With respect to paid promotional editing, I have done a bit work trying to address it. For example I reached out to Upworks the company behind Elance and Fiverr and they are interested in working together on this. Have been a little distracted and not sure if there is sufficient community or foundation support to move forwards.
With respect to using AI to detect paid editing, I spoke with Aaron Halfaker about the possibility in Nov 2015. What he needed was datasets of confirmed paid promotional editors. I have sent him some details. If others have details that would likely be useful. Things are in the very very early stages from what I understand.
James, I think it is very nice to put measures against paid editing, but it would be nicer to put measures to get editors more free time to edit voluntarily... There are not that many suggestions on how to do it, so it could be that it cannot be done.
Cheers, Micru
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 6:14 AM, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
With respect to paid promotional editing, I have done a bit work trying to address it. For example I reached out to Upworks the company behind Elance and Fiverr and they are interested in working together on this. Have been a little distracted and not sure if there is sufficient community or foundation support to move forwards.
With respect to using AI to detect paid editing, I spoke with Aaron Halfaker about the possibility in Nov 2015. What he needed was datasets of confirmed paid promotional editors. I have sent him some details. If others have details that would likely be useful. Things are in the very very early stages from what I understand.
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine www.opentextbookofmedicine.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi David,
It would be even nicer if we have more editors editing voluntarily instead of driving them away.
In the present scenario a University of Minnesota report by Aaron Halfaker says "The declining number of editors is not due to the site's inability to keep longtime editors contributing. Instead it can't keep new editors from sticking around, due to an abrasive collective of editors and a system that is crushingly bureaucratic." [1]
English Wikipedia's biggest problem today is its established syndicates of 90% white male "content creators" and their self-protecting policies. A large number of these persons are paid editors / PR -SEO "consultants" who have worked themselves up to positions of administrators, Arbs, and WMF Trustees and blatantly misused their positions and lied about their background / Conflicts of Interest.
I suggest its high time now for the WMF to directly take legal responsibility for the actions and policies of their (mostly) anonymous users and what is "hosted" on WMF servers.
I suggest the WMF should immediately institute a regime of verified identities for its users and administrators across all its projects, and purge all rogue editors (along with their self serving so-called""community" policies) who are damaging the credibility of its projects, including through paid editing.
David
[1] http://www.businessinsider.in/Wikipedia-Could-Degenerate-If-It-Cant-Fix-One-...
On 2/29/16, David Cuenca Tudela dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
James, I think it is very nice to put measures against paid editing, but it would be nicer to put measures to get editors more free time to edit voluntarily... There are not that many suggestions on how to do it, so it could be that it cannot be done.
Cheers, Micru
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 6:14 AM, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
With respect to paid promotional editing, I have done a bit work trying to address it. For example I reached out to Upworks the company behind Elance and Fiverr and they are interested in working together on this. Have been a little distracted and not sure if there is sufficient community or foundation support to move forwards.
With respect to using AI to detect paid editing, I spoke with Aaron Halfaker about the possibility in Nov 2015. What he needed was datasets of confirmed paid promotional editors. I have sent him some details. If others have details that would likely be useful. Things are in the very very early stages from what I understand.
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine www.opentextbookofmedicine.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Etiamsi omnes, ego non _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi David,
you say that "A large number of these persons are paid editors / PR -SEO "consultants" who have worked themselves up to positions of administrators". Although there is no clear evidence, there is a lot of mistrust and suspicion about "paid editing". Since people need to make a living, they find a way to market their skills, sometimes honestly and other times dishonestly. Not everybody can combine a job and take positions of responsibility in the movement without burning out after a while.
However you come to say that the WMF should "purge all rogue editors" and I consider that it is wrong to consider the WMF as the police of the site. It is right to have assistance in legal matters when the community requests it, but it would compromise the autonomy of the movement if the wmf would take an interventionist role. It would do more damage than good >> https://xkcd.com/1217/
I do advocate for an evolution in the culture of the community, but that cannot come from external sources, it has to come from volunteers themselves taking more responsibility, increasing the partnership with the professional arm of the movement, and creating in the process more trust to take appropriate action - and there is never a solid definition of what it constitutes.
When I started the tread I mentioned other volunteership models (like WOOF, or workaway) that could help create more trust. It is unclear if it could work for us, or if it would be scalable, but given the state of the movement perhaps it doesn't hurt so much to try new things and see how it goes.
Cheers, Micru
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 2:58 AM, David Emrany david.emrany@gmail.com wrote:
Hi David,
It would be even nicer if we have more editors editing voluntarily instead of driving them away.
In the present scenario a University of Minnesota report by Aaron Halfaker says "The declining number of editors is not due to the site's inability to keep longtime editors contributing. Instead it can't keep new editors from sticking around, due to an abrasive collective of editors and a system that is crushingly bureaucratic." [1]
English Wikipedia's biggest problem today is its established syndicates of 90% white male "content creators" and their self-protecting policies. A large number of these persons are paid editors / PR -SEO "consultants" who have worked themselves up to positions of administrators, Arbs, and WMF Trustees and blatantly misused their positions and lied about their background / Conflicts of Interest.
I suggest its high time now for the WMF to directly take legal responsibility for the actions and policies of their (mostly) anonymous users and what is "hosted" on WMF servers.
I suggest the WMF should immediately institute a regime of verified identities for its users and administrators across all its projects, and purge all rogue editors (along with their self serving so-called""community" policies) who are damaging the credibility of its projects, including through paid editing.
David
[1] http://www.businessinsider.in/Wikipedia-Could-Degenerate-If-It-Cant-Fix-One-...
On 2/29/16, David Cuenca Tudela dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
James, I think it is very nice to put measures against paid editing, but
it
would be nicer to put measures to get editors more free time to edit voluntarily... There are not that many suggestions on how to do it, so it could be that
it
cannot be done.
Cheers, Micru
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 6:14 AM, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
With respect to paid promotional editing, I have done a bit work trying
to
address it. For example I reached out to Upworks the company behind
Elance
and Fiverr and they are interested in working together on this. Have
been
a little distracted and not sure if there is sufficient community or foundation support to move forwards.
With respect to using AI to detect paid editing, I spoke with Aaron Halfaker about the possibility in Nov 2015. What he needed was datasets
of
confirmed paid promotional editors. I have sent him some details. If others have details that would likely be useful. Things are in the very very early stages from what I understand.
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine www.opentextbookofmedicine.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Etiamsi omnes, ego non _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Dear David
I respectfully disagree. My point is that the "community" you refer to is not a representative community at all. for eg. voices from Asia and Africa are not properly represented here.
The community is incapable of policing itself because (to quote a prominent WP criticism site) "the inmates are running the asylum". It needs an external / independent person (Lila ?) to begin the cleaning of the stables, but the task was beyond her.
The credibility of Wikipedia as a brand is going down the tubes rapidly as fresh scandals emerge with alarming frequency. More enemies of the movement are being created daily.
To cite 1 instance, very recently, a prominent organisation, highly critical of WMF in India, managed to get the Zeropaid initiative banned in that country. The organisation is banned on Wikipedia, including for severe off-wiki harassment of our users [1]
" .. WIKIMEDIA pornographers who are masquerading as champions of free speech and free internet to promote their obscenities and lies in India ... TO IMMEDIATELY PROHIBIT ANY FREE INTERNET ACCESS OVER MOBILE DEVICES .. " [2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/India_Against_Corrup...
[2] http://trai.gov.in/Comments_Data/Organisation/India_Against_Corruption.pdf
David
On 3/1/16, David Cuenca Tudela dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
Hi David,
you say that "A large number of these persons are paid editors / PR -SEO "consultants" who have worked themselves up to positions of administrators".
Although there is no clear evidence, there is a lot of mistrust and suspicion about "paid editing". Since people need to make a living, they find a way to market their skills, sometimes honestly and other times dishonestly. Not everybody can combine a job and take positions of responsibility in the movement without burning out after a while.
However you come to say that the WMF should "purge all rogue editors" and I consider that it is wrong to consider the WMF as the police of the site. It is right to have assistance in legal matters when the community requests it, but it would compromise the autonomy of the movement if the wmf would take an interventionist role. It would do more damage than good >> https://xkcd.com/1217/
I do advocate for an evolution in the culture of the community, but that cannot come from external sources, it has to come from volunteers themselves taking more responsibility, increasing the partnership with the professional arm of the movement, and creating in the process more trust to take appropriate action - and there is never a solid definition of what it constitutes.
When I started the tread I mentioned other volunteership models (like WOOF, or workaway) that could help create more trust. It is unclear if it could work for us, or if it would be scalable, but given the state of the movement perhaps it doesn't hurt so much to try new things and see how it goes.
Cheers, Micru
David,
When I refer to the community I assume already that it has an intrinsic imperfect representation and unclear boundaries, as it is characteristic to open systems.
Given these blurry boundaries, at what point of the society does the asylum begin or end? It is not enough with just "cleaning of the stables" as you say, because the horses come and go freely and it is an open question which degree of cleanliness they are more comfortable with.
You mention "fresh scandals emerge with alarming frequency", but perhaps they are also form part of the downsides of having an open community, and every time it is an opportunity to do things better. There will be always new enemies, and with an open attitude there will be also new friends.
The document you link seems to support "net neutrality", that concept that sometimes we support, and sometimes we don't...
Cheers, Micru
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 11:01 AM, David Emrany david.emrany@gmail.com wrote:
Dear David
I respectfully disagree. My point is that the "community" you refer to is not a representative community at all. for eg. voices from Asia and Africa are not properly represented here.
The community is incapable of policing itself because (to quote a prominent WP criticism site) "the inmates are running the asylum". It needs an external / independent person (Lila ?) to begin the cleaning of the stables, but the task was beyond her.
The credibility of Wikipedia as a brand is going down the tubes rapidly as fresh scandals emerge with alarming frequency. More enemies of the movement are being created daily.
To cite 1 instance, very recently, a prominent organisation, highly critical of WMF in India, managed to get the Zeropaid initiative banned in that country. The organisation is banned on Wikipedia, including for severe off-wiki harassment of our users [1]
" .. WIKIMEDIA pornographers who are masquerading as champions of free speech and free internet to promote their obscenities and lies in India ... TO IMMEDIATELY PROHIBIT ANY FREE INTERNET ACCESS OVER MOBILE DEVICES .. " [2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/India_Against_Corrup...
[2] http://trai.gov.in/Comments_Data/Organisation/India_Against_Corruption.pdf
David
On 3/1/16, David Cuenca Tudela dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
Hi David,
you say that "A large number of these persons are paid editors / PR -SEO "consultants" who have worked themselves up to positions of
administrators".
Although there is no clear evidence, there is a lot of mistrust and suspicion about "paid editing". Since people need to make a living, they find a way to market their skills, sometimes honestly and other times dishonestly. Not everybody can combine a job and take positions of responsibility in the movement without burning out after a while.
However you come to say that the WMF should "purge all rogue editors"
and I
consider that it is wrong to consider the WMF as the police of the site.
It
is right to have assistance in legal matters when the community requests it, but it would compromise the autonomy of the movement if the wmf would take an interventionist role. It would do more damage than good >> https://xkcd.com/1217/
I do advocate for an evolution in the culture of the community, but that cannot come from external sources, it has to come from volunteers themselves taking more responsibility, increasing the partnership with
the
professional arm of the movement, and creating in the process more trust
to
take appropriate action - and there is never a solid definition of what
it
constitutes.
When I started the tread I mentioned other volunteership models (like
WOOF,
or workaway) that could help create more trust. It is unclear if it could work for us, or if it would be scalable, but given the state of the movement perhaps it doesn't hurt so much to try new things and see how it goes.
Cheers, Micru
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 2016-03-01 11:01, David Emrany wrote:
" .. WIKIMEDIA pornographers who are masquerading as champions of free speech and free internet to promote their obscenities and lies in India ... TO IMMEDIATELY PROHIBIT ANY FREE INTERNET ACCESS OVER MOBILE DEVICES .. " [2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/India_Against_Corrup...
[2] http://trai.gov.in/Comments_Data/Organisation/India_Against_Corruption.pdf
David
Which likely means you are avoiding the list ban.
Cheers Yaroslav
Den 2016-03-01 kl. 11:01, skrev David Emrany:
The credibility of Wikipedia as a brand is going down the tubes rapidly as fresh scandals emerge with alarming frequency. More enemies of the movement are being created daily.
We all live in different realities, so please be careful to indicate that your reality is everyones reality
In Sweden we have had the most profound increase in trust in Wikipedia the last six month, not least in conjunction to the 15 year anniversary There have been several articled in our main media reporting both with good insight and giving credibility to Wikipedia. We have seen a continuous strong support from the Glam sector and also a significant change from School authorities, which now are staring to look mostly how to make best use of Wikipedia, and not as before only indicating the need to be observant of sources being used
The affiliate here has just received the biggest grant yet on more then 300KUSD to put the result of wikipedia loves word heritage onto WIkidata. And also our community is working better then ever and seeing regularly new editor (but we still have a problem of too few new ones)
So here there is no scandal being known and what is happening around SF is not reported or known her in our media
Anders
On 3/1/16, David Cuenca Tudela dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
Hi David,
you say that "A large number of these persons are paid editors / PR -SEO "consultants" who have worked themselves up to positions of administrators". Although there is no clear evidence, there is a lot of mistrust and suspicion about "paid editing". Since people need to make a living, they find a way to market their skills, sometimes honestly and other times dishonestly. Not everybody can combine a job and take positions of responsibility in the movement without burning out after a while.
However you come to say that the WMF should "purge all rogue editors" and I consider that it is wrong to consider the WMF as the police of the site. It is right to have assistance in legal matters when the community requests it, but it would compromise the autonomy of the movement if the wmf would take an interventionist role. It would do more damage than good >> https://xkcd.com/1217/
I do advocate for an evolution in the culture of the community, but that cannot come from external sources, it has to come from volunteers themselves taking more responsibility, increasing the partnership with the professional arm of the movement, and creating in the process more trust to take appropriate action - and there is never a solid definition of what it constitutes.
When I started the tread I mentioned other volunteership models (like WOOF, or workaway) that could help create more trust. It is unclear if it could work for us, or if it would be scalable, but given the state of the movement perhaps it doesn't hurt so much to try new things and see how it goes.
Cheers, Micru
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi David,
I wholeheartedly support your words. The Wikimedia movement relies on the energy and enthusiasm of the Wikipedians or the volunteers from around the world. Technology is a tool in this case, but not the driving agent. The other tools which you mentioned are indeed important in the movement.
Regarding the practices that are running now, it's actually like, not everything's wrong or negative. Of course there is way to explore new ideas or practices, and that would definitely come out of spontaneous discussion among volunteers. The movement is ever changing, so new practices and ideas should come along the way and we must welcome such interactions or discussions. The decision to accept or disregard of new ideas would also rely upon the unanimous opinion. In some cases, some idea might work in a specific part of the world, and not everywhere.
Thanks, Tanweer
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 8:25 PM, Anders Wennersten mail@anderswennersten.se wrote:
Den 2016-03-01 kl. 11:01, skrev David Emrany:
The credibility of Wikipedia as a brand is going down the tubes rapidly as fresh scandals emerge with alarming frequency. More enemies of the movement are being created daily.
We all live in different realities, so please be careful to indicate that your reality is everyones reality
In Sweden we have had the most profound increase in trust in Wikipedia the last six month, not least in conjunction to the 15 year anniversary There have been several articled in our main media reporting both with good insight and giving credibility to Wikipedia. We have seen a continuous strong support from the Glam sector and also a significant change from School authorities, which now are staring to look mostly how to make best use of Wikipedia, and not as before only indicating the need to be observant of sources being used
The affiliate here has just received the biggest grant yet on more then 300KUSD to put the result of wikipedia loves word heritage onto WIkidata. And also our community is working better then ever and seeing regularly new editor (but we still have a problem of too few new ones)
So here there is no scandal being known and what is happening around SF is not reported or known her in our media
Anders
On 3/1/16, David Cuenca Tudela dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
Hi David,
you say that "A large number of these persons are paid editors / PR -SEO "consultants" who have worked themselves up to positions of administrators". Although there is no clear evidence, there is a lot of mistrust and suspicion about "paid editing". Since people need to make a living, they find a way to market their skills, sometimes honestly and other times dishonestly. Not everybody can combine a job and take positions of responsibility in the movement without burning out after a while.
However you come to say that the WMF should "purge all rogue editors" and I consider that it is wrong to consider the WMF as the police of the site. It is right to have assistance in legal matters when the community requests it, but it would compromise the autonomy of the movement if the wmf would take an interventionist role. It would do more damage than good >> https://xkcd.com/1217/
I do advocate for an evolution in the culture of the community, but that cannot come from external sources, it has to come from volunteers themselves taking more responsibility, increasing the partnership with the professional arm of the movement, and creating in the process more trust to take appropriate action - and there is never a solid definition of what it constitutes.
When I started the tread I mentioned other volunteership models (like WOOF, or workaway) that could help create more trust. It is unclear if it could work for us, or if it would be scalable, but given the state of the movement perhaps it doesn't hurt so much to try new things and see how it goes.
Cheers, Micru
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org