[Foundation-l] Assume Good Faith and Don't Bite Newbees

[Nathan]

2009/12/3 Delphine Ménard <notafishz at gmail.com>:
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 18:18, Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod at mccme.ru> wrote:
>
> I support Liam's idea and think we might want to look at a two-tier policy:
>
> 1- have "verified" accounts, which are used by some
> companies/organisation to do "encyclopedic work"
> 2- disallow using a company's name in one's user name if they have not
> asked for a verification - and provided the right credentials
>
> This said, I am completely with Lodewijk on the fact that I find
> incredible that we push companies to actually make what is nothing
> else than sock puppets accounts, because we don't allow to have a
> company's name in the user name. I am sure this has been debated at
> length, but I fail to see how this can be better than being able to
> identify staff from a company contributing to an article.
>
>
> Delphine
>

The idea of verified accounts raises all sorts of questions and
potential problems. The Wikimedia Foundation might be able to verify
that users requesting a "company account" are connected to that
company, if the account is on the English Wikipedia. But can the
Foundation be sure that the existence of a company account is
authorized by that company? Can they do anything at all in other
languages? Should the process of "verification" be left to OTRS, or
some other group on each wiki? If verified status is granted
erroneously, and it impacts the reputation of a particular company,
who is responsible?

Among other reasons, the English Wikipedia bans role accounts
(including corporate accounts) because we wish people to act on their
own behalf, and not claim the support or backing of a corporation.
With limited capacity to verify the basis for any claimed role, we end
up treating all such claims as suspect anyway. This restriction may be
inconvenient in some instances, but far more trouble is prevented by
maintaining the simplicity of individual to individual interaction.

As an example, Wikipedia administrators do not take action "on behalf
of Wikipedia" when they enforce project policies. If the user behind
the "ACME Cola" account earned a block, it would be an individual
administrator on their own initiative blocking an account that
represents an entire Fortune 100 corporation. This imbalance of agency
could make administrators hesitate to take otherwise appropriate
action.

Personally, I would much rather deal with an individual than with an
anonymous representative of a corporate giant - and very little that
can be accomplished with a role account can't be accomplished with a
personal account. Simply state on the user page "My name is John
Smith, public relations representative for ACME Cola Inc. Please
contact me at john.smith at acmecola.com or 800-ACM-COLA, or use my
talkpage." If they want to voluntarily identify their organizational
affiliation, then nothing prevents them from doing so in this way.

Nathan