; > >:
> > >
> > > > I would think this is up to the chapter/affilate organisation, but no
> > > harm
> > > > in getting a more universal collection of opinions.
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Peter
> > > >
> > >
more universal collection of opinions.
> > > Cheers,
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > > Behalf Of Gabriel Thullen
> > > Sent: Sunday, 23 April
ns.
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of Gabriel Thullen
> > Sent: Sunday, 23 April 2017 10:50 AM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject
Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Gabriel Thullen
> Sent: Sunday, 23 April 2017 10:50 AM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies
> that offer paid editing services
>
:50 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that
offer paid editing services
I suggest another question, right after your #5. Undisclosed paid editing is
one thing, dealing with disclosed paid editors within our community is another
I suggest another question, right after your #5. Undisclosed paid editing
is one thing, dealing with disclosed paid editors within our community is
another. You could add the following question:
"Asking if we agree to let disclosed paid editors occupy key positions
within the Wikimedia movement suc
I've proposed asking wikimedians at large what they think should be done
about paid advocacy editing, as item number 5 on my periodic survey
proposal composed of all the unresolved questions over the last quarter on
this list at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:James_Salsman#Periodic_sur
>
> Has there been a recent substantial discussion by the community surrounding
> promotional/biased editting paid or otherwise, which had an outcome
> resulting in a specific request for assistance or increased action by the
> WMF?
>
Aside from the conversation on this list, I'm aware of the disc
Pine,
Has there been a recent substantial discussion by the community surrounding
promotional/biased editting paid or otherwise, which had an outcome
resulting in a specific request for assistance or increased action by the
WMF?
If there hasn't, I do not see grounds for you to be expecting an off
I'm bumping this thread in the hope that there will be official comments
from WMF regarding their willingness to take a more assertive legal
approach to addressing and deterring promotionalism and other inappropriate
changes to Wikipedia content by people and organizations who have conflicts
of int
edia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies
> that offer paid editing services
>
> "The Whopper, also known as America’s favorite burger, " is a problem as
> it implies that the Whopper is the favorite burger of the Amer
; products
> > > of, say, McDonalds where the "fixings"
> > > arrive in delivery trucks.
> > >
> > > Fred Bauder
> > >
> > > On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 08:06:50 +0200
> > > "Peter Southwood" wrote:
> > > >
hould have been "America's Favorite
> > Burger(tm)". Agreed.
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org]
> > On Behalf Of FRED BAUDER
> > Sent: Satur
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of FRED BAUDER
> > Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2017 8:21 AM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with
ed.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of FRED BAUDER
> Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2017 8:21 AM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF w
ia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that
offer paid editing services
"The Whopper, also known as America’s favorite burger, " is a problem as it
implies that the Whopper is the favorite burger of the American public. Perhaps
it is, but
, April 14, 2017 7:31 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that
offer paid editing services
On 14 April 2017 at 17:39, Gabriel Thullen wrote:
> The damage has been done. Theverge.com claims to have done such a
> modificat
om: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
Behalf Of James Heilman
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2017 5:32 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing
companies that offer paid editing services
Wikipedia is not for sale. We a
assuming guilt.
Cheers,
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
Gabriel Thullen
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2017 6:40 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that
14, 2017 5:32 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that
offer paid editing services
Wikipedia is not for sale. We are not simply another advertising venue
available to the corporations of the world. We have mechanisms for
P.S. The paragraph ending "instead of backsliding, and" should have been
followed by "proposing cuts to the payroll tax."
On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 12:54 PM James Salsman wrote:
> Is it better to think of the problem as paid editing or organized advocacy
> for persuasion at the expense of accuracy
Is it better to think of the problem as paid editing or organized advocacy
for persuasion at the expense of accuracy regarding all costs and benefits?
Burger King is a commercial enterprise which makes money by mass production
of beef products, which require more water and produce more greenhouse
I'm just a bit agog at the idea that this article became "advertising" when
Burger King made the connection using Google Home. Since its very first
edit, it has been an advertisement for this product. It may not have been
intended that way, but that is the reality. Now it's almost 4200 words
lon
On 14 April 2017 at 17:39, Gabriel Thullen wrote:
> The damage has been done. Theverge.com claims to have done such a
> modification on Wikipedia, to quote them "as did we, in a test yesterday".
> We will probably see more of this.
Yes. This is why we need to respond in such a way as to deter
c
This advertising campaign is particularly interesting, it appears that this
is the first time we can talk about an exploit (as is said in computer
security). It has been done once so it can be done again.
What worries me here is that an advertising campaign like this one, mixing
TV advertising and
On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 5:23 AM, Gnangarra wrote:
>
> > but they didnt spam, nor did they introduce any false hoods, or remove
> > controversial content, they just put a description of the Whopper for the
> > opening sentence.
I agree with James on this one. They "described" their product in a v
Wikipedia is not for sale. We are not simply another advertising venue
available to the corporations of the world. We have mechanisms for
corporations to suggest changes to our content and it is called the talk
page.
Lets look at the changes likely made by Burger King staff in more detail:
In thi
but they didnt spam, nor did they introduce any false hoods, or remove
controversial content, they just put a description of the Whopper for the
opening sentence. As Andy said rather than biting and creating arguments
amongst ourselves would it not be better to have used the opportunity to
benefit
On 14 April 2017 at 11:38, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> A far better (and less WP:BITEy) outcome would be to get then to
Pretty sure WP:BITE doesn't apply in the case of deliberate abuse for
clear purposes of spamming.
- d.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, g
On 13 April 2017 at 05:01, Pine W wrote:
> I would like for WMF to make Burger King feel that their
> misuse of WIkipedia was inappropriate and for WMF to hit them where it
> counts -- in their checkbook -- and with enough force that corporations
> will decide that messing with Wikipedia is both
I really dont think the Whopper comparison is a good one because the change
they made was reasonable and at least more consistent with my understanding
of the english language as used here with us having distinct difference
between what is a sandwich and what is a burger. The Whopper comment does
Hi there, I agree that we should take action and make it real hard for any
corporation financially to achieve this result.
Legal action is one thing, but the first thing to be done is to ensure that all
affairs of the type are detected and publicly outed, on the very articles if
there is large
With respect to Pine's request for more legal support to help deal with
undisclosed paid editing issues, to that I strongly agree.
To better address these concerns we need the WMF, communities, and
affiliate organizations to collaborate. It is a difficult problem to
address.
James
On Thu, Apr 13
I tend to think along James' lines more than Risker's.
Responding to Risker:
It seems to me that the key point that you're missing is that Burger King
altered Wikipedia content in order to execute this campaign. This wasn't a
simple case of an organization reusing existing Wikipedia content; the
Looking at the Burger King case:
I do not have a concern with the ad they created to have Google read the WP
article about their product.
My concern is them possibly altering the first sentence of said article.
But we now have that under control and it was a fairly innocuous in the
grand scheme o
Without getting into the details of the situation, Pine, I'll simply point
out that the budget for the legal team of an international corporation like
Burger King is going to be significantly larger than the entire budget of
the Wikimedia Foundation, and punishing organizations that have figured ou
I'm bumping this thread because there has been a somewhat high-profile
incident of misuse of Wikipedia by a corporate entity.
This is not entirely the same as undisclosed paid editing, but it was
certainly a misuse of Wikipedia.
https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/12/15259400/burger-king-google-home-
Thanks for the link, GorillaWarfare.
I've heard comments similar to James' from others, indicating that people
have lost faith that Arbcom will investigate and take action based on
evidence of COI editing submitted in private to Arbcom. If, as you say,
Arbcom finds that investigating these reports
If one submits material regarding undisclosed paid editing to arbcom and
there is no reply, it is fairly obvious that few cases would continue to be
submitted. Expecially when arbcom makes it clear they have no desire to do
this follow up.
J
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Sydney Poore
wrote:
Thanks, Molly. I encouraged people interested in understanding the
different views on the topic as it relates to Wikipedia English (and
perhaps other wikis) to read this discussion.
Sydney
Sydney Poore
User:FloNight
Co-founder Kentucky Wikimedians,
Co-founder WikiWomen User Group,
Co-founder Wiki
Following up, this is the conversation I was remembering:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Harassment/Archive_11
– Molly (GorillaWarfare)
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 11:59 AM, GorillaWarfare <
gorillawarfarewikipe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Pine,
>
> We quite rarely receive requests to look
On 27/01/17 16:59, GorillaWarfare wrote:
> Pine,
>
> We quite rarely receive requests to look into suspicions of paid editing
> based on private information. We have historically been reluctant to act on
> them for a number of reasons: it's very prone to error, it's often an
> incredible amount of
Pine,
We quite rarely receive requests to look into suspicions of paid editing
based on private information. We have historically been reluctant to act on
them for a number of reasons: it's very prone to error, it's often an
incredible amount of work, and we open ourselves up personally to legal
r
GorillaWarfare,
Thank you for the statement.
Perhaps you and your colleagues at Arbcom could explain your current
efforts against COI editing when evidence of such activity is brought to
your attention in private (in alignment with current ENWP Arbcom guidance),
and also what more you think could
I just want to note that the question i raised here was about what WMF itself
was doing about paid editing.
I was unhappy to see so much in that statement about what the community
can/should do.
I agree with the Arbcom statement that while it is good that Legal noted that
its comments about
The Arbitration Committee has just published a response to this statement:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation_statement_on_paid_editing_and_outing
– Molly (GorillaWarfare)
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 9:17 PM, Jacob Rogers wr
46 matches
Mail list logo
