Para quem é novato o sistema wiki parece
perfeito... Com centenas de
pessoas revisando as páginas, vandalismos sendo desfeitos instantaneamente,
com toda praticidade que a web oferece.
No entanto, existe algo que embora me incomode muito, estranhamente
parece ser ignorado ou não ser percebido.
É o fato de que a atenção para as edições dos usuários vai diminuindo
gradativamente conforme eles vão ganhando confiança da comunidade(me atrevo
a dizer que quando conseguem o status de "auto-confirmados" a atenção nas
suas edições cai praticamente pela metade e até menos).
Existe o caso dos administradores que parecem ser melhores vigiados,
porque muitos casos de suposta arbitrariedade vem a tona eventualmente. Mas
isso também é um mito.
As ações administrativas são apenas levadas realmente ao público quando
a pessoa que sofreu a ação se sente ofendida ou quando o assunto que se
discute é do interesse de uma parcela maior de usuários.
Ou seja, uma atenção maior só é dada aos administradores quando um
determinado número de usuários é afetado diretamente. E falo sem medo de
errar, que eles têm a liberdade de trabalhar em outras tarefas mais
triviais de forma arbitraria sim(embora não esteja afirmando que façam).
Não é anormal que isso aconteça, afinal de contas há um número muito
maior{{carece de fontes}} de vandalismos simples e VDAs óbvios, que
precisam ser revertidos, e por simples lógica direcionamos nossa atenção
para eles.
No entanto esse fato cria um fenômeno muito desagradável e que por ser
tratado com tamanho descaso pode, naturalmente, não só destruir o nome
da Wikipédia(que a Wikimedia tanto explora na sua busca por mais
voluntários). Como trazer consequências muito mais greves.
Esse fenômeno eu chamo de "vandalismos confiáveis".
É estranho, mas é da natureza humana supor que quando uma pessoa
confiável está com uma faca ela vai apenas cortar uma carne para o almoço e
em contra partida supor que a desconhecida vai cometer algo ilícito. Mas
devemos assumir que em certos casos os pepeis se invertem e que atenção
nunca é demais.
Principalmente pelo fato das pessoas mudarem drasticamente ao longo do
tempo e que todos temos interesses que nos
tornam invariavelmente parciais(o que é notado mais claramente conforme
ganhamos mais poder).
Portanto se não estivermos atentos a essas mudanças, pode ser tarde.
Mas voltando aos "vandalismos confiáveis" devo dizer que eles não se
resumem a um simples "Hoax". Em geral são informações muito bem
estruturadas devido ao conhecimento que os usuários têm do mecanismo wiki.
E normalmente não podem ser detectados e as chaces de serem diminuem
drasticamente com a diminuição da atenção em usuários confiáveis, por isso
os considero o "maior" desafio da construção colaborativa.
Peço encarecidamente que todos pensem um pouco sobre isso.
Esses poucos casos de manipulação que vem à tona não são nada comparados
aos que permanecem protegidos pelo manto da confiabilidade.
Isso não é mais uma teoria da conspiração, agora é um desafio real, que
precisa ser quantificado e resolvido o quanto antes.
Com os melhores cumprimentos!
2012/9/25 Oona Castro <ocastro(a)wikimedia.org>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Sarah Stierch <sstierch(a)wikimedia.org>
Date: Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 4:46 PM
Subject: [Wmfcc-l] Corruption in Wikiland? Paid PR scandal erupts at
Wikipedia
To: wmfcc-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57514677-93/corruption-in-wikiland-paid-pr…
Concerned Wikipedians raised the alarm Monday that two trusted men --
one a trustee of the Wikimedia Foundation UK, the other a respected
Wikipedian In Residence -- are allegedly editing Wikipedia pages and
facilitating front-page placement for their pay-for-play, publicity-seeking
clients.
Jimmy Wales is not pleased.
It began this week when an interesting discussion started on the DYK
("Did You Know") discussion
page.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Potential…
Roger Bamkin, trustee of the Wikimedia Foundation UK, whose LinkedIn
page describes him as a high-return-earning PR
consultant<http://www.linkedin.com/pub/roger-bamkin/52/ab8/b59>59>,
appeared to be using Wikipedia's main page "Did You Know" feature and the
resources of Wikipedia's GLAM
WikiProject<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM>(Galleriesleries, Libraries,
Archives and Museums) initiative to pimp his
client's project.
Bamkin's current client is the country of
Gibraltar<http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Register_of_Interests#Roger_Bamki…
.
In August, Gibraltar was featured as a Wikipedia DYK front page feature an
astonishing seventeen
times<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Recent_additions/2012/Augus…
that's an unusual frequency of every 2-3 days.
Other than the Olympics, it is the only repeated topic throughout the
month.
The "Did You Know" section on Wikipedia's Main Page publicizes new or
expanded articles - the publicity viewership on Wikipedia's front page is estimated
in the hundreds of millions per
month.<http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesPageViewsMonthlyOriginal.htm&…
*Wales: "wildly inappropriate"*
When Wikipedia's founder was told about Bamkin's client in relation to
Wikimedia UK, Jimmy Wales
wrote<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Gibraltarpedia.…UK>:
It is wildly inappropriate for a board member of a chapter, or anyone
else in an official role of any kind in a charity associated with
Wikipedia, to take payment from customers in exchange for securing
favorable placement on the front page of Wikipedia or anywhere else. -
*Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)*
At the same time Bamkin's consulting work as a representative of
Wikimedia Foundation reared its ugly head, Wikipedia community members
exposed the SEO-focused, PR-strategy Wikipedia page editing business run by
respected GLAM editor Max Klein.
Both Klein and Bamkin are "Wikipedians In
Residence,<http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedian_in_Residence>…
a role held by Wikipedia editors in high esteem who liaison with galleries,
libraries, archives and museums to facilitate information between the
organizations and Wikipedia community editors.
Wikipedians In Residence are not allowed to operate if there are
conflicts of interest and are not allowed to edit the pages of the
organization they liaison with.
Maximillion Klein <http://notconfusing.com/about/> runs a consulting
business called "untrikiwiki <http://untrikiwiki.com/>" whose
self-description explains:
A positive Wikipedia article is invaluable SEO: it's almost guaranteed
to be a top three Google hit. Surprisingly this benefit of writing for
Wikipedia is underutilized, but relates exactly the lack of true expertise
in the field. ... WE HAVE THE EXPERTISE NEEDED to navigate the complex maze
surrounding 'conflict of interest' editing on Wikipedia. With more than
eight years of experience, over 10,000 edits, and countless community
connections we offer holistic Wikipedia services.
When the concerned Wikipedia editors asked Jimmy Wales about
untrikiwiki (in the thread about Roger Bamkin) Wales commented:
I was unaware of this case, and haven't had time to look into it. If
what you say is accurate, then of course I'm extremely unhappy about it.
It's disgusting.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:54, 17 September 2012
*No specific Wikimedia UK policy on "paid editing"*
At this time, there is no Wikimedia UK policy against "paid editing"
for Wikipedia pages, though Jimmy Wales has
said<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Paid_ed…
paid editing is against Wikipedia values and policy.
However, there's no doubt that the lack of a clear policy casts a
shadow over the public's perception of Wikipedia's ethical standing.
If PR editing from Wikipedia's representatives -- paid or not -- were
to be openly tolerated, Wikipedia's reputation will most certainly be
harmed in a way that is different from the harm done from vandalism or
covert PR editing.
In the case of Roger Bamkin, a director of Wikimedia UK is advertising
himself, as a Wikimedia UK director, for paid consultancy jobs, and directs
and engages in editing on Wikipedia in the service of his personal client.
Bamkin's LinkedIn
page<http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/roger-bamkin/52/ab8/b59>statesstates:
*Roger Bamkin's Experience*
Consultant Victuallers Ltd May 2012 - Present (5 months)
I've been involved with QRpedia and Monmouthpedia which have delivered
> £2m paybeack on £50K investment.
Bamkin's formal Declaration of Interests for Wikimedia
UK<http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Register_of_Interests#Roger_Bamkin> states
there is no conflict of interest (COI) with his role, access to Wikipedia
resources and contract with Gibraltar as there is no official relationship
between Gibraltar and Wikimedia UK.
But to the outside eye this might appear as a financial conflict of
interest among the people who are handling the money donated to support
Wikipedia. Not to mention how unfair it is.
You may be wondering how the country of Gibraltar ended up in the
middle of a Wikipedia PR editing scandal. To answer that question, we can
visit Wikipedia.
Monmouthpedia <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monmouthpedia> is a
Wikipedia project that links Wikipedia and the town of Monmouth in South
Wales by the use of smartphone scannable QR codes.
As the story is told, the idea for Monmouthpedia came when Roger Bamkin
and Steve Virgin (former Wikimedia UK board member, current PR consultant
and Bamkin's business
partner<http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Register_of_Interests#Roger_Bamkin&…)
gave a TEDx talk about their Wikipedia QR-code project
QRpedia<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rO6ZrWJeaOM&feature=share>=share>.
From the audience, Wikipedia editor Steve Cummings (also Bamkin's
business
partner<http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Register_of_Interests#Roger_Bamkin&…)
suggested they "do a whole town."
Wales Online
wrote<http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2012/07/23/monmouth-wikipedia-project-inspires-gibraltar-91466-31450018/>:
He [Bamkin] picked Gibraltar, at the southern tip of Spain, as his next
project after being flooded with invitations from places around the world
hoping to be the second Wikipedia town.
Enter Gibraltarpedia. In a feature yesterday, BBC News explained
Gibraltarpedia <http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-19544299> as the
way in which Gibraltar is using QR codes and Wikipedia to target and
attract tourists.
While not as straightforward as untrikiwiki's open offer to navigate
tricky Wikipedia conflict of interest rules as a service for for paying
clients, Gibraltarpedia may be a cool idea but it still comes off as little
more than free advertising for tourism - setting up a walled garden of
articles all with an eye to promoting tourism - and potential investment -
in Gibraltar.
Seventeen features on Wikipedia's front page in one month is in equal
measures strangely admirable, somewhat saddening and completely worrying.
From a 2009 statement by Jimmy
Wales<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Paid_e…es>:
It is not ok with me that anyone ever set up a service selling their
services as a Wikipedia editor, administrator, bureaucrat, etc. I will
personally block any cases that I am shown. (...)
(...) Would we block a good editor if we found out after the fact is a
very different question. We have traditions of forgiveness and working with
people to improve their behavior and ours whenever we can - things are
never so simple. Of course it is possible to imagine a situation where
someone can and should be forgiven... because that's very common.
That's not the same as saying that it would ever be ok, as a matter of
policy. Just imagine the disaster for our reputation.
I think many people would consider the idea of "Did You Know" - and
Wikipedia's front page - being successfully used in a for-profit commercial
venture by any entity to be harmful to Wikipedia, reputation or otherwise.
But then again, Wikipedia and alleged conflicts of interest are not
known to be handled with practicality - or clarity. Just ask Philip
Roth <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19527797>.
--
*Sarah Stierch*
*Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow*
>>Mind the gap! Support Wikipedia women's outreach: donate
today<https://donate.wikimedia.org/>
<<
--
*Sarah Stierch*
*Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow*
>>Mind the gap! Support Wikipedia women's outreach: donate
today<https://donate.wikimedia.org/>
<<
_______________________________________________
Wmfcc-l mailing list
Wmfcc-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wmfcc-l
_______________________________________________
WikimediaBR-l mailing list
WikimediaBR-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediabr-l
_______________________________________________
WikimediaBR-l mailing list
WikimediaBR-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org