Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fifth Wall Ventures
If it is improper for me to request some of the article creation fee for "unbiased support" then when Wikipedia uses the word "should not", supported by broad community consensus, this is a polite way of stating "don't". This is in reference to content in the lead of WP:COI: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest|''"Also, COI editors should not edit affected articles directly, but propose changes on article talk pages instead.''". The question or suggestion of an exemption to allow COI editing at AFD causes great consternation. As a volunteer I do not get paid to not go to work so I can study all the ways a paid editor, whose job oftentimes is to sit around and create articles that can include looking at all the various ways to nicely circumvent or otherwise "bend the rules" to get an articles "published" on Wikipedia, and to "fight" to keep the article on Wikipedia. I am amazed and will take a deep breath and repeat "|assume good faith, assume good faith, assume good faith". Whew! That might have worked. This whole "not getting into long drawn out interactions ''with those paid to do so'' is turning into just that. The place to discuss article changes would still, I think, belong on the article talk page following the acceptable practices and not at AFD. If edits are approved there then this can be mentioned here, so it can be checked, is how it generally works. Involved editors here should take caution in approving or making any edits on behalf of a paid editor. If this cannot take place in the timeline (with any extensions), then the process, in case of a delete consensus, would be an editor request for draftifying. There is then another process to see if the paid editor can then "get it right". I am trying to be fair just as other editors should that there is a strict set of "rules" concerning COI editing for a reason. This prevents corporate money from swaying the editorial process of Wikipedia. I read Cabify that is full of advertising type editing, including "according to the company", and was shocked that something of importance as a controversy (|balance) was buried within the article. It would take a lot of comments to convince me that paid editing was not involved when I saw ''"The murder of a young female costumer (sic) in Puebla, Mexico, by one of Cabify's drivers raises important questions about the credibility of any filtration process carried out by the company."'' tucked within in the description of the Cabify#Drivers|"Drivers" section. The end result is a well referenced puff advertising article for Cabify. I also read Identified (company) and some others that like to use TechCrunch, Forbes, and CrunchBase as sources to create articles. If a subject is notable then that definition would mean sources other than those above, general press releases, and interviews, that seems to specifically report on these type businesses, would have taken note and reported. If not then we have a circular set of sources, that are in some way involved, and a new article based on these sources that will not be |neutral thus preventing a |balanced article. These are part of the |"Five pillars" right? Paid editors, and the companies they "work for" should continually be on notice that Wikipedia does not operate on corporate funding, nor does the vast majority of editors, so to prevent |"advertising type articles" (part of what Wikipedia is not) the "rules" need to be "strict". If we start bending the WP:policies and guidelines|policies and guidelines for COI editing then we Slippery slope|slide down the slope of "money runs everything". I do not think we need to give any more rope than allowed because money will find a way to get an article on Wikipedia no matter what so let's not make it any easier
— User:Otr500, 07:53, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:ASSUME||WP:NEUTRAL||WP:BALANCE||WP:5P2||WP:NOT||WP:balance (Wikipedia:Assume good faith)