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

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I want to give you two different group / company accounts that I think are
valuable..

Tropenmuseum... If you do not know about it, read the Tropenmuseum article
on Commons
Calcey - a company from Sri Lanka has adopted the localisation of the
Sinhala language. We are really grateful for their work.

There are more great examples of companies, groups that make a difference
... I would like to know more good examples..
Thanks,
     GerardM

2009/12/3 Lodewijk <lodewijk at effeietsanders.org>

> Hi all,
>
> Although I do realize this is a Dutch Wikipedia-topic, I would like to
> get a somewhat broader set of input on this. I'll first sketch the
> situation a bit, and then explain what my interpretation is.
>
> On the Dutch Wikipedia, there are two related, relatively long
> standing, policies:
> * Usernames linked to companies / organizations / brands are not allowed
> * Usernames are supposed to be strictly personal: groups of people
> using one user name is not allowed.
> This is enforced by a group of moderators by blocking the usernames
> who fulfill one of these conditions, and notifying them on their
> talkpage they can create a new username, but that their current is
> blocked indefinitely.
>
> I find this practice very unfortunate, for a few reasons. For one, we
> assume bad faith: We assume that companies or even organizations are
> not able and willing to edit NPOV. This is mentioned often as a main
> reason for this policy. Often they are already blocked before they
> even can make their first edit. This does not only harm their
> feelings, it leaves a trail on the internet that is potentially
> harmful for their PR (just imagine: "Company XX got blocked on
> Wikipedia on sight"). As soon as a search engine does not fully
> respect (intentionally or not) the limitations we asked them to comply
> with, such as not search in these talk pages, this might even show up
> in a query. In short: companies and organizations are being punisched
> for trying to identify themselves.
>
> In the past, there was a lot of hush about companies and organizations
> who edited anonymously and they were even named and shamed (although
> not by us). Now companies tell in advance who they are, so we can pay
> close attention to their edits, and we ask them now to take another
> name, which would be not recognizable? I think that is actually an
> editorial disadvantage! If we can recognize them easier, we can make
> sure they edit NPOV. Please, let's judge users on their actions, not
> on their names... This way, also the Tropenmuseum got blocked at some
> point, even though the account was created on another wiki!
>
> Also, why would group accounts be bad? I mean, the only one that has
> disadvantage from it, is the people using the account, right? If we
> treat them as if they are one user, and we block them accordingly if
> necessary, it is their problem if someone else on that account did
> something bad and got the whole account blocked for it. We don't block
> IP-adresses either just because they could be used by multiple people?
>
> I assume this is no WMF topic (thy shall not block people because of
> their username won't make it I guess), but I would like to get a
> little more insight and experiences from you guys.
>
> * Should editing by multiple people from one account be reason for
> blocking on sight?
> * Should usernames related to a company/organization name be blocked on
> sight?
> ** If not, should additional measures be taken for identification?
> * Should wiki's be allowed in the first place to have naming policies
> considering the SUL?
> ** If yes, should they be allowed to enforce them on people who
> registered on another wiki?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Lodewijk
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>