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:
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(a)telkomsa.net>et>:
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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>