Fred and Craig,
Do you think a comparison of the effects of bias in individual candidates' articles to the effects systemic bias towards trickle-down austerity economics and the social implications thereof in light of the WP:MEDRS-grade source at http://talknicer.com/ehip.pdf might produce a helpful indication of where counter-advocacy efforts would best be focused?
I'm un-crossposting this reply to just wiki-research-l and the Education list because I've been told to not crosspost to more than two lists.
On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 12:59:09 -0400 Craig Newmark <craig.newmark at gmail.com> wrote:
Fred, thanks!
Worth reviewing, after people have recovered from the election. How about...reminding me two weeks from today. I might've recovered by then, seriously...
Thanks!
Craig Newmark
founder, craigslist
On Nov 2, 2016 12:44 PM, "FRED BAUDER" <fredbaud at fairpoint.net> wrote:
Craig,
I don't expect you to do anything about it, but Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 has been so much an object of political editing by Clinton supporters that it looks more like an ad for Hillary than a Wikipedia article.
Fred Bauder
On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 11:43:32 -0400 Craig Newmark <craig.newmark at craigconnects.org> wrote:
Wikipedia is where facts go to live.
It helps that folks on US Capitol Hill are receptive to quiet suggestions that Wikipedia avoid becoming a partisan battleground.
Craig Newmark
founder, craigslist
On Nov 1, 2016 7:35 PM, "Olatunde Isaac" <reachout2isaac at gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi,
Pine, thanks for sharing this article. I found the entire article very interesting. I am glad that Wikipedia is not seen as a vehicle for political campaign. Sometimes, people create account on Wikipedia with the aim to use the encyclopedia for political campaign and a good number of them end up getting blocked either for POV pushing or other disruptive editing/behavior.
BTW....I have a few question. Is it a good idea to protect a page from creation if there are indications that the overall intention of the creator is to use Wikipedia as a platform for political campaign? If yes, how is such protection necessary if the page is neutrally written?
There was an incident that happened sometimes last year when an article on "Akinwunmi Ambode" was protected from creation and unprotected after his election.
Is this really a good idea?
Best,
Isaac Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld from Glo Mobile.
-----Original Message----- From: Pine W <wiki.pine at gmail.com> Sender: "Wikimedia-l" <wikimedia-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org>Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 20:31:59 To: Wikimedia Mailing List<Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org>; Wikimedia Education<education at lists.wikimedia.org>; Wiki Research-l<wiki-research-l@ lists.wikimedia.org> Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] "Can Wikipedia save the internet?": Wikipedia and political neutrality
Hello colleagues,
Some of you might be interested in this news article: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/ can-wikipedia-save-the-internet-a7380786.html
When we know that we have countless shortcomings in Wikimedia, I found it refreshing to hear that some aspects of our content and community are performing well and, on the whole, are serving the public interest.
Regards,
Pine
The subject affected in this way are "hot," in the news, sometimes hourly, or involve major financial interests. Austerity economics is as good an example as major political candidates. I think statistics would show a relationship between news mentions and editing conflict, and, also, the amount of profit associated with marketing of a product.
Fred
On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 12:52:58 -0600 James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Fred and Craig,
Do you think a comparison of the effects of bias in individual candidates' articles to the effects systemic bias towards trickle-down austerity economics and the social implications thereof in light of the WP:MEDRS-grade source at http://talknicer.com/ehip.pdf might produce a helpful indication of where counter-advocacy efforts would best be focused?
I'm un-crossposting this reply to just wiki-research-l and the Education list because I've been told to not crosspost to more than two lists.
On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 12:59:09 -0400 Craig Newmark <craig.newmark at gmail.com> wrote:
Fred, thanks!
Worth reviewing, after people have recovered from the election. How about...reminding me two weeks from today. I might've recovered by then, seriously...
Thanks!
Craig Newmark
founder, craigslist
On Nov 2, 2016 12:44 PM, "FRED BAUDER" <fredbaud at fairpoint.net> wrote:
Craig,
I don't expect you to do anything about it, but Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 has been so much an object of political editing by Clinton supporters that it looks more like an ad for Hillary than a Wikipedia article.
Fred Bauder
On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 11:43:32 -0400 Craig Newmark <craig.newmark at craigconnects.org> wrote:
Wikipedia is where facts go to live.
It helps that folks on US Capitol Hill are receptive to quiet suggestions that Wikipedia avoid becoming a partisan battleground.
Craig Newmark
founder, craigslist
On Nov 1, 2016 7:35 PM, "Olatunde Isaac" <reachout2isaac at gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi,
Pine, thanks for sharing this article. I found the entire article very interesting. I am glad that Wikipedia is not seen as a vehicle for political campaign. Sometimes, people create account on Wikipedia with the aim to use the encyclopedia for political campaign and a good number of them end up getting blocked either for POV pushing or other disruptive editing/behavior.
BTW....I have a few question. Is it a good idea to protect a page from creation if there are indications that the overall intention of the creator is to use Wikipedia as a platform for political campaign? If yes, how is such protection necessary if the page is neutrally written?
There was an incident that happened sometimes last year when an article on "Akinwunmi Ambode" was protected from creation and unprotected after his election.
Is this really a good idea?
Best,
Isaac Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld from Glo Mobile.
-----Original Message----- From: Pine W <wiki.pine at gmail.com> Sender: "Wikimedia-l" <wikimedia-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org>Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 20:31:59 To: Wikimedia Mailing List<Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org>; Wikimedia Education<education at lists.wikimedia.org>; Wiki Research-l<wiki-research-l@ lists.wikimedia.org> Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] "Can Wikipedia save the internet?": Wikipedia and political neutrality
Hello colleagues,
Some of you might be interested in this news article: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/ can-wikipedia-save-the-internet-a7380786.html
When we know that we have countless shortcomings in Wikimedia, I found it refreshing to hear that some aspects of our content and community are performing well and, on the whole, are serving the public interest.
Regards,
Pine
Jon,
At the October Metrics and Activities meeting, you asked for feedback on the Related Articles feature. Please have a look at this: http://i.imgur.com/2aujFL7.png
The Making Work Pay Tax Credit was a provision of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008; possibly the most effective provision responsible for ending and reversing the recession. And perhaps for that reason, Republicans in Congress refused to renew it in 2010 during the same series of negotiations in which they refused to advance the infrastructure bills which did not pass from 2010 until this year. I believe that the Making Work Pay Tax Credit is fully in line with the Foundation's Mission and stated public policy objectives, and so I have recommended that the Foundation endorse it: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/publicpolicy/2016-September/001527.htm...
The FairTax is a flat tax which is considered very popular among Libertarians and Objectivists. However, it has never had much congressional support, likely because nearly all economists think it would lead to ruin because it is so regressive. Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson recently became very upset when asked by a British newspaper reporter about this subject: https://youtu.be/vvULsrjLdI4?t=3m12s
Do you think FairTax is a useful related article to suggest to people interested in the Making Work Pay Tax Credit?
To what extent does systemic bias towards fringe Libertarian and Objectivist economics influence the Related Articles feature?
On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 1:11 PM, FRED BAUDER fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
The subject affected in this way are "hot," in the news, sometimes hourly, or involve major financial interests. Austerity economics is as good an example as major political candidates. I think statistics would show a relationship between news mentions and editing conflict, and, also, the amount of profit associated with marketing of a product.
Fred
On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 12:52:58 -0600 James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Fred and Craig,
Do you think a comparison of the effects of bias in individual candidates' articles to the effects systemic bias towards trickle-down austerity economics and the social implications thereof in light of the WP:MEDRS-grade source at http://talknicer.com/ehip.pdf might produce a helpful indication of where counter-advocacy efforts would best be focused?
I'm un-crossposting this reply to just wiki-research-l and the Education list because I've been told to not crosspost to more than two lists.
On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 12:59:09 -0400 Craig Newmark <craig.newmark at gmail.com> wrote:
Fred, thanks!
Worth reviewing, after people have recovered from the election. How about...reminding me two weeks from today. I might've recovered by then, seriously...
Thanks!
Craig Newmark
founder, craigslist
On Nov 2, 2016 12:44 PM, "FRED BAUDER" <fredbaud at fairpoint.net> wrote:
Craig,
I don't expect you to do anything about it, but Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 has been so much an object of political editing by Clinton supporters that it looks more like an ad for Hillary than a Wikipedia article.
Fred Bauder
On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 11:43:32 -0400 Craig Newmark <craig.newmark at craigconnects.org> wrote:
Wikipedia is where facts go to live.
It helps that folks on US Capitol Hill are receptive to quiet suggestions that Wikipedia avoid becoming a partisan battleground.
Craig Newmark
founder, craigslist
On Nov 1, 2016 7:35 PM, "Olatunde Isaac" <reachout2isaac at gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi,
Pine, thanks for sharing this article. I found the entire article very interesting. I am glad that Wikipedia is not seen as a vehicle for political campaign. Sometimes, people create account on Wikipedia with the aim to use the encyclopedia for political campaign and a good number of them end up getting blocked either for POV pushing or other disruptive editing/behavior.
BTW....I have a few question. Is it a good idea to protect a page from creation if there are indications that the overall intention of the creator is to use Wikipedia as a platform for political campaign? If yes, how is such protection necessary if the page is neutrally written?
There was an incident that happened sometimes last year when an article on "Akinwunmi Ambode" was protected from creation and unprotected after his election.
Is this really a good idea?
Best,
Isaac Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld from Glo Mobile.
-----Original Message----- From: Pine W <wiki.pine at gmail.com> Sender: "Wikimedia-l" <wikimedia-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org>Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 20:31:59 To: Wikimedia Mailing List<Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org>; Wikimedia Education<education at lists.wikimedia.org>; Wiki Research-l<wiki-research-l@ lists.wikimedia.org> Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] "Can Wikipedia save the internet?": Wikipedia and political neutrality
Hello colleagues,
Some of you might be interested in this news article: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/ can-wikipedia-save-the-internet-a7380786.html
When we know that we have countless shortcomings in Wikimedia, I found it refreshing to hear that some aspects of our content and community are performing well and, on the whole, are serving the public interest.
Regards,
Pine
On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 6:52 PM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Do you think a comparison of the effects of bias in individual candidates' articles to the effects [of] systemic bias towards trickle-down austerity economics and the social implications thereof in light of the WP:MEDRS-grade source at http://talknicer.com/ehip.pdf ["Income inequality and health: A causal review" by Pickett & Wilkinson: "The body of evidence strongly suggests that income inequality affects population health and wellbeing"] might produce a helpful indication of where counter-advocacy efforts would best be focused?
I know you didn't ask, but in my opinion, that sentence works better as *un poème concret*.
One "formal" answer to your question would draw on the research you cited, and use the ideas there to specify editorial and other attentional and effort investment policies.
Viz., "Notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time."
This is quite clearly a "trickle-up" policy: things become notable because of all of the aggregated attention. We can imagine a sort of crisis point at which background noise transforms into a conscious perception. I suspect that's probably a mistaken metaphor, and that consciousness is more like mycorrhizae, like or the Hawkin-Ahmad theory of neurons, in which "the majority of the patterns recognized by a neuron act as predictions by slightly depolarizing the neuron without immediately generating an action potential." So, yes, there is a crisis point but it's not the only interesting thing.
Any massive inequality (income, attention, political perspective) points to a potential crisis. If one wanted to put forth a general policy, it might be to look for what happens before the crisis. For example we could study Psy's 17th single, "Korea" (the 18th being "Gagnam style"), and notice how it anticipates a "breakthrough" both lyrically and in the cinematography of its music video. Or for an example closer to home, look at how your sentence above was coiled like a snake ready to strike.
Still, I think (especially given the examples you've mentioned) it is also important to avoid false comparisons. E.g. what relative weight should be given to Hillary Clinton's email server vs Donald Trump's treatment of women, or what have you. On this point I think Bergson's theory of "false problems" repays study. http://hadideeb.com/journal/2016/7/24/bergson-false-problems.html
wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org