Den 2016-03-01 kl. 11:01, skrev David Emrany:
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.

We all live in different realities, so please be careful to indicate that your reality is everyones reality

In Sweden we have had the most profound increase in trust in Wikipedia the last six month, not least in conjunction to the 15 year anniversary There have been several articled in our main media reporting both with good insight and giving credibility to Wikipedia. We have seen a continuous strong support from the Glam sector and also a significant change from School authorities, which now are staring to look mostly how to make best use of Wikipedia, and not as before only indicating the need to be observant of sources being used

The affiliate here has just received the biggest grant yet on more then 300KUSD to put the result of wikipedia loves word heritage onto WIkidata. And also our community is working better then ever and seeing regularly new editor (but we still have a problem of too few new ones)

So here there is no scandal being known and what is happening around SF is not reported or known her in our media


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

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


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

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

Reply via email to