Andreas Kolbe writes:
It's worth noting that Yumiko's article (now also on fastcompany.com) quotes the WMF as saying it "does *not often* get involved in issues related to the creation and maintenance of content on the site."
That "not often" actually indicates a little publicised but significant departure from past practice when the WMF would disclaim all responsibility for content ....
WMF did not "disclaim all responsibility for content." Instead, WMF disclaimed primary responsibility for content, and still does. When WMF was understaffed, as it typically was during Wikipedia's first decade, we made a point of steering certain complaints and legal demands to the editor community as a default choice. The policy reasons for this choice were straightforward. But WMF directly intervened on a number of occasions, typically as required by law.
Mike Godwin
Well, that was the difference I was referring to. (I wasn't really thinking of content found libellous in court, child pornography etc.)
What is new is that the WMF is expressing an interest in the actual integrity of the *encyclopedic* content, hiring staff to address "misleading content", "disinformation", etc., rather than restricting itself to deletions required by law.
The WMF's recent action concerning the Croatian Wikipedia surely is an example of this shift. The WMF had the means – but not the will – to do what it has done now, ten years ago.
In a similar way, I understand that content added by ISIS sympathisers is a problem in the Arabic and Farsi Wikipedia versions that the WMF is now trying to address.
Andreas
On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 1:31 PM Mike Godwin mnemonic@gmail.com wrote:
Andreas Kolbe writes:
It's worth noting that Yumiko's article (now also on fastcompany.com) quotes the WMF as saying it "does *not often* get involved in issues related to the creation and maintenance of content on the site."
That "not often" actually indicates a little publicised but significant departure from past practice when the WMF would disclaim all responsibility for content ....
WMF did not "disclaim all responsibility for content." Instead, WMF disclaimed primary responsibility for content, and still does. When WMF was understaffed, as it typically was during Wikipedia's first decade, we made a point of steering certain complaints and legal demands to the editor community as a default choice. The policy reasons for this choice were straightforward. But WMF directly intervened on a number of occasions, typically as required by law.
Mike Godwin
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Hoi, There were Wikipedias closed in the past before the recent issue at the Croation Wikipedia because of content, language. It is not only recent, it is more pronounced but not a shift Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, 22 Aug 2021 at 19:00, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
Well, that was the difference I was referring to. (I wasn't really thinking of content found libellous in court, child pornography etc.)
What is new is that the WMF is expressing an interest in the actual integrity of the *encyclopedic* content, hiring staff to address "misleading content", "disinformation", etc., rather than restricting itself to deletions required by law.
The WMF's recent action concerning the Croatian Wikipedia surely is an example of this shift. The WMF had the means – but not the will – to do what it has done now, ten years ago.
In a similar way, I understand that content added by ISIS sympathisers is a problem in the Arabic and Farsi Wikipedia versions that the WMF is now trying to address.
Andreas
On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 1:31 PM Mike Godwin mnemonic@gmail.com wrote:
Andreas Kolbe writes:
It's worth noting that Yumiko's article (now also on fastcompany.com) quotes the WMF as saying it "does *not often* get involved in issues related to the creation and maintenance of content on the site."
That "not often" actually indicates a little publicised but significant departure from past practice when the WMF would disclaim all responsibility for content ....
WMF did not "disclaim all responsibility for content." Instead, WMF disclaimed primary responsibility for content, and still does. When WMF was understaffed, as it typically was during Wikipedia's first decade, we made a point of steering certain complaints and legal demands to the editor community as a default choice. The policy reasons for this choice were straightforward. But WMF directly intervened on a number of occasions, typically as required by law.
Mike Godwin
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
I think you're indulging in the common tendency of inferring that if WMF did not do something a decade ago that it had the legal right to do, it follows that it lacked the moral courage to do that thing (or else that it had moral courage then but lacks it now--the moral-judgment fantasy can run in both directions).
Given that concern about disinformation on Wikipedia and elsewhere was less prominent in public discourse a decade ago, Occam's Razor suggests that the primary reason for any change in willingness to engage in top-down intervention was that disinformation was perceived, rightly or wrongly, as less of problem. In addition, you assert (without any facts offered in support) that WMF was just as well-positioned to directly intervene in disinformation problems a decade ago as they may be now, or as they may soon be. This doesn't seem to be grounded in anything other than prejudgment.
But if moral condemnation based on presumption of a lack of ... some virtue or other ... floats your boat, who am I to detract from your innocent fun?
Mike
On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 12:59 PM Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
Well, that was the difference I was referring to. (I wasn't really thinking of content found libellous in court, child pornography etc.)
What is new is that the WMF is expressing an interest in the actual integrity of the *encyclopedic* content, hiring staff to address "misleading content", "disinformation", etc., rather than restricting itself to deletions required by law.
The WMF's recent action concerning the Croatian Wikipedia surely is an example of this shift. The WMF had the means – but not the will – to do what it has done now, ten years ago.
In a similar way, I understand that content added by ISIS sympathisers is a problem in the Arabic and Farsi Wikipedia versions that the WMF is now trying to address.
Andreas
On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 1:31 PM Mike Godwin mnemonic@gmail.com wrote:
Andreas Kolbe writes:
It's worth noting that Yumiko's article (now also on fastcompany.com) quotes the WMF as saying it "does *not often* get involved in issues related to the creation and maintenance of content on the site."
That "not often" actually indicates a little publicised but significant departure from past practice when the WMF would disclaim all responsibility for content ....
WMF did not "disclaim all responsibility for content." Instead, WMF disclaimed primary responsibility for content, and still does. When WMF was understaffed, as it typically was during Wikipedia's first decade, we made a point of steering certain complaints and legal demands to the editor community as a default choice. The policy reasons for this choice were straightforward. But WMF directly intervened on a number of occasions, typically as required by law.
Mike Godwin
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Hi, Isn't the legal status of the foundation a web host? If it intervenes on projects within the framework of what the law expects from hosting companies, everything is fine. If it does more at the level of project governance and publishing, then it runs the risk of being recognized one day as a publisher and having to assume the responsibilities that come with it. Kind regards,
Lionel Scheepmans
Le 23-08-2021 0:32, Mike Godwin a écrit :
I think you're indulging in the common tendency of inferring that if WMF did not do something a decade ago that it had the legal right to do, it follows that it lacked the moral courage to do that thing (or else that it had moral courage then but lacks it now--the moral-judgment fantasy can run in both directions).
Given that concern about disinformation on Wikipedia and elsewhere was less prominent in public discourse a decade ago, Occam's Razor suggests that the primary reason for any change in willingness to engage in top-down intervention was that disinformation was perceived, rightly or wrongly, as less of problem. In addition, you assert (without any facts offered in support) that WMF was just as well-positioned to directly intervene in disinformation problems a decade ago as they may be now, or as they may soon be. This doesn't seem to be grounded in anything other than prejudgment.
But if moral condemnation based on presumption of a lack of ... some virtue or other ... floats your boat, who am I to detract from your innocent fun?
Mike
On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 12:59 PM Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote: Well, that was the difference I was referring to. (I wasn't really thinking of content found libellous in court, child pornography etc.)
What is new is that the WMF is expressing an interest in the actual integrity of the _encyclopedic_ content, hiring staff to address "misleading content", "disinformation", etc., rather than restricting itself to deletions required by law.
The WMF's recent action concerning the Croatian Wikipedia surely is an example of this shift. The WMF had the means - but not the will - to do what it has done now, ten years ago.
In a similar way, I understand that content added by ISIS sympathisers is a problem in the Arabic and Farsi Wikipedia versions that the WMF is now trying to address.
Andreas
On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 1:31 PM Mike Godwin mnemonic@gmail.com wrote:
Andreas Kolbe writes: It's worth noting that Yumiko's article (now also on fastcompany.com [1]) quotes the WMF as saying it "does *not often* get involved in issues related to the creation and maintenance of content on the site."
That "not often" actually indicates a little publicised but significant departure from past practice when the WMF would disclaim all responsibility for content ....
WMF did not "disclaim all responsibility for content." Instead, WMF disclaimed primary responsibility for content, and still does. When WMF was understaffed, as it typically was during Wikipedia's first decade, we made a point of steering certain complaints and legal demands to the editor community as a default choice. The policy reasons for this choice were straightforward. But WMF directly intervened on a number of occasions, typically as required by law.
Mike Godwin
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Links: ------ [1] http://fastcompany.com
This question reflects a common misunderstanding of the legal framework that protects the Wikimedia Foundation. The Wikimedia Foundation has broad rights to intervene in Wikipedia content (or other project content) above and beyond what may be strictly required by law. Exercise of these rights does not create "the risk of being recognized as a publisher and having to assume the responsibilities that come with it."
There is no substitute for reading the scholarship relating to Section 230 and other protections that apply to Wikipedia, to other Wikimedia projects, and to the WMF generally. Those who forgo doing the reading--a good place to start is Professor Jeff Kosseff's book, THE TWENTY-SIX WORDS THAT CREATED THE INTERNET--will almost invariably get caught up by the infectious but false meme that that any intervention in content beyond that which is legally required creates "publisher" status and loses (e.g.) Section 230 protection.
I've written on this and related subjects in many places:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1939888751/?tag=slatmaga-20 https://slate.com/technology/2020/05/trump-twitter-section-230.html https://slate.com/technology/2020/10/clarence-thomas-section-230-cda-content... https://slate.com/technology/2020/07/antitrust-big-tech-hearing-apple-amazon... https://slate.com/technology/2020/02/three-decades-internet-freedom-activism...
This is only a sample of my writings on this and related subjects, but don't let the volume of my prose deter you--my writing style makes up for my prolixity.
Mike
On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 6:38 AM Lionel lionel@scheepmans.be wrote:
Hi, Isn't the legal status of the foundation a web host? If it intervenes on projects within the framework of what the law expects from hosting companies, everything is fine. If it does more at the level of project governance and publishing, then it runs the risk of being recognized one day as a publisher and having to assume the responsibilities that come with it. Kind regards,
Lionel Scheepmans
Le 23-08-2021 0:32, Mike Godwin a écrit :
I think you're indulging in the common tendency of inferring that if WMF did not do something a decade ago that it had the legal right to do, it follows that it lacked the moral courage to do that thing (or else that it had moral courage then but lacks it now--the moral-judgment fantasy can run in both directions).
Given that concern about disinformation on Wikipedia and elsewhere was less prominent in public discourse a decade ago, Occam's Razor suggests that the primary reason for any change in willingness to engage in top-down intervention was that disinformation was perceived, rightly or wrongly, as less of problem. In addition, you assert (without any facts offered in support) that WMF was just as well-positioned to directly intervene in disinformation problems a decade ago as they may be now, or as they may soon be. This doesn't seem to be grounded in anything other than prejudgment.
But if moral condemnation based on presumption of a lack of ... some virtue or other ... floats your boat, who am I to detract from your innocent fun?
Mike
On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 12:59 PM Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
Well, that was the difference I was referring to. (I wasn't really thinking of content found libellous in court, child pornography etc.)
What is new is that the WMF is expressing an interest in the actual integrity of the *encyclopedic* content, hiring staff to address "misleading content", "disinformation", etc., rather than restricting itself to deletions required by law.
The WMF's recent action concerning the Croatian Wikipedia surely is an example of this shift. The WMF had the means – but not the will – to do what it has done now, ten years ago.
In a similar way, I understand that content added by ISIS sympathisers is a problem in the Arabic and Farsi Wikipedia versions that the WMF is now trying to address.
Andreas
On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 1:31 PM Mike Godwin mnemonic@gmail.com wrote:
Andreas Kolbe writes:
It's worth noting that Yumiko's article (now also on fastcompany.com) quotes the WMF as saying it "does *not often* get involved in issues related to the creation and maintenance of content on the site."
That "not often" actually indicates a little publicised but significant departure from past practice when the WMF would disclaim all responsibility for content ....
WMF did not "disclaim all responsibility for content." Instead, WMF disclaimed primary responsibility for content, and still does. When WMF was understaffed, as it typically was during Wikipedia's first decade, we made a point of steering certain complaints and legal demands to the editor community as a default choice. The policy reasons for this choice were straightforward. But WMF directly intervened on a number of occasions, typically as required by law.
Mike Godwin
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Mike,
The corruption of the Croatian Wikipedia began in 2009 and became front page news in Croatia in September 2013. The term "fake news" hadn't been invented yet, but the Croatian Education Minister issued a public warning to the country's youth in 2013 that they should avoid the Croatian Wikipedia, as much of its content was "not only misleading but also clearly falsified".
So I can't agree that this "was perceived, rightly or wrongly, as less of a problem" at the time. It's hard to imagine how it could have been more prominent.
The matter was even discussed in the US mainstream media, hardly known for detailed coverage of Croatian affairs. In October 2013 the Croatian Wikipedia's subversion was the subject of a dedicated article by Tim Sampson in the Daily Dot. In 2014 it received a mention from Caitlin Dewey in the Washington Post. (You can read all about this timeline in the English-language Wikipedia article on the Croatian Wikipedia, and the sources cited therein.)
Compared to the level of public interest eight years ago, the press had actually been quiet about this decade-long scandal in recent years – more due to topic fatigue, I think, than anything else – though there was a smattering of articles published by the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network in 2018, concluding with a report stating that the Wikimedia Foundation had refused to respond to their inquiries.[1] Ouch.
So it was all the more welcome that the WMF finally did something this year and commissioned an expert to write a report, after a decade of complaints from media and the volunteer community.
The idea to have an outside expert look at how human rights violations by political regimes are covered (or covered up ...) in various Wikipedia language versions, and summarise their observations in a public report, is an obvious one. (I suggested as much back in 2015.[2])
The costs of doing this now will hardly have been prohibitive. Commissioning a report like this would have been well within the WMF's means in 2013 as well. (The WMF reported a budget surplus of $13 million in 2013.) So I stand by my assertion: the WMF could have done then what it has done now, but lacked the will, or courage.
You are right about one thing – in matters like this, both action and inaction can be construed as a moral failing. I absolutely applaud the decision made in this case, but can also imagine that, the precedent having been set, scenarios might arise some years down the line, under different leadership, where the same type of WMF action could be more problematic. This is something for the community to watch out for.
Andreas
[1] https://balkaninsight.com/2018/04/23/wikipedia-not-replying-to-inquires-on-c... [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Wikipedia_Freedom_Index
On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 11:33 PM Mike Godwin mnemonic@gmail.com wrote:
I think you're indulging in the common tendency of inferring that if WMF did not do something a decade ago that it had the legal right to do, it follows that it lacked the moral courage to do that thing (or else that it had moral courage then but lacks it now--the moral-judgment fantasy can run in both directions).
Given that concern about disinformation on Wikipedia and elsewhere was less prominent in public discourse a decade ago, Occam's Razor suggests that the primary reason for any change in willingness to engage in top-down intervention was that disinformation was perceived, rightly or wrongly, as less of problem. In addition, you assert (without any facts offered in support) that WMF was just as well-positioned to directly intervene in disinformation problems a decade ago as they may be now, or as they may soon be. This doesn't seem to be grounded in anything other than prejudgment.
But if moral condemnation based on presumption of a lack of ... some virtue or other ... floats your boat, who am I to detract from your innocent fun?
Mike
On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 12:59 PM Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
Well, that was the difference I was referring to. (I wasn't really thinking of content found libellous in court, child pornography etc.)
What is new is that the WMF is expressing an interest in the actual integrity of the *encyclopedic* content, hiring staff to address "misleading content", "disinformation", etc., rather than restricting itself to deletions required by law.
The WMF's recent action concerning the Croatian Wikipedia surely is an example of this shift. The WMF had the means – but not the will – to do what it has done now, ten years ago.
In a similar way, I understand that content added by ISIS sympathisers is a problem in the Arabic and Farsi Wikipedia versions that the WMF is now trying to address.
Andreas
On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 1:31 PM Mike Godwin mnemonic@gmail.com wrote:
Andreas Kolbe writes:
It's worth noting that Yumiko's article (now also on fastcompany.com) quotes the WMF as saying it "does *not often* get involved in issues related to the creation and maintenance of content on the site."
That "not often" actually indicates a little publicised but significant departure from past practice when the WMF would disclaim all responsibility for content ....
WMF did not "disclaim all responsibility for content." Instead, WMF disclaimed primary responsibility for content, and still does. When WMF was understaffed, as it typically was during Wikipedia's first decade, we made a point of steering certain complaints and legal demands to the editor community as a default choice. The policy reasons for this choice were straightforward. But WMF directly intervened on a number of occasions, typically as required by law.
Mike Godwin
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 8:22 AM Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
Mike,
The corruption of the Croatian Wikipedia began in 2009 and became front page news in Croatia in September 2013. The term "fake news" hadn't been invented yet, but the Croatian Education Minister issued a public warning to the country's youth in 2013 that they should avoid the Croatian Wikipedia, as much of its content was "not only misleading but also clearly falsified".
So I can't agree that this "was perceived, rightly or wrongly, as less of a problem" at the time. It's hard to imagine how it could have been more prominent.
Your initial paragraph contradicts your conclusion. ("The term 'fake news' hadn't been invented yet....") While it is generally true that what happens in Croatian Wikipedia normally affects the whole world instantaneously (constrained only by the speed of light!), this may have been one of the rare instances in which Croatian Wikipedia problems didn't ignite a universal outcry in all places, everywhere, about disinformation.
So it was all the more welcome that the WMF finally did something this year and commissioned an expert to write a report, after a decade of complaints from media and the volunteer community.
I love your interpolation of the word "finally" -- never let an opportunity for moral criticism go unexploited!
The costs of doing this now will hardly have been prohibitive. Commissioning a report like this would have been well within the WMF's means in 2013 as well. (The WMF reported a budget surplus of $13 million in 2013.) So I stand by my assertion: the WMF could have done then what it has done now, but lacked the will, or courage.
And when you were working for the Wikimedia Foundation those years, or serving on the WMF board, how did your own exercise of moral courage persuade people to adopt your point of view? I'm certain, given your convictions, that you didn't just stand idly by on the sidelines, hurling the occasional moral critique on mailing lists!
Mike
The costs of doing this now will hardly have been prohibitive. Commissioning a report like this would have been well within the WMF's means in 2013 as well. (The WMF reported a budget surplus of $13 million in 2013.) So I stand by my assertion: the WMF could have done then what it has done now, but lacked the will, or courage.
And when you were working for the Wikimedia Foundation those years, or serving on the WMF board, how did your own exercise of moral courage persuade people to adopt your point of view? I'm certain, given your convictions, that you didn't just stand idly by on the sidelines, hurling the occasional moral critique on mailing lists!
I may have missed something somewhere, but I don't think Andreas Kolbe has ever served on the WMF Board of Trustees?
Regards,
Chris
On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 11:09 AM Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
And when you were working for the Wikimedia Foundation those years, or
serving on the WMF board, how did your own exercise of moral courage persuade people to adopt your point of view? I'm certain, given your convictions, that you didn't just stand idly by on the sidelines, hurling the occasional moral critique on mailing lists!
I may have missed something somewhere, but I don't think Andreas Kolbe has ever served on the WMF Board of Trustees?
I don't think he has either.
In general, the preference for moral condemnation in second-guessing WMF's decisions is directly proportional to the distance of the morally righteous critic from actual hands-on policymaking or decisionmaking by WMF board and staff. This is just something I've observed over time. But with Andreas I inferred from the depth of his knowledge of the Croatia "fake news" problem (before it was called "fake news") that he must have been deeply involved in WMF's decisionmaking to be so authoritatively judgmental about it.
Mike
Mike,
On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 1:42 PM Mike Godwin mnemonic@gmail.com wrote:
While it is generally true that what happens in Croatian Wikipedia normally affects the whole world instantaneously (constrained only by the speed of light!), this may have been one of the rare instances in which Croatian Wikipedia problems didn't ignite a universal outcry in all places, everywhere, about disinformation.
Well, I wouldn't expect it to make the evening news in Korea, Madagascar or Argentina, but in my view it should at least have sounded a few alarm bells in WMF offices, given that these distortions were published under their brand name. If you don't agree ... and you obviously don't ... then I'm not sure any further discussion is going to be of help here.
But unless I am totally misreading you, your attitude sounds a lot like "Why should anyone care (or have cared) about Croatian and all these other languages spoken in some countries at the other end of the world?" If that does reflect your sentiment, then your mindset seems very much out of tune with WMF thought today.
The costs of doing this now will hardly have been prohibitive.
Commissioning a report like this would have been well within the WMF's means in 2013 as well. (The WMF reported a budget surplus of $13 million in 2013.) So I stand by my assertion: the WMF could have done then what it has done now, but lacked the will, or courage.
And when you were working for the Wikimedia Foundation those years, or serving on the WMF board, how did your own exercise of moral courage persuade people to adopt your point of view? I'm certain, given your convictions, that you didn't just stand idly by on the sidelines, hurling the occasional moral critique on mailing lists!
I am not sure you are actually interested in an answer here, but what I did do, for what it's worth, was to make sure that the WP Signpost and WP Kurier covered the story when it first broke, mention it repeatedly over the years in my writing on WO and in the Signpost, as well as in correspondence with journalists and academics, and submit the aforementioned idea to the WMF – to have experts review human rights topics' coverage in Wikipedia language versions that may be subject to undue political influence, and publicly report the results. I think that's about all you could have reasonably expected me to have done here.
Now you say, further,
On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 4:24 PM Mike Godwin mnemonic@gmail.com wrote:
In general, the preference for moral condemnation in second-guessing WMF's decisions is directly proportional to the distance of the morally righteous critic from actual hands-on policymaking or decisionmaking by WMF board and staff. This is just something I've observed over time. But with Andreas I inferred from the depth of his knowledge of the Croatia "fake news" problem (before it was called "fake news") that he must have been deeply involved in WMF's decisionmaking to be so authoritatively judgmental about it.
The fact of the matter is that for about a decade, one of Wikipedia's top-50 language versions promoted extremist content, with the WMF's full knowledge. That is Not A Good Thing, whether you work for the WMF or not, and you have given no discernible reason why what was done this year could not have been done years ago, when the WMF was first made aware of the situation.
But you know what? Let's just agree to be glad that something was finally done, let's hope the Croatian Wikipedia manages to recover, and let's hope that similar problems in other WMF projects are successfully surfaced and addressed as well.
In the meantime, I salute all volunteers, journalists and academics who research and draw attention to these problems, and everyone at the WMF who takes them seriously.
Andreas
On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 1:42 PM Mike Godwin mnemonic@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 8:22 AM Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
Mike,
The corruption of the Croatian Wikipedia began in 2009 and became front page news in Croatia in September 2013. The term "fake news" hadn't been invented yet, but the Croatian Education Minister issued a public warning to the country's youth in 2013 that they should avoid the Croatian Wikipedia, as much of its content was "not only misleading but also clearly falsified".
So I can't agree that this "was perceived, rightly or wrongly, as less of a problem" at the time. It's hard to imagine how it could have been more prominent.
Your initial paragraph contradicts your conclusion. ("The term 'fake news' hadn't been invented yet....") While it is generally true that what happens in Croatian Wikipedia normally affects the whole world instantaneously (constrained only by the speed of light!), this may have been one of the rare instances in which Croatian Wikipedia problems didn't ignite a universal outcry in all places, everywhere, about disinformation.
So it was all the more welcome that the WMF finally did something this year and commissioned an expert to write a report, after a decade of complaints from media and the volunteer community.
I love your interpolation of the word "finally" -- never let an opportunity for moral criticism go unexploited!
The costs of doing this now will hardly have been prohibitive. Commissioning a report like this would have been well within the WMF's means in 2013 as well. (The WMF reported a budget surplus of $13 million in 2013.) So I stand by my assertion: the WMF could have done then what it has done now, but lacked the will, or courage.
And when you were working for the Wikimedia Foundation those years, or serving on the WMF board, how did your own exercise of moral courage persuade people to adopt your point of view? I'm certain, given your convictions, that you didn't just stand idly by on the sidelines, hurling the occasional moral critique on mailing lists!
Mike
Andreas writes
On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 11:12 AM Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
But unless I am totally misreading you, your attitude sounds a lot like "Why should anyone care (or have cared) about Croatian and all these other languages spoken in some countries at the other end of the world?" If that does reflect your sentiment, then your mindset seems very much out of tune with WMF thought today.
The most generous assessment of this gloss is that you are, in fact, totally misreading me. The less generous assessments I leave to the rhetorically inclined reader.
I am not sure you are actually interested in an answer here, but what I did do, for what it's worth, was to make sure that the WP Signpost and WP Kurier covered the story when it first broke, mention it repeatedly over the years in my writing on WO and in the Signpost, as well as in correspondence with journalists and academics, and submit the aforementioned idea to the WMF – to have experts review human rights topics' coverage in Wikipedia language versions that may be subject to undue political influence, and publicly report the results. I think that's about all you could have reasonably expected me to have done here.
I also think it is reasonable to expect you not to default to presuming things about the motives of WMF personnel in the absence of evidence. But that's me--I'm evidence-focused.
The fact of the matter is that for about a decade, one of Wikipedia's
top-50 language versions promoted extremist content, with the WMF's full knowledge. That is Not A Good Thing, whether you work for the WMF or not, and you have given no discernible reason why what was done this year could not have been done years ago, when the WMF was first made aware of the situation.
Your characterization of "the fact of the matter" is morally confused. To wit, you want to imply that if some people at WMF knew something about what was happening in the Croatian Wikipedia, it follows that WMF institutionally decided, as a matter of policy, not to do what you wish they might have done. You do not have "the facts of the matter" that demonstrate such an institutional decision took place.
Once again, you default to moral condemnation, and it seems self-evident that you're doing so because it's cheaper and easier than understanding what might actually have happened.
Mike Godwin
Are these “facts of the matter” available for evidence focused rational consideration?
Cheers,
Peter
From: Mike Godwin [mailto:mnemonic@gmail.com] Sent: 30 August 2021 02:30 To: Andreas Kolbe Cc: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikipedia issues in UNDARK.org #Opinion article to check...
Andreas writes
On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 11:12 AM Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
But unless I am totally misreading you, your attitude sounds a lot like "Why should anyone care (or have cared) about Croatian and all these other languages spoken in some countries at the other end of the world?" If that does reflect your sentiment, then your mindset seems very much out of tune with WMF thought today.
The most generous assessment of this gloss is that you are, in fact, totally misreading me. The less generous assessments I leave to the rhetorically inclined reader.
I am not sure you are actually interested in an answer here, but what I did do, for what it's worth, was to make sure that the WP Signpost and WP Kurier covered the story when it first broke, mention it repeatedly over the years in my writing on WO and in the Signpost, as well as in correspondence with journalists and academics, and submit the aforementioned idea to the WMF – to have experts review human rights topics' coverage in Wikipedia language versions that may be subject to undue political influence, and publicly report the results. I think that's about all you could have reasonably expected me to have done here.
I also think it is reasonable to expect you not to default to presuming things about the motives of WMF personnel in the absence of evidence. But that's me--I'm evidence-focused.
The fact of the matter is that for about a decade, one of Wikipedia's top-50 language versions promoted extremist content, with the WMF's full knowledge. That is Not A Good Thing, whether you work for the WMF or not, and you have given no discernible reason why what was done this year could not have been done years ago, when the WMF was first made aware of the situation.
Your characterization of "the fact of the matter" is morally confused. To wit, you want to imply that if some people at WMF knew something about what was happening in the Croatian Wikipedia, it follows that WMF institutionally decided, as a matter of policy, not to do what you wish they might have done. You do not have "the facts of the matter" that demonstrate such an institutional decision took place.
Once again, you default to moral condemnation, and it seems self-evident that you're doing so because it's cheaper and easier than understanding what might actually have happened.
Mike Godwin
Virus-free. http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient www.avg.com
Sure. Most of the people involved in policy decisions for WMF back then are still around, so a researcher who wants to know what happened and why can ask them.
Mike
On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 6:04 AM Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
Are these “facts of the matter” available for evidence focused rational consideration?
Cheers,
Peter
*From:* Mike Godwin [mailto:mnemonic@gmail.com] *Sent:* 30 August 2021 02:30 *To:* Andreas Kolbe *Cc:* Wikimedia Mailing List *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikipedia issues in UNDARK.org #Opinion article to check...
Andreas writes
On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 11:12 AM Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
But unless I am totally misreading you, your attitude sounds a lot like "Why should anyone care (or have cared) about Croatian and all these other languages spoken in some countries at the other end of the world?" If that does reflect your sentiment, then your mindset seems very much out of tune with WMF thought today.
The most generous assessment of this gloss is that you are, in fact, totally misreading me. The less generous assessments I leave to the rhetorically inclined reader.
I am not sure you are actually interested in an answer here, but what I did do, for what it's worth, was to make sure that the WP Signpost and WP Kurier covered the story when it first broke, mention it repeatedly over the years in my writing on WO and in the Signpost, as well as in correspondence with journalists and academics, and submit the aforementioned idea to the WMF – to have experts review human rights topics' coverage in Wikipedia language versions that may be subject to undue political influence, and publicly report the results. I think that's about all you could have reasonably expected me to have done here.
I also think it is reasonable to expect you not to default to presuming things about the motives of WMF personnel in the absence of evidence. But that's me--I'm evidence-focused.
The fact of the matter is that for about a decade, one of Wikipedia's top-50 language versions promoted extremist content, with the WMF's full knowledge. That is Not A Good Thing, whether you work for the WMF or not, and you have given no discernible reason why what was done this year could not have been done years ago, when the WMF was first made aware of the situation.
Your characterization of "the fact of the matter" is morally confused. To wit, you want to imply that if some people at WMF knew something about what was happening in the Croatian Wikipedia, it follows that WMF institutionally decided, as a matter of policy, not to do what you wish they might have done. You do not have "the facts of the matter" that demonstrate such an institutional decision took place.
Once again, you default to moral condemnation, and it seems self-evident that you're doing so because it's cheaper and easier than understanding what might actually have happened.
Mike Godwin
Virus-free. www.avg.com http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient
Mike,
I am appalled by your sneering condescension of Andreas.
This is a researcher and journalist who has worked diligently for a decade to identify, examine and expose the systematic failings which beset Wikipedia. He generously offers practical soultions to problems the WMF is unaware of. It is unquestionable that he has knows more about and has done more to improve the encyclopedia than you.
As a spokesperson for a charity that exists to promote knowledge, your sarcastic and dismissive attitude is utterly shameful.
If you think only a few "insignificant" sites like Croatian or Japanese Wikipedia have areas run by ultranationalists, think again -- English Wikipedia has articles completely controlled by terrorist groups right now. I would tell you which ones but it seems you are are uninterested and unconcerned by extremist groups successfully pushing their agenda on this ostensibly educational website.
Administrators and arbitrators are aware of the problem and have been for years. So far they have been unwilling or unable to act decisively.
Hoi, Get your facts straight. Mike is not an employee nor a spokesperson for the Wikimedia Foundation. Andreas has a set of hobby horses. That is fine but it does not follow that we have to be grateful for them. Yes, there are plenty of issues with all of our projects and at that, English sets a pattern that is hardly beneficial for the smallest projects. Thanks, Gerard
On Fri, 27 Aug 2021 at 07:43, hillbillyholiday@gmail.com wrote:
Mike,
I am appalled by your sneering condescension of Andreas.
This is a researcher and journalist who has worked diligently for a decade to identify, examine and expose the systematic failings which beset Wikipedia. He generously offers practical soultions to problems the WMF is unaware of. It is unquestionable that he has knows more about and has done more to improve the encyclopedia than you.
As a spokesperson for a charity that exists to promote knowledge, your sarcastic and dismissive attitude is utterly shameful.
If you think only a few "insignificant" sites like Croatian or Japanese Wikipedia have areas run by ultranationalists, think again -- English Wikipedia has articles completely controlled by terrorist groups right now. I would tell you which ones but it seems you are are uninterested and unconcerned by extremist groups successfully pushing their agenda on this ostensibly educational website.
Administrators and arbitrators are aware of the problem and have been for years. So far they have been unwilling or unable to act decisively. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Mike is not an employee nor a spokesperson for the
Wikimedia Foundation.
Oh, thanks.
I don't know who he is. His manner led me to believe he represented the WMF in some capacity.
Someone who downplays the danger of far-right activism within education is either ignorant or some kind of nazi themselves.
MC
Hoi, Please use Google when you do not know who you are talking to. Thanks, GerardM
On Fri, 27 Aug 2021 at 19:09, hillbillyholiday@gmail.com wrote:
Mike is not an employee nor a spokesperson for the
Wikimedia Foundation.
Oh, thanks.
I don't know who he is. His manner led me to believe he represented the WMF in some capacity.
Someone who downplays the danger of far-right activism within education is either ignorant or some kind of nazi themselves.
MC _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
I believe this is for the first time I see a person who is active in the Wikimedia movement and does not know who Mike Godwin is.
Best Yaroslav
On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 7:09 PM hillbillyholiday@gmail.com wrote:
Mike is not an employee nor a spokesperson for the
Wikimedia Foundation.
Oh, thanks.
I don't know who he is. His manner led me to believe he represented the WMF in some capacity.
Someone who downplays the danger of far-right activism within education is either ignorant or some kind of nazi themselves.
MC _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Hillbillyholiday,
For my doctoral thesis, I would be interested to know more about these wikipedia articles "completely controlled by terrorist groups". Is it possible to have references? Some links to the Wikipedia articles in question or to press articles as scientific ones for example. Thanks in advance !
Lionel Scheepmans
Le 26-08-2021 1:55, hillbillyholiday@gmail.com a écrit :
Mike,
I am appalled by your sneering condescension of Andreas.
This is a researcher and journalist who has worked diligently for a decade to identify, examine and expose the systematic failings which beset Wikipedia. He generously offers practical soultions to problems the WMF is unaware of. It is unquestionable that he has knows more about and has done more to improve the encyclopedia than you.
As a spokesperson for a charity that exists to promote knowledge, your sarcastic and dismissive attitude is utterly shameful.
If you think only a few "insignificant" sites like Croatian or Japanese Wikipedia have areas run by ultranationalists, think again -- English Wikipedia has articles completely controlled by terrorist groups right now. I would tell you which ones but it seems you are are uninterested and unconcerned by extremist groups successfully pushing their agenda on this ostensibly educational website.
Administrators and arbitrators are aware of the problem and have been for years. So far they have been unwilling or unable to act decisively. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
I've been involved with hr.wiki case as a steward. I suggested to take a series of quite bold actions but there were reasonable concerns in terms of legitimacy among stewards, there were the ability of smart dudes in the cabal to hijack discussions, there was the reluctance of meta people due to nPOV concerns, [some more very polemic things I prefer to omit], etc etc. Putting it simply hr.wiki case showed some limit of our model, the model I was born and grew up as an user. The *wiki process* of a medium-sized community went broke, with a language (even weaker than some Central Asia wikis) barrier lowering the wiki's accountability, nobody had formally the role to step in. I got my personal dose of clamor during my annual confirmations which probably sounded quite intimidating for anyone willing to tackle the issue.
Probably the lesson to be learnt is the need for an audit of contents and some structure with the means to investigate a very very narrow set of very complex complaints, although both things (the first one in particular) are very sensitive in terms of culture neutrality.
Vito
Il giorno lun 23 ago 2021 alle ore 14:22 Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com ha scritto:
Mike,
The corruption of the Croatian Wikipedia began in 2009 and became front page news in Croatia in September 2013. The term "fake news" hadn't been invented yet, but the Croatian Education Minister issued a public warning to the country's youth in 2013 that they should avoid the Croatian Wikipedia, as much of its content was "not only misleading but also clearly falsified".
So I can't agree that this "was perceived, rightly or wrongly, as less of a problem" at the time. It's hard to imagine how it could have been more prominent.
The matter was even discussed in the US mainstream media, hardly known for detailed coverage of Croatian affairs. In October 2013 the Croatian Wikipedia's subversion was the subject of a dedicated article by Tim Sampson in the Daily Dot. In 2014 it received a mention from Caitlin Dewey in the Washington Post. (You can read all about this timeline in the English-language Wikipedia article on the Croatian Wikipedia, and the sources cited therein.)
Compared to the level of public interest eight years ago, the press had actually been quiet about this decade-long scandal in recent years – more due to topic fatigue, I think, than anything else – though there was a smattering of articles published by the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network in 2018, concluding with a report stating that the Wikimedia Foundation had refused to respond to their inquiries.[1] Ouch.
So it was all the more welcome that the WMF finally did something this year and commissioned an expert to write a report, after a decade of complaints from media and the volunteer community.
The idea to have an outside expert look at how human rights violations by political regimes are covered (or covered up ...) in various Wikipedia language versions, and summarise their observations in a public report, is an obvious one. (I suggested as much back in 2015.[2])
The costs of doing this now will hardly have been prohibitive. Commissioning a report like this would have been well within the WMF's means in 2013 as well. (The WMF reported a budget surplus of $13 million in 2013.) So I stand by my assertion: the WMF could have done then what it has done now, but lacked the will, or courage.
You are right about one thing – in matters like this, both action and inaction can be construed as a moral failing. I absolutely applaud the decision made in this case, but can also imagine that, the precedent having been set, scenarios might arise some years down the line, under different leadership, where the same type of WMF action could be more problematic. This is something for the community to watch out for.
Andreas
[1] https://balkaninsight.com/2018/04/23/wikipedia-not-replying-to-inquires-on-c... [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Wikipedia_Freedom_Index
On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 11:33 PM Mike Godwin mnemonic@gmail.com wrote:
I think you're indulging in the common tendency of inferring that if WMF did not do something a decade ago that it had the legal right to do, it follows that it lacked the moral courage to do that thing (or else that it had moral courage then but lacks it now--the moral-judgment fantasy can run in both directions).
Given that concern about disinformation on Wikipedia and elsewhere was less prominent in public discourse a decade ago, Occam's Razor suggests that the primary reason for any change in willingness to engage in top-down intervention was that disinformation was perceived, rightly or wrongly, as less of problem. In addition, you assert (without any facts offered in support) that WMF was just as well-positioned to directly intervene in disinformation problems a decade ago as they may be now, or as they may soon be. This doesn't seem to be grounded in anything other than prejudgment.
But if moral condemnation based on presumption of a lack of ... some virtue or other ... floats your boat, who am I to detract from your innocent fun?
Mike
On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 12:59 PM Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
Well, that was the difference I was referring to. (I wasn't really thinking of content found libellous in court, child pornography etc.)
What is new is that the WMF is expressing an interest in the actual integrity of the *encyclopedic* content, hiring staff to address "misleading content", "disinformation", etc., rather than restricting itself to deletions required by law.
The WMF's recent action concerning the Croatian Wikipedia surely is an example of this shift. The WMF had the means – but not the will – to do what it has done now, ten years ago.
In a similar way, I understand that content added by ISIS sympathisers is a problem in the Arabic and Farsi Wikipedia versions that the WMF is now trying to address.
Andreas
On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 1:31 PM Mike Godwin mnemonic@gmail.com wrote:
Andreas Kolbe writes:
It's worth noting that Yumiko's article (now also on fastcompany.com) quotes the WMF as saying it "does *not often* get involved in issues related to the creation and maintenance of content on the site."
That "not often" actually indicates a little publicised but significant departure from past practice when the WMF would disclaim all responsibility for content ....
WMF did not "disclaim all responsibility for content." Instead, WMF disclaimed primary responsibility for content, and still does. When WMF was understaffed, as it typically was during Wikipedia's first decade, we made a point of steering certain complaints and legal demands to the editor community as a default choice. The policy reasons for this choice were straightforward. But WMF directly intervened on a number of occasions, typically as required by law.
Mike Godwin
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org