Submissions:2014/Why paid editing is a really bad idea


 * Title of the submission:


 * Theme: Community


 * Type of submission: Panel


 * Author of the submission: Susan J. Hewitt


 * E-mail address: hew sub@earthlink.net


 * Username: Invertzoo


 * US state or country of origin: NY (originally from the UK)


 * Affiliation: American Museum of Natural History


 * Personal homepage or blog:


 * Abstract:

The very real dangers of paid editing.

For 25 years I have lived with (and sometimes even worked alongside of) a really top-flight advertising professional, a copywriter, and I am friendly with many others who are professionals in the same field. The best copywriters are masters of "spin". Spin is a form of invisible propaganda. As Wikipedia itself explains: ""spin" often implies disingenuous, deceptive and/or highly manipulative tactics.

I know there are quite a number of editors who believe that paid editing on Wikipedia is not at all a bad idea; these editors seem to think that paid editing is benign as long as the paid editors are adhering to the basic Wikipedia guidelines. This view is extremely naive about the power of "spin", the nature of "spin", and the unusual abilities of "spin doctors".

It is true that anything that anyone writes or says at any time has some "spin" on it, willy nilly. Most of us are totally unaware of the spin we put on things. And most people are equally unaware of the spin that is on things that they are reading, especially when the spin is done well by a really good, well-paid professional.

A paid editor who works in the PR field can adhere to (or appear to adhere to) every one of the Wikipedia guidelines, and yet still put plenty of spin into an article. And this is not your ordinary, everyday spin, which we all have; this is spin that has been systematically ordered and paid for by a company that has ulterior motives.

Out in the "Real World", pharmaceutical advertising is a perfect example of advertising that is very strictly controlled, with many rules and regulations that govern what is allowed to be said or not said in a print advertisement, but the copywriters manage to cram in plenty of advertising ideas right through the gaps in those guidelines. And these are advertising notions that can adversely affect our health as well as wealth.

Wikipedia is a similar sort of situation, but the encyclopedia is actually far more susceptible to being corrupted. We must guard the encyclopedia very carefully against commercial interests, because commercial interests will corrupt the encyclopedia; there is no doubt about that.

I think we all have already agreed long ago that is is important to keep actual paid advertising (in the form of banner ads or pop-ups) out of the encyclopedia. This we have been able to do so far, but it is also extremely important to keep "covert" advertising out as well. Paid commercial editing by PR companies and PR professionals is covert advertising, plain and simple.

Even though we may not be successful in eliminating all attempts to insert paid content, we should certainly not in any way agree to accept it!


 * Length of talk: half or one third of a panel


 * Will you attend WikiConference USA if your submission is not accepted?: Yes


 * Slides or further information (optional): Probably not


 * Special request as to time of presentations: I am pretty flexible

Interested attendees
'''If you are interested in attending this session, please sign with your username below. This will help reviewers to decide which sessions are of high interest. Sign with four tildes. ( ~ ).'''


 * 1) Add your username here.