Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: Which reminds me – I often think it odd that Wikimedia will fund a Wikipedian-in-Residence for some regional tourist attraction (think the Welsh Coastal Path project, or the York Museum), Wikipedians-in-Residence are not funded by Wikimedia, but by the organisation where they are working with. -- André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.comwrote: On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: Which reminds me – I often think it odd that Wikimedia will fund a Wikipedian-in-Residence for some regional tourist attraction (think the Welsh Coastal Path project, or the York Museum), Wikipedians-in-Residence are not funded by Wikimedia, but by the organisation where they are working with. Not so. Joint funding is common, and substantial funds from donations go to such projects. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)
On 12 January 2014 02:58, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Craig Franklin wrote: I think it's actually foolish to try and split hairs over what is acceptable paid editing and what is unacceptable paid editing. The facts of the matter are that paid editing is taking place right now, and it will continue to take place regardless of whatever bright lines are drawn in the sand. The only question is whether it's done in a covert manner, or a transparent manner. Rather than arguing over the irrelevant question of whether it is desirable to have paid editing or not, we need instead to be talking about how we are going to handle it. To my view, that should be requiring that anyone editing for money be upfront about their intentions and their edits, and letting the community scrutinise those edits and deal with them just like they'd deal with them if they came from any other editor. Perhaps you're correct, though I'll note that in the recent oDesk case, you had both a real name and photo attached to the activities, along with a public profile describing (and rating!) the activities. That seems fairly transparent to me, yet it still resulted in an immediate departure. I was thinking more along the lines of a centralised disclosure list where people can say My name is X, my user account is Y, and I am doing paid editing on article Z. Such a thing would of course invite a lot more scrutiny on the articles in question, which would mean that they're less likely to devolve into hagiography. From what I can see this is already working quite well and without controversy at places like dewp. We already have rules (on enwp at least) about promotional language, spam, sockpuppeting, and the like; I don't see any compelling reason we need another separate bunch of rules to deal with these situations in the special case where someone is being paid to edit. Cheers, Craig ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)
Detail ;-). Probably the language of the project that the paid edits are occurring on, I'd imagine. Cheers, Craig On 12 January 2014 21:58, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, In what language does this disclosure have to be ?? Thanks, Gerard On 12 January 2014 12:29, Craig Franklin cfrank...@halonetwork.netwrote: On 12 January 2014 02:58, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Craig Franklin wrote: I think it's actually foolish to try and split hairs over what is acceptable paid editing and what is unacceptable paid editing. The facts of the matter are that paid editing is taking place right now, and it will continue to take place regardless of whatever bright lines are drawn in the sand. The only question is whether it's done in a covert manner, or a transparent manner. Rather than arguing over the irrelevant question of whether it is desirable to have paid editing or not, we need instead to be talking about how we are going to handle it. To my view, that should be requiring that anyone editing for money be upfront about their intentions and their edits, and letting the community scrutinise those edits and deal with them just like they'd deal with them if they came from any other editor. Perhaps you're correct, though I'll note that in the recent oDesk case, you had both a real name and photo attached to the activities, along with a public profile describing (and rating!) the activities. That seems fairly transparent to me, yet it still resulted in an immediate departure. I was thinking more along the lines of a centralised disclosure list where people can say My name is X, my user account is Y, and I am doing paid editing on article Z. Such a thing would of course invite a lot more scrutiny on the articles in question, which would mean that they're less likely to devolve into hagiography. From what I can see this is already working quite well and without controversy at places like dewp. We already have rules (on enwp at least) about promotional language, spam, sockpuppeting, and the like; I don't see any compelling reason we need another separate bunch of rules to deal with these situations in the special case where someone is being paid to edit. Cheers, Craig ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Craig Franklin cfrank...@halonetwork.netwrote: I was thinking more along the lines of a centralised disclosure list where people can say My name is X, my user account is Y, and I am doing paid editing on article Z. Such a thing would of course invite a lot more scrutiny on the articles in question, which would mean that they're less likely to devolve into hagiography. From what I can see this is already working quite well and without controversy at places like dewp. We already have rules (on enwp at least) about promotional language, spam, sockpuppeting, and the like; I don't see any compelling reason we need another separate bunch of rules to deal with these situations in the special case where someone is being paid to edit. this is exactly along the lines I've been thinking along, too. In the Daily Dot I was suggesting special tagging - a special flag for paid editors/accounts would allow for a much better social control of such edits (and those, who try to dodge the label would be treated like vandals/sockpuppeteers). This would address the language issues as well. dariusz pundit ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)
It varies. Some are essentially unfunded or self-funded; some are institutionally funded; some are funded by chapter-sourced grants; some are funded by third parties (I was!); and a mix of #2 and #3 is not uncommon. Andrew. On 12 January 2014 10:06, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: Which reminds me – I often think it odd that Wikimedia will fund a Wikipedian-in-Residence for some regional tourist attraction (think the Welsh Coastal Path project, or the York Museum), Wikipedians-in-Residence are not funded by Wikimedia, but by the organisation where they are working with. -- André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users
On 11/01/14 06:21, Ryan Kaldari wrote: These are two reason we don't have Thanks for anonymous editors: 1. Anonymous editors don't get notifications 2. Multiple editors often share the same IP address Problem #2 isn't as prominent as it use to be, but there are still many large companies and schools that connect to the internet through a single IP. I imagine that once IPv6 is widely in use, this problem will go away and we'll be able to turn on all notifications (including Thanks) for anonymous editors. We could have a persistent cookie with an ID number assigned to anonymous users, and send messages to that. Then anons would get their messages despite roaming between IP addresses, and they wouldn't get messages for other people who happen to share their IP. We could even allocate a row in the user table for them, which would be beneficial for various features that currently exclude anons due to the need to link to a user ID. -- Tim Starling ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users
On 01/12/2014 10:57 PM, Tim Starling wrote: We could even allocate a row in the user table for them, which would be beneficial for various features that currently exclude anons due to the need to link to a user ID. What you're discussing is an unnamed user account that's implicitly created and lasts as long as the cookie does. Those are going to pile up *really* fast, especially from browsers that do not keep cookies for any reason. They could be cleaned up at interval, but then what attribution do edit gets? The IP as though there wasn't a cookie? More questions that'd need to be answered: do you keep that user table row around for checkuser? (And I would say that the checkusers will demand that you do). What about talk pages? Use whichever IP's happens to be in use to have a User talk:Anonymous_192837? Do we keep /those/ around indefinitely? Don't get me wrong; I would *love* to get rid of anonymous-by-IP users - they give /less/ privacy than an account do. But the UX is complicated to get right, and the needed code changes would be pervasive. For instance, you'd want users to be able to intuitively import what they did anonymously into a newly created account in a way that their IP will never have been shown. -- Marc ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users
On 13/01/14 15:35, Marc A. Pelletier wrote: What you're discussing is an unnamed user account that's implicitly created and lasts as long as the cookie does. Those are going to pile up *really* fast, especially from browsers that do not keep cookies for any reason. Not as fast as revisions, and we seem to cope with those. On the English Wikipedia, there were only ~27k anonymous edits per day over the last month, so it would take 10 years to add 100M rows at that rate, and the revision table has ~550M rows and we still haven't bothered to shard it. -- Tim Starling ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users
I really really wish we could thanks IPs too. It sucks to treat them like second class citizens. On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 6:32 AM, Amir E. Aharoni amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote: Something like the new message orange bar :) I guess that designers and Growth people may know an answer, but all thoughts are welcome. With my product manager for Growth hat on... Like Kaldari said we can't give people who aren't logged in Echo notifications at the moment. The only alternative is to post to the IP talk page. This would require us to basically build a user account, i.e. a bot, in to Thanks to deliver a Talk page message for the IP. That's probably not going to happen, to be honest, and there isn't the manpower behind Echo right now to design/build proper anonymous notifications. If you're gung-ho about this idea I think Nemo is right, just use the Talk page. :) My instinct here is to try and use this as an experimental tool for showing IPs the advantages of logging in. That is, show them an unclaimed account with thank you or other notification, then prompt them to sign up after they read it. This would give us temporary anonymous notifications and also show people what they would get for taking a moment to sign up. This kind of technique is extremely powerful for demonstrating the value in registering for a site, and you can similar examples in many other places, such as Twitter's log in and tweet flow that happens if you use one of their share buttons on a news article etc. If you look at our draft (emphasis on the draft) documentation at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Anonymous_editor_acquisition you will see us mentioning ideas like the proto-account that Tim brought up as well. (Just to poke at the technical issue Marc brought up... is there any reason we wouldn't use Redis for this? It seems well suited to storing high volumes of data we would intend to be temporary.) ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users
Steven Walling wrote:
With my product manager for Growth hat on... Like Kaldari said we can't
give people who aren't logged in Echo notifications at the moment. The
only alternative is to post to the IP talk page. This would require us to
basically build a user account, i.e. a bot, in to Thanks to deliver a Talk
page message for the IP.
I don't follow what you're saying about a bot account being the only
alternative. You can use the exact same user interface exposure (i.e.,
little (thanks) links) and simply post to the IP's talk page rather than
creating an Echo (logged-in user) notification. I can't see any need for a
separate bot account.
That's probably not going to happen, to be honest, and there isn't the
manpower behind Echo right now to design/build proper anonymous
notifications. If you're gung-ho about this idea I think Nemo is right,
just use the Talk page. :)
Ignoring Echo and the Thanks extension-specific logging, if I had to
guess, I imagine strictly adding in the ability to thank anonymous users
would take about thirty minutes of work. We've had a stable API for
posting talk page messages for years and the user interface code is
already written and deployed. As far as I can tell, you'd simply do a
quick check after someone clicks the thanks link and then clicks ok that
goes something like...
if ( target user is anon ) { post to IP talk page }
else if ( target user is logged in ) { send Echo notification }
If you're gung-ho about implementing the ability to thank anonymous users,
I think the correct answer is to submit a changeset with proposed
modifications to the Thanks extension to make that dream a reality.
MZMcBride
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users
On Jan 13, 2014 7:25 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Steven Walling wrote:
With my product manager for Growth hat on... Like Kaldari said we can't
give people who aren't logged in Echo notifications at the moment. The
only alternative is to post to the IP talk page. This would require us to
basically build a user account, i.e. a bot, in to Thanks to deliver a
Talk
page message for the IP.
I don't follow what you're saying about a bot account being the only
alternative. You can use the exact same user interface exposure (i.e.,
little (thanks) links) and simply post to the IP's talk page rather than
creating an Echo (logged-in user) notification. I can't see any need for a
separate bot account.
That's probably not going to happen, to be honest, and there isn't the
manpower behind Echo right now to design/build proper anonymous
notifications. If you're gung-ho about this idea I think Nemo is right,
just use the Talk page. :)
Ignoring Echo and the Thanks extension-specific logging, if I had to
guess, I imagine strictly adding in the ability to thank anonymous users
would take about thirty minutes of work. We've had a stable API for
posting talk page messages for years and the user interface code is
already written and deployed. As far as I can tell, you'd simply do a
quick check after someone clicks the thanks link and then clicks ok that
goes something like...
if ( target user is anon ) { post to IP talk page }
else if ( target user is logged in ) { send Echo notification }
If you're gung-ho about implementing the ability to thank anonymous users,
I think the correct answer is to submit a changeset with proposed
modifications to the Thanks extension to make that dream a reality.
MZMcBride
Tangentially related, have we ever considered adding the required fields
for creating an account, username and password, to the edit interface for
IP editors? We could have a save edit as attributed to your IP button as we
have now, and next to it a save as new user with those two fields. Has such
a setup been discussed before? (I understand there is probably more reading
to be presented for creating an account, but there probably are reasonably
user friendly solutions to be found that don't deter the anon edit that it
would lead to a net loss of edits)
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
