[WikiEN-l] Lovely.

[Mark Gallagher]

G'day Ray,

> Erik Moeller wrote:
>>It's probably also true that there is a fair number of people who are
>>editing Wikipedia under circumstances their boss or supervisor would
>>disapprove of, including *gasp* some members of the nefarious ruling
>>class known as "administrators". For those who intend to continue
>>doing so, using a separate account may be advisable. (Accountability
>>activism strikes again! Let's stalk people so they tell us more about
>>themselves!)
>>
>>Do we have a guideline for dealing with off-wiki harassment? We
>>probably should, and link it from RfA.
> 
> The relationship between any Wikipedian and his real life employer are 
> not our concern.  Unless editing Wikipedia is a part of his job 
> description he should not be doing so during his work time.  If he gets 
> fired because of his addictive behaviour it's not our concern.

I agree with you 180%.

That is to say, *yes*:
- Wikipedians should not be editing from work
- The relationship between a Wikipedian and his boss is none of our
   business (*nor* is it the business of Wikipedia Review).

But we aren't the morality police.  It's not our job to get rid of good 
editors (or even administrators) who happen to be editing from work.  We 
have few enough really good contributors (you think a few thousand is a 
lot?  Not in this context, it isn't) without tracking down those we have 
and subjecting them to an employment loyalty test by proxy.  And the 
very *last* thing we want to do is stand by and applaud while certain 
others do the same thing.

Harrassment is an unvarnished Bad Thing.  Those who tracked down 
Katefan0 --- who, as has been pointed out repeatedly, was a *bloody 
good* administrator --- out of sheer malice towards people like you and 
I (I assume Wiktionary admins are no holier than your counterparts 
here), who telephoned her boss --- again, out of undirected malice 
against admins in general, --- who forced her to leave Wikipedia, and 
who invented fictional ethics complaints after the fact in a vain 
attempt to justify their behaviour, do not need our encouragement.  The 
reverse, it would seem to me, is in order.

Wikipedia has long held that editors' anonymity is sacred.  I choose not 
to take advantage of that anonymity, but I respect the right of others 
to do so.  When someone's anonymity is removed, and their real lives 
exposed to the harrassment of Internet lowlifes, it is not appropriate 
for Wikipedia to shrug its shoulders and say "well, if this causes 
problems for them, they must have been doing something bad like editing 
from work, and it serves them right."

I don't *care* if Katefan0 --- or anyone else --- edited from work.  All 
I care about is whether or not they were a good Wikipedian.  I submit 
that this is an attitude that others heavily involved in Wikimedia 
projects would do well to adopt.


-- 
Mark Gallagher, who has neither the opportunity nor desire to edit from 
work, thank you very much.