On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 9:49 PM, Zack Exley wrote:
> I haven't read this thread, but I'll explain my editing history as
> Wikitedium:
>
> First of all, I listed my user name as soon as I started at Wikipedia. It's
> still listed here on my (out of date) staff/contractor page:
> http://en.wikipedia
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 2:39 AM, Risker wrote:
> On 17 April 2014 15:23, Pete Forsyth wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
>>
>> > On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Pete Forsyth
>> > wrote:
>> > > After he was hired, Zack continued to use that account -- more
>> > r
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 2:14 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 17 April 2014 22:05, Nathan wrote:
>
> > You haven't mentioned it on this list, but you actually accused Zack of
> > violating the sockpuppetry policy on his talk page, and you threaten to
> > "pursue further action." But the most cursory
On 17 April 2014 22:05, Nathan wrote:
> You haven't mentioned it on this list, but you actually accused Zack of
> violating the sockpuppetry policy on his talk page, and you threaten to
> "pursue further action." But the most cursory review of the sockpuppetry
> policy, which I assume you perform
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
>
> In February 2010, either shortly before or during his application for a top
> level executive position as Chief Community Officer, Zack created[1] a user
> page with the following content:
>
> "Mainly, I just fix typos when I come across
Yes - *assume good faith *because it can make all the difference in any
relationship.
Or - if one finds "assuming good faith" seems naive, try acknowledging that
people do the best they can with the information they have at any given
moment;
Or - if acknowledging people do the best they can doesn
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Zack Exley wrote:
> I haven't read this thread, but I'll explain my editing history as
> Wikitedium:
>
Thanks for the explanation. I think it would have helped if you'd read the
actual criticisms, but I understand this is a long thread.
> false facts. So I saw
Carry on.
Asume good faith.
Edit the Wikipedia.
Controbute as you can.
Avoid pov.
Erlend bjørtvedt
Oslo
Den torsdag 17. april 2014 skrev Zack Exley følgende:
> I haven't read this thread, but I'll explain my editing history as
> Wikitedium:
>
> First of all, I listed my user name as soon
On 17 April 2014 20:49, Zack Exley wrote:
> OK -- I think that's all you need from me. Now enjoy yourselves as you
> continue to grind Wikipedia to a whining halt.
It's important to note that threads like this are pretty much entirely
raised by people who aren't actually allowed to do so direct
I haven't read this thread, but I'll explain my editing history as
Wikitedium:
First of all, I listed my user name as soon as I started at Wikipedia. It's
still listed here on my (out of date) staff/contractor page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zackexley
I did start an article about myself a
On 17 April 2014 15:23, Pete Forsyth wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Pete Forsyth
> > wrote:
> > > After he was hired, Zack continued to use that account -- more
> > responsibly,
> > > yes -- but he neither corrected the fal
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Pete Forsyth
> wrote:
> > After he was hired, Zack continued to use that account -- more
> responsibly,
> > yes -- but he neither corrected the false statement on its user page, or
> > disclose his connecti
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
> After he was hired, Zack continued to use that account -- more responsibly,
> yes -- but he neither corrected the false statement on its user page, or
> disclose his connection to it.
That is untrue; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Za
On 17 Apr 2014, at 20:01, Pete Forsyth wrote:
> The WMF's position has been made clear, that it's Wikipedia's rules and
> norms that should be followed.
It sounds like this is something that needs to be made clearer in the WMF's
staff handbook (presumably such a thing exists?) to avoid doubt a
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 10:28 AM, rupert THURNER
wrote:
> i do
> not agree with pete forsyth,
I accept Sue's recent statement -- she's right, the final call about what
kind of policy the organization will or won't have rests with the
organization.
and everybody who thinks WMF and its
> employee
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Michael Snow wrote:
> On 4/17/2014 7:37 AM, Russavia wrote:
>>
>> So
>> how about a simple WMF policy that states something along the lines of:
>>
>> "Employees and contractors of the Wikimedia Foundation shall not edit
>> articles relating to the Wikimedia Foundat
I feel like I've given the WMF's position pretty clearly upthread, so I'll
try not to repeat myself. I believe that policies like the one described
here would do more harm than good, for reasons including those given by
others in this thread.
To the suggestion that the WMF ought to hold staff to a
On 17 April 2014 18:03, Pete Forsyth wrote:
> I assume good faith on the part of the people who choose to work for the
> WMF. Shouldn't we all?
I think this statement seriously neglects the context of this discussion.
- d.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing l
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 9:53 AM, geni wrote:
> On 17 April 2014 15:37, Russavia wrote:
>
> > Such a directive for WMF people would be easy to make, easy to implement,
> > easy to enforce,
>
> Easy to enforce? By whom? The foundation? Tracking all edits by foundation
> staff is not a good use of
On 17 April 2014 15:37, Russavia wrote:
> "Employees and contractors of the Wikimedia Foundation shall not edit
> articles relating to the Wikimedia Foundation, broadly construed, but at
> rather directed to raise potential edits on the talk pages of affected
> articles. This directive does not a
On 17 April 2014 17:05, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) wrote:
>
> > For example, others are blasting Victor (whom I may have met, but if I
> have
> > it slipped my mind in the middle of all the other people I've met) for
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zack_Exley&diff=506286326&oldid=50441
Brad Jorsch (Anomie), 17/04/2014 18:05:
From my purely personal perspective, I've often felt that concerns over COI
and paid editing in and of themselves are often grossly overblown.
When something is proclaimed heresy, it's unsuprising that inquisitions
are set up. Historically the solution
On 17 April 2014 17:05, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) wrote:
> For example, others are blasting Victor (whom I may have met, but if I have
> it slipped my mind in the middle of all the other people I've met) for
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zack_Exley&diff=506286326&oldid=504412402.
> That
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Russavia wrote:
> "Employees and contractors of the Wikimedia Foundation shall not edit
> articles relating to the Wikimedia Foundation, broadly construed, but at
> rather directed to raise potential edits on the talk pages of affected
> articles. This directive d
On 17 April 2014 16:25, Michael Snow wrote:
> To illustrate how silly this can get on some level, consider the fact that
> justifiably or not, the media and the general public often treat the content
> of Wikimedia projects as if it reflects on the reputation of the Wikimedia
> Foundation. Thus w
On 4/17/2014 7:37 AM, Russavia wrote:
So
how about a simple WMF policy that states something along the lines of:
"Employees and contractors of the Wikimedia Foundation shall not edit
articles relating to the Wikimedia Foundation, broadly construed, but at
rather directed to raise potential edits
Sue,
Thank you for your response, it is appreciated.
Indeed we are all n00bs at some stage, and we all make COI mistakes, and I
can admit to making this mistake myself twice early on. But we all learn
pretty quickly that COI editing is frowned upon, and can cause problems
later on.
I would like
I can't think of a better justification for IAR than this thread.
On Apr 17, 2014 8:04 AM, "Fæ" wrote:
> On 17 April 2014 12:49, Erlend Bjørtvedt wrote:
> > Same practice here, through spontneous reflection independent of wmfr.
> > Seemes that this is at least natural for a chapter. I believe wm
On 17 April 2014 12:49, Erlend Bjørtvedt wrote:
> Same practice here, through spontneous reflection independent of wmfr.
> Seemes that this is at least natural for a chapter. I believe wmf employees
> should also be encouraged to contribute to the projects.
There seems some confusion. There are t
Same practice here, through spontneous reflection independent of wmfr.
Seemes that this is at least natural for a chapter. I believe wmf employees
should also be encouraged to contribute to the projects.
Erlend
Wmno
Den torsdag 17. april 2014 skrev Christophe Henner <
christophe.hen...@gmail.com>
On 17 April 2014 10:41, Fæ wrote:
> My response on this thread for Erik's unacceptable public behaviour as
> a Foundation senior manager have nothing whatsoever to do with
> Wikimedia UK or the wikimediauk-l list, so your using your authority
> on a different list to punish me is bizarre.
I fel
David, I am not a "creature", nor am I am a part of a conspiracy with Russavia.
Your actions against both Russavia and myself, with no process for
appeal, say more about the direction our open movement is taking in
putting up barriers to whistle-blowing rather than accepting this is
part of a heal
On 17 April 2014 09:46, Fæ wrote:
Every time I see "Fae" or "Russavia" in a from: line, I dread opening
the email. Fae, posts like this, where any actual point you have is
buried under a mountain of your overwhelming bitterness, with you
tag-teaming with Russavia on *his* overwhelming bitterness
On 17 April 2014 09:40, Erik Moeller wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 1:08 AM, Fæ wrote:
>
>> This is not the first time that Erik has been sarcastic and rude in an
>> apparent attempt to close down discussion in public responses to
>> whistle-blowers.
>
> Please. You are making a mockery of ever
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 1:08 AM, Fæ wrote:
> This is not the first time that Erik has been sarcastic and rude in an
> apparent attempt to close down discussion in public responses to
> whistle-blowers.
Please. You are making a mockery of every whistleblower on the planet;
it's disgraceful. Russa
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:46 AM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:24 AM, Pete Forsyth
> wrote:
>
> > As a former staff member who actively sought out (and received very
> little)
> > guidance on how to approach my approach to Wikipedia editing during my
> > tenure,
>
> In other
Hi everyone,
Just to share what we do at Wikimedia France.
Employees are allowed to edit Wikimedia Projects from personnal
accounts. When they do as Wikimedia France employees, they use their
"professional" accounts, that stays they're employed by WMFr.
We do not look at what they do on their pe
On 17 April 2014 08:46, Erik Moeller wrote:
...
> On this, you and I seem to be about as far apart as we can be, so we
> will have to agree to disagree. This is why in threads like the Belfer
> one I encourage people to stay cool and not let this stuff get to
> their heads, because this is the kin
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:24 AM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
> As a former staff member who actively sought out (and received very little)
> guidance on how to approach my approach to Wikipedia editing during my
> tenure,
In other words, you were expected to apply good judgment. It would
have been nice
Yes.
Our employees in wmno are recruited externally, and could never hve
done their job or learnt to know the projects If it wasn,t for:
A - editing from a wmno account in order to give community information
about events, etc.
B - editing from a private account, under full name, to learn how to e
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 11:57 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 11:21 PM, Pete Forsyth
> wrote:
> > The community guidelines are extremely complex, yes. I consider that an
> > argument *in favor* of adopting simpler rules for staff, that exceed
> > community rules. For a general
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 11:21 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
> The community guidelines are extremely complex, yes. I consider that an
> argument *in favor* of adopting simpler rules for staff, that exceed
> community rules. For a general idea, here are the kind of rules that could
> be implemented for s
Sue and all:
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 7:38 PM, Sue Gardner wrote:
> There are no special WMF policies related to this. It might seem that
> perhaps there should be, but I have thought about it a lot and I
> believe it'd be a bad idea.
This is something I've also thought about a lot. I'd like to
On 16 April 2014 14:03, Russavia wrote:
>
>
> Could the WMF and the BoT perhaps clarify whether COI editing amongst
> WMF staff/contractors is officially discouraged/forbidden, and whether
> there is something official in writing which lays out guidelines for
> how and when WMF staff/contractors s
Hi,
I can't speak on behalf of the rest of WMF staff, but since I made three
edits to the 'Zack Exley' article, I feel that I owe a public explanation
of the three edits that I made.
Here are the edits:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zack_Exley&diff=506286326&oldid=504412402
In my j
It would be fantastic if the Foundation were to take *positive action*
and make it clear that its employees are immediately directed to not
edit Wikipedia articles about each other, ex-colleagues, the
Foundation, the Foundation's partners, suppliers and contractors or
the Foundation's critics. Even
46 matches
Mail list logo
