Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-06-11/Paid editing

Does Wikipedia Pay? The Moderator: William Beutler: 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 anymore—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.

← Back to Contents

View Latest Issue

Does Wikipedia Pay? The Moderator: William Beutler

•  E-mail

 Facebook

 Twitter

 LinkedIn

 Reddit

 Digg

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.

Related articles

Does Wikipedia pay?

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.

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.

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")?

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.

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.

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 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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

In this issue

11 June 2014

News and notes

Traffic report

• Beware: Opening our doors to any level (however well-intentioned) of paid advocacy editing is essentially the same thing as opening our doors to advertising, something the community has always opposed, for very good reasons. Invertzoo (talk) 12:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I would take paid editing over POV editors any day. The latter are ideologues that cannot be reasoned with and they dominate in many areas of Wikipedia, even beyond those that have been put under sanctions. The former, especially when speaking about those like in the article above, are merely seeking to improve certain Wikipedia articles. And that is something we can all be involved in. Silverseren^C 15:39, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Paid editing, POV... at the end of the day its the editors and admins who end up cleaning up the mess left by either camp. Regardless of which group is judged to be the lesser of two evils for Wikipedia an evil is still an evil, and I say lead us not into temptation, for we can manage on our own. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Your assumption that they will make a mess is just as valid as me thinking that you will make a mess and therefore I need to patrol your edits. Silverseren^C 19:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • And that will end in reverts of numerous good faith edits, which will result in plenty of blocks. Either way, this conversation aside... After reading the whole article which expressed various view points (including the comments), I came to mixed feelings on the whole subject: On one hand I used to report usernames which were in breach of COI rule. On the other, as I saw one time, someone did updated a share for a company, (I don't remember the username or the company he edited). That user, did however asked permission to only update shares (weather the NYSE or NASDAQ are up or down, by the end of either month or year).--Mishae (talk) 04:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I attended one of the sessions at WikiconferenceUSA and was very intrigued by the subject, even more so by the idea that organizations want to edit WP without violating any of its policies (through a 3rd party). I think there needs to be an ongoing forum like an email list to continuously discuss these multiple issues. give voice to the various sides and reveal solutions that have been proposed and implemented. -- kosboot (talk) 06:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add that Jimbo has made me (and Bearian) co-administrators of the LinkedIn Wikipedia group. I'd say the majority of "real" people there are interested in engaging in WP but would represent a COI, so they have great interest in seeing any outcomes to such discussion. -- kosboot (talk) 13:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The description of PR work related to WP struck me as familiar. It resembles descriptions of the role of a Wikipedian in residence, being as much about educating clients as serving their wishes directly. Of course the institutional environment differs but, as an outsider to both activities, I can see that much of the work is the same. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed that was brought up at WikiConferenceUSA: If a Wikipedian-in-Residence is at a non-profit organization, then WP has less of a problem. If the organization is for-profit and the WiR is doing the same kind of activity, that is a problem. It was noted at the session that this is hypocritical. -- kosboot (talk) 17:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The principle is supposed to be that WIRs are editors who the community trusts not just to do their own editing properly, but to show others how to do their work properly. (I note that I myself am an unpaid WIR at the NYPL; I consider it part of my normal volunteering). DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The gargantuan PR agencies with the gargantuan (i.e. clearly "notable") clients aren't the problem. It is the burgeoning world of freelancing with the marginal clients that are the problem. That's not to say this initiative is without value — the agencies will be expecting something like action with regards to so-called "bright line" editing requests on talk pages. We'll see how that works... Maybe there will be new methods or structures emerging from the backlog... But the big problem remains unchanged no matter how this turns out for the Big 10 agencies and their Fortune 500 clients... Carrite (talk) 04:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not so sure of the innocence of the major agencies. It was mentioned at the NYC session by the representative of a major firm that they will not themselves edit on WP, on the rationale that they cannot adequately control the work of their employees to assure compliance, but refer their clients instead to another smaller firm that is willing to do this editing, and the representative of that particular smaller firm who was present agreed that they engaged in this. It strikes me as utterly hypocritical. I cannot believe that any responsible firm would knowingly employ people whose work they cannot trust, or that they do not monitor their own staff in the work they do. It rather indicates that they do not want to risk their own reputations in directly doing the work, but are willing to actively help in seeing the work gets done in such a way that they can disclaim their own responsibility. If the industry accepts such practices, how can we expect any of them to honestly follow any rules? DGG ( talk )

Archives

Newsroom

Subscribe

Suggestions