Editing on behalf of banned users is against policy. Working with banned
users isn't, but taking dictation from them would probably cross the line.
If you had been banned for being a specialist, the public would be
understandably surprised, but you weren't.
On May 28, 2012 9:49 AM, "Edward at Logic Museum"
<edward(a)logicmuseum.com>
wrote:
Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton at
gmail.com:
It's not a matter of whether Wikipedia
"can" work with you. It's a
matter of whether it wants to. You've
been banned, which means it
doesn't want to work with you. It's not an
inability, it's a choice.
Many individuals on Wikipedia were deeply opposed to the ban in question,
and continue to be opposed. So when you 'it doesn't want to work with
you', it's not clear what 'it' means.
In any case, there is nothing to stop a banned individual from working
with others to improve the project. The question comes down to whether the
project is to be improved or not.
For example, when our book on Scotus appears, what happens if any of the
facts cited in the book are then incorporated into the article? Is copying
from a book 'written by a banned user' something that Wikipedia will
'choose' not to do? What happens if I read out passages from the book to
someone like Charles, and he edits the article using his own account. Is
that prohibited by the 'banned' rule? In any case, I can't see anything in
the banning policy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Wikipedia:BAN<http://en.wikipedia.org/wik…
prohibits this.
Stepping back, it would seem extraordinary to a member of the general
public that any organisation whose purpose is the construction of a
comprehensive and reliable reference work should be banning specialist
editors in the first place. The usual reply, that 'crowdsourcing' will take
the place of specialists, doesn't seem to work. I have pointed out some
serious problems with an article about one of Britain's most prominent and
influential philosophers, on this very forum, and the article hasn't
improved in any way since last week. Is this good PR for Wikipedia or
Wikimedia?
So I say it again: it's a matter of whether Wikipedia and Wikimedia 'can'
work with the system to improve articles. There is in fact a choice.
______________________________**_________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l<http://mail.w…
WMUK:
http://uk.wikimedia.org