On 8 March 2014 20:23, Andy Mabbett <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 7 March 2014 11:28, Charles Matthews <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Bottom line: without WMUK having their finger in the pie, process and > aims > > of a WiR are entirely down to the institution. > > That simply isn't true. > > Each of the residences and similar work I've undertaken, independent > of WMUK (and including the one that did involve WMUK, at ARKive), I've > negotiated the role, making clear what I would /and would not/ be > prepared to do, and that my edits would be made in the interests, and > according to the standards, of Wikipedia. > > It is what any serious community member would indicate, whenever the point came up, relative to COI. It also, really, only speaks to implementation. There is nothing at all to guarantee that the job spec that an institution comes up with will permit this approach. If the Terms of Use of Wikipedia are revised, as is quite likely, to treat "paid editing" more charily, the whole business might become more fraught, or much clearer, depending on the drafting. I was going to bring up at some point the case of Benjamin Zephaniah and the poet-in-residence position at Trinity College, Cambridge. A friend of mine was involved enough to be able to say that Zephaniah was the most talented candidate; but he didn't get elected. Institutions always do have their own criteria, and they aren't necessarily what you'd think. It is a bit facile to argue otherwise. Charles
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list [email protected] http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
