Hi everyone,
This email is also available on meta :
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment#It.27s_all_for_show
Over the last few hours people asked me to re-share my mail from
January regarding paid editing and to even elaborate on it :
I don't really understand how this is a response to my question, but thanks
for the pointer anyway. It doesn't explain why we would want one rule for
all projects, it doesn't explain why we want it to be 'enforcable' in the
first place.
I'm answering also here to keep the discussion streamlined.
Hoi,
When people make information available that fits in the notability
requirements of Wikidata and, when the information is factually correct,
then I do not think that anyone really cares if the person uploading it is
gets paid for it or not.
Please explain to me why I should care.
As it is
Hi,
As people seems to follow the conversation here, I paste the
discussion I'm having with Geoff here too, otherwise people can
participate directly on meta :
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment#It.27s_all_for_show
d. If so, sorry I missed those
On 20 February 2014 00:56, HaeB haebw...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry, but I think these concerns are overblown.
I do not intend to fill everyone's inbox with a back-and-forth, but I do
want to clarify some of my points.
First, IANAL, but an academic ... who makes their first tentative
edit or
Maybe I missed something, but could you please explain why the Terms of Use
would be the best place to make this kind of decisions?
As I understand it, the Terms of Use are Wikimedia-wide, and I'm not 100%
certain this is the kind of rule we'd want to apply on all projects the
same way. The
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 12:15 AM, Dominic McDevitt-Parks
mcdev...@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 February 2014 00:56, HaeB haebw...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry, but I think these concerns are overblown.
I do not intend to fill everyone's inbox with a back-and-forth, but I do
want to clarify some of my
it seems my email was rejected, trying to send again:
Maybe I missed something, but could you please explain why the Terms of Use
would be the best place to make this kind of decisions?
As I understand it, the Terms of Use are Wikimedia-wide, and I'm not 100%
certain this is the kind of rule
Hi all,
A few notes from my own perspective:
1) I'm glad to see this lively debate! I hope the right solution comes out
of it and is iron-clad against contingencies, insofar as possible :)
2) I don't want to see the projects used and misused as a platform to
achieve goals other than our mission
phoebe ayers skrev 2014-02-20 20:16:
3) I think this proposal is trying to addressing a long-standing issue of
COI editing. That issue was recently brought to the forefront again by the
actions of a few companies, but it's been an issue for a long while.
Please remember this is a description
Is there a way to incorporate the local policy by reference into the TOU,
something like The Wikimedia Foundation requires that all users being paid
to contribute follow the disclosure, conflict or related applicable policy
on each project where said users contribute.? Might that be a solution to
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Anders Wennersten
m...@anderswennersten.se wrote:
phoebe ayers skrev 2014-02-20 20:16:
3) I think this proposal is trying to addressing a long-standing issue of
COI editing. That issue was recently brought to the forefront again by the
actions of a few
Having led an all day workshop with different GLAM organizations in
Cornwall, fresh in my mind are the stories of woe from respected
museum professionals who have run into hot water on the English
Wikipedia by creating official looking accounts to make edits for
their institution and/or using
phoebe ayers skrev 2014-02-20 21:28:
How do you seeing this as a restriction on contribution? As it is proposed
it's not saying edits will be rejected, only that contributors who are paid
to edit should note this on their userpage or in edit summaries. I think
that every edit would still be
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 3:46 AM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.orgwrote:
Maybe I missed something, but could you please explain why the Terms of Use
would be the best place to make this kind of decisions?
As I understand it, the Terms of Use are Wikimedia-wide, and I'm not 100%
certain
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
Is there a way to incorporate the local policy by reference into the TOU,
something like The Wikimedia Foundation requires that all users being
paid
to contribute follow the disclosure, conflict or related applicable policy
on
I've thought a lot about the issues around conflict of interest, paid
editing, and paid advocacy (by the way, those are all overlapping but
different concepts). My writing (and
disclosure)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dominic/FAQ was
brought up on this list last time the issue came up as a
When we were discussing an update to the COI/paid editing page on English
Wikipedia a few months ago, I posted a set of hypothetical (but not all
that hypothetical) situations to help guide the discussion. I've copied
and updated that question set and posted it to the talkpage of the meta
A copy of the proposed additional language:
---
Paid contributions without disclosure
These Terms of Use prohibit engaging in deceptive activities, including
misrepresentation of affiliation, impersonation, and fraud. To ensure
compliance with these obligations, you must disclose your employer,
Hi Dominic,
2014-02-19 18:46 GMT-08:00 Dominic McDevitt-Parks mcdev...@gmail.com:
I've thought a lot about the issues around conflict of interest, paid
editing, and paid advocacy (by the way, those are all overlapping but
different concepts). My writing (and
stephen,
i think it would be wiser to tackle this technically. let mark a
contribution as COI when pressing save. the community will make something
out of it, you can be sure. if a person makes too often errors not marking
that an edit is COI, then its easy to make a community backed rule to ban
HaeB, 20/02/2014 06:56:
Second, you make it appear like every violation of the TOU is a felony
(outlaw mistakes) and likely to be the target of legal action. In my
observation as a longtime editor, the reality is different.
Indeed. The reality is that it's a criminal offense, at least in USA,
22 matches
Mail list logo
