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

[David Goodman]

I've looked at a great deal of detectable  paid editing on the english WP.
 Only about 10% of it is of acceptable   quality, with respect to both
notability
of subject and quality of contents.  On similar topics, the quality of
volunteer editing is considerably better--at least 30% is acceptable.
 (about half the enWP submissions have always been rejected at one stage or
another, even with our relatively very undemanding standards).

Like Andrew,  I consider the work on non-profits, especially universities,
to be even worse than the work on commercial businesses, both for paid and
unpaid edits--this is partly enthusiastic alumni, but also the very low
quality of most organizational PR departments)

Unpaid advocacy is a much more difficult problem, because its much harder
to sort out from honest attempts at NPOV. I see no solution to that one
without our general framework.





On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 2:15 PM, MZMcBride  wrote:

> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> >I want to open up the discussion even wider. The way things are stated is
> >that paid editing is not acceptable.
>
>
> I'm not sure what you mean.
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Paid_editing is still a very rough draft,
> but the first sentence is currently:
>
> ---
> Paid editing is fairly common on Wikimedia wikis. It takes various forms,
> with a few being widely accepted and a few being incredibly controversial.
> ---
>
> I would like Wikimedia to be explicit about what is and is not acceptable
> for editors. If Wikidata takes a different approach, we should document
> that as well. But the goal isn't to pr[oe]scribe, it's to describe.
>
> Some of the posts from this mailing list may be very helpful in expanding
> that page. I'm sure there are many other past discussions from the various
> wikis and mailing lists we can incorporate as well. Be bold. :-)  If it's
> just the page title you'd like to change, I agree that the current page
> title ("Paid editing") is not great. The "Conflict of interest editing"
> page has some related content, but that title also didn't feel right to me.
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
David Goodman

DGG at the enWP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Call for Proposals to Host Wikimania in 2015

[Ellie Young]

On behalf of the Wikimania Steering Committee, I would like to encourage anyone 
in our community
who is interested in hosting Wikimania 2015 to consult the revised Timeline and 
Criteria that
are now posted at:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2015_bids

We would also like to emphasize the need for communication with prospective 
hosts during the bidding
process.  Assistance with preparing your bid  and answering questions shoud be 
directed to me,
the WMF Conference Coordinator.   Please get in touch in January and February!

The Jury Committee has been selected and will be evaluating the proposals in 
March.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2015_jury

Thanks,


Ellie Young
WMF Conference Coordinator
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia DC Q1 2013-14 Activity Report

[Kirill Lokshin]

Hello everyone,

Wikimedia DC has now published its activity report for the first quarter of
the 2013-14 fiscal year.  The report is available on our wiki at
http://wikimediadc.org/wiki/Activity_report_(Q1_2013–2014).

As always, comments or suggestions are very welcome!

Cheers,
Kirill

--
Kirill Lokshin
Secretary | Wikimedia District of Columbia
http://wikimediadc.org | @wikimediadc
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[MZMcBride]

Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>I want to open up the discussion even wider. The way things are stated is
>that paid editing is not acceptable.


I'm not sure what you mean.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Paid_editing is still a very rough draft,
but the first sentence is currently:

---
Paid editing is fairly common on Wikimedia wikis. It takes various forms,
with a few being widely accepted and a few being incredibly controversial.
---

I would like Wikimedia to be explicit about what is and is not acceptable
for editors. If Wikidata takes a different approach, we should document
that as well. But the goal isn't to pr[oe]scribe, it's to describe.

Some of the posts from this mailing list may be very helpful in expanding
that page. I'm sure there are many other past discussions from the various
wikis and mailing lists we can incorporate as well. Be bold. :-)  If it's
just the page title you'd like to change, I agree that the current page
title ("Paid editing") is not great. The "Conflict of interest editing"
page has some related content, but that title also didn't feel right to me.

MZMcBride



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

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

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,

I want to open up the discussion even wider. The way things are stated is
that paid editing is not acceptable.

This ukase [1] may be considered best practice for the English Wikipedia,
our Wikimedia universe is a bit bigger than that. Wikidata is a completely
different beast with completely different requirements and
aspirations. Wikidata
is "not about facts at all, it is about what sources say".

Consequently as far as I am concerned the en.wp point of view about paid
editing is too narrow. I blogged on this subject [2] and hope you take a
moment to consider the difference between Wikipedia and Wikidata with a
perspective of company involvement in our projects.
Thanks,
 GerardM


[1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ukase
[2]
http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2014/01/wikidata-interest-by-companies.html


On 11 January 2014 17:58, MZMcBride  wrote:

> Craig Franklin wrote:
> >I think it's actually foolish to try and split hairs over what is
> >acceptable paid editing and what is unacceptable paid editing.  The facts
> >of the matter are that paid editing is taking place right now, and it will
> >continue to take place regardless of whatever "bright lines" are drawn in
> >the sand.  The only question is whether it's done in a covert manner, or a
> >transparent manner.
> >
> >Rather than arguing over the irrelevant question of whether it is
> >desirable to have paid editing or not, we need instead to be talking
> >about how we are going to handle it.  To my view, that should be
> >requiring that anyone editing for money be upfront about their intentions
> >and their edits, and letting the community scrutinise those edits and
> >deal with them just like they'd deal with them if they came from any
> >other editor.
>
> Perhaps you're correct, though I'll note that in the recent oDesk case,
> you had both a real name and photo attached to the activities, along with
> a public profile describing (and rating!) the activities. That seems
> fairly transparent to me, yet it still resulted in an immediate departure.
>
> I expanded  from a redirect
> into a stub and created a few additional redirects. It's still a very
> rough draft, but I firmly believe that if there's going to be a "bright
> line" for Wikimedia Foundation employees (and potentially others), it
> should be clearly and explicitly documented.
>
> In the forest, under careful supervision, it may make sense to leave bear
> traps lying around. However in civilized society we really ought to
> minimize potential danger by deactivating any such traps through better
> and clearer information. Posting signs that clearly say "don't enter this
> field because it's full of bear traps" is surely better than simply
> assuming everyone will somehow know that bear traps are a possibility.
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] This Month in GLAM: December 2013

[The 'This Month in GLAM' team]

*This Month in GLAM* is a monthly newsletter documenting recent happenings
within the GLAM project, such as content donations, residencies, events and
more. GLAM is an acronym of *G*alleries, *L*ibraries, *A*rchives and *M*useums.
You can find more information on the project at glamwiki.org.

*This Month in GLAM – Issue XII, Volume III – December 2013*
--


France report: GlamWiki Toolset; local actions in Rennes
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/December_2013/Contents/France_report

Germany report: New year, new GLAM contacts!
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/December_2013/Contents/Germany_report

Sweden report: Old ship and new solutions
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/December_2013/Contents/Sweden_report

UK report: UK report for December 2013
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/December_2013/Contents/UK_report

USA report: University of Colorado Museum of Natural History; GLAM-Wiki in
New York City
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/December_2013/Contents/USA_report

Open Access report: NISO cites GLAM Newsletter; Adoption of CC BY 4.0; Two
years Open Access File of the Day
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/December_2013/Contents/Open_Access_report

Calendar: January's GLAM events
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/December_2013/Contents/Events


--


Single page view
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/December_2013/Single

Twitter
http://twitter.com/ThisMonthinGLAM

Work on the next edition
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/Newsroom


-- 
The *This Month in GLAM* team
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter
___
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, 

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

[MZMcBride]

Craig Franklin wrote:
>I think it's actually foolish to try and split hairs over what is
>acceptable paid editing and what is unacceptable paid editing.  The facts
>of the matter are that paid editing is taking place right now, and it will
>continue to take place regardless of whatever "bright lines" are drawn in
>the sand.  The only question is whether it's done in a covert manner, or a
>transparent manner.
>
>Rather than arguing over the irrelevant question of whether it is
>desirable to have paid editing or not, we need instead to be talking
>about how we are going to handle it.  To my view, that should be
>requiring that anyone editing for money be upfront about their intentions
>and their edits, and letting the community scrutinise those edits and
>deal with them just like they'd deal with them if they came from any
>other editor.

Perhaps you're correct, though I'll note that in the recent oDesk case,
you had both a real name and photo attached to the activities, along with
a public profile describing (and rating!) the activities. That seems
fairly transparent to me, yet it still resulted in an immediate departure.

I expanded  from a redirect
into a stub and created a few additional redirects. It's still a very
rough draft, but I firmly believe that if there's going to be a "bright
line" for Wikimedia Foundation employees (and potentially others), it
should be clearly and explicitly documented.

In the forest, under careful supervision, it may make sense to leave bear
traps lying around. However in civilized society we really ought to
minimize potential danger by deactivating any such traps through better
and clearer information. Posting signs that clearly say "don't enter this
field because it's full of bear traps" is surely better than simply
assuming everyone will somehow know that bear traps are a possibility.

MZMcBride



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

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

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 8:35 PM, Ting Chen  wrote:

> 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.
>



The question to ask here is, what is the primary purpose of Wikipedia? Is
it a social media site, or is it a project designed to build a free
encyclopedia?

It seems to me the Wikimedia Foundation measures its success primarily by
the following metrics:

1. Number of page views.
2. Number of articles.
3. Number of editors.
4. Number of edits.

These are the main metrics I see reported. They are all purely
quantitative, social media-type metrics, focused on participation. Where
are the metrics measuring the *quality* of the end product, the free
information provided to the world in the shape of encyclopedia articles?

Purely quantitative metrics may have been appropriate in the early years of
the project, when building participation was crucial. But given Wikipedia's
importance in the information landscape today, measuring and improving
quality should be a far higher priority than it presently is, in my eyes.

And it should be borne in mind that a high number of edits may actually be
detrimental to article quality: if an article is heavily edited, saying one
thing today and another tomorrow, this is very often a sign that something
is wrong with the way the content is curated.

Example: http://wikipediocracy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Klee-Irwin.gif

Similarly, a high number of articles may be good for page views, but may
prove detrimental to article quality, as the shrinking editor community is
too stretched to curate such a large and increasing number of articles
responsibly. I believe his point has been reached already, resulting in
very large numbers of truly substandard articles that nobody is available
to monitor and improve.

Again, my feeling is that this focus on quantity, on participation for
participation's sake, along with the attendant problems, is particularly
pronounced in the English Wikipedia.




> Greetings
> Ting
>
>
> Am 10.01.2014 16:23, schrieb Peter Gervai:
>
>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Ting Chen  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,
>> 
>>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Craig Franklin]

I think it's actually foolish to try and split hairs over what is
acceptable paid editing and what is unacceptable paid editing.  The facts
of the matter are that paid editing is taking place right now, and it will
continue to take place regardless of whatever "bright lines" are drawn in
the sand.  The only question is whether it's done in a covert manner, or a
transparent manner.

Rather than arguing over the irrelevant question of whether it is desirable
to have paid editing or not, we need instead to be talking about how we are
going to handle it.  To my view, that should be requiring that anyone
editing for money be upfront about their intentions and their edits, and
letting the community scrutinise those edits and deal with them just like
they'd deal with them if they came from any other editor.

Cheers,
Craig


On 11 January 2014 06:35, Ting Chen  wrote:

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