Laura Hale wrote: >I think Rupert's proposal does not go far enough in terms of addressing >the potential conflict of interests by contributors because it focuses >exclusively on paid edits while failing to address other conflict of >interests problems that lead to neutrality issues. While anyone should be >free to edit, the edit box should contain a dynamic box at the bottom that >includes a potential list of conflicts that create bias problems based on >the conflict. The user, before submitting their edit, should click each >box verifying what their (potential) advocacy problems are so that their >edits may be vetted. This includes gender, religion, nationality, >ethnicity, political alignment, Political party membership, academic >discipline, level of education, yearly earnings, city you live in, and >employer. > >So if you are editing an article about Serbian politics, you would be >asked if you are a Serb nationalist, a Croatian nationalist, a right wing >political party member, a left wing political party member, male, >Christian, Muslim, have a PhD, work for the government, work for for a >non-profit, if you live in Belgrade, etc. This would increase Wikipedia's >transparency and accountability of editors for their actions. It would >actively discourage advocacy of all types, including the paid type.
Hmmm, I'm running into <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law> with this post. I honestly can't tell if you're being serious here. MZMcBride _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimediaemail@example.com Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>