[Wikimedia-l] WMF employee writing articles for $300

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
35 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikimedia-l] WMF employee writing articles for $300

Russavia
Odder has published a fantastic blog piece at
http://twkozlowski.net/paid-editing-thrives-in-the-heart-of-wikipedia/ in
which it is revealed that a WMF employee is engaged in undeclared paid
editing on English Wikipedia, and charging what it appears to be $300 per
article.

I have cc'ed both Sue and Jimmy in on this email, but also sending to this
list as I know they, and other WMF employees, do use this list, and I think
it would be pertinent that they respond publicly to the issues raised here.
It is ever so more important given that the undeclared paid editing
occurred AFTER the whole Wiki-PR debacle (Sue's press release, WMF's
cease-and-desist, and of course the resultant media attention).

What do Jimmy and Sue believe should occur given that such editing violates
Wikipedia policies and also Jimmy's so-called Bright Line Rule. In relation
to Jimmy's line, many are still clueless as to what exactly this Bright
Line is (it's not very bright), and how it should be applied in practice,
so Jimmy, if you are out there, your comment is requested on that.

Cheers,

Russavia
_______________________________________________
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] WMF employee writing articles for $300

Craig Franklin
There seems to be some pretty heavy assumptions in Odder's article - it all
just seems to be speculation based upon one very vague comment in her work
history.  Was she contacted before the blog post was made and brought to
this list to ask for clarification?

Cheers,
Craig

On 6 January 2014 09:42, Russavia <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Odder has published a fantastic blog piece at
> http://twkozlowski.net/paid-editing-thrives-in-the-heart-of-wikipedia/ in
> which it is revealed that a WMF employee is engaged in undeclared paid
> editing on English Wikipedia, and charging what it appears to be $300 per
> article.
>
> I have cc'ed both Sue and Jimmy in on this email, but also sending to this
> list as I know they, and other WMF employees, do use this list, and I think
> it would be pertinent that they respond publicly to the issues raised here.
> It is ever so more important given that the undeclared paid editing
> occurred AFTER the whole Wiki-PR debacle (Sue's press release, WMF's
> cease-and-desist, and of course the resultant media attention).
>
> What do Jimmy and Sue believe should occur given that such editing violates
> Wikipedia policies and also Jimmy's so-called Bright Line Rule. In relation
> to Jimmy's line, many are still clueless as to what exactly this Bright
> Line is (it's not very bright), and how it should be applied in practice,
> so Jimmy, if you are out there, your comment is requested on that.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Russavia
> _______________________________________________
> 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] WMF employee writing articles for $300

Russavia
No idea Craig, but http://i.imgur.com/iYBNjhH.png does say that she last
worked on 23 December, which would loosely tie in with edit timeframes on
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sally_Hogshead&action=history

It should also be noted that the article was previously deleted as per
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Sally+Hogsheadin
2010. Sally Hogshead (so it would seem) was subjected to a sockpuppet
case at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sallyhogshead/Archiveon
the very day that the previous article was deleted.

So it shouldn't surprise us that Sally would turn to paying for an
experienced editor to write her promo bio. The article as it reads today
reads like a typical puff piece posing as a Wikipedia article. The sourcing
obviously leaves a lot to be desired, largely made up of interviews and the
like.

Perhaps Sarah could explain herself on list here, I believe she is on it.
If this isn't the article in question, I am sure she will explain which
article for an individual she was paid $300. Personally, I believe Sarah is
short changing herself, such work should cost more than $300, and I don't
care if she is engaging in paid editing, but given that the WMF is now
resorting to the ED putting out press releases and issuing cease-and-desist
letters, she surely knows that as an employee of the WMF she is in either a
precarious position here, or in a prime position to advocate for paid
editing and explain why it's not all that bad. I hope she takes the latter
route :)

Cheers,

Russavia






On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Craig Franklin <[hidden email]>wrote:

> There seems to be some pretty heavy assumptions in Odder's article - it all
> just seems to be speculation based upon one very vague comment in her work
> history.  Was she contacted before the blog post was made and brought to
> this list to ask for clarification?
>
> Cheers,
> Craig
>
> On 6 January 2014 09:42, Russavia <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Odder has published a fantastic blog piece at
> > http://twkozlowski.net/paid-editing-thrives-in-the-heart-of-wikipedia/in
> > which it is revealed that a WMF employee is engaged in undeclared paid
> > editing on English Wikipedia, and charging what it appears to be $300 per
> > article.
> >
> > I have cc'ed both Sue and Jimmy in on this email, but also sending to
> this
> > list as I know they, and other WMF employees, do use this list, and I
> think
> > it would be pertinent that they respond publicly to the issues raised
> here.
> > It is ever so more important given that the undeclared paid editing
> > occurred AFTER the whole Wiki-PR debacle (Sue's press release, WMF's
> > cease-and-desist, and of course the resultant media attention).
> >
> > What do Jimmy and Sue believe should occur given that such editing
> violates
> > Wikipedia policies and also Jimmy's so-called Bright Line Rule. In
> relation
> > to Jimmy's line, many are still clueless as to what exactly this Bright
> > Line is (it's not very bright), and how it should be applied in practice,
> > so Jimmy, if you are out there, your comment is requested on that.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Russavia
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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] WMF employee writing articles for $300

David Gerard-2
On 6 January 2014 00:23, Russavia <[hidden email]> wrote:



Of course, this is not being brought up because of anything to do with
your own vicious and odious personal attacks on individuals on Commons
in any manner whatsoever.

Back under the bridge.


- d.

_______________________________________________
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] WMF employee writing articles for $300

MZMcBride-2
In reply to this post by Russavia
Suggested related reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dominic/Digital_Content_Specialist and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dominic/FAQ

I can't say I felt particularly good after seeing
<http://i.imgur.com/iYBNjhH.png>, but Sarah is an active mailing list
participant, so I'm sure she'll chime in here when she has a minute, as
necessary and appropriate.

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] WMF employee writing articles for $300

David Gerard-2
This shit belongs on Wikipediocracy, by which I mean "with trolls
trying to fuck up Wikipedia for commercial advantage".

On 6 January 2014 00:39, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Suggested related reading:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dominic/Digital_Content_Specialist and
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dominic/FAQ
>
> I can't say I felt particularly good after seeing
> <http://i.imgur.com/iYBNjhH.png>, but Sarah is an active mailing list
> participant, so I'm sure she'll chime in here when she has a minute, as
> necessary and appropriate.
>
> 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] WMF employee writing articles for $300

Russavia
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
David,

Myself, I like Sarah, we've had some good and entertaining discussions, and
I even nominated her for RfA on Commons (
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators/Requests/SarahStierch).
My posting here has nothing to do with bitch-slapping Sarah (
http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=75849#p75849). Odder has
presented information, which raises many questions, not necessarily of
Sarah, but of those in the Foundation hierachy who have publicly spoken out
about paid editing in general.

By all rights, if Sue's statement and Jimmy's
well-known-but-not-so-coherent position is meant to have teeth, Sarah
should also be served with a cease-and-desist notice for obvious paid
editing, and for violating the terms of use. Otherwise the cease-and-desist
notice the WMF sent to Wiki-PR (
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/11/19/wikimedia-foundation-sends-cease-and-desist-letter-to-wikipr/)
is basically worthless. I have, of course, taken the liberty to contact
Jordan French of Wiki-PR to advise them of Odder's blog, and of these
postings on this mailing list, so that they can follow it for their own
purposes, and see what public response comes from the powers-that-be at the
WMF.

So David, if you can stick to the topic instead of using nonsensical
personal attacks on myself, perhaps you can explain your position here. I
surely think that Sarah wouldn't appreciate your comments that people who
engage in paid editing are trying to "fuck up Wikipedia for commercial
advantage". Whilst we will obviously wait for Sarah to comment publicly
here, what do you see as being the difference between Wiki-PR and Sarah?
Should she be subjected to an en.wp community ban? Should she be served
with cease-and-desist notices from WMF legal? Or is it that insiders on our
projects are treated differently by the powers-that-be to those who don't
have that privilege? (We all know the answer to that last question!)

As to motives for the blog post, take it up with Odder, it's his post. My
motive in posting here is purely to generate discussion on obvious
"organizational issues of the Wikimedia Foundation"; and paid editing is
one of the major organizational issues of recent months, even looking at
Wales' talk page on en.wp, it is basically full of bright line, COI and
paid editing discussions, and has been for some time now.

Anyway, I look forward to hearing from Sarah on this issue, and again, she
has my support in regards to this issue.

Cheers,

Russavia
_______________________________________________
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] WMF employee writing articles for $300

Nathan Awrich
Let's be clear, Russavia - the terms of use bar sockpuppetry, and the cease
and desist refers to concealing the identity of the author to deceive the
editing community. I don't see that you've accused Sarah of sockpuppetry,
so why not cut the bullshit? Thanks for notifying Wiki-PR, by the way, I'm
sure everyone on this list really appreciates that.

If there's one thing I love about Wikimedia, it's when tendentious and
self-righteous barnacles on the community make it a mission to tear down
good-hearted and dedicated Wikimedians at the expense of the movement.
_______________________________________________
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] WMF employee writing articles for $300

HaeB
In reply to this post by Russavia
That blog post contains at least one glaring factual error:

"Part of Sarah’s role at the Foundation is to educate GLAM institutions on
issues relating to sourcing, original research, notability & conflict of
interest."
 - linking to a page dating from mid-2011, when Sarah was a
Wikipedian-in-Residence at a GLAM institution, as an intern of that
organization (see e.g. my Signpost article at the time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-04-25/News_and_notes
),
predating her employment at WMF.
I'm commenting in a purely personal capacity here and can't speak with
authority on the details of Sarah's current job responsibilities, but I'm
quite certain that the blog's claim about them is wrong.

Regards, HaeB (Tilman Bayer)

Am Sonntag, 5. Januar 2014 schrieb Russavia :

> Odder has published a fantastic blog piece at
> http://twkozlowski.net/paid-editing-thrives-in-the-heart-of-wikipedia/ in
> which it is revealed that a WMF employee is engaged in undeclared paid
> editing on English Wikipedia, and charging what it appears to be $300 per
> article.
>
> I have cc'ed both Sue and Jimmy in on this email, but also sending to this
> list as I know they, and other WMF employees, do use this list, and I think
> it would be pertinent that they respond publicly to the issues raised here.
> It is ever so more important given that the undeclared paid editing
> occurred AFTER the whole Wiki-PR debacle (Sue's press release, WMF's
> cease-and-desist, and of course the resultant media attention).
>
> What do Jimmy and Sue believe should occur given that such editing violates
> Wikipedia policies and also Jimmy's so-called Bright Line Rule. In relation
> to Jimmy's line, many are still clueless as to what exactly this Bright
> Line is (it's not very bright), and how it should be applied in practice,
> so Jimmy, if you are out there, your comment is requested on that.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Russavia
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email] <javascript:;>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email] <javascript:;>
> ?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] WMF employee writing articles for $300

Steven Walling
In reply to this post by Russavia
On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Russavia <[hidden email]>wrote:

> Odder has published a fantastic blog piece at
> http://twkozlowski.net/paid-editing-thrives-in-the-heart-of-wikipedia/ in
> which it is revealed that a WMF employee is engaged in undeclared paid
> editing on English Wikipedia, and charging what it appears to be $300 per
> article.
>
> I have cc'ed both Sue and Jimmy in on this email, but also sending to this
> list as I know they, and other WMF employees, do use this list, and I think
> it would be pertinent that they respond publicly to the issues raised here.
> It is ever so more important given that the undeclared paid editing
> occurred AFTER the whole Wiki-PR debacle (Sue's press release, WMF's
> cease-and-desist, and of course the resultant media attention).
>
> What do Jimmy and Sue believe should occur given that such editing violates
> Wikipedia policies and also Jimmy's so-called Bright Line Rule. In relation
> to Jimmy's line, many are still clueless as to what exactly this Bright
> Line is (it's not very bright), and how it should be applied in practice,
> so Jimmy, if you are out there, your comment is requested on that.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Russavia
>

I'm with David and Nathan here.

The "evidence" presented is an anonymized oDesk account and a screenshot.
Screenshots are very easily doctored, and Wikipediocracy trolls have many
reasons to attack a Wikimedian like Sarah. I wouldn't be surprised if
they'd go so far as to set up a fake account using her picture and
information.

If you really cared about solving this, you could try emailing Sarah, her
superiors, and Sue directly. Considering many staff don't follow high
volume lists like Wikimedia-l, especially on the weekend, it's not exactly
the best way to get a response from the WMF. It is, however, a great way to
stir up bullshit drama.

I'll hold out for Sarah's comment, if she feels comfortable. Otherwise
smells like trolling.

Steven
_______________________________________________
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] WMF employee writing articles for $300

Russavia
In reply to this post by Nathan Awrich
Yes, Nathan, please let us cut the bullshit, for I have a pretty low
tolerance for it, and I am happy to call you out on it.

You are right, I don't see anywhere in Odder's blog or in my posts on this
list that Sarah is being accused of sock puppetry. I don't know why you are
making this totally irrelevation correlation, or is this you simply trying
to run interference? (Very poorly I might add, but certainly a better
attempt than Gerard). I suggest that you re-read the cease and desist
letter (
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/11/19/wikimedia-foundation-sends-cease-and-desist-letter-to-wikipr/)
at the very top of page 2 you can see in pretty plain English that the WMF
has invoked Section 4 of the Terms of Use, in which the WMF makes veiled
legal threats of fraud, misrepresentation, etc. It is showing severe
naivety on your part if you think the Wiki-PR case was built around a farm
of sockpuppets; that was merely the catalyst for the anti-paid editing
crowd to really sink their teeth into the situation -- that should surely
be evident from Sue's press release.

I seriously don't see why you think me contacting Wiki-PR to alert them of
these posts here, so that they can follow it, as a bad thing. I thought
that the "movement" was built around the notion of transparency. If terms
of use are being invoked with them, don't they have the right to know of
other such cases where they will likely be ignored because it's an insider
we are talking about? That Sarah has engaged in undeclared paid editing is
of her own doing -- we are all responsible for our own editing. She chose
to engage in such editing immediately after a massive scandal knowing full
well the possible consequences if it was discovered.

It is not people like Odder who blogs or myself who dares step into the
holy inner sanctum who will tear Sarah down, it is the tendentious and
self-righteous
barnacles that adhere to the "paid editing is bad mmmkay" mantra that is
peddled from above on Wikipedia, and lately by the Wikimedia Foundation
itself, and adhered to blindly by the masses, who will do that.

So Nathan, where do you stand on the paid editing issue? Does Jimmy's
bright line rule, and Sue's statements, apply to insiders as well as to the
world-at-large?

But again, let's wait for Sarah's comments first on these revelations. And
then we can get those within the movement who have so publicly taken a
stance on paid editing, namely Sue and Jimmy, to clarify where they truly
stand on these issues for once and for all.

Cheers,

Russavia





On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Let's be clear, Russavia - the terms of use bar sockpuppetry, and the cease
> and desist refers to concealing the identity of the author to deceive the
> editing community. I don't see that you've accused Sarah of sockpuppetry,
> so why not cut the bullshit? Thanks for notifying Wiki-PR, by the way, I'm
> sure everyone on this list really appreciates that.
>
> If there's one thing I love about Wikimedia, it's when tendentious and
> self-righteous barnacles on the community make it a mission to tear down
> good-hearted and dedicated Wikimedians at the expense of the movement.
> _______________________________________________
> 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] WMF employee writing articles for $300

Oliver Keyes-5
Or to translate "who cares what harm I do by peddling these assertions
without verifying them! I just want people to come along and admit I was
Right, because being Right on the internet is the most important of all the
things".

Your comment here makes clear that your only interest in the situation is
trying to bend people like Jimmy over a barrel in the hopes that they'll
tearfully exclaim that, yes, they were wrong, paid editing is hunky-dory
and oh, if /only we'd listened to Russavia/. Stop, please.


On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 9:52 PM, Russavia <[hidden email]>wrote:

> Yes, Nathan, please let us cut the bullshit, for I have a pretty low
> tolerance for it, and I am happy to call you out on it.
>
> You are right, I don't see anywhere in Odder's blog or in my posts on this
> list that Sarah is being accused of sock puppetry. I don't know why you are
> making this totally irrelevation correlation, or is this you simply trying
> to run interference? (Very poorly I might add, but certainly a better
> attempt than Gerard). I suggest that you re-read the cease and desist
> letter (
>
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/11/19/wikimedia-foundation-sends-cease-and-desist-letter-to-wikipr/
> )
> at the very top of page 2 you can see in pretty plain English that the WMF
> has invoked Section 4 of the Terms of Use, in which the WMF makes veiled
> legal threats of fraud, misrepresentation, etc. It is showing severe
> naivety on your part if you think the Wiki-PR case was built around a farm
> of sockpuppets; that was merely the catalyst for the anti-paid editing
> crowd to really sink their teeth into the situation -- that should surely
> be evident from Sue's press release.
>
> I seriously don't see why you think me contacting Wiki-PR to alert them of
> these posts here, so that they can follow it, as a bad thing. I thought
> that the "movement" was built around the notion of transparency. If terms
> of use are being invoked with them, don't they have the right to know of
> other such cases where they will likely be ignored because it's an insider
> we are talking about? That Sarah has engaged in undeclared paid editing is
> of her own doing -- we are all responsible for our own editing. She chose
> to engage in such editing immediately after a massive scandal knowing full
> well the possible consequences if it was discovered.
>
> It is not people like Odder who blogs or myself who dares step into the
> holy inner sanctum who will tear Sarah down, it is the tendentious and
> self-righteous
> barnacles that adhere to the "paid editing is bad mmmkay" mantra that is
> peddled from above on Wikipedia, and lately by the Wikimedia Foundation
> itself, and adhered to blindly by the masses, who will do that.
>
> So Nathan, where do you stand on the paid editing issue? Does Jimmy's
> bright line rule, and Sue's statements, apply to insiders as well as to the
> world-at-large?
>
> But again, let's wait for Sarah's comments first on these revelations. And
> then we can get those within the movement who have so publicly taken a
> stance on paid editing, namely Sue and Jimmy, to clarify where they truly
> stand on these issues for once and for all.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Russavia
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Let's be clear, Russavia - the terms of use bar sockpuppetry, and the
> cease
> > and desist refers to concealing the identity of the author to deceive the
> > editing community. I don't see that you've accused Sarah of sockpuppetry,
> > so why not cut the bullshit? Thanks for notifying Wiki-PR, by the way,
> I'm
> > sure everyone on this list really appreciates that.
> >
> > If there's one thing I love about Wikimedia, it's when tendentious and
> > self-righteous barnacles on the community make it a mission to tear down
> > good-hearted and dedicated Wikimedians at the expense of the movement.
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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] WMF employee writing articles for $300

Russavia
In reply to this post by Steven Walling
Steven,

Did it occur to you that the reason the account is anonymised is that
one would likely not want it to be found out? It also beyond the
realms of imagination that "Wikipediocracy trolls" would create an
account on 6 January 2012 as a joe-job account, and sit on it all this
time and then have Odder (who is certainly no friend of
Wikipediocracy) find out about it, and let him beat them to the punch.

But here's a little more evidence for you. From that screenshot, you
will notice in September Sarah earned $96 from a job which is
described as "Wikipedia Writer Editor". The information for that job
is found at https://www.odesk.com/jobs/~01fb1fd477c79e30b0 (and I have
taken the liberty of uploading it at
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8j_w_yHF5ymdHQzTkJkRkY5TWM/edit?usp=sharing)

From this we can ascertain the following:

* The job was posted on 3 September 2013
* The client is in the United States
* Sarah was one of 9 applicants for the job, applying on 4 September 2013
* The client was interviewing 2 applicants, and they ended up hiring Sarah
* On 4 October 2013 (a Friday), the client last viewed this job -- the
little question mark pop-up says "This is when the client last viewed
or interacted with the applicants for this job." - in all likelihood
this is when the information was provided to Sarah.

From Sarah's contributions between this period we can see that she was
involved in creating and editing articles relating to Turkey, Algeria,
Guatemala, creating articles such as
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugénie_Luce, etc

On 6 October 2013 (-8 GMT), after editing articles on places/people in
Moldova and Ukraine, at 12:14 she made this edit
(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_III_of_Moldavia&diff=prev&oldid=576031919).
At 13:53, a little under 2 hours later, Sarah posted
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melody_Inn_(nightclub). Again, this is a
somewhat puff piece article, out of sync with what she was editing at
the time, with sourcing that one wouldn't really expect in an article.
The wording at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melody_Inn_(nightclub)#Music
is especially telling. Then
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1935&diff=prev&oldid=576044989
is done straight afterwards. That it was posted a little under 2 hours
after her edit to the Stephen III of Moldavia article would correlate
with the 2 hours that she billed the client for cleaning the article
up to make it presentable, receiving $96. Then it was back to normal
editing. Not bad for 2 hours editing on a Sunday afternoon, eh?

And surely you can understand why people would post this information
publicly. Already on this very list I have been attacked by no less
than 4 Wikimedia insiders (yourself included) who are clearly trying
to run deflection and interference. Emailing the WMF and Sue
privately, so that it can be quietly ignored, or swept under the
carpet; this is the experience of many people in the past, so why
waste one's time. And anyway, doesn't the public, including the media
whom I have also taken the liberty of advising that this issue exists,
have a right to know that such things are happening on a project that
prides itself on how transparent it is.

Steven, does this smell like trolling and an elaborate "set up Sarah"
joe-job? People can continue to bury their heads in the sand, attack
me for trolling, run interference, and believe in vast conspiracies
and other such nonsense. I will look at this logically, and taken in
with information that Odder provided, it's couldn't be clearer.

What isn't so clear is how Sue and Jimmy will respond......





On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Steven Walling <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Russavia <[hidden email]>wrote:
>
>> Odder has published a fantastic blog piece at
>> http://twkozlowski.net/paid-editing-thrives-in-the-heart-of-wikipedia/ in
>> which it is revealed that a WMF employee is engaged in undeclared paid
>> editing on English Wikipedia, and charging what it appears to be $300 per
>> article.
>>
>> I have cc'ed both Sue and Jimmy in on this email, but also sending to this
>> list as I know they, and other WMF employees, do use this list, and I think
>> it would be pertinent that they respond publicly to the issues raised here.
>> It is ever so more important given that the undeclared paid editing
>> occurred AFTER the whole Wiki-PR debacle (Sue's press release, WMF's
>> cease-and-desist, and of course the resultant media attention).
>>
>> What do Jimmy and Sue believe should occur given that such editing violates
>> Wikipedia policies and also Jimmy's so-called Bright Line Rule. In relation
>> to Jimmy's line, many are still clueless as to what exactly this Bright
>> Line is (it's not very bright), and how it should be applied in practice,
>> so Jimmy, if you are out there, your comment is requested on that.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Russavia
>>
>
> I'm with David and Nathan here.
>
> The "evidence" presented is an anonymized oDesk account and a screenshot.
> Screenshots are very easily doctored, and Wikipediocracy trolls have many
> reasons to attack a Wikimedian like Sarah. I wouldn't be surprised if
> they'd go so far as to set up a fake account using her picture and
> information.
>
> If you really cared about solving this, you could try emailing Sarah, her
> superiors, and Sue directly. Considering many staff don't follow high
> volume lists like Wikimedia-l, especially on the weekend, it's not exactly
> the best way to get a response from the WMF. It is, however, a great way to
> stir up bullshit drama.
>
> I'll hold out for Sarah's comment, if she feels comfortable. Otherwise
> smells like trolling.
>
> Steven
> _______________________________________________
> 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] WMF employee writing articles for $300

Oliver Keyes-5
As an apparent "Wikimedia insider"; I think that if the allegations are
substantiated they need to be addressed. I don't mean to run interference
on that. I mean to try and undercut any attempt to turn a subject worth
discussing substantively into an excuse to crow. My objection is not that
you raised this allegation, it's that you insist on posting four hundred
word screeds about how hard-done by you are and how this demands that
people accept you were right all along. If you actually care about the
substance of the discussion, stop doing that. If you don't, just stop.


On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 11:10 PM, Russavia <[hidden email]>wrote:

> Steven,
>
> Did it occur to you that the reason the account is anonymised is that
> one would likely not want it to be found out? It also beyond the
> realms of imagination that "Wikipediocracy trolls" would create an
> account on 6 January 2012 as a joe-job account, and sit on it all this
> time and then have Odder (who is certainly no friend of
> Wikipediocracy) find out about it, and let him beat them to the punch.
>
> But here's a little more evidence for you. From that screenshot, you
> will notice in September Sarah earned $96 from a job which is
> described as "Wikipedia Writer Editor". The information for that job
> is found at https://www.odesk.com/jobs/~01fb1fd477c79e30b0 (and I have
> taken the liberty of uploading it at
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8j_w_yHF5ymdHQzTkJkRkY5TWM/edit?usp=sharing
> )
>
> From this we can ascertain the following:
>
> * The job was posted on 3 September 2013
> * The client is in the United States
> * Sarah was one of 9 applicants for the job, applying on 4 September 2013
> * The client was interviewing 2 applicants, and they ended up hiring Sarah
> * On 4 October 2013 (a Friday), the client last viewed this job -- the
> little question mark pop-up says "This is when the client last viewed
> or interacted with the applicants for this job." - in all likelihood
> this is when the information was provided to Sarah.
>
> From Sarah's contributions between this period we can see that she was
> involved in creating and editing articles relating to Turkey, Algeria,
> Guatemala, creating articles such as
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugénie_Luce, etc
>
> On 6 October 2013 (-8 GMT), after editing articles on places/people in
> Moldova and Ukraine, at 12:14 she made this edit
> (
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_III_of_Moldavia&diff=prev&oldid=576031919
> ).
> At 13:53, a little under 2 hours later, Sarah posted
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melody_Inn_(nightclub). Again, this is a
> somewhat puff piece article, out of sync with what she was editing at
> the time, with sourcing that one wouldn't really expect in an article.
> The wording at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melody_Inn_(nightclub)#Music
> is especially telling. Then
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1935&diff=prev&oldid=576044989
> is done straight afterwards. That it was posted a little under 2 hours
> after her edit to the Stephen III of Moldavia article would correlate
> with the 2 hours that she billed the client for cleaning the article
> up to make it presentable, receiving $96. Then it was back to normal
> editing. Not bad for 2 hours editing on a Sunday afternoon, eh?
>
> And surely you can understand why people would post this information
> publicly. Already on this very list I have been attacked by no less
> than 4 Wikimedia insiders (yourself included) who are clearly trying
> to run deflection and interference. Emailing the WMF and Sue
> privately, so that it can be quietly ignored, or swept under the
> carpet; this is the experience of many people in the past, so why
> waste one's time. And anyway, doesn't the public, including the media
> whom I have also taken the liberty of advising that this issue exists,
> have a right to know that such things are happening on a project that
> prides itself on how transparent it is.
>
> Steven, does this smell like trolling and an elaborate "set up Sarah"
> joe-job? People can continue to bury their heads in the sand, attack
> me for trolling, run interference, and believe in vast conspiracies
> and other such nonsense. I will look at this logically, and taken in
> with information that Odder provided, it's couldn't be clearer.
>
> What isn't so clear is how Sue and Jimmy will respond......
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Steven Walling <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Russavia <[hidden email]
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Odder has published a fantastic blog piece at
> >> http://twkozlowski.net/paid-editing-thrives-in-the-heart-of-wikipedia/in
> >> which it is revealed that a WMF employee is engaged in undeclared paid
> >> editing on English Wikipedia, and charging what it appears to be $300
> per
> >> article.
> >>
> >> I have cc'ed both Sue and Jimmy in on this email, but also sending to
> this
> >> list as I know they, and other WMF employees, do use this list, and I
> think
> >> it would be pertinent that they respond publicly to the issues raised
> here.
> >> It is ever so more important given that the undeclared paid editing
> >> occurred AFTER the whole Wiki-PR debacle (Sue's press release, WMF's
> >> cease-and-desist, and of course the resultant media attention).
> >>
> >> What do Jimmy and Sue believe should occur given that such editing
> violates
> >> Wikipedia policies and also Jimmy's so-called Bright Line Rule. In
> relation
> >> to Jimmy's line, many are still clueless as to what exactly this Bright
> >> Line is (it's not very bright), and how it should be applied in
> practice,
> >> so Jimmy, if you are out there, your comment is requested on that.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> Russavia
> >>
> >
> > I'm with David and Nathan here.
> >
> > The "evidence" presented is an anonymized oDesk account and a screenshot.
> > Screenshots are very easily doctored, and Wikipediocracy trolls have many
> > reasons to attack a Wikimedian like Sarah. I wouldn't be surprised if
> > they'd go so far as to set up a fake account using her picture and
> > information.
> >
> > If you really cared about solving this, you could try emailing Sarah, her
> > superiors, and Sue directly. Considering many staff don't follow high
> > volume lists like Wikimedia-l, especially on the weekend, it's not
> exactly
> > the best way to get a response from the WMF. It is, however, a great way
> to
> > stir up bullshit drama.
> >
> > I'll hold out for Sarah's comment, if she feels comfortable. Otherwise
> > smells like trolling.
> >
> > Steven
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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] WMF employee writing articles for $300

Kevin Gorman
Sarah used to be a DJ in Indianapolis.  I don't find it very surprising
that she'd write an article about a nightclub in Indianapolis. That would
probably also explain the use of unusual sources - surely someone who used
to DJ in Indy is more familiar with local music sources there than most
people would be.

----
Kevin Gorman


On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 11:20 PM, Oliver Keyes <[hidden email]> wrote:

> As an apparent "Wikimedia insider"; I think that if the allegations are
> substantiated they need to be addressed. I don't mean to run interference
> on that. I mean to try and undercut any attempt to turn a subject worth
> discussing substantively into an excuse to crow. My objection is not that
> you raised this allegation, it's that you insist on posting four hundred
> word screeds about how hard-done by you are and how this demands that
> people accept you were right all along. If you actually care about the
> substance of the discussion, stop doing that. If you don't, just stop.
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 11:10 PM, Russavia <[hidden email]
> >wrote:
>
> > Steven,
> >
> > Did it occur to you that the reason the account is anonymised is that
> > one would likely not want it to be found out? It also beyond the
> > realms of imagination that "Wikipediocracy trolls" would create an
> > account on 6 January 2012 as a joe-job account, and sit on it all this
> > time and then have Odder (who is certainly no friend of
> > Wikipediocracy) find out about it, and let him beat them to the punch.
> >
> > But here's a little more evidence for you. From that screenshot, you
> > will notice in September Sarah earned $96 from a job which is
> > described as "Wikipedia Writer Editor". The information for that job
> > is found at https://www.odesk.com/jobs/~01fb1fd477c79e30b0 (and I have
> > taken the liberty of uploading it at
> >
> >
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8j_w_yHF5ymdHQzTkJkRkY5TWM/edit?usp=sharing
> > )
> >
> > From this we can ascertain the following:
> >
> > * The job was posted on 3 September 2013
> > * The client is in the United States
> > * Sarah was one of 9 applicants for the job, applying on 4 September 2013
> > * The client was interviewing 2 applicants, and they ended up hiring
> Sarah
> > * On 4 October 2013 (a Friday), the client last viewed this job -- the
> > little question mark pop-up says "This is when the client last viewed
> > or interacted with the applicants for this job." - in all likelihood
> > this is when the information was provided to Sarah.
> >
> > From Sarah's contributions between this period we can see that she was
> > involved in creating and editing articles relating to Turkey, Algeria,
> > Guatemala, creating articles such as
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugénie_Luce, etc
> >
> > On 6 October 2013 (-8 GMT), after editing articles on places/people in
> > Moldova and Ukraine, at 12:14 she made this edit
> > (
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_III_of_Moldavia&diff=prev&oldid=576031919
> > ).
> > At 13:53, a little under 2 hours later, Sarah posted
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melody_Inn_(nightclub). Again, this is a
> > somewhat puff piece article, out of sync with what she was editing at
> > the time, with sourcing that one wouldn't really expect in an article.
> > The wording at
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melody_Inn_(nightclub)#Music
> > is especially telling. Then
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1935&diff=prev&oldid=576044989
> > is done straight afterwards. That it was posted a little under 2 hours
> > after her edit to the Stephen III of Moldavia article would correlate
> > with the 2 hours that she billed the client for cleaning the article
> > up to make it presentable, receiving $96. Then it was back to normal
> > editing. Not bad for 2 hours editing on a Sunday afternoon, eh?
> >
> > And surely you can understand why people would post this information
> > publicly. Already on this very list I have been attacked by no less
> > than 4 Wikimedia insiders (yourself included) who are clearly trying
> > to run deflection and interference. Emailing the WMF and Sue
> > privately, so that it can be quietly ignored, or swept under the
> > carpet; this is the experience of many people in the past, so why
> > waste one's time. And anyway, doesn't the public, including the media
> > whom I have also taken the liberty of advising that this issue exists,
> > have a right to know that such things are happening on a project that
> > prides itself on how transparent it is.
> >
> > Steven, does this smell like trolling and an elaborate "set up Sarah"
> > joe-job? People can continue to bury their heads in the sand, attack
> > me for trolling, run interference, and believe in vast conspiracies
> > and other such nonsense. I will look at this logically, and taken in
> > with information that Odder provided, it's couldn't be clearer.
> >
> > What isn't so clear is how Sue and Jimmy will respond......
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Steven Walling <[hidden email]
> >
> > wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Russavia <[hidden email]
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > >> Odder has published a fantastic blog piece at
> > >>
> http://twkozlowski.net/paid-editing-thrives-in-the-heart-of-wikipedia/in
> > >> which it is revealed that a WMF employee is engaged in undeclared paid
> > >> editing on English Wikipedia, and charging what it appears to be $300
> > per
> > >> article.
> > >>
> > >> I have cc'ed both Sue and Jimmy in on this email, but also sending to
> > this
> > >> list as I know they, and other WMF employees, do use this list, and I
> > think
> > >> it would be pertinent that they respond publicly to the issues raised
> > here.
> > >> It is ever so more important given that the undeclared paid editing
> > >> occurred AFTER the whole Wiki-PR debacle (Sue's press release, WMF's
> > >> cease-and-desist, and of course the resultant media attention).
> > >>
> > >> What do Jimmy and Sue believe should occur given that such editing
> > violates
> > >> Wikipedia policies and also Jimmy's so-called Bright Line Rule. In
> > relation
> > >> to Jimmy's line, many are still clueless as to what exactly this
> Bright
> > >> Line is (it's not very bright), and how it should be applied in
> > practice,
> > >> so Jimmy, if you are out there, your comment is requested on that.
> > >>
> > >> Cheers,
> > >>
> > >> Russavia
> > >>
> > >
> > > I'm with David and Nathan here.
> > >
> > > The "evidence" presented is an anonymized oDesk account and a
> screenshot.
> > > Screenshots are very easily doctored, and Wikipediocracy trolls have
> many
> > > reasons to attack a Wikimedian like Sarah. I wouldn't be surprised if
> > > they'd go so far as to set up a fake account using her picture and
> > > information.
> > >
> > > If you really cared about solving this, you could try emailing Sarah,
> her
> > > superiors, and Sue directly. Considering many staff don't follow high
> > > volume lists like Wikimedia-l, especially on the weekend, it's not
> > exactly
> > > the best way to get a response from the WMF. It is, however, a great
> way
> > to
> > > stir up bullshit drama.
> > >
> > > I'll hold out for Sarah's comment, if she feels comfortable. Otherwise
> > > smells like trolling.
> > >
> > > Steven
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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>
>
_______________________________________________
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] WMF employee writing articles for $300

Lodewijk
I find it odd that we're having this discussion based on a blog post. I
think that it would have been much more decent to contact the person in
question directly first, and ask for input. Any further discussion here
speculating how this could be true or not, is premature.

Lets just wait until Sarah is able to respond to these accusations which
were published without following proper procedures.

Lodewijk


2014/1/6 Kevin Gorman <[hidden email]>

> Sarah used to be a DJ in Indianapolis.  I don't find it very surprising
> that she'd write an article about a nightclub in Indianapolis. That would
> probably also explain the use of unusual sources - surely someone who used
> to DJ in Indy is more familiar with local music sources there than most
> people would be.
>
> ----
> Kevin Gorman
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 11:20 PM, Oliver Keyes <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > As an apparent "Wikimedia insider"; I think that if the allegations are
> > substantiated they need to be addressed. I don't mean to run interference
> > on that. I mean to try and undercut any attempt to turn a subject worth
> > discussing substantively into an excuse to crow. My objection is not that
> > you raised this allegation, it's that you insist on posting four hundred
> > word screeds about how hard-done by you are and how this demands that
> > people accept you were right all along. If you actually care about the
> > substance of the discussion, stop doing that. If you don't, just stop.
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 11:10 PM, Russavia <[hidden email]
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > Steven,
> > >
> > > Did it occur to you that the reason the account is anonymised is that
> > > one would likely not want it to be found out? It also beyond the
> > > realms of imagination that "Wikipediocracy trolls" would create an
> > > account on 6 January 2012 as a joe-job account, and sit on it all this
> > > time and then have Odder (who is certainly no friend of
> > > Wikipediocracy) find out about it, and let him beat them to the punch.
> > >
> > > But here's a little more evidence for you. From that screenshot, you
> > > will notice in September Sarah earned $96 from a job which is
> > > described as "Wikipedia Writer Editor". The information for that job
> > > is found at https://www.odesk.com/jobs/~01fb1fd477c79e30b0 (and I have
> > > taken the liberty of uploading it at
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8j_w_yHF5ymdHQzTkJkRkY5TWM/edit?usp=sharing
> > > )
> > >
> > > From this we can ascertain the following:
> > >
> > > * The job was posted on 3 September 2013
> > > * The client is in the United States
> > > * Sarah was one of 9 applicants for the job, applying on 4 September
> 2013
> > > * The client was interviewing 2 applicants, and they ended up hiring
> > Sarah
> > > * On 4 October 2013 (a Friday), the client last viewed this job -- the
> > > little question mark pop-up says "This is when the client last viewed
> > > or interacted with the applicants for this job." - in all likelihood
> > > this is when the information was provided to Sarah.
> > >
> > > From Sarah's contributions between this period we can see that she was
> > > involved in creating and editing articles relating to Turkey, Algeria,
> > > Guatemala, creating articles such as
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugénie_Luce, etc
> > >
> > > On 6 October 2013 (-8 GMT), after editing articles on places/people in
> > > Moldova and Ukraine, at 12:14 she made this edit
> > > (
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_III_of_Moldavia&diff=prev&oldid=576031919
> > > ).
> > > At 13:53, a little under 2 hours later, Sarah posted
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melody_Inn_(nightclub). Again, this is a
> > > somewhat puff piece article, out of sync with what she was editing at
> > > the time, with sourcing that one wouldn't really expect in an article.
> > > The wording at
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melody_Inn_(nightclub)#Music
> > > is especially telling. Then
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1935&diff=prev&oldid=576044989
> > > is done straight afterwards. That it was posted a little under 2 hours
> > > after her edit to the Stephen III of Moldavia article would correlate
> > > with the 2 hours that she billed the client for cleaning the article
> > > up to make it presentable, receiving $96. Then it was back to normal
> > > editing. Not bad for 2 hours editing on a Sunday afternoon, eh?
> > >
> > > And surely you can understand why people would post this information
> > > publicly. Already on this very list I have been attacked by no less
> > > than 4 Wikimedia insiders (yourself included) who are clearly trying
> > > to run deflection and interference. Emailing the WMF and Sue
> > > privately, so that it can be quietly ignored, or swept under the
> > > carpet; this is the experience of many people in the past, so why
> > > waste one's time. And anyway, doesn't the public, including the media
> > > whom I have also taken the liberty of advising that this issue exists,
> > > have a right to know that such things are happening on a project that
> > > prides itself on how transparent it is.
> > >
> > > Steven, does this smell like trolling and an elaborate "set up Sarah"
> > > joe-job? People can continue to bury their heads in the sand, attack
> > > me for trolling, run interference, and believe in vast conspiracies
> > > and other such nonsense. I will look at this logically, and taken in
> > > with information that Odder provided, it's couldn't be clearer.
> > >
> > > What isn't so clear is how Sue and Jimmy will respond......
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Steven Walling <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Russavia <
> [hidden email]
> > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Odder has published a fantastic blog piece at
> > > >>
> > http://twkozlowski.net/paid-editing-thrives-in-the-heart-of-wikipedia/in
> > > >> which it is revealed that a WMF employee is engaged in undeclared
> paid
> > > >> editing on English Wikipedia, and charging what it appears to be
> $300
> > > per
> > > >> article.
> > > >>
> > > >> I have cc'ed both Sue and Jimmy in on this email, but also sending
> to
> > > this
> > > >> list as I know they, and other WMF employees, do use this list, and
> I
> > > think
> > > >> it would be pertinent that they respond publicly to the issues
> raised
> > > here.
> > > >> It is ever so more important given that the undeclared paid editing
> > > >> occurred AFTER the whole Wiki-PR debacle (Sue's press release, WMF's
> > > >> cease-and-desist, and of course the resultant media attention).
> > > >>
> > > >> What do Jimmy and Sue believe should occur given that such editing
> > > violates
> > > >> Wikipedia policies and also Jimmy's so-called Bright Line Rule. In
> > > relation
> > > >> to Jimmy's line, many are still clueless as to what exactly this
> > Bright
> > > >> Line is (it's not very bright), and how it should be applied in
> > > practice,
> > > >> so Jimmy, if you are out there, your comment is requested on that.
> > > >>
> > > >> Cheers,
> > > >>
> > > >> Russavia
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > I'm with David and Nathan here.
> > > >
> > > > The "evidence" presented is an anonymized oDesk account and a
> > screenshot.
> > > > Screenshots are very easily doctored, and Wikipediocracy trolls have
> > many
> > > > reasons to attack a Wikimedian like Sarah. I wouldn't be surprised if
> > > > they'd go so far as to set up a fake account using her picture and
> > > > information.
> > > >
> > > > If you really cared about solving this, you could try emailing Sarah,
> > her
> > > > superiors, and Sue directly. Considering many staff don't follow high
> > > > volume lists like Wikimedia-l, especially on the weekend, it's not
> > > exactly
> > > > the best way to get a response from the WMF. It is, however, a great
> > way
> > > to
> > > > stir up bullshit drama.
> > > >
> > > > I'll hold out for Sarah's comment, if she feels comfortable.
> Otherwise
> > > > smells like trolling.
> > > >
> > > > Steven
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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] WMF employee writing articles for $300

Dariusz Jemielniak-3
In reply to this post by Russavia
hi there,

my personal reading of WikiPR case was that their fundamental wrongdoing
was twofold: one was possibly violating the rules for content (neutrality,
etc.), and the other was most certainly violating the rules of
representation (sockpuppeting). Paid editing in the mind of many
Wikimedians is strongly negatively associated, as it is assumed that it
requires bending the rules for money.

However, I am not entirely certain this is always the case. I've recently
made a point in The Daily Dot that Wikimedia movement could actually
benefit from explicitly allowing paid editing (even though my main point is
pragmatic, I believe that we basically would be better off if paid editors
had to identify themselves, rather than lurk in the shadows):
http://www.dailydot.com/opinion/why-wikipedia-needs-paid-editing/

To be clear: I have never done paid editing, and I do not like the idea of
WMF employees doing it even if they follow the rules to the letter.
However, even if Sarah did write a Wikipedia article for money (and she has
not had a chance to address this allegation yet) this does not
automatically equate to WikiPR's pattern of behavior, as she has not hidden
her identity (which she obviously could), and we are yet to see how the
created article violated the rules for content neutrality, verifiability,
etc. Granted, she crossed Jimbo's Bright Line, but his is just one point of
view, and not a policy yet. Perhaps it is about time to reflect on how
should the policies be shaped, so that we require ALL paid edits to be
openly registered and declared (allowing a thorough review from the
community), but that we do not automatically forbid all of them (as
effectively it pushes them into the black market and forces them to stay
under the radar).

In any case, I think it would be a much better practice to allow Sarah to
reply to such allegations first. Had Odder contacted her, or passed the
case to the Signpost, it would be handled with more grace, I think.

best,

dariusz "pundit"






On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 6:52 AM, Russavia <[hidden email]>wrote:

> Yes, Nathan, please let us cut the bullshit, for I have a pretty low
> tolerance for it, and I am happy to call you out on it.
>
> You are right, I don't see anywhere in Odder's blog or in my posts on this
> list that Sarah is being accused of sock puppetry. I don't know why you are
> making this totally irrelevation correlation, or is this you simply trying
> to run interference? (Very poorly I might add, but certainly a better
> attempt than Gerard). I suggest that you re-read the cease and desist
> letter (
>
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/11/19/wikimedia-foundation-sends-cease-and-desist-letter-to-wikipr/
> )
> at the very top of page 2 you can see in pretty plain English that the WMF
> has invoked Section 4 of the Terms of Use, in which the WMF makes veiled
> legal threats of fraud, misrepresentation, etc. It is showing severe
> naivety on your part if you think the Wiki-PR case was built around a farm
> of sockpuppets; that was merely the catalyst for the anti-paid editing
> crowd to really sink their teeth into the situation -- that should surely
> be evident from Sue's press release.
>
> I seriously don't see why you think me contacting Wiki-PR to alert them of
> these posts here, so that they can follow it, as a bad thing. I thought
> that the "movement" was built around the notion of transparency. If terms
> of use are being invoked with them, don't they have the right to know of
> other such cases where they will likely be ignored because it's an insider
> we are talking about? That Sarah has engaged in undeclared paid editing is
> of her own doing -- we are all responsible for our own editing. She chose
> to engage in such editing immediately after a massive scandal knowing full
> well the possible consequences if it was discovered.
>
> It is not people like Odder who blogs or myself who dares step into the
> holy inner sanctum who will tear Sarah down, it is the tendentious and
> self-righteous
> barnacles that adhere to the "paid editing is bad mmmkay" mantra that is
> peddled from above on Wikipedia, and lately by the Wikimedia Foundation
> itself, and adhered to blindly by the masses, who will do that.
>
> So Nathan, where do you stand on the paid editing issue? Does Jimmy's
> bright line rule, and Sue's statements, apply to insiders as well as to the
> world-at-large?
>
> But again, let's wait for Sarah's comments first on these revelations. And
> then we can get those within the movement who have so publicly taken a
> stance on paid editing, namely Sue and Jimmy, to clarify where they truly
> stand on these issues for once and for all.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Russavia
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Let's be clear, Russavia - the terms of use bar sockpuppetry, and the
> cease
> > and desist refers to concealing the identity of the author to deceive the
> > editing community. I don't see that you've accused Sarah of sockpuppetry,
> > so why not cut the bullshit? Thanks for notifying Wiki-PR, by the way,
> I'm
> > sure everyone on this list really appreciates that.
> >
> > If there's one thing I love about Wikimedia, it's when tendentious and
> > self-righteous barnacles on the community make it a mission to tear down
> > good-hearted and dedicated Wikimedians at the expense of the movement.
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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>
>



--

__________________________
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] WMF employee writing articles for $300

Russavia
In reply to this post by Kevin Gorman
You are right Kevin, and I think that the blog post has drawn the
wrong conclusions by failing to see one piece of telling evidence on
an unrelated posting on that site.

At the job link at https://www.odesk.com/jobs/~01fb1fd477c79e30b0
(again, uploaded to
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8j_w_yHF5ymdHQzTkJkRkY5TWM/edit?usp=sharing)
one can see that the client is in the United States in the -8 GMT time
zone (Indianapolis being in the -5 GMT time zone). This obviously does
not match for the bar article.

On the right-hand side, you will see that they have posted two jobs,
but have hired only one client. At the bottom you will see "Client's
Work History and Feedback (1)" and only this job is available there.
When you go to Sarah's profile, and click on "Wikipedia Page for
Individual" it says the job is private, hence why the "Client's Work
History and Feedback" on the aforementioned job only shows one job. So
it would appear that Sarah has been hired by this client for both
their jobs.

At 13:15 on 7 October, Sarah posted
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Leadership_Challenge. This is most
likely the article for the job at
https://www.odesk.com/jobs/~01fb1fd477c79e30b0 -- and the client went
out of his way to contact Sarah to apply for this job, as you can see
from "Client" in the initiator column (as explained at
https://www.odesk.com/community/node/29357)

Then in December, the client who was obviously happy with her work
from October, commissioned Sarah to write
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Posner_(academic) (the author of
the book from the October article) and paid her $300. From that
article, one can see that Posner is in Santa Clara, California, which
is -8 GMT, which of course ties up with the -8 GMT column in the
October job listing on the right hand side.

My apologies in presenting the Indianapolis article; it's surprising
that the bar article which reads like an advert is legit, whilst the
articles which look legit (yet still very weak sourcewise) are likely
the problematic articles.

Sarah, when you read this, again I don't give a rats if you are
paid-editing, more power to you actually. Unfortunately in this
instance you haven't done so in what one would deem to be an ethical
way based upon what the community expects, and which has been
reinforced over and over, especially in recent months. So there will
obviously be those who want to cast you out because paid-editing is
evil and should not be tolerated. But hopefully cooler heads will
prevail all round, not only in your case. I would well advise you to
be totally upfront in any explanation, including anything that may be
done via Sarah Stierch Consulting either currently or in the past. You
obviously see a need for paid-editing, and it is a shame that you had
to, as Dariusz mentions, resort to the "black market" and blackhat
what you are/were doing. Open your profiles up for public view,
quickly correct anything that you should have done to begin with, and
publicly commit yourself to doing such editing the ethical way. Then
all talk of "Bright Line Policy", etc can be put to rest, and not just
in your case, and then discussion on solid policies, etc as Dariusz
also mentions can occur, and you would be better placed to advocate in
that regard.

Cheers,

Russavia

On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Kevin Gorman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Sarah used to be a DJ in Indianapolis.  I don't find it very surprising
> that she'd write an article about a nightclub in Indianapolis. That would
> probably also explain the use of unusual sources - surely someone who used
> to DJ in Indy is more familiar with local music sources there than most
> people would be.
>
> ----
> Kevin Gorman
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 11:20 PM, Oliver Keyes <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> As an apparent "Wikimedia insider"; I think that if the allegations are
>> substantiated they need to be addressed. I don't mean to run interference
>> on that. I mean to try and undercut any attempt to turn a subject worth
>> discussing substantively into an excuse to crow. My objection is not that
>> you raised this allegation, it's that you insist on posting four hundred
>> word screeds about how hard-done by you are and how this demands that
>> people accept you were right all along. If you actually care about the
>> substance of the discussion, stop doing that. If you don't, just stop.
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 11:10 PM, Russavia <[hidden email]
>> >wrote:
>>
>> > Steven,
>> >
>> > Did it occur to you that the reason the account is anonymised is that
>> > one would likely not want it to be found out? It also beyond the
>> > realms of imagination that "Wikipediocracy trolls" would create an
>> > account on 6 January 2012 as a joe-job account, and sit on it all this
>> > time and then have Odder (who is certainly no friend of
>> > Wikipediocracy) find out about it, and let him beat them to the punch.
>> >
>> > But here's a little more evidence for you. From that screenshot, you
>> > will notice in September Sarah earned $96 from a job which is
>> > described as "Wikipedia Writer Editor". The information for that job
>> > is found at https://www.odesk.com/jobs/~01fb1fd477c79e30b0 (and I have
>> > taken the liberty of uploading it at
>> >
>> >
>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8j_w_yHF5ymdHQzTkJkRkY5TWM/edit?usp=sharing
>> > )
>> >
>> > From this we can ascertain the following:
>> >
>> > * The job was posted on 3 September 2013
>> > * The client is in the United States
>> > * Sarah was one of 9 applicants for the job, applying on 4 September 2013
>> > * The client was interviewing 2 applicants, and they ended up hiring
>> Sarah
>> > * On 4 October 2013 (a Friday), the client last viewed this job -- the
>> > little question mark pop-up says "This is when the client last viewed
>> > or interacted with the applicants for this job." - in all likelihood
>> > this is when the information was provided to Sarah.
>> >
>> > From Sarah's contributions between this period we can see that she was
>> > involved in creating and editing articles relating to Turkey, Algeria,
>> > Guatemala, creating articles such as
>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugénie_Luce, etc
>> >
>> > On 6 October 2013 (-8 GMT), after editing articles on places/people in
>> > Moldova and Ukraine, at 12:14 she made this edit
>> > (
>> >
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_III_of_Moldavia&diff=prev&oldid=576031919
>> > ).
>> > At 13:53, a little under 2 hours later, Sarah posted
>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melody_Inn_(nightclub). Again, this is a
>> > somewhat puff piece article, out of sync with what she was editing at
>> > the time, with sourcing that one wouldn't really expect in an article.
>> > The wording at
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melody_Inn_(nightclub)#Music
>> > is especially telling. Then
>> >
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1935&diff=prev&oldid=576044989
>> > is done straight afterwards. That it was posted a little under 2 hours
>> > after her edit to the Stephen III of Moldavia article would correlate
>> > with the 2 hours that she billed the client for cleaning the article
>> > up to make it presentable, receiving $96. Then it was back to normal
>> > editing. Not bad for 2 hours editing on a Sunday afternoon, eh?
>> >
>> > And surely you can understand why people would post this information
>> > publicly. Already on this very list I have been attacked by no less
>> > than 4 Wikimedia insiders (yourself included) who are clearly trying
>> > to run deflection and interference. Emailing the WMF and Sue
>> > privately, so that it can be quietly ignored, or swept under the
>> > carpet; this is the experience of many people in the past, so why
>> > waste one's time. And anyway, doesn't the public, including the media
>> > whom I have also taken the liberty of advising that this issue exists,
>> > have a right to know that such things are happening on a project that
>> > prides itself on how transparent it is.
>> >
>> > Steven, does this smell like trolling and an elaborate "set up Sarah"
>> > joe-job? People can continue to bury their heads in the sand, attack
>> > me for trolling, run interference, and believe in vast conspiracies
>> > and other such nonsense. I will look at this logically, and taken in
>> > with information that Odder provided, it's couldn't be clearer.
>> >
>> > What isn't so clear is how Sue and Jimmy will respond......
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Steven Walling <[hidden email]
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> > > On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Russavia <[hidden email]
>> > >wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Odder has published a fantastic blog piece at
>> > >>
>> http://twkozlowski.net/paid-editing-thrives-in-the-heart-of-wikipedia/in
>> > >> which it is revealed that a WMF employee is engaged in undeclared paid
>> > >> editing on English Wikipedia, and charging what it appears to be $300
>> > per
>> > >> article.
>> > >>
>> > >> I have cc'ed both Sue and Jimmy in on this email, but also sending to
>> > this
>> > >> list as I know they, and other WMF employees, do use this list, and I
>> > think
>> > >> it would be pertinent that they respond publicly to the issues raised
>> > here.
>> > >> It is ever so more important given that the undeclared paid editing
>> > >> occurred AFTER the whole Wiki-PR debacle (Sue's press release, WMF's
>> > >> cease-and-desist, and of course the resultant media attention).
>> > >>
>> > >> What do Jimmy and Sue believe should occur given that such editing
>> > violates
>> > >> Wikipedia policies and also Jimmy's so-called Bright Line Rule. In
>> > relation
>> > >> to Jimmy's line, many are still clueless as to what exactly this
>> Bright
>> > >> Line is (it's not very bright), and how it should be applied in
>> > practice,
>> > >> so Jimmy, if you are out there, your comment is requested on that.
>> > >>
>> > >> Cheers,
>> > >>
>> > >> Russavia
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > > I'm with David and Nathan here.
>> > >
>> > > The "evidence" presented is an anonymized oDesk account and a
>> screenshot.
>> > > Screenshots are very easily doctored, and Wikipediocracy trolls have
>> many
>> > > reasons to attack a Wikimedian like Sarah. I wouldn't be surprised if
>> > > they'd go so far as to set up a fake account using her picture and
>> > > information.
>> > >
>> > > If you really cared about solving this, you could try emailing Sarah,
>> her
>> > > superiors, and Sue directly. Considering many staff don't follow high
>> > > volume lists like Wikimedia-l, especially on the weekend, it's not
>> > exactly
>> > > the best way to get a response from the WMF. It is, however, a great
>> way
>> > to
>> > > stir up bullshit drama.
>> > >
>> > > I'll hold out for Sarah's comment, if she feels comfortable. Otherwise
>> > > smells like trolling.
>> > >
>> > > Steven
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > 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>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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] WMF employee writing articles for $300

geni
>
> Sarah, when you read this, again I don't give a rats if you are
> paid-editing, more power to you actually. Unfortunately in this
> instance you haven't done so in what one would deem to be an ethical
> way based upon what the community expects,
>


This would be the community of the project from which you are blocked
indefinitely.



--
geni
_______________________________________________
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] WMF employee writing articles for $300

Fæ
On 6 January 2014 10:02, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
...
> This would be the community of the project from which you are blocked
> indefinitely.

Throwing around tangential comments about blocks and de-sysops for
correspondents on this list neither moves this forward, nor encourages
others to express any views on this list (which is not restricted to
English Wikipedia editors, even if it appears that way most of the
time).

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>
12