Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia-Mania in the New York Times

2014-01-10 Thread Federico Leva (Nemo)

MZMcBride, 10/01/2014 08:26:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/09/fashion/Wikipedia-Judith-Newman.html

This piece by Judith Newman has some amusing snippets. :-)


Very funny and looks like her sockpuppet public call to arms has 
worked. :) At its root however it's just pokémon test all over the 
place. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pok%C3%A9mon_test


Nemo

___
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] [Wikitech-l] A Multimedia Vision for 2016

2014-01-10 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
Fabrice, I very much love the two stories described in the vision. It
describes not only a functionality that is technical, it also describes how
our community may interact. That is great.

What I missed are the consequences of the planned integration of Commons
with Wikidata. I blogged about it [1] and I suggest three more stories that
could be told because they are enabled by this integration. What I do not
fully understand is how the community aspects will integrate in an
environment that will be more multi lingual and multi cultural as a
consequence.

I have confidence that the three stories that I suggest will be realised by
2016. Not only that, I am pretty sure that as a consequence the amount of
traffic that our servers will have to handle will grow enormously to the
extend that I am convinced that our current capacity will not be able to
cope. Then again, they are the luxury problems that make us appreciate how
much room we still have for growth.
Thanks,
 GerardM


[1]
http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2014/01/wikimedia-multimedia-featuresvision-2016.html


On 10 January 2014 01:39, Fabrice Florin fflo...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 Happy new year, everyone!

 Many thanks to all of you who contributed to our multimedia programs last
 year! Now that we have a new multimedia team at WMF, we look forward to
 making some good progress together this year.

 To kick off the new year, here is a proposed multimedia vision for 2016,
 which was prepared by our multimedia and design teams, with guidance from
 community members:

 http://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/01/09/multimedia-vision-2016/

 This possible scenario is intended for discussion purposes, to help us
 visualize how we could improve our user experience over the next three
 years. We hope that it will spark useful community feedback on some of the
 goals we are considering.

 After you’ve viewed the video, we would be grateful if you could let us
 know what you think in this discussion:


 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Multimedia_Features/Vision_2016

 We are looking for feedback from all users who benefit from Commons, even
 if their work takes place on other sites. This vision explores ways to
 integrate Wikimedia Commons more closely with Wikipedia and other MediaWiki
 projects, to help users contribute more easily to our free media repository
 -- wherever they are.

 In coming weeks, we will start more focused discussions on some key
 features outlined in this presentation. If you would like to join those
 conversations and keep up with our work, we invite you to subscribe to our
 multimedia mailing list:

 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/multimedia

 We look forward to more great collaborations in the new year!

 All the best,


 Fabrice
 on behalf of the Multimedia team

 ___

 Fabrice Florin
 Product Manager, Multimedia
 Wikimedia Foundation

 Wikipedia Profile:
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fabrice_Florin_(WMF)

 Multimedia Project Hub:
 https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Multimedia
 ___
 Wikitech-l mailing list
 wikitec...@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
___
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] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

2014-01-10 Thread Christophe Henner
Hi everyone,

I'll try to elaborate on this topic :)

First of all, in 2011 in Haifa I did a first talk about companies and
Wikipedia. I did that because I was making a study (emphasis on the
 as I'm not keen to say it's a study and more of a detailed
observation) of the state of the articles of the top 40 french
companies.

During that talk I explained how I believe companies could help us
improve our projects. I won't get too much into that as, since then,
the debate evolved from companies editing Wikipedia to Paid editing
is evil.

This year at Wikimania I gave two talks about this very topic, one
about how third party organizations can help us and the second on a
framework to have editing.

Of course, as usual, some people were against it.

But how can we, as a community, be against paid editing on one hand
when on the other hand we seek paid editing from GLAMs, researchers
from state organizations, etc.

The question whether we allow, or not, paid editing is non-existent.
Paid editing is allowed, we already allowed it, we even support it;

Now, the question about paid advocacy. Again, one of our core
principle is NPOV. We don't want people to push their POV. Whether
they're paid or not, is not relevant.

So, to me, the paid foobar question is not the one in debate here.
The one we're actually debating about is do we want for profit
organization to edit Wikipedia.

So yes, paid organizations have an interest in editing Wikipedia, but
just as much as GLAMs have an interest in editing our projects. In
fact, when Wikimedian meets GLAMs one of the key arguments is look at
(pick past project that got great coverage such as the bundesarchives,
British Museum, etc). We show them they have an interest in
committing resources, both financial and human, to improve Wikimedia
projects.

So the they have an interest in editing isn't an argument in the
end, as, of course a lot of editors have an interest in editing. And
we're using it. When we think or work on how researchers valorize
their edits in their cursus, those researchers have an interest in
editing Wikipedia.

So, really what is that people working for a company have that makes
it so we have to ban them to edit? If we already have people paid to
edit, if we have people with interests (henceforth some sort of COI),
what do they have the others don't?

Now, why do I strongly believe we should encourage companies to edit Wikipedia.

First of all, as I said some years ago I evaluated the quality of
company articles on the French Wikipedia. Most of them were crap.
Either outdated, incomplete or with wrong information, all those
articles were poor; And we're talking about the top 40 french
companies, such as Orange, L'Oréal, Renault, BNP, etc.

The volunteer community isn't keen to improve and maintain those
articles. Companies are willing to do it. So we prefer to have poor
articles instead of good ones because there's a risk companies will
act wrongfully (I hope I'm not the only one to see the irony in this
situation where we prefer to ban editors because there's a risk
they'll do wrong. We should do that for all the projects, Close them
to editing because there's a risk people will do wrong.).

Adapting our projects to provide a framework where companies can
easily fit in and edit as a direct consequence, improve the quality of
their articles.

Companies that have the resources to commit to such things are,
usually, big and sometimes old company. Imagine that in a few year,
being involved with the Wikimedia projects is so natural for those
companies that they release their archives on the Wikimedia Projects.
What archives do you ask?

Orange, for example, is the former organization in charge of the
french telecom. They managed telephone for a very long time and have a
long history in RD. Their archives must be astounding. Containing
documents, pictures and videos about telecomunication that should be
awesome. That are part of our history.
Right now, those archives are dusting in some building. And in few
years they might disappear.
Our stance, being so opposed to companies making the first step
(editing) prevent companies to go the next step, release. And in fact,
indirectly, we're preventing knowledge to be freed. Awesome.

Lastly, those companies have huge RD budgets and employ thousands of
researchers and engineers. Imagine a company that employs 1 000
researchers. And imagine that company to do 2 things:
1/ that a company, as part of its CSR politic, says they commit 1 day
per year per researcher to improve one article. And to provide to
those researchers a one day training session about Wikipedia. This
means 1 000 days of editing from specialized researchers and 1 000
researchers evangelized and trained to edit.
2/ that this company would commit 0.0001% of it's RD global budget to
open a QA desk so wikimedians could ask their researchers for
bibliography or proof reading articles

Those things are not wild dreams, they could definitely happen

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

2014-01-10 Thread Ting Chen

Hello dear all,

I would like to be more cautious about the difference between the good 
paid editing and the bad paid advocacy.


There are two reasons why I don't want to separate in this way.

First of there is no clear boundary between the good and bad like 
black and white. There is a gradient of grey between the two. And that 
gradient is not a narrow one but a very broad one. And it depends from 
the perspective of the people who look upon the matter. For one maybe a 
behavior is the dark white but for the other one it may be a bright black.


Second I want to especially respond to the idea that Erik brought up: an 
organization that hire people to write qualified articles. I wrote in 
the other mail that I believe paid editing changes the collaboratory 
nature of our projects but did not really elaborate on why I think so. I 
want to do this now. Let me construct an example to emphasize why I 
think so. I will now take an example which leaves almost no room for 
interpretation about black and white: the theoretical physics. Let's say 
there is a charitable non-profit organization that hires reknowned 
theoretical physicists to write Wikipedia articles. So they pay 10.000 
Dollar to Bryce DeWitt (I know, he is dead, I just don't want to name 
any living people) to write about field theory, or John Wheeler to write 
about general relativity, and so on and so on. I wonder if this happens, 
would there still be anyone who dares to change or write articles on 
topics about theoretical physics? If this becomes a model that many 
follow, I feel it will largely change the composition of our volunteers 
community and how the project will look like. This is basically an 
approach that the Nupedia tried at the beginning. It didn't work that 
time. Meanwhile Wikipedia gains such a reputation that the model may 
work. But I personally don't find the idea sexy.


Greetings
Ting

Am 09.01.2014 03:22, schrieb MZMcBride:

Frank Schulenburg wrote:

[...] it is widely known that paid editing is frowned upon by many in the
editing community and by the Wikimedia Foundation.

No.

Paid editing is not the same as paid advocacy (editing). This is a very
important point.

Suggested reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dominic/FAQ
https://blog.wikimedia.org/?p=25830

N.B. an example of paid editing that few would likely have an issue with
in the first link and Sue's careful and correct wording in the second link.

If we're going to have such a fine distinction, we should probably better
document it to avoid misunderstandings.

MZMcBride



___
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



___
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] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

2014-01-10 Thread Anders Wennersten
Thanks Christophe for your long ,but very good thoughts and experiences 
from paid editing from pro-profit organization.


I fully  support your approach and hope we can put energy, instead of 
just being against, to elaborate on how to best handle the reality 
that pro-profit organization do paid editing. Should we ask them to be 
be open with their userids  relation to their companies/organizations 
for example, which I think is the (only) wish we should have (and paid 
editors from GLAM already do this) .



Anders




Christophe Henner skrev 2014-01-10 13:34:

Hi everyone,

I'll try to elaborate on this topic :)

First of all, in 2011 in Haifa I did a first talk about companies and
Wikipedia. I did that because I was making a study (emphasis on the
 as I'm not keen to say it's a study and more of a detailed
observation) of the state of the articles of the top 40 french
companies.

During that talk I explained how I believe companies could help us
improve our projects. I won't get too much into that as, since then,
the debate evolved from companies editing Wikipedia to Paid editing
is evil.

This year at Wikimania I gave two talks about this very topic, one
about how third party organizations can help us and the second on a
framework to have editing.

Of course, as usual, some people were against it.

But how can we, as a community, be against paid editing on one hand
when on the other hand we seek paid editing from GLAMs, researchers
from state organizations, etc.

The question whether we allow, or not, paid editing is non-existent.
Paid editing is allowed, we already allowed it, we even support it;

Now, the question about paid advocacy. Again, one of our core
principle is NPOV. We don't want people to push their POV. Whether
they're paid or not, is not relevant.

So, to me, the paid foobar question is not the one in debate here.
The one we're actually debating about is do we want for profit
organization to edit Wikipedia.

So yes, paid organizations have an interest in editing Wikipedia, but
just as much as GLAMs have an interest in editing our projects. In
fact, when Wikimedian meets GLAMs one of the key arguments is look at
(pick past project that got great coverage such as the bundesarchives,
British Museum, etc). We show them they have an interest in
committing resources, both financial and human, to improve Wikimedia
projects.

So the they have an interest in editing isn't an argument in the
end, as, of course a lot of editors have an interest in editing. And
we're using it. When we think or work on how researchers valorize
their edits in their cursus, those researchers have an interest in
editing Wikipedia.

So, really what is that people working for a company have that makes
it so we have to ban them to edit? If we already have people paid to
edit, if we have people with interests (henceforth some sort of COI),
what do they have the others don't?

Now, why do I strongly believe we should encourage companies to edit Wikipedia.

First of all, as I said some years ago I evaluated the quality of
company articles on the French Wikipedia. Most of them were crap.
Either outdated, incomplete or with wrong information, all those
articles were poor; And we're talking about the top 40 french
companies, such as Orange, L'Oréal, Renault, BNP, etc.

The volunteer community isn't keen to improve and maintain those
articles. Companies are willing to do it. So we prefer to have poor
articles instead of good ones because there's a risk companies will
act wrongfully (I hope I'm not the only one to see the irony in this
situation where we prefer to ban editors because there's a risk
they'll do wrong. We should do that for all the projects, Close them
to editing because there's a risk people will do wrong.).

Adapting our projects to provide a framework where companies can
easily fit in and edit as a direct consequence, improve the quality of
their articles.

Companies that have the resources to commit to such things are,
usually, big and sometimes old company. Imagine that in a few year,
being involved with the Wikimedia projects is so natural for those
companies that they release their archives on the Wikimedia Projects.
What archives do you ask?

Orange, for example, is the former organization in charge of the
french telecom. They managed telephone for a very long time and have a
long history in RD. Their archives must be astounding. Containing
documents, pictures and videos about telecomunication that should be
awesome. That are part of our history.
Right now, those archives are dusting in some building. And in few
years they might disappear.
Our stance, being so opposed to companies making the first step
(editing) prevent companies to go the next step, release. And in fact,
indirectly, we're preventing knowledge to be freed. Awesome.

Lastly, those companies have huge RD budgets and employ thousands of
researchers and engineers. Imagine a company that employs 1 000
researchers. And imagine that company to do 

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

2014-01-10 Thread Erlend Bjørtvedt
A museum is a commercial entity. They live from ticket incomes from
customers. Universities live from tuition fees from students who freely
choose which university is most attractive to them.

The difference between these institutions editing, and a private railway
company when it comes to coi issues, is in my view  non-existent.

Erlend
Den 10. jan. 2014 14:14 skrev Anders Wennersten m...@anderswennersten.se
følgende:

 Thanks Christophe for your long ,but very good thoughts and experiences
 from paid editing from pro-profit organization.

 I fully  support your approach and hope we can put energy, instead of just
 being against, to elaborate on how to best handle the reality that
 pro-profit organization do paid editing. Should we ask them to be be open
 with their userids  relation to their companies/organizations for example,
 which I think is the (only) wish we should have (and paid editors from GLAM
 already do this) .


 Anders




 Christophe Henner skrev 2014-01-10 13:34:

 Hi everyone,

 I'll try to elaborate on this topic :)

 First of all, in 2011 in Haifa I did a first talk about companies and
 Wikipedia. I did that because I was making a study (emphasis on the
  as I'm not keen to say it's a study and more of a detailed
 observation) of the state of the articles of the top 40 french
 companies.

 During that talk I explained how I believe companies could help us
 improve our projects. I won't get too much into that as, since then,
 the debate evolved from companies editing Wikipedia to Paid editing
 is evil.

 This year at Wikimania I gave two talks about this very topic, one
 about how third party organizations can help us and the second on a
 framework to have editing.

 Of course, as usual, some people were against it.

 But how can we, as a community, be against paid editing on one hand
 when on the other hand we seek paid editing from GLAMs, researchers
 from state organizations, etc.

 The question whether we allow, or not, paid editing is non-existent.
 Paid editing is allowed, we already allowed it, we even support it;

 Now, the question about paid advocacy. Again, one of our core
 principle is NPOV. We don't want people to push their POV. Whether
 they're paid or not, is not relevant.

 So, to me, the paid foobar question is not the one in debate here.
 The one we're actually debating about is do we want for profit
 organization to edit Wikipedia.

 So yes, paid organizations have an interest in editing Wikipedia, but
 just as much as GLAMs have an interest in editing our projects. In
 fact, when Wikimedian meets GLAMs one of the key arguments is look at
 (pick past project that got great coverage such as the bundesarchives,
 British Museum, etc). We show them they have an interest in
 committing resources, both financial and human, to improve Wikimedia
 projects.

 So the they have an interest in editing isn't an argument in the
 end, as, of course a lot of editors have an interest in editing. And
 we're using it. When we think or work on how researchers valorize
 their edits in their cursus, those researchers have an interest in
 editing Wikipedia.

 So, really what is that people working for a company have that makes
 it so we have to ban them to edit? If we already have people paid to
 edit, if we have people with interests (henceforth some sort of COI),
 what do they have the others don't?

 Now, why do I strongly believe we should encourage companies to edit
 Wikipedia.

 First of all, as I said some years ago I evaluated the quality of
 company articles on the French Wikipedia. Most of them were crap.
 Either outdated, incomplete or with wrong information, all those
 articles were poor; And we're talking about the top 40 french
 companies, such as Orange, L'Oréal, Renault, BNP, etc.

 The volunteer community isn't keen to improve and maintain those
 articles. Companies are willing to do it. So we prefer to have poor
 articles instead of good ones because there's a risk companies will
 act wrongfully (I hope I'm not the only one to see the irony in this
 situation where we prefer to ban editors because there's a risk
 they'll do wrong. We should do that for all the projects, Close them
 to editing because there's a risk people will do wrong.).

 Adapting our projects to provide a framework where companies can
 easily fit in and edit as a direct consequence, improve the quality of
 their articles.

 Companies that have the resources to commit to such things are,
 usually, big and sometimes old company. Imagine that in a few year,
 being involved with the Wikimedia projects is so natural for those
 companies that they release their archives on the Wikimedia Projects.
 What archives do you ask?

 Orange, for example, is the former organization in charge of the
 french telecom. They managed telephone for a very long time and have a
 long history in RD. Their archives must be astounding. Containing
 documents, pictures and videos about telecomunication that should be
 awesome. 

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

2014-01-10 Thread Erlend Bjørtvedt
But even they sell souvenires and books..
Den 10. jan. 2014 16:05 skrev Katie Chan k...@ktchan.info følgende:

 On 10/01/2014 15:01, Erlend Bjørtvedt wrote:

 A museum is a commercial entity. They live from ticket incomes from
 customers.


 Not all museum charges people entry... ;)

 --
 Katie Chan
 Any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the
 author and do not necessarily represent the view of any organisation the
 author is associated with or employed by.


 Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
  - Heinrich Heine


 ___
 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
___
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] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

2014-01-10 Thread Brad Jorsch (Anomie)
(Note these are my own personal views and in no way reflect any views of
the WMF or anyone else)

On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 7:34 AM, Christophe Henner 
christophe.hen...@gmail.com wrote:

 Now, the question about paid advocacy. Again, one of our core
 principle is NPOV. We don't want people to push their POV. Whether
 they're paid or not, is not relevant.

 So, to me, the paid foobar question is not the one in debate here.
 The one we're actually debating about is do we want for profit
 organization to edit Wikipedia.


I'd take this one step further: *paid* advocacy isn't necessarily the thing
we should be that much concerned about, as unpaid advocacy is just as bad
for the integrity of our content. There's no difference between someone who
inserts POV content because they're being paid to do so and someone who
inserts POV content because of their religious beliefs or personal
relationships or the like.

On the other hand, a paid advocate may perhaps be more concerning from a
community standpoint because it's likely that the paid advocate is going to
have more time and resources to devote to inserting POV content (and to
doing so in ways less likely to be caught) than most unpaid advocates.

Even more generally, even paid editing without advocacy may give a stigma
to the project even if the content really is fully NPOV. And, as mentioned
elsewhere, even paid editing without advocacy might discourage non-paid
contributions for various reasons. These reasons might be behind some of
the opposition to all paid editing.
___
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] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

2014-01-10 Thread Andrew Lih
Ting and Christophe,

Glad to hear we are moving forward on finding more sophisticated ways of
thinking about paid editing. At least for the English Wikipedians I've
talked to, many are pleasantly surprised that the European editions are
able to find a cooperative relationship with paid, corporate entities. The
Signpost article out today details some of that, but it merits a
comprehensive inventory and study to compare best practices. (Of course,
the argument can always be made about English Wikipedia as a weird special
case because of its profile and large community. I intentionally choose not
to use the horrible word exceptionalism!)

In last night's episode of Wikipedia Weekly podcast, we talked about this
as well [1]. In general, there are multiple parameters regarding the issue
of COI editing that goes beyond pay.

1. Pay
2. Neutrality
3. Advocacy
4. Transparency

Even then, the term advocacy is an imprecise and nearly useless term. Are
you advocating for a client? Are you advocating for the public good? Same
word, completely different motivations. So paid advocacy as a phrase,
uncontextualized, is not useful.

That's why I really like the GLAM use of the phrase of choosing to work
with like minded institutions. A national museum with editorial
independence is a good like-minded institution for the Wikimedia community.
A think tank that works to convince the public that global warming is a
myth… not so much.

If an institution is not like-minded, then the process of educating and
working with them with appropriate strict guidelines is a viable solution.
We see that this can work with the examples of Swedish and German
Wikipedias (and, it seems, others)

Back to the four factors above: You can have paid, neutral, transparent
editors that advocate for something good -- like better public access to
public records. GLAM Wikipedians-in-residence are a good example of this,
where they ensure that the interests of the public and Wikipedia's
principles come first. So their advocacy is for the principles of better
public knowledge, and a full time employee is working on it. This is a 4x
positive outcome, even though the words paid and advocacy are used.

On the other hand, in the case of Wiki-PR: it's editing for pay, without
transparency, without neutrality and advocating for a paying customer's
benefit. That's a quadruple no-no. This type of activity must be banned.
But if there is a middle way on this, in working with corporations in a
straightforward way, we would be silly not to investigate this, as certain
Wikipedia editions already show that it is possible.

I've highlighted in the past that we have systemic problems in Wikipedia
with unpaid editors resulting in persistent non-neutral content. The
university and college articles are the best (ie. worst) examples of this
-- these always read like brochures that brag about the top accomplishments
and rankings of a university because the number of alumni and students that
put in positive statements far outnumber anyone who could pull them back
into neutral territory. Unpaid, non-neutral, alma mater-advocacy is rampant
and persistent.

I hope we can start a longer dialogue about this at Wikimania. I'd be happy
to propose not just a session, but an entire track at Wikimania to address
this, including brainstorming/sharing sessions to get more views from other
language editions.

-Andrew

[1] Wikipedia Weekly episode 108 -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0698SX41VsE
Discussion of paid editing at 33 minutes into the podcast



On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de wrote:

 Hello dear all,

 I would like to be more cautious about the difference between the good
 paid editing and the bad paid advocacy.

 There are two reasons why I don't want to separate in this way.

 First of there is no clear boundary between the good and bad like
 black and white. There is a gradient of grey between the two. And that
 gradient is not a narrow one but a very broad one. And it depends from the
 perspective of the people who look upon the matter. For one maybe a
 behavior is the dark white but for the other one it may be a bright black.

 Second I want to especially respond to the idea that Erik brought up: an
 organization that hire people to write qualified articles. I wrote in the
 other mail that I believe paid editing changes the collaboratory nature of
 our projects but did not really elaborate on why I think so. I want to do
 this now. Let me construct an example to emphasize why I think so. I will
 now take an example which leaves almost no room for interpretation about
 black and white: the theoretical physics. Let's say there is a charitable
 non-profit organization that hires reknowned theoretical physicists to
 write Wikipedia articles. So they pay 10.000 Dollar to Bryce DeWitt (I
 know, he is dead, I just don't want to name any living people) to write
 about field theory, or John Wheeler to write about general relativity, and
 so on and so 

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

2014-01-10 Thread Peter Gervai
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de wrote:
 Wikipedia articles. So they pay 10.000 Dollar to Bryce DeWitt (I know, he is
 dead, I just don't want to name any living people) to write about field
 theory, or John Wheeler to write about general relativity, and so on and so
 on. I wonder if this happens, would there still be anyone who dares to
 change or write articles on topics about theoretical physics? If this

I understand your intentions but the example was faulty, as you mix up
paid editing with authority or celebrity status.

If Albert Einstein wrote an article about relativity (not paid by
anyone but because he really likes to share his knowledge) nobody
really would dare to chime in.

However John Doe, Jr., however he's paid isn't special and people will
trim his advocacy way more than a normal one.

In fact authority is not equal to article protection and humble
silence: we had pleny of cases where notable academics went away in
flaming anger because a nobody questioned their authority and
requested, for example, external sources or proofs.

I believe paid advocacy vs. paid article writing destinction is
valid and important; as well as the general article writing vs.
advocacy distinction, which may not be black and white but it's
definitely a separate hue or brightness. :-)

Peter

___
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] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

2014-01-10 Thread Christophe Henner
A track about that \o/

It took me years to have 2 sessions and they were the only 2 tackling
that issue last year :)
--
Christophe


On 10 January 2014 16:17, Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com wrote:
 Ting and Christophe,

 Glad to hear we are moving forward on finding more sophisticated ways of
 thinking about paid editing. At least for the English Wikipedians I've
 talked to, many are pleasantly surprised that the European editions are
 able to find a cooperative relationship with paid, corporate entities. The
 Signpost article out today details some of that, but it merits a
 comprehensive inventory and study to compare best practices. (Of course,
 the argument can always be made about English Wikipedia as a weird special
 case because of its profile and large community. I intentionally choose not
 to use the horrible word exceptionalism!)

 In last night's episode of Wikipedia Weekly podcast, we talked about this
 as well [1]. In general, there are multiple parameters regarding the issue
 of COI editing that goes beyond pay.

 1. Pay
 2. Neutrality
 3. Advocacy
 4. Transparency

 Even then, the term advocacy is an imprecise and nearly useless term. Are
 you advocating for a client? Are you advocating for the public good? Same
 word, completely different motivations. So paid advocacy as a phrase,
 uncontextualized, is not useful.

 That's why I really like the GLAM use of the phrase of choosing to work
 with like minded institutions. A national museum with editorial
 independence is a good like-minded institution for the Wikimedia community.
 A think tank that works to convince the public that global warming is a
 myth… not so much.

 If an institution is not like-minded, then the process of educating and
 working with them with appropriate strict guidelines is a viable solution.
 We see that this can work with the examples of Swedish and German
 Wikipedias (and, it seems, others)

 Back to the four factors above: You can have paid, neutral, transparent
 editors that advocate for something good -- like better public access to
 public records. GLAM Wikipedians-in-residence are a good example of this,
 where they ensure that the interests of the public and Wikipedia's
 principles come first. So their advocacy is for the principles of better
 public knowledge, and a full time employee is working on it. This is a 4x
 positive outcome, even though the words paid and advocacy are used.

 On the other hand, in the case of Wiki-PR: it's editing for pay, without
 transparency, without neutrality and advocating for a paying customer's
 benefit. That's a quadruple no-no. This type of activity must be banned.
 But if there is a middle way on this, in working with corporations in a
 straightforward way, we would be silly not to investigate this, as certain
 Wikipedia editions already show that it is possible.

 I've highlighted in the past that we have systemic problems in Wikipedia
 with unpaid editors resulting in persistent non-neutral content. The
 university and college articles are the best (ie. worst) examples of this
 -- these always read like brochures that brag about the top accomplishments
 and rankings of a university because the number of alumni and students that
 put in positive statements far outnumber anyone who could pull them back
 into neutral territory. Unpaid, non-neutral, alma mater-advocacy is rampant
 and persistent.

 I hope we can start a longer dialogue about this at Wikimania. I'd be happy
 to propose not just a session, but an entire track at Wikimania to address
 this, including brainstorming/sharing sessions to get more views from other
 language editions.

 -Andrew

 [1] Wikipedia Weekly episode 108 -
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0698SX41VsE
 Discussion of paid editing at 33 minutes into the podcast



 On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de wrote:

 Hello dear all,

 I would like to be more cautious about the difference between the good
 paid editing and the bad paid advocacy.

 There are two reasons why I don't want to separate in this way.

 First of there is no clear boundary between the good and bad like
 black and white. There is a gradient of grey between the two. And that
 gradient is not a narrow one but a very broad one. And it depends from the
 perspective of the people who look upon the matter. For one maybe a
 behavior is the dark white but for the other one it may be a bright black.

 Second I want to especially respond to the idea that Erik brought up: an
 organization that hire people to write qualified articles. I wrote in the
 other mail that I believe paid editing changes the collaboratory nature of
 our projects but did not really elaborate on why I think so. I want to do
 this now. Let me construct an example to emphasize why I think so. I will
 now take an example which leaves almost no room for interpretation about
 black and white: the theoretical physics. Let's say there is a charitable
 non-profit organization that hires reknowned 

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

2014-01-10 Thread Lionel Allorge
Hi,

 I agree it's an important distinction. I personally think it could be
 worthwhile to think about a separate non-profit organization which
 receives payments and manages contracts to systematically expand
 Wikipedia coverage, with payment entirely or largely decoupled from
 specific articles (at most coupled to specific domains) and the
 organization's policies being developed transparently in partnership
 with the community. I suspect such an org could receive significant
 grants and public support in its own right.
...
 I'd love to see more experiments that are conducted in full awareness
 of the ethical issues involved, both with funding models for free
 content, and with other incentive structures. WikiMoney was actually
 quite popular for a short while, considering how much of a pain it was
 to actually administer!

I agree with you that the Wikimedia Foundation is not in the best position to 
pay people to produce Free content. But there are many fields where it would 
useful to pay people to produce Free (as in freedom) content.

For exemple, we could have a Free news website with paid journalists that 
could get to places forbiden to amateurs like in press conferences or get 
interviews with celebrities.

We could have a Free photography agency that could send professionals to take 
pictures and videos all over the world, especially where amateurs won't be 
allowed like in war zones.

We could have a publishing company that would pay specialists to write Free 
books about subjects where we lack tertiary sources. It would be a great way 
not to antagonize renowned scientists who might get bitten if they edit 
Wikipedia directly.

Those Free texts, pictures, videos, etc. could then be used by the Wikimedia 
projects by amateurs.

Best regards.

-- 
Lionel Allorge
April : http://www.april.org
Lune Rouge : http://www.lunerouge.org
Wikimedia France : http://wikimedia.fr


___
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] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

2014-01-10 Thread Arne Klempert
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie)
bjor...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 On the other hand, a paid advocate may perhaps be more concerning from a
 community standpoint because it's likely that the paid advocate is going to
 have more time and resources to devote to inserting POV content (and to
 doing so in ways less likely to be caught) than most unpaid advocates.

I've heard that before from Wikipedians. However, it does not match
with what communication professionals keep telling me. Even larger
companies with solid communication departments are usually not in a
place to spend enough ressources to correct their articles beyond
basic facts. Many of them tried (directly and/or through talk pages)
but gave up at some point. For companies engaging with Wikipedia can
be terribly time-consuming - especially if they want to do it right.

Cheers,
Arne
-- 
Arne Klempert, http://www.klempert.de/
This gmail address is for mailing lists only. Please
use surname@gmail.com for personal emails.

___
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

[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Argentina report: December 2013

2014-01-10 Thread Osmar Valdebenito
Dear Wikimedians,

Here is the monthly report of Wikimedia Argentina for December 2013.
You can read the full report (in Spanish and English) here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Argentina/Reportes/2013-12
Also, the full reports of past months are available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Argentina/Reportes

1. New publication: «¿Cómo educar con Wikipedia?»
2. Virtual training for teachers
3. Content digitization

=== New publication: «¿Cómo educar con Wikipedia?» ===

With a clear objective of widening the resources aimed at teachers, to use
Wikipedia in the classroom, Wikimedia Argentina has translated the document
«Case studies: How professors are teaching with Wikipedia», originally
produced by Wikimedia Foundation. The document goes through successful
cases and different exercises that have given good results to teachers of
different levels, especially in tertiary education. These cases are proof
of how versatile Wikipedia is as an education tool.

With this brochure, we hope to increase the references available for
teachers interested to work with Wikipedia. «¿Cómo educar con Wikipedia?»
joins our collection of documents, formed by «Wikipedia en el aula»,
«Manual de bolsillo del Wikipedista» and the compliation of articles
«Bicentenario de la Revolución de Mayo».

The document is available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Programa_de_Educaci%C3%B3n_Wikipedia_-_Casos_de_estudio.pdf

=== Virtual training for teachers ===

The Centre of Innovation in Technology and Pedagogics, in the department of
Innovation and Academic Quality of Universidad de Buenos Aires, organized a
massive virtual course focused on training teachers in new technologies,
and learning new teachers' practices related with those. The course
«Escenarios con tecnología: entre lo real y lo posible» began at the end of
November and lasted till mid-December. Close to 2.500 Spanish-speaking
teachers all over the world (counting amongst these, professionals from
Albania and China), of which 200 took part of all the practical exercises
suggested during the course.

The last week of November the course was dedicated to collaborative
learning contexts, with an important emphasis on Wikipedia. We presented a
video with Patricio Lorente and held a videoconference amongst Wikipedians
and participants of the course. We opened a special forum so the people
involved could revise articles on Wikipedia, suggest changes and talk with
Wikipedia collaborators. The Wikipedia volunteers acted as tutors, teaching
diverse aspects of Wikipedia, guiding through different editing stages and
motivating the participants of the course to join the community. Through
this real-editing experience, many people who had never edited the free
encyclopedia before were able to do it for the first time, and other
participants who did not edit actively were able anyway to know more about
the encyclopedia.

After two weeks experience, 49 topics were created in the forum, which
received 325 messages. New articles were created, like «Resignificar» and
«Vito Campanella», while other articles were substantially improved, like
«Wikinomía» or «Facultad de Ciencias Biológicas (UNMSM)», aside from a
dozen other articles with minor changes.

=== Content digitization ===

All throughout the year, several institutions received a do-it-yourself
scanner to digitize books. This has allowed different organizations to
share their books on Wikimedia Commons. The library and documentary center
«Feminaria», part of the Tierra Violeta Cultural Center, uploaded 43 books
of its collection to Wikimedia repositories. This works greatly cover the
feminist ideology books published in our country during the XX century.
This collection has works by María Saez de Vernet, Rafael Barreda, Paulette
Pax, Alfonsina Storni, and many others, and also has documents like «Civil
rights of women», by Eduardo Padró and the International Feminine Congress
transcripts, amongst others.

Some months ago, the Library of the School of Humanities and Educational
Sciences of the National University of La Plata shared part of its archive
on Wikimedia Commons. Thanks to the home-made scanner they received as a
loan, they were able to upload 42 books to Wikimedia Commons. These cover
very varied topics, such as agricultural sciences, rural history studies,
books about Julio Cortázar, Borges and many other publications.

With this program, we not only promote the aperture of publications for
their free spreading, but we also promote wiki culture within local
institutions. The aim of bringing together these successful cases is, as
well, to make an open call for volunteers that wish to collaborate in any
of these projects. In some cases, the process of translating these scans to
text has been started on Wikisource, but there are still many documents to
transcribe. During 2014, these scanners will be moved to new institutions,
thus we can bring the process of digitization further, and continue to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] A Multimedia Vision for 2016

2014-01-10 Thread Keegan Peterzell
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 2:33 AM, Gerard Meijssen
gerard.meijs...@gmail.comwrote:

 Hoi,
 Fabrice, I very much love the two stories described in the vision. It
 describes not only a functionality that is technical, it also describes how
 our community may interact. That is great.

 What I missed are the consequences of the planned integration of Commons
 with Wikidata. I blogged about it [1] and I suggest three more stories that
 could be told because they are enabled by this integration. What I do not
 fully understand is how the community aspects will integrate in an
 environment that will be more multi lingual and multi cultural as a
 consequence.


Thanks for reading over the material, watching the video, and blogging,
Gerard. Your ideas and visions are interesting, by all means put them down
on the talk page on the wiki 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Multimedia_Features/Vision_2016
 

Thanks!

-- 
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Product
Wikimedia Foundation
___
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] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

2014-01-10 Thread Federico Leva (Nemo)

Arne Klempert, 10/01/2014 17:51:

I've heard that before from Wikipedians. However, it does not match
with what communication professionals keep telling me. Even larger
companies with solid communication departments are usually not in a
place to spend enough ressources to correct their articles beyond
basic facts. [...]


That only means that their return on investment is too little for them, 
not that they wouldn't have enough resources. Usually, that's because 
what they're trying to do is impossible, so they keep hitting a wall. 
Wiki-PR's very reasonable prices show that the job can be very 
cost-effective and not so heavy, if one knows what can survive in the 
system.
In my experience, every time you talk with a company's communication 
person you have to spend hours convincing them that every single thing 
they thought or wanted to do on Wikipedia is totally impossible, then 
after a complete mind-reset you can teach them the simple things they 
can do successfully. Things could be much smoother, but our approaches 
are too inefficient (or our resources insufficient by several orders of 
magnitudes with current approaches) for the necessary mass-education of 
communication professionals to happen and enable them to productive 
interaction.


Nemo

___
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] Thanking anonymous users

2014-01-10 Thread Ryan Kaldari
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.

Ryan Kaldari
___
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] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

2014-01-10 Thread Anders Wennersten


Martijn Hoekstra skrev 2014-01-10 20:12:


I very much agree with this. Currently we just don't have the manpower to
explain to 'the corporate world'


Who do you refer to when you talk of we. I it a group of people or a 
language community. You are certainly not laking for all communities, as 
the community I work recognize the issues you take up, but we feel we 
can handle it OK (but still have severe problem with the hard POVer re 
racism etc)


Anders




___
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] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

2014-01-10 Thread Michel Vuijlsteke
On 10 January 2014 20:12, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.comwrote:

 I very much agree with this. Currently we just don't have the manpower to
 explain to 'the corporate world' in an understanding and clear fashion that
 what they are trying to do is *all wrong*, and what it is they *can*
 actually do. As long as corporate spam outnumbers well-meaning Wikipedians
 who are willing to invest time and effort in explaining by roughly a factor
 1 : 10, there is little we can do.


Or, as is the case on the Dutch-language Wikipedia; as long as hardcore
anti-anything-to-do-with-corporate-whatever Wikipedians can outgun
well-meaning Wikipedians who are willing to invest time and effort in
creating and maintaining content about corporate entities in the equivalent
of AfD, there is little we can do.

Michel
___
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] Thanking anonymous users

2014-01-10 Thread Isarra Yos

On 10/01/14 19:21, 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.

Ryan Kaldari
___
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


1. Why not?
2. A time limit might help resolve that with ipv4 addresses. 
Alternately, thanks could potentially be nice even if they didn't make 
the edit themselves, since it's the general feeling and such, so just 
letting that through for ipv4 addresses might be an option.


Mind I'm mostly just echoing something someone else said on IRC just 
now, but they seem like interesting points to me.


___
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] Thanking anonymous users

2014-01-10 Thread Oliver Keyes
For 1: because it'd be impossible to accurately associate notifications
with the person, I assume.


On 10 January 2014 12:11, Isarra Yos zhoris...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 10/01/14 19:21, 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.

 Ryan Kaldari
 ___
 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


 1. Why not?
 2. A time limit might help resolve that with ipv4 addresses. Alternately,
 thanks could potentially be nice even if they didn't make the edit
 themselves, since it's the general feeling and such, so just letting that
 through for ipv4 addresses might be an option.

 Mind I'm mostly just echoing something someone else said on IRC just now,
 but they seem like interesting points to me.


 ___
 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




-- 
Oliver Keyes
Product Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
___
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] Thanking anonymous users

2014-01-10 Thread Jasper Deng
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.

Not completely correct when it comes to public computers and mobile IPs.


On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 For 1: because it'd be impossible to accurately associate notifications
 with the person, I assume.


 On 10 January 2014 12:11, Isarra Yos zhoris...@gmail.com wrote:

  On 10/01/14 19:21, 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.
 
  Ryan Kaldari
  ___
  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
 
 
  1. Why not?
  2. A time limit might help resolve that with ipv4 addresses. Alternately,
  thanks could potentially be nice even if they didn't make the edit
  themselves, since it's the general feeling and such, so just letting that
  through for ipv4 addresses might be an option.
 
  Mind I'm mostly just echoing something someone else said on IRC just now,
  but they seem like interesting points to me.
 
 
  ___
  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
 



 --
 Oliver Keyes
 Product Analyst
 Wikimedia Foundation
 ___
 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

___
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] Thanking anonymous users

2014-01-10 Thread MF-Warburg
On that occasion, do IPs still receive information about messages on their
talk page? (Since the orange bar was abolished and they now go through echo
notifications all well)
Am 10.01.2014 21:29 schrieb Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org:

 For 1: because it'd be impossible to accurately associate notifications
 with the person, I assume.


 On 10 January 2014 12:11, Isarra Yos zhoris...@gmail.com wrote:

  On 10/01/14 19:21, 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.
 
  Ryan Kaldari
  ___
  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
 
 
  1. Why not?
  2. A time limit might help resolve that with ipv4 addresses. Alternately,
  thanks could potentially be nice even if they didn't make the edit
  themselves, since it's the general feeling and such, so just letting that
  through for ipv4 addresses might be an option.
 
  Mind I'm mostly just echoing something someone else said on IRC just now,
  but they seem like interesting points to me.
 
 
  ___
  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
 



 --
 Oliver Keyes
 Product Analyst
 Wikimedia Foundation
 ___
 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
___
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] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

2014-01-10 Thread Ting Chen

Hello Peter,

I see the following two possibilities:

Either the paid editing brings a higher quality and thus by that quality 
imposes itself as an authority and thus discourage further unqualified 
editing


Or the paid editing does not bring a higher quality, then an unpaid 
volunteer editor will with right feel fooled and ask: Why does that 
person get paid and I not, it is obvious that my work is less valued and 
thus I will quit.


In both cases I come back to my conclusion, and that is paid editing 
changes the collaboratory nature of our projects.


Greetings
Ting


Am 10.01.2014 16:23, schrieb Peter Gervai:

On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de wrote:

Wikipedia articles. So they pay 10.000 Dollar to Bryce DeWitt (I know, he is
dead, I just don't want to name any living people) to write about field
theory, or John Wheeler to write about general relativity, and so on and so
on. I wonder if this happens, would there still be anyone who dares to
change or write articles on topics about theoretical physics? If this

I understand your intentions but the example was faulty, as you mix up
paid editing with authority or celebrity status.

If Albert Einstein wrote an article about relativity (not paid by
anyone but because he really likes to share his knowledge) nobody
really would dare to chime in.

However John Doe, Jr., however he's paid isn't special and people will
trim his advocacy way more than a normal one.

In fact authority is not equal to article protection and humble
silence: we had pleny of cases where notable academics went away in
flaming anger because a nobody questioned their authority and
requested, for example, external sources or proofs.

I believe paid advocacy vs. paid article writing destinction is
valid and important; as well as the general article writing vs.
advocacy distinction, which may not be black and white but it's
definitely a separate hue or brightness. :-)

Peter

___
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



___
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] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

2014-01-10 Thread Ting Chen

Hello Peter,

I see the following two possibilities:

Either the paid editing brings a higher quality and thus by that quality 
imposes itself as an authority and thus discourage further unqualified 
editing


Or the paid editing does not bring a higher quality, then an unpaid 
volunteer editor will with right feel fooled and ask: Why does that 
person get paid and I not, it is obvious that my work is less valued and 
thus I will quit.


In both cases I come back to my conclusion, and that is paid editing 
changes the collaboratory nature of our projects.


Greetings
Ting

Am 10.01.2014 16:23, schrieb Peter Gervai:

On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de wrote:

Wikipedia articles. So they pay 10.000 Dollar to Bryce DeWitt (I know, he is
dead, I just don't want to name any living people) to write about field
theory, or John Wheeler to write about general relativity, and so on and so
on. I wonder if this happens, would there still be anyone who dares to
change or write articles on topics about theoretical physics? If this

I understand your intentions but the example was faulty, as you mix up
paid editing with authority or celebrity status.

If Albert Einstein wrote an article about relativity (not paid by
anyone but because he really likes to share his knowledge) nobody
really would dare to chime in.

However John Doe, Jr., however he's paid isn't special and people will
trim his advocacy way more than a normal one.

In fact authority is not equal to article protection and humble
silence: we had pleny of cases where notable academics went away in
flaming anger because a nobody questioned their authority and
requested, for example, external sources or proofs.

I believe paid advocacy vs. paid article writing destinction is
valid and important; as well as the general article writing vs.
advocacy distinction, which may not be black and white but it's
definitely a separate hue or brightness. :-)

Peter

___
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



___
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] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

2014-01-10 Thread Andreas Kolbe
Christophe's comment about Wikipedia's company articles not being very
complete reminded me of a fun infographic:

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5474/11871822903_714f36a83e_h.jpg

There is a strange, systemic hostility towards business at work in the
English Wikipedia. Combined with a love for pop trivia ...


On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Christophe Henner 
christophe.hen...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi everyone,

 I'll try to elaborate on this topic :)

 First of all, in 2011 in Haifa I did a first talk about companies and
 Wikipedia. I did that because I was making a study (emphasis on the
  as I'm not keen to say it's a study and more of a detailed
 observation) of the state of the articles of the top 40 french
 companies.

 During that talk I explained how I believe companies could help us
 improve our projects. I won't get too much into that as, since then,
 the debate evolved from companies editing Wikipedia to Paid editing
 is evil.

 This year at Wikimania I gave two talks about this very topic, one
 about how third party organizations can help us and the second on a
 framework to have editing.

 Of course, as usual, some people were against it.

 But how can we, as a community, be against paid editing on one hand
 when on the other hand we seek paid editing from GLAMs, researchers
 from state organizations, etc.

 The question whether we allow, or not, paid editing is non-existent.
 Paid editing is allowed, we already allowed it, we even support it;

 Now, the question about paid advocacy. Again, one of our core
 principle is NPOV. We don't want people to push their POV. Whether
 they're paid or not, is not relevant.

 So, to me, the paid foobar question is not the one in debate here.
 The one we're actually debating about is do we want for profit
 organization to edit Wikipedia.

 So yes, paid organizations have an interest in editing Wikipedia, but
 just as much as GLAMs have an interest in editing our projects. In
 fact, when Wikimedian meets GLAMs one of the key arguments is look at
 (pick past project that got great coverage such as the bundesarchives,
 British Museum, etc). We show them they have an interest in
 committing resources, both financial and human, to improve Wikimedia
 projects.

 So the they have an interest in editing isn't an argument in the
 end, as, of course a lot of editors have an interest in editing. And
 we're using it. When we think or work on how researchers valorize
 their edits in their cursus, those researchers have an interest in
 editing Wikipedia.

 So, really what is that people working for a company have that makes
 it so we have to ban them to edit? If we already have people paid to
 edit, if we have people with interests (henceforth some sort of COI),
 what do they have the others don't?

 Now, why do I strongly believe we should encourage companies to edit
 Wikipedia.

 First of all, as I said some years ago I evaluated the quality of
 company articles on the French Wikipedia. Most of them were crap.
 Either outdated, incomplete or with wrong information, all those
 articles were poor; And we're talking about the top 40 french
 companies, such as Orange, L'Oréal, Renault, BNP, etc.

 The volunteer community isn't keen to improve and maintain those
 articles. Companies are willing to do it. So we prefer to have poor
 articles instead of good ones because there's a risk companies will
 act wrongfully (I hope I'm not the only one to see the irony in this
 situation where we prefer to ban editors because there's a risk
 they'll do wrong. We should do that for all the projects, Close them
 to editing because there's a risk people will do wrong.).

 Adapting our projects to provide a framework where companies can
 easily fit in and edit as a direct consequence, improve the quality of
 their articles.

 Companies that have the resources to commit to such things are,
 usually, big and sometimes old company. Imagine that in a few year,
 being involved with the Wikimedia projects is so natural for those
 companies that they release their archives on the Wikimedia Projects.
 What archives do you ask?

 Orange, for example, is the former organization in charge of the
 french telecom. They managed telephone for a very long time and have a
 long history in RD. Their archives must be astounding. Containing
 documents, pictures and videos about telecomunication that should be
 awesome. That are part of our history.
 Right now, those archives are dusting in some building. And in few
 years they might disappear.
 Our stance, being so opposed to companies making the first step
 (editing) prevent companies to go the next step, release. And in fact,
 indirectly, we're preventing knowledge to be freed. Awesome.

 Lastly, those companies have huge RD budgets and employ thousands of
 researchers and engineers. Imagine a company that employs 1 000
 researchers. And imagine that company to do 2 things:
 1/ that a company, as part of its CSR politic, says they commit 1 day
 per year 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

2014-01-10 Thread Sam Klein
I would very much enjoy notifications as an IP  for IPs.

We can make a few carve-outs:
 - major hubs (schools, businesses, wifi providers with thousands of users)
can be excluded.

The message/framing to IPs would be slightly different than that for
logged-in users: since we can't be sure it's the same person.  Nevertheless
we could make it fun for them to see the wall of comments left for the last
user of that IP, and any global notifications for it.

The same message could highlight that they are logged out, in case they
didn't realize (right now it's not easy to notice when you get logged out
in the middle of a session, unless you've set a custom skin / color in your
prefs).

SJ


On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.orgwrote:

 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.

 Ryan Kaldari
 ___
 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




-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj  w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
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] Thanking anonymous users

2014-01-10 Thread Nathan
I think we should just thank everyone, on at least a yearly basis, with a
thank you drive similar to what we do for fundraising. It doesn't need to
be for a specific edit or tied to any one IP. After the fundraiser hits the
goal we usually run it a little with a thank you banner, and if we did that
separately and used it to encourage participation by our readers, all the
projects should benefit.
___
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] Thanking anonymous users

2014-01-10 Thread David Gerard
On 10 January 2014 20:28, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 For 1: because it'd be impossible to accurately associate notifications
 with the person, I assume.



Apparently that's the reason.

However, being able to thank IP contributors for their contribution
would be FANTASTIC. Saying thank you to casual drive-by contributors
would give them quite a buzz, I'd think.

Perhaps a timeout? Say, you can thank an IP for their edit within 1
hour? We can experiment and see what time gives the best amount of
thanks versus mistakes.


- 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] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

2014-01-10 Thread Andreas Kolbe
Quite. Museums' self-interest in employing a Wikipedian-in-Residence is
often quite evident from the way the position is described (raise our
profile etc.)

And what about, say, the Henry Ford Museum? Or the Volkswagen museum? Is
that not knowledge? Is it evil, because it's part of a business?

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), resulting in the creation
of truly niche content that seems designed to benefit local tourism more
than mass education, while baulking at the idea of paying legal, scientific
or medical experts to look over the most viewed, most critical legal,
scientific or medical articles, i.e. articles that are accessed by
thousands of people each day. I'd rather see the money go to a trained
expert working on those articles, much along the lines Ting (somewhat
reluctantly) considered above, even it this were to result – shock! horror!
– in a stable, authoritative Wikipedia article.

At any rate, I am sure donors would rather see their money go towards
improving the quality of key encyclopedic topics than see them spent on
funding microcoverage of some tourist region.




On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Erlend Bjørtvedt erl...@wikimedia.nowrote:

 A museum is a commercial entity. They live from ticket incomes from
 customers. Universities live from tuition fees from students who freely
 choose which university is most attractive to them.

 The difference between these institutions editing, and a private railway
 company when it comes to coi issues, is in my view  non-existent.

 Erlend
 Den 10. jan. 2014 14:14 skrev Anders Wennersten 
 m...@anderswennersten.se
 følgende:

  Thanks Christophe for your long ,but very good thoughts and experiences
  from paid editing from pro-profit organization.
 
  I fully  support your approach and hope we can put energy, instead of
 just
  being against, to elaborate on how to best handle the reality that
  pro-profit organization do paid editing. Should we ask them to be be open
  with their userids  relation to their companies/organizations for
 example,
  which I think is the (only) wish we should have (and paid editors from
 GLAM
  already do this) .
 
 
  Anders
 
 
 
 
  Christophe Henner skrev 2014-01-10 13:34:
 
  Hi everyone,
 
  I'll try to elaborate on this topic :)
 
  First of all, in 2011 in Haifa I did a first talk about companies and
  Wikipedia. I did that because I was making a study (emphasis on the
   as I'm not keen to say it's a study and more of a detailed
  observation) of the state of the articles of the top 40 french
  companies.
 
  During that talk I explained how I believe companies could help us
  improve our projects. I won't get too much into that as, since then,
  the debate evolved from companies editing Wikipedia to Paid editing
  is evil.
 
  This year at Wikimania I gave two talks about this very topic, one
  about how third party organizations can help us and the second on a
  framework to have editing.
 
  Of course, as usual, some people were against it.
 
  But how can we, as a community, be against paid editing on one hand
  when on the other hand we seek paid editing from GLAMs, researchers
  from state organizations, etc.
 
  The question whether we allow, or not, paid editing is non-existent.
  Paid editing is allowed, we already allowed it, we even support it;
 
  Now, the question about paid advocacy. Again, one of our core
  principle is NPOV. We don't want people to push their POV. Whether
  they're paid or not, is not relevant.
 
  So, to me, the paid foobar question is not the one in debate here.
  The one we're actually debating about is do we want for profit
  organization to edit Wikipedia.
 
  So yes, paid organizations have an interest in editing Wikipedia, but
  just as much as GLAMs have an interest in editing our projects. In
  fact, when Wikimedian meets GLAMs one of the key arguments is look at
  (pick past project that got great coverage such as the bundesarchives,
  British Museum, etc). We show them they have an interest in
  committing resources, both financial and human, to improve Wikimedia
  projects.
 
  So the they have an interest in editing isn't an argument in the
  end, as, of course a lot of editors have an interest in editing. And
  we're using it. When we think or work on how researchers valorize
  their edits in their cursus, those researchers have an interest in
  editing Wikipedia.
 
  So, really what is that people working for a company have that makes
  it so we have to ban them to edit? If we already have people paid to
  edit, if we have people with interests (henceforth some sort of COI),
  what do they have the others don't?
 
  Now, why do I strongly believe we should encourage companies to edit
  Wikipedia.
 
  First of all, as I said some years ago I evaluated the quality of
  company articles on the French Wikipedia. 

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

2014-01-10 Thread Andreas Kolbe
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 3:13 PM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) bjor...@wikimedia.org
 wrote:

 (Note these are my own personal views and in no way reflect any views of
 the WMF or anyone else)

 On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 7:34 AM, Christophe Henner 
 christophe.hen...@gmail.com wrote:

  Now, the question about paid advocacy. Again, one of our core
  principle is NPOV. We don't want people to push their POV. Whether
  they're paid or not, is not relevant.
 
  So, to me, the paid foobar question is not the one in debate here.
  The one we're actually debating about is do we want for profit
  organization to edit Wikipedia.
 

 I'd take this one step further: *paid* advocacy isn't necessarily the thing
 we should be that much concerned about, as unpaid advocacy is just as bad
 for the integrity of our content. There's no difference between someone who
 inserts POV content because they're being paid to do so and someone who
 inserts POV content because of their religious beliefs or personal
 relationships or the like.



That's the key point right here. The entire focus on preventing paid
advocacy editing is like fitting a 12-inch steel door at the front of the
house, while leaving open doors and windows for social entrepreneurs of all
sorts on all the other sides of the building.





 On the other hand, a paid advocate may perhaps be more concerning from a
 community standpoint because it's likely that the paid advocate is going to
 have more time and resources to devote to inserting POV content (and to
 doing so in ways less likely to be caught) than most unpaid advocates.

 Even more generally, even paid editing without advocacy may give a stigma
 to the project even if the content really is fully NPOV. And, as mentioned
 elsewhere, even paid editing without advocacy might discourage non-paid
 contributions for various reasons. These reasons might be behind some of
 the opposition to all paid editing.
 ___
 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

___
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] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

2014-01-10 Thread Andreas Kolbe
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 3:17 PM, Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com wrote:

 Ting and Christophe,

 Glad to hear we are moving forward on finding more sophisticated ways of
 thinking about paid editing. At least for the English Wikipedians I've
 talked to, many are pleasantly surprised that the European editions are
 able to find a cooperative relationship with paid, corporate entities. The
 Signpost article out today details some of that, but it merits a
 comprehensive inventory and study to compare best practices. (Of course,
 the argument can always be made about English Wikipedia as a weird special
 case because of its profile and large community. I intentionally choose not
 to use the horrible word exceptionalism!)




I suspect the difference is that the English Wikipedia listened for so long
to Jimmy Wales, whose views on paid editing are well known, while the other
projects just did what they thought made sense.

No other Wikipedia I know has the same witch hunt mentality against
business as the English Wikipedia.

While the German Wikipedia verifies company accounts, to prevent
impersonation, the English Wikipedia bans them on sight and asks the
editors concerned to register alternative user names that bear no
resemblance to the company name. Tens of thousands of company accounts have
been banned that way, and asked to come back with an innocuous name.

This way, transparency is lost, and it *looks* as though it is all done by
volunteers, but the reality is the same as before. It is window dressing.

And in the English Wikipedia, as in any other, practically any company
article one looks into turns out on closer inspection to have been edited
by employees of that company.

http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23t=262

Other Wikipedias accept this, and are upfront about it. The English
Wikipedia is in a permanent hissy fit about it.



In last night's episode of Wikipedia Weekly podcast, we talked about this
 as well [1]. In general, there are multiple parameters regarding the issue
 of COI editing that goes beyond pay.

 1. Pay
 2. Neutrality
 3. Advocacy
 4. Transparency

 Even then, the term advocacy is an imprecise and nearly useless term. Are
 you advocating for a client? Are you advocating for the public good? Same
 word, completely different motivations. So paid advocacy as a phrase,
 uncontextualized, is not useful.

 That's why I really like the GLAM use of the phrase of choosing to work
 with like minded institutions. A national museum with editorial
 independence is a good like-minded institution for the Wikimedia community.
 A think tank that works to convince the public that global warming is a
 myth… not so much.

 If an institution is not like-minded, then the process of educating and
 working with them with appropriate strict guidelines is a viable solution.
 We see that this can work with the examples of Swedish and German
 Wikipedias (and, it seems, others)

 Back to the four factors above: You can have paid, neutral, transparent
 editors that advocate for something good -- like better public access to
 public records. GLAM Wikipedians-in-residence are a good example of this,
 where they ensure that the interests of the public and Wikipedia's
 principles come first. So their advocacy is for the principles of better
 public knowledge, and a full time employee is working on it. This is a 4x
 positive outcome, even though the words paid and advocacy are used.

 On the other hand, in the case of Wiki-PR: it's editing for pay, without
 transparency, without neutrality and advocating for a paying customer's
 benefit. That's a quadruple no-no. This type of activity must be banned.
 But if there is a middle way on this, in working with corporations in a
 straightforward way, we would be silly not to investigate this, as certain
 Wikipedia editions already show that it is possible.

 I've highlighted in the past that we have systemic problems in Wikipedia
 with unpaid editors resulting in persistent non-neutral content. The
 university and college articles are the best (ie. worst) examples of this
 -- these always read like brochures that brag about the top accomplishments
 and rankings of a university because the number of alumni and students that
 put in positive statements far outnumber anyone who could pull them back
 into neutral territory. Unpaid, non-neutral, alma mater-advocacy is rampant
 and persistent.

 I hope we can start a longer dialogue about this at Wikimania. I'd be happy
 to propose not just a session, but an entire track at Wikimania to address
 this, including brainstorming/sharing sessions to get more views from other
 language editions.

 -Andrew

 [1] Wikipedia Weekly episode 108 -
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0698SX41VsE
 Discussion of paid editing at 33 minutes into the podcast



 On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de wrote:

  Hello dear all,
 
  I would like to be more cautious about the difference between the good
  paid 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

2014-01-10 Thread Kevin Rutherford
The downside of this is when we inevitably start thanking vandals by accident.

Kevin Rutherford

Sent from my iPhone

 On Jan 10, 2014, at 4:03 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 On 10 January 2014 20:28, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 
 For 1: because it'd be impossible to accurately associate notifications
 with the person, I assume.
 
 
 
 Apparently that's the reason.
 
 However, being able to thank IP contributors for their contribution
 would be FANTASTIC. Saying thank you to casual drive-by contributors
 would give them quite a buzz, I'd think.
 
 Perhaps a timeout? Say, you can thank an IP for their edit within 1
 hour? We can experiment and see what time gives the best amount of
 thanks versus mistakes.
 
 
 - 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

___
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] Thanking anonymous users

2014-01-10 Thread David Gerard
Yeah. It shouldn't be like welcome messages, it should be specifically
for thanking for good edits.

But this is a cultural issue, not a software issue.

On 10 January 2014 21:30, Kevin Rutherford ktr...@hotmail.com wrote:
 The downside of this is when we inevitably start thanking vandals by accident.

 Kevin Rutherford

 Sent from my iPhone

 On Jan 10, 2014, at 4:03 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 10 January 2014 20:28, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 For 1: because it'd be impossible to accurately associate notifications
 with the person, I assume.



 Apparently that's the reason.

 However, being able to thank IP contributors for their contribution
 would be FANTASTIC. Saying thank you to casual drive-by contributors
 would give them quite a buzz, I'd think.

 Perhaps a timeout? Say, you can thank an IP for their edit within 1
 hour? We can experiment and see what time gives the best amount of
 thanks versus mistakes.


 - 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

 ___
 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

___
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] Thanking anonymous users

2014-01-10 Thread Federico Leva (Nemo)

David Gerard, 10/01/2014 22:02:

However, being able to thank IP contributors for their contribution
would be FANTASTIC. Saying thank you to casual drive-by contributors
would give them quite a buzz, I'd think.


You already can, even on the unwelcoming ;) en.wiki and de.wiki: talk 
pages have not (yet) been killed.
I think about 30-50k persons have been thanked with the simple 
{{grazie}} template on it.wiki across the years.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cross-project_comparisons#Thanks


Perhaps a timeout? Say, you can thank an IP for their edit within 1
hour? We can experiment and see what time gives the best amount of
thanks versus mistakes.


On it.wiki, anonymous talk pages are purged monthly (with some conditions).

Nemo

___
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] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

2014-01-10 Thread geni
On 10 January 2014 21:06, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:

 Quite. Museums' self-interest in employing a Wikipedian-in-Residence is
 often quite evident from the way the position is described (raise our
 profile etc.)

 And what about, say, the Henry Ford Museum? Or the Volkswagen museum? Is
 that not knowledge? Is it evil, because it's part of a business?


The term you are looking for is propaganda. Or PR if you like being invited
to a certain class of party.



 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),


You've never actually been to the York Museum have you? Its a typical
municipal museum. IE a place to dump all the historical stuff that you can
just leave sitting around in the street. Its collection is better than some
but only due to its age.

The tourist targeting museum in the area would be the Jorvik Viking Centre.

I'd assume the largest tourist draw is actually the National Railway Museum
(certainly it has the best class of cameras) but that is a national
collection rather than regional.




-- 
geni
___
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

[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] The Signpost -- Volume 10, Issue 1 -- 08 January 2014

2014-01-10 Thread Wikipedia Signpost
News and notes: WMF sacks employee over paid editing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-01-08/News_and_notes

Public Domain Day: Why the year 2019 is so significant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-01-08/Public_Domain_Day

Op-ed: WikiCup competition beginning a new year
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-01-08/Op-ed

WikiProject report: The wonderful world of television
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-01-08/WikiProject_report

Traffic report: Tragedy and television
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-01-08/Traffic_report

Featured content: A portal to the wonderful world of technology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-01-08/Featured_content

Technology report: Gearing up for the Architecture Summit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-01-08/Technology_report


Single page view
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single

PDF version
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-01-08


http://identi.ca/wikisignpost / https://twitter.com/wikisignpost
--
Wikipedia Signpost Staff
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost

___
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed 
to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more 
information about Wikimedia-l:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
___
WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
___
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