Rob Smith nobs03 at gmail.com
Mon Mar 5 17:44:31 UTC 2007

There are various techniques in the Internal Revenue Manual that could be
employed; for example, reviewing the edit contributions of an employee of a
non-profit organization, a reasonable estimate of manhours allocated by that
non-profit organization over a given period of time would meet standards of
proof to establish income from paid editing, as well as the activities of
the employer, not to mention possible conflicts of interest, or violations
of Wikipedia's internal policies.

Mercenary Wikipedian mercenarywikipedian at hotmail.com
Wed Mar 7 21:48:11 UTC 2007

What does any of this have to do with Wikipedia? There are already policies
in place regarding NPOV and NPA, and there are multiple dispute resolution
processes in place to handle serial/chronic non-compliance. What protections
does _anyone_ have against defamation on Wikipedia? Well, if they are the
subject of an article there is WP:BLP. If they are just an editor and not
the subject of the article there is the policy mandating No Personal
Attacks. What makes you think these won't work if people are getting paid?
Is this an issue of scalability? If so, it seems a little late to be worried
about whether or not the idea of Wikipedia is scalable.

Rob Smith nobs03 at gmail.com
Wed Mar 7 22:22:46 UTC 2007

None is addressed in current policies. And there is evidence Wikipedia is
being used for purposes *other than* writing an encyclopedia, i.e. to target
certain individuals and smear their character. The Daniel Brandt episode is
one such case. Stephen Kinsella and the Ludwig von Mises Institute is
another. The Free Congress Foundation and Paul Weyrich is a target for much
questionable content being added, as well as an anonymous editor who
identified himself as a professional journalist and friend of Weyrich
received a community ban for efforts to instill NPOV & fairness in those two
articles.

By contrast, User:Katefan0 of *Scripps Howard* did
precisely the samething as Weyrich's friend, admitted a conflict of interest
prior to initiating official Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Policy, was
promoted to Admin, presented evidence before Arbitrators admitting her
conflict of interest

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...ty_and_bullying

yet the Arbs used her evidence against an aggrieved party. There are
numerous other instances to be cited where a pattern is established that the
intent of some parties, acting as agents of others, are using Wikipedia to
pursue their own aims and not constructively contribute to the encyclopedia.

Slim Virgin slimvirgin at gmail.com
Wed Mar 7 22:29:04 UTC 2007

Rob Smith (User:Nobs) has just named a former admin who did not choose
to name herself. Can the people monitoring the list step in, please?

David Gerard dgerard at gmail.com
Wed Mar 7 22:34:39 UTC 2007

That was indeed the last straw. He's on mod now.