On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Ashwin Baindur <ashwin.baindur@gmail.com> wrote:

I was told by someone that Wikipeding was a
voluntary activity so high standards should not be expected in
competence. If that is true, then we should not suddenly start
witch-hunting on the basis of principle when we are ourselves so
casual about other qualities in other ways!

Witch-hunting, under any circumstances, is a disgraceful business. It is nothing but hypocrisy by another name.

However, I find it hard to agree with equating volunteering to low standards. Standards is something that means the most when it applies to oneself. That does not mean that everyone must agree with what one considers a standard, but it does not hurt to look around for an accepted standard or standards for any activity, and seeking to synergise or synthesize them when they are in dissonance. .

The problem with paid pages is that people or entities making such payments tend to impose lower standards upon others, just as happens in many other spheres of human activity. It does not happen every time, but it does happen all too often. In fact, where pages are concerned, it is far too likely to be the very purpose of the payment. And compromised pages is compromising knowledge, because the credibility of Wikipedia is (afaik) on the way up. We may feel sympathy for the person who was forced into doing this, but that does not mean we should sit on our hands and let it carry on.

However, as has already been pointed out, the client in this case is an extremely dangerous entity, and moreso for volunteer individuals in India. Clearly we need to call for help.