On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Anders Wennersten < mail@anderswennersten.se> wrote:
phoebe ayers skrev 2014-02-20 20:16:
- I think this proposal is trying to addressing a long-standing issue of
COI editing. That issue was recently brought to the forefront again by the actions of a few companies, but it's been an issue for a long while.
Please remember this is a description of the reality on en:wp. The reality looks very different on other version.
Thanks for talking about your situation :) I do think it's right to say this has been a concern on several projects, not only enwp, but it is true every wiki is different.
On svwp we are a group of a few hundred active contributes where paid editors and volunteers have a fruitful cooperation to create valuable and neutral articles. When we have discussed this proposal on our Village Pump we think it would be good to have it as a guideline and loose recommendation but if it would become mandatory we believe it would actually hurt our community and work. We are not bigger than it is possible for me alone to inspect all new articles from nonwikipedians 24/7, and react appropriate to different problems in the articles, and recognizing patterns of "strange" edits, and others are able to do the same for changes in articles
So please let each project decide on how to tackle the COi issue by themselves, and encourage exchange on best practices in the area. But also make sure No mandatory restrictions on all projects on contributers like this that would seriously harm the work in several projects
How do you seeing this as a restriction on contribution? As it is proposed it's not saying edits will be rejected, only that contributors who are paid to edit should note this on their userpage or in edit summaries. I think that every edit would still be subject to the same kind of editorial scrutiny that happens now.
(note I'm not arguing that this proposal is exactly the right answer, I just don't follow the reasoning why you think it would restrict contributions).
best, -- phoebe