On 3/7/07, Mercenary Wikipedian <mercenarywikipedian(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
What does any of this have to do with Wikipedia? There are already
policies
in place regarding NPOV and NPA, and there are multiple dispute resolution
processes in place to handle serial/chronic non-compliance. What
protections
does _anyone_ have against defamation on Wikipedia? Well, if they are the
subject of an article there is WP:BLP. If they are just an editor and not
the subject of the article there is the policy mandating No Personal
Attacks. What makes you think these won't work if people are getting paid?
Is this an issue of scalability? If so, it seems a little late to be
worried
about whether or not the idea of Wikipedia is scalable.
MW
**********
The point here is paid employees of a non-profit entity with an agenda
evidenced by initiating internal processes of dispute resolution. This is
something not addressed in any policies anywhere. ( 1 ) They are agents
of
a non-profit entity; ( 2 ) volunteers in dispute have no disclosure as to
*
whom* they are in dispute with; ( 3 ) the dispute may not be initiated for
the purposes of improving articles or writing an encyclopedia; ( 4 ) what
protections do volunteer editors, acting in good faith, have against being
targeted and publicly defamed by a non-profit entity with a political
agenda?
_________________________________________________________________
Mortgage rates as low as 4.625% - Refinance $150,000 loan for $579 a
month.
Intro*Terms
https://www2.nextag.com/goto.jsp?product=100000035&url=%2fst.jsp&tm…
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
None is addressed in current policies. And there is evidence Wikipedia is
being used for purposes *other than* writing an encyclopedia, i.e. to target
certain individuals and smear their character. The Daniel Brandt episode is
one such case. Stephen Kinsella and the Ludwig von Mises Institute is
another. The Free Congress Foundation and Paul Weyrich is a target for much
questionable content being added, as well as an anonymous editor who
identified himself as a professional journalist and friend of Weyrich
received a community ban for efforts to instill NPOV & fairness in those two
articles.
By contrast, User:Katefan0, aka Kathryn Wolfe of *Scripps Howard* did
precisely the samething as Weyrich's friend, admitted a conflict of interest
prior to initiating official Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Policy, was
promoted to Admin, presented evidence before Arbitrators admitting her
conflict of interest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rangerdude/…
yet the Arbs used her evidence against an aggrieved party. There are
numerous other instances to be cited where a pattern is established that the
intent of some parties, acting as agents of others, are using Wikipedia to
pursue their own aims and not constructively contribute to the encyclopedia.