" 

 == Q: Why should unpaid volunteers help deal with the flood of non-neutral, non-encyclopedic advocacy that advocates are being paid to overwhelm them with? == 

 The market for shills knows no lower bound in terms of the willingness of organisations to hire poor quality advocates.  On wikipedia I give skills to colleagues who volunteer, on a voluntary basis—this is my main motivation to engage here.  Paid editors who do not comprehend basic elements of scholarly and professional literacy, such as plagiarism, are not only seeking to change the content of the encyclopaedia; they are seeking education from the community.  And I am not willing to volunteer expert skills, skills I have to exert under direction IRL, in order for some wage slave or petits bourgeois contractor to get paid.  I'm happy to help skill up volunteers of the most irreconcileable interests, views and politics.  I'm willing to teach a volunteer why he can cite one music magazine.  I'm willing to teach a volunteer how not to plagiarise by close paraphrase a notable neo-con opinion.  But I volunteer for that very feeling of not working under the direction of management, but along side other free volunteers.   

 I don't maintain an understanding of our reliable sources policy to teach paid shills who can't be bothered reading core policy documents what they should have read themselves.  Nor do I maintain a capacity for spotting plagiarism such that I can teach a paid shill the core of proper attribution and re-expression.  Volunteers get forgiven a multitude of sins, because they come here to give me something I can't give myself: working along side other free people on an encyclopaedia.  Shillery, in particular shills who lack the capacity to author or edit encyclopaedic content, come here to steal my gift and get paid.  Unlike commercialisers of our eventual content, shills intrude on my immediate experience of editing.  And shills have no capacity to claim the collegiality I give freely—they bring nothing collegial to the encyclopaedia.  

 So I am very interested in this FAQ question, and its unanswered status.  I don't believe we should answer it, because I don't believe we should accept the fundamentally non-collegial and unencyclopaedic nature of the shill's ""involvement"" in our community of encyclopaedists.   "