Hi all,
Thanks again for this discussion, I appreciate all your thoughts on this
topic.
Steven, I agree that starting with some data analysis to understand how
we might want to lower the activity requirements is a simple and achievable
first step. I've begun summarising this topic at
, including some of the
questions we might want to ask of the data. Please feel free to comment
there with further thoughts on that aspect.
In terms of comparisons with the board election criteria, one nuance we
have here is that it only takes one or two users abusing the terms of use
(e.g. scraping and mass-downloading content) for publishers to start
pulling out. We've been conservative with the criteria for fear of a few
users causing everyone to lose access.
Lastly, I want to highlight something Jake noted - while it's true there
are paid folks at the Wikimedia Foundation who could be working on
renegotiations and lowering these requirements, that work has to come at
the expense of something else, primarily expanding the library with new
content for the existing eligible users. Deciding to work on this will mean
pausing some of that work.
Please share your thoughts on data questions we should answer to support
this discussion at the Phabricator ticket above!
Best,
Sam
On Tue, 2 Aug 2022 at 08:17, Jake Orlowitz <jorlowitz(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Writing with my *emeritus* hat on, and no special
influence...
1. When TWL started, the requirements were 1 year and 1000 edits.
2. The change to 6 month and 500 edits was made because we could get
away with it at that point; otherwise it was just arbitrarily "better"
3. We want as many good editors as possible to have TWL access.
4. There has to be some minimum criteria or else bad actors will create
and farm accounts to use solely for non-editing purposes.
5. There has to be some minimum criteria or else publisher partners will
feel unsafe and revoke access.
6. There is tremendous benefit *to publishers* from being included in
TWL, namely more citations and pageviews
7. There is benefit *to publishers* from having more editors have access
to TWL, if they actually use it to edit
8. I see no practical reason why within 5-10 years the requirements
shouldn't be a mere 1 months and 100 edits with 10 recent edits and no
blocks.
9. Renegotiation is time-consuming but beneficial, and if done
regularly, can keep partnerships fresh
10. I suggest the TWL team set a 3-year goal of lowering requirements to
3 months and 300 edits with 10 recents edits and no blocks.
11. This interim goal could be agreed to in advance and over time, so
that partners would have time to adjust
12. Partners could be provided with data that this wouldn't lower safety
or security and would increase citations
13. Partners could be provided estimates of citation increase based on
current rates times the increased editor base
14. The effort to reduce requirements is no more important than adding
new partners or adding partners to "bundle" access--these three should all
be pursued by staff.
Again, just my opinion as a TWL old-timer.
Cheers,
Jake Orlowitz
*Founder of The Wikipedia Library*
*Seeker of well people and sane societies*
*Lead at WikiBlueprint*
me:
jakeorlowitz.com
media: @jakeorlowitz <http://twitter.com/jakeorlowitz>
blueprint:
wikiblueprint.com
book:
welcometothecircle.net
On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 12:33 AM Paul S. Wilson <paulscrawl(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Not to debate, but to ponder:
While the Wikimedia Foundation has many millions of dollars --
passionate advocates, volunteers, editors, donors, lawyers, and tax-exempt
status -- such is not the case with over 80 for-profit publishers which
have already been generous enough to lower their paywalls for the Wikipedia
Library.
Each of these 80 plus publisher have hammered out a legally binding
deal with Wikimedia, one that that cost them valuable time and money, lost
revenue, and legal expenses..
Once.
Try again - or lose them?
For what? For whom? To what benefit?
On Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 9:39 PM Steven Walling <steven.walling(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 7:25 PM Paul S. Wilson <paulscrawl(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Às Sam Walton wrote, "lowering the requirements would necessitate
>> going to each publisher, having them agree, and then likely signing a new
>> agreement".
>>
>> This is a fruitless discussion.
>>
>
> Negotiating (or renegotiating) contractual agreements with partners is
> why we have staffed partnerships and legal teams at the Wikimedia
> Foundation. There are people we pay with donor funds to do nothing but
> this.
>
>
>
>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 5:55 PM Steven Walling <
>> steven.walling(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 1:50 PM Shane Murphy <shane.music(a)gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm a TWL coordinator in charge of approving applications for
>>>> Project MUSE. I don't have much for feedback or a strong opinion, but
here
>>>> is my experience. Almost all applications I get qualify (and are
approved)
>>>> and when I reject an applicant I try to include a message encouraging
>>>> reapplication when the applicant has more experience. I do not think that
I
>>>> have ever seen a reapplication in those cases, although I could be
wrong.
>>>> To me, that implies that many editors who do not get access either found
>>>> that they did not need access or decided not to continue editing
Wikipedia
>>>> (I just skimmed the applications I've rejected ~25 over 5 years or
so, it
>>>> looks like most are not active editors anymore but a few are). I'm
not sure
>>>> if rejected applicants stopping editing is a great outcome, but the high
>>>> rate of accepted applications and the low rate of long-term
participation
>>>> of rejected applications makes me think the process is working well.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What the current process doesn’t show is the hundreds of thousands
>>> of potential editors who don’t even apply.
>>>
>>> As another example here: voting in the Board of Trustees elections
>>> requires 300 total edits and 20 recent edits. Why is Wikipedia Library
>>> access more restrictive than what counts as an active volunteer we trust to
>>> elect our governing board?
>>>
>>>
>>>> Shane Murphy
>>>> smmurphy
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 4:24 PM Paul S. Wilson <
>>>> paulscrawl(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I concur with Sam Walton's expert observation (not conclusion):
>>>>> renegotiating current legal agreements with some 80 plus generous
>>>>> publishers is a much higher bar than the already nominal requirements
for
>>>>> Wikipedia editors to access their resources, a low bar for some
57,000
>>>>> editors.
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 11:48 AM Steven Walling <
>>>>> steven.walling(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 3:37 AM Sam Walton
<swalton(a)wikimedia.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm the Product Manager for The Wikipedia Library, thanks
for
>>>>>>> starting this conversation! Let me start by providing some
background
>>>>>>> context around how and why the criteria are set this way.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Way back when the library started, it was an uphill battle
to
>>>>>>> get publishers to agree to participate. While some were happy
to jump right
>>>>>>> in, others were very wary about making their paywalled
materials free for a
>>>>>>> nebulous group of folks from around the world. The editing
requirements
>>>>>>> were primarily designed to convince those publishers that the
only people
>>>>>>> who would be getting access to their materials were active
Wikipedia
>>>>>>> editors who would be using their access primarily to
contribute to
>>>>>>> Wikipedia. The initial requirements were actually even higher
than they are
>>>>>>> today, at 1000 edits and 12 months of activity. We lowered
that to 500
>>>>>>> edits and 6 months around 2015 because it was clearly
excessive. Last year
>>>>>>> we added the 10+ edits/month and no active blocks criteria as
we shifted
>>>>>>> ~half of the publishers to the instant-access model where no
applications
>>>>>>> are required. I think those two criteria are pretty minor
compared to 500/6
>>>>>>> (if you don't meet the 10 edits criteria you can make
them all in the space
>>>>>>> of an hour and get access again right away).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unfortunately, lowering the requirements isn't quite as
easy as
>>>>>>> simply making an internal/community decision. Almost all
publishers who
>>>>>>> provide access via the library sign an agreement with us. We
don't pay for
>>>>>>> access, so adding new publishers is entirely dependent on
convincing them
>>>>>>> to join the program. That agreement currently includes the
editor activity
>>>>>>> criteria. This means lowering the requirements would
necessitate going to
>>>>>>> each publisher, having them agree, and then likely signing a
new agreement.
>>>>>>> This was enough of a challenge when we made the 2015 change,
but by now we
>>>>>>> have something like 80 partnerships and the criteria need to
be the same
>>>>>>> for all publishers, so this would be quite the undertaking.
That's not to
>>>>>>> say it isn't worth the effort, I just want to clarify
what's required.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In terms of who qualifies under the current criteria, the
figure
>>>>>>> is somewhere around 57,000 active editors in total today,
obviously with
>>>>>>> more receiving the eligibility notification each day.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In terms of lowering the requirements further, I do agree in
>>>>>>> principle that it would be nice if newer good faith editors
were able to
>>>>>>> access the library, but we need to balance this with
publishers'
>>>>>>> willingness to continue providing this free access. When we
say '500 edits
>>>>>>> and 6 months of editing' this generally puts folks
we're pitching to at
>>>>>>> ease, and makes them confident the program isn't likely
to be used by
>>>>>>> people who aren't actively editing Wikipedia and have
simply registered a
>>>>>>> free account to use the library for personal reasons. I'm
not sure what the
>>>>>>> boundary is there, i.e. whether we would be as successful if
we said '250
>>>>>>> edits and 3 months', for example. I'll also say these
numbers aren't hugely
>>>>>>> data-informed. We didn't analyse at what edit
count/tenure threshold we can
>>>>>>> be confident in saying 'this is an active and engaged
content contributor'
>>>>>>> versus 'theres a chance this user has made trivial edits
simply to get
>>>>>>> access', but that's certainly a research project I
could see being useful
>>>>>>> here, rather than making an arbitrary change that we
can't justify with
>>>>>>> data.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because of the work involved in changing these criteria
I'm very
>>>>>>> hesitant about doing so, but I'd love to hear what you
all think and
>>>>>>> whether the above changes your perspective at all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>> Sam
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for all the background Sam.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "makes them confident the program isn't likely to be
used by
>>>>>> people who aren't actively editing Wikipedia and have simply
registered a
>>>>>> free account to use the library for personal reasons"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would say that any reasonable person would probably agree that
>>>>>> along with all the other reasonable criteria like no blocks and a
minimum
>>>>>> number of recent edits (which I agree seem useful), that a bar of
at least
>>>>>> 200 edits and 3 months of editing would also suffice to represent
real
>>>>>> commitment to editing Wikipedia.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we haven't even *asked* publishers about lowering the
>>>>>> requirement for seven years, don't you think it's worth
at least starting a
>>>>>> conversation about expanding access, given that it's pretty
impactful for
>>>>>> our mission? A good start might be doing a simple data pull to
see how many
>>>>>> more editors a lower bar would include.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 1:38 PM J West
<jessamyn(a)gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I can absolutely see lowering the number of edits
required,
>>>>>>>>> but it
>>>>>>>>> might also be worth looking at or adjusting what sort
of edits
>>>>>>>>> we are
>>>>>>>>> looking for or adjusting them per-resource though
that might
>>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>> messy. For example, people who are creating articles
need to
>>>>>>>>> have a
>>>>>>>>> different, and one could possibly argue higher, level
of
>>>>>>>>> Wikipedia
>>>>>>>>> literacy and familiarity than someone doing automated
edits.
>>>>>>>>> They're
>>>>>>>>> both valuable! But may have different needs w/r/t the
Library.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As someone who approves people for a few different
WL
>>>>>>>>> resources, I see
>>>>>>>>> basically two kinds of applicants
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - People who just apply for access to ALL WL
resources and
>>>>>>>>> just are
>>>>>>>>> rolling the dice about whether they'll be
accepted. What they
>>>>>>>>> apply
>>>>>>>>> for doesn't match their areas of interest or
expertise or even
>>>>>>>>> editing
>>>>>>>>> areas, or their qualifying edits are all profile page
edits
>>>>>>>>> - People who apply for a narrowly-tailored set of
resources
>>>>>>>>> that match
>>>>>>>>> their editing expertise
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I guess the larger question is whether WL resource
access is
>>>>>>>>> seen as a
>>>>>>>>> perq for longer time editors or if it's supposed
to just be a
>>>>>>>>> tool to
>>>>>>>>> help people edit Wikipedia.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks for sharing that's valuable to hear. I would
put money
>>>>>>>> on the fact that a lot of helpful new editors who
don't yet qualify
>>>>>>>> wouldn't even bother to apply, for lack of awareness
or just giving up
>>>>>>>> after seeing the requirements on the main landing page.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your larger question is definitely the right one. I would
say
>>>>>>>> that if our mission is to give everyone on the planet
free access to the
>>>>>>>> sum of all knowledge, we need to treat it like a resource
that's
>>>>>>>> available to anyone who wants to make a good faith effort
to create and
>>>>>>>> edit articles. The bar for access should be the minimum
necessary to ensure
>>>>>>>> that you've shown real interest and ability to make
use of the library. If
>>>>>>>> there are limits on the volume of editors who can
participate, there are
>>>>>>>> other tools we can use like making access expire if you
don't use it. (Do
>>>>>>>> we do that already? Pardon my ignorance here.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _____________
>>>>>>>>> Jessamyn West
>>>>>>>>> User:Jessamyn
>>>>>>>>> box 345, randolph vt 05060
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 4:26 PM Steven Walling <
>>>>>>>>> steven.walling(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > I wanted to start a discussion on lowering the
threshold for
>>>>>>>>> access. Very very very few people qualify for the
current requirements of
>>>>>>>>> 500+ edits, 6+ months editing, 10+ edits in the last
month, and no active
>>>>>>>>> blocks. In fact basically this excludes any new
editor no matter how good
>>>>>>>>> faith and helpful they have been. Even just lowering
one of the account age
>>>>>>>>> or edit count thresholds would go a long way.
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > I recently was pretty shocked to discover this
high of a bar
>>>>>>>>> for access, after recommending the library as a
resource to a new editor
>>>>>>>>> who has been doing a great job and (as a young
student) could use access to
>>>>>>>>> academic source material in creating science-related
content. I won't name
>>>>>>>>> them, but as an example this editor has over 300
edits and has created just
>>>>>>>>> over 50 articles, mainly for missing plant species.
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > Do the participating institutions require this
level of
>>>>>>>>> exclusionary criteria? How can we gather data to show
them that there are
>>>>>>>>> good content contributors being excluded here?
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > These requirements seem pretty absurd especially
since many
>>>>>>>>> of the largest resources in the Library, like JSTOR,
give any random person
>>>>>>>>> with a Google account access to 100 free articles per
month. The risk
>>>>>>>>> profile of a Wikipedia who say has,100 edits and 1
month of experience has
>>>>>>>>> got to be less than that? We should pilot a threshold
like that.
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > Steven
>>>>>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> > Wikipedia-Library mailing list --
>>>>>>>>> wikipedia-library(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>>>>>> > To unsubscribe send an email to
>>>>>>>>> wikipedia-library-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> Wikipedia-Library mailing list --
>>>>>>>>> wikipedia-library(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to
>>>>>>>>> wikipedia-library-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Wikipedia-Library mailing list --
>>>>>>>> wikipedia-library(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to
>>>>>>>> wikipedia-library-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Sam Walton
>>>>>>> Senior Product Manager, Moderator Tools
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> swalton(a)wikimedia.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Wikipedia-Library mailing list --
>>>>>> wikipedia-library(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to
>>>>>> wikipedia-library-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Wikipedia-Library mailing list --
>>>>> wikipedia-library(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to
>>>>> wikipedia-library-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wikipedia-Library mailing list --
>>>> wikipedia-library(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to
>>>> wikipedia-library-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikipedia-Library mailing list --
>>> wikipedia-library(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to
>>> wikipedia-library-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikipedia-Library mailing list --
>> wikipedia-library(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe send an email to
>> wikipedia-library-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-Library mailing list --
> wikipedia-library(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to
> wikipedia-library-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-Library mailing list -- wikipedia-library(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
wikipedia-library-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-Library mailing list -- wikipedia-library(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
wikipedia-library-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
--
Sam Walton
Senior Product Manager, Moderator Tools
swalton(a)wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-Library mailing list -- wikipedia-library(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
wikipedia-library-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org