Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

2014-01-12 Thread Andre Engels 
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Andreas Kolbe  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,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

2014-01-12 Thread Andreas Kolbe 
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Andre Engels wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Andreas Kolbe 
> 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,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

2014-01-12 Thread Craig Franklin 
On 12 January 2014 02:58, MZMcBride  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,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

2014-01-12 Thread Gerard Meijssen 
Hoi,
In what language does this "disclosure" have to be ??
Thanks,
 Gerard


On 12 January 2014 12:29, Craig Franklin  wrote:

> On 12 January 2014 02:58, MZMcBride  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,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

2014-01-12 Thread Craig Franklin 
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  wrote:

> Hoi,
> In what language does this "disclosure" have to be ??
> Thanks,
>  Gerard
>
>
> On 12 January 2014 12:29, Craig Franklin wrote:
>
>> On 12 January 2014 02:58, MZMcBride  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,
>> 
>>
>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

2014-01-12 Thread Dariusz Jemielniak 
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Craig Franklin
wrote:

>
>
> 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,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

2014-01-12 Thread Andrew Gray 
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  wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Andreas Kolbe  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, 
> 



-- 
- 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,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

2014-01-12 Thread Erlend Bjørtvedt 
In Norway, without exception; all 5 wikipedians in residence are either
paid by the institution (3) or they are retired pensioners from their
institution. No one paid by chapter or wmf. This means they 'belong' to the
institution and feel quite a lot lotalty there.

Erlend
 Den 12. jan. 2014 13:13 skrev "Andrew Gray" 
følgende:

> 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  wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Andreas Kolbe 
> 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,
> 
>
>
>
> --
> - 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,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

2014-01-12 Thread Tim Starling 
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,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

2014-01-12 Thread Marc A. Pelletier 
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,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

2014-01-12 Thread Tim Starling 
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,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

2014-01-12 Thread Steven Walling 
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,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

2014-01-12 Thread MZMcBride 
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,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

2014-01-12 Thread Martijn Hoekstra 
On Jan 13, 2014 7:25 AM, "MZMcBride"  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,

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,