Re: [WikiEN-l] Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 5:18 AM, David Goodman dgge...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for picking the topic up again, David. It would be better to have a rule to never take the views of the subject in consideration about whether we should have an article, unless an exception can be made according to other Wikipedia rules, in particular, Do No Harm. People have the right to a fair article, but not to a favorable one. I wish Do no harm were a Wikipedia rule. But the only essay I am aware of that formalises it has it marked as a rejected principle in its introduction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:HARM Under the present system, we do need to have some provision for the type of exception you mention. It's really firefighting though, rather than addressing the underlying cause. I agree that the ratio of editors to articles is much too low. What we need is not fewer bios, but more editors. Encouraging new people to work on BLPs is the solution. The problem is not the ratio between editors and biographies, but the ratio of editors editing within policy vs editors who come only to write a hatchet job or an infomercial. This is something that can be addressed by Pending Changes. Let all those who only edit an article to defame or advertise, to write hatchet jobs or infomercials, make their suggestions. And let an editor who understands what a coatrack is, and who is committed to core policy, decide what the public should see when they navigate to the page. The right to edit BLPs, and approve pending changes, should be a distinction that people are proud of, just like they are proud of rollback or adminship. And like rollback, it should be a privilege they will lose if they abuse it. The really hard calls on how much negative material to include in a BLP should be made by teams with a diverse composition. A whole new culture needs to be built around BLP editing. Andreas ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] Fwd: The counterattack of the PR companies
PR people who edited Wikipedia get crucified. Counterattack: reduce trust in Wikipedia. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120417113527.htm Paper: http://www.prsa.org/Intelligence/PRJournal/ The paper's message appears to be Wikipedia's rules need to change. (Also, Jimmy Wsles is a big meanie head.) The paper doesn't address the problem that the media and general public get upset and turn PR editing into a PR problem even when it's within existing rules. (Aside: I've evidently been skimming too many hard science papers - that peer reviewed paper reads like an undergraduate essay.) - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: The counterattack of the PR companies
On 18 April 2012 12:48, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: PR people who edited Wikipedia get crucified. Counterattack: reduce trust in Wikipedia. snip Paper: http://www.prsa.org/Intelligence/PRJournal/ When the talk pages were used to request edits, it was found to typically take days for a response and 24% never received one. Some spin? So responses were days rather than hours. And there was a response in 76% of cases. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: The counterattack of the PR companies
They say you have to wait 2-5 days for a response after requesting changes as though that is a bad thing. I'm very impressed with that response time. How many commercial encyclopaedias can do better? On Apr 18, 2012 12:48 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: PR people who edited Wikipedia get crucified. Counterattack: reduce trust in Wikipedia. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120417113527.htm Paper: http://www.prsa.org/Intelligence/PRJournal/ The paper's message appears to be Wikipedia's rules need to change. (Also, Jimmy Wsles is a big meanie head.) The paper doesn't address the problem that the media and general public get upset and turn PR editing into a PR problem even when it's within existing rules. (Aside: I've evidently been skimming too many hard science papers - that peer reviewed paper reads like an undergraduate essay.) - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: The counterattack of the PR companies
On 18 April 2012 13:38, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: They say you have to wait 2-5 days for a response after requesting changes as though that is a bad thing. I'm very impressed with that response time. How many commercial encyclopaedias can do better? I hope you're joking here. :) Just in case you weren't: commercial encyclopedias have a sophisticated editorial and legal process in place to ensure they do not print defamatory content. Sometimes subjects are sent a draft before publication, and are given an opportunity to make an input. Having dealt with such things before... That process takes* much much longer* than 2-5 days. And unless the problem is exceptional most encyclopedias will continue and ongoing print run until their next update without modification. Tom ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: The counterattack of the PR companies
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote: On 18 April 2012 13:38, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: They say you have to wait 2-5 days for a response after requesting changes as though that is a bad thing. I'm very impressed with that response time. How many commercial encyclopaedias can do better? I hope you're joking here. :) Just in case you weren't: commercial encyclopedias have a sophisticated editorial and legal process in place to ensure they do not print defamatory content. Sometimes subjects are sent a draft before publication, and are given an opportunity to make an input. Having dealt with such things before... That process takes* much much longer* than 2-5 days. Yes, but it takes place *before* publication. :P ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: The counterattack of the PR companies
On 18 April 2012 13:45, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote: On 18 April 2012 13:38, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: They say you have to wait 2-5 days for a response after requesting changes as though that is a bad thing. I'm very impressed with that response time. How many commercial encyclopaedias can do better? I hope you're joking here. :) Just in case you weren't: commercial encyclopedias have a sophisticated editorial and legal process in place to ensure they do not print defamatory content. Sometimes subjects are sent a draft before publication, and are given an opportunity to make an input. Having dealt with such things before... That process takes* much much longer* than 2-5 days. Yes, but it takes place *before* publication. :P Not at all. My specific experience was while consulting on another matter for a firm; they were surprised to find their name had been noted in connection with some years-before legal action (quite a disturbing one) in a prominent printed encyclopaedia. I helped them get in touch and resolve the issue. It took about a week for initial contact to prove successful - the material was reviewed, taking another two weeks, and amended internally. The next years print run was currently happening, and they were unable to modify the problem. So all in all it took about 18 months for a correction to be published. I happen to know of several other examples where incorrect material is still being published years after the point has been brought up. Whilst you will get some material sent out for review I don't believe it accounts for much of the content. And, as such, is something of misdirection on the issue. I'm not arguing Wikipedia is the solution. But the argument that printed encyclopaedias are better at this I know to be false. Tom ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: The counterattack of the PR companies
On 18 April 2012 13:38, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: They say you have to wait 2-5 days for a response after requesting changes as though that is a bad thing. I'm very impressed with that response time. How many commercial encyclopaedias can do better? I hope you're joking here. :) Just in case you weren't: commercial encyclopedias have a sophisticated editorial and legal process in place to ensure they do not print defamatory content. Sometimes subjects are sent a draft before publication, and are given an opportunity to make an input. Wikipedia has none of that. What it does have is a history of articles littered with malice, bias and inaccuracy (witness its history of arbitration cases). Yes, but note that PR folk are not just employed to deal with defamatory material. In fact in the case of defamation it's more probably a lawyer's work. They are professionals in verbal massage of material. This is what they can charge money for. I was struck by the following passage in the paper: ---o0o--- Although another one of the five pillars is that Wikipedia does not have firm rules – Wales recently stated, “This is not complicated. There is a very simple “bright line” rule that constitutes best practice: do not edit Wikipedia directly if you are a paid advocate. Respect the community by interacting with us appropriately” (Wales, 2012a, para 2). This directly conflicts with the Wikipedia FAQ/Article subjects (2012) page that specifically asks public relations professionals to remove vandalism, fix minor errors in spelling, grammar, usage or facts, provide references for existing content, and add or update facts with references such as number of employees or event details. ---o0o--- On that, at least, they're correct. Yes indeed. Jimbo neither makes policy nor enforces it, of course. What we have here is an ongoing loop in being able to read WP:COI properly. I believe the guideline on COI to be the best available take on this issue. However - and it's a big however - we are learning that the limitation on COI to a universal statement makes it harder for those with particular types of COI to understand. This applies both to paid editing, and to activist editing (I think you will have no trouble understanding this, Andreas ...), as well as autobiography. The COI guideline is supposed to be best advice, and in a nutshell it says really don't edit in certain ways when you are too close to a topic. Now, in the non-nutshell, discursive version it of course says that who you are and what you believe and how you might be rewarded for editing are not the issue: if you are a POV pusher that is the problem we have with you, not anything else. It is not illegal in our terms to do certain things when you have a _potential_ conflict of interest. But the real-life situation is that someone paid to edit has a boss and/or paymaster. Jimbo knows what he is doing here with sending out a soundbite, rather than citing the page. The boss can understand the soundbite, and is almost certainly not going to bother to understand the page. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: The counterattack of the PR companies
On 18 April 2012 13:53, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote: I'm not arguing Wikipedia is the solution. But the argument that printed encyclopaedias are better at this I know to be false. More generally, arguments that make a comparison between an idealised fantasy Britannica and a real-life WIkipedia are likely to be bad ones and should be avoided. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: The counterattack of the PR companies
On 18 April 2012 13:55, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: But the real-life situation is that someone paid to edit has a boss and/or paymaster. Jimbo knows what he is doing here with sending out a soundbite, rather than citing the page. The boss can understand the soundbite, and is almost certainly not going to bother to understand the page. Also note that in my experience, it is pretty much impossible to get across even to nice PR people that they have a really bloody obvious COI. I have spent much time trying. I would guess that this is because getting their POV in is, in point of fact, what they get money for. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: The counterattack of the PR companies
On 18 April 2012 13:53, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote: snip My specific experience was while consulting on another matter for a firm; they were surprised to find their name had been noted in connection with some years-before legal action (quite a disturbing one) in a prominent printed encyclopaedia. snip So all in all it took about 18 months for a correction to be published. Interesting, indeed. To be fair about the time-criticality: it does matter in that mirror sites will refresh their WP dumps on some basis that probably isn't daily. OTOH we do offer the OTRS route also for complaints, and that presumably offers a better triage. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: The counterattack of the PR companies
To be fair about the time-criticality: it does matter in that mirror sites will refresh their WP dumps on some basis that probably isn't daily. OTOH we do offer the OTRS route also for complaints, and that presumably offers a better triage. Charles Unfortunately not. There is a significant backlog in the OTRS queues - in the region of months. Tom ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: The counterattack of the PR companies
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote: That process takes* much much longer* than 2-5 days. Yes, but it takes place *before* publication. :P Not at all. My specific experience was while consulting on another matter for a firm; they were surprised to find their name had been noted in connection with some years-before legal action (quite a disturbing one) in a prominent printed encyclopaedia. I helped them get in touch and resolve the issue. It took about a week for initial contact to prove successful - the material was reviewed, taking another two weeks, and amended internally. The next years print run was currently happening, and they were unable to modify the problem. So all in all it took about 18 months for a correction to be published. I happen to know of several other examples where incorrect material is still being published years after the point has been brought up. Whilst you will get some material sent out for review I don't believe it accounts for much of the content. And, as such, is something of misdirection on the issue. I'm not arguing Wikipedia is the solution. But the argument that printed encyclopaedias are better at this I know to be false. Tom Well, it is still true that in a conventional encyclopedia, everything goes through vigorous professional fact checking *before* publication. We have nothing to compare to that. Not even Pending Changes. Surely that is a very, very significant difference indeed? As a result, the kinds of inaccuracies we have in Wikipedia can be in a whole different league than the sort of error you might find in Britannica; there is often active malice at work, as opposed to the occasional cock-up, and you are talking about the no. 1 Google link for a person or company, rather than something appearing on page 582 of a dusty tome that few people own, let alone read. Andreas ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: The counterattack of the PR companies
On Wednesday, 18 April 2012 at 13:58, David Gerard wrote: Also note that in my experience, it is pretty much impossible to get across even to nice PR people that they have a really bloody obvious COI. I have spent much time trying. I would guess that this is because getting their POV in is, in point of fact, what they get money for. So, recently, I've been advising a PR/social media company (unpaid) about their article, which was deleted for lack of notability. They are perfectly well-aware of their COI and so on: that's why they've contacted me. The stance I've taken with them is basically to ask them to find at least five reliable sources that meet the GNG, I'll have a look at them and if I think they do, I'll open a DRV on the deletion, listing the five sources. In the DRV, I'll make it quite clear that I've communicated with them, what the nature of the relationship is (no commercial relationship, I just happen to know a lady who works at the company personally) and they provided me the sources, but I won't open a DRV unless I agree that the sources meet the GNG. I hope that's a way to do it with some integrity. Being that I'm pretty damn cynical of PR companies, and when I read about how PR companies want to edit Wikipedia ethically, my initial bullshit detector goes off the charts. But in this instance, I think it's certainly possible. User:Fluffernutter gave a talk about paid editing last year at Wikimania, comparing it with needle exchange programmes. Much as my gut feeling is god no, don't give an inch to PR people even if they are claiming to act 'ethically'!, I have a funny feeling we're going to need to do something very soon. -- Tom Morris http://tommorris.org/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: The counterattack of the PR companies
On 18 April 2012 14:24, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote: User:Fluffernutter gave a talk about paid editing last year at Wikimania, comparing it with needle exchange programmes. Much as my gut feeling is god no, don't give an inch to PR people even if they are claiming to act 'ethically'!, I have a funny feeling we're going to need to do something very soon. As these things usually do, the ones who behave will be put through increasingly onerous requirements, the ones who don't will continue as they were and the ones who do will then be regarded the same way as the ones who don't. Ah well. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: The counterattack of the PR companies
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: Yes indeed. Jimbo neither makes policy nor enforces it, of course. What we have here is an ongoing loop in being able to read WP:COI properly. I believe the guideline on COI to be the best available take on this issue. However - and it's a big however - we are learning that the limitation on COI to a universal statement makes it harder for those with particular types of COI to understand. This applies both to paid editing, and to activist editing (I think you will have no trouble understanding this, Andreas ...), as well as autobiography. That is one of the points the authors of the study picked up on, too: ---o0o--- There are problems with the “bright line” rule. By not allowing public relations/communications professionals to directly edit removes the possibility of a timely correction or update of information, ultimately denying the public a right to accurate information. Also, by disallowing public relations/communications professionals to make edits while allowing competitors, activists and anyone else who wants to chime in, is simply asking of misinformation. If direct editing is not a possibility, an option must be provided that can quickly and accurately update Wikipedia articles; as this study found, no such process currently exists. ---o0o--- Unfortunately, they do have a point. Positive bias and advertorials *can* be odious, but activist editing with a negative bent has traditionally been the greater problem in Wikipedia, in my view, and is the type of bias the Wikipedia system has traditionally favoured. Not doing harm is, in my view, more important than preventing the opposite. Andreas ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: The counterattack of the PR companies
On 18 April 2012 14:44, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: Yes indeed. Jimbo neither makes policy nor enforces it, of course. What we have here is an ongoing loop in being able to read WP:COI properly. I believe the guideline on COI to be the best available take on this issue. However - and it's a big however - we are learning that the limitation on COI to a universal statement makes it harder for those with particular types of COI to understand. This applies both to paid editing, and to activist editing (I think you will have no trouble understanding this, Andreas ...), as well as autobiography. That is one of the points the authors of the study picked up on, too: ---o0o--- There are problems with the “bright line” rule. By not allowing public relations/communications professionals to directly edit removes the possibility of a timely correction or update of information, ultimately denying the public a right to accurate information. Also, by disallowing public relations/communications professionals to make edits while allowing competitors, activists and anyone else who wants to chime in, is simply asking of misinformation. If direct editing is not a possibility, an option must be provided that can quickly and accurately update Wikipedia articles; as this study found, no such process currently exists. ---o0o--- Unfortunately, they do have a point. Positive bias and advertorials *can* be odious, but activist editing with a negative bent has traditionally been the greater problem in Wikipedia, in my view, and is the type of bias the Wikipedia system has traditionally favoured. Not doing harm is, in my view, more important than preventing the opposite. Andreas It would be interesting to study what sort of edits are being talked about. From my dealings with PR-style edit requests there is a fairly broad form ranging from: - desire to remove sourced negative material (whitewashing) - correction of serious innacuracies/POV (i.e. defamation or other) - simple information updates/corrections (like: circulation in 2012 is 41,000, you currently use the 2010 figures). - desire to add PR-style gushy material Of those I'd consider only #2 important to address quickly and seriously. Finding a way to filter major problems would be good. OTRS isn't (currently) a good way, IMO. Tom ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: The counterattack of the PR companies
This directly conflicts with the Wikipedia FAQ/Article subjects (2012) page that specifically asks public relations professionals to remove vandalism, fix minor errors in spelling, grammar, usage or facts, provide references for existing content, and add or update facts with references such as number of employees or event details. But the real-life situation is that someone paid to edit has a boss and/or paymaster. Jimbo knows what he is doing here with sending out a soundbite, rather than citing the page. The boss can understand the soundbite, and is almost certainly not going to bother to understand the page. Let me get this straight. You are arguing It is okay to for Jimbo to tell the company something which contradicts policy because it's more likely the company will understand the non-policy than the actual policy. Yes indeed. Jimbo neither makes policy nor enforces it, of course. Besides, it's their own fault for listening to Jimbo anyway. They should know enough about Wikipedia to understand that he doesn't make policy. I mean, he's just the public face of Wikipedia, why would anyone who needs to know about Wikipedia policy listen to him? To any normal person, this is simply a case of Wikipedia contradicting itself. The fact that it's not because Jimbo doesn't make policy is a piece of Wiki-arcana that the outsider really can't be expected to understand. The fact that we're deliberately trying to get the people to listen to Jimbo and ignore the actual policy just makes it worse. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] sad news
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 8:52 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 3:27 AM, Bob the Wikipedian bobthewikiped...@gmail.com wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deceased_Wikipedians Oh dear. I see from reading that page that not only have we lost Ben Yates, but also Slrubenstein. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Rubenstein The death of both these Wikipedians was mentioned briefly in the Signpost: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-03-12/News_and_notes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-03-19/News_and_notes Very sad news in both cases. My condolences to those that knew them. Slrubenstein was a rock. Never could be trolled or drawn into a hostile exchange. He did have very strong disagreements with people. The one I remember him best by was over the proper expression of dates, and over whether or not Wikipedia should show religious preference between the the various candidates (my memory is hazy on what the various alternatives were, but that might be because it wasn't one of my battles, though I did read the arguments with interest and occasional amusement and may just have made very minor comments on issues of fact). He had a particular dry wit about him. Not of the emblematically British sort, but more of the What are you going to do to me? I am not going to fall into the trap of hating you! variety. -- -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]] ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement
On 18 April 2012 06:22, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 5:18 AM, David Goodman dgge...@gmail.com wrote: snip The problem is not the ratio between editors and biographies, but the ratio of editors editing within policy vs editors who come only to write a hatchet job or an infomercial. This is something that can be addressed by Pending Changes. Let all those who only edit an article to defame or advertise, to write hatchet jobs or infomercials, make their suggestions. And let an editor who understands what a coatrack is, and who is committed to core policy, decide what the public should see when they navigate to the page. The right to edit BLPs, and approve pending changes, should be a distinction that people are proud of, just like they are proud of rollback or adminship. And like rollback, it should be a privilege they will lose if they abuse it. The really hard calls on how much negative material to include in a BLP should be made by teams with a diverse composition. A whole new culture needs to be built around BLP editing. Andreas, I generally agree with you on matters relating to BLPs. I don't, however, understand why you think Pending Changes will have any effect whatsoever on improving BLP articles. Bluntly put, the policy that is currently being discussed on the current RFC[1] does *not* authorize reviewers to shape the article (in fact, it doesn't really give any instructions to reviewers), and it permits any administrator to grant or withdraw reviewer status on a whim; there's no requirement or expectation that the status is granted or withdrawn in relation to actual editing. During the trial, we had a rather significant number of experienced editors refuse to accept reviewer status because they do not want to have any permissions that can be withdrawn by one single administrator. Please go back and read the proposed Pending Changes policy in the RFC, and tell me that you really and truly believe that it will have the effect you desire. It is essentially the same policy that was in effect during the trial, and there was never a determination of whether it meant reject only vandalism or reject anything unsourced or reject anything you do not personally think will improve the article. There are problems with all of these interpretations of the policy, just as there were considerable problems with them during the trial. It just seems that nobody cares to actually mine the data from the trial itself to figure out whether or not Pending Changes does what some people want it to do. Of course, it's quite possible that the proposed policy is so vague specifically so that people can read into it what they want, and use it in ways that aren't supported by the majority of the community. Risker/Anne [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_2012 ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: The counterattack of the PR companies
On 18 April 2012 15:26, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: This directly conflicts with the Wikipedia FAQ/Article subjects (2012) page that specifically asks public relations professionals to remove vandalism, fix minor errors in spelling, grammar, usage or facts, provide references for existing content, and add or update facts with references such as number of employees or event details. But the real-life situation is that someone paid to edit has a boss and/or paymaster. Jimbo knows what he is doing here with sending out a soundbite, rather than citing the page. The boss can understand the soundbite, and is almost certainly not going to bother to understand the page. Let me get this straight. You are arguing It is okay to for Jimbo to tell the company something which contradicts policy because it's more likely the company will understand the non-policy than the actual policy. The COI guideline is not an official policy. That is the kind of distinction lost on many people, it seems. Jimbo is accountable in some rarefied sense for whatever he says. To whom, it is not quite clear. But, assuming he is speaking in what you could call his ambassadorial role, which is one of his hats, his job is to act as diplomats do. What he says is perfectly fine as a clarification of the community's position (which is what he states it to be). The counter-argument runs like this: we showed your guideline to our legal department, and we are told it doesn't say that. To which the answer is: show legal documents to your legal department, and you'll get good sense. Show documents drafted by our community, who aren't lawyers, to your legal department, and you'll get crud. We know what to make of wikilawyers. If we make it quite clear to ordinary folk what we really mean, and you go after weaknesses in the drafting by calling in your hired legal guns who are paid infinitely more an hour than our volunteers, just to prove we don't know what we are saying, then you are not respecting us, are you? So Jimbo says that in a more punchy way. Yes indeed. Jimbo neither makes policy nor enforces it, of course. Besides, it's their own fault for listening to Jimbo anyway. They should know enough about Wikipedia to understand that he doesn't make policy. I mean, he's just the public face of Wikipedia, why would anyone who needs to know about Wikipedia policy listen to him? To any normal person, this is simply a case of Wikipedia contradicting itself. The fact that it's not because Jimbo doesn't make policy is a piece of Wiki-arcana that the outsider really can't be expected to understand. The fact that we're deliberately trying to get the people to listen to Jimbo and ignore the actual policy just makes it worse. See above. Jimbo can leverage his celebrity status to communicate to people who only read business magazines and books. The fact is that there is a published literature on Wikipedia, and people who really have an interest in the site can read that, not the five-second version. All policies and guidelines come with a context, you know. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement
On 18 April 2012 12:41, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: On 18 April 2012 06:22, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 5:18 AM, David Goodman dgge...@gmail.com wrote: snip The problem is not the ratio between editors and biographies, but the ratio of editors editing within policy vs editors who come only to write a hatchet job or an infomercial. This is something that can be addressed by Pending Changes. Let all those who only edit an article to defame or advertise, to write hatchet jobs or infomercials, make their suggestions. And let an editor who understands what a coatrack is, and who is committed to core policy, decide what the public should see when they navigate to the page. The right to edit BLPs, and approve pending changes, should be a distinction that people are proud of, just like they are proud of rollback or adminship. And like rollback, it should be a privilege they will lose if they abuse it. The really hard calls on how much negative material to include in a BLP should be made by teams with a diverse composition. A whole new culture needs to be built around BLP editing. Andreas, I generally agree with you on matters relating to BLPs. I don't, however, understand why you think Pending Changes will have any effect whatsoever on improving BLP articles. Bluntly put, the policy that is currently being discussed on the current RFC[1] does *not* authorize reviewers to shape the article (in fact, it doesn't really give any instructions to reviewers), and it permits any administrator to grant or withdraw reviewer status on a whim; there's no requirement or expectation that the status is granted or withdrawn in relation to actual editing. During the trial, we had a rather significant number of experienced editors refuse to accept reviewer status because they do not want to have any permissions that can be withdrawn by one single administrator. Please go back and read the proposed Pending Changes policy in the RFC, and tell me that you really and truly believe that it will have the effect you desire. It is essentially the same policy that was in effect during the trial, and there was never a determination of whether it meant reject only vandalism or reject anything unsourced or reject anything you do not personally think will improve the article. There are problems with all of these interpretations of the policy, just as there were considerable problems with them during the trial. It just seems that nobody cares to actually mine the data from the trial itself to figure out whether or not Pending Changes does what some people want it to do. Of course, it's quite possible that the proposed policy is so vague specifically so that people can read into it what they want, and use it in ways that aren't supported by the majority of the community. Risker/Anne [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_2012 Hi Anne. I did read the proposed policy, and I agree it's not brilliant. The reason I support the current proposal is simply because it's the only proposal on the table, and to my mind having even some minimal support for Pending Changes established is better than nothing. German Wikipedia has had a similar system of Pending Changes for years – with the rather large difference that it is applied to *all* articles by default – and I believe it does make a difference. In part, the difference is a psychological one. Vandal fighting and approving/rejecting changes foster and attract very different psychologies, and create a different working climate. Reverting a vandal edit is a dramatic event, because the edit is live, and may already be read by hundreds of people; reverting it goes along with feelings of having been invaded, of defending the project, being a hero, and so forth. It's like the company troubleshooter who secretly *hopes* for trouble, so they can glory in being a troubleshooter. People wedded to their troubleshooter role are psychologically conflicted about systemic changes that would make their role obsolete. Approving or rejecting proposed changes, on the other hand, is a calmer and more reasoned act; one that can be taken time over. It's more akin to what editing, in the traditional sense of the word, is about. I'd like to see Pending Changes applied preemptively, at least for all minor biographies (i.e. those watched by less than a given number of editors). And yes, there should be a process for withdrawing the reviewer flag from an editor other than one admin deciding that it should be withdrawn. But those are things that I hope can come over time. How would you approach the issue? Having been very involved in the trial, I would not re-enable the
Re: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: The counterattack of the PR companies
On Wed, 18 Apr 2012, Charles Matthews wrote: Let me get this straight. You are arguing It is okay to for Jimbo to tell the company something which contradicts policy because it's more likely the company will understand the non-policy than the actual policy. The COI guideline is not an official policy. That is the kind of distinction lost on many people, it seems. It's true that in some technical sense the COI isn't a policy either, but that's hairsplitting. If you're going to point to something and say these are the rules, it would be the COI guideline, not Jimbo's pronouncements. People get blocked or banned because of violating COI, and disputes are settled by pointing to COI. The one that behaves like a policy and which Wikipedians are required to treat as a policy is the COI guideline, not Jimbo's pronouncements. Having Jimbo tell people something that contradicts COI and then claiming sure, Jimbo doesn't make policy, but COI isn't policy either is disingenuous. The counter-argument runs like this: we showed your guideline to our legal department, and we are told it doesn't say that. To which the answer is: show legal documents to your legal department, and you'll get good sense. Show documents drafted by our community, who aren't lawyers, to your legal department, and you'll get crud. We know what to make of wikilawyers. If we make it quite clear to ordinary folk what we really mean, and you go after weaknesses in the drafting by calling in your hired legal guns who are paid infinitely more an hour than our volunteers, just to prove we don't know what we are saying, then you are not respecting us, are you? We're not talking about some genuinely arcane thing like the definition of some term using a zillion clauses. We're talking about a case where (regardless of any internal Wikipedia hierarchy which says that guidelines aren't true policies) the policy says you can do it and Jimbo says you can't. It doesn't take a legal department or even Wikilawyering to see the contradiction in that. To any normal person, this is simply a case of Wikipedia contradicting itself. The fact that it's not because Jimbo doesn't make policy is a piece of Wiki-arcana that the outsider really can't be expected to understand. The fact that we're deliberately trying to get the people to listen to Jimbo and ignore the actual policy just makes it worse. See above. Jimbo can leverage his celebrity status to communicate to people who only read business magazines and books. The fact is that there is a published literature on Wikipedia, and people who really have an interest in the site can read that, not the five-second version. So we have someone who does read it and says wait a minute, that's a contradiction. And I've been somewhat familiar with Wikipedia policies for a long time and I *still* can't figure this out, so it's not true that anyone with an interest can figure it out. The best I can come up with is ignore Jimbo, but that is clearly not what you think the answer is. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: The counterattack of the PR companies
On 18 April 2012 23:29, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: If someone tells you to drive at 5 miles under the speed limit rather than to drive at the speed limit, he may be trying to keep you from getting too close to a line. If someone tells you *not to drive at all* rather than to drive at the speed limit, that no longer has anything to do with getting close to a line. He's just making up his own rules. Ken, what's your practical solution to the problems on each side, and how will it work out well? - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement
The pending changes stuff should probably be restarted in a new thread (or the subject line changed, whichever is best). I've never been clear, though, how 'recent changes' works, let alone pending changes. Take a recent edit I reverted: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Madeleine_Astordiff=prevoldid=488083471 Some would revert or undo that without a second thought. I thought for a bit longer and sort of realised what was meant by the edit, but still couldn't be bothered to engage with the (IP) editor who made that edit, so reverted it with a half-explanation. Others would do different things. Some would see potential there for explaining to an IP editor how to edit, other would hit rollback. If it was a named account, and not an IP editor, I vaguely remember there are some welcome templates that can be used. So my question is: how would an edit like that have been handled under pending changes? Most likely rejected due to being mis-spelt and no source provided, but where is the line drawn? Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] Why Do You Contribute to Wikipedia?
Dear Wikipedia contributors, Your valuable opinions are needed regarding users' motivations to contribute to Wikipedia. This topic is currently investigated by Audrey Abeyta, an undergraduate student at the University of California, Santa Barbara. You can read a more detailed description of the project here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Motivations_to_Contribute_to_Wikipedia Those willing to participate in this study will complete a brief online questionnaire, which is completely anonymous and will take approximately ten minutes. The questionnaire can be accessed here: https://us1.us.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_8ixU9RkozemzC4s. The researcher hopes to attain a sample size of at least 100 Wikipedians; as of now, only 52 have responded. Your contributions to this project's validity are invaluable! A final draft of the paper will be made available to the Wikipedia community. If you have any questions or concerns about this study, please contact Audrey Abeyta at audrey.abe...@gmail.com. Thank you in advance for your participation! ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
