Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-04-30/News and notes


 * I have created a userbox for those editors who would like to declare that they are available to edit for pay. Cla68 (talk) 11:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not the appropriate place for you advertising yourself.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * What happened to Wikipedia in the news?SPNic (talk) 13:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It is a shame that we have moved from the Good Faith era into automatically assuming bad faith. Paid editing is, and always will be, a contentious issue.  However I would much rather have a thousand, declared, paid editors - following policy, than a dozen "submarine" paid editors, who may not be.  The only egregious error here is saying "I am a moderator" without qualifying that.  Paid editors should use a separate account and keep a clear distinction, and publish their client list.  If they find their paid account is edit-warring with their main account, they know they have crossed a line.  Rich Farmbrough, 17:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC).


 * Like how WWB does it with User:WWB and User:WWB Too? Silver  seren C 19:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * it is certainly true that most university PR departments who try to write  articles of faculty themselves do a notably poor job of it, and any experienced WPedian is likely to do better. But I wonder if the university that hired Cla68 is aware that there are a good number of editors who would be prepared to write such articles for free.   DGG ( talk ) 21:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see a problem with paid editing, as long as the editing is done per established policy and guidelines. If someone wants to pay someone else to write an article which meets all the requirements for inclusion, more power to them. Think of it as a bounty of sorts. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 23:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Moving aside from the rights and wrong's of Cla's action, Tony and Jan have done a great job of covering these events and the different views. Nick-D (talk) 08:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Gender gap: While we have known for a long time that editors appear to be 90% male, we also know that the percentage of Admins is significantly lower. It would be interesting to see some research on why disproportionately many females pass (or attempt or both) RFA. Apart from anything else it may give clues to why more women don't edit - for if RFA holds no fear then the many of the oft repeated ideas about  barriers to editing may need re-evaluating. Rich Farmbrough, 05:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC).