[Foundation-l] Is a research banner "advertising" of the evil sort?

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

Re: [Foundation-l] Regarding...

[Foundation-l] New editor...

Nathan

9 Dec 2011 9 Dec '11

2:44 p.m.

The Berkman Center at Harvard and Science Po have a banner going, inviting some logged-in users to participate in a research project on game theory. An array of people have objected to it as "advertising"; some seem to see it as the first step along a path that will ultimately lead to big T-Mobile popups or something, others as a conflict with the no-advertising promise from the fundraising drive. I don't see the problem, myself. There's no product, service or commercial interest being advertised. It's for users who are logged in, not all readers. People who choose to participate actually receive money, which can then be donated to the IRC or Wikimedia. Yet other objections are based on privacy concerns (over being redirected to a third party website)... Such concerns are so overblown, I'm tempted to advise those who raise them to switch off their cellphones and disconnect their modems lest the Illuminati (or Fox News) use these signals to remote into their brains. If I'm honest, I think most people are just upset that someone didn't personally ask them first. I'd be interested in hearing a reasonable explanation from the WMF or someone involved in setting the banner up - how was the agreement made, is there a policy for such things, how long will it run, how many people will see it, on which projects, etc. etc. Right now the conversation is being dominated by people who have a really narrow range of views on the subject, and a little flame-retardant PR from Philippe (for example) would do wonders. ~Nathan Selected quotes: "Yuck Advertisement :( So, it took us 11 years; but we do accept them in the end. Anthere (talk) 5:32 am, Today (UTC−5)" "You know my first thought when I saw it? That it was malware. That my browser had been hijacked. Unlikely as that is browsing in Linux. My second thought was that it was being inserted by rogue JavaScript on the site. - David Gerard (talk) 7:53 am, Today (UTC−5)" "I ... might actually be okay with [it] but I'm definitely not okay with it just being slapped in there without my input. [...] Volunteer Marek 2:26 am, Today (UTC−5)" "The banner is spammy and should be removed ASAP. The situation is made even worse due to the close relation Jimbo has with this group. Giving them pride of place like this compromises our integrity and should not be tolerated. The fact that this was snuck in without any en.wiki consensus or discussion is shocking. ThemFromSpace 9:52 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5)" "I think it was certainly a very dick move to impose it on the community - when the first proposal raised clear objections." Tom Morton, wikimediauk-l 12/9 1:51AM UTC-5 [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI#Harvard.2FScience_Po_Adverts [2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Dynamics_of_Online_Interaction… [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archiv… [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#A_quick_not… [5] http://markmail.org/message/ejepphd2oqhvrnos?q=wikimediauk

Show replies by date

Bod Notbod

9 Dec 9 Dec

2:52 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] Is a research banner "advertising" of the evil sort?

On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

I don't see the problem, myself. There's no product, service or commercial interest being advertised. It's for users who are logged in, not all readers. People who choose to participate actually receive money, which can then be donated to the IRC or Wikimedia. Yet other objections are based on privacy concerns (over being redirected to a third party website)... Such concerns are so overblown,

I haven't seen the banner and am not taking a position on it but some of your "objections to the objections" seem rather odd. 1. You say "it's for users who are logged in, not all readers". I am not going to take this to mean that you feel advertising McDonalds would be fine if it were a) only to logged in users and/or b) only displayed to some users. But it is possible to read it that way. 2. You say "users actually get money out of it" and, again, I will not take this as you saying that McDonalds could place ads on Wikipedia if they a) allowed users to click through activating a donation to Wikipedia and/or b) were given a small sum of money if they clicked on it... but, again, you rather leave yourself open to these interpretations. So, if you'd like to fight for the right for the banner to appear, fine. But the way you're positioning yourself on the issue seems rather flakey.

Nathan

2:58 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] Is a research banner "advertising" of the evil sort?

On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Bod Notbod <bodnotbod(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

I don't accept your false equivalence between Harvard/Science Po and McDonalds, nor do I believe you misunderstood my point: that advertising is commonly rejected for its potential for various harms, while even those who object to this banner have not rationally presented any possible harm that could result. For what it's worth, Beria Lima (as a meta administrator) switched the banner off unilaterally. Nathan

David Gerard

3:06 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] Is a research banner "advertising" of the evil sort?

On 9 December 2011 14:58, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

It increases acceptance of advertising logos at the top of the page. Getting your logo at the top of a top-5 website? That's *rather* valuable. Note that this was one of the big objections to the Virgin Unite logo in the fundraiser five years ago. Logo = advertising, however much equivocation one applies to the point. - d.

Nathan

3:23 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] Is a research banner "advertising" of the evil sort?

On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 10:06 AM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 9 December 2011 14:58, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Perhaps, although I hardly think that was part of the nefarious plan on the part of Harvard and SciPo. They are both among the institutions in the world with the best and most positive name penetration; the connection benefits Wikipedia as much as it does them, and none of the three are much in need of PR work with the small subset of Wikipedia editors who saw the banner. In reply to Tom Morton's point about privacy - the exposure is no more (and as we now know, considerably less) than we experience every time we visit any other site on the 'net. I suppose if there are some people who use Wikipedia (or a very small number of other sites where they can be familiar with disclosure policies) exclusively, and they were somehow surprised that the banner took them to an external site (despite the URL being available via float)... Then those people might have a legitimate privacy complaint. Nathan

Theo10011

3:38 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] Is a research banner "advertising" of the evil sort?

On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 8:53 PM, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

I'm sure that argument could be made for several hundred other institutions and research project who would love to have the same visibility. Should it matter if the conducting research institution happens to be the worlds best or have the most positive name penetration? I see it as the same, all or nothing approach. Either we choose to have advertisement or we don't, we should not cherry-pick institutions, and projects deemed worthy of a banner. The timing is also a large aspect that is not being considered. The recent fundraiser repeatedly used the same narrative of asking for donation for a small non-profit so we won't have to turn to advertising, half way in, we have a banner from Harvard and SciPro asking to take part in a survey that apparently pays out respondents. I suppose it's a matter of perspective. Regards Theo

Thomas Morton

3:39 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] Is a research banner "advertising" of the evil sort?

...

In reply to Tom Morton's point about privacy - the exposure is no more (and as we now know, considerably less) than we experience every time we visit any other site on the 'net.

No... because the banner sent your WP username as part of the link - if I visit any other site in the world they get my IP. If I visited *that* link they get my WP username as well. I think the major objection there was that it was not clear that this is what was happening till *after* you clicked the link. As you say this is no longer a concern - but it was not explained before hand. And till the point that it was it was a reasonable objection; the takeaway being that "next time" it should be explained before to set peoples minds at rest :) people who use Wikipedia (or a very small number of other sites where

...

they can be familiar with disclosure policies) exclusively, and they were somehow surprised that the banner took them to an external site (despite the URL being available via float)... Then those people might have a legitimate privacy complaint.

This was not the issue raised; or at the very little trivialises the main point of objection in favour of the obviously unproblematic. I've been involved extensively in issues of privacy and subterfuge for several years now, as a by product of my work. Although my own view is that open=good (hence, my real name, location etc.) many many people are confused by privacy and upset by the idea of certain things being tracked or discovered. I think that we too much trivialise those concerns as "uninformed" - without understanding that we simply add to the problem *by not being informative ourselves.* Or to put it another way; the correct response here is not to go "oh your being silly, would you like a tin foil hat" but to give the rational explanation that makes someone not-concerned :) Tom

Bod Notbod

4:07 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] Is a research banner "advertising" of the evil sort?

On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

those who object to this banner have not rationally presented any possible harm that could result.

...

From the opening email on this that you yourself presented you

reported the following objections: 1. It looks like spam (harming our reputation) 2. It raises questions due to Jimmy Wales connections to the group (harming our reputation) 3. It looks symptomatic of malware (harming the user experience) 4. The community wasn't consulted (harming community relations with the Foundation) I take no position on any of those (especially as I have not seen the banner) save to say they do not seem "irrational" arguments as you suggest.

Béria Lima

3 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] Is a research banner "advertising" of the evil sort?

If you want to see the banner: http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:NoticeTemplate/view&… And I, Béria Lima (nice to meet you) disabled the banner upon a thread in Internal-l where people asked for it. _____ *Béria Lima* <http://wikimedia.pt/>(351) 925 171 484 *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. <http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos>* On 9 December 2011 14:52, Bod Notbod <bodnotbod(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Kim Bruning

7:36 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] Is a research banner "advertising" of the evil sort?

On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 03:00:41PM +0000, B?ria Lima wrote:

...

If you want to see the banner: http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:NoticeTemplate/view&… And I, B?ria Lima (nice to meet you) disabled the banner upon a thread in Internal-l where people asked for it.

Internal-l is the new IRC, I take it? :-) Strictly you're ok by accident, I think :-) ...but... remember to always reference on-wiki discussions and consensus for on-wiki actions. As you may recall, off-wiki discussions may be referenced for information, but never for consensus. [1] sincerely, Kim Bruning [1] For completeness: once upon a time, wikipedia-l was also acceptable as a source of consensus. No one has tried to use that for quite a while though. ;-) --

Béria Lima

8:32 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] Is a research banner "advertising" of the evil sort?

Not IRC, the private mailing list with Chapters + staff, I'm sure you heard of it before. And Kim, as far as I know there are NO WAY to put a sumary in a Central Notice action. And I'm not a en.wiki user, so I'm not forced to give any reason to en.wiki community about a action I took in another wiki. As for meta, there was a page ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Central_notice_requests) created AFTER I disable the banner. And again, that was not a "on-wiki consensus": That was an action who started with a staff of WMF, discussed privately, put on air, discussed in a private mailing list, and took off. When I need to do anything on en.wiki I follow en.wiki, until there, don't try to imposse them to me. _____ *Béria Lima* <http://wikimedia.pt/>(351) 925 171 484 *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. <http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos>* On 9 December 2011 19:36, Kim Bruning <kim(a)bruning.xs4all.nl> wrote:

...

On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 03:00:41PM +0000, B?ria Lima wrote:

If you want to see the banner:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:NoticeTemplate/view&…

And I, B?ria Lima (nice to meet you) disabled the banner upon a thread in Internal-l where people asked for it.

Kim Bruning

8:01 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] Is a research banner "advertising" of the evil sort?

On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 08:32:06PM +0000, B?ria Lima wrote:

...

Not IRC, the private mailing list with Chapters + staff, I'm sure you heard of it before.

Indeed I have.

...

And Kim, as far as I know there are NO WAY to put a sumary in a Central Notice action. And I'm not a en.wiki user, so I'm not forced to give any reason to en.wiki community about a action I took in another wiki. As for meta, there was a page ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Central_notice_requests) created AFTER I disable the banner.

Just for an action on meta, I'm sure meta has the same rule.

...

And again, that was not a "on-wiki consensus": That was an action who started with a staff of WMF, discussed privately, put on air, discussed in a private mailing list, and took off.

Right, none of which is valid for meta _or_ for en.wikipedia afaik.

...

When I need to do anything on en.wiki I follow en.wiki, until there, don't try to imposse them to me.

That said, your action did have consequences on-wiki on en.wikipedia, didn't it? I don't really want to turn this into a bureaucratic fight; just a small note to be careful. In the end you acted correctly according to consensus, albeit by accident, as you now confirm. sincerely, Kim Bruning --

Federico Leva (Nemo)

10 Dec 10 Dec

8:55 a.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] Is a research banner "advertising" of the evil sort?

It's a matter of perspective, as always: the universities see the addition of their logos as added value for Wikipedia/WMF. For instance, such a usage of logos is strictly prohibited by my university (unimi.it) and is authorised only if there's a partnership framework about some research and a specific approval of each campaign (and all its details) by the central governing bodies. In the last few years, only one such campaign has been approved without asking a fee. Kim Bruning, 09/12/2011 21:01:

...

On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 08:32:06PM +0000, B?ria Lima wrote:

Not IRC, the private mailing list with Chapters + staff, I'm sure you heard of it before.

Indeed I have.

Just for an action on meta, I'm sure meta has the same rule.

As a Meta admin I can confirm it. ;-) The banner was disabled almost at the same time by both Béria and Brion;[1] Brion used his sysadmin flag to get temporary sysop flag and didn't notice Béria's action; he correctly left a notification as expected from a Meta sysop.[2] Nemo [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralNoticeLogs?log_type=campaign… [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Research_talk:Dynamics_of_Onli…

Yaroslav M. Blanter

9 Dec 9 Dec

8:55 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] Is a research banner "advertising" of the evil sort?

...

And again, that was not a "on-wiki consensus": That was an action who started with a staff of WMF, discussed privately, put on air, discussed

...

a private mailing list, and took off. When I need to do anything on

en.wiki

...

I follow en.wiki, until there, don't try to imposse them to me.

We discussed that and approved it by RCOM in public. Our archives are public. There is actually absolutely nothing that RCOM does and that is not public. The archives of the mailing lists and the etherpad meetings are all online. Cheers Yaroslav

Risker

9:01 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] Is a research banner "advertising" of the evil sort?

On 9 December 2011 15:32, Béria Lima <berialima(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Unless I'm missing something critical here, I believe it was the Research Committee, not the WMF staff, who approved the use of a central notice banner. Whether or not that is within their scope is a separate issue that should be discussed elsewhere. I am pleased to see the creation of a page at Meta to discuss Central Notice requests. Risker/Anne

Nathan

9:27 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] Is a research banner "advertising" of the evil sort?

On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 9 December 2011 15:32, Béria Lima <berialima(a)gmail.com> wrote:

FWIW, the banner was switched on by Philippe (using his WMF account). ~Nathan

Philippe Beaudette

10 Dec 10 Dec

6:05 a.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] Is a research banner "advertising" of the evil sort?

On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

FWIW, the banner was switched on by Philippe (using his WMF account). ~Nathan

Yep. After an official request from the Research Committee through their assigned staff liaison, Dario. :) pb

Thomas Morton

9 Dec 9 Dec

3 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] Is a research banner "advertising" of the evil sort?

Some thoughts. I don't see the problem, myself. There's no product, service or

...

commercial interest being advertised. It's for users who are logged in, not all readers. People who choose to participate actually receive money, which can then be donated to the IRC or Wikimedia.

Advertisement doesn't need to be commercial. In fact the idea of advertisement is as much about raising profile as it is about selling a specific product. Harvard (for example) is essentially a commercial entity, and having their logo at the top of Wikipedia pages (even if it is just for logged in users) is good advertising. As is the potential of being seen linked to Wikipedia. There has also been suggestions that the Berkman Center has existing links to the foundation - I've not picked up what those are but if it involved funding that adds even more of a twist. (some hints on what connection exists would be useful :)). I think another concern is; why is this something WP wants to support? does it help our goals? Does it advance anything?

...

Yet other objections are based on privacy concerns (over being redirected to a third party website)... Such concerns are so overblown, I'm tempted to advise those who raise them to switch off their cellphones and disconnect their modems lest the Illuminati (or Fox News) use these signals to remote into their brains.

I do not think these concerns are initially unreasonable. Within the community exposing someones identity, details or IP without consent is strongly frowned upon. I don't think it is problematic to object to any sort of link being made. Obviously that issue has been assuaged, and it appears the researchers took major steps to remove the IP link concern (praise to them for that). The extension to this objection is that none of this is detailed *before* clicking the link (or after it, really). So the access path could be improved dramatically.

...

If I'm honest, I think most people are just upset that someone didn't personally ask them first.

I'm not sure why you pitch this as an invalid problem :) It's certainly my only concern, especially as the community objected in the first place with advice to seek support from RCOM and the Foundation. I realise in doing so we may have made our own bed to lie in... but I also do not think it unreasonable to expect RCOM to come back and *inform* the community of what is about to happen. This is once again and example of the meta level organisation making community level decisions without any input. Not a good collaborative situation! Tom

Marc A. Pelletier

3:18 p.m.

On 09/12/2011 10:00 AM, Thomas Morton wrote:

...

I think another concern is; why is this something WP wants to support? does it help our goals? Does it advance anything?

We're an educational resource concerned with the diffusion of knowledge. They are primary researchers that will publish their data and conclusion with an open license, thus adding to the "sum of all knowledge". I think those objectives are eminently compatible. If we think of ourselves as a college campus[1], then allowing researchers to post flyers for human test subjects in exchange for a small compensation (to the subjects) is downright /traditional/. -- Coren / Marc [1] I always thought that was a surprisingly apt analogy; think of the projects as departments/buildings, and the WMF as the administration everyone loves to whine about. Somehow, that makes it less surprising when you note the protesters on the grass and the silly politics. :-)

Thomas Morton

3:26 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] Is a research banner "advertising" of the evil sort?

...

Which is a reasonable response; and I'd probably agree with you. Although it does lead to another question; a lot of studies are conducted around the world, many of them would benefit dramatically from publicity on a "top-5" website. How far does supporting those that ask go? What sort of precedent does it set? Were Berkman given preference here for some as-yet-unknown reason (as is being suggested). The latter point could be fairly damaging to our credibility. Again; issues that should really be worked out in advance? Tom

Marc A. Pelletier

3:36 p.m.

On 09/12/2011 10:26 AM, Thomas Morton wrote:

...

Although it does lead to another question; a lot of studies are conducted around the world, many of them would benefit dramatically from publicity on a "top-5" website. How far does supporting those that ask go?

I think we should do our best to help. Mind you, not that many studies would benefit that strongly from such exposure - we /are/ a pretty biased sample, and unless the study is actually interested in participants in a collaborative endeavor (as this once clearly was) they are unlikely to come to us for support. I suppose if there ends up being many of them, we'd have to sit down and find some more streamlined system. Perhaps a landing page where such projects are collected, and a pointer to /that/ instead. Or something else we haven't thought of yet. The point is, I think this is the first that wasn't done informally with talk page invitations or email; so they're breaking new ground. Kinks and ruffled feathers are par for the course anytime you try something new. -- Coren / Marc