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
[x-posted]
Hello,
The Wikimedia Language Engineering team [1] invites everyone to join the
team’s monthly IRC office hour on January 8, 2014 (Wednesday) at 1700 UTC/
0900 PST on #wikimedia-office. During this session we would be talking
about highlights from our team’s activities and updates
@Jane: Yes, that's pretty much correct. The URAA is a pain in the ***
if you know what i mean. For example, virtually all works by Theo van
Doesburg are not usable on Commons because they're painted after 1923,
even though in the Netherlands his works have been PD since 2002.
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014
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,
Hi pine, I'd probably state it open that we desire it, maybe by using a
banner for a short period if time every year. just like we state if every
reader of the fundraising notice would give a small sum then fundraising
would be over in a couple of hours. With it we would have then three
banners a
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
20 matches
Mail list logo
