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:
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