Re: [Wikimedia-l] The soft underbelly of the WP: the sponsored private fiefdoms that thrive in the blind spots

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 2:36 AM, Rui Correia  wrote:

> Thanks Andreas
>
> Iit didn't cross my mind that you would actually go and check - at the time
> the search terms were in Portuguese, so you will probably find different
> results - If I find the original pic I will send it to you.
>


Please don't, Rui! If I want to see blowjobs, I can go to Commons.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The soft underbelly of the WP: the sponsored private fiefdoms that thrive in the blind spots

[Fred Bauder]

> Thanks Andreas
>
> Iit didn't cross my mind that you would actually go and check - at the
> time
> the search terms were in Portuguese, so you will probably find different
> results - If I find the original pic I will send it to you.
>
> But more importantly, the porn on Flickr is a secondary issue - the
> intent
> of my email was to draw attention to the possibility of corporate control
> of the information, which you have already addressed.
>
> I saw something about CHECKUSER, and that special procedures must be
> followed to 'out' such people - or reveal possible sockpuppet or
> one-purpose accounts. I'll look into those and let you know.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rui

Checkuser is done only when it seems someone is creating multiple
accounts and abusing them in some way. In instances of concerted conflict
of interest editing it doesn't really matter whether there is one person,
many, or a group or firm behind the edits. They are treated as socks
because of their manner of editing, not because of technical proof of
identity.

Fred


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The soft underbelly of the WP: the sponsored private fiefdoms that thrive in the blind spots

[Rui Correia]

Found the pic - will mail you off-list - definite NSFW!

Rui

On 24 July 2013 03:21, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Rui,
>
> The only NSFW results I am able to get in Google for such a search are
> cases where the Flickr uploader failed to categorise the image correctly.
> Flickr take a very dim view of such people. You can report them, and if
> they don't comply with site rules, it quickly results in account
> termination.
>
> See "Do moderate your content" and "Don't forget the children" on this
> page:
>
> http://www.flickr.com/help/guidelines/
>
> (To report an image, navigate to the image and click "Report abuse", near
> the bottom of the page.)
>
> Andreas
>
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 1:19 AM, Rui Correia 
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks Andreas. I appreciate that you took the time to write such
> detailed
> > scenarios.
> >
> > What you say about WP-DE is certainly very interesting.
> >
> > As for your comment about "Flickr does a fairly good job of showing
> nudity
> > and porn only to the people who – quite legitimately – want to view it,
> and
> > ensuring that those who don't want to see it don't get to see it", that
> is
> > not the case and that is crux of the issue: I was googling - on google, I
> > was not on Flickr - for pics of mosquitos sucking blood and was surprised
> > to see pictures of blatant (not art) oral sex. That in itself is not a
> > problem, the problem is that people (parents) have a idea that Flickr is
> > 'safe'. I don't mind if it is not or they have opted not to be or reasons
> > of bottom line - but then this should be ade known on the site, just like
> > any other porn site.
> >
> > And thankd for your offer to help, much appreciated.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Rui
> >
> > On 23 July 2013 19:12, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
> >
> > > Rui,
> > >
> > > There are four answers I could give you. See whether you like any of
> > them:
> > >
> > > *Answer the First*
> > >
> > > This problem has existed ever since Wikipedia became visible enough for
> > > agenda-driven editors to bother with it, and people have made
> complaints
> > > like yours ever since. Nothing has changed, and nothing ever will
> change,
> > > because editors like things just the way they are.
> > >
> > > The system of pseudonymous contribution is a major driver of
> > participation:
> > > "Here is the number one Google link for [insert any topic under the
> sun].
> > > You can change what it says, right now, and you don't even have to say
> > who
> > > you are. No real accountability; no way to trace it back to you if
> you're
> > > smart. Just register a funny name, and click Edit."
> > >
> > > Given the current initiatives with Wikidata and so forth
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/wikipedias-new-open-initiatives-were-a-startup-in-stealth-mode-8728357.html
> > >
> > > this will not get better: as the stakes get higher, and Wikimedia comes
> > to
> > > dominate the world's information landscape even more, it will only get
> > > worse.
> > >
> > > Don't hope for change from the Wikimedia Foundation, because the
> > Foundation
> > > is unlikely to cut the roots of such a major driver of participation.
> > >
> > > Don't hope for change from the community either, for the very same sort
> > of
> > > players you call out in your original post will prevent it.
> > >
> > > The present system is far too convenient for all of them: all the
> people
> > > who are happily grinding axes on Wikimedia sites will unite against
> you,
> > > even as they are fighting each other tooth and nail on actual content.
> > >
> > > Tell the public instead. Explain to them why the system's governance
> > sucks,
> > > and how it affects content.
> > >
> > > *Answer the Second*
> > > *
> > > *
> > > This sort of thing is handled much better in the German Wikipedia. In
> the
> > > German Wikipedia, companies can edit with verified company accounts: so
> > > that if Coca-Cola Germany edits the Coca-Cola article, it will actually
> > say
> > > "Coca Cola Germany" in the edit history. Transparent, and accountable.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coca-Cola&diff=94427890&oldid=94244180
> > >
> > > In the English Wikipedia, however, any account named after a company is
> > > automatically blocked, and the operator asked to register an account
> > with a
> > > funny name. This just drives this sort of editing underground, and
> > removes
> > > transparency.
> > >
> > > *Answer the Third*
> > > *
> > > *
> > > What did you expect? You cited no reliable source other than Flickr's
> own
> > > website. Your edit was basically original research, and regardless of
> who
> > > the editors are who reverted you, they were fully justified. Wikipedia
> > 101:
> > > find a secondary source. Here are some to start you off:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2011/07/course-flickr-has-porn-problem/40600/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.businessinsider.com/yahoo-h

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The soft underbelly of the WP: the sponsored private fiefdoms that thrive in the blind spots

[Rui Correia]

Thanks Andreas

Iit didn't cross my mind that you would actually go and check - at the time
the search terms were in Portuguese, so you will probably find different
results - If I find the original pic I will send it to you.

But more importantly, the porn on Flickr is a secondary issue - the intent
of my email was to draw attention to the possibility of corporate control
of the information, which you have already addressed.

I saw something about CHECKUSER, and that special procedures must be
followed to 'out' such people - or reveal possible sockpuppet or
one-purpose accounts. I'll look into those and let you know.

Best regards,

Rui

On 24 July 2013 03:21, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Rui,
>
> The only NSFW results I am able to get in Google for such a search are
> cases where the Flickr uploader failed to categorise the image correctly.
> Flickr take a very dim view of such people. You can report them, and if
> they don't comply with site rules, it quickly results in account
> termination.
>
> See "Do moderate your content" and "Don't forget the children" on this
> page:
>
> http://www.flickr.com/help/guidelines/
>
> (To report an image, navigate to the image and click "Report abuse", near
> the bottom of the page.)
>
> Andreas
>
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 1:19 AM, Rui Correia 
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks Andreas. I appreciate that you took the time to write such
> detailed
> > scenarios.
> >
> > What you say about WP-DE is certainly very interesting.
> >
> > As for your comment about "Flickr does a fairly good job of showing
> nudity
> > and porn only to the people who – quite legitimately – want to view it,
> and
> > ensuring that those who don't want to see it don't get to see it", that
> is
> > not the case and that is crux of the issue: I was googling - on google, I
> > was not on Flickr - for pics of mosquitos sucking blood and was surprised
> > to see pictures of blatant (not art) oral sex. That in itself is not a
> > problem, the problem is that people (parents) have a idea that Flickr is
> > 'safe'. I don't mind if it is not or they have opted not to be or reasons
> > of bottom line - but then this should be ade known on the site, just like
> > any other porn site.
> >
> > And thankd for your offer to help, much appreciated.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Rui
> >
> > On 23 July 2013 19:12, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
> >
> > > Rui,
> > >
> > > There are four answers I could give you. See whether you like any of
> > them:
> > >
> > > *Answer the First*
> > >
> > > This problem has existed ever since Wikipedia became visible enough for
> > > agenda-driven editors to bother with it, and people have made
> complaints
> > > like yours ever since. Nothing has changed, and nothing ever will
> change,
> > > because editors like things just the way they are.
> > >
> > > The system of pseudonymous contribution is a major driver of
> > participation:
> > > "Here is the number one Google link for [insert any topic under the
> sun].
> > > You can change what it says, right now, and you don't even have to say
> > who
> > > you are. No real accountability; no way to trace it back to you if
> you're
> > > smart. Just register a funny name, and click Edit."
> > >
> > > Given the current initiatives with Wikidata and so forth
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/wikipedias-new-open-initiatives-were-a-startup-in-stealth-mode-8728357.html
> > >
> > > this will not get better: as the stakes get higher, and Wikimedia comes
> > to
> > > dominate the world's information landscape even more, it will only get
> > > worse.
> > >
> > > Don't hope for change from the Wikimedia Foundation, because the
> > Foundation
> > > is unlikely to cut the roots of such a major driver of participation.
> > >
> > > Don't hope for change from the community either, for the very same sort
> > of
> > > players you call out in your original post will prevent it.
> > >
> > > The present system is far too convenient for all of them: all the
> people
> > > who are happily grinding axes on Wikimedia sites will unite against
> you,
> > > even as they are fighting each other tooth and nail on actual content.
> > >
> > > Tell the public instead. Explain to them why the system's governance
> > sucks,
> > > and how it affects content.
> > >
> > > *Answer the Second*
> > > *
> > > *
> > > This sort of thing is handled much better in the German Wikipedia. In
> the
> > > German Wikipedia, companies can edit with verified company accounts: so
> > > that if Coca-Cola Germany edits the Coca-Cola article, it will actually
> > say
> > > "Coca Cola Germany" in the edit history. Transparent, and accountable.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coca-Cola&diff=94427890&oldid=94244180
> > >
> > > In the English Wikipedia, however, any account named after a company is
> > > automatically blocked, and the operator asked to register an account
> > with a
> > > funny name. This just drives this sort of editing

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The soft underbelly of the WP: the sponsored private fiefdoms that thrive in the blind spots

[Andreas Kolbe]

Rui,

The only NSFW results I am able to get in Google for such a search are
cases where the Flickr uploader failed to categorise the image correctly.
Flickr take a very dim view of such people. You can report them, and if
they don't comply with site rules, it quickly results in account
termination.

See "Do moderate your content" and "Don't forget the children" on this page:

http://www.flickr.com/help/guidelines/

(To report an image, navigate to the image and click "Report abuse", near
the bottom of the page.)

Andreas

On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 1:19 AM, Rui Correia  wrote:

> Thanks Andreas. I appreciate that you took the time to write such detailed
> scenarios.
>
> What you say about WP-DE is certainly very interesting.
>
> As for your comment about "Flickr does a fairly good job of showing nudity
> and porn only to the people who – quite legitimately – want to view it, and
> ensuring that those who don't want to see it don't get to see it", that is
> not the case and that is crux of the issue: I was googling - on google, I
> was not on Flickr - for pics of mosquitos sucking blood and was surprised
> to see pictures of blatant (not art) oral sex. That in itself is not a
> problem, the problem is that people (parents) have a idea that Flickr is
> 'safe'. I don't mind if it is not or they have opted not to be or reasons
> of bottom line - but then this should be ade known on the site, just like
> any other porn site.
>
> And thankd for your offer to help, much appreciated.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rui
>
> On 23 July 2013 19:12, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
> > Rui,
> >
> > There are four answers I could give you. See whether you like any of
> them:
> >
> > *Answer the First*
> >
> > This problem has existed ever since Wikipedia became visible enough for
> > agenda-driven editors to bother with it, and people have made complaints
> > like yours ever since. Nothing has changed, and nothing ever will change,
> > because editors like things just the way they are.
> >
> > The system of pseudonymous contribution is a major driver of
> participation:
> > "Here is the number one Google link for [insert any topic under the sun].
> > You can change what it says, right now, and you don't even have to say
> who
> > you are. No real accountability; no way to trace it back to you if you're
> > smart. Just register a funny name, and click Edit."
> >
> > Given the current initiatives with Wikidata and so forth
> >
> >
> >
> http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/wikipedias-new-open-initiatives-were-a-startup-in-stealth-mode-8728357.html
> >
> > this will not get better: as the stakes get higher, and Wikimedia comes
> to
> > dominate the world's information landscape even more, it will only get
> > worse.
> >
> > Don't hope for change from the Wikimedia Foundation, because the
> Foundation
> > is unlikely to cut the roots of such a major driver of participation.
> >
> > Don't hope for change from the community either, for the very same sort
> of
> > players you call out in your original post will prevent it.
> >
> > The present system is far too convenient for all of them: all the people
> > who are happily grinding axes on Wikimedia sites will unite against you,
> > even as they are fighting each other tooth and nail on actual content.
> >
> > Tell the public instead. Explain to them why the system's governance
> sucks,
> > and how it affects content.
> >
> > *Answer the Second*
> > *
> > *
> > This sort of thing is handled much better in the German Wikipedia. In the
> > German Wikipedia, companies can edit with verified company accounts: so
> > that if Coca-Cola Germany edits the Coca-Cola article, it will actually
> say
> > "Coca Cola Germany" in the edit history. Transparent, and accountable.
> >
> >
> >
> http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coca-Cola&diff=94427890&oldid=94244180
> >
> > In the English Wikipedia, however, any account named after a company is
> > automatically blocked, and the operator asked to register an account
> with a
> > funny name. This just drives this sort of editing underground, and
> removes
> > transparency.
> >
> > *Answer the Third*
> > *
> > *
> > What did you expect? You cited no reliable source other than Flickr's own
> > website. Your edit was basically original research, and regardless of who
> > the editors are who reverted you, they were fully justified. Wikipedia
> 101:
> > find a secondary source. Here are some to start you off:
> >
> >
> >
> http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2011/07/course-flickr-has-porn-problem/40600/
> >
> >
> >
> http://www.businessinsider.com/yahoo-hosts-hardcore-porn-and-sells-ads-against-it-advertisers-react-with-outrage-2011-7?op=1
> >
> > http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2007/07/flickr
> >
> > If it still doesn't stick, drop me a line.
> >
> > *Answer the Fourth*
> >
> > Why are you complaining about Flickr? Flickr does a fairly good job of
> > showing nudity and porn only to the people who – quite legitimately –
> want
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The soft underbelly of the WP: the sponsored private fiefdoms that thrive in the blind spots

[Andreas Kolbe]

Marc,

The page I linked to says in part:

"It goes without saying that using the process described we are also unable
to verify the identity of the person(s) behind the user account."

("Es versteht sich von selbst, dass wir mit dem beschriebenen Verfahren
auch nicht die Identität der hinter dem Benutzerkonto stehenden Person(en)
überprüfen können.")

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Benutzerverifizierung

Note the plural ending in brackets. I read this as a tacit acknowledgement
that different individuals may be using the account at different times.

A similar user verification process in the English Wikipedia could well
communicate a requirement to the registrant that only one person should use
each company account, and that any other company employee wishing to
contribute to Wikipedia under the company name should register a separate
account (say, Coca-Cola Germany 2).

However, it is generally impossible to verify that only one person is using
any given Wikipedia user account. This applies to private accounts as much
as to company accounts. I am sure there are thousands of ordinary user
accounts that have been used by more than one person.

The German Wikipedia's user verification process has been operational since
2011. A list of verified user accounts (there are about 1,500 to date) is
here:

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategorie:Benutzer:Verifiziert

It's not unlike Twitter's system of verified accounts.

Andreas

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 8:43 PM, Marc A. Pelletier  wrote:

> On 07/23/2013 02:03 PM, Todd Allen wrote:
> > I
> > don't think such a proposal would be hopeless on en.
>
> How did dewiki circumvent the difficulties regarding attribution and
> role accounts?  Last I checked, our terms of use prohibit password
> sharing, and IIRC Mike Godwin (legal counsel at the time) stated there
> were some serious issues with the idea of contributions not being
> credited to an individual.
>
> -- Marc
>
>
> ___
> 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] The soft underbelly of the WP: the sponsored private fiefdoms that thrive in the blind spots

[Rui Correia]

Thanks Andreas. I appreciate that you took the time to write such detailed
scenarios.

What you say about WP-DE is certainly very interesting.

As for your comment about "Flickr does a fairly good job of showing nudity
and porn only to the people who – quite legitimately – want to view it, and
ensuring that those who don't want to see it don't get to see it", that is
not the case and that is crux of the issue: I was googling - on google, I
was not on Flickr - for pics of mosquitos sucking blood and was surprised
to see pictures of blatant (not art) oral sex. That in itself is not a
problem, the problem is that people (parents) have a idea that Flickr is
'safe'. I don't mind if it is not or they have opted not to be or reasons
of bottom line - but then this should be ade known on the site, just like
any other porn site.

And thankd for your offer to help, much appreciated.

Best regards,

Rui

On 23 July 2013 19:12, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Rui,
>
> There are four answers I could give you. See whether you like any of them:
>
> *Answer the First*
>
> This problem has existed ever since Wikipedia became visible enough for
> agenda-driven editors to bother with it, and people have made complaints
> like yours ever since. Nothing has changed, and nothing ever will change,
> because editors like things just the way they are.
>
> The system of pseudonymous contribution is a major driver of participation:
> "Here is the number one Google link for [insert any topic under the sun].
> You can change what it says, right now, and you don't even have to say who
> you are. No real accountability; no way to trace it back to you if you're
> smart. Just register a funny name, and click Edit."
>
> Given the current initiatives with Wikidata and so forth
>
>
> http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/wikipedias-new-open-initiatives-were-a-startup-in-stealth-mode-8728357.html
>
> this will not get better: as the stakes get higher, and Wikimedia comes to
> dominate the world's information landscape even more, it will only get
> worse.
>
> Don't hope for change from the Wikimedia Foundation, because the Foundation
> is unlikely to cut the roots of such a major driver of participation.
>
> Don't hope for change from the community either, for the very same sort of
> players you call out in your original post will prevent it.
>
> The present system is far too convenient for all of them: all the people
> who are happily grinding axes on Wikimedia sites will unite against you,
> even as they are fighting each other tooth and nail on actual content.
>
> Tell the public instead. Explain to them why the system's governance sucks,
> and how it affects content.
>
> *Answer the Second*
> *
> *
> This sort of thing is handled much better in the German Wikipedia. In the
> German Wikipedia, companies can edit with verified company accounts: so
> that if Coca-Cola Germany edits the Coca-Cola article, it will actually say
> "Coca Cola Germany" in the edit history. Transparent, and accountable.
>
>
> http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coca-Cola&diff=94427890&oldid=94244180
>
> In the English Wikipedia, however, any account named after a company is
> automatically blocked, and the operator asked to register an account with a
> funny name. This just drives this sort of editing underground, and removes
> transparency.
>
> *Answer the Third*
> *
> *
> What did you expect? You cited no reliable source other than Flickr's own
> website. Your edit was basically original research, and regardless of who
> the editors are who reverted you, they were fully justified. Wikipedia 101:
> find a secondary source. Here are some to start you off:
>
>
> http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2011/07/course-flickr-has-porn-problem/40600/
>
>
> http://www.businessinsider.com/yahoo-hosts-hardcore-porn-and-sells-ads-against-it-advertisers-react-with-outrage-2011-7?op=1
>
> http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2007/07/flickr
>
> If it still doesn't stick, drop me a line.
>
> *Answer the Fourth*
>
> Why are you complaining about Flickr? Flickr does a fairly good job of
> showing nudity and porn only to the people who – quite legitimately – want
> to view it, and ensuring that those who don't want to see it don't get to
> see it. Complain about Wikipedia and Commons instead (the following links
> are NSFW):
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=massage&fulltext=Search
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=20&offset=40&redirs=0&profile=images&search=pliers
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=male+human&fulltext=Search
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=bell+tolling&fulltext=Search
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=prince+albert&fulltext=Search
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The soft underbelly of the WP: the sponsored private fiefdoms that thrive in the blind spots

[Fred Bauder]

> On 07/23/2013 02:03 PM, Todd Allen wrote:
>> I
>> don't think such a proposal would be hopeless on en.
>
> How did dewiki circumvent the difficulties regarding attribution and
> role accounts?  Last I checked, our terms of use prohibit password
> sharing, and IIRC Mike Godwin (legal counsel at the time) stated there
> were some serious issues with the idea of contributions not being
> credited to an individual.
>
> -- Marc

The corporation, or whatever, itself would have to sign off legally. It
would have to control access to the account. It could hire a public
relations firm if that were part of our deal with them.

Fred


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The soft underbelly of the WP: the sponsored private fiefdoms that thrive in the blind spots

[Andreas Kolbe]

Todd,

Yes, it's done via OTRS. Details are here:

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Benutzerverifizierung (User
verification)

Google translation:

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fde.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FWikipedia%3ABenutzerverifizierung

It involves sending an e-mail to info...@wikimedia.org, from a company
e-mail address.

Best,
Andreas




On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 7:03 PM, Todd Allen  wrote:

> > *Answer the Second*
> > *
> > *
> > This sort of thing is handled much better in the German Wikipedia. In the
> > German Wikipedia, companies can edit with verified company accounts: so
> > that if Coca-Cola Germany edits the Coca-Cola article, it will actually
> say
> > "Coca Cola Germany" in the edit history. Transparent, and accountable.
> >
> >
> >
> http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coca-Cola&diff=94427890&oldid=94244180
> >
> > In the English Wikipedia, however, any account named after a company is
> > automatically blocked, and the operator asked to register an account
> with a
> > funny name. This just drives this sort of editing underground, and
> removes
> > transparency.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Andreas,
>
> This is an interesting idea. Does the verification go via OTRS, or some
> other means? The main reason en blocks organization-name accounts is
> because they're not verified, so someone could register "Example
> Corporation" as a user and then go vandalize, or even start spamming to Joe
> job them. Also, how is it handled on de if such a malicious account was
> already registered and blocked, or the account is created but unverified? I
> could see this being a valuable tool for transparency, and done right, I
> don't think such a proposal would be hopeless on en.
> ___
> 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] The soft underbelly of the WP: the sponsored private fiefdoms that thrive in the blind spots

[Marc A. Pelletier]

On 07/23/2013 02:03 PM, Todd Allen wrote:
> I
> don't think such a proposal would be hopeless on en.

How did dewiki circumvent the difficulties regarding attribution and
role accounts?  Last I checked, our terms of use prohibit password
sharing, and IIRC Mike Godwin (legal counsel at the time) stated there
were some serious issues with the idea of contributions not being
credited to an individual.

-- Marc


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The soft underbelly of the WP: the sponsored private fiefdoms that thrive in the blind spots

[Todd Allen]

> *Answer the Second*
> *
> *
> This sort of thing is handled much better in the German Wikipedia. In the
> German Wikipedia, companies can edit with verified company accounts: so
> that if Coca-Cola Germany edits the Coca-Cola article, it will actually say
> "Coca Cola Germany" in the edit history. Transparent, and accountable.
>
>
> http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coca-Cola&diff=94427890&oldid=94244180
>
> In the English Wikipedia, however, any account named after a company is
> automatically blocked, and the operator asked to register an account with a
> funny name. This just drives this sort of editing underground, and removes
> transparency.
>
>
>

Andreas,

This is an interesting idea. Does the verification go via OTRS, or some
other means? The main reason en blocks organization-name accounts is
because they're not verified, so someone could register "Example
Corporation" as a user and then go vandalize, or even start spamming to Joe
job them. Also, how is it handled on de if such a malicious account was
already registered and blocked, or the account is created but unverified? I
could see this being a valuable tool for transparency, and done right, I
don't think such a proposal would be hopeless on en.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The soft underbelly of the WP: the sponsored private fiefdoms that thrive in the blind spots

[Andreas Kolbe]

Rui,

There are four answers I could give you. See whether you like any of them:

*Answer the First*

This problem has existed ever since Wikipedia became visible enough for
agenda-driven editors to bother with it, and people have made complaints
like yours ever since. Nothing has changed, and nothing ever will change,
because editors like things just the way they are.

The system of pseudonymous contribution is a major driver of participation:
"Here is the number one Google link for [insert any topic under the sun].
You can change what it says, right now, and you don't even have to say who
you are. No real accountability; no way to trace it back to you if you're
smart. Just register a funny name, and click Edit."

Given the current initiatives with Wikidata and so forth

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/wikipedias-new-open-initiatives-were-a-startup-in-stealth-mode-8728357.html

this will not get better: as the stakes get higher, and Wikimedia comes to
dominate the world's information landscape even more, it will only get
worse.

Don't hope for change from the Wikimedia Foundation, because the Foundation
is unlikely to cut the roots of such a major driver of participation.

Don't hope for change from the community either, for the very same sort of
players you call out in your original post will prevent it.

The present system is far too convenient for all of them: all the people
who are happily grinding axes on Wikimedia sites will unite against you,
even as they are fighting each other tooth and nail on actual content.

Tell the public instead. Explain to them why the system's governance sucks,
and how it affects content.

*Answer the Second*
*
*
This sort of thing is handled much better in the German Wikipedia. In the
German Wikipedia, companies can edit with verified company accounts: so
that if Coca-Cola Germany edits the Coca-Cola article, it will actually say
"Coca Cola Germany" in the edit history. Transparent, and accountable.

http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coca-Cola&diff=94427890&oldid=94244180

In the English Wikipedia, however, any account named after a company is
automatically blocked, and the operator asked to register an account with a
funny name. This just drives this sort of editing underground, and removes
transparency.

*Answer the Third*
*
*
What did you expect? You cited no reliable source other than Flickr's own
website. Your edit was basically original research, and regardless of who
the editors are who reverted you, they were fully justified. Wikipedia 101:
find a secondary source. Here are some to start you off:

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2011/07/course-flickr-has-porn-problem/40600/

http://www.businessinsider.com/yahoo-hosts-hardcore-porn-and-sells-ads-against-it-advertisers-react-with-outrage-2011-7?op=1

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2007/07/flickr

If it still doesn't stick, drop me a line.

*Answer the Fourth*

Why are you complaining about Flickr? Flickr does a fairly good job of
showing nudity and porn only to the people who – quite legitimately – want
to view it, and ensuring that those who don't want to see it don't get to
see it. Complain about Wikipedia and Commons instead (the following links
are NSFW):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=massage&fulltext=Search

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=20&offset=40&redirs=0&profile=images&search=pliers

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=male+human&fulltext=Search

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=bell+tolling&fulltext=Search

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=prince+albert&fulltext=Search

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=20&offset=30&redirs=0&profile=images&search=hood

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=black&fulltext=Search

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=asian&fulltext=Search

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=caucasian&fulltext=Search

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=furniture&fulltext=Search

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=bench&fulltext=Search

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=jumping+ball&fulltext=Search

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=driving&fulltext=Search

Etc.

Best,
Andreas


On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Rui Correia  wrote:

> Dear All
>
> It is certainly not news that a lot of deliberately biased editing goes on
> on the Wikipedia. It is equally known that there are mechanims to address
> these issues.
>
> But that is where the problem lies - those intent on skewing inf

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The soft underbelly of the WP: the sponsored private fiefdoms that thrive in the blind spots

[Rui Correia]

Thanks, Fred.

Rui

On 23 July 2013 13:33, Fred Bauder  wrote:

> > I just checked the archives. The original message was not received by the
> > mailing list, for whatever reason, probably misaddressed. This message of
> > inquiry is the first message in the tread. I think you should resend the
> > original message if your mail program permits that. Sounds interesting...
>
> Wait, I lied. Here it is:
>
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-July/127077.html
>
> I don't know if I received it, as I delete almost all messages.
>
> Fred
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
_
Rui Correia
Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant
Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant

Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186
Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186
___
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The soft underbelly of the WP: the sponsored private fiefdoms that thrive in the blind spots

[Fred Bauder]

> I just checked the archives. The original message was not received by the
> mailing list, for whatever reason, probably misaddressed. This message of
> inquiry is the first message in the tread. I think you should resend the
> original message if your mail program permits that. Sounds interesting...

Wait, I lied. Here it is:

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-July/127077.html

I don't know if I received it, as I delete almost all messages.

Fred


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The soft underbelly of the WP: the sponsored private fiefdoms that thrive in the blind spots

[Fred Bauder]

I just checked the archives. The original message was not received by the
mailing list, for whatever reason, probably misaddressed. This message of
inquiry is the first message in the tread. I think you should resend the
original message if your mail program permits that. Sounds interesting...

Fred

> I've have my setting on "receive copy of own emails", but did not receive
> this email that I sent out. Can someone please confirm?
>
> Regards,
>
> On 22 July 2013 18:02, Rui Correia  wrote:
>
>> Dear All
>>
>> It is certainly not news that a lot of deliberately biased editing goes
>> on
>> on the Wikipedia. It is equally known that there are mechanims to
>> address
>> these issues.
>>
>> But that is where the problem lies - those intent on skewing
>> information
>> know all the tricks and loopholes, whereas neutral editors who pass by
>> to
>> add something they came across are not so clued up. Most editors that
>> get
>> reverted just move on and don't bother. This leads to the 'ownsership'
>> syndrome, with editors shooing away anybody that adds anuthing they
>> don't
>> like. The bigger problem, is when these editors who act as if they
>> 'own'
>> certain articles are actually either being paid to do so or are
>> actually
>> lomked to an organisation with particilar interests in the page(s).
>>
>> A case in point, the other day I was looking for images of mosquitos
>> sucking blood and and came across blatant pornography on Flickr. I
>> added a
>> few lines about pornography on Flickr and because it was reverted (I
>> admit
>> the edit was not sterling worsmithing) it made me look into the history
>> of
>> the page.
>>
>> That there are two or three editors who automatically revert anything
>> negative is obvious. Less obvious is that one of these editors was
>> 'dormant' for a year-and-a-half, then suddenly came out of hibernation
>> 2
>> months ago to exclusively counter any anti-Flickr edits and add
>> pro-Flickr
>> edits - about 75 edits in 2 months. And one or 2 sanitsing the page of
>> Marissa Mayer, the CEO of Yahoo!, (which owns Flickr). Another has
>> practically admitted to having some kind of association with Flickr
>> (there
>> is plenty in Flickr-related debates on user pages to prove that there
>> is
>> indeed a sinsiter and unhealthy relationship. The two or three work in
>> a
>> concerted manner, even replying on behalf of each other, which makes
>> suspect the presence of sockpuppets or similar. There is also a
>> high-school
>> student among the reverters. Things are now at a point that they are
>> making
>> rules, 'agreeing' with those against them on the maximum length of a
>> section of a Flickr controversy. No such limitations on any other
>> (positive) aspect of the article. They have have 'agreed' that a number
>> of
>> Huffington Post comments on Flickr must not be included - it is not a
>> relaible source, apparently..
>>
>> This would not have bothered me were it not for the fact that the
>> Flickr
>> article is of an adequate size, with lots of good information on it and
>> most of it quite complimentary. It is worrying that a few lines of bad
>> press should so annoy people that they are on stand-by to revert at
>> whatever hour of day or night.
>>
>> The mechanisms that the Wikipedia has created to improve the project
>> play
>> into the hands of people like these - features such as the watchlist.
>> Within minutes of a change, it gets reverted. Sometimes an editor will
>> persist for a while, but eventually walks off and goes edit elsewhere.
>> Which is odd, because if there are mechanisms for redress, why not use
>> them? Unfortunately, in my experience, whenever anything is put up for
>> arbitration, the first ones on the scene include the very editors
>> involved
>> or others whom they trust who get tipped off about the issue as soon as
>> it
>> develops. It is this that is tarnishing the name of the Wikipedia and
>> driving away good editors.
>>
>> I use Flickr as an example, but is it not the firwst time that I have
>> come
>> across this type of behaviour.
>> And so, tiny cliques and coteries flourish like fiefdoms in the blind
>> spots of the mechanisms created to ensure that we all strive for the
>> same
>> principes. What is worse, there are big players behind this all. In an
>> age
>> when the so-called 'big media' is already overwhelmingly in the service
>> of
>> 'big business', we owe to ourselves to keep them out of the WP.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Rui Correia.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> _
>> Rui Correia
>> Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant
>> Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant
>>
>> Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186
>> Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186
>> ___
>>
>
>
>
>
> --
> _
> Rui Correia
> Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant
> Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant
>
> Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 41

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The soft underbelly of the WP: the sponsored private fiefdoms that thrive in the blind spots

[Rui Correia]

Thanks, David. Much appreciated.

For what it is worth, I am part of two Yahoo! Groups mailing lists for
translators, which I receive via GM - from the one I get back my own email,
from the other not. Go figure.

Regards,

Rui

On 23 July 2013 13:10, David Gerard  wrote:

> On 23 July 2013 12:07, Rui Correia  wrote:
>
> > I've have my setting on "receive copy of own emails", but did not receive
> > this email that I sent out. Can someone please confirm?
>
>
> It went out. What you're seeing is that GMail refuses to show you
> messages you sent to a list, even if you really want it to. This is
> GMail being "helpful".
>
> If you want to check a message went out, check the archive:
>
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 




-- 
_
Rui Correia
Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant
Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant

Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186
Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186
___
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The soft underbelly of the WP: the sponsored private fiefdoms that thrive in the blind spots

[David Gerard]

On 23 July 2013 12:07, Rui Correia  wrote:

> I've have my setting on "receive copy of own emails", but did not receive
> this email that I sent out. Can someone please confirm?


It went out. What you're seeing is that GMail refuses to show you
messages you sent to a list, even if you really want it to. This is
GMail being "helpful".

If you want to check a message went out, check the archive:

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/


- d.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The soft underbelly of the WP: the sponsored private fiefdoms that thrive in the blind spots

[Rui Correia]

I've have my setting on "receive copy of own emails", but did not receive
this email that I sent out. Can someone please confirm?

Regards,

On 22 July 2013 18:02, Rui Correia  wrote:

> Dear All
>
> It is certainly not news that a lot of deliberately biased editing goes on
> on the Wikipedia. It is equally known that there are mechanims to address
> these issues.
>
> But that is where the problem lies - those intent on skewing information
> know all the tricks and loopholes, whereas neutral editors who pass by to
> add something they came across are not so clued up. Most editors that get
> reverted just move on and don't bother. This leads to the 'ownsership'
> syndrome, with editors shooing away anybody that adds anuthing they don't
> like. The bigger problem, is when these editors who act as if they 'own'
> certain articles are actually either being paid to do so or are actually
> lomked to an organisation with particilar interests in the page(s).
>
> A case in point, the other day I was looking for images of mosquitos
> sucking blood and and came across blatant pornography on Flickr. I added a
> few lines about pornography on Flickr and because it was reverted (I admit
> the edit was not sterling worsmithing) it made me look into the history of
> the page.
>
> That there are two or three editors who automatically revert anything
> negative is obvious. Less obvious is that one of these editors was
> 'dormant' for a year-and-a-half, then suddenly came out of hibernation 2
> months ago to exclusively counter any anti-Flickr edits and add pro-Flickr
> edits - about 75 edits in 2 months. And one or 2 sanitsing the page of
> Marissa Mayer, the CEO of Yahoo!, (which owns Flickr). Another has
> practically admitted to having some kind of association with Flickr (there
> is plenty in Flickr-related debates on user pages to prove that there is
> indeed a sinsiter and unhealthy relationship. The two or three work in a
> concerted manner, even replying on behalf of each other, which makes
> suspect the presence of sockpuppets or similar. There is also a high-school
> student among the reverters. Things are now at a point that they are making
> rules, 'agreeing' with those against them on the maximum length of a
> section of a Flickr controversy. No such limitations on any other
> (positive) aspect of the article. They have have 'agreed' that a number of
> Huffington Post comments on Flickr must not be included - it is not a
> relaible source, apparently..
>
> This would not have bothered me were it not for the fact that the Flickr
> article is of an adequate size, with lots of good information on it and
> most of it quite complimentary. It is worrying that a few lines of bad
> press should so annoy people that they are on stand-by to revert at
> whatever hour of day or night.
>
> The mechanisms that the Wikipedia has created to improve the project play
> into the hands of people like these - features such as the watchlist.
> Within minutes of a change, it gets reverted. Sometimes an editor will
> persist for a while, but eventually walks off and goes edit elsewhere.
> Which is odd, because if there are mechanisms for redress, why not use
> them? Unfortunately, in my experience, whenever anything is put up for
> arbitration, the first ones on the scene include the very editors involved
> or others whom they trust who get tipped off about the issue as soon as it
> develops. It is this that is tarnishing the name of the Wikipedia and
> driving away good editors.
>
> I use Flickr as an example, but is it not the firwst time that I have come
> across this type of behaviour.
> And so, tiny cliques and coteries flourish like fiefdoms in the blind
> spots of the mechanisms created to ensure that we all strive for the same
> principes. What is worse, there are big players behind this all. In an age
> when the so-called 'big media' is already overwhelmingly in the service of
> 'big business', we owe to ourselves to keep them out of the WP.
>
> Regards,
>
> Rui Correia.
>
>
>
> --
> _
> Rui Correia
> Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant
> Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant
>
> Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186
> Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186
> ___
>




-- 
_
Rui Correia
Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant
Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant

Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186
Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186
___
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,