[WikiEN-l] Current consensus on PR editing?

[Charles Matthews]

On 13 June 2012 14:14, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> They're also interested in
> https://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Draft_best_practice_guidelines_for_PR
> which is a how-not-to-foul-up guide put together by WMUK. But of
> course that's descriptive and not normative.

I think a line you could take is like this: there is that guide, which
starts with chat and what Lord Bell and Jimbo say, and ends up with a
list of Don'ts. It's all perfectly fine except that the order is
completely back-to-front. "Don't share your password" with anyone?
Merely a violation of terms of use of the site when there is megaphone
diplomacy to do. Who is likely to share passwords? The classic
solitary-geek-in-bedroom stereotype, or a busy person who would like
his/her deputy to update something while he/she goes to a client
meeting?

Metaphor time: some people think there should be a litmus test for who
is allowed to edit, some think there should be a duck test, and some
people think no test (just AGF until you can't, in other words). Duck
test is closer to the truth for COI, and perceived COI should be a
reason for switching to another test: no amount of good edits outweigh
the bad. All sins are then mortal.

Good paid editors who have an actual COI are basically like poker
players, aren't they? If they are smart they are only occasionally
bluffing. That is why we hate the idea. Either we have to check all
their edits, or we have to know more than they do about "tells".

HTH

Charles