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