Jim Schuler wisely stated:
>Might depend on tax law. If I remember correctly (it's been 15 years since
>I dealt with this), 501(c) and 501(c)(3) tax-exempt and private foundations
>can run afoul of the IRS if there is a clear indication of active
>discrimination.
But then also stated:
>In this case, I don't see any evidence of an active policy
>of discrimination...
There actually *is* a fairly active policy of discrimination that's been
carried out for the
past few months.
Employees of public relations firms are not allowed to edit Wikipedia.
http://blog.bitepr.com/2006/08/jimmy_wales_on_.html
The IRS and the appropriate Attorneys General will certainly get involved
when an
organization operating with tax-deductible funding begins to administer
itself in ways
that run contrary to its stated public mission. The State of Florida's
Division of Consumer
Services was sufficiently concerned about Wikipedia's discrimination against
commercial interests (in light of the GFDL explicitly stating the license
must not
limit commercial use of the work), that it contacted Brad Patrick in late
November.
The earlier comment by Earle Martin that "Wikipedia is a privately-operated
members'
club" is a sad statement of empirical evidence that the Wikipedia leadership
has
clearly lost sight of its being a 501(c)(3) non-profit entity that goes well
beyond a
private club.
(Still on a Wiki-break, but this list is just too fascinating.)
--
Gregory Kohs
Cell: 302.463.1354
I agree with this. A few days ago I created [[338171]]. Being rather
bored at the time I gave a facetious edit summary which claimed the
article was all about the number 338,171. It was swiftly tagged with
a speedy delete tag, and then deleted (despite me having quickly put
a {{hangon}}).
The article was actually a redirect to T.E. Lawrence ("Lawrence of
Arabia"). Wanting privacy, in later life Lawrence re-enlisted in the
RAF as an Aircraftsman (equivalent of Private in the Army), and was
given 338171 as his service number. He often signed himself "338171
A/C Shaw", prompting Noel Coward to ask him "May I call you 338?".
It was quite obvious on reading the article that it was actually a
redirect. If the admin had checked the article to which it was
redirected he would have found the reason explained there. So while
it's legitimate to claim to have been misled by the edit summary,
that really doesn't justify mistakenly speedying a perfectly good
redirect. I appreciate that speedy deletion patrollers are often
overworked but overwork is not an excuse for lack of common sense.
--
David Boothroyd - http://www.election.demon.co.uk
david(a)election.demon.co.uk (home)
dboothroyd(a)westminster.gov.uk (council)
Matt Brown writes:
>Missing one important proviso: public relations workers are quite
>welcome to edit wikipedia in a personal capacity. What has been
>prohibited is editing Wikipedia on behalf of a paying client.
Again, see the case of [[Arch Coal]]. Nobody paid or received any
compensation for the authorship of that article. Still, Jimmy Wales deleted
it and banned the original author.
The more excuses and explanations that the community comes up with, the more
obvious it is that you're avoiding the real issue. Wikipedia unilaterally
has chosen to discriminate against non-volunteer activity in the article
space, despite the fact that the credentials and income sources of 99% of
editors are never questioned or verified. Only those who state that they
are being paid are excluded. I would argue that if you looked at the
original authors of the New Pages in Wikipedia, 90% had some financial or
career "conflict of interest" that could be found if everyone was exposed to
a background check.
People who have never purchased or sold a pet skunk are unlikely to start an
article about [[Pet skunks]]. They don't seem to get banned, though.
--
Gregory Kohs
Cell: 302.463.1354
"George Herbert" wrote
> Greg Kohs sent me a private reply in which he indicated that his
> public replies were not getting through. If a listadmin blocked him
> from posting to the list, can someone tell him so affirmatively?
I've read his mails here. He promised to go away. But, hey, he's forgiven us all.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
"James Hare" wrote
> If it's strongly deprecated to the point where people are banned because
> they do it, that to me sounds like it's prohibited.
It's strongly deprecated for good reasons. What is a paid editor going to do in an edit war? You see, it's all fine editing WP, until someone disagrees with you. Smart people on the wiki then act _very carefully_, knowing that one's reputation is on the line.
Relatively smart paid editors will take everything they can get as their due, and make great difficulties about any concessions. They are being hired-gun POV pushers, in that. Non-smart paid editors will just bluster and bludgeon their way, until they are clearly in breach of policy. At best therefore we get a partisan editor of an unpopular type; at worst a typical 'ideologue'.
The chances of getting a really good wiki-literate paid editor seem very low, in fact. There are plenty of people, apparently, who think that reading a few policy pages and being able to wikilawyer about them gives one the basics of the WP culture. They are so wrong about that.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
"The Cunctator" wrote
> > Missing one important proviso: public relations workers are quite
> > welcome to edit wikipedia in a personal capacity. What has been
> > prohibited is editing Wikipedia on behalf of a paying client.
> I just don't understand why that should be.
It is not prohibited. It is strongly deprecated. See [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest]], a guideline.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
"The Cunctator" wrote
> ??
[[Wikipedia:OTRS]]: "In the context of Wikipedia, OTRS is used as a shorthand for the people, process, and software that surround the handling of email sent through the various Contact Wikipedia links."
> On 12/5/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 15:32:39 -0500, "The Cunctator"
> > <cunctator(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >What do you care is someone's called a dipstick? We shouldn't be passing
> > >value judgments, in the most part.
> >
> > I'll leave you to field the OTRS complaint then :-)
> >
> > Guy (JzG)
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Puppy wrote
> This
> leaves us back at square one, however - the bias and discomfort women
> are experiencing here.
Well, OK. A friend-of-a-friend was given the Gollum Prize for Tact by colleagues. Seems he's have been run close by a number of posters here.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
On 12/4/06, David Boothroyd <david(a)election.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> > > 3) The fact that Anne Milton is quoted by Sandra Howard asserting
> that
> > > Tim Ireland was "stalking" her through the weblog is particularly
> > > significant. It is a notably extreme accusation.
> >
> >Well, the jury will have to describe whether objecting to such
> >harassment makes Anne Milton more notable than otherwise. Or whether
> >she is reacting as a normal person might well do.
>
> That does beg the question of whether the existence of the blog or its
> contents amounts to "harassment", or whether such harassment would be
> over and above the level of scrutiny and fair comment anyone might
> expect when standing for public office. I haven't made my mind up on
> that.
And we should let people make up their own minds by letting them see the new
stories and the blog posts.
ALPHAX states:
Wrong. Spam and POV hagiographies are banned, *regardless* of who posts
them.
Alphax makes the common mistake of confusing the "submission" with the
"submitter". All public relations workers are not welcome to edit in
Wikipedia, regardless of the quality of their writing, or even whether
independent non-paid editors in good standing have personally vetted the
content before it's posted.
See [[Arch Coal]] again, if you're confused.
--
Gregory Kohs
Cell: 302.463.1354