There is another thread whose focus is how to verify JMod accounts. Discussion has died down there, but there are a few other points that I think are worth discussing separately, which would influence how JMods accounts are handled.
This is the wiki that anyone can edit, not anyone except Jagex employees or contractors. The policies and practices that apply to everyone apply equally well to editors affiliated with Jagex. However, there should be some conditions that apply (or should be emphasized) to Jagex employees and contractors.
- Neutral point of view is not suspended.
- The RS Wiki aims to be a comprehensive source of unbiased information about RuneScape. Although any editor can be subject to bias, Jagex employees and contractors are discouraged from advocating or whitewashing information. To assist in the assurance of Neutral point of view, Jagex employees and contractors who edit this wiki in their capacity as Jagex employees or contractors should disclose on their user page that they are paid to edit this wiki. Editors who claim to be Jagex employees or contractors should verify their status with a wiki administrator, otherwise the claim could be treated as impersonation.
- Information should be verifiable.
- The validity of all edits made by Jagex employees and contractors is subject to the same review and equal treatment as those of any other editor. Jagex employees and contractors may be perceived to be their own source of authority for anything they write, but a wiki is a collaboration tool. The contributions of individual editors are combined into articles. The attribution of any individual contribution may be lost after several edits. Anything that is not verifiable within the game by any player should be attributed to an external source.
- Jagex employees and contractors are discouraged from including "Mod" or "Jagex" in their Wikia names.
- Wikia accounts that contain "Mod" in their names are blocked from editing by default to prevent employee impersonation. Beyond impersonation, including "Mod" or "Jagex" in a Wikia account name encourages a differentiation among Jagex employees, contractors, and other editors when no such differentiation should exist. Additionally, editors may join or leave Jagex employment or affiliation at any time, in which case "Mod" or "Jagex" in the name could be misleading.
- Jagex employees and contractors can be incognito.
- If Jagex employees or contractors edit this wiki on their own time as any other player and never in any official capacity as a Jagex employee or contractor, there is no requirement to disclose their affiliation.
I doubt anyone needs encouragement, but you may consider these points as a straw proposal and make any counter-proposal or additional proposals. --User:Saftzie/Signature 04:00, November 30, 2014 (UTC)
Comment - The above proposals do not force Mod JD to change his name. "Mod" would be discouraged in the name, not prohibited. I'm not convinced we could enforce it, anyway. As yet another point, in neither the other thread nor anywhere else I have seen has any JMod explicitly said why they want Jagex-identified accounts here. --User:Saftzie/Signature 04:00, November 30, 2014 (UTC)
- Having "Mod" in your name is already prohibited and enforced right now. User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 20:09, November 30, 2014 (UTC)
- ModJD exists. There could be more in the future. You read Forum:JMod Accounts, right? You even contributed there. --User:Saftzie/Signature 22:06, November 30, 2014 (UTC)
Question - Are there Jmods who get paid specifically to edit our Wiki, or do they do it on their own? I believed it to be the latter, but it seems like you're saying its the former. --15:22, November 30, 2014 (UTC)
- If they're doing it on Jagex time, they're paid by Jagex. That's especially true if they're "Community Management," but it applies to any Jagex employee or contractor who edits in their capacity as someone affiliated with Jagex. Jagex is a rather small company. I doubt they top 1000 employees, so they may or may not have their own company policies about representing Jagex, but they're still representing Jagex and editing here. --User:Saftzie/Signature 22:06, November 30, 2014 (UTC)
Comment - I think it would be best for them to just use the IP they used before to edit, and then we can identify straight away if it locates to Jagex HQ or not. Whether they get paid for it or not isn't my concern. – Ozank Cx 15:25, November 30, 2014 (UTC)
Comment - This is overly bureaucratic. J-Mods, if they have authenticated accounts, are not special in any way.
- They must follow the same rules everyone else does, including but not limited to being neutral. That goes without saying.
- We can link to diffs in the same way that we link to forum posts by J-mods as a source. Not ideal but I don't see another way around it.
- Let them keep their Mod names on their authenticated accounts. Who cares what they call themselves? It's easier for everyone this way, or credibility will be lost when quoting. Any sense of authority can be removed by protecting their talk pages from nubsaucery. Obviously a differentiation is going to exist but one also exists for admins despite efforts to make them seem like normal users. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter, they will be verified J-mods.
- Not sure what the point of this one is. Anyone can edit incognito so...?
I feel like you're emphasizing the less important points instead of the important ones, and I feel like you're being way too bureaucratic on this issue. User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 01:17, December 1, 2014 (UTC)
Comment - I see this turning out to be more of a witch hunt than something productive should any of this be taken into effect. Though I do agree with the neutral point of view, but in all reality that applies to everyone and seems to be in effect already.
Comment - Hell no to all. There are policies in place for 1 and 2 which all users are expected to follow. 3 is a given with the name filter and needs to be manually gotten around to allow in the first place, something that seems unnecessary to begin with. SO you got a username with "Mod" in it? So what, your edits can be either constructive or not, username be damned. As for 4...isn't this already in place? For all we know every other account on the wiki could belong to a JMod; very few users actually share real-life details. User:Real Not Pure/Signature 17:02, December 1, 2014 (UTC)
Comment - There seems to be some misunderstanding, so let me elucidate. Paid editors of any publicly-editable wiki are subject to a conflict of interest. Conflicts of interest are bad. (I'm not going to explain why conflicts of interest are bad. If anyone doesn't already understand that, then an explanation needs some other venue than here.) For this wiki, that applies most specifically to Jagex-paid editors. There are a few ways to remedy conflicts of interest.
- Participation can be prohibited. In the case of this wiki, JMods could be blocked. As I said above, this wiki is not the wiki anyone except Jagex employees and contractors can edit. Therefore, this option doesn't make sense. There is, however, precedence for such blocks elsewhere.
- Participation can be disclosed. I think this option would be the preferable remedy here, and it is the one proposed above.
The conditions that apply to everyone else have already been suspended in practice for previous JMod edits. This practice appears unlikely to change without emphasis on the conditions that should apply. I do not blame anyone at Jagex.
Having JMods with "Mod" in their Wikia name encourages the (already existing) suspension of the conditions that should apply equally to all editors of this wiki. Recall that Wikia accounts are accounts on all Wikia wikis, not just this one, and can be created on any wiki (for example, Community Central). Prohibiting name creation is unrealistic. We can, however, suggest that they make names without "Mod," etc.
Other wikis (not necessarily Wikia), and other organizations in general, would be stricter in dealing with conflicts of interest, requiring disclosure in all cases. Many countries have laws requiring such disclosure, since any public statements (including edits on a wiki) could be construed to be advocacy. The proposal above does not attempt to deal with any such laws and allows for the possibility that Jagex employees are individuals who may contribute to this wiki on their own behalf rather than on behalf of Jagex. Many organizations have policies that require all affiliated individuals to consider any public interaction to be regarded as company-sponsored. I have no idea if Jagex has any such policies, but the proposal allows for the possibility that they don't by not requiring disclosure for non-Jagex-sponsored edits. If Jagex employees or contractors are subject to such laws or corporate policies, it is up to them to take whatever measures are required for compliance. This proposal deals only with this wiki. --User:Saftzie/Signature 03:44, December 2, 2014 (UTC)
- Orrrrr we can just revert their edits that are biased and not neutral like we do with everyone else. <.< User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 04:04, December 2, 2014 (UTC)
Comment - I've fully understood the scope of your forum from the start (WP:COI was the first thing that popped into my head), but was hesitant to comment because I never felt the issue was one that would come up more than once ever. After seeing the comments though, I figured I'd weigh in:
Except for point 3 and the stuff about paid-editing, I feel this is mostly making the unwritten, status quo consensus explicit; I can support that. Paid-editing won't happen. I can almost guarantee it. They have their own wiki that they are still proud of (for some reason), and they would definitely put all resources there. What you do have written about paid-editing, though, seems pretty much the same as what Wikipedia has. Wikipedia actually has paid editors, and they actually get into conflict of interest issues. Seeing as Wikipedia has experience with COI, it would indeed be best to adopt their policies on it (amending as appropriate to our specific situation).
Point 3 only isn't a currently-held consensus because, as I already said, this almost never happens. It's also not one that's a huge deal. I can think of several reasons for both sides of that argument, but in the end, I don't think the wiki's stance on the issue will make a difference unless it's binding (and I don't think that should be considered), because I would assume they would have weighed it themselves if they were going to make an account that would be used long-term. It's probably best to have a friendly convenience set of pros and cons for the 1 JMod that wants to make an account to read, but I don't see the importance of taking an official stance.
I'm surprised people are taking this forum the way they are. Apparently JMods are an uber contentious issue. But really, this should be a cut-and-dry everyone supports because, as I said above, this is really just clarifying what the general consensus is. MolMan 04:01, December 2, 2014 (UTC)