Sven,
I don't think your advice is as clear cut as you make it out to be. There
is no clear line in which a secondary account is necessary or not,
especially when Dominic has been working for various GLAMs under a long
time. All of his edits should be under scrutiny, not just the ones that he
does while at work (just as all of my own edits should be under scrutiny
when I support various GLAMs). Separating accounts suggests that there is a
clear line between personal and GLAM related activities, but with the
community consistently active 24 hours a day, we know that that is not the
case. Also, because GLAMs are repositories of knowledge, not advocacy
groups, often the contributor's other interests will revolve around that
knowledge pool anyway (making the editing line even more grey).
Also, like other GLAM professionals and unlike Wikimedia foundation staff,
his edits to content do not represent the organization he is working for.
We have been treating GLAM professionals as subject matter experts, and
separate accounts would suggest that they are something more then that
(some sort of official presence in the community). As the community has
long established, paid actions by a subject matter expert are radically
different then paid actions by a PR representative of a company, etc or an
official staff member at the Foundation.
Alex Stinson
User:Sadads
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 4:52 PM, Sven Manguard <svenmanguard(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
Having had numerous chances to interact with you in
person back when you
were still in Boston, and having seen your track record on WMF projects for
a while, I never personally had any concerns about your becoming a "paid
editor". You are not the first person to serve in a roll as a compensated
liaison (the WMF has several). You won't be the last one either. Done
right, it's not a big deal.
That being said, I would absolutely advocate that you create a second
account for use when you are on the clock and only when you are on the
clock, and cease making edits from your main account while on the clock.
Just because I, and most of the community, trust you a great deal does not
mean that you should be allowed to do what I consider to be bad practice.
Ultimately you are serving as a template for what I hope will be a type of
position that becomes increasingly more common, and like the Wikimedia
Foundation liaisons, you should go out of your way to separate on the job
and off the job edits and comments. This is not just in the interest of
transparency but also in the interest of providing a good model for other
people in similar positions to follow.
TLDR: I trust you personally, but in the role that you are serving in you
really should have a second account for your paid actions.
Sven
On Oct 30, 2013 5:35 PM, "Dominic McDevitt-Parks" <mcdevitd(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Hi all,
As you may have heard <http://blogs.archives.gov/aotus/?p=5179>, I am
now a full-time, permanent staff member at the US National Archives
employed to work on Wikipedia initiatives. This makes me, even more clearly
so than previous Wikipedians in Residence which are often temporary workers
or interns, a paid editor.
I have rewritten my user
page<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dominic>on
Wikimedia projects where I am active to reflect my job (and position
with my chapter). I am publishing my entire job description on Wikipedia. I
have also written a somewhat lengthy
FAQ<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dominic/FAQ>about my personal history,
motivations, and what I will and will not be
doing as a paid editor. This statement has been approved by NARA, so it
represents their intentions as an agency as well as my personal thoughts. I
would encourage you to read it.
I realize that this is going well beyond the conflict of interest
statement we usually suggest of cultural professionals editing Wikipedia.
I'm essentially doing this for two reasons. First, out of an abundance of
caution, I would like to demonstrate a high level of transparency and
thoughtfulness, since I am a very public example of being a paid editor.
Second, I am hoping that the way I have expressed the rationale for my
participation on Wikimedia projects can be an exemplar, both for
prospective GLAM partners interested in best practices, and for the
Wikipedia community, which is probably sorely in need of positive examples
of non-advocacy paid editing right now.
To that end, I'd be interested to hear everyone's thoughts on this
approach generally or specifically on the statements I've published. I am
still willing any necessary changes if you have a good suggestion.
Dominic
_______________________________________________
GLAM-US mailing list
GLAM-US(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam-us
_______________________________________________
GLAM-US mailing list
GLAM-US(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam-us