We currently have some mean to fight paid editing, terms of services are "easy to violate" thus giving us a straightforward way to take action. But too often I see something like: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q16826370 obvious paid editors left totally free to do their job without even attracting some attention on them.
Vito 2017-04-23 13:58 GMT+02:00 Peter Southwood <peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>: > I would think this is up to the chapter/affilate organisation, but no harm > in getting a more universal collection of opinions. > Cheers, > Peter > > -----Original Message----- > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On > Behalf Of Gabriel Thullen > Sent: Sunday, 23 April 2017 10:50 AM > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies > that offer paid editing services > > I suggest another question, right after your #5. Undisclosed paid editing > is one thing, dealing with disclosed paid editors within our community is > another. You could add the following question: > "Asking if we agree to let disclosed paid editors occupy key positions > within the Wikimedia movement such as chapter board, official chapter > spokesperson, affiliate organization board, etc." > > > On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 6:16 AM, James Salsman <jsals...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I've proposed asking wikimedians at large what they think should be > > done about paid advocacy editing, as item number 5 on my periodic > > survey proposal composed of all the unresolved questions over the last > > quarter on this list at: > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:James_Salsman# > > Periodic_survey_prototype > > > > On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 2:50 PM Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Has there been a recent substantial discussion by the community > > > surrounding > > > > promotional/biased editting paid or otherwise, which had an > > > > outcome resulting in a specific request for assistance or > > > > increased action by > > the > > > > WMF? > > > > > > > > > > Aside from the conversation on this list, I'm aware of the > > > discussion on Jimbo's talk page. If WMF Legal or the WMF Board wants > > > to take the > > position > > > that it would like to see a community RfC or some other such > > > discussion, > > I > > > imagine that such can be arranged, and I can see how that might be > > > beneficial. Of course, anyone is free to initiate such an on-wiki > > > discussion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there hasn't, I do not see grounds for you to be expecting an > > official > > > > response from Legal to a list whose conversation has for the most > > > > part consisted of about 6 people? > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure why you would be telling other people to whom they can > > > initiate requests and the conditions under which they can be made. I > > > already have a dim view of WMF's customer service; please don't dig > > > the hole any deeper. > > > > > > Many others, I am sure, would rightly complain if the Foundation > > > > unilaterally made decisions in this area. > > > > > > > > > That is possible if WMF were to do something particularly novel, so > > > your sense of caution here is well taken. I would hope that WMF > > > would discuss its plans with the community and have a conversation > > > before actually initiating novel actions. > > > > > > > > > > But please be realistic, this is > > > > a coffee table discussion. > > > > > > > > > I have mixed views on this. Wikimedia-l is not a quiet back room > > > with > > only > > > a few people around, but it's true that a consensus here among a > > > small number of people who speak up in a particular discussion > > > demonstrates a lower level of consensus than an RfC with hundreds of > > > participants. It's not clear to me that there is consensus on which > > > tools are appropriate > > for > > > which exact circumstances, and some discussions happen in multiple > > venues. > > > > > > > > > > The views expressed here are valid but the right > > > > > > > thing to do would be to further the conversation on wiki and have a > > proper > > > > community conversation. > > > > > > > > > I don't think that there is a single definition of a "proper" > > > community conversation. > > > > > > I have no objection to having an on-wiki RfC (and I can see how a > > > sophisticated and well-attended one might produce detailed guidance > > > that would be helpful), but neither do I want this thread to be > trivialized. > > > > > > Pine > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > Unsubscribe: > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2016.0.8013 / Virus Database: 4769/14365 - Release Date: 04/23/17 > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
