On 13 June 2012 14:14, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
They're also interested in https://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Draft_best_practice_guidelines_for_PR which is a how-not-to-foul-up guide put together by WMUK. But of course that's descriptive and not normative.
I think a line you could take is like this: there is that guide, which starts with chat and what Lord Bell and Jimbo say, and ends up with a list of Don'ts. It's all perfectly fine except that the order is completely back-to-front. "Don't share your password" with anyone? Merely a violation of terms of use of the site when there is megaphone diplomacy to do. Who is likely to share passwords? The classic solitary-geek-in-bedroom stereotype, or a busy person who would like his/her deputy to update something while he/she goes to a client meeting?
Metaphor time: some people think there should be a litmus test for who is allowed to edit, some think there should be a duck test, and some people think no test (just AGF until you can't, in other words). Duck test is closer to the truth for COI, and perceived COI should be a reason for switching to another test: no amount of good edits outweigh the bad. All sins are then mortal.
Good paid editors who have an actual COI are basically like poker players, aren't they? If they are smart they are only occasionally bluffing. That is why we hate the idea. Either we have to check all their edits, or we have to know more than they do about "tells".
HTH
Charles