Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Paid Advocacy Watch/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Logo suggestion

What about an image of the scales of justice where the scales are uneven because there is money on one of the scales, with a magnifying glass above. I am not very good at photoshopping, so we will have to find somebody else to make it. PaoloNapolitano 09:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

RfC/COI

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/COI – Given this project's premise, I feel that members of this project should be made aware of and encouraged to participate in this RfC discussion. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Vector Marketing

Been watching over this one for awhile. Vector Marketing is a MLM company that seems interested in blanking the controversy section off the page, and removing sourced content critical of it. It also targeted by disgruntled former contractors for disparaging vandalism. Propose adding to article watchlist. Phearson (talk) 02:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Bit late... but I'm watching it now and will protect it if necessary. This seems to be a common occurrence on MLM articles... SmartSE (talk) 19:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:PAIDWATCH discussion

Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:PAIDWATCH – Template:PAIDWATCH is up for deletion. Feel free to participate in the discussion. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

There are several recommendations on the deletion discussion for less hostile templates. It seems to me all it needed was a tweak. User:King4057 21:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (a paid editor)

Tasks discussion

Moved this here from the main page:

This is the discussion area about section #Tasks (above), until the WikiProject is formalized, to then have separate project-talk pages.

• Perhaps create essays to see scope of problems:

• WP:List of 2011 articles by paid editors
• WP:List of 2010 articles by paid editors
• WP:Risk-benefit analysis of paid editing
• WP:Recusal – potential guideline for editor recusal
• WP:Recusal rationale – defends reasons for the guideline

The goal of the essays is to define, expand, and offer solutions to the issues involved, such as known risks (dangers) perhaps based on actual case-history articles from the lists (but meanwhile trying to avoid gray-area disputes of article violations). Eventually, a document "WP:Recusal" could become a guideline for suggested rules of order regulating when editors should recuse themselves from the final decisions about article contents. It is interesting to note that court judges should recuse themselves, but even defendants are allowed to act as their own counsels or hire family members as lawyers, rather than hire impartial attorneys (perhaps "hiring" can never be truly impartial?).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Herostratus (talk • contribs) 04:43, 13 January 2012‎ (UTC)

Notice of discussion: proposal for a log of poor paid editing be kept

I have proposed a log be kept of poorly behaving paid editors who become subject to administrative action: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Log_of_sources_of_poor_paid_advocacy_editing Fifelfoo (talk) 01:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

LifeLock

The Article, LifeLock, has been scrubbed clean of ALL negative "press" and references thereof. What should I do? Rollback? Report somewhere? Please advise.```Buster Seven Talk 15:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, if important sourced content has been removed, the first option is usually to restore it. I'll watchlist the article. If it happens multiple times then maybe worth taking to a noticeboard. However, we don't achieve neutral articles by trying to compose some negative stuff to balance out the positive stuff; the previous negative content was perhaps going a step beyond what sources actually said. Note that [1] doesn't say Lifelock were defrauding customers, [2] actually mentions stuff about how the "victim" of identity theft didn't actually lose money and Lifelock did their job, &c. The ranty paragraph about "Lifelock still is generally thought of as being a widespread scam" was not sourced at all. Don't just revert back to that crap; we shouldn't let the article become another websense. bobrayner (talk) 16:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, bob. I'll watch with you. I also asked Herostratus what to do. I usually don't get too involved but I'm challenging myself so that I know. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I put a COI notice on Jaxman123's talk page. If he continues to violate NPOV rules, the next step might be to bring him up at the COI noticeboard. Ebikeguy (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I did some cleanup. I was going to help balance the article, but - based on what I read - it seems the negative balance is appropriate in this case. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 02:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, King. Yea. The problem seems to have abated. ```Buster Seven Talk 02:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I like being the corporate lapdog of Wikipedia (hint: Wikipedia needs more of us), but there's not much I can do for a company the FTC has publicly called a scam. :-D User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 03:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

COI+ certification proposal

I've thought of an idea that might break our current logjam with paid editing. I'd love your sincere feedback and opinion.

• WP:COI certification

Feel free to circulate this to anyone you think should know about it, but please recognize that it hasn't agreed upon by either PR organizations or WikiProjects or the wider community. It's also just a draft, so any/many changes can still be made. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 14:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Something drastic

I support efforts to make it easier for PRs that are helpful in improving Wikipedia's coverage through corrections, assistance and quality contributions. In fact, many company articles are blatantly unfair to the point that it's disappointing the company has to get involved to prevent overt bias, uncited criticisms and personal opinions.

However, I'm continually gaining perspective on just how prolific the COI problem is and how softball Wikipedians are about the issue. Even after repeated, overt and sockpuppet using, bad-faith censorship attempts, I have seen Wikipedians invite the COI user to the Talk page and make unfair concessions. Everywhere I turn are articles clearly written by the company, university, individual, etc. and readers have told me this diminishes Wikipedia's credibility in their eyes. Speaking of editor retention, it's also a huge, frustrating problem for editors.

Looking at the scope of the issue, I think detection, investigation, etc. are helpful, but could only reasonably pursue 1% of poor COI editing, which is already handled on thousands of individual articles and the COIN board. I think what's important for Wikipedia and where a project like this would be ideally suited is working on deterrence rather than detection. It's impossible to play wack-a-mole to thousands of COI edits, instead of deterring those edits in the first place.

I thought I would start a discussion string on how we can deter poor, bad-faith COI edits instead of police them. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 04:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

On this list

I don't particularly mind being on this list, but I do feel a bit slighted that only disclosed paid editors are targeted. It makes it difficult to convince companies to do the right thing, using request edits, discussions, COIN, sandboxes, etc. when it's much easier and more effective to spam and censor Wikipedia anonymously.

My suggestion would be to add another list of "non-disclosed single purpose accounts with advert editing behavior" like this. Note that I didn't out them as paid editors, but identified several parameters that make their edits likely to be problematic. Also click on the link on the page and you'll see that you can use the toolserver to create an actual watchlist so you can get a scrolling list of edits by those on the list like you would see in your private watchlist. If a link to the watchlist was added to the promotion tag or if articles with that tag were sorted through, you could probably easily rack up hundreds of accounts suspected of paid editing, rather than focusing exclusively on a handful of disclosed ones.

As a paid editor myself, I have a COI with the subject. Like many members of this project, I support both initiatives in at least some form. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 18:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Totally agree, there needs to be more focus on raising a warning flag on dubious edits on corporate articles, it needs to be more encouraged to start stuff like this: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Websense,_Inc. - it's the sneaky ones which are making Wikipedia such a huge threat to open discourse on the internet with it being so widely accepted as 'neutral', illegal[3] astroturfing has a seriously negative effect on the world at large when Wikipedia is used for it because so many people assume that because it says it is neutral, it is... Despite all evidence otherwise, that's not changing because most people still want to believe that people are generally good and trust until proven otherwise, which when dealing with people like that, is a weakness they sociopathically exploit (I'd argue that a lot of people in the manipulation industry of PR and marketing are sociopaths, when it's not done honestly and openly, it's exactly the same kind of behaviours).

Wikipedia needs to take greater responsibility in auditing edits, maybe to require people editing on controversial or monetary issues to have identified internally so that money trails can be investigated, ala OpenCongress[4]...

This is a good start, though (some kind of quicker report button for 'edits that you think may have been made by someone with a conflict of interest' ala a report paedophiles button could be good too[5][6][7][8][9][10]), and hopefully will increase awareness of the scale of the problem... Which is only going to make Wikipedia even worse over time... Here's a good quote from Jimbo's talk page:

User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 99#Please.2C_keep_the_bunny

This seems like honest people allowing baddies into a party with the plan of keeping an eye on them, fixing what they break, prosecuting them, booting them after they're caught, and keeping the door open for more.

Cheaper and safer is a guard at the door of this tiny percentage of articles. Editing is a privilege, right? So, VIP only. Guests to that party of articles [we should] know who they are, and if they're paid[..]

This seems like honest people allowing baddies into a party with the plan of keeping an eye on them, fixing what they break, prosecuting them, booting them after they're caught, and keeping the door open for more.

Cheaper and safer is a guard at the door of this tiny percentage of articles.

shouldn't we be as defensive as they are offensive?

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

(as well as the #Corporate_Representatives_paid_editing_on_Wikipedia thread on there that thread was originally a response to)

I posted a bigger reply over there pointing out that this may be a niche thing now, but it's only going to get worse over time, it's worth reading and browsing through the news articles, I definitely think people need to be less kneejerky and more raising awareness of the real threats instead. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 04:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

certainly it will become an increasing problem--but it has alread showed itself to be a larger problem than we were aware. A great many articles in Wikipedia devoted to organizations,and many BLPs, are obvious Public relations, and need to be rewritten. It's not a tiny fragment of articles: my guess is that at least one-third of the articles on commercial and non-commercial organizations have been affected by COI editing. That's tens of thousands of articles at the least.

King is right that the problem is also with undisclosed editors--I would say in fact the paid editor problem is mainly with undisclosed paid editors. They are, obviously, much harder to watch. The only defense against bad editing is good editing, which starts with the recognition of problems in existing and new articles. Anna's protest above is irrelevant to the issue.Since we can not keep the bad guys out, it is better that we know who they are. A policy that failure to disclose COI is actionable might help a little--not necessarily in discouraging them, but in making it more obvious when they are caught. DGG ( talk ) 20:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Bureaucrat or Admin services required in Elance

You have a senior position and can get articles in without having them deleted a few weeks later.We have over 25 articles to submit. This shows why a functionary should never be allowed to do paid editing.Unlike paid writing this involves use of Admin Tools to protect the articles. The advertisement is more for the admin services than the writing.They are really looking here Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Is it really a requirement for somebody to use admin tools, or is it an ad placed by somebody who needs a content-writer but doesn't quite understand wikipedia's inner workings and thinks an admin/bureaucrat is capable of waving a magic wand to make every AfD go away? If anything, they need somebody who's autopatrolled. bobrayner (talk) 17:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

No they are not asking for writing skills they clearly say we have 25 articles to submit not write this advertisement has appeared over 3 times and there is no job description ie what to write or a subject or a topic which is must if they want writers unlike in others advertisement they only say they want an admin .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree they say they want an admin or bureaucrat. That they say "submit", and "get articles in", is further evidence that they're not experts on how enwiki works and would like to hire somebody else who is. In what way do you think a bureaucrat has a special ability to "submit" an article where a mopless editor cannot? It's pretty unlikely that they're all salted. bobrayner (talk) 18:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

This is the 3rd time has he has given it this and here as only admin and his main concern is to ensure that the articles do not get deleted within weeks which the advertiser seems to think an admin is better placed to ensure that they do not get deleted .AFd participation is declining and a large numbers of articles fate are decided by less than 4 editors here an admin is crucial. Just to point this out how expert he/she is a different issue and we can only speculate further the idea is not about one advertisement it raises the larger question of admins selling there services which is what I have raised not this advertisement alone. But his requirement is clear that he wants to buy admin services not writing services.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify - you want to raise a concern about admins & crats selling their services, by pointing out a request which doesn't actually require the mop to be used? "Submitting an article" doesn't require a crat, no matter how you interpret it. If there are any ads offering to pay for a block of another user or for indefinite semiprotection or promoting another user to adminship or whatever, I'd agree it would more problematic, but I haven't seen any such adverts yet. bobrayner (talk) 00:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that's a slippery slope we are talking about here. The ad is looking for an admin or a crat to make sure that their articles are not deleted. Presumably, they would expect the crat or admin to use all available tools to keep the articles from getting deleted, including the ones you just described. The thought makes me highly uncomfortable. Ebikeguy (talk) 00:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Note that this is on eLance as a "social media/marketing" gig, not as a "writing/translation" gig. They don't want a writer of articles, they want to hire a turncoat. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Yup. They make it clear that they have 25 articles ready to go. They just need to hire some muscle to protect the ads they have already written. Ebikeguy (talk) 01:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

There's no client info for these jobs. Also, our "Wikipedia Wizard" hasn't bid yet on this one, which would also suggest that advanced permissions are requested. MER-C 02:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The applicants to date haven't had WP experience, as far as I can tell - the various editors who do haven't applied. There have been similar advertisements elsewhere specifically looking for admins, but no one with the required skills has applied for them on the sites, although that does leave open the possibility that someone has applied via other means. Personally, I wouldn't be particularly worried about this job, as their high demands mean that they are unlikely to get contractors, although keeping an eye on it would be wise. I would be more concerned if one of the regular contractors got through RfA, (which is unlikely), and certainly I have concerns about auto patrolled users accepting paid jobs.

Quite a few jobs in the market are for people to paste in an article, rather than write a new one. Generally the clients believe that an established editor is more likely to have the standing to add an article that sticks, or can make the small changes necessary for the article to pass without significantly changing the text. I wouldn't be surprised if this ad was, as bobrayner argues, based on the belief that an admin would be less likely to be deleted than a non-admin, but I suspect the issue is moot, given that they don't have viable applicants. - Bilby (talk) 02:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

This is an effective strategy actually. I have seen PR people say that their edits didn't stick until they edited a few other places first. They think that Wikipedia has a bias for editors that are part of the community (we do) and don't realize they are really avoiding detection. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 02:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

See Duck test. ```Buster Seven Talk 23:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement of Conflict of Interest

WP:COI says: "If you have a financial interest in a topic (either as an employee, owner or other stakeholder) it is advised to provide full disclosure of your connection". Does this mean that a paid editor should state the nature of their COI in the talk page of the article in being edited, e.g. "I am being paid by ABC to write about XYZ in Wikipedia"? I get the feeling that some folks will admit COI but won't admit who's paying them to write about (or favour) what. Wildfowl (talk) 22:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

It's difficult. "Full disclosure" does really imply that an editor should give more detail about their COI (ie. what they're gaining or who is rewarding them). However, I do have concerns about some editors responding to that in a kneejerk way - pushing the article in the opposite direction. For instance, reverting an addition of positive stuff to the article then adding lots of negative stuff instead. That's no way to achieve NPOV, but I have seen it happen, and would not want to encourage that kind of editing. Full disclosure is often a good idea but I think there will be cases where editing would be less adversarial if we simply required editors to declare a COI on the talkpage. bobrayner (talk) 10:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

During the recent political nomination campaigns a system that seemed to have value was to require that certain political operatives include their campaign title along with their signature. That way it was right there, for all to see, readers and fellow editors alike, each time the paid-to-edit editor commented or responded or started a thread. It kept things straight. Not all readers will investigate the talk pages. Most would miss that the advocate/paid editor/operative self-identified five days ago (or two months ago) in a thread far far above. His ID followed him whenever he made a request at the talk page. If his subordinates immediately (without the required discussion) implemented his request, it could be un-done without any negative repercussions until a discussion took place and a consensus was achieved. It worked. ```Buster Seven Talk 16:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I have, in the past, suggested that COI editors include simple language stating that they are being paid by X and Y companies to edit on their talk pages. My suggestions were overwhelmingly shot down by the COI editing crowd as being onerous. They much prefer subtle, non-obvious indicators that they are being paid to edit. Ebikeguy (talk) 16:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Subtle, non-obvious and hidden from our reader so that any edit they make seems to be from a simple Wikipedia volunteer, which is not the case. That's why it (including their connection to the article via their signature) should not be a suggestion. It should be required. ```Buster Seven Talk 17:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

In their signature? I think that hanging such a large leper-bell around their neck is likely to be counterproductive. And as soon as somebody actually followed such a rule, there would be complaints by third party editors - blaming the COI editor for putting a spammy signature in every edit.

Userpages seem to be the place where everybody says "This is me! I'm interested in X, I have a career in Y, I like to do Z". Even people who don't think that they have a COI will often put something on their userpage which gives others a clue. So, if we are to hang bells round the necks of people who are getting something in return for wikipedia contributions that are otherwise policy-compliant, the userpage would be a perfect place to do it. bobrayner (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Replying to you all, my feeling is that at present COI editors think it's OK just to say "I've got COI". Well, I can't see why they can't (on their user page) give the name of the outfit that pays them, and what they are paid for ("help ensure the cat-food industry is fairly represented"). Maybe enough said on this for now, but I feel as if I may want to come back to this topic in future. Wildfowl (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

See Talk:Newt Gingrich presidential campaign, 2012/Archive 01 for an example of a COI signature. While his vassals may have raised a stink, the editor in question seemed to comply willingly. Maybe because Jimbo was watching. I don't know. But he certainly didn't feel it was a leper-bell and in no way was it counterproductive. Not to the readers and not to the article. Also, what reader of an article would take the time and effort to go to all the talk pages of the editors involved in writing an article, where they would then have to search all the userboxes for a COI notification that they wouldn't understand anyway???. Answer? None! The user page is the worst place, the hiding place, to announce Conflict of Interest. ```Buster Seven Talk 23:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't see where in Talk:Newt Gingrich presidential campaign, 2012/Archive 01 that signature is. Can you be more explicit? Wildfowl (talk) 22:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

As a PR professional, were I to call a journalist, I would say, "Hi. My name is David King. I'm calling on behalf of EthicalWiki. Did I catch you at a good time?" There's no reason doing the same on Wikipedia would be a bell, unless we make it through civility violations.

On the other hand, I think we're splitting hairs here. I'm not sure how much of a difference it makes, so long as neutral editors know to pay special attention to the neutrality of the content. IMHO, my level of disclosure is excessive and unnecessary. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 01:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Three months later, a reply to User:Wildfowl. See Disproportionate use of quoting? for the signature in question. Please note that edits predating that timestamp do not include the pertinent information about Mr De Santis' status within the Gingrich campaign. Prior to "Disproportionate use of quoting" he was any old editor without any COI. Once he started to sign, the information was available and visible and able to be scrutinized by everyone, readers included. ```Buster Seven Talk

Request edits

Someone mentioned at AfC that someone from PAIDWATCH might be interested in helping with the {{request edit}} queue. (draft instructions here) It's actually not a bad idea to have editors that may have a critical lean against paid COI to review content submissions and edit requests. If anyone is interested in helping, we spent a bit of time improving the templates and creating a process. I've been helping where I can without implementing edits of other COIs. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 01:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Some woolgathering

Hi, it's me, Herostratus. I started this page, and wanted to check in on a couple things.

• Speaking for myself personally, my Wikipedia editing has been cut back a lot recently for reasons I don't wish to discuss, in addition to which I'm kind of discouraged about the whole subject in general. A project like this needs at least one dynamic and busy person to keep it going properly. I haven't been able to do that.
• But I see that User:Mistress Selina Kyle moved this page out of my userspace into general space. I don't consider this a friendly act since it's quite rude to mess around with stuff in people's userspace without asking them first, and I gather that User:Mistress Selina Kyle is heavily involved with Wikipedia Review, which has (earlier, over another matter) avowed its desire to personally track down and destroy me and my family. Given that, I don't consider it likely that she would have much going in the way of intelligence, emotional stability, or good motives, although I don't know her personally, so I don't know what the deal is really. In addition, User:Mistress Selina Kyle has been blocked lot in the past and is blocked now (although that's due to expire shortly), which is not usually a good sign. Anyway, I wish she hadn't done this, but it's a wiki, so whatever.
• Not sure what the purpose or function of this page is or should be, going forward. I had originally mooted that it could be used to keep on eye on articles that are under attack and possibly have people defend them, but this is a big job and requires a lot of effort, so that's not active now. Another was a registry of avowed advocate editors so they could be watched, but ditto. One thing that I'm sure would be useful (and isn't too much work) is to keep a list of links to old discussions, external sites, external articles, and so forth, so that all of this is one place and the institutional memory of these matters is kept. It's possible that efforts in this direction should be moved off-wiki. I don't have the resources to do that myself.
• I see that the Gibraltar thing is currently gathering some attention on Jimbo's talk page and in the media generally. Gibraltar itself is a fairly benign entity I guess (aside from arguably being stolen from Spain, depending on whom you talk to, but that's a separate matter) so I don't have a strong opinion on this particular instance. However, as precedent and matter of principle it's troubling. if its established that you can do X for Gibraltar, then you can do X for North Korea or ExxonMobile or Koch Industries or the Heritage Foundation or Unification Church whatever. So this is troubling. So is the mini-scandal in the media, although it's not much (this time). Also, one person noted that Gibraltar is actually a mediocre destination if you're touring, compared to nearby places in Spain and so forth. I don't know if that's true but if it is then it's troubling that we're strongly implying the opposite. This is not a world shaking deal but as a general rule it's probably not a good thing to publish false information in the Wikipedia, I would think. Herostratus (talk) 17:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I have updated the list of Elance editors still active has been updated and will do so more regularly.Personally feel we do need this project given the current issue including the Gibraltar issue .I will spend more time from next week and will update it more regularly as much as I can.I agree with you that we need to be more active but given the issues do feel we need this project however low key it is and someone will take the lead as is the case with most Wiki projects through I would thank you profusely for doing so and starting this in the first instance.Please let me know if you want anything specific to be done.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Hero. I think there are two elements to the PAIDWATCH side of things: Prevention and Detection.

For detection, we should create a public watchlist for articles that need extra eyes, allowing editors to report articles subject to poor COI editing for extra watching. I think it would also be interesting to explore using filters and bots to do basic analytics to surface censorship and spam. For example, un-reverted section blanks of a controversy section done by an editor with under 100 edits could trigger an edit review by PAIDWATCH to see if it was a censorship attempt. Keywords like "best of breed" could trigger potential AfDs for blatant promotionalism.

Prevention suggests some form of punishment or making an example out of someone, like reporting blatant censorship through anonymous sock-puppets to the FTC, urging them to take a position on Wiki-astroturfing. I think that is an off-Wiki issue.

I think my point is PAIDWATCH is in a position to generate meaningful value to Wikipedia, but I don't think creating a bunch of links or lists is the right direction, nor is focusing on individual controversies. The stuff that is needed is just roll-up-our sleeves hard work, intelligent discussion and brainstorming to enforce current content and COI policies. Corporate 04:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

One thing that I keep meaning to do, but haven't been, is adding links to relevant discussion and external pages to the links section. Keeping these in one place, and saved from oblivion, is possibly useful. Herostratus (talk) 12:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Name

As I noted above, a Wikipedia Review person (who is now blocked, or at any rate was blocked and has been so in the past also) moved this page on her own initiative, and one reason that was a bad idea is that I'm not sure that this is the best name and I wanted to discuss this first.

Considering that the folks at that other project named their project "cooperation". This was a smart move politically (who can be against cooperation?) and better (in a political sense) than some more accurate name they might have chosen. Well, but of course; they're professionals. Anyway, in the same vein, this page should probably be named "integrity" or something like that. Maybe something else -- "corruption watch" or "reputation management watch" or "Wikipedia defense" or something. "Treachery watch" maybe. But I think "WikiProject Integrity" the best I can think of for now. Any objections or other suggestions or thoughts? Herostratus (talk) 12:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

IRC channel?

Does this wikiproject have an IRC channel? Gigs (talk) 01:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so yet. The full text #wikipedia-paid-advocacy-watch is too long for the /join command and the channel list, so: #wikipedia-paw or #wikipedia-en-paw if we're focusing on enWP. --Lexein (talk) 14:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The latter sounds good to me. We should invite some interested editors. Gigs (talk) 14:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:COI RfC

Of interest: An RfC on our COI guideline for editors with an "intractable" conflict of interest. -- Ocaasi ^{t | c} 18:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)