Hello
I think that the Wikimedia movement should be more open for experts
creating content to Wikipedia as part of their work. Including WIRs, the
people they teach and also paid editors inside companies and other
organizations. People make mistakes and that should be allowed for
professionals too but I think the volunteers keep banning them before
they can learn from their mistakes.
I'm dreaming that Wikipedia content creation could be part of many experts'
daily routines - maybe they get more time for this now that AI is making
their work simpler?
I'm very sorry for what has happened to Rachel and wish there were some
place she could get help from. Professional content creators are usually
very lonely when a group of volunteers starts complaining about their work.
My point-of-view comes from paid editing - I've been a white hat editor
from 2010, including a 12-year-period in English Wikipedia. I'm now
community banned there (for life, I guess) but continue to edit elsewhere
like in Finnish Wikipedia where I'm the second WIR ever. I've documented my
banning case here:
.
I'm so glad Lane & Jake raised this discussion here and hope we can see
more comments about the subject. Even if I'm new as a WIR (3 months) I'm
willing to be part of the work group that starts thinking about this
further.
Cheers
Johanna
ma 8. huhtik. 2024 klo 21.37 Jake Orlowitz (jorlowitz(a)gmail.com) kirjoitti:
I commented in support of Rachel. Despite small
missteps and a lack of
oversight of her student's writing, a topic ban for her from all LDS/Mormon
subjects would be a death blow to her work.
We are Wikipedians in Residence, or those who work with them, and the very
concept of a WIR is under attack by some who think COI is the worst
possible enemy of Wikipedia. Those folks also think they make the COI rules
beyond what the actual COI guideline states. Those folks also think of
real life organizing and networking (like this group itself!) as a sign of
a nefarious cabal.
Our goal is to help WIRs succeed and to do that we need to provide
guidance, support, and *normalization* of the position, even as it
expands beyond GLAM. WIRs are a powerful tool to leverage different
institutions' knowledge to fill knowledge *gaps* on Wikipedia. WIR
positions provide pathways to viable employment for dedicated, talented
lifelong editors. WIRs yield huge benefits for article and page creation
and pageviews, more than any other intervention.
What I'm saying is, speak up for what you believe in, whatever that is,
wherever that conversation is happening. Do you have to support Rachel
Helps? Of course not; we're not a lobby or industry cover group. But should
you *care *when any WIR is under attack? Yes. Because it could be you
next.
Cheers,
*Jake Orlowitz*
*Founder of The Wikipedia Library*
Lead at WikiBlueprint
- me:
jakeorlowitz.com
- work:
wikiblueprint.com
- wiki:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ocaasi
- toot: mastodon.social/@JakeOrlowitz
On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 10:22 AM Lane Rasberry <lanerasberry(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Hello,
On English Wikipedia there are some editors and reviewers accusing a
Wikimedian in Residence of misconduct. I am not asking for any particular
response from anyone, except that Wikimedians in Residence plan to support
members in achieving compliance with rules and defense of
misunderstandings.
The above is the minimum that anyone needs to read. What follows are
details.
---------------------------------------------
My own summary and perspective: Rachel Helps, Wikimedian in Residence at
a university in the United States since 2016, is accused of undisclosed
conflict of interest editing, biased editing, and recruiting paid and
unpaid colleagues in inappropriate editing. In my opinion, this editor has
done everything correctly as the Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network
recommends. I could be mistaken because the discussion and texts run for
hundreds of pages, but I do not immediately identify particular problems. I
posted in support of this editor in the discussion.
I do not think this accusation is easy to understand. Note also -
Wikipedia prohibits canvassing of uninterested parties to post in existing
discussions and decisions, and I am not asking anyone to casually join this
discussion.
See the discussion at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incid…
archived at
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noti…
Regardless, WREN needs the following to prevent this in the future -
1. clear guidance on how to be a good Wikimedian in Residence
2. a plan for reacting to accusations, if anyone ever wants an
organizational opinion on whether someone is following the rules
3. confirmation from the wiki community that our recommendations are
actually acceptable to wiki editors
I estimate that the university partner here has spent several hundred
thousand dollars of its own money, without Wikimedia Foundation grant
support, to develop Wikimedia content. Their particular expertise is in an
irreplaceable field of religious studies. I would regret the loss of this
institutional partnership, and our colleague, if there were a way to
negotiate a fix to this rather than an end to the program there.
thanks
--
Lane Rasberry
user:bluerasberry
🟦🌀💙🌀🟦
_______________________________________________
Wren mailing list -- wren(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to wren-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wren mailing list -- wren(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to wren-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org