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 < [email protected]> 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 R&D. 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 R&D 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 R&D global budget to > open a Q&A desk so wikimedians could ask their researchers for > bibliography or proof reading articles > > Those things are not wild dreams, they could definitely happen > (especially when you see how much money is spent in CSR actions). But > we, as a community, refuse to tap into this. > > I'll stop here, my email is already quiet long, but by "baning" any > "paid foobar" we are actually preventing the improvement of > corporations related articles, destroying potential free knowledge and > refusing to train and advocate about Wikipedia to thousand of people > at a time. > > When I see the strategy of the movement, how much we need to get new > editors and how poorly we do in some fields, I'm shocked by how easily > we ban those possibilities to happen. And for what reason? Because > they're for-profit companies. > > Best, > > PS: a short matrix of what we, as a community, we allow/disallow from > reality and from discussions. If you can't see the problem there... > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Schiste/editing_matrix > -- > Christophe > > > On 10 January 2014 00:52, Erlend Bjørtvedt <[email protected]> wrote: > > I agree with you, Dariusz. > > > > We have discussed this at length in the community, and at Wikipedia > Academy > > in Oslo in december. > > > > There is minimal support of a ban of paid editing. One thing is the fact > > that we have both Wikipedians in Residence and editing scholarships with > > GLAM institutions. It is naive to believe that cultural institutions like > > museums, etc, are not commercial. I am myself among those receiving USD > > 1.500 from the Directorate of Cultural Heritage to write about 19th > century > > trappers' huts at Spitsbergen. Commercial? Probably not. Paid editing? > > Definitely. > > > > The debate among admins and at the Academy last month, revealed more or > > less consensus along several lines of thought. > > > > 1) A ban of paid editing is illusionary and impractible, and will just > > force paid editors "underground" > > 2) A ban will deprive us of invaluable expertise on a wide array of > > subjects that would otherwise not be covered > > 3) Guidelines and 5 pillars take presedence over COI anyway, judge people > > by what they do, and not who they are. > > 4) In-house employee editing is not only tolerated, but quite common at > > no-wiki. > > 5) The line runs at paid advocacy = third-party for-pay editing for a > > commercial customer, or for-pay POV editing. > > > > During the discussion, it appeared that a large proportion of the admins > > and bureaucrats who joined the discussion, had edited the articles about > > their employers. Most were aware of the COI potential involved, but > > asserted being able to write objectively even about an employer. > > > > Cheers, > > Erlend Bjørtvedt > > Norway > > > > > > 2014/1/9 Dariusz Jemielniak <[email protected]> > > > >> On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Tomasz Ganicz <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > Yes, but the question is how to enable such a system. If the rules for > >> > paid editors were to be very strict - many paid editors would have > >> > still decide to do it in secrecy anyway, > >> > >> > >> oh, but there will ALWAYS be those lurking in the shadows. However, > >> currently we frown upon edits which are according to the rules just as > much > >> as upon those which cross the line. I think it would be good to make and > >> explicit, ostensive bright line, like Jimbo suggested - I just think the > >> line should be elsewhere. > >> > >> Paid editing, when done according to the rules, and when subjected to > >> transparent community control, is definitely better than a system in > which > >> paid editors are, in fact, motivated NOT TO reveal their affiliations. > >> > >> best, > >> > >> dariusz "pundit" > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > >> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > *Erlend Bjørtvedt* > > Nestleder, Wikimedia Norge > > Vice chairman, Wikimedia Norway > > Mob: +47 - 9225 9227 > > http://no.wikimedia.org <http://no.wikimedia.org/wiki/About_us> > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list > > [email protected] > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
