2009/12/3 Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com:
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 18:18, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
I support Liam's idea and think we might want to look at a two-tier policy:
1- have "verified" accounts, which are used by some companies/organisation to do "encyclopedic work" 2- disallow using a company's name in one's user name if they have not asked for a verification - and provided the right credentials
This said, I am completely with Lodewijk on the fact that I find incredible that we push companies to actually make what is nothing else than sock puppets accounts, because we don't allow to have a company's name in the user name. I am sure this has been debated at length, but I fail to see how this can be better than being able to identify staff from a company contributing to an article.
Delphine
The idea of verified accounts raises all sorts of questions and potential problems. The Wikimedia Foundation might be able to verify that users requesting a "company account" are connected to that company, if the account is on the English Wikipedia. But can the Foundation be sure that the existence of a company account is authorized by that company? Can they do anything at all in other languages? Should the process of "verification" be left to OTRS, or some other group on each wiki? If verified status is granted erroneously, and it impacts the reputation of a particular company, who is responsible?
Among other reasons, the English Wikipedia bans role accounts (including corporate accounts) because we wish people to act on their own behalf, and not claim the support or backing of a corporation. With limited capacity to verify the basis for any claimed role, we end up treating all such claims as suspect anyway. This restriction may be inconvenient in some instances, but far more trouble is prevented by maintaining the simplicity of individual to individual interaction.
As an example, Wikipedia administrators do not take action "on behalf of Wikipedia" when they enforce project policies. If the user behind the "ACME Cola" account earned a block, it would be an individual administrator on their own initiative blocking an account that represents an entire Fortune 100 corporation. This imbalance of agency could make administrators hesitate to take otherwise appropriate action.
Personally, I would much rather deal with an individual than with an anonymous representative of a corporate giant - and very little that can be accomplished with a role account can't be accomplished with a personal account. Simply state on the user page "My name is John Smith, public relations representative for ACME Cola Inc. Please contact me at john.smith@acmecola.com or 800-ACM-COLA, or use my talkpage." If they want to voluntarily identify their organizational affiliation, then nothing prevents them from doing so in this way.
Nathan