It's been a while I created a Wikipedia article so I went for the GMO
controversy. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_organism_controversy_(Gh…>
Hopefully it will be allowed to stand alone and not merged with any other
international GMO discussion.
Nonetheless, I am inviting one of you to review it. Here is
how<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reviewing>
.
I am also holding a hangout on how the whole process went down for new
editors. Email me if interested.
Regards,
Sandister Tei
-----
Cardiff University
JOMEC -- International Journalism
www.sandistertei.com | +447448223686
Employed editing? Clarify. Because a company can employ someone to edit.
Regards,
Sandister Tei
-----
Cardiff University
JOMEC -- International Journalism
www.sandistertei.com | +447448223686
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 5:27 PM, Nkansah Rexford <nkansahrexford(a)gmail.com>wrote:
> Interesting read. Your question of who is right? Hmmm, for me, the
> Wikimedia foundation is right.
>
> The Wikimedia foundation frowns on paid editing, that's it I think.
> Employed editing is the way forward.
>
> Rexford | Africa Center | wikiafrica.net | sent from Tab
> On Feb 1, 2014 6:39 PM, "Sandister Tei" <sandistertei(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So someone got into trouble for paid editing<http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/01/wikimedia-foundation-employee-ou…>.
>> The Wikipedia article on paid editing doesn't say<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Paid_editing_(essay)>it's always wrong.
>>
>> Who is right?
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Sandister Tei
>> -----
>> Cardiff University
>> JOMEC -- International Journalism
>> www.sandistertei.com | +447448223686
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-GH mailing list
>> Wikimedia-GH(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-gh
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-GH mailing list
> Wikimedia-GH(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-gh
>
>