On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 10:03 PM, David Emrany <david.emrany(a)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?