December 23, 2018
CB1 & CB2 receptors role in Cancer
Texas Health Co-op is a subsidiary, in name reservation only, of Good Acts LLC.
read more »
January 11, 2018
Legality of Cannabis by U.S. Jurisdiction is a mirror of the wikipedia page with the latest information for cannabis
read more »
October 14, 2016
To stay informed of the latest research, news and developments in the THC Science field, please sign up to receive our
read more »
Discuss this story
There's a related blog post by Gabriel Thullen at http://wikistrategies.net/french-paid-editing/ summarising some of the discussions in the French Wikipedia. --Andreas JN466 02:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Our response to this should be 3-fold:
1) Chapters, affiliates, and user-groups should all include a strict no-paid-editing-for-officers-and-employees clause in their by-laws.
2) The WMF should have the same type of rule for all chapters, etc in their rules.
3) The English-language Wikipedia should add a clause to the policy Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure prohibiting paid edits by officers and employees of chapters, affiliates and user groups. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with the board level aspect.I believe that it is possible to be a paid editor and be a very good faith member of the community, if the paid editor very transparently discloses, doesn't edit directly, proposes high quality content on Talk pages (very well sourced, very neutral, including negatives), and doesn't BLUDGEON discussions. In other words, is truly clueful. This is possible.Somebody like that could be a great board member and there should be no bar to them running, especially if they have clearly disclosed and the voters would be aware of their paid editing when they vote.The employees of Racosch Sàrl were not like that, at all.