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

[Risker]

On 18 April 2012 12:41, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 that the status is granted or withdrawn in relation to actual editing.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 permissions that can be withdrawn by one single administrator.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?
>
>
Having been very involved in the trial, I would not re-enable the use of
Pending Changes until significant changes to the proposed policy are made.
Most of the problems that were encountered in the trial are left completely
unaddressed.  There should be a prohibition on it being used for articles
larger than 55K - after that point, too many people crashed when trying to
review.

There should be a prohibition on its use for articles that are moving
rapidly; contrary to what some thought, pending changes was not really
effective for current events articles, because the proposed edits were
being overwritten before anyone even reviewed them; and because there is no
way to review a single pending change at a time (instead of ALL pending
changes), it is inevitable that either bad edits will be accepted or good
edits rejected.

I'd keep pending changes off of biographical articles that have a history
of attracting vandalism or excessive vitriol or fandom.  Using pending
changes for these articles effectively enshrines the
otherwise-never-existing vandalism into the history of the article.  We saw
this in quite a few highly visible biographies.

Everyone needs to be clear what exactly the role of the reviewer is; this
created a considerable amount of strife during the trial.   I have been
given various interpretations of the manner in which flagged revisions is
used on German Wikipedia, so do not want to characterize their policies and
practices; however, in the absence of good quality, confirmed information
on their processes, it's not appropriate to say "let's do it like they do".

Until it's clear what the role of the reviewer is, editors have no way to
know whether or not they are performing in the manner that the community
expects.  Further, there is no guarantee that reviewer permissions won't be
removed for reasons that have nothing to do with the act of reviewing.

The proposed policy essentially says " you can use this instead of
semi-protection", but it does not change the criteria for protection in any
way.  Therefore, the articles you propose to be covered by pending changes
aren't eligible.  What if you think something should be under PC, and
another admin comes along and says "hold on, doesn't meet the policy, off
it comes"?  Right now, decisions about protections are rarely the subject
of inter-admin disagreement.  Is that going to change? If so, who wins?

The RFC started from the wrong place.  It should have been focused on what
kind of PC policy we would want to have if we wanted to have one. I do see
potential uses for pending changes, but I do not support the policy that is
being put forward.

Risker/Anne