Wikipedia contributors debate whether it’s okay to pay for posts - colliercatry1936

A contentious disputation has erupted on Wikipedia over questions about whether two high-visibility contributors have been paid to promote articles on the site.

Roger Bamkin, Wikipedia editor

Some contributors deliver questioned whether Roger Bamkin, a theater director at Wikimedia UK, is being paid by the government of Gibraltar to write or delete articles near the Brits territory. Bamkin has a contract with the governing of Calpe, apparently to promote the territory and the Wikipedia subsite Gibraltarpedia.

Bamkin, in his character as a Wikipedia editor, approved an article about a boat club in Gibraltar, and nominated and reviewed some other Gibraltar-related article, one contributor noted in a lengthy debate, beginning last week, connected a Wikipedia word Page. Bamkin has also worked with Monmouthpedia, a subsite about the U.K. city Monmouth.

The debate has raised the concerns of Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia's cofounder, who wrote Monday that he was unfamiliar with with Bamkin's post. Merely, atomic number 2 said, "information technology is wildly inappropriate for a board member of a chapter, Beaver State anyone else in an official role of any kind in a charity associated with Wikipedia, to take payment from customers in commutation for securing favourable placement happening the front page of Wikipedia or anywhere else."

Some Wikipedia contributors accused Bamkin of using his influence to get Gibraltar articles faced frequently on the site's "did you make love" (DYK) part, featured on the front page. Others questioned Wikimedia UK's recent offer to provide in-kind support to Gabraltarpedia piece Bamkin serves As a director for the U.K. group.

"There's a fundamental departure between wiki atomic number 3 a labor of love and wiki as a business," wrote a Wikipedia administrator know A Secretlondon. "If the same guy has a business concern based happening mommouthpedia and gibraltarpedia then we shouldn't allow ourselves to be exploited away this. We'Ra allowing someone to make money out of access to the front page."

Other contributors downplayed the issue, saying Bamkin has disclosed his consulting gigs on his contributor Thomas Nelson Page. "My main question is wherefore should we care?" wrote subscriber Silverseren. "If someone is making money turned of the articles indirectly (non speaking well-nig paid editors here, that's a totally different subject) operating theater acquiring touristry or whatsoever, why should DYK or even Wikipedia care? Good-bye as the articles are right made and don't have POV or copyright issues, then we're getting more and finer articles out of their desire to get tourism."

Bamkin didn't answer to a content seeking comment on the debate, but he defended himself on the discussion varlet. IT was a mistake to nominate, then sanction an article about Gibraltar, he wrote. His potency conflicts of interest are "well documented," he added.

Bamkin said atomic number 2 disclosed his commercial interests when he ran for a directorship at Wikimedia U.K., and the membership there pendent him. "I Don River't intend to knock their pick," atomic number 2 wrote.

Wikimedia contributors brought up a second case of potential conflict of interest days afterward the first debate started. Wikipedian in manse Maximilian Klein, through a business named UntrikiWiki, advertised services for posting positive articles on the online encyclopedia.

"A positive Wikipedia clause is valuable SEO: information technology's nearly secure to atomic number 4 a superlative three Google hit," the UntrikiWiki site said in front the consulting pitch was pulled downfield. "We have the expertise needed to navigate the hard maze surrounding 'conflict of interest' editing on Wikipedia. With to a greater extent than eight years of experience, over 10,000 edits, and myriad community connections we extend holistic Wikipedia services."

Wales, again, said he was unaware of Klein's case. "If what you say is accurate, and so of course I'm extremely unhappy most it," he wrote to the contributor who pointed IT taboo. "It's disgusting."

UntrikiWiki pulled the pitch later the controversy erupted. Starting immediately, the business will "non accept some paid difference-of-interest Wikipedia editing work," UntrikiWiki said in a statement Tues.

The company advertised Wikipedia editing services but it has "not sharply pursued it," the statement said. "We've never successful a several edit for which we had a difference of opinion of interest on Wikipedia — e'er."

But the company also defended for-profit contributions to Wikipedia, "arsenic long as it's approached in a clear and ethical manner."

"We understand wherefore it's a debatable event, but we believe that it's a necessary and emerging bailiwick and believe that IT's important that people with cognition of Wikipedia's ecosystem move [into] it and establish standards that protect Wikipedia's wholeness," the assertion said.

Calvin Richard Klei didn't answer a message quest comment on the debate.

Yield Gross covers technology and telecom policy in the U.S. authorities for The IDG News Avail. Follow Grant along Twitter at GrantGross. Grant's e-mail address is grant_gross@idg.com.

Source: https://www.pcworld.com/article/461384/wikipedia-contributors-debate-whether-its-okay-to-pay-for-posts.html

Posted by: colliercatry1936.blogspot.com

Share this post