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

[Andreas Kolbe]

Nathan,

I am unable to find a mention of sockpuppetry in the Terms of Use, whether
in Section 4 or elsewhere.

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use

I don't think there could be such a mention, really, given that project
policies recognise a number of legitimate uses of socks.

A.


On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Nathan <nawrich at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 12:52 AM, Russavia <russavia.wikipedia at gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
>
> You must not have read the actual cease and desist letter. I understand,
> it's several paragraphs, and that level of investigatory work is too
> burdensome when you are racing to cause maximum drama. To quote a part of
> the relevant portion "This practice, known as sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry,
> is expressly prohibited by Wikipedia's Terms of Use." This is supported by
> the actual text of section 4 of the Terms of Use, which mention
> sockpuppetry but do not mention paid editing.
>
> So the bullshit, to return to the point, is you accusing Sarah of violating
> the Terms of Use. Even if she did write an article for $300, she did not
> violate the ToU. Your claim otherwise is meant to be incendiary, and is at
> a minimum ignorant but much more likely simply dishonest. Your support of
> Wiki-PR, a group that did indisputably break the ToU and caused hundreds of
> hours worth of clean up work, proves that whatever motivates you in this
> thread it certainly isn't the benefit of the Wikimedia movement or any
> legitimate part of it.
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
>