On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 12:15 AM, Dominic McDevitt-Parks <mcdev...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 20 February 2014 00:56, HaeB <haebw...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> Sorry, but I think these concerns are overblown. >> > > I do not intend to fill everyone's inbox with a back-and-forth, but I do > want to clarify some of my points. > > >> First, IANAL, but an "academic ... who makes their first tentative >> edit" or other normal newbies will most likely not fall under that >> provision, unless they are instructed by their employer to make that >> edit (but then, why would an organization such as an university spend >> money to pay someone for work in which that person has no experience >> whatsoever?). >> > > I know that you are familiar with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education > Program, which did exactly what you are suggesting is so bizarre. Yes, many > professors over the years have made their first edits as part of their paid > work of teaching university courses, Yes, but that comparison is a mischaracterization of what the Education Program does. Of course it does not pay (or suggest to pay) professors to make clueless newbie edits "with no experience whatsoever" in ignorance of community policies or the TOU. From its beginning as the "Public Policy Initiative", the program included guidance for the participating instructors (e.g. training by Ambassadors), to help them understand policies and provide training experience, before they engage in their Wikipedia course work. That's far from how I understood the situation that you had been evoking, where an academic is just toying around with editing. I know you worked as a Campus Ambassador yourself, and I'm relieved to see that the very first edits of the professor you were supporting back then consisted of this kind of disclosure. I sure hope she was made aware of basic Wikipedia principles before engaging in the paid work of teaching that Wikipedia university course.