On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 11:57 PM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 11:21 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
The community guidelines are extremely complex, yes. I consider that an argument *in favor* of adopting simpler rules for staff, that exceed community rules. For a general idea, here are the kind of rules that
could
be implemented for staff:
- Staff will not edit Wikipedia, at all
- Staff will not edit Wikipedia unless they have discussed appropriate
boundaries around their editing with their supervisor
- Staff will not edit Wikipedia unless they have discussed appropriate
boundaries with XYZ people in the Community department
Any policies like that would increase disconnect between WMF and community, not decrease it.
As a former staff member who actively sought out (and received very little) guidance on how to approach my approach to Wikipedia editing during my tenure, I very strongly disagree. (My volunteer edits dropped sharply during the time I was employed by WMF.[1] A significant contributing factor was not knowing under what circumstances I would have cover from my employer if I encountered resistance to my volunteer editing.)
It would disincentivize hiring from the
community (because it's risky),
I would like to avoid naming names in this thread, but surely you can see the risks associated with the approach you *have* taken? Leaving the Belfer Center situation aside, this year there has been significant media coverage of a prominent staff member whose employment ended abruptly over paid editing that, on the face of it, violated no publicly known policy. And last year, a staff member who was hired specifically for their skills in community engagement was banned by English Wikipedia for harassment -- and as far as I know, remains on the payroll.
If "connection with the community" was a consideration in setting your policy, your policy has had some dramatic failures.
and would disincentivize community
members from applying to join the staff (because they'd have to give up a loved hobby).
Responsibility typically comes with sacrifices. Leaving that responsibility up to individual staff members, rather than engaging with it at an organizational level, does not seem to have been an effective approach.
It would reduce the likelihood of managers to encourage people to become editors (because it's dangerous)
You expect managers to encourage their staff to become editors? That strikes me as a strange expectation. But again: my strong contention is that guidelines that *exceed* Wikipedia's policies in clarity, make it *less* dangerous to edit, not more dangerous.
and
instead encourage a more corporate mentality
"Corporate mentality" sound to me like an appeal to an emotional response from a community that is not always sympathetic to capitalism. But many policies and approaches taken by corporations have been evolved throughout history because they are effective and worthwhile -- not because they are corporate and evil.
Guidelines around how to interact with a community you exist to serve seems like an especially important area. Why is the Wikimedia Foundation trying to reinvent the wheel here? Or maybe a better analogy -- why is the Wikimedia Foundation's position that wheels actually aren't all that important after all?
understanding the thing you support is key to supporting it well.
On this part we agree 100%. My concerns are not about the goal, but about the path you have taken to try to reach it.
The COI stuff is scary because it sets of people's alarm bells around integrity and ethics, but it shouldn't be as scary. A COI edit of an article about yourself is an entirely different ball o' wax than an edit on behalf of a paying client.
No. Simply, no.
Like Sue said, everyone was new once, and it takes people a while to learn the ropes. And even those of us who've been around for a while sometimes do things we shouldn't
- we're all human.
I do not hear anybody saying that simple human mistakes are inexcusable.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
[1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/supercount/index.php?user=Peteforsyth&project=...