No idea Craig, but http://i.imgur.com/iYBNjhH.png does say that she last worked on 23 December, which would loosely tie in with edit timeframes on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sally_Hogshead&action=history
It should also be noted that the article was previously deleted as per https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Sally+Hogsheadin 2010. Sally Hogshead (so it would seem) was subjected to a sockpuppet case at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sallyhogshead/Archiveon the very day that the previous article was deleted. So it shouldn't surprise us that Sally would turn to paying for an experienced editor to write her promo bio. The article as it reads today reads like a typical puff piece posing as a Wikipedia article. The sourcing obviously leaves a lot to be desired, largely made up of interviews and the like. Perhaps Sarah could explain herself on list here, I believe she is on it. If this isn't the article in question, I am sure she will explain which article for an individual she was paid $300. Personally, I believe Sarah is short changing herself, such work should cost more than $300, and I don't care if she is engaging in paid editing, but given that the WMF is now resorting to the ED putting out press releases and issuing cease-and-desist letters, she surely knows that as an employee of the WMF she is in either a precarious position here, or in a prime position to advocate for paid editing and explain why it's not all that bad. I hope she takes the latter route :) Cheers, Russavia On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Craig Franklin <[email protected]>wrote: > There seems to be some pretty heavy assumptions in Odder's article - it all > just seems to be speculation based upon one very vague comment in her work > history. Was she contacted before the blog post was made and brought to > this list to ask for clarification? > > Cheers, > Craig > > On 6 January 2014 09:42, Russavia <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Odder has published a fantastic blog piece at > > http://twkozlowski.net/paid-editing-thrives-in-the-heart-of-wikipedia/in > > which it is revealed that a WMF employee is engaged in undeclared paid > > editing on English Wikipedia, and charging what it appears to be $300 per > > article. > > > > I have cc'ed both Sue and Jimmy in on this email, but also sending to > this > > list as I know they, and other WMF employees, do use this list, and I > think > > it would be pertinent that they respond publicly to the issues raised > here. > > It is ever so more important given that the undeclared paid editing > > occurred AFTER the whole Wiki-PR debacle (Sue's press release, WMF's > > cease-and-desist, and of course the resultant media attention). > > > > What do Jimmy and Sue believe should occur given that such editing > violates > > Wikipedia policies and also Jimmy's so-called Bright Line Rule. In > relation > > to Jimmy's line, many are still clueless as to what exactly this Bright > > Line is (it's not very bright), and how it should be applied in practice, > > so Jimmy, if you are out there, your comment is requested on that. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Russavia > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list > > [email protected] > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
