Re: [WikiEN-l] Yet another PR company busted ... apparently it's all our fault
We won't win a moral argument; they are breaking the social contract of a website. We regularly defame people. Tom On 12 November 2012 13:49, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: Yet another PR company busted: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/9671471/Finsbury-edited-Alisher-Usmanovs-Wikipedia-page.html http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/industries/telecoms/article3597035.ece (you can read the article text in View source) The industry response? An apparently unanimous our bad behaviour is totally Wikipedia's fault: http://www.prweek.com/uk/news/1159206/pr-industry-blames-cumbersome-wikipedia-finsbury-editing-issue/ Guys, this really doesn't help your case. - 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] Yet another PR company busted ... apparently it's all our fault
You misunderstand. As I mentioned: we simply have no moral high ground to criticise their actions. Our controls are shoddy and we defame people all over the place. They massage biographies etc. to cast things in a better light. Who is the good guy? Tom On 12 November 2012 15:21, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 12 November 2012 14:56, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: On 12 November 2012 13:54, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote: We won't win a moral argument; they are breaking the social contract of a website. We regularly defame people. http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/report-usmanov-pr-firm-tweaked-wikipedia-entry/471315.html is interesting to read in this context. The moral side of whitewashing a biography ahead of a stock market flotation is fairly elusive. Indeed. I urge Thomas to go grab a copy of the Times today. If only articles this well-written concerning Wikipedia were more likely to be read by the people on the Internet who would be most interested in them ... - 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] Yet another PR company busted ... apparently it's all our fault
Note, in other words, that the defence of the PR editing here is entirely deflection To an extent. It also represents frustration along the lines of: whenever one of us does a bad thing we get lambasted in the news, but when they do a bad thing it gets no traction or notice I don't *necessarily *blame them for taking advantage of the scrutiny of PR and trying to make it about the problems Wikipedia has as well. 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] Encyclopedia or Gossip Rag
On 7 October 2012 14:56, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: On Oct 7, 2012 2:44 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: I came across this today in the English Wikipedia: In 2011, it has been reported that [the subject] has been caught cheating on his wife with a 30 year old intern turned reporter. Is this worthy of a credible Encyclopedia or, if it needs reported at all, in a gossip tabloid rag? I'd prefer it if we didn't make that kind of decision ourselves. Has it been reported in mainstream (non-gossip) media? (We have to make a judgement about whether a particular source is respectable or not, but that's better than making judgements on individual facts.) __ We do it all the time. I write historical biographies (amongst other things) and if I recorded all of the detail discussed in the numerous reliable sources (i.e. books) used for each then I would still be writing the first one (and just about got to the length of a medium novel!). Editorial judgement is a key skill for any competent WP editor, and we should focus less on rigid rules (which encourage the inclusion of trivia) and more on good editorial judgement. In this case, good editorial judgement suggests that this is relative trivia. It is not really related to his reason for notability and is distinctly about his private life. It also seems to be something along the lines of an allegation mostly covered in tabloid gossip. I'd suggest that with good editorial judgement this is something we would pause for some time before covering, if at all, whilst BLP applies. 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] NPR on Roth-Library Link of the Day
On 11 September 2012 16:23, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: That comment sounds like it was written by Peter Damian. Not everyone, even Wikipedians, recognize or keep in mind the fact that there is a subversive principle (or really, many) underlying the Wikipedia model. It intentionally does not offer deference to editors with credentials in the fields they might choose to edit. There are obvious practical reasons for this, but there's also an element of democratizing information and the curation of knowledge. This strikes many self-defined experts as wrongheaded; they expect to be treated as authorities, and are often upset when they are not. While unfortunate, that doesn't turn this feature of Wikipedia into a bug. If anything it suggests we need to do a better job educating potential editors and readers about the principles of the encyclopedia. The anti-expert idea is not really related to democratizing information and the curation of knowledge. Especially as Wikipedia specifically identifies as *not a democracy*! The point in not deferring to experts is a hack to get around the problem that on the internet you could claim to be just about anyone. Who knows if you truly are an expert in theology (*cough* Essjay *cough*). However; it's a bad hack because in many fields you need to be an expert to be able to properly write about the subject. I have a deep interest in religious history; you couldn't call me an expert, but I have studied the subject to undergraduate level in my spare time. I look at the editors working on religious history topics on Wikipedia and they are, often, incapable of scholarly authorship, or driven by their own viewpoints. This is just one data point. The all editors created equal thing is a misnomer; being an admin people *do* defer to me, even though I try to avoid it. I see many admins using their authority. So perhaps it is time to allow experts to be seen as such. 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] VIP Treatment
On 12 September 2012 17:08, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 12 September 2012 16:50, Matthew Jacobs sxeptoman...@gmail.com wrote: One problem with that approach is that OTRS is not seen as representative of WP; the administrators are. If the admins are widely perceived as being dicks (probably because way to many of them behave like dicks a large portion of the time), then OTRS is going to continue to be ineffective at changing the perception of WP as unfriendly and more concerned with protecting territory than having accurate information. I think that's a bit of an inside view. The outside world can't tell an admin from a non-admin, there aren't generally little tags on people's sigs. So the problem is more general dickishness, not specifically admin dickishness. As far as I can tell, outsiders like to have someone central to approach, e.g. the email address. (I vaguely understand someone gave Roth/his biographer the wrong answer, i.e. needing a secondary source rather than a referenceable self-statement. That's a different problem, of course.) - d. I figured out where; there is also UTRS (note the U) which is a separately maintained support tool (staffed by English Wikipedia admins) for requesting unblocks. We probably need to look into how people are filtered to these things. (I also am not sure why we have UTRS over OTRS, and why the participants are not told to pass such issues onto OTRS who are more experienced in handling them). 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] VIP Treatment
How exactly? On OTRS we handle much more sensitive private info :-) Tom Morton On 12 Sep 2012, at 17:26, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com wrote: UTRS was created because handling ip unblock requests on OTRS would violate our privacy policy On Sep 12, 2012 6:17 PM, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote: On 12 September 2012 17:08, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 12 September 2012 16:50, Matthew Jacobs sxeptoman...@gmail.com wrote: One problem with that approach is that OTRS is not seen as representative of WP; the administrators are. If the admins are widely perceived as being dicks (probably because way to many of them behave like dicks a large portion of the time), then OTRS is going to continue to be ineffective at changing the perception of WP as unfriendly and more concerned with protecting territory than having accurate information. I think that's a bit of an inside view. The outside world can't tell an admin from a non-admin, there aren't generally little tags on people's sigs. So the problem is more general dickishness, not specifically admin dickishness. As far as I can tell, outsiders like to have someone central to approach, e.g. the email address. (I vaguely understand someone gave Roth/his biographer the wrong answer, i.e. needing a secondary source rather than a referenceable self-statement. That's a different problem, of course.) - d. I figured out where; there is also UTRS (note the U) which is a separately maintained support tool (staffed by English Wikipedia admins) for requesting unblocks. We probably need to look into how people are filtered to these things. (I also am not sure why we have UTRS over OTRS, and why the participants are not told to pass such issues onto OTRS who are more experienced in handling them). 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 ___ 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] VIP Treatment
On 11 September 2012 15:00, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: If we know a VIP or they knows us they do get rather gentle and forgiving treatment. They may email Jimbo and a quiet word may be passed to someone to counsel them regarding how to deal with the community and any problems in their article. The thing is, VIPs generally get VIP treatment, personal and forgiving attention. They may not be prepared, as a practical matter, to work it out with the janitor, so to speak. What could we do to improve our interface with VIPs? After all, as said, famous people we know, or who know us, do get plenty of help. They don't get to veto the content of their article, but careful consideration is given to any issues they may have. As to who, let's just say that one or two have ended up here: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Advisory_Board Perhaps they might have some advice? There are limits; we're not going to completely satisfy someone who is thin-skinned and cranky or totally puffed up over themselves, but I'm sure we could do better even with someone like that. Fred Fred, it's very difficult to keep track of mailing list threads if you change the subject each time you post - this makes several in the last couple of days on the same topic. Can you keep them all under the same topic please! 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] VIP Treatment
On 11 September 2012 17:06, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 11 September 2012 17:05, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: It's a new topic. Addresses the general question rather than rehashing Roth. Correct. When the topic changes substantially, the subject line should change. (wikien-l has been very bad for this in the past.) - d. Fair enough. They read like replies/explanations, relate almost explicitly to the Roth situation, and pose no questions (i.e. not likely to lead to a discussion) - so I assumed they were responding to various points in the previous thread. 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] Roth is an elderly man googling
Wow high and mighty much? I haven't had chance to look into this; but I bet I know what I will find. Someone being a bit of a jerk to him, which has led to having to take this approach. Which is about rebutting Wikipedia rather than the source which we cited. Rather than whining about him we need to see the problem; it's an attitude problem HERE. Tom Morton On 8 Sep 2012, at 14:53, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: Fred, you say Roth is an elderly man googling and I am wondering if there is an age at which people using Wikipedia in the estimation of this list become unfit to drive? Roth is an active writer and renowned, Nobel Prize finalist...right this moment..to dismiss him as an elderly man googling underscores why there may be intergenerational unease on this enterprise. Show respect.This comment that Roth is an elderly man googling is spiteful and not a valid point. I'm older than he is. Roth is not the the first celebrity to think he could dictate Wikipedia content. Michael Moore also felt he could throw his weight around. And, no, I don't respect that move. Instead of spending decades on line they wrote books and produced documentaries; they are Noobies here regardless of their accomplishments elsewhere; crying babies squalling and throwing their rattles. Fred ___ 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] Roth is an elderly man googling
No it doesn't. I'll give you good odds on me being right. Because I see the same thing week after week. Tom Morton On 8 Sep 2012, at 16:35, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 8 September 2012 15:43, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote: I haven't had chance to look into this; That statement invalidates this statement: Rather than whining about him we need to see the problem; it's an attitude problem HERE. -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] Roth is an elderly man googling
It's not a crazy train of thought though; people naturally feel they are the authority on their own opinions. We usually don't do brilliantly in explaining why that doesn't work. Because we start with explaining reliable sources, and often glaze over the most important bit. I DO see these sorts of issues all the time. When I log into OTRS there is sure to be at least one. I've taken to explaining that Wikipedia only summarises other sources. So inaccuracy needs to be addressed either with a retraction from the source, or another source appearing to rebut it. This is much more palatable than your word isn't a reliable source. If for no other reason than the phrasing sounds like your impugning the reliability of him/her as a person. Tom Morton On 8 Sep 2012, at 17:00, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: On 8 September 2012 16:55, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.comwrote: No it doesn't. I'll give you good odds on me being right. Because I see the same thing week after week. You mean leading author almost synonymous with rare interview assumes his word is good enough for WP? Complaining that people make up stuff about your inspiration is fair enough: bookchat, as Gore Vidal called it, has a percentage of drivel. But The Human Stain was published 12 years ago. Really, nothing on the record? (I know that isn't what you mean. But Wikipedians in this kind of situation do have to explain policy to those who don't get it, and act on it, even if dealing with someone famous.) 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 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] Categorisation by gender
On 18 July 2012 13:03, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.comwrote: On 18 July 2012 12:32, james.far...@gmail.com wrote: Actress is certainly not obsolescent in common usage, and I would suggest it is not the role of Wikipedia to redefine the English language. The point here is whether occupation is gendered, though, in this case. Cf. firefighter, seafarer and so on. Interesting that you pick two occupations where, prior to more modern times, female participation has been fairly non-existent. 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] Self promotion?
On 8 July 2012 12:44, Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: Hi there, Telling a user that I took the effort to archive thier article is considered spam? What if you are the author? Dont you have the right to know? See this : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_doe_londonaction=history (cur | prev) 09:10, 8 July 2012 Mrmatiko (talk | contribs) . . (4,816 bytes) (-158) . . (Undid revision 501206682 by Mdupont (talk) spam) (undo) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mdupont#Promotional_edits and my message back http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mrmatiko#Spam.3F I have reverted the template to not have a link to the wikia, for now. I would like some support for my project and protection to contact users about the deleted articles. How are you placing the notice? (p.s. you should subst. it) 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] Self promotion?
Changing the template to whinge about another user is not going to help your cause in the slightest. Tom On 8 July 2012 15:15, Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 12:25 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: On 8 July 2012 12:44, Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: Hi there, Telling a user that I took the effort to archive thier article is considered spam? What if you are the author? Dont you have the right to know? See this : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_doe_londonaction=history (cur | prev) 09:10, 8 July 2012 Mrmatiko (talk | contribs) . . (4,816 bytes) (-158) . . (Undid revision 501206682 by Mdupont (talk) spam) (undo) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mdupont#Promotional_edits and my message back http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mrmatiko#Spam.3F I have reverted the template to not have a link to the wikia, for now. I would like some support for my project and protection to contact users about the deleted articles. thanks, mike Large scale unsolicited external linking? spam. Well I turned off the link in my template, but even if it was linked, how else are you supposed to inform the user? here is my rfc : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mdupont/SpeedyDeletionWikia -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3 ___ 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] Link removal experiment; Re: How the Professor Who Fooled Wikipedia Got Caught by Reddit, _The Atlantic_
On 31 May 2012 16:59, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote: There were a number of flaws in this experiment that IMHO reduce its value. Firstly rather than measure vandalism it created vandalism, and vandalism that didn't look like typical vandalism. Aside from the ethical issue involved, this will have skewed the result. In particular the edit summaries were very atypical for vandalism, if I'd seen that edit summary on my watchlist I would probably have just sighed and taken it as another example of deletionism in action. Of the more than 13,000 pages on my watchlist I doubt there are 13 where I would look at such an edit, and that's if it was one of the changes on my watchlist that I was even aware of - it is far too big to fully check every day. Most IP vandals don't use jargon in edit summaries, and I know I'm not the only editor who is more suspicious of IP edits with blank edit summaries. This, I think, is a major issue which make the results useless * The edit summary implies policy knowledge, I'd only check an edit like that on my watchlist on occasion. Not every edit needs checking, so we use our common sense over what likely need checking * I believe that edit summary probably met a number of heuristics used by the anti-vandal tools to filter out good edits. Which means it immediately removes them from the front line of scrutiny. 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. 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 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
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 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] Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement
One of those would be me :) A suggestion I picked up on was to have a joint session with Wikipedians individuals from CREWE where we could have an actual dialogue (I sent an email to Daria about getting assistance for this last night). If your interested in helping out with the dialogue that would rock :) Tom On 29 March 2012 09:52, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement.Here's the Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/groups/crewe.group/ I see a pile of Wikimedians engaging with them, which is promising. I visited WMUK on Tuesday and chatted with Stevie Benton (the new media person), Richard Symonds and Daria Cybulska about this topic. The approach we could think of that could *work* is pointing out if you're caught with *what other people* think is a COI, your name and your client's name are mud. Because in all our experience, even sincere PR people seem biologically incapable of understanding COI, but will understand generating *bad* PR. - 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] Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement
I do disagree with the idea though, FWIW. It feels much akin to a threat :) We also (reading that blog post) disagree on a few other aspects as well. Which is why I am eager to see input from a broad swathe of Wikipedians on these issues. Tom On 29 March 2012 10:17, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 29 March 2012 09:57, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote: One of those would be me :) A suggestion I picked up on was to have a joint session with Wikipedians individuals from CREWE where we could have an actual dialogue (I sent an email to Daria about getting assistance for this last night). If your interested in helping out with the dialogue that would rock :) I've just blogged about this too: http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2012/03/29/the-public-relations-agency-problem/ I'm hoping that will circulate slightly in the PR sphere. - 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] Regarding Berkman/Sciences Po study
Hi Dario, This proposal went through a long review process, involving community forums, the Research Committee and various WMF departments since early 2010. The Berkman research team first approached WMF to discuss this study in January 2010. They suggested a protocol to recruit English Wikipedia contributors to participate in an early version of this study by March 2010 and posted a proposal to the Administrators’ noticeboard to get community feedback [6]. The community response at that time opposed the proposed recruitment protocol (posting individual invitation messages on user talk pages). It was suggested instead that the recruitment should be handled through a CentralNotice banner to be displayed to registered editors, but concerns were raised on how to minimize the disruption. This is not a good summary of the conclusions there at all; and it is worrying that it has been read that way... You seem to have taken that discussion as implicit approval to run a CentralNotice banner - although that was certainly suggested as an option at the time I think it was reasonably expected for further community input later down the road. Certainly when I supported the suggestion of some sort of targeted site notice I envisioned a text link, or something. Throughout the review process of this recruitment protocol, the research team received constant feedback from the Foundation’s legal team, the community department, the tech department and the communication team before the campaign went live. But not the community? The campaign was announced in the CentralNotice calendar one month before its launch [11] and the launch was with a post on the Foundation’s blog. The banner was enabled on December 8 at 11:00pm UTC. 800+ participants completed the study within a few hours since its launch. The banner was then taken down by a meta-admin a few hours after the launch due to the concerns described above. Again; not announced to the community. There was a clear an present communication failure here. We realize that despite an extensive review, the launch of this project was not fully advertised on community forums. We plan to shortly resume the campaign (for the time needed by the researchers to complete their responses) after a full redesign of the recruitment protocol in order to address the concerns raised by many of you over the last 24 hours. Here’s what we are doing: • Provide you with better information about the project We asked the research team to promptly set up a FAQ section on the project page on Meta [13], and to be available to address any concern about the study on the discussion page of this project. The project page on Meta will be linked from the recruitment banner itself. • Redesign the banner We understand that the banner design has been interpreted by some as ad-like (even if the goal was to make clear that this study was not being run by WMF, as it implied a redirection to a third party website for performing the experiment). In coordination with the research team, we will come up with a banner design that will be more in line with the concerns expressed by the community (for instance by removing the logos from the banner). • Make privacy terms as transparent as possible Upon clicking on the banner, participants accept to share their username, edit count and user privileges with the research team. The previous version didn’t make it explicit and we are working to address this problem. To make the process totally transparent we will make the acceptance of these terms explicit in the banner itself. Once redirected to the landing page, participants will have to accept the terms of participation in order to enter the study. The project is funded by the European Research Council: the data collected in this study is subject to strict European privacy protocols. The research team will use this data for research purposes only. The research team is not exposed to and does not record participants’ IP addresses. You need to tell this *to the community*. Otherwise the discussion will simply strike up again once you re-enable it. I notice you posted this exact same message to wikipedia-en-l. The lack of recent discussion on that list should tell you how effective that is as a communication tool. The vast majority of English Wikipedia discussion occurs on-wiki, and the vast majority of editors prefer discussions to occur on-wiki. If you want to interact with the community, and in this case I think you have to, then you really have to do so on-wiki :) We would like to hear from you on the redesign of the banner to make sure it meets the expectations of the community and doesn’t lend itself to any kind of confusion. We will post the new banners to Meta and try to address all pending questions before we resume the campaign. Most en.wiki editors don't hang out on Meta - and I think it is reasonable not to expect them to. Especially as this
Re: [WikiEN-l] So ...
All of the portraits on http://parliament.uk are copyright to http://dods.co.uk/ It has always been in the back of my mind to approach them and ask about relicensing with a free license (long shot, but maybe...). Currently the images are licensed as freely usable with a non-commercial clause, which is obviously a sticking point to just using them straight out. edi...@dods.co.uk is the contact. (pretty everything else on parliament.uk is licensed under the open parliament license BTW http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/open-parliament-licence/ ) 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] Facepalm?
But the article whichever version is used still needs a massive citation needed tag added, and better sources. The monkey stuff seesm to come from the experiment described here: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2011/02/02/monkey-see-monkey-facepalm/ Trouble is, most easily findable sources are blogs like this: http://www.healthkicker.com/754153008/the-science-of-facepalm/ Which shows that the definition is not exactly stable. +1 to this. I would suggest looking at the Law Enforcement (and other scholarly) work on body language. A few books leap to mind - some that I am sure I have in my library somewhere. WIll try to dig something up... 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] Facepalm?
If somebody is being a jerk isn't it better to bluntly tell him directly instead of drawing upon an unfamiliar term from geekdom. +1 ___ 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] Facepalm?
On 3 October 2011 11:02, Scott MacDonald doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote:
According to our article [[Facepalm]], this is a startrek internet meme
indicating an expression of embarrassment, frustration, disbelief,
disgust,
shame or general woe. It often expresses mockery or disbelief of perceived
idiocy.
Well, that must be right.
Given that, I am wondering why we tolerate a template {{facepalm}}
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Facepalm
This does nothing to foster civil discourse among Wikipedians. I've just
looked through how it is being used, and whilst I do see the occasional use
in self-deprecation, generally it is used as a shorthand put-down:
implicitly calling your correspondent an idiot, and his latest contribution
self-evidently moronic.
Granted, removing uncivil templates won't magically increase patient and
constructive discussion, but I do suspect we'd still nevertheless delete
{{jackass}} or {{moron}}. If people are going to mock others, we shouldn't
be giving them shortcuts to do so. The existence of the template serves to
legitimise such dismissive discourse.
Thoughts?
{{facepalm}} (sorry... couldn't resist ;))
I bet any TFD goes off the rails...
On the one hand the template does have somewhat negative connotations. On
the other hand it always stuck me as a slightly less confrontational way of
saying that's stupid. *shrug*
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] --Wikipedia Manager 2012
Ideally if we are going to push gammification it should be centered on quality content primarily. Gammification is hard to pull off in a way that ensures maintaining quality in output - because by it's very nature such a system is gameable. And you will tend to find, anyway, that the most important contributors have little interest in such things. If we go this route, it needs to be set up to encourage people to work to produce good content - rather than rewarding not very much. This is the problem with Wiki-Love - it makes Barnstars ever more frivolous, and essentially useless in encouraging good work. 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] Journalist admits socking on Wikipedia
A pretty mature apology in the circumstances I suppose. Tom On 14 September 2011 19:18, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: Johann Hari admits he did it. http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-a-personal-apology-2354679.html - 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] Front Page on BLPs
It's always sad to see this cast as a left/right thing - or Wikipedia has a liberal bias. We equally have huge problems with right wing agenda's on some articles. And most of the BLP issues aren't related to politics, but to all manner of sides (sexuality,political,ethnic,historical and those are the non-trivial examples). Biographies are a mess; we have detailed criticism of fairly non-notable people who've done nothing except piss off the wrong person once or twice. And we have others who are so beloved of their followers that trying to write any fair criticism is like pounding a brick wall. With a lemon. Tom On 23 August 2011 12:11, Tony Sidaway tonysida...@gmail.com wrote: Here is an interesting article by David Swindle of Front Page, about Wikipedia's problems with biographies of living persons. Swindle sees it in terms of a persistent left wing bias. I won't pretend to agree with everything he says--it is not helpful to compare Michael Moore to Ann Coulter or Keith Olbermann to Glenn Beck. The gist of the article has merit, though. I think he makes some reasonable points about the biographies of Noam Chomsky and that deceased poster child for youth rebellion, Che Guevara. http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/ ___ 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] Front Page on BLPs
For those who professionally seek attention, You know; rather than political bias, or political editing, this is probably the root cause of problems in the specific articles he highlights. Not that I'd call it their own damn fault, but they are in those situations deliberately. 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] Developer/Wiki relationship (was: Deployments today)
Development is being consciously moved to this model, because the devs have realised that repelling the volunteers is a bad idea. That's *great* news! A lot of the community upset about every little thing is just why wasn't I consulted? [1] Sometimes this is appropriate and reasonable, sometimes it really isn't. I partially disagree here; the community are the people building Wikipedia - so anything extensively modifying the social dynamics or interface is something they are intimately interested in. To have it modified with minimal notification I can understand why it leaves a bad taste in the mouth of some. Sure, whoever in this thread said whatever discussion takes place someone will always moan, but in this case it was basically announced you;re getting this new feature. It disgruntles editors that they appear to have minimal input into what tools/changes the software gets. I imagine this feeling is worse on the smaller projects who are desperate for re-engineering of certain aspects of MW to suit their needs. 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
[WikiEN-l] Email User icon (was: Developer/Wiki relationship)
This reminds me somewhat of the Vector rollout, I've just today come across another example of why we need to upgrade newbies to Monobook once they start editing. Monobook has a rather useful Email this user option in the sidebar. I suspect Vector has something hidden away in a dropdown menu, but if so I couldn't immediately find it and I was expecting it to be there. If one on one advice is indeed the best way for some newbies to learn, them Email is probably one of the better ways for newbies to get feedback. Just to poke the bear on this I put together http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ErrantX/emailuser.js which adds an icon to user/user_talk pages the same as WikiLove - but to email users. Feel free to use! 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] Developer/Wiki relationship (was: Deployments today)
Hey All, This new feature has caused a bit of flack on English Wikipedia; which gives me a bit of a platform to bring up some issues that have been rolling round in my brain recently. A lot of the criticism on Wiki has been overly harsh - so I want to try some constructive feedback here on the mailing list :) Firstly, congrats to the developers on putting together a nice, easy to use tool. It's not to my taste (FWIW) but there is effort and care put into the tool - and whatever anyone says or moans; kudos for that. I'd *love *to see those involved consider tweaking and improving the Wiki interface/theme/UI to make it more modern and nice :) The second point to make is that this is also a somewhat misguided tool. It has been pitched as a way to promote inter-editor friendship and increase editor retention. The issue here, of course, is that WikiLove does not really address the problem that affects new editors (or experienced editors) and drives them away. Those problems are to do with editor interaction, poisonous atmosphere, lack of communication - but not the sort that can be solved by slapping a template on the page. No, that problem is really only solvable by going the other way - to make a determined effort to leave personal and thoughtful messages (I hope I am not preaching here; I make a huge effort to do this myself). The way that this ended up appearing to be pitched as a golden solution has not gone down too well because it appears as if the developers are not getting the problem (when actually I am certain they are doing so; and realise this is just one small part in the whole picture). The other problem is that it somewhat undermines and trivialises what a barnstar is. Sure they can be handed out freely as it is - but it does take a small modicum of effort. In my year back editing Wikipedia I have received 7 barnstars from editors for my activities. I specifically recall what they were all for - and behind each is a piece of effort, time or trial that I am extremely proud of. Not least because someone else out there thought yep, this guy has done a good job here. The point of that somewhat lengthy paragraph is this: trivialising Barnstars removes their current purpose (a relatively difficult to obtain piece of quiet pride). This would be fine if their new purpose was as-or-more important. But as mentioned above I don't think it is. From a personal perspective, then, it is disappointing to see WikiLove using Barnstars. But I am getting off topic. The other thing that has grated is this: for the most part us editors appreciate developer attention (and we do not show that enough, sorry). However English Wikipedia is also strongly *independent *and makes its own decisions. Major changes to how the software works, or to the UI (especially if it affects the social infrastructure too) is instantly controversial and should be discussed with the community. Very little discussion ocurrred r.e. rolling this out. For example no trial was offered, no Request for Comment was taken to guage community opinion. I know these are our processes and a significant part of the blame lies with the editors - but even so announcement of the feature suddenly seemed to appearon-wiki the day before :) (that may not be an accurate picture - but for most that is how it appeared). It was only *after* deployment that is was explained that the extension is amazing customisable on-wiki (a really thoughtful idea. You guys need to write more extensions like this, awesome stuff). So, more miscommunication. This comes to the crux of the issue; I think the feature probably will be accepted by the community, with some tweaking. But communication issues have turned some people heavily against it (mostly, I suspect, because they genuinely feel no one was able to give feedback prior to roll out). I've seen this happen before numerous times - Wiki does something. Or a dev does something. There is miscommunication and people who would probably see eye-to-eye are growling at each other across tables. The established Wiki editors feel put out and the developers feel under-appreciated (did I mention: WikiLove guys!). [Ironically *the same problem* is a big part of the editor retention issue on-wiki] It comes down to a lack of understanding of the processes, attitudes and languages involved in both the developer and wiki communities. So the question that this leads me to is this: what can we do to improve communication between these two groups. How can we vocalize the communities thoughts, ideas and independence. How do we get the creativity and versatility of the developers in front of the community. Do we need some sort of group to cross this boundary and focus on smoothing out these hiccups? Fire away :) Tom On 1 July 2011 03:45, Howie Fung hf...@wikimedia.org wrote: Everyone, Earlier today, we deployed WikiLove Extension [1] to the English Wikipedia. We also made some minor changes to the Article Feedback Tool as
