I apologise for the break and please go on with the shit throwing contest but I guess there is nothing wrong with "paid editing" if it follows the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Experienced editors write better articles, people with lots of experience in their favourite field write better articles, and since article writing is really hard work (unless, of course, you're doing it all wrong) editors usually pick a few themes and work on it. It is understandable that if someone would like to have a topic covered and would like to convince someone to write THAT article instead of other ones then it may mean some way of convincing, money or otherwise. Well written articles have much better chance to stay and evolve.
There is no compulsory (or proven, mind you) connection between monetary compensation and violation of policies, and especially experienced editors with good reputation will not want to skew viewpoints just because they are compensated. And still it's very much open to community editing these articles so nobody, however well paid, could assure anyone that negative facts will not appear in time. I'd worry more about dishonest editing than paid ones. Thanks. Now, please, continue. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
