Detail ;-). Probably the language of the project that the paid edits are occurring on, I'd imagine.
Cheers, Craig On 12 January 2014 21:58, Gerard Meijssen <[email protected]> wrote: > Hoi, > In what language does this "disclosure" have to be ?? > Thanks, > Gerard > > > On 12 January 2014 12:29, Craig Franklin <[email protected]>wrote: > >> On 12 January 2014 02:58, MZMcBride <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Craig Franklin wrote: >> > >I think it's actually foolish to try and split hairs over what is >> > >acceptable paid editing and what is unacceptable paid editing. The >> facts >> > >of the matter are that paid editing is taking place right now, and it >> will >> > >continue to take place regardless of whatever "bright lines" are drawn >> in >> > >the sand. The only question is whether it's done in a covert manner, >> or a >> > >transparent manner. >> > > >> > >Rather than arguing over the irrelevant question of whether it is >> > >desirable to have paid editing or not, we need instead to be talking >> > >about how we are going to handle it. To my view, that should be >> > >requiring that anyone editing for money be upfront about their >> intentions >> > >and their edits, and letting the community scrutinise those edits and >> > >deal with them just like they'd deal with them if they came from any >> > >other editor. >> > >> > Perhaps you're correct, though I'll note that in the recent oDesk case, >> > you had both a real name and photo attached to the activities, along >> with >> > a public profile describing (and rating!) the activities. That seems >> > fairly transparent to me, yet it still resulted in an immediate >> departure. >> >> >> I was thinking more along the lines of a centralised disclosure list where >> people can say "My name is X, my user account is Y, and I am doing paid >> editing on article Z". Such a thing would of course invite a lot more >> scrutiny on the articles in question, which would mean that they're less >> likely to devolve into hagiography. From what I can see this is already >> working quite well and without controversy at places like dewp. We >> already >> have rules (on enwp at least) about promotional language, spam, >> sockpuppeting, and the like; I don't see any compelling reason we need >> another separate bunch of rules to deal with these situations in the >> special case where someone is being paid to edit. >> >> Cheers, >> Craig >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> >> > > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
