I agree wholeheartedly with Vito. Thank you for bringing up this issue.
Wikidata is part of the umbrella group of Wikimedia projects. Wikipedia has
strict rules governing paid editing (at least in EN), and these rules are
not even the same across different language editions.
Most of the other projects do not have such rules. Wikimedia Commons, for
example. Most of us know what product placement is. Do certain contributors
earn their living from it? Why don't these "sister" projects have similar
restrictions on paid contributions?

Gabe

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:35 AM, Vi to <vituzzu.w...@gmail.com> wrote:

> We currently have some mean to fight paid editing, terms of services are
> "easy to violate" thus giving us a straightforward way to take action. But
> too often I see something like: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q16826370
> obvious paid editors left totally free to do their job without even
> attracting some attention on them.
>
> Vito
>
> 2017-04-23 13:58 GMT+02:00 Peter Southwood <peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>:
>
> > I would think this is up to the chapter/affilate organisation, but no
> harm
> > in getting a more universal collection of opinions.
> > Cheers,
> >  Peter
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of Gabriel Thullen
> > Sent: Sunday, 23 April 2017 10:50 AM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing
> companies
> > that offer paid editing services
> >
> > I suggest another question, right after your #5. Undisclosed paid editing
> > is one thing, dealing with disclosed paid editors within our community is
> > another. You could add the following question:
> > "Asking if we agree to let disclosed paid editors occupy key positions
> > within the Wikimedia movement such as chapter board, official chapter
> > spokesperson, affiliate organization board, etc."
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 6:16 AM, James Salsman <jsals...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > 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>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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>
> >
> > -----
> > No virus found in this message.
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > Version: 2016.0.8013 / Virus Database: 4769/14365 - Release Date:
> 04/23/17
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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>
>
_______________________________________________
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