Odder has published a fantastic blog piece at http://twkozlowski.net/paid-editing-thrives-in-the-heart-of-wikipedia/ in which it is revealed that a WMF employee is engaged in undeclared paid editing on English Wikipedia, and charging what it appears to be $300 per article.
I have cc'ed both Sue and Jimmy in on this email, but also sending to this list as I know they, and other WMF employees, do use this list, and I think it would be pertinent that they respond publicly to the issues raised here. It is ever so more important given that the undeclared paid editing occurred AFTER the whole Wiki-PR debacle (Sue's press release, WMF's cease-and-desist, and of course the resultant media attention).
What do Jimmy and Sue believe should occur given that such editing violates Wikipedia policies and also Jimmy's so-called Bright Line Rule. In relation to Jimmy's line, many are still clueless as to what exactly this Bright Line is (it's not very bright), and how it should be applied in practice, so Jimmy, if you are out there, your comment is requested on that.
Cheers,
Russavia
There seems to be some pretty heavy assumptions in Odder's article - it all just seems to be speculation based upon one very vague comment in her work history. Was she contacted before the blog post was made and brought to this list to ask for clarification?
Cheers, Craig
On 6 January 2014 09:42, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Odder has published a fantastic blog piece at http://twkozlowski.net/paid-editing-thrives-in-the-heart-of-wikipedia/ in which it is revealed that a WMF employee is engaged in undeclared paid editing on English Wikipedia, and charging what it appears to be $300 per article.
I have cc'ed both Sue and Jimmy in on this email, but also sending to this list as I know they, and other WMF employees, do use this list, and I think it would be pertinent that they respond publicly to the issues raised here. It is ever so more important given that the undeclared paid editing occurred AFTER the whole Wiki-PR debacle (Sue's press release, WMF's cease-and-desist, and of course the resultant media attention).
What do Jimmy and Sue believe should occur given that such editing violates Wikipedia policies and also Jimmy's so-called Bright Line Rule. In relation to Jimmy's line, many are still clueless as to what exactly this Bright Line is (it's not very bright), and how it should be applied in practice, so Jimmy, if you are out there, your comment is requested on that.
Cheers,
Russavia _______________________________________________ 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
No idea Craig, but http://i.imgur.com/iYBNjhH.png does say that she last worked on 23 December, which would loosely tie in with edit timeframes on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sally_Hogshead&action=history
It should also be noted that the article was previously deleted as per https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Sally+Hogshe... 2010. Sally Hogshead (so it would seem) was subjected to a sockpuppet case at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sallyhogsh... the very day that the previous article was deleted.
So it shouldn't surprise us that Sally would turn to paying for an experienced editor to write her promo bio. The article as it reads today reads like a typical puff piece posing as a Wikipedia article. The sourcing obviously leaves a lot to be desired, largely made up of interviews and the like.
Perhaps Sarah could explain herself on list here, I believe she is on it. If this isn't the article in question, I am sure she will explain which article for an individual she was paid $300. Personally, I believe Sarah is short changing herself, such work should cost more than $300, and I don't care if she is engaging in paid editing, but given that the WMF is now resorting to the ED putting out press releases and issuing cease-and-desist letters, she surely knows that as an employee of the WMF she is in either a precarious position here, or in a prime position to advocate for paid editing and explain why it's not all that bad. I hope she takes the latter route :)
Cheers,
Russavia
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Craig Franklin cfranklin@halonetwork.netwrote:
There seems to be some pretty heavy assumptions in Odder's article - it all just seems to be speculation based upon one very vague comment in her work history. Was she contacted before the blog post was made and brought to this list to ask for clarification?
Cheers, Craig
On 6 January 2014 09:42, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Odder has published a fantastic blog piece at http://twkozlowski.net/paid-editing-thrives-in-the-heart-of-wikipedia/in which it is revealed that a WMF employee is engaged in undeclared paid editing on English Wikipedia, and charging what it appears to be $300 per article.
I have cc'ed both Sue and Jimmy in on this email, but also sending to
this
list as I know they, and other WMF employees, do use this list, and I
think
it would be pertinent that they respond publicly to the issues raised
here.
It is ever so more important given that the undeclared paid editing occurred AFTER the whole Wiki-PR debacle (Sue's press release, WMF's cease-and-desist, and of course the resultant media attention).
What do Jimmy and Sue believe should occur given that such editing
violates
Wikipedia policies and also Jimmy's so-called Bright Line Rule. In
relation
to Jimmy's line, many are still clueless as to what exactly this Bright Line is (it's not very bright), and how it should be applied in practice, so Jimmy, if you are out there, your comment is requested on that.
Cheers,
Russavia _______________________________________________ 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
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
On 6 January 2014 00:23, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Of course, this is not being brought up because of anything to do with your own vicious and odious personal attacks on individuals on Commons in any manner whatsoever.
Back under the bridge.
- d.
David,
Myself, I like Sarah, we've had some good and entertaining discussions, and I even nominated her for RfA on Commons ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators/Requests/SarahStie...). My posting here has nothing to do with bitch-slapping Sarah ( http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=75849#p75849). Odder has presented information, which raises many questions, not necessarily of Sarah, but of those in the Foundation hierachy who have publicly spoken out about paid editing in general.
By all rights, if Sue's statement and Jimmy's well-known-but-not-so-coherent position is meant to have teeth, Sarah should also be served with a cease-and-desist notice for obvious paid editing, and for violating the terms of use. Otherwise the cease-and-desist notice the WMF sent to Wiki-PR ( https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/11/19/wikimedia-foundation-sends-cease-and-d...) is basically worthless. I have, of course, taken the liberty to contact Jordan French of Wiki-PR to advise them of Odder's blog, and of these postings on this mailing list, so that they can follow it for their own purposes, and see what public response comes from the powers-that-be at the WMF.
So David, if you can stick to the topic instead of using nonsensical personal attacks on myself, perhaps you can explain your position here. I surely think that Sarah wouldn't appreciate your comments that people who engage in paid editing are trying to "fuck up Wikipedia for commercial advantage". Whilst we will obviously wait for Sarah to comment publicly here, what do you see as being the difference between Wiki-PR and Sarah? Should she be subjected to an en.wp community ban? Should she be served with cease-and-desist notices from WMF legal? Or is it that insiders on our projects are treated differently by the powers-that-be to those who don't have that privilege? (We all know the answer to that last question!)
As to motives for the blog post, take it up with Odder, it's his post. My motive in posting here is purely to generate discussion on obvious "organizational issues of the Wikimedia Foundation"; and paid editing is one of the major organizational issues of recent months, even looking at Wales' talk page on en.wp, it is basically full of bright line, COI and paid editing discussions, and has been for some time now.
Anyway, I look forward to hearing from Sarah on this issue, and again, she has my support in regards to this issue.
Cheers,
Russavia
Let's be clear, Russavia - the terms of use bar sockpuppetry, and the cease and desist refers to concealing the identity of the author to deceive the editing community. I don't see that you've accused Sarah of sockpuppetry, so why not cut the bullshit? Thanks for notifying Wiki-PR, by the way, I'm sure everyone on this list really appreciates that.
If there's one thing I love about Wikimedia, it's when tendentious and self-righteous barnacles on the community make it a mission to tear down good-hearted and dedicated Wikimedians at the expense of the movement.
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.
I seriously don't see why you think me contacting Wiki-PR to alert them of these posts here, so that they can follow it, as a bad thing. I thought that the "movement" was built around the notion of transparency. If terms of use are being invoked with them, don't they have the right to know of other such cases where they will likely be ignored because it's an insider we are talking about? That Sarah has engaged in undeclared paid editing is of her own doing -- we are all responsible for our own editing. She chose to engage in such editing immediately after a massive scandal knowing full well the possible consequences if it was discovered.
It is not people like Odder who blogs or myself who dares step into the holy inner sanctum who will tear Sarah down, it is the tendentious and self-righteous barnacles that adhere to the "paid editing is bad mmmkay" mantra that is peddled from above on Wikipedia, and lately by the Wikimedia Foundation itself, and adhered to blindly by the masses, who will do that.
So Nathan, where do you stand on the paid editing issue? Does Jimmy's bright line rule, and Sue's statements, apply to insiders as well as to the world-at-large?
But again, let's wait for Sarah's comments first on these revelations. And then we can get those within the movement who have so publicly taken a stance on paid editing, namely Sue and Jimmy, to clarify where they truly stand on these issues for once and for all.
Cheers,
Russavia
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Let's be clear, Russavia - the terms of use bar sockpuppetry, and the cease and desist refers to concealing the identity of the author to deceive the editing community. I don't see that you've accused Sarah of sockpuppetry, so why not cut the bullshit? Thanks for notifying Wiki-PR, by the way, I'm sure everyone on this list really appreciates that.
If there's one thing I love about Wikimedia, it's when tendentious and self-righteous barnacles on the community make it a mission to tear down good-hearted and dedicated Wikimedians at the expense of the movement. _______________________________________________ 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
Or to translate "who cares what harm I do by peddling these assertions without verifying them! I just want people to come along and admit I was Right, because being Right on the internet is the most important of all the things".
Your comment here makes clear that your only interest in the situation is trying to bend people like Jimmy over a barrel in the hopes that they'll tearfully exclaim that, yes, they were wrong, paid editing is hunky-dory and oh, if /only we'd listened to Russavia/. Stop, please.
On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 9:52 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.comwrote:
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.
I seriously don't see why you think me contacting Wiki-PR to alert them of these posts here, so that they can follow it, as a bad thing. I thought that the "movement" was built around the notion of transparency. If terms of use are being invoked with them, don't they have the right to know of other such cases where they will likely be ignored because it's an insider we are talking about? That Sarah has engaged in undeclared paid editing is of her own doing -- we are all responsible for our own editing. She chose to engage in such editing immediately after a massive scandal knowing full well the possible consequences if it was discovered.
It is not people like Odder who blogs or myself who dares step into the holy inner sanctum who will tear Sarah down, it is the tendentious and self-righteous barnacles that adhere to the "paid editing is bad mmmkay" mantra that is peddled from above on Wikipedia, and lately by the Wikimedia Foundation itself, and adhered to blindly by the masses, who will do that.
So Nathan, where do you stand on the paid editing issue? Does Jimmy's bright line rule, and Sue's statements, apply to insiders as well as to the world-at-large?
But again, let's wait for Sarah's comments first on these revelations. And then we can get those within the movement who have so publicly taken a stance on paid editing, namely Sue and Jimmy, to clarify where they truly stand on these issues for once and for all.
Cheers,
Russavia
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Let's be clear, Russavia - the terms of use bar sockpuppetry, and the
cease
and desist refers to concealing the identity of the author to deceive the editing community. I don't see that you've accused Sarah of sockpuppetry, so why not cut the bullshit? Thanks for notifying Wiki-PR, by the way,
I'm
sure everyone on this list really appreciates that.
If there's one thing I love about Wikimedia, it's when tendentious and self-righteous barnacles on the community make it a mission to tear down good-hearted and dedicated Wikimedians at the expense of the movement. _______________________________________________ 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
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
hi there,
my personal reading of WikiPR case was that their fundamental wrongdoing was twofold: one was possibly violating the rules for content (neutrality, etc.), and the other was most certainly violating the rules of representation (sockpuppeting). Paid editing in the mind of many Wikimedians is strongly negatively associated, as it is assumed that it requires bending the rules for money.
However, I am not entirely certain this is always the case. I've recently made a point in The Daily Dot that Wikimedia movement could actually benefit from explicitly allowing paid editing (even though my main point is pragmatic, I believe that we basically would be better off if paid editors had to identify themselves, rather than lurk in the shadows): http://www.dailydot.com/opinion/why-wikipedia-needs-paid-editing/
To be clear: I have never done paid editing, and I do not like the idea of WMF employees doing it even if they follow the rules to the letter. However, even if Sarah did write a Wikipedia article for money (and she has not had a chance to address this allegation yet) this does not automatically equate to WikiPR's pattern of behavior, as she has not hidden her identity (which she obviously could), and we are yet to see how the created article violated the rules for content neutrality, verifiability, etc. Granted, she crossed Jimbo's Bright Line, but his is just one point of view, and not a policy yet. Perhaps it is about time to reflect on how should the policies be shaped, so that we require ALL paid edits to be openly registered and declared (allowing a thorough review from the community), but that we do not automatically forbid all of them (as effectively it pushes them into the black market and forces them to stay under the radar).
In any case, I think it would be a much better practice to allow Sarah to reply to such allegations first. Had Odder contacted her, or passed the case to the Signpost, it would be handled with more grace, I think.
best,
dariusz "pundit"
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 6:52 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.comwrote:
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.
I seriously don't see why you think me contacting Wiki-PR to alert them of these posts here, so that they can follow it, as a bad thing. I thought that the "movement" was built around the notion of transparency. If terms of use are being invoked with them, don't they have the right to know of other such cases where they will likely be ignored because it's an insider we are talking about? That Sarah has engaged in undeclared paid editing is of her own doing -- we are all responsible for our own editing. She chose to engage in such editing immediately after a massive scandal knowing full well the possible consequences if it was discovered.
It is not people like Odder who blogs or myself who dares step into the holy inner sanctum who will tear Sarah down, it is the tendentious and self-righteous barnacles that adhere to the "paid editing is bad mmmkay" mantra that is peddled from above on Wikipedia, and lately by the Wikimedia Foundation itself, and adhered to blindly by the masses, who will do that.
So Nathan, where do you stand on the paid editing issue? Does Jimmy's bright line rule, and Sue's statements, apply to insiders as well as to the world-at-large?
But again, let's wait for Sarah's comments first on these revelations. And then we can get those within the movement who have so publicly taken a stance on paid editing, namely Sue and Jimmy, to clarify where they truly stand on these issues for once and for all.
Cheers,
Russavia
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Let's be clear, Russavia - the terms of use bar sockpuppetry, and the
cease
and desist refers to concealing the identity of the author to deceive the editing community. I don't see that you've accused Sarah of sockpuppetry, so why not cut the bullshit? Thanks for notifying Wiki-PR, by the way,
I'm
sure everyone on this list really appreciates that.
If there's one thing I love about Wikimedia, it's when tendentious and self-righteous barnacles on the community make it a mission to tear down good-hearted and dedicated Wikimedians at the expense of the movement. _______________________________________________ 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
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
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 12:52 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.comwrote:
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.
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
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 8:01 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
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.
The term isn't used, but the behavior is clearly encompassed by the prohibition described in the "Engaging in False Statements, Impersonation or Fraud" - specifically "using the username of another user with the intent to deceive."
That doesn't follow to me from that wording, Nathan. The English Wikipedia for example allows socking to enable contributors to contribute to articles that they would rather not have their real-life name or normal Internet persona associated with.
User:John Smith is allowed to create an account named User:ColourfulCharacter to edit those articles. In doing so, he is not using "the username *of another user* with the intent to deceive".
There is no other user of that name. (The only exception would be if there were a user called User:ColorfulCharacter, say, and Smith's intent was to create confusion between the two accounts.)
User:John Smith is using a secondary screen name to obscure the fact that both accounts are operated by the same person. And that is allowed.
I don't even see that Wiki-PR infringed the letter of that section, as a normal person would read it. Just like John Smith, they did not use the name of some other user. They created multiple accounts. There was no other user whose username they used, or whom they tried to impersonate.
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 8:01 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
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.
The term isn't used, but the behavior is clearly encompassed by the prohibition described in the "Engaging in False Statements, Impersonation or Fraud" - specifically "using the username of another user with the intent to deceive." _______________________________________________ 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
They are, however, avoiding scrutiny, as evidenced by widespread disapproval of their actions. That is not a permissible use of socks. The community expects to place more scrutiny on paid editors, not less. On Jan 6, 2014 6:23 AM, "Andreas Kolbe" jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
That doesn't follow to me from that wording, Nathan. The English Wikipedia for example allows socking to enable contributors to contribute to articles that they would rather not have their real-life name or normal Internet persona associated with.
User:John Smith is allowed to create an account named User:ColourfulCharacter to edit those articles. In doing so, he is not using "the username *of another user* with the intent to deceive".
There is no other user of that name. (The only exception would be if there were a user called User:ColorfulCharacter, say, and Smith's intent was to create confusion between the two accounts.)
User:John Smith is using a secondary screen name to obscure the fact that both accounts are operated by the same person. And that is allowed.
I don't even see that Wiki-PR infringed the letter of that section, as a normal person would read it. Just like John Smith, they did not use the name of some other user. They created multiple accounts. There was no other user whose username they used, or whom they tried to impersonate.
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 8:01 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com
wrote:
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.
The term isn't used, but the behavior is clearly encompassed by the prohibition described in the "Engaging in False Statements, Impersonation or Fraud" - specifically "using the username of another user with the intent to deceive." _______________________________________________ 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
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
On 6 January 2014 13:43, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
... The community expects to place more scrutiny on paid editors, not less.
Sarah has yet to give her side of events and confirm how much of this is true or whether some of it is spoof or spin. Paid editing, of itself, is not a crime, so this is more a question of understanding how best practice and transparency should work for this sort of thing and whether the conflicts of interest for WMF employees or temporary contractors make it inadvisable and whether there are defined circumstances that would forbid it. For example it would be a bizarre hostage to fortune for a full time chief executive or trustee of a Wikimedia Chapter to be a paid editor and/or paid advocate in their "spare time".
I have met Sarah in person a couple of times, and we had some good stories and laughs to swap - having drinks and relaxing over dinner is a much better way of getting to know someone than by reading about them second hand. If Sarah is making paid editing work, then as a leading experienced Wikimedian in Residence and GLAM person, she is probably in a position to become a case study of what best practice ought to be. Her GLAM work has been first class and leading edge, so for what it's worth, I will always give her the benefit of the doubt and bags of good faith; she is a lovely person, so I would ask others to do the same and defer judgement and wait for all the facts to be on the table and put in context.
Odder has raised some reasonable questions and I look forward to Sarah giving a considered reply. Considering some of the tangential and points scoring emails funking up this thread, as well as the normal unpleasantness elsewhere, I suggest she makes any reply under a new thread if she thinks this list is suitable, or on the English Wikipedia which is where any evidence really is.
Thanks, Fae
I was responding to Andreas' comment on Wiki-PR's socks, specifically. I do not know the full story on Sarah yet, and agree I'd like to hear her side. On Jan 6, 2014 7:24 AM, "Fæ" faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 January 2014 13:43, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
... The community expects to place more scrutiny on paid editors, not
less.
Sarah has yet to give her side of events and confirm how much of this is true or whether some of it is spoof or spin. Paid editing, of itself, is not a crime, so this is more a question of understanding how best practice and transparency should work for this sort of thing and whether the conflicts of interest for WMF employees or temporary contractors make it inadvisable and whether there are defined circumstances that would forbid it. For example it would be a bizarre hostage to fortune for a full time chief executive or trustee of a Wikimedia Chapter to be a paid editor and/or paid advocate in their "spare time".
I have met Sarah in person a couple of times, and we had some good stories and laughs to swap - having drinks and relaxing over dinner is a much better way of getting to know someone than by reading about them second hand. If Sarah is making paid editing work, then as a leading experienced Wikimedian in Residence and GLAM person, she is probably in a position to become a case study of what best practice ought to be. Her GLAM work has been first class and leading edge, so for what it's worth, I will always give her the benefit of the doubt and bags of good faith; she is a lovely person, so I would ask others to do the same and defer judgement and wait for all the facts to be on the table and put in context.
Odder has raised some reasonable questions and I look forward to Sarah giving a considered reply. Considering some of the tangential and points scoring emails funking up this thread, as well as the normal unpleasantness elsewhere, I suggest she makes any reply under a new thread if she thinks this list is suitable, or on the English Wikipedia which is where any evidence really is.
Thanks, Fae -- faewik@gmail.com http://j.mp/faewm
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
Sure, Todd. But that is not actually in the Wikimedia terms of use. The terms of use say,
- Attempting to impersonate another user or individual, misrepresenting your affiliation with any individual or entity, or using the username of another user with the intent to deceive;
They do not say,
- Attempting to impersonate another user or individual, misrepresenting your affiliation with any individual or entity, or *using more than username* with the intent to deceive;
That whole section is about impersonating other people, making out that you represent someone you do not represent, etc. Silence as to one's affiliations and identity has always been permitted on Wikimedia projects.
Andreas
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
They are, however, avoiding scrutiny, as evidenced by widespread disapproval of their actions. That is not a permissible use of socks. The community expects to place more scrutiny on paid editors, not less. On Jan 6, 2014 6:23 AM, "Andreas Kolbe" jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
That doesn't follow to me from that wording, Nathan. The English
Wikipedia
for example allows socking to enable contributors to contribute to
articles
that they would rather not have their real-life name or normal Internet persona associated with.
User:John Smith is allowed to create an account named User:ColourfulCharacter to edit those articles. In doing so, he is not using "the username *of another user* with the intent to deceive".
There is no other user of that name. (The only exception would be if
there
were a user called User:ColorfulCharacter, say, and Smith's intent was to create confusion between the two accounts.)
User:John Smith is using a secondary screen name to obscure the fact that both accounts are operated by the same person. And that is allowed.
I don't even see that Wiki-PR infringed the letter of that section, as a normal person would read it. Just like John Smith, they did not use the name of some other user. They created multiple accounts. There was no
other
user whose username they used, or whom they tried to impersonate.
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 8:01 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com
wrote:
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.
The term isn't used, but the behavior is clearly encompassed by the prohibition described in the "Engaging in False Statements,
Impersonation
or Fraud" - specifically "using the username of another user with the intent to deceive." _______________________________________________ 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
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
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
I'm not in principle against transparent paid editing, but it could actually be considered to violate the ToU's wording: "misrepresenting your affiliation with any individual or entity"
Regards, Sir48
2014/1/6 Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com
Sure, Todd. But that is not actually in the Wikimedia terms of use. The terms of use say,
- Attempting to impersonate another user or individual, misrepresenting
your affiliation with any individual or entity, or using the username of another user with the intent to deceive;
They do not say,
- Attempting to impersonate another user or individual, misrepresenting
your affiliation with any individual or entity, or *using more than username* with the intent to deceive;
That whole section is about impersonating other people, making out that you represent someone you do not represent, etc. Silence as to one's affiliations and identity has always been permitted on Wikimedia projects.
Andreas
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
They are, however, avoiding scrutiny, as evidenced by widespread disapproval of their actions. That is not a permissible use of socks. The community expects to place more scrutiny on paid editors, not less. On Jan 6, 2014 6:23 AM, "Andreas Kolbe" jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
That doesn't follow to me from that wording, Nathan. The English
Wikipedia
for example allows socking to enable contributors to contribute to
articles
that they would rather not have their real-life name or normal Internet persona associated with.
User:John Smith is allowed to create an account named User:ColourfulCharacter to edit those articles. In doing so, he is not using "the username *of another user* with the intent to deceive".
There is no other user of that name. (The only exception would be if
there
were a user called User:ColorfulCharacter, say, and Smith's intent was
to
create confusion between the two accounts.)
User:John Smith is using a secondary screen name to obscure the fact
that
both accounts are operated by the same person. And that is allowed.
I don't even see that Wiki-PR infringed the letter of that section, as
a
normal person would read it. Just like John Smith, they did not use the name of some other user. They created multiple accounts. There was no
other
user whose username they used, or whom they tried to impersonate.
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 8:01 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com
wrote:
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.
The term isn't used, but the behavior is clearly encompassed by the prohibition described in the "Engaging in False Statements,
Impersonation
or Fraud" - specifically "using the username of another user with the intent to deceive." _______________________________________________ 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
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
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
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
Well, if you don't say anything, Sir48, you are not misrepresenting anything, are you?
It's a path many people have chosen in Wikipedia. They just remain silent. The right to remain silent about who you are and who you work for is enshrined in the principle of anonymity.
People (including the English Wikipedia's arbitration committee) have long said that the policies guaranteeing the right to edit anonymously are in tension with the guidelines discouraging editing with a conflict of interest, and that the conflict between these two sets of policies and guidelines is imperfectly resolved.
And in the final analysis, the English Wikipedia's policy against harassment and outing takes precedence over the conflict-of-interest guideline.
At any rate, conflict-of-interest editing is discouraged, but not forbidden in the English Wikipedia, while posting another editor's employer is a banning offence (unless the editor has previous disclosed it himself on Wikipedia).
That this creates a lucrative market for companies like Wiki-PR should not come as a surprise.
While non-transparent paid editing does not seem to me to violate the Wikimedia terms of use, transparent paid editing clearly does not violate them either. Surely, the way forward lies that way.
But while the German Wikipedia community for example is quite welcoming to paid editors who act transparently – the German Wikipedia even has verified company accounts like User:Coca_Cola_Germany – the English Wikipedia community is exceedingly hostile to such users, to the point of blocking company account names *on sight*, with the result that many such editors prefer to fly under the radar, using a made-up name and the shield of the anonymity policy.
Andreas
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 6:16 PM, Thyge ltl.privat@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not in principle against transparent paid editing, but it could actually be considered to violate the ToU's wording: "misrepresenting your affiliation with any individual or entity"
Regards, Sir48
2014/1/6 Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com
Sure, Todd. But that is not actually in the Wikimedia terms of use. The terms of use say,
- Attempting to impersonate another user or individual,
misrepresenting
your affiliation with any individual or entity, or using the username
of
another user with the intent to deceive;
They do not say,
- Attempting to impersonate another user or individual,
misrepresenting
your affiliation with any individual or entity, or *using more than username* with the intent to deceive;
That whole section is about impersonating other people, making out that
you
represent someone you do not represent, etc. Silence as to one's affiliations and identity has always been permitted on Wikimedia
projects.
Andreas
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
They are, however, avoiding scrutiny, as evidenced by widespread disapproval of their actions. That is not a permissible use of socks.
The
community expects to place more scrutiny on paid editors, not less. On Jan 6, 2014 6:23 AM, "Andreas Kolbe" jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
That doesn't follow to me from that wording, Nathan. The English
Wikipedia
for example allows socking to enable contributors to contribute to
articles
that they would rather not have their real-life name or normal
Internet
persona associated with.
User:John Smith is allowed to create an account named User:ColourfulCharacter to edit those articles. In doing so, he is
not
using "the username *of another user* with the intent to deceive".
There is no other user of that name. (The only exception would be if
there
were a user called User:ColorfulCharacter, say, and Smith's intent
was
to
create confusion between the two accounts.)
User:John Smith is using a secondary screen name to obscure the fact
that
both accounts are operated by the same person. And that is allowed.
I don't even see that Wiki-PR infringed the letter of that section,
as
a
normal person would read it. Just like John Smith, they did not use
the
name of some other user. They created multiple accounts. There was no
other
user whose username they used, or whom they tried to impersonate.
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 8:01 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com
wrote:
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.
The term isn't used, but the behavior is clearly encompassed by the prohibition described in the "Engaging in False Statements,
Impersonation
or Fraud" - specifically "using the username of another user with
the
intent to deceive." _______________________________________________ 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>
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
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
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
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
To edit is to say something, Andreas Kolbe.
To me it is very fortunate that the right to anonymity takes presedence over COI-editing. Edits can be changed or removed, a personal identity cannot. Regards, Sir48
2014/1/6 Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com
Well, if you don't say anything, Sir48, you are not misrepresenting anything, are you?
It's a path many people have chosen in Wikipedia. They just remain silent. The right to remain silent about who you are and who you work for is enshrined in the principle of anonymity.
People (including the English Wikipedia's arbitration committee) have long said that the policies guaranteeing the right to edit anonymously are in tension with the guidelines discouraging editing with a conflict of interest, and that the conflict between these two sets of policies and guidelines is imperfectly resolved.
And in the final analysis, the English Wikipedia's policy against harassment and outing takes precedence over the conflict-of-interest guideline.
At any rate, conflict-of-interest editing is discouraged, but not forbidden in the English Wikipedia, while posting another editor's employer is a banning offence (unless the editor has previous disclosed it himself on Wikipedia).
That this creates a lucrative market for companies like Wiki-PR should not come as a surprise.
While non-transparent paid editing does not seem to me to violate the Wikimedia terms of use, transparent paid editing clearly does not violate them either. Surely, the way forward lies that way.
But while the German Wikipedia community for example is quite welcoming to paid editors who act transparently – the German Wikipedia even has verified company accounts like User:Coca_Cola_Germany – the English Wikipedia community is exceedingly hostile to such users, to the point of blocking company account names *on sight*, with the result that many such editors prefer to fly under the radar, using a made-up name and the shield of the anonymity policy.
Andreas
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 6:16 PM, Thyge ltl.privat@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not in principle against transparent paid editing, but it could actually be considered to violate the ToU's wording: "misrepresenting
your
affiliation with any individual or entity"
Regards, Sir48
2014/1/6 Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com
Sure, Todd. But that is not actually in the Wikimedia terms of use. The terms of use say,
- Attempting to impersonate another user or individual,
misrepresenting
your affiliation with any individual or entity, or using the
username
of
another user with the intent to deceive;
They do not say,
- Attempting to impersonate another user or individual,
misrepresenting
your affiliation with any individual or entity, or *using more than username* with the intent to deceive;
That whole section is about impersonating other people, making out that
you
represent someone you do not represent, etc. Silence as to one's affiliations and identity has always been permitted on Wikimedia
projects.
Andreas
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com
wrote:
They are, however, avoiding scrutiny, as evidenced by widespread disapproval of their actions. That is not a permissible use of socks.
The
community expects to place more scrutiny on paid editors, not less. On Jan 6, 2014 6:23 AM, "Andreas Kolbe" jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
That doesn't follow to me from that wording, Nathan. The English
Wikipedia
for example allows socking to enable contributors to contribute to
articles
that they would rather not have their real-life name or normal
Internet
persona associated with.
User:John Smith is allowed to create an account named User:ColourfulCharacter to edit those articles. In doing so, he is
not
using "the username *of another user* with the intent to deceive".
There is no other user of that name. (The only exception would be
if
there
were a user called User:ColorfulCharacter, say, and Smith's intent
was
to
create confusion between the two accounts.)
User:John Smith is using a secondary screen name to obscure the
fact
that
both accounts are operated by the same person. And that is allowed.
I don't even see that Wiki-PR infringed the letter of that section,
as
a
normal person would read it. Just like John Smith, they did not use
the
name of some other user. They created multiple accounts. There was
no
other
user whose username they used, or whom they tried to impersonate.
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 8:01 AM, Andreas Kolbe <
jayen466@gmail.com>
wrote:
> 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. > > The term isn't used, but the behavior is clearly encompassed by
the
prohibition described in the "Engaging in False Statements,
Impersonation
or Fraud" - specifically "using the username of another user with
the
intent to deceive." _______________________________________________ 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>
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>
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
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
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
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
Suggested related reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dominic/Digital_Content_Specialist and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dominic/FAQ
I can't say I felt particularly good after seeing http://i.imgur.com/iYBNjhH.png, but Sarah is an active mailing list participant, so I'm sure she'll chime in here when she has a minute, as necessary and appropriate.
MZMcBride
This shit belongs on Wikipediocracy, by which I mean "with trolls trying to fuck up Wikipedia for commercial advantage".
On 6 January 2014 00:39, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Suggested related reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dominic/Digital_Content_Specialist and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dominic/FAQ
I can't say I felt particularly good after seeing http://i.imgur.com/iYBNjhH.png, but Sarah is an active mailing list participant, so I'm sure she'll chime in here when she has a minute, as necessary and appropriate.
MZMcBride
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
That blog post contains at least one glaring factual error:
"Part of Sarah’s role at the Foundation is to educate GLAM institutions on issues relating to sourcing, original research, notability & conflict of interest." - linking to a page dating from mid-2011, when Sarah was a Wikipedian-in-Residence at a GLAM institution, as an intern of that organization (see e.g. my Signpost article at the time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-04-25/News_a... ), predating her employment at WMF. I'm commenting in a purely personal capacity here and can't speak with authority on the details of Sarah's current job responsibilities, but I'm quite certain that the blog's claim about them is wrong.
Regards, HaeB (Tilman Bayer)
Am Sonntag, 5. Januar 2014 schrieb Russavia :
Odder has published a fantastic blog piece at http://twkozlowski.net/paid-editing-thrives-in-the-heart-of-wikipedia/ in which it is revealed that a WMF employee is engaged in undeclared paid editing on English Wikipedia, and charging what it appears to be $300 per article.
I have cc'ed both Sue and Jimmy in on this email, but also sending to this list as I know they, and other WMF employees, do use this list, and I think it would be pertinent that they respond publicly to the issues raised here. It is ever so more important given that the undeclared paid editing occurred AFTER the whole Wiki-PR debacle (Sue's press release, WMF's cease-and-desist, and of course the resultant media attention).
What do Jimmy and Sue believe should occur given that such editing violates Wikipedia policies and also Jimmy's so-called Bright Line Rule. In relation to Jimmy's line, many are still clueless as to what exactly this Bright Line is (it's not very bright), and how it should be applied in practice, so Jimmy, if you are out there, your comment is requested on that.
Cheers,
Russavia _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; ?subject=unsubscribe>
On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.comwrote:
Odder has published a fantastic blog piece at http://twkozlowski.net/paid-editing-thrives-in-the-heart-of-wikipedia/ in which it is revealed that a WMF employee is engaged in undeclared paid editing on English Wikipedia, and charging what it appears to be $300 per article.
I have cc'ed both Sue and Jimmy in on this email, but also sending to this list as I know they, and other WMF employees, do use this list, and I think it would be pertinent that they respond publicly to the issues raised here. It is ever so more important given that the undeclared paid editing occurred AFTER the whole Wiki-PR debacle (Sue's press release, WMF's cease-and-desist, and of course the resultant media attention).
What do Jimmy and Sue believe should occur given that such editing violates Wikipedia policies and also Jimmy's so-called Bright Line Rule. In relation to Jimmy's line, many are still clueless as to what exactly this Bright Line is (it's not very bright), and how it should be applied in practice, so Jimmy, if you are out there, your comment is requested on that.
Cheers,
Russavia
I'm with David and Nathan here.
The "evidence" presented is an anonymized oDesk account and a screenshot. Screenshots are very easily doctored, and Wikipediocracy trolls have many reasons to attack a Wikimedian like Sarah. I wouldn't be surprised if they'd go so far as to set up a fake account using her picture and information.
If you really cared about solving this, you could try emailing Sarah, her superiors, and Sue directly. Considering many staff don't follow high volume lists like Wikimedia-l, especially on the weekend, it's not exactly the best way to get a response from the WMF. It is, however, a great way to stir up bullshit drama.
I'll hold out for Sarah's comment, if she feels comfortable. Otherwise smells like trolling.
Steven
Steven,
Did it occur to you that the reason the account is anonymised is that one would likely not want it to be found out? It also beyond the realms of imagination that "Wikipediocracy trolls" would create an account on 6 January 2012 as a joe-job account, and sit on it all this time and then have Odder (who is certainly no friend of Wikipediocracy) find out about it, and let him beat them to the punch.
But here's a little more evidence for you. From that screenshot, you will notice in September Sarah earned $96 from a job which is described as "Wikipedia Writer Editor". The information for that job is found at https://www.odesk.com/jobs/~01fb1fd477c79e30b0 (and I have taken the liberty of uploading it at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8j_w_yHF5ymdHQzTkJkRkY5TWM/edit?usp=sharin...)
From this we can ascertain the following:
* The job was posted on 3 September 2013 * The client is in the United States * Sarah was one of 9 applicants for the job, applying on 4 September 2013 * The client was interviewing 2 applicants, and they ended up hiring Sarah * On 4 October 2013 (a Friday), the client last viewed this job -- the little question mark pop-up says "This is when the client last viewed or interacted with the applicants for this job." - in all likelihood this is when the information was provided to Sarah.
From Sarah's contributions between this period we can see that she was
involved in creating and editing articles relating to Turkey, Algeria, Guatemala, creating articles such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eug%C3%A9nie_Luce, etc
On 6 October 2013 (-8 GMT), after editing articles on places/people in Moldova and Ukraine, at 12:14 she made this edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_III_of_Moldavia&diff=...). At 13:53, a little under 2 hours later, Sarah posted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melody_Inn_(nightclub). Again, this is a somewhat puff piece article, out of sync with what she was editing at the time, with sourcing that one wouldn't really expect in an article. The wording at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melody_Inn_(nightclub)#Music is especially telling. Then https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1935&diff=prev&oldid=5760... is done straight afterwards. That it was posted a little under 2 hours after her edit to the Stephen III of Moldavia article would correlate with the 2 hours that she billed the client for cleaning the article up to make it presentable, receiving $96. Then it was back to normal editing. Not bad for 2 hours editing on a Sunday afternoon, eh?
And surely you can understand why people would post this information publicly. Already on this very list I have been attacked by no less than 4 Wikimedia insiders (yourself included) who are clearly trying to run deflection and interference. Emailing the WMF and Sue privately, so that it can be quietly ignored, or swept under the carpet; this is the experience of many people in the past, so why waste one's time. And anyway, doesn't the public, including the media whom I have also taken the liberty of advising that this issue exists, have a right to know that such things are happening on a project that prides itself on how transparent it is.
Steven, does this smell like trolling and an elaborate "set up Sarah" joe-job? People can continue to bury their heads in the sand, attack me for trolling, run interference, and believe in vast conspiracies and other such nonsense. I will look at this logically, and taken in with information that Odder provided, it's couldn't be clearer.
What isn't so clear is how Sue and Jimmy will respond......
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.comwrote:
Odder has published a fantastic blog piece at http://twkozlowski.net/paid-editing-thrives-in-the-heart-of-wikipedia/ in which it is revealed that a WMF employee is engaged in undeclared paid editing on English Wikipedia, and charging what it appears to be $300 per article.
I have cc'ed both Sue and Jimmy in on this email, but also sending to this list as I know they, and other WMF employees, do use this list, and I think it would be pertinent that they respond publicly to the issues raised here. It is ever so more important given that the undeclared paid editing occurred AFTER the whole Wiki-PR debacle (Sue's press release, WMF's cease-and-desist, and of course the resultant media attention).
What do Jimmy and Sue believe should occur given that such editing violates Wikipedia policies and also Jimmy's so-called Bright Line Rule. In relation to Jimmy's line, many are still clueless as to what exactly this Bright Line is (it's not very bright), and how it should be applied in practice, so Jimmy, if you are out there, your comment is requested on that.
Cheers,
Russavia
I'm with David and Nathan here.
The "evidence" presented is an anonymized oDesk account and a screenshot. Screenshots are very easily doctored, and Wikipediocracy trolls have many reasons to attack a Wikimedian like Sarah. I wouldn't be surprised if they'd go so far as to set up a fake account using her picture and information.
If you really cared about solving this, you could try emailing Sarah, her superiors, and Sue directly. Considering many staff don't follow high volume lists like Wikimedia-l, especially on the weekend, it's not exactly the best way to get a response from the WMF. It is, however, a great way to stir up bullshit drama.
I'll hold out for Sarah's comment, if she feels comfortable. Otherwise smells like trolling.
Steven _______________________________________________ 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
As an apparent "Wikimedia insider"; I think that if the allegations are substantiated they need to be addressed. I don't mean to run interference on that. I mean to try and undercut any attempt to turn a subject worth discussing substantively into an excuse to crow. My objection is not that you raised this allegation, it's that you insist on posting four hundred word screeds about how hard-done by you are and how this demands that people accept you were right all along. If you actually care about the substance of the discussion, stop doing that. If you don't, just stop.
On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 11:10 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.comwrote:
Steven,
Did it occur to you that the reason the account is anonymised is that one would likely not want it to be found out? It also beyond the realms of imagination that "Wikipediocracy trolls" would create an account on 6 January 2012 as a joe-job account, and sit on it all this time and then have Odder (who is certainly no friend of Wikipediocracy) find out about it, and let him beat them to the punch.
But here's a little more evidence for you. From that screenshot, you will notice in September Sarah earned $96 from a job which is described as "Wikipedia Writer Editor". The information for that job is found at https://www.odesk.com/jobs/~01fb1fd477c79e30b0 (and I have taken the liberty of uploading it at
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8j_w_yHF5ymdHQzTkJkRkY5TWM/edit?usp=sharin... )
From this we can ascertain the following:
- The job was posted on 3 September 2013
- The client is in the United States
- Sarah was one of 9 applicants for the job, applying on 4 September 2013
- The client was interviewing 2 applicants, and they ended up hiring Sarah
- On 4 October 2013 (a Friday), the client last viewed this job -- the
little question mark pop-up says "This is when the client last viewed or interacted with the applicants for this job." - in all likelihood this is when the information was provided to Sarah.
From Sarah's contributions between this period we can see that she was involved in creating and editing articles relating to Turkey, Algeria, Guatemala, creating articles such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eug%C3%A9nie_Luce, etc
On 6 October 2013 (-8 GMT), after editing articles on places/people in Moldova and Ukraine, at 12:14 she made this edit ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_III_of_Moldavia&diff=... ). At 13:53, a little under 2 hours later, Sarah posted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melody_Inn_(nightclub). Again, this is a somewhat puff piece article, out of sync with what she was editing at the time, with sourcing that one wouldn't really expect in an article. The wording at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melody_Inn_(nightclub)#Music is especially telling. Then https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1935&diff=prev&oldid=5760... is done straight afterwards. That it was posted a little under 2 hours after her edit to the Stephen III of Moldavia article would correlate with the 2 hours that she billed the client for cleaning the article up to make it presentable, receiving $96. Then it was back to normal editing. Not bad for 2 hours editing on a Sunday afternoon, eh?
And surely you can understand why people would post this information publicly. Already on this very list I have been attacked by no less than 4 Wikimedia insiders (yourself included) who are clearly trying to run deflection and interference. Emailing the WMF and Sue privately, so that it can be quietly ignored, or swept under the carpet; this is the experience of many people in the past, so why waste one's time. And anyway, doesn't the public, including the media whom I have also taken the liberty of advising that this issue exists, have a right to know that such things are happening on a project that prides itself on how transparent it is.
Steven, does this smell like trolling and an elaborate "set up Sarah" joe-job? People can continue to bury their heads in the sand, attack me for trolling, run interference, and believe in vast conspiracies and other such nonsense. I will look at this logically, and taken in with information that Odder provided, it's couldn't be clearer.
What isn't so clear is how Sue and Jimmy will respond......
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Russavia <russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Odder has published a fantastic blog piece at http://twkozlowski.net/paid-editing-thrives-in-the-heart-of-wikipedia/in which it is revealed that a WMF employee is engaged in undeclared paid editing on English Wikipedia, and charging what it appears to be $300
per
article.
I have cc'ed both Sue and Jimmy in on this email, but also sending to
this
list as I know they, and other WMF employees, do use this list, and I
think
it would be pertinent that they respond publicly to the issues raised
here.
It is ever so more important given that the undeclared paid editing occurred AFTER the whole Wiki-PR debacle (Sue's press release, WMF's cease-and-desist, and of course the resultant media attention).
What do Jimmy and Sue believe should occur given that such editing
violates
Wikipedia policies and also Jimmy's so-called Bright Line Rule. In
relation
to Jimmy's line, many are still clueless as to what exactly this Bright Line is (it's not very bright), and how it should be applied in
practice,
so Jimmy, if you are out there, your comment is requested on that.
Cheers,
Russavia
I'm with David and Nathan here.
The "evidence" presented is an anonymized oDesk account and a screenshot. Screenshots are very easily doctored, and Wikipediocracy trolls have many reasons to attack a Wikimedian like Sarah. I wouldn't be surprised if they'd go so far as to set up a fake account using her picture and information.
If you really cared about solving this, you could try emailing Sarah, her superiors, and Sue directly. Considering many staff don't follow high volume lists like Wikimedia-l, especially on the weekend, it's not
exactly
the best way to get a response from the WMF. It is, however, a great way
to
stir up bullshit drama.
I'll hold out for Sarah's comment, if she feels comfortable. Otherwise smells like trolling.
Steven _______________________________________________ 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
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
Sarah used to be a DJ in Indianapolis. I don't find it very surprising that she'd write an article about a nightclub in Indianapolis. That would probably also explain the use of unusual sources - surely someone who used to DJ in Indy is more familiar with local music sources there than most people would be.
---- Kevin Gorman
On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 11:20 PM, Oliver Keyes ironholds@gmail.com wrote:
As an apparent "Wikimedia insider"; I think that if the allegations are substantiated they need to be addressed. I don't mean to run interference on that. I mean to try and undercut any attempt to turn a subject worth discussing substantively into an excuse to crow. My objection is not that you raised this allegation, it's that you insist on posting four hundred word screeds about how hard-done by you are and how this demands that people accept you were right all along. If you actually care about the substance of the discussion, stop doing that. If you don't, just stop.
On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 11:10 PM, Russavia <russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com
wrote:
Steven,
Did it occur to you that the reason the account is anonymised is that one would likely not want it to be found out? It also beyond the realms of imagination that "Wikipediocracy trolls" would create an account on 6 January 2012 as a joe-job account, and sit on it all this time and then have Odder (who is certainly no friend of Wikipediocracy) find out about it, and let him beat them to the punch.
But here's a little more evidence for you. From that screenshot, you will notice in September Sarah earned $96 from a job which is described as "Wikipedia Writer Editor". The information for that job is found at https://www.odesk.com/jobs/~01fb1fd477c79e30b0 (and I have taken the liberty of uploading it at
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8j_w_yHF5ymdHQzTkJkRkY5TWM/edit?usp=sharin...
)
From this we can ascertain the following:
- The job was posted on 3 September 2013
- The client is in the United States
- Sarah was one of 9 applicants for the job, applying on 4 September 2013
- The client was interviewing 2 applicants, and they ended up hiring
Sarah
- On 4 October 2013 (a Friday), the client last viewed this job -- the
little question mark pop-up says "This is when the client last viewed or interacted with the applicants for this job." - in all likelihood this is when the information was provided to Sarah.
From Sarah's contributions between this period we can see that she was involved in creating and editing articles relating to Turkey, Algeria, Guatemala, creating articles such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eug%C3%A9nie_Luce, etc
On 6 October 2013 (-8 GMT), after editing articles on places/people in Moldova and Ukraine, at 12:14 she made this edit (
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_III_of_Moldavia&diff=...
). At 13:53, a little under 2 hours later, Sarah posted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melody_Inn_(nightclub). Again, this is a somewhat puff piece article, out of sync with what she was editing at the time, with sourcing that one wouldn't really expect in an article. The wording at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melody_Inn_(nightclub)#Music
is especially telling. Then
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1935&diff=prev&oldid=5760...
is done straight afterwards. That it was posted a little under 2 hours after her edit to the Stephen III of Moldavia article would correlate with the 2 hours that she billed the client for cleaning the article up to make it presentable, receiving $96. Then it was back to normal editing. Not bad for 2 hours editing on a Sunday afternoon, eh?
And surely you can understand why people would post this information publicly. Already on this very list I have been attacked by no less than 4 Wikimedia insiders (yourself included) who are clearly trying to run deflection and interference. Emailing the WMF and Sue privately, so that it can be quietly ignored, or swept under the carpet; this is the experience of many people in the past, so why waste one's time. And anyway, doesn't the public, including the media whom I have also taken the liberty of advising that this issue exists, have a right to know that such things are happening on a project that prides itself on how transparent it is.
Steven, does this smell like trolling and an elaborate "set up Sarah" joe-job? People can continue to bury their heads in the sand, attack me for trolling, run interference, and believe in vast conspiracies and other such nonsense. I will look at this logically, and taken in with information that Odder provided, it's couldn't be clearer.
What isn't so clear is how Sue and Jimmy will respond......
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Steven Walling <steven.walling@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Russavia <russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Odder has published a fantastic blog piece at
http://twkozlowski.net/paid-editing-thrives-in-the-heart-of-wikipedia/in
which it is revealed that a WMF employee is engaged in undeclared paid editing on English Wikipedia, and charging what it appears to be $300
per
article.
I have cc'ed both Sue and Jimmy in on this email, but also sending to
this
list as I know they, and other WMF employees, do use this list, and I
think
it would be pertinent that they respond publicly to the issues raised
here.
It is ever so more important given that the undeclared paid editing occurred AFTER the whole Wiki-PR debacle (Sue's press release, WMF's cease-and-desist, and of course the resultant media attention).
What do Jimmy and Sue believe should occur given that such editing
violates
Wikipedia policies and also Jimmy's so-called Bright Line Rule. In
relation
to Jimmy's line, many are still clueless as to what exactly this
Bright
Line is (it's not very bright), and how it should be applied in
practice,
so Jimmy, if you are out there, your comment is requested on that.
Cheers,
Russavia
I'm with David and Nathan here.
The "evidence" presented is an anonymized oDesk account and a
screenshot.
Screenshots are very easily doctored, and Wikipediocracy trolls have
many
reasons to attack a Wikimedian like Sarah. I wouldn't be surprised if they'd go so far as to set up a fake account using her picture and information.
If you really cared about solving this, you could try emailing Sarah,
her
superiors, and Sue directly. Considering many staff don't follow high volume lists like Wikimedia-l, especially on the weekend, it's not
exactly
the best way to get a response from the WMF. It is, however, a great
way
to
stir up bullshit drama.
I'll hold out for Sarah's comment, if she feels comfortable. Otherwise smells like trolling.
Steven _______________________________________________ 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
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
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
I find it odd that we're having this discussion based on a blog post. I think that it would have been much more decent to contact the person in question directly first, and ask for input. Any further discussion here speculating how this could be true or not, is premature.
Lets just wait until Sarah is able to respond to these accusations which were published without following proper procedures.
Lodewijk
2014/1/6 Kevin Gorman kgorman@gmail.com
Sarah used to be a DJ in Indianapolis. I don't find it very surprising that she'd write an article about a nightclub in Indianapolis. That would probably also explain the use of unusual sources - surely someone who used to DJ in Indy is more familiar with local music sources there than most people would be.
Kevin Gorman
On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 11:20 PM, Oliver Keyes ironholds@gmail.com wrote:
As an apparent "Wikimedia insider"; I think that if the allegations are substantiated they need to be addressed. I don't mean to run interference on that. I mean to try and undercut any attempt to turn a subject worth discussing substantively into an excuse to crow. My objection is not that you raised this allegation, it's that you insist on posting four hundred word screeds about how hard-done by you are and how this demands that people accept you were right all along. If you actually care about the substance of the discussion, stop doing that. If you don't, just stop.
On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 11:10 PM, Russavia <russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com
wrote:
Steven,
Did it occur to you that the reason the account is anonymised is that one would likely not want it to be found out? It also beyond the realms of imagination that "Wikipediocracy trolls" would create an account on 6 January 2012 as a joe-job account, and sit on it all this time and then have Odder (who is certainly no friend of Wikipediocracy) find out about it, and let him beat them to the punch.
But here's a little more evidence for you. From that screenshot, you will notice in September Sarah earned $96 from a job which is described as "Wikipedia Writer Editor". The information for that job is found at https://www.odesk.com/jobs/~01fb1fd477c79e30b0 (and I have taken the liberty of uploading it at
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8j_w_yHF5ymdHQzTkJkRkY5TWM/edit?usp=sharin...
)
From this we can ascertain the following:
- The job was posted on 3 September 2013
- The client is in the United States
- Sarah was one of 9 applicants for the job, applying on 4 September
2013
- The client was interviewing 2 applicants, and they ended up hiring
Sarah
- On 4 October 2013 (a Friday), the client last viewed this job -- the
little question mark pop-up says "This is when the client last viewed or interacted with the applicants for this job." - in all likelihood this is when the information was provided to Sarah.
From Sarah's contributions between this period we can see that she was involved in creating and editing articles relating to Turkey, Algeria, Guatemala, creating articles such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eug%C3%A9nie_Luce, etc
On 6 October 2013 (-8 GMT), after editing articles on places/people in Moldova and Ukraine, at 12:14 she made this edit (
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_III_of_Moldavia&diff=...
). At 13:53, a little under 2 hours later, Sarah posted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melody_Inn_(nightclub). Again, this is a somewhat puff piece article, out of sync with what she was editing at the time, with sourcing that one wouldn't really expect in an article. The wording at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melody_Inn_(nightclub)#Music
is especially telling. Then
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1935&diff=prev&oldid=5760...
is done straight afterwards. That it was posted a little under 2 hours after her edit to the Stephen III of Moldavia article would correlate with the 2 hours that she billed the client for cleaning the article up to make it presentable, receiving $96. Then it was back to normal editing. Not bad for 2 hours editing on a Sunday afternoon, eh?
And surely you can understand why people would post this information publicly. Already on this very list I have been attacked by no less than 4 Wikimedia insiders (yourself included) who are clearly trying to run deflection and interference. Emailing the WMF and Sue privately, so that it can be quietly ignored, or swept under the carpet; this is the experience of many people in the past, so why waste one's time. And anyway, doesn't the public, including the media whom I have also taken the liberty of advising that this issue exists, have a right to know that such things are happening on a project that prides itself on how transparent it is.
Steven, does this smell like trolling and an elaborate "set up Sarah" joe-job? People can continue to bury their heads in the sand, attack me for trolling, run interference, and believe in vast conspiracies and other such nonsense. I will look at this logically, and taken in with information that Odder provided, it's couldn't be clearer.
What isn't so clear is how Sue and Jimmy will respond......
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Steven Walling <
steven.walling@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Russavia <
russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com
wrote:
Odder has published a fantastic blog piece at
http://twkozlowski.net/paid-editing-thrives-in-the-heart-of-wikipedia/in
which it is revealed that a WMF employee is engaged in undeclared
paid
editing on English Wikipedia, and charging what it appears to be
$300
per
article.
I have cc'ed both Sue and Jimmy in on this email, but also sending
to
this
list as I know they, and other WMF employees, do use this list, and
I
think
it would be pertinent that they respond publicly to the issues
raised
here.
It is ever so more important given that the undeclared paid editing occurred AFTER the whole Wiki-PR debacle (Sue's press release, WMF's cease-and-desist, and of course the resultant media attention).
What do Jimmy and Sue believe should occur given that such editing
violates
Wikipedia policies and also Jimmy's so-called Bright Line Rule. In
relation
to Jimmy's line, many are still clueless as to what exactly this
Bright
Line is (it's not very bright), and how it should be applied in
practice,
so Jimmy, if you are out there, your comment is requested on that.
Cheers,
Russavia
I'm with David and Nathan here.
The "evidence" presented is an anonymized oDesk account and a
screenshot.
Screenshots are very easily doctored, and Wikipediocracy trolls have
many
reasons to attack a Wikimedian like Sarah. I wouldn't be surprised if they'd go so far as to set up a fake account using her picture and information.
If you really cared about solving this, you could try emailing Sarah,
her
superiors, and Sue directly. Considering many staff don't follow high volume lists like Wikimedia-l, especially on the weekend, it's not
exactly
the best way to get a response from the WMF. It is, however, a great
way
to
stir up bullshit drama.
I'll hold out for Sarah's comment, if she feels comfortable.
Otherwise
smells like trolling.
Steven _______________________________________________ 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
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
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
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
You are right Kevin, and I think that the blog post has drawn the wrong conclusions by failing to see one piece of telling evidence on an unrelated posting on that site.
At the job link at https://www.odesk.com/jobs/~01fb1fd477c79e30b0 (again, uploaded to https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8j_w_yHF5ymdHQzTkJkRkY5TWM/edit?usp=sharin...) one can see that the client is in the United States in the -8 GMT time zone (Indianapolis being in the -5 GMT time zone). This obviously does not match for the bar article.
On the right-hand side, you will see that they have posted two jobs, but have hired only one client. At the bottom you will see "Client's Work History and Feedback (1)" and only this job is available there. When you go to Sarah's profile, and click on "Wikipedia Page for Individual" it says the job is private, hence why the "Client's Work History and Feedback" on the aforementioned job only shows one job. So it would appear that Sarah has been hired by this client for both their jobs.
At 13:15 on 7 October, Sarah posted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Leadership_Challenge. This is most likely the article for the job at https://www.odesk.com/jobs/~01fb1fd477c79e30b0 -- and the client went out of his way to contact Sarah to apply for this job, as you can see from "Client" in the initiator column (as explained at https://www.odesk.com/community/node/29357)
Then in December, the client who was obviously happy with her work from October, commissioned Sarah to write https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Posner_(academic) (the author of the book from the October article) and paid her $300. From that article, one can see that Posner is in Santa Clara, California, which is -8 GMT, which of course ties up with the -8 GMT column in the October job listing on the right hand side.
My apologies in presenting the Indianapolis article; it's surprising that the bar article which reads like an advert is legit, whilst the articles which look legit (yet still very weak sourcewise) are likely the problematic articles.
Sarah, when you read this, again I don't give a rats if you are paid-editing, more power to you actually. Unfortunately in this instance you haven't done so in what one would deem to be an ethical way based upon what the community expects, and which has been reinforced over and over, especially in recent months. So there will obviously be those who want to cast you out because paid-editing is evil and should not be tolerated. But hopefully cooler heads will prevail all round, not only in your case. I would well advise you to be totally upfront in any explanation, including anything that may be done via Sarah Stierch Consulting either currently or in the past. You obviously see a need for paid-editing, and it is a shame that you had to, as Dariusz mentions, resort to the "black market" and blackhat what you are/were doing. Open your profiles up for public view, quickly correct anything that you should have done to begin with, and publicly commit yourself to doing such editing the ethical way. Then all talk of "Bright Line Policy", etc can be put to rest, and not just in your case, and then discussion on solid policies, etc as Dariusz also mentions can occur, and you would be better placed to advocate in that regard.
Cheers,
Russavia
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Kevin Gorman kgorman@gmail.com wrote:
Sarah used to be a DJ in Indianapolis. I don't find it very surprising that she'd write an article about a nightclub in Indianapolis. That would probably also explain the use of unusual sources - surely someone who used to DJ in Indy is more familiar with local music sources there than most people would be.
Kevin Gorman
On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 11:20 PM, Oliver Keyes ironholds@gmail.com wrote:
As an apparent "Wikimedia insider"; I think that if the allegations are substantiated they need to be addressed. I don't mean to run interference on that. I mean to try and undercut any attempt to turn a subject worth discussing substantively into an excuse to crow. My objection is not that you raised this allegation, it's that you insist on posting four hundred word screeds about how hard-done by you are and how this demands that people accept you were right all along. If you actually care about the substance of the discussion, stop doing that. If you don't, just stop.
On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 11:10 PM, Russavia <russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com
wrote:
Steven,
Did it occur to you that the reason the account is anonymised is that one would likely not want it to be found out? It also beyond the realms of imagination that "Wikipediocracy trolls" would create an account on 6 January 2012 as a joe-job account, and sit on it all this time and then have Odder (who is certainly no friend of Wikipediocracy) find out about it, and let him beat them to the punch.
But here's a little more evidence for you. From that screenshot, you will notice in September Sarah earned $96 from a job which is described as "Wikipedia Writer Editor". The information for that job is found at https://www.odesk.com/jobs/~01fb1fd477c79e30b0 (and I have taken the liberty of uploading it at
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8j_w_yHF5ymdHQzTkJkRkY5TWM/edit?usp=sharin...
)
From this we can ascertain the following:
- The job was posted on 3 September 2013
- The client is in the United States
- Sarah was one of 9 applicants for the job, applying on 4 September 2013
- The client was interviewing 2 applicants, and they ended up hiring
Sarah
- On 4 October 2013 (a Friday), the client last viewed this job -- the
little question mark pop-up says "This is when the client last viewed or interacted with the applicants for this job." - in all likelihood this is when the information was provided to Sarah.
From Sarah's contributions between this period we can see that she was involved in creating and editing articles relating to Turkey, Algeria, Guatemala, creating articles such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eug%C3%A9nie_Luce, etc
On 6 October 2013 (-8 GMT), after editing articles on places/people in Moldova and Ukraine, at 12:14 she made this edit (
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_III_of_Moldavia&diff=...
). At 13:53, a little under 2 hours later, Sarah posted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melody_Inn_(nightclub). Again, this is a somewhat puff piece article, out of sync with what she was editing at the time, with sourcing that one wouldn't really expect in an article. The wording at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melody_Inn_(nightclub)#Music
is especially telling. Then
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1935&diff=prev&oldid=5760...
is done straight afterwards. That it was posted a little under 2 hours after her edit to the Stephen III of Moldavia article would correlate with the 2 hours that she billed the client for cleaning the article up to make it presentable, receiving $96. Then it was back to normal editing. Not bad for 2 hours editing on a Sunday afternoon, eh?
And surely you can understand why people would post this information publicly. Already on this very list I have been attacked by no less than 4 Wikimedia insiders (yourself included) who are clearly trying to run deflection and interference. Emailing the WMF and Sue privately, so that it can be quietly ignored, or swept under the carpet; this is the experience of many people in the past, so why waste one's time. And anyway, doesn't the public, including the media whom I have also taken the liberty of advising that this issue exists, have a right to know that such things are happening on a project that prides itself on how transparent it is.
Steven, does this smell like trolling and an elaborate "set up Sarah" joe-job? People can continue to bury their heads in the sand, attack me for trolling, run interference, and believe in vast conspiracies and other such nonsense. I will look at this logically, and taken in with information that Odder provided, it's couldn't be clearer.
What isn't so clear is how Sue and Jimmy will respond......
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Steven Walling <steven.walling@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Russavia <russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Odder has published a fantastic blog piece at
http://twkozlowski.net/paid-editing-thrives-in-the-heart-of-wikipedia/in
which it is revealed that a WMF employee is engaged in undeclared paid editing on English Wikipedia, and charging what it appears to be $300
per
article.
I have cc'ed both Sue and Jimmy in on this email, but also sending to
this
list as I know they, and other WMF employees, do use this list, and I
think
it would be pertinent that they respond publicly to the issues raised
here.
It is ever so more important given that the undeclared paid editing occurred AFTER the whole Wiki-PR debacle (Sue's press release, WMF's cease-and-desist, and of course the resultant media attention).
What do Jimmy and Sue believe should occur given that such editing
violates
Wikipedia policies and also Jimmy's so-called Bright Line Rule. In
relation
to Jimmy's line, many are still clueless as to what exactly this
Bright
Line is (it's not very bright), and how it should be applied in
practice,
so Jimmy, if you are out there, your comment is requested on that.
Cheers,
Russavia
I'm with David and Nathan here.
The "evidence" presented is an anonymized oDesk account and a
screenshot.
Screenshots are very easily doctored, and Wikipediocracy trolls have
many
reasons to attack a Wikimedian like Sarah. I wouldn't be surprised if they'd go so far as to set up a fake account using her picture and information.
If you really cared about solving this, you could try emailing Sarah,
her
superiors, and Sue directly. Considering many staff don't follow high volume lists like Wikimedia-l, especially on the weekend, it's not
exactly
the best way to get a response from the WMF. It is, however, a great
way
to
stir up bullshit drama.
I'll hold out for Sarah's comment, if she feels comfortable. Otherwise smells like trolling.
Steven _______________________________________________ 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
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
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
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
Sarah, when you read this, again I don't give a rats if you are paid-editing, more power to you actually. Unfortunately in this instance you haven't done so in what one would deem to be an ethical way based upon what the community expects,
This would be the community of the project from which you are blocked indefinitely.
On 6 January 2014 10:02, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote: ...
This would be the community of the project from which you are blocked indefinitely.
Throwing around tangential comments about blocks and de-sysops for correspondents on this list neither moves this forward, nor encourages others to express any views on this list (which is not restricted to English Wikipedia editors, even if it appears that way most of the time).
Fae
I apologise for the break and please go on with the shit throwing contest but I guess there is nothing wrong with "paid editing" if it follows the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Experienced editors write better articles, people with lots of experience in their favourite field write better articles, and since article writing is really hard work (unless, of course, you're doing it all wrong) editors usually pick a few themes and work on it. It is understandable that if someone would like to have a topic covered and would like to convince someone to write THAT article instead of other ones then it may mean some way of convincing, money or otherwise. Well written articles have much better chance to stay and evolve.
There is no compulsory (or proven, mind you) connection between monetary compensation and violation of policies, and especially experienced editors with good reputation will not want to skew viewpoints just because they are compensated. And still it's very much open to community editing these articles so nobody, however well paid, could assure anyone that negative facts will not appear in time.
I'd worry more about dishonest editing than paid ones.
Thanks. Now, please, continue.
On 1/6/14, 7:07 AM, Peter Gervai wrote:
I apologise for the break and please go on with the shit throwing contest but I guess there is nothing wrong with "paid editing" if it follows the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Experienced editors write better articles, people with lots of experience in their favourite field write better articles, and since article writing is really hard work (unless, of course, you're doing it all wrong) editors usually pick a few themes and work on it. It is understandable that if someone would like to have a topic covered and would like to convince someone to write THAT article instead of other ones then it may mean some way of convincing, money or otherwise. Well written articles have much better chance to stay and evolve.
Yes, if anything I'd like more of *this* kind of paid editing, where someone is willing to pay for a neutral article on a subject to be created. It does require that the person accepting money: 1) refuse payment from people who want articles created that simply shouldn't exit; and 2) actually write a neutral article, not PR-shill stuff. Some people won't live up to those criteria, but I don't see it as inherently problematic. There is a *possibility* of COI, but that is true for many things besides money. I currently write some articles on Greek locations, history, and museums. I'm also Greek by ethnicity. Is that already, in itself, a COI? Would it be more of a COI if a Greek cultural organization or a museum were paying me to improve the articles on such subjects? Are "Wikipedian in residence" programs COIs? Overall I think such interventions to improve Wikipedia by putting funds into supporting editors are a good thing, when the editing they support aligns with the mission of writing good articles.
Best, Mark
If anyone is interested, since this issue was raised, there has been a change to Sarah's profile on odesk.
The entry for "Wikipedia Page for Individual" is now rated 5 stars, and has the comment "Thanks, Sarah! I really appreciate you!".
Sarah has also been active on Wikipedia. I can understand that she is under a lot of stress right now, but she seriously needs to confirm or deny that she is engaging in undisclosed paid editing.
She's been asked to comment at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SarahStierch#Editing_mentioned and the issue is being discussed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Paid_editing_by_WMF_empl...
As per the Odesk Terms of Service (https://www.odesk.com/info/terms/) the company is locatred in Redwood City (San Francisco) and as per their Privacy Policy (https://www.odesk.com/info/terms/privacy/) under "Compliance with Laws and Law Enforcement." they state:
"oDesk cooperates with government and law enforcement officials and private parties to enforce and comply with the law. We will disclose any information about you to government or law enforcement officials or private parties as we, in our sole discretion, believe necessary or appropriate to respond to claims and legal process (including but not limited to subpoenas), to protect the property and rights of oDesk or a third party, to protect the safety of the public or any person, or to prevent or stop activity we may consider to be, or to pose a risk of being, illegal, unethical or legally actionable activity."
Whilst oDesk apparently requires people to provide methods by which they can be paid (which would further indicate it is indeed Sarah), if it is a joe-job account that would obviously come under the "illegal, unethical or legally actionable activity", and if someone is passing themselves off as Sarah, and even receiving payment as her, then as a "private party" (as noted in their privacy policy) she would obviously be able to pursue the joe-job person in the courts for a whole host of probably criminal and civil offences, and would expect her to follow through on this, because this would obviously reflect on her as both a private and public person.
No Geni, that would be the Wikimedia community, which from Sue's press release (http://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/10/21/sue-gardner-response-paid-advocacy-edit...) it is pretty clear that the terms of use she has invoked apply to. It applies to you on English Wikipedia, Dariusz on Polish Wikipedia and me on Commons -- to all editors on all Wikimedia projects.
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 6:02 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Sarah, when you read this, again I don't give a rats if you are paid-editing, more power to you actually. Unfortunately in this instance you haven't done so in what one would deem to be an ethical way based upon what the community expects,
This would be the community of the project from which you are blocked indefinitely.
-- geni _______________________________________________ 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
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org