"
I'm not the ""paid editor"" to which you referred, but I am gravely concerned by the proposal for a change to the terms of use that describes edits as ""deception"" and allows anyone to make such accusations against any editor at any time. It is impossible for editors to prove they are *not* receiving some form of benefit. The examples of ""benefit"" (which the WMF has tried to obfuscate now that some people have noticed the expansiveness of the proposal) includes things like receiving a t-shirt or a meal (any ""money, goods or services""). Unfortunately, there's a great deal of handwaving about paid editing, but very little evidence that there's any greater bias in edits that are paid for than edits that are not.  A large number of the articles created in the latest paid editing ""scandal"" are still present, and many that were deleted still easily met our notability standards. There is not a good faith editor who hasn't received some sort of benefit or reward from their work on Wikipedia. Nobody has yet demonstrated that people who are paid do any worse at editing Wikipedia than people who aren't paid.  Meanwhile, there's lots of evidence that people who want to push a point of view will not hesitate to accuse editors of being paid or otherwise having a serious conflict of interest (q.v., the Arbcom archives). The proposal is one more tool in the arsenal for people who are motivated to go after their opponents, and does absolutely nothing at all to improve the project.    "