"Wikipedia for Journalists"
By Sree Sreenivasan
Columbia Professor & Poynter Visiting Professor
Poynter Online
http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=32&aid=62126
Here's an excerpt:
"So far, the effort has created numerous reference-quality articles as wide
ranging as the Hutton Inquiry, algorithms, social history of the piano,
origins of the American Civil War, and severe acute respiratory syndrome. As
its quality has improved, news publications have increasingly cited
Wikipedia on subjects such as Wahhabism, crony capitalism, folk metal,
British 'honours' system, Abdul Qadeer Khan and extinct animals. It has even
been used in litigation, when in July 2003, a Wikipedia article on profanity
was cited in a motion to dismiss a case in a Colorado court."
_________________________________________________________________
Learn how to help protect your privacy and prevent fraud online at Tech
Hacks & Scams. http://special.msn.com/msnbc/techsafety.armx
It sounds like you made the same error as I did - you
did not read all of the postings before you responded
to them. I withdrew this later on - see 'I shot my bolt
too soon', though Bird was (and I think still is)
a problem.
--
--------- Original Message ---------
DATE: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 10:19:30
From: Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)bomis.com>
To: redgum46(a)lycos.com, English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Cc:
>Arno M wrote:
>> So what is Jimbo's response to this little edict? Another "all you
>>need is love" approach?
>
>Sure, all you need is love of Special:Blockip. :-)
>
>Look, we do have to be tolerant of a wide variety of perspectives on
>how editing should be done, how the course of the articles should go,
>etc. But we need not tolerate people who rant and curse at us and
>accuse of authoritarianism because we won't accept their extreme bias
>as being a neutral presentation.
>
>--Jimbo
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________
Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages
http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.as…
--- Sheldon Rampton <sheldon.rampton(a)verizon.net>
wrote:
>
> I wonder, though, if we could refocus our attention
> away from
> strategies for punishing or controlling the behavior
> of people who
> act badly, and instead look for ways to reward
> *good* behavior.
[snip]
> I propose creating a new category of "registered,
> confirmed users,"
> which would fall in between our current categories
> of "registered
> users" and "sysops." These would be users who, in
> addition to basic
> registration, have provided some confirmation that
> they are
> verifiably unique individuals and not merely the
> umpteenth sock
> puppet of Bird or some other game-player.
I don't think this proposal does anything very
positive to encourage the things we want to see in
wikipedia.
I can see the logic behind it (although I think you
made some mistakes, non-sysops can move pages, and I
believe that sysop=admin, and the term you were
looking for in 4 should have been developer or
something like that). But, at the moment sysops are
(or should be) trusted with certain adminstative tasks
but their opinions in article formation/ content
disputes etc should not be given any more weight than
those of any other users.
You're proposing a more overt status-system which in
my opinion is only going to get used to bash "lesser"
users over the head. It's bad enough that people
already seem to think that sysopship is a status
symbol, I wouldn't like to see this developed any
further.
> There might be some other rewards that we could
> offer to encourage
> good behavior. For example, we could have monthly
> prizes in various
> categories, such as best new article; editor of the
> month; or most
> congenial member of a non-mainstream religion (a
> category I've
> created specially for Ed). The prizes could be small
> tokens of
> appreciation such as coffee mugs, and wouldn't need
> to cost much.
> Another possibility might be to encourage real-world
> interactions
> between Wikipedians, for example by sponsoring
> social mixers in
> different locales. If people start seeing the
> Wikipedia as a way to
> actually get to know other people (and maybe even as
> a vehicle for
> career networking), they'd probably feel greater
> incentive to behave
> well. Maybe the social mixers could also double as
> fund-raisers.
Now, I like the idea of encouraging good behaviour in
such a positive way (prizes and fun things - at the
moment the barnstar is the only such thing I know of).
:)
On a related note I was chatting in IRC yesterday
about wikimoney and how useless I find it. I founded
a wikiproject which will involve the creation of
literally hundreds of new articles, finding hundreds
of images etc. And what do I have to motivate people
to join in with this rather than any other
wikiactivity? W17! How about giving wikiprojects a
monthly allowence to be spent on incentives related to
that project?
Fabiform.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
http://mail.yahoo.com
Erik Moeller wrote:
> If I sound angry, that's because I am. The bullies are being protected
> with fallacious arguments of free speech and "WikiLove". We need
> enforcement here. And I'm very disappointed in Jimbo for not doing
> something about this issue and endlessly delaying any meaningful decision.
> The solution is trivial. Warn and then temporarily ban people who violate
> the *spirt and the letter* of the rule. There are *no* negative side-
> effects of such a policy.
There *are* negative side-effects of such a policy:
(1) People against whom enforcement action is taken will sometimes
respond by escalating the conflict and resorting to more ambitious
abuse.
(2) The more enforcement actions are taken, the greater the risk that
Wikipedia will become mired in rules, bureaucracy, punishments,
cliques and power struggles.
Nevertheless, I think the costs of *not* taking action outweigh the
risks of taking action in most of the recent cases that have been
discussed here.
I wonder, though, if we could refocus our attention away from
strategies for punishing or controlling the behavior of people who
act badly, and instead look for ways to reward *good* behavior.
I've been rethinking some of my recent suggestions (e.g., requiring
people to provide an ISP-based email address at time of
registration). I think the overwhelmingly negative reaction to that
suggestion reflects a desire on the part of most people here to avoid
measures that take away existing freedoms and privileges. Well and
good, understood. But what if we think instead about measures that
simply offer *more incentive* for people to work cooperatively and
constructively together?
Right now, the Wikipedia has a multi-tiered set of user privileges. I
know we try not to regard it as a "ranking" of users, but in practice
it is. The tiers are:
(1) Anonymous IP contributors. They can't have watchlists, make
"minor" edits, or customize their user preferences.
(2) Registered users. They can do all of the above, but they can't
move, delete or protect pages, and they can't block vandals.
(3) Sysops. They can do all of the above, but they can't do some of
the things that administrators can do.
(4) Administrators.
(5) Jimbo, our exalted ruler.
Technical considerations are only part of the reason for the
additional privileges given to people in category (2) as compared to
(1). Registered users have given us greater reason to trust them,
because by registering they have made it somewhat easier to
communicate with them and to collaborate. At present, however, the
information people are asked to provide upon registration is so
limited that it is impossible to verify their identity, creating the
problem we have with sock puppets.
I propose creating a new category of "registered, confirmed users,"
which would fall in between our current categories of "registered
users" and "sysops." These would be users who, in addition to basic
registration, have provided some confirmation that they are
verifiably unique individuals and not merely the umpteenth sock
puppet of Bird or some other game-player. Methods of confirmation
might include:
*supplying a verified, ISP-based email address, street address,
social security number, credit card number, or other reasonable
evidence of unique identity.
*payment of a nominal contribution (such as US $1) to the WikiMedia
Foundation. This would enable people who are unwilling to provide
their identity in any other way to demonstrate good faith, while
deterring them from creating numerous sock puppets.
The existing category of registered users would be changed so that
people who are registered but not confirmed are no longer allowed to
make "minor" edits. Other than that, it would stay the same.
The category of "registered, confirmed users" would be allowed to
make "minor edits," and also to move and protect pages, and they
would be able to temp-block anonymous IP numbers for up to, say, 24
hours.
The other categories (sysops, administrators and Jimbo), would remain
unchanged, except that they would acquire a new power, namely the
ability to demote "registered, confirmed users" to the status of mere
"registered users." This power should only be used in cases where a
registered, confirmed user has shown a pattern of bad behavior (such
as edit wars, cussing, or chewing tobacco and missing the spittoon).
Our current "Recent Changes" feature would have a preference option
that makes it possible to only display recent changes by anonymous
IPs and unconfirmed registered users. This would make it easier to
monitor for vandals, because most vandalism would likely be committed
by people who fall into one of those categories.
This is just a rough draft of a concept, but the point is that we
want to reward people who behave collaboratively, and we want to
empower Wikipedians themselves to police the joint. Supplying a
confirmed identity is one way of building trust and displaying a
willingness to collaborate, so we should reward it with additional
privileges and empower people who have done so to participate in
curbing vandals.
There might be some other rewards that we could offer to encourage
good behavior. For example, we could have monthly prizes in various
categories, such as best new article; editor of the month; or most
congenial member of a non-mainstream religion (a category I've
created specially for Ed). The prizes could be small tokens of
appreciation such as coffee mugs, and wouldn't need to cost much.
Another possibility might be to encourage real-world interactions
between Wikipedians, for example by sponsoring social mixers in
different locales. If people start seeing the Wikipedia as a way to
actually get to know other people (and maybe even as a vehicle for
career networking), they'd probably feel greater incentive to behave
well. Maybe the social mixers could also double as fund-raisers.
Anyway...this is probably enough half-baked ideas for one day. I've
met my quota. :-)
--Sheldon Rampton
Since some people on this mailing list have previously asked to be made
aware of polls on the wiki, here is a new one. It addresses what links
to remove from the sidebar so we can add a link to the Community Portal
page. It's actually a revised and restarted version of the old poll,
which ended up being too confusing and did not have a clear result. Vote at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Community_Portal#New_sidebar_po…
--Michael Snow
----- Original Message -----
From: Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)bomis.com>
Date: Friday, March 12, 2004 1:52 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: New sidebar poll
> True, we are not a newspaper, but I suspect that I'm in the vast
> majority when I say that I often get my daily background information
> about what's going on in the news from Wikipedia's homepage.
>
> I learned a lot about Basque separatists and ETA and so on in the past
> two days. I read a lot about the South Korean impeachment.
>
> The "In the news" feature on the homepage is one of the best things
> that we do, in my opinion.
Much agreement. It's like a reporter looking for background info. I'll often wander by the Jerusalem Post, NY Times, and CNN, then follow it up with background from Wikipedia.
John
I just got the following message from the OpenCourseWare people here at
MIT. They want to use a piece of writing of mine. I already submitted
a modified version of the introduction to this document to Wikipedia. It
looks like what they're asking should be ok (it says they want a
"non-exclusive" right to it) but I thought I should double check with
people here.
moink
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 13:11:36 -0500
From: Brett Paci <bpaci(a)MIT.EDU>
To: robinst(a)mit.edu
Subject: 16.885J Permission Request from MIT OpenCourseWare
Theresa Robinson
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
robinst(a)mit.edu
Dear Publisher,
On behalf of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
OpenCourseWare program (“OCW”), I am writing to ask your permission to
use the material (“Material”) listed below, which we believe is owned
by you.
MIT OCW is a Web-based electronic publishing initiative funded jointly
by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Andrew W. Mellon
Foundation, and MIT and is described at http://ocw.mit.edu/. Its goals
include (i) providing free, searchable, coherent access to MIT's course
materials for educators in the non-profit sector, students, and
individual learners around the world, and (ii) creating an efficient,
standards-based model that other universities may emulate to publish
their own course materials.
MIT is making this request in connection with Earll Murman’s course
entitled, 16.885J Aircraft Systems Engineering, which will be
published on MIT’s OCW. Specifically, MIT is requesting your
permission for a perpetual, royalty free, non-exclusive right and
license to use, reproduce, distribute, copy, translate and permit
others to use, reproduce, distribute, copy, or translate in electronic
format or in or by any other media now known or hereafter developed,
the Material.
If you would be willing to grant this permission, could you or an
authorized officer of your organization please sign the attached
license and return it to my attention. We would be grateful for a
response by: 3/26/2004.
If you have any questions please contact me directly at 617-253-7913.
Sincerely,
Geoffery Wilson
Please use reference numbers listed in all correspondence. Permission
is requested for the following:
Entire document
Citation X: A Case Study
Ref #: 1213-5517-9194-6378
Robinson
Robinson's biography
Ref. # 1213-5517-9197-6384
Request #: OCW000001110
I don't need this kind of abuse: I'm trying to take a vacation. --Ed
----
Ed Poor you are a malicious vigilante who is easily swayed by group
pressure to avoid the difficult work of examining the accuracy and
provenance of what is contributed to an open document. If a band of
thugs have formed a neighborhood safety committe and now wants to
arbitrate to whom this document is open adn to whom it is not, go ahed
and try, because one, you can't keep anyone from editing, and two, the
more times you thugs say "open except to that person and that one and
that one" the more rediculous becomes the claim that this is an open
document.
You claimed to be on vacation but just couldn't avoid the chance to feed
when you smelled blood in the water. If this matter is important to you,
kindly post links to your so called "Arbitrary Committee" so I can tell
them to thier face they are a bunch of thugs with no legitimacy, no
democratic foundation and no purpose but to exclude effective criticisms
from this liberal propaganda effort.
If I recall, you have been the target of repeated complaints about your
abuse of authority. Why don't you honor your promise and go on vacation.
The people on the mailing list were spending their time slandering Bird
rather than edit articles and improve the accuracy of the encyclopedia.
If that is the game you play that is fine because it is easy to expose
there is no way you can prevent further exposure, or recruitment of
others who will even more scornfully ridicule the malicious games you
play in the name of producing and educational document. USER:BIRD
----
This thing has really gotten out of hand.
Wikipedia has grown so large that it is no longer possible to rely on
so-called soft security.
A small community like Ward's Wiki (which is chiefly about software
development) or MeatBall (which is about creating online communities)
which has a HIGH RATIO of readers to writers, can rely on soft security.
Every change is read by dozens of Recent Changes junkies.
The days when a single admin (like Maveric in his heyday) could be "on
duty" for several hours at a time and single-handedly hold back the tide
of vandalism -- well these days are forever gone, my friends.
Sorry, but we are the victims of our own success. And it takes the full
attention of a dozen admins to counter one determined troublemaker.
The arbitration committee was created, not for vandals and
troublemakers, but for long-running personality conflicts or
style/content disputes. But when there's a troll loose in the dungeon,
we need to the authority to act quickly and quarantine the problem.
I did not plan to be the one to force the issue; I had hoped to avoid
even the slightest hint of "unilateral action", but todays' crisis
seemed to call for what we might call "citizen's arrest". Responding to
repeated calls for help, I blocked a user and all his known puppet
accounts. This action requires immediate review by the Arbitration
Committee.
If the committee wants to unblock him before making a decision, that's
fine. That's what Fred and all them are supposed to do: figure out how
to handle a case where everyone else has given up. If they want to keep
the block in place while they investigate and make up their minds,
that's fine too.
Ed Poor