Ok. Deve ser paranoia minha mesmo... Desculpa o exagero então.

2012/9/26 Claudio Barbosa <rjclau...@gmail.com>

> Concordo que é um problema qualquer ...
> * ... vandalismo
> * ... edição em artigos que desrespeite alguma regra
> * ... uso de ferramentas administrativas que não esteja de acordo com as
> regras (eliminar o q não deve, bloquear qnd não deve, etc)
>
> E não acho que ninguém pense diferente disso, ninguém vai concordar q
> vandalismo ou desrespeito às regras não é um problema (e realmente ninguém
> vai incentivar isso).
>
> Daí a dizer que vandalismo confiável é um problema muito maior que os
> outros e que é capaz de destruir a wikipedia e que temos que parar tudo
> para combater isso já é exagero. É só mais um dos mts problemas que existe
> com as wikis e com qualquer grupo de pessoas.
>
> Também não acho que isso não esteja recebendo a atenção que merece. Já vi
> várias discussões sobre isso (não exatamente isso, mas sobre algum desses
> pontos) na wiki. A WMF está preocupada com a retenção de usuários (então
> mais atenção para bloqueios e eliminações indevidas). Etc, etc. É um
> problema como qualquer outro, que está recebendo a atenção como qualquer
> outro.
>
> Claudio Barbosa
>
> 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
>
>
_______________________________________________
WikimediaBR-l mailing list
WikimediaBR-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediabr-l

Responder a