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
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