On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:24 AM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
As a former staff member who actively sought out (and received very little) guidance on how to approach my approach to Wikipedia editing during my tenure,
In other words, you were expected to apply good judgment. It would have been nice if you had been given explicit assurances that editing Wikipedia while you're on staff (obviously primarily outside of work time) is perfectly fine, because it is. :)
I would like to avoid naming names in this thread, but surely you can see the risks associated with the approach you *have* taken? Leaving the Belfer Center situation aside,
.. which, if anything, could have been avoided had everyone who was part of the project been a bit more experienced with Wikimedia norms and practices.
this year there has been significant media coverage of a prominent staff member whose employment ended abruptly over paid editing that, on the face of it, violated no publicly known policy.
When money and undisclosed side contracts are involved, things get a lot more complicated - shocking, I know. Hard cases make bad law. We should default to openness, to encouraging participation in our community, and to forgiving mistakes. That is the right thing to do for an organization that is, needs to be, and will remain anchored in the community.
On this, you and I seem to be about as far apart as we can be, so we will have to agree to disagree. This is why in threads like the Belfer one I encourage people to stay cool and not let this stuff get to their heads, because this is the kind of moral panicky BS we need to stay the hell clear of.
Erik