Resolution talk:TOU Amendment - Disclosure of Paid Editing: Difference between revisions

From Wikimedia Foundation Governance Wiki
Content deleted Content added
 
Pppery (talk | contribs)
Reply
Line 8: Line 8:


But it's looking like my effort will fail and would need project notices and an RFC to even have a chance to succeed. Thus my appeal for WMF involvement. [[User:RudolfoMD|RudolfoMD]] ([[User talk:RudolfoMD|talk]]) 02:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
But it's looking like my effort will fail and would need project notices and an RFC to even have a chance to succeed. Thus my appeal for WMF involvement. [[User:RudolfoMD|RudolfoMD]] ([[User talk:RudolfoMD|talk]]) 02:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
: This is probably more likely to be seen on a higher-traffic page like [[Policy talk:Terms of Use]] [[User:Pppery|Pppery]] ([[User talk:Pppery|talk]]) 01:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:38, 27 October 2023

You must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation?

The page says, "It may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored by ... any Wikimedia project." But Wikipedia:WP:MEDCOI is doing just that by saying "Citing your own organization is ...generally acceptable..." If WMF could intervene somehow (e.g. edit) Wikipedia:WP:MEDCOI to repair the erosion, that would be good and timely.

I've tried resolving the issue locally, where I've argued why this essentially unqualified guideline is unacceptable: "Citing your own organization is generally acceptable."

But it's looking like my effort will fail and would need project notices and an RFC to even have a chance to succeed. Thus my appeal for WMF involvement. RudolfoMD (talk) 02:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

This is probably more likely to be seen on a higher-traffic page like Policy talk:Terms of Use Pppery (talk) 01:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply