On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.comwrote:
"Employees and contractors of the Wikimedia Foundation shall not edit articles relating to the Wikimedia Foundation, broadly construed, but at rather directed to raise potential edits on the talk pages of affected articles. This directive does not apply to the reverting vandalism, removing copyright violations or potentially libellous materials."
Before people go too far along these lines, consider whether whatever policy you propose would result in stupidity like my having to code AnomieBOT with a blacklist of pages it's not allowed to do its bot work on.
There's not a sharp divide between "community" and "staff", some of us are both and would like to remain both.
From my purely personal perspective, I've often felt that concerns over COI
and paid editing in and of themselves are often grossly overblown. COI is a problem when it leads to POV violations and the like, and it can be difficult for people to respect POV and other policies when they have a COI. But it's not *impossible* to make good edits despite a COI and raising a fuss over COI absent any concern with the actual edits made seems like trying to cause trouble rather than doing something productive.
For example, others are blasting Victor (whom I may have met, but if I have it slipped my mind in the middle of all the other people I've met) for https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zack_Exley&diff=506286326&.... That's utterly silly: Victor took a freely-licensed photograph of someone with an existing Wikipedia article, uploaded it to Commons, and changed the article to use it. This is **exactly what we want people to do**. Why does that change just because Victor works for WMF?