For me the difference that matters is that they are part of the movement, WMF and WMUK in accounts denote staff editors. Communicating that is something I see as internal communication. There are lots of ways in which we allow internal communication to do things that we would not allow external organisations to promote within the project.
As for whether being a charity makes a difference; Personally I'm more likely to talk rather than block an editor who was from a not for profit. But our policy doesn't discriminate between charities and other external organisations. WSC On 29 April 2012 15:31, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dal...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 29 April 2012 15:23, WereSpielChequers <werespielchequ...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > If PR agency Acme PR were to start to employ a bunch of spin doctors with > > usernames such as "Millie C from Acme PR" then it would be obviously > > promotional. Especially if they were active on wiki arguing that their > > clients criminal records should be expunged or at least given less > coverage > > than their charity work. > > How is that different to having "(WMF)" or "(WMUK)" after your > username? There are several obvious differences (WMF/WMUK staff don't > usually edit article content, they are affiliated with Wikipedia, they > are non-profit, etc.), but I'm curious what, if any, difference you > think makes one ok and the other not. > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia UK mailing list > wikimediau...@wikimedia.org > http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l > WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org >
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org