On 17 April 2014 17:05, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) <bjorsch(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
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&am…
.
Nobody has blasted Victor. In fact I feel very confident saying that every
single person in this thread agrees this was a constructive edit. If
anybody disagrees, please speak up.
As I see it, the reason edits like Victor's was brought up is very clear:
to highlight the contrast between that edit, and the kinds of edits that
have led to WMF staff getting reportedly fired, or banned from editing by
the volunteer-run ARBCOM with language that is more typical of what a Human
Resources department would be expected to use.
This thread was opened with an invitation for the WMF to comment generally
on staff editing (and I agree that focusing on COI probably does miss a few
other important things). To my eyes, that commentary has been dissatisfying
so far, but I think there's room for more discussion, especially if we can
all keep our cool, as Erik recommends, and focus on the broader themes.
On that point, I want to be really clear: a policy for employees is a
delicate thing, and my examples before were only intended to suggest that
there is room for worthwhile discussion -- NOT to open a collaborative
process using an email list to draft a policy. A policy document would
probably be a little longer than a sentence or two (I think this much is
obvious, but perhaps not.)
I think my own statement of ethics is a little closer to the type of thing
I'd expect the Wikimedia Foundation to adopt, guiding (among a few other
things) its staff's approach to editing Wikipedia and other projects:
http://wikistrategies.net/statement-of-ethics/
-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]