Saiu no site
http://veja.abril.com.br/noticia/vida-digital/planalto-pode-ser-impedido-de…
E o Reinaldo Azevedo republicou em seu blog, onde há 47 comentários
http://veja.abril.com.br/blog/reinaldo/geral/planalto-pode-ser-impedido-de-…
Planalto pode ser impedido de editar Wikipédia Às vésperas das eleições,
enciclopédia liga radar para que artigos de candidatos não sejam editados
de maneira tendenciosa durante campanha
Renata Honorato
Nesta semana, o jornal *Folha de S. Paulo* revelou que computadores
instalados no Palácio do Planalto, sede do governo federal em Brasília,
foram usados para *editar artigos de políticos na Wikipédia
<http://veja.abril.com.br/noticia/brasil/servidor-do-planalto-inseriu-elogio…>*
–
precisamente, a página do candidato do PT ao governo de São Paulo,
Alexandre Padilha, que citava suspeitas de corrupção, foi alterada por
servidores federais. As mudanças foram realizadas no ano passado, antes do
início da campanha, mas o serviço colaborativo já se prepara para a
enxurrada de edições tendenciosas que tradicionalmente ocorrem às vésperas
de eleições, criando "perfis-pinóquio" de candidatos. A ação, que é comum
no Brasil e exterior, é repelida por um exército de editores, que ao
primeiro sinal de conflito de interesses reedita um texto na enciclopédia
virtual. Em caso de reincidência, a Wikipédia não perdoa e bloqueia por
tempo determinado o endereço IP (sequência de números que identifica um
dispositivo em uma rede local ou pública) responsável pela mudança no termo.
*Leia também: Servidor do Planalto inseriu elogios a Padilha na Wikipédia
<http://veja.abril.com.br/noticia/brasil/servidor-do-planalto-inseriu-elogio…>*
*Com parceria acadêmica, Wikipédia quer mais brasileiros*
<http://veja.abril.com.br/noticia/vida-digital/com-parceria-academica-wikipe…>
Na prática, os computadores instalados no Palácio do Planalto podem ser
impedidos de editar artigos da enciclopédia, caso a comunidade identifique
alterações tendenciosas, que geralmente exaltam qualidades e omitem fatos
de interesse público. Nos Estados Unidos, por exemplo, uma faixa de IPs da
Câmara dos Deputados foi bloqueada por dez dias depois que a Wikipédia
identificou que computadores da sede do governo americano tinham
vandalizado artigos. Na ocasião, a *página
<http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acusa%C3%A7%C3%B5es_de_falsifica%C3%A7%C3%A3o_…>*
sobre a teoria da conspiração que diz ser falso o Programa Apollo e sua
chegada à Lua, acusava o governo de Cuba de espalhar os boatos.
Segundo Katherine Maher, diretora de comunicação da Fundação Wikimedia,
gestora da Wikipédia, o dono do IP em questão — o governo americano, no
caso — já tinha sido notificado sobre as edições inapropriadas. Como aviso,
o endereço chegou a ser bloqueado por um dia. As alterações continuaram a
acontecer mesmo depois do alerta e, como castigo, a enciclopédia cancelou
por dez dias qualquer edição feita a partir de um IP da Câmara dos
Deputados dos Estados Unidos. “A decisão partiu de um membro da comunidade
Wikipédia em inglês. São eles que tomam as decisões com base nas políticas
editoriais e só bloqueiam um acesso em casos extremos”, explicou a
executiva ao site de VEJA.
Lucas Teles, estudante de medicina de 28 anos, é um dos administradores da
Wikipédia em português. Teles vive em Salvador (BA) e desde 2008 colabora
com a enciclopédia. “As edições tendenciosas acontecem com frequência. O
que não é comum é identificar a origem do IP responsável pela mudança”,
explica. De acordo com Teles, muitos endereços já foram bloqueados no
Brasil por causa dessas alterações. “Caso recente é o do ex-senador mineiro
Clésio Andrade (PMDB). Um IP relacionado ao político foi identificado por
fazer mudanças sensíveis no artigo e isso fez com que o endereço fosse
bloqueado por 45 dias”, conta Teles.
Katherine afirma que as políticas de edições variam de idioma para idioma,
mas na maioria dos casos é proibido que um usuário edite seu próprio artigo
ou que pessoas próximas a ele façam o mesmo. O objetivo, diz a diretora, é
evitar conflito de interesse. “Claro que nem todos seguem à risca essa
regra editorial. É por isso que de tempos em tempos vemos políticos
alterando suas próprias páginas. Historicamente, o tiro sempre sai pela
culatra quando um parlamentar, uma empresa ou celebridade tentar melhorar a
sua imagem na Wikipédia. Os editores reeditam o artigo e a imprensa publica
reportagens sobre a manobra”, diz a porta-voz da enciclopédia.
Para evitar que computadores instalados em sedes do governo sejam usados
para modificar de forma inapropriada artigos na Wikipédia, programadores
independentes criaram robôs que atualizam perfis no Twitter a cada
alteração feita a partir de um IP do governo. “Essas contas já funcionam
nos Estados Unidos, Rússia e Grã-Bretanha. Nada impede que alguém crie uma
solução similar ao @congressedits <https://twitter.com/congressedits> para
monitorar as edições feitas a partir do congresso ou senado brasileiros”,
explica Katherine. E foi o que aconteceu dias após a revelação das edições
do Planalto. A conta @brwikiedits <https://twitter.com/brwikiedits> no
Twitter já está no ar e IPs do Serviço Federal de Processamento de Dados
(Serpro), que fornece serviços de TI ao governo, são fiscalizados
diariamente e publicados no microblog.
*Oona Castro
<http://veja.abril.com.br/noticia/vida-digital/com-parceria-academica-wikipe…>*,
consultora do Programa Catalisador da Wikimedia no Brasil, explica que
funcionários de empresas, relações públicas de celebridades e assessores de
políticos de todos os níveis da federação tendem a editar artigos na
enciclopédia. “Se uma dessas pessoas edita uma página de maneira isenta,
não há problema. A questão complica quando interpretam que a Wikipédia é
uma plataforma de divulgação e quando querem omitir fatos já reportados em
outras fontes ou incluir informações sem referência”, diz Oona. “Nesses
casos, os editores mais experientes e ativos simplesmente reeditam os
artigos.”
Boa iniciativa.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Nicole Ebber <nicole.ebber(a)wikimedia.de>
Date: 2014-08-01 17:28 GMT-03:00
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Insights of the Chapters Dialogue are online!
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Dear Wikimedia friends,
I am happy to announce that we have finally released the documentation
of the Chapters Dialogue project.
You might probably remember: The Chapters Dialogue was the project
that was initiated by Wikimedia Deutschland in spring 2013, my former
colleague Kira Krämer interviewed representatives from Wikimedia
Chapters, the Wikimedia Foundation as well as Funds Dissemination and
Affiliations Committee. Kira and I presented the insights at several
occasions already, and now the written report is at your disposal.
Please find all the information on the Meta page:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapters_Dialogue
For those of you who are already on their way into the weekend, to
London, or reading via mobile, I’m copying the Executive Summary of
the findings at the end of this email.
Luckily, Wikimania is coming and I will be available to answer your
questions and reflect on ideas or concerns with anyone interested.
I’ll be in London from Tuesday till Monday, and will host a session on
the Chapters Dialogue insights on Saturday from 12:15 to 13:00 in room
Auditorium 1[1]. Attendees of this session will witness the premier of
the Chapters Dialogue movie, which will be released to the public
shortly after. If you cannot attend the session and don’t find me
hanging around at the Wikimedia Deutschland booth in the Community
Village, you can reach me via my user page[2] or via email.
I would like to take this opportunity to again express my sincere
gratitude to everyone who participated, be it as one of the 94
interviewees or one of our mentors, critical friend or supporter in
any other way. It’s been a blast!
A very special and very warm thank you goes out to Kira. Together, we
rocked this last year and went through most exciting times. Kira is no
longer working for WMDE, but I promised to forward her every comment
and email that we receive from you.
Best regards,
Nicole
[1]
https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions/The_State_of_Wikimedia…
[2] https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Nicole_Ebber_%28WMDE%29
Wikimedia Deutschland – Chapters Dialogue
Nicole Ebber (Project Lead), Kira Krämer (Project Manager)
Executive Summary
Wikimedia is a global movement: the Wikimedia Foundation, the
Wikimedia Chapters and the international communities work and fight
for Free Knowledge. In spring 2013, Wikimedia Deutschland initiated a
structured assessment of the movement organisations’ needs, goals and
stories: the Chapters Dialogue. Nicole Ebber led the project and hired
Kira Krämer, who adapted the Design Thinking methodology to the
process.
In the course of the project (August 2013-February 2014), 94 movement
representatives (volunteers and staff) from Chapters, the Wikimedia
Foundation as well as the Funds Dissemination Committee and the
Affiliations Committee were interviewed.
The interviewees spoke about their understanding of roles and
relationships within the movement, of responsibilities that come with
being a Chapter or being the WMF. They described their goals and
stories, what support they need and who they think is in a position to
offer this support.
The synthesis of all the interviews resulted in an overall picture of
the movement and a distillate of the most pressing issues. The
findings and insights cover these main areas, which have had a great
influence on the movement as it is today.
Lack of empathy and the persistence of old narratives: All the
conflicts described in this report are based on causes that are deep
rooted and manifested in people’s perceptions about each other that
still persist today. Each party in the movement has its own needs and
tries to solve issues in its own interests, while lacking empathy for
other views, opinions, contexts and behaviour.
Measuring success when exploring new territory: The movement lacks a
definition of what impact actually means to it, as all Wikimedia
activities can be described as exploring entirely new territory.
Chapters struggle with proving that they and their activities are
worth invested in while WMF has difficulty providing a clear movement
strategy.
Organisational structures: Organisational structures have grown
organically without any official recommendation for or analysis of the
best organisational form to achieve impact. The lack of a shared
understanding about the Chapters’ role and contribution to the
movement causes severe insecurities and is fuelling conflicts and
misperceptions.
Money-driven decisions: Creating a consensus about money, its
collection and responsible dissemination (donors’ trust!) is scarcely
possible. The Haifa trauma persistently blights the relationship
between WMF and the Chapters, fuelled by additional disagreement about
the new fundraising and grantmaking processes.
The gap in leadership: Who should take the leadership role and what
should leadership in the Wikimedia movement look like? Adopting the
narrowed focus, the WMF clearly states that it does not see the
development of movement entities as their duty. Chapters on the other
hand expect the WMF to take a leading role in Chapters’ development,
while the WMF expects Chapters to be more proactive.
None of these conflicts can be viewed in isolation, and no solution
can be developed without a thorough understanding and frank
conversations about the causes in the first place. We therefore
consider that it would be highly irresponsible to suggest solutions to
any of the described issues. Instead, we have distilled tough
questions from the insights that need to be addressed urgently and
answered in an open and comprehensive manner:
1. What do we as a movement want to achieve? Do we run a website or
foster free knowledge? Why are we doing the things we do, and what
for?
2. How do we define impact when exploring new territory? And how do we
measure success?
3. What is the role of the Wikimedia Foundation?
4. How do we want to communicate with each other? How can we build the
necessary empathy and learn from each other? How can we overcome the
old narrative and perceptions?
5. Where does the money come from and where should it go? Should money
be the limiting factor when striving for Free Knowledge?
6. What movement framework is best suited to fulfil the Wikimedia mission?
The way things are at present inhibits the movement from striving
effectively for Free Knowledge. Instead of using its full potential to
further its mission, it revolves around itself. The common mission is
at serious risk if the movement does not tackle the causes of its
problems.
These tough questions can only be approached in a structured and
professional way, with dedication and commitment. There is no point in
tinkering with the symptoms and finding single-problem solutions.
The Chapters Dialogue concludes with the recommendation to build upon
the insights and to initiate a sequel: the design of a framework for
the Wikimedia movement in which it can work strongly and effectively
towards its mission in a professional way, yet stay true to its
grassroots and maintain its diversity.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
--
Everton Zanella Alvarenga (also Tom)
Open Knowledge Brasil - Rede pelo Conhecimento Livre
http://br.okfn.org
Sei que as coisas no Brasil andam meio paradas e não há perpectivas de ter
gente que bloga. Mas vai que.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Tilman Bayer <tbayer(a)wikimedia.org>
Date: 2014-08-01 1:56 GMT-03:00
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing the new Wikimedia blog: a place for
movement news
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Hi all,
Please find below the text of an announcement that was just posted at
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/07/31/introducing-the-new-blog/ ;)
----
Today we’re excited to announce the relaunch of the Wikimedia blog, with a
new design and new features intended to make it easier for people to
participate in sharing knowledge about the Wikimedia movement. We also hope
this relaunch serves as a very public reminder: today is always the day you
can–and should!–contribute a blog post.
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Blog/Drafts>
The Wikimedia Foundation blog was started in 2008
<https://blog.wikimedia.org/2008/04/11/welcome/> as a place for staff of
the WMF to share their work. Early blog posts often focused on the work of
the Engineering team, including updates about the MediaWiki platform. News
from the technology team remains a significant portion of the content
shared on the blog today, but it has been joined by a riotous mix of
content from every corner of the Wikimedia world.
Over the past six years, the blog has evolved and taken on a character
closer to the movement of which it is a part. In April 2012, only 5 percent
of blog posts were from authors who were not employed by the Wikimedia
Foundation. Today community-authored posts often make up more than half of
the total posts in a given month. The blog has become a platform for the
movement, with more contributors, more languages, and increasingly diverse
subjects and geographies. The volume of posts has grown tremendously: we
frequently publish two or more posts a day. We long ago stopped referring
to it as the Foundation blog — instead, it is a blog for the entire
Wikimedia movement.
Today’s relaunch is designed to reflect some of these changes. We’ve
dropped the word Foundation from the blog’s logo: visually, it is now the
Wikimedia blog. The design changes offer more space to highlight stories
and updates from across the movement, as well as different types of
content. (For example, the big, beautiful images from initiatives like Wiki
Loves Monument and Wiki Loves Earth will be right at home here.) Blog posts
that attract lots of comments and discussion will be automatically featured
on the homepage, making it easier to see what people are talking about.
Posts in languages other than English will be easier to find and read,
offering more opportunities to engage with other language communities.
Some other notable updates include:
- Direct comment publishing with no moderator delay, thanks to a custom
privacy-friendly captcha solution.
- A responsive design that works better on varying screen sizes: Catch
up with the movement as you commute.
- The code for the theme will be released on Github: We’re looking
forward to your pull request for bug fixes.
- Easier and faster updates thanks to dedicated tech support.
- An admin tool for simple transfer of licensing information for images
from Wikimedia Commons, to easily and correctly attribute the work of
community members.
- Enabling multi-author bylines, reflecting the collaborative production
process of many posts (such as this one)
With all these changes, it’s still a work in progress. In the year since we
embarked on a redesign process (implemented by Exygy <http://exygy.com/>, a
San Francisco software firm) we have continued to learn about how the
community uses the blog; there are additional tweaks we may add to the look
and feel in the future. We’re still working on how to best categorize posts
in a way that works for longtime community members, as well as people new
to the movement. In the spirit of Cunningham’s Law
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cunningham%27s_Law>, we thought we’d start
with Movement, Technology, Events, and Foundation as the main navigation
categories, and learn from the feedback about how they work for readers.
You will probably find other features you’d like to nominate for continued
evolution. Please do. (And point out any bugs in the comments… we’re still
finding some.)
In planning this relaunch, we had extensive conversations with members of
the WMF Operations and Engineering teams about whether we should continue
to host the blog on our servers, or move to a third-party host. We
reconfirmed that the mission of the Operations team is to operate one the
world’s most popular websites. Rather than staff up to support the blog, we
jointly concluded that it made sense to work with a third-party host,
Automattic, that has particular expertise in this area and understands our
needs and values, including a commitment to free software. They have been a
strong partner, working to meet our privacy standards, disabling some of
their standard analytics tools and clarifying how they handle certain
information. They have also altered their WordPress VIP Terms of Service
<http://vip.wordpress.com/hosting-tos/> to accommodate Creative Commons
licenses.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, it’s taken the care and attention of many people to
seamlessly move so much movement history from one platform to another. We’d
like to thank the many members of the community who have been–and no doubt
will be–providing suggestions and bug reports for the blog platform (with a
special thanks to Jeremy Baron). A very big thanks to former WMF
Communications team member Matthew Roth, who spearheaded this process and
led the redesign work in 2013; to Terry Chay, who provided invaluable
technical advice on the process; to the WMF Legal, UX and Operations teams,
in particular Luis Villa and Rob Halsell; and to the teams at Exygy (in
particular Justin Carboneau and Zach Berke) and at Automattic.
A final reminder: Like the Wikimedia projects, the blog is created by you.
You can draft posts directly on Meta, and the Communications team will work
with you to edit and publish, according to a transparent editorial process:
it’s now common for posts to be created in full view of anyone who is
inclined to read or participate. This blog is a platform for the movement,
and we’re here to help you share your message
<http://vip.wordpress.com/hosting-tos/> with the world.
*The WMF Communications Team*
*Katherine, Tilman, Carlos, and Heather*
--
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
--
Everton Zanella Alvarenga (also Tom)
Open Knowledge Brasil - Rede pelo Conhecimento Livre
http://br.okfn.org