In a message dated 4/29/2008 10:42:02 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, jwales@wikia.com writes:
This sort of harm is a direct result of Wikipedia policies and procedures, and is most likely *significantly* avoidable without significantly compromising on neutrality, quality, openness, and our other values.>>
------------------------ This seems like an overemphasis that somehow we (the policy-abiding editors) are the cause instead of the vandals being the cause. The primary cause of the vandalism rests with the vandals. Our policies address this case spot-on, but nobody fixed the article. Why didn't they? Maybe we need more editors. Maybe we need an automatic "bad-word robot" to collect examples and create a "bad word page". That would make it a lot easier to monitor. But this case is not a result of our policies, our policies say "don't do this".
Will Johnson
**************Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car listings at AOL Autos. (http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 1:49 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
This seems like an overemphasis that somehow we (the policy-abiding editors) are the cause instead of the vandals being the cause. The primary cause of the vandalism rests with the vandals. Our policies address this case spot-on, but nobody fixed the article. Why didn't they? Maybe we need more editors. Maybe we need an automatic "bad-word robot" to collect examples and create a "bad word page". That would make it a lot easier to monitor. But this case is not a result of our policies, our policies say "don't do this".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractive_nuisance_doctrine
The vandals will vandal. The libers will libel. The haters will hate. The POV pushers will push. They are a small but real and unavoidable facet of reality. A healthy Wikipedia would recognize it and mitigate it. The existing mitigation on English Wikipedia is rather limited and highly dependent on chance. ... basically a set of rules that say "don't do this", but very little in the way of organized enforcement.
The English Wikipedia community is aware, or at least ought to be aware, that these things happen routinely and t the community has one of the most potent positions from which to make improvements. As such it's the responsibility of the English Wikipedia community to try.
The argument that the vandals are ultimately responsible isn't productive since none of us has the power to change the nature of man. We do have the power to change the operation of English Wikipedia.
If you think that some of the proposed improvements are too sweeping and dramatic, then perhaps you should be working on making sure some alternatives happen... since covering our ears and holding the status quo simply can't last forever.
Has anyone done a sample of how many blps are actually vandalized at any given time? As I understand it, we do have bots that look for negative phrases such as the ones that occurred here--and such vandalism was removed many times. What did not get noticed was the pattern of repeats, and that is the fault of using bots and routine patrol without visual check of the history. There was sufficient vandalism to have justified semi protection 10 days ago.
As I look at BLPs, I see a great many more than are uncritically positive--and that seems to stay a very long time without being fixed. We could do a scan for key phrases there also, or characteristics like referring to the subject by his first name alone, as is the current style in public relations. If these don't get spotted when the article is new, the can last for years.
The very last thing we need is an attitude that will inhibit the use of fair information. And don't think it's only BLPs in the narrow sense. I've seen frequent attempts to removed sourced highly relevant negative information from articles about various institutions.
On 4/29/08, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 1:49 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
This seems like an overemphasis that somehow we (the policy-abiding
editors)
are the cause instead of the vandals being the cause. The primary cause
of
the vandalism rests with the vandals. Our policies address this case spot-on, but nobody fixed the article. Why didn't they? Maybe we need
more
editors. Maybe we need an automatic "bad-word robot" to collect examples
and create
a "bad word page". That would make it a lot easier to monitor. But
this
case is not a result of our policies, our policies say "don't do this".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractive_nuisance_doctrine
The vandals will vandal. The libers will libel. The haters will hate. The POV pushers will push. They are a small but real and unavoidable facet of reality. A healthy Wikipedia would recognize it and mitigate it. The existing mitigation on English Wikipedia is rather limited and highly dependent on chance. ... basically a set of rules that say "don't do this", but very little in the way of organized enforcement.
The English Wikipedia community is aware, or at least ought to be aware, that these things happen routinely and t the community has one of the most potent positions from which to make improvements. As such it's the responsibility of the English Wikipedia community to try.
The argument that the vandals are ultimately responsible isn't productive since none of us has the power to change the nature of man. We do have the power to change the operation of English Wikipedia.
If you think that some of the proposed improvements are too sweeping and dramatic, then perhaps you should be working on making sure some alternatives happen... since covering our ears and holding the status quo simply can't last forever.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 4/29/2008 10:42:02 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, jwales@wikia.com writes:
This sort of harm is a direct result of Wikipedia policies and procedures, and is most likely *significantly* avoidable without significantly compromising on neutrality, quality, openness, and our other values.>>
This seems like an overemphasis that somehow we (the policy-abiding editors) are the cause instead of the vandals being the cause. The primary cause of the vandalism rests with the vandals. Our policies address this case spot-on, but nobody fixed the article. Why didn't they? Maybe we need more editors. Maybe we need an automatic "bad-word robot" to collect examples and create a "bad word page". That would make it a lot easier to monitor. But this case is not a result of our policies, our policies say "don't do this".
I have said: I see no particular reason to blame any particular person.
Yes, our policies... quite ineffectually... forbid this. But a mere prohibition completely misses the point.
There are policies in place which led to this:
1. Policies biased towards inclusionism mean that we have targets like this to start with, and people are afraid to delete them because they may get beaten up for being "overzealous" by people who think it is no big deal to call a private person names like this.
2. Policies which make it harder than it should be to semi-protect things.
3. .... others....
I don't think it is about robots: it is about changing attitudes and empowering people to get things done.
2008/4/29 Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com:
- Policies biased towards inclusionism [...]
Perhaps on paper, but in practice the whole AFD/DRF/RFA system is biased towards deletionism.
2008/4/29 James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com:
2008/4/29 Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com:
- Policies biased towards inclusionism [...]
Perhaps on paper, but in practice the whole AFD/DRF/RFA system is biased towards deletionism.
AFD/DRV/RFAr, of course.
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 2:28 PM, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
2008/4/29 Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com:
- Policies biased towards inclusionism [...]
Perhaps on paper, but in practice the whole AFD/DRF/RFA system is biased towards deletionism.
RFA? Really... OMG TDM TLA? ;)
But seriously, can you honestly claim that a process which begins with a presumption of keeping anything that any random person inserted for any random reason and will only delete it with a super-majority is something which is in favor of "deletionism"? 0_o
(Were you to instead argue that speedy deletion favored deletion, ... but you mentioned AFD)
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 2:31 PM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
As I look at BLPs, I see a great many more than are uncritically positive--and that seems to stay a very long time without being fixed.
[snip]
... a deleted article heaps no praises either.... ;)
2008/4/29 Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com:
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 2:28 PM, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
2008/4/29 Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com:
- Policies biased towards inclusionism [...]
Perhaps on paper, but in practice the whole AFD/DRF/RFA system is biased towards deletionism.
RFA? Really... OMG TDM TLA? ;)
But seriously, can you honestly claim that a process which begins with a presumption of keeping anything that any random person inserted for any random reason and will only delete it with a super-majority is something which is in favor of "deletionism"? 0_o
(Were you to instead argue that speedy deletion favored deletion, ... but you mentioned AFD)
I said "in practice". In practice, there is a hard core of deletionists that is winning arguments unfairly.
On Apr 29, 2008, at 2:14 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
- Policies biased towards inclusionism mean that we have targets like
this to start with, and people are afraid to delete them because they may get beaten up for being "overzealous" by people who think it is no big deal to call a private person names like this.
I really wish you'd stop making overly broad statements like this. There are tons of important inclusion/exclusion debates on Wikipedia, and the rules covering BLPs have effects elsewhere. It's a lot easier to say that we wouldn't lose much by not having a stub on Bob Kinnear. But the broader effects of what you're suggesting - that stub BLPs should be immediately treated as serious candidates for deletion - is going to have tremendous collateral damage because people *do* implement deletion policy overzealously. If you say that BLPs that can't be expanded beyond a stub are speedies you will get a huge swath of BLPs that simply are stubs deleted, and attempts to recreate stubs on them on the grounds that they can be expanded will be deleted as recreations.
That's a much larger price than you're treating it as, and given the impact you have when you make declarations like this I think it's irresponsible for you to make vague motions in this direction. If you want a change in practice or policy, propose one so it can be debated or implement one. This sort of drive-by "this article was a bad thing and I'm very disappointed in you all" is unhelpful.
- Policies which make it harder than it should be to semi-protect
things.
You mean like the Foundation policy expressly protecting the right of anonymous editors to edit, and the view that protected pages are considered harmful?
We're going to have an error rate of either unnecessarily protecting pages or leaving pages open for vandalism. We have always, based on the early leadership of this project, opted for vandalism instead of over-protection. If you want to swing that pendulum the other way, OK - plenty of people have advocated for the semi-protection of all BLPs. They get shot down because of the fact that the right of anonymous IPs to edit is a Foundation issue. There's not much room to change things here unless you have a specific change to implement, in which case you're basically the person who can do so.
-Phil
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 5:27 PM, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
- plenty of people have advocated for the semi-protection of all BLPs.
They get shot down because of the fact that the right of anonymous IPs to edit is a Foundation issue. There's not much room to change things here unless you have a specific change to implement, in which case you're basically the person who can do so.
The idea that openness for editing and protecting articles from harm are mutually exclusive is incorrect.
Many of the past stable versions proposals intended to remove that interaction but the community, *not* the foundation, instead preferred to wait for perfection from vaporware software rather than trying our some short term exploratory improvements... so here we are, years later, and nothing has changed in this area except the aggressiveness with which the status-quo is protected continues to increase and with it so must the dilution level of any proposed improvements.
On Apr 29, 2008, at 5:35 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
The idea that openness for editing and protecting articles from harm are mutually exclusive is incorrect.
Many of the past stable versions proposals intended to remove that interaction but the community, *not* the foundation, instead preferred to wait for perfection from vaporware software rather than trying our some short term exploratory improvements... so here we are, years later, and nothing has changed in this area except the aggressiveness with which the status-quo is protected continues to increase and with it so must the dilution level of any proposed improvements.
The community is not an effective decision-making apparatus for big- picture concerns. One need only look at the travesties that are our verifiability and no original research policies to see the debacle that takes place when the community attempts to legislate on a large scale as opposed to in the form of local consensus. Given the threshold for "consensus" these days, any objection that garners significant traction will be a deal-breaker.
The express and institutionalized protection of anonymous editing is sufficient to block change in this area. Removing that protection or revising it might not be sufficient to cause a change, but it is necessary. And, frankly, if Jimbo wants a large-scale and programmatic change, he cannot simply complain to the community. There is no mechanism in place for the sort of change he is asking for. If he wants one, he needs to create it. We can't.
-Phil
Philip Sandifer wrote:
And, frankly, if Jimbo wants a large-scale and programmatic change, he cannot simply complain to the community.
I am not "complaining to the community." I am trying to raise awareness of a real problem and help to generate and sustain a productive conversation about how we might best deal with it.
I would prefer not to be yelled at for doing that.
--Jimbo
On Apr 29, 2008, at 10:55 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
I am trying to raise awareness of a real problem and help to generate and sustain a productive conversation about how we might best deal with it.
OK. So let's approach this as a practical problem then.
First of all, let's note that vandalism is inevitable, and that no anti-vandalism procedure will respond with instant efficiency in all cases. So, given that, what sort of anti-vandalism procedure is ideal?
To my mind, one of the major problems with our current anti-vandalism practices is that there is an excessive focus on a measure of personal glory. Vandalism clean-up should be considered an organic process of the wiki in which waste matter is expelled. Vandal fighting should not be a role or a job - it should be a natural process intrinsic to the system. Ideally a counter-vandalism unit or an explicit vandal- fighting procedure should be unnecessary.
So what anti-vandalism tools do we have?
Our first line of defense is, obviously, editors working as normal. If any even semi-regular editor finds vandalism, they fix it. This keeps a surprising number of articles clean. But we work on the long tail, and this mechanism is not always fast and misses things.
Our next line of defense is automated tools. We have a limited capability vandalism reversion bot. We need a more vigorous one. This will require writing subtle filters - we can't revert every edit that adds the word "penis" even if 99% of those edits are vandalism. But on the other hand, spam-filtering technology could probably be adapted here successfully. This is a technical solution and requires coders to take on the project. Where can we get volunteers? Is there existing code (perhaps spam-filtering code) that could be adapted? These are important questions, but they need to be taken to the bot community to get useful answers.
Finally there's stable versions. This is a nearly year-old piece of code that remains "coming soon." Does the code work? Can it be implemented on en in a technical fashion? If we wanted to, could this be turned on tomorrow, basically? If not, what needs to happen to make it so it could be, and who is doing that? Where is the road map for this?
If it's ready, it's time to make an implementation decision for En. The assumption is that this will be "left up to each Wiki community." Is that actually wise? The en community is awfully large, as I've said, to make a programmatic decision. In the end, I think flagged revisions need to be implemented by you and by decree after consulting with the community. Otherwise *they will never go into place*.
There's three areas of actual specific issues to deal with.
A second approach to consider - are there any aspects of our vandalism fighting that just don't work at present? What, if anything, are we doing wrong (as opposed to not well enough yet)?
There. That's a discussion about things we can do.
-Phil
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 12:36 AM, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
To my mind, one of the major problems with our current anti-vandalism practices is that there is an excessive focus on a measure of personal glory.
This is sadly true, and is honestly one of the reasons I started RC patrolling (well, it was fun too). Since then I have learned through the silence of others that nobody is interested in glorifying vandal fighters, which, while at first disappointing, is actually right. (Though I will say that the occasional thank you on someone's talk page is quite gratifying and at least lets us know that people appreciate what we do.)
Right now my motivation to patrol is to try to keep crap off Wikipedia, and it can be really fun sometimes. Unfortunately, the fact that RC patrol is fun to some people seems to be used occasionally by actual content authors and editors as a tool to point at us and say "look, they're having fun and aren't contributing any real content, they must not really care about Wikipedia." Which is as unhelpful as it is incorrect. But I digress.
Vandalism clean-up should be considered an organic process of the wiki in which waste matter is expelled. Vandal fighting should not be a role or a job - it should be a natural process intrinsic to the system. Ideally a counter-vandalism unit or an explicit vandal- fighting procedure should be unnecessary.
Should be, but in reality is more necessary than we'd like. There is some vandalism that is common (name-calling, intentionally erroneous altering of numbers, etc) and some that is more sneaky. People who make it their primary task to find and fix this stuff are going to have a better knowledge of what is common, uncommon, how to deal with it, and even how to write stuff that can detect it. Your average editor is not going to know this.
I'm not saying this to demean authors and editors at all. In fact, I have the highest respect for the people that can and do edit and I often wish that I was capable in that regard. But I'm much better with technical stuff than making editorial decisions and writing prose and stuff like that. It doesn't mix with my brain. (You don't want me massively editing content. Trust me.) So I use what I have to benefit the project as best I can. To me that is RC patrol and coding anti-vandalism tools.
As an aside, I would speculate that most RC patrolers have a tendency toward programming, however advanced. People like that (myself included) like problem-solving and to some extent repetition. I'd be curious to see how many people in the RC patrol category are coders as compared to a few other categories.
Our next line of defense is automated tools. We have a limited capability vandalism reversion bot. We need a more vigorous one. This will require writing subtle filters - we can't revert every edit that adds the word "penis" even if 99% of those edits are vandalism. But on the other hand, spam-filtering technology could probably be adapted here successfully. This is a technical solution and requires coders to take on the project. Where can we get volunteers? Is there existing code (perhaps spam-filtering code) that could be adapted? These are important questions, but they need to be taken to the bot community to get useful answers.
I've often thought about forking SpamAssassin to work with diffs. The main issue that I see is that while e-mail is one big file, a diff is many types of content mixed together -- stuff added, removed, changed, and unchanged. Getting a scoring mechanism to weight them appropriately would be a pain. I'm not even sure if there is an appropriate weighting.
A better system might be to score the old and new versions and subtract the new score from the old score. So things like OMFG PENIS would substantially raise the score of the new version, and subtracting them would cancel out what was found in the old version too. New articles would just be scored by themselves and if the score is high enough maybe reported somewhere.
Then we have to worry about the article about the penis... some articles may need to be disabled for automatic patrol or otherwise dealt with specially, by human tweaking.
Anyway, I'm rambling again. (Told you I shouldn't edit content.) This is just one idea I've had for a few months and have yet to implement or experiment with sufficiently. If you want to look at my ~/projects you'll find about twenty or thirty more.
2008/4/30 Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com:
Should be, but in reality is more necessary than we'd like. There is some vandalism that is common (name-calling, intentionally erroneous altering of numbers, etc) and some that is more sneaky.
Incidentally, I'm not sure that erroneous alteration of numbers is actually all that common. I mean, leaving aside the likes of changing the population of Anytown, KS, to read "eleventy billion", I don't think I've ever seen much of the standard "switch two plausible dates around" type.
(And, for that matter, about half of the times it transpires to be a well-meaning correction based on a misunderstanding...)
On Wed, 2008-04-30 at 11:12 +0100, Andrew Gray wrote:
2008/4/30 Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com:
Should be, but in reality is more necessary than we'd like. There is some vandalism that is common (name-calling, intentionally erroneous altering of numbers, etc) and some that is more sneaky.
Incidentally, I'm not sure that erroneous alteration of numbers is actually all that common. I mean, leaving aside the likes of changing the population of Anytown, KS, to read "eleventy billion", I don't think I've ever seen much of the standard "switch two plausible dates around" type.
(And, for that matter, about half of the times it transpires to be a well-meaning correction based on a misunderstanding...)
WP:BEANS