[Wikimedia-l] Announcement Sarah Stierch

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
63 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikimedia-l] Announcement Sarah Stierch

Frank Schulenburg-2
Dear all,

I'm writing to let you know that Sarah Stierch is no longer an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation.  

The Wikimedia Foundation has recently learned that Sarah has been editing Wikipedia on behalf of paying clients, as recently as a few weeks ago. She did that even though it is widely known that paid editing is frowned upon by many in the editing community and by the Wikimedia Foundation.

The Wikimedia Foundation values Sarah a great deal. She has been an active Wikipedian since 2006. She is committed to increasing dialogue between cultural institutions and our projects. She has worked hard to increase the presence and voices of women and other minorities in our projects, and she is a warm welcomer of new Wikipedians. Her work in Program Evaluation has been important and necessary. She is a good friend of many of us.

Everybody makes mistakes, and I would like to believe that the Wikimedia movement is a place of forgiveness and compassion. And so I ask you to respect Sarah's privacy at what is surely a difficult time for her, and to join me in wishing her every future success.

I sincerely hope that Sarah will continue her important work as a Wikipedian and member of the GLAM community, and I thank her for the commitment and energy and thoughtfulness she has brought to her work at the Foundation.

Frank Schulenburg


--


Frank Schulenburg
Senior Director of Programs
Wikimedia Foundation

Cell: +1 (415) 517-0453
Email: [hidden email]

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate 

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement Sarah Stierch

Nathan Awrich
You know what, I think this outcome is not just disappointing, it's
positively astounding. I have a lot that I could say about it, but I can't
imagine what the point of saying it could possibly be. Chalk one up for the
trolls.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

MZMcBride-2
In reply to this post by Frank Schulenburg-2
Frank Schulenburg wrote:
>[...] it is widely known that paid editing is frowned upon by many in the
>editing community and by the Wikimedia Foundation.

No.

Paid editing is not the same as paid advocacy (editing). This is a very
important point.

Suggested reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dominic/FAQ
https://blog.wikimedia.org/?p=25830

N.B. an example of paid editing that few would likely have an issue with
in the first link and Sue's careful and correct wording in the second link.

If we're going to have such a fine distinction, we should probably better
document it to avoid misunderstandings.

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

Liam Wyatt
Thank you very much for raising this distinction MZ. It's a very important
one and, in the recriminations about this particular event, I would hate
for the 'baby to get thrown out with the bathwater' by losing this
distinction.

-Liam / Wittylama

wittylama.com
Peace, love & metadata


On 9 January 2014 13:22, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Frank Schulenburg wrote:
> >[...] it is widely known that paid editing is frowned upon by many in the
> >editing community and by the Wikimedia Foundation.
>
> No.
>
> Paid editing is not the same as paid advocacy (editing). This is a very
> important point.
>
> Suggested reading:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dominic/FAQ
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/?p=25830
>
> N.B. an example of paid editing that few would likely have an issue with
> in the first link and Sue's careful and correct wording in the second link.
>
> If we're going to have such a fine distinction, we should probably better
> document it to avoid misunderstandings.
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

Erik Moeller-4
In reply to this post by MZMcBride-2
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 6:22 PM, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:

(Responding just on the general issue, not on the specific case.)

> Paid editing is not the same as paid advocacy (editing). This is a very
> important point.

I agree it's an important distinction. I personally think it could be
worthwhile to think about a separate non-profit organization which
receives payments and manages contracts to systematically expand
Wikipedia coverage, with payment entirely or largely decoupled from
specific articles (at most coupled to specific domains) and the
organization's policies being developed transparently in partnership
with the community. I suspect such an org could receive significant
grants and public support in its own right.

Supporting free content isn't evil - there's stuff like
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1699256938/the-vanamo-online-game-museum
which is totally awesome. It's COI and disclosure issues that raise
red flags, and more significant violations of policies that sometimes
go along with that.

It's been suggested many times through the years that WMF should
directly pay editors in some way. I don't think that's a good idea,
though I would like to see more grants in support of expenses related
to article writing (there are quite a few programs around that
already, many of them chapter-run).

*dims lights, stirs logs in fireplace*

Back in the early years, I had a little statement on my userpage
encouraging people to donate money to me if they liked my work and
wanted me to do more on Wikipedia. (Nobody took me up on it, of
course. Cheap bastards.) This was at a time when a lot of us online
community nerds were thinking about donation-based funding models for
communities. PayPal was just becoming a really big deal back then,
because it suddenly made these early community funding experiments
possible. Blender, Penny Arcade, Kuro5hin and others were among the
true pioneers of what's now called crowdfunding.

Axel Boldt deserves credit for this experiment:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiMoney . I still have a
WikiMoney bank balance of ψ18. Maybe I can convert it to a
cryptocurrency one day. :)

I'd love to see more experiments that are conducted in full awareness
of the ethical issues involved, both with funding models for free
content, and with other incentive structures. WikiMoney was actually
quite popular for a short while, considering how much of a pain it was
to actually administer!

Erik
--
Erik Möller
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement Sarah Stierch

Andrea Zanni-2
In reply to this post by Nathan Awrich
+1 Nathan.

Aubrey


On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 1:31 AM, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:

> You know what, I think this outcome is not just disappointing, it's
> positively astounding. I have a lot that I could say about it, but I can't
> imagine what the point of saying it could possibly be. Chalk one up for the
> trolls.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

Dariusz Jemielniak-3
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-4
I totally agree with MZMcBride and Erik. It also depends and what the money
go for. If somebody is paid to bend the rules or use their privileged role,
it is an obvious problem. If somebody is paid a compensation for the costs
incurred in collecting materials (as sometimes is the case with scanners,
photos, etc.), it obviously isn't. And the area between is grey and
undefined.

As you possibly know, I believe that outright forbidding all paid editing
results in a situation when people still do it, but in secrecy. This is not
good for us, as it increases the amount of work needed to eradicate such
edits.

I think that we should allow paid edits under certain conditions (although
obviously not allow paid advocacy), when all encyclopedic standards are
fulfilled, but require full transparency and disclosure, to allow better
tracking and evaluation of such edits. I also believe that transparency and
disclosure of even potential COI is crucial (and unfortunately impossible
under current rules).

best,

dariusz "pundit"


On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 8:57 AM, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 6:22 PM, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> (Responding just on the general issue, not on the specific case.)
>
> > Paid editing is not the same as paid advocacy (editing). This is a very
> > important point.
>
> I agree it's an important distinction. I personally think it could be
> worthwhile to think about a separate non-profit organization which
> receives payments and manages contracts to systematically expand
> Wikipedia coverage, with payment entirely or largely decoupled from
> specific articles (at most coupled to specific domains) and the
> organization's policies being developed transparently in partnership
> with the community. I suspect such an org could receive significant
> grants and public support in its own right.
>
> Supporting free content isn't evil - there's stuff like
>
> http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1699256938/the-vanamo-online-game-museum
> which is totally awesome. It's COI and disclosure issues that raise
> red flags, and more significant violations of policies that sometimes
> go along with that.
>
> It's been suggested many times through the years that WMF should
> directly pay editors in some way. I don't think that's a good idea,
> though I would like to see more grants in support of expenses related
> to article writing (there are quite a few programs around that
> already, many of them chapter-run).
>
> *dims lights, stirs logs in fireplace*
>
> Back in the early years, I had a little statement on my userpage
> encouraging people to donate money to me if they liked my work and
> wanted me to do more on Wikipedia. (Nobody took me up on it, of
> course. Cheap bastards.) This was at a time when a lot of us online
> community nerds were thinking about donation-based funding models for
> communities. PayPal was just becoming a really big deal back then,
> because it suddenly made these early community funding experiments
> possible. Blender, Penny Arcade, Kuro5hin and others were among the
> true pioneers of what's now called crowdfunding.
>
> Axel Boldt deserves credit for this experiment:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiMoney . I still have a
> WikiMoney bank balance of ψ18. Maybe I can convert it to a
> cryptocurrency one day. :)
>
> I'd love to see more experiments that are conducted in full awareness
> of the ethical issues involved, both with funding models for free
> content, and with other incentive structures. WikiMoney was actually
> quite popular for a short while, considering how much of a pain it was
> to actually administer!
>
> Erik
> --
> Erik Möller
> VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--

__________________________
dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
profesor zarządzania
kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
i centrum badawczego CROW
Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement Sarah Stierch

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Andrea Zanni-2
Hoi,
It is extremely sad to lose one of our best and brightest. Was there no
other way ?? Was this even considered ??
Thanks,
      Gerard


On 9 January 2014 09:16, Andrea Zanni <[hidden email]> wrote:

> +1 Nathan.
>
> Aubrey
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 1:31 AM, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > You know what, I think this outcome is not just disappointing, it's
> > positively astounding. I have a lot that I could say about it, but I
> can't
> > imagine what the point of saying it could possibly be. Chalk one up for
> the
> > trolls.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

Anders Wennersten-2
In reply to this post by Dariusz Jemielniak-3
Being active on a smaller community I am rather surprised of this
discussion, which I believe is a privilege that only the biggest version
can have. Being on a small, we are positive to any editing that improves
the value and quality. As long it being done within the framework

WMSE actively encourage our old heritage instituion to let their
employees write articles on runestones etc as part of their paid
employment. The community is very positive to the publishing companies
who write excellent articles on the authors they publish books from. We
accept that most articles of organizations and companies are written by
persons employed by these. Here we have to work with them to get the
fluff and promotion out of the articles, but see this as part of getting
valuable content

We are now also looking into how to get most value of the new techniques
being introduced, Wikidata, Wikimaps, new mediawiki sw. And here we find
that we probably have to build up "platforms" of software (templates,
modules, bots etc) for different subject areas (like geographic entities
in Sweden, painting etc).  And again being a small community, it is
quite possible we find we can not develop these technical complicated
software without help of paid employees, we are just too few volunteers
with top technical expertise competence


Anders



Dariusz Jemielniak skrev 2014-01-09 09:22:

> I totally agree with MZMcBride and Erik. It also depends and what the money
> go for. If somebody is paid to bend the rules or use their privileged role,
> it is an obvious problem. If somebody is paid a compensation for the costs
> incurred in collecting materials (as sometimes is the case with scanners,
> photos, etc.), it obviously isn't. And the area between is grey and
> undefined.
>
> As you possibly know, I believe that outright forbidding all paid editing
> results in a situation when people still do it, but in secrecy. This is not
> good for us, as it increases the amount of work needed to eradicate such
> edits.
>
> I think that we should allow paid edits under certain conditions (although
> obviously not allow paid advocacy), when all encyclopedic standards are
> fulfilled, but require full transparency and disclosure, to allow better
> tracking and evaluation of such edits. I also believe that transparency and
> disclosure of even potential COI is crucial (and unfortunately impossible
> under current rules).
>
> best,
>
> dariusz "pundit"
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 8:57 AM, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 6:22 PM, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> (Responding just on the general issue, not on the specific case.)
>>
>>> Paid editing is not the same as paid advocacy (editing). This is a very
>>> important point.
>> I agree it's an important distinction. I personally think it could be
>> worthwhile to think about a separate non-profit organization which
>> receives payments and manages contracts to systematically expand
>> Wikipedia coverage, with payment entirely or largely decoupled from
>> specific articles (at most coupled to specific domains) and the
>> organization's policies being developed transparently in partnership
>> with the community. I suspect such an org could receive significant
>> grants and public support in its own right.
>>
>> Supporting free content isn't evil - there's stuff like
>>
>> http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1699256938/the-vanamo-online-game-museum
>> which is totally awesome. It's COI and disclosure issues that raise
>> red flags, and more significant violations of policies that sometimes
>> go along with that.
>>
>> It's been suggested many times through the years that WMF should
>> directly pay editors in some way. I don't think that's a good idea,
>> though I would like to see more grants in support of expenses related
>> to article writing (there are quite a few programs around that
>> already, many of them chapter-run).
>>
>> *dims lights, stirs logs in fireplace*
>>
>> Back in the early years, I had a little statement on my userpage
>> encouraging people to donate money to me if they liked my work and
>> wanted me to do more on Wikipedia. (Nobody took me up on it, of
>> course. Cheap bastards.) This was at a time when a lot of us online
>> community nerds were thinking about donation-based funding models for
>> communities. PayPal was just becoming a really big deal back then,
>> because it suddenly made these early community funding experiments
>> possible. Blender, Penny Arcade, Kuro5hin and others were among the
>> true pioneers of what's now called crowdfunding.
>>
>> Axel Boldt deserves credit for this experiment:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiMoney . I still have a
>> WikiMoney bank balance of ψ18. Maybe I can convert it to a
>> cryptocurrency one day. :)
>>
>> I'd love to see more experiments that are conducted in full awareness
>> of the ethical issues involved, both with funding models for free
>> content, and with other incentive structures. WikiMoney was actually
>> quite popular for a short while, considering how much of a pain it was
>> to actually administer!
>>
>> Erik
>> --
>> Erik Möller
>> VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>
>


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement Sarah Stierch

David Richfield
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
Hopefully if "we" means the Wikimedia community, we haven't lost her -
I trust that she will remain engaged with the Wikimedia projects as a
volunteer.

On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Gerard Meijssen
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hoi,
> It is extremely sad to lose one of our best and brightest. Was there no
> other way ?? Was this even considered ??
> Thanks,
>       Gerard
>
>
> On 9 January 2014 09:16, Andrea Zanni <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> +1 Nathan.
>>
>> Aubrey
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 1:31 AM, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> > You know what, I think this outcome is not just disappointing, it's
>> > positively astounding. I have a lot that I could say about it, but I
>> can't
>> > imagine what the point of saying it could possibly be. Chalk one up for
>> the
>> > trolls.
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> > [hidden email]
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>



--
David Richfield
[[:en:User:Slashme]]
+491723724440

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

Tomasz Ganicz
In reply to this post by Dariusz Jemielniak-3
2014/1/9 Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]>:

> I totally agree with MZMcBride and Erik. It also depends and what the money
> go for. If somebody is paid to bend the rules or use their privileged role,
> it is an obvious problem. If somebody is paid a compensation for the costs
> incurred in collecting materials (as sometimes is the case with scanners,
> photos, etc.), it obviously isn't. And the area between is grey and
> undefined.
>
> As you possibly know, I believe that outright forbidding all paid editing
> results in a situation when people still do it, but in secrecy. This is not
> good for us, as it increases the amount of work needed to eradicate such
> edits.
>
> I think that we should allow paid edits under certain conditions (although
> obviously not allow paid advocacy), when all encyclopedic standards are
> fulfilled, but require full transparency and disclosure, to allow better
> tracking and evaluation of such edits. I also believe that transparency and
> disclosure of even potential COI is crucial (and unfortunately impossible
> under current rules).
>

Yes, but the question is how to enable such a system. If the rules for
paid editors were to be very strict - many paid editors would have
still decide to do it in secrecy anyway, as it would have been simply
easier for them. It might be like with infamous "registered lobbyst"
system in Polish Parliament. Since  "registered lobbyst" system was
enabled 12 years ago in Polish Parliament only 6 people decided to
register, while all other lobbysts still act in secrecy :-)

System in German Wikipedia registers institutional/corporal editors -
who for sure join the Wikipedia in order to support interest of their
institutions/corporations. One can still do it following the Wikipedia
rules - for example remove unsourced bias, keep pages updated, fix
basic facts, such as the name of CEO etc.  And - in the same time one
can still have accounts for doing evil things - sockpuppeting in
disucssions and votes, forcing obvious bias etc...






--
Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29&title=tomasz-ganicz

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

Russavia
Tomasz,

As has been said elsewhere, ""No registration required," "we respect your
privacy," and "no paid editing" are fundamentally incompatible."

The only way that it would be possible for a system as you describe to
exist, the following would need to be true :

1) No more IP editing -- most COI editing exists using IPs
2) No more anonymous editing -- having real names being used for account
names would indeed go towards putting a halt to undeclared editing
3) Compulsory to declare any COI -- this is currently the case on
some projects, but the conditions are such that this is not always followed

The very business model that Wikipedia follows makes it impossible
to enable any system where COI editing can either be eliminated or can
exist without issue. Until that model changes, this will always be an issue.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement Sarah Stierch

Shlomi Fish
In reply to this post by Frank Schulenburg-2
On Wed, 8 Jan 2014 16:07:47 -0800
Frank Schulenburg <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> I'm writing to let you know that Sarah Stierch is no longer an employee of
> the Wikimedia Foundation.  
>

I'm sorry to hear that. Good luck to Sarah on her future endeavours and I hope
she will remain part of the Wikimedia community.

Regards,

        Shlomi Fish

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish       http://www.shlomifish.org/
First stop for Perl beginners - http://perl-begin.org/

When Chuck Norris uses Gentoo, “emerge kde” finishes in under a minute. A
computer cannot afford to keep Chuck waiting for too long.
    — http://www.shlomifish.org/humour/bits/facts/Chuck-Norris/

Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply .

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement Sarah Stierch

Fæ
In reply to this post by Frank Schulenburg-2
On 9 January 2014 00:07, Frank Schulenburg <[hidden email]>
wrote:
...
> The Wikimedia Foundation has recently learned that Sarah has been editing
Wikipedia on behalf of paying clients, as recently as a few weeks ago. She
did that even though it is widely known that paid editing is frowned upon
by many in the editing community and by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Hi Frank,

I have no idea how to interpret "paid editing is... *frowned upon*... by
the Wikimedia Foundation". Could you please provide a link or a reference
for a
​n approved WMF policy or resolution that makes it clear to ​​
employees or contractors of the WMF that they may have their contracts
terminated if they take part in paid editing?

​Can you also make it clear whether all WMF board members, employees and
contractors of the WMF are retrospectively required to now publicly declare
all past paid editing?​
​ I am sure that many of us active in the Wikimedia movement would
like toreview a compiled
list of open declarations for WMF employees and trustees.​


In the UK management or board members may have many varied personal
opinions and frown upon as much as they like, however to terminate
employment and to ensure that resignations are not later subject to claims
of constructive dismissal, there must be relevant policies of the
organization making it clear what behaviours are acceptable or not.
Employment law in the USA is no doubt different, however I find it hard to
believe there are not similar requirements on employers.

​Depending on your answer to this question, I think it sensible for all
chapters to review whether similar policies should apply to their employees
and contractors and whether their board members should also be required to
make public declarations of any past or current paid editing.

Thanks,
Fae
--
[hidden email] http://j.mp/faewm
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement Sarah Stierch

Bjoern Hoehrmann
In reply to this post by Frank Schulenburg-2
* Frank Schulenburg wrote:
>And so I ask you to respect Sarah's privacy at what is surely a
>difficult time for her, ...

An extremely visible public announcement that the Wikimedia Foundation
has fired her within two days of an allegation of misconduct -- that is
how you are making it sound -- is not quite "respecting her privacy".
--
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[hidden email] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement Sarah Stierch

Katherine Casey
Add me to the list of people who are surprised the WMF has chosen to handle
this in so public and accusatory a manner. It is presumably their right to
sever business relationships with employees, of course, but they generally
don't do so by posting a public notice detailing the employee's alleged
misconduct.


On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 5:44 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <[hidden email]> wrote:

> * Frank Schulenburg wrote:
> >And so I ask you to respect Sarah's privacy at what is surely a
> >difficult time for her, ...
>
> An extremely visible public announcement that the Wikimedia Foundation
> has fired her within two days of an allegation of misconduct -- that is
> how you are making it sound -- is not quite "respecting her privacy".
> --
> Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[hidden email] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
> Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
> 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement Sarah Stierch

Russavia
In reply to this post by Fæ
Fae,

You raise very good points in your email, and I have posted this for
consideration by the WMF Board of Trustees

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard#Undeclared_conflicts_of_interest

If anyone wishes to support this please feel free to do so on the noticeboard.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement Sarah Stierch

Mike Peel
In reply to this post by Katherine Casey

On 9 Jan 2014, at 14:32, Katherine Casey <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Add me to the list of people who are surprised the WMF has chosen to handle
> this in so public and accusatory a manner. It is presumably their right to
> sever business relationships with employees, of course, but they generally
> don't do so by posting a public notice detailing the employee's alleged
> misconduct.

It seems to me that this is a "damned if you do, damned if you don’t” scenario. If there *hadn’t* been a note to this list then I’m sure people would have been crying out for one. Personally, I’m glad to see the transparency and frankness, but sad to see the news. :-(

Thanks,
Mike


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

Frank Schulenburg-2
In reply to this post by Frank Schulenburg-2
Thank you for highlighting something I should have clarified better in my post, MZMcBride. That sentence should have read "paid advocacy editing" in line with Sue's blog post that you referenced.

We continue to support the important work Sarah and others have done in the GLAM sector through projects like Wikipedians in Residence.

Frank


On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 6:22 PM, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:
Frank Schulenburg wrote:
>[...] it is widely known that paid editing is frowned upon by many in the
>editing community and by the Wikimedia Foundation.

No.

Paid editing is not the same as paid advocacy (editing). This is a very
important point.

Suggested reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dominic/FAQ
https://blog.wikimedia.org/?p=25830

N.B. an example of paid editing that few would likely have an issue with
in the first link and Sue's careful and correct wording in the second link.

If we're going to have such a fine distinction, we should probably better
document it to avoid misunderstandings.

MZMcBride


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

Dariusz Jemielniak-3
In reply to this post by Tomasz Ganicz
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Tomasz Ganicz <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Yes, but the question is how to enable such a system. If the rules for
>  paid editors were to be very strict - many paid editors would have
> still decide to do it in secrecy anyway,


oh, but there will ALWAYS be those lurking in the shadows. However,
currently we frown upon edits which are according to the rules just as much
as upon those which cross the line. I think it would be good to make and
explicit, ostensive bright line, like Jimbo suggested - I just think the
line should be elsewhere.

Paid editing, when done according to the rules, and when subjected to
transparent community control, is definitely better than a system in which
paid editors are, in fact, motivated NOT TO reveal their affiliations.

best,

dariusz "pundit"
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
1234