Carry on.
Asume good faith.
Edit the Wikipedia.
Controbute as you can.
Avoid pov.
Erlend bjørtvedt Oslo
Den torsdag 17. april 2014 skrev Zack Exley zexley@wikimedia.org følgende:
I haven't read this thread, but I'll explain my editing history as Wikitedium:
First of all, I listed my user name as soon as I started at Wikipedia. It's still listed here on my (out of date) staff/contractor page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zackexley
I did start an article about myself a long time ago. I didn't know there was a policy against it. I wasn't an active editor and knew virtually no policies. I created the article because right wing media personalities were doing hit pieces on me and the Republican party was sending out emails asking people to write letters to the editor about me featuring lots of false facts. So I saw Wikipedia as an open encyclopedia "that anyone can edit" where I could set the record straight. Later I learned it was against policy and FELT REALLY BAD.
As for the other edits on projects I was involved with. My personal opinion is that those kinds of edits are vital to the future of Wikipedia. I want everyone to add everything they're working on to Wikipedia -- and then all their critics to come and add what they know. I'm saddened every time I go looking for something I expect to be in Wikipedia and find nothing -- and am forced to rely on the organization's own site or whatever.
OK -- I think that's all you need from me. Now enjoy yourselves as you continue to grind Wikipedia to a whining halt.
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Risker <risker.wp@gmail.comjavascript:;> wrote:
On 17 April 2014 15:23, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth@gmail.comjavascript:;>
wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.orgjavascript:;
wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Pete Forsyth <
peteforsyth@gmail.com javascript:;>
wrote:
After he was hired, Zack continued to use that account -- more
responsibly,
yes -- but he neither corrected the false statement on its user
page,
or
disclose his connection to it.
That is untrue; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zackexley
Interesting, but not especially relevant. What path could a reader or editor of the Zack Exley article follow to learn about that connection?
Disclosing on the Zack Exley user page isn't sufficient to meet basic transparency.
Actually, it meets the requirements of the project. It's not perfect,
but
we have administrators who don't even give that much disclosure to their own alternate accounts (or that they edit without logging in), and
nobody's
getting the pitchforks out for them.
If you don't like the edits made by the account, work on-wiki to address the issues. You know how to start an AfD for any articles you think are about non-notable subjects, you know how to un-peacock an article.
If one really wants to push the COI envelope, one could say that users
who
are former employees of an organization shouldn't be editing articles related directly to the organization or its employees (salaried or contract), though. Indeed, one of the biggest COI issues we have on
English
Wikipedia is former employees trying to use our articles to "bring
problems
to light" about organizations.
The disclosure was made. Incidentally, that's all that would need to be done even at the farthest reaches of the proposed terms of use amendment.
Risker _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;
?subject=unsubscribe>
-- Zack _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; ?subject=unsubscribe>