agora pouco = há pouco*

2012/9/26 Raylton P. Sousa <raylton.so...@gmail.com>

> Claudio, a resposta simples é que "não há solução prática".
> O que há é um claro problema, que já não pode ser encarado como natural
> sem que haja sérias consequências.
>
> E o comentário que fiz agora pouco foi uma tentativa de explorar suas
> causas, e chamar a atenção de mais pessoas para o problema na esperança de
> futuramente encontrarmos uma solução.
>
> Afinal não se pode solucionar um problema sem entender sua natureza,
> certo?
>
> Só para saber: Concorda que o "vandalismo confiável" é um problema?
>
>
> 2012/9/26 Claudio Barbosa <rjclau...@gmail.com>
>
>> Qual seria a ação prática a fazer? Deixar de lado o domínio principal e a
>> construção de artigos para passar a vigiar (stalker) as pessoas que ...
>> editam no domínio principal? Ter um grupinho de usuários que se especialize
>> (dedique boa parte do tempo) a vigiar as ações dos outros?
>>
>> Alias, isso até acontece um pouco, com usuários vigiando os seus
>> desafetos, e os desafetos acusando o outro usuário de estar perseguindo
>> suas edições, e os passarem os dias brigando gerando um clima bem
>> desconfortável na wiki até ambos serem bloqueados e/ou ambos largarem o
>> projeto por não aguentarem mais.
>>
>> É totalmente normal (esperado) que o nível de vigilancia diminua conforme
>> a pessoa vá conseguindo confiança. E é isso que tem que ser feito senão
>> paramos de construir artigos e ficamos vigiando um ao outro. Só se volta a
>> ter uma vigilância maior quando se encontra algum problema (algum erro vem
>> a tona), e depois que passar um tempo desde esse erro sem ter outro
>> problema adquire de novo a confiança e volta a ter menos vigilância.
>>
>> Afinal, qual foi exatamente o problema que levou a essa preocupação? Não
>> há outras formas de se melhorar que não seja vigiar as edições dos outros?
>> Vejo algumas reclamações de eliminação, reversão, bloqueio indevidos, mas
>> minha impressão é que esses casos sempre são resolvidos no final, seja o
>> usuário mudando o comportamento, seja perdendo o estatuto / confiança, seja
>> decidindo que não havia nada de errado.
>>
>> Claudio Barbosa
>>
>> 2012/9/26 Raylton P. Sousa <raylton.so...@gmail.com>
>>
>>  É disso que estou falando Oona. E tento falar sempre.
>>> Para quem é novato o sistema wiki parece perfeito... Com centenas de
>>> pessoas revisando as páginas, vandalismos sendo desfeitos instantaneamente,
>>> com toda praticidade que a web oferece.
>>>
>>> No entanto, existe algo que embora me incomode muito, estranhamente
>>> parece ser ignorado ou não ser percebido.
>>> É o fato de que  a atenção para as edições dos usuários vai diminuindo
>>> gradativamente conforme eles vão ganhando confiança da comunidade(me atrevo
>>> a dizer que quando conseguem o status de "auto-confirmados" a atenção nas
>>> suas edições cai praticamente pela metade e até menos).
>>>
>>> Existe o caso dos administradores que parecem ser melhores vigiados,
>>> porque muitos casos de suposta arbitrariedade vem a tona eventualmente. Mas
>>> isso também é um mito.
>>> As ações administrativas são apenas levadas realmente ao público quando
>>> a pessoa que sofreu a ação se sente ofendida ou quando o assunto que se
>>> discute é do interesse de uma parcela maior de usuários.
>>>
>>> Ou seja, uma atenção maior só é dada aos administradores quando um
>>> determinado número de usuários é afetado diretamente. E falo sem medo de
>>> errar, que eles têm a liberdade de trabalhar em outras tarefas mais
>>> triviais de forma arbitraria sim(embora não esteja afirmando que façam).
>>>
>>> Não é anormal que isso aconteça, afinal de contas há um número muito
>>> maior{{carece de fontes}} de vandalismos simples e VDAs óbvios, que
>>> precisam ser revertidos, e por simples lógica direcionamos nossa atenção
>>> para eles.
>>>
>>> No entanto esse fato cria um fenômeno muito desagradável e que por ser
>>> tratado com tamanho descaso pode, naturalmente, não só destruir o nome
>>> da Wikipédia(que a Wikimedia tanto explora na sua busca por mais
>>> voluntários). Como trazer consequências muito mais greves.
>>> Esse fenômeno eu chamo de "vandalismos confiáveis".
>>>
>>> É estranho, mas é da natureza humana supor que quando uma pessoa
>>> confiável está com uma faca ela vai apenas cortar uma carne para o almoço e
>>> em contra partida supor que a desconhecida vai cometer algo ilícito. Mas
>>> devemos assumir que em certos casos os pepeis se invertem e que atenção
>>> nunca é demais.
>>> Principalmente pelo fato das pessoas mudarem drasticamente ao longo do
>>> tempo e que todos temos interesses que nos
>>> tornam invariavelmente parciais(o que é notado mais claramente conforme
>>> ganhamos mais poder).
>>> Portanto se não estivermos atentos a essas mudanças, pode ser tarde.
>>>
>>>
>>> Mas voltando aos "vandalismos confiáveis" devo dizer que eles não se
>>> resumem a um simples "Hoax". Em geral são informações muito bem
>>> estruturadas devido ao conhecimento que os usuários têm do mecanismo wiki.
>>> E normalmente não podem ser detectados e as chaces de serem diminuem
>>> drasticamente com a diminuição da atenção em usuários confiáveis, por isso
>>> os considero o "maior" desafio da construção colaborativa.
>>>
>>> Peço encarecidamente que todos pensem um pouco sobre isso.
>>> Esses poucos casos de manipulação que vem à tona não são nada comparados
>>> aos que permanecem protegidos pelo manto da confiabilidade.
>>> Isso não é mais uma teoria da conspiração, agora é um desafio real, que
>>> precisa ser quantificado e resolvido o quanto antes.
>>>
>>> Com os melhores cumprimentos!
>>>
>>> 2012/9/25 Oona Castro <ocas...@wikimedia.org>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: Sarah Stierch <sstie...@wikimedia.org>
>>>> Date: Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 4:46 PM
>>>> Subject: [Wmfcc-l] Corruption in Wikiland? Paid PR scandal erupts at
>>>> Wikipedia
>>>> To: wmfc...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57514677-93/corruption-in-wikiland-paid-pr-scandal-erupts-at-wikipedia/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  Concerned Wikipedians raised the alarm Monday that two trusted men --
>>>> one a trustee of the Wikimedia Foundation UK, the other a respected
>>>> Wikipedian In Residence -- are allegedly editing Wikipedia pages and
>>>> facilitating front-page placement for their pay-for-play, publicity-seeking
>>>> clients.
>>>>
>>>> Jimmy Wales is not pleased.
>>>>
>>>> It began this week when an interesting discussion started on the DYK
>>>> ("Did You Know") discussion 
>>>> page.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Potential_abuse_of_DYK>
>>>>
>>>> Roger Bamkin, trustee of the Wikimedia Foundation UK, whose LinkedIn
>>>> page describes him as a high-return-earning PR 
>>>> consultant<http://www.linkedin.com/pub/roger-bamkin/52/ab8/b59>,
>>>> appeared to be using Wikipedia's main page "Did You Know" feature and the
>>>> resources of Wikipedia's GLAM 
>>>> WikiProject<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM>(Galleries, 
>>>> Libraries, Archives and Museums) initiative to pimp his
>>>> client's project.
>>>>
>>>> Bamkin's current client is the country of 
>>>> Gibraltar<http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Register_of_Interests#Roger_Bamkin>
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>> In August, Gibraltar was featured as a Wikipedia DYK front page feature an
>>>> astonishing seventeen 
>>>> times<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Recent_additions/2012/August>-
>>>>  that's an unusual frequency of every 2-3 days.
>>>>
>>>> Other than the Olympics, it is the only repeated topic throughout the
>>>> month.
>>>>
>>>> The "Did You Know" section on Wikipedia's Main Page publicizes new or
>>>> expanded articles - the publicity viewership on Wikipedia's front page is 
>>>> estimated
>>>> in the hundreds of millions per 
>>>> month.<http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesPageViewsMonthlyOriginal.htm>
>>>>
>>>> *Wales: "wildly inappropriate"*
>>>>
>>>> When Wikipedia's founder was told about Bamkin's client in relation to
>>>> Wikimedia UK, Jimmy Wales 
>>>> wrote<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Gibraltarpedia.2C_Wikimedia_UK_and_concerns_about_paid_editing_and_conflicts_of_interest_within_Wikimedia_UK>:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is wildly inappropriate for a board member of a chapter, or anyone
>>>> else in an official role of any kind in a charity associated with
>>>> Wikipedia, to take payment from customers in exchange for securing
>>>> favorable placement on the front page of Wikipedia or anywhere else. -
>>>> *Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)*
>>>>
>>>>  At the same time Bamkin's consulting work as a representative of
>>>> Wikimedia Foundation reared its ugly head, Wikipedia community members
>>>> exposed the SEO-focused, PR-strategy Wikipedia page editing business run by
>>>> respected GLAM editor Max Klein.
>>>>
>>>> Both Klein and Bamkin are "Wikipedians In 
>>>> Residence,<http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedian_in_Residence>"
>>>> a role held by Wikipedia editors in high esteem who liaison with galleries,
>>>> libraries, archives and museums to facilitate information between the
>>>> organizations and Wikipedia community editors.
>>>>
>>>> Wikipedians In Residence are not allowed to operate if there are
>>>> conflicts of interest and are not allowed to edit the pages of the
>>>> organization they liaison with.
>>>>
>>>> Maximillion Klein <http://notconfusing.com/about/> runs a consulting
>>>> business called "untrikiwiki <http://untrikiwiki.com/>" whose
>>>> self-description explains:
>>>>
>>>> A positive Wikipedia article is invaluable SEO: it's almost guaranteed
>>>> to be a top three Google hit. Surprisingly this benefit of writing for
>>>> Wikipedia is underutilized, but relates exactly the lack of true expertise
>>>> in the field. ... WE HAVE THE EXPERTISE NEEDED to navigate the complex maze
>>>> surrounding 'conflict of interest' editing on Wikipedia. With more than
>>>> eight years of experience, over 10,000 edits, and countless community
>>>> connections we offer holistic Wikipedia services.
>>>>
>>>> When the concerned Wikipedia editors asked Jimmy Wales about
>>>> untrikiwiki (in the thread about Roger Bamkin) Wales commented:
>>>>
>>>> I was unaware of this case, and haven't had time to look into it. If
>>>> what you say is accurate, then of course I'm extremely unhappy about it.
>>>> It's disgusting.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:54, 17 September 2012
>>>>
>>>> *No specific Wikimedia UK policy on "paid editing"*
>>>>
>>>> At this time, there is no Wikimedia UK policy against "paid editing"
>>>> for Wikipedia pages, though Jimmy Wales has 
>>>> said<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Paid_editing#Statement_by_Jimbo_Wales>that
>>>>  paid editing is against Wikipedia values and policy.
>>>>
>>>> However, there's no doubt that the lack of a clear policy casts a
>>>> shadow over the public's perception of Wikipedia's ethical standing.
>>>>
>>>> If PR editing from Wikipedia's representatives -- paid or not -- were
>>>> to be openly tolerated, Wikipedia's reputation will most certainly be
>>>> harmed in a way that is different from the harm done from vandalism or
>>>> covert PR editing.
>>>>
>>>> In the case of Roger Bamkin, a director of Wikimedia UK is advertising
>>>> himself, as a Wikimedia UK director, for paid consultancy jobs, and directs
>>>> and engages in editing on Wikipedia in the service of his personal client.
>>>>
>>>> Bamkin's LinkedIn 
>>>> page<http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/roger-bamkin/52/ab8/b59>states:
>>>>
>>>>  *Roger Bamkin's Experience*
>>>>
>>>> Consultant Victuallers Ltd May 2012 - Present (5 months)
>>>>
>>>> I've been involved with QRpedia and Monmouthpedia which have delivered
>>>> > £2m paybeack on £50K investment.
>>>>
>>>> Bamkin's formal Declaration of Interests for Wikimedia 
>>>> UK<http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Register_of_Interests#Roger_Bamkin> states
>>>> there is no conflict of interest (COI) with his role, access to Wikipedia
>>>> resources and contract with Gibraltar as there is no official relationship
>>>> between Gibraltar and Wikimedia UK.
>>>>
>>>> But to the outside eye this might appear as a financial conflict of
>>>> interest among the people who are handling the money donated to support
>>>> Wikipedia. Not to mention how unfair it is.
>>>>
>>>> You may be wondering how the country of Gibraltar ended up in the
>>>> middle of a Wikipedia PR editing scandal. To answer that question, we can
>>>> visit Wikipedia.
>>>>
>>>> Monmouthpedia <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monmouthpedia> is a
>>>> Wikipedia project that links Wikipedia and the town of Monmouth in South
>>>> Wales by the use of smartphone scannable QR codes.
>>>>
>>>> As the story is told, the idea for Monmouthpedia came when Roger Bamkin
>>>> and Steve Virgin (former Wikimedia UK board member, current PR consultant
>>>> and Bamkin's business 
>>>> partner<http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Register_of_Interests#Roger_Bamkin>)
>>>> gave a TEDx talk about their Wikipedia QR-code project 
>>>> QRpedia<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rO6ZrWJeaOM&feature=share>.
>>>> From the audience, Wikipedia editor Steve Cummings (also Bamkin's
>>>> business 
>>>> partner<http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Register_of_Interests#Roger_Bamkin>)
>>>> suggested they "do a whole town."
>>>>
>>>> Wales Online 
>>>> wrote<http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2012/07/23/monmouth-wikipedia-project-inspires-gibraltar-91466-31450018/>:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> He [Bamkin] picked Gibraltar, at the southern tip of Spain, as his next
>>>> project after being flooded with invitations from places around the world
>>>> hoping to be the second Wikipedia town.
>>>>
>>>>  Enter Gibraltarpedia. In a feature yesterday, BBC News explained
>>>> Gibraltarpedia <http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-19544299> as the
>>>> way in which Gibraltar is using QR codes and Wikipedia to target and
>>>> attract tourists.
>>>>
>>>> While not as straightforward as untrikiwiki's open offer to navigate
>>>> tricky Wikipedia conflict of interest rules as a service for for paying
>>>> clients, Gibraltarpedia may be a cool idea but it still comes off as little
>>>> more than free advertising for tourism - setting up a walled garden of
>>>> articles all with an eye to promoting tourism - and potential investment -
>>>> in Gibraltar.
>>>>
>>>> Seventeen features on Wikipedia's front page in one month is in equal
>>>> measures strangely admirable, somewhat saddening and completely worrying.
>>>>
>>>> From a 2009 statement by Jimmy 
>>>> Wales<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Paid_editing#Statement_by_Jimbo_Wales>:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is not ok with me that anyone ever set up a service selling their
>>>> services as a Wikipedia editor, administrator, bureaucrat, etc. I will
>>>> personally block any cases that I am shown. (...)
>>>>
>>>> (...) Would we block a good editor if we found out after the fact is a
>>>> very different question. We have traditions of forgiveness and working with
>>>> people to improve their behavior and ours whenever we can - things are
>>>> never so simple. Of course it is possible to imagine a situation where
>>>> someone can and should be forgiven... because that's very common.
>>>>
>>>> That's not the same as saying that it would ever be ok, as a matter of
>>>> policy. Just imagine the disaster for our reputation.
>>>>
>>>> I think many people would consider the idea of "Did You Know" - and
>>>> Wikipedia's front page - being successfully used in a for-profit commercial
>>>> venture by any entity to be harmful to Wikipedia, reputation or otherwise.
>>>>
>>>> But then again, Wikipedia and alleged conflicts of interest are not
>>>> known to be handled with practicality - or clarity. Just ask Philip
>>>> Roth <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19527797>.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> *Sarah Stierch*
>>>> *Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow*
>>>> >>Mind the gap! Support Wikipedia women's outreach: donate 
>>>> >>today<https://donate.wikimedia.org/>
>>>> <<
>>>>  --
>>>> *Sarah Stierch*
>>>> *Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow*
>>>> >>Mind the gap! Support Wikipedia women's outreach: donate 
>>>> >>today<https://donate.wikimedia.org/>
>>>> <<
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wmfcc-l mailing list
>>>> wmfc...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wmfcc-l
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> WikimediaBR-l mailing list
>>>> WikimediaBR-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediabr-l
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> WikimediaBR-l mailing list
>>> WikimediaBR-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediabr-l
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikimediaBR-l mailing list
>> WikimediaBR-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediabr-l
>>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
WikimediaBR-l mailing list
WikimediaBR-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediabr-l

Responder a