[Wikimedia-l] COI versus OUTING

[Jane Darnell]

James,
Hmm. I would say "Nail 'em to the wall of shame". But I would probably
do it in the Wikipedia way, namely, make sure it's in the Signpost,
leave the evidence on talk pages, etc. This is a much better and
effective method than using public venues on the internet that will
just disappear in the pile eventually. The nice thing about Wikipedia
discussions is the way you can always dig up the diffs. If the story
is juicy, it will be picked up magically by third parties.

And I'll bet you can do that.
Jane

2013/1/21, Nathan <nawrich at gmail.com>:
> Wikipedia's policies are meant to protect and further the goals of the
> project, and to offer what little safeguard they can against undue harm to
> good faith participants. People who try to undermine the project, or act in
> a way antithetical to its goals, or themselves attempt to cause harm to
> good faith participants should find no protection from its rules. That's
> how I'd look at it from an "inside Wikipedia" perspective.
>
> But the question is really one of personal ethics, and I think viewed that
> way the answer is clear. You have no obligation to these people to continue
> helping them maintain the secrecy and anonymity of their actions, which you
> (and most) find ethically suspect. They are trying to mislead the public
> for profit, using subversive methods, and they deserve at a minimum to have
> that made public.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>