Qual seria a ação prática a fazer? Deixar de lado
o domínio principal e
a construção de artigos para passar a vigiar (stalker) as pessoas que ...
editam no domínio principal? Ter um grupinho de usuários que se especialize
(dedique boa parte do tempo) a vigiar as ações dos outros?
Alias, isso até acontece um pouco, com usuários vigiando os seus
desafetos, e os desafetos acusando o outro usuário de estar perseguindo
suas edições, e os passarem os dias brigando gerando um clima bem
desconfortável na wiki até ambos serem bloqueados e/ou ambos largarem o
projeto por não aguentarem mais.
É totalmente normal (esperado) que o nível de vigilancia diminua
conforme a pessoa vá conseguindo confiança. E é isso que tem que ser feito
senão paramos de construir artigos e ficamos vigiando um ao outro. Só se
volta a ter uma vigilância maior quando se encontra algum problema (algum
erro vem a tona), e depois que passar um tempo desde esse erro sem ter
outro problema adquire de novo a confiança e volta a ter menos vigilância.
Afinal, qual foi exatamente o problema que levou a essa preocupação? Não
há outras formas de se melhorar que não seja vigiar as edições dos outros?
Vejo algumas reclamações de eliminação, reversão, bloqueio indevidos,
mas minha impressão é que esses casos sempre são resolvidos no final, seja
o usuário mudando o comportamento, seja perdendo o estatuto / confiança,
seja decidindo que não havia nada de errado.
Claudio Barbosa
2012/9/26 Raylton P. Sousa <raylton.sousa(a)gmail.com>
É disso que estou falando Oona. E tento falar sempre.
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
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediabr-l
_______________________________________________
WikimediaBR-l mailing list
WikimediaBR-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org