Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Strategy] August 1: Strategy update - Preparing for Wikimania, the strategic direction, and New voices insights (#22)

[James Salsman]

On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 5:04 AM, James Heilman  wrote:
> IMO we need to work on the issue of undisclosed paid editing from a number
> of different sides:
>
> 1) We need to get the word out to the wider world that paying someone to
> write your Wikipedia article is inappropriate. We also need to publicly
> state which companies have been banned / blocked from editing Wikipedia for
> breach of our policies. This will hopefully direct people away from these
> companies if they search for a company to hire.

How effective can this possibly be? That companies hire paid Wikipedia
editors is old news and what would have been huge scandals about it
ten years ago don't make headlines today. Setting up a name-and-shame
system would simply lead to an arms race with paid editors offering
premiums for stealth measures. That can't be what anyone wants.

> 2) We need to improve detection. Part of this may include running more CUs
> when concerns are present, AI to pick up the pattern of paid editing /
> spamming, and creating a group of functionaries to address private details
> pertaining to UPE. Improving CU tools would also be useful.

This is another arms race that we can't win. VMs make even the most
sophisticated fingerprinting easily avoidable, and paid editors
already use per-account port forwarding to bespoke proxies on
residential ISP customers. As a machine learning task, I do not
believe this is feasible.

Are you opposed to the idea of a separate organization to address paid
advocacy for any particular reason?


> James
>
> On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 2:03 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>
>> Hi Rogol,
>>
>> Here are a few thoughts:
>>
>> 1. I tend to think that WMF would need to worry about its legal protections
>> if WMF provided grants for content work. I am wondering if there is a way
>> to work around that difficulty by having a separate organization do the
>> fundraising.
>>
>> 2. A separate organization that raises funds could not only address COIN
>> but could provide financial support for other areas of community work that
>> WMF won't fund, such as other kinds of administrative work, and potentially
>> content development and translation.
>>
>> 3. However, I'm not sure that a new organization's funding and governance
>> could be made solid, reliable, and trustworthy. That's a difficult design
>> challenge.
>>
>> I'd be interested in thoughts from Doc James and others about how to scale
>> up English Wikipedia's capacity to address COI issues.
>>
>> A lot of problems would be solved if we could significantly increase our
>> numbers of highly skilled, good-faith Wikimedians. I believe that WMF is
>> starting to work on this problem again; I'd like to be optimistic but I
>> think that we should also plan for the possibility that these efforts will
>> be unsuccessful.
>>
>> Pine
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 11:05 PM, Rogol Domedonfors 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Pine
>> >
>> > If the objects of the affiliate are compatible with those of the
>> > Foundation, then you could ask for a grant.  If they are not, why would
>> the
>> > Foundation even consider letting you raise funds on their sites.
>> >
>> > "Rogol"
>> >
>> > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 10:12 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>> >
>> > > I wonder if WMF would be willing to let a non-WMF affiliate put up
>> > > fundraising (which I consider to be another form of advertising, and
>> > > perhaps some survey respondents did too) banners to get funds for COIN
>> > and
>> > > related backlogs. Perhaps if the fundraising was done by a separate
>> > > organization, then these efforts could be funded while minimizing the
>> > risks
>> > > to WMF's legal protections.
>> > >
>> > > Pine
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 2:20 AM, James Salsman 
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > > what proportion of articles at NPP appear paid for?
>> > > > > And what percentage of socks / sock cases relate to paid editing?
>> > > >
>> > > > I would sure like to know this.
>> > > >
>> > > > I would also like to whether the Foundation could, hypothetically,
>> > > > hire editors to address the COIN and related backlogs (AFC, etc.)
>> > > > without endangering the safe harbor provisions; and if not, could a
>> > > > Chapter or User Group, if they were or were not using Foundation
>> > > > funds. Could the Foundation spin off an organization to address the
>> > > > issue separately as in WikiEd?
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 8:51 AM, James Heilman 
>> > wrote:
>> > > > > I find the slide
>> > > > > > > > > 2017_Monthly_Metrics_Meeting.pdf=22>
>> > > > > about whether or not people feel we are "free of advertising"
>> > > interesting
>> > > > > as we only got a 7.3 (with lower scores among younger readers).
>> > > > >
>> > > > > We unfortunately are not free of advertising. There is a large and
>> > > > appears
>> > > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Strategy] August 1: Strategy update - Preparing for Wikimania, the strategic direction, and New voices insights (#22)

[James Heilman]

IMO we need to work on the issue of undisclosed paid editing from a number
of different sides:

1) We need to get the word out to the wider world that paying someone to
write your Wikipedia article is inappropriate. We also need to publicly
state which companies have been banned / blocked from editing Wikipedia for
breach of our policies. This will hopefully direct people away from these
companies if they search for a company to hire.

2) We need to improve detection. Part of this may include running more CUs
when concerns are present, AI to pick up the pattern of paid editing /
spamming, and creating a group of functionaries to address private details
pertaining to UPE. Improving CU tools would also be useful.

James

On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 2:03 PM, Pine W  wrote:

> Hi Rogol,
>
> Here are a few thoughts:
>
> 1. I tend to think that WMF would need to worry about its legal protections
> if WMF provided grants for content work. I am wondering if there is a way
> to work around that difficulty by having a separate organization do the
> fundraising.
>
> 2. A separate organization that raises funds could not only address COIN
> but could provide financial support for other areas of community work that
> WMF won't fund, such as other kinds of administrative work, and potentially
> content development and translation.
>
> 3. However, I'm not sure that a new organization's funding and governance
> could be made solid, reliable, and trustworthy. That's a difficult design
> challenge.
>
> I'd be interested in thoughts from Doc James and others about how to scale
> up English Wikipedia's capacity to address COI issues.
>
> A lot of problems would be solved if we could significantly increase our
> numbers of highly skilled, good-faith Wikimedians. I believe that WMF is
> starting to work on this problem again; I'd like to be optimistic but I
> think that we should also plan for the possibility that these efforts will
> be unsuccessful.
>
> Pine
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 11:05 PM, Rogol Domedonfors 
> wrote:
>
> > Pine
> >
> > If the objects of the affiliate are compatible with those of the
> > Foundation, then you could ask for a grant.  If they are not, why would
> the
> > Foundation even consider letting you raise funds on their sites.
> >
> > "Rogol"
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 10:12 PM, Pine W  wrote:
> >
> > > I wonder if WMF would be willing to let a non-WMF affiliate put up
> > > fundraising (which I consider to be another form of advertising, and
> > > perhaps some survey respondents did too) banners to get funds for COIN
> > and
> > > related backlogs. Perhaps if the fundraising was done by a separate
> > > organization, then these efforts could be funded while minimizing the
> > risks
> > > to WMF's legal protections.
> > >
> > > Pine
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 2:20 AM, James Salsman 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > what proportion of articles at NPP appear paid for?
> > > > > And what percentage of socks / sock cases relate to paid editing?
> > > >
> > > > I would sure like to know this.
> > > >
> > > > I would also like to whether the Foundation could, hypothetically,
> > > > hire editors to address the COIN and related backlogs (AFC, etc.)
> > > > without endangering the safe harbor provisions; and if not, could a
> > > > Chapter or User Group, if they were or were not using Foundation
> > > > funds. Could the Foundation spin off an organization to address the
> > > > issue separately as in WikiEd?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 8:51 AM, James Heilman 
> > wrote:
> > > > > I find the slide
> > > > >  > > > 2017_Monthly_Metrics_Meeting.pdf=22>
> > > > > about whether or not people feel we are "free of advertising"
> > > interesting
> > > > > as we only got a 7.3 (with lower scores among younger readers).
> > > > >
> > > > > We unfortunately are not free of advertising. There is a large and
> > > > appears
> > > > > to be growing industry that sells Wikipedia articles / ads, which
> are
> > > > > mostly created through large groups of sock accounts. They also are
> > > > > involved with adding SEO links.
> > > > >
> > > > > We are struggling to get a handle on this at the COI notice board
> > > > >  > > > interest/Noticeboard>,
> > > > > which has seen over the last couple of days the listing of more
> than
> > a
> > > > > hundred additional articles of concern, at SPI, and at WikiProject
> > > Spam.
> > > > >
> > > > > Would be useful to analysis just how significant this issue is,
> such
> > as
> > > > > what proportion of articles at NPP appear paid for? And what
> > percentage
> > > > of
> > > > > socks / sock cases relate to paid editing?
> > > > >
> > > > > James
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 7:33 PM, Katherine Maher <
> > kma...@wikimedia.org>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Strategy] August 1: Strategy update - Preparing for Wikimania, the strategic direction, and New voices insights (#22)

[Pine W]

Hi Rogol,

I'm thinking about your question and several related issues. I want to let
you know that I may be silent for a few days, but I do plan to respond. If
I haven't responded by next Friday, please remind me.

Thank you and have a good weekend.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Strategy] August 1: Strategy update - Preparing for Wikimania, the strategic direction, and New voices insights (#22)

[Pine W]

I wonder if WMF would be willing to let a non-WMF affiliate put up
fundraising (which I consider to be another form of advertising, and
perhaps some survey respondents did too) banners to get funds for COIN and
related backlogs. Perhaps if the fundraising was done by a separate
organization, then these efforts could be funded while minimizing the risks
to WMF's legal protections.

Pine


On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 2:20 AM, James Salsman  wrote:

> > what proportion of articles at NPP appear paid for?
> > And what percentage of socks / sock cases relate to paid editing?
>
> I would sure like to know this.
>
> I would also like to whether the Foundation could, hypothetically,
> hire editors to address the COIN and related backlogs (AFC, etc.)
> without endangering the safe harbor provisions; and if not, could a
> Chapter or User Group, if they were or were not using Foundation
> funds. Could the Foundation spin off an organization to address the
> issue separately as in WikiEd?
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 8:51 AM, James Heilman  wrote:
> > I find the slide
> >  2017_Monthly_Metrics_Meeting.pdf=22>
> > about whether or not people feel we are "free of advertising" interesting
> > as we only got a 7.3 (with lower scores among younger readers).
> >
> > We unfortunately are not free of advertising. There is a large and
> appears
> > to be growing industry that sells Wikipedia articles / ads, which are
> > mostly created through large groups of sock accounts. They also are
> > involved with adding SEO links.
> >
> > We are struggling to get a handle on this at the COI notice board
> >  interest/Noticeboard>,
> > which has seen over the last couple of days the listing of more than a
> > hundred additional articles of concern, at SPI, and at WikiProject Spam.
> >
> > Would be useful to analysis just how significant this issue is, such as
> > what proportion of articles at NPP appear paid for? And what percentage
> of
> > socks / sock cases relate to paid editing?
> >
> > James
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 7:33 PM, Katherine Maher 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all  —
> >>
> >> Wikimania is coming, but before we get to Montreal, we are publishing
> many
> >> more insights, reports, guides, and research from our work during cycle
> 3.
> >> There's lots of good stuff and interesting insights (did you know Spain
> is
> >> consistently one of the countries with the highest awareness about our
> >> projects and community?), and I encourage you to take a look. Here are a
> >> few new updates:
> >>
> >> *New voices synthesis report.*[1] Are you looking to better understand
> >> New Voices projects? Start with this overview report — it summarizes our
> >> work across many teams: insights from research, a summary of 58 expert
> >> interviews, expert convenings hosted by the Foundation and affiliates,
> >> design research findings, briefings on major trends that will impact the
> >> community like misinformation and emerging platforms, further reading,
> and
> >> (of course!) references.
> >>
> >> *July Wikimedia Foundation metrics meeting.*[2] During our July 27
> >> meeting, we reviewed new research on brand insights about why people do
> >> (and do not) read Wikipedia, research that focuses on high-awareness
> >> countries as part of New Voices initiatives.
> >>
> >> *Strategic direction committee update.*[3] We are working to consider
> >> what we have heard from the community and learned from research to
> identify
> >> what we want to achieve as a movement by 2030. We will share our first
> >> draft of the strategic direction with all of you in advance of
> Wikimania.
> >> We’re looking forward to your thoughts on the talk page!
> >>
> >> *Wikimania movement strategy and events.*[4] Speaking of Wikimania, the
> >> Foundation is preparing 6 sessions related to the strategy process in
> the
> >> official program. We will also offer you a physical location for
> engaging
> >> with the strategic direction: the Movement Strategy Space, open from
> >> Thursday through Sunday. The Space will host different working sessions,
> >> discussions, and the chance to re-energize for the coming weeks and
> months
> >> (we have some special things in store!). The conference organizers are
> also
> >> preparing a remote attendee plan with live video and content for the
> >> conference overall, so you will be able to participate if you’re not
> able
> >> to come to Montreal. Please note that online registration ended July 31;
> >> after that you can register on-site starting August 8.[5]
> >>
> >> ভালো থাকবেন। (Bengali translation: “Stay well”)
> >>
> >> Katherine
> >>
> >> PS. A version of this message is available for translation on
> Meta-Wiki.[6]
> >>
> >> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_
> >> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Strategy] August 1: Strategy update - Preparing for Wikimania, the strategic direction, and New voices insights (#22)

[James Salsman]

> what proportion of articles at NPP appear paid for?
> And what percentage of socks / sock cases relate to paid editing?

I would sure like to know this.

I would also like to whether the Foundation could, hypothetically,
hire editors to address the COIN and related backlogs (AFC, etc.)
without endangering the safe harbor provisions; and if not, could a
Chapter or User Group, if they were or were not using Foundation
funds. Could the Foundation spin off an organization to address the
issue separately as in WikiEd?


On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 8:51 AM, James Heilman  wrote:
> I find the slide
> 
> about whether or not people feel we are "free of advertising" interesting
> as we only got a 7.3 (with lower scores among younger readers).
>
> We unfortunately are not free of advertising. There is a large and appears
> to be growing industry that sells Wikipedia articles / ads, which are
> mostly created through large groups of sock accounts. They also are
> involved with adding SEO links.
>
> We are struggling to get a handle on this at the COI notice board
> ,
> which has seen over the last couple of days the listing of more than a
> hundred additional articles of concern, at SPI, and at WikiProject Spam.
>
> Would be useful to analysis just how significant this issue is, such as
> what proportion of articles at NPP appear paid for? And what percentage of
> socks / sock cases relate to paid editing?
>
> James
>
> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 7:33 PM, Katherine Maher 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all  —
>>
>> Wikimania is coming, but before we get to Montreal, we are publishing many
>> more insights, reports, guides, and research from our work during cycle 3.
>> There's lots of good stuff and interesting insights (did you know Spain is
>> consistently one of the countries with the highest awareness about our
>> projects and community?), and I encourage you to take a look. Here are a
>> few new updates:
>>
>> *New voices synthesis report.*[1] Are you looking to better understand
>> New Voices projects? Start with this overview report — it summarizes our
>> work across many teams: insights from research, a summary of 58 expert
>> interviews, expert convenings hosted by the Foundation and affiliates,
>> design research findings, briefings on major trends that will impact the
>> community like misinformation and emerging platforms, further reading, and
>> (of course!) references.
>>
>> *July Wikimedia Foundation metrics meeting.*[2] During our July 27
>> meeting, we reviewed new research on brand insights about why people do
>> (and do not) read Wikipedia, research that focuses on high-awareness
>> countries as part of New Voices initiatives.
>>
>> *Strategic direction committee update.*[3] We are working to consider
>> what we have heard from the community and learned from research to identify
>> what we want to achieve as a movement by 2030. We will share our first
>> draft of the strategic direction with all of you in advance of Wikimania.
>> We’re looking forward to your thoughts on the talk page!
>>
>> *Wikimania movement strategy and events.*[4] Speaking of Wikimania, the
>> Foundation is preparing 6 sessions related to the strategy process in the
>> official program. We will also offer you a physical location for engaging
>> with the strategic direction: the Movement Strategy Space, open from
>> Thursday through Sunday. The Space will host different working sessions,
>> discussions, and the chance to re-energize for the coming weeks and months
>> (we have some special things in store!). The conference organizers are also
>> preparing a remote attendee plan with live video and content for the
>> conference overall, so you will be able to participate if you’re not able
>> to come to Montreal. Please note that online registration ended July 31;
>> after that you can register on-site starting August 8.[5]
>>
>> ভালো থাকবেন। (Bengali translation: “Stay well”)
>>
>> Katherine
>>
>> PS. A version of this message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.[6]
>>
>> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_
>> movement/2017/Sources/New_Voices_Synthesis_report_(July_2017)
>> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_
>> metrics_and_activities_meetings
>> [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_
>> movement/2017/People/Drafting_Group
>> [4] https://wikimania2017.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_2030
>> [5] https://wikimania2017.wikimedia.org/wiki/Registration
>> [6] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_
>> movement/2017/Updates/23_June_2017_-_Update_19_on_Wikimedia_
>> movement_strategy_process
>>
>> --
>> Katherine Maher
>>
>> Wikimedia Foundation
>> 149 New Montgomery Street
>> San Francisco, CA 94105
>>
>> +1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635 <(415)%20839-6885>
>> +1 (415) 712 4873