Raylton
Acho que vc tá um pouco paranóico com isso.
Conceitualmente é o mesmo que um jornalista utilizar de coluna ou espaço em
publicação para fins pecuniários, nem sempre é ruim
O editor que enveredar por se beneficiar da Wikipédia só vai ter lucro se
conseguir espaço na página principal ou em algum artigo muito visado, esses
espaços são muito vigiados, pegam logo, como aconteceu com esse ai.
Desencana, não vale a pena.
Jo
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
>
>
_______________________________________________
WikimediaBR-l mailing list
WikimediaBR-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediabr-l
