Hi Nathan,
Differing views about good uses of this list are fine. However, I have an
optimistic view of the ideal uses and benefits of this list, which may
include civil debates and a wide range of meta discussions. Having stated
my views, and wishing to maintain a respectful tone, this is the
Paid editing is addressed in the WMF terms of service and is a problem that
has confronted or will confront most of the prominent projects in the
movement. An alert to an RfC regarding principles of broader import, and a
small amount of linked discussion, seems to be a perfectly reasonable use
of
Yes, it's a very quiet list. However, I'm an advocate of being mindful of
scope. I've long advocated for wiki-specific discussions to happen on the
wiki and/or mailing lists which are best suited to them rather than
Wikimedia-l unless an issue is escalating to a meta-type discussion. This
is one
I believe it is important for the community as a whole to have a
transparent discussion around the issues of privacy and undisclosed
paid promotional editing. The topic is not a single issue of enforcement
but about what rules we wish to put in place and where we wish to draw the
line between the
James,
The proper body to ask this question is Ombudsmen Commission.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ombudsman_commission
Cheers,
2016-07-01 8:47 GMT+02:00 James Heilman :
> Hey All
>
> On the English Wikipedia we are having a RfC regarding what is allowed when
> trying to
Hey All
On the English Wikipedia we are having a RfC regarding what is allowed when
trying to address undisclosed paid promotional editing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Harassment#Can_other_site_accounts_ever_be_linked_to
Specifically we are discussing if this statement is