subject:"Re\: \[Wikimedia\-l\] The soft underbelly of the WP\: the sponsored private fiefdoms that thrive in the blind spots"

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The soft underbelly of the WP: the sponsored private fiefdoms that thrive in the blind spots

2013-07-23 Thread Rui Correia

I've have my setting on receive copy of own emails, but did not receive
this email that I sent out. Can someone please confirm?

Regards,

On 22 July 2013 18:02, Rui Correia correia@gmail.com wrote:

 Dear All

 It is certainly not news that a lot of deliberately biased editing goes on
 on the Wikipedia. It is equally known that there are mechanims to address
 these issues.

 But that is where the problem lies - those intent on skewing information
 know all the tricks and loopholes, whereas neutral editors who pass by to
 add something they came across are not so clued up. Most editors that get
 reverted just move on and don't bother. This leads to the 'ownsership'
 syndrome, with editors shooing away anybody that adds anuthing they don't
 like. The bigger problem, is when these editors who act as if they 'own'
 certain articles are actually either being paid to do so or are actually
 lomked to an organisation with particilar interests in the page(s).

 A case in point, the other day I was looking for images of mosquitos
 sucking blood and and came across blatant pornography on Flickr. I added a
 few lines about pornography on Flickr and because it was reverted (I admit
 the edit was not sterling worsmithing) it made me look into the history of
 the page.

 That there are two or three editors who automatically revert anything
 negative is obvious. Less obvious is that one of these editors was
 'dormant' for a year-and-a-half, then suddenly came out of hibernation 2
 months ago to exclusively counter any anti-Flickr edits and add pro-Flickr
 edits - about 75 edits in 2 months. And one or 2 sanitsing the page of
 Marissa Mayer, the CEO of Yahoo!, (which owns Flickr). Another has
 practically admitted to having some kind of association with Flickr (there
 is plenty in Flickr-related debates on user pages to prove that there is
 indeed a sinsiter and unhealthy relationship. The two or three work in a
 concerted manner, even replying on behalf of each other, which makes
 suspect the presence of sockpuppets or similar. There is also a high-school
 student among the reverters. Things are now at a point that they are making
 rules, 'agreeing' with those against them on the maximum length of a
 section of a Flickr controversy. No such limitations on any other
 (positive) aspect of the article. They have have 'agreed' that a number of
 Huffington Post comments on Flickr must not be included - it is not a
 relaible source, apparently..

 This would not have bothered me were it not for the fact that the Flickr
 article is of an adequate size, with lots of good information on it and
 most of it quite complimentary. It is worrying that a few lines of bad
 press should so annoy people that they are on stand-by to revert at
 whatever hour of day or night.

 The mechanisms that the Wikipedia has created to improve the project play
 into the hands of people like these - features such as the watchlist.
 Within minutes of a change, it gets reverted. Sometimes an editor will
 persist for a while, but eventually walks off and goes edit elsewhere.
 Which is odd, because if there are mechanisms for redress, why not use
 them? Unfortunately, in my experience, whenever anything is put up for
 arbitration, the first ones on the scene include the very editors involved
 or others whom they trust who get tipped off about the issue as soon as it
 develops. It is this that is tarnishing the name of the Wikipedia and
 driving away good editors.

 I use Flickr as an example, but is it not the firwst time that I have come
 across this type of behaviour.
 And so, tiny cliques and coteries flourish like fiefdoms in the blind
 spots of the mechanisms created to ensure that we all strive for the same
 principes. What is worse, there are big players behind this all. In an age
 when the so-called 'big media' is already overwhelmingly in the service of
 'big business', we owe to ourselves to keep them out of the WP.

 Regards,

 Rui Correia.



 --
 _
 Rui Correia
 Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant
 Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant

 Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186
 Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186
 ___





-- 
_
Rui Correia
Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant
Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant

Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186
Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186
___
___
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] The soft underbelly of the WP: the sponsored private fiefdoms that thrive in the blind spots

2013-07-23 Thread David Gerard

On 23 July 2013 12:07, Rui Correia correia@gmail.com wrote:

 I've have my setting on receive copy of own emails, but did not receive
 this email that I sent out. Can someone please confirm?


It went out. What you're seeing is that GMail refuses to show you
messages you sent to a list, even if you really want it to. This is
GMail being helpful.

If you want to check a message went out, check the archive:

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/


- d.

___
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] The soft underbelly of the WP: the sponsored private fiefdoms that thrive in the blind spots

2013-07-23 Thread Rui Correia

Thanks, David. Much appreciated.

For what it is worth, I am part of two Yahoo! Groups mailing lists for
translators, which I receive via GM - from the one I get back my own email,
from the other not. Go figure.

Regards,

Rui

On 23 July 2013 13:10, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 23 July 2013 12:07, Rui Correia correia@gmail.com wrote:

  I've have my setting on receive copy of own emails, but did not receive
  this email that I sent out. Can someone please confirm?


 It went out. What you're seeing is that GMail refuses to show you
 messages you sent to a list, even if you really want it to. This is
 GMail being helpful.

 If you want to check a message went out, check the archive:

 http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/


 - d.

 ___
 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




-- 
_
Rui Correia
Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant
Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant

Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186
Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186
___
___
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] The soft underbelly of the WP: the sponsored private fiefdoms that thrive in the blind spots

2013-07-23 Thread Fred Bauder

I just checked the archives. The original message was not received by the
mailing list, for whatever reason, probably misaddressed. This message of
inquiry is the first message in the tread. I think you should resend the
original message if your mail program permits that. Sounds interesting...

Fred

 I've have my setting on receive copy of own emails, but did not receive
 this email that I sent out. Can someone please confirm?

 Regards,

 On 22 July 2013 18:02, Rui Correia correia@gmail.com wrote:

 Dear All

 It is certainly not news that a lot of deliberately biased editing goes
 on
 on the Wikipedia. It is equally known that there are mechanims to
 address
 these issues.

 But that is where the problem lies - those intent on skewing
 information
 know all the tricks and loopholes, whereas neutral editors who pass by
 to
 add something they came across are not so clued up. Most editors that
 get
 reverted just move on and don't bother. This leads to the 'ownsership'
 syndrome, with editors shooing away anybody that adds anuthing they
 don't
 like. The bigger problem, is when these editors who act as if they
 'own'
 certain articles are actually either being paid to do so or are
 actually
 lomked to an organisation with particilar interests in the page(s).

 A case in point, the other day I was looking for images of mosquitos
 sucking blood and and came across blatant pornography on Flickr. I
 added a
 few lines about pornography on Flickr and because it was reverted (I
 admit
 the edit was not sterling worsmithing) it made me look into the history
 of
 the page.

 That there are two or three editors who automatically revert anything
 negative is obvious. Less obvious is that one of these editors was
 'dormant' for a year-and-a-half, then suddenly came out of hibernation
 2
 months ago to exclusively counter any anti-Flickr edits and add
 pro-Flickr
 edits - about 75 edits in 2 months. And one or 2 sanitsing the page of
 Marissa Mayer, the CEO of Yahoo!, (which owns Flickr). Another has
 practically admitted to having some kind of association with Flickr
 (there
 is plenty in Flickr-related debates on user pages to prove that there
 is
 indeed a sinsiter and unhealthy relationship. The two or three work in
 a
 concerted manner, even replying on behalf of each other, which makes
 suspect the presence of sockpuppets or similar. There is also a
 high-school
 student among the reverters. Things are now at a point that they are
 making
 rules, 'agreeing' with those against them on the maximum length of a
 section of a Flickr controversy. No such limitations on any other
 (positive) aspect of the article. They have have 'agreed' that a number
 of
 Huffington Post comments on Flickr must not be included - it is not a
 relaible source, apparently..

 This would not have bothered me were it not for the fact that the
 Flickr
 article is of an adequate size, with lots of good information on it and
 most of it quite complimentary. It is worrying that a few lines of bad
 press should so annoy people that they are on stand-by to revert at
 whatever hour of day or night.

 The mechanisms that the Wikipedia has created to improve the project
 play
 into the hands of people like these - features such as the watchlist.
 Within minutes of a change, it gets reverted. Sometimes an editor will
 persist for a while, but eventually walks off and goes edit elsewhere.
 Which is odd, because if there are mechanisms for redress, why not use
 them? Unfortunately, in my experience, whenever anything is put up for
 arbitration, the first ones on the scene include the very editors
 involved
 or others whom they trust who get tipped off about the issue as soon as
 it
 develops. It is this that is tarnishing the name of the Wikipedia and
 driving away good editors.

 I use Flickr as an example, but is it not the firwst time that I have
 come
 across this type of behaviour.
 And so, tiny cliques and coteries flourish like fiefdoms in the blind
 spots of the mechanisms created to ensure that we all strive for the
 same
 principes. What is worse, there are big players behind this all. In an
 age
 when the so-called 'big media' is already overwhelmingly in the service
 of
 'big business', we owe to ourselves to keep them out of the WP.

 Regards,

 Rui Correia.



 --
 _
 Rui Correia
 Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant
 Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant

 Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186
 NÃºmero de TelemÃ³vel na Ãfrica do Sul +27 74 425 4186
 ___





 --
 _
 Rui Correia
 Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant
 Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant

 Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186
 NÃºmero de TelemÃ³vel na Ãfrica do Sul +27 74 425 4186
 ___
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The soft underbelly of the WP: the sponsored private fiefdoms that thrive in the blind spots

2013-07-23 Thread Fred Bauder

 I just checked the archives. The original message was not received by the
 mailing list, for whatever reason, probably misaddressed. This message of
 inquiry is the first message in the tread. I think you should resend the
 original message if your mail program permits that. Sounds interesting...

Wait, I lied. Here it is:

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-July/127077.html

I don't know if I received it, as I delete almost all messages.

Fred


___
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] The soft underbelly of the WP: the sponsored private fiefdoms that thrive in the blind spots

2013-07-23 Thread Andreas Kolbe

Rui,

There are four answers I could give you. See whether you like any of them:

*Answer the First*

This problem has existed ever since Wikipedia became visible enough for
agenda-driven editors to bother with it, and people have made complaints
like yours ever since. Nothing has changed, and nothing ever will change,
because editors like things just the way they are.

The system of pseudonymous contribution is a major driver of participation:
Here is the number one Google link for [insert any topic under the sun].
You can change what it says, right now, and you don't even have to say who
you are. No real accountability; no way to trace it back to you if you're
smart. Just register a funny name, and click Edit.

Given the current initiatives with Wikidata and so forth

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/wikipedias-new-open-initiatives-were-a-startup-in-stealth-mode-8728357.html

this will not get better: as the stakes get higher, and Wikimedia comes to
dominate the world's information landscape even more, it will only get
worse.

Don't hope for change from the Wikimedia Foundation, because the Foundation
is unlikely to cut the roots of such a major driver of participation.

Don't hope for change from the community either, for the very same sort of
players you call out in your original post will prevent it.

The present system is far too convenient for all of them: all the people
who are happily grinding axes on Wikimedia sites will unite against you,
even as they are fighting each other tooth and nail on actual content.

Tell the public instead. Explain to them why the system's governance sucks,
and how it affects content.

*Answer the Second*
*
*
This sort of thing is handled much better in the German Wikipedia. In the
German Wikipedia, companies can edit with verified company accounts: so
that if Coca-Cola Germany edits the Coca-Cola article, it will actually say
Coca Cola Germany in the edit history. Transparent, and accountable.

http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coca-Coladiff=94427890oldid=94244180

In the English Wikipedia, however, any account named after a company is
automatically blocked, and the operator asked to register an account with a
funny name. This just drives this sort of editing underground, and removes
transparency.

*Answer the Third*
*
*
What did you expect? You cited no reliable source other than Flickr's own
website. Your edit was basically original research, and regardless of who
the editors are who reverted you, they were fully justified. Wikipedia 101:
find a secondary source. Here are some to start you off:

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2011/07/course-flickr-has-porn-problem/40600/

http://www.businessinsider.com/yahoo-hosts-hardcore-porn-and-sells-ads-against-it-advertisers-react-with-outrage-2011-7?op=1

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2007/07/flickr

If it still doesn't stick, drop me a line.

*Answer the Fourth*

Why are you complaining about Flickr? Flickr does a fairly good job of
showing nudity and porn only to the people who – quite legitimately – want
to view it, and ensuring that those who don't want to see it don't get to
see it. Complain about Wikipedia and Commons instead (the following links
are NSFW):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearchprofile=imagessearch=massagefulltext=Search

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Searchlimit=20offset=40redirs=0profile=imagessearch=pliers

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearchprofile=imagessearch=male+humanfulltext=Search

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearchprofile=imagessearch=bell+tollingfulltext=Search

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearchprofile=imagessearch=prince+albertfulltext=Search

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Searchlimit=20offset=30redirs=0profile=imagessearch=hood

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearchprofile=imagessearch=blackfulltext=Search

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearchprofile=imagessearch=asianfulltext=Search

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearchprofile=imagessearch=caucasianfulltext=Search

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearchprofile=imagessearch=furniturefulltext=Search

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearchprofile=imagessearch=benchfulltext=Search

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearchprofile=imagessearch=jumping+ballfulltext=Search

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearchprofile=imagessearch=drivingfulltext=Search

Etc.

Best,
Andreas

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Rui Correia correia@gmail.com wrote:

Dear All

It is certainly not news that a lot of deliberately biased editing goes on
on the Wikipedia. It is equally known that there are mechanims to address
these issues.

But that is where the problem lies - those intent on skewing information
know all the tricks and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The soft underbelly of the WP: the sponsored private fiefdoms that thrive in the blind spots

2013-07-23 Thread Todd Allen

 *Answer the Second*
 *
 *
 This sort of thing is handled much better in the German Wikipedia. In the
 German Wikipedia, companies can edit with verified company accounts: so
 that if Coca-Cola Germany edits the Coca-Cola article, it will actually say
 Coca Cola Germany in the edit history. Transparent, and accountable.


 http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coca-Coladiff=94427890oldid=94244180

 In the English Wikipedia, however, any account named after a company is
 automatically blocked, and the operator asked to register an account with a
 funny name. This just drives this sort of editing underground, and removes
 transparency.




Andreas,

This is an interesting idea. Does the verification go via OTRS, or some
other means? The main reason en blocks organization-name accounts is
because they're not verified, so someone could register Example
Corporation as a user and then go vandalize, or even start spamming to Joe
job them. Also, how is it handled on de if such a malicious account was
already registered and blocked, or the account is created but unverified? I
could see this being a valuable tool for transparency, and done right, I
don't think such a proposal would be hopeless on en.
___
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] The soft underbelly of the WP: the sponsored private fiefdoms that thrive in the blind spots

2013-07-23 Thread Fred Bauder

 On 07/23/2013 02:03 PM, Todd Allen wrote:
 I
 don't think such a proposal would be hopeless on en.

 How did dewiki circumvent the difficulties regarding attribution and
 role accounts?  Last I checked, our terms of use prohibit password
 sharing, and IIRC Mike Godwin (legal counsel at the time) stated there
 were some serious issues with the idea of contributions not being
 credited to an individual.

 -- Marc

The corporation, or whatever, itself would have to sign off legally. It
would have to control access to the account. It could hire a public
relations firm if that were part of our deal with them.

Fred


___
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] The soft underbelly of the WP: the sponsored private fiefdoms that thrive in the blind spots

2013-07-23 Thread Rui Correia

Thanks Andreas. I appreciate that you took the time to write such detailed
scenarios.

What you say about WP-DE is certainly very interesting.

As for your comment about Flickr does a fairly good job of showing nudity
and porn only to the people who – quite legitimately – want to view it, and
ensuring that those who don't want to see it don't get to see it, that is
not the case and that is crux of the issue: I was googling - on google, I
was not on Flickr - for pics of mosquitos sucking blood and was surprised
to see pictures of blatant (not art) oral sex. That in itself is not a
problem, the problem is that people (parents) have a idea that Flickr is
'safe'. I don't mind if it is not or they have opted not to be or reasons
of bottom line - but then this should be ade known on the site, just like
any other porn site.

And thankd for your offer to help, much appreciated.

Best regards,

Rui

On 23 July 2013 19:12, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: