Pine, I have another question to add to the initial question: Will the Foundation prohibit chapters and other thematic organizations from the "creation of paid roles that have article writing as a core focus, regardless of who is initiating or managing the process" as a condition of receiving WMF funding and using the WMF trademarks?
"Will the WMF itself ensure that foundation money will not be used to generate content on a long term basis?" I think this is more of an appropriate question? I have used long term because stuff like Contests/Challenges [there is one on right now] can be considered short term, you know, just to keep editors interests up. On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 6:24 AM, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 5:34 PM, Nathan <nawr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 8:18 PM, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I want to point out something that stands out to me. This is not an > > > outright contradiction, but it's a puzzling contrast. In an unrelated > > > thread on this email list, Executive Director Sue Gardner recently > said: > > > > > > "Editorial policies [for WMF staff] are developed, and therefore also > > > best-understood and best-enforced, not by the WMF but by the > community." > > > [1] > > > > > > That is the WMF policy as it applies to WMF staff: essentially, no > > special > > > rules, use your own judgment in interpreting how to best comply with > > > community standards. But here, in the report Sue authored, it seems > there > > > is a very different standard for movement partners who seek funding or > > > endorsement from the WMF: > > > > > > "In the future, the Wikimedia Foundation will not support or endorse > the > > > creation of paid roles that have article writing as a core focus, > > > regardless of who is initiating or managing the process." [2] > > > > > > Again: this is not a direct contradiction, and it is entirely within > the > > > rights of the WMF to apply different standards to its own staff vs. to > > > other organizations. But I do think it deserves some careful > > consideration, > > > as to *why* such different standards would be appropriate. > > > > > > Decision point #1 in the Belfer Center report is not something that is > > > based in any Wikipedia policy. It does have a basis in the Wikipedian > in > > > Residence page on the Outreach Wiki.[3] That is an important page, and > I > > > believe many in the movement consider it to have the weight of a formal > > > policy; but I don't. Elevating it from a best practice recommendation > to > > an > > > absolute rule is a significant step, and one that I don't believe > should > > be > > > taken lightly. > > > > > > Hi Pete, > > > > Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, and I hope you can clarify for me so > that > > I can follow your position. I don't see the contradiction at all between > > the two policy-related statements. In the first case, the WMF says that > the > > editorial policies that apply to its employees are promulgated by > specific > > projects and their communities, not the WMF. In the second, it says > > effectively that the WMF will not sponsor paid editing. The presumption > in > > the first instance is that the WMF already does not pay its employees to > > edit, so Sue was not referring to "paid editing" at all. Russavia's > > question was about editing with a conflict of interest, not payment. > > > > I'm not seeing any conflict between those two statements, and the WMF > does > > not appear to me to be applying different standards to others than to > > itself. In fact, the only time paid editing by an employee has come up as > > an issue, the employee was quickly dismissed. Perhaps you can explain? > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > Nathan: > > Again, I don't say it's a contradiction, it's not. But I do think it's an > important contrast, and yes, I'll try to clarify why. > > Does the Wikimedia Foundation create additional policies, related to > editing Wikipedia, over and above those established by the Wikipedia > community and documented on Wikipedia? > > For its staff, according to the email I quoted above, the answer is "no." > (You're right, there is one case that might suggest otherwise, relating to > paid editing -- but we don't, and shouldn't, have public access to all the > specifics of that case, so it's a tricky one to draw conclusions from, > especially in a public forum.) But, there are countless ways in which > Wikimedia Foundation staff edit Wikipedia and other projects as a part of > their compensated work (and also, in their free time). There is apparently > no policy from the WMF governing that behavior beyond general trust in its > staff to abide by community-set rules. > > For other organizations, though, that might seek Wikimedia funds and/or > endorsement, the answer is apparently "yes" (according to the Belfer Center > report.) > > I think that's a contrast that merits some consideration. I think Pine's > example is a good one to consider: if a movement-affiliated organization > wants to guide another organization in adding content to Wikipedia, and > there is payment involved, the WMF apparently won't support that. > > Is that really a good rule to have? I don't think so. Many organizations > have added material directly to Wikipedia, in some cases with the guidance > of a Wikipedian in Residence, with unequivocally positive impact to the > Wikimedia mission, and with much support from the Wikipedia community. I > don't think it's a great idea for the WMF to distance itself from such > projects on the basis of paid editing. > > Pete > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > -- Srikanth Ramakrishnan Treasurer, Wikimedia Chapter [India] Donate to the Wikimedia India Chapter today<http://wiki.wikimedia.in/Donations> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
