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

[Bartning at aol.com]

In a message dated 3/4/2007 11:17:00 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,  
guy.chapman at spamcop.net writes:

Pay is  completely irrelevant.  You added links to, and content in
support of,  an organisation in which you play a leading role. Conflict
of  interest.  I don't think I have ever edited the articles on
Wikipedia  or Jimmy Wales, by the way.



I edited an article and began a corporation to benefit fellow families of  
killed in action.  The article involves life-long learning about the  concept, 
something my faculty advisor, a Stanford-graduated Ph.D., also thought  I would 
be good at because of the courses I took.  Foundations and other  credible 
organizations even provide information and research about topics, and  our 
nonprofit is legally incorporated as an educational institution.  
 
I see citations of other educational institutions in here all of the  time.  
Moreover, it did not cite anything.  I provided outside links  on the subject, 
including our "competition," as I said.  It's only  information on a topic I 
have interest in, not that I get paid for.  I  volunteer my work with the 
organization and currently support myself by other  means.  It does however, allow 
deferment of my student loans, and I plan to  return to school full time in 
the fall, where I have financial aid lined  up.
 
WikiProject Military history rated the work I did to a "start-class" on the  
article, but an 18-year-old senior in high school blocked my account, one of  
your fellow admins, whereas I have much more of an education and experience 
and  know a lot more about the topic, "killed in action" or KIA. He didn't even 
spell  properly in describing the reason for the block, and he also has a lot 
of  spelling errors on his user page.
 
Lastly, another admin edited the article down to just include our  nonprofit, 
for some strange reason, and I reverted, including the work I had  done.  I 
felt I deserved a bit of credit and also provided links to other  organizations 
regarding killed in action, including The White House Commission  on 
Remembrance's National Moment of Remembrance, a program by a bipartisan  committee to 
honor the fallen of the United States of American.  That, too,  was removed, 
and they also provide links to our organization.
 
I don't see how, with good conscience, you can condone or approve of  editing 
for profit whereas you disapprove of editing an article you care  about.  
That policy would have a lack of justice to say the least, though I  still 
haven't seen the Wikimedia Foundation's approved Form 1023 goals,  something I've 
requested and the IRS requires you provide; an organization  seeking official 
determination as tax deductible and tax exempt by the federal  government 
submits this form, which also requires public information be  disclosed.
 
All of this so far indicates how consensus should not override  authority.  
Consensus has its place and makes authority, but it should do  it for knowledge 
and truth here, not just the majority or for someone's joke  about topics 
others take seriously.  Lack of seriousness occurs somewhat  when you get burned, 
and certainly two sides of the issue are better than  censorship or even 
types of vandalism that Wikipedia describes.
 
Vincent Bartning
UN: John Wallace Rich
<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.