Nathan,
I am unable to find a mention of sockpuppetry in the Terms of Use, whether in Section 4 or elsewhere.
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use
I don't think there could be such a mention, really, given that project policies recognise a number of legitimate uses of socks.
A.
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 12:52 AM, Russavia <russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com
wrote:
Yes, Nathan, please let us cut the bullshit, for I have a pretty low tolerance for it, and I am happy to call you out on it.
You are right, I don't see anywhere in Odder's blog or in my posts on
this
list that Sarah is being accused of sock puppetry. I don't know why you
are
making this totally irrelevation correlation, or is this you simply
trying
to run interference? (Very poorly I might add, but certainly a better attempt than Gerard). I suggest that you re-read the cease and desist letter (
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/11/19/wikimedia-foundation-sends-cease-and-d...
) at the very top of page 2 you can see in pretty plain English that the
WMF
has invoked Section 4 of the Terms of Use, in which the WMF makes veiled legal threats of fraud, misrepresentation, etc. It is showing severe naivety on your part if you think the Wiki-PR case was built around a
farm
of sockpuppets; that was merely the catalyst for the anti-paid editing crowd to really sink their teeth into the situation -- that should surely be evident from Sue's press release.
You must not have read the actual cease and desist letter. I understand, it's several paragraphs, and that level of investigatory work is too burdensome when you are racing to cause maximum drama. To quote a part of the relevant portion "This practice, known as sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, is expressly prohibited by Wikipedia's Terms of Use." This is supported by the actual text of section 4 of the Terms of Use, which mention sockpuppetry but do not mention paid editing.
So the bullshit, to return to the point, is you accusing Sarah of violating the Terms of Use. Even if she did write an article for $300, she did not violate the ToU. Your claim otherwise is meant to be incendiary, and is at a minimum ignorant but much more likely simply dishonest. Your support of Wiki-PR, a group that did indisputably break the ToU and caused hundreds of hours worth of clean up work, proves that whatever motivates you in this thread it certainly isn't the benefit of the Wikimedia movement or any legitimate part of it. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe