[WikiEN-l] "Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement"

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 18 April 2012 06:22, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 5:18 AM, David Goodman <dggenwp at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > The problem is not the ratio between editors and biographies, but the
> ratio
> > of editors editing within policy vs editors who come only to write a
> > hatchet job or an infomercial. This is something that can be addressed by
> > Pending Changes.
> >
> > Let all those who only edit an article to defame or advertise, to write
> > hatchet jobs or infomercials, make their suggestions.
> >
> > And let an editor who understands what a coatrack is, and who is
> committed
> > to core policy, decide what the public should see when they navigate to
> the
> > page.
> >
> > The right to edit BLPs, and approve pending changes, should be a
> > distinction that people are proud of, just like they are proud of
> rollback
> > or adminship. And like rollback, it should be a privilege they will lose
> if
> > they abuse it.
> >
> > The really hard calls on how much negative material to include in a BLP
> > should be made by teams with a diverse composition. A whole new culture
> > needs to be built around BLP editing.
> >
> >
>
> Andreas, I generally agree with you on matters relating to BLPs.  I don't,
> however, understand why you think Pending Changes will have any effect
> whatsoever on improving BLP articles.  Bluntly put, the policy that is
> currently being discussed on the current RFC[1] does *not* authorize
> reviewers to shape the article (in fact, it doesn't really give any
> instructions to reviewers), and it permits any administrator to grant or
> withdraw reviewer status on a whim; there's no requirement or expectation
> that the status is granted or withdrawn in relation to actual editing.
> During the trial, we had a rather significant number of experienced editors
> refuse to accept reviewer status because they do not want to have any
> permissions that can be withdrawn by one single administrator.
>
> Please go back and read the proposed Pending Changes policy in the RFC, and
> tell me that you really and truly believe that it will have the effect you
> desire.  It is essentially the same policy that was in effect during the
> trial, and there was never a determination of whether it meant "reject only
> vandalism" or "reject anything unsourced" or "reject anything you do not
> personally think will improve the article."  There are problems with all of
> these interpretations  of the policy, just as there were considerable
> problems with them during the trial.  It just seems that nobody cares to
> actually mine the data from the trial itself to figure out whether or not
> Pending Changes does what some people want it to do.  Of course, it's quite
> possible that the proposed policy is so vague specifically so that people
> can read into it what they want, and use it in ways that aren't supported
> by the majority of the community.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> [1]
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_2012



Hi Anne. I did read the proposed policy, and I agree it's not brilliant.
The reason I support the current proposal is simply because it's the only
proposal on the table, and to my mind having even some minimal support for
Pending Changes established is better than nothing.

German Wikipedia has had a similar system of Pending Changes for years –
with the rather large difference that it is applied to *all* articles by
default – and I believe it does make a difference.

In part, the difference is a psychological one. Vandal fighting and
approving/rejecting changes foster and attract very different psychologies,
and create a different working climate. Reverting a vandal edit is a
"dramatic" event, because the edit is live, and may already be read by
hundreds of people; reverting it goes along with feelings of having been
invaded, of "defending the project", being a "hero", and so forth. It's
like the company troubleshooter who secretly *hopes* for trouble, so they
can glory in being a troubleshooter. People wedded to their troubleshooter
role are psychologically conflicted about systemic changes that would make
their role obsolete.

Approving or rejecting proposed changes, on the other hand, is a calmer and
more reasoned act; one that can be taken time over. It's more akin to what
editing, in the traditional sense of the word, is about.

I'd like to see Pending Changes applied preemptively, at least for all
minor biographies (i.e. those watched by less than a given number of
editors). And yes, there should be a process for withdrawing the reviewer
flag from an editor other than one admin deciding that it should be
withdrawn. But those are things that I hope can come over time.

How would you approach the issue?

Andreas