Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-01-16/Arbitration report

Discuss this story

Jytdog, I think your op-ed was very nicely done. Just wanted to make a note of that. :) TonyBallioni (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded, it was a fine and helpful op-ed: ArbCom matters are always tangled and difficult to follow from outside. On another matter, it is remarkable that admins are permitted to do paid editing, as this could easily "give the wrong impression" to non-Wikipedians: we know they won't do anything stupid, but the press could hold other opinions. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the directness and conciseness of the op-ed. These cases involve live discussions which anyone can join and I think it is great when people outside arbcom are kind enough to try to summarize and explain the cases. This summary matches my own view. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have adopted this column at least for the time being, so if anybody wants to take a shot at a future op-ed, or even take co-authorship credit, drop me a note ☆ Bri (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the summary of the case and the decision. As the person who drafted the paragraph on the scope of "paid editing," I would not bold it the way it is shown above. The core definition refers to payment to, or for the benefit of, an editor, which is what was involved in this case. I do not believe we were trying to address all the possible types of more incidental benefits, which remain within the community's purview to define. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This was a concern I had about the decision and ultimately why I opposed it. I estimated that it was going to be taken as "the" definition of paid editing. Anyone glancing over it would not necessarily pick up on the nuance of the context of the case, the qualifier of "core" in the sentence, or the Committee's ability to realistically define paid editing in any respect. Voting discussion is not included in the case remedy summary where much of these details are discussed. We also deal with the fact that several stakeholders have very different views on paid editing. As was the case with the WMF statement on paid editing and outing and our reply. Mkdw ^talk 16:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]