If anyone is interested, since this issue was raised, there has been a
change to Sarah's profile on odesk.
The entry for Wikipedia Page for Individual is now rated 5 stars,
and has the comment Thanks, Sarah! I really appreciate you!.
Sarah has also been active on Wikipedia. I can understand
You are right Kevin, and I think that the blog post has drawn the
wrong conclusions by failing to see one piece of telling evidence on
an unrelated posting on that site.
At the job link at https://www.odesk.com/jobs/~01fb1fd477c79e30b0
(again, uploaded to
Sarah, when you read this, again I don't give a rats if you are
paid-editing, more power to you actually. Unfortunately in this
instance you haven't done so in what one would deem to be an ethical
way based upon what the community expects,
This would be the community of the project from
On 6 January 2014 10:02, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
...
This would be the community of the project from which you are blocked
indefinitely.
Throwing around tangential comments about blocks and de-sysops for
correspondents on this list neither moves this forward, nor encourages
others to
No Geni, that would be the Wikimedia community, which from Sue's press
release
(http://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/10/21/sue-gardner-response-paid-advocacy-editing/)
it is pretty clear that the terms of use she has invoked apply to. It
applies to you on English Wikipedia, Dariusz on Polish Wikipedia
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 12:52 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.comwrote:
Yes, Nathan, please let us cut the bullshit, for I have a pretty low
tolerance for it, and I am happy to call you out on it.
You are right, I don't see anywhere in Odder's blog or in my posts on this
list that Sarah
Nathan,
I am unable to find a mention of sockpuppetry in the Terms of Use, whether
in Section 4 or elsewhere.
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use
I don't think there could be such a mention, really, given that project
policies recognise a number of legitimate uses of socks.
A.
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
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 8:01 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
Nathan,
I am unable to find a mention of sockpuppetry in the Terms of Use, whether
in Section 4 or elsewhere.
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use
I don't think there could be such a mention, really, given
That doesn't follow to me from that wording, Nathan. The English Wikipedia
for example allows socking to enable contributors to contribute to articles
that they would rather not have their real-life name or normal Internet
persona associated with.
User:John Smith is allowed to create an account
They are, however, avoiding scrutiny, as evidenced by widespread
disapproval of their actions. That is not a permissible use of socks. The
community expects to place more scrutiny on paid editors, not less.
On Jan 6, 2014 6:23 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
That doesn't follow to me
On 6 January 2014 13:43, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
... The community expects to place more scrutiny on paid editors, not less.
Sarah has yet to give her side of events and confirm how much of this
is true or whether some of it is spoof or spin. Paid editing, of
itself, is not a
I was responding to Andreas' comment on Wiki-PR's socks, specifically. I do
not know the full story on Sarah yet, and agree I'd like to hear her side.
On Jan 6, 2014 7:24 AM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 January 2014 13:43, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
... The community expects to
Sure, Todd. But that is not actually in the Wikimedia terms of use. The
terms of use say,
- Attempting to impersonate another user or individual, misrepresenting
your affiliation with any individual or entity, or using the username of
another user with the intent to deceive;
They do
I'm not in principle against transparent paid editing, but it could
actually be considered to violate the ToU's wording: misrepresenting your
affiliation with any individual or entity
Regards,
Sir48
2014/1/6 Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com
Sure, Todd. But that is not actually in the
Well, if you don't say anything, Sir48, you are not misrepresenting
anything, are you?
It's a path many people have chosen in Wikipedia. They just remain silent.
The right to remain silent about who you are and who you work for is
enshrined in the principle of anonymity.
People (including the
To edit is to say something, Andreas Kolbe.
To me it is very fortunate that the right to anonymity takes presedence
over COI-editing. Edits can be changed or removed, a personal identity
cannot.
Regards,
Sir48
2014/1/6 Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com
Well, if you don't say anything, Sir48,
On 1/6/14, 7:07 AM, Peter Gervai wrote:
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
There seems to be some pretty heavy assumptions in Odder's article - it all
just seems to be speculation based upon one very vague comment in her work
history. Was she contacted before the blog post was made and brought to
this list to ask for clarification?
Cheers,
Craig
On 6 January 2014
No idea Craig, but http://i.imgur.com/iYBNjhH.png does say that she last
worked on 23 December, which would loosely tie in with edit timeframes on
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sally_Hogsheadaction=history
It should also be noted that the article was previously deleted as per
On 6 January 2014 00:23, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote:
Of course, this is not being brought up because of anything to do with
your own vicious and odious personal attacks on individuals on Commons
in any manner whatsoever.
Back under the bridge.
- d.
Suggested related reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dominic/Digital_Content_Specialist and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dominic/FAQ
I can't say I felt particularly good after seeing
http://i.imgur.com/iYBNjhH.png, but Sarah is an active mailing list
participant, so I'm sure
David,
Myself, I like Sarah, we've had some good and entertaining discussions, and
I even nominated her for RfA on Commons (
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators/Requests/SarahStierch).
My posting here has nothing to do with bitch-slapping Sarah (
Let's be clear, Russavia - the terms of use bar sockpuppetry, and the cease
and desist refers to concealing the identity of the author to deceive the
editing community. I don't see that you've accused Sarah of sockpuppetry,
so why not cut the bullshit? Thanks for notifying Wiki-PR, by the way, I'm
That blog post contains at least one glaring factual error:
Part of Sarah’s role at the Foundation is to educate GLAM institutions on
issues relating to sourcing, original research, notability conflict of
interest.
- linking to a page dating from mid-2011, when Sarah was a
On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.comwrote:
Odder has published a fantastic blog piece at
http://twkozlowski.net/paid-editing-thrives-in-the-heart-of-wikipedia/ in
which it is revealed that a WMF employee is engaged in undeclared paid
editing on English
Yes, Nathan, please let us cut the bullshit, for I have a pretty low
tolerance for it, and I am happy to call you out on it.
You are right, I don't see anywhere in Odder's blog or in my posts on this
list that Sarah is being accused of sock puppetry. I don't know why you are
making this totally
Or to translate who cares what harm I do by peddling these assertions
without verifying them! I just want people to come along and admit I was
Right, because being Right on the internet is the most important of all the
things.
Your comment here makes clear that your only interest in the situation
Steven,
Did it occur to you that the reason the account is anonymised is that
one would likely not want it to be found out? It also beyond the
realms of imagination that Wikipediocracy trolls would create an
account on 6 January 2012 as a joe-job account, and sit on it all this
time and then have
As an apparent Wikimedia insider; I think that if the allegations are
substantiated they need to be addressed. I don't mean to run interference
on that. I mean to try and undercut any attempt to turn a subject worth
discussing substantively into an excuse to crow. My objection is not that
you
Sarah used to be a DJ in Indianapolis. I don't find it very surprising
that she'd write an article about a nightclub in Indianapolis. That would
probably also explain the use of unusual sources - surely someone who used
to DJ in Indy is more familiar with local music sources there than most
I find it odd that we're having this discussion based on a blog post. I
think that it would have been much more decent to contact the person in
question directly first, and ask for input. Any further discussion here
speculating how this could be true or not, is premature.
Lets just wait until
hi there,
my personal reading of WikiPR case was that their fundamental wrongdoing
was twofold: one was possibly violating the rules for content (neutrality,
etc.), and the other was most certainly violating the rules of
representation (sockpuppeting). Paid editing in the mind of many
Wikimedians
33 matches
Mail list logo
