Hi all,
I just wanted to find out what the stance of the WMF is on the issue of WMF employees and contractors editing articles on themselves, or fellow employees, in direct contravention of COI guidelines? Is this a practice that is officially frowned upon?
Whilst researching the Belfer fiasco I came across User:Wikitedium. The contributions[1] lead me to believe that isn't just a normal editor but one who has an ingrained conflict of interest, and it is pretty clear that the editor is Zack Exley, who is the former WMF Chief Financial Officer.
In April 2006, Exley added links to rootsprimary.org to the 2008 US Presidential election article.[2] Whilst rootsprimary.org no longer exists, it's archived version states: "Who's doing this?: Just me, Zack Exley, and a couple of friends."[3]
In August 2006, Exley created the article on himself.[4] Over the years, Exley made numerous edits to this article. In December 2009, Exley created the article on Argentine Middle School[5], which is in Argentine, a community of Kansas City, Kansas. Exley at the time (so it appears) lived in Kansas City, Missouri.[6] In March 2010, Exley wrote himself into the "Smart mob" article.[7]
In March 2013, Exley created a "nice little article about a notable Springfield coffee shop"[8] -- the coffee shop being in Springfield, Missouri, which is another place that Exley appears to have resided.[9]
Whilst the edits relating to himself were done before he joined the WMF, his article looks like a standard puff piece which is discouraged -- it uses WMF press releases, articles on ThoughtWorks which only mention him in passing[10], a self-authored article on motherjones.com[11]. Exley's only real claim to fame is that George W. Bush once called him a "garbage man".[12]
I had a look at Exley's Linkedin profile[13] which appears to begin in 1987-1988 when he was at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and is current up to the present time, and correlated these to Wikitedium's other edits, and couldn't see anything else of major concern.
What does concern me, however, is that there was a steady stream of WMF staffers/contractors who have edited Exley's wikibio. Although, the edits themselves may not seem to be worrisome, the fact that the puff nature of the article was not picked up on by these staffers is troubling. Also, given that the WMF and the community in general is against COI editing, these edits, as innocent as they are, should not be done by WMF staffers, but rather by others who don't have any perceived COI.
Could the WMF and the BoT perhaps clarify whether COI editing amongst WMF staff/contractors is officially discouraged/forbidden, and whether there is something official in writing which lays out guidelines for how and when WMF staff/contractors should be editing articles relating to their fellow WMF'ers.
Cheers
Russavia
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wikitedium [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_presidential_electi... [3] http://web.archive.org/web/20060423010423/http://rootsprimary.org/ [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zack_Exley&action=history [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Argentine_Middle_School&actio... [6] http://keywiki.org/index.php/Zack_Exley [7] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Smart_mob&diff=prev&oldid... [8] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Coffee_Ethic&action=histo... [9] https://clarity.fm/zackexley [10] http://www.chicagobusiness.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=9999100029386 [11] http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2000/12/organizing-online [12] http://web.archive.org/web/20060704033659/http://www.tjcenter.org/past2000.h... [13] http://www.linkedin.com/in/zackexley
It would be fantastic if the Foundation were to take *positive action* and make it clear that its employees are immediately directed to not edit Wikipedia articles about each other, ex-colleagues, the Foundation, the Foundation's partners, suppliers and contractors or the Foundation's critics. Even minor edits and corrections seem a strangely stupid thing for employees to indulge themselves in, when they know they can simply suggest the edits on on article talk page rather than having to later defend themselves from legitimate complaints of editing with a conflict of interest. I am disappointed to see some of the names of Foundation senior managers acting this way.
I refer interested readers to my previous suggestion of a simple proposal to avoid these situations at http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-April/070904.html - if Foundation employees do not like the words, perhaps employees would like to propose their own version in their own words.
I congratulate Russavia on a neat piece of analysis which should concern all Wikimedians who would like to see "advocacy editing" being managed in a more credible way. It would be refreshing if a member of the WMF board of trustees, or the current trustee candidates were to show appreciation for Russavia's work on this rather than silence.
Fae
Hi,
I can't speak on behalf of the rest of WMF staff, but since I made three edits to the 'Zack Exley' article, I feel that I owe a public explanation of the three edits that I made.
Here are the edits:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zack_Exley&diff=506286326&...
In my judgement of myself, I have a few breaches/COI/errors that I made that I should not have done:
1.) It seems that I made the edits during normal work hours. If I recall, I made the edits during my lunch break (but I can't remember). A few months ago I was reading the WMF employee handbook and realized that any personal editing is not allowed during work hours. Until then, I was unaware of an exact 'rule' for this. That's my fault. I don't have a job so that I can do the 'fun stuff' that I'd like to do - I have a job because there is a job to do, that's what I'm here for. That's it. That's all. This brings me to my second breach/COI/error:
2.) As you can see, the edits I made were an update to a photo on the 'Zack Exley' article. I made these edits from my personal account. I should mention that in the past, I have been sloppy about which account I used (WMF staff account or personal account). This is because in my role (especially in 2011-12), I have to capture stories, which takes time and I was reaching out to dozens and dozens of editors. I found out early on that when I used my personal account, Wikipedians were more likely to contact me back, so I got into the habit of largely ignoring my staff account, since it was important that I could relate to other editors on an editor-to-editor level, especially since my role is getting people to open up to me to tell me about themselves personally and why they became editors in the first place. I specifically remember one editor who said that they respected it more that I was a Wikipedian before I became a WMF staffer.
3.) I shot the photo that I added with the purpose of updating this page: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Staff_and_contractors but the Wikipedian in me got the better of me and I put the image in the other place where I thought it had utility, the article about Zack Exley. This was stupid. I should have put it on the talk page, and requested that another editor update it.
I have a history of bullheadedness and just going ahead: (Press play from 1:02:25, I talk about how my first edits were vandalism) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0NsY48OQdc
My current work involves a school in South Africa, and while I started the page for the school when I had no connection with it, I came to realize that it was a conflict of interest to keep editing after I had developed a relationship with the school and the administration, so I started to add my additions to the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinenjongo_High_School
But there was another issue that I would like to bring attention to, which is somewhat more appropriate to the conversation at the moment. I have created a few videos and added several photos that I have placed in this article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation
One edit I made in particular was so incredibly stupid to make, because it was a recruiting video for WMF:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Foundation&diff=490...
Fortunately, User:MZMcBride reverted it many days later:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Foundation&diff=494...
I can't find the response I made, but I recall saying something to user:MZMcBride like 'Kick me upside the head if I ever do something stupid like that again'.
I've always tried to step away from the issues of paid editing since media content-generation for fundraising and other WMF-related content is my role, not policy-generation or discussion around such issues. But as staff of the Wikimedia Foundation, and a staffer who creates media which could be called advertising, propaganda or public relations or whatever you'd like to call it, I may be someone who should speak about the issue.
I don't think that I should have made a few of the edits that I have. Some were stupid because of a conflict-of-interest with the thing I'm illustrating and my employer. It insults the core point of NPOV.
That said, from the perspective of the paid-editing issue of Wikipedia content, I do think that as long as editors who work for companies make it clear who their employers are (like I do on my user pages, both staff and personal), and where their potential conflicts of interests may be, that they may have quality content that they can use to illustrate and constructively improve Wikipedia articles and so should be allowed to edit in some capacity.
Per my opinions about WMF staff editing Wikimedia-related content, I think that the talk page suggestion above is a very reasonable way to create content and avoid COI editing. My only issue would be timeliness of updates, but that is a minor concern from my perspective.
I have never been a person who followed all the rules exactly, and was initially attracted to Wikipedia for those reasons (see the youtube video link above), so I apologize for any rule-ignoring/breaking behavior.
I will also say that I haven't spoken with or consulted any colleagues at WMF or any other editors or people involved with Wikimedia at all regarding this issue I'm writing about right now. im writing this because I felt it was important to do so. I feel it fair that the issues raised here be dealt with in a straightforward manner since I'm responsible for my edit history and my own personal opinions. I certainly don't wish to antagonize any of my colleagues with my opinions or words here. I think it's important to make things plain. I'm saying this all as an explanation, not an excuse. I value the questions raised and points made on this thread because they all point towards high standards. It points WMF staff to lead-by-example, which (to put it bluntly) will never not be a pain in the butt. It's something that should happen and people pointing out flaws (no matter how tiny or insignificant they may seem) are important to do. The minute that stops happening, that's bad for NPOV.
I'm open to any thoughts or feedback regarding anything that I have done above or have said in this thread.
Thank you for your time.
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
It would be fantastic if the Foundation were to take *positive action* and make it clear that its employees are immediately directed to not edit Wikipedia articles about each other, ex-colleagues, the Foundation, the Foundation's partners, suppliers and contractors or the Foundation's critics. Even minor edits and corrections seem a strangely stupid thing for employees to indulge themselves in, when they know they can simply suggest the edits on on article talk page rather than having to later defend themselves from legitimate complaints of editing with a conflict of interest. I am disappointed to see some of the names of Foundation senior managers acting this way.
I refer interested readers to my previous suggestion of a simple proposal to avoid these situations at http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-April/070904.html
- if Foundation employees do not like the words, perhaps employees
would like to propose their own version in their own words.
I congratulate Russavia on a neat piece of analysis which should concern all Wikimedians who would like to see "advocacy editing" being managed in a more credible way. It would be refreshing if a member of the WMF board of trustees, or the current trustee candidates were to show appreciation for Russavia's work on this rather than silence.
Fae
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
On 16 April 2014 22:03, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
I just wanted to find out what the stance of the WMF is on the issue of WMF employees and contractors editing articles on themselves, or fellow employees, in direct contravention of COI guidelines? Is this a practice that is officially frowned upon?
Whilst researching the Belfer fiasco I came across User:Wikitedium. The contributions[1] lead me to believe that isn't just a normal editor but one who has an ingrained conflict of interest, and it is pretty clear that the editor is Zack Exley, who is the former WMF Chief Financial Officer.
In April 2006, Exley added links to rootsprimary.org to the 2008 US Presidential election article.[2] Whilst rootsprimary.org no longer exists, it's archived version states: "Who's doing this?: Just me, Zack Exley, and a couple of friends."[3]
In August 2006, Exley created the article on himself.[4] Over the years, Exley made numerous edits to this article. In December 2009, Exley created the article on Argentine Middle School[5], which is in Argentine, a community of Kansas City, Kansas. Exley at the time (so it appears) lived in Kansas City, Missouri.[6] In March 2010, Exley wrote himself into the "Smart mob" article.[7]
In March 2013, Exley created a "nice little article about a notable Springfield coffee shop"[8] -- the coffee shop being in Springfield, Missouri, which is another place that Exley appears to have resided.[9]
Whilst the edits relating to himself were done before he joined the WMF, his article looks like a standard puff piece which is discouraged -- it uses WMF press releases, articles on ThoughtWorks which only mention him in passing[10], a self-authored article on motherjones.com[11]. Exley's only real claim to fame is that George W. Bush once called him a "garbage man".[12]
I had a look at Exley's Linkedin profile[13] which appears to begin in 1987-1988 when he was at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and is current up to the present time, and correlated these to Wikitedium's other edits, and couldn't see anything else of major concern.
What does concern me, however, is that there was a steady stream of WMF staffers/contractors who have edited Exley's wikibio. Although, the edits themselves may not seem to be worrisome, the fact that the puff nature of the article was not picked up on by these staffers is troubling. Also, given that the WMF and the community in general is against COI editing, these edits, as innocent as they are, should not be done by WMF staffers, but rather by others who don't have any perceived COI.
Could the WMF and the BoT perhaps clarify whether COI editing amongst WMF staff/contractors is officially discouraged/forbidden, and whether there is something official in writing which lays out guidelines for how and when WMF staff/contractors should be editing articles relating to their fellow WMF'ers.
Cheers
Russavia
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wikitedium [2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_presidential_electi...
[3] http://web.archive.org/web/20060423010423/http://rootsprimary.org/ [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zack_Exley&action=history [5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Argentine_Middle_School&actio...
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Smart_mob&diff=prev&oldid...
[8]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Coffee_Ethic&action=histo...
[9] https://clarity.fm/zackexley [10]
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=9999100029386
[11] http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2000/12/organizing-online [12]
http://web.archive.org/web/20060704033659/http://www.tjcenter.org/past2000.h...
[13] http://www.linkedin.com/in/zackexley
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 16 April 2014 14:03, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Could the WMF and the BoT perhaps clarify whether COI editing amongst WMF staff/contractors is officially discouraged/forbidden, and whether there is something official in writing which lays out guidelines for how and when WMF staff/contractors should be editing articles relating to their fellow WMF'ers.
Hi Russavia,
When WMF staff edit the projects, they (we) are subject to the same policies and guidelines as everybody else. That means that if a staff person breaks a rule on the projects, that person risks being warned or reverted or sanctioned by the community, the same as everybody.
There are no special WMF policies related to this. It might seem that perhaps there should be, but I have thought about it a lot and I believe it'd be a bad idea. In part that's because the on-wiki policies/practices/guidelines/conventions are numerous and ever-evolving, and so copying or mirroring or summarizing them, and keeping that updated, would be a lot of work for the WMF. But it's mainly a roles-and-responsibilities issue. Editorial policies are developed, and therefore also best-understood and best-enforced, not by the WMF but by the community. Equally, the community plays no role in the development or enforcement of WMF internal staff policies and practices.
I'll also briefly say this: my own first edits, back in 2005 or 2006 before I joined the WMF, were anon edits to the article about the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, where I then worked. Back then I had no idea that was frowned upon, and when I found out years later I was mortified. But: long-time editors told me it was okay, that what I did was actually very typical for a new editor, and that many people who started out making vandalism or COI edits went on to become highly valued contributors. It's been obvious to me in the years since that yeah, my story is in no way unusual -- in fact, my experience is that whenever a handful of editors gather together socially, usually within a hour or two they'll start swapping funny stories about their early on-wiki rule-breaking. It's no big deal. Upshot: making mistakes as a not-very-experienced editor needs to be understood to be a normal part of the learning process, and IMO trying to name-and-shame people for it is bad form. We were all new once :)
Thanks, Sue
Sue and all:
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 7:38 PM, Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org wrote:
There are no special WMF policies related to this. It might seem that perhaps there should be, but I have thought about it a lot and I believe it'd be a bad idea.
This is something I've also thought about a lot. I'd like to offer a different perspective.
In part that's because the on-wiki
policies/practices/guidelines/conventions are numerous and ever-evolving, and so copying or mirroring or summarizing them, and keeping that updated, would be a lot of work for the WMF.
The community guidelines are extremely complex, yes. I consider that an argument *in favor* of adopting simpler rules for staff, that exceed community rules. For a general idea, here are the kind of rules that could be implemented for staff: * Staff will not edit Wikipedia, at all * Staff will not edit Wikipedia unless they have discussed appropriate boundaries around their editing with their supervisor * Staff will not edit Wikipedia unless they have discussed appropriate boundaries with XYZ people in the Community department * Staff will not edit Wikipedia under accounts that are unconnected to their real name * Staff will not edit Wikipedia on behalf of paying clients
Any one of these rules would *reduce* the amount of confusion a staff member might have about what is or isn't OK, not increase it. They would of course remain subject to Wikipedia's rules as well, but these would help them stay out of the kind of grey area that might get them in trouble.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 11:21 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
The community guidelines are extremely complex, yes. I consider that an argument *in favor* of adopting simpler rules for staff, that exceed community rules. For a general idea, here are the kind of rules that could be implemented for staff:
- Staff will not edit Wikipedia, at all
- Staff will not edit Wikipedia unless they have discussed appropriate
boundaries around their editing with their supervisor
- Staff will not edit Wikipedia unless they have discussed appropriate
boundaries with XYZ people in the Community department
Any policies like that would increase disconnect between WMF and community, not decrease it. It would disincentivize hiring from the community (because it's risky), and would disincentivize community members from applying to join the staff (because they'd have to give up a loved hobby). It would reduce the likelihood of managers to encourage people to become editors (because it's dangerous) and instead encourage a more corporate mentality towards the site and its users. In short, I think these are truly counterproductive suggestions, and I'm 100% supportive of Sue's original point. We have to accept that people will come in conflict with normal community guidelines, and we should encourage people to get involved in Wikipedia, because understanding the thing you support is key to supporting it well.
The COI stuff is scary because it sets of people's alarm bells around integrity and ethics, but it shouldn't be as scary. A COI edit of an article about yourself is an entirely different ball o' wax than an edit on behalf of a paying client. Like Sue said, everyone was new once, and it takes people a while to learn the ropes. And even those of us who've been around for a while sometimes do things we shouldn't - we're all human. That's why we have community policies.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The rules, IMO, are pretty simple:
- Make it clear when you're acting in an official capacity; - Be especially mindful when editing WMF-related topics, since WMF has a conflict-of-interest about itself. - When getting involved, it's understood that you'll make mistakes - that's fine. Be bold. :-) Follow community norms and best practices.
Cheers, Erik
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 11:57 PM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 11:21 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
The community guidelines are extremely complex, yes. I consider that an argument *in favor* of adopting simpler rules for staff, that exceed community rules. For a general idea, here are the kind of rules that
could
be implemented for staff:
- Staff will not edit Wikipedia, at all
- Staff will not edit Wikipedia unless they have discussed appropriate
boundaries around their editing with their supervisor
- Staff will not edit Wikipedia unless they have discussed appropriate
boundaries with XYZ people in the Community department
Any policies like that would increase disconnect between WMF and community, not decrease it.
As a former staff member who actively sought out (and received very little) guidance on how to approach my approach to Wikipedia editing during my tenure, I very strongly disagree. (My volunteer edits dropped sharply during the time I was employed by WMF.[1] A significant contributing factor was not knowing under what circumstances I would have cover from my employer if I encountered resistance to my volunteer editing.)
It would disincentivize hiring from the
community (because it's risky),
I would like to avoid naming names in this thread, but surely you can see the risks associated with the approach you *have* taken? Leaving the Belfer Center situation aside, this year there has been significant media coverage of a prominent staff member whose employment ended abruptly over paid editing that, on the face of it, violated no publicly known policy. And last year, a staff member who was hired specifically for their skills in community engagement was banned by English Wikipedia for harassment -- and as far as I know, remains on the payroll.
If "connection with the community" was a consideration in setting your policy, your policy has had some dramatic failures.
and would disincentivize community
members from applying to join the staff (because they'd have to give up a loved hobby).
Responsibility typically comes with sacrifices. Leaving that responsibility up to individual staff members, rather than engaging with it at an organizational level, does not seem to have been an effective approach.
It would reduce the likelihood of managers to encourage people to become editors (because it's dangerous)
You expect managers to encourage their staff to become editors? That strikes me as a strange expectation. But again: my strong contention is that guidelines that *exceed* Wikipedia's policies in clarity, make it *less* dangerous to edit, not more dangerous.
and
instead encourage a more corporate mentality
"Corporate mentality" sound to me like an appeal to an emotional response from a community that is not always sympathetic to capitalism. But many policies and approaches taken by corporations have been evolved throughout history because they are effective and worthwhile -- not because they are corporate and evil.
Guidelines around how to interact with a community you exist to serve seems like an especially important area. Why is the Wikimedia Foundation trying to reinvent the wheel here? Or maybe a better analogy -- why is the Wikimedia Foundation's position that wheels actually aren't all that important after all?
understanding the thing you support is key to supporting it well.
On this part we agree 100%. My concerns are not about the goal, but about the path you have taken to try to reach it.
The COI stuff is scary because it sets of people's alarm bells around integrity and ethics, but it shouldn't be as scary. A COI edit of an article about yourself is an entirely different ball o' wax than an edit on behalf of a paying client.
No. Simply, no.
Like Sue said, everyone was new once, and it takes people a while to learn the ropes. And even those of us who've been around for a while sometimes do things we shouldn't
- we're all human.
I do not hear anybody saying that simple human mistakes are inexcusable.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
[1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/supercount/index.php?user=Peteforsyth&project=...
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:24 AM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
As a former staff member who actively sought out (and received very little) guidance on how to approach my approach to Wikipedia editing during my tenure,
In other words, you were expected to apply good judgment. It would have been nice if you had been given explicit assurances that editing Wikipedia while you're on staff (obviously primarily outside of work time) is perfectly fine, because it is. :)
I would like to avoid naming names in this thread, but surely you can see the risks associated with the approach you *have* taken? Leaving the Belfer Center situation aside,
.. which, if anything, could have been avoided had everyone who was part of the project been a bit more experienced with Wikimedia norms and practices.
this year there has been significant media coverage of a prominent staff member whose employment ended abruptly over paid editing that, on the face of it, violated no publicly known policy.
When money and undisclosed side contracts are involved, things get a lot more complicated - shocking, I know. Hard cases make bad law. We should default to openness, to encouraging participation in our community, and to forgiving mistakes. That is the right thing to do for an organization that is, needs to be, and will remain anchored in the community.
On this, you and I seem to be about as far apart as we can be, so we will have to agree to disagree. This is why in threads like the Belfer one I encourage people to stay cool and not let this stuff get to their heads, because this is the kind of moral panicky BS we need to stay the hell clear of.
Erik
On 17 April 2014 08:46, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote: ...
On this, you and I seem to be about as far apart as we can be, so we will have to agree to disagree. This is why in threads like the Belfer one I encourage people to stay cool and not let this stuff get to their heads, because this is the kind of moral panicky BS we need to stay the hell clear of.
Staying cool is something we can all agree with.
However when long term senior managers of the Foundation respond to respectfully written whistle-blowing messages such as Russavia's or Tomasz' previous blog post by deriding them as raising "moral panicky [Bull Shit]", you are putting these words in the mouths of your CEO and Board of Trustees. If this is the vulgar way that the Foundation wishes to be publicly represented, I would be very surprised.
This is not the first time that Erik has been sarcastic and rude in an apparent attempt to close down discussion in public responses to whistle-blowers. Perhaps Sue or one of the Trustees would like to say something about their expectation for exemplary and mellow behaviour towards the Wikimedia Community from their senior management team?
Thanks, Fae
Hi everyone,
Just to share what we do at Wikimedia France.
Employees are allowed to edit Wikimedia Projects from personnal accounts. When they do as Wikimedia France employees, they use their "professional" accounts, that stays they're employed by WMFr.
We do not look at what they do on their personal time with their personal account. The Wikimedia Project policies are there to prevent any bad behavior.
We believe our role is to empower our local community. To help it meet-up, conceive projects and run projects. We want our employees to support local volunteers. If we want them to do that efficiently, we need them to understand what editing Wikimedia projects means.
Moreover, I don't know how it is in other countries, but in France, as an employer, it is really hard to forbid an employee to do a specific activity on their free time.
Best, -- Christophe
On 17 April 2014 10:08, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 April 2014 08:46, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote: ...
On this, you and I seem to be about as far apart as we can be, so we will have to agree to disagree. This is why in threads like the Belfer one I encourage people to stay cool and not let this stuff get to their heads, because this is the kind of moral panicky BS we need to stay the hell clear of.
Staying cool is something we can all agree with.
However when long term senior managers of the Foundation respond to respectfully written whistle-blowing messages such as Russavia's or Tomasz' previous blog post by deriding them as raising "moral panicky [Bull Shit]", you are putting these words in the mouths of your CEO and Board of Trustees. If this is the vulgar way that the Foundation wishes to be publicly represented, I would be very surprised.
This is not the first time that Erik has been sarcastic and rude in an apparent attempt to close down discussion in public responses to whistle-blowers. Perhaps Sue or one of the Trustees would like to say something about their expectation for exemplary and mellow behaviour towards the Wikimedia Community from their senior management team?
Thanks, Fae -- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
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
Same practice here, through spontneous reflection independent of wmfr. Seemes that this is at least natural for a chapter. I believe wmf employees should also be encouraged to contribute to the projects.
Erlend Wmno
Den torsdag 17. april 2014 skrev Christophe Henner < christophe.henner@gmail.com> følgende:
Hi everyone,
Just to share what we do at Wikimedia France.
Employees are allowed to edit Wikimedia Projects from personnal accounts. When they do as Wikimedia France employees, they use their "professional" accounts, that stays they're employed by WMFr.
We do not look at what they do on their personal time with their personal account. The Wikimedia Project policies are there to prevent any bad behavior.
We believe our role is to empower our local community. To help it meet-up, conceive projects and run projects. We want our employees to support local volunteers. If we want them to do that efficiently, we need them to understand what editing Wikimedia projects means.
Moreover, I don't know how it is in other countries, but in France, as an employer, it is really hard to forbid an employee to do a specific activity on their free time.
Best,
Christophe
On 17 April 2014 10:08, Fæ <faewik@gmail.com javascript:;> wrote:
On 17 April 2014 08:46, Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.org javascript:;>
wrote:
...
On this, you and I seem to be about as far apart as we can be, so we will have to agree to disagree. This is why in threads like the Belfer one I encourage people to stay cool and not let this stuff get to their heads, because this is the kind of moral panicky BS we need to stay the hell clear of.
Staying cool is something we can all agree with.
However when long term senior managers of the Foundation respond to respectfully written whistle-blowing messages such as Russavia's or Tomasz' previous blog post by deriding them as raising "moral panicky [Bull Shit]", you are putting these words in the mouths of your CEO and Board of Trustees. If this is the vulgar way that the Foundation wishes to be publicly represented, I would be very surprised.
This is not the first time that Erik has been sarcastic and rude in an apparent attempt to close down discussion in public responses to whistle-blowers. Perhaps Sue or one of the Trustees would like to say something about their expectation for exemplary and mellow behaviour towards the Wikimedia Community from their senior management team?
Thanks, Fae -- faewik@gmail.com javascript:;
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
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>
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 17 April 2014 12:49, Erlend Bjørtvedt erlend@wikimedia.no wrote:
Same practice here, through spontneous reflection independent of wmfr. Seemes that this is at least natural for a chapter. I believe wmf employees should also be encouraged to contribute to the projects.
There seems some confusion. There are two real recommendations here, none involves stopping employees of any Wikimedia organization from being editors.
1. The examples Russavia has identified show instances of outright conflict of interest. Some edits state they are editing knowing they have a conflict of interest but have not bothered to propose changes so that others without a conflict can chose to implement them. It is recommended that the Foundation direct its employees to never edit where there is a conflict of interest relating to their employment.
2. Using pseudonyms or anonymous accounts which obscure that the editor is an employee, and may be making edits related to their employment, is bad practice as it goes against our movement's commitment to simple transparency and openness. It is recommended that the Foundation direct its employees and contractors to ensure their interest is declared clearly and consistently so that the Wikimedia Community is never seen to be misled.
Fae
I can't think of a better justification for IAR than this thread. On Apr 17, 2014 8:04 AM, "Fæ" faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 April 2014 12:49, Erlend Bjørtvedt erlend@wikimedia.no wrote:
Same practice here, through spontneous reflection independent of wmfr. Seemes that this is at least natural for a chapter. I believe wmf
employees
should also be encouraged to contribute to the projects.
There seems some confusion. There are two real recommendations here, none involves stopping employees of any Wikimedia organization from being editors.
- The examples Russavia has identified show instances of outright
conflict of interest. Some edits state they are editing knowing they have a conflict of interest but have not bothered to propose changes so that others without a conflict can chose to implement them. It is recommended that the Foundation direct its employees to never edit where there is a conflict of interest relating to their employment.
- Using pseudonyms or anonymous accounts which obscure that the
editor is an employee, and may be making edits related to their employment, is bad practice as it goes against our movement's commitment to simple transparency and openness. It is recommended that the Foundation direct its employees and contractors to ensure their interest is declared clearly and consistently so that the Wikimedia Community is never seen to be misled.
Fae
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
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 Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 1:08 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
This is not the first time that Erik has been sarcastic and rude in an apparent attempt to close down discussion in public responses to whistle-blowers.
Please. You are making a mockery of every whistleblower on the planet; it's disgraceful. Russavia's original post cites examples such as editing about a coffeeshop or a school. They're frivolous examples, pointless, trollish, part of a sequence of behavior to mix the occasional legitimate concern with wild insinuations and conjecture. You tend to join these types of threads with cheerful and seemingly limitless energy to attempt to whip up tiny shitstorms. This has turned far too many conversations into the Fae/Russavia traveling circus, with both of you demanding individual explanations from the Board for why someone pooped.
I have a ton of respect for Pete and I'm not discounting the merits of a conversation about how such editing should be handled, but I am cautioning very strongly against overreacting, because it can introduce very pernicious long term effects into our movement.
Erik
On 17 April 2014 09:40, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 1:08 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
This is not the first time that Erik has been sarcastic and rude in an apparent attempt to close down discussion in public responses to whistle-blowers.
Please. You are making a mockery of every whistleblower on the planet; it's disgraceful. Russavia's original post cites examples such as editing about a coffeeshop or a school. They're frivolous examples, pointless, trollish, part of a sequence of behavior to mix the occasional legitimate concern with wild insinuations and conjecture. You tend to join these types of threads with cheerful and seemingly limitless energy to attempt to whip up tiny shitstorms. This has turned far too many conversations into the Fae/Russavia traveling circus, with both of you demanding individual explanations from the Board for why someone pooped.
Erik, you are not helping anyone by writing derisory nonsense and continuing to attack long term Wikimedians in this thread. Nobody has made "wild insinuations", nobody has demanded explanations from the board for "why someone pooped".
I expect Foundation senior managers to behave in a civil and respectful way when writing on governance failures and representing the Foundation and our movement. Senior managers are paid to do precisely this. I am paid precisely nothing to read the nonsense you are now spouting.
If you cannot behave yourself, please leave responses to other managers in the Foundation or check with Sue before pressing "send".
Thanks, Fae
On 17 April 2014 09:46, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Every time I see "Fae" or "Russavia" in a from: line, I dread opening the email. Fae, posts like this, where any actual point you have is buried under a mountain of your overwhelming bitterness, with you tag-teaming with Russavia on *his* overwhelming bitterness, are precisely what we were discussing earlier this week on wikimediauk-l, and why you're moderated on that list, and why Russavia's moderated on wikimediaau-l. Please, stop. Just stop. Look at your life and what sort of benighted creature you're turning into. Ask yourself (don't tell us, we really, really don't care any more) how you got here.
- d.
David, I am not a "creature", nor am I am a part of a conspiracy with Russavia.
Your actions against both Russavia and myself, with no process for appeal, say more about the direction our open movement is taking in putting up barriers to whistle-blowing rather than accepting this is part of a healthy and transparent open culture.
My response on this thread for Erik's unacceptable public behaviour as a Foundation senior manager have nothing whatsoever to do with Wikimedia UK or the wikimediauk-l list, so your using your authority on a different list to punish me is bizarre.
Fae
On 17 April 2014 09:58, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 April 2014 09:46, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Every time I see "Fae" or "Russavia" in a from: line, I dread opening the email. Fae, posts like this, where any actual point you have is buried under a mountain of your overwhelming bitterness, with you tag-teaming with Russavia on *his* overwhelming bitterness, are precisely what we were discussing earlier this week on wikimediauk-l, and why you're moderated on that list, and why Russavia's moderated on wikimediaau-l. Please, stop. Just stop. Look at your life and what sort of benighted creature you're turning into. Ask yourself (don't tell us, we really, really don't care any more) how you got here.
- d.
On 17 April 2014 10:41, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
My response on this thread for Erik's unacceptable public behaviour as a Foundation senior manager have nothing whatsoever to do with Wikimedia UK or the wikimediauk-l list, so your using your authority on a different list to punish me is bizarre.
I felt that saying you'd desist in querulous behaviour on one list and immediately starting up on another didn't constitute something that would predict less obnoxious behaviour.
My main point stands: nobody cares any more. But go ahead, make the list a toxic waste dump, I can't stop you here.
- d.
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:46 AM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:24 AM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
As a former staff member who actively sought out (and received very
little)
guidance on how to approach my approach to Wikipedia editing during my tenure,
In other words, you were expected to apply good judgment. It would have been nice if you had been given explicit assurances that editing Wikipedia while you're on staff (obviously primarily outside of work time) is perfectly fine, because it is. :)
I think I've been misunderstood on this point -- perhaps my fault. I want
to be very clear -- I don't feel "wronged" on this front, it isn't a big deal to me. I brought this up only in order to comment on your assertion that giving staff broad license, and no guidance above and beyond Wikipedia policy, would tend to *strengthen* volunteer engagement, which I think is backwards.
One of the dynamics that was initially challenging for me, personally and professionally, was that some editors I had known for some time as a volunteer -- and others who I was just meeting -- began to defer to my judgment. The disposition of community members toward me changed noticeably. I did not want to be inappropriately overbearing, and among all the things I was trying to accomplish in my work, that was a puzzle I did not have time to apply much thought to. Some guidance from WMF management could have helped with that situation. (The lack of it did not, in the long run, constitute a big problem.)
But Erik, it seems to me that you're operating from a premise that guidelines or rules inherently tend to discourage activity. I think that premise is flawed.
I would like to avoid naming names in this thread, but surely you can see
the risks associated with the approach you *have* taken? Leaving the
Belfer
Center situation aside,
.. which, if anything, could have been avoided had everyone who was part of the project been a bit more experienced with Wikimedia norms and practices.
Agreed.
We should default to openness, to encouraging participation in our community, and to forgiving mistakes. That is the right thing to do for an organization that is, needs to be, and will remain anchored in the community.
Agreed.
On this, you and I seem to be about as far apart as we can be, so we will have to agree to disagree. This is why in threads like the Belfer one I encourage people to stay cool and not let this stuff get to their heads, because this is the kind of moral panicky BS we need to stay the hell clear of.
I have to confess -- I am having a lot of trouble parsing your last paragraph. What is the point where we are so far apart? And (as I think Fae has asked) what is the "moral panicky BS" and how does it relate to this discussion?
I think you've left aside the more significant points I raised -- but it's late here, so maybe you're planning to come back to it tomorrow.
Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
Yes. Our employees in wmno are recruited externally, and could never hve done their job or learnt to know the projects If it wasn,t for:
A - editing from a wmno account in order to give community information about events, etc.
B - editing from a private account, under full name, to learn how to edit and write on the Wikipedia, in order to commumicate to the outside world how Wikipedia works and what it is about.
This whole thing, by the way, just illustrates how impractible and difficult COI regulation has become. If the community ban third-party paid editing, and force employee-editors to state their affiliation at their user page, the normal rules on npov and sources would do the rest of the job. And spare us of all these "investigations" of each other.
Erlend Bjørtvedt Wmno
Den torsdag 17. april 2014 skrev Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org følgende:
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 11:21 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth@gmail.comjavascript:;> wrote:
The community guidelines are extremely complex, yes. I consider that an argument *in favor* of adopting simpler rules for staff, that exceed community rules. For a general idea, here are the kind of rules that
could
be implemented for staff:
- Staff will not edit Wikipedia, at all
- Staff will not edit Wikipedia unless they have discussed appropriate
boundaries around their editing with their supervisor
- Staff will not edit Wikipedia unless they have discussed appropriate
boundaries with XYZ people in the Community department
Any policies like that would increase disconnect between WMF and community, not decrease it. It would disincentivize hiring from the community (because it's risky), and would disincentivize community members from applying to join the staff (because they'd have to give up a loved hobby). It would reduce the likelihood of managers to encourage people to become editors (because it's dangerous) and instead encourage a more corporate mentality towards the site and its users. In short, I think these are truly counterproductive suggestions, and I'm 100% supportive of Sue's original point. We have to accept that people will come in conflict with normal community guidelines, and we should encourage people to get involved in Wikipedia, because understanding the thing you support is key to supporting it well.
The COI stuff is scary because it sets of people's alarm bells around integrity and ethics, but it shouldn't be as scary. A COI edit of an article about yourself is an entirely different ball o' wax than an edit on behalf of a paying client. Like Sue said, everyone was new once, and it takes people a while to learn the ropes. And even those of us who've been around for a while sometimes do things we shouldn't
- we're all human. That's why we have community policies.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The rules, IMO, are pretty simple:
- Make it clear when you're acting in an official capacity;
- Be especially mindful when editing WMF-related topics, since WMF has
a conflict-of-interest about itself.
- When getting involved, it's understood that you'll make mistakes -
that's fine. Be bold. :-) Follow community norms and best practices.
Cheers, Erik
-- Erik Möller VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation
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>
Sue,
Thank you for your response, it is appreciated.
Indeed we are all n00bs at some stage, and we all make COI mistakes, and I can admit to making this mistake myself twice early on. But we all learn pretty quickly that COI editing is frowned upon, and can cause problems later on.
I would like to echo pretty much what Pete Forsyth has stated, and wholeheartedly agree that the WMF should go above and beyond what we would expect other organisations to adhere to on our projects. Whilst, Pete's suggestions on possibly policies certainly do go above and beyond what is expected in the community, they would be quite difficult to implement. So how about a simple WMF policy that states something along the lines of:
"Employees and contractors of the Wikimedia Foundation shall not edit articles relating to the Wikimedia Foundation, broadly construed, but at rather directed to raise potential edits on the talk pages of affected articles. This directive does not apply to the reverting vandalism, removing copyright violations or potentially libellous materials."
Such a directive for WMF people would be easy to make, easy to implement, easy to enforce, and would demonstrate that the Wikimedia Foundation itself is at the forefront, and setting an example for other organisations and leading by example.
Comments welcome Sue.
Cheers
Russavia
On 4/17/2014 7:37 AM, Russavia wrote:
So how about a simple WMF policy that states something along the lines of:
"Employees and contractors of the Wikimedia Foundation shall not edit articles relating to the Wikimedia Foundation, broadly construed, but at rather directed to raise potential edits on the talk pages of affected articles. This directive does not apply to the reverting vandalism, removing copyright violations or potentially libellous materials."
To illustrate how silly this can get on some level, consider the fact that justifiably or not, the media and the general public often treat the content of Wikimedia projects as if it reflects on the reputation of the Wikimedia Foundation. Thus when "broadly construed", any edit to any article could in a sense be charged with a conflict of interest because it's an effort to make the Wikimedia Foundation look better. So basically staff would not be allowed to edit at all, and the second part of this policy would amount to no more than a limited exception under which all edits have to be made, or at the very least vetted, by the legal department.
That in turn would lead to an atmosphere in which staff edits must be considered authoritative and cannot be challenged or altered by the community, which I really don't think is the direction we should go. The occasional deference Pete was concerned about is already a distortion of the normal editing dynamic, and not something we want to try and spread more widely.
--Michael Snow
On 17 April 2014 16:25, Michael Snow wikipedia@frontier.com wrote:
To illustrate how silly this can get on some level, consider the fact that justifiably or not, the media and the general public often treat the content of Wikimedia projects as if it reflects on the reputation of the Wikimedia Foundation. Thus when "broadly construed", any edit to any article could in a sense be charged with a conflict of interest because it's an effort to make the Wikimedia Foundation look better. So basically staff would not be allowed to edit at all, and the second part of this policy would amount to no more than a limited exception under which all edits have to be made, or at the very least vetted, by the legal department. That in turn would lead to an atmosphere in which staff edits must be considered authoritative and cannot be challenged or altered by the community, which I really don't think is the direction we should go. The occasional deference Pete was concerned about is already a distortion of the normal editing dynamic, and not something we want to try and spread more widely.
We also have ample real-world evidence that there is literally no limit to the querulousness of banned users. Going to great effort to carefully craft a stick for them to wield strikes me as not a productive pastime.
- d.
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Michael Snow wikipedia@frontier.com wrote:
On 4/17/2014 7:37 AM, Russavia wrote:
So how about a simple WMF policy that states something along the lines of:
"Employees and contractors of the Wikimedia Foundation shall not edit articles relating to the Wikimedia Foundation, broadly construed, but at rather directed to raise potential edits on the talk pages of affected articles. This directive does not apply to the reverting vandalism, removing copyright violations or potentially libellous materials."
To illustrate how silly this can get on some level, consider the fact that justifiably or not, the media and the general public often treat the content of Wikimedia projects as if it reflects on the reputation of the Wikimedia Foundation. Thus when "broadly construed", any edit to any article could in a sense be charged with a conflict of interest because it's an effort to make the Wikimedia Foundation look better. So basically staff would not be allowed to edit at all, and the second part of this policy would amount to no more than a limited exception under which all edits have to be made, or at the very least vetted, by the legal department.
hehe, micheal, _that_ one seems far reached. but i must admit, few people at the wikimedia foundation really seem to believe wikipedia is "theirs". and the volunteers spend their time to make the foundation justify WMFs expenses to the U.S. tax authorities, and/or WMF to look good. they even put the foundation logo on a blog.wikimedia.org, instead of the wikimedia logo.
but at the baseline you are of course right. and i appreciate russavia bringing up the topic and fully support what sue, erik, christophe were writing, just to name a few comments going this direction. i do not agree with pete forsyth, and everybody who thinks WMF and its employees needs special treatment. and i liked the two core messages, just to repeat it:
1. what zack did was not ok by that times rules, is not ok according to current rules, and most probably will never ever be ok. Independent if he works for WMF or not. and, pete, adding a rule does not make the existing rules simpler. throwing away (aka _delete_) rules makes it simpler.
2. if an organisations employee or officer does not volunteer in the movement, it will lead to disconnecting the organization from the voluntary movement. this is valid for WMF, chapters, thematic orgs.
rupert.
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 10:28 AM, rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.comwrote:
i do not agree with pete forsyth,
I accept Sue's recent statement -- she's right, the final call about what kind of policy the organization will or won't have rests with the organization.
and everybody who thinks WMF and its
employees needs special treatment.
I do not agree with this characterization of my words -- but I'm happy to move on.
- what zack did was not ok by that times rules, is not ok according
to current rules, and most probably will never ever be ok.
I agree with that statement.
(By the way: It may be known to some that Zack and I have not always seen eye-to-eye; but I respect him and what he has done for the movement, and I am trying, as always, not to let any personal feelings influence how I proceed.)
Let me be specific about the problem I see, because there have been many misunderstandings in this thread. I do think it is safe to assume that User:Wikitedium is Zack Exley.
In February 2010, either shortly before or during his application for a top level executive position as Chief Community Officer, Zack created[1] a user page with the following content:
"Mainly, I just fix typos when I come across them. I depend on Wikipedia and I'm happy I can help improve it in at least a small way."
That was absolutely false as a description of how User:Wikitedium had operated in the preceding four years. The user account's edits had been almost entirely devoted to expanding content related to Zack Exley and his career. It was a bad decision to create that user page -- specifically, a bad decision for somebody seeking to set the direction for how the Wikimedia Foundation would build its relationship to community.
After he was hired, Zack continued to use that account -- more responsibly, yes -- but he neither corrected the false statement on its user page, or disclose his connection to it. In my view, another bad decision.
And now, close to 24 hours after all this has been brought up, neither Zack, nor anybody at the WMF, has addressed this on the wiki. Now, this is looking to me like a *really* bad decision.
The WMF's position has been made clear, that it's Wikipedia's rules and norms that should be followed. I still maintain that's not the best way to go about it, but if that's what remains -- so be it. The Wikipedia policies and processes around a situation like this are very clear.[2]
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Wikitedium&oldid=3432756... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry
On 17 Apr 2014, at 20:01, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
The WMF's position has been made clear, that it's Wikipedia's rules and norms that should be followed.
It sounds like this is something that needs to be made clearer in the WMF's staff handbook (presumably such a thing exists?) to avoid doubt and confusion in the future.
Thanks, Mike
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
After he was hired, Zack continued to use that account -- more responsibly, yes -- but he neither corrected the false statement on its user page, or disclose his connection to it.
That is untrue; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zackexley .
Erik
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
After he was hired, Zack continued to use that account -- more
responsibly,
yes -- but he neither corrected the false statement on its user page, or disclose his connection to it.
That is untrue; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zackexley
Interesting, but not especially relevant. What path could a reader or editor of the Zack Exley article follow to learn about that connection?
Disclosing on the Zack Exley user page isn't sufficient to meet basic transparency.
Pete
On 17 April 2014 15:23, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
After he was hired, Zack continued to use that account -- more
responsibly,
yes -- but he neither corrected the false statement on its user page,
or
disclose his connection to it.
That is untrue; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zackexley
Interesting, but not especially relevant. What path could a reader or editor of the Zack Exley article follow to learn about that connection?
Disclosing on the Zack Exley user page isn't sufficient to meet basic transparency.
Actually, it meets the requirements of the project. It's not perfect, but we have administrators who don't even give that much disclosure to their own alternate accounts (or that they edit without logging in), and nobody's getting the pitchforks out for them.
If you don't like the edits made by the account, work on-wiki to address the issues. You know how to start an AfD for any articles you think are about non-notable subjects, you know how to un-peacock an article.
If one really wants to push the COI envelope, one could say that users who are former employees of an organization shouldn't be editing articles related directly to the organization or its employees (salaried or contract), though. Indeed, one of the biggest COI issues we have on English Wikipedia is former employees trying to use our articles to "bring problems to light" about organizations.
The disclosure was made. Incidentally, that's all that would need to be done even at the farthest reaches of the proposed terms of use amendment.
Risker
I haven't read this thread, but I'll explain my editing history as Wikitedium:
First of all, I listed my user name as soon as I started at Wikipedia. It's still listed here on my (out of date) staff/contractor page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zackexley
I did start an article about myself a long time ago. I didn't know there was a policy against it. I wasn't an active editor and knew virtually no policies. I created the article because right wing media personalities were doing hit pieces on me and the Republican party was sending out emails asking people to write letters to the editor about me featuring lots of false facts. So I saw Wikipedia as an open encyclopedia "that anyone can edit" where I could set the record straight. Later I learned it was against policy and FELT REALLY BAD.
As for the other edits on projects I was involved with. My personal opinion is that those kinds of edits are vital to the future of Wikipedia. I want everyone to add everything they're working on to Wikipedia -- and then all their critics to come and add what they know. I'm saddened every time I go looking for something I expect to be in Wikipedia and find nothing -- and am forced to rely on the organization's own site or whatever.
OK -- I think that's all you need from me. Now enjoy yourselves as you continue to grind Wikipedia to a whining halt.
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 April 2014 15:23, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org
wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
After he was hired, Zack continued to use that account -- more
responsibly,
yes -- but he neither corrected the false statement on its user page,
or
disclose his connection to it.
That is untrue; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zackexley
Interesting, but not especially relevant. What path could a reader or editor of the Zack Exley article follow to learn about that connection?
Disclosing on the Zack Exley user page isn't sufficient to meet basic transparency.
Actually, it meets the requirements of the project. It's not perfect, but we have administrators who don't even give that much disclosure to their own alternate accounts (or that they edit without logging in), and nobody's getting the pitchforks out for them.
If you don't like the edits made by the account, work on-wiki to address the issues. You know how to start an AfD for any articles you think are about non-notable subjects, you know how to un-peacock an article.
If one really wants to push the COI envelope, one could say that users who are former employees of an organization shouldn't be editing articles related directly to the organization or its employees (salaried or contract), though. Indeed, one of the biggest COI issues we have on English Wikipedia is former employees trying to use our articles to "bring problems to light" about organizations.
The disclosure was made. Incidentally, that's all that would need to be done even at the farthest reaches of the proposed terms of use amendment.
Risker _______________________________________________ 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 17 April 2014 20:49, Zack Exley zexley@wikimedia.org wrote:
OK -- I think that's all you need from me. Now enjoy yourselves as you continue to grind Wikipedia to a whining halt.
It's important to note that threads like this are pretty much entirely raised by people who aren't actually allowed to do so directly any more. You'd think there was some sort of correlation or something.
- d.
Carry on.
Asume good faith.
Edit the Wikipedia.
Controbute as you can.
Avoid pov.
Erlend bjørtvedt Oslo
Den torsdag 17. april 2014 skrev Zack Exley zexley@wikimedia.org følgende:
I haven't read this thread, but I'll explain my editing history as Wikitedium:
First of all, I listed my user name as soon as I started at Wikipedia. It's still listed here on my (out of date) staff/contractor page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zackexley
I did start an article about myself a long time ago. I didn't know there was a policy against it. I wasn't an active editor and knew virtually no policies. I created the article because right wing media personalities were doing hit pieces on me and the Republican party was sending out emails asking people to write letters to the editor about me featuring lots of false facts. So I saw Wikipedia as an open encyclopedia "that anyone can edit" where I could set the record straight. Later I learned it was against policy and FELT REALLY BAD.
As for the other edits on projects I was involved with. My personal opinion is that those kinds of edits are vital to the future of Wikipedia. I want everyone to add everything they're working on to Wikipedia -- and then all their critics to come and add what they know. I'm saddened every time I go looking for something I expect to be in Wikipedia and find nothing -- and am forced to rely on the organization's own site or whatever.
OK -- I think that's all you need from me. Now enjoy yourselves as you continue to grind Wikipedia to a whining halt.
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Risker <risker.wp@gmail.comjavascript:;> wrote:
On 17 April 2014 15:23, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth@gmail.comjavascript:;>
wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.orgjavascript:;
wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Pete Forsyth <
peteforsyth@gmail.com javascript:;>
wrote:
After he was hired, Zack continued to use that account -- more
responsibly,
yes -- but he neither corrected the false statement on its user
page,
or
disclose his connection to it.
That is untrue; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zackexley
Interesting, but not especially relevant. What path could a reader or editor of the Zack Exley article follow to learn about that connection?
Disclosing on the Zack Exley user page isn't sufficient to meet basic transparency.
Actually, it meets the requirements of the project. It's not perfect,
but
we have administrators who don't even give that much disclosure to their own alternate accounts (or that they edit without logging in), and
nobody's
getting the pitchforks out for them.
If you don't like the edits made by the account, work on-wiki to address the issues. You know how to start an AfD for any articles you think are about non-notable subjects, you know how to un-peacock an article.
If one really wants to push the COI envelope, one could say that users
who
are former employees of an organization shouldn't be editing articles related directly to the organization or its employees (salaried or contract), though. Indeed, one of the biggest COI issues we have on
English
Wikipedia is former employees trying to use our articles to "bring
problems
to light" about organizations.
The disclosure was made. Incidentally, that's all that would need to be done even at the farthest reaches of the proposed terms of use amendment.
Risker _______________________________________________ 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>
-- Zack _______________________________________________ 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>
Yes - *assume good faith *because it can make all the difference in any relationship.
Or - if one finds "assuming good faith" seems naive, try acknowledging that people do the best they can with the information they have at any given moment;
Or - if acknowledging people do the best they can doesn't work, allow that we humans (each and every one of us) make many mistakes in a life time;
Or - if you have never made any mistakes, please let me know how in the world you managed to avoid them :-)
Take care, Amy
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Erlend Bjørtvedt erlend@wikimedia.nowrote:
Carry on.
Asume good faith.
Edit the Wikipedia.
Controbute as you can.
Avoid pov.
Erlend bjørtvedt Oslo
Den torsdag 17. april 2014 skrev Zack Exley zexley@wikimedia.org følgende:
I haven't read this thread, but I'll explain my editing history as Wikitedium:
First of all, I listed my user name as soon as I started at Wikipedia.
It's
still listed here on my (out of date) staff/contractor page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zackexley
I did start an article about myself a long time ago. I didn't know there was a policy against it. I wasn't an active editor and knew virtually no policies. I created the article because right wing media personalities
were
doing hit pieces on me and the Republican party was sending out emails asking people to write letters to the editor about me featuring lots of false facts. So I saw Wikipedia as an open encyclopedia "that anyone can edit" where I could set the record straight. Later I learned it was
against
policy and FELT REALLY BAD.
As for the other edits on projects I was involved with. My personal
opinion
is that those kinds of edits are vital to the future of Wikipedia. I want everyone to add everything they're working on to Wikipedia -- and then
all
their critics to come and add what they know. I'm saddened every time I
go
looking for something I expect to be in Wikipedia and find nothing -- and am forced to rely on the organization's own site or whatever.
OK -- I think that's all you need from me. Now enjoy yourselves as you continue to grind Wikipedia to a whining halt.
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com
wrote:
On 17 April 2014 15:23, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.org
wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Pete Forsyth <
peteforsyth@gmail.com javascript:;>
wrote:
After he was hired, Zack continued to use that account -- more
responsibly,
yes -- but he neither corrected the false statement on its user
page,
or
disclose his connection to it.
That is untrue; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zackexley
Interesting, but not especially relevant. What path could a reader or editor of the Zack Exley article follow to learn about that
connection?
Disclosing on the Zack Exley user page isn't sufficient to meet basic transparency.
Actually, it meets the requirements of the project. It's not perfect,
but
we have administrators who don't even give that much disclosure to
their
own alternate accounts (or that they edit without logging in), and
nobody's
getting the pitchforks out for them.
If you don't like the edits made by the account, work on-wiki to
address
the issues. You know how to start an AfD for any articles you think
are
about non-notable subjects, you know how to un-peacock an article.
If one really wants to push the COI envelope, one could say that users
who
are former employees of an organization shouldn't be editing articles related directly to the organization or its employees (salaried or contract), though. Indeed, one of the biggest COI issues we have on
English
Wikipedia is former employees trying to use our articles to "bring
problems
to light" about organizations.
The disclosure was made. Incidentally, that's all that would need to
be
done even at the farthest reaches of the proposed terms of use
amendment.
Risker _______________________________________________ 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>
-- Zack _______________________________________________ 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>
-- *Erlend Bjørtvedt* Nestleder, Wikimedia Norge Vice chairman, Wikimedia Norway Mob: +47 - 9225 9227 http://no.wikimedia.org http://no.wikimedia.org/wiki/About_us _______________________________________________ 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 Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Zack Exley zexley@wikimedia.org wrote:
I haven't read this thread, but I'll explain my editing history as Wikitedium:
Thanks for the explanation. I think it would have helped if you'd read the actual criticisms, but I understand this is a long thread.
false facts. So I saw Wikipedia as an open encyclopedia "that anyone can edit" where I could set the record straight. Later I learned it was against policy and FELT REALLY BAD.
To recap the email thread -- i think everybody has pretty much agreed that
your edits from 2006 to 2010 were not inconsistent with normal newbie behavior -- maybe not ideal, but also not the subject of anybody's strong criticism of you. My criticism is of the actions you took with this account as of February 2010 forward.
Anyway -- thank you for adding the disclosure to your Wikitedium user page.[1] I respect Risker's more knowledgeable assessment of the sockpuppetry policy; while the Conflice of Interest guideline was not observed, I see that there was no outright violation of policy (or at least, there hasn't been since the disclosure was made in May 2012, after using the Wikitedium account several more times, and with its inaccurate user page intact.[2]) I do personally believe this is a bad approach for a senior executive in charge of community relations to take, and unnecessarily impacts the relationship between WMF and the rest of the community; but clearly there are diverse views about that, and since it's in the past I don't see much point in further discussion.
Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Wikitedium&diff=60463966... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Zackexley&diff=491298197...
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 9:49 PM, Zack Exley zexley@wikimedia.org wrote:
I haven't read this thread, but I'll explain my editing history as Wikitedium:
First of all, I listed my user name as soon as I started at Wikipedia. It's still listed here on my (out of date) staff/contractor page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zackexley
I did start an article about myself a long time ago. I didn't know there was a policy against it. I wasn't an active editor and knew virtually no policies. I created the article because right wing media personalities were doing hit pieces on me and the Republican party was sending out emails asking people to write letters to the editor about me featuring lots of false facts. So I saw Wikipedia as an open encyclopedia "that anyone can edit" where I could set the record straight. Later I learned it was against policy and FELT REALLY BAD.
As for the other edits on projects I was involved with. My personal opinion is that those kinds of edits are vital to the future of Wikipedia. I want everyone to add everything they're working on to Wikipedia -- and then all their critics to come and add what they know. I'm saddened every time I go looking for something I expect to be in Wikipedia and find nothing -- and am forced to rely on the organization's own site or whatever.
OK -- I think that's all you need from me. Now enjoy yourselves as you continue to grind Wikipedia to a whining halt.
zack, i find this a little offending. most of the persons in this discussion thread did more edits in the last months than you in your lifetime - and this without touching an article about self, or accepting that the colleagues at work do so. its you who gets a 6 digit number of donors money wired to your bank account every year. you can be sure they did not give it because of your edits.
instead of "feeling bad" you might consider doing something about the cause. e.g. you might propose your own article for deletion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion).
what makes this whole story confusing to me are the following pages: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Organizing_Institute * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_freeman * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Carteroni * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mstemp
the zack exley wikipedia page says you are president of new organizing institute, and you let some one time wikipedia user create an article about your organization again, and let another one time user create a page for your only partner in that organization? after feeling terribly bad? after being chief community officer at WMF responsible for developing the foundations relationship with the editing community?
many thanks, zack, that you are there. otherwise "the whole thing would have fallen apart" (wikimedia), as you say in this interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQfHVGMrHCY
rupert
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 2:39 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 April 2014 15:23, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
After he was hired, Zack continued to use that account -- more
responsibly,
yes -- but he neither corrected the false statement on its user page,
or
disclose his connection to it.
That is untrue; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zackexley
Interesting, but not especially relevant. What path could a reader or editor of the Zack Exley article follow to learn about that connection?
Disclosing on the Zack Exley user page isn't sufficient to meet basic transparency.
Actually, it meets the requirements of the project.
I disagree. One directional links is not sufficient.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOCK#Alternative_account_notificatio...
"Except when doing so would defeat the purpose of having a legitimate alternative account, editors using alternative accounts should provide links between the accounts. ... Links on both the main and alternative account user pages"
The "links between the accounts" language has been in place since December 2004, when it started out as only a recommendation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry&oldid...
It's not perfect, but we have administrators who don't even give that much disclosure to their own alternate accounts (or that they edit without logging in), and nobody's getting the pitchforks out for them.
Pitchforks come out regularly when the community feels that the accounts should have been linked, and an autobio is often a trigger. Thankfully admins dont often write auto-bios.
If there are enwp admins who are still, in 2014, using undisclosed accounts they havent told arbcom about, they should be very careful and have a very good reason.
btw, there are 345 hits for "Use of multiple accounts" prefix:Wikipedia: on enwp, and 18,000 without quotes. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=adva...
Many of them are arbcom cases ;-)
If you don't like the edits made by the account, work on-wiki to address the issues. You know how to start an AfD for any articles you think are about non-notable subjects, you know how to un-peacock an article.
Tags have been added to [[Zack Exley]].
And I have started two AFDs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/New_Organizing... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Judith_Freeman
If one really wants to push the COI envelope, one could say that users who are former employees of an organization shouldn't be editing articles related directly to the organization or its employees (salaried or contract), though. Indeed, one of the biggest COI issues we have on English Wikipedia is former employees trying to use our articles to "bring problems to light" about organizations.
The disclosure was made. Incidentally, that's all that would need to be done even at the farthest reaches of the proposed terms of use amendment.
The paid contributions terms of use amendment doesnt cover self-promotion, which is the larger proportion of COI problems.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment#Pr...
The language of the amendment is pretty loose. It talks about 'you' and 'your user page', without stating which page(s) are being referred to. It should say 'the user page(see FAQ section 123) of all accounts you contribute with', otherwise it is encouraging throw away accounts for each paid contribution.
It also doesnt clearly state how the amendment will apply to paid contributions from before the amendment being approved. IMO it should; the community will probably extract that information anyway if there is a hint of problems, as they have always done, so this amendment may give a false sense of security if it says it only applies to post-amendment payments.
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
In February 2010, either shortly before or during his application for a top level executive position as Chief Community Officer, Zack created[1] a user page with the following content:
"Mainly, I just fix typos when I come across them. I depend on Wikipedia and I'm happy I can help improve it in at least a small way."
That was absolutely false as a description of how User:Wikitedium had operated in the preceding four years. The user account's edits had been almost entirely devoted to expanding content related to Zack Exley and his career. It was a bad decision to create that user page -- specifically, a bad decision for somebody seeking to set the direction for how the Wikimedia Foundation would build its relationship to community.
After he was hired, Zack continued to use that account -- more responsibly, yes -- but he neither corrected the false statement on its user page, or disclose his connection to it. In my view, another bad decision.
And now, close to 24 hours after all this has been brought up, neither Zack, nor anybody at the WMF, has addressed this on the wiki. Now, this is looking to me like a *really* bad decision.
<snip>
There is one incorrect fact and one bad faith assumption in what you've written. Zack described his activity on his userpage; you have no way to assume that all of his "minor typo" fixes were made under the Wikitedium account. Personally, I often don't login when I'm making very minor edits. Moreover, edits summarized as "typo" actually form a large portion of the Wikitedium account contributions. So wrong all around here, Pete.
The incorrect fact, which you have not acknowledged, is your assertion that Zack never disclosed his connection to the other account. I suppose it might be slightly challenging to connect Wikitedium to Zack Exley, rather than the other way around. He did disclose it. While it was two years after he was hired by the WMF, the Wikitedium account was editing at the rate of a handful of edits per year. Incidentally, the Zackexley account has made less than 15 edits ever.
You haven't mentioned it on this list, but you actually accused Zack of violating the sockpuppetry policy on his talk page, and you threaten to "pursue further action." But the most cursory review of the sockpuppetry policy, which I assume you performed before making an accusation, reveals that even if he had not disclosed the Wikitedium account he would hardly have violated any part of the rules. Perhaps your personal feelings have indeed influenced your behavior here. You may want to reconsider further involvement.
Hopefully we can drop discussing Zack and move on to whatever this thread is supposed to be about.
On 17 April 2014 22:05, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
You haven't mentioned it on this list, but you actually accused Zack of violating the sockpuppetry policy on his talk page, and you threaten to "pursue further action." But the most cursory review of the sockpuppetry policy, which I assume you performed before making an accusation, reveals that even if he had not disclosed the Wikitedium account he would hardly have violated any part of the rules. Perhaps your personal feelings have indeed influenced your behavior here. You may want to reconsider further involvement.
+1
Hopefully we can drop discussing Zack and move on to whatever this thread is supposed to be about.
This is basically the action: bitter querulousness.
- d.
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 2:14 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 April 2014 22:05, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
You haven't mentioned it on this list, but you actually accused Zack of violating the sockpuppetry policy on his talk page, and you threaten to "pursue further action." But the most cursory review of the sockpuppetry policy, which I assume you performed before making an accusation, reveals that even if he had not disclosed the Wikitedium account he would hardly have violated any part of the rules. Perhaps your personal feelings have indeed influenced your behavior here. You may want to reconsider further involvement.
+1
I did acknowledge that I had missed that, in my response to Erik, in my
response to Zack and Risker, and also in the notes I've left on both user accounts' talk pages. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-April/071203.html(emai... to Zack/Risker not yet archived)
My understanding of the sock puppet policy is apparently not perfect. But I stand my my personal and professional understanding of what the best practices are for disclosure, for somebody in a leadership position in the Wikimedia movement.
Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.comwrote:
"Employees and contractors of the Wikimedia Foundation shall not edit articles relating to the Wikimedia Foundation, broadly construed, but at rather directed to raise potential edits on the talk pages of affected articles. This directive does not apply to the reverting vandalism, removing copyright violations or potentially libellous materials."
Before people go too far along these lines, consider whether whatever policy you propose would result in stupidity like my having to code AnomieBOT with a blacklist of pages it's not allowed to do its bot work on.
There's not a sharp divide between "community" and "staff", some of us are both and would like to remain both.
From my purely personal perspective, I've often felt that concerns over COI
and paid editing in and of themselves are often grossly overblown. COI is a problem when it leads to POV violations and the like, and it can be difficult for people to respect POV and other policies when they have a COI. But it's not *impossible* to make good edits despite a COI and raising a fuss over COI absent any concern with the actual edits made seems like trying to cause trouble rather than doing something productive.
For example, others are blasting Victor (whom I may have met, but if I have it slipped my mind in the middle of all the other people I've met) for https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zack_Exley&diff=506286326&.... That's utterly silly: Victor took a freely-licensed photograph of someone with an existing Wikipedia article, uploaded it to Commons, and changed the article to use it. This is **exactly what we want people to do**. Why does that change just because Victor works for WMF?
On 17 April 2014 17:05, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) bjorsch@wikimedia.org wrote:
For example, others are blasting Victor (whom I may have met, but if I have it slipped my mind in the middle of all the other people I've met) for https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zack_Exley&diff=506286326&.... That's utterly silly: Victor took a freely-licensed photograph of someone with an existing Wikipedia article, uploaded it to Commons, and changed the article to use it. This is **exactly what we want people to do**. Why does that change just because Victor works for WMF?
It doesn't, unless you're a banned editor looking to troll.
- d.
On 17 April 2014 17:05, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) bjorsch@wikimedia.org wrote:
For example, others are blasting Victor (whom I may have met, but if I
have
it slipped my mind in the middle of all the other people I've met) for
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zack_Exley&diff=506286326&... .
Nobody has blasted Victor. In fact I feel very confident saying that every single person in this thread agrees this was a constructive edit. If anybody disagrees, please speak up.
As I see it, the reason edits like Victor's was brought up is very clear: to highlight the contrast between that edit, and the kinds of edits that have led to WMF staff getting reportedly fired, or banned from editing by the volunteer-run ARBCOM with language that is more typical of what a Human Resources department would be expected to use.
This thread was opened with an invitation for the WMF to comment generally on staff editing (and I agree that focusing on COI probably does miss a few other important things). To my eyes, that commentary has been dissatisfying so far, but I think there's room for more discussion, especially if we can all keep our cool, as Erik recommends, and focus on the broader themes.
On that point, I want to be really clear: a policy for employees is a delicate thing, and my examples before were only intended to suggest that there is room for worthwhile discussion -- NOT to open a collaborative process using an email list to draft a policy. A policy document would probably be a little longer than a sentence or two (I think this much is obvious, but perhaps not.)
I think my own statement of ethics is a little closer to the type of thing I'd expect the Wikimedia Foundation to adopt, guiding (among a few other things) its staff's approach to editing Wikipedia and other projects: http://wikistrategies.net/statement-of-ethics/
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
Brad Jorsch (Anomie), 17/04/2014 18:05:
From my purely personal perspective, I've often felt that concerns over COI and paid editing in and of themselves are often grossly overblown.
When something is proclaimed heresy, it's unsuprising that inquisitions are set up. Historically the solution is to disband/divest the central authority (e.g. the Roman pope).
Nemo
On 17 April 2014 15:37, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
"Employees and contractors of the Wikimedia Foundation shall not edit articles relating to the Wikimedia Foundation, broadly construed, but at rather directed to raise potential edits on the talk pages of affected articles. This directive does not apply to the reverting vandalism, removing copyright violations or potentially libellous materials."
Such a directive for WMF people would be easy to make, easy to implement, easy to enforce, and would demonstrate that the Wikimedia Foundation itself is at the forefront, and setting an example for other organisations and leading by example.
Easy to enforce? By whom? The foundation? Tracking all edits by foundation staff is not a good use of foundation time. Admins? We have better things to do with our time. The wider community? Not many have much awareness of that level of meta policy.
You are trying to write and drama generator but not one people have time for.
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 9:53 AM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 April 2014 15:37, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Such a directive for WMF people would be easy to make, easy to implement, easy to enforce,
Easy to enforce? By whom? The foundation? Tracking all edits by foundation staff is not a good use of foundation time.
IMO if we talk about enforcement we are getting *very* far off track. When one takes a job with an organization, one usually gets some guidance about what is expected.
I assume good faith on the part of the people who choose to work for the WMF. Shouldn't we all?
The need for enforcement may come up from time to time (I prefer not to keep belaboring specific examples) but it is very far from the main point. I do think that enforcement, at times when it *does* happen to come up, is generally much easier to pursue when broad principles have already been clearly expressed and agreed to.
Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On 17 April 2014 18:03, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
I assume good faith on the part of the people who choose to work for the WMF. Shouldn't we all?
I think this statement seriously neglects the context of this discussion.
- d.
I feel like I've given the WMF's position pretty clearly upthread, so I'll try not to repeat myself. I believe that policies like the one described here would do more harm than good, for reasons including those given by others in this thread.
To the suggestion that the WMF ought to hold staff to a higher standard of on-wiki conduct than is generally required by the community: I can see how that might seem like a good idea, but I believe it would actually have the overall negative effect of discouraging staff participation in the projects. The solution would be worse than the problem.
The WMF contains a widely-varying level of on-wiki expertise. That's always been the case, and I'm sure it always will be. It seems unrealistic to expect new non-Wikipedian staff to walk in the door and immediately become excellent Wikipedians, and it seems equally unrealistic to expect seasoned Wikipedians on the staff to never make mistakes on-wiki. I want WMF staff to feel encouraged to learn and explore and contribute on the projects, just like everyone else. I don't expect them to get special leniency just for being staff, but neither do I expect or want them to be held to an unattainably high standard. I am also not interested in giving anybody a special stick with which to beat them.
To repeat what I said before: internal WMF staff policies are developed and set and enforced by the WMF, based on what we think is best and informed by our experiences. The community makes rules governing community conduct, and the WMF makes rules governing staff conduct. The WMF alone makes determinations about what happens when or if WMF standards are violated. It's pretty simple.
Thanks, Sue Sue,
Thank you for your response, it is appreciated.
Indeed we are all n00bs at some stage, and we all make COI mistakes, and I can admit to making this mistake myself twice early on. But we all learn pretty quickly that COI editing is frowned upon, and can cause problems later on.
I would like to echo pretty much what Pete Forsyth has stated, and wholeheartedly agree that the WMF should go above and beyond what we would expect other organisations to adhere to on our projects. Whilst, Pete's suggestions on possibly policies certainly do go above and beyond what is expected in the community, they would be quite difficult to implement. So how about a simple WMF policy that states something along the lines of:
"Employees and contractors of the Wikimedia Foundation shall not edit articles relating to the Wikimedia Foundation, broadly construed, but at rather directed to raise potential edits on the talk pages of affected articles. This directive does not apply to the reverting vandalism, removing copyright violations or potentially libellous materials."
Such a directive for WMF people would be easy to make, easy to implement, easy to enforce, and would demonstrate that the Wikimedia Foundation itself is at the forefront, and setting an example for other organisations and leading by example.
Comments welcome Sue.
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@lists.wikimedia.org