Carry on.
Asume good faith.
Edit the Wikipedia.
Controbute as you can.
Avoid pov.
Erlend bjørtvedt
Oslo
Den torsdag 17. april 2014 skrev Zack Exley <zexley(a)wikimedia.org> følgende:
I haven't read this thread, but I'll explain
my editing history as
Wikitedium:
First of all, I listed my user name as soon as I started at Wikipedia. It's
still listed here on my (out of date) staff/contractor page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zackexley
I did start an article about myself a long time ago. I didn't know there
was a policy against it. I wasn't an active editor and knew virtually no
policies. I created the article because right wing media personalities were
doing hit pieces on me and the Republican party was sending out emails
asking people to write letters to the editor about me featuring lots of
false facts. So I saw Wikipedia as an open encyclopedia "that anyone can
edit" where I could set the record straight. Later I learned it was against
policy and FELT REALLY BAD.
As for the other edits on projects I was involved with. My personal opinion
is that those kinds of edits are vital to the future of Wikipedia. I want
everyone to add everything they're working on to Wikipedia -- and then all
their critics to come and add what they know. I'm saddened every time I go
looking for something I expect to be in Wikipedia and find nothing -- and
am forced to rely on the organization's own site or whatever.
OK -- I think that's all you need from me. Now enjoy yourselves as you
continue to grind Wikipedia to a whining halt.
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com<javascript:;>>
wrote:
On 17 April 2014 15:23, Pete Forsyth
<peteforsyth@gmail.com<javascript:;>>
wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Erik Moeller
<erik@wikimedia.org<javascript:;>
wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:01
PM, Pete Forsyth <
peteforsyth(a)gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> > wrote:
> > > After he was hired, Zack continued to use that account -- more
> > responsibly,
> > > yes -- but he neither corrected the false statement on its user
page,
or
> disclose his connection to it.
That is untrue; see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zackexley
Interesting, but not especially relevant. What path could a reader or
editor of the Zack Exley article follow to learn about that connection?
Disclosing on the Zack Exley user page isn't sufficient to meet basic
transparency.
Actually, it meets the requirements of the project. It's not perfect,
but
we have administrators who don't even give
that much disclosure to their
own alternate accounts (or that they edit without logging in), and
nobody's
getting the pitchforks out for them.
If you don't like the edits made by the account, work on-wiki to address
the issues. You know how to start an AfD for any articles you think are
about non-notable subjects, you know how to un-peacock an article.
If one really wants to push the COI envelope, one could say that users
who
are former employees of an organization
shouldn't be editing articles
related directly to the organization or its employees (salaried or
contract), though. Indeed, one of the biggest COI issues we have on
English
Wikipedia is former employees trying to use our
articles to "bring
problems
to light" about organizations.
The disclosure was made. Incidentally, that's all that would need to be
done even at the farthest reaches of the proposed terms of use amendment.
Risker
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
?subject=unsubscribe>
--
Zack
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
?subject=unsubscribe>
--
*Erlend Bjørtvedt*
Nestleder, Wikimedia Norge
Vice chairman, Wikimedia Norway
Mob: +47 - 9225 9227