View source for Paid editing

== Types of paid editing == <!--T:3-->

=== Archiving, organizing, and digitizing knowledge === <!--T:4-->

<!--T:5-->
Work to digitize, publish, and freely license knowledge that has already been published elsewhere is strongly encouraged.  
This is regularly done by professionals in their capacity as archivists or publishers.  They may or may not work with Wikimedians outside their organization in publishing on-wiki in a helpful, clearly sourced, and transparent fashion.  There may be pushback against publication that happens too quickly or too messily for wiki-based curation (cf. Commons trying to process the British Library's 2013 release of 1M images), but not because any of the contributors are paid.

<!--T:6-->
The closer a contribution is to sharing a primary source document or media file, the more irrelevant [[<tvar name=cie>Conflict of interest editing</tvar>|conflicts of interest]] such as payment are.  (Though never wholly irrelevant: an archivist strongly motivated to push a particular agenda can forge or censor originals, for instance.)

=== Linking to archived and shared knowledge === <!--T:7-->

<!--T:8-->
There are many reasons to linkspam Wikimedia sites.  Some have nothing to do with being paid.  Many drives to add external links are helpful in part.  Many are also unhelpful in part, or need to be rethought in light of how readers use the sites. 

<!--T:9-->
A common borderline case is an archive which possesses the originals of thousands of significant works.  They have structured metadata and other information about those works, and where the canonical listing of the latest news about them, may be found.  While in theory such a link should always be welcome somewhere on any related  commons, wikisource, or wikipedia page, there are many ways to attempt to add such links that frustrate other editors or even decrease the utility of the page in question.

<!--T:10-->
Some large archives (such as the Dutch Tropenmuseum) have as their goal the global awareness of their collections, and are happy to invest the time of their staff in posting those materials to Commons, for use as the project sees fit.  Others have as the primary goal driving traffic to their existing site, and try to add links in inappropriately prominent places, or to add links to even unhelpful target pages.  

<!--T:11-->
The problem here is not necessarily that the contributor is paid, but that they are being spurred on by an explicit external goal other than improving the pages they are editing.  The same problem can be seen in anyone who tries to spam links to a site they love (whether it is a fansite or a site they built and love, or a site that pays them). 

=== Creating new summaries and material === <!--T:12-->

<!--T:13-->
Paid editing to improve the freely licensed information available about a topic may be welcome or unwelcome. 

==== For educational or charitable purpose ==== <!--T:14-->

<!--T:15-->
Generally welcome:
* Editing to improve the educational material available to learn about a topic - from science to society to art.
* Editing as part of a non-profit organization, to improve material available about topics of interest to that non-profit.

<!--T:16-->
Generally unwelcome:
* Editing to promote the work and ideas of a current organization, or a product or company or band that is currently trying to make a name for itself.  

==== For inclusion ==== <!--T:17-->

<!--T:18-->
This is where most requests for articles, and some paid editing, falls.  

<!--T:19-->
Everything from fan-groups that want their favorite topics included, to people who want to write about an individual or concept that they care about.  Often this sort of interest comes from people who care about or are related to the topic in question.  Sometimes they are willing to pay a bit for someone else to write up the topic for broader consumption; or to help synthesize non-public documents into a public, freely licensed summary. 

<!--T:20-->
Organizations often feel this way about some of their own projects or publications.  So do creators. Where these projects or creative works have not yet become well-known, this blurs the line between 'inclusion in the public record' and 'overemphasis of significance in the public record'.  This is related to the tension between an informative summary and a puff piece.  In areas where notability isn't an issue (or isn't a requirement), inclusion is usually appropriate, the question is simply how and where.

==== For promotion and to "set the record straight" ==== <!--T:21-->

<!--T:22-->
This is where most of the conflict, and most advocacy, falls. 
</translate>
{{indent|1=<nowiki/>
<translate><!--T:23-->
''Wikimedia projects should not be used as a way to generate notability and fame for a person, organization, product or company that is trying to make a name for itself.''

<!--T:24-->
''Nor should they be used to set the record straight about a controversial conflict, lawsuit, or academic argument.''
</translate>
}}

<translate>
<!--T:25-->
Some of our most basic policies, from NPOV to NOR, are extensions of this idea.

<!--T:26-->
Thanks to our popularity and universality, we are increasingly turned to as a source of fame, or a mechanism for record-correcting.  Puff pieces for individuals or organizations are in high demand.  
Luckily, [[w:en:User:Raul654/Raul%27s_laws|in practice if not in theory]], small groups of encyclopedist peers are able to counter much of this bias on the projects. Puff pieces in particular can be detected by their tone and language.

<!--T:27-->
However this ad-hoc review is not enough to counter the [[<tvar name=anchor>#Limiting-coordinated-bias</tvar>|largest sources of bias]] in the written record: those driven by ideology or well-funded teams.
This includes paid advocacy: being paid to keep a certain point of view in an article.