wikilegal at inbox.org
Thu Oct 5 20:42:55 UTC 2006
On 10/5/06, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/5/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > On 10/5/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> > > No, actually, they are not free to do that, and I consider it deeply
> > > unethical if they do. They are free to pay someone to write whatever
> > > they like, and put it on their own website, and release it under the GNU
> > > FDL. They are not free to edit Wikipedia for pay.
> > >
> > So is it unethical for the person who wins Danny's contest to accept
> > the award payment?
> Methinks there's a slight difference between being paid by a neutral
> third party to write an article and being paid by an interested party
> to write an article.
> In the one, the focus is on promoting article quality and Wikipedia;
> in the other, the focus is on promoting a company.
> Big, big difference.
I absolutely agree, and that's why I think what should matter is the
resulting article, and not whether or not someone was paid to write
Jimbo seemed to be going further than that, though. He certainly
implied that editing Wikipedia for pay is per se a bad idea.
More information about the foundation-l