[Wikimedia-l] WMF employee writing articles for $300

[Russavia]

Yes, Nathan, please let us cut the bullshit, for I have a pretty low
tolerance for it, and I am happy to call you out on it.

You are right, I don't see anywhere in Odder's blog or in my posts on this
list that Sarah is being accused of sock puppetry. I don't know why you are
making this totally irrelevation correlation, or is this you simply trying
to run interference? (Very poorly I might add, but certainly a better
attempt than Gerard). I suggest that you re-read the cease and desist
letter (
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/11/19/wikimedia-foundation-sends-cease-and-desist-letter-to-wikipr/)
at the very top of page 2 you can see in pretty plain English that the WMF
has invoked Section 4 of the Terms of Use, in which the WMF makes veiled
legal threats of fraud, misrepresentation, etc. It is showing severe
naivety on your part if you think the Wiki-PR case was built around a farm
of sockpuppets; that was merely the catalyst for the anti-paid editing
crowd to really sink their teeth into the situation -- that should surely
be evident from Sue's press release.

I seriously don't see why you think me contacting Wiki-PR to alert them of
these posts here, so that they can follow it, as a bad thing. I thought
that the "movement" was built around the notion of transparency. If terms
of use are being invoked with them, don't they have the right to know of
other such cases where they will likely be ignored because it's an insider
we are talking about? That Sarah has engaged in undeclared paid editing is
of her own doing -- we are all responsible for our own editing. She chose
to engage in such editing immediately after a massive scandal knowing full
well the possible consequences if it was discovered.

It is not people like Odder who blogs or myself who dares step into the
holy inner sanctum who will tear Sarah down, it is the tendentious and
self-righteous
barnacles that adhere to the "paid editing is bad mmmkay" mantra that is
peddled from above on Wikipedia, and lately by the Wikimedia Foundation
itself, and adhered to blindly by the masses, who will do that.

So Nathan, where do you stand on the paid editing issue? Does Jimmy's
bright line rule, and Sue's statements, apply to insiders as well as to the
world-at-large?

But again, let's wait for Sarah's comments first on these revelations. And
then we can get those within the movement who have so publicly taken a
stance on paid editing, namely Sue and Jimmy, to clarify where they truly
stand on these issues for once and for all.

Cheers,

Russavia





On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Nathan <nawrich at gmail.com> wrote:

> Let's be clear, Russavia - the terms of use bar sockpuppetry, and the cease
> and desist refers to concealing the identity of the author to deceive the
> editing community. I don't see that you've accused Sarah of sockpuppetry,
> so why not cut the bullshit? Thanks for notifying Wiki-PR, by the way, I'm
> sure everyone on this list really appreciates that.
>
> If there's one thing I love about Wikimedia, it's when tendentious and
> self-righteous barnacles on the community make it a mission to tear down
> good-hearted and dedicated Wikimedians at the expense of the movement.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>