Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia Zero mass effect on Wikimedia projects

2016-03-20 Thread James Alexander
Aye, what Vito said.

For some context the WP0 team reached out to me when the partners started
flagging some of this as well. We've been considering a couple different
options which I think should be wider discussed. Part of that was also a
realization that we needed a way to actually tell if something was coming
from WP0 compared to a non-WP0 user and they implemented technical changes
with ops so that a header is passed through flagging that early this year
allowing for more targeted actions to be taken. Completely figuring out the
extent of the problem has also been though since it seems that even when
Wikipedia Zero is blocked the users most set at getting around restrictions
(which are, of course, the most dangerous in many  ways) also use other
options such as Facebook's Internet Basics/FB0 which also apparently gives
free access to our sites.

Some of the options considered (not yet implemented though I'd be
interested in peoples thoughts on them):

   - Edit filters (targeted specifically to WP0 or otherwise) flagging
   abnormally large files when compared to the stated file type or files
   coming in through WP0 in general.
   - File upload blocks or other filtering (such as file sizes over X or
   videos ) specifically on WP0
   ranges.
   - More technical measures to try and detect abnormal images or PDFs that
   hold hidden files (apparently this is actually very difficult).

We've been talking with multiple groups within Engineering and given the
new information and options are going to continue to do so. I do think that
it is overall a "good" thing that people are trying to edit (originally all
we saw was the bad uploads and organized copyright violations which was
much less of a good thing...) but it's definitely true that we don't want
to overwhelm the current community in such a way that we not only lose
those new editors but old ones as well (or push them back so hard given the
necessity of protecting the wiki that they never come back). I think it
would be really good to think about ways to help deal with that.

James Alexander
Manager
Trust & Safety
Wikimedia Foundation
(415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur

On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 11:06 AM, Vi to  wrote:

> Anytime a new linguistic group joins Wiki* we should expect a looong
> September  which will
> sooner or later end. Meanwhile what might become *so* problematic (and then
> must be stopped asap) is the usage of Commons as a file sharing platform.
> There's a series of technical countermeasures (stopping truncated files,
> setting requirements for upload of videos...) which don't imply blocking
> editing from Zero.
>
> Vito
>
> 2016-03-20 17:05 GMT+01:00 Lodewijk :
>
> > In a way, it is great to hear that Wikipedia zero is attracting new
> > editors! That is what I hoped for more than increasing readership.
> >
> > The general question on how to stimulate positive edits while
> discouraging
> > negative contributions is the tricky part. What we always tell outsiders
> on
> > why we can cope with vandalism or simply bad edits is that we made it
> > easier to identify and revert it than to make them.
> >
> > Maybe a superfluous question, but can we still differentiate individual
> > devices from each other somehow? I can imagine this is a tricky part if
> > not...
> >
> > Besides the obvious downside,  are the positive sides also visible? Do we
> > see more edits on Angola relayed topics? Do you see more positive active
> > users from Angola?
> >
> > Lodewijk
> >
> > Op zondag 20 maart 2016 heeft Gerard Meijssen  >
> > het volgende geschreven:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > Realistically. Wikipedia is very much an enabler.
> > >
> > > Your ease to consider "simply" disabling mobile edits or uploads I find
> > > appalling. People in countries like USA or UK are very fortunate.
> Nobody
> > > would ever argue to disable their edits or uploads. At the same time
> as a
> > > movement we desperately need more and more diverse involvement. While
> you
> > > may say what you want, it is unconscionable for us to do as you suggest
> > as
> > > it is fully contrary to what we aim to achieve.
> > >
> > > What we are experiencing is a bump in the road. We have to deal with it
> > but
> > > throwing the baby with the washing water? REALLY !!
> > > Thanks,
> > >   GerardM
> > >
> > > On 19 March 2016 at 15:03, David Emrany  > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Adele
> > > >
> > > > Can we have a clear picture of Wikimedia's ‘complicated’ relationship
> > > > with net neutrality - 1year on from the Washington Post story [1]
> > > >
> > > > Can we also have specific figures on how much of WMF's traffic has
> > > > been lost / gained from key markets in Latin America and Asia after
> > > > regulators have blocked zeropaid schemes due to local concerns.
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia Zero mass effect on Wikimedia projects

2016-03-20 Thread Lodewijk
In a way, it is great to hear that Wikipedia zero is attracting new
editors! That is what I hoped for more than increasing readership.

The general question on how to stimulate positive edits while discouraging
negative contributions is the tricky part. What we always tell outsiders on
why we can cope with vandalism or simply bad edits is that we made it
easier to identify and revert it than to make them.

Maybe a superfluous question, but can we still differentiate individual
devices from each other somehow? I can imagine this is a tricky part if
not...

Besides the obvious downside,  are the positive sides also visible? Do we
see more edits on Angola relayed topics? Do you see more positive active
users from Angola?

Lodewijk

Op zondag 20 maart 2016 heeft Gerard Meijssen 
het volgende geschreven:

> Hoi,
> Realistically. Wikipedia is very much an enabler.
>
> Your ease to consider "simply" disabling mobile edits or uploads I find
> appalling. People in countries like USA or UK are very fortunate. Nobody
> would ever argue to disable their edits or uploads. At the same time as a
> movement we desperately need more and more diverse involvement. While you
> may say what you want, it is unconscionable for us to do as you suggest as
> it is fully contrary to what we aim to achieve.
>
> What we are experiencing is a bump in the road. We have to deal with it but
> throwing the baby with the washing water? REALLY !!
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 19 March 2016 at 15:03, David Emrany  > wrote:
>
> > Hi Adele
> >
> > Can we have a clear picture of Wikimedia's ‘complicated’ relationship
> > with net neutrality - 1year on from the Washington Post story [1]
> >
> > Can we also have specific figures on how much of WMF's traffic has
> > been lost / gained from key markets in Latin America and Asia after
> > regulators have blocked zeropaid schemes due to local concerns.
> >
> > WMF's "complicated" stance has also turned off many like-minded
> > support groups who stand for pure net neutrality - and not WMF's or
> > Facebook's ersatz versions [2]
> >
> > Lastly, if the primary aim of Wikipedia Zero is to gain readership,
> > why not simply disable all mobile edits / uploads from these accounts.
> >
> > David
> >
> > [1]
> >
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/25/wikipedias-complicated-relationship-with-net-neutrality/
> >
> > [2]
> >
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/08/01/wikipedia-zero-and-net-neutrality-protecting-the-internet/
> >
> > On 3/19/16, Adele Vrana > wrote:
> > > Hi Teles,
> > >
> > > As the head of the Wikipedia Zero program, I would like to respond and
> > > provide more context to the important challenges you are bringing up.
> > >
> > > Last year, the Foundation increased our security and privacy by
> requiring
> > > HTTPS to access all Wikimedia projects. That change has greatly
> impacted
> > > the Wikipedia Zero program, and most importantly has also allowed
> editing
> > > (and not only reading) and extended the scope of zero-rated access from
> > > just Wikipedia to all Wikimedia projects. However, our banners do not
> > > reflect this additional zero-rating, but still only appear on
> Wikipedia.
> > >
> > > In your message you highlight two main concerns. One would be the
> upload
> > of
> > > copyrighted materials and overall abuse on Commons. The other concern
> > > regards how the editing community should deal with an influx of new
> good
> > > faith edits and potential editors in Portuguese, with particular
> > challenge
> > > of the extra work this causes for existing community members.
> > >
> > > Regarding Commons, we have experienced abuse from a few subscribers of
> a
> > > Zero partner in Angola. Typically what happens is that the pirates
> upload
> > > copyrighted movies to Commons either directly or in a concealed form
> > (like
> > > huge/split PDFs or JPEGs). Then they promote the links on Facebook or a
> > > similar public forum for others to download. When partners become aware
> > of
> > > this they have flagged it to us and we've, in turn, flagged it to
> > Community
> > > Engagement who has worked with editors to try and make sure it's
> removed.
> > >
> > > We agree that this is not an ideal way to handle this problem, and we
> > would
> > > prefer to catch it much earlier or simply prevent it outright (without
> > > significant limits being placed on good faith editors). Last fall, we
> had
> > > internal discussions on finding technical solutions for this problem.
> > > However, we discovered that we could not widely identify traffic from
> > zero
> > > rated partners, and that ability was a prerequisite to address this
> > issue.
> > > As of December 2015, the Ops team was able to complete that work.
> > >
> > > With this task completed, our team, in coordination with community
> > > engagement and engineering is working on finding the best 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia Zero mass effect on Wikimedia projects

2016-03-20 Thread Steinsplitter Wiki
Hoi Gerard Meijssen et all.,

If there are issue with mobile edits we must take the necessary action to 
protect the wiki and re-users, this might include the aforementioned measures. 
I am sure we won't wast volunteers time.

If there are more problems than benefit... It is speaking for itself.

--Steinsplitter

> From: gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
> Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2016 12:51:07 +0100
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia Zero mass effect on Wikimedia projects
> 
> Hoi,
> Realistically. Wikipedia is very much an enabler.
> 
> Your ease to consider "simply" disabling mobile edits or uploads I find
> appalling. People in countries like USA or UK are very fortunate. Nobody
> would ever argue to disable their edits or uploads. At the same time as a
> movement we desperately need more and more diverse involvement. While you
> may say what you want, it is unconscionable for us to do as you suggest as
> it is fully contrary to what we aim to achieve.
> 
> What we are experiencing is a bump in the road. We have to deal with it but
> throwing the baby with the washing water? REALLY !!
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
> 
> On 19 March 2016 at 15:03, David Emrany  wrote:
> 
> > Hi Adele
> >
> > Can we have a clear picture of Wikimedia's ‘complicated’ relationship
> > with net neutrality - 1year on from the Washington Post story [1]
> >
> > Can we also have specific figures on how much of WMF's traffic has
> > been lost / gained from key markets in Latin America and Asia after
> > regulators have blocked zeropaid schemes due to local concerns.
> >
> > WMF's "complicated" stance has also turned off many like-minded
> > support groups who stand for pure net neutrality - and not WMF's or
> > Facebook's ersatz versions [2]
> >
> > Lastly, if the primary aim of Wikipedia Zero is to gain readership,
> > why not simply disable all mobile edits / uploads from these accounts.
> >
> > David
> >
> > [1]
> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/25/wikipedias-complicated-relationship-with-net-neutrality/
> >
> > [2]
> > https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/08/01/wikipedia-zero-and-net-neutrality-protecting-the-internet/
> >
> > On 3/19/16, Adele Vrana  wrote:
> > > Hi Teles,
> > >
> > > As the head of the Wikipedia Zero program, I would like to respond and
> > > provide more context to the important challenges you are bringing up.
> > >
> > > Last year, the Foundation increased our security and privacy by requiring
> > > HTTPS to access all Wikimedia projects. That change has greatly impacted
> > > the Wikipedia Zero program, and most importantly has also allowed editing
> > > (and not only reading) and extended the scope of zero-rated access from
> > > just Wikipedia to all Wikimedia projects. However, our banners do not
> > > reflect this additional zero-rating, but still only appear on Wikipedia.
> > >
> > > In your message you highlight two main concerns. One would be the upload
> > of
> > > copyrighted materials and overall abuse on Commons. The other concern
> > > regards how the editing community should deal with an influx of new good
> > > faith edits and potential editors in Portuguese, with particular
> > challenge
> > > of the extra work this causes for existing community members.
> > >
> > > Regarding Commons, we have experienced abuse from a few subscribers of a
> > > Zero partner in Angola. Typically what happens is that the pirates upload
> > > copyrighted movies to Commons either directly or in a concealed form
> > (like
> > > huge/split PDFs or JPEGs). Then they promote the links on Facebook or a
> > > similar public forum for others to download. When partners become aware
> > of
> > > this they have flagged it to us and we've, in turn, flagged it to
> > Community
> > > Engagement who has worked with editors to try and make sure it's removed.
> > >
> > > We agree that this is not an ideal way to handle this problem, and we
> > would
> > > prefer to catch it much earlier or simply prevent it outright (without
> > > significant limits being placed on good faith editors). Last fall, we had
> > > internal discussions on finding technical solutions for this problem.
> > > However, we discovered that we could not widely identify traffic from
> > zero
> > > rated partners, and that ability was a prerequisite to address this
> > issue.
> > > As of December 2015, the Ops team was able to complete that work.
> > >
> > > With this task completed, our team, in coordination with community
> > > engagement and engineering is working on finding the best approach to
> > > resolve this issue. Do you have suggestions or guidance? We are eager to
> > > examine multiple approaches and this is a great time to open the
> > > discussion. As we evaluate different approaches, we can also update you
> > and
> > > the list here.
> > >
> > > On the editing topic, the primary goal of Wikipedia Zero is to increase
> > > readership. This is measured 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia Zero mass effect on Wikimedia projects

2016-03-20 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
Realistically. Wikipedia is very much an enabler.

Your ease to consider "simply" disabling mobile edits or uploads I find
appalling. People in countries like USA or UK are very fortunate. Nobody
would ever argue to disable their edits or uploads. At the same time as a
movement we desperately need more and more diverse involvement. While you
may say what you want, it is unconscionable for us to do as you suggest as
it is fully contrary to what we aim to achieve.

What we are experiencing is a bump in the road. We have to deal with it but
throwing the baby with the washing water? REALLY !!
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 19 March 2016 at 15:03, David Emrany  wrote:

> Hi Adele
>
> Can we have a clear picture of Wikimedia's ‘complicated’ relationship
> with net neutrality - 1year on from the Washington Post story [1]
>
> Can we also have specific figures on how much of WMF's traffic has
> been lost / gained from key markets in Latin America and Asia after
> regulators have blocked zeropaid schemes due to local concerns.
>
> WMF's "complicated" stance has also turned off many like-minded
> support groups who stand for pure net neutrality - and not WMF's or
> Facebook's ersatz versions [2]
>
> Lastly, if the primary aim of Wikipedia Zero is to gain readership,
> why not simply disable all mobile edits / uploads from these accounts.
>
> David
>
> [1]
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/25/wikipedias-complicated-relationship-with-net-neutrality/
>
> [2]
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/08/01/wikipedia-zero-and-net-neutrality-protecting-the-internet/
>
> On 3/19/16, Adele Vrana  wrote:
> > Hi Teles,
> >
> > As the head of the Wikipedia Zero program, I would like to respond and
> > provide more context to the important challenges you are bringing up.
> >
> > Last year, the Foundation increased our security and privacy by requiring
> > HTTPS to access all Wikimedia projects. That change has greatly impacted
> > the Wikipedia Zero program, and most importantly has also allowed editing
> > (and not only reading) and extended the scope of zero-rated access from
> > just Wikipedia to all Wikimedia projects. However, our banners do not
> > reflect this additional zero-rating, but still only appear on Wikipedia.
> >
> > In your message you highlight two main concerns. One would be the upload
> of
> > copyrighted materials and overall abuse on Commons. The other concern
> > regards how the editing community should deal with an influx of new good
> > faith edits and potential editors in Portuguese, with particular
> challenge
> > of the extra work this causes for existing community members.
> >
> > Regarding Commons, we have experienced abuse from a few subscribers of a
> > Zero partner in Angola. Typically what happens is that the pirates upload
> > copyrighted movies to Commons either directly or in a concealed form
> (like
> > huge/split PDFs or JPEGs). Then they promote the links on Facebook or a
> > similar public forum for others to download. When partners become aware
> of
> > this they have flagged it to us and we've, in turn, flagged it to
> Community
> > Engagement who has worked with editors to try and make sure it's removed.
> >
> > We agree that this is not an ideal way to handle this problem, and we
> would
> > prefer to catch it much earlier or simply prevent it outright (without
> > significant limits being placed on good faith editors). Last fall, we had
> > internal discussions on finding technical solutions for this problem.
> > However, we discovered that we could not widely identify traffic from
> zero
> > rated partners, and that ability was a prerequisite to address this
> issue.
> > As of December 2015, the Ops team was able to complete that work.
> >
> > With this task completed, our team, in coordination with community
> > engagement and engineering is working on finding the best approach to
> > resolve this issue. Do you have suggestions or guidance? We are eager to
> > examine multiple approaches and this is a great time to open the
> > discussion. As we evaluate different approaches, we can also update you
> and
> > the list here.
> >
> > On the editing topic, the primary goal of Wikipedia Zero is to increase
> > readership. This is measured in potential reach (through subscriber
> counts)
> > and pageviews within regions with Wikipedia Zero partnerships.  There’s
> not
> > enough information to show that Zero can also increase editorship, but it
> > is something we believe is furthered by expanding reading access. So if
> > that is what is happening in Angola, we see that is a great thing.
> >
> > However, we understand that it’s challenging for our existing editing
> > community to handle a sudden influx of new editors. This seems to be a
> > crucial and important conversation for the movement at large to have. I
> > hope we can figure out a way to turn this moment in Angola into an
> > opportunity to learn how to deal 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Facebook updates "community standards" for a "diverse global community"

2016-03-20 Thread
I liked Facebooks' careful definition of what constitutes nudity.
Though their new policy would allow for diagrams of genitals for
medical education, it would be tough for Commons to adopt similar
anti-nudity laws without deleting a lot of historical and culturally
relevant photographs, plus all the 19th century oil paintings where
every other famous work seems to have a bare-chested woman in it. Oh
and of course, all those naughty shots of Roman antiquities with their
depictions of satyrs and gymnasts with their prominent buttocks and
junk hanging out.

It's a bit sad that a policy like this would not stop all those
damn-awful amateur shots of girls in bikinis on a beach holiday being
uploaded every year.

Yeah, let's park this idea.

Fae

On 20 March 2016 at 10:25, Andy Mabbett  wrote:
> On 19 Mar 2016 13:47, "Toby Dollmann"  wrote:
>
>> Much of it is relevant for WM Commons.
>
> How so? Commons has a very different purpose to Facebook.
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Facebook updates "community standards" for a "diverse global community"

2016-03-20 Thread Andy Mabbett
On 19 Mar 2016 13:47, "Toby Dollmann"  wrote:

> Much of it is relevant for WM Commons.

How so? Commons has a very different purpose to Facebook.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,