I was recently indefinitely blocked in connection with the paid editing issue, without being a paid editor myself. Actually the paid users with whom I had a previous collaboration on voluntary subjects are even now free to edit. Worse, it is proposed the closure of the Wikipedia I put on track.
Here are the relevant links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Bad_new...
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Forum#The_Vlax_Romani_Wikipedia_and...
and in this article:
http://publish.indymedia.org/en/2009/07/926495.shtml
this is the part that concerns me:
"However, we find even more tragicomic and worrisome a strange case that occured in the last few days. One of the "detectives" foundhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Bad_newsthat the Tayzen account from Elance included in its portfolio from October 2008 the work of Desiphral, a veteran user who contributed a great deal of voluntary work at English Wikipedia and also founded the Wikipedia in his native language. The proposed conclusion, namely that this user is engaged in paid editing, was accepted by most of the other users without any inquiries. Quickly, in the discussion place there appeared users seemingly having some previous grudges against Desiphral, using the opportunity to request his block. Additionally there appeared some at least dubious users requesting the closure of the Wikipedia founded by Desiphral (in the language of a certain minority of Indian origin widely discriminated). In a normal (or better said, a previous) communication process at Wikipedia, such conclusions would have been dismissed as a good joke, but it was not the case here. We took our liberty to check the edits of the incriminated user and we did not find anything to suggest paid editing. Needless to say that the accusers too did not present any actual evidences for their allegations.
After a few days, when it appeared there Desiphral himself, it turned out that he had some years ago a collaboration on Wikipedia with people from the staff of Tayzen, but not in the field of paid editing (our investigation found out that the respective Elance account did not even exist at that time). Somehow unexpectedly (given the current atmosphere of fear and adulation at Wikipedia around the issue of paid editing), besides complaining about the attempt of public shaming, he started to point out the unprofessional manner of conducting the current purges. There followed some retorts, then... silence. When we contacted Desiphral to find out what exactly is going on there, we learned that his account was blocked, but the blocking notice was hidden somewhere in the talk page, not displayed on the user account, as it is the common practice at Wikipedia. The "death sentence" was done on the sly, after talking too much, somehow reminding of our attempt to talk openly there. We found the blocking reason really sarcastic, namely that "he indicated he permitted the use of his account for commercial purposes" (without showing where exactly was that indication, while we could not find anything of this kind in his replies). Even if it would have been true, this is not a punishable offense on Wikipedia... only you'll get intro trouble with those who do not like this. The accusers changed later the reason for blocking to "group account", because he permitted some years ago some people to learn how to edit, using his account. Obviously, a pretext, the same "first shoot, then ask" pattern, since the casual teaching of other people did not amount to what is understood at Wikipedia as a "group account", plus that the respective user was not active on Wikipedia for about a year and a half and at the time scale of Wikipedia such old issues are not considered when judging an user.
The suppressed user also told us that he was not announced by e-mail about the public shaming (he was not active on Wikipedia for long time and for such cases this would be the standard procedure), thus preventing him to present his position. He was not announced also about the following requests of somebody to blockhttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global#Global_lock_for_Desiphralhim in the Wikipedias in all languages and to close downhttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Forum#The_Vlax_Romani_Wikipedia_and_its_compromised_adminthe one he founded. The most ironic thing in all this affair is that those suspected editing on behalf of Tayzen are free to edit even at this moment (although they keep being hindered), while the one who was wrongly accused to associate with them was taken to the backyard and executed on the sly for sulking against the conduct of the purges. The language and the conduct of this episode suggests a combination of muting the dissent and a seizure of the opportunity by some people who have a problem with the respective user and/or with the Wikipedia he started."
After this episode, I have a feeling I am in China when logged in to English Wikipedia. I don't know if other users are in my situation. I guess that my luck resides in this coverage, to make my case known to the "free world". I did not check thoroughly the other things highlighted in the article, however, the links provided look compelling.
Desiphral
The actual policy, if it is policy, under which Desiphral was banned is a prohibition against role accounts, or group accounts at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Role_account
Is this policy? Is it a wise policy? Does it apply in his case?
Fred
I was recently indefinitely blocked in connection with the paid editing issue, without being a paid editor myself. Actually the paid users with whom I had a previous collaboration on voluntary subjects are even now free to edit. Worse, it is proposed the closure of the Wikipedia I put on track.
Here are the relevant links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Bad_new...
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Forum#The_Vlax_Romani_Wikipedia_and...
and in this article:
http://publish.indymedia.org/en/2009/07/926495.shtml
this is the part that concerns me:
"However, we find even more tragicomic and worrisome a strange case that occured in the last few days. One of the "detectives" foundhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Bad_newsthat the Tayzen account from Elance included in its portfolio from October 2008 the work of Desiphral, a veteran user who contributed a great deal of voluntary work at English Wikipedia and also founded the Wikipedia in his native language. The proposed conclusion, namely that this user is engaged in paid editing, was accepted by most of the other users without any inquiries. Quickly, in the discussion place there appeared users seemingly having some previous grudges against Desiphral, using the opportunity to request his block. Additionally there appeared some at least dubious users requesting the closure of the Wikipedia founded by Desiphral (in the language of a certain minority of Indian origin widely discriminated). In a normal (or better said, a previous) communication process at Wikipedia, such conclusions would have been dismissed as a good joke, but it was not the case here. We took our liberty to check the edits of the incriminated user and we did not find anything to suggest paid editing. Needless to say that the accusers too did not present any actual evidences for their allegations.
After a few days, when it appeared there Desiphral himself, it turned out that he had some years ago a collaboration on Wikipedia with people from the staff of Tayzen, but not in the field of paid editing (our investigation found out that the respective Elance account did not even exist at that time). Somehow unexpectedly (given the current atmosphere of fear and adulation at Wikipedia around the issue of paid editing), besides complaining about the attempt of public shaming, he started to point out the unprofessional manner of conducting the current purges. There followed some retorts, then... silence. When we contacted Desiphral to find out what exactly is going on there, we learned that his account was blocked, but the blocking notice was hidden somewhere in the talk page, not displayed on the user account, as it is the common practice at Wikipedia. The "death sentence" was done on the sly, after talking too much, somehow reminding of our attempt to talk openly there. We found the blocking reason really sarcastic, namely that "he indicated he permitted the use of his account for commercial purposes" (without showing where exactly was that indication, while we could not find anything of this kind in his replies). Even if it would have been true, this is not a punishable offense on Wikipedia... only you'll get intro trouble with those who do not like this. The accusers changed later the reason for blocking to "group account", because he permitted some years ago some people to learn how to edit, using his account. Obviously, a pretext, the same "first shoot, then ask" pattern, since the casual teaching of other people did not amount to what is understood at Wikipedia as a "group account", plus that the respective user was not active on Wikipedia for about a year and a half and at the time scale of Wikipedia such old issues are not considered when judging an user.
The suppressed user also told us that he was not announced by e-mail about the public shaming (he was not active on Wikipedia for long time and for such cases this would be the standard procedure), thus preventing him to present his position. He was not announced also about the following requests of somebody to blockhttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global#Global_lock_for_Desiphralhim in the Wikipedias in all languages and to close downhttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Forum#The_Vlax_Romani_Wikipedia_and_its_compromised_adminthe one he founded. The most ironic thing in all this affair is that those suspected editing on behalf of Tayzen are free to edit even at this moment (although they keep being hindered), while the one who was wrongly accused to associate with them was taken to the backyard and executed on the sly for sulking against the conduct of the purges. The language and the conduct of this episode suggests a combination of muting the dissent and a seizure of the opportunity by some people who have a problem with the respective user and/or with the Wikipedia he started."
After this episode, I have a feeling I am in China when logged in to English Wikipedia. I don't know if other users are in my situation. I guess that my luck resides in this coverage, to make my case known to the "free world". I did not check thoroughly the other things highlighted in the article, however, the links provided look compelling.
Desiphral _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The moral panic on this subject is irrational. Folks are scandalized (scandalized!) by the very thought of people being paid to add articles to Wikipedia because they might have a conflict of interest. Rspeer notes that we've got along perfectly well with volunteers so far, presumably implying that volunteers are purely altruistic and few if any articles have been created by editors with a conflict. On the contrary, my guess is quite a few articles about individuals and companies of mid-level fame were created by fans, friends, associates, employees, etc. Perhaps a deep review with WikiScanner will allow us to identify some of these suspect articles, and delete them because they were created with impure motives.
There is a good debate to be had about paid editing, the reward board, content created with a conflict of interest, etc. The entanglement of money and article content is inevitable given the "free to edit" structure of Wikipedia. Banning it sends it underground, we're better off regulating it. Unfortunately the discussions (not just the RfC, but the various deletion debates and noticeboard threads) are often hijacked by puritans whose instinct is to block first and discuss second. The block on Desiphral and the attempted deletion of an entire Wikimedia project is just the latest example.
Nathan
Nathan wrote:
On the contrary, my guess is quite a few articles about individuals and companies of mid-level fame were created by fans, friends, associates, employees, etc. Perhaps a deep review with WikiScanner will allow us to identify some of these suspect articles, and delete them because they were created with impure motives.
As far as I know, motivation is still a bad argument at AfD. The basic "conflict of interest" point is not that motives should be pure, whatever that means, but that outside motivation should not be playing a role so large that the interests of the encyclopedia are pushed to one side.
There is a good debate to be had about paid editing, the reward board, content created with a conflict of interest, etc.
I have an impression I have seen this film before.
Charles
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Charles Matthews < charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com>
As far as I know, motivation is still a bad argument at AfD. The basic "conflict of interest" point is not that motives should be pure, whatever that means, but that outside motivation should not be playing a role so large that the interests of the encyclopedia are pushed to one side.
And how should the role of outside motivation be determined? Personally, I think "conflict of interest" and "outside motivation" arguments should be completely verboten in deletion discussions - they are irrelevant and call for pure speculation by participants. I don't care why an article was created, what matters is the quality and value of the content itself.
Nathan
Nathan wrote:
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Charles Matthews <charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com mailto:charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com>
As far as I know, motivation is still a bad argument at AfD. The basic "conflict of interest" point is not that motives should be pure, whatever that means, but that outside motivation should not be playing a role so large that the interests of the encyclopedia are pushed to one side.And how should the role of outside motivation be determined?
At the level of discussion trying to reach a consensus on content, it's the thumb on the scales applied when people are trying to balance up factors. But it really takes a dispute resolution process to deal with the consequences, for example to see if a topical ban is required. It was always intended that a COI guideline was mainly about preventing people blundering into the kind of edit wars that would be the worst for them; and not designed as such for enforcement.
Personally, I think "conflict of interest" and "outside motivation" arguments should be completely verboten in deletion discussions - they are irrelevant and call for pure speculation by participants. I don't care why an article was created, what matters is the quality and value of the content itself.
I agree, that is how it should be.
Charles
Charles Matthews wrote:
Nathan wrote:
On the contrary, my guess is quite a few articles about individuals and companies of mid-level fame were created by fans, friends, associates, employees, etc. Perhaps a deep review with WikiScanner will allow us to identify some of these suspect articles, and delete them because they were created with impure motives.
As far as I know, motivation is still a bad argument at AfD. The basic "conflict of interest" point is not that motives should be pure, whatever that means, but that outside motivation should not be playing a role so large that the interests of the encyclopedia are pushed to one side.
"Impure motives" suggests that somebody knows why the contributor added something better than he does himself. A true conflict of interest is rarely so obvious, and rarely so large as to damage the interests of the encyclopedia. Reasonable people will adapt to circumstances when it is pointed out that they are in a "potential" conflict of interest that was never made obvious to them.
Ec