On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 10:03 PM, David Emrany david.emrany@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Brion
When you refer to patches with other movements / affiliates, are you proposing that WMF sponsors more Gibraltrapedias ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltarpedia
Have we forgotten so soon the adverse media publicity about these stealth PR campaigns
"Once Wikipedia becomes a pay-to-play platform in any sense, it's no longer a balanced, universal wellspring of information. It's just another commercial website, with a particularly insidious brand of camouflaged advertising. Any company with a sly enough PR person could promote ostensibly fascinating facts about its products" [1]
"payment of money to Wikipedia editors represented "the greatest threat the [Wikipedia] brand has seen to date" [2].
Lila had taken the first technical / automation /AI steps to identify / weed out the paid editing claques which rule the roost. That she was eased out in this way shows that WMF is in terminal disrepair, and I resent Flo's attempt to deflect this thread away from the numerous paid editing controversies which have dogged the projects since the very beginning and systematically driven away all competent potential long-term contributors.
Sure, there is technical/automation/AI work that's being done. It's not being done by Lila, it's being done by Aaron Halfaker, who can provide his own opinion on whether he feels that work has been adequately resourced (in other words whether it's something the people who determine resourcing can get much credit for, beyond allowing it to exist).
It has nothing to do with paid editing: at the moment it identifies whether something is likely to be reverted, whether it is likely to have been made in good faith, or whether it is likely to be vandalism.
Is there some other AI work being done that you're referring to?