What does any of this have to do with Wikipedia? There are already policies in place regarding NPOV and NPA, and there are multiple dispute resolution processes in place to handle serial/chronic non-compliance. What protections does _anyone_ have against defamation on Wikipedia? Well, if they are the subject of an article there is WP:BLP. If they are just an editor and not the subject of the article there is the policy mandating No Personal Attacks. What makes you think these won't work if people are getting paid? Is this an issue of scalability? If so, it seems a little late to be worried about whether or not the idea of Wikipedia is scalable.
MW
**********
The point here is paid employees of a non-profit entity with an agenda evidenced by initiating internal processes of dispute resolution. This is something not addressed in any policies anywhere. ( 1 ) They are agents of a non-profit entity; ( 2 ) volunteers in dispute have no disclosure as to * whom* they are in dispute with; ( 3 ) the dispute may not be initiated for the purposes of improving articles or writing an encyclopedia; ( 4 ) what protections do volunteer editors, acting in good faith, have against being targeted and publicly defamed by a non-profit entity with a political agenda?
_________________________________________________________________ Mortgage rates as low as 4.625% - Refinance $150,000 loan for $579 a month. Intro*Terms https://www2.nextag.com/goto.jsp?product=100000035&url=%2fst.jsp&tm=...
On 3/7/07, Mercenary Wikipedian mercenarywikipedian@hotmail.com wrote:
What does any of this have to do with Wikipedia? There are already policies in place regarding NPOV and NPA, and there are multiple dispute resolution processes in place to handle serial/chronic non-compliance. What protections does _anyone_ have against defamation on Wikipedia? Well, if they are the subject of an article there is WP:BLP. If they are just an editor and not the subject of the article there is the policy mandating No Personal Attacks. What makes you think these won't work if people are getting paid? Is this an issue of scalability? If so, it seems a little late to be worried about whether or not the idea of Wikipedia is scalable.
MW
The point here is paid employees of a non-profit entity with an agenda evidenced by initiating internal processes of dispute resolution. This is something not addressed in any policies anywhere. ( 1 ) They are agents of a non-profit entity; ( 2 ) volunteers in dispute have no disclosure as to
whom* they are in dispute with; ( 3 ) the dispute may not be initiated for the purposes of improving articles or writing an encyclopedia; ( 4 ) what protections do volunteer editors, acting in good faith, have against being targeted and publicly defamed by a non-profit entity with a political agenda?
Mortgage rates as low as 4.625% - Refinance $150,000 loan for $579 a month. Intro*Terms
https://www2.nextag.com/goto.jsp?product=100000035&url=%2fst.jsp&tm=...
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
None is addressed in current policies. And there is evidence Wikipedia is being used for purposes *other than* writing an encyclopedia, i.e. to target certain individuals and smear their character. The Daniel Brandt episode is one such case. Stephen Kinsella and the Ludwig von Mises Institute is another. The Free Congress Foundation and Paul Weyrich is a target for much questionable content being added, as well as an anonymous editor who identified himself as a professional journalist and friend of Weyrich received a community ban for efforts to instill NPOV & fairness in those two articles.
By contrast, User:Katefan0, aka Kathryn Wolfe of *Scripps Howard* did precisely the samething as Weyrich's friend, admitted a conflict of interest prior to initiating official Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Policy, was promoted to Admin, presented evidence before Arbitrators admitting her conflict of interest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rangerdude/E...
yet the Arbs used her evidence against an aggrieved party. There are numerous other instances to be cited where a pattern is established that the intent of some parties, acting as agents of others, are using Wikipedia to pursue their own aims and not constructively contribute to the encyclopedia.
Rob Smith (User:Nobs) has just named a former admin who did not choose to name herself. Can the people monitoring the list step in, please?
Sarah
On 3/7/07, Rob Smith nobs03@gmail.com wrote:
None is addressed in current policies. And there is evidence Wikipedia is being used for purposes *other than* writing an encyclopedia, i.e. to target certain individuals and smear their character. The Daniel Brandt episode is one such case. Stephen Kinsella and the Ludwig von Mises Institute is another. The Free Congress Foundation and Paul Weyrich is a target for much questionable content being added, as well as an anonymous editor who identified himself as a professional journalist and friend of Weyrich received a community ban for efforts to instill NPOV & fairness in those two articles.
By contrast, User:Katefan0, aka Kathryn Wolfe of *Scripps Howard* did precisely the samething as Weyrich's friend, admitted a conflict of interest prior to initiating official Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Policy, was promoted to Admin, presented evidence before Arbitrators admitting her conflict of interest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rangerdude/E...
yet the Arbs used her evidence against an aggrieved party. There are numerous other instances to be cited where a pattern is established that the intent of some parties, acting as agents of others, are using Wikipedia to pursue their own aims and not constructively contribute to the encyclopedia. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 07/03/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Rob Smith (User:Nobs) has just named a former admin who did not choose to name herself. Can the people monitoring the list step in, please?
That was indeed the last straw. He's on mod now.
- d.
On 3/7/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/03/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Rob Smith (User:Nobs) has just named a former admin who did not choose to name herself. Can the people monitoring the list step in, please?
That was indeed the last straw. He's on mod now.
Thanks, David.
On 3/7/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/7/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/03/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Rob Smith (User:Nobs) has just named a former admin who did not choose to name herself. Can the people monitoring the list step in, please?
That was indeed the last straw. He's on mod now.
Thanks, David.
All I know is what I read in the newspapers.
Rob Smith User:Nobs01 & Nobs02
The continual re-hashing of ancient issues in a very partisan way was getting very tiresome, as well.
-Matt
On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 22:34:39 +0000, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Rob Smith (User:Nobs) has just named a former admin who did not choose to name herself. Can the people monitoring the list step in, please?
That was indeed the last straw. He's on mod now.
Pity. One of the less problematic indef-blocked members of the list. But I don't dispute your judgment, Rob's been getting steadily less moderate over time.
I feel bad about the extension of his ban by ArbCom. I hold myself partly to blame for that.
Guy (JzG)