Hi David, you say that "A large number of these persons are paid editors / PR -SEO "consultants" who have worked themselves up to positions of administrators". Although there is no clear evidence, there is a lot of mistrust and suspicion about "paid editing". Since people need to make a living, they find a way to market their skills, sometimes honestly and other times dishonestly. Not everybody can combine a job and take positions of responsibility in the movement without burning out after a while.
However you come to say that the WMF should "purge all rogue editors" and I consider that it is wrong to consider the WMF as the police of the site. It is right to have assistance in legal matters when the community requests it, but it would compromise the autonomy of the movement if the wmf would take an interventionist role. It would do more damage than good >> https://xkcd.com/1217/ I do advocate for an evolution in the culture of the community, but that cannot come from external sources, it has to come from volunteers themselves taking more responsibility, increasing the partnership with the professional arm of the movement, and creating in the process more trust to take appropriate action - and there is never a solid definition of what it constitutes. When I started the tread I mentioned other volunteership models (like WOOF, or workaway) that could help create more trust. It is unclear if it could work for us, or if it would be scalable, but given the state of the movement perhaps it doesn't hurt so much to try new things and see how it goes. Cheers, Micru On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 2:58 AM, David Emrany <david.emr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi David, > > It would be even nicer if we have more editors editing voluntarily > instead of driving them away. > > In the present scenario a University of Minnesota report by Aaron Halfaker > says > "The declining number of editors is not due to the site's inability to > keep longtime editors contributing. Instead it can't keep new editors > from sticking around, due to an abrasive collective of editors and a > system that is crushingly bureaucratic." [1] > > English Wikipedia's biggest problem today is its established > syndicates of 90% white male "content creators" and their > self-protecting policies. A large number of these persons are paid > editors / PR -SEO "consultants" who have worked themselves up to > positions of administrators, Arbs, and WMF Trustees and blatantly > misused their positions and lied about their background / Conflicts of > Interest. > > I suggest its high time now for the WMF to directly take legal > responsibility for the actions and policies of their (mostly) > anonymous users and what is "hosted" on WMF servers. > > I suggest the WMF should immediately institute a regime of verified > identities for its users and administrators across all its projects, > and purge all rogue editors (along with their self serving > so-called""community" policies) who are damaging the credibility of > its projects, including through paid editing. > > David > > [1] > http://www.businessinsider.in/Wikipedia-Could-Degenerate-If-It-Cant-Fix-One-Big-Problem-CHART/articleshow/26238463.cms > > On 2/29/16, David Cuenca Tudela <dacu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > James, I think it is very nice to put measures against paid editing, but > it > > would be nicer to put measures to get editors more free time to edit > > voluntarily... > > There are not that many suggestions on how to do it, so it could be that > it > > cannot be done. > > > > Cheers, > > Micru > > > > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 6:14 AM, James Heilman <jmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> With respect to paid promotional editing, I have done a bit work trying > to > >> address it. For example I reached out to Upworks the company behind > Elance > >> and Fiverr and they are interested in working together on this. Have > been > >> a > >> little distracted and not sure if there is sufficient community or > >> foundation support to move forwards. > >> > >> With respect to using AI to detect paid editing, I spoke with Aaron > >> Halfaker about the possibility in Nov 2015. What he needed was datasets > of > >> confirmed paid promotional editors. I have sent him some details. If > >> others > >> have details that would likely be useful. Things are in the very very > >> early > >> stages from what I understand. > >> > >> -- > >> James Heilman > >> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian > >> > >> The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine > >> www.opentextbookofmedicine.com > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Etiamsi omnes, ego non > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > -- Etiamsi omnes, ego non _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
