August at Wikimania we will be doing the same.
| “ | We are very clear when new clients approach us: we're going to do it the right way, or we're not going to do it at all. | ” |
Were the four Wikipedians present at the meeting in some way "representing Wikipedia"?
The Wikipedians who joined, and those I invited but were unable to attend, were only asked to come as individual members of the community representing only their views. However, I specifically sought out individuals with a longstanding commitment to the community and who would have credibility on the topic.
Do you think the Statement goes far enough in acknowledging the harmful acts and bad actors that the PR industry has contained or concealed, such as Wiki-PR (related Signpost coverage: "Extensive network of clandestine paid advocacy exposed")?
| “ | The view was expressed by some on the agency side that they were wary of being seen as "apologizing" for the actions of other companies, whom they may or may not consider to be industry colleagues. | ” |
This was probably the biggest challenge we faced in agreeing upon specific wording, and a good illustration of the balancing act this kind of "interfaith" project requires. The view was expressed by some on the agency side that they were wary of being seen as "apologizing" for the actions of other companies, whom they may or may not consider to be industry colleagues. On the other hand, there was a view from the Wikipedia side that context needed to be established, otherwise the statement would seem to be avoiding the obvious.
Were there folks from the PR industry who wanted to put more of the blame on Wikipedia's processes (edit request timeliness, outdated financial data, etc.)?
I love Wikipedia, but no one in their right mind would say everything works well all of the time, and I think this is especially true on company articles. I am proof that the Bright Line can work, but whether it works well is a matter for reasonable debate. Certainly responses are not always timely, articles fall out-of-date regularly, and it's frustrating that following the Bright Line means refraining from even ostensibly uncontroversial changes. It requires a lot of patience and, to borrow a phrase from Pema Chödrön, one must be comfortable with uncertainty.
| “ | I am proof that the Bright Line can work, but whether it works well is a matter for reasonable debate. If Wikipedia was easy for outsiders to work with, we wouldn't be having this conversation. | ” |
If there is to be a long-term change in this situation, Wikipedians will have to reconsider some aspects of their own community culture as well, so in the final wording we note that it has been a "challenging" relationship. If Wikipedia was easy for outsiders to work with, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The difference is now we have a framework for helping to get it right.
Are PR companies expecting something in return for this gesture? What is it that the PR industry wants?
We are careful not to ask for anything specifically of the Wikipedia community in the statement, and readers should take note that it says the PR industry is open to a renewed dialogue, not that there is an expectation Wikipedia must reciprocate. We're planning for additional projects that participating agencies can do to continue educating themselves and their colleagues on Wikipedia, to develop formal processes for handling client requests. I expect there will be Wikipedians who are interested to help, but as with anything in this community, it will be self-selecting, and contributors will have differing views about what's best.
| “ | We are careful not to ask for anything specifically of the Wikipedia community in the statement, and readers should take note that it says the PR industry is open to a renewed dialogue, not that there is an expectation Wikipedia must reciprocate. | ” |
How did you come up with the idea of an in-person meeting? What was it like getting so many companies to the table, and then to agree to something in writing?
It was frustrating to see that, following the venerable journalistic principle of "if it bleeds, it leads", most discussions about Wikipedia and paid contributors focused on the bad actors. The experience of holding the meeting so was certainly interesting; when I started out, I had no idea if I would find enough interested participants, but I soon realized that this was a topic that many PR agencies were interested in—after all, it's an issue they've struggled with for a long time. We had people fly in from Chicago, Kentucky, and as far away as London. I had no idea how difficult it would be to find agreement on wording for a statement. It did take us a few months, and we went through about seven or eight drafts, but eventually we found a version that had wide support.
Who are these firms and what kind of influence do they wield in the PR industry? Are you missing any major players?
At present we have five of the top 10 global agencies and all but one of the top 10 agencies based in the United States. These agencies represent more than a billion dollars in fees annually, are some of the largest and best-known agencies in the world, and we have a handful of mid-sized agencies, too. Our goal here is to create a new industry standard for best practices that agencies large and small will follow.
| “ | At present we have five of the top 10 global agencies and all but one of the top 10 agencies based in the United States. | ” |
At a time when the community (and the WMF) has taken an ever-stronger stand against paid advocacy do you think the Wikipedia community will take the Statement as a sign that it's time to collaborate, or rather that it's 'winning' and shouldn't relent in the slightest?
First, I see no reason why this can't be "win-win". Wikipedia is not a zero-sum game. Second, I think the community and WMF should ask themselves what "winning" looks like. If it means driving PR people off Wikipedia entirely, that's not at all realistic. Neither Wikipedia nor PR is going away, and Wikipedia is simply too important in shaping public perceptions to be left alone entirely. However, if WMF and the community want to reduce the number of paid editors violating official rules and community norms, it's important that there be a path available to those who want to do the right thing.
You are paid to provide guidance to companies when they want to engage with Wikipedia. What has been your role in that? Did the experience somehow lead to this meeting?
| “ | I think the community and WMF should ask themselves what "winning" looks like. | ” |
Definitely, my experiences over the past few years—both positive and negative—have greatly influenced this initiative. Back in 2008 I was still unsure how well professional services around Wikipedia would be received. Jimmy Wales's Bright Line declaration in 2012 effectively carved out a safe zone: it made clear not just that "paid advocates" should stay out of mainspace, but Talk page involvement was explicitly approved. I found that it was indeed possible to represent clients and be successful by appealing to Wikipedia editors' goals of creating a better, more accurate, well-rounded encyclopedia. Meanwhile, Wikipedia itself has come a long way: there are more professionals involved with Wikipedia than ever before. So I think Wikipedia is in a place where this conversation is much more possible than it was even a few years ago.
| “ | I found that it was indeed possible to represent clients and be successful by appealing to Wikipedia editors' goals of creating a better, more accurate, well-rounded encyclopedia. | ” |
You've mentioned to me that the most important part of what you tell clients is basically, "No, Wikipedia doesn't work like that." Can you give me some examples and your philosophy about educating clients?
You name it and clients have asked for things they can't have. And they're oftentimes things that seem entirely reasonable to them. "Verifiability, not truth" is a constant pain point. Oftentimes it's not clear how much information about various controversies should be included in articles, and that becomes a topic for discussion first with the client and then on the Talk page. This is especially a challenge on technical articles, on financial topics, and also regarding lawsuits. We have to do our due diligence in researching the topic, come to our own conclusions, and then find a way to satisfy editors and clients alike.
Even if the statement is sincere, and endorsed by the top management, how does it actually get implemented and executed? What teeth does it have to actually make an impact (e.g. at the employee level)?
It's a challenge to communicate best practices through an entire agency, particularly on a topic relatively niche as Wikipedia. But it's important that they're now making an effort to do so. The statement includes a bullet point stating that, where breaches of Wikipedia rules may occur—and I think it's almost a certainty that someone at a participating agency will screw up in the future—then these companies pledge to take appropriate action, consistent with their HR policies, as they would with any other breach of Internet ethics.
| “ | It's a challenge to communicate best practices through an entire agency, particularly on a topic relatively niche as Wikipedia. But it's important that they're now making an effort to do so. | ” |
There has been some talk on mailing lists of a hypothetical third-party organization that could field requests and complaints from parties with a COI. Is that idea on your mind? How would it work, who would fund it?
It's definitely an intriguing concept, and I think it could be one possible long-term solution to the problems that Wikipedia and PR people both face now. If there was a way to create an ombudsperson type of role for one or more people to review suggestions (from companies or PR agencies or anyone) and make a fair judgment on what should be done, that'd be a good place to be.
So, how does the Statement go forward? Does it spark a conversation? Are there next steps? What is to make it actually amount to something useful?
| “ | I think we're closer to the beginning than the end at this point, but I'm very pleased that we've made it this far already. | ” |
Am I ever interested to find out! I think there is a big opportunity here. I hope it leads to more agencies making reasonable requests of Wikipedia, and that the community responds and puts more resources toward answering these kinds of requests. I think we're closer to the beginning than the end at this point, but I'm very pleased that we've made it this far already.
Discuss this story