Dear David

I respectfully disagree. My point is that the "community" you refer to
is not a representative community at all. for eg. voices from Asia and
Africa are not properly represented here.

The community is incapable of policing itself because (to quote a
prominent WP criticism site) "the inmates are running the asylum". It
needs an external / independent person (Lila ?) to begin the cleaning
of the stables, but the task was beyond her.

The credibility of Wikipedia as a brand is going down the tubes
rapidly as fresh scandals emerge with alarming frequency. More enemies
of the movement are being created daily.

To cite 1 instance, very recently, a prominent organisation, highly
critical of WMF in India, managed to get the Zeropaid initiative
banned in that country. The organisation is banned on Wikipedia,
including for severe off-wiki harassment of our users [1]

" .. WIKIMEDIA pornographers who are masquerading as champions of free
speech and free internet to promote their obscenities and lies in
DEVICES .. " [2]




On 3/1/16, David Cuenca Tudela <> wrote:
> 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 >>
> 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

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to:

Reply via email to