As far as I could see this story lacked any facts, not even one tangible example of attempted manipulation. I'd appreciate a link if I misunderstood the press coverage.
It might be a good use of resources to just keep saying "please provide an example" before responding to what is probably itself fake news. Otherwise one keeps on focusing on flying teapots rather than stuff that matters for open knowledge.
Thanks, Fae https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LGBT+ http://telegram.me/wmlgbt
On 12 Jan 2018 21:48, "Lucy Crompton-Reid" < lucy.crompton-reid@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
Dear all
I just wanted to give the Wikimedia UK community a heads up that Wikipedia may be in the spotlight in the coming days, as the Daily Mail and the Sun are planning to run a story tomorrow about how MPs have (apparently) been given briefings about concerns Russian trolls are planting ‘fake news’ on Wikipedia to corroborate the false information they spread on Twitter. The stories are likely to say that not enough checks are being done by Wikipedia to make sure the content on the site is not fake.
I'm not personally aware of any such briefings to MPs regarding Wikipedia, although the most recent oral evidence to the DCMS Fake News inquiry does refer to known Russian sources on WikiLeaks (with particular reference to the US election). Obviously I'm assuming that the UK press will know the difference between Wikipedia and WikiLeaks, but the claims are apparently linked to the inquiry and this is all I've been able to uncover this evening.
The Wikimedia Foundation press team has sent a short response to these claims, as follows:
Wikipedia’s open, transparent model is uniquely resistant to misinformation. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, to fix mistakes or expand articles, provided their contributions are neutral and based in reliable sources. Thousands of people do just this on Wikipedia every day. Nearly every edit ever made to Wikipedia is available to the public, so anyone can see how an article has changed over time. Wikipedia is always improving, and this open model creates accountability and means that bias tends to be rooted out quickly, leading to a more balance version of the facts over time.
Best wishes
Lucy
Hi Fae
No, I don't think you misunderstood the coverage!
Wikimedia UK hasn't actually responded at all to this and we didn't receive any enquiries - the Mail and the Sun got in touch directly with the Foundation who provided the statement.
Cheers Lucy
On 15 January 2018 at 10:50, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
As far as I could see this story lacked any facts, not even one tangible example of attempted manipulation. I'd appreciate a link if I misunderstood the press coverage.
It might be a good use of resources to just keep saying "please provide an example" before responding to what is probably itself fake news. Otherwise one keeps on focusing on flying teapots rather than stuff that matters for open knowledge.
Thanks, Fae https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LGBT+ http://telegram.me/wmlgbt
On 12 Jan 2018 21:48, "Lucy Crompton-Reid" <lucy.crompton-reid@wikimedia. org.uk> wrote:
Dear all
I just wanted to give the Wikimedia UK community a heads up that Wikipedia may be in the spotlight in the coming days, as the Daily Mail and the Sun are planning to run a story tomorrow about how MPs have (apparently) been given briefings about concerns Russian trolls are planting ‘fake news’ on Wikipedia to corroborate the false information they spread on Twitter. The stories are likely to say that not enough checks are being done by Wikipedia to make sure the content on the site is not fake.
I'm not personally aware of any such briefings to MPs regarding Wikipedia, although the most recent oral evidence to the DCMS Fake News inquiry does refer to known Russian sources on WikiLeaks (with particular reference to the US election). Obviously I'm assuming that the UK press will know the difference between Wikipedia and WikiLeaks, but the claims are apparently linked to the inquiry and this is all I've been able to uncover this evening.
The Wikimedia Foundation press team has sent a short response to these claims, as follows:
Wikipedia’s open, transparent model is uniquely resistant to misinformation. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, to fix mistakes or expand articles, provided their contributions are neutral and based in reliable sources. Thousands of people do just this on Wikipedia every day. Nearly every edit ever made to Wikipedia is available to the public, so anyone can see how an article has changed over time. Wikipedia is always improving, and this open model creates accountability and means that bias tends to be rooted out quickly, leading to a more balance version of the facts over time.
Best wishes
Lucy
--
Lucy Crompton-Reid
Chief Executive
Wikimedia UK
+44 (0) 203 372 0762
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office Ground Floor, Europoint, 5 - 11 Lavington Street, London SE1 0NZ.
Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
Would it be worth Wikimedia UK's while to put out a blog post talking about quality control processes (ad-hoc as they are) on Wikipedia? Not so much as a direct reply - both because these articles look like they're just filling empty column inches, and because we obviously can't prove a negative (that "Russian trolls" *aren't* running amok on political articles). Rather as a timely reminder of what Wikipedia is about and how the 'wisdom of the crowd' makes it quite difficult to grossly distort its content. I could say something about what admins do, though there I'm sure there are people who spend more time on politicians' biographies than I do.
Harry Mitchell http://enwp.org/User:HJ +44 (0) 7507 536 971 Skype: harry_j_mitchell
On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 10:53 AM, Lucy Crompton-Reid < lucy.crompton-reid@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
Hi Fae
No, I don't think you misunderstood the coverage!
Wikimedia UK hasn't actually responded at all to this and we didn't receive any enquiries - the Mail and the Sun got in touch directly with the Foundation who provided the statement.
Cheers Lucy
On 15 January 2018 at 10:50, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
As far as I could see this story lacked any facts, not even one tangible example of attempted manipulation. I'd appreciate a link if I misunderstood the press coverage.
It might be a good use of resources to just keep saying "please provide an example" before responding to what is probably itself fake news. Otherwise one keeps on focusing on flying teapots rather than stuff that matters for open knowledge.
Thanks, Fae https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LGBT+ http://telegram.me/wmlgbt
On 12 Jan 2018 21:48, "Lucy Crompton-Reid" <lucy.crompton-reid@wikimedia. org.uk> wrote:
Dear all
I just wanted to give the Wikimedia UK community a heads up that Wikipedia may be in the spotlight in the coming days, as the Daily Mail and the Sun are planning to run a story tomorrow about how MPs have (apparently) been given briefings about concerns Russian trolls are planting ‘fake news’ on Wikipedia to corroborate the false information they spread on Twitter. The stories are likely to say that not enough checks are being done by Wikipedia to make sure the content on the site is not fake.
I'm not personally aware of any such briefings to MPs regarding Wikipedia, although the most recent oral evidence to the DCMS Fake News inquiry does refer to known Russian sources on WikiLeaks (with particular reference to the US election). Obviously I'm assuming that the UK press will know the difference between Wikipedia and WikiLeaks, but the claims are apparently linked to the inquiry and this is all I've been able to uncover this evening.
The Wikimedia Foundation press team has sent a short response to these claims, as follows:
Wikipedia’s open, transparent model is uniquely resistant to misinformation. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, to fix mistakes or expand articles, provided their contributions are neutral and based in reliable sources. Thousands of people do just this on Wikipedia every day. Nearly every edit ever made to Wikipedia is available to the public, so anyone can see how an article has changed over time. Wikipedia is always improving, and this open model creates accountability and means that bias tends to be rooted out quickly, leading to a more balance version of the facts over time.
Best wishes
Lucy
--
Lucy Crompton-Reid
Chief Executive
Wikimedia UK
+44 (0) 203 372 0762
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office Ground Floor, Europoint, 5 - 11 Lavington Street, London SE1 0NZ.
Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
--
Lucy Crompton-Reid
Chief Executive
Wikimedia UK
+44 (0) 203 372 0762
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office Ground Floor, Europoint, 5 - 11 Lavington Street, London SE1 0NZ.
Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
On 17 January 2018 at 13:24 Harry Mitchell hjmwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Would it be worth Wikimedia UK's while to put out a blog post talkingabout quality control processes (ad-hoc as they are) on Wikipedia? Not so much as a direct reply - both because these articles look like they're just filling empty column inches, and because we obviously can't prove a negative (that "Russian trolls" *aren't* running amok on political articles). Rather as a timely reminder of what Wikipedia is about and how the 'wisdom of the crowd' makes it quite difficult to grossly distort its content. I could say something about what admins do, though there I'm sure there are people who spend more time on politicians' biographies than I do.
As you say, proving the negative is out of reach.
I would say, take the lesson of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well to heart. Along with straightforward lying, selective quotation, guilt by association, and the reporting of rumour as truth, there is a lot of it about these days.
I'm glad to see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie has had some recent attention, while we're on the topic of propaganda techniques everybody should know about.
Charles
I am always looking for people to write blogposts. Perhaps a few people could crowdsource a blogpost about how Wikipedia does quality control, listing various ways like human peer review, edit filters, bots, etc... I'm sure some of you will know how this is done better than I do.
Here - I've started an open Googledoc https://docs.google.com/document/d/1E5EfSV-qoiiA20lWuK_QKhn8qijiUBe5ZNmQCZyKqbk/edit?usp=sharing. Anyone is free to contribute.
http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail Virus-free. www.avg.com http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail <#m_2002940969239252742_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
John Lubbock
Communications Coordinator
Wikimedia UK
+44 (0) 203 372 0767
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Office 1, Ground Floor, Europoint, 5 - 11 Lavington Street, London SE1 0NZ.
Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
On 17 January 2018 at 13:45, Charles Matthews < charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 17 January 2018 at 13:24 Harry Mitchell hjmwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Would it be worth Wikimedia UK's while to put out a blog post talking about quality control processes (ad-hoc as they are) on Wikipedia? Not so much as a direct reply - both because these articles look like they're just filling empty column inches, and because we obviously can't prove a negative (that "Russian trolls" *aren't* running amok on political articles). Rather as a timely reminder of what Wikipedia is about and how the 'wisdom of the crowd' makes it quite difficult to grossly distort its content. I could say something about what admins do, though there I'm sure there are people who spend more time on politicians' biographies than I do.
As you say, proving the negative is out of reach.
I would say, take the lesson of https://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Poisoning_the_well to heart. Along with straightforward lying, selective quotation, guilt by association, and the reporting of rumour as truth, there is a lot of it about these days.
I'm glad to see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie has had some recent attention, while we're on the topic of propaganda techniques everybody should know about.
Charles
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
Good idea for a blog post - both in the light of the Russian trolls 'story' and yesterday's coverage of the Grant Shapps report into online suicide prevention (which was in the Independent and others but with a particular Wikipedia angle in the Mail story)...
On 17 January 2018 at 14:45, John Lubbock john.lubbock@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
I am always looking for people to write blogposts. Perhaps a few people could crowdsource a blogpost about how Wikipedia does quality control, listing various ways like human peer review, edit filters, bots, etc... I'm sure some of you will know how this is done better than I do.
Here - I've started an open Googledoc https://docs.google.com/document/d/1E5EfSV-qoiiA20lWuK_QKhn8qijiUBe5ZNmQCZyKqbk/edit?usp=sharing. Anyone is free to contribute.
http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail Virus-free. www.avg.com http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail <#m_-8636929772461878280_m_2002940969239252742_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
John Lubbock
Communications Coordinator
Wikimedia UK
+44 (0) 203 372 0767 <+44%2020%203372%200767>
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Office 1, Ground Floor, Europoint, 5 - 11 Lavington Street, London SE1 0NZ.
Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
On 17 January 2018 at 13:45, Charles Matthews < charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 17 January 2018 at 13:24 Harry Mitchell hjmwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Would it be worth Wikimedia UK's while to put out a blog post talking about quality control processes (ad-hoc as they are) on Wikipedia? Not so much as a direct reply - both because these articles look like they're just filling empty column inches, and because we obviously can't prove a negative (that "Russian trolls" *aren't* running amok on political articles). Rather as a timely reminder of what Wikipedia is about and how the 'wisdom of the crowd' makes it quite difficult to grossly distort its content. I could say something about what admins do, though there I'm sure there are people who spend more time on politicians' biographies than I do.
As you say, proving the negative is out of reach.
I would say, take the lesson of https://en.wikipedia.org/wi ki/Poisoning_the_well to heart. Along with straightforward lying, selective quotation, guilt by association, and the reporting of rumour as truth, there is a lot of it about these days.
I'm glad to see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie has had some recent attention, while we're on the topic of propaganda techniques everybody should know about.
Charles
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
Was there any response to the Mail's article blaming us for suicides? It says they contact Wikipedia, presumably the WMF. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5271837/Wikipedia-accused-hosting-ir...
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 2:50 PM, Lucy Crompton-Reid < lucy.crompton-reid@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
Good idea for a blog post - both in the light of the Russian trolls 'story' and yesterday's coverage of the Grant Shapps report into online suicide prevention (which was in the Independent and others but with a particular Wikipedia angle in the Mail story)...
On 17 January 2018 at 14:45, John Lubbock john.lubbock@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
I am always looking for people to write blogposts. Perhaps a few people could crowdsource a blogpost about how Wikipedia does quality control, listing various ways like human peer review, edit filters, bots, etc... I'm sure some of you will know how this is done better than I do.
Here - I've started an open Googledoc https://docs.google.com/document/d/1E5EfSV-qoiiA20lWuK_QKhn8qijiUBe5ZNmQCZyKqbk/edit?usp=sharing. Anyone is free to contribute.
http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail Virus-free. www.avg.com http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail <#m_-8485631873690636264_m_-8636929772461878280_m_2002940969239252742_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
John Lubbock
Communications Coordinator
Wikimedia UK
+44 (0) 203 372 0767 <+44%2020%203372%200767>
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Office 1, Ground Floor, Europoint, 5 - 11 Lavington Street, London SE1 0NZ.
Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
On 17 January 2018 at 13:45, Charles Matthews < charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 17 January 2018 at 13:24 Harry Mitchell hjmwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Would it be worth Wikimedia UK's while to put out a blog post talking about quality control processes (ad-hoc as they are) on Wikipedia? Not so much as a direct reply - both because these articles look like they're just filling empty column inches, and because we obviously can't prove a negative (that "Russian trolls" *aren't* running amok on political articles). Rather as a timely reminder of what Wikipedia is about and how the 'wisdom of the crowd' makes it quite difficult to grossly distort its content. I could say something about what admins do, though there I'm sure there are people who spend more time on politicians' biographies than I do.
As you say, proving the negative is out of reach.
I would say, take the lesson of https://en.wikipedia.org/wi ki/Poisoning_the_well to heart. Along with straightforward lying, selective quotation, guilt by association, and the reporting of rumour as truth, there is a lot of it about these days.
I'm glad to see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie has had some recent attention, while we're on the topic of propaganda techniques everybody should know about.
Charles
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
--
Lucy Crompton-Reid
Chief Executive
Wikimedia UK
+44 (0) 203 372 0762
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office Ground Floor, Europoint, 5 - 11 Lavington Street, London SE1 0NZ.
Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
On 20 January 2018 at 19:07, Doug Weller dougweller@gmail.com wrote:
Was there any response to the Mail's article blaming us for suicides? It says they contact Wikipedia, presumably the WMF.
I have a friend who is a press officer for a large UK Charity; one towards which the Daily Mail has taken a strong dislike.
The DM regularly contact them to say something like "we're running story in 20 minutes, accusing you of X - do you want to comment?" Of course, that's nowhere near long enough for the press office to contact the staff concerned, find out what really happened, and compile a reply.
The DM then run stories saying "We contacted X for a comment".
Hi Doug (and all)
The DM contacted me (via the press email at Wikimedia UK) late on Monday afternoon for comment. I immediately contacted the press team at the Foundation, as I knew they were sent the report on online suicide prevention last year. WMF had said at the time that they were formulating a response in conjunction with their legal team, which I now know that they sent however I didn't get a copy of their response until Tuesday. Monday is Martin Luther King Day (a bank holiday) in the States and so staff at the Foundation were out of the office. John and I therefore drafted a response to the Mail's request, however in consultation with several key board members at WMUK we decided not to formally comment (although I did give some background information to the editor on the way Wikipedia works).
We are discussing our strategy for dealing with negative press stories and in particular the ongoing antipathy coming from the DM.
Best Lucy
On 20 January 2018 at 19:07, Doug Weller dougweller@gmail.com wrote:
Was there any response to the Mail's article blaming us for suicides? It says they contact Wikipedia, presumably the WMF. http://www.dailymail.co. uk/news/article-5271837/Wikipedia-accused-hosting- irresponsible-suicide-guide.html
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 2:50 PM, Lucy Crompton-Reid < lucy.crompton-reid@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
Good idea for a blog post - both in the light of the Russian trolls 'story' and yesterday's coverage of the Grant Shapps report into online suicide prevention (which was in the Independent and others but with a particular Wikipedia angle in the Mail story)...
On 17 January 2018 at 14:45, John Lubbock john.lubbock@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
I am always looking for people to write blogposts. Perhaps a few people could crowdsource a blogpost about how Wikipedia does quality control, listing various ways like human peer review, edit filters, bots, etc... I'm sure some of you will know how this is done better than I do.
Here - I've started an open Googledoc https://docs.google.com/document/d/1E5EfSV-qoiiA20lWuK_QKhn8qijiUBe5ZNmQCZyKqbk/edit?usp=sharing. Anyone is free to contribute.
http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail Virus-free. www.avg.com http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail <#m_6695397523312440721_m_-8485631873690636264_m_-8636929772461878280_m_2002940969239252742_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
John Lubbock
Communications Coordinator
Wikimedia UK
+44 (0) 203 372 0767 <+44%2020%203372%200767>
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Office 1, Ground Floor, Europoint, 5 - 11 Lavington Street, London SE1 0NZ.
Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
On 17 January 2018 at 13:45, Charles Matthews < charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 17 January 2018 at 13:24 Harry Mitchell hjmwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Would it be worth Wikimedia UK's while to put out a blog post talking about quality control processes (ad-hoc as they are) on Wikipedia? Not so much as a direct reply - both because these articles look like they're just filling empty column inches, and because we obviously can't prove a negative (that "Russian trolls" *aren't* running amok on political articles). Rather as a timely reminder of what Wikipedia is about and how the 'wisdom of the crowd' makes it quite difficult to grossly distort its content. I could say something about what admins do, though there I'm sure there are people who spend more time on politicians' biographies than I do.
As you say, proving the negative is out of reach.
I would say, take the lesson of https://en.wikipedia.org/wi ki/Poisoning_the_well to heart. Along with straightforward lying, selective quotation, guilt by association, and the reporting of rumour as truth, there is a lot of it about these days.
I'm glad to see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie has had some recent attention, while we're on the topic of propaganda techniques everybody should know about.
Charles
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
--
Lucy Crompton-Reid
Chief Executive
Wikimedia UK
+44 (0) 203 372 0762
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office Ground Floor, Europoint, 5 - 11 Lavington Street, London SE1 0NZ.
Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
-- Doug Weller http://www.ramtops.co.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
Thanks for the explanation, Lucy. Doug
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 8:55 AM, Lucy Crompton-Reid < lucy.crompton-reid@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
Hi Doug (and all)
The DM contacted me (via the press email at Wikimedia UK) late on Monday afternoon for comment. I immediately contacted the press team at the Foundation, as I knew they were sent the report on online suicide prevention last year. WMF had said at the time that they were formulating a response in conjunction with their legal team, which I now know that they sent however I didn't get a copy of their response until Tuesday. Monday is Martin Luther King Day (a bank holiday) in the States and so staff at the Foundation were out of the office. John and I therefore drafted a response to the Mail's request, however in consultation with several key board members at WMUK we decided not to formally comment (although I did give some background information to the editor on the way Wikipedia works).
We are discussing our strategy for dealing with negative press stories and in particular the ongoing antipathy coming from the DM.
Best Lucy
On 20 January 2018 at 19:07, Doug Weller dougweller@gmail.com wrote:
Was there any response to the Mail's article blaming us for suicides? It says they contact Wikipedia, presumably the WMF. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5271837/Wikipe dia-accused-hosting-irresponsible-suicide-guide.html
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 2:50 PM, Lucy Crompton-Reid < lucy.crompton-reid@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
Good idea for a blog post - both in the light of the Russian trolls 'story' and yesterday's coverage of the Grant Shapps report into online suicide prevention (which was in the Independent and others but with a particular Wikipedia angle in the Mail story)...
On 17 January 2018 at 14:45, John Lubbock <john.lubbock@wikimedia.org.uk
wrote:
I am always looking for people to write blogposts. Perhaps a few people could crowdsource a blogpost about how Wikipedia does quality control, listing various ways like human peer review, edit filters, bots, etc... I'm sure some of you will know how this is done better than I do.
Here - I've started an open Googledoc https://docs.google.com/document/d/1E5EfSV-qoiiA20lWuK_QKhn8qijiUBe5ZNmQCZyKqbk/edit?usp=sharing. Anyone is free to contribute.
http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail Virus-free. www.avg.com http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail <#m_-8740862262303011898_m_6695397523312440721_m_-8485631873690636264_m_-8636929772461878280_m_2002940969239252742_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
John Lubbock
Communications Coordinator
Wikimedia UK
+44 (0) 203 372 0767 <+44%2020%203372%200767>
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Office 1, Ground Floor, Europoint, 5 - 11 Lavington Street, London SE1 0NZ.
Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
On 17 January 2018 at 13:45, Charles Matthews < charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 17 January 2018 at 13:24 Harry Mitchell hjmwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Would it be worth Wikimedia UK's while to put out a blog post talking about quality control processes (ad-hoc as they are) on Wikipedia? Not so much as a direct reply - both because these articles look like they're just filling empty column inches, and because we obviously can't prove a negative (that "Russian trolls" *aren't* running amok on political articles). Rather as a timely reminder of what Wikipedia is about and how the 'wisdom of the crowd' makes it quite difficult to grossly distort its content. I could say something about what admins do, though there I'm sure there are people who spend more time on politicians' biographies than I do.
As you say, proving the negative is out of reach.
I would say, take the lesson of https://en.wikipedia.org/wi ki/Poisoning_the_well to heart. Along with straightforward lying, selective quotation, guilt by association, and the reporting of rumour as truth, there is a lot of it about these days.
I'm glad to see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie has had some recent attention, while we're on the topic of propaganda techniques everybody should know about.
Charles
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
--
Lucy Crompton-Reid
Chief Executive
Wikimedia UK
+44 (0) 203 372 0762
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office Ground Floor, Europoint, 5 - 11 Lavington Street, London SE1 0NZ.
Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
-- Doug Weller http://www.ramtops.co.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
--
Lucy Crompton-Reid
Chief Executive
Wikimedia UK
+44 (0) 203 372 0762
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office Ground Floor, Europoint, 5 - 11 Lavington Street, London SE1 0NZ.
Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org