[Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)
gerard.meijssen at gmail.com
Sat Jan 11 18:06:57 UTC 2014
I want to open up the discussion even wider. The way things are stated is
that paid editing is not acceptable.
This ukase  may be considered best practice for the English Wikipedia,
our Wikimedia universe is a bit bigger than that. Wikidata is a completely
different beast with completely different requirements and
is "not about facts at all, it is about what sources say".
Consequently as far as I am concerned the en.wp point of view about paid
editing is too narrow. I blogged on this subject  and hope you take a
moment to consider the difference between Wikipedia and Wikidata with a
perspective of company involvement in our projects.
On 11 January 2014 17:58, MZMcBride <z at mzmcbride.com> wrote:
> Craig Franklin wrote:
> >I think it's actually foolish to try and split hairs over what is
> >acceptable paid editing and what is unacceptable paid editing. The facts
> >of the matter are that paid editing is taking place right now, and it will
> >continue to take place regardless of whatever "bright lines" are drawn in
> >the sand. The only question is whether it's done in a covert manner, or a
> >transparent manner.
> >Rather than arguing over the irrelevant question of whether it is
> >desirable to have paid editing or not, we need instead to be talking
> >about how we are going to handle it. To my view, that should be
> >requiring that anyone editing for money be upfront about their intentions
> >and their edits, and letting the community scrutinise those edits and
> >deal with them just like they'd deal with them if they came from any
> >other editor.
> Perhaps you're correct, though I'll note that in the recent oDesk case,
> you had both a real name and photo attached to the activities, along with
> a public profile describing (and rating!) the activities. That seems
> fairly transparent to me, yet it still resulted in an immediate departure.
> I expanded <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Paid_editing> from a redirect
> into a stub and created a few additional redirects. It's still a very
> rough draft, but I firmly believe that if there's going to be a "bright
> line" for Wikimedia Foundation employees (and potentially others), it
> should be clearly and explicitly documented.
> In the forest, under careful supervision, it may make sense to leave bear
> traps lying around. However in civilized society we really ought to
> minimize potential danger by deactivating any such traps through better
> and clearer information. Posting signs that clearly say "don't enter this
> field because it's full of bear traps" is surely better than simply
> assuming everyone will somehow know that bear traps are a possibility.
> 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>
More information about the Wikimedia-l