subject:"Re\\\: \\\[Wikimedia\\\-l\\\] WMF employee writing articles for $300"

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF employee writing articles for $300

2014-01-07 Thread Russavia

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 that she is
under a lot of stress right now, but she seriously needs to confirm or
deny that she is engaging in undisclosed paid editing.

She's been asked to comment at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SarahStierch#Editing_mentioned
and the issue is being discussed at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Paid_editing_by_WMF_employee_on_oDesk

As per the Odesk Terms of Service (https://www.odesk.com/info/terms/)
the company is locatred in Redwood City (San Francisco) and as per
their Privacy Policy (https://www.odesk.com/info/terms/privacy/) under
Compliance with Laws and Law Enforcement. they state:

oDesk cooperates with government and law enforcement officials and
private parties to enforce and comply with the law. We will disclose
any information about you to government or law enforcement officials
or private parties as we, in our sole discretion, believe necessary or
appropriate to respond to claims and legal process (including but not
limited to subpoenas), to protect the property and rights of oDesk or
a third party, to protect the safety of the public or any person, or
to prevent or stop activity we may consider to be, or to pose a risk
of being, illegal, unethical or legally actionable activity.

Whilst oDesk apparently requires people to provide methods by which
they can be paid (which would further indicate it is indeed Sarah), if
it is a joe-job account that would obviously come under the illegal,
unethical or legally actionable activity, and if someone is passing
themselves off as Sarah, and even receiving payment as her, then as a
private party (as noted in their privacy policy) she would obviously
be able to pursue the joe-job person in the courts for a whole host of
probably criminal and civil offences, and would expect her to follow
through on this, because this would obviously reflect on her as both a
private and public person.

___
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

2014-01-06 Thread Russavia

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
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8j_w_yHF5ymdHQzTkJkRkY5TWM/edit?usp=sharing)
one can see that the client is in the United States in the -8 GMT time
zone (Indianapolis being in the -5 GMT time zone). This obviously does
not match for the bar article.

On the right-hand side, you will see that they have posted two jobs,
but have hired only one client. At the bottom you will see Client's
Work History and Feedback (1) and only this job is available there.
When you go to Sarah's profile, and click on Wikipedia Page for
Individual it says the job is private, hence why the Client's Work
History and Feedback on the aforementioned job only shows one job. So
it would appear that Sarah has been hired by this client for both
their jobs.

At 13:15 on 7 October, Sarah posted
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Leadership_Challenge. This is most
likely the article for the job at
https://www.odesk.com/jobs/~01fb1fd477c79e30b0 -- and the client went
out of his way to contact Sarah to apply for this job, as you can see
from Client in the initiator column (as explained at
https://www.odesk.com/community/node/29357)

Then in December, the client who was obviously happy with her work
from October, commissioned Sarah to write
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Posner_(academic) (the author of
the book from the October article) and paid her $300. From that
article, one can see that Posner is in Santa Clara, California, which
is -8 GMT, which of course ties up with the -8 GMT column in the
October job listing on the right hand side.

My apologies in presenting the Indianapolis article; it's surprising
that the bar article which reads like an advert is legit, whilst the
articles which look legit (yet still very weak sourcewise) are likely
the problematic articles.

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, and which has been
reinforced over and over, especially in recent months. So there will
obviously be those who want to cast you out because paid-editing is
evil and should not be tolerated. But hopefully cooler heads will
prevail all round, not only in your case. I would well advise you to
be totally upfront in any explanation, including anything that may be
done via Sarah Stierch Consulting either currently or in the past. You
obviously see a need for paid-editing, and it is a shame that you had
to, as Dariusz mentions, resort to the black market and blackhat
what you are/were doing. Open your profiles up for public view,
quickly correct anything that you should have done to begin with, and
publicly commit yourself to doing such editing the ethical way. Then
all talk of Bright Line Policy, etc can be put to rest, and not just
in your case, and then discussion on solid policies, etc as Dariusz
also mentions can occur, and you would be better placed to advocate in
that regard.

Cheers,

Russavia

On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Kevin Gorman kgor...@gmail.com wrote:
 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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF employee writing articles for $300

2014-01-06 Thread geni


 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 which you are blocked
indefinitely.



-- 
geni
___
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

2014-01-06 Thread Fæ

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 express any views on this list (which is not restricted to
English Wikipedia editors, even if it appears that way most of the
time).

Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com http://j.mp/faewm

___
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

2014-01-06 Thread Russavia

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 and
me on Commons -- to all editors on all Wikimedia projects.

On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 6:02 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:

 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 which you are blocked
 indefinitely.



 --
 geni
 ___
 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

2014-01-06 Thread Nathan

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.

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.

You must not have read the actual cease and desist letter. I understand,
it's several paragraphs, and that level of investigatory work is too
burdensome when you are racing to cause maximum drama. To quote a part of
the relevant portion This practice, known as sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry,
is expressly prohibited by Wikipedia's Terms of Use. This is supported by
the actual text of section 4 of the Terms of Use, which mention
sockpuppetry but do not mention paid editing.

So the bullshit, to return to the point, is you accusing Sarah of violating
the Terms of Use. Even if she did write an article for $300, she did not
violate the ToU. Your claim otherwise is meant to be incendiary, and is at
a minimum ignorant but much more likely simply dishonest. Your support of
Wiki-PR, a group that did indisputably break the ToU and caused hundreds of
hours worth of clean up work, proves that whatever motivates you in this
thread it certainly isn't the benefit of the Wikimedia movement or any
legitimate part of it.
___
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

2014-01-06 Thread Andreas Kolbe

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.

On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:

On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 12:52 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com
wrote:

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.

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.

___
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

2014-01-06 Thread Peter Gervai

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 articles, and since article writing is
really hard work (unless, of course, you're doing it all wrong)
editors usually pick a few themes and work on it. It is understandable
that if someone would like to have a topic covered and would like to
convince someone to write THAT article instead of other ones then it
may mean some way of convincing, money or otherwise. Well written
articles have much better chance to stay and evolve.

There is no compulsory (or proven, mind you) connection between
monetary compensation and violation of policies, and especially
experienced editors with good reputation will not want to skew
viewpoints just because they are compensated. And still it's very much
open to community editing these articles so nobody, however well paid,
could assure anyone that negative facts will not appear in time.

I'd worry more about dishonest editing than paid ones.

Thanks. Now, please, continue.

___
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

2014-01-06 Thread Nathan

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 project
 policies recognise a number of legitimate uses of socks.

 A.


The term isn't used, but the behavior is clearly encompassed by the
prohibition described in the Engaging in False Statements, Impersonation
or Fraud - specifically using the username of another user with the
intent to deceive.
___
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

2014-01-06 Thread Andreas Kolbe

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 named
User:ColourfulCharacter to edit those articles. In doing so, he is not
using the username *of another user* with the intent to deceive.

There is no other user of that name. (The only exception would be if there
were a user called User:ColorfulCharacter, say, and Smith's intent was to
create confusion between the two accounts.)

User:John Smith is using a secondary screen name to obscure the fact that
both accounts are operated by the same person. And that is allowed.

I don't even see that Wiki-PR infringed the letter of that section, as a
normal person would read it. Just like John Smith, they did not use the
name of some other user. They created multiple accounts. There was no other
user whose username they used, or whom they tried to impersonate.


On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:

 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 project
  policies recognise a number of legitimate uses of socks.
 
  A.
 
 
 The term isn't used, but the behavior is clearly encompassed by the
 prohibition described in the Engaging in False Statements, Impersonation
 or Fraud - specifically using the username of another user with the
 intent to deceive.
 ___
 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

2014-01-06 Thread Todd Allen

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 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 named
 User:ColourfulCharacter to edit those articles. In doing so, he is not
 using the username *of another user* with the intent to deceive.

 There is no other user of that name. (The only exception would be if there
 were a user called User:ColorfulCharacter, say, and Smith's intent was to
 create confusion between the two accounts.)

 User:John Smith is using a secondary screen name to obscure the fact that
 both accounts are operated by the same person. And that is allowed.

 I don't even see that Wiki-PR infringed the letter of that section, as a
 normal person would read it. Just like John Smith, they did not use the
 name of some other user. They created multiple accounts. There was no other
 user whose username they used, or whom they tried to impersonate.


 On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:

  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 project
   policies recognise a number of legitimate uses of socks.
  
   A.
  
  
  The term isn't used, but the behavior is clearly encompassed by the
  prohibition described in the Engaging in False Statements, Impersonation
  or Fraud - specifically using the username of another user with the
  intent to deceive.
  ___
  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

2014-01-06 Thread Fæ

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 crime, so this is more a question of understanding
how best practice and transparency should work for this sort of thing
and whether the conflicts of interest for WMF employees or temporary
contractors make it inadvisable and whether there are defined
circumstances that would forbid it. For example it would be a bizarre
hostage to fortune for a full time chief executive or trustee of a
Wikimedia Chapter to be a paid editor and/or paid advocate in their
spare time.

I have met Sarah in person a couple of times, and we had some good
stories and laughs to swap - having drinks and relaxing over dinner is
a much better way of getting to know someone than by reading about
them second hand. If Sarah is making paid editing work, then as a
leading experienced Wikimedian in Residence and GLAM person, she is
probably in a position to become a case study of what best practice
ought to be. Her GLAM work has been first class and leading edge, so
for what it's worth, I will always give her the benefit of the doubt
and bags of good faith; she is a lovely person, so I would ask others
to do the same and defer judgement and wait for all the facts to be on
the table and put in context.

Odder has raised some reasonable questions and I look forward to Sarah
giving a considered reply. Considering some of the tangential and
points scoring emails funking up this thread, as well as the normal
unpleasantness elsewhere, I suggest she makes any reply under a new
thread if she thinks this list is suitable, or on the English
Wikipedia which is where any evidence really is.

Thanks,
Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com http://j.mp/faewm

___
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

2014-01-06 Thread Todd Allen

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 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 crime, so this is more a question of understanding
 how best practice and transparency should work for this sort of thing
 and whether the conflicts of interest for WMF employees or temporary
 contractors make it inadvisable and whether there are defined
 circumstances that would forbid it. For example it would be a bizarre
 hostage to fortune for a full time chief executive or trustee of a
 Wikimedia Chapter to be a paid editor and/or paid advocate in their
 spare time.

 I have met Sarah in person a couple of times, and we had some good
 stories and laughs to swap - having drinks and relaxing over dinner is
 a much better way of getting to know someone than by reading about
 them second hand. If Sarah is making paid editing work, then as a
 leading experienced Wikimedian in Residence and GLAM person, she is
 probably in a position to become a case study of what best practice
 ought to be. Her GLAM work has been first class and leading edge, so
 for what it's worth, I will always give her the benefit of the doubt
 and bags of good faith; she is a lovely person, so I would ask others
 to do the same and defer judgement and wait for all the facts to be on
 the table and put in context.

 Odder has raised some reasonable questions and I look forward to Sarah
 giving a considered reply. Considering some of the tangential and
 points scoring emails funking up this thread, as well as the normal
 unpleasantness elsewhere, I suggest she makes any reply under a new
 thread if she thinks this list is suitable, or on the English
 Wikipedia which is where any evidence really is.

 Thanks,
 Fae
 --
 fae...@gmail.com http://j.mp/faewm

 ___
 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

2014-01-06 Thread Andreas Kolbe

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 not say,


   - Attempting to impersonate another user or individual, misrepresenting
   your affiliation with any individual or entity, or *using more than
   username* with the intent to deceive;


That whole section is about impersonating other people, making out that you
represent someone you do not represent, etc. Silence as to one's
affiliations and identity has always been permitted on Wikimedia projects.

Andreas


On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:

 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 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 named
  User:ColourfulCharacter to edit those articles. In doing so, he is not
  using the username *of another user* with the intent to deceive.
 
  There is no other user of that name. (The only exception would be if
 there
  were a user called User:ColorfulCharacter, say, and Smith's intent was to
  create confusion between the two accounts.)
 
  User:John Smith is using a secondary screen name to obscure the fact that
  both accounts are operated by the same person. And that is allowed.
 
  I don't even see that Wiki-PR infringed the letter of that section, as a
  normal person would read it. Just like John Smith, they did not use the
  name of some other user. They created multiple accounts. There was no
 other
  user whose username they used, or whom they tried to impersonate.
 
 
  On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
 
   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
 project
policies recognise a number of legitimate uses of socks.
   
A.
   
   
   The term isn't used, but the behavior is clearly encompassed by the
   prohibition described in the Engaging in False Statements,
 Impersonation
   or Fraud - specifically using the username of another user with the
   intent to deceive.
   ___
   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

___
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

2014-01-06 Thread Thyge

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 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 not say,


- Attempting to impersonate another user or individual, misrepresenting
your affiliation with any individual or entity, or *using more than
username* with the intent to deceive;


 That whole section is about impersonating other people, making out that you
 represent someone you do not represent, etc. Silence as to one's
 affiliations and identity has always been permitted on Wikimedia projects.

 Andreas


 On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:

  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 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 named
   User:ColourfulCharacter to edit those articles. In doing so, he is not
   using the username *of another user* with the intent to deceive.
  
   There is no other user of that name. (The only exception would be if
  there
   were a user called User:ColorfulCharacter, say, and Smith's intent was
 to
   create confusion between the two accounts.)
  
   User:John Smith is using a secondary screen name to obscure the fact
 that
   both accounts are operated by the same person. And that is allowed.
  
   I don't even see that Wiki-PR infringed the letter of that section, as
 a
   normal person would read it. Just like John Smith, they did not use the
   name of some other user. They created multiple accounts. There was no
  other
   user whose username they used, or whom they tried to impersonate.
  
  
   On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
  
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
  project
 policies recognise a number of legitimate uses of socks.

 A.


The term isn't used, but the behavior is clearly encompassed by the
prohibition described in the Engaging in False Statements,
  Impersonation
or Fraud - specifically using the username of another user with the
intent to deceive.
___
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
 
 ___
 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

2014-01-06 Thread Andreas Kolbe

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 English Wikipedia's arbitration committee) have long
said that the policies guaranteeing the right to edit anonymously are in
tension with the guidelines discouraging editing with a conflict of
interest, and that the conflict between these two sets of policies and
guidelines is imperfectly resolved.

And in the final analysis, the English Wikipedia's policy against
harassment and outing takes precedence over the conflict-of-interest
guideline.

At any rate, conflict-of-interest editing is discouraged, but not forbidden
in the English Wikipedia, while posting another editor's employer is a
banning offence (unless the editor has previous disclosed it himself on
Wikipedia).

That this creates a lucrative market for companies like Wiki-PR should not
come as a surprise.

While non-transparent paid editing does not seem to me to violate the
Wikimedia terms of use, transparent paid editing clearly does not violate
them either. Surely, the way forward lies that way.

But while the German Wikipedia community for example is quite welcoming to
paid editors who act transparently – the German Wikipedia even has verified
company accounts like User:Coca_Cola_Germany – the English Wikipedia
community is exceedingly hostile to such users, to the point of blocking
company account names *on sight*, with the result that many such editors
prefer to fly under the radar, using a made-up name and the shield of the
anonymity policy.

Andreas


On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 6:16 PM, Thyge ltl.pri...@gmail.com wrote:

 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 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 not say,
 
 
 - Attempting to impersonate another user or individual,
 misrepresenting
 your affiliation with any individual or entity, or *using more than
 username* with the intent to deceive;
 
 
  That whole section is about impersonating other people, making out that
 you
  represent someone you do not represent, etc. Silence as to one's
  affiliations and identity has always been permitted on Wikimedia
 projects.
 
  Andreas
 
 
  On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
 
   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 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 named
User:ColourfulCharacter to edit those articles. In doing so, he is
 not
using the username *of another user* with the intent to deceive.
   
There is no other user of that name. (The only exception would be if
   there
were a user called User:ColorfulCharacter, say, and Smith's intent
 was
  to
create confusion between the two accounts.)
   
User:John Smith is using a secondary screen name to obscure the fact
  that
both accounts are operated by the same person. And that is allowed.
   
I don't even see that Wiki-PR infringed the letter of that section,
 as
  a
normal person would read it. Just like John Smith, they did not use
 the
name of some other user. They created multiple accounts. There was no
   other
user whose username they used, or whom they tried to impersonate.
   
   
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
   
 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
   project
  policies recognise a number of legitimate uses of socks.
 
  A.
 
 
 The term isn't used, but the behavior is clearly encompassed by the
 prohibition described in the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF employee writing articles for $300

2014-01-06 Thread Thyge

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, 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 English Wikipedia's arbitration committee) have long
 said that the policies guaranteeing the right to edit anonymously are in
 tension with the guidelines discouraging editing with a conflict of
 interest, and that the conflict between these two sets of policies and
 guidelines is imperfectly resolved.

 And in the final analysis, the English Wikipedia's policy against
 harassment and outing takes precedence over the conflict-of-interest
 guideline.

 At any rate, conflict-of-interest editing is discouraged, but not forbidden
 in the English Wikipedia, while posting another editor's employer is a
 banning offence (unless the editor has previous disclosed it himself on
 Wikipedia).

 That this creates a lucrative market for companies like Wiki-PR should not
 come as a surprise.

 While non-transparent paid editing does not seem to me to violate the
 Wikimedia terms of use, transparent paid editing clearly does not violate
 them either. Surely, the way forward lies that way.

 But while the German Wikipedia community for example is quite welcoming to
 paid editors who act transparently – the German Wikipedia even has verified
 company accounts like User:Coca_Cola_Germany – the English Wikipedia
 community is exceedingly hostile to such users, to the point of blocking
 company account names *on sight*, with the result that many such editors
 prefer to fly under the radar, using a made-up name and the shield of the
 anonymity policy.

 Andreas


 On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 6:16 PM, Thyge ltl.pri...@gmail.com wrote:

  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 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 not say,
  
  
  - Attempting to impersonate another user or individual,
  misrepresenting
  your affiliation with any individual or entity, or *using more than
  username* with the intent to deceive;
  
  
   That whole section is about impersonating other people, making out that
  you
   represent someone you do not represent, etc. Silence as to one's
   affiliations and identity has always been permitted on Wikimedia
  projects.
  
   Andreas
  
  
   On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  
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 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 named
 User:ColourfulCharacter to edit those articles. In doing so, he is
  not
 using the username *of another user* with the intent to deceive.

 There is no other user of that name. (The only exception would be
 if
there
 were a user called User:ColorfulCharacter, say, and Smith's intent
  was
   to
 create confusion between the two accounts.)

 User:John Smith is using a secondary screen name to obscure the
 fact
   that
 both accounts are operated by the same person. And that is allowed.

 I don't even see that Wiki-PR infringed the letter of that section,
  as
   a
 normal person would read it. Just like John Smith, they did not use
  the
 name of some other user. They created multiple accounts. There was
 no
other
 user whose username they used, or whom they tried to impersonate.


 On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:

  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,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF employee writing articles for $300

2014-01-06 Thread Mark


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 in their
favourite field write better articles, and since article writing is
really hard work (unless, of course, you're doing it all wrong)
editors usually pick a few themes and work on it. It is understandable
that if someone would like to have a topic covered and would like to
convince someone to write THAT article instead of other ones then it
may mean some way of convincing, money or otherwise. Well written
articles have much better chance to stay and evolve.


Yes, if anything I'd like more of *this* kind of paid editing, where 
someone is willing to pay for a neutral article on a subject to be 
created. It does require that the person accepting money: 1) refuse 
payment from people who want articles created that simply shouldn't 
exit; and 2) actually write a neutral article, not PR-shill stuff. Some 
people won't live up to those criteria, but I don't see it as inherently 
problematic. There is a *possibility* of COI, but that is true for many 
things besides money. I currently write some articles on Greek 
locations, history, and museums. I'm also Greek by ethnicity. Is that 
already, in itself, a COI? Would it be more of a COI if a Greek cultural 
organization or a museum were paying me to improve the articles on such 
subjects? Are Wikipedian in residence programs COIs? Overall I think 
such interventions to improve Wikipedia by putting funds into supporting 
editors are a good thing, when the editing they support aligns with the 
mission of writing good articles.


Best,
Mark


___
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

2014-01-05 Thread Craig Franklin

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

2014-01-05 Thread Russavia

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

2014-01-05 Thread David Gerard

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

2014-01-05 Thread MZMcBride

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

2014-01-05 Thread Russavia

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

2014-01-05 Thread Nathan

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

2014-01-05 Thread HaeB

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

2014-01-05 Thread Steven Walling

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

2014-01-05 Thread Russavia

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

2014-01-05 Thread Oliver Keyes

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.

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?

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.

___
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

2014-01-05 Thread Russavia

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

2014-01-05 Thread Oliver Keyes

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,

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8j_w_yHF5ymdHQzTkJkRkY5TWM/edit?usp=sharing
)

From this we can ascertain the following:

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?

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.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF employee writing articles for $300

2014-01-05 Thread Kevin Gorman

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:

On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 11:10 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com
wrote:

Steven,

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.

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?

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

2014-01-05 Thread Lodewijk

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

Kevin Gorman

On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 11:20 PM, Oliver Keyes ironho...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 11:10 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com
wrote:

Steven,

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.

On 6 October 2013 (-8 GMT), after editing articles on places/people in
Moldova and Ukraine, at 12:14 she made this edit
(

Steven, does this smell like trolling and an

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF employee writing articles for $300

2014-01-05 Thread Dariusz Jemielniak

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.

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?

Cheers,

Russavia

On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF employee writing articles for $300

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF employee writing articles for $300

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF employee writing articles for $300

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF employee writing articles for $300

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF employee writing articles for $300

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF employee writing articles for $300

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF employee writing articles for $300

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF employee writing articles for $300

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF employee writing articles for $300

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF employee writing articles for $300

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF employee writing articles for $300

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF employee writing articles for $300

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF employee writing articles for $300

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF employee writing articles for $300

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF employee writing articles for $300

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF employee writing articles for $300

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF employee writing articles for $300

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF employee writing articles for $300

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF employee writing articles for $300

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF employee writing articles for $300

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF employee writing articles for $300

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF employee writing articles for $300

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF employee writing articles for $300

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF employee writing articles for $300

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF employee writing articles for $300

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF employee writing articles for $300

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF employee writing articles for $300

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF employee writing articles for $300

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF employee writing articles for $300

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF employee writing articles for $300

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF employee writing articles for $300

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF employee writing articles for $300

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF employee writing articles for $300

33 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information