[Wikimedia-l] Wikidata, templates, Modules Lua
On sv:wp we are several hundreds of competent and active contributers. Many of these have limited technical competence, so it will only be about a third of these able to enter iw links in wikidata and writing a template. This still leaves a few hundreds who easily supports the other 2/3rds with this competence But when in comes understand the other parts of Wikidata and how to get that data into articles and templates, the number dwindles leaving only about 50 understanding this. It is still enough to discuss and give general broader support but it is starting to become a bottleneck in implementing broader usage of Wikidata. Then we come to the fact that for a successful implementation you need to develop Modules written i Lua. And here it is needed full programming comptence, and on sv:wp there will only be 5-10 having this level of competence. And this then becomes a subcritical mass as these persons do not have the ambition to develop Modules for others. Also two of these competent ones are employed by WMSE, perhaps this is typical, if you have that level of competence you will be very busy in your paid profession as sw developer. We are now in a discussions in WMSE and the community if it would be acceptable that chapter resources help in writing Lua code in Modules for people in the community in need but lacking that competence? It is not a volume or cost issue as it is still no major effort, but more a principle one if if can be Ok in this way to make the Chapter not only support the community but also in this direct way creating thing for Wikipedia. Are there experince from other communities or chapters on this dilemma? Anders ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikidata, templates, Modules Lua
On sv:wp we are several hundreds of competent and active contributers. Many of these have limited technical competence, so it will only be about a third of these able to enter iw links in wikidata and writing a template. This still leaves a few hundreds who easily supports the other 2/3rds with this competence But when in comes understand the other parts of Wikidata and how to get that data into articles and templates, the number dwindles leaving only about 50 understanding this. It is still enough to discuss and give general broader support but it is starting to become a bottleneck in implementing broader usage of Wikidata. Then we come to the fact that for a successful implementation you need to develop Modules written i Lua. And here it is needed full programming comptence, and on sv:wp there will only be 5-10 having this level of competence. And this then becomes a subcritical mass as these persons do not have the ambition to develop Modules for others. Also two of these competent ones are employed by WMSE, perhaps this is typical, if you have that level of competence you will be very busy in your paid profession as sw developer. We are now in a discussions in WMSE and the community if it would be acceptable that chapter resources help in writing Lua code in Modules for people in the community in need but lacking that competence? It is not a volume or cost issue as it is still no major effort, but more a principle one if if can be Ok in this way to make the Chapter not only support the community but also in this direct way creating thing for Wikipedia. Are there experince from other communities or chapters on this dilemma? Anders If I can do it by myself on Wikinfo, a few people fluent in Swedish and English can do it for the Swedish Wikipedia; all you need to do is copy the Wikipedia modules and suitably translate English language into Swedish where needed. Fred ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikidata, templates, Modules Lua
Hoi, When your question is, is it possible for the work of professionals who write LUA programs to make sense particularly in the bigger WMF context, the context of the 285+ Wikipedias, my answer is yes. What I would like is for them to take up the challenge and internationalise the LUA programs and find a way to get them localised. You may want to cooperate with the translatewiki.net community. That would imho be optimal. When the Swedish community finds it hard to create the appropriate LUA programs and templates, consider how this scales to the smaller projects. Every Wiki will benefit from standardisation of internationalisation and LUA best practices.. there are more smaller projects. Finding a way to localise and distribute the best and the brightest LUA software is a challenge that will benefit from the endurance a professional brings to us all. Thanks, GerardM On 5 January 2014 12:41, Anders Wennersten m...@anderswennersten.se wrote: On sv:wp we are several hundreds of competent and active contributers. Many of these have limited technical competence, so it will only be about a third of these able to enter iw links in wikidata and writing a template. This still leaves a few hundreds who easily supports the other 2/3rds with this competence But when in comes understand the other parts of Wikidata and how to get that data into articles and templates, the number dwindles leaving only about 50 understanding this. It is still enough to discuss and give general broader support but it is starting to become a bottleneck in implementing broader usage of Wikidata. Then we come to the fact that for a successful implementation you need to develop Modules written i Lua. And here it is needed full programming comptence, and on sv:wp there will only be 5-10 having this level of competence. And this then becomes a subcritical mass as these persons do not have the ambition to develop Modules for others. Also two of these competent ones are employed by WMSE, perhaps this is typical, if you have that level of competence you will be very busy in your paid profession as sw developer. We are now in a discussions in WMSE and the community if it would be acceptable that chapter resources help in writing Lua code in Modules for people in the community in need but lacking that competence? It is not a volume or cost issue as it is still no major effort, but more a principle one if if can be Ok in this way to make the Chapter not only support the community but also in this direct way creating thing for Wikipedia. Are there experince from other communities or chapters on this dilemma? Anders ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikidata, templates, Modules Lua
We got some experience on how to instruct newbies about such concepts during https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Google_Code-in, but I agree with this: Gerard Meijssen, 05/01/2014 13:31: When the Swedish community finds it hard to create the appropriate LUA programs and templates, consider how this scales to the smaller projects. [...] https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50329 is what's really needed here and a chapter could perhaps take the lead. There are a few pages discussing the thing but this still has to be written down in https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Mentorship_programs/Possible_projects#Templates. Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikidata, templates, Modules Lua
There doesn’t seem to be widespread deployment even on the English Wikipedia - I think this is a global issue. Rschen7754 rschen7754.w...@gmail.com On Jan 5, 2014, at 6:00 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote: We got some experience on how to instruct newbies about such concepts during https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Google_Code-in, but I agree with this: Gerard Meijssen, 05/01/2014 13:31: When the Swedish community finds it hard to create the appropriate LUA programs and templates, consider how this scales to the smaller projects. [...] https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50329 is what's really needed here and a chapter could perhaps take the lead. There are a few pages discussing the thing but this still has to be written down in https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Mentorship_programs/Possible_projects#Templates. Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wikimedia-l] WMF employee writing articles for $300
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 Wikipedia, and charging what it appears to be $300 per article. I have cc'ed both Sue and Jimmy in on this email, but also sending to this list as I know they, and other WMF employees, do use this list, and I think it would be pertinent that they respond publicly to the issues raised here. It is ever so more important given that the undeclared paid editing occurred AFTER the whole Wiki-PR debacle (Sue's press release, WMF's cease-and-desist, and of course the resultant media attention). What do Jimmy and Sue believe should occur given that such editing violates Wikipedia policies and also Jimmy's so-called Bright Line Rule. In relation to Jimmy's line, many are still clueless as to what exactly this Bright Line is (it's not very bright), and how it should be applied in practice, so Jimmy, if you are out there, your comment is requested on that. Cheers, Russavia ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF employee writing articles for $300
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 09:42, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote: 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 Wikipedia, and charging what it appears to be $300 per article. I have cc'ed both Sue and Jimmy in on this email, but also sending to this list as I know they, and other WMF employees, do use this list, and I think it would be pertinent that they respond publicly to the issues raised here. It is ever so more important given that the undeclared paid editing occurred AFTER the whole Wiki-PR debacle (Sue's press release, WMF's cease-and-desist, and of course the resultant media attention). What do Jimmy and Sue believe should occur given that such editing violates Wikipedia policies and also Jimmy's so-called Bright Line Rule. In relation to Jimmy's line, many are still clueless as to what exactly this Bright Line is (it's not very bright), and how it should be applied in practice, so Jimmy, if you are out there, your comment is requested on that. Cheers, Russavia ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF employee writing articles for $300
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 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Logpage=Sally+Hogsheadin 2010. Sally Hogshead (so it would seem) was subjected to a sockpuppet case at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sallyhogshead/Archiveon the very day that the previous article was deleted. So it shouldn't surprise us that Sally would turn to paying for an experienced editor to write her promo bio. The article as it reads today reads like a typical puff piece posing as a Wikipedia article. The sourcing obviously leaves a lot to be desired, largely made up of interviews and the like. Perhaps Sarah could explain herself on list here, I believe she is on it. If this isn't the article in question, I am sure she will explain which article for an individual she was paid $300. Personally, I believe Sarah is short changing herself, such work should cost more than $300, and I don't care if she is engaging in paid editing, but given that the WMF is now resorting to the ED putting out press releases and issuing cease-and-desist letters, she surely knows that as an employee of the WMF she is in either a precarious position here, or in a prime position to advocate for paid editing and explain why it's not all that bad. I hope she takes the latter route :) Cheers, Russavia On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Craig Franklin cfrank...@halonetwork.netwrote: 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 09:42, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote: 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 Wikipedia, and charging what it appears to be $300 per article. I have cc'ed both Sue and Jimmy in on this email, but also sending to this list as I know they, and other WMF employees, do use this list, and I think it would be pertinent that they respond publicly to the issues raised here. It is ever so more important given that the undeclared paid editing occurred AFTER the whole Wiki-PR debacle (Sue's press release, WMF's cease-and-desist, and of course the resultant media attention). What do Jimmy and Sue believe should occur given that such editing violates Wikipedia policies and also Jimmy's so-called Bright Line Rule. In relation to Jimmy's line, many are still clueless as to what exactly this Bright Line is (it's not very bright), and how it should be applied in practice, so Jimmy, if you are out there, your comment is requested on that. Cheers, Russavia ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF employee writing articles for $300
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. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF employee writing articles for $300
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 she'll chime in here when she has a minute, as necessary and appropriate. MZMcBride ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF employee writing articles for $300
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 ( http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=75849#p75849). Odder has presented information, which raises many questions, not necessarily of Sarah, but of those in the Foundation hierachy who have publicly spoken out about paid editing in general. By all rights, if Sue's statement and Jimmy's well-known-but-not-so-coherent position is meant to have teeth, Sarah should also be served with a cease-and-desist notice for obvious paid editing, and for violating the terms of use. Otherwise the cease-and-desist notice the WMF sent to Wiki-PR ( https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/11/19/wikimedia-foundation-sends-cease-and-desist-letter-to-wikipr/) is basically worthless. I have, of course, taken the liberty to contact Jordan French of Wiki-PR to advise them of Odder's blog, and of these postings on this mailing list, so that they can follow it for their own purposes, and see what public response comes from the powers-that-be at the WMF. So David, if you can stick to the topic instead of using nonsensical personal attacks on myself, perhaps you can explain your position here. I surely think that Sarah wouldn't appreciate your comments that people who engage in paid editing are trying to fuck up Wikipedia for commercial advantage. Whilst we will obviously wait for Sarah to comment publicly here, what do you see as being the difference between Wiki-PR and Sarah? Should she be subjected to an en.wp community ban? Should she be served with cease-and-desist notices from WMF legal? Or is it that insiders on our projects are treated differently by the powers-that-be to those who don't have that privilege? (We all know the answer to that last question!) As to motives for the blog post, take it up with Odder, it's his post. My motive in posting here is purely to generate discussion on obvious organizational issues of the Wikimedia Foundation; and paid editing is one of the major organizational issues of recent months, even looking at Wales' talk page on en.wp, it is basically full of bright line, COI and paid editing discussions, and has been for some time now. Anyway, I look forward to hearing from Sarah on this issue, and again, she has my support in regards to this issue. Cheers, Russavia ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF employee writing articles for $300
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 sure everyone on this list really appreciates that. If there's one thing I love about Wikimedia, it's when tendentious and self-righteous barnacles on the community make it a mission to tear down good-hearted and dedicated Wikimedians at the expense of the movement. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF employee writing articles for $300
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 Wikipedian-in-Residence at a GLAM institution, as an intern of that organization (see e.g. my Signpost article at the time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-04-25/News_and_notes ), predating her employment at WMF. I'm commenting in a purely personal capacity here and can't speak with authority on the details of Sarah's current job responsibilities, but I'm quite certain that the blog's claim about them is wrong. Regards, HaeB (Tilman Bayer) Am Sonntag, 5. Januar 2014 schrieb Russavia : 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 Wikipedia, and charging what it appears to be $300 per article. I have cc'ed both Sue and Jimmy in on this email, but also sending to this list as I know they, and other WMF employees, do use this list, and I think it would be pertinent that they respond publicly to the issues raised here. It is ever so more important given that the undeclared paid editing occurred AFTER the whole Wiki-PR debacle (Sue's press release, WMF's cease-and-desist, and of course the resultant media attention). What do Jimmy and Sue believe should occur given that such editing violates Wikipedia policies and also Jimmy's so-called Bright Line Rule. In relation to Jimmy's line, many are still clueless as to what exactly this Bright Line is (it's not very bright), and how it should be applied in practice, so Jimmy, if you are out there, your comment is requested on that. Cheers, Russavia ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; ?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF employee writing articles for $300
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 Wikipedia, and charging what it appears to be $300 per article. I have cc'ed both Sue and Jimmy in on this email, but also sending to this list as I know they, and other WMF employees, do use this list, and I think it would be pertinent that they respond publicly to the issues raised here. It is ever so more important given that the undeclared paid editing occurred AFTER the whole Wiki-PR debacle (Sue's press release, WMF's cease-and-desist, and of course the resultant media attention). What do Jimmy and Sue believe should occur given that such editing violates Wikipedia policies and also Jimmy's so-called Bright Line Rule. In relation to Jimmy's line, many are still clueless as to what exactly this Bright Line is (it's not very bright), and how it should be applied in practice, so Jimmy, if you are out there, your comment is requested on that. Cheers, Russavia I'm with David and Nathan here. The evidence presented is an anonymized oDesk account and a screenshot. Screenshots are very easily doctored, and Wikipediocracy trolls have many reasons to attack a Wikimedian like Sarah. I wouldn't be surprised if they'd go so far as to set up a fake account using her picture and information. If you really cared about solving this, you could try emailing Sarah, her superiors, and Sue directly. Considering many staff don't follow high volume lists like Wikimedia-l, especially on the weekend, it's not exactly the best way to get a response from the WMF. It is, however, a great way to stir up bullshit drama. I'll hold out for Sarah's comment, if she feels comfortable. Otherwise smells like trolling. Steven ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF employee writing articles for $300
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 irrelevation correlation, or is this you simply trying to run interference? (Very poorly I might add, but certainly a better attempt than Gerard). I suggest that you re-read the cease and desist letter ( https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/11/19/wikimedia-foundation-sends-cease-and-desist-letter-to-wikipr/) at the very top of page 2 you can see in pretty plain English that the WMF has invoked Section 4 of the Terms of Use, in which the WMF makes veiled legal threats of fraud, misrepresentation, etc. It is showing severe naivety on your part if you think the Wiki-PR case was built around a farm of sockpuppets; that was merely the catalyst for the anti-paid editing crowd to really sink their teeth into the situation -- that should surely be evident from Sue's press release. I seriously don't see why you think me contacting Wiki-PR to alert them of these posts here, so that they can follow it, as a bad thing. I thought that the movement was built around the notion of transparency. If terms of use are being invoked with them, don't they have the right to know of other such cases where they will likely be ignored because it's an insider we are talking about? That Sarah has engaged in undeclared paid editing is of her own doing -- we are all responsible for our own editing. She chose to engage in such editing immediately after a massive scandal knowing full well the possible consequences if it was discovered. It is not people like Odder who blogs or myself who dares step into the holy inner sanctum who will tear Sarah down, it is the tendentious and self-righteous barnacles that adhere to the paid editing is bad mmmkay mantra that is peddled from above on Wikipedia, and lately by the Wikimedia Foundation itself, and adhered to blindly by the masses, who will do that. So Nathan, where do you stand on the paid editing issue? Does Jimmy's bright line rule, and Sue's statements, apply to insiders as well as to the world-at-large? But again, let's wait for Sarah's comments first on these revelations. And then we can get those within the movement who have so publicly taken a stance on paid editing, namely Sue and Jimmy, to clarify where they truly stand on these issues for once and for all. Cheers, Russavia On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: 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 sure everyone on this list really appreciates that. If there's one thing I love about Wikimedia, it's when tendentious and self-righteous barnacles on the community make it a mission to tear down good-hearted and dedicated Wikimedians at the expense of the movement. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF employee writing articles for $300
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 is trying to bend people like Jimmy over a barrel in the hopes that they'll tearfully exclaim that, yes, they were wrong, paid editing is hunky-dory and oh, if /only we'd listened to Russavia/. Stop, please. On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 9:52 PM, 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 is being accused of sock puppetry. I don't know why you are making this totally irrelevation correlation, or is this you simply trying to run interference? (Very poorly I might add, but certainly a better attempt than Gerard). I suggest that you re-read the cease and desist letter ( https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/11/19/wikimedia-foundation-sends-cease-and-desist-letter-to-wikipr/ ) at the very top of page 2 you can see in pretty plain English that the WMF has invoked Section 4 of the Terms of Use, in which the WMF makes veiled legal threats of fraud, misrepresentation, etc. It is showing severe naivety on your part if you think the Wiki-PR case was built around a farm of sockpuppets; that was merely the catalyst for the anti-paid editing crowd to really sink their teeth into the situation -- that should surely be evident from Sue's press release. I seriously don't see why you think me contacting Wiki-PR to alert them of these posts here, so that they can follow it, as a bad thing. I thought that the movement was built around the notion of transparency. If terms of use are being invoked with them, don't they have the right to know of other such cases where they will likely be ignored because it's an insider we are talking about? That Sarah has engaged in undeclared paid editing is of her own doing -- we are all responsible for our own editing. She chose to engage in such editing immediately after a massive scandal knowing full well the possible consequences if it was discovered. It is not people like Odder who blogs or myself who dares step into the holy inner sanctum who will tear Sarah down, it is the tendentious and self-righteous barnacles that adhere to the paid editing is bad mmmkay mantra that is peddled from above on Wikipedia, and lately by the Wikimedia Foundation itself, and adhered to blindly by the masses, who will do that. So Nathan, where do you stand on the paid editing issue? Does Jimmy's bright line rule, and Sue's statements, apply to insiders as well as to the world-at-large? But again, let's wait for Sarah's comments first on these revelations. And then we can get those within the movement who have so publicly taken a stance on paid editing, namely Sue and Jimmy, to clarify where they truly stand on these issues for once and for all. Cheers, Russavia On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: 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 sure everyone on this list really appreciates that. If there's one thing I love about Wikimedia, it's when tendentious and self-righteous barnacles on the community make it a mission to tear down good-hearted and dedicated Wikimedians at the expense of the movement. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF employee writing articles for $300
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 Odder (who is certainly no friend of Wikipediocracy) find out about it, and let him beat them to the punch. But here's a little more evidence for you. From that screenshot, you will notice in September Sarah earned $96 from a job which is described as Wikipedia Writer Editor. The information for that job is found at https://www.odesk.com/jobs/~01fb1fd477c79e30b0 (and I have taken the liberty of uploading it at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8j_w_yHF5ymdHQzTkJkRkY5TWM/edit?usp=sharing) From this we can ascertain the following: * The job was posted on 3 September 2013 * The client is in the United States * Sarah was one of 9 applicants for the job, applying on 4 September 2013 * The client was interviewing 2 applicants, and they ended up hiring Sarah * On 4 October 2013 (a Friday), the client last viewed this job -- the little question mark pop-up says This is when the client last viewed or interacted with the applicants for this job. - in all likelihood this is when the information was provided to Sarah. From Sarah's contributions between this period we can see that she was involved in creating and editing articles relating to Turkey, Algeria, Guatemala, creating articles such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugénie_Luce, etc On 6 October 2013 (-8 GMT), after editing articles on places/people in Moldova and Ukraine, at 12:14 she made this edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_III_of_Moldaviadiff=prevoldid=576031919). At 13:53, a little under 2 hours later, Sarah posted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melody_Inn_(nightclub). Again, this is a somewhat puff piece article, out of sync with what she was editing at the time, with sourcing that one wouldn't really expect in an article. The wording at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melody_Inn_(nightclub)#Music is especially telling. Then https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1935diff=prevoldid=576044989 is done straight afterwards. That it was posted a little under 2 hours after her edit to the Stephen III of Moldavia article would correlate with the 2 hours that she billed the client for cleaning the article up to make it presentable, receiving $96. Then it was back to normal editing. Not bad for 2 hours editing on a Sunday afternoon, eh? And surely you can understand why people would post this information publicly. Already on this very list I have been attacked by no less than 4 Wikimedia insiders (yourself included) who are clearly trying to run deflection and interference. Emailing the WMF and Sue privately, so that it can be quietly ignored, or swept under the carpet; this is the experience of many people in the past, so why waste one's time. And anyway, doesn't the public, including the media whom I have also taken the liberty of advising that this issue exists, have a right to know that such things are happening on a project that prides itself on how transparent it is. Steven, does this smell like trolling and an elaborate set up Sarah joe-job? People can continue to bury their heads in the sand, attack me for trolling, run interference, and believe in vast conspiracies and other such nonsense. I will look at this logically, and taken in with information that Odder provided, it's couldn't be clearer. What isn't so clear is how Sue and Jimmy will respond.. On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote: 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 Wikipedia, and charging what it appears to be $300 per article. I have cc'ed both Sue and Jimmy in on this email, but also sending to this list as I know they, and other WMF employees, do use this list, and I think it would be pertinent that they respond publicly to the issues raised here. It is ever so more important given that the undeclared paid editing occurred AFTER the whole Wiki-PR debacle (Sue's press release, WMF's cease-and-desist, and of course the resultant media attention). What do Jimmy and Sue believe should occur given that such editing violates Wikipedia policies and also Jimmy's so-called Bright Line Rule. In relation to Jimmy's line, many are still clueless as to what exactly this Bright Line is (it's not very bright), and how it should be applied in practice, so Jimmy, if you are out there, your comment is requested on that. Cheers, Russavia I'm with David and Nathan here. The evidence presented is an anonymized oDesk account and a screenshot. Screenshots are very
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF employee writing articles for $300
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 raised this allegation, it's that you insist on posting four hundred word screeds about how hard-done by you are and how this demands that people accept you were right all along. If you actually care about the substance of the discussion, stop doing that. If you don't, just stop. On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 11:10 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.comwrote: 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 Odder (who is certainly no friend of Wikipediocracy) find out about it, and let him beat them to the punch. But here's a little more evidence for you. From that screenshot, you will notice in September Sarah earned $96 from a job which is described as Wikipedia Writer Editor. The information for that job is found at https://www.odesk.com/jobs/~01fb1fd477c79e30b0 (and I have taken the liberty of uploading it at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8j_w_yHF5ymdHQzTkJkRkY5TWM/edit?usp=sharing ) From this we can ascertain the following: * The job was posted on 3 September 2013 * The client is in the United States * Sarah was one of 9 applicants for the job, applying on 4 September 2013 * The client was interviewing 2 applicants, and they ended up hiring Sarah * On 4 October 2013 (a Friday), the client last viewed this job -- the little question mark pop-up says This is when the client last viewed or interacted with the applicants for this job. - in all likelihood this is when the information was provided to Sarah. From Sarah's contributions between this period we can see that she was involved in creating and editing articles relating to Turkey, Algeria, Guatemala, creating articles such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugénie_Luce, etc On 6 October 2013 (-8 GMT), after editing articles on places/people in Moldova and Ukraine, at 12:14 she made this edit ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_III_of_Moldaviadiff=prevoldid=576031919 ). At 13:53, a little under 2 hours later, Sarah posted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melody_Inn_(nightclub). Again, this is a somewhat puff piece article, out of sync with what she was editing at the time, with sourcing that one wouldn't really expect in an article. The wording at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melody_Inn_(nightclub)#Music is especially telling. Then https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1935diff=prevoldid=576044989 is done straight afterwards. That it was posted a little under 2 hours after her edit to the Stephen III of Moldavia article would correlate with the 2 hours that she billed the client for cleaning the article up to make it presentable, receiving $96. Then it was back to normal editing. Not bad for 2 hours editing on a Sunday afternoon, eh? And surely you can understand why people would post this information publicly. Already on this very list I have been attacked by no less than 4 Wikimedia insiders (yourself included) who are clearly trying to run deflection and interference. Emailing the WMF and Sue privately, so that it can be quietly ignored, or swept under the carpet; this is the experience of many people in the past, so why waste one's time. And anyway, doesn't the public, including the media whom I have also taken the liberty of advising that this issue exists, have a right to know that such things are happening on a project that prides itself on how transparent it is. Steven, does this smell like trolling and an elaborate set up Sarah joe-job? People can continue to bury their heads in the sand, attack me for trolling, run interference, and believe in vast conspiracies and other such nonsense. I will look at this logically, and taken in with information that Odder provided, it's couldn't be clearer. What isn't so clear is how Sue and Jimmy will respond.. On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote: 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 Wikipedia, and charging what it appears to be $300 per article. I have cc'ed both Sue and Jimmy in on this email, but also sending to this list as I know they, and other WMF employees, do use this list, and I think it would be pertinent that they respond publicly to the issues
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF employee writing articles for $300
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 people would be. Kevin Gorman On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 11:20 PM, Oliver Keyes ironho...@gmail.com wrote: 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 raised this allegation, it's that you insist on posting four hundred word screeds about how hard-done by you are and how this demands that people accept you were right all along. If you actually care about the substance of the discussion, stop doing that. If you don't, just stop. On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 11:10 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote: 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 Odder (who is certainly no friend of Wikipediocracy) find out about it, and let him beat them to the punch. But here's a little more evidence for you. From that screenshot, you will notice in September Sarah earned $96 from a job which is described as Wikipedia Writer Editor. The information for that job is found at https://www.odesk.com/jobs/~01fb1fd477c79e30b0 (and I have taken the liberty of uploading it at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8j_w_yHF5ymdHQzTkJkRkY5TWM/edit?usp=sharing ) From this we can ascertain the following: * The job was posted on 3 September 2013 * The client is in the United States * Sarah was one of 9 applicants for the job, applying on 4 September 2013 * The client was interviewing 2 applicants, and they ended up hiring Sarah * On 4 October 2013 (a Friday), the client last viewed this job -- the little question mark pop-up says This is when the client last viewed or interacted with the applicants for this job. - in all likelihood this is when the information was provided to Sarah. From Sarah's contributions between this period we can see that she was involved in creating and editing articles relating to Turkey, Algeria, Guatemala, creating articles such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugénie_Luce, etc On 6 October 2013 (-8 GMT), after editing articles on places/people in Moldova and Ukraine, at 12:14 she made this edit ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_III_of_Moldaviadiff=prevoldid=576031919 ). At 13:53, a little under 2 hours later, Sarah posted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melody_Inn_(nightclub). Again, this is a somewhat puff piece article, out of sync with what she was editing at the time, with sourcing that one wouldn't really expect in an article. The wording at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melody_Inn_(nightclub)#Music is especially telling. Then https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1935diff=prevoldid=576044989 is done straight afterwards. That it was posted a little under 2 hours after her edit to the Stephen III of Moldavia article would correlate with the 2 hours that she billed the client for cleaning the article up to make it presentable, receiving $96. Then it was back to normal editing. Not bad for 2 hours editing on a Sunday afternoon, eh? And surely you can understand why people would post this information publicly. Already on this very list I have been attacked by no less than 4 Wikimedia insiders (yourself included) who are clearly trying to run deflection and interference. Emailing the WMF and Sue privately, so that it can be quietly ignored, or swept under the carpet; this is the experience of many people in the past, so why waste one's time. And anyway, doesn't the public, including the media whom I have also taken the liberty of advising that this issue exists, have a right to know that such things are happening on a project that prides itself on how transparent it is. Steven, does this smell like trolling and an elaborate set up Sarah joe-job? People can continue to bury their heads in the sand, attack me for trolling, run interference, and believe in vast conspiracies and other such nonsense. I will look at this logically, and taken in with information that Odder provided, it's couldn't be clearer. What isn't so clear is how Sue and Jimmy will respond.. On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote: Odder
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF employee writing articles for $300
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 Sarah is able to respond to these accusations which were published without following proper procedures. Lodewijk 2014/1/6 Kevin Gorman kgor...@gmail.com 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 people would be. Kevin Gorman On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 11:20 PM, Oliver Keyes ironho...@gmail.com wrote: 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 raised this allegation, it's that you insist on posting four hundred word screeds about how hard-done by you are and how this demands that people accept you were right all along. If you actually care about the substance of the discussion, stop doing that. If you don't, just stop. On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 11:10 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote: 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 Odder (who is certainly no friend of Wikipediocracy) find out about it, and let him beat them to the punch. But here's a little more evidence for you. From that screenshot, you will notice in September Sarah earned $96 from a job which is described as Wikipedia Writer Editor. The information for that job is found at https://www.odesk.com/jobs/~01fb1fd477c79e30b0 (and I have taken the liberty of uploading it at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8j_w_yHF5ymdHQzTkJkRkY5TWM/edit?usp=sharing ) From this we can ascertain the following: * The job was posted on 3 September 2013 * The client is in the United States * Sarah was one of 9 applicants for the job, applying on 4 September 2013 * The client was interviewing 2 applicants, and they ended up hiring Sarah * On 4 October 2013 (a Friday), the client last viewed this job -- the little question mark pop-up says This is when the client last viewed or interacted with the applicants for this job. - in all likelihood this is when the information was provided to Sarah. From Sarah's contributions between this period we can see that she was involved in creating and editing articles relating to Turkey, Algeria, Guatemala, creating articles such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugénie_Luce, etc On 6 October 2013 (-8 GMT), after editing articles on places/people in Moldova and Ukraine, at 12:14 she made this edit ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_III_of_Moldaviadiff=prevoldid=576031919 ). At 13:53, a little under 2 hours later, Sarah posted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melody_Inn_(nightclub). Again, this is a somewhat puff piece article, out of sync with what she was editing at the time, with sourcing that one wouldn't really expect in an article. The wording at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melody_Inn_(nightclub)#Music is especially telling. Then https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1935diff=prevoldid=576044989 is done straight afterwards. That it was posted a little under 2 hours after her edit to the Stephen III of Moldavia article would correlate with the 2 hours that she billed the client for cleaning the article up to make it presentable, receiving $96. Then it was back to normal editing. Not bad for 2 hours editing on a Sunday afternoon, eh? And surely you can understand why people would post this information publicly. Already on this very list I have been attacked by no less than 4 Wikimedia insiders (yourself included) who are clearly trying to run deflection and interference. Emailing the WMF and Sue privately, so that it can be quietly ignored, or swept under the carpet; this is the experience of many people in the past, so why waste one's time. And anyway, doesn't the public, including the media whom I have also taken the liberty of advising that this issue exists, have a right to know that such things are happening on a project that prides itself on how transparent it is. Steven, does this smell like trolling and an
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF employee writing articles for $300
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 is strongly negatively associated, as it is assumed that it requires bending the rules for money. However, I am not entirely certain this is always the case. I've recently made a point in The Daily Dot that Wikimedia movement could actually benefit from explicitly allowing paid editing (even though my main point is pragmatic, I believe that we basically would be better off if paid editors had to identify themselves, rather than lurk in the shadows): http://www.dailydot.com/opinion/why-wikipedia-needs-paid-editing/ To be clear: I have never done paid editing, and I do not like the idea of WMF employees doing it even if they follow the rules to the letter. However, even if Sarah did write a Wikipedia article for money (and she has not had a chance to address this allegation yet) this does not automatically equate to WikiPR's pattern of behavior, as she has not hidden her identity (which she obviously could), and we are yet to see how the created article violated the rules for content neutrality, verifiability, etc. Granted, she crossed Jimbo's Bright Line, but his is just one point of view, and not a policy yet. Perhaps it is about time to reflect on how should the policies be shaped, so that we require ALL paid edits to be openly registered and declared (allowing a thorough review from the community), but that we do not automatically forbid all of them (as effectively it pushes them into the black market and forces them to stay under the radar). In any case, I think it would be a much better practice to allow Sarah to reply to such allegations first. Had Odder contacted her, or passed the case to the Signpost, it would be handled with more grace, I think. best, dariusz pundit On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 6:52 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 is being accused of sock puppetry. I don't know why you are making this totally irrelevation correlation, or is this you simply trying to run interference? (Very poorly I might add, but certainly a better attempt than Gerard). I suggest that you re-read the cease and desist letter ( https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/11/19/wikimedia-foundation-sends-cease-and-desist-letter-to-wikipr/ ) at the very top of page 2 you can see in pretty plain English that the WMF has invoked Section 4 of the Terms of Use, in which the WMF makes veiled legal threats of fraud, misrepresentation, etc. It is showing severe naivety on your part if you think the Wiki-PR case was built around a farm of sockpuppets; that was merely the catalyst for the anti-paid editing crowd to really sink their teeth into the situation -- that should surely be evident from Sue's press release. I seriously don't see why you think me contacting Wiki-PR to alert them of these posts here, so that they can follow it, as a bad thing. I thought that the movement was built around the notion of transparency. If terms of use are being invoked with them, don't they have the right to know of other such cases where they will likely be ignored because it's an insider we are talking about? That Sarah has engaged in undeclared paid editing is of her own doing -- we are all responsible for our own editing. She chose to engage in such editing immediately after a massive scandal knowing full well the possible consequences if it was discovered. It is not people like Odder who blogs or myself who dares step into the holy inner sanctum who will tear Sarah down, it is the tendentious and self-righteous barnacles that adhere to the paid editing is bad mmmkay mantra that is peddled from above on Wikipedia, and lately by the Wikimedia Foundation itself, and adhered to blindly by the masses, who will do that. So Nathan, where do you stand on the paid editing issue? Does Jimmy's bright line rule, and Sue's statements, apply to insiders as well as to the world-at-large? But again, let's wait for Sarah's comments first on these revelations. And then we can get those within the movement who have so publicly taken a stance on paid editing, namely Sue and Jimmy, to clarify where they truly stand on these issues for once and for all. Cheers, Russavia On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: 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
