[WikiEN-l] Is editing for payment a fundamentally problematic conflict of...

[Bartning at aol.com]

In a message dated 3/4/2007 9:08:15 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,  
guy.chapman at spamcop.net writes:

Although  to be fair you were editing with a very clear conflict of
interest, adding  links to your own sites, and using Wikipedia to
advance your external  agenda.  You were also distinctly rude when
called on it.  So  it's not *terribly* surprising that you were
blocked, and not actually  unfair, as such.  Which is not to say there
are *no* unfair cases,  just that yours does not seem to be one  of
them.



There was no pay involved.  I added other nonprofit foundations  besides.  I 
have a personal interest in the topic.  I don't think you  could claim that 
Frederick Douglass couldn't talk about blacks or Jim Wales  online encyclopedias 
for that matter.  You're making an inappropriate  argument, and it's an 
attack because of my over concern about it: I was also  blocked.
 
 I suppose you'd call donating blood a conflict of interest too -  "because 
the American Red Cross keeps your name."  Claiming conflicts of  interest for 
whatever reason does not provide good policy.
 
Vincent
 
 
<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free 
email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from AOL at 
http://www.aol.com.