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>

Reply via email to