Comments on: The Freedom to edit Wikipedia

By: Rebecca

Rebecca — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 09:10:38 +0000

Independent evaluators, examiners etc get paid often by the body (e.g. university) they’re evaluating. In my experience paying someone is no guarantee of a favourable report.

By: Ross Gardler

Ross Gardler — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 09:06:47 +0000

An update on this interesting case.

Wikipedia have a reward board that allows anyone to offer payment for independent contribution:

“The reward board is an informal page where users who want a specific task related to Wikipedia (such as the promotion of an article to featured article status) can offer a reward to editors willing to take on the task.”

So even Wikipedia don’t feel that a payment necessarily leads to a compromised neutrality.

By: Randy Metcalfe

Randy Metcalfe — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 08:53:41 +0000

What does "independent" mean? Does payment indeed preclude independence? OSS Watch is a funded advisory service. Everyone in the team is "paid". Does that mean we can't be independent, either individually or as an organisation? As ever in these cases, you can't tell whether you have arrived at the structure of a problem unless you can replace all the names with variables and still have the problem. Does it make a difference who does the paying? Or what kind of brief they give you? Indeed, if I pay you to be independent, am I involved in a performative contradiction, where the very act of doing something means that I haven't done it?

By: Ross Gardler

Ross Gardler — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 08:50:22 +0000

Receiving payment does not make one biased automatically. It is true that there is the potential for a conflict, but if the payment does not include a need to have edits reviewed and the only edits requested are errors that are seen by the editor, not ones that have been identified by the employer it cannot be assumed that bias will emerge.

If this deal were done under the table and hidden away I’d be more concerned. But if the way it has been reported all MS are doing is ensuring that someone who understands the complex process of standards ratification is available to edit the page.

Other editors are able to see any edits made by Jeliffe and revert them if they show any form of bias. By announcing that he was being paid to do this he has drawn the attention of the whole blogsphere and therefore created hundreds of new potential editors for that page.

By: Stuart Yeates

Stuart Yeates — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 08:32:20 +0000

Is it really so wrong for Microsoft (or anyone else) to pay an independent writer to correct errors without interference from the sponsor?

Surely, as soon as the “independent writer” recieves payment from someone with a vested interest in their subject matter, they cease to be an “independent writer”?