I've proposed asking wikimedians at large what they think should be done
about paid advocacy editing, as item number 5 on my periodic survey
proposal composed of all the unresolved questions over the last quarter on
this list at:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:James_Salsman#Periodic_survey_prototype

On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 2:50 PM Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >
> > Has there been a recent substantial discussion by the community
> surrounding
> > promotional/biased editting paid or otherwise, which had an outcome
> > resulting in a specific request for assistance or increased action by the
> > WMF?
> >
>
> Aside from the conversation on this list, I'm aware of the discussion on
> Jimbo's talk page. If WMF Legal or the WMF Board wants to take the position
> that it would like to see a community RfC or some other such discussion, I
> imagine that such can be arranged, and I can see how that might be
> beneficial. Of course, anyone is free to initiate such an on-wiki
> discussion.
>
>
> >
> > If there hasn't, I do not see grounds for you to be expecting an official
> > response from Legal to a list whose conversation has for the most part
> > consisted of about 6 people?
> >
>
> I'm not sure why you would be telling other people to whom they can
> initiate requests and the conditions under which they can be made. I
> already have a dim view of WMF's customer service; please don't dig the
> hole any deeper.
>
> Many others, I am sure, would rightly complain if the Foundation
> > unilaterally made decisions in this area.
>
>
> That is possible if WMF were to do something particularly novel, so your
> sense of caution here is well taken. I would hope that WMF would discuss
> its plans with the community and have a conversation before actually
> initiating novel actions.
>
>
> > But please be realistic, this is
> > a coffee table discussion.
>
>
> I have mixed views on this. Wikimedia-l is not a quiet back room with only
> a few people around, but it's true that a consensus here among a small
> number of people who speak up in a particular discussion demonstrates a
> lower level of consensus than an RfC with hundreds of participants. It's
> not clear to me that there is consensus on which tools are appropriate for
> which exact circumstances, and some discussions happen in multiple venues.
>
>
> > The views expressed here are valid but the right
> >
> thing to do would be to further the conversation on wiki and have a proper
> > community conversation.
>
>
> I don't think that there is a single definition of a "proper" community
> conversation.
>
> I have no objection to having an on-wiki RfC (and I can see how a
> sophisticated and well-attended one might produce detailed guidance that
> would be helpful), but neither do I want this thread to be trivialized.
>
> Pine
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
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>

Reply via email to