Ungrouped Discussion: Archived
← Older revision
Revision as of 04:23, 13 March 2014
Line 247:
Line 247:
::<blockquote>If you have a financial, commercial, or work-related affiliation with another organization, or if you have been compensated as part of your affiliation, omission of this information from other Wikimedians during the course of your activities on a Wikimedia project, especially if it relates to your organization, may be considered deceptive or fraudulent.</blockquote>
::<blockquote>If you have a financial, commercial, or work-related affiliation with another organization, or if you have been compensated as part of your affiliation, omission of this information from other Wikimedians during the course of your activities on a Wikimedia project, especially if it relates to your organization, may be considered deceptive or fraudulent.</blockquote>
::Also [[User:FT2|FT2]]: while I appreciate the efforts at rewording the last bit, I object to its threatening tone especially as this matter is still under discussion and we are still examining its potential for negative impact on other Wikimedia projects like English Wikivoyage, which depend quite a bit on contributions from travel agencies and other commercial entities. [[User:TeleComNasSprVen|TeleComNasSprVen]] ([[User talk:TeleComNasSprVen|talk]]) 09:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
::Also [[User:FT2|FT2]]: while I appreciate the efforts at rewording the last bit, I object to its threatening tone especially as this matter is still under discussion and we are still examining its potential for negative impact on other Wikimedia projects like English Wikivoyage, which depend quite a bit on contributions from travel agencies and other commercial entities. [[User:TeleComNasSprVen|TeleComNasSprVen]] ([[User talk:TeleComNasSprVen|talk]]) 09:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
+
+
=== Not clear enough ===
+
There is at least one scenario that is not covered: if the contributor is a salaried employee of the organization in question, but the contributor's activities on the wikipedia site are voluntary and not part of his/her job description, and no extra compensation is given for this voluntary effort. [[User:Ergraber|Ergraber]] ([[User talk:Ergraber|talk]]) 15:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
+
:There is no gauge to determine whether a edit is "voluntary" or not. Editors should be excluded from editing an employer's page, even if they're just doing it because of corporate allegiance or in an effort to earn "brownie points." Without such an exclusion, bias is almost inevitable. [[User:Activist|Activist]] ([[User talk:Activist|talk]]) 16:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
+
::Reading through all of these issues, I'm beginning to nod in agreement that the definition of "paid" in the amendment is really not clear enough. Here's an example that I think illustrates [[User:Ergraber|Ergraber]]'s point: An editor works for a university and has no intention whatsoever of editing page/s about the university itself, either on company time or on off hours. Should that editor be excluded from editing any pages that mention research that came out of the university without full disclosure on each edit? Examples of such could be in the tens of thousands, and in many cases, that editor may have no idea that the page in question has any direct trackback to the university. How about pages of professors or former students who may have, at some point in their lives, ever been affiliated with the university? I'm concerned about those who work regularly on editing articles of people and topics that may be connected with large-scale employers like this who will be burdened with doing extra research to see if there was/is ever a connection to an employer on every edit simply for the sake of disclosing such when, in practice, the employer in question does not request or have any actual financial connection with the edits in question. I also agree with whomever here has stated that this will basically punish or at least unfairly burden the good eggs, while people who want to skirt this issue will continue to do so. Finally, my experience with many new editors is that the vast majority of readers of Wikipedia articles have no idea what goes on behind the scenes. Talk page? User page? Most ppl have no clue these even exist or how they work. Adding these disclosure rules might make some legal sense, but I really don't see them fixing the root problem of people being expressly paid to edit for marketing, promotion or other non-neutral purposes. [[User:Girona7|Girona7]] ([[User talk:Girona7|talk]]) 13:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
+
::: '''French ::''' IL me semble que la proposition itnitiale portait sur la déclaration des contributions « payées » mais que le débat dérive souvent vers : «faut il accepter les contributions payées ? », ce qui est une autre question (également intéressante).<br />Oui, il y a un problème éthique très grave quand des contributeurs payés cherchent à biaiser wikipédia en y introduisant des informations commerciale ou publicitaire ou de propagande politique ou religieuse '''avec conflit d’intérêt'''. C’est dans ce cas un "bon message" de demander à ces contributeurs ou à leur employeur de déclarer qui paye dans ce cas. <br />Il y a inversement aussi quelques cas particuliers compliqués, comme le cas de retraités (ils ne sont plus payés, mais peuvent encore faire de la propagande). Il y a aussi le cas des musées, des archives ou des sciences fondamentales, et aussi celui des professeurs et des enseignants-chercheurs (qui ont tous une mission de diffusion/vulgarisation, quasi-encyclopédique de l’information). En théorie il n'y a pas de conflit d'intérêt dans ce cas, et idéalement il ne devrait y avoir aucun problème pour afficher que ce type de contributeur est payé pour faire ce travail. '''Mais''' en réalité : 1) beaucoup d’entres eux contribuent hors de leur temps de travail et 2) souvent ces administrations ou organismes de recherche parapublic ne permettent pas clairement à leurs salariés de contribuer à wikipédia ou ne leur accorde que peu de temps ; Dans ce cas le contributeur qui de bonne foi contribue à Wikipédia en pensant agir pour améliorer wikipédia tout en répondant aux objectifs de son métier, pourrait néanmoins être mis en difficulté vis-à-vis de son employeur. <br />Il faut en tous cas au moins un "code de bonne conduite volontaire", et un message clair disant que WMF ne cautionne pas les contributions payées cachées quand il s’agit de contenus non neutre. <br />Dernière remarque : beaucoup de spécialistes d’un sujet techniquement ou scientifiquement ou historiquement compliqué sont aussi ceux qui pourraient apporter de nouvelles informations d’intérêt encyclopédique et parfois être les meilleurs vulgarisateurs du sujet. <br />Ne faudrait il pas prévoir quelques grands cas généraux et quelques cas particuliers pour mieux décrire ce qui est admissible et ce qui ne l’est pas pour WMF ?--[[User:Lamiot|Lamiot]] ([[User talk:Lamiot|talk]]) 20:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC) <br />'''English ''' I think the proposal was firt about “contributions paid" , but I note that the debate has quickly drifted " shall we must accept contributions paid ? " This is another question. <br />Yes, there is a very serious ethical problem if commercial or advertising information or political or religious propaganda with conflict of interest are introduced in wikipedia with money (and without). To ask to declare who pays in this case is a good message ( and for retirees ?) . <br /> There are also some special cases inversely complicated , as the case of pensioners ( they are no longer paid, but can sometimes still make propaganda ) . There is also the case of museums, archives or basic sciences, professors and lecturers ( who have a mission to spread, almost encyclopedic information). Theoretically and ideally it should not be a problem to show that this type of contributor is paid to do this work (This should even be considered a noble task). But actually : 1 ) many of them will contribute out of their working time and 2) often these services or parastatal organizations research does not clearly allow their employees to contribute to Wikipedia , in which case the contributor who in good faith contributes to Wikipedia thinking action to improve Wikipedia in meeting the objectives of its business could still be in trouble vis-à- vis his employer . we need at least a “voluntary code of good conduct” and a clear message that WMF does not endorse contributions paid hidden when it comes to risk of non-neutral content. <br />Finally, many expert in a subject technically or scientifically or historically complicated are also those that could bring new information encyclopedic interest. <br /> Should’nt we provide some great general cases and some special cases to better describe what is permissible and what is not to WMF ? More easy to say than to do.. We have to be more clear --[[User:Lamiot|Lamiot]] ([[User talk:Lamiot|talk]]) 20:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
+
::: '''French only ::''' Je suis très étonné par cette proposition qui semble en contradiction flagrante avec l''''éthique''' de wikipédia.<br />Je crains fort que cette "ouverture" ne fasse la part belle aux organismes disposant de moyens financiers et juridiques importants.<br />Et surtout, je constate qu'il n'est prévu (apparemment) nulle part d'organisation (d'instance ?) chargée de :<br /> - détecter les abus (contribution suspecte)<br /> - détecter les déclarations de "rémunération" absentes, fausses ou incomplètes<br /> - signaler clairement (marqueur graphique explicite) dans le corps du texte d'un article l'éventuelle intervention d'un contributeur en situation de conflit d'intérêt (la déclaration dans la page utilisateur est nettement insuffisante !)<br> - décider des sanctions, avec plusieurs degrés (avertissement avec demande de régularisation, effacement de la contribution suspecte, publication de l'adresse IP suspecte, interdiction de contributions ultérieures).<br /><br />Et je souscris à la remarque de [[User:Lamiot|Lamiot]] concernant le cas des professeurs (l'ayant été longtemps moi-même) pour qui la question de la contribution de "bonne foi" est délicate... [[User:Papy77|Papy77]] ([[User talk:Papy77|talk]]) 15:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
+
::::I suspect a lot would depend on the actual contract held by a lecturer with their institution. I was having a quick look at some formal definitions of a UK professor's role (NB: UK professors are not quite the same as US professors...) In addition to the usual sorts of objectives about raising the profile of their institutions, finding funding lines, outreach to the wider public, etc. there was also some powerful inspirational language about their roles in being an "academic citizen" - "applying their their disciplinary or professional specialism for the benefit of wider public understanding" - and being a "public intellectual" - "engaging with and seeking to influence public debate on social, moral and economic issues beyond the confines of their academic specialism". Both of these are clearly good things, but someone who was being paid to do them and then engaged with the WMF Projects in their specialist area would seem to me to be a paid editor under this amendment. [[User:Hchc2009|Hchc2009]] ([[User talk:Hchc2009|talk]]) 20:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
== Ungrouped Discussion 2 ==
== Ungrouped Discussion 2 ==