Yes - *assume good faith *because it can make all the difference in any relationship.
Or - if one finds "assuming good faith" seems naive, try acknowledging that people do the best they can with the information they have at any given moment; Or - if acknowledging people do the best they can doesn't work, allow that we humans (each and every one of us) make many mistakes in a life time; Or - if you have never made any mistakes, please let me know how in the world you managed to avoid them :-) Take care, Amy On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Erlend Bjørtvedt <[email protected]>wrote: > Carry on. > > Asume good faith. > > Edit the Wikipedia. > > Controbute as you can. > > Avoid pov. > > > Erlend bjørtvedt > Oslo > > > > Den torsdag 17. april 2014 skrev Zack Exley <[email protected]> > følgende: > > > I haven't read this thread, but I'll explain my editing history as > > Wikitedium: > > > > First of all, I listed my user name as soon as I started at Wikipedia. > It's > > still listed here on my (out of date) staff/contractor page: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zackexley > > > > I did start an article about myself a long time ago. I didn't know there > > was a policy against it. I wasn't an active editor and knew virtually no > > policies. I created the article because right wing media personalities > were > > doing hit pieces on me and the Republican party was sending out emails > > asking people to write letters to the editor about me featuring lots of > > false facts. So I saw Wikipedia as an open encyclopedia "that anyone can > > edit" where I could set the record straight. Later I learned it was > against > > policy and FELT REALLY BAD. > > > > As for the other edits on projects I was involved with. My personal > opinion > > is that those kinds of edits are vital to the future of Wikipedia. I want > > everyone to add everything they're working on to Wikipedia -- and then > all > > their critics to come and add what they know. I'm saddened every time I > go > > looking for something I expect to be in Wikipedia and find nothing -- and > > am forced to rely on the organization's own site or whatever. > > > > OK -- I think that's all you need from me. Now enjoy yourselves as you > > continue to grind Wikipedia to a whining halt. > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Risker <[email protected] > <javascript:;>> > > wrote: > > > > > On 17 April 2014 15:23, Pete Forsyth <[email protected] > <javascript:;>> > > wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Erik Moeller <[email protected] > <javascript:;> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Pete Forsyth < > > [email protected] <javascript:;>> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > After he was hired, Zack continued to use that account -- more > > > > > responsibly, > > > > > > yes -- but he neither corrected the false statement on its user > > page, > > > > or > > > > > > disclose his connection to it. > > > > > > > > > > That is untrue; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zackexley > > > > > > > > > > > > > Interesting, but not especially relevant. What path could a reader or > > > > editor of the Zack Exley article follow to learn about that > connection? > > > > > > > > Disclosing on the Zack Exley user page isn't sufficient to meet basic > > > > transparency. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, it meets the requirements of the project. It's not perfect, > > but > > > we have administrators who don't even give that much disclosure to > their > > > own alternate accounts (or that they edit without logging in), and > > nobody's > > > getting the pitchforks out for them. > > > > > > If you don't like the edits made by the account, work on-wiki to > address > > > the issues. You know how to start an AfD for any articles you think > are > > > about non-notable subjects, you know how to un-peacock an article. > > > > > > If one really wants to push the COI envelope, one could say that users > > who > > > are former employees of an organization shouldn't be editing articles > > > related directly to the organization or its employees (salaried or > > > contract), though. Indeed, one of the biggest COI issues we have on > > English > > > Wikipedia is former employees trying to use our articles to "bring > > problems > > > to light" about organizations. > > > > > > The disclosure was made. Incidentally, that's all that would need to > be > > > done even at the farthest reaches of the proposed terms of use > amendment. > > > > > > Risker > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list > > > [email protected] <javascript:;> > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:[email protected] <javascript:;> > > ?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Zack > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list > > [email protected] <javascript:;> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:[email protected] <javascript:;> > > ?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > -- > *Erlend Bjørtvedt* > Nestleder, Wikimedia Norge > Vice chairman, Wikimedia Norway > Mob: +47 - 9225 9227 > http://no.wikimedia.org <http://no.wikimedia.org/wiki/About_us> > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> -- *Amy Vossbrinck* *Executive Assistant to the* *Chief of Finance and Administration, Garfield Byrd* *Wikimedia Foundation* *149 New Montgomery Street* *San Francisco, CA 94105* *415.839.6885 ext 6628* *[email protected] <[email protected]>* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
