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

[Thyge]

To edit is to say something, Andreas Kolbe.

To me it is very fortunate that the right to anonymity takes presedence
over COI-editing. Edits can be changed or removed, a personal identity
cannot.
Regards,
Sir48



2014/1/6 Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 at gmail.com>

> Well, if you don't say anything, Sir48, you are not misrepresenting
> anything, are you?
>
> It's a path many people have chosen in Wikipedia. They just remain silent.
> The right to remain silent about who you are and who you work for is
> enshrined in the principle of anonymity.
>
> People (including the English Wikipedia's arbitration committee) have long
> said that the policies guaranteeing the right to edit anonymously are in
> tension with the guidelines discouraging editing with a conflict of
> interest, and that the conflict between these two sets of policies and
> guidelines is imperfectly resolved.
>
> And in the final analysis, the English Wikipedia's policy against
> harassment and outing takes precedence over the conflict-of-interest
> guideline.
>
> At any rate, conflict-of-interest editing is discouraged, but not forbidden
> in the English Wikipedia, while posting another editor's employer is a
> banning offence (unless the editor has previous disclosed it himself on
> Wikipedia).
>
> That this creates a lucrative market for companies like Wiki-PR should not
> come as a surprise.
>
> While non-transparent paid editing does not seem to me to violate the
> Wikimedia terms of use, transparent paid editing clearly does not violate
> them either. Surely, the way forward lies that way.
>
> But while the German Wikipedia community for example is quite welcoming to
> paid editors who act transparently – the German Wikipedia even has verified
> company accounts like User:Coca_Cola_Germany – the English Wikipedia
> community is exceedingly hostile to such users, to the point of blocking
> company account names *on sight*, with the result that many such editors
> prefer to fly under the radar, using a made-up name and the shield of the
> anonymity policy.
>
> Andreas
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 6:16 PM, Thyge <ltl.privat at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm not in principle against transparent paid editing, but it could
> > actually be considered to violate the ToU's wording: "misrepresenting
> your
> > affiliation with any individual or entity"
> >
> > Regards,
> > Sir48
> >
> >
> > 2014/1/6 Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 at gmail.com>
> >
> > > Sure, Todd. But that is not actually in the Wikimedia terms of use. The
> > > terms of use say,
> > >
> > >
> > >    - Attempting to impersonate another user or individual,
> > misrepresenting
> > >    your affiliation with any individual or entity, or using the
> username
> > of
> > >    another user with the intent to deceive;
> > >
> > >
> > > They do not say,
> > >
> > >
> > >    - Attempting to impersonate another user or individual,
> > misrepresenting
> > >    your affiliation with any individual or entity, or *using more than
> > >    username* with the intent to deceive;
> > >
> > >
> > > That whole section is about impersonating other people, making out that
> > you
> > > represent someone you do not represent, etc. Silence as to one's
> > > affiliations and identity has always been permitted on Wikimedia
> > projects.
> > >
> > > Andreas
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Todd Allen <toddmallen at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > They are, however, avoiding scrutiny, as evidenced by widespread
> > > > disapproval of their actions. That is not a permissible use of socks.
> > The
> > > > community expects to place more scrutiny on paid editors, not less.
> > > > On Jan 6, 2014 6:23 AM, "Andreas Kolbe" <jayen466 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > That doesn't follow to me from that wording, Nathan. The English
> > > > Wikipedia
> > > > > for example allows socking to enable contributors to contribute to
> > > > articles
> > > > > that they would rather not have their real-life name or normal
> > Internet
> > > > > persona associated with.
> > > > >
> > > > > User:John Smith is allowed to create an account named
> > > > > User:ColourfulCharacter to edit those articles. In doing so, he is
> > not
> > > > > using "the username *of another user* with the intent to deceive".
> > > > >
> > > > > There is no other user of that name. (The only exception would be
> if
> > > > there
> > > > > were a user called User:ColorfulCharacter, say, and Smith's intent
> > was
> > > to
> > > > > create confusion between the two accounts.)
> > > > >
> > > > > User:John Smith is using a secondary screen name to obscure the
> fact
> > > that
> > > > > both accounts are operated by the same person. And that is allowed.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't even see that Wiki-PR infringed the letter of that section,
> > as
> > > a
> > > > > normal person would read it. Just like John Smith, they did not use
> > the
> > > > > name of some other user. They created multiple accounts. There was
> no
> > > > other
> > > > > user whose username they used, or whom they tried to impersonate.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Nathan <nawrich at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 8:01 AM, Andreas Kolbe <
> jayen466 at gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > The term isn't used, but the behavior is clearly encompassed by
> the
> > > > > > prohibition described in the "Engaging in False Statements,
> > > > Impersonation
> > > > > > or Fraud" - specifically "using the username of another user with
> > the
> > > > > > intent to deceive."
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > 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>
> > > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > 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>
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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>
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
>