WikiEN-l March 2007

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

181 participants
397 discussions

Re: [WikiEN-l] Is editing for payment a fundamentally problematic conflict of...
by Bartning＠aol.com 05 Mar '07

05 Mar '07

Re-Write Using More Standard Indentation for Clarity In a message dated 3/4/2007 4:42:06 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, william(a)scissor.com writes: >Just to be clear, I'm not against paying honest and conscientious >Wikipedians to edit. What I am opposed to is accepting editorial >conflicts of interest. So if, say, the Ford Foundation wants to pay a dozen historians to write historical articles, I'm all for it. Right up to the point where they edit anything on the Ford Foundation or its funders. Current rules remain unclear about policies. I only hear about paid corporations and nonprofits that also edit pages. However, one criticism involves Wikipedia being too commercial and actually asking corporations to put their logos on articles about them. >From what I see about my present circumstances, unfairly blocked by a senior in high school who can't even spell when I provide higher-level concepts on a subject that I have had a major interest, something's very wrong. Moreover, I people use the ad hominems on me, but I get the extension to the block, and I've been reading Wikipedia for years, started the editing account in late '05, even began articles such as the GuideStar article. Am I in COI because I began the GuideStar article but also was a major founder of a nonprofit? No, but I'm in COI because I talk knowledgeably about a subject. The article's ruined right now. >I understand you're saying that with people of sufficient honor, we can >hopefully get away with it. It's plausible to me, but I can't see any >clear revision to the COI guidelines that will keep only the honorable >people doing this, and -- just as important -- keep them from being >eventually corrupted. We don't have the mechanisms to enforce honesty >that a major research institution does, and I don't think we'll be able >to afford to build them for a decade or more. Well, Wikipedia's gotten a good deal of public support. Now it's coming at me not only with anarchy, my complaint from before, but totalitarianism. LOL! <snip> >>>> More similar, I think, would be to compare historians who write works on >>>> commission. These are generally paid for by an interested party,[...] >>>> >>> >>> I'd be intrigued to read more about this, but my guess is that it would >>> require several conditions for it to work: >>> >>> 1. The company would have to have a clear and special interest in >>> being seeing as completely forthright. >>> 2. The historian would have to be somebody with an established >>> reputation and solid credentials. >>> 3. The historian would do a relatively small amount of work for the >>> commissioning party. (E.g., they would not be a staff historian.) >>> 4. The historian would not primarily do commissioned work. >>> >> >> The last three at least seem to be the case here---an established and >> well-respected contributor is asking if writing the occasional article >> for a paid commissioner would be okay. I think the first is actually >> better to avoid having to decide, since the motives of companies are >> rather difficult to discern---so long as the writer is not a staff >> historian, and doesn't do this as their main living, then whether the >> company is interested in forthrightness or not matters little. >> >No slight intended to Jaap or any of our contributors but I don't think >the comparison is even close. A professional historian with an >established reputation and solid credentials has put, what, two decades >into getting there? And getting caught distorting the truth means they >throw that and their professional future away. Even our very best >editors don't have anything like that on the line. For those who are >pseudonymous, there is even less penalty for ethical missteps. >Historians are human too. I've had problems with them before, but I still end up with Bs in college history, >not higher, not lower. I'm planning to go back to college even, but in World War II, I should have done >better. I've studied it, along with the Civil War, since I was a kid. Why, there's complaint about the article on the American Civil War being "long," and it bothers me. There's not even a definition of "First Defender" I can find yet. What about pseudonyms when you reveal your real name on your user page then? I use that of my grandfather, John Wallace Rich, for example, who was KIA in World War II. >And those historians work in a field where academic norms of >intellectual independence and honesty have been built up over centuries, >with detection and enforcement mechanisms to match. Not to mention years >of training in research and writing for every person involved. We aren't >even close to having that kind of infrastructure. As far as I'm concerned, there's too much of a lack of ethics in school as well. I've seen it firsthand, and though I've only read half of _The Closing of the American Mind_, I still think we need more checks and balances. >As to item 1, again it comes back to conflict of interest. If Intel pays >some professional technology journalist to expand our computer science >articles, more power to them, as I don't see them as having an interest >in distorting them. But as soon as they want changes to anything where >there is a conflict of interest, we should say no. Yes, but then you see the slippery slope. Something's wrong here, and I think it's selfishness somewhat. Moreover, I've seen problems with Wikipedia for a long time. People troll articles, and provide sleeping-dog information. I can see them yawn in their pajamas on the last Monday in May. LOL! What about the truth for the readers besides just writing for them? I don't think writing for Nazis in 1941 would have been a good approach. Vincent ____________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at _AOL.com_ (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/1615326657x4311227241x4298082137/aol?redir=ht…) . ************************************** AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] Is editing for payment a fundamentally problematic conflict of...
by Bartning＠aol.com 05 Mar '07

05 Mar '07

In a message dated 3/4/2007 4:42:06 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, william(a)scissor.com writes: Just to be clear, I'm not against paying honest and conscientious Wikipedians to edit. What I am opposed to is accepting editorial conflicts of interest. So if, say, the Ford Foundation wants to pay a dozen historians to write historical articles, I'm all for it. Right up to the point where they edit anything on the Ford Foundation or its funders. Current rules remain unclear about policies. I only hear about paid corporations and nonprofits that also edit pages. However, one criticism involves Wikipedia being too commercial and actually asking corporations to put their logos on articles about them. >From what I see about my present circumstances, unfairly blocked by a senior in high school who can't even spell when I provide higher-level concepts on a subject that I have had a major interest, something's very wrong. Moreover, I people use the ad hominems on me, but I get the extension to the block, and I've been reading Wikipedia for years, started the editing account in late '05, even began articles such as the GuideStar article. Am I in COI because I began the GuideStar article but also was a major founder of a nonprofit? No, but I'm in COI because I talk knowledgeably about a subject. The article's ruined right now. I understand you're saying that with people of sufficient honor, we can hopefully get away with it. It's plausible to me, but I can't see any clear revision to the COI guidelines that will keep only the honorable people doing this, and -- just as important -- keep them from being eventually corrupted. We don't have the mechanisms to enforce honesty that a major research institution does, and I don't think we'll be able to afford to build them for a decade or more. Well, Wikipedia's gotten a good deal of public support. Now it's coming at me not only with anarchy, my complaint from before, but totalitarianism. LOL! <snip> >>> More similar, I think, would be to compare historians who write works on >>> commission. These are generally paid for by an interested party,[...] >>> >>> >> I'd be intrigued to read more about this, but my guess is that it would >> require several conditions for it to work: >> >> 1. The company would have to have a clear and special interest in >> being seeing as completely forthright. >> 2. The historian would have to be somebody with an established >> reputation and solid credentials. >> 3. The historian would do a relatively small amount of work for the >> commissioning party. (E.g., they would not be a staff historian.) >> 4. The historian would not primarily do commissioned work. >> > > The last three at least seem to be the case here---an established and > well-respected contributor is asking if writing the occasional article > for a paid commissioner would be okay. I think the first is actually > better to avoid having to decide, since the motives of companies are > rather difficult to discern---so long as the writer is not a staff > historian, and doesn't do this as their main living, then whether the > company is interested in forthrightness or not matters little. > No slight intended to Jaap or any of our contributors but I don't think the comparison is even close. A professional historian with an established reputation and solid credentials has put, what, two decades into getting there? And getting caught distorting the truth means they throw that and their professional future away. Even our very best editors don't have anything like that on the line. For those who are pseudonymous, there is even less penalty for ethical missteps. Historians are human too. I've had problems with them before, but I still end up with Bs in college history, not higher, not lower. I'm planning to go back to college even, but in World War II, I should have done better. I've studied it, along with the Civil War, since I was a kid. Why, there's complaint about the article on the American Civil War being "long," and it bothers me. There's not even a definition of "First Defender" I can find yet. What about pseudonyms when you reveal your real name on your user page then? I use that of my grandfather, John Wallace Rich, for example, who was KIA in World War II. And those historians work in a field where academic norms of intellectual independence and honesty have been built up over centuries, with detection and enforcement mechanisms to match. Not to mention years of training in research and writing for every person involved. We aren't even close to having that kind of infrastructure. As far as I'm concerned, there's too much of a lack of ethics in school as well. I've seen it firsthand, and though I've only read half of _The Closing of the American Mind_, I still think we need more checks and balances. As to item 1, again it comes back to conflict of interest. If Intel pays some professional technology journalist to expand our computer science articles, more power to them, as I don't see them as having an interest in distorting them. But as soon as they want changes to anything where there is a conflict of interest, we should say no. Yes, but then you see the slippery slope. Something's wrong here, and I think it's selfishness somewhat. Moreover, I've seen problems with Wikipedia for a long time. People troll articles, and provide sleeping-dog information. I can see them yawn in their pajamas on the last Monday in May. LOL! What about the truth for the readers besides just writing for them? I don't think writing for Nazis in 1941 would have been a good approach. Vincent ************************************** AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] Freedom of Speech in WP
by charles.r.matthews＠ntlworld.com 05 Mar '07

05 Mar '07

Marc Riddell wrote >I have been > doing minor editing in WP for a year now and, time permitting, would like to > participate more actively in the project. And, like anything a person is > considering becoming a part of, I want to get a sense of its beliefs and > values. > > My work and passion has been, is now, and probably always will be, persons > and their interactions. That is why this issue is so important to me. An argument I have produced before, is that bad language and aggressiveness as a routine form of interaction appeals mostly to the young and male. It happens that males 20 to 25 might be the most significant group here. I think it is also the case that such forms of verbal interaction and self-assertion are likely to put off many other demographic groups. So civility policy is one way of trying to broaden the base of contributors, or to retain people who profile is not a good match to those who think freedom of speech is mostly about the right to be f****** rude all the time. Charles ----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information

10 22

Please don't read this post about an AFD
by Ron Ritzman 05 Mar '07

05 Mar '07

This has to be the first time someone nominates an article for deletion and at the same time begs and pleads that it not be deleted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/August_Donnelly "DO NOT DELETE This page is most certainly of a notable artist for which I can vouch. I created this entry at his request from an article written by the signed author. Albeit true that he is up and coming and certainly not widely known yet, it is indeed very petty and immature to make unfounded commentary simply because you may not be familiar with the artist in question"

3 3

Re: [WikiEN-l] a final word on Essjay
by Fred Bauder 04 Mar '07

04 Mar '07

>-----Original Message----- >From: Stephen Park [mailto:stephenpark15@gmail.com] >Sent: Sunday, March 4, 2007 01:32 PM >To: 'English Wikipedia' >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] a final word on Essjay > >On 3/4/07, Sam Blacketer <sam.blacketer(a)googlemail.com> wrote: >> > >> > Apart from a public lynching, what else do people want from him? >> >> >> The really depressing thing about the episode is that so many editors did >> seem to want a public lynching, and thought it would be for the good of us >> all. All it was was just a childish joke by Essjay when he first signed up, >> that ran away with him and only caught up when he was well-known enough to >> really harm him. Not to say that I approve of what he did but I do have >> immense sympathy for him. > >Public lynchings are a regular feature of wikipedia. Just look at >WP/ANI and especially the method of having a community ban >(essentially a wikilynching) instead of a trial by ArbComm. We can stop that if we want to. Do you think there are community bans which are inappropriate? There are obvious problem with public hangings but even more with private hangings. Fred

2 1

Re: [WikiEN-l] Is editing for payment a fundamentally problematic conflict of...
by Bartning＠aol.com 04 Mar '07

04 Mar '07

In a message dated 3/4/2007 11:17:00 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net writes: Pay is completely irrelevant. You added links to, and content in support of, an organisation in which you play a leading role. Conflict of interest. I don't think I have ever edited the articles on Wikipedia or Jimmy Wales, by the way. I edited an article and began a corporation to benefit fellow families of killed in action. The article involves life-long learning about the concept, something my faculty advisor, a Stanford-graduated Ph.D., also thought I would be good at because of the courses I took. Foundations and other credible organizations even provide information and research about topics, and our nonprofit is legally incorporated as an educational institution. I see citations of other educational institutions in here all of the time. Moreover, it did not cite anything. I provided outside links on the subject, including our "competition," as I said. It's only information on a topic I have interest in, not that I get paid for. I volunteer my work with the organization and currently support myself by other means. It does however, allow deferment of my student loans, and I plan to return to school full time in the fall, where I have financial aid lined up. WikiProject Military history rated the work I did to a "start-class" on the article, but an 18-year-old senior in high school blocked my account, one of your fellow admins, whereas I have much more of an education and experience and know a lot more about the topic, "killed in action" or KIA. He didn't even spell properly in describing the reason for the block, and he also has a lot of spelling errors on his user page. Lastly, another admin edited the article down to just include our nonprofit, for some strange reason, and I reverted, including the work I had done. I felt I deserved a bit of credit and also provided links to other organizations regarding killed in action, including The White House Commission on Remembrance's National Moment of Remembrance, a program by a bipartisan committee to honor the fallen of the United States of American. That, too, was removed, and they also provide links to our organization. I don't see how, with good conscience, you can condone or approve of editing for profit whereas you disapprove of editing an article you care about. That policy would have a lack of justice to say the least, though I still haven't seen the Wikimedia Foundation's approved Form 1023 goals, something I've requested and the IRS requires you provide; an organization seeking official determination as tax deductible and tax exempt by the federal government submits this form, which also requires public information be disclosed. All of this so far indicates how consensus should not override authority. Consensus has its place and makes authority, but it should do it for knowledge and truth here, not just the majority or for someone's joke about topics others take seriously. Lack of seriousness occurs somewhat when you get burned, and certainly two sides of the issue are better than censorship or even types of vandalism that Wikipedia describes. Vincent Bartning UN: John Wallace Rich ************************************** AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.

3 3

Re: [WikiEN-l] Is editing for payment a fundamentally problematic conflict of...
by Bartning＠aol.com 04 Mar '07

04 Mar '07

In a message dated 3/4/2007 2:31:40 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net writes: All of which is, as you have been told numerous times, COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT because when YOU write about it YOU have a conflict of interest. Is that so very hard to understand? That is not a judgment on the merit of your organisation, it's about the appropriateness of YOU adding links to it and YOU adding content about it. And that, I think, had better be my last word on the subject, at least on this list. Anyone who takes it properly can see the how you don't cite Wikipedia policy properly. Besides your shouting, you say I can't write about a topic that interests me because of an inappropriate claim of a conflict of interest. It's worse than telling someone he can't write in a Wikipedia entry about him because it's not an autobiography. It's like saying a father who has lost a son to a drunk driver can't talk about drunk driving on Wikipedia. I feel attacked here. I can't block and don't have a clear view on how to involve WP:Arbitration but want help with it. I want help in the situation as I have been unfairly treated, blocked unfairly, and an article I care about has been vandalized by Wikipedia definitions as a result of ignorance. Vincent UN:John Wallace Rich ************************************** AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] Is editing for payment a fundamentally problematic conflict of...
by Bartning＠aol.com 04 Mar '07

04 Mar '07

In a message dated 3/4/2007 9:08:15 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net writes: Although to be fair you were editing with a very clear conflict of interest, adding links to your own sites, and using Wikipedia to advance your external agenda. You were also distinctly rude when called on it. So it's not *terribly* surprising that you were blocked, and not actually unfair, as such. Which is not to say there are *no* unfair cases, just that yours does not seem to be one of them. There was no pay involved. I added other nonprofit foundations besides. I have a personal interest in the topic. I don't think you could claim that Frederick Douglass couldn't talk about blacks or Jim Wales online encyclopedias for that matter. You're making an inappropriate argument, and it's an attack because of my over concern about it: I was also blocked. I suppose you'd call donating blood a conflict of interest too - "because the American Red Cross keeps your name." Claiming conflicts of interest for whatever reason does not provide good policy. Vincent ************************************** AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.

3 2

Re: [WikiEN-l] a final word on Essjay
by Sheldon Rampton 04 Mar '07

04 Mar '07

Sam Blacketer wrote: > The really depressing thing about the episode is that so many > editors did > seem to want a public lynching, and thought it would be for the > good of us > all. All it was was just a childish joke by Essjay when he first > signed up, > that ran away with him and only caught up when he was well-known > enough to > really harm him. Not to say that I approve of what he did but I do > have > immense sympathy for him. It probably *began* as a joke, but it was Essjay's own actions that made it snowball out of control. He went beyond fabricating credentials and actually cited them in support of editorial decisions. When he took the job at Wikia, he failed to anticipate that the disparity between his pretend bio and his real one would become publicly known. When it *did* become known, he gave an explanation ("I had to use disinformation so people wouldn't hunt me down and kill me") that is both implausible and inconsistent with the public record about when and how he began calling himself a professor. Each of these decisions contributed further to erosion of trust. Personally, I have nothing against Essjay. I can empathize with the situation he's in, because I've done some stupid, wrong things in my own life too. (Fortunately for me, my worst errors didn't happen on the internet.) I think the mistakes he made were mostly due to youth and lack of experience. Awhile back I dealt with some problems on our website that were caused by operator error at our web hosting service. To make matters worse, the operator who made the error didn't come clean at first, which further delayed our efforts to fix the problem. I was livid and wanted to get the guy fired until our webmaster (who is sometimes wiser than me) said, "He's probably young. When you're young and screw up, you're more likely to try to bluff your way through. When you're old like we are and screw up, you know the truth is going to come out anyway, so you just admit to it." I remembered some of my own past errors, and my anger cleared. I think this is pretty much what happened with Essjay too. He's young, did something stupid, and what probably began for him as an amusing little fiction blew up into something worse because he tried to bluff his way through instead of coming clean. That's wrong, but it's also forgiveable. His transgression was not that major. No one died, no money was stolen. The damage that this incident has done to Wikipedia's (and Jimbo's) reputation is manageable. I think Essjay still has the ability to regain his position of trust within the Wikipedia community if he wishes to do so. He simply has to demonstrate candor, contrition, and an understanding of what he did wrong. It's unfortunate that he seems to have decided to simply leave the project. I know that what he's been through is unpleasant and embarrassing, but there is a way back if he wants to take it. The actor Hugh Grant, by the way, is often cited in by PR "crisis management" experts as a model for how people should handle embarrassing situations. After Grant was arrested with a prostitute in 1995, he didn't duck or deny, didn't go into seclusion, didn't make excuses. He went on the talk-show circuit and faced the jokes and criticism. His answer to Jay Leno was a model of what someone ought to say when they get caught in a screwup: "I did a bad thing... and there you have it.” His self-deprecating humor won him quick forgiveness, and his career never suffered. http://arts.guardian.co.uk/filmandmusic/story/0,,1982587,00.html http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/09/movies/09cris.html? ex=1312776000&en=2de709e8500c2501&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss The corollary is that Essjay's defenders haven't really done him any favors by excusing his actions or (worse) praising them, as some have done. Accepting his excuses or calling his critics a "baying mob" didn't answer anyone's concerns. If anything, they simply prolonged the "denial" stage of his crisis and made it harder for him to do what he would have to do to recover the trust that he has lost. -------------------------------- | Sheldon Rampton | Research director, Center for Media & Democracy (www.prwatch.org) | Author of books including: | Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities | Toxic Sludge Is Good For You | Mad Cow USA | Trust Us, We're Experts | Weapons of Mass Deception | Banana Republicans | The Best War Ever -------------------------------- | Subscribe to our free weekly list serve by visiting: | http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html | | Donate now to support independent, public interest reporting: | https://secure.groundspring.org/dn/index.php?id=1118 --------------------------------

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] a final word on Essjay
by Sam Blacketer 04 Mar '07

04 Mar '07

On 3/4/07, wikien-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org < wikien-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org> wrote: > > Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 12:48:55 EST > From: daniwo59(a)aol.com > > It is my sincere hope that people will just stop discussing this whole > Essjay episode ad nauseum. > > Here is someone who made a mistake. You may even say a big mistake. > For that > mistake he lost his credibility, he lost his community, he lost his job > at > Wikia, and he is the subject of disparaging articles and opinions both > online > and in print. > > Apart from a public lynching, what else do people want from him? The really depressing thing about the episode is that so many editors did seem to want a public lynching, and thought it would be for the good of us all. All it was was just a childish joke by Essjay when he first signed up, that ran away with him and only caught up when he was well-known enough to really harm him. Not to say that I approve of what he did but I do have immense sympathy for him.

4 3

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

WikiEN-l March 2007