405:
640:. Knowledge cannot be allowed to be used for profit in this way at the abuse of the voluntary unpaid time that dedicated users spend building this encyclopedia which in spite of some biographies and articles about some companies, was never intended to be an additional business networking platform. Whether the text itself sounds promotional or not, the article is an advert and a plethora of sources has never been an automatic assumption of notability.
594:
118:
1000:
871:
835:
823:
938:
922:
897:
881:
845:
35:
98:
620:
Nominating promotional articles not primarily on the basis of notability, but of verified promotionalism. We can delete for any good reason, and at this time it's promotionalism which is the hazard, and there's only one way to discourage it. Our volunteers fixing the articles for the paid editors is
723:
Deletion deters: It is not always the case that most promotional editors never get discouraged. Most of them whose are working on a single article or related article never do come back, and its easy enough to block them if they do and create-protect the article. The ones who do come back are mainly
1015:
1045:
There are competing forces here. We want good content, we want less mopping. A problem with BOGOF editing is it increases the number of editors to work on that topic, and the quality/value of them. It increases supply. With the rules currently stated for editors, we have the inverse of how
1104:
apply. It could be argued that there's competing disruptive forces here, but let's be clear and agree on one thing: WP is not a promo platform and there's no place for undisclosed COI / undisclosed paid editing. That's the disruption. Mopping up after isn't, whichever form that may take.
428:
editors writing promotional articles such that it is unlikely that deleting promotional articles will stem the flow of promotional articles being written. Editors choose to rescue promotional articles on notable topics because they think they ought to be covered in the encyclopedia.
106:
Paid editors create a systemic bias with their edits. Their editing creates disproportionate coverage of paid topics. Volunteers helping them in any way, such as by cleaning up after their articles, which often need a lot of cleanup, increases this systemic bias because it is
699:: We can see onwiki activity more easily than offwiki. This has a parallel in content and sourcing issues, when an editor has not disclosed or has misrepresented their COIs and promotionalism, they may have also used their own created sources and misrepresented them as
1050:
run: Volunteers with responsibilities, and staff (undisclosed paid editors) with none. Rewriting bad paid content with good volunteer content is the equivalent of hiring a BOGOF editor. We're subsidising the market. This is not sustainable. Dare to say it,
478:
When articles are deleted, those contributions from suspected COI or sock editors are only accessible to admins and not editors. Deletion works against transparency, and hinders/prevents non-admin editors from having the information to disclosure and hence
176:
the market. This increased supply drives down demand for quality paid editors, increasing demand for unscrupulous, low quality and poorly paid editors, at the cost of diverting the finite supply of quality volunteer editors, all based on market demand.
195:
the cost, allows the articles to remain and does nothing to address the systemic bias. In fact, due to the finite volunteer resource, it not only increases coverage on topics that have been edited for pay but also decreases coverage of other topics,
168:(BOGOF). In the product sales promotion, the customer is rewarded with one identical free product. On Knowledge, several good-faith editors are likely to help editing, normally at a higher standard than the paid editor. It's likely to be
1402:
1343:
1036:
should be enjoyable, it's voluntary. There may be competing freedoms. Volunteers predominantly work on their own terms. There may be a wide range of views about paid editing. Paid workers may have deadlines, outcomes and payment dates.
416:
Deleting these articles doesn't lessen their incoming flow. Persistent COI editors are unlikely to get discouraged by deletion. Editors can make the best of the situation by supporting deletion of non-notable topics and exercise their
616:
should be on the creator. Volunteer editors should have to mop up at little as possible, and not be put in a position to labour over long-winded deletion or invest time fixing when an article is promotion or anything is undisclosed.
1084:). BOGOF provides an alternative that they can hire anyone and get a BOGOF good article. We shouldn't ask volunteers to subsidise the market. Can we delete promo articles before the editor gets paid, or raise the bar somehow? e.g.
788:, even if they are borderline notable. There may also be legal issues hanging over content edited by a contractor, for example the copyright of text given to them by their client may reside with the client not the editor, needing
490:
supports "editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step." Particularly as it parallels the similar items in
643:
Articles shouldn't be a way for paid actors to start a crummy PR fluff piece and have volunteers finish it in order to promote a company and/or its execs. It just takes time away from adding WP content.
203:
Opinions for dealing with promotional articles created by undisclosed paid editors can polarise into two views being expressed in deletion discussions. They may be seen in terms of competing freedoms:
124:
during a rising tide of COI articles which would otherwise flood
Knowledge. The unintended consequence is increasing the buildup. Who will relieve them from the pressure building up even faster?
1453:
986:
case, and almost all of those working on it felt that mass deletion was appropriate, where there was real reason for making an impact. For instance, where articles were sometimes
1155:
653:, the guideline which the GNG is a part of, also requires for the presumption of inclusion that in addition to meeting the GNG a subject must not be excluded by the policy
1327:
1311:
1085:
1172:
1166:
1160:
647:
DGG says it best, "Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason."
1145:
1448:
1443:
601:
1080:
In that partial vacuum, undisclosed under-the-radar editing may result in long-term failure (of reputation for the customer and editor - see
692:
436:
Buy one, get one-free (BOGOF) editor doesn't matter, it's only the content that matters (it doesn't matter if it was originally an advert,
404:
470:). If the topic is notable, and if no one likes the content or tone of the article, fix it, stub it, use reliable sources and let it be
661:
Standard COI applies, if notable, then leave the article for others to create, rather than diverting finite volunteer resources with:
50:
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more
Knowledge contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
1458:
463:
373:
51:
1257:
1003:
654:
525:
987:
1270:
973:
633:
516:
Who chooses to exclude an article on a notable topic? An editor can decide whether articles should be kept by following
445:
409:
381:
1150:
683:
612:, rewriting the spammers' biographies for them hours after they are nominated for deletion is counterproductive. The
796:. After those considerations, if clearly notable, editors have the option to choose to rescue, or recreate later:
129:
No one in the community wants
Knowledge to be, sort of, abandoned to the shills. So we've got a lot of work to do.
1438:
711:
467:
1109:
200:
the systemic bias. Time spent salvaging a paid promotion is time not spent writing something else voluntarily.
1463:
676:
BOGOF doesn't deter — it incentivises (and that's independent of the assumption that deletion doesn't deter)
224:
188:
108:
1047:
534:
496:
377:
361:
341:
329:
272:
165:
1420:
755:
Editors may be discouraged by the effort to take on undisclosed paid editors, persistent COI editors,
719:
without any relevant or encyclopedic content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)
1369:
1217:
650:
521:
517:
1014:
624:
Purely promotional and obviously a case of someone 'mistakenly' believing that
Knowledge is another
1033:
1027:
808:
752:
Is BOGOF editing an issue? Tired of having sleazy PR / SEO hacks make hay from your volunteer work?
538:
55:
507:
to assume an editor has other intent, and in any case, it's the edits not the editors that matter.
1240:
1129:
1101:
1019:
738:
569:
559:
387:
121:
65:
696:
1063:
The underlying problem is we currently set up paid editors and clients for short-term success:
1233:
1097:
815:
760:
609:
294:
1295:
1225:
1081:
1007:
613:
510:
492:
487:
289:
242:
43:
152:
creates an article, should a volunteer fix it? If they do, the customer is rewarded with a
1076:
There isn't consensus for experienced volunteers to support less experienced paid editors.
954:
909:
857:
785:
593:
563:
555:
457:
324:
1221:
1357:
1139:
950:
946:
930:
905:
889:
853:
793:
789:
781:
764:
756:
728:
716:
542:
353:
337:
267:
180:
149:
117:
1432:
1052:
768:
687:
671:
597:
504:
441:
437:
425:
299:
284:
184:
139:
58:. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
1398:
1323:
1307:
1291:
1243:
1134:
1118:
3. and encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms.
999:
700:
664:
637:
629:
315:
304:
1229:
744:
In the short term this could be seen as POINTY (for borderline or notable topics)
17:
983:
670:
It would be better all-round if we were free from these promotional articles by
310:
253:
192:
134:
418:
258:
247:
1194:
1236:
1339:
625:
747:
Long-term we need to decide what's best as BOGOF could be seen as POINTY
173:
1096:
If the subject is worthy we should include it. Borderline cases, COI,
1032:
There are challenges when teams comprise paid workers and volunteers.
1013:
998:
741:- there's making a point, and there's disrupting to make a point:
592:
403:
116:
1073:
There isn't a simple, obvious, way for paid editors to contribute
545:
applies to content within an article rather than its notability).
164:. That is a service equivalent of the product sales promotion
92:
29:
122:
The legend of the young editor heroically plugging the dike
1377:
1116:
2. deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior;
972:
In 2013, 250 user accounts were blocked or banned in the
1142:– where hosts reject offspring, for example cuckoo eggs
780:
Promotional articles may be deleted for promotionalism
724:
the paid editing farms and the unpaid zealots and fans.
584:
577:
395:
80:
73:
433:
Rewritten articles are free from COI, and promotion:
421:improve notable topics. Can't beat them, fix them.
1156:
User:Bri/What's wrong with undisclosed paid editing
1022:. That works as an exception, rather than the rule.
982:In 2015, 381 sockpuppet accounts were found in the
792:which won't have happened when undisclosed. That's
1454:Knowledge essays introducing or defining new terms
1208:Hardin, G (1968). "The Tragedy of the Commons".
990:where it was a requirement that they be deleted.
1271:"Woronora Dam - NSW Environment & Heritage"
346:
127:
628:, not understanding the difference between an
170:buy one (bad editor), get one (good team) free
1173:Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost/2016-07-04/Op-ed
1167:Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost/2015-10-07/Op-ed
1161:Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost/2015-04-08/Op-ed
968:Articles should be dealt with one at a time.
356:, "The Tragedy of the Commons", Hardin (1968)
8:
1146:Knowledge:Articles for creation/Scam warning
1006:– an unusual volunteering opportunity. The
667:having to fix/rewrite/subsidise the market
1286:
1284:
495:(especially points C.1, C.3, and C.4) and
1358:WP:COIN#Tony Ahn PR/Reputation Management
462:It is disruptive to improving content as
1163:"We are drowning in promotional artspam"
798:
348:Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.
205:
1185:
1113:
714:
1421:Knowledge's struggle to save its soul
693:Knowledge:Fruit of the poisonous tree
410:baby...even if we drain the bathwater
279:
7:
237:
56:thoroughly vetted by the community
52:Knowledge's policies or guidelines
25:
1449:Knowledge essays about neutrality
1258:if you can't beat them, join them
374:Knowledge:Deletion is not cleanup
1018:Volunteers cleaning up after an
936:
920:
895:
879:
869:
843:
833:
821:
96:
33:
1067:anyone can edit under-the-radar
1004:Industrial wastewater treatment
655:Knowledge:What Knowledge is not
1444:Knowledge essays about editing
1169:"Walled gardens of corruption"
475:Deletion hinders transparency
340:stated in his analysis of the
1:
1404:The Next Internet Millionaire
1345:The Next Internet Millionaire
1230:10.1126/science.162.3859.1243
503:It goes against the grain of
362:Internalizing the externality
330:Internalizing the externality
111:from editing non-paid topics.
634:professional network service
446:Knowledge:Edits, not editors
382:Knowledge:Baby and bathwater
1175:"Two policies in conflict?"
1151:User:Doc James/Paid editing
1070:Our policies are smallprint
995:Paid workers and volunteers
727:Repeated recreation may be
712:Knowledge:Deletion policy#4
684:Fruit of the poisonous tree
1480:
1275:www.environment.nsw.gov.au
1025:
1010:should be on the polluter.
567:
553:
524:and is not excluded under
385:
371:
364:is one possible solution.
63:
27:Essay on editing Knowledge
1059:Setup editors for success
191:. Cleaning up after them
1459:Knowledge warning essays
1140:Brood parasite rejection
104:This page in a nutshell:
1424:(subscription required)
1048:voluntary organisations
763:and the bureaucracy of
528:, so it should be kept.
464:deletion is not cleanup
424:There are far too many
109:taking editor time away
1023:
1011:
605:
453:Deletion doesn't deter
413:
359:
342:tragedy of the commons
273:Tragedy of the commons
146:
125:
1017:
1002:
715:Advertising or other
596:
526:What Knowledge is not
407:
166:buy one, get one free
154:buy one, get one free
120:
54:, as it has not been
988:copyright violations
651:Knowledge:Notability
513:improve any article
408:Let's keep the cute
250:improve any article
1380:on October 20, 2013
1222:1968Sci...162.1243H
1216:(3859): 1243–1248.
1020:industrial accident
865:Borderline notable
621:counterproductive.
183:and more generally
1370:"Wiki-PR homepage"
1277:. 22 October 2019.
1130:Free-rider problem
1024:
1012:
976:. Wiki-PR claimed
697:Tip of the iceberg
686:, considering the
606:
468:WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP
414:
143:, October 6, 2015"
126:
1198:, October 6, 2015
1110:WP:BLOCKDETERRENT
961:
960:
759:(and sockfarms),
396:WP:DRAINBATHWATER
335:
334:
172:. Volunteers are
115:
114:
91:
90:
18:Knowledge:NOBOGOF
16:(Redirected from
1471:
1439:Knowledge essays
1425:
1408:
1395:
1389:
1388:
1386:
1385:
1376:. Archived from
1366:
1360:
1355:
1349:
1336:
1330:
1320:
1314:
1304:
1298:
1296:User talk:Cunard
1288:
1279:
1278:
1267:
1261:
1256:in contrast to "
1254:
1248:
1247:
1205:
1199:
1190:
1082:Streisand effect
979:
943:
940:
939:
927:
924:
923:
902:
899:
898:
886:
883:
882:
877:
873:
872:
850:
847:
846:
841:
837:
836:
829:
825:
824:
799:
587:
580:
550:Internalise bias
541:, in particular
398:
357:
280:Internalise bias
206:
144:
100:
99:
93:
83:
76:
37:
36:
30:
21:
1479:
1478:
1474:
1473:
1472:
1470:
1469:
1468:
1429:
1428:
1423:
1417:
1412:
1411:
1396:
1392:
1383:
1381:
1368:
1367:
1363:
1356:
1352:
1337:
1333:
1321:
1317:
1305:
1301:
1289:
1282:
1269:
1268:
1264:
1255:
1251:
1207:
1206:
1202:
1191:
1187:
1182:
1126:
1094:
1061:
1043:
1030:
997:
978:12,000 clients.
977:
966:
941:
937:
925:
921:
900:
896:
884:
880:
870:
868:
848:
844:
834:
832:
822:
820:
778:
591:
590:
583:
576:
572:
566:
564:Drain the swamp
552:
535:WP:NOTTEMPORARY
402:
401:
394:
390:
384:
378:WP:SURMOUNTABLE
370:
358:
352:
325:Virtuous circle
145:
133:
97:
87:
86:
79:
72:
68:
60:
59:
34:
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
1477:
1475:
1467:
1466:
1464:Knowledge spam
1461:
1456:
1451:
1446:
1441:
1431:
1430:
1427:
1426:
1416:
1415:External links
1413:
1410:
1409:
1390:
1361:
1350:
1331:
1315:
1299:
1280:
1262:
1249:
1200:
1184:
1183:
1181:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1170:
1164:
1158:
1153:
1148:
1143:
1137:
1132:
1125:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1117:
1115:
1093:
1090:
1078:
1077:
1074:
1071:
1068:
1060:
1057:
1042:
1039:
996:
993:
992:
991:
980:
965:
962:
959:
958:
934:
918:
914:
913:
893:
866:
862:
861:
830:
818:
812:
811:
806:
805:Not promotion
803:
777:
774:
773:
772:
753:
750:
749:
748:
745:
735:
734:
733:
732:
725:
707:
706:
705:
704:
680:
679:
678:
677:
674:
662:
589:
588:
581:
573:
568:
551:
548:
547:
546:
531:
530:
529:
508:
501:
500:
499:
482:
481:
480:
473:
472:
471:
454:
451:
450:
449:
400:
399:
391:
386:
369:
368:Subsidise bias
366:
354:Garrett Hardin
350:
333:
332:
327:
322:
319:
318:systemic bias
313:
308:
302:
298:
293:
288:
282:
276:
275:
270:
268:Vicious circle
265:
262:
256:
251:
245:
240:
238:Subsidise bias
234:
233:
230:
227:
222:
219:
216:
213:
210:
187:editors are a
131:
113:
112:
101:
89:
88:
85:
84:
77:
69:
64:
61:
49:
48:
40:
38:
26:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1476:
1465:
1462:
1460:
1457:
1455:
1452:
1450:
1447:
1445:
1442:
1440:
1437:
1436:
1434:
1422:
1419:
1418:
1414:
1407:
1405:
1400:
1394:
1391:
1379:
1375:
1371:
1365:
1362:
1359:
1354:
1351:
1348:
1346:
1341:
1335:
1332:
1329:
1325:
1319:
1316:
1313:
1309:
1303:
1300:
1297:
1293:
1287:
1285:
1281:
1276:
1272:
1266:
1263:
1259:
1253:
1250:
1245:
1242:
1238:
1235:
1231:
1227:
1223:
1219:
1215:
1211:
1204:
1201:
1197:
1196:
1189:
1186:
1179:
1174:
1171:
1168:
1165:
1162:
1159:
1157:
1154:
1152:
1149:
1147:
1144:
1141:
1138:
1136:
1133:
1131:
1128:
1127:
1123:
1119:
1111:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1103:
1099:
1091:
1089:
1087:
1083:
1075:
1072:
1069:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1058:
1056:
1054:
1049:
1041:Market forces
1040:
1038:
1035:
1029:
1021:
1016:
1009:
1005:
1001:
994:
989:
985:
981:
975:
971:
970:
969:
963:
957:
956:
952:
948:
935:
933:
932:
919:
916:
915:
912:
911:
907:
894:
892:
891:
876:
867:
864:
863:
860:
859:
855:
840:
831:
828:
819:
817:
814:
813:
810:
807:
804:
801:
800:
797:
795:
791:
787:
783:
775:
770:
766:
762:
758:
754:
751:
746:
743:
742:
740:
737:
736:
730:
726:
722:
721:
720:
718:
713:
709:
708:
702:
698:
694:
691:
690:
689:
685:
682:
681:
675:
673:
669:
668:
666:
663:
660:
659:
658:
656:
652:
648:
645:
641:
639:
635:
631:
627:
622:
618:
615:
611:
603:
599:
595:
586:
585:WP:DRAINSWAMP
582:
579:
575:
574:
571:
565:
561:
557:
549:
544:
540:
537:applies (and
536:
532:
527:
523:
519:
515:
514:
512:
509:
506:
502:
498:
494:
489:
486:
485:
483:
479:contributions
477:
476:
474:
469:
465:
461:
460:
459:
455:
452:
447:
443:
439:
435:
434:
432:
431:
430:
427:
422:
420:
411:
406:
397:
393:
392:
389:
383:
379:
375:
367:
365:
363:
355:
349:
345:
343:
339:
331:
328:
326:
323:
320:
317:
314:
312:
309:
306:
303:
301:
296:
291:
286:
283:
281:
278:
277:
274:
271:
269:
266:
263:
261:read article
260:
257:
255:
252:
249:
246:
244:
241:
239:
236:
235:
231:
228:
226:
225:Systemic bias
223:
220:
217:
214:
211:
208:
207:
204:
201:
199:
194:
190:
189:systemic bias
186:
182:
178:
175:
171:
167:
163:
159:
155:
151:
142:
141:
140:BBC Newsnight
136:
130:
123:
119:
110:
105:
102:
95:
94:
82:
78:
75:
71:
70:
67:
62:
57:
53:
47:
45:
39:
32:
31:
19:
1403:
1393:
1382:. Retrieved
1378:the original
1373:
1364:
1353:
1344:
1334:
1318:
1302:
1274:
1265:
1252:
1213:
1209:
1203:
1193:
1188:
1135:Moral hazard
1095:
1079:
1062:
1044:
1034:Volunteering
1031:
1028:WP:VOLUNTEER
974:Wiki-PR case
967:
944:
928:
917:Non-notable
903:
887:
874:
851:
838:
826:
779:
665:Freedom from
649:
646:
642:
638:yellow pages
630:encyclopedia
623:
619:
608:Considering
607:
539:WP:RECENTISM
533:If notable,
497:SURMOUNTABLE
456:Deletion is
423:
415:
360:
347:
336:
316:Freedom from
305:Freedom from
232:Consequence
202:
197:
193:externalises
179:
169:
162:editor offer
161:
157:
153:
147:
138:
128:
103:
41:
1026:Main page:
984:Orangemoody
757:sockpuppets
560:WP:NORESCUE
311:Internality
264:Multiplied
254:Externality
198:multiplying
174:subsidising
150:paid editor
135:Jimbo Wales
42:This is an
1433:Categories
1384:2013-10-19
1328:Circle AfD
1312:Circle AfD
1180:References
1086:Circle AfD
761:WP:PAYTALK
610:WP:NOTSPAM
578:WP:NOBOGOF
554:See also:
518:Notability
511:Freedom to
444:etc.) per
419:freedom to
372:See also:
321:Decreased
307:having to
295:WP:Userify
259:Freedom to
248:Freedom to
1195:Newsnight
1112:is clear
1092:Consensus
1008:WP:BURDEN
809:Promotion
739:NOTPOINTy
729:WP:SALTed
710:Deletion
570:Shortcuts
440:, promo,
290:WP:Drafts
66:Shortcuts
1397:Source:
1338:Source:
1322:Source:
1306:Source:
1290:Source:
1124:See also
1102:DEADLINE
955:WP:DEL14
910:WP:DEL14
904:Delete
858:WP:DEL14
786:WP:DEL14
626:LinkedIn
556:WP:ATD-I
484:Improve
388:Shortcut
74:WP:BOGOF
1399:Widefox
1374:Wiki-PR
1324:Brianhe
1308:Kudpung
1292:Brianhe
1244:8757756
1237:5699198
1218:Bibcode
1210:Science
1098:TOOSOON
951:WP:DEL4
947:WP:DEL8
945:Delete
931:WP:DEL8
929:Delete
906:WP:DEL4
890:WP:DEL8
888:Delete
854:WP:DEL4
852:Delete
839:Rewrite
816:Notable
794:WP:DEL2
790:WP:ORTS
782:WP:DEL4
765:WP:COIN
543:WP:10YT
221:Reader
215:Editor
212:Action
148:When a
81:WP:BOGO
1053:WP:IAR
769:WP:SPI
632:and a
614:BURDEN
598:WP:TNT
562:, and
505:WP:AGF
493:BEFORE
488:BURDEN
380:, and
344:that:
338:Hardin
300:WP:AFC
285:WP:TNT
243:Rescue
229:Cycle
1241:S2CID
964:Scale
802:Type
701:WP:RS
636:or a
604:safe.
600:made
466:(and
458:POINT
218:Cost
209:View
158:BOGOF
44:essay
1234:PMID
1192:BBC
1100:and
875:Keep
827:Keep
776:Type
767:and
717:spam
695:and
602:this
181:Paid
1406:AfD
1347:AfD
1340:DGG
1226:doi
1214:162
1114:...
878:or
842:or
688:ToU
672:TNT
657:.
522:GNG
442:COI
438:POV
426:COI
185:COI
137:, "
1435::
1401:,
1372:.
1342:,
1326:,
1310:,
1294:,
1283:^
1273:.
1239:.
1232:.
1224:.
1212:.
1088:.
1055:.
953:/
949:/
908:/
856:/
784:/
558:,
520:,
376:,
351:—
160:)
132:—
1387:.
1260:"
1246:.
1228::
1220::
942:N
926:N
901:N
885:N
849:N
771:.
731:.
703:.
448:.
412:.
297:,
292:,
287:,
156:(
46:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
