Is it ethical for a Wiki editor, who is also an admistrator, to edit both sides of an issue?
tm
On 3/31/06, Thommandel@aol.com Thommandel@aol.com wrote:
Is it ethical for a Wiki editor, who is also an admistrator, to edit both sides of an issue?
Yes
Theresa
G'day Thom,
Is it ethical for a Wiki editor, who is also an admistrator, to edit both sides of an issue?
If that editor is a good Wikipedian --- and, being an administrator, we should hope he is --- then it is entirely appropriate for him (or her) to edit any article he (or she) damn well pleases.
It's called "writing from a netural point-of-view", and some of us pride ourselves on our ability to do just that.
You might as well ask if it's ethical for me to edit an article about Manchester United FC ...
On 3/31/06, Thommandel@aol.com Thommandel@aol.com wrote:
Is it ethical for a Wiki editor, who is also an admistrator, to edit both sides of an issue?
An editor should always try and edit "both sides" of an issue. If the administrator in question has taken administrative action on the page (blocking users, protecting etc), then they should probably avoid editing it. Or do I have that the wrong way around?
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 3/31/06, Thommandel@aol.com Thommandel@aol.com wrote:
Is it ethical for a Wiki editor, who is also an admistrator, to edit both sides of an issue?
An editor should always try and edit "both sides" of an issue. If the administrator in question has taken administrative action on the page (blocking users, protecting etc), then they should probably avoid editing it. Or do I have that the wrong way around?
Wrong way around. If an admin finds an edit war in progress, I see no problem with them blocking or protecting and then editing. However, an admin blocking or protecting on an article where they are more than trivially involved can be seen as a conflict of interest, and should be avoided.