The terms of use as explained on meta apply to all projects unless an alternative is in place. So sister projects do have similar restrictions on undisclosed paid editing.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Acti...
Different projects of course have varied degrees of enforcement of the TOU. Italian WP did delete the article in question a couple of times https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/AvaTrade
James
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 5:47 AM, Gabriel Thullen gabriel@thullen.com wrote:
I agree wholeheartedly with Vito. Thank you for bringing up this issue. Wikidata is part of the umbrella group of Wikimedia projects. Wikipedia has strict rules governing paid editing (at least in EN), and these rules are not even the same across different language editions. Most of the other projects do not have such rules. Wikimedia Commons, for example. Most of us know what product placement is. Do certain contributors earn their living from it? Why don't these "sister" projects have similar restrictions on paid contributions?
Gabe
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:35 AM, Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
We currently have some mean to fight paid editing, terms of services are "easy to violate" thus giving us a straightforward way to take action.
But
too often I see something like: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q16826370 obvious paid editors left totally free to do their job without even attracting some attention on them.
Vito
2017-04-23 13:58 GMT+02:00 Peter Southwood <peter.southwood@telkomsa.net :
I would think this is up to the chapter/affilate organisation, but no
harm
in getting a more universal collection of opinions. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gabriel Thullen Sent: Sunday, 23 April 2017 10:50 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing
companies
that offer paid editing services
I suggest another question, right after your #5. Undisclosed paid
editing
is one thing, dealing with disclosed paid editors within our community
is
another. You could add the following question: "Asking if we agree to let disclosed paid editors occupy key positions within the Wikimedia movement such as chapter board, official chapter spokesperson, affiliate organization board, etc."
On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 6:16 AM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com
wrote:
I've proposed asking wikimedians at large what they think should be done about paid advocacy editing, as item number 5 on my periodic survey proposal composed of all the unresolved questions over the
last
quarter on this list at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:James_Salsman# Periodic_survey_prototype
On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 2:50 PM Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Has there been a recent substantial discussion by the community
surrounding
promotional/biased editting paid or otherwise, which had an outcome resulting in a specific request for assistance or increased action by
the
WMF?
Aside from the conversation on this list, I'm aware of the discussion on Jimbo's talk page. If WMF Legal or the WMF Board
wants
to take the
position
that it would like to see a community RfC or some other such discussion,
I
imagine that such can be arranged, and I can see how that might be beneficial. Of course, anyone is free to initiate such an on-wiki discussion.
If there hasn't, I do not see grounds for you to be expecting an
official
response from Legal to a list whose conversation has for the most part consisted of about 6 people?
I'm not sure why you would be telling other people to whom they can initiate requests and the conditions under which they can be made.
I
already have a dim view of WMF's customer service; please don't dig the hole any deeper.
Many others, I am sure, would rightly complain if the Foundation
unilaterally made decisions in this area.
That is possible if WMF were to do something particularly novel, so your sense of caution here is well taken. I would hope that WMF would discuss its plans with the community and have a conversation before actually initiating novel actions.
But please be realistic, this is a coffee table discussion.
I have mixed views on this. Wikimedia-l is not a quiet back room with
only
a few people around, but it's true that a consensus here among a small number of people who speak up in a particular discussion demonstrates a lower level of consensus than an RfC with hundreds
of
participants. It's not clear to me that there is consensus on which tools are appropriate
for
which exact circumstances, and some discussions happen in multiple
venues.
The views expressed here are valid but the right
thing to do would be to further the conversation on wiki and have a
proper
community conversation.
I don't think that there is a single definition of a "proper" community conversation.
I have no objection to having an on-wiki RfC (and I can see how a sophisticated and well-attended one might produce detailed guidance that would be helpful), but neither do I want this thread to be
trivialized.
Pine _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.8013 / Virus Database: 4769/14365 - Release Date:
04/23/17
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe