Shouldn't articles be judged independently of who exactly wrote them and for what reason?
If an article reads well, has good content, is sourced, neutral etc, what's the issue exactly?
On 24 May 2018 at 12:28, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
I find this rather disturbing that Airtasker accepts adds for people wanting to have articles written, on wikipedia.
The person writing the add is asking someone to violate WMF terms & Conditions as you can some of the respondents are indicating that they do this regularly
https://www.airtasker.com/tasks/copywriter-for-a- wikipedia-article-10031171/
Would it be prudent for the WMF legal to contact Airtasker, highlight our T&Cs and have them block such requests from being posted. Airtasker themselves also gets paid when people write Wikipedia articles
-- GN. Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again: Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017. Order here https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again- reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8 . _______________________________________________ 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