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 <[email protected]> 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: [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?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: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
