4 ms·
I think the wording he used in the announcement was bad. I think it's fairly universally agreed upon that neutrality and avoidance of conflict of interest are k
by cmelbye 13y ago
I think the wording he used in the announcement was bad. I think it's fairly universally agreed upon that neutrality and avoidance of conflict of interest are key tenants of Wikipedia, and are certainly things that an administrator of Wikipedia and employee of Wikimedia would be expected to uphold.
- jfoster 13y agoFairly universally agreed upon of course, but the question is whether they have a specific written policy that takes it from being "pretty much agreed upon" to "a clear violation of his/her employment agreement" or something equally robust.
- wpietri 13y agoI think that sort of legalism is unhelpful, especially at Wikipedia. In my view, the most important policy at Wikipedia is the one which says, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:IAR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:IAR The point of it is that people should always be thinking about Wikipedia's mission and vision. Rule-systems are always leaky, and on Wikipedia people should never use the excuse, "Well, what I did wasn't against the rules."
- jfoster 13y agoThose are good points for most rules. Perhaps not when it comes to rules that you will let employees go for breaking, though. It seems to me that this lady was merely following the rule that you cited. In some countries, if she now files for unfair dismissal, I think Wikimedia might lose.
- wpietri 13y agoIn California, where the Wikimedia Foundation is based, I don't believe that to be the case: http://www.ca-employment-lawyers.com/Wrongful-Termination.htm http://www.ca-employment-lawyers.com/Wrongful-Termination.ht...