Thanks, I appreciate your trust. :-) For others' convenience, you're referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dominic/FAQ#Why_do_you_edit_under_your_p… specifically. I'm going to push back a little, because, like Alex, I'm skeptical of what a separate account would really accomplish. Certainly, I still have a conflict of interest when it comes to my employer whether or not I am on the clock. Wikimedia Foundation employees have separate accounts not for conflict of interest reasons, but because they are editing the site run by the same organization that employs them, and so there is a need within the community to provide clarity as to whether their actions are official actions of the WMF or not. However, the National Archives, like every editor and any other third-party organization or individual, has no special authority within the Wikimedia community, so there is no such confusion when I make an edit about whether it is any more official than any other editor. We've never required, or even suggested, separate "on-the-clock" accounts for anyone outside of the WMF. To me, my personal and professional contributions represent a single body of work, and I am open on my user page about my employment, so I don't think this is a transparency issue. Dominic On 30 October 2013 17:52, Sven Manguard <svenmanguard@gmail.com<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', &#39;svenmanguard(a)gmail.com&#39;);&gt; > 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@gmail.com<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', &#39;mcdevitd(a)gmail.com&#39;);&gt;&gt; > >> 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 <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', >> &#39;GLAM-US(a)lists.wikimedia.org&#39;);&gt; >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam-us >> >> > _______________________________________________ > GLAM-US mailing list > GLAM-US(a)lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', > &#39;GLAM-US(a)lists.wikimedia.org&#39;);&gt; > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam-us > >

Great job Dominic, I'll use it as a template and as an example for further Wikipedians in Residence on my area. I do also agree with the one account principle. I've always only used @kippelboy despite i've collaborated with several institutions, so people can track my whole history. Best luck! Looking forward to help in some of your NARA projects (specially on translations or similar) 2013/10/31 Piotr Konieczny &lt;piokon(a)post.pl&gt;