I can't think of a better justification for IAR than this thread.
On Apr 17, 2014 8:04 AM, "Fæ" <faewik(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 17 April 2014 12:49, Erlend Bjørtvedt
<erlend(a)wikimedia.no> wrote:
Same practice here, through spontneous reflection
independent of wmfr.
Seemes that this is at least natural for a chapter. I believe wmf
employees
should also be encouraged to contribute to the
projects.
There seems some confusion. There are two real recommendations here,
none involves stopping employees of any Wikimedia organization from
being editors.
1. The examples Russavia has identified show instances of outright
conflict of interest. Some edits state they are editing knowing they
have a conflict of interest but have not bothered to propose changes
so that others without a conflict can chose to implement them. It is
recommended that the Foundation direct its employees to never edit
where there is a conflict of interest relating to their employment.
2. Using pseudonyms or anonymous accounts which obscure that the
editor is an employee, and may be making edits related to their
employment, is bad practice as it goes against our movement's
commitment to simple transparency and openness. It is recommended that
the Foundation direct its employees and contractors to ensure their
interest is declared clearly and consistently so that the Wikimedia
Community is never seen to be misled.
Fae
--
faewik(a)gmail.com
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>