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

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

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

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

2014-01-06 Thread
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

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

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. You are right, I don't see anywhere in Odder's blog or in my posts on this list that Sarah

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. A.

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

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

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

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

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

2014-01-06 Thread
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

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

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

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

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

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,

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

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

2014-01-05 Thread 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

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

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

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.

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

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 (

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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