Re: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: The counterattack of the PR companies
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 6:54 PM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: On 19 April 2012 16:01, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote: I liked Andreas's way of putting this earlier: 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. [[Primum non nocere]] is worth reading, but of course it is about medicine, and is only an aspiration, and does not mean physicians have to treat conservatively. It means they have justify medical intervention. Assuming that do no harm in the sense of journalism is supposed to be applied to WP, it does fall under WP:NOT to some extent. Indiscriminate information ought to be a reason to delete. We do have to justify intervening in people's lives by hosting an article about them. On the other hand, we very often can give that justification. It doesn't have to be in the terms an investigative journalist would use. Historically this is inaccurate, as the article states, the original phrasing was to abstain from doing harm, which is significantly different insofar as it implies a willed action. This didn't at all refer to medical treatement, but to the common practise of the time for people who healed to have a sideline in selling poisons for people who were willing to pay for them. -- -- 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] Fwd: The counterattack of the PR companies
On 21 April 2012 17:07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote: Historically this is inaccurate, as the article states, the original phrasing was to abstain from doing harm, which is significantly different insofar as it implies a willed action. This didn't at all refer to medical treatement, but to the common practise of the time for people who healed to have a sideline in selling poisons for people who were willing to pay for them. You mean, don't have a co=nflict of interest? - 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 Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 7:13 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 21 April 2012 17:07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote: Historically this is inaccurate, as the article states, the original phrasing was to abstain from doing harm, which is significantly different insofar as it implies a willed action. This didn't at all refer to medical treatement, but to the common practise of the time for people who healed to have a sideline in selling poisons for people who were willing to pay for them. You mean, don't have a co=nflict of interest? Would Do not willfully edit to a Point of View. work for you? There is a difference between those who are blind to the fact that their viewpoint is not universally accepted, and those who really should know better, and do, but for ulteriour motives edit to a certain bias. -- -- 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] Fwd: The counterattack of the PR companies
On Wed, 18 Apr 2012, David Gerard 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? I don't know, but whatever it is, it should be consistent. Having the policy say one thing and Jimbo say something completely different is stupid as well as increasing Wikipedia's reputation for incomprehensible rules. ___ 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
I think you can share any or all of the following rules of thumb, in order: make proposed changes to talk pages. ask other editors to help you update an article. avoid editing articles about you/your organization directly, unless you are fixing vandalism or typos, updating stats, or adding sources. SJ On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 1:59 AM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: On Wed, 18 Apr 2012, David Gerard 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? I don't know, but whatever it is, it should be consistent. Having the policy say one thing and Jimbo say something completely different is stupid as well as increasing Wikipedia's reputation for incomprehensible rules. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- Samuel Klein identi.ca:sj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266 ___ 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 Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: On 18 April 2012 23:29, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: On Wed, 18 Apr 2012, Charles Matthews wrote: Sorry, this is exactly the point. The conversation where we explain very patiently to someone what our definition of COI is and is not; and the response is you're telling me that if I sail close to the wind on NPOV but don't quite go over the line, then whatever my potential conflict of interest is, then I'm not breaking your rules. That conversation is exactly why the whole business is arcane _to people who think they are paid to sail close to the wind and get away with it_. E.g. people with good legal advisers who are smart enough to listen to the advice and understand the fine print. 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. Or he may have noticed that you are off your face or otherwise not fit to drive, and is applying common sense. Good metaphor. But you do seem hung up on rules. Without the required understanding that there are indeed sub-sub-clauses, such as the requirement to edit for the enemy that is written into WP:NPOV, that are implicit in WP:COI, and without the idea that WP is a purposeful activity and has aims that should be appreciated (which is there in black-and-white in WP:COI), there is no way some people can do what we want. Continuation of conversation: Look, we're all impressed with Wikipedia. But you seem to be saying that to edit I have to put your project ahead of my day job; and so I think you guys are just a bit crazed. Right both times. And you're now telling me I have to flack for the opponents of the guy I am paid by, and put their criticisms into due form in the the way that, frankly, they are too dumb to do, using the skills I have but against the brief I have been given. Yup, that's what it says on the page about neutrality. Well ... where I come from ... words fail me ... This is really not the beginning of a beautiful friendship. Well, in reality the discussion may be more like this: Oy, Wikipedia is beating up on my client. What User:Geteven has written here is totally unfair. Can you believe, he goes on for 500 words about that product recall we had three years ago? The entire article on our company is only 600 words long. It is sourced. Don't delete negative material. You do realise that there have been over 5,000 newspaper articles on our company in the last 10 years, and only three of them mention that product recall? I don't know about this. [Thinks: That dude has a conflict of interest. He may be lying. PR people are paid to lie. He is probably lying.] Don't delete sourced negative material. We cannot allow you to censor the article. But why do you enable people to portray us in the worst light? It's totally unfair. We think this was written by a disgruntled employee, Gareth, whom we fired last year. He was involved with that issue. You have just outed one of our contributors. Wikipedia takes outing very seriously. Your comment has been oversighted, and you have been blocked for one week. You may appeal your block on your talk page. Please unblock me. Why have I been punished when it is User:Geteven who is abusing Wikipedia? We will only unblock you only when you show us that you realise what you did was very, very wrong. You clearly don't. Instead you continue to pretend it is everybody else's fault. Unblock denied. Etc. Not the beginning of a beautiful relationship either. For those interested, there is an ongoing court case involving a scenario somewhat similar to this: http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/law_librarian_blog/2012/04/whats-the-difference-between-stating-facts-or-opinion-online-wikipedia-contributor-faces-defamation-.html?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=feedutm_campaign=Feed%3A+LawLibrarianBlog+%28Law+Librarian+Blog%29 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 Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 1:17 AM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: Continuation of conversation: Look, we're all impressed with Wikipedia. But you seem to be saying that to edit I have to put your project ahead of my day job; and so I think you guys are just a bit crazed. Right both times. And you're now telling me I have to flack for the opponents of the guy I am paid by, and put their criticisms into due form in the the way that, frankly, they are too dumb to do, using the skills I have but against the brief I have been given. Yup, that's what it says on the page about neutrality. Well ... where I come from ... words fail me ... This is really not the beginning of a beautiful friendship. That's exactly why people with a strong COI -- such a strong one that it's their day job to present only one side of a position -- should stay away from articles related to that topic. Sarah ___ 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 19 April 2012 12:31, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: Continuation of conversation: Look, we're all impressed with Wikipedia. But you seem to be saying that to edit I have to put your project ahead of my day job; and so I think you guys are just a bit crazed. Well, in reality the discussion may be more like this: No, Charles has rendered the conversations I've had on the subject pretty accurately (if skeletally). - 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 Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote: On 4/19/12, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: You do realise that there have been over 5,000 newspaper articles on our company in the last 10 years, and only three of them mention that product recall? That might seem like a good point, but really, articles shouldn't be constructed from surveys of newspaper articles. I know they are, in practice, but they really shouldn't be. What is needed is something beyond that, some indication that someone with the right credentials has sat down and sorted through things and come to some sort of independent conclusion. Some newspaper journalists do this, but not many do. Indeed, but there needs to be some measure of due weight, and for many companies, newspaper articles and primary sources are all there is. 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 Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 1:41 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 April 2012 12:31, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: Continuation of conversation: Look, we're all impressed with Wikipedia. But you seem to be saying that to edit I have to put your project ahead of my day job; and so I think you guys are just a bit crazed. Well, in reality the discussion may be more like this: No, Charles has rendered the conversations I've had on the subject pretty accurately (if skeletally). I'm sure both scenarios occur. I don't know what the solution is. As Sarah says, telling PR people whose day job it is to just present one side of the story to go right ahead isn't the solution. But we cannot close our eyes to the fact that there are editors who for whatever reason similarly have made it their job to only present one side of the story; that PR people may have a legitimate grievance when they come to Wikipedia; and that the restrictions we are applying to them are not applying to the anonymous editors on the other side, for whom we prescribe assume good faith, the right to edit anonymously, protection from having their motives questioned, and so forth. Usually we let activists of every couleur fight things out for years, until they come to a bloody end in arbitration. (Traditional Wikipedia wisdom is of course that having people with opposite POVs collaborate leads to neutral articles, which works nowhere near as well as Wikipedia would like to pretend.) Yet in this scenario, we are turning the PR person with the obvious COI into a pariah, while shielding the anonymous activist editor whose COI is less easy to pin down, but indistinguishable in terms of editing result. As long as there is activist editing, Wikipedia cannot claim any moral high ground vs. the PR man, because we know that many people -- including the Anders Breiviks and Johann Haris of this world -- contribute to Wikipedia precisely for the reason of propagating their world view. 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 Thu, 19 Apr 2012, Charles Matthews 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. Or he may have noticed that you are off your face or otherwise not fit to drive, and is applying common sense. Good metaphor. If I'm not fit to drive, he can tell me you're not fit to drive. Claiming that it's because it has anything to do with getting close to the line is a lie. And the analogy doesn't work with drunkenness because there's no conscious action you can do if you're drunk that will make you fit to drive. The analogy would require that he thinks I'm unfit to drive because I never learned how to drive, but he ignores that I passed the driving test. But you do seem hung up on rules. Without the required understanding that there are indeed sub-sub-clauses, such as the requirement to edit for the enemy that is written into WP:NPOV, that are implicit in WP:COI, and without the idea that WP is a purposeful activity and has aims that should be appreciated (which is there in black-and-white in WP:COI), there is no way some people can do what we want. Rules can cause trouble, but they have one benefit: at least ideally, it's clear when you have or haven't violated them. (Many Wikipedia rules are not ideal, but that's a discussion for another day.) It's a lot harder to inject personal prejudice to the issue when the rule spells out what you're allowed to do. ___ 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 19 April 2012 15:22, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: Rules can cause trouble, but they have one benefit: at least ideally, it's clear when you have or haven't violated them. (Many Wikipedia rules are not ideal, but that's a discussion for another day.) It's a lot harder to inject personal prejudice to the issue when the rule spells out what you're allowed to do. I was thinking about this graphically, with an x-axis measuring involvement in, commitment to, or responsibility for Wikipedia. The y-axis representing the value attached to detailed policies, in enWP's sense, as a definition of what the site is or should be. I'm pretty sure that in a notional plot the spread of views would go north-west to south-east. Jimbo is somewhere asymptotically off to the right, for sure. I'm quite sure that when x goes negative you get people whose view is that policy should be drafted in entirely legalistic terms. Those people, who do not have WP's best interests at heart, are always arguing for a disconnect between the letter and spirit of policy, because they have no interest at all in the spirit. There are probably some outliers: why wouldn't there be, in a diverse community? But roughly speaking most editors who could get near the ArbCom are interested in making the site work a bit better, rather than pacifying the ghost of Jeremy Bentham. 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 19 April 2012 15:34, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: Those people, who do not have WP's best interests at heart, are always arguing for a disconnect between the letter and spirit of policy, because they have no interest at all in the spirit. Well, yes. The entire point of this paper is to demand a more gameable system. - 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 19 April 2012 14:03, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 1:41 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 April 2012 12:31, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: Continuation of conversation: Look, we're all impressed with Wikipedia. But you seem to be saying that to edit I have to put your project ahead of my day job; and so I think you guys are just a bit crazed. Well, in reality the discussion may be more like this: No, Charles has rendered the conversations I've had on the subject pretty accurately (if skeletally). I'm sure both scenarios occur. I don't know what the solution is. Ah, the Socratic moment. 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
No it isn't exactly the same for people and companies. Wikipedia has a whole bunch of editors whose hobby includes protecting BLPs, we don't have similar editors who genuinely care about the reputation of companies. Or if we do they aren't in the same numbers. Also if PR people are skewed towards those members of society who don't understand the difference between 60% of PR people consider that they've found an error in their company' article and 60% of Wikipedia articles are wrong, then there may be a poorer cultural fit between PR people and wikipedians than there is between marginally notable people and Wikipedians. WSC On 19 April 2012 15:30, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: On Thu, 19 Apr 2012, Andreas Kolbe wrote: As Sarah says, telling PR people whose day job it is to just present one side of the story to go right ahead isn't the solution. But we cannot close our eyes to the fact that there are editors who for whatever reason similarly have made it their job to only present one side of the story; that PR people may have a legitimate grievance when they come to Wikipedia; and that the restrictions we are applying to them are not applying to the anonymous editors on the other side, for whom we prescribe assume good faith, the right to edit anonymously, protection from having their motives questioned, and so forth. It's exactly the same problem as BLPs, except for companies. If someone tries to edit their own BLP, they're told they have a conflict of interest. Due weight problems? The article's been vandalized for years? Tough luck, deal with it, we have our own procedures for dealing with vandalism. We're sure they'll work out someday. If anything, it's worse for companies. Nobody tells BLP subjects that because they have a COI, they can't even remove incorrect statements about themselves. __**_ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikien-lhttps://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 19 April 2012 15:38, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 April 2012 15:34, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: Those people, who do not have WP's best interests at heart, are always arguing for a disconnect between the letter and spirit of policy, because they have no interest at all in the spirit. Well, yes. The entire point of this paper is to demand a more gameable system. So the nuanced point would be that my model might need revision, if a credible group of Benthamites (sorry, I'm stuck in about 1820 here) emerged who could make the case for a new codification of policy. This week's Signpost article on paid editing is at least a straw in the wind. 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 Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: If anything, it's worse for companies. Nobody tells BLP subjects that because they have a COI, they can't even remove incorrect statements about themselves. A fair point. I liked Andreas's way of putting this earlier: 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. Sam. ___ 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 19 April 2012 16:01, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote: I liked Andreas's way of putting this earlier: 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. [[Primum non nocere]] is worth reading, but of course it is about medicine, and is only an aspiration, and does not mean physicians have to treat conservatively. It means they have justify medical intervention. Assuming that do no harm in the sense of journalism is supposed to be applied to WP, it does fall under WP:NOT to some extent. Indiscriminate information ought to be a reason to delete. We do have to justify intervening in people's lives by hosting an article about them. On the other hand, we very often can give that justification. It doesn't have to be in the terms an investigative journalist would use. 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
[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] 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] 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
