On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Russavia <russavia.wikipedia(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
"Employees and contractors of the Wikimedia
Foundation shall not edit
articles relating to the Wikimedia Foundation, broadly construed, but at
rather directed to raise potential edits on the talk pages of affected
articles. This directive does not apply to the reverting vandalism,
removing copyright violations or potentially libellous materials."
Before people go too far along these lines, consider whether whatever
policy you propose would result in stupidity like my having to code
AnomieBOT with a blacklist of pages it's not allowed to do its bot work on.
There's not a sharp divide between "community" and "staff", some
of us are
both and would like to remain both.
From my purely personal perspective, I've often
felt that concerns over COI
and paid editing in and of themselves are often grossly
overblown. COI is a
problem when it leads to POV violations and the like, and it can be
difficult for people to respect POV and other policies when they have a
COI. But it's not *impossible* to make good edits despite a COI and raising
a fuss over COI absent any concern with the actual edits made seems like
trying to cause trouble rather than doing something productive.
For example, others are blasting Victor (whom I may have met, but if I have
it slipped my mind in the middle of all the other people I've met) for
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zack_Exley&diff=506286326&am…04412402.
That's utterly silly: Victor took a freely-licensed photograph of someone
with an existing Wikipedia article, uploaded it to Commons, and changed the
article to use it. This is **exactly what we want people to do**. Why does
that change just because Victor works for WMF?