[Wikimedia-l] #Edit2015 - please share your images and ideas for a Wikipedia year-in-review video

[Victor Grigas]

Hi everyone,

Last year, the Wikimedia Foundation published our first ever video
year-in-review:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia_Edit_2014.webm

Which covered some of the major news events of 2014 through the lens of
Wikipedia. This year, we’re opening up the idea development and
pre-production process of making a video for 2015 to everyone. This is an
opportunity for you to help shape the narrative of the events of 2015:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:VGrigas_(WMF)/Edit2015

Last year’s video was made largely by myself and another video editor over
about 8 weeks at the end of 2014. I spent the first half of my 8 weeks
researching news, comparing that to view and edit counts of Wikipedia
pages, and searching for media to illustrate those events. After I had that
media, it was a matter of taste to place them in a video editing timeline.
When we published it, the press and the general population on the Internet
reacted positively. All things considered, I think that #Edit2014 was a
good start, and I’m happy with the final result—but I’d like to improve a
few things for #Edit2015.

Here’s the plan:

Open Collaboration: I’m opening up the whole idea-development and
pre-production process (research, scriptwriting, brainstorming, finding
media, etc.) for making #Edit2015 to on-wiki collaboration. While
experimental, we have #Edit2014 as a guide to show that a final product can
be done; it taught me that year-in-review videos cover international news
events through a brand (in this case Wikipedia) by telling each news story
in about 5 seconds and then cutting to the next one. After being multiplied
by around 20 stories, your video will be upwards of two minutes long when
the credits, logos and titles are included. If you watch other
year-in-review videos (like Google Zeitgeist Year In Search) you’ll see how
each will spend 5 seconds on a topic and then jump to the next.

First drafts of #Edit2014 were half global news and half wiki-world news. I
wanted to showcase as many Wikimedia tools, events and projects as
possible. What I found was that since this is for a wide audience, and it’s
only a few short minutes long, we only have a chance to communicate one or
two new ideas (for an ordinary person who uses the internet), so we had to
be very selective about what was showcased. In this case, it was a chance
to talk about the edit button and Wiki Loves Monuments briefly. Then we
have to get back to those global shared news events that the public may
have experienced. Aspects like ‘going down the rabbit hole,’ clicking link
after link, was something that ordinary people were familiar with, so this
is something we used to bridge stories.

The idea-development and pre-production process does not require any fancy
video equipment—just a wiki page and an internet connection. I used post-it
notes on my wall to organize my ideas. I think that we—that is, the
Wikimedia crowd—can be very good at story development and collaboration.
I’ve been collecting imagery and ideas online, and I’d like to allow anyone
to use this space as a place to collaborate on this project:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:VGrigas_(WMF)/Edit2015

An idea I had for this year is to somehow showcase the talk pages about
Wikipedia articles, to show how we arrive at consensus and a
neutral-point-of-view. Finding the right article(s) and talk page quotes to
use to illustrate that would be key. Last year, we showcased the edit
button using the 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict. For that, we see closeups of
‘citation needed’ and ‘disputed-discuss’ then we cut to the different
languages of that article. Imagine if you saw a tiny fraction of the
behind-the scenes talk about an article like that and how it aims for
objectivity?


Rules: These are some basic criteria I made to guide what content got into
#Edit2014:

Has the event made it to the international press or wide regional press?
Does the event have corresponding view or edit counts?
Do we have freely licensed imagery for the event?
Was there a special circumstance about this event per Wikimedia projects?
Does this illustrate some aspect of Wikimedia that the public should know?
Is the media beautiful?
Does the Wikimedia Foundation legal team approve of the media?
Do we have some media and news from every major region of the world?

As for production and post-production – Continuity, music, audio mixing, et
cetera are all things that should ideally be online and in a collaborative
manner but currently there is no system in place to collaborate on those
things using Wikimedia projects. I’d love to develop that system, but I
don’t think that it is practical for this year. I’d also like to aim to
make the video as close to 2 minutes in length as possible.


Schedule: So the logical publication date for #Edit2015 is December 15th
because that’s when the press, who would republish and spread the video on
social media, are still at work and this is an easy story for them to
publish before 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

[Quim Gil]

Hi, (here goes a disclaimer about me posting this email as volunteer tech
ambassador in Catalan Wikipedia in my personal time)

While Flow might not be ready to make happy core enwiki contributors, in my
humble (and again, personal) opinion it is clearly ready to make life
easier to dozens (hundreds?) of Wikimedia projects (the smaller, probably
the merrier). The Catalan Wikipedia project has gone through several
iterations of Flow adoption, they basically want more, and they basically
will get more. Their goal is simple: Flow everywhere.

This is not an exaggeration. The communities that work actively and
directly on bringing new editors (with workshops, editathons, collaboration
with schools and other face to face interactions) know that VisualEditor is
a key tool. Once new editors have been trained with VisualEditor, there is
no way they will enjoy or even understand why they should learn
wikitext-based conventions to discuss and collaborate. Flow is the natural
VisualEditor companion, and new users don't even "love it", because for
them is just natural.

I'm happy to see that the possibility for users to opt-in to convert their
user talk pages to Flow is close to deployment. It is an interesting way to
let users show their interest and preference. I hope projects willing to
enable Flow in more places will get the tools or processes to do so. I
understand the demands of big projects with complex processes in their
discussion pages. I just hope those requirements don't become an obstacle
for the many more smaller projects that can benefit today from Flow. Time
will tell.

About Flow for third party MediaWikis (let me change my hat again, now as
admin of a small wiki in a 3rd party wiki farm), at least
https://miraheze.org/ is offering Flow to wikis requesting it. It works,
with script to archive wikitext discussion pages an all. If they have done
it, I guess other third parties can do it.

Anyway, did I say Thank You Flow Team?  :)  You rock, and you will continue
to rock.

-- 
Quim Gil
Engineering Community Manager @ Wikimedia Foundation
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Qgil
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Wikipedia rocked by 'rogue editors' blackmail scam targeting small businesses and celebrities"

[Matt Campbell]

Glad to hear it.

 Original message 
From: James Heilman  
Date: 09/01/2015  10:31 PM  (GMT-05:00) 
To: Wikimedia Mailing List  
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] "Wikipedia rocked by 'rogue editors' blackmail scam 
targeting small businesses and celebrities" 


We have a number of discussions ongoing with respect to what measures we

should take to address the issue of promotional paid editing generally and

to prevent this from happening again



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse.2FOrangemoody



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Doc_James/Paid_editing



-- 

James Heilman

MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian



The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine

www.opentextbookofmedicine.com



As of July 2015 I am a board member of the Wikimedia Foundation

My emails; however, do not represent the official position of the WMF

___

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines

Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Wikipedia rocked by 'rogue editors' blackmail scam targeting small businesses and celebrities"

[Thomas Goldammer]

Why not make it a bit more difficult for them to do their foul play? Maybe
enwiki needs a stricter rule enforcement system for sources in articles
about promotion-worthy entities like living people, existing
businesses/organizations, etc. Just allow only external, reliable, and
confirmable sources and throw everything else out. Even if it is plausible.
No exceptions. Of course, someone would need to go through all articles in
question... And check the noteworthiness of the entities while you're at
it. :) It's some work, but I think it's worth the efforts.

Why not make it an event, maybe even with a little prize for people who
throw out the most unsourced statements in such articles. ;) But jokes
aside. Seriously, there could be (and I guess is) a large number of
paid-edited promotional pieces of text in enwiki (and certainly other
language versions, too). Get rid of it the hard way, otherwise the problem
won't go away, but grow by the day.

Th.

2015-09-03 2:07 GMT+02:00 James Heilman :

> Yes some interesting comment by Trillium. Where the articles mainly
> promotional? Yes very. A number of them were copied and pasted from press
> releases by the companies in question.
>
> Were a number of the editors from the developing world? Also yes. This is
> because they are willing to work for less and Orangemody was hiring from
> sites like Elance.
>
> I guess the fundamental question is, is Wikipedia a workspace to provide
> employment for those in the developing world who are willing to do PR piece
> work for some unknown PR firm? Or is Wikipedia an encyclopedia.
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
>
> The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
>
> As of July 2015 I am a board member of the Wikimedia Foundation
> My emails; however, do not represent the official position of the WMF
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Wikipedia rocked by 'rogue editors' blackmail scam targeting small businesses and celebrities"

[James Heilman]

Yes some interesting comment by Trillium. Where the articles mainly
promotional? Yes very. A number of them were copied and pasted from press
releases by the companies in question.

Were a number of the editors from the developing world? Also yes. This is
because they are willing to work for less and Orangemody was hiring from
sites like Elance.

I guess the fundamental question is, is Wikipedia a workspace to provide
employment for those in the developing world who are willing to do PR piece
work for some unknown PR firm? Or is Wikipedia an encyclopedia.
-- 
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com

As of July 2015 I am a board member of the Wikimedia Foundation
My emails; however, do not represent the official position of the WMF
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Wikipedia rocked by 'rogue editors' blackmail scam targeting small businesses and celebrities"

[Trillium Corsage]

The Orangemoody network seems to have been providing a service: bring the 
apparently self-submitted but failed drafts of articles of persons, 
organizations, and businesses up to compliance with Wikipedia standards and get 
them live, then accept a previously negotiated fee. After some months of 
safeguarding those articles for free, they would offer to continue doing so at 
a monthly rate. I'm not seeing the harm.

Oh, I'd like to check if the articles were actually unduly promotional and POV 
and so forth, unfortunately the erstwhile investigators have deleted them so 
no-one except administrators may see. Which comes in handy for the 
investigators, because it means everybody must go by their characterizations of 
the articles.

I heard a murmur that Orangemoody would actually request deletion of its own 
articles if the subject failed to agree to the monthly fee, but Risker said 
this vaguely as if there were only a couple or few examples of this.

As well, though the IP addresses have not been disclosed, one of the accused 
Orangemoody accounts belongs to a Bangladeshi editor of three or more years. 
Raising the question of whether geolocation to Bangladesh and other nearby poor 
countries was a clue to the investigators to connect the Orangemoody accounts. 
Which on confirmation would raise the further question of whether the entire 
case was almost exclusively comparatively well-off westerners destroying the 
business and livelihood of impoverished Bangladeshis and other easterners just 
trying to put food on the table for their kids.

 Trillium Corsage

02.09.2015, 21:53, "Matt Campbell" :
> Glad to hear it.
>
>  Original message 
> From: James Heilman 
> Date: 09/01/2015 10:31 PM (GMT-05:00)
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] "Wikipedia rocked by 'rogue editors' blackmail scam 
> targeting small businesses and celebrities"
>
> We have a number of discussions ongoing with respect to what measures we
>
> should take to address the issue of promotional paid editing generally and
>
> to prevent this from happening again
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse.2FOrangemoody
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Doc_James/Paid_editing
>
> --
>
> James Heilman
>
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
>
> The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
>
> www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
>
> As of July 2015 I am a board member of the Wikimedia Foundation
>
> My emails; however, do not represent the official position of the WMF
>
> ___
>
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

[Nick Wilson (Quiddity)]

Quick followup, with a reminder that onwiki feedback would be ideal. The
original message is replicated at
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Topic:So4pui07y03ibgqq and your input there
will be greatly appreciated.
​Thanks.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

[Nick Wilson (Quiddity)]

T​o clarify: Starting in October, Flow will be maintained; it's not being
abandoned. Further work on the discussion system will need to be driven by
communities voicing their desire for further work on it. Additional
development on the discussion system will be prioritized on community
request and on a project by project basis.

As a pattern that we're all familiar with, it's more likely that people
will comment when they have negative or critical feedback, particularly at
a centralized forum. While it's helpful to point out things that are not
user-friendly or are frustrating to use, it's also helpful for the team to
know what is going well - so we can do more of it. I’d like to encourage
people to speak up (here or onwiki) when there's positive feedback as well
– this goes for article-editors as much as software-developers. There are
people on many wikis who have been happily using Flow, but they haven't
gone out of their way to broadcast that information off of their usual home
wiki. What do you like about this software? Is it headed in the right
direction, even if it doesn’t seem complete? Are there things about it that
the Collaboration team could continue to focus on?

See also, the thread on wikitech-l, for additional discussion.
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.technical/83889

Hope that helps
-- 
Nick Wilson (Quiddity)
Community Liaison
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,