Should Wikipedians Edit Stories For Pay?

Hugh Pickens writes "The Register reports that a longtime Wikipedia admin has been caught offering to edit the online encyclopedia in exchange for cash. Someone noticed a post to an online job marketplace where he was advertising his services: 'Besides technical writing, I also am an accomplished senior Wikipedia administrator with several featured articles to my name,' read the post, which has since been changed. 'If you need a good profile on Wikipedia, I can help you out there too through my rich experience.' Wikipedia promptly opened a discussion page to try to reach consensus on the community view of 'paid editing.' So far opinion seems to be divided between those who say it's ok as long as full disclosure is made and 'edits are compliant with WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:BLP, WP:N,' and others who believe that paid editing automatically creates a conflict of interest. Back in 2006, Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales shot down a company known as MyWikiBiz, which promised that you could 'author your legacy on the Internet.' The company subsequently had to reinvent itself with no reference to Wikipedia. 'It is not ok with me that anyone ever set up a service selling their services as a Wikipedia editor, administrator, bureaucrat, etc., I will personally block any cases that I am shown,' wrote Wales."

Re:Yes, but only if...

[Darkness404]

This isn't about Wikipedia hiring editors, but rather companies or groups hiring editors for Wikipedia, sometimes in violation of policies. For example, if GM hired someone to change the article to make it have a positive spin on it.

I've spent $300 on this already

[greenreaper]

Wikipedia has a reward board [wikipedia.org] where people can offer cash or other rewards for articles to be created or (usually) improved to a certain standard. There is also a bounty board [wikipedia.org] to offer donations to the Wikimedia Foundation for similar tasks. I have personally given $300 to individuals who have worked to raise furry articles [wikipedia.org] to good article status [wikipedia.org]. I see nothing wrong with this. A good article must, by definition [wikipedia.org], be neutral, and if it is not on a notable subject, it is very unlikely to achieve the status. Frankly, given the amount of skill and effort it takes to meet the requirements (I've done it myself, I know how tough it is), $50 an article is cheap.

Re:And how much money does Jimbo make?

[worthawholebean]

My bad - he has not received money from Wikimedia ever. Even if he did have a salary, it would be to administer, not to create content.

Re:I've spent $300 on this already

[Anonymous Coward]

--Joke-->
.......
...0...
../|\..
../ \..
..You..